Beyond a Code of Jewish Law: Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Ḥayei Adam 9781644697054

Citation preview

Beyond a Сode of Jewish Law

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Ḥ ayei Adam

Judaism and Jewish Lifes Series Editor Simcha Fishbane (Touro College, New York) Editorial Board Geoffrey Alderman (University of Buckingham, Buckingham) Meir Bar Ilan (Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan) Herbert Basser (Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario) Donatella Ester Di Cesare (Universita La Sapienza, Rome) Roberta Rosenberg Farber (Yeshiva University, New York), Series Associate Editor Andreas Nachama (Touro College, Berlin) Ira Robinson (Concordia University, Montreal) Nissan Rubin (Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan) Susan Starr Sered (Suffolk University, Boston) Reeva Spector Simon (Yeshiva University, New York)

Beyond a Сode of Jewish Law

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Ḥ ayei Adam Simcha Fishbane

BOSTON 2021

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Fishbane, Simcha, author. | Ferguson, Dashiell. Life of the Man. Title: Beyond a code of Jewish law : Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Ḥayei Adam / Simcha Fishbane. Other titles: Life of the Man. Description: Boston : Academic Studies Press, 2021. | Series: Judaism and Jewish life | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021032170 (print) | LCCN 2021032171 (ebook) | ISBN 9781644697047 (hardback) | ISBN 9781644697054 (adobe pdf) | ISBN 9781644697061 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Danzig, Abraham ben Jehiel Michal, 1748-1820. Ḥaye adam. | Danzig, Abraham ben Jehiel Michal, 1748-1820. | Jewish law. | Judaism--Customs and practices. | Rabbis--Lithuania--Vilnius--Biography. | Vilnius (Lithuania)--Biography. Classification: LCC BM520.9 .D273 2021 (print) | LCC BM520.9 (ebook) | DDC 296.1/8--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021032170 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021032171

ISBN 9781644697047 (hardback) ISBN 9781644697054 (adobe pdf) ISBN 9781644697061 (epub) Copyright © 2021 Academic Studies Press All rights reserved. Book design by Lapiz Digital Services. Cover design by Ivan Grave Published by Academic Studies Press 1577 Beacon Street Brookline, MA 02446, USA [email protected] www.academicstudiespress.com

Contents



Preface and Acknowledgments



Introduction 

vii 1

1. Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Ḥayei Adam 

18

2. Minhag in the Ḥayei Adam—The Case of Kitniyot on Passover 

41

3. Esoteric Halakhah and the Ḥayei Adam 

66

4. Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism 

102

5. The Democratization of Halakhah: The Ḥayei Adam and Musar 

131

6. A New Role and Status: The Ḥayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah 

161

7. Jewish Pride in Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Ḥayei Adam as Instantiated in the Aleinu Hymn187

Addendum 

201



Appendix 1 The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Avraham Danzig by Dashiell Ferguson 

207

Appendix 2 Rabbinic Texts and Authors Referred to in This Volume

237



Bibliography Index

246 252

Preface and Acknowledgements

Throughout my academic career, I have devoted part of my research to nineteenth-century codes of Jewish law. My challenge included the fact that nobody else had endeavored to tackle these works, offering me little material to work with besides the text itself. The first result of my studies was my book The Method and Meaning of the Mishnah Berurah, dealing with one of the main works of Rabbi Yisrael Meir ha-Kohen (popularly referred to as the Ḥafetz Ḥayyim), the Mishnah Berurah. I followed this book with my volume from 2009 The Boldness of a Halakhist, which was concerned with Rabbi Yeḥiel Mikhel ha-Levi Epstein’s Arukh ha-Shulḥan. I was favored by the Lord to discover a missing manuscript from this text and published along with it an additional manuscript from this author’s homilies. I recognize that, after my books were published, others have written excellent monographs on these topics, including Professor Benjamin Brown’s work on the Mishnah Berurah and Rabbi Eitam Henkin’s book on the Arukh ha-Shulḥan. Following the pattern I used for analyzing these modern Eastern European codes, I then turned to the first popular code since Rabbi Karo’s Shulḥan Arukh. I am referring to Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Ḥayei Adam, the theme of this book. I would like to acknowledge individuals and organizations that were of valuable assistance in bringing this work to completion. First and foremost, my gratitude goes to my colleague and friend Professor Herb Basser whose assistance and guidance and input were invaluable. I would also like to thank him for permitting me to include his encyclopedia insert in this work. I would also like to thank my colleagues who permitted me to share my thoughts and insights into Ḥayei Adam-Dr Israel Singer, Dr. Julie Joseph, Professor Benjamin Brown, Professor Nissan Rubin, Dr. Lynn Visson, Rabbi

viii

Preface and Acknowledgements

Alan Ciner, Dr. Alan Kadish (president of Touro College), Rabbi Simcha Weinberg, Rabbi Shmuel Yudelzon, and my student and colleague David Raab. I also want to recognize the valuable assistance of the Touro College librarians who were always there to assist me with my research needs. To Ms. JoAnn Kestin and Mrs. Carrie Goodstein who devoted many hours to copy editing this volume, I am greatly appreciative. I would like to thank the National Library of Israel who has offered me the manuscript of the Ḥayei Adam with handwritten comments of Rabbi Avraham Danzig. I would especially like to give my sincere thanks to Touro College for twice awarding me a Touro College Presidential Research Development Grant that permitted me to pursue my research for this volume. I would also like to acknowledge the support of the preparation and publication of this monograph from the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture. I am grateful to the Edwin Mellen Press, its editor Professor H. Richardson, and the journal Studies in Judaism, Humanities, and the Social Sciences for permission to republish some of the chapters in this volume.

Introduction

The Ḥayei Adam, an abridged code of Jewish law, was written by Rabbi Avraham Danzig (1748–1820) and was first published in 1810. This code spread quickly throughout Europe, and the demand for it required a second edition, which the author printed with substantial revisions in 1818. A record of changes, some of which were discarded in the process, can be found in a manuscript in the archives of the National Library of Israel.1 I approach the study of the Ḥayei Adam by viewing it as a literary work as well as a substitute legal compendium. I posit that my analysis of this code will express the views and agenda of its author and will also shed light on the social order of late eighteenth-century and early nineteenth-century European Jewry. It will also demonstrate the significance of Rabbi Danzig’s work for the present-day Orthodox Jewish community, as it highlights the relevance of halakhah to each generation and its social, economic, and political changes. Rabbi Danzig does this monumental task while not compromising the basic principles put forward by Rabbi Yosef Karo’s2 Shulḥan Arukh, Rabbi Moshe Isserles’3 gloss, and its leading commentaries. Rabbi Danzig writes lucidly in his introduction (on the title page of the first edition of the Ḥayei Adam) that his rulings in the code were based on early and latter rabbinic texts. He specifically identifies the Taz,4 Magen Avraham,5 and the Eliyah Rabba6 as primary sources (in addition to 1 Number 4*187. Also see Hillel Katznelbogen, “Ḥagot v’tikunim la-sefer Ḥayei Adam me-tzem kitve yad shel ha-meḥaber za’l,” Tevunot (Tishrei 2018). 2 Also referred to as Beit Yosef, following the name of his commentary on the Tur Shulḥan Arukh, 1488–1575. 3 Known as the Rema, c. 1530–1572. 4 Rabbi David ha-Levi Segal, 1586–1667. 5 Rabbi Avraham Abale Gombiner, 1634–1682. 6 Rabbi Eliyahu Shapira, 1660–1712.

2

Introduction

the Shulḥan Arukh) for his halakhic decisions,7 and states that these multiple rabbinic sources also helped him to deal with questions he was asked or questionable rules (sefekot) with which he was confronted. Rabbi Danzig’s introduction begins in this way: Sefer Ḥayei Adam: Part 1, Oraḥ Ḥayyim in Which We Explain The Commandments a Person Must Fulfil and Live by Them [‫—אשר יעשה אתם האדם וחי בהם‬Leviticus 18:5] All the laws of the Shulḥan Arukh are explained according to the comments of the Taz, the Magen Avraham, and Eliyah Rabba. We have elucidated the laws they derived in both general terms and in detail, including their fine points. All the laws are explained with regard to their reasons: if a Torah law, then the appropriate verse is given, and if a rabbinic law, then the reason why it was enacted. We also identify a stringency, a custom, or a pious deed. Apart from this, there are the novelties the author discovered in the works of the Rishonim that were never noticed until now. There are also new laws, which the author elucidates either through intensive inquiry or by resolving enigmatic and doubt-riddled issues. All this is settled through recourse to the presentation of introductory materials, further proposals, and finally, through proofs based on the [Babylonian] Talmud, the Jerusalem [Talmud], and the writings of legal decisors, both Rishonim and Aḥaronim. Everything is methodically accomplished by presenting definitive rulings based on the decisions of the Rema, and other Aḥaronim. In those places where there are alternate opinions in the Shulḥan Arukh, the present author renders a proper ruling according to the set rules of the decisors. Likewise, the present author proffers decisions regarding issues for which the Aḥaronim hold divergent views by offering clear proofs for the vast majority of such cases. In rare instances, the author deals with divergent rulings by analyzing the law and arriving at a reasoned decision, taking care to explain his thinking on the matter. In all other cases, the author has set down his analysis in the second section, Nishmat Adam. He indicates these references using large block letters in the 7

For a discussion on the meaning and scope of halakhah, see Chaim N. Saiman, Halakhah: The Rabbinic Idea of Law (Princeton, NJ, and Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press, 2018), 17–28.

Introduction

text, so that the reader may easily locate the appropriate detailed analysis applicable to this ruling. There is scarcely a law or opinion in the Shulḥan Arukh that has been omitted in the entire Oraḥ Ḥayyim. Everything is explained so elegantly that there is no need for the reader to engage in comparative research. For each topic I have provided the source in Shulḥan Arukh, and where I have incorporated material from elsewhere, I have also duly recorded those references. It is obvious that such references also serve to indicate the source in Shulḥan Arukh of related rulings in the given section. In other words, Rabbi Danzig was not only attempting to summarize Jewish law but also to adjudicate; he can be considered a posek (a halakhic adjudicator). Amongst his rulings we find unique and creative decisions. For example, in klal 68 of book 1, which I discuss in chapter 6, the rabbi discusses the necessity of correct intention during the performance of mitzvot such as prayer. If one performs the mitzvah in the standard way without specific intention to execute it, the mitzvah is considered an acceptable form of intent, a variable required for various prayers. Other rabbinic authorities define intent as having some level of conscious intention. This halakhic initiative shows the makings of a posek, or halakhic decisor. I posit that Rabbi Avraham Danzig can be acknowledged as an independent thinker, not only as a result of his halakhic actions (as we saw above) but for other reasons as well.8 For the majority of the rabbi’s adult life he worked as a businessman, and as such had the opportunity to travel throughout Western and Eastern Europe. We do not know whether it was 8 These considerations are based on what is found in the works of Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s biographers. There has been a limited number of scholarly publications written on Rabbi Avraham Danzig or his writings. See Mordekhai Mayer, “Rabbi Avraham Danzig and His Works” [Hebrew] (Master’s thesis, Bar Ilan University, 2000); idem, “Rabbi Avraham Danzig: His Unpublished Literary Enterprise” [Hebrew], Sidra: A Journal for the Study of Rabbinic Literature (2003): 41–52; and his extensive bibliography of scholarly works that refer to Rabbi Danzig; Benjamin Brown, The Lithuanian Musar Movement: Personalities and Ideas [Hebrew] (n.p.: Moden Publishing House Ltd., 2014); David Shlomo Shapiro, “Ha-mazkir ba’al Ḥayei Adam et Kant?,” Ha-Do’ar (New York, (November 3, 1967), 767; and Mordechai Kosover, “Ha-mazkir ba’al Ḥayei Adam et Kant?: He’ara li-he’ara bibliografit,” Ha-Do’ar (New York, November 1969), 2nd ed., 29. The views of these writers are best summarized in Mayer, “Rabbi Avraham Danzig”; Ḥayyim Tchernowitz (Rav Tza’ir), Toledot ha-poskim (New York: Jubilee Committee, 1947), vol. 3, 274–285; and A. Y. Goldrett, “Al ha-sefer Ḥayei Adam u’mechabro” [Hebrew], Sinai 71, no. 56 (Av-Elul 1972): 270–293.

3

4

Introduction

always for business or other reasons that he visited places such as Leipzig and Berlin (Germany), Lezno (Poland and Germany), or France,9 but this offered him the opportunity to become acquainted with the various cultures of Jewish communities and especially with the halakhic behavior of the Jewish laity. Thus, Rabbi Danzig’s primary agenda as reflected in the Ḥayei Adam was, as he understood it, to meet the religious needs of the Jewish laymen. The first edition of the Ḥayei Adam was published in 1810, after he had lost his business. In 1803, an explosion in the courtyard of his residence destroyed his merchandise. Rabbi Danzig describes this in book 2, klal 155. Only in 1813 did Rabbi Danzig receive a position in the Jewish community as a moreh tzedek (a religious functionary). The rabbinic community rejected Rabbi Danzig’s Ḥayei Adam, for how could a person who did not spend his entire life in the study of Torah write a code of law? As discussed above, Rabbi Avraham Danzig spent most of his adult life not engaged in the Torah as a means of earning a livelihood, and thus the rabbinic authorities rejected him as a real Torah scholar.10 Rabbi Danzig did not see this as a deterrent. He understood that there was a great need among the lay Jews for this type of document, and therefore presented them with it. An additional factor that angered the rabbinic world was the organizational structure of the Ḥayei Adam. Rabbi Danzig felt that the traditional organizational structure, used by the Shulḥan Arukh, of specific chapters (perakim) with their designated topics (that followed configuration of the Tur Shulḥan Arukh) was not the correct way to educate laymen. He therefore introduced the klal (plural klalim) that were grouped according to their spheres of applicability, without proper references to the places where these laws appeared in the Shulḥan Arukh. In these klalim, he collected and selected laws from various chapters in the Shulḥan Arukh, as well as additional laws that do not appear in Oraḥ Ḥayyim, but rather in other parts of Rabbi Karo’s code. To reject the accepted structure of the earlier codes required a self-determining attitude and even boldness from the author of the Ḥayei Adam.11 In the title page of the 1810 edition, he explains, 9 See Mayer, “Rabbi Avraham Danzig,” 11, who cites the sources for these visits. 10 Ibid., 67–70, lists and discusses the rabbinical rejection of the Ḥayei Adam. 11 In his introduction to the Ḥokhmat Adam, Rabbi Danzig’s code on the laws of Yoreh De’ah, the author brings an approbation from Rabbi Ḥayyim of Volozhin and the Ḥavat Da’at who ask him to follow the traditional chapters of the Shulḥan Arukh to make it easier for rabbinic scholars to follow.

Introduction

It is well known that the laws presented in the Shulḥan Arukh are scattered over many places. Whoever is not an expert in the entire Shulḥan Arukh with its commentaries will not easily locate the entire ruling. In this book, each discussion of a relevant law is gathered together in its proper location, so that each law has been organized into its own klal (chapter). Furthermore, when he searches the charts that cross-reference the Shulḥan Arukh’s paragraphs, he will easily find what he is looking for. Rabbi Danzig was willing to make changes from the traditional structure of a Jewish code to best serve the abilities and comprehension of his fellow Jew. He broke from the terminology used by earlier codes of law calling his chapters klalim rather than perakim. Then he picked what he considered important to include in the klal that would be relevant for his reader. This angered many of the traditional rabbinic authorities who rejected any form of change from the established legal codes. If we further examine the title page of the first edition, Rabbi Danzig’s purpose becomes very clear. These reasons continue to elucidate his independent thought while he was fulfilling his agenda. He writes: There are many advantages to this book: 1. The first benefit is that even a boy of thirteen can study and understand nearly all the laws of the Shulḥan Arukh in a short period of time, whereas an experienced student [without having read this book] will take some years of effort to do so. 2. Heads of households, for whom the burden of earning a living is heavy, can read this book during their periods of rest. That is because the language is easy to understand and everything is clearly and completely explained, so that the person who wishes to delve in it will not have to compare subject to subject. 3. [This book is advantageous] even for those heads of households who study the Talmud and its major commentaries daily, because the Shakh has written in Yoreh De’ah that they fulfill their requirement for Torah study with it. [Such Jews] are obligated to study halakhic rulings but have no time to study the Shulḥan Arukh and

5

6

Introduction

its commentaries as well in order to quench their thirst and to know all the laws in their true sense and reasoning like experienced Torah scholars. 4. [This book is advantageous] even for those who study the Shulḥan Arukh. Since it is well known that the rationale for a law is not given in the Shulḥan Arukh, nor whether it constitutes a Torah or rabbinic law, [the Shulḥan Arukh] is like a sealed book. It therefore requires extraordinary effort to study the words of the latter [halakhic authorities] which are also obscure. Thus, when a person reads this book, he will properly understand the words of the Shulḥan Arukh. 5. Those who study the commentary Magen Avraham know that his statements are very profound but also contain many typographical errors. In this book, [the reader] will find rest and satisfaction and will understand Magen Avraham’s enlightening words. 6. Even seasoned Torah scholars and rabbis will find [in this book] novel legal interpretations, so that when a halakhic question arrives, they will mostly be able to find [the answer] in this book. The author discusses [the issue] and shows the sources from which he derived the law. One who wishes to disagree with his conclusion may do so, but [even so] his analysis will have been rendered easier. The author has nearly exhaustively explored each doubtful area that may arise in any of the laws from any of the sections of the Oraḥ Ḥayyim. 7. It is known that the laws of the Shulḥan Arukh are scattered in many places. One who is not fluent in all [sections of] the Shulḥan Arukh and the latter [halakhic authorities] will not easily find the law. In this book, each and every law is found in its place. From each and every law, a rule will be made for this matter. When [the reader] searches in the table of contents, he will easily find that which he seeks. I hereby admonish anyone who has the ability to understand the Shulḥan Arukh properly not to rely upon me for actual guidance until he also examines the Shulḥan Arukh.

Introduction

An additional factor that reflected the personality and thinking pattern of Rabbi Danzig was the fact that he wrote and published an abridged code. This type of action threatened the authority of the rabbinic leadership. In the nineteenth century, for a Jew with a question on Jewish law, the only resource was the local rabbi. A popular code written for the educated laymen would, for many basic legal questions, serve as a source of halakhah and pesak, thus infringing both on rabbinic authority and on the organizational structure of the Jewish community as a whole. A further examination of the first 1810 edition of the Ḥayei Adam reveals that it did not include the author’s name. On his lengthy and somewhat convoluted title page, it is nowhere to be found. Later, in his introduction, he informs his reader,12 It is not proper to judge who the author of this book is, but rather what is written within it, since from a small caterpillar comes our silken apparel and from the ḥilazon (snail) comes out rare purple (tekhelet) the choicest expensive color (dye). . . . I did not compose this work to use it as a spade to dig with (to gain profit). It is known that from the large printing expenses, hopefully I will break even; I am clearly not looking for fame, and I did not even record my name as this book’s author. Not to detract from the modesty of Rabbi Danzig, but I believe he was motivated by additional considerations. As discussed above, working as a businessman, he understood that the Eastern European rabbinic world would not readily accept him or his works since he did not devote his entire life to the pursuit of Torah study. Therefore, if he sought acceptance and success of his work, his name would only serve as a deterring factor. Only after the publication of the 1810 edition and the widespread success of the Ḥayei Adam did he publicly reveal, in the second introduction, in which he printed his name, that he had authored the Ḥayei Adam. At this point there was no need for concern regarding the success or sales of the code. It had achieved its goal, and therefore there was no reason not to include his name. The same line of reasoning also discouraged Rabbi Danzig from including approbations (haskamot) in the Ḥayei Adam, though the standard practice was for any rabbinic volume to include approbations from 12 This topic is discussed at length in Goldrett, “Al ha-sefer Ḥayei Adam,” 120.

7

8

Introduction

leading rabbinic authorities. The more famous or revered the rabbi writing the haskamah, the greater its acceptance by the rabbinic world and hence by the Jewish community. Rabbi Danzig addresses this issue in the introduction to the first edition of the Ḥayei Adam, writing,13 Behold, my mind had been set on not acquiring any approbations, as it was not my intention in any event to embellish myself because I am aware that there is nothing in me that can be embellished. However, the essence of this composition is for the youth and the laymen, and I know that the first thing they look at is the [book’s] approbations. I therefore obtained approbations, but only from [a few of my local] people and companions in our community . . . and also it was not my desire to print their [actual] quotes but only their signatures, for it is not my desire that they [the readers] should rely upon me since I have already warned regarding this. To include approbations would raise red flags for this author. His anonymity would be threatened, since the approbations are addressed to the author and often refer to him by name in the body of the haskamah. Furthermore, since—as he correctly noted—laymen first look at the approbation page, he would need to seek out leading rabbinic authorities throughout Europe for letters of approval. As I discussed above, this was not a path Rabbi Danzig believed would benefit the success of his work. Instead, he simply offered his readers a list of official rabbinic figures and leading scholars, hoping that this would suffice to satisfy his readers’ appetites. This approach clearly suc-ceeded, for when he republished his work for a second time and included his name, he felt no need to add approbations. But that time, the Ḥayei Adam spoke for itself. The considerations that I have discussed all point to an independent thinker, a man who believed in the purpose of his work, and even when confronted by challenges that would deter most rabbis, was steadfast in maintaining his beliefs. From youth to rabbis, the Jewish populace embraced his work for purposes of study and pesak. Study groups throughout Europe were organized to learn Ḥayei Adam. On the other hand, only upon the publication of Rabbi Yisrael Meir ha-Kohen’s (1838–1933) Mishnah Berurah do we find the Ḥayei Adam included among the works cited in books of Jewish law (see chapter 7). 13 See ibid. for a discussion of approbations in the Ḥayei Adam.

Introduction

I feel it important to emphasize that, although in specific areas and in regard to particular issues Rabbi Danzig expressed his individual thinking, he was loyal to the traditional established rabbinic law. His work would not have passed the test of the layman if the Ḥayei Adam were not in accordance with the Shulḥan Arukh and its classical commentaries. It must also be recognized that, like most authors, Rabbi Danzig had both an explicit and an implicit agenda or message in his code. I would identify this implicit agenda as musar, or what is often termed ethics, in which the individual Torah Jew must seek a higher level of Jewish conduct than that required by halakhah. As I have argued throughout this book, the primary concern of the author of the Ḥayei Adam was towards laymen. Thus, straightforward legal decisions would not suffice, since spiritual needs also had to be addressed. We therefore find that not only was musar included in the actual rules, but that these extralegal materials filled up entire sections such as those we find prior to the laws of Yom Kippur (book 2, klal 144), or in the introduction to the Ḥayei Adam. I discuss this in detail in chapter 6. Rabbi Danzig understood the external threats to his community from such movements as Hasidism, the Jewish Reform movement, and the Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah). The years 1772 through 1815 represented the major times of conflict between the Hasidim and their opponents, the Mitnagdim. During these years, Rabbi Danzig lived in Vilna, a major center of the anti-Hasidic movement, which was led by the Vilna Gaon, a relative of Rabbi Danzig, whose son married the Gaon’s granddaughter. It is not surprising that the author of the Ḥayei Adam was considered to be among the opponents of Hasidism. Hagiographical stories about Rabbi Danzig show his involvement in the Vilna Gaon’s anti-Hasidic activities. I suggest that beginning with the opening statements, the text of the Ḥayei Adam also demonstrates Rabbi Danzig’s concerns regarding the dangers that the Hasidim posed for Jewish society and its weltanschauung. Furthermore, there are those who argue that the primary purpose of Rabbi Danzig in authoring the Ḥayei Adam was to oppose the Shulḥan Arukh ha-Rav, written at the same time by the Hasidic leader Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady.14 Although it is highly unlikely that Rabbi Danzig saw this work, this once

14 See Mayer, “Rabbi Avraham Danzig,” 17–19, wherein Mayer discusses Rabbi Danzig’s involvement with this conflict and various hagiographic parables.

9

10

Introduction

again demonstrates the attempt to place Rabbi Danzig at the center of this struggle. See chapter 5, in which I offer examples and discuss this situation. As stated, for the majority of Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s adult life, he earned his living as a businessman. His work required him to travel to both Central and Western Europe. His travels gave him firsthand knowledge of Haskalah and of the Reform movement, which was burgeoning and growing as a part of Jewish trends in these countries. In Eastern Europe, these new movements had not yet taken root, and only became popular after Rabbi Danzig’s death. I suggest that, aware of the threats posed by these movements, Rabbi Danzig was concerned that they were not only an issue for Western Europe, but also that they would have their impact on the rest of Europe (see chapter 2). It will become clear in this work that the Ḥayei Adam, which is basically an abridged code of Jewish law, in fact offers the reader much more than that, and in so doing goes beyond the bounds of merely a Jewish code of law. In concluding this introduction, I would like to add an additional methodological consideration. Paul Connerton, in his book How Societies Remember,15 explicates the approach of the social scientist to research. He writes, Historians are able to reject something explicitly told to them in their evidence and to substitute their own interpretation of events in its place. And even if they do accept what a previous statement tells them, they do this not because that statement exists and is taken as authoritative, but because it is judged to satisfy the historian’s criteria of historical truth. Far from relying on authorities other than themselves, to whose statements their thought must confirm, historians are their own authority; their thought is autonomous vis-à-vis their evidence, in the sense that they possess criteria by reference to which the evidence is criticized. Historical reconstruction is thus not dependent on social memory. Even with no statement about an event or custom that has reached the historian by an unbroken tradition from eyewitnesses, it is still possible for the historian to rediscover what has been completely forgotten. Historians can do this partly 15 Paul Connerton, How Societies Remember (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 13–14.

Introduction

by the critical examination of statements contained in their written sources, where written sources mean sources containing statements asserting or implying alleged facts regarding the subject in which the historian is interested, and partly by the use of what are called unwritten sources—for example, archaeological material connected with the same subject, the point of describing these as unwritten sources being to indicate that, since they are not texts, they contain no ready made statements. In other words, there is room for speculation when research is based on a written text. What Connerton wrote for historians can also pertain to other social scientists, such as social anthropologists. In my work, I approach the text of the Ḥayei Adam searching for the author’s message. There is little empirical proof to substantiate all my arguments, and in some cases I turn to speculative analysis, but I do not deviate from the historical and social reality and permit its factors, as well as the text itself, to serve as the basis of my suggestions. My colleague, Professor Herb Basser, wrote an insert to The Encyclopedia of Judaism,16 which, I believe, will offer the reader further insights into the life and writings of Rabbi Danzig as well as to the period in which he lived and wrote.

Codification of Jewish Law—Modern Period In the nineteenth century, even as Jews were granted citizenship in European countries, political anti-Semitism increased. Through policies of religious repression and secularization, many governments embarked on programs to sever Jews from their traditions and to assimilate them into the general society. The rabbinic leadership in Eastern Europe sensed that the mindset that had sworn loyalty to the Mishneh Torah, the Tur, and the Shulḥan Arukh was on the verge of disappearing. Poverty and hardship cut deeply into Jewish societies that, through faith and obedience to rabbinic leadership, had weathered bad storms in the past. As the face of Europe changed, seemingly without a place for the Jew in modern society, Jewish responses varied. The growth of Hasidism was one response; the attempt to build a 16 H. Basser, “Codification of Jewish Law,” in Encyclopedia of Judaism, ed. Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green (Leiden, Netherlands, and Boston, MA: Brill, 2003), vol. 4, 1668–1671. I thank Brill for permission to reprint this insert.

11

12

Introduction

Jewish homeland, another. As always, an absorption in the vision of selfpower and the picture of an orderly society had strong appeal. Thus, while many Jews looked for greener pastures that could be reached by emigration, assimilation, or modernization, others sought the refuge of the well-regulated lifestyle that was a Jewish Kingdom on earth. Zionism had appeal for some, but for many the life of faith and tradition still held promise. Jews had recovered from the repression of Islam and the collapse of the Gaonate in the twelfth century and recovered from the strength of Christendom’s armies in the fourteenth century. Again, they recovered from the collapse of Spanish Jewry in the fifteenth century. Each time, they produced a new legal code. Now in the nineteenth century, with the collapse of the rabbinic authority in the wake of new political and social structures, a new crisis loomed. As a result of economic factors, Jews left the well-governed Jewish life of the shtetl in search of a more open life in the city. In the urban setting, they found a variety of Jewish and non-Jewish lifestyles, free from previous social pressures. Secularism, socialism, and communism were all temptations for the economically deprived Jew. In addition, the application of steam power to machinery meant that paper and printing became cheaper and more broadly accessible. The challenges of technology encroached into Eastern European Jewish life, but this technology also provided the means to meet the new challenges. The response to the transitions once again was a renewed activity in collecting the laws of the past and re-presenting them anew. The new halakhic works, for the most part, did not seek innovative ways to pave the future. They demonstrated that mastery of Jewish law still could lead to the vision of God’s halakhic dimension. If anyone was convinced that these laws were antiquated, they could see firsthand that the most eminent authorities of the day still lived in the halakhic world. For the authors of these works, it was a way of affirming the eternity of the lifestyle that defined them. More than serving the needs of communities, such works served the needs of their authors. This was their way of coping with adversity and threats from without and within. Between 1810 and 1907, we find a fresh interest in Eastern Europe in writing popular codes. Together with Ḥayei Adam (Vilna, 1810) by Rabbi Avraham Danzig (1748–1820), we note Kitzur Shulḥan Arukh (1864) by Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried (1804–1886); Arukh ha-Shulḥan (1884–1903) by Rabbi Yeḥiel Mikhel Epstein (1829–1908); and Mishnah Berurah (1894– 1907) by Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan (1838–1933).

Introduction

Each writer incorporated local customs and approaches to legal problems that suited their constituencies, so their readers had no need to consult any further work. These authors preserved the legacy of the past in simple form but still incorporated the spirit of the Shulḥan Arukh of Rabbi Yosef Karo. They increasingly wrote bare-boned codes in language that the average student might be expected to know—usually indicating their sources in brackets.

The H.ayei Adam Born in 1748 in Danzig (Poland and Germany), Rabbi Avraham Danzig studied with Rabbis Yosef Liebermann and Yeḥezkel Landau (Noda bi-Yhudah). After his marriage, Rabbi Danzig relocated to the city of Vilna, the home of the famed Eliyahu (Gra). He served from 1794 to 1812 as dayan (rabbinic judge). Though Rabbi Danzig published numerous works, his fame came from his Ḥayei Adam, which presents the essential teachings of legal decisors on the rules of Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim. On the cover page of the first edition of the Ḥayei Adam, which was published anonymously, Rabbi Danzig stated his intended readership and his purpose in writing this work as follows: 1. The first benefit is that even a boy of thirteen can study and understand nearly all the laws of the Shulḥan Arukh in a short period of time, whereas an experienced student [without having read this book] will take some years of effort to do so. 2. Heads of households, for whom the burden of earning a living is heavy, can read this book during their periods of rest. That is because the language is easy to understand and everything is clearly and completely explained, so that the person who wishes to delve in it will not have to compare subject to subject. 3. [This book is advantageous] even for those heads of households who study the Talmud and its major commentaries daily, because the Shakh has written in Yoreh De’ah that they fulfill their requirement for Torah study with it. [Such Jews] are obligated to study halakhic rulings but have no time to study the Shulḥan Arukh and its commentaries as well in order to quench their thirst

13

14

Introduction

and to know all the laws in their true sense and reasoning like experienced Torah scholars. 4. [This book is advantageous] even for those who study the Shulḥan Arukh. Since it is well known that the rationale for a law is not given in the Shulḥan Arukh, nor whether it constitutes a Torah or rabbinic law, [the Shulḥan Arukh] is like a sealed book. It therefore requires extraordinary effort to study the words of the latter [halakhic authorities] which are also obscure. Thus, when a person reads this book, he will properly understand the words of the Shulḥan Arukh. 5. Those who study the commentary Magen Avraham know that his statements are very profound but also contain many typographical errors. In this book, [the reader] will find rest and satisfaction and will understand the Magen Avraham’s enlightening words. 6. Even seasoned Torah scholars and rabbis will find [in this book] novel legal interpretations, so that when a halakhic question arrives they will mostly be able to find [the answer] in this book. The author discusses [the issue] and shows the sources from which he derived the law. One who wishes to disagree with his conclusion may do so, but [even so] his analysis will have been rendered easier. The author has nearly exhaustively explored each doubtful area that may arise in any of the laws from any of the sections of the Oraḥ Ḥayyim. 7. It is known that the laws of the Shulḥan Arukh are scattered in many places. One who is not fluent in all [sections of] the Shulḥan Arukh and the latter [halakhic authorities] will not easily find the law. In this book, each and every law is found in its place. From each and every law, a rule will be made for this matter. When [the reader] searches in the table of contents, he will easily find that which he seeks. I hereby admonish anyone who has the ability to understand the Shulḥan Arukh properly not to rely upon me for actual guidance until he also examines the Shulḥan Arukh. Another text he published, Ḥokhmat Adam (Vilna, 1810), covers the laws in the section Yoreh De’ah of the Shulḥan Arukh. He also prepared an addendum titled Binat Adam, an in-depth discussion of his adjudications.

Introduction

Nishmat Adam and Binat Adam were for scholars who had the ability to analyze the tenets of Jewish law. In addition, he penned a brief work called Kuntres Matzevat Moshe, which deals with the laws of mourning. Rabbi Danzig prepared and named this pamphlet in memory of his son Moshe Shalom, who died in the winter of 1814 at the age of twenty. In memory of his son, he also published Zikhru Torat Moshe (Vilna, 1817), a synopsis of the laws of the Sabbath much used to this day by young Orthodox Jews. This volume concludes with Mitzvat Moshe, a synopsis of biblical and rabbinic laws. Zikhru Torat Moshe also includes a comprehensive introduction to all of Rabbi Danzig’s works. Another of his books is Toledot Adam (Vilna, 1818), a commentary on the Passover Haggadah. Finally, Beit Avraham (Vilna, 1821), intended primarily as a last will and testament to Rabbi Danzig’s family, was published posthumously as a general tome of proper Jewish conduct and, like all his books, was intended for the Jewish laymen. During his lifetime, Rabbi Danzig published two editions of the Ḥayei Adam with introductions. There, he stressed that the study of law has priority over the theoretical, analytic, and pilpulistic study of the Talmud. Even the primary codes of Jewish law, such as Rabbi Yosef Karo’s Beit Yosef and Moshe Isserles’ Darkhei Moshe, were too difficult and time-consuming for laymen to comprehend. Ḥayei Adam is intended to allow the less knowledgeable to fulfill the mitzvah of Torah study and to practice the laws properly. With proper discipline, he suggests, a student studying his Ḥayei Adam could reach a high level of knowledge of law at the end of one year. Rabbi Karo had thought that his Shulḥan Arukh could do the same in thirty days. Rabbi Danzig’s claim seems more realistic. He writes, “It was reported to me that great and able Torah scholars reviewed my work and stated that it served for them as a review of the Shulḥan Arukh. . . . In addition, they found many new laws in my work.” Rabbi Danzig grouped the materials of his book according to what he termed klalim (principles). Rather than employing the divisions (chapters and paragraphs) found in the Shulḥan Arukh, he attempted to organize the subject matter more finely. If the issues discussed were thematically related, he arranged them in one klal. For instance, he grouped together the laws of Sabbath and the weekday prayer, which Rabbi Karo placed in two separate sections. Similarly, Rabbi Karo devoted nineteen chapters (182–201) to one theme, the laws of zimmun (an introductory formula to the “Grace After Meals”); while in klal 48, Rabbi Danzig arranged them all together. And

15

16

Introduction

while Rabbi Karo has the laws of mezuzah and railings in Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah, in chapters 285–291, Rabbi Danzig gathered them together into a single section (klal 15). Rabbi Danzig felt that laws concerning daily life (Ḥayei Adam), such as mezuzah, Torah study, honoring one’s parents and elderly persons, reciting the kaddish, and so forth, which Rabbi Karo placed in another volume, Yoreh De’ah, all belonged together. If any legal issues were not practical, relevant to his time, or required the educated decision of a rabbinic authority, Rabbi Danzig did not include them in the Ḥayei Adam. Before his time, codes had analyzed the methods of using ancient stoves such as kira or kupaḥ on the Sabbath, but he excluded these issues, since they were not relevant to the nineteenth century. When he felt that a theme required special attention, he preferred to deal with it in a separate work. For example, while Rabbi Danzig discussed rules for scribes in the general laws relevant to every Jew, he prepared a separate volume on how to write phylacteries (tefillin). In an addendum inserted in the text of the laws, he added in brackets alternate opinions concerning the specific law at hand. The Ḥayei Adam also included a separate work titled Nishmat Adam. This took the form of a codicil placed on the bottom of the same page of the law to which it was related and presented an in-depth discussion of that law. In discussing different rabbinic positions as well as offering his own analysis, Rabbi Danzig secured for his work a major place in the history of legal codes pioneered by Rashba in the fourteenth century. Twin codes and legal decisions had usually required two separate volumes. Rabbi Danzig incorporated both in one volume. Unlike many of his generation, he did not hesitate to adjudicate legal disputes among leading rabbis and to state his reasons with rare insight. Where Rabbi Danzig introduced his own decisions, he would often include his process of thinking in the Nishmat Adam codicil. The author of the Ḥayei Adam put great importance on the Mishneh Torah of Maimonides and the classic commentaries of the Shulḥan Arukh. While Rabbi Karo had omitted general ethical motivations of the laws, Rabbi Danzig create new sections for them not found in the Shulḥan Arukh. For example, in section 142, he elaborates on the many moral and ethical aspects of repentance. He explained every word in the vidui (“confession”) of the Yom Kippur prayer service, and even prepared a special introduction to the Yom Kippur prayer entitled “tefilat zakah,” which today is included in most Orthodox Jewish prayer books. Typical of his approach is section 68, where he discusses the

Introduction

proper mindset to observe the laws. In section 20, he wrote that the institutional prayers are divided into four sections to parallel the four spiritual worlds of Lurianic Kabbalah. He introduced (reminiscent of the Tur) his listings of the laws of the Sabbath with a discourse based upon Midrash and aggadah. In section 2 (laws pertaining to washing hands in the morning), Danzig elaborated on the effects these rituals have on one’s soul. His primary source for the ethical, moral, and spiritual themes is the Sefer Yere’im, but there are also excerpts from such books as the Zohar, the writings of Yitzḥak Luria, Ḥovot ha-Levavot, and others. This approach seems to have intended to soften the reader to accept his stringent legal decisions. Rabbi Danzig’s Ḥayei Adam was widely accepted. The work has gone through numerous editions, and groups were organized throughout various Jewish communities to study his text. Such groups persist until today.

17

1

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

Rabbi Avraham Danzig (1748–1820) lived in a period of social upheaval. The Jewish community in Europe was still in the shadow of the Shabbetai Tzvi affair,1 which prompted the rabbis to discourage laymen from the study of Kabbalah.2 The Western European emancipation was slowly making its way eastward and was encroaching on Jewish society. This included the Haskalah movement (the Jewish Enlightenment); for the organized Jewish community of Eastern Europe, however, it was the Hasidic movement that presented the greatest threat. It was during these trying times that Rabbi Avraham Danzig penned his work Ḥayei Adam3 (first published in 1810), a code of Jewish law that presented the educated laymen with halakhic rulings primarily concerned with daily life and based upon the laws presented in Rabbi Yosef Karo’s Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim. Rabbi Danzig’s biographers4 inform us that two leading rabbinic authorities influenced Rabbi Danzig and his works: Rabbi Yehezkel Landau (Noda 1 Shabbetai Tzvi died in 1676, but Sabbateanism remained an issue of major public concern for the Jewish rabbinic society well into the eighteenth century. 2 See Maoz Kahana, “The Allure of Forbidden Knowledge: The Temptation of Sabbatian Literature for Mainstream Rabbis in the Frankist Moment, 1756–1761,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 102, no. 4 (Fall 2012): 589–616. He discusses this issue at length in the context of the writings of Rabbi Yeḥezkel Landau. 3 In addition to the sources cited in footnote 1 to the introduction, see Tchernowitz, Toledot ha-poskim, vol. 3, 274–288. 4 See footnote 1 to the introduction.

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

bi-Yhudah, 1713–1793),5 the Chief Rabbi of Prague,6 and Rabbi Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman (Gra, also known as the Vilna Gaon, 1720–1797).7 Both rabbis shared principles and beliefs manifested in the writings of Rabbi Danzig.8 Both believed in the supremacy of Talmud Torah and halakhah in the life and studies of the Jew. They were also well versed in Kabbalah9 and musar, which are reflected in—and incorporated into—their writings. Both strongly opposed new movements such as Sabbateanism, Haskalah, and Hasidism.10 Rabbi Danzig clearly identified with, and believed in, the ideas of his teachers. 5 There are numerous books that discuss Rabbi Landau, especially his period in Prague. See, for example, Maoz Kahana, From Noda bi-Yhudah to Chatam Sofer: Halakha and Thought in Their Historical Moment [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2015); David Katz, “A Case Study in the Formation of a Super-Rabbi: The Early Years of Rabbi Ezekiel Landau, 1713–1754” (PhD diss., University of Maryland, 2004), 431–570; Shnayer Z. Leiman, “Rabbi Ezekiel Landau: Letter of Reconciliation,” A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought 43, no. 4 (Winter 2010): 85–96; and Leon Gellman, Ha-Noda bi-Yhudah u-Mishnato (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1961). 6 Eighteenth-century Prague was a major center of rabbinic leadership and talmudic study, and enjoyed a long tradition of Jewish mysticism and kabbalistic study. Prague also housed a large group of Shabbetai Tzvi’s followers. See Sharon Flatto, The Kabbalistic Culture of Eighteenth-Century Prague: Ezekiel Landau (the “Noda Biyehudah”) and his Contemporaries (Oxford, UK, and Portland, OR: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2015), 40–63. 7 There has been substantial research on the Gra and especially his opposition to Hasidism. See, for example, Elijah Judah Schochet, The Hasidic Movement and the Gaon of Vilna (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc., 1994); Immanuel Etkes, The Beginning of the Hasidic Movement [Hebrew] (n.p.: Ministry of Defense, 1998); Yisrael Klausner, The Jewish Community of Vilno in the Days of the Gaon [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Rubin Mass, 1942). 8 Although, as a result of the Shabbetai Tzvi movement, Kabbalah was discouraged in eighteenth-century Europe, Prague remained a center for the study of Kabbalah. The young Rabbi Danzig no doubt was influenced by these studies, especially since his teacher Rabbi Landau was well-versed in this area and included Kabbalah in his studies, as testified by his writings published well after Rabbi Danzig left Prague. In fact, while he was in Prague, at the age of eighteen, Rabbi Danzig began to write his commentary on the Passover Haggadah, a work primarily based upon Kabbalah (see Flatto, Kabbalistic Culture, who discusses Kabbalah in Prague and in the writings of Rabbi Landau at length). 9 See Maoz Kahana and Michael K. Silber, “Deists, Sabbatians, and Kabbalists in Prague: A Censored Sermon of R. Yehezkel Landau, 1770” [Hebrew], Kabbalah: Ketav et le-cheker kitvei ha-mistika ha-yehudit 21 (2010): 349–84; and Flatto, Kabbalistic Culture. 10 On the topic of the early years of Hasidism, see David Asaf, ed., Tzaddik and Devotees: Historical and Sociological Aspects of Hasidism [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2001); Shimon Dubnov, Toledot ha-Hasidut, 4th ed. (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1965); Etkes, The Beginning of the Hasidic Movement; Allan Nadler, The Faith

19

20

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

The Ḥayei Adam commences with a statement on the meaning of devekut. This was a sensitive issue in the second half of the eighteenth century. Hasidic theology stressed the superiority of devekut (mystical communion with - or cleaving to - God)11 over the study of Torah (Talmud Torah).12 For the Mitnagdim, Talmud Torah was the optimum of Jewish existence, obligatory for all but (in reality) reserved for the few.13 The focal point of the early Hasidim was that every Jew, scholar or layman, rich or poor, could achieve devekut.14 For the Hasid, it was the highest ideal of mystical life. As Gershom Scholem15 writes concerning devekut: “It is a value without eschatological considerations; i.e., it can be realized in this life in a direct and personal way by every individual.” Devekut in Hasidism is the point of departure for the religious path of the Jew and his faith. Devekut, explains Scholem,16 was achieved “especially through the practice of fervent and ecstatic prayer, a path to God; the other for the learned, from whom it required a new balance between the intellectual and emotional sides of his nature. In both cases, the problem could not have arisen without the aforementioned shifting of the place of devekut into the center of man’s spiritual activity.”

11

12

13 14 15 16

of the Mithnagdim: Rabbinic Responses to Hasidic Rapture (Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press, 1999); Mendel Piekarz, The Beginning of Hasidism [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1978); and Shaul Stampfer, Lithuanian Yeshivas of the Nineteenth Century (Oxford, UK: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1995). For a discussion of devekut and Hasidism, see Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah (New York: Meridian, 1978); and Mendel Piekarz, “Hasidism as a Socio-Religious Movement on the Evidence of Devekut,” in Hasidism Reappraised, ed. J. G. Weiss and Ada Rapport-Albert (Portland, OR: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1996), 225–248. Even though they disagree on the meaning of devekut in Hasidic thought and practice, their differences are not relevant to this book. They still maintain that the superiority of devekut is a basic principle of Hasidism. The source of devekut is the passage in Deuteronomy 11:12: “To love the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, and to cleave unto him.” For a discussion of devekut, see Gershom Scholem, “Devekut or Communion with God,” in his The Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York: Schoken Books, 1971), 203–27; and Piekarz, “Hasidism as a SocioReligious Movement.” See Nadler, The Faith of the Mithnagdim. Although it was not always possible for the average Jew to become one with God, one could achieve this level through his tzaddik. By cleaving to a tzaddik, his community could accomplish devekut through the tzaddik’s possible ability to reach this lofty goal. Scholem, “Devekut or Communion with God,” 205. Ibid., 216.

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

The priority of devekut over Talmud Torah aroused considerable hostility from the Mitnagdic leadership.17 In all Mitnagdic polemical writings against Hasidism, these religious advances were cited as proofs of its subversive and anti-rabbinic tendencies.18 Did these theological disparities have a place in Rabbi Danzig’s code of law, the Ḥayei Adam? Did he see the need to include Kabbalah and musar (ethical and moral teachings) in his rulings?19 Rabbi Danzig did not live in a vacuum. He was not only a student of the author of the Noda bi-Yhudah who opposed Hasidism and was considered a kabbalist, but he also resided and was active in Vilna, the “hotbed” of anti-Hasidism. Furthermore, he was closely associated with the Gra who headed the anti-Hasidic movement and was a kabbalist. There could be little doubt that Rabbi Danzig shared these sentiments, but did they have a place in his legal treatise? Rabbi Isadore Twersky,20 in his discussion of the Shulḥan Arukh compiled by Rabbi Yosef Karo, a known kabbalist, discusses the place in this code of non-halakhic materials such as mysticism. He writes: He [Rabbi Karo] was concerned exclusively with what Max Weber called “methodology of sanctification” which produces a “continuous personality pattern,” not with its charismatic goals or stimuli, the ethical underpinning or theological vision which suffuse the halakhah with significance, guarantee its radical, ineradicable spirituality and thereby nurture the religious consciousness.  .  . . 17 Schochet, The Hasidic Movement, 76–78 discusses the prioritization of devotional literature. The Besht (Ba’al Shem Tov), the founder of the Hasidic movement, is said to have unequivocally extolled the study of devotional literature over the study of Torah. The Besht phrased his conviction dramatically and picturesquely, declaring it was none other than the crafty evil inclination that persuaded one to concentrate on the study of Talmud and its commentaries, in order to cause neglect of the study of musar, which was indispensable in leading to a proper reverence for God. For the Besht, the study of devotional literature, not the study of talmudic texts, was the true method of achieving religious piety. 18 See Piekarz, The Beginning of Hasidism, primarily 377–392. 19 To best understand the concept of musar within a weltanschauung positing that the study of Torah was the primary and only goal of the Jew, I suggest looking at the scholarly works connected to the later nineteenth-century musar movement and its opponents. For example, Brown, The Lithuanian Musar Movement (n.p.: Moden Publishing House Ltd., 2014); Immanuel Etkes, Rabbi Israel Salanter and the Mussar Movement (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1993); Norman Lamm, Torah for Torah’s Sake (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 1989); and Gil S. Perl, The Pillar of Volozhin (Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2012). 20 Isadore Twersky, “The Shulhan Aruk: Enduring Code of Jewish Law,” Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought 16, no. 2 (Spring 1967): 153–154.

21

22

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

One can say, in general, that there are two major means by which apparently trans-halakhic material has been organically linked with the halakhah proper: 1) construction of an ideational framework which indicates the ultimate concerns and gives coherence, direction and vitality to the concrete actions; 2) elaboration of either a rationale of the law or a mystique of the law which suggests explanations and motives for detailed commandments. Rabbi Karo, in his code of Jewish law, did not attempt to include either of these two trans-halakhic materials, but Rabbi Danzig, the Lithuanian Mitnaged, did so. This chapter will examine the non-halakhic materials in Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Ḥayei Adam, specifically those manifested in his ten section preambles. The first edition of the Ḥayei Adam is divided into 221 chapters (klalim),21 organized into ten sections. They include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Laws of Prayer and Blessings Laws of Washing Hands Laws of Sabbath Laws of Eruvin Laws of Festivals Laws of Ḥol ha-Mo’ed Laws of Passover Laws of Rosh ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur Laws of Sukkah Laws of Ḥanukah and Purim

At the beginning of each section, Rabbi Danzig offers a preface or introductory remarks. Such prefaces are not unique in a code. Both Maimonides in Mishneh Torah and Rabbi Ya’akov ben Asher in Tur Shulḥan Arukh used preambles, but not in a systematic fashion.22 Rabbi Danzig introduces each section with material that would most benefit his readers. These might include (a) elucidatory or clarifying information to better assist the student in understanding principles of the laws; (b) historical information; or (c) when appropriate, words of musar 21 The second edition has three additional klalim. 22 When he felt it appropriate, Rabbi Danzig introduced these prefaces into the text of the Ḥayei Adam.

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

based upon Kabbalah or on earlier books of musar. Rabbi Danzig identifies these books as Ḥovot ha-Levavot, Rabbi Yonah Gerondi’s (died 1264) Sha’arei Teshuvah (Gates of Repentance) and Rabbi Yehudah ben Shmuel of Regensburg’s (1150–1217) Sefer Ḥasidim. The preambles also served to integrate contemporary theological issues such as the battle against Hasidism. A preface might include more than one of these categories. An examination of all the preambles is beyond the scope of this chapter, so I have selected representative examples of each category: theology with musar or Kabbalah (klal 1, Laws of Prayer and Blessings), clarification (klal 36, Laws of Washing Hands), and history (klal 154, Laws of Ḥanukah).23 A useful point of departure in understanding Rabbi Danzig’s Ḥayei Adam is the book’s target audience. He discusses his prospective readers in his first and second introductions, and in his title page to the first two editions, he lists the writings published during his lifetime (1810 and 1819). On the title page, he identifies six types of individuals who might benefit from his work. These range from a thirteen-year-old boy (in the introduction, he refers to a fifteen-year-old)24 to a rabbi and learned scholar. One of these categories deals with students, and four of the six categories are devoted to educated laymen. In his first introduction, he explicitly states that this work is for young people and laymen. In his final introduction, he states that he is writing this code for educated laymen who do not have time to spend more than three or four hours a day on the study of Talmud and Jewish law.25 This would suggest that his primary targets are students and educated laymen. Out of concern for the non-scholarly population, the rabbi offers an introduction and discusses issues (as I stated above) designed to clarify the laws presented. He also adds some words of rebuke, 23 The other section preambles are the following: klal 1, the Laws of Sabbath, is primarily musar emphasizing the centrality of Sabbath; klal 71 gives a general explanation of the laws of eruv; klal 76, Laws of Eruv Teḥumim, clarifies these laws; klal 79, the Laws of Festivals, explains these laws, and the explanation is continued in klal 80; klal 106, the Laws of Ḥol ha-Mo’ed, is musar; klal 119, the Laws of Passover, clarifies the related laws; klal 132, the Laws of Fasts, is musar; klal 138, the Laws of the New Year, and klal 143, the Laws of Yom Kippur, is musar; klal 156, the Laws of Sukkah, gives historical information and clarification of laws. 24 A possible explanation is that for a thirteen-year-old boy, it would be possible to understand the text by studying with a teacher, and for a fifteen-year-old, without a teacher. I believe the text substantiates his view. This passage may be related to M. Avot 5:21, which gives fifteen years as the earliest permissible age for the study of Talmud. 25 In addition to the final introduction, he also speaks of those laymen who study three or four hours a day in Ḥayei Adam, klal 10:3.

23

24

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

discussing the significance of moral and ethical issues that might be important for the spiritual well-being of his reader.

Preamble 1: Rabbi Danzig commences the Ḥayei Adam with the following preface to the morning laws (Laws of Prayer and Blessings):26 It is a Positive Commandment from the Torah that a person should cleave at all times in his thoughts to the Holy One, blessed is He, as it is written (Deuteronomy 10:20) “The Lord, your God, shall you fear, [Him shall you serve,] to him shall you cleave, [and in His Name shall you swear].” Is it possible for a human to [actually] cleave to the Holy One, blessed is He? Rather, the meaning [then] is that one should constantly cleave to the Lord in his thoughts, as it is written (Psalms 1:8) “I have set the Lord before me always.” This is the great general principle of the Torah and of the high levels of the righteous, for when a person sits alone in his home one’s conduct is different than if he sits, or conduct his business and movements [when they are] in the presence of a great king. [Furthermore], one’s speech and demeanor is not the same when he is with the members of his household as it is when he is in the court of the king. All the more so when a person places in his heart that the Great King—the Holy One, blessed is He, [who] fills the entire world with His glory, is standing over them and observing their actions, as it is written (Jeremiah 23:24) “can a man hide in concealment that I not see him?—the word of the Lord! Do I not fill the heaven and the earth?—the word of the Lord.” Then immediately one will experience the fear and the submission to the fear of the Lord, and be aware of His supervision [of human 26 I have added both the bold and italics to the quotes from the Ḥayei Adam. The bold represents the first edition published in 1810; the italics indicate the second edition published in 1819. Both were published during Rabbi Danzig’s lifetime. The regular font is from editions published after Rabbi Danzig’s death, the first of these in 1825. I feel that is important to offer the reader the entire text. This is because it has not been published in English; therefore, in lieu of a critical edition, this typographical convention would assist the reader to have a full understanding of the issues being discussed. I offer special thanks to Mr. Dashiell Ferguson for preparing this translation.

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

events] and continuously be ashamed before Him (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 1). One should not be embarrassed by those who mock27 him28 in the worship of the Creator, may His Name be blessed, and at least not quarrel with them. (The essence of the Worship of the Creator is in concealment — He hides His good deeds from humans. Please look and see what is in the holy Zohar in Parshat Ḥayei Sarah and Parshat Shelaḥ:29 Meritorious is the one who belittles himself in this world, how great and exalted is he in the world to come . . .one that is small is great and one that is great is small). Even in this, a person needs to know if—Heaven forbid—the [evil] inclination has seduced him to not perform a good deed because it happens to be in public, regarding this it is said (Proverbs 20:18) “[thoughts conceived in council will be firm;] wage war with strategies.” See Ḥovot ha-Levavot,30 in the section of Sha’ar Yiḥud ha-Ma’aseh (chapter 8). When a person cleaves in his thoughts to the Lord, may His Name be blessed, his actions will certainly be for the sake of Heaven, as it is written (Proverbs 3:6) “in all your ways know Him [and He will smooth your paths],” and the Sages said [M. Avot 2:12] “all of your actions should be for the sake of Heaven,” even matters left to the sovereignty of the individual, for example: eating), drinking, walking, sitting, 27 Many of the statements presented in the preamble are found as adjudicated laws in the Ḥayei Adam. I will identify some of them. For example, in the Laws of Fasts and Tishah b’Av 135:11, Rabbi Danzig writes, “Those that walk amongst non-Jews and are accustomed to wear shoes [on Tishah b’Av], although they are not to be protested against, since there are great [authorities] that permit [this custom]; nevertheless, there is no reason for this. And regarding [the argument] that the non-Jews will mock us— [already] without this [pretext] they mock us!” 28 This is also brought forth in the form of a law in Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Passover (130). The concise overview of the seder is given in part 7 of this klal: “The custom is that all of the household members raise the plate, and it is often that the wife is niddah and then she is embarrassed, or it brings about laughter; therefore, it is more correct that the wife never raise the plate, as was the custom of many great people.” 29 The quote from the Zohar can be translated: “Meritorious is the one who belittles himself in this world, how great is he and high in the world to come. . . . One that is small is great, and one that is great is small.” 30 This classic ethical treatise was written c. 1040 by Rabbi Baḥya ibn Pakudah of early eleventh-century Zaragoza, Spain. The book was originally written in Arabic but was translated into Hebrew by Rabbi Yehudah ben Shaul ibn Tibun, a member of a classic family of translators of the Rishonim. The Ḥovot ha-Levavot was published in many editions: Naples, 1590; Venice, 1648; Constantinople, 1650; Krakow, 1693; and others.

25

26

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

getting up, sexual relations, speech, and all the needs of the body— they should all be for the service of the Creator or for something that leads to His service. Even if one was thirsty and hungry, if he would eat [or drink] for his pleasure, then he is not praiseworthy; rather, one’s intention should be that his eating and drinking is for the maintenance of his life so that he can serve the Creator. Similarly, even if one sits in the intmate company of the upright and stands in the place of the righteous and goes in the counsel of the perfect; if he does [one of these actions] for his own pleasure, to fill his desire and lust, he is not praiseworthy, unless he does these [things] for the sake of Heaven. Regarding sleep—it is not necessary to state that at a time when one is able to be involved with Torah [study] and the commandments, one should not sleep excessively for personal pleasure; rather, even when one is tired and needs to sleep so that he will be refreshed. If he sleeps for mere physical enjoyment, he is not considered praiseworthy. Ultimately, one’s intention should be to sleep for bodily rest as is required to maintain one’s health, and not go insane in [the study of] Torah as a result of sleep deprivation. Similarly, with regard to sexual relations—even in fulfillment of the mandatory regular occasions that are mentioned in the Torah, if [a man] does it to fill his desire or to pleasure his body, this is to be condemned! Even if his intention was [to have sexual relations] in order to have children to serve him and [eventually] fill his place,31 this is not praiseworthy; rather, his intention should be to have children to serve the Creator or to fulfill the commandment of mandatory regular occasions of sexual relations like someone that repays a debt. Similarly, with speech—even when relating matters of wisdom, he must have the intention to serve the Creator or to have the intention that he is fulfilling the mitzvah of his sexual obligations [to his wife] as a person repaying a debt. Similarly in speech, even to discuss words of wisdom, his intention must be to serve the Creator or for something that will lead to His service. The general principle is this—a person is obligated to observe his path in life with his eyes and his heart and weigh all of his actions on the scale of his reason; and when he sees a thing that will bring him to the service of the 31 Regarding the possibility of passing positions in the community on to one’s son, see Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings 29:17.

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

Creator, His Name should be blessed, then he should do it, and if this is not the case, he should not do it. Those who conduct their life in this manner will constantly be serving the Creator (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 231). I have observed anshei ma’aseh (men of action) that said before eating: “Behold, I want to eat and drink in order to be healthy and strong for the service of the Creator, His Name should be blessed” (see below in [Ḥayei Adam] 35:4). This is the matter spoken of in the verse (Proverbs 6:22) “as you go forth, it will guide you; as you recline, it will guard you; and when you awake, it will converse with you,” and I explained that the intention of the verse is that one should be as a blind person, in that it is impossible for him to go unless someone leads him, and if he were to go alone, he would fall and be in a dangerous situation. So too, a person should consider, with regard to all his actions, that it is impossible for him to do anything unless it is sanctioned by the Torah, and this is what is said in the verse “as you go forth, it will guide you” (Proverbs 6:22). [This is] meaning to say that it will direct you even in a time when it is impossible for [a person] to be engaged in Torah; for example, at the time of sleep, he should know that it is waiting for you, from the language of “but his father kept the matter in mind” (Genesis 37:11), then immediately upon their arising, “it will converse with you” (Proverbs 6:22), [that is,] immediately it will meditate and speak with you. Just as the ḥasid (pious [author]) wrote in the Ḥovot ha-Levavot: “one should not sleep except on a bed of love, and not rise except with the sweetness of his memory.” Therefore, immediately upon stirring from sleep one should say, “I gratefully thank you, O living and eternal King, for You have returned my soul within me with compassion— great is Your faithfulness!” [This declaration can be said] even when one’s hands are not clean, since he have mentioned no Name of God. I do not believe that Rabbi Danzig makes a random choice when he begins his code with the theme of devekut. While this topic is found in many other halakhic and non-halakhic works as Mishneh Torah, Sefer ha-Ḥinukh, Ḥovot ha-Levavot, and so forth, no other work chooses to make this topic its opening declaration. The challenge of Hasidism, as found in other instances of the

27

28

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

Ḥayei Adam,32 was a primary issue for any Mitnagdic rabbi living in eighteenth-century Vilna. This is even more true for Rabbi Danzig, considered a student of two vigorous opponents of this movement, the Gra and Rabbi Landau. Rabbi Danzig does not end his discussion of devekut with the completion of paragraph 1. He later returns to the issue at the end of paragraph 5. Because of its importance, and since there exists no published English translation, I cite the section in full below: These are the commandments that are dependent upon the heart, and their obligation is constant, never ceasing for even a moment, and all the time that a person thinks of them he is fulfilling a positive commandment, for there is no limit for the giving of reward for the [fulfillment of] commandments. (1) To believe that there is a single God of the universe that created all that exists, and from His desire and will all that ever existed—present, past, and forever; and it was He who brought us out of Egypt and gave us the Torah. One should not suppose—Heaven forbid—that [all of existence and history] was by chance, but is instead the product of divine providence, for God, He should be blessed, supervises in all the worlds. This is a positive commandment, as it is written (Exodus 20:2): “I am the Lord, your God, Who has taken you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery.” The explanation of this verse is that you must know and believe that the world has a Divine Governor, for behold, “Who has taken you out of the land of Egypt” [is the proof of his supervision and control over His creation]. (2) Not to believe in any other power except for God, as it is said (Exodus 20:3): “You should not have another God before My Presence.” Even if one were to agree that the Holy One, blessed is He, controls the entire universe, except that one imagines in their mind that some portion of the control of the universe has been transferred to a malakh (angel), star, or human, this constitutes belief in idolatry and the denial of the essence of the Holy One, blessed is He. A person should believe that the Holy One, blessed is He, Himself in His Glory [alone] governs all the worlds and that there is no malakh, star, or any power capable of action without His Will; therefore, He is described as: “God of Gods (Elohei ha-Elohim)—He is the God of the Powers and the Lord of the Lords, the great, mighty, and awesome 32 See footnote 32.

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

God” (Deuteronomy 10:17). (3) His Unity, as it is said (Deuteronomy 6:4): “Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is the One and Only,” which means “Hear, O Israel and know that everything exists by His will and He, our God, is the Governor of all the worlds, and that He, God, is a complete unity, without any partner.” The matter of faith is in these three commandments, and it should be fixed in one’s heart that this is the truth, and that it is impossible to dislodge this truth no matter what. Even if one would see a wonder that indisputably proves some alternative [reality]—Heaven forbid—he should believe that the wonders are completely false as it is written in Parshat Re’eh (Deuteronomy 13:2–4): “If there should stand up in your midst a prophet or a dreamer of a dream, and he will produce for you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes about, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us follow gods of others that you did not know and we shall worship them!’—do not hearken to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of a dream, for the Lord, your God, is testing you to know whether you love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.”33 The truth is what we have received from our ancestors, for Adam, the first man, saw the universe was new, and transferred [that knowledge] to Methuselah, and [Methuselah] transferred [that knowledge] to [his grandson] Noah, and Noah [transferred that knowledge] to [his son] Shem and [and Shem] to Abraham until Moses Our Teacher, peace be upon him [wrote the account of the creation and history of Mankind in the Torah]. The Israelites did not believe in Moses Our Teacher, peace be upon him, because of the wonders; rather, it was solidified in what they saw at the time of the giving of the Torah. As a result of this, there is no reference in the Torah to “wonders” regarding the people of Israel; instead, the Torah says: “he performed the signs in the sight of the people” (Exodus 4:30); however, regarding Pharaoh it is written (Exodus 7:9): “when Pharaoh speaks to you, saying, ‘Provide a wonder for yourselves .  .  .’” (I write at length about this matter in the commentary on the Passover Haggadah). It was at the Giving of the Torah—the great, holy, and awesome experience that was witnessed by each person individually, more than 600,000 men, besides women 33 The third edition censored part of no. 3 that refers to “the philosopher.” It seems that Rabbi Danzig is referring to Immanuel Kant. See Shapiro, “Ha-mazkir ba’al Ḥayei Adam et Kant?”; and Kosover, “Ha-mazkir ba’al Ḥayei Adam et Kant.”

29

30

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

and children, as it is said in the verse (Deuteronomy 4:35): “you have been shown in order to know that the Lord, He is the God! There is none beside Him” “from the heavens above.” The word “God” indicates the language of power, as it is said (2 Kings 24:15): “the powerful men of the land,” which indicates that [the Lord] is the Power of all the Powers, as it is written (Psalms 136:2): “give thanks to the God of the Heavenly Powers [for His kindness endures forever],” meaning to say, to the Power of all the Powers (see this matter explained at length in chapter 1 of Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah in the Mishneh Torah). And as for these three commandments, they include the belief in the Exodus from Egypt and all of the signs and wonders that the Holy One Blessed be He performed through Moses, and the giving of the Torah—both Written and Oral. All that are [called by] the name ‘Israel’ are obligated to give over their bodies for a cruel death, as many thousands and tens of thousands of Israel have sanctified the Name of Heaven, so that nothing should be denied—Heaven forbid—either a small or a great matter from the Written Torah or the Oral Torah, which is the holy Gemara that explains the Written Torah as it was received by Moses Our Teacher, peace be upon him, on Mount Sinai. This explanation was received from the Holy One, blessed is He, by Moses and transmitted to Joshua, and so through the generations. We too have received [this tradition] for ourselves, and our offspring and our generations, to give over our bodies to be killed for this faith without any hesitation, and our souls and spirit will ascend to Heaven, to the place where they appeared. (4)34 To love the Omnipresent, blessed is He, as it is said (Deuteronomy 6:5): “you shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your resources.” This matter of love is achieved when a person places all of his thoughts and purpose for the love of God, may He be blessed. He should evaluate in his heart that all the joys in the world—from wealth, children, and honor—are all insignificant and like nothing compared to the love of the Blessed One. How does one achieve this level of love? It is through the Torah, as the verse states (Deuteronomy 6:5): “you shall love the Lord” and afterwards states (Deuteronomy 6:6): “And these matters that I command you today shall be upon your 34 Scholem, Kabbalah, 175 explains that through the kabbalistic literature, there is a running debate about whether devekut is achieved through either the love of God or the fear of God.

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

heart,” that is, through contemplation in the Torah, the love will come to rest in their heart. One who fixates his thoughts on the material things and vanities of the world not for the sake of Heaven, only to derive pleasure and to attain honor, has transgressed this positive commandment and their punishment is great. (5) To fear the Lord and place this fear on his Face always, as the verse states (Deuteronomy 6:13): “the Lord, your God, shall you fear.”35 The meaning of fear is to know that although the Holy One, blessed is He, is concealed from all, nevertheless He sees our actions and understands our thoughts, for He inspects the heart [of man] and is aware of all its secrets, as the verse states (Jeremiah 23:24): “can a man hide in concealment that I not see him?—the word of the Lord! Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?— the word of the Lord!” (6) Not to turn after the thoughts of the heart and the sight of the eyes, as it is said (Numbers 15:39): “. . . and do not explore after your heart and after your eyes after which you whore,” and the Sages explained the meaning of “after your heart” as a reference to heresy; and “after your eyes” as a reference to sexual immorality (BT Berakhot chapter 1 [12b]). In the general category of heresy are all foreign thoughts that are in opposition to the knowledge of the Torah.36 In the general category of sexual immorality are all the lusts of this world, and if a person concentrates his mind on filling the lust for a particular thing, he will be drawn to this one thing, to lust for it forever. These are the commandments that a person is capable of fulfilling every moment (Sefer ha-Ḥinukh 25 [belief in the existence of God], 426 and 417 [the unity of God], 418 [the love of God], 432 [to fear the Holy One, blessed is He], 387 [not to turn after the thoughts of the heart and the sight of the eyes]);37 and through this also to fulfill the additional positive commandment of “and to cleave to Him” (Deuteronomy 11:22).

35 This verse also appears in Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings 5:1. 36 In Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings 10:12, Rabbi Danzig writes regarding the law of Torah study: “it is permitted to learn other subjects of wisdom by chance, only that one does not read the books of the apikorsim.” 37 Different editions list different sources from the Sefer ha-Ḥinukh. The first two editions of the Ḥayei Adam list the following sources: the introduction, §§ 25, 26, 417, 418, 432, and 387. The sources listed in the above text are from a recent edition of the Ḥayei Adam.

31

32

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

Rabbi Danzig commences paragraph 5 with a statement that can be considered as a continuation of paragraph 1: how to perform devekut. He informs the reader what should be constantly in one’s mind and heart. The basis of his clarification is the Sefer ha-Ḥinukh.38 Some sections from the Sefer ha-Ḥinukh are quoted; others are paraphrased or added, but the Sefer ha-Ḥinukh is his basis and point of departure. The five subdivisions of paragraph 5 in Ḥayei Adam are as follows: subdivision one is based upon section 25 from Sefer ha-Ḥinukh; subdivision two is based upon section 28; three is based upon section 426; four is based upon section 417; five is based upon section 130 (although this source is not cited by Rabbi Danzig); and six is based upon section 387 (not 487). Rabbi Danzig’s conclusion also builds upon the works of prominent rabbinic authorities such as the Sefer ha-Ḥinukh, thus affording his stance credence. Rabbi Danzig emphasizes his understanding of devekut, in contrast to that offered by Hasidism, in the conclusion of the section, where he writes that the principles he has listed will also enable his readers to “fulfill the additional positive commandment of ‘and to cleave to Him’ (Deuteronomy 11:22),” thus implying that devekut is the overriding theme of this preamble. The Ḥayei Adam chooses not to cite the Sefer ha-Ḥinukh 434 that uses this passage from Deuteronomy to prove that devekut means to cleave to Torah scholars.39 This was once again part of the polemic with Hasidim, arguing that the full realization of the mystical cleaving to God can only be accomplished by the tzaddik (or, in our case, the Torah scholar). An additional point that directs the reader of the Ḥayei Adam towards Rabbi Danzig’s rejection of Hasidism is found in 5:2. In explaining the prohibition of idol worship, Rabbi Danzig identifies three elements that can lead to this sin: angels, stars (hosts of heaven), and human beings. The Sefer ha-Ḥinukh 28 connects the discussion of idol worship to Naḥmanides’ commentary on Exodus 20:3: “You should not have another God before My Presence.” Naḥmanides identifies three categories of idol worship: angels, stars, and metaphysical beings such as evil spirits and other gods. Only while discussing the topic of stars does Naḥmanides include the human beings. He writes that one of these categories: 38 This work was published anonymously in thirteenth-century Spain. Contemporary scholars have voiced different suggestions as to the author of this book. See Yisrael Ta-Shema, “Meḥabero ha-amiti shel Sefer ha-Ḥinukh,” Kiryat Sefer 55 (1980): 787–790. 39 Rabbi Danzig also ignores a similar explanation of devekut found in TB Ketubot 110b. He does cite section 130 from the Sefer ha-Ḥinukh but does not discuss its content.

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

. . . was the worship of human beings. When people of a country saw that a certain individual, such as Nebuchadnezzar, had great power, and that his star was very much in the ascendancy, they thought that by accepting his worship upon themselves and directing their thought towards him, their star would also ascend toward his. They would also think that by their attaching their thoughts to him, his success would be augmented on account of the power of their souls directed towards him. . . . Naḥmanides does not include human beings into a separate category, as he suggests that all worship of humans is ultimately triggered by the influence of stars. For Rabbi Danzig, however, humans are a major issue. I suggest that Rabbi Danzig’s choice of including “human being” as a category of idol worship alludes to the Hasidic leader—the rebbe or the tzaddik. The Hasid believed that if he could not achieve devekut alone, it could be accomplished through his attachment to the tzaddik.40 Rabbi Danzig takes care to warn his readers that this practice should be dismissed as idolatry.

Preamble 2: Clarification From klal 36:1 and 2; the Laws of Washing Hands (Netilat Yadayim): 1. The hands are busy and touch everything. In the times when purity and contamination were practiced and the Kohanim (priests) ate the terumah, they were required to wash their hands before eating the terumah, as they were warned to not contaminate it. As a result [of all this], the Sages decreed the proper washing of all (stam) hands for [eating] terumah. In order that the Kohanim be familiar with this [matter], the Sages decreed also for all who eat bread—that it is prohibited to eat until one first washes his hands with a revi’it of water. All those that scorn netilat yadayim will be uprooted from the world. This commandment assists one who is careful with its performance, and his other actions cannot invalidate [this], it is a good omen (segulah) that this one will be wealthy. King Solomon, peace be upon him, and his court established netilat yadayim for a meal. 40 Piekarz, “Hasidism as a Socio-Religious Movement,” discuses this attachment to the tzaddik in greater detail.

33

34

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

2. The law of netilat yadayim contains five general categories. (1) The things that obligate one to netilat yadayim.41 (2) The vessel should be kosher for netilat yadayim.42 (3) The water should come from human power.43 (4) The water [itself] should be appropriate for netilat yadayim.44 (5) The actual performance of netilat yadayim.45 In explanation: Netilat yadayim is only required for bread over which the blessing of ha-motzi is said,46 for this is the life of the spirit and it is impossible to stay alive without it. However, bread over which the blessing of ha-motzi is not said - for example, things for which the blessing “borei minei mezonot” is said,47 if one is not establishing a meal on them - then netilat yadayim is not required. But when one is establishing a meal containing these foods, then they are similar to bread and one is required to say the blessing of ha-motzi over them, and one is also required to properly wash his hands. Rabbi Danzig clearly adheres to the stated goal of his code—to assist laymen to correctly and quickly comprehend Rabbi Karo’s Shulḥan Arukh with its multitude of commentaries. Specifically, if we explore the laws of netilat yadayim, I do not believe Rabbi Danzig was concerned about the failure of his Jewish readers to observe the halakhic obligation to wash their hands. Rather, his introduction suggests his concern for accurate adherence to the letter of the law. For the ignorant with little learning, tradition and folk behavior often distort the correct practice of the law. Thinking that the rules of purity are only relevant for the priests in Temple times, a halakhic Jew might thus not understand the critical importance of the laws of netilat yadayim for himself. Thus, the Ḥayei Adam commences this section by clarifying the historical necessity of correctly washing one’s hands before eating bread. Words of musar are also included to intensify the importance of observance of these laws and consequences of a lapse in observance. In his introduction, Rabbi Danzig explains the reason and background for 41 These laws are discussed in Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings 37. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid. 36:2–10. 45 Ibid. 40. 46 Ibid. 42:1. 47 Ibid. 54.

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

these regulations, as well as presenting the blueprint of the laws regarding ritually washing one’s hands before eating bread. This blueprint includes five categories or steps that should be followed in order to accurately perform this ritual obligation.

Preamble 3: History From klal 154:1 and 2; The Laws of Ḥanukah: 1. During the [time of the] Second Temple, when evil kings ruled, they issued decrees upon Israel and proscribed the Jewish religion and the Jews were not free to engage in Torah [study] and [the performance of the] commandments. They (the tyrants) extended their hands over their (the Jews’) money and over their daughters;48 they entered the heikhal [in the Temple in Jerusalem] and breached boundaries and defiled (that) which was ritually pure; and were a severe affliction for Israel and a great oppression, until the God of our ancestors was merciful upon them, saved them (the Jews) from their (the tyrants’) hands, and rescued them, and the sons of the Ḥashmona’im, the High Priests, were strengthened and they killed them (the tyrants) and saved Israel from their hand. They appointed a king from the Kohanim and sovereignty returned to Israel for more than two hundred years, until the destruction of the [Second] Temple [by the Romans in the year 70 CE].49 2. When Israel prevailed over its enemies and destroyed them, it was on the 25th day of the [lunar] month of Kislev. They entered the heikhal [in the Temple in Jerusalem] and found only a single container of pure oil in [all of] the Temple [precincts]; and it was only enough [oil] to kindle [the Menorah] for a single day, and they kindled the nerot ha-ma’arakhah (Lights of the Menorah) from it for eight days, until olives were crushed and pure oil was extracted [from them]. Because of this, the Sages of that generation established that these eight days, beginning on 25 Kislev would be days of joy and praise, and that during them, lights would be kindled in the evening at the doors of the houses [of the Israelites] 48 See the prominence of women in resisting the enemy in Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Ḥanukah 154:3. 49 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Fasts and Tishah b’Av 133:4–5 and 137.

35

36

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

for each and every night of the eight nights to show and to reveal the miracle [that occurred]. These [eight] days are called Ḥanukah, meaning to say, “rested on the 25th,” for on the 25th [day of Kislev] they rested from their enemies. Although the miracle of the oil was for only seven days [and not eight], as there was enough to kindle [the Menorah] for one day, nevertheless, even without the miracle of the oil, it was appropriate to establish that on the 25th day they rested from their enemies to praise and to thank [the Lord], just as the Sages had set [the celebration of] Purim on the day that they rested. And because on that day [of Ḥanukah] they also found the oil [in the Temple], the Sages established that one should also kindle [the Ḥanukah lights] the night before as well, to publicize the miracle of the oil also on that day.50 The author of the Ḥayei Adam commences his introduction to the Laws of Ḥanukah with a direct quote from Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah (3:1). Maimonides, in turn, had based his historical facts upon BT Shabbat 21a– b’s historical account of the holiday. Rabbi Danzig introduces one change into his text. Maimonides wrote, “During the [time of the] Second Temple, when Greek kings ruled [over Israel].  .  . .” Rabbi Danzig adds the word “evil kings.” He chooses not to identify or name these rulers. After citing Maimonides, Rabbi Danzig amends Maimonides’ historical report with an elucidation as to why the lights are kindled for eight days. He emphasizes the military victory, something the Talmud chose to downplay. His discussion then tackles the question of why we celebrate eight days and not seven. The miracle of the oil was only for seven days, since there was enough oil for the first day; the miracle was that after the first day, the oil continued to burn for seven more days. Rabbi Danzig takes this query from the Beit Yosef, Rabbi Karo’s commentary on the Tur Shulḥan Arukh (siman 154). As we can establish from the text, there is no reference to the Beit Yosef in the text or in Rabbi Danzig’s commentary, the Nishmat Adam. What motivated Rabbi Danzig to change Maimonides’ wording from “Greek kings” to “evil kings”?51 Furthermore, in a halakhic compendium that aims to be concise and records only what the author felt to be relevant, 50 The section that Rabbi Danzig added after quoting Maimonides is given in italics. 51 In the 1876 edition of the Ḥayei Adam, published in Vilna, the text reads “During the Second Temple, when King Antiochus ruled. . . .” It is not clear why the publisher made this change, possibly because of censorship.

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

why include a story with which every schoolchild was acquainted? Also, having quoted Maimonides’ version, why was it necessary to augment it with an alternative proposal regarding the miracle and the celebration of Ḥanukah? A clarification of these issues requires revisiting Rabbi Danzig’s background and objectives in authoring the Ḥayei Adam. As discussed above, Rabbi Danzig studied in Central Europe, in Prague, under the tutelage of Rabbi Yeḥezkel Landau, the author of the Noda bi-Yhudah. Rabbi Landau saw great danger for Judaism in the invasion of German ideas, beginning with the German translation of the Bible by Moses Mendelssohn and the developing Haskalah movement.52 This movement, characterized by rationalistic enlightenment, challenged the “non-rational” aspects of Judaism and called into question the accuracy of historical facts. The Maskilim preached the need for chronological order in historical events and insisted that familiarity with geography and world history was a prerequisite for an understanding of Jewish history. The Maskilim did not deny divine intervention in history, but no longer regarded it as a full and sufficient historical explanation. For most of the early Maskilim, the forerunners of Reform Judaism, many customs and ceremonies of traditional Judaism were seen as unnecessary and inappropriate.53 Rabbi Landau was considered one of the early opponents of the Haskalah.54 This, I believe, was a strong influence on Rabbi Danzig’s worldview. During the period when he was involved in business, Rabbi Danzig visited Germany, where he witnessed firsthand the new trends in Judaism.55 Together with other rabbinic authorities who were the primary spokesmen in the polemic against the erosion of religion, he perceived clearly the new trends that threatened their world.56

52 There have been many volumes penned concerning the beginnings of the Haskalah and its impact on the Jews in Central and Western Europe. For example, see Jacob Katz, Out of the Ghetto (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 142–160. 53 See Michael M. Meyer, Response to Modernity, A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1988), 15–25. 54 See footnote 6 for a list of biographies of Rabbi Landau; also, on Rabbi Landau and the Haskalah, see Ben-Zion Z. Katz, Rabanut, Hasidut, Haskalah [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1956), 196–300. 55 Although the Haskalah in Russia did not become popular until later in the nineteenth century, its beginnings were felt in Vilna. See Klausner, The Jewish Community of Vilno, 46–49. 56 See Shmuel Feiner, The Origins of Jewish Secularization in Eighteenth-Century Europe (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010), 98.

37

38

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

Rabbi Danzig also included his apprehensions in the Ḥayei Adam. First, he wanted to validate the talmudic account of Ḥanukah, not as a child’s tale, but rather as the accepted and therefore authentic version of the rabbis. He cites Maimonides’ presentation of the Ḥanukah story in the same manner in which he presents any other ruling in the Ḥayei Adam. But to avoid any misunderstanding, he clarifies a historical fact. It was not the Greeks or their kings who were the evildoers, but rather the Seleucids or the Hellenistic Syrians. The rabbi therefore changes the word “Greek [kings]” to “evil [kings],” thus avoiding any historical disagreements without rejecting Maimonides’ text.57 Although his declaration regarding the history of Ḥanukah is based on the talmudic account, the author of the Ḥayei Adam wanted to offer his reader a different approach without contradicting the first one. As stated above, in the context of answering a query posed by Rabbi Yosef Karo in his commentary, the Beit Yosef, on the Tur Shulḥan Arukh—why we celebrate eight days long if there was enough oil for the first day, and only the next seven days were part of the miracle—the Ḥayei Adam offers an alternative rabbinic approach for the celebration of the holiday, a military victory.58 This alone would be sufficient reason to commemorate Ḥanukah (as we do on Purim) even without the miracle of the lights. Thus, “the Sages established that one should also kindle [the Ḥanukah lights] the night before as well, to publicize the miracle of the oil also on that day.” This answer implicitly places the holiday in a different perspective designed to satisfy the potential queries of an uncertain reader.

57 Although, as I suggest, Rabbi Danzig reacts to his social reality, his argument emphasizing the military victory is based upon early rabbinical authorities. For a list of these rabbinical authorities and a discussion on this topic, see Mishnah Berurah, Oz ve-Hadar edition, siman 670, footnotes 11–12, and Talmudic Encyclopedia, vol. 16, 239– 243 and the footnotes there. 58 Rabbi Danzig most probably concluded this from BT Shabbat 22 and Maimonides. Both these sources emphasized the miracle of the oil and placed the military victory as ancillary. While available in the eighteenth century, Sefer Yosippon - which details this text - was most probably not read by the rabbi.

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

Concluding Remarks Emile Durkheim59 divides the world into two radically different domains— the sacred60 and the profane. Physical boundaries are created to separate these antonymous domains from each other, so that the sacred is excluded from the physical world and represents an ideal and transcendental universe. To allow the sacred to cross these boundaries and enter into the world of the profane would mean an adulteration of the sacred. The ramifications of this transgression would directly affect the organizational structure of a religious community, and severely weaken the community as a whole. To complement Durkheim’s theory of the sacred and the profane, I turn to the words of Rudolf Otto: “We generally take ‘holy’ as meaning ‘completely good’; it is the absolute moral attribute, denoting the consummation of moral goodness. . . . We may speak of the holiness or sanctity of duty or law, meaning merely that they are imperative upon conduct and universally obligatory.”61 Rabbi Avraham Danzig was aware of the importance of the holy in the life of the Jew. As he showed throughout the Ḥayei Adam, there was no place in the Jew’s world for the profane; only one domain could be considered, that of the sacred. I have explored representative examples of the rabbi’s approach as demonstrated in the preambles to his work. For Rabbi Danzig, the profane or the blasphemous included not only the behavior, values, and attributes of the secular world, but also such semi-religious movements as the Haskalah and religious movements like Hasidism. These movements and their philosophies both crossed the lines of traditional rabbinic Judaism and threatened its authority. To understand how crossing the boundaries between the sacred and the profane would affect the community, I turn to Mary Douglas’ groupgrid theory.62 Dr. Douglas explains that a strong legal system, which she calls a grid, encourages strong leadership and helps to maintain a unified collective. However, “as insulation decreases, the organizing principles of society become increasingly obscure. As statuses themselves become 59 Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1982). 60 For a further discussion of the sacred and the holy, see Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy (London: Oxford University Press, 1950), 5–11. 61 Ibid., 5. 62 Mary Douglas, Cultural Bias (London: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1979).

39

40

Preambles: An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam

challenged, each world view that partly reinforces a status pattern becomes challengeable.”63 Rabbi Danzig was cognizant of these dangers. He also understood that in a diverse society, as manifested in his Jewish world, a strong legal system brings people together. Solidarity overcomes diversity and strengthens the collective. Rabbi Danzig understood that he lived in a time and place where cultural or linguistic diversity was not the greatest challenge to his religious community as long as the strength of the traditional authorities was maintained. A bigger threat consisted of the new neo-religious groups, with their strong connection to the secular world, and the Orthodox groups that opposed the traditional hierarchy. The rabbi used his book of halakhah as a platform to teach proper behavior and theology to his readers. While so far I have only explored this argument in selected preambles, there is much room for broader research of Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s entire body of written works, beginning with the Ḥayei Adam itself.

63 Ibid., 10.

2

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam— the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

Introduction The topic of customs (minhagim) in Rabbi Danzig’s1 code of law, Ḥayei Adam, is of specific interest. To illustrate this theme, my discussion will center on one particular tradition, the prohibition - adopted by the Ashkenazic Jews - of eating legumes (kitniyot)2 on Passover. Rabbi Danzig published two editions of the Ḥayei Adam in his lifetime, the first in 1810 and the second in 1818. Only the second edition contains a chapter (klal) entitled “The Law of Things that are Prohibited because of Custom,” and it is here that the topic of customs is greatly elaborated upon. To appreciate what Rabbi Danzig knew and what he did not know, we need to consider that - like all rabbinic authorities - he only had access to the talmudic literature and its commentaries, plus that legal literature of various rabbis which had found its way into print. While the Israelites had long celebrated Passover by not eating bread or leavening agents to recall the story of their miraculous liberation from slavery in Egypt, additional stringencies were developed over time to intensify the biblical injunctions concerning these foods and the utensils used 1 Rabbi Danzig was born in 1748 and died in Vilna in 1820. 2 For a discussion of prohibition of eating kitniyot on Passover, see Yisrael Ta-Shema, “Isur kitniyot b’Pesach—Toledotav u’pesharo,” Asufot: Sefer shana l’mada’ei ha’yahadut 3 (1999): 347–355.

42

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

with them. At some point in the Middle Ages, Jewish communities in France and Germany began refraining from eating certain vegetables or legumes (kitniyot) on Passover. This practice seemed quite localized at first, but in time it spread to communities identified as “Ashkenazic,” including the Jews of Poland and Russia. When this prohibition came to the notice of the rabbinic authorities, it was already accepted as an established practice. These authorities or poskim, consistent with general Ashkenazic views, saw merit in popular minhag (folk tradition) and gave reasonable explanations to justify it. They encouraged dedication to - and preservation of - traditions, even if such minhagim were not popular in the scholarly world. Most of these poskim surmised that this Passover observance (minhag) originated from legitimate concerns, although some saw this as mere ignorance and error. It was clear to all of them that none of the Tannaim,3 Amoraim,4 Geonim,5 or even scholars of the twelfth century6 revealed knowledge of the custom. Modern scholars place considerable weight on the final paragraph of Laws of Passover in the ninth-century Halakhot Ketzuvot, which informs its readers that all types of kitniyot are permitted on Passover and festivals. Yisrael Ta-Shema7 and others suggest that this explicit permission to eat kitniyot was added to express opposition to the practice of those who presumably would refrain from eating kitniyot on any Jewish festival day. Such people did this, presumably, because some foods, like the spices specified in the Talmud (BT Beitzah 14a), might sometimes be subjected to rigorous crushing with a pestle on festivals (Yom Tov), which was forbidden on these days. As stated, in the ninth century, some Jews prohibited eating kitniyot on Passover (although it is specifically permitted in talmudic literature) and on any other festival. Here is an indication as to the true origins of the Passover kitniyot custom. Whatever the cause of this custom, it seems to have been preserved by some Ashkenazic communities on Passover because controlling food types on that holiday week was originally a biblical issue (and this festival was a time of greater sensitivities to food prohibitions). However, when the first discussions concerning the remnants of 3 Mekhilta Rabbi Yishmael to Exodus 12:15. 4 BT Pesaḥim 35a. 5 Halakhot Ketzuvot. 6 Sefer ha-Minhagot (Provence, the first decade of the thirteenth century) cites R. Manoah’s gloss rejecting a prohibition of zeronim (pureed beans) in his comments to Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, Laws of Ḥametz and Matzah, 5:1. This section of Sefer ha-Minhagot is no longer extant. 7 Ta-Shema, “Isur kitniyot b’Pesaḥ,” 276, note.

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

this rare Passover practice emerged, it was presented as an already established custom. The poskim either had to dismiss this custom as nonsense or justify it by giving it a binding status. Most adjudicators did the latter, and therefore, for various reasons, what had been a popular custom soon took on the guise of a rabbinic communal decree. The mainstream rabbinic reasoning was the following: kitniyot are used to produce starchy flours so that their products might be confused with wheat, rye, oat, spelt, and barley flour that are prohibited on Passover. Moreover, the practice of eating kitniyot-based flours might lead some people to assume that all flours are permitted. Finally, kitniyot and their products might be stored together with the forbidden food, which will rub off on them. The first poskim to discuss the prohibition mitigated its severity: even prohibited grains could be eaten if placed quickly in boiling water and so “sealed,” so kitniyot could be consumed if first placed in boiling water. How could an act which permitted “actually proscribed flour” not permit “actually admissible flour”!8 This was the opinion of Rabbi Shmuel of Falaise (died c. 1300, quoted in Or Zaru’a, part 2, fol. 58c) also mentioned by Rabbeinu Peretz in his comments to Semak (Sefer Mitzvot Katan) 222.9 Rabbi Shmuel also mentions that the She’elot of Rabbi Aḥai Gaon records the custom of not eating kitniyot on any festival, a custom he dismisses as baseless. Our texts of this Gaonic work have no such record. Rabbeinu Peretz stated that the rabbis of bygone years did not eat beans, rice, and lentils. Likewise, Orḥot Ḥayyim,10 Hilkhot Ḥametz u-Matzah 55 quotes Rabbi Shmuel bar Mordekhai (Provence, d. 1300) who states that fast-boiling would mitigate the proscription. In his Tur Shulḥan Arukh (section 453), Rabbi Ya’akov ben Asher (c. 1275–c. 1340) explains that some authorities prohibit the eating of rice and legumes on Passover, since grains may become mixed in with them. He considers this stringency unnecessary and advises against it. Rabbi Yosef Karo (Spain, 1488–Safed, Israel, 1575), in his extensive Beit Yosef commentary (453:1) to this work, cites the prohibition as mentioned by Semak. In the name of his teacher Rabbi Shalom of Neustadt (Maharash, c. 1350–c. 1413), Rabbi Ya’akov Moelin (Maharil, 1360–1427) writes that we decree that all types of kitniyot are not to be used on 8 The process of sealing by instant boiling, ḥalitah, was not understood in the sixteenth century and poskim no longer referred to it. Ḥayei Adam forbids cooking or boiling kitniyot in water, consonant with Maharil. 9 The Semak was authored by Rabbi Yitzchak ben Yosef of Corbeil (died 1280). 10 Attributed to Rabbi Aharon ha-Kohen, fourteenth century.

43

44

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

Passover, even though only the five species of grain can become leaven. . . . In any case, this decree dealt with all types of kitniyot because of them [the five species]. And a person should not say that since there is no Torah prohibition, he should not worry about this since [violating] any decree of the rabbis is subject to the death penalty since he [the culprit] violates the commandment “you should not deviate from what I instruct you (Deuteronomy 17:11).” In his Shulḥan Arukh, Rabbi Yosef Karo does not prohibit kitniyot. His code was aimed at Spanish communities, which in general had never accepted any such injunction. In his gloss to the Shulḥan Arukh 453, Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema, c. 1530–1572), presenting the Ashkenazic law, states: “There are [authorities] who forbid kitniyot. It is the practice of Ashkenazic [communities] to be stringent. One should not deviate [from this practice].” With the onset of the Haskalah we find various writers and even traditional scholars opposing the prohibition of kitniyot. Consequently, the author of the Ḥayei Adam addresses these issues in klal 127 at length, and again in his Nishmat Adam commentary. The following is the (first) English translation of klal 127 from Ḥayei Adam.11

Chapter 127: 13 Paragraphs The Law of Things that are Prohibited because of Custom 1. [We discuss here] all varieties of kitniyot (legumes), for example, raiyz (rice), hirz (millet), grike (buckwheat), and anything else whether whole or ground into flour, which never rise through leavening processes. Even when left for a long time soaking in water, such items putrefy (without rising). According to Torah law, it is permitted [on Passover] for people to eat them or to make anything they want from their flour. However, the rabbinic authorities, several hundred years ago, adopted the custom of prohibiting them because the uneducated may err and say, “what is the difference between the flour made from kitniyot and the flour made from the five species of grain [prohibited by Torah law].” This would happen because they are unaware of the unique principles behind the Torah 11 I want to thank my friend and colleague Mr. Dashiell Ferguson for this translation and commentary.

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

prohibitions. As a result of this likelihood, the entire Diaspora of the Exile of the Ashkenazim has the custom of prohibiting kitniyot during Passover. Also, in the states of Poland, since the Jews living there are considered to be from the family of the Ashkenazim, the custom is to prohibit [kitniyot]. Even to cook any kitniyot, [such as] retzka (buckwheat), orez (rice), and doḥan (millet), is prohibited because of possible mistakes. The earlier authorities enacted these rules to avoid erroneous conclusions, for in their days it was permissible to cook these legumes,12 and even now in some places they make flour from them, which is also done from the five species [of grain prohibited by the Torah]. There will be those that say [due to their ignorance], “just as it is permitted to cook these [species of kitniyot], it is permitted to cook the five species of grain [prohibited by the Torah].” This is because they do not know that [only] the five species of grain can come to be leavened. Since this custom was adopted by our ancestors, it is prohibited for us to change [a custom], as we are instructed by [the verse,] “and do not forsake the teaching of your mother” (Proverbs 1:8). However, it is permitted to grind and bake them like matzot and eat them [during Passover]. [One should know,] with regard to all the customs of [the People of] Israel, that [the prohibition of] a certain thing, even if not originally enacted as an ordinance but having originated as a custom people accepted upon themselves, becomes sanctioned as “a prohibition from the words of the Prophets [and Hagiographa]” according to the verse: “And do not forsake the teaching of your mother” (Proverbs 1:8). On the other hand, it is prohibited by strict Torah law to change something that was established by the Sages [of previous generations], or even by the authorities in our time, who make a [protective] fence (seyag) and boundary for the Torah. This prohibition is derived from the verse, “you shall not deviate [from the word that they will tell you, right or left” (Deuteronomy 17:11). The Sages explained the following rule: the Torah insisted that a rabbinic decree is inviolable, but when the outcome of a case is doubtful, it is treated leniently. Therefore, in an emergency situation where a person has nothing to eat and will suffer great hardship (possibly endangering his health) [during Passover], it is 12 To seal them from fermenting (ḥalitah), as mentioned earlier.

45

46

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

permitted to cook kitniyot and other such things.13 Nevertheless, [even in this emergency situation] if it were possible to avoid orez (rice), doḥan (millet), and retzka (buckwheat), which is called tatarki,14 they should be avoided because they most resemble the five species [of grain prohibited by the Torah] (see what I wrote in Nishmat Adam 28). Nevertheless, if some of these [kitniyot] fell into some cooked food [during Passover], it is permitted to eat the mixture if the majority is of permitted [non-kitniyot] ingredients and the kitniyot [present in the cooked dish] are not solidly intact, and whatever is identifiable should be thrown out. It is permitted to kindle [lights] with their oils [as fuels] and to derive benefit from them. However, it is prohibited to make brandy from them (see Nishmat Adam 31). Similarly, the custom is not to eat mustard15 even if it was mixed before Passover in wine [and technically is a mixture], and similar items, since the normal way of using them is to mix them. Nevertheless, it is permitted to keep all these other species [of kitniyot] in one’s house [during Passover], even if water was spilled on them, and even if they sprout. 2. A further custom observed by our ancestors was not to eat dried fruit [during Passover], if it was not clearly known that they were dried in a way such there would be no concern that there was any contact with leavened food (ḥametz). For example, they should not have been dried in an oven which leavened food (ḥametz) 13 See the Nishmat Adam on the Laws of Passover (20), where Rabbi Danzig (1748–1820) writes of an incident of severe famine in 1771 that caused a beit din in a place he refers to as k”k Fyurda in Ashkenaz (Fürth in Bavaria) to permit “bulbes [potatoes], which is called [in German] erdapyel [Erdapfel] because there they made them [the potatoes] into flour.” See Igrot Moshe (part 3, siman 63) regarding whether a particular species is included in the custom of kitniyot. See the Sefer Ma’aseh Rav (184), which records the stringent opinion of Eliyahu (Gaon) of Vilna (1720–1797), and the comment in Sha’ar ha-Tziyun (453:6), which cites the lenient opinion of the Ḥayei Adam regarding kitniyot in an emergency situation. 14 This is Tartar buckwheat, Fagopyrum tataricum, a domesticated plant not related to the grass family, which has a more bitter taste than common buckwheat. 15 The seeds of various species of Old World plants (white or yellow mustard or Sinapis hirta, brown or Indian mustard or Brassica juncea, and black mustard or Brassica nigra) are customarily ground and mixed with water, vinegar, and wine (the process is described by Ba’er Heitev 464:2), as well as other ingredients like flour. The use of this condiment was widespread in Roman times, especially mustard seeds mixed with unfermented grape juice. The custom of refraining from mustard on Passover is found in the Rema (464).

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

had been baked in, but dried in an oven that was properly made kosher [for Passover], or dried in the sun. Similarly, the custom of our ancestors was not to eat [on Passover] dried figs or raisins, whether large or small, because there were likely to have been sprinkled flour during their preparation. Similarly, the skins of pomerantzin (golden apples) are treated like dried fruit. Nevertheless, the custom is to permit drinking the beverage made from raisins. Similarly, the custom in a few places is to buy dried fruit from a non-Jew, pour cold water over it and soak it until they form a beverage. However, to cook the beverage with fruit, the custom is to prohibit this, and not to eat the fruit. As to the vessels with which one doled out the beverage, the custom is not to use them for something else. The reason [for this custom] is due to the concern that some tiny amount of leavened food (ḥametz) may have clung to these [dried fruits], and therefore they are not eaten. However, the custom is to drink the beverage, because the tiny [amount of possible leavened food (ḥametz)] is nullified before Passover, as its ratio will be less than one to sixty. Even if it were also soaking on Passover, nevertheless, one should not be stringent here. Regarding the custom of not cooking [dried fruit], it is because through cooking the taste [of the leaven] is increased. Even though there are non-Jews that dry the fruit in an oven after bread was baked in it, nevertheless, it is a case of an indirect transfer of bread flavor. [Here, without any presence of actual bread, bread flavor is indirectly passed on to a second food product.] The principle of the Jewish law permits the second item to be consumed on Passover. Although we normally rule that reception of an indirect flavor disqualifies the receiving item on Passover, in this particular case, there is a doubt: perhaps most of the fruit was dried in the sun or after the oven was heated and before [any bread] was baked in it. Therefore, there are places where the custom is to be lenient. In other places, the custom is to be strict as well in this matter (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 467, discussed in Rabbi Avraham Gombiner’s Magen Avraham 8). Therefore, the general custom is not to eat saffron (zaferen),16 16 Saffron is a spice made from the dried flowers of Crocus sativus, native to southwest Asia. The word used by the Ḥayei Adam, ‫( זאפערן‬zaferen), appears in Mishnah Berurah (168:30) as ‫זאפר״ן‬.

47

48

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

cloves (negelikh),17 and mustard (zeneft).18 Regarding honey, the custom is not to eat it except specifically when it was purchased from a barrel that had [honey] mixed in with wax. There are those that say that [honey is permitted] specifically when it comes from the comb with the little compartments not yet crushed, for there is the concern that it was mixed with flour to thicken [the honey]. One is required to investigate and know the customs of various locations [where honey is produced], for there are regions where they [routinely] put bread on the honeycombs after they are taken out of the oven as well as other things that are leavened food (ḥametz). In a situation where the concern is legitimate, the honey is prohibited to be eaten when there are solid pieces present. However, it is permitted to make mead-brew [honey-wine] from this honey before Passover. 3. Concerning granulated natural sugar, which is termed muscovad[o] or “red sugar” and requires no further processing, my master and teacher wrote in his work, Noda bi-Yhudah 24,19 that it is a widespread custom to [permit sugar during Passover if] it is accompanied by authoritative-supervisory certification from Hamburg or from Amsterdam. For in those areas where sugar cane is grown, flour is very expensive; thus, there is no worry [they will substitute it for flour]. Yet, in those areas [where the sugar is imported and flour is cheap] there is a danger of fraud. Namely, the sugar might be mixed with [cheap, forbidden] flour and so the custom is that when sugar is brought by ship from the place it is grown to Hamburg or Amsterdam, the rabbi sends an agent to seal the barrels and the barrels are delivered sealed with the authoritative-supervisory certification of the rabbi. There is another variety of sugar called “powdered sugar,” which is boiled in the place where it is grown. Nevertheless, the custom has spread out [and become normative] in some places to eat it [on Passover]. My master and my teacher, in [his responsa] Noda bi-Yhudah, wrote 17 The dried aromatic flowers of Syzygium aromaticum, an evergreen tree native to what is now Indonesia, and used as a spice in cooking. The word used by the Ḥayei Adam, ‫נעגליך‬ (negelikh), appears to be based on the Dutch kruidnagel, and related to the German Nelke or Gewürznelke. 18 Yiddish ‫( זענעפט‬zeneft—the word used by the Ḥayei Adam) and the German Senf refer to black mustard. 19 Also see the responsa Noda bi-Yhudah (Prague, 1811), vol. 2, 72.

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

that it is prohibited to eat it when it is an identifiable solid; rather, one should boil it to dissolve it [in water] before Passover in order that it will be subject to the the rule of “liquid in liquid” [which is nullified] before Passover. Loaf [or cone sugar] is customarily eaten on Passover but it needs authoritative certification. Despite the fact that loaf sugar is not presumed to be leavened food (ḥametz), it should be sold in accordance with the laws of selling leavened food (ḥametz) [before Passover]; but, in the event one did not sell it, it is permissible to own it. The same applies to tobacco in the places where it is sold in packages: since it is cut into small pieces [and could be adulterated with prohibited alcohol], one cannot use it [on Passover] unless it is accompanied by authoritative documentation. The reason for this is that brandy is poured over it. I know that because I have investigated the manufacturers that produce snuff tobacco, which is inhaled through the nose; the packaged tobacco is moistened with the forbidden wine of the Gentiles. Gentile wine is a substance from which one is prohibited to derive benefit. There are still men who fear [Heaven], who have a custom to use these items. The reason we are customarily lenient in this matter is because of the great financial loss involved by forbidding it; see Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 123. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to take care not to inhale snuff tobacco. All these things are permitted to remain in one’s house during Passover and the use of their mixtures is not prohibited. With regard to the soaked mixtures of sugar that cover fruits or spices, most of the coatings contain definite leavened food (ḥametz) [and so all are forbidden]. 4. It is customary not to use glazed vessels on Passover, for there are those who say that they are set [and fired] with bran, and there are those that say that one shall safeguard old [and fragile] vessels [that could be ruined when koshering them]. Therefore, one should not use them except if a supervisor is in place who could see from the outset the process of the setting of the glaze up to the final firing of it in the oven. Similarly, one should not use colored vessels (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 451). 5. It is customary in these regions not to eat matzah ashirah (enriched matzah using fruit juices or eggs but no water) [during the festival

49

50

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

of Passover] even if [the flour] was kneaded alone with [pure] fruit juice without the presence of any water at all.20 6. All of these things are [prohibited due to] a custom of our ancestors. It is permitted [to utilize them] in a situation of great need, or for a sick person, even if [they are] not in mortal danger, or for the need of a child, if there is great need for such (an item). 7. We deal here (in the following cases) with matters that are permitted. Now, [let us consider two similar situations. First, imagine that] some person created the custom to prohibit some things because he was under the impression that such things were truly prohibited by law, but now it has been made clear to him that these things are in fact permitted. [And a second situation:] one thought that there was a serious prohibition and it was made clear to him that it was minor. [In these cases], the law is as follows. There are those who say that both these persons require formal rabbinic permission to drop what has in effect become a legal vow. However, the Rema wrote in Yoreh De’ah 214, end of the first paragraph, that the practice is in accord with those who say that it is not a vow at all, and [therefore] one does not require formal permission to forgo it. According to this [approach], those who have the custom to eat matzah shmurah (guarded matzah)21 all the days of Passover because they mistakenly thought it was a commandment to eat [matzah] shmurah all the days of Passover, are permitted to change [their practice] without any formal permission as, in fact, this [practice] is not a commandment at all. The commandment [to eat matzah shmurah] is only applicable to the [first] nights of Passover (the Pri Ḥadash on the Oraḥ Ḥayyim 496). It appears to me that if [this practice] arose due to a suspicion that other [nonguarded] wheat might have come into contact with water, and this prohibition is created as a protective safeguard, then the law is as [below] in 127:9. Accordingly, it appears obvious to me that those who have the custom not to eat radish and garlic [on Passover] can easily be allowed to consume them, because this custom has absolutely no basis. Clearly, in this case, it is not reasonable [to introduce] any protective safeguard. 20 In which case the law states that the product cannot become ḥametz. 21 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Passover 128:30.

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

8. [Now, let us consider] a custom [of prohibiting a particular thing] that is adopted because of seeking saintliness and godliness (beyond the requirements of the law). Some examples are the custom of fasting before Rosh ha-Shanah and during the Ten Days of Repentance, or the custom not to consume meat and wine (for three weeks) from the fast of 17 Tammuz, and other similar customs. These customs have the status of a vow. If one wanted to retract such custom because one is not in good health, then he is required to seek formal permission from a court of three [judges]. He should excuse his vow with regret; that is, he regrets having accepted this custom knowingly as a vow. Had he known that he would come to regret it, he would not have vowed so in the [technical] language of a vow. However, if a circumcision celebration occurs during one of those days [on which one had the custom to refrain from meat and wine or food altogether], one is permitted to eat meat on that day without [receiving] a formal permission. When he adapts this custom, the idea is that his fast will be like all other fasts,22 and the usual custom is not to fast on the days when there is a [feast associated with a] circumcision. However, [with respect to] a sick person, it is certain that they had no idea that they would become ill. (Shakh, commentary on Yoreh De’ah.) 9. There are those who create the custom [to prohibit a particular thing] as a protective fence; for example, those who refrain from attending market-fairs on the day before the holy Sabbath (such as with the citizens of Beishan (Beit She’an) in tractate BT Pesaḥim 50b). The rabbinic decisors are divided: some say there are those who say that it is as if they had accepted upon themselves [this practice] with the severity of a Torah prohibition, and in this case, there is no efficacy in a formal permission to retract it. Yet others say that there is efficacy in it, and this is the opinion of the author of the Pri Ḥadash. If all the members of a city have a custom to act in a certain way, then some decisors would permit retraction through the mechanism of regret of a vow; that is, when all the members of a city express regret. But a lone individual would not be able to retract his participation by formally expressing regret. Even if a court were to permit him to annul his vow, the vow would 22 See also Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Fasts and Tishah b’Av 132:26.

51

52

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

not be undone. Even if one would travel to another city, as long as his intention was to return, he must conduct himself according to the stringencies of the place he originally came from (Pri Ḥadash). The ability to retract a vow through regret specifically refers to a custom kept by some people or even some communities. However, the customs accepted by the entire people of Israel, such as the stringent preparations for immersion in a ritual bath (ḥafifah) and similar matters, cannot be retracted under any circumstances (according to a commentary by the Shakh, citing Rabbi Shlomo Luria).23 10. All this discussion of retraction concerns stringencies that people accept upon themselves. However, [such] matters are subject to debate among the decisors, and in one place they have the custom of acting in accordance with the opinion that advocates prohibiting. In such a case, they have not accepted upon themselves a new prohibition which would be construed as a vow, but rather, they have accepted upon themselves a matter that is prohibited based on the authority of either the Torah or the Sages. In this situation, no formal permission for retraction would be efficacious, as there is no one living in our generations who is able to decide against the Sage that advocated the prohibition [in the matter under debate]. And this is so even if it were possible that there was one such person in a generation. Accordingly, [let us consider] those people that have the custom not to drink24 and not to eat “summer and winter wheat” (ḥadash),25 [prohibited] by the opinion of all the poskim ha-rishonim (early adjudicators). Now, [let us imagine that] someone wants to formally retract a mistaken vow in this respect due to weakness or poor health. It appears to me that if one had accepted upon himself this prohibition out of 23 Rabbi Shlomo Luria (the Maharshal, c. 1510–1573) of Poland. He has written a widely influential commentary, entitled Yam shel Shlomo, on seven tractates of the Talmud: BT Bava Kama (Prague, 1618); Ḥullin (Krakow, 1635); Yevamot (Altona, 1740); Beitzah (Lublin, 1636); Kiddushin (Berlin, 1766); Gittin (Berlin, 1761); and Ketubot (Warsaw, 1850). 24 See the Bi’ur Halakhah 296 (‫ )ד״ה אם הוא חמר מדינה‬regarding one who is careful not to drink liquor due to the concern of ḥadash (five grains that were planted after one Passover before the next has arrived) and the problem of fulfilling the obligation of havdalah over a cup of liquor. 25 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Passover 131:12, for the prohibition of eating ḥadash.

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

awareness in knowing that all the Rishonim prohibit [consumption of ḥadash], then he has already accepted this upon himself as a Torah prohibition and not a stringency due to a vow. Then this law is akin to all prohibitions in the Torah that can only be retracted in the case of a life-threatening illness, and the formal loosening of a vow could not be sufficient to undo this prohibition. However, if he really did not understand [the foundations of some ordained prohibition], but thought it was only a pious stringency [beyond the requirements of the law], then his status is similar to the law regarding one who accepted a stringency for the sake of saintliness (as in 8 above). It appears to me that [all this applies] specifically to this [situation of ḥadash]. [Let us also consider the following case:] one has always waited six hours between the consumption of meat and the consumption of milk, but now because of his weakness he desires to conduct himself like those who are lenient in this matter and wait only a few hours. According to all opinions, [the wait period] is not itself due to any prohibition but is only a safeguard and boundary to prevent them [the meat and the milk] from being eaten together. Consequently, this vow can be formally untied and a more lenient position adopted, as [explained] above in 9. 11. All the above [effective retractions] apply to matters accepted and taken on as a custom by individuals on their own. However, if there was formal agreement to accept [a custom] for the public good, or [if this custom] was a safeguard for the Torah [itself] to enhance some commandment, they cannot undo the commitment (Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 228:28). Furthermore, the community is able to adopt ordinances for all its members and for their descendants. Even if [members of a] community did not adopt some customs by the way of an [official] agreement, but rather became accustomed to them by their own initiative, [taking these things] as a protective fence and boundary for the Torah, their descendants are obligated to act in accordance with this boundary. This is made explicit in BT Pesaḥim [50, where the Talmud tells] about the citizens of Beishan (Beit She’an). They adopted the custom not to travel between Tyre and Sidon on the day before the Sabbath, and their children came before Rabbi Yehudah and said: “It was possible for our fathers but it is not possible for us.” He responded: “Since [this matter] was accepted by your ancestors, you are bound by

53

54

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

the words of the Hagiographa, as it is said (Proverbs 1:8), ‘do not forsake the teaching of your mother’” (as noted by Rivash and Ramban).26 [This applies] specifically when all the inhabitants of a city act accordingly. However, if an individual followed a personal habit as a safeguard or as an element of personal piety, his son is not obligated to follow that stringency, unless the son acted in accordance with it once during the lifetime of his father or [even] after his death, without specifically stipulating he was not accepting the stringency upon himself. Then, [by not stipulating non-acceptance,] his action signifies his acceptance of the practice upon himself. 12. [We now consider a city where] the ancestors [of the inhabitants] have accepted a custom for the purpose of creating a proper safeguard for some need and stipulated that their descendants were obligated to behave in this manner. [Imagine that] all the members of the city want to undo their collective vow by claiming regret that the vow was ever made. The author of Pri Ḥadash writes that some think that even a prohibition that was enacted as a safeguard can be undone for the community when all of them regret [being subject to the prohibition]. If this is the case, then it would be all the more possible for all of their descendants to cancel such a vow [expressing collective regret]. Others maintain that the ancestors alone would be able to cancel the enactment, since they created that particular prohibition; however, for their descendants, such cancelation would be ineffective. It appears to me that this applies specifically when the ancestors did not establish the prohibition to obligate their descendants; however, when these people also accepted a prohibition as binding upon their descendants, then according to all opinions - no retraction would be viable. 13. I have recorded the rest of the laws [regarding these matters of changing customs, especially as it relates to settlement in the Land of Israel] in my composition Sha’arei Tzedek (Vilna, 1812), at the end of the Sha’ar Mishpetei Aretz.27 26 Rabbi Moshe ben Naḥman (also known as either Naḥmanides or Ramban, 1194–1270) of Gerona, Spain, and the Land of Israel, towering scholar and personality of his era and author of many works, most renowned for his commentaries on the Torah and the Talmud. 27 In his work Sha’arei Tzedek (11:23–24), Rabbi Danzig addresses the matter of the Ashkenazim arriving in the Land of Israel in his own time and discusses how they

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

Rabbi Danzig commences klal 127:1 with a description of which plants qualify as kitniyot. He specifically identifies rice, millet, and buckwheat. Although there is no biblical prohibition against eating these grains on Passover, the rabbis prohibited them. The Ḥayei Adam suggests that the kitniyot were prohibited in order to prevent confusion and mistakes by the uneducated Jews. The similarity between the products of the legumes and ḥametz may inadvertently cause the uneducated Jew to consume ḥametz on Passover. Thus, the rabbi writes, it is the custom of the Ashkenazim not to eat kitniyot on Passover. He immediately adds that this custom cannot be annulled since it was introduced as a protective fence (seyag) and thus embodies the force of a biblical prohibition. These remarks and explanations seem to lead to his declaration that in the case of doubt, or in a time of need, when food is scarce, one may be lenient and eat kitniyot on Passover. The Ḥayei Adam adds a warning: even in a time of need, it is best to avoid rice, millet, and buckwheat due to their close similarity to the five prohibited grains. Rabbi Danzig was concerned with vegetation that was used in his era to make flour. In such cases, he was stringent even regarding emergency situations (“the time of need”). This issue is further explained in Nishmat Adam, cited below. After discussing other foods that should be avoided on Passover in paragraphs 2–6, in paragraph 6 Rabbi Danzig reiterates that in a time of need and for a sick person, even one not in a life-threatening situation, all these products, including legumes, are permitted. In Nishmat Adam, his commentary on the Ḥayei Adam, written primarily for rabbinic scholars, Rabbi Danzig discusses an actual scenario of an emergency situation on Passover resulting from the scarcity of grains.28 He writes (section 20): Question: In the year 5566 (1806), rain flooded our area and the poor could scarcely find kosher wheat for Passover. I was asked to permit eating kitniyot (certain legumes) and retzka (buckwheat that is processed with grain flour or is easily confused with it), as the custom has now spread to Germany and France not to consume these on Passover.

should relate to the established presence of the Sephardim and their customs. 28 I have translated the relevant sections of this responsa. I thank Professor H. Basser for his assistance.

55

56

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

Answer: We begin by reviewing the reasons governing prohibitions such as these, since many assume that this prohibition is a mere custom. This is not the case at all. Rambam (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Mamrim 1) tells us that all official enactments (takanot) of rabbinic authorities are given the status of positive or negative commandments. According to some opinions, even though such enactments are in fact rabbinic in nature, they should not be relaxed in doubtful circumstances. The very fact of enactment stipulates that they must be treated stringently. All authorities agree that talmudic enactments are classified as rabbinic prohibitions. The poskim write, without exception, that rabbinic courts have jurisdiction to legislate regulations in their cities, just as the Great Court of Jerusalem did in Temple times. So, when a court or a community produces enactments, they have the force of talmudic prohibitions that are mentioned frequently in Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah. These regulations all share the following three features: (1) When an enactment is supported by the whole community, it cannot be abrogated for any reason (Yoreh De’ah 228:28). (2) If an enactment is supported not by the whole community but only by a select few, it has the same force as a Torah prohibition if it was established to protect some vital principle of the law. Thus, many authorities do not allow such practices to be abrogated under any circumstances; they are to be treated as one treats a Torah prohibition. Others allows abrogation.29 Some say that this is only when the entire community, without exception, agrees to be permissive. (3) An enactment made merely for some reason of extreme piety, which has no protective value, may be abrogated according to the normative view of all poskim (Pri Ḥadash to Oraḥ Ḥayyim 496). Now, according to my opinion, any enactment supported by the community is like the pronouncement of the court and cannot be abrogated (see 1 above). On the other hand, if only some individuals follow this custom, and it is not officially adopted by the whole community, then it may be abrogated. . . . [However, the Talmud tells us that] Rabbi Yannai (BT Sanhedrin 26a) told people to go and plant during the shmita (sabbatical year), and 29 See Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah §214.

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

the commentators point out that at that time it was a rabbinic prohibition. [So why did Rabbi Yannai abrogate a rabbinic prohibition? The Tosafot commentaries to Sanhedrin 26a in our version read “either rabbinic or life-threatening.”] This was only a temporary measure for survival. [If there was no danger to people’s lives,] but only hardship, this prohibition would not have been retracted. . . . This is indeed the ruling when it comes to consuming kitniyot. We Ashkenazim certainly accept [the prohibition of consuming kitniyot on Passover], be it from community assent or from the rabbinic Geonim of the land in those days, for this is obviously a firm prohibition. . . . It can be abrogated only as a temporary measure for survival, to prevent people from actually starving to death. But it would not be permitted to abrogate the custom for anything short of a death threat. . . . This reasoning applies to permitting those kitniyot that cannot be mistaken for grain flour. However, retzka (buckwheat) is used to produce a flour that can easily be confused with grain flour. If people see one cooking graupen (porridge?) from retzka, they might eventually cook graupen from [barley, which is] one of the forbidden grains. I heard that in 5531 (1771), when there was a serious famine in Ashkenaz (Bavaria), a court convened in the city of Fürth (Fyurda) permitted potatoes. In Ashkenaz they do not [usually] permit potatoes to be eaten since they make (potato) flour from them[, but potatoes were permitted in 1771 to prevent starvation]. They also permitted [other kinds of] kitniyot, but they did not permit any forms of graupen.30 Rabbi Danzig, through standard rabbinic discourse, addresses the talmudic scholar with a discussion of customs related to kitniyot. He expands on the theme, prohibiting the annulment of the custom that prohibits legumes on Passover. This, he explains, is because the custom was adopted as a protective measure (seyag) against the possibility of confusing kitniyot products with real ḥametz and the resulting violations of a biblical law. Retraction of a custom adopted as a safeguard would require the agreement of everyone 30 He is troubled by this permission to abrogate kitniyot and suggests that perhaps it was because of the dire straits of the community. Yet since the custom not to eat kitniyot was widespread, it must be considered a ruling that concerns the public at large and so cannot be abrogated. He leaves this ruling as something he cannot resolve, and hence “ve-tzarikh iyun.”

57

58

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

involved. In the instance of kitniyot, it would require all Ashkenazic Jewry, an impossible feat. In Nishmat Adam, Rabbi Danzig compares this challenge to the prohibition of the seven days of purity (waiting period between the end of menstruation and the renewal of sexual relations, originally postulated as five days by the biblical law), a custom that was accepted by all Jewish women and thus cannot be annulled. Rabbi Danzig also emphasizes that legumes might be permitted even if the situation is not life-threatening. He adds a stringency, however: legumes such as buckwheat, which can be made into flour, should be avoided on Passover even in a life-threatening situation. He concludes the discussion by giving an example of a community that prohibited eating potatoes on Passover in a normal year - since at this location potatoes were used to make flour31 - but permitted it at a time of food shortage. In the Ḥayei Adam, Rabbi Danzig continues (klal 127:7–13) with a theme that seemingly belongs in Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 214, and thus should be situated in his book Ḥokhmat Adam, which was prepared primarily for rabbinic scholars and focuses upon the laws of Yoreh De’ah.32 The discussion in klal 127 revolves around prohibitions resulting from customs. Rabbi Danzig expands what he briefly stated in paragraph 1: Since this custom was adopted by our ancestors, it is prohibited for us to change because [of the stricture alluded to in the verse] “and do not forsake the teaching of your mother” (Proverbs 1:8). However, it is permitted to grind and bake them like matzot and eat them [during Passover]. [One should know], with regard to all the customs of [the People of] Israel, that any prohibition, even if it was not originally a legally binding ordinance, but rather was a custom that people accepted upon themselves, falls under the command of the prophets, “and do not forsake the teaching of your mother” (Proverbs 1:8). Moreover, a custom that was established by the Sages [of previous generations], or even the Geonim in our time who make a safeguard or boundary for the Torah, cannot be changed due to a prohibition of the Torah. . . . In summary, one can conclude from paragraphs 7–13 (although it is not specifically stated) that, according to the author of the Ḥayei Adam, it is 31 One could only wonder what Rabbi Danzig would rule today when potato starch (flour) is a basic for many of the Passover foods. 32 See Rabbi Danzig’s introduction where he discusses Ḥokhmat Adam.

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

not possible for an Ashkenazic Jew to annul the custom and permit eating legumes on Passover. Klal 127 gives rise to a number of questions. Why was it necessary for Rabbi Danzig to include paragraphs 7 to 13 in this section? Was paragraph 1 not sufficient? Moreover, an examination of the first edition of the Ḥayei Adam reveals that there is no klal 127 titled “The Laws of Things that are Prohibited because of Custom,” which appears in later editions. What motivated the rabbi to amend the laws of custom and rewrite this entire klal in his second edition of the code?33 To better understand his motivation, it is important to focus on the historical realities of the period. The first edition of the Ḥayei Adam was published in 1810 and the second edition appeared eight years later, in 1818. Rabbi Danzig died two years later, in 1820. In 1810, a controversy originated in Westphalia34 over the prohibition of kitniyot that involved the leading rabbis of Europe, from West to East. Westphalia, previously under Prussian rule, was annexed in 1807 and added to the the Napoleonic states, which then sought to integrate Jews into general society and thus make them loyal citizens. In 1808, a Consistory, with government oversight, was established to deal with Jewish issues. It was headed by Yisrael Jacobson, one of the prominent founders of the Reform movement.35 The events occurred as follows. On January 18, 1810, a proclamation was issued by the Consistory rabbis. It was signed by the Consistory president Yisrael Jacobson; Rabbi Shimon Klacker from Stockholm; Rabbi Menaḥem Steinhart from Hildesheim; and David Frankel, the editor of the Hebrew newspaper Shulamit, which represented the views of the modernists. This proclamation called for permitting kitniyot on Passover for the following reasons: 1. A request was made by Jewish soldiers to permit them to eat legumes on Passover. The request was made due to the shortage of matzot the soldiers received from the Jewish community. If they 33 A comparison of the first two editions will reveal an almost total rewriting of the Ḥayei Adam’s laws of Passover. While this requires research into the reasons behind such changes, this chapter will only focus on the laws of kitniyot. 34 Yosef Ben-Lulu, “Kitniyot b’Pesaḥ” (PhD diss., Bar Ilan University, 1998), 146–164, has referenced the majority of the sources relating to this controversy. I will base the historical information on this work. 35 See Meyer, Response to Modernity, 45–46.

59

60

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

were not permitted to eat kitniyot, they would be forced to eat ḥametz or die of hunger. 2. The Jewish community lacked sufficient professional manpower to prepare the necessary quantity of matzot while retaining a high standard of kashrut. 3. The Talmud as well as the Rishonim permitted the eating of legumes on Passover. Rabbi Yeruḥam called the prohibition a scandal. 4. Even though the Rema and the Semak prohibited the eating of kitniyot, their opinion could be discarded since kitniyot did not come not from the five prohibited grains. 5. The Ḥakham Tzvi was prepared to annul this custom but he feared the extremists who opposed him. His son Rabbi Ya’akov Emden would also have supported his father’s opinion if other rabbis reinforced his view. 6. The Consistory had a duty to work for the benefit of the Jews, and to prevent any potential dangers from occurring to them. Therefore, the Consistory found it necessary to permit kitniyot so that Jews could fulfill their civil duties.36 Thus they advised: 1. to permit kitniyot on Passover without a guilty conscience; 2. to remove any grains from within the legumes before cooking; 3. for those who have accepted upon themselves the custom not to eat kitniyot on Passover, to annul this custom before a court of three Jews. At the conclusion of the proclamation, the Consistory rabbis requested that the local rabbis inform their congregants of this decision in their synagogues. Furthermore, they requested that the rabbis serve as examples to their members. Yosef Ben-Lulu37 correctly points out that the first two statements of the declaration were logical from the rabbinic point of view. The specific situations outlined in these statements required the permisison of kitniyot. The remaining points can be considered the designs of the reformers. 36 As a result of the emancipation, Jews were expected, as were all good citizens, to serve in the military. 37 Ben-Lulu, “Kitniyot b’Pesaḥ,” 146.

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

For example, statement 6—that “the Jews could fulfill their civic duties”— clearly reflects the views of the Haskalah and Reform who sought change and integration into the general non-Jewish culture. It is also evident from the proclamation that the Consistory threatened the rabbis into interfering with their decision to permit kitniyot. Their threat was derived from the authority received from the government. The Consistory’s proclamation permitting legumes on Passover was answered by strong rejoinders issued by rabbis throughout Europe. The first response came on July 2, 1810 from Rabbi Z. Eiger who, after attacking his friend Jacobson for his “reform” attempt to challenge the Shulḥan Arukh, refuted the various points in the Consistory’s proclamation as follows: 1. In addition to the author of Semak and Rabbi Moshe Isserles, both of whom prohibit kitniyot on Passover, there were many other rabbis (Rabbi Eiger identified them) who supported this stringency. 2. This prohibition had been accepted by the Jews of the Ashkenazic countries for hundreds of years. 3. One rabbinic court could not annul a decision of another, unless the first court was greater. Thus, even if only the author of Semak and Rabbi Isserles had prohibited legumes, how did the Consistory have the audacity to permit them? 4. If everyone could give out halakhic permissions of their own volition, the Torah would lose protection and, God forbid, would be open to attack. 5. This change would affect the observance of laymen. If the rabbis permitted the cooking of rice soup on Passover, laymen would inevitably allow themselves to cook soup from wheat and barley as well. 6. The Consistory claimed that kitniyot should be permitted because there was not sufficient matzot to feed the soldiers. Rather than rice and legumes, the soldiers could eat potatoes that were readily available. In addition to Rabbi Eiger, several rabbis in France, Rabbi Avraham Tiktin in Poland, Rabbi Meshulam Zalman Cohen (the head of the rabbinic court in Furth), and Rabbi Mordekhai Bennet (Chief Rabbi of Moravia)

61

62

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

opposed leniency in their approach to kitniyot. Rabbi Cohen added two considerations: 1. the proclamation of the Westphalia Consistory is a desecration of God’s name; 2. those who support this leniency should suffer excommunication (ḥerem). Rabbi Tiktin, along with other rabbis, attempted to attain the support of Rabbi Moshe Sofer (Ḥatam Sofer)38 in Hungary against the proclamation. Rabbi Sofer was reluctant to explicitly join the campaign against the ruling of the Consistory. Jacob Katz39 explains the position of Rabbi Sofer, who was a strong opponent of the Reform. The reason for his hesitancy was political. He did not want to become involved in a fight against an issue that had governmental support, especially when his country had friendly ties with the Austrian government. A closer look at his responsa and homilies40 reveals his real stance, indicating that he prohibited the consumption of kitniyot on Passover. Privately, Rabbi Sofer did answer Rabbi Tiktin and clarified his position. In addition to the general arguments against permitting kitniyot (as discussed above), he felt that their generation was moving entirely beyond the control of rabbinic authority (ha-dor parutz bi-melo). Moreover, the Jews had no problems with the kitniyot decree. They had successfully maintained this custom for many generations, and a “decree that the community can adhere to, you do not annul.” Furthermore, he admonished and condemned the new ideologists that were trying to uproot Jewish laws. The kitniyot controversy diminished but did not disappear altogether. The Maskilim returned to their newspaper writings where they continued to pursue their struggle to permit legumes. The outraged Rabbi Elazar Fleckeles, head of the rabbinic court in Prague, wrote an encompassing response to the Maskilim. After listing the standard arguments, he concluded that their generation was indeed spinning out of control of the rabbis and there was no room to encourage laxity by permitting something that earlier rabbis had prohibited. 38 Rabbi Sofer (1762–1839) was considered a leading rabbinical authority of his time. 39 Jacob Katz, Halakhah and Kabbalah [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1984), 37. 40 This homily was delivered for the Shabbat ha-Gadol sermon, Passover 1810.

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

Still, the Shulamit continued to publish articles in support of the view of the Maskilim. And in 1811, Rabbi Moshe Mintz, a leading rabbinic authority in Hungary, permitted kitniyot on Passover for soldiers. The reformers attempted to capitalize on this ruling and to expand it to include other halakhic decisions. Rabbi Mintz, realizing the danger, wrote to a Reform rabbi (anonymously) of his fears saying that “they (the reformers) are trying to exploit the situation to their benefit.” He also expressed his lack of satisfaction with his earlier decision.41 Ben-Lulu42 comments that the kitniyot controversy lasted throughout the nineteenth century.

Summary and Concluding Remarks It is unknown how much of the controversy actually reached Rabbi Avraham Danzig. I believe that sufficient information did reach him and motivated him to reorganize and elaborate the laws of Passover as reflected in his book. This kitniyot conflict was the primary factor that motivated Rabbi Danzig to reconsider and rewrite his laws on minhag (custom). The Ḥayei Adam followed the patterns of its genre by not identifying the conflict, movements, or individuals involved. Rather, Rabbi Danzig confronted the issue through a halakhic discussion. In the instance of kitniyot, after quoting paragraph 1 (identical to what appeared in his first edition, klal 123 paragraph 2), and confirming his ruling that permitted legumes in the time of despair, he approached the problem with an overall discussion of minhag. Turning to the Rema’s additions in Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 214, as his point of departure, Rabbi Danzig reiterates Rabbi Isserles’ (Ashkenazic) views. Rabbi Danzig’s discussion in paragraph 7 revolves around the case when a person observes a custom mistakenly believing that it is the law. In this case, his practice does not require him to receive a special permission to drop the custom. As an example, the author of the Ḥayei Adam offers the case of matzah shmurah. There are individual Jews who believe it is required to eat such matzah all the days of Passover. Since this is an error on their part (the actual law is to eat matzah shmurah only on the first night of Passover), there is no need for annulment and one simply can stop observing this custom. Rabbi Danzig adds that if the reason one ate matzah 41 Ben-Lulu, “Kitniyot b’Pesaḥ,” 154–165. 42 Ibid, 158–165.

63

64

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

shmurah is out of fear of eating ḥametz, so that his actions fall under the category of safeguarding the Torah laws, annulment is not an option and one is required to continue this custom. He also offers an example of a mistaken Passover minhag, not to eat radishes and garlic on Passover, which can be dropped. In paragraph 8, a short discussion concerning the practice of a minhag because of either pious separation (perishut) or personal piety (ḥasidut) is presented. This situation would permit an individual to annul the custom. In paragraphs 9 through 12, Rabbi Danzig focuses on what I believe to be his principal agenda in klal 127. In these paragraphs, he explains that it is almost impossible to annul a custom that is adopted by a group (in contrast to an individual) as a seyag (safeguard for Torah laws). To permit such a custom would require the entire group to agree that they choose to annul this practice. Rabbi Danzig cites different examples (not kitniyot) and discusses various rabbinic opinions, but he returns to the conclusion that in the case of seyag annulment is not a possibility. Kitniyot, a custom adopted by all Ashkenazic Jewry, is here to stay. Menaḥem Elon43 offers an understanding of minhag that, I believe, accurately summarizes the halakhic vision of Rabbi Avraham Danzig: Through the medium of custom, the entire Jewish people, including its various groups and classes, have participated in the continued development and creation of the [Jewish] law. At the same time, the halakhic authorities, without constraining this public initiative and creativity, have guided custom into reasonable and logical channels and have integrated it to the fullest possible extent with the overall halakhic system, and especially with the fundamental concepts and the principles of equity and justice in Jewish law. The life of the people has been based on the foundation of the halakhah and its processes. Even if the people are not prophets, they are “descendants of prophets,” and it is thus presumed that their customs are in harmony with the spirit of the Torah. The case of kitniyot exemplifies Rabbi Danzig’s understanding of minhag, which motivated him to present an extended section on the laws of custom. 43 Menaḥem Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources and Principles, vol. 2. (Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1994), 994.

Minhag in the H.ayei Adam—the Case of Kitniyot on Passover

This issue of kitniyot on Passover is, I suggest, an illustration of an exercise in rabbinic authority. The Haskalah and Reform movements of the eighteenth century constantly sought to contest rabbinic authority either explicitly or implicitly. At first, they sought to introduce new ideas and approaches to Judaism through legal rabbinic loopholes. Only later did they outwardly negate Jewish law and custom. This aggressive, brash, and vocal defiance of rabbinic authority prompted a sharp response by the rabbinic world seeking to defend its established institutions. Perhaps, if there had been no opposition to the prohibition of legumes on Passover by groups that challenged rabbinic authority, the rabbis would not have defended this prohibition so vehemently. The Conservative stream of Judaism eventually challenged the prohibition of kitniyot.44 In the contemporary State of Israel, the majority of Sephardic Jews are permitted to eat legumes on Passover, and the reasons for that prohibition given by the early rabbinic authorities are no longer relevant today. New circumstances and new conflicts have once again impelled the rabbinic establishment to defend its authority. But for Rabbi Danzig, the prohibition not to eat kitniyot on Passover, a religious custom, has been positioned within the codified laws of Passover with all their full rabbinic authority, and there is no room for flexibility.

44 See Golinken’s responsa of 1989.

65

3

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

Introduction Rabbi Avraham ben Yeḥiel Mikhel Danzig (1748–1820) was a posek (“decisor”), who wrote two halakhic codes, Ḥayei Adam and Ḥokhmat Adam.1 He was born in Danzig (Gdansk), Poland/Germany, which previously had been subject to severe outbreaks of anti-Semitism, periodically banning Jews from settling there or engaging in business. By the time the rabbi was born, Jews were tolerated in that city, which was a hub of commercial and industrial activity. The nascent Reform and Enlightenment thinkers became active there, and this worried Avraham’s father so intensely that he sent him to Prague to study with Rabbi Yeḥezkel Landau.2 Rabbi Landau, author of responsa Noda bi-Yhudah,3 was aware of the recent turmoil caused by the Sabbatean movement4 and tried to restrict the study of the Kabbalah to the scholarly classes.5 He was personally well 1 For a history of Rabbi Avraham Danzig, see Tchernowitz, Toledot ha-Poskim, vol. 3, 274–288; and Mayer, “Rabbi Avraham Danzig.” 2 For an understanding of the growth and acceptance of rabbinical adjudicators, see Benjamin Brown, “Ha-ba’al ha-bayit: R. Yisrael Meir Ha-Kohen, ‘ha-Ḥafetz Ḥayyim,’” in The Gedolim: Leaders Who Shaped the Israeli Ḥaredi Society [Hebrew], ed. Benjamin Brown and Nissim Leon (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, n.d.), 11–22. 3 Rabbi Landau was the Chief Rabbi of Prague from 1754 to 1793. The range of his writings and his powerful position made him one of the leading rabbinic authorities and intellectual leader of his era. See Flatto, Kabbalistic Culture, 49–52. 4 This movement was based upon kabbalistic theology interpreted to suit these movements’ goals. 5 See Flatto, Kabbalistic Culture, 6–8.

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

versed in Kabbalah and included such materials in his homilies.6 His view is expressed in one of his responsa,7 where he explains: “In our generation, since the heretics from the Sabbatean sect have increased, may their bones become dust, it is advisable to limit the study of Zohar and kabbalistic works.”8 The Jews in Prague were not a cohesive community, but since the days of Maharal, various types of mystical speculation could be applied to sermons9 but were not to be used for legal adjudication. Rabbi Landau openly opposed the Hasidic movements in Poland and fought the radical Maskilim in Germany.10 None of this would be lost on his student, Rabbi Avraham Danzig. Yet, when it came to halakhic adjudication, Rabbi Danzig was an independent thinker. He ruled as he saw fit, not always following the decisions of Rabbi Landau (now found in his commentary on the Shulḥan Arukh, the Dagul me-Revavah,11 and in his responsa, Noda bi-Yhudah). Rabbi Danzig followed Rabbi Eliyahu, Gaon of Vilna, who was strident in his opposition to new groups threatening the age-old communal system that Jews had developed, which focused upon classic rabbinic authority.12 But even the rulings of the Gaon of Vilna (now found in his commentary on Rabbi Karo’s Shulḥan Arukh), who also had a strong influence on Rabbi Danzig, are not always in agreement with those

6 See Benjamin Brown, “Dynamic of Continuity and Change in Jewish Religious Life,” in The Comeback of “Simple Faith”: The Ultra-Orthodox Concept of Faith and Its Development in the Nineteenth Century, ed. Simcha Fishbane and Eric Levine (Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2017), 137–140. Specifically, at p. 138, Brown argues that Rabbi Landau only “almost completely refrained from utilizing kabbalist sources . . . and kabbalist concepts that appear sporadically in his writings are few and very basic, and appear to be like a delicate spice added to enhance his primary message.” Flatto (Kabbalistic Culture) disagrees with Brown, and throughout her book attempts to ascertain that Rabbi Landau was a kabbalist. She offers numerous examples to support her view. Maoz Kahana, From the Noda bi-Yhudah to the Chatam Sofer, 25 offers an approach similar to Brown’s. 7 Responsa Noda bi-Yhudah, vol. 1, 74. See also Rabbi Landau’s book of homilies Derushei ha-Tzelaḥ, homily no. 39, 53b. 8 See Brown, “Dynamic of Continuity and Change,” 138. 9 See Flatto, Kabbalistic Culture, 145, 150, 158–159. She quotes his book of homilies Derushei ha-Tzelaḥ sermon 24, 37b and sermon 23, 36a where the Zohar is used by Rabbi Landau as a tool to bolster his rebuke of the Prague Jews for their religious laxity. 10 Ibid., 10–11. 11 This commentary was published in 1794, during the lifetime of Rabbi Danzig, and he most probably had access to this work. 12 See Schochet, The Hasidic Movement; and Immanuel Etkes, The Gaon of Vilna: The Man and His Image (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002), 32–72.

67

68

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

found in Rabbi Danzig’s Ḥayei Adam.13 When later in life Rabbi Avraham Danzig became a judge (dayan)14 on the religious court in Vilna, he was known as an outstanding scholar and decisor. The luminaries in Vilna had detected that his code of Jewish practice had ignored the magisterial codification of the Shulḥan Arukh. His independence from past forms of legal writing worried them, and the approbation of Rabbi Ḥayyim of Volozhin and others were issued on condition that he at least add such references to his code, which he did. Not only in Prague, but also throughout Lithuania, the rise of the Hasidic movement, with its mystical attachment to the charismatic leadership of tzaddikim, threatened the stability of the traditional rabbinic establishment. As Russia was modernizing and Europe was in economic and political turmoil culminating in the French Revolution in 1789, the traditional rabbinic establishment found itself opposing the study of secular knowledge and freethinking. The pious and scholarly Eliyahu of Vilna shows no awareness of the advances in science and mathematics in his time period, still maintaining the ancient, long obsolete Greek theory of four elements (earth, air, fire, water) propounded in Jewish sources from antiquity onwards. The debate over philosophic, rational learning that had raged earlier was eclipsed by the rise of Kabbalah and its mythic underpinnings. Its new Lurianic forms were widespread and the practices of the Safed mystics of the sixteenth century found their way into ordinary households. Medieval superstition still held sway in Poland and Lithuania. As this chapter focuses on the use of kabbalistic sources in the Ḥayei Adam, the classic oeuvre par excellence of Rabbi Danzig, it is helpful to see how contemporary scholarship describes popular notions concerning the development of Kabbalah literature (primarily the Zohar). For those who accepted the Zohar as the revelation given to Shimon bar Yoḥai (some, like Rabbi Ya’akov Emden, rejected its authenticity), it is indeed accurate to note, “For the Kabbalah presented itself as the deepest truth of Judaism, the first revelation, be it Sinaitic or of another source of divine inspiration, 13 Rabbi Danzig in his early years moved to Vilna, the city where the Gra was the leading rabbinical authority and by many was considered an adjudicator not to be questioned. See Mayer, “Rabbi Avraham Danzig,” 29. Consequently, some rabbis criticized his writings. 14 This argument is presented in “Danzig, Avraham,” in Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1974), vol. 5, 1298. Tchernowitz, Toledot ha-poskim, vol. 3, 284 calls Rabbi Danzig a ba’al hora’ah (decisor). The term used to describe Rabbi Danzig’s position in the rabbinical establishment of Vilna is moreh tzedek. This is a general position as a rabbinical functionary, but no details are indicated.

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

and certainly not the result of mere human ratio. A law which reflects the truth, symbolic of the process of the inner life of God, must perforce also be accepted as absolute truth.” Even before the Zohar entered the stage at the close of the thirteenth century, Sefer Bahir and other works, in addition to from the writings of the Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, introduced the paradigms and nomenclature in which the Zohar found its deepest expressions.15 The Zohar “was nothing less than a new light cast on the foundations of the Jewish religion, including its biblical traditions and institutions, commandments and daily practices.”16 With the wide impact of kabbalistic practices, the earlier rationalism of the philosophers and Maimonides’ rejection of demonology and anthropomorphism gave way to innovations and stringencies.17 Rabbi Yitzḥak Luria’s18 students succeeded in spreading his practices far and wide, and the Hasidic movement incorporated these notions as a matter beyond dispute. Maoz Kahana19 describes this impact as “the ritualization of Lurianic Kabbalah, the process through which the highly esoteric religious practices were a central phenomenon among European Jewry in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.” Lurianic Kabbalah was offered as an interpretation of the Zohar rather than as a new work. It is instructive to note that Rabbi Yosef Karo20 (1488–1575), the author of the Beit Yosef commentary on the Tur and his own codex,21 referred to as the Shulḥan Arukh, was one of the original students in Safed. Nevertheless, this work did not mention the practices that its author must have practiced. 15 See Jacob Katz, Divine Law in Human Hands (Jerusalem: Magnes Press and Hebrew University Jerusalem, 1998), 60. 16 See Benjamin Brown, “Ha-kabbalah b’pesikat ha-Ḥafetz Ḥayyim,” Mechkarei Yerushalaim b’machshevet Yisra’el (2011): 342–485. 17 Ibid., 486. 18 Yitzḥak (ben Shlomo) Luria Ashkenazi (1534–July 25, 1572) 19 Maoz Kahana and Ariel Evan Mayse, “Hasidic Halakhah: Reappraising the Interface of Spirit and Law,” AJS Review 41, no. 2 (November 2017): 385. 20 There have been numerous scholarly works discussing Rabbi Karo, halakhah, and Kabbalah. See, for example, Moshe Ḥallamish, “Yosef Karo—Kabbalah and Halakhic Decisions” [Hebrew], Da’at: Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah 21 (Summer 1989): 85–102; Yitzḥak Twersky, “Ha-rav Yosef Karo ba’al ha-Shulḥan Arukh,” Asufot: Sefer shana l’mada’ei ha-yahadut (1989): 245–262; Yisrael M. Ta-Shema, “Rabbi Yosef Karo: Between Spain and Germany” [Hebrew], Tarbiz (Tishrei-Heshvan 1990): 153– 170; David Tamar, “Dinim ha-miyusadim al ha-Zohar v’al ha-kabbalah b’Shulḥan Arukh uba-Beit Yosef,” Saini 115 (Tishrei-Ḥeshvan 1994): 69–76; Ḥaggai Pely, “Kabbalah bi’Pesikato shel R. Yosef Karo,” Kabbalah: Ketav et le-ḥeker kitvei ha-mistika ha-yehudit 26 (2012): 243–272; and the numerous sources quoted in Pely’s footnotes. 21 See Ḥallamish, “Yosef Karo,” 86.

69

70

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

The use of the Zohar in discussing halakhah was noted by Rabbi Avraham Zacuto and Yosef ’s uncle, Rabbi Yitzḥak Karo.22 Rabbi Zacuto wrote:23 “It has already been agreed upon in Israel that a matter that does not contradict the Talmud and is not explicit in the Talmud, but is found in Kabbalah, could be cited as a legitimate source of halakhic adjudication.”24 It is claimed that Rabbi Yitzḥak Karo’s view of the relationship between Kabbalah and halakhah is similar to R. Zacuto,25 but he explicitly added that a kabbalistic precept that contradicts the Talmud should be overruled.26 The process of the absorption of Kabbalah into halakhah is beyond our immediate interest.27 In short, Rabbi Yitzḥak Twersky28 identifies two approaches to the integration of halakhah and Kabbalah: (a) kabbalistic considerations and (b) kabbalistic philosophy. Rabbi Yosef Karo seems to represent the former approach: kabbalistic notions are present in his work together with explanations of laws and customs. Moshe Ḥallamish29 offers examples in which Rabbi Karo states that if the Talmud rules one way, the Zohar or the Kabbalah cannot supersede and rule differently. He observes that as a result of Rabbi Karo’s statements, this was the official stance of the legal commentators; it was understood that if one wanted to personally adopt a practice based on kabbalistic sources more stringent than the law permitted, there was the option to do so. Rabbinic authorities who lived after Rabbi Yosef Karo formulated guidelines for the incorporation of Kabbalah and halakhah. For example, R. Ḥayyim Benveniste (1603–1673), the author of Kenesset ha-Gedolah,30 writes, “1. Anything [halakhot] that is not mentioned in the [Babylonian] 22 On Rabbi Yitzḥak Karo’s stand, see ibid., 126 and note 58. 23 Sefer Yuḥasin Ha-Shalem, 45b. 24 Translation adapted from Meir Sendor, “The Rule for Admissibility of Kabbalah in Halakhah,” in Be’erot Yitzḥak: Studies in Memory of Isadore Twersky, ed. Jay M. Harris (Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press, 2005), 270. 25 Ibid., 272–273. 26 See Teshuvot Beit Yosef, 385a–b. 27 See Brown, “Ha-kabbalah b’pesikat ha-Ḥafetz Ḥayyim,” 488; Jacob Katz, “Halakhah and Kabbalah-First Contacts” [Hebrew], in Zion: Yitzḥak F. Baer Memorial Volume (n.p.: Historical Society of Israel, 1979); idem, Divine Law in Human Hands; and Ta-Shema, “Rabbi Yosef Karo.” 28 Rabbi Yitzḥak Twersky, “Harav Yosef Karo,” 260. 29 Hallamish, “Yosef Karo.” 30 Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 25:20. See Brown, “Ha-kabbalah b’pesikat ha-Ḥafetz Ḥayyim,” 495, who summarizes the guidelines for applying Kabbalah to halakhic adjudication (pesak).

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

Talmud and not in the Jerusalem Talmud, and the rabbinic adjudicators did not speak of them (for it is from their mouths we live and upon them we are entirely dependent), even if the Kabbalah speaks of it—we cannot force any person who does not want to follow what is stated in the Kabbalah. 2. In cases where the Kabbalah disagrees with the Talmud [in a case which] is a stringency—I act in accordance [with the Kabbalah].” In the seventeenth century, Rabbi Avraham Gombiner (1633–1683) summarized in his Shulḥan Arukh commentary, Magen Avraham, these accepted views of using Zohar in legal discourse. He also took note of kabbalistic practices in his own commentary on Rabbi Karo’s code,31 approved by later decisors.32 One need only note the comments of Rema, Rabbi Moshe Isserles, on Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 246:4, and the gloss of Shabbetai ben Meir Ha-Kohen (1621–1662), commonly called Shakh, which explicitly states that one should not study esoteric literature before being well versed in Talmud and its commentaries, God-fearing, and totally immersed in Torah studies. This chapter examines Rabbi Danzig’s use of kabbalistic sources in his legal code, the Ḥayei Adam, to demonstrate that these sources gained influence already at the end of the eighteenth century. In fact, his use of these kabbalistic sources accomplished more for the integration of Kabbalah into the normative halakhah than had been done by the codes of Rabbis Yosef Karo and Shneur Zalman of Liady. These latter two had gained much fame as mystics, but their codes are relatively free from citations of kabbalistic sources. I now turn to the focus of this chapter, Rabbi Avraham Danzig, his compendium of Jewish laws, the Ḥayei Adam, and his use of kabbalistic sources.33

Kabbalah in the H.ayei Adam To examine the topic of Kabbalah in the Ḥayei Adam, I used databases of Jewish books. By searching for words such as Zohar, Kabbalah, Mekubalim, Ari, sod, nistar, and other phrases common to kabbalistic works, I accessed Rabbi Danzig’s citations of kabbalistic sources (the main sources are Zohar 31 See the above footnote. 32 Moshe Ḥallamish, Kabbalah in Liturgy, Halakhah and Customs [Hebrew] (Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University, 2000), 136. 33 Rabbi Danzig also became known as the Ḥayei Adam, after the title of his compendium of Jewish law. I will use both names interchangeably when referring to Rabbi Danzig.

71

72

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

and Rabbi Yitzḥak Luria, also known as the Ari).34 The drawback to this methodology is that there are instances when Rabbi Danzig used a kabbalistic source without citing it as such.35 His other sources, in addition to the Shulḥan Arukh, are the classical commentaries on the Tur, such as the Beit Yosef (Yosef Karo), and those on the Shulḥan Arukh, such as the Magen Avraham (Avraham Gombiner), the Taz (David ha-Levi Segal), and the Shakh (Shabbetai Ha-Kohen). He also refers to the Levush (Mordechai Jaffe) and Eliyah Rabba (Eliyahu Shapira). To understand Rabbi Danzig’s integration of Kabbalah in his code, I now turn to the relevant citations in the Ḥayei Adam.36

Studying and Understanding Kabbalah (1) From book 1, klal 10:12:  ne should only study Scriptures, Mishnah, Gemara, halakhic O works, and books of ethical instruction. By so doing, a person acquires both olam ha-zeh (this world) as well as the olam ha-ba (the world to come). Nevertheless, it is permitted to study other subjects of wisdom periodically, but one must not read the books of the apikorsim (scoffers). A person should not study the wisdom of the Kabbalah until his belly is filled with Gemara and halakhic works. He should be one with great fear of Heaven, always sitting, immersed in the study of Torah. However, without this [level of piety], it is prohibited [to study Kabbalah]. Rabbi Ḥayyim Vital37 was exceedingly stringent about this matter. He said, “Great is the 34 I agree with Brown, who - in “Ha-kabbalah b’pesikat ha-Ḥafetz Ḥayyim” - considers works such as Sefer Ḥasidim and Shenei Luḥot ha-Brit (Shelah) not as Kabbalah but rather as musar and derush. 35 Examples can be found in Mordekhai Eliyahu, Imrei Mordekhai [Hebrew], vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 2000), 17–44. 36 As stated above, I will not make an exhaustive list of every place in the Ḥayei Adam that refers to a kabbalistic source, but I will analyze what I believe are sufficient sources to demonstrate my hypothesis. 37 Rabbi Ḥayyim Vital (1543–1620) lived in the Land of Israel and was a prominent student of Rabbi Moshe Cordovero (1522–1570) and Yitzḥak Luria Ashkenazi (the Ari, 1534–1572), prominent master of the Kabbalah and important source for many customs based on his teachings and personal conduct. Rabbi Vital put the kabbalistic wisdom he learned from the Ari into the well-known work entitled Etz Ḥayyim.

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

esteem of him who achieves the derivation of novel insights into the Torah!” as is mentioned in many places in the Zohar, including the Introduction to Genesis. This is what it says: (section 1, 4:2): “We learn: At that moment when a matter of the Torah is newly explained by a human mouth, this novelty ascends and stands before Kudsha Brikh Hu. And Kudsha Brikh Hu takes this novel matter, kisses it, and crowns it with seventy crowns and so forth.” And fortunate is he if he derives the novelty according to proper structures (derekh ha-emet). However, if—Heaven forbid—one would arrive at a novel idea that is not proper and is structured using inappropriate methods through preposterous casuistry (pilpul shel hevel)— look at what the Zohar says to enlighten you: “Come and see, one who is not habituated in the mysteries of the Torah and discovers new insights without knowing their foundations as is fitting, this novelty ascends and so forth.” See there what is caused through doing this. Also see Parshat Balak, where it is written (185:2): “If the novelty be egregiously unspeakable, woe to that shamefulness to which it pushes him. . . .” Let this note suffice. The Laws of Talmud Torah (Torah study) appear in the Shulḥan Arukh in Yoreh De’ah (246), rather than in Oraḥ Ḥayyim, the primary focus of the Ḥayei Adam. Thus, we find that Rabbi Danzig’s code, the Ḥayei Adam, served as a platform not only for the laws found in Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, but also for other relevant topics he sensed would affect the daily life of the Jew, such as Torah study, discussed in klal 10. I suggest that, in addition to the law that discourages the study of Kabbalah by laymen, this insertion can be considered a part of Rabbi Danzig’s polemics against the Hasidic movement (whose foundation was built on Kabbalah), a theme found throughout the Ḥayei Adam.38

38 See Fishbane, “Preambles in the Ḥayei Adam,” 2018. I will also discuss additional kabbalistic sources in the Ḥayei Adam that reflect this polemic. Mordecai Wilensky, Hasidim and Mitnaggedim: A Study of the Controversy Between Them in the Years 1772– 1815 [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1970), discusses this issue of Torah study and early Hasidism throughout his two volumes. See also Joseph Weiss, “Torah Study in Early Hasidism,” in Studies in East European Jewish Mysticism and Hasidism, ed. David Goldstein (London: Vallentine Mitchell, 1997).

73

74

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

The issue of studying metaphysical subjects (pardes) is discussed by Rabbi Moshe Isserles’ (Rema) glosses to Yoreh De’ah 246:4, who bases his ruling on Maimonides’ wording in Mishneh Torah, Laws of Talmud Torah, Yesodei ha-Torah 4:13. Rabbi Danzig goes beyond the Rema and turns to the comments of Rabbi Shabbetai ha-Kohen on this gloss (thus adding the study of Kabbalah to the pardes) for the presentation of his ruling. The author of the Ḥayei Adam adds to the words of these rabbis, “and he should be one with great fear of Heaven, always sitting, immersed in the study of Torah. However, without this [level of piety], it is prohibited [to study Kabbalah].” Following a consistent pattern throughout his book of laws, Rabbi Danzig emphasizes the need for vigilant and diligent behavior from his readers even if, as in this case, there are only a select few. Rabbi Danzig then turns to Rabbi Ḥayyim Vital, the renowned student of Rabbi Yitzḥak Luria (the Ari), to reinforce his ruling. Rabbi Danzig did not choose any other leading rabbinic authority but turned very specifically to an acknowledged scholar of Kabbalah. If a rabbi of this stature and education was stringent about who was qualified to study mystical texts, there was little space left to argue. (2) The author of the Ḥayei Adam felt very strongly about people who blindly followed kabbalistic practices without understanding them. In book 1, klal 18:2 he writes, The Sages instituted that “A psalm by David” (Psalms 145) be said three times every day (BT Berakhot 4b). This commandment is decisive: if one was equally balanced [between merit and sin], then he will be reckoned to be mostly of merits thanks to these recitations, and it is decisive that he will be worthy of the world to come; therefore, one is obligated to have intention in it. Know that wherever it is written “intention is required,” it means that one should concentrate on the meaning of the words, and not on the [elaborate] intentions (kavanot) and Names [of God or angels].39 Due to our many sins, we are soiled, and without doubt the one that so concentrates “cuts the plantings.” Even those who study the writings of the Ari only understand the words and not the mystical subjects, even one in a thousand 39 See the Sefer Ma’aseh Rav (41) regarding a similar approach to intention in prayer.

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

will not be found to be an expert in this, and God sees the heart. Go and see that the great man, the Maharshal,40 dealt at great length with this in his responsa, and came to the following conclusion: “Therefore, my friends, do not go on the way with them, and it is not for you to occupy yourself in hidden matters of those who show off in expounding novel insights as if they know and understand the mysteries of the Torah and its secrets. Would that they knew at least the open parts! How beautiful is the expression of Rabbi Shimshon of Kinon, who said that after studying the secrets of Kabbalah he prayed like a day-old child. . . .”41 Therefore, conduct your way [appropriately] so that you may receive according to what you are entitled to have. Know that all who alter what they deserve weaken their claim to entitlement. Let our position be strong. Rabbi Danzig discusses the obligation for praying with proper intent while reciting the Ashrei prayer three times a day. After explaining how one should properly pray, he challenges those who attempt to pray according to the special intentions formulated by Rabbi Yitzḥak Luria, the sixteenth-century master of Kabbalah. He argues that one may think one is fulfilling the words of Rabbi Luria, but only one in a thousand is really able to do that. To support his view, Rabbi Danzig turns to the renowned Rabbi Shlomo Luria, who discourages involvement in the study of the esoteric, since it is not properly understood. (3) Not as explicitly as in the above klal, Rabbi Danzig continues to challenge the proper understanding and use of kabbalistic texts. In book 2, klal 144:20, the Laws of Yom Kippur, he states, After this [blessing his children], he should go to the synagogue in fear and trembling. And the custom in our community, in all of the study houses, is to bring out a Torah scroll from its ark, as it is written in the writings of the Ari (may his memory be blessed), and there is already printed in Ḥemdat ha-Yamim, the prayer that he composed. However, not every person will understand the words, [but] only he who comes knowing the 40 See footnote 23 to the previous chapter, p. 52. 41 This responsum of the Maharshal is noted as siman 98 in Shem Gedolim of Rabbi Ḥayyim Yosef David Azulai, at letter Shin, paragraph 26.

75

76

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

divine mysteries, while he who does not know them will find them as words of a locked book. Therefore, I copied from the early books a prayer with simple language. On another note, according to the opinion of many authorities, the statement of confession [vidui] [should be recited] only close to nighttime. It is befitting for every person [to say it]; its wording is found below. Praiseworthy is he who says it also in the morning service. Rabbi Danzig is discussing the rituals observed in his community on the eve of Yom Kippur. He again warns his readers to avoid the practices of Rabbi Luria, for laymen do not possess the scholarly and spiritual capabilities required to properly fulfill his writings. (4) In book 2, klal 130:22, Rabbi Danzig is concerned with another situation, in which the observant Jew does not correctly understand the rulings of Rabbi Luria and practices kabbalistic stringencies under the impression that this is the normative halakhah. He writes, The custom is not to have sexual relations42 on the [first] two nights of Passover [in the Exile] based on the Ari, of blessed memory. However, I have written that this is only for those that fear [Heaven], so that they will not stumble in sin— Heaven forbid. However, one whose [sexual] inclination is strong should not be stringent at all [and refrain from sexual relations], for it is only a pious custom. There is only a [genuine] legal prohibition of sexual relations with one’s wife who is ritually pure during his or her mourning period, and [otherwise only] on Tishah b’Av and Yom Kippur. The Ḥayei Adam is cautious in its choice of words. In contrast to other mentions of Rabbi Luria, which Rabbi Danzig uses to criticize the reader for 42 The Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim (240:1), states, “[the regular mandated time of sexual relations] for talmidei ḥakhamim is every night of Sabbath,” and the Ba’er Heitev (240:3) comments that this likewise applies to the nights of Rosh Ḥodesh and festivals. See the Mishnah Berurah (240:6), the Bi’ur Halakhah 240 (‫)ד״ה תלמידי חכמים‬, and the Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Rosh Ḥodesh (118:7), on whether the talmid ḥakham actually exists in the contemporary era, whether one could (falsely) conduct himself as though this practice was applicable to him.

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

misconstruing the words of Kabbalah, in this paragraph he is discussing the laws of Passover. He permits having sexual relations on the first two nights of this festival, primarily to those with strong sexual desires. Rabbi Danzig was cognizant of Rabbi Luria’s limitations to sexual intercourse on special religious days. Therefore, he was not willing to offer blanket permission, but rather limit the law to those who feel it is necessary, emphasizing that Rabbi Luria’s prohibition was only for the select few. (5) In the same book 1, klal 130:11 (in the section titled “Concise Overview of the Seder”), Rabbi Danzig discusses the eating of bitter herbs at the Passover seder and ridicules those who attribute their mistaken views to non-existent Lurianic traditions. He writes, Afterwards, one should take a ke-zayit (a weight equal to that of an olive) of matzah from the unbroken third [matzah] in order also to fulfill with it a commandment, and if one requires it for the next day, then he should take it either from the upper one or from the middle one. He should take a further ke-zayit of maror and wrap it with the matzah. It is proper to dip also this maror in the ḥaroset.43 He should consume the two zeitim ([weights of] olives) eaten at the same time if possible, as in paragraph 9 above. One must be careful not to discuss matters that are not related to the meal until after the sandwich is eaten. The blessings of eating matzah and maror also apply to this [combination] as well. Nevertheless, after the fact, if one did talk, he is not required to say the blessings again. Know that there are no distinctions between the species of maror over which the blessing may be said [to fulfill the obligation of eating it] and this [maror] that is taken for the sandwich. It is not as I have heard from some people citing the writings of the Ari that they should be two [different] species; they do not know their right from their left! See! The five species of vegetable of which any one fulfills the obligation [of maror] [are permitted for use in the sandwich. Even] if several of them or even all of the species are combined to form a ke-zayit (olive’s bulk), the obligation 43 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Passover 130:7, above for the reason for this.

77

78

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

is fulfilled. The general practice is to take the leaves of khrein44 to say the blessing upon, as it is the most pleasant to eat, and it is also the preferred one for the commandment. The author of Ḥayei Adam emphasizes the ignorance of those who misconstrue practices attributed to Rabbi Luria. (6) A popular reference to an imagined statement in the Zohar is found in book 1, klal 67:18 discussing the laws dealing with moving the limbs of a dead person on the Sabbath. Rabbi Danzig writes, The practice is to raise one who died on the Sabbath from the cushions (on which he was lying) using a slab. This applies also in situations where there is no worry of decomposition. One must protest this practice for it is only permissible to push away the cushion from beneath him. And in some places, they are accustomed to close his eyes and to straighten his limbs so they do not get bent. They say that it is written in the Zohar that it is dangerous (on account of evil spirits), but this practice (of straightening limbs) has no source. And also, the Zohar only mentions the eyes, and consequently [the practice of] straightening limbs has no foundation. Rabbi Danzig clarifies that there is a popular practice assumed to stem from the Zohar, which in fact has absolutely no basis.

44 See ibid. 130:3 above. The word used by the Ḥayei Adam, khrein (‫)חריין‬, appears related to the Polish chrzan, Russian khren, and Ukrainian khrin. Khrein (horseradish) is Armoracia rusticana, a perennial member of the mustard family native to Eastern Europe and grown for its pungent root. Both the root and leaves have been used since ancient times as medicine for various ailments. Rabbi Danzig writes in the Nishmat Adam 34, “regarding the eating of the maror, it is customary in our country to eat shredded khrein, as it is impossible to eat it whole and un-shredded in any case because it is life-threatening, as has been observed—the Merciful One should save!—[with regard] to various people in our community; therefore, the custom is to eat it shredded, and similarly was the Gra accustomed.”

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

Softening Some Extreme Statements in the Zohar (1) In book 1, klal 16:1, Rabbi Danzig states, It is a positive commandment to pray every day, as it is written (Deuteronomy 11:13) “and serve Him with all your heart.” The Sages taught: what is the service of the heart? It is] prayer. According to the opinion of Maimonides,45 this verse contains a biblical commandment, while for the others it is a poetic support [for a matter instituted by the Sages]. According to all opinions, according to the divine law [if indeed it is a Torah law], once a day is sufficient. The wording depends on the individual’s wishes, and the time of the prayer is subject to individual preference. It was the Sages who established the number of daily prayers, their fixed text, and their required times. From the beginning of the light of day is the time for the morning prayer. Even though stars may still be visible in the sky, this time is nevertheless defined as “day” as is [apparent] in the Yerushalmi (Jerusalem Talmud) in the beginning of the [tractate] Berakhot. Importantly, it is prohibited to pray the Shemoneh Esrei [Amidah] prayer before sunrise. Nevertheless, if one needs to travel on some pressing emergency, or the caravan will not wait for him or owing to duress and other vital pressures, it is permitted to pray from the appearance of dawn’s first light. Therefore, from the time of dawn [and until one has prayed] it is prohibited to become involved in one’s personal needs, if it is not vital to do so. It is also prohibited to begin traveling on the road unless this is vital. It is also prohibited to

45 The great sage of medieval Jewish history, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides or Rambam, 1135–1204), was born in Spain and lived most of his life in Egypt. He authored three fundamental works of Torah study—the fourteen-part code of halakhah, the Mishneh Torah (1490), the Commentary on the Mishnah, and the philosophical classic Moreh Nevukhim (Lisbon, 1497).

79

80

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

eat and even to drink coffee46 with sugar and milk.47 The Sages based their words [regarding these laws] on the verse “you shall not eat over the blood” (Leviticus 19:26), that is to say, [these things are prohibited] before one has prayed regarding his life. The Zohar is extremely stringent, insisting that it is prohibited to eat even if one woke up in the middle of the night. Now here is the reason why the poskim (rabbinic adjudicators) were stringent even regarding one who began eating before dawn’s first light and insisted that he stop eating when it appeared. In all other matters instituted by the Sages, a person is not required to stop if they began [the activity] when it was permitted. But in this case, [the law] is different due to the fact that the Sages based their time frames on a biblical verse, “you shall not eat [over the blood]” (Leviticus 19:26) so [they applied the rule to stop eating] as if it were indeed a Torah rule. The prohibition was specifically enacted for people who drink due to their selfimportance and piggishness. However, it is permitted to drink water, tea, and coffee without sugar and milk, [as long as these things are] consumed for the maintenance of [proper] health. All [beverages] that are only [consumed] to settle one’s mind are permitted [to be consumed before prayer]. (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim: 89, and Pri Ḥadash, ad loc.)

46 The word used by the Ḥayei Adam, kave (‫)קאוע‬, appears to be the equivalent of the Turkish kahveh and the Arabic qahwah. Coffee (an English word since 1598) is the beverage made from the seeds of a small evergreen shrub, Coffea arabica, which is native to tropical Africa. The seeds are roasted to enhance the flavor, then ground, and mixed with water. Its exhilarating effect is the result of caffeine (first isolated from coffee in 1820). Coffee was known in Ethiopia before 1000 CE, spread throughout the Middle East by the fifteenth century, and had reached most of Europe by the seventeenth century (by 1680, there were almost 3,000 coffeehouses in England). Coffee became a staple beverage in North America after the Boston Tea Party (1773). Rabbi Danzig discusses the drinking of the alcoholic beverages made by the non-Jews in the Ḥokhmat Adam (66:14) and states that to drink coffee with milk (‫ )קאווע עם חלב‬is a genuine prohibition, because it leads to sexual impropriety “as is known.” Accordingly, he urges “all of whom have the fragrance of Torah” to avoid such beverages. The Sha’arei Teshuvah §552 (‫)׳יאכל כו ד״ה וכן לא‬, in the course of addressing the permissibility of drinking coffee at the seudah ha-mafseket (the last meal before a major fast day) before Tishah b’Av (see the notes to 134:2), comments that even poor people are regular coffee drinkers. The lethal dose of caffeine for humans is estimated to be between 3–8 grams (30–80 cups of coffee). 47 See the Ḥokhmat Adam 67.

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

The law concerns eating in the morning before daybreak, the earliest time one is permitted to pray. Rabbi Danzig first presents the law stated in Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 89:3, that it is prohibited to eat or drink before praying. He notes the strident position of the Zohar,48 (cited in Magen Avraham 89:14) that forbids eating if one awakens in the middle of the night and well before daybreak. He explains the reason for forbidding one who had begun eating to continue his meal and, in passing, takes note of the position of the Zohar, which he dismisses as “exceedingly harsh.” In this instance, Rabbi Danzig dismisses the extreme position of the Zohar in favor of the normative decisors who permit eating if one awakes in the middle of the night. This approach of the Ḥayei Adam will be further discussed below. An example of reconciliation between halakhah and the Zohar is found in book 1, klal 13:12, where Rabbi Danzig discusses the procedure of donning the phylacteries (tefillin): The custom in these countries49 is to say the blessing and to put on the tefillin, whether of the arm or the head, while standing. The kabbalists write that one should put on the tefillin shel yad (arm phylacteries) while sitting.50 It appears to me that the intent of the Zohar is not to say that one must put on the tefillin of the arm “specifically while sitting” but means “also while sitting.” For the basis of tefillin and of the recital of the Shema is the same one as is explicit in the Zohar, Terumah (139b), discussing the debate between Shamai and Hillel [concerning the posture of reciting Shema]. [The school of Hillel said,] whatever position the person is in when the time of reciting Shema occurs, in such a position he says it. It appears to me that this applies to the matter of tefillin.

48 In addition to Rabbi Avraham Gombiner’s (1635–1685) commentary Magen Avraham, see Rabbi Yosef ben Meir Teomim’s Pri Megadim, Eshel Avraham 89:4 and Rabbi Eliyahu Shapira’s (1660–1712) Eliyah Rabba 89:11, who quote a kabbalistic source urging not to eat if one awakes in the middle of the night. 49 This refers to the components of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1795), a political unit dismembered through territorial partitions (1772, 1793, and 1795) by its neighbors and brought to an end (until 1919) during the lifetime of Rabbi Danzig (1748–1820). 50 The opinion of the Gra (1720–1797) in the Bi’ur ha-Gra (25:29–30) is that one is able to put on the tefillin shel yad either while sitting or standing, but the putting on the tefillin shel rosh requires standing up.

81

82

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

Rabbi Danzig is in accordance with the approach of the Gaon of Vilna, who suggested that the Zohar and the halakhah do not disagree but rather require elucidation and reconciliation. Therefore, in the case of tefillin, there is no argument between the Zohar and the halakhah, but rather, a recommendation. Even though Rabbi Danzig writes “it appears to me,” he is citing the Gra’s opinion, which offers this special type of reconciliatory relationship between the Zohar and the halakhah.

The Zohar as a Source of Encouragement for Vigilance and Diligence in the Fulfillment of Halakhah (Musar) Three times in the Ḥayei Adam, Rabbi Danzig uses the expression “the Zohar is very stringent in the matter,” and three times the expression “the Zohar greatly elaborates on this matter.” The Rabbi’s goal is to use the Zohar, a book accepted as part of the canon of rabbinic literature and respected by most laymen, as a source of musar. Musar is basic to its literary structure of the Ḥayei Adam and found throughout all its klalim. The Zohar is another tool for Rabbi Danzig to enhance musar throughout his code, an implicit agenda in the Ḥayei Adam. The following paragraphs emphasize the severity of the law as presented in the Zohar. (1) I have already discussed book 1, klal 16:1 above. This paragraph encourages stringency and observance of musar principles in its readers. (2) The Ḥayei Adam discusses the law in Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 180, under the heading “The Laws as regards Bread Crumbs.” The Ḥayei Adam discards the Shulḥan Arukh’s discussion concerning the relevance of this law, and focuses only on the prohibition and its stringency.51 To enhance the severity of the ruling, he turns to the Zohar for proof. In book 1, klal 45:5 Rabbi Danzig writes, One must be very careful with crumbs and not throw them away, as this is linked to encouraging poverty on oneself. The 51 This ruling, although discussed by the poskim, seems to follow the direction of Rabbi Avraham Azulai (1570–1643). Rabbi Danzig chose to ignore the discussion of the poskim that asks whether it is permitted to throw away the crumbs if they are less than a size of an olive.

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

Zohar is very stringent [with respect to this issue], so one should gather the crumbs together and give them to birds. (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 180) (3) A further example is found in book 1, klal 68:16: One should not perform a commandment without payment; rather, he should acquire the item to fulfill it with full payment, as it is written (2 Samuel 24:24): “but the king told Araunah, ‘No; I shall purchase it from you for a price, and I shall not offer up to the Lord my God free whole burnt offerings!’ So, David bought the threshing floor and the cattle for fifty silver shekels.” The Zohar is exceedingly stringent on this matter. Rabbi Danzig included in his code of law a unique section (klal) “Laws to be Careful when Fulfilling Mitzvot.”52 The majority of the rulings in this section can be classified as halakhic musar.53 In the above paragraph, the Ḥayei Adam instructs his readers to pay for the items used to fulfill mitzvot and not to be tightfisted. A biblical passage is offered as a proof text. Rabbi Danzig turns to the Zohar and writes “The Zohar is very stringent on this matter.” The term “without payment” (ḥinam) is also found in Sefer Ḥaredim 4:17 under “seventeen conditions to completely fulfill mitzvot.” Rabbi Danzig does not cite this source but refers to the Zohar. (4) Book 1, klal 15:1 states, One who fulfills these three commandments, upon him it is said “a three-ply cord [is not easily severed]” (Ecclesiastes 4:12). Therefore, when a person emerges from the entrance of his house, he should kiss the mezuzah. (The holy Zohar goes on at length about this: “It is a commandment upon a person to affix a mezuzah to his door frame so that one should never forget the remembrance of the Holy One, blessed be He. And this is similar to tzitzit, as it says, ‘and you shall see them and remember’ [Numbers 15:39]. When a person sees this remembrance, he will remind himself to perform the commandments of his Creator, and this is the secret. .  . .” The Zohar elaborates the 52 See chapter 5, where I discuss this klal. 53 Similar to the musar books by Rabbi Yisrael Meir ha-Kohen, known as the Ḥafetz Ḥayyim. See Brown, “Dynamic of Continuity and Change,” 109–116.

83

84

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

intention for the commandment of mezuzah, and therefore, a person should be very particular with its intention), and one should take care to see whether it is done properly. The halakhah is based on the instructions of Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 285, that provide details to fulfill the mitzvah of mezuzah. Rabbi Danzig introduces this passage not with the phrase “the Zohar is very stringent” but rather “the Zohar elaborates.” He continues with the emphasis upon the spiritual aspect of mezuzah, and he instructs his reader on the importance of having the proper intention when fulfilling this mitzvah. By turning to the Zohar, the author of the Ḥayei Adam stresses the importance of the law in creating a deep-seated awareness of being a creature devoted to the worship of the God of Israel. Rabbi Danzig’s language expresses his sentiment. He tells us that the Zohar elaborates upon the intention of the commandment of mezuzah as equal to having tzitzit (ritual tassels) on one’s garment that symbolize the commandments. He adds that a person should be highly mindful of their purposes. In other words, the Zohar discussed these ritual items as containing mutual mystical connections of a common essence, which highlights the importance of attention to this mitzvah. (5) Book 1, klal 17:5 states, Although it is a great commandment to pray in the beit ha-knesset (synagogue), woe be to him who stumbles there through evil friends with worthless talk, mocking, and similar things.54 He has no share in the God of Israel. (The holy Zohar greatly elaborates on the punishment for this, and these are its words in Terumah: “Woe to the one who speaks profane words in the beit ha-knesset, for he demonstrates dissent, woe to him for diminishing the bonds of trust, woe to him for by such he demonstrates his atheism [stating] that God is not found there and that he has no portion in Him and has no fear of Him. He conducts himself with contempt in the highest designated form of worship.”) [Worthless talk] will make it impossible to hear the reading of the Torah or the 54 The Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings (63:17), writes, “Due to our many sins, the people of our generation, even those that study [Torah], are not careful with this and speak words of scorn. There is nothing for a person to speak of except words of Torah or business that is their life.”

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

prayer of the sheliaḥ tzibur in the beit ha-knesset—it is better to pray in his home with ten [others]. The laws concerning proper behavior in the synagogue are presented in Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 151:2. The Pri Megadim (Eshel Avraham) commentary as well as the other classical commentaries55 on the Tur and the Shulḥan Arukh are concerned with speaking in the synagogue. Rabbi Danzig adds, in parentheses, strong warnings presented by the Zohar to emphasize his concern. This passage of the Zohar is also cited in the Pri Megadim 151:1. (6) Book 1, klal 17:6 states, The sanctity of the beit ha-knesset (synagogue) and the beit ha-midrash (house of study) is extremely great, and [all] are cautioned to preserve their sanctity and to fear the One that dwells in them, as it is written (Leviticus 19:30): “And My Sanctuary you shall fear.” [This verse] is not [limited to] the beit ha-mikdash (Temple) alone, but rather to every holy place. The beit ha-knesset and the beit ha-midrash are called mikdash me’at (miniature sanctuary), as it is written (Ezekiel 11:16): “yet I have been for them a miniature sanctuary”—these are the batei knessiot (synagogues) and batei midrashot (houses of study) (BT Megillah 29a). The legal authorities write that this commandment of fearing the mikdash is applicable in the beit ha-knesset and the beit ha-midrash and is a Torah obligation (see the Sefer Yere’im 394). Therefore, it is prohibited to speak idle words in them and compute computations unless [the computations] are for fulfilling a commandment - for example, the tzedakah (public assistance) box and similar things. It is especially prohibited [to engage] there in laughter and lightheadedness. Regarding them, it is said (Isaiah 1:12), “who sought this from your hand, to trample My courtyards?” for he shows himself to have no portion in the God of Israel. The Zohar dwells extensively on their punishment, the

55 The Magen Avraham cites R. Luria, another kabbalistic source, to emphasize the impropriety of speaking in the synagogue.

85

86

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

Merciful should save us! This is what is written in the Zohar— that it is as if one has no God. Rabbi Danzig, in the above paragraph 17:6, again turns to the Zohar to accentuate the severe nature of the sin of speaking in the synagogue. Citing the Shulḥan Arukh 151:3, he expands the prohibition of secular thoughts, laughter, and lightheadedness. After quoting a biblical passage, he cites the Zohar - emphasizing the punishment for this sin - and concludes: “This is what is written in the Zohar—that it is as if one has no God.” The strength of the language again suggests the constant concern of Rabbi Danzig regarding one’s behavior in the synagogue.56

Stringencies in the Zohar as a Source of Adjudication The Ḥayei Adam also uses the Zohar as source for deciding on the stringent view of a halakhah. I discuss several examples below. (1) In book 1, klal 17:1, when discussing places where it is permissible to pray, Rabbi Danzig writes, The locations that are appropriate for prayer are not equal, for prayer in a sanctified place is not similar to prayer in an unsanctified place. . . . The fifth location: if it is impossible for one to pray with ten [others], or one is [traveling] on the road, then one should at least pray in a house that has windows. However, it is prohibited to pray in a field, unless one is on the road. Nevertheless, in an emergency, one should seek to pray among trees [and not in an open field]. (This alternative provides another answer to the difficulty raised by the Tosafot regarding Isaac, as it is written “[Isaac went out] to meditate (la-suaḥ) in the field” (Genesis 24:63).) The commentators write that this word was understood to refer to the trees (siaḥ, “plant growths”) that were in the field. I was fortunate

56 I suggest that this, again, is part of Rabbi Danzig’s polemic against the early Hasidim. The early Hasidim were known for their loud behavior during prayer and in the synagogue. See, for example, Wilensky, Hasidim and Mitnaggedim, vol. 1, 41. Additional references can be found throughout Wilensky’s book. See also chapter 4.

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

and saw this explanation in the Baḥ57: “Siḥa can only refer to prayer.” The Baḥ notes that it is not written, “Isaac went out to the field,” for then it would be irrelevant whether there were trees or not. [But siaḥ is mentioned.] Therefore, the Baḥ expounded the [extra] word as also meaning prayer [besides the interpretation of the commentators: “trees”]. In the Zohar (Beshalaḥ 60), it is understood that praying among trees is of no avail; therefore, one should not rely on this interpretation, except if one has no other place [in which to pray].58 In the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 90:5, the law prohibits praying in the fields unless one is a traveler, in which case it is permitted. The Ḥayei Adam, in the above paragraph, discusses the possibility of praying in the field between the trees, and the Baḥ (Tur, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 90) is cited as the source that suggests this possibility. Rabbi Danzig turns to the Zohar to reject the Baḥ and prohibits praying between the trees except in a case of emergency.59 (2) In book 2, klal 139:2, Rabbi Danzig cites the stringencies of the Zohar to reinforce his ruling. He writes, Although the legal authorities have written that on Rosh haShanah and Yom Kippur it is permitted to pray in a slightly raised voice - nevertheless, all who fear the word of God should pray in a whisper as one does throughout the entire year,60 57 The Bayit Ḥadash, a commentary on the Arba’ah Turim written by Rabbi Yoel Sirkis (1561–1640) of Poland. 58 This Zohar source is also quoted in the Magen Avraham (90:6), which focuses upon praying in a building. 59 This ruling against a leading Shulḥan Arukh commentator and adjudicator in favor of the Zohar follows the accepted guidelines for using the Zohar as a source of halakhic decision-making. That is, the Zohar may be applied in case of a dispute amongst the poskim. This approach is presented in Rabbi Ḥayyim Mordekhai Margolis’ (died 1818) Shulḥan Arukh commentary Sha’arei Teshuvah, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 26:14. This ruling once again is probably a part of Rabbi Danzig’s polemic with the Hasidim. They were known to go to the forest to pray amongst the trees. 60 The Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings (22:11), writes, “One should say the words in a whisper in order to hear what they are saying. However, one must be careful when whispering that even someone standing near him will not hear their voice, as it is written of Hannah (1 Samuel 1:13), “[Hannah was speaking to her heart—]only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard,” even on Rosh ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur, and even if all are praying from siddurim [prayer books], and the reason is not only [possible] confusion, but there are other reasons that require prayer to be said specifically in whisper.”

87

88

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

for it is stated in the Zohar (I:209a) that if one’s voice is loud enough that his fellow is able to hear his prayer, then his prayer is not heard on high. Therefore, every person must be careful regarding this [matter],61 especially given the fact that those that permit [raising one’s voice in prayer] only permit a slight raising of one’s voice, and not as is done by the ignorant masses, with shouts and loud voices. The Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 582:9, permits praying on Rosh ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur in a loud voice, in contrast to the remainder of the year when this is prohibited. Rabbi Danzig disagrees with Rabbi Karo and rules differently. He chooses not to cite either the Magen Avraham (101:4) or the Eliyah Rabba (582:20), which offer a similar ruling. Rather, the Zohar serves as his basis of adjudication.62 (3) An additional example cited above is in book 2, klal 67:18 (discussed and cited above). There, Rabbi Danzig prohibits straightening out the limbs of a corpse on the Sabbath, as he notes that the Zohar permits only to close the eyes of a corpse on the Sabbath.

Use of Mystical Sources for Encouraging and Strengthening One’s Moral Resolve to Act Properly The remaining kabbalistic sources used by Rabbi Danzig in his code function as support for exemplifying encouragement and strengthening one’s moral resolve to act properly.63 They often contribute to his exhortations to reinforce resolve in the face of challenging practices. I will cite three examples. (1) Book 1, klal 21:11: One must concentrate on the meaning of “Hear O Israel” (Deuteronomy 6:4), in that it signifies, “Accept upon 61 The Sefer Ma’aseh Rav (203) states that “one should not raise [their] voice more than [in] the prayers of the entire year,” indicating the opposition of the Gra (1720–1797) to such a practice; see also the Bi’ur ha-Gra (582:22). 62 As I stated above, the Hasidim were known to pray very vocally. This ruling reflects Rabbi Danzig’s anti-Hasidic approach. 63 I have cited three examples. The other instances where the Ḥayei Adam inserts kabbalistic sources are: book 1, klalim 1, 13:11, 19:6, 46:4, 68:13; and book 2, klalim 132:35, 135: eivdu, 143: ki-zavnu, and 155:11.

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

yourselves [with the words the Lord our God] the Lord who he is our God” [signifying], that we trust in Him, He is “the one Lord” [signifying] “in all of the worlds, in the heavens and on the earth, and the four directions of the world.” Therefore, a person should prolong enunciating “One.” One should not say it like the [ignorant] do, exaggerating the final letter of the word ‫( אחד‬eḥad, “One”) as they pronounce this letter (dalet) like it had [been vocalized with] an “e” sound (written with the letter ayin, with the resulting pronunciation of eḥade). Rather, one must say the word properly, prolonging it by only extending the breath while concentrating [on the worlds and directions that God governs]. Then, after pausing briefly, he should say “Blessed is the glorious Name of his Kingship for all eternity,” always in a whisper for it is prohibited to say it in a loud voice. It is good thing to martyr oneself for this belief in God. He should imagine himself being burned at this very moment for the sanctification of His Name, in order to fulfill the verse, “For You we are killed the entire day” (Psalms 44:23), and it will be accounted to him as if he actually did it. This is my statement of defense [for these views]. However, from the language of the holy Zohar in many places, it would appear that the obligation of sacrificing one’s life that this verse alludes to is specifically during the enunciation of the word “One.” For this is the citation in Zohar Mishpatim 119a: “The daily act, declaring the divine unity of the Holy One blessed be He, should entail that his death be with the word ‘one,’ just as an animal that is ritually slaughtered with thirteen incisions of a knife, which is the sum of the numerical values of the letters that make the word eḥad (“One”): alef = 1 + ḥet = 8 + dalet = 4 . . . .”64 See also in Zohar Tzav (33:1): “Every day, one should take care to repent and offer his spirit that will depart with the word ‘one.’” In the introduction to the Tikkunim [Tikkunei Zohar] (I abbreviate): “And this is he who is beloved of his Master, the one who offers his life with the word ‘one’ in the love of his Master.” Accordingly, it 64 The practice of counting numerical equivalences of Hebrew words based on numerical meanings attached to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet (gematria) was known since ancient times.

89

90

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

would appear that the act of commending one’s soul [to God] should be specifically tied to the word “One.” However, it is impossible to extend the [middle] letter ḥet (‫ )ח‬of the word eḥad (“One”) so long as to concentrate on the significance of the word “One” [that is, the divine omnipotence] and also visualize some type of martyrdom. Clearly, the Zohar says that one should commit to martyrdom at the word “One” only after one has concentrated upon the explanation of the word “One,” was explained above—that is, having completed enunciating the word “One” and concluded the thoughts that were mentioned above. Then one should accept upon himself [envisioning] his act of martyrdom. One should not slur the ḥet (‫ )ח‬nor extend the alef (‫ )א‬and pronounce properly the final letter of “One” (dalet) so that it should not appear as a similar letter65 (reish, spelling aḥer, “other”). (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 61) The issue here is the requirement for proper meditation when reciting the Shema. After presenting the traditional explanations, Rabbi Danzig centers on the idea that the focus of the meditation is viewing oneself as though sacrificing the self for the sake of both God and Judaism. The Baḥ 61:1 and the Eliyah Rabba 61:2 both refer to this explanation, but the Ḥayei Adam quotes two texts of the Zohar to support his objective while opposing what was taken as common practice in the recital of the word “One.” Nevertheless, Rabbi Danzig does not use any formal markers to introduce the reference to the Zohar. Still, while he writes “It is good that one, . . .” he uses the authority of the Zohar to highlight the requisite thoughts of martyrdom he advocates. (2) Book 1, klal 35:5: laws of Kriyat Shema when going to sleep: One is required to be very careful to accustom himself to lay specifically on his side. It is a serious prohibition to lay prakdan, which is to lay on one’s back while facing up. It is good to accustom oneself to lay on the left side and contemplate [matters] in Torah until falling asleep, for then a plague will not approach his tent. There are those who repeat the first paragraph [of the 65 Producing a heretical statement denying monotheism: that there is “another” God.

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

Shema] several times until one sinks into sleep. It is fitting that one not repeats the first verse (Deuteronomy 6:4), which is “Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” It is appropriate for every person to confess [their transgressions] before going to sleep. This is the language of the holy Zohar in Vayeshev: “When a person goes daily on his way, he must guard himself from sin. Each and every day, when night arrives, he must look and examine all his actions of the day in order to repent. And he should constantly examine them in order to repent before his creator, as it is written in Psalms 51:5: ‘And my sin is before me always.’” And there are many statements like this one in the holy Zohar in Naso: “Come and see! When people are sleeping and taste the flavor of death, the soul ascends to the heavens and stands in the place for standing and is examined concerning the deeds it has done each day which were duly recorded in writing. What is the reason for this? It is because the soul will ascend on high and testify to the deeds of people and to every word that has been uttered. Any word which was uttered ascends and breaks through the heavens and stands in the place of standing until nightfall, when the soul ascends and grabs this word and brings it in to the King. As it is written (Micah 7:5): “From she who lies in thy breast, guard the openings of your mouth.” The Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 239, presents the laws reciting the Kriyat Shema when going to sleep. No mention of confession is found in Rabbi Karo’s work. The Magen Avraham 239:6 and the Eliyah Rabba discuss confessing before sleep, but neither refer to the Zohar. The Ḥayei Adam refers to the Zohar when discussing the concept of confession not only as a source of this idea, but to emphasize its importance. To further emphasize his point, Rabbi Danzig quotes the entire Zohar text. (3) Book 1, klal 67:1: If one has a father or a mother, he should strive to engage in their needs. This is a positive commandment of the Torah, and it is the weightiest amongst the weighty (as is stated in the Yerushalmi at the beginning of tractate Pe’ah). A person is required to honor his father and his mother and regard

91

92

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

them with awe. It is necessary to take great care, to show them honor and to fear them. . . . And it is obvious that he should love them as one’s own body, as they are included in the commandment “and you shall love your fellow as yourself ” (Leviticus 19:18). Only that with regard to one’s father and mother, their love is connected to the love of the Omnipresent, as is stated in the Zohar in Ki Teitzei (281a–b): “Like a man that strives for his father and his mother, that he loves them more than himself and his own soul, spirit, and breath. All his wealth he should consider as nothing in using it to perform the will of his father and his mother . . .” (see all of this in the Tur and Sefer Ḥaredim66 in [the section of] the Positive Commandments that are dependent upon the heart). The basis for this paragraph is found in Tur, Yoreh De’ah 240. Rabbi Danzig follows his literary pattern67 and opens the laws of honoring parents with a preamble. His introductions may focus on musar, polemics with Hasidism or the Haskalah, or issues stemming from the social reality of his time. In this klal, I suggest that the theme is that of musar, emphasizing the importance of honoring one’s father and mother. The Zohar, as well as other kabbalistic sources throughout the Ḥayei Adam, served as an authoritative basis confirming the significance of this commandment—hence, Rabbi Danzig’s lengthy quotation.

Insertion of Mystical Concepts (1) In a code of law there is little place for mysticism, but Rabbi Danzig’s code of law referred to authoritative mystical texts in his books because he felt that such sources would contribute to the proper behavior of his readers. In book 1, klal 20:1, he discusses the procedure of the initial morning prayers (pesukei de-zimra), introducing this topic with a mystical elucidation. He writes,

66 The Sefer Ḥaredim (Venice, 1601) of Rabbi Elazar ben Moshe Azikri (1533–1600), born into a family of Sephardim who lived in the Land of Israel, enumerates the 613 commandments of the Torah and groups them into various sections. Rabbi Azikri also wrote the well-known poem Yedid Nefesh. This compilation can be viewed as a book of musar. 67 See chapter 1 in this book, where I discuss preambles in the Ḥayei Adam.

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

The [morning] prayer service is divided into four sections[, which mirror the four worlds known to mystics.] These sections correspond to 1) this world, 2) the world of the spheres, 3) the world of the angels, and 4) the upper world. The upper world contains his splendored shekhinah. They also correspond to 1) body, 2) nefesh (soul), 3) ruaḥ (spirit, a higher level of soul), and 4) neshamah (still higher level of soul).68 And so by this [sectioned configuration] is awakened the holiness that is in each and every world and in every portion of his body: his nefesh, ruaḥ, and neshamah. By this [configuration], the prayer rises to become a crown on the head of the Holy One, blessed is He. These four sections are the following. 1) From the blessing Al Netilat Yadayim up to Barukh she-Amar,69 which mirrors the body and this world. 2) From Barukh she-Amar to Yotzer Or,70 which mirrors the nefesh and the world of the spheres, for the spheres and the nefesh constantly sing and praise His glory, may He be blessed, as it is written (Psalms 104:1): “May my nefesh bless, . . .” and it is written (Psalms 104:2): “The heavens tell of his glory,” and the whole of Psalm 148: “Praise the Lord—from the heavens. . . .” And so all the verses of praise were formulated to awaken the holiness that is there. 3) From Yotzer Or until Shemoneh Esrei [is a section that] mirrors the ruaḥ and the world of the angels that sanctify his name, may He be blessed, in the kedushah liturgy [of the Shema],71 and therefore, we say “Creator of the attending angels. . . .” 4) At this point, after the holiness has been aroused in all three worlds, he prays [the eighteen blessings of] Shemoneh Esrei and stands before the king of kings of kings (melekh malkhei ha-melakhim), Holy One, blessed is He, in His glory. Therefore, this prayer is uttered in seclusion, as if one stands before a king. (2) Rabbi Danzig begins the laws of Yom Kippur with a lengthy discourse of musar. In this address, while discussing the 68 69 70 71

For man is a microcosm (olam katan). Blessing the Creator of the world. “Creator of the lights.” The angels say, “Holy! Holy! Holy!” in praise.

93

94

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

inadequacies of a sinner, he writes, “When a person who is wicked performs a mitzvah, the spark of holiness (nitzotz), from which comes the life of the evil shell (kelipah), comes to this person, as a reward for his mitzvah. And the evil shell takes it, and it gives it (the evil shell) its life. And when a person continues to sin until there remains no holiness, the evil inclination tempts him to fast. . . .” Rabbi Danzig includes Lurianic Kabbalah (a source respected by the lay Jew) in his Yom Kippur introduction in order to convey to his reader the seriousness of their possible behavior. (3) Following klal 78, the final section of book 1 in some editions of the Ḥayei Adam includes an insert entitled “Interpretation of [the Prayer] Aleinu le-Shabe’aḥ.”72 An interesting observation indicates that this insertion, which is based on mystical words of Lurianic Kabbalah, appears out of place. The Ḥayei Adam only included mysticism in the context of halakhah and musar. The first two editions of the Ḥayei Adam, published in Rabbi Danzig’s lifetime, did not include this section. It would be inconsistent for the Ḥayei Adam to include a mystical text that is not a proof text or musar. I, therefore, suggest that this section was added by a later publisher, with the intention of honoring Rabbi Danzig with a special accolade. Typically, at the end of a volume, there is an empty page, which enabled this unique addition to the code.

Concluding Remarks As Katz73 correctly argues, a traditional society sees its existence as both dependent on the past and as its continuation. A traditional society sees past behavior as mandatory for the present. The societies that sanctify their forefathers and their authority use the writings and rulings of earlier sages to pass judgment on contemporary issues. Based on earlier writings that defined traditional behavior, in particular in the religious sphere, such laws have immense impact and shape the development and the future outlook of these societies. In Jewish traditional society, new halakhic issues were 72 See chapter 7 in this book. 73 See Jacob Katz, Tradition and Crisis (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2000), 3–4. See also Rubin’s introduction on the development of the sociological understanding of a traditional society: Nissan Rubin, Twisted Frames (Tel Aviv: Ha-kibbutz ha-meuḥad, 2019).

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

based on the rulings of earlier rabbinic authorities. In most cases, the rabbinic authorities in the eighteenth century relied on the poskim of the previous generations, who - in their turn - relied on the authority of the Shulḥan Arukh and its commentators who lived two hundred years earlier. Only in special instances would the poskim revert to using the “heavy artillery” and turn to the writings of the Rishonim, much earlier sages. Kabbalistic texts played a vital role in the development of the halakhic process. The eighteenth-century authorities primarily referred to the works attributed to Rabbi Luria, and the Zohar. These sources acquired widespread authority and entered the canon of Jewish holy texts. These books of Kabbalah not only discussed mysticism but also included legal statements. Different groups of Jews used these laws, but they needed to rely on poskim for authorization and practical details of their application. In the Mitnagdic world, the Jews mostly followed the guidelines I discussed above, thereby never negating the authority of the Talmud and the later poskim. There appeared to be an obsession with guarding these laws and even making them more stringent to ensure that the sentiment would not be lost. Even the laymen who did not understand the kabbalistic texts relied on the authority of the Kabbalah, especially when the Zohar and Rabbi Luria demanded strict adherence and reverence to existing laws. Later adjudicators took these elements into consideration when determining their rulings. For a posek to offer a kabbalistic proof text or stringency alongside his ruling would certainly invite the attention of the reader. Rabbi Avraham Danzig lived in a time of great change and transition, a time when Jews were emancipated in the West, coupled with the rise of revolutionary religious movements in the East. He saw himself as part of the fabric of traditional Jewish culture and maintained the worldview conveyed in his code, the Ḥayei Adam. His enormous intellectual strength enabled him to summarize and synthesize the law as detailed in the comments of the Tur, the Shulḥan Arukh, and the Shulḥan Arukh’s commentators. His literary process did not generally include a “cut-and-paste” style, and he did not blindly adopt earlier rulings. Rather, he offered his own style of presentation.74 He also used his code as a halakhic platform to communicate musar to his readers, and to challenge the arrival of new Jewish movements, 74 Brown, “Ha-kabbalah b’pesikat ha-Ḥafetz Ḥayyim,” shows, in contrast, how the Ḥafetz Ḥayyim, in his many citations of kabbalistic texts in the Mishnah Berurah, funnels them from earlier rabbinical sources.

95

96

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

such as the Haskalah and Hasidism, to express concern for specific halakhic areas that were not properly observed in his community.75 Rabbi Danzig utilized the kabbalistic texts, primarily the Zohar, as a tool to achieve this goal. He used approximately forty-nine different kabbalistic sources. The majority of references are to various chapters in the Zohar. Though that is not a great number for a code, it is still relevant. Many of these kabbalistic citations were not channeled from the Shulḥan Arukh’s commentators, but they were introduced by Rabbi Danzig on his own. I suggest that like his teacher, the Noda bi-Yhudah, and his senior and revered colleague, the Vilna Gaon, Rabbi Danzig was well-versed in the writings of the Zohar and other kabbalistic texts. Even though in book 1, klal 10:12, Rabbi Danzig greatly discourages the study of Kabbalah, it did not prevent him from pursuing such knowledge.76 The analysis of these sources shows that the primary function of Rabbi Danzig’s kabbalistic insertions is to encourage stringent behavior and obedience to the principles of musar in his readers. This is clear in his choice of language: the kabbalistic quotations are often introduced by set expressions that emphasize the severity of the ruling, such as “the Zohar is very stringent” or “the Zohar greatly elaborates.” According to Rabbi Danzig, the halakhah was established by earlier rabbinic authorities to inspire a more rigorous performance of mitzvot. Rabbi Danzig then turns to the Zohar, the veracity of which all readers would undeniably accept, to corroborate these earlier rules.77 In this chapter, I have shown that Rabbi Danzig included Kabbalah in his code for the following reasons. 1. To explain the prerequisites for the study of esoteric or kabbalistic literature. 2. To demonstrate how kabbalistic texts or beliefs can be misconstrued. Rabbi Danzig discusses five cases where he cautions his reader against blind adherence to undocumented kabbalistic

75 In the chapters on the preambles of the Ḥayei Adam and the issue of kitniyot in the Ḥayei Adam, I discuss these issues in further detail. 76 His commentary on the Passover Haggadah would also suggest an extensive knowledge of kabbalistic sources. Rabbi Danzig allegedly wrote this book as a young man of eighteen. 77 This is what Brown, “Ha-kabbalah b’pesikat ha-Ḥafetz Ḥayyim,” 497 would term “a soft stringency.”

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

practices. This is a significant percentage of the total times a kabbalistic source is presented. To inspire stringent behavior of halakhic practices. To offer his readers musar. I have previously explained musar as the encouragement to vigilantly and diligently observe the halakhah as a drive in moral and ethical issues, while often incorporating severe stringencies. Musar does not always refer to stringent conduct. For example, in book 1, klal 68:13, Rabbi Danzig discusses the importance of performing mitzvot through joy, and he offers Rabbi Luria’s teachings as his proof text.78 In three instances when the poskim are not in agreement, the Ḥayei Adam bases its rulings on a kabbalistic source. The Ḥayei Adam’s methodology does not deviate from the accepted Lithuanian halakhic guidelines for incorporating Kabbalah into Jewish law. He follows the patterns set by the Magen Avraham and others.79 To harmonize halakhah and Kabbalah. In accordance with the Vilna Gaon, Rabbi Danzig offers his interpretation of the Zohar so that it will not contradict the law. He uses the expression “it seems to me . . .” to introduce his opinion.80 In some rare cases, the mystical materials are used as a means to catch the reader’s attention and inspire commitment to the subject discussed.

In summary, the Ḥayei Adam, with a limited number of explicit examples, includes many Jewish esoteric sources. Its literary style is similar to the writings of Rabbi Danzig’s teacher, the Noda bi-Yhudah. Rabbi Landau presented the traditional approach to pesak, but when it came to Kabbalah, he greatly discouraged its study, even though he was well versed in kabbalistic literature. As Kahana81 explains, Rabbi Landau used his writings to convey his knowledge of Kabbalah, primarily found in his homilies and

78 This might suggest that Rabbi Danzig is sending a message that the Hasidim do not have a monopoly on “joy” in Judaism, an integral component of Hasidic thought. 79 Brown, “Ha-kabbalah b’pesikat ha-Ḥafetz Ḥayyim,” 495 describes the guidelines. 80 What is clear is that he is not presenting the view of the Vilna Gaon but says “that it seems to me.” 81 Kahana, From the Noda bi-Yhudah to the Ḥatam Sofer, 29.

97

98

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

interpretations of talmudic aggadah,82 but rarely pesak.83 This focus on integrating Kabbalah and Jewish law is clearly manifested in the Ḥayei Adam. Rabbi Danzig’s primary purpose was not halakhah but, rather, musar. He frequently discussed the severity of punishments issued to people who failed in the proper conduct of mitzvot. In his code of law, the Ḥayei Adam, he generated particular platforms that enabled him to debate the rising contemporary challenges facing the Mitnagdic-Orthodox community.84 Even when he included kabbalistic concepts, he neither explained them nor considered mystical or theological questions.85 Rabbi Danzig’s struggle with theological issues may have affected his writings, but such topics were not his primary objective. He chose to dedicate his career not only to halakhah, but also to musar, emphasizing the severity of action needed to perform mitzvot and the punishment for disobedience. A detailed examination of Rabbi Danzig’s struggle with theological issues will be left for a future study.86

82 Ibid., 25. Flatto, Kabbalistic Culture argues and attempts to show that Rabbi Landau was a kabbalist. I side with the understanding of Kahana. See also Brown, “Dynamic of Continuity and Change,” 137–140. 83 Brown, “Dynamic of Continuity and Change,” 138 writes concerning the Noda bi-Yhudah: “Kabbalistic concepts that appear sporadically in his writings are few and very basic and appear to be like a delicate spice to enhance his primary message.” I believe this to be true of Rabbi Danzig. 84 I have, throughout this chapter, suggested numerous instances where Rabbi Danzig implicitly refers to his polemic with Hasidism. 85 Brown, “Ha-kabbalah b’pesikat ha-Ḥafetz Ḥayyim,” 539 discusses the Ḥafetz Ḥayyim’s important work, the Mishnah Berurah. Although both Rabbi Danzig and the Ḥafetz Ḥayyim saw the Zohar as primarily a tool for musar, it is clear that the Ḥayei Adam’s approach and point of departure differed from that of the Mishnah Berurah. 86 I would like to extend special appreciation to Professor Herb Basser for assistance with this essay. Time and effort played no role in his help. I am also grateful to Dr. Julie Joseph for her valuable input to this chapter. I would also like to thank Dashiell Ferguson for his translations of the Ḥayei Adam. My gratitude also goes to Estie Stollman for her translations of a number of paragraphs from the Ḥayei Adam.

1,1:1 1,5:27

1,10:12

1,10:12 1,10:12 1,10:12 1,13:12 1,13:12 1,13:12 1,15:1 1,15:1 1,16:1 1,17:1 1,17:5 1,17:6 1,17:6 1,18:2 1,18:2

3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Zohar Ari Ḥokhmat ha-Kabbalah R. Vital Zohar Zohar Mekubalim Zohar Zohar Zohar Zohar Zohar Zohar Zohar Zohar Zohar Ari Sitrei Kabbalah

Klal and Kabbalistic paragraph source

1 2

 

X           X   X X X X X   X

X                              

        X   X X     X X       X

                    X          

    X X       X X     X X X    

        X                   X  

 

String- Leniency Proof Ruling Musar Issues ency text with Kabbalah         X         partial    

Addendum: Esoteric Sources and Their Halakhic Practice

                X            

 

   

                             

 

   

        X X                  

 

   

Continued

Quali- Myst- Reconcilifying icism ation

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

99

1,18:4 1,19:6 1,20:1 1,21:1 1,21:11 1,21:11 1,21:11 1,21:12

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

1,21:12 1,35:5 1,35:5 1,45:4 1,45:5 1,67:1 1,68:13 1, 68:15 2,67:18 2,67:18

27 1,21:12

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

 

Zohar Zohar Mystics Zohar Zohar Tikkunim Zohar Al Pi Sod Asara Ma’amarot Shelah Zohar Zohar Zohar Zohar Zohar Ari Zohar Zohar Zohar

Klal and Kabbalistic paragraph source

X X X   X     X X X

X                    

  X X X X X X X      

X X     X            

X   X X     X X X    

                  X X

 

String- Leniency Proof Ruling Musar Issues ency text with Kabbalah X   X           X                       X X     X       X X X       X X X     X     X   X X                        

 

                                   

 

    X                              

 

               

Quali- Myst- Reconcilifying icism ation

100 Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

2,104:2 2,130:22 2,130:11 2,132:35 2,132:42 2,139:2 2,143:

46 47 48 49

2,143:20 2,153:1 2,155:1 2,155:1

45 2,143:

38 39 40 41 42 43 44

 

Zohar Ari Ari Ari Ari Zohar Kazavnu Zohar Kazavnu Ari Ari   Ivdu Zohar Zohar

Klal and Kabbalistic paragraph source

       

        X

  X      

X        

    X    

X     X X

 

String- Leniency Proof Ruling Musar Issues ency text with Kabbalah X   X   X     X           X           X         X       X       X X         X   X          

 

  X X           X    

 

                     

 

             

Quali- Myst- Reconcilifying icism ation

Esoteric Halakhah and the H.ayei Adam

101

4

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

Introduction A story is told1 in the name of Rabbi Berel Hirsch Breitovitz of a time when there was much hostility between the Hasidim and Mitnagdim. It happened that the Gaon of Vilna - Rabbi Eliyahu (also referred to as the Gra) - and Rabbi Avraham Danzig, author of the Ḥayei Adam, were traveling together. During the journey, the Gra from Vilna wanted to stop at a roadside inn so that he could pray the Minḥah (afternoon) service. Rabbi Danzig said that it was impossible to enter this inn since it was owned and operated by a Hasid. The Gra from Vilna responded, “Even if a Karaite would live there, I would enter and pray.” He ordered the wagon driver to stop and entered the inn. The travelers met the owner, whose outward appearance suggested he was a rabbinic scholar. The three men discussed topics from the holy Torah, and were impressed with the innkeeper’s vast knowledge. When the Hasid saw that his guests were surprised, he said, “All that we have discussed is suggested in one letter2 from the Holy Rabbi, the Magid of Mezeritch.” After the Minḥah prayers, the Vilna Gaon saw a box of books in the corner of the room and asked permission to look at them. To his amazement, he came upon the writings of the Ari. He asked the innkeeper, “Are you well-versed in these writings as well?” When the Hasid responded that he was, the Gra 1 Quoted in Mayer, “Rabbi Avraham Danzig,” 17. 2 The Hasidic concept of knowledge in one finger is discussed in David Biale et al., Hasidism: A New History (Princeton, NJ, and Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press, 2018), 161.

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

entered into a discussion with him concerning the esoteric secrets of the Torah, and they talked until midnight when they stopped to pray Ma’ariv (evening prayers). They then resumed their discussion until daybreak. Finally, the Gra could no longer contain his curiosity and asked the innkeeper, “Why are you a Hasid? It is plain that you are knowledgeable in all areas of the Torah including the esoteric. We have been told that Hasidim are not Torah educated. What do you have to do with them?” The man responded, “I am one of the group of students of the Holy Rabbi of Mezeritch. If one can realize the greatness of these students with one word, how much more so the Holy Rabbi. Why should I not be a Hasid?” The Gra turned to Rabbi Danzig and said, “See how much I have been misled!” He then expressed his desire to travel to Mezeritch to visit the Holy Rabbi, the Magid, to discuss and clarify the various grievances that had reached his ears and to convince or be convinced of the righteousness of the correct path. Rabbi Danzig was so dismayed by this prospect that he appealed to the Gra’s mother to dissuade her son from this “dangerous” enterprise, saying that if her son made the journey he might be convinced of the virtues of Hasidism, which in his opinion was tantamount to apostasy. He hoped that she would be able to stop him by reminding him of the Torah obligation to honor one’s mother. The Gra’s mother complied with the request and forbade her son to go. Thus, the possibility for resolving the animosity between the Hasidim and Mitnagdim was lost. The credibility of this tale is questionable, but the message that Rabbi Avraham Danzig was a fierce opponent of Hasidism is clear. He lived for most of his adult life in Vilna, a major center of anti-Hasidic rhetoric and activity.3 In Vilna, the war against the Hasidim was led by the Gra4 and followed by the Jewish community. The Gra’s disillusionment with the Hasidim 3 There are numerous publications that discuss the anti-Hasidism that prevailed in Vilna and the role of the Vilna Gaon in propagating this attitude. See, for example, Biale, Hasidim: A New History, 85–98; David E. Fishman, Russia’s First Modern Jews: the Jews of Shklov (New York and London: New York University Press, 1995), 7–21; Etkes, The Beginning of the Hasidic Movement, 100–109; idem, The Gaon of Vilna, 73–150; Israel Klausner, The Jewish Community of Vilno; Nadler, The Faith of the Mithnagdim; Schochet, The Hasidic Movement; and the chapters in Gershon David Hundert, ed., Essential Papers on Hasidism (New York and London: New York University Press, 1991), in particular, essays by Jacobs and Wilensky. 4 The strong opposition of the Gra gave credibility to the war against Hasidism beyond the borders of Vilna. See, for example, Etkes, The Beginning of the Hasidic Movement, 100–109 for a summary of his influence.

103

104

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

was theological, while the community leadership’s disdain resulted from Hasidism’s disruption of Jewish community structure. This breakdown of the organizational structure had serious economic consequences for the leaders, as well as for the community at large.5 For example, if the Hasidim did not need or desire to be part of the community, they did not pay the Jewish communal taxes or buy their meat from the community’s butchers. A summary of the primary grievances of the Mitnagdim against the Hasidim is given below.6 1. Their disregard for Talmud Torah, especially the study of Talmud and of codes of law (poskim), as well as their scorn of Torah scholars. By doing so, the Hasidim were making changes in the traditional hierarchy of Jewish values, in which Torah study was at the peak. The study of Talmud and of the codes of law was the very essence of Mitnagdic Judaism; the study of Torah was considered to be of high merit even if done without proper intention (kavanah) and not done for its own sake (lo li-shmah). Hasidism placed prominence on kavanah not only in prayer, but also in the study of Talmud. 2. Their discounting of halakhah (Jewish law)—for example, their total disregard for praying at the precise and established times required by Jewish law. In addition, they made changes to the process of ritual slaughtering (sheḥitah) by introducing honed knives.7 The argument against this practice was that honed knives with their fine blades were liable to become nicked and thus invalid. If used, they would make the animal not kosher (nevelah). As mentioned above, the conflict over sheḥitah also had economic ramifications, as the Hasidim refused to buy kosher meat from the community butchers. 3. Their approach to and activity during prayer. This included establishing separate prayer houses, introducing changes in the 5 See, for example, Biale, Hasidim: A New History, 26–30 for a discussion of the structure of Hasidism and the threats it posed to the Jewish social structure. 6 The accusations were presented in the first anti-Hasidic document from 1772, a pamphlet entitled Zamir aritzim ve-ḥarvot tzurim. See Mordecai L. Wilensky, “HasidicMitnaggedic Polemics in the Jewish Communities of Eastern Europe: The Hostile Phase,” in Essential Papers on Hasidism, ed. Gershon David Hundert (New York and London: New York University Press, 1991), 247. 7 The Gra did not object to the use of these knives.

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

liturgy and the method of prayer. The prayer was very loud (some said they roared like lions), and while praying, the Hasidim would make strange bodily movements and gesticulate. This behavior included somersaults. The concept of prayer and its importance to each? Hasid eclipsed all other Jewish values. 4. In addition to the above, the Hasidim were accused of spending their time in countless parties and celebrations (rather than Torah study). Moreover, it was said that they initiated bizarre and revolting practices that were not in accordance with traditional Judaism, such as homosexuality, somersaults before the Holy Ark, and rolling on the floor during prayer. The Hasidic disregard for asceticism also infuriated the Mitnagdim. 5. The Mitnagdim also accused the Hasidim of following the Sabbatean heresy. The misuse of Kabbalah and the rise of Hasidism were concurrent with the time when various groups of Sabbateans and Frankists8 still functioned.9 I have hereby not exhausted all the allegations by the Mitnagdim against the Hasidim. Whether the reasons for conflict were theological, economic, or socio-political (often exaggerated), the above list paints a picture of the deep-rooted animosity between the two groups.

Rabbi Avraham Danzig Rabbi Danzig was not a close student of the Gra, but he nevertheless considered himself part of the Gra’s circle. In addition, the two scholars were relatives: Rabbi Danzig refers to the Gra as his father-in-law.10 Rabbi Danzig’s actual family connection was that his son married the granddaughter of the Gra. As a Mitnaged, living in Vilna during the heart of the Hasidic-Mitnagdic conflict, as well as a student of Rabbi Yeḥezkel Landau who was also known for his anti-Hasidic stand, there is little question of Rabbi Danzig’s anti-Hasidic outlook. Even though the conflict partially ebbed in 1804, with the Russian government’s recognition of the Hasidic

8 See Biale, Hasidim: A New History, 20. 9 See Wilensky, “Hasidic-Mitnaggedic Polemics,” 259–261. 10 See the introduction to the Ḥayei Adam, where he refers to the Gra as ḥoten (father-in-law).

105

106

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

prayer houses, it is difficult to imagine that the animosity that developed over many years disappeared overnight.11 Rabbi Danzig saw Hasidism as a threat to the traditional religious, social, and political structure of the Lithuanian Jewish community. In contrast to Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady’s (1745–1812) Shulḥan Arukh ha-Rav,12 Rabbi Danzig’s works13 go beyond a code of Jewish law and serve as a platform for musar (guidance for conduct beyond halakhah as well as ethical and moral Jewish behavior) and for his polemics against Hasidism and other revolutionary movements. Our primary source for Rabbi Danzig’s challenge to the dogmas of early Hasidism is his magnum opus, the Ḥayei Adam (first published 1810),14 which encompasses the laws of Rabbi Yosef Karo’s (1488–1575) Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim and its commentaries, as well as selected chapters from Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah. Before turning to an analysis of Rabbi Danzig’s anti-Hasidic rhetoric, a clarification is needed. In his writings, Rabbi Danzig does not identify any of the movements he is challenging. It can be argued that the laws in the Ḥayei Adam are not part of a polemic, but rather, a straightforward presentation of Jewish law based on Rabbi Yosef Karo’s Shulḥan Arukh (as grasped by Rabbi Danzig). In my approach to the Ḥayei Adam, I suggest that, when preparing his code, Rabbi Danzig did have an additional implicit agenda. His writings, including his musar teachings, manifest a strong moral and ethical concern for the Jews of his community, beyond the need to merely list the laws. I advocate that this concern could not and would not stop with musar, but it continues with other anxieties and includes a warning against Hasidism.

11 Rabbi Ḥayyim of Volozhin, Rabbi Danzig’s colleague and a close student of the Gra, expresses a similar attitude. Although his book Nefesh Ḥayyim offers some reconciliation with Hasidim, Rabbi Ḥayyim expressed his disapproval of their behavior, especially of their disregard for the study of Talmud. 12 For a discussion and description of this code, see Tchernowitz, Toledot ha-poskim, vol. 3, 261–273. 13 For a list and detailed description of Rabbi Danzig’s publications, see Mayer, “Rabbi Avraham Danzig,” 36–159. In this chapter, in addition to the Ḥayei Adam, I will cite his Toledot Adam, a commentary on the Passover Haggadah composed between 1778 and 1788, and Beit Avraham, Rabbi Danzig’s ethical will published, according to his instructions, posthumously in 1821 by his children. 14 During his lifetime, Rabbi Danzig also published a second edition of the Ḥayei Adam. There are significant differences between the two editions. In my description of kitniyot (chapter 2), I discuss the impact of these changes.

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

Mordekhai Mayer15 cites Shmuel Horodetsky, who argues that the Ḥayei Adam was written to weaken and block any influence of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady’s Shulḥan Arukh. If the Mitnagdim had their own new code, they “would not be under the influence of the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim of the ‘Rabbi’ ha-Ḥasid [Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady] who was excommunicated.” I find Horodetsky’s argument to be historically inaccurate. Even though Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady’s Shulḥan Arukh was written at the same time as the Ḥayei Adam, it was first published in 1816. As in the above story concerning the Gra and Rabbi Danzig, his unease was not necessarily triggered by a specific code, but rather, it was representative of his polemic against the Hasidic movement, which I suggest is manifested in his writings. The following topics and citations from the writings of Rabbi Avraham Danzig do not exhaust all the texts involving his polemic against Hasidism. Still, I believe that the examples I quote and discuss will substantiate my rationale.

Torah Study (Talmud Torah)16 This section will deal with the laws and singularity of Torah study. However, many of the sections discussed below also include aspects of Talmud Torah. At the onset of his Ḥayei Adam, Rabbi Danzig inserts a chapter (klal) from the laws of Yoreh De’ah, the Laws of Torah study (book 1, klal 10). The laws from Yoreh De’ah can be found in various places in the Ḥayei Adam; for example, in book 1, klal 17, the Laws of Mezuzah; in book 1, klal 67, the Laws of Honoring Parents; and in book 1, klal 69, the Laws of Standing and Respect. Maimonides, in his code, also presents the laws of Torah study within his first chapters. However, while Rabbi Danzig’s Ḥayei Adam may have been influenced by Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, the organization of his code—as he points out in his introduction—was based upon what he considered to be a logical sequence.17 The insertion of the laws of Torah study in book 1, klal 10, I suggest, represents the prodigious importance he attaches to the study of Torah. 15 Mayer, “Rabbi Avraham Danzig,” 17. 16 I have examined and compared the Ḥayei Adam to the other codes such as the Tur, Levush, and Shulḥan Arukh with their classic commentaries. 17 Book 1, klal 16, is concerned with the laws of mezuzah, an additional theme from Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah. Rabbi Danzig explains the reason for this change of focus at the opening of the klal, where he writes that the laws of tefillin, tzitzit, and mezuzah are interwoven.

107

108

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

Not only does Rabbi Danzig place prominence on Torah study, but he also accentuates the physical location in which Torah is studied. In book 1, klal 17:1 (citing Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 90:18), he writes, The most holy place in the diaspora is the study hall, in which study takes place all day, as it is written, “The Lord loves the gates of Zion more than all the dwelling places of Jacob.” The “gates of Zion” refers to the gates that excel in halakhah [that is, the study hall], whereas the “dwelling places” refers to the synagogue. . . . The place in which the Torah is studied is more precious to God, for “the Lord has nothing in the world but the four cubits of halakhah.”18 The house of prayer is secondary to the beit ha-midrash (study hall). The place where one actually studies Torah is more important than any other holy place. Book 1, klal 10:1, sets the stage for Rabbi Danzig’s approach to Talmud Torah. He commences with a declaration,19 1

It is a positive commandment to learn Torah, as it is said (Deuteronomy 6:7), “You shall teach them thoroughly to your children,” and it is written (Deuteronomy 11:19), “You shall teach them,” as well as “This shall be the reward when you hearken to these ordinances” (Deuteronomy 7:12), and many similar verses.

Rabbi Danzig then turns to Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 246, to emphasize the importance of Torah study: Therefore, every man of Israel is obligated to study Torah. Whether he is impoverished or wealthy; whether he is in good health or beset by much suffering; whether he is in his youth or in his old age; even a pauper forced to beg door to door; even one with a wife and [many] children—he is required to set a time for the study of Torah both in the day and the night, as it is written (Joshua 1:8), “you should contemplate it day and night.” One who does not know [how] to learn at all should assist others that study 18 Translation adapted from Nadler, The Faith of the Mithnagdim, 59. 19 I offer special thanks to Mr. Dashiell Ferguson for preparing the translation of the Ḥayei Adam and his footnotes.

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

[Torah] and it will be reckoned to him as if he had engaged in Torah study himself. A person is able to make an arrangement with his fellow in which one of them will immerse himself in Torah study, the other will make a living, and the rewards of both will be divided among the two of them. 2

Until when is one obligated to learn Torah? Until the day of his death, as it is said (Deuteronomy 4:9), “lest you remove them from your heart all the days of your life,” and all the time one is not involved in the study of Torah they are forgetting [what they have already learned].

In paragraph 3, he deviates from citing the Shulḥan Arukh and turns to the Siftei Kohen (the Shakh) commentary by R. Shabbetai haKohen (1622–1663): 3

Every day, one is obligated to study the Written Torah, which is the Tanakh (Bible), and [the Oral Torah, which is] Mishnah, Gemara (Talmud), and the Codes of halakhah. A ba’al ha-bayit (master of the house) who only studies Torah for three or four hours each day should not exclusively learn Gemara (Talmud), for in doing so he would not have fulfilled the commandment of Torah study.20 Rather, he must specifically learn the works of the codifiers, each person according to his comprehension.

Rabbi Danzig continues to emphasize the importance of studying Torah in paragraphs 5 and 6. 5

The study of Torah is equivalent to all the commandments [of the Torah].21 If one is confronted by a conflict between the performance

20 Rabbi Danzig writes in his Introduction to the Ḥayei Adam: “On Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 246, the Shakh writes (no. 5), regarding those that study exclusively ‫( גפ״ת‬Gemara and the commentary of the Tosafot), that they are not fulfilling their obligation of Torah study through this curriculum, because the essence of Torah study consists in the legal conclusions, and on this [project] the Rishonim labored and exhausted themselves in every generation in the composition of their individual works [of codification].” 21 The Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Yom Kippur 143:1, states that “The negation of the study of Torah is the equivalent of them all [various transgressions listed by the Ḥayei Adam], for one who is distant from the Torah is distant from the service of the Creator; therefore,

109

110

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

6

of a commandment and the study of Torah, [it should be resolved as follows.] If it is possible for another person to perform the commandment, then the one studying Torah should not interrupt his studies. However, if there is no other person available, the one studying Torah should perform the commandment himself and [promptly] return to his study, because for one who would learn and not fulfill [what he has learned] it would have been better had he not been created. A person’s judgment begins with the matter of their personal Torah study, and only afterwards expands to his other actions.

In paragraph 7, while continuing to quote the Shulḥan Arukh, Rabbi Danzig challenges an additional view found in Hasidism, which argues that it is necessary to have the proper intentions (kavanah) when studying Torah. 7

One should always study Torah even if not for its own sake—that is, for self-aggrandizement or some other reason—because studying Torah, even not for its own sake, will [eventually] bring a person to studying for its own sake. However, for one who studies [Torah] in order to vex or discriminate against his fellow, it is better that he should not have been created.

Rabbi Danzig continues to emphasize the importance of Torah study: 8

The words of Torah will not endure in one who heals himself with them, nor in one who studies them22 amid [foolish] delight, nor in the midst of eating and drinking. Rather, they will only endure in one who kills himself for their sake and constantly afflicts his body, not giving sleep to his eyes nor slumber to his eyelids. All who exhaust themselves in their study of Torah in secret will

the Sages instituted the [blessing in the Shemoneh Esrei], ‘Return us, our Father, to Your Torah and bring us close, our king, to Your service,’ as according to the toil in Torah will be [measured] the greatness and closeness [to God] of [an individual’s divine] service.” 22 The Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings 63:17, states that “Due to our many sins, the people of our generation, even those that study [Torah], are not careful with this and speak words of scorn. There is nothing for a person to speak of except words of Torah or of the business that is their life; see the context there.”

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

become wise. All who learn in an audible voice will retain [the material]. However, the one who reads in a whisper will quickly forget. A covenant is sealed [ensuring] that all who study Torah in the beit ha-midrash (house of [Torah] study) or in the beit haknesset (synagogue) will not quickly forget their studies. 10 All those who are able to be involved in Torah study, and avoid that involvement, or those who read, transmit, and explain for the folly of the world, thereby setting aside their studies of Torah, are included in the verse (Numbers 15:31): “for he scorned the word of Hashem.” Idle chatter is prohibited. One who does engage in idle chatter, namely laughter23 and the excursions of children, violates a positive commandment, as it is said (Deuteronomy 6:7), “and speak of them [the words of Torah]” and not of worthless matters (see BT Yoma 19b).24 In paragraph 14, Rabbi Danzig emphasizes the importance of Torah study through his approach to musar.25 14 Just as the reward for Torah study is greater than for all the commandments, so too is the punishment for its neglect greater than all the transgressions. Regarding the First Temple, we find that the Holy One, blessed be He, was prepared to tolerate [the weighty sins of] idolatry, sexual transgressions, and murder; but He did not tolerate the transgression of neglecting Torah study, as it is said (Jeremiah 9:12), “but Hashem has said: Because of their forsaking My Torah.” The one who desires to save himself from the bitter punishment of this great transgression but is not free to engage [in Torah study] constantly should strengthen those who study Torah according to 23 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Fasts and Tishah b’Av 137:3 and 5 regarding laughter after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. 24 I will discuss paragraph 12 below. 25 Some editions of the Ḥayei Adam have only thirteen paragraphs in book 1, klal 10. They omit or censor paragraph 13, which begins, “it is a statement of the Sages that the amei ha-aretz (the ignorant) [that is, those] who have no portion in the Torah and do not strengthen the hand of those that learn Torah, even though they fulfill the commandments and their souls will receive reward in Gan Eden (the Garden of Eden) as is appropriate for them; their bodies will not rise at the [time of the] resurrection of the dead, as it is said (in Isaiah 26:19).” See, for example, the edition published by the Hebrew Publishing Company, New York.

111

112

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

his power, as it is written (Proverbs 3:18), “it is a tree of life to those who grasp it.” When people conclude their [mundane] work and activities and go to their homes or sit on corners and they are inactive or engaged in speaking about worthless things,26 great is their evil and extremely heavy is their sin, for they have disdained the Torah! It is as if they believed that there was no purpose to the reward [given for Torah study]. Why do they not turn their legs to the beit ha-midrash (house of study) to learn or [simply] read from the Tanakh (Bible) or [even] Tehillim (Psalms)? Does a person not [run with] alacrity and speed to his work and [mundane] involvements knowing them all to be insignificant? How can one forget the life of the world to come and not commit a portion of their days or an hour from their time even when they are not engaged in their livelihood? Do not say in your heart, “I appear to please Hashem and set a time to act for Hashem, to read in the Torah and recount the righteousness of Hashem.” This is guiltiness, guiltiness before Hashem! The Sages taught that this is the content of the verse (Numbers 15:31), “for he scorned the word of Hashem and broke His commandment,” which applies to one who is able to engage in Torah study but does not, for he disgraces the word of Hashem. Therefore, every person is required to establish in his home a place [for Torah study and to] keep his [books of] Gemara (Talmud) and Tanakh (Bible) or Tehillim (Psalms) and other holy books [of Torah scholarship], even [published] in the Yiddish language if one does not understand the holy tongue (Hebrew). When one is free from [mundane] involvements and whenever he is finished with his work, he should turn [to his place of study] and read. And the modest women are able to save their souls and the souls of their husbands and children. When their husbands come home from work, and they are tired and do not remember to give a portion of their strength and intellect to Torah [study], the women have an obligation to remind [their male relatives to study Torah] and not place on their souls the sin and guilt of negating the study of Torah both day and night, for this transgression is the greatest in the entire Torah (‫)ר״י א״ח בשם‬. See the Sefer Ḥasidim,27 Laws of Torah Study from 939 and onwards. 26 The Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings 63:17, states that “It is only fitting for a person to speak about matters of Torah or regarding his business which is his life. . . .” 27 The Sefer Ḥasidim (Bologna, 1538), written by Rabbi Yehudah ha-Ḥasid (1140–1217), is a classic work of musar, which gives a record of customs of the Ashkenazim during the

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

Devekut28 The Ḥayei Adam commences with a statement on the meaning of devekut. This was a sensitive issue in the second half of the eighteenth century. Hasidic theology stressed the superiority of devekut29 (mystical communion with, or cleaving to, God)30 over the study of Torah (Talmud Torah). Talmud Torah, for the Mitnagdim, was the optimal point of Jewish existence, obligatory for all but (in reality) reserved for the few.31 The focal point of the early Hasidim was that every Jew, scholar or layman, rich or poor, could achieve devekut.32 For the Hasid, it was the highest ideal of mystical life. As Scholem33 writes concerning devekut, “It is a value without eschatological considerations; that is, it can be realized in this life in a direct and personal way by every individual.” Devekut in Hasidism is the starting point for the religious path of the Jew and for all his faith. Devekut, explains Scholem,34 was achieved . . . especially through the practice of fervent and ecstatic prayer, a path to God; the other for the learned, from whom it required a new balance between the intellectual and emotional sides of his nature. In both cases, the problem could not have arisen without the aforementioned shifting of the place of devekut into the center of man’s spiritual activity. era of the ba’alei Tosafot. 28 I discuss devekut in the Ḥayei Adam in greater detail in chapter 1 of this book. See also my article, “An Insight into Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Ḥayei Adam,” Studies in Judaism, Humanities, and Social Sciences 1, no. 2 (Spring 2018): 61–67. 29 For a discussion of devekut and Hasidism, see Gershon Scholem, “Devekut or Communion with God,” in his The Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York: Schocken Books, 1971), 203–227; idem, Kabbalah; and Mendel Piekarz, “Hasidism as a SocioReligious Movement,” 225–248. Even though they disagree on the meaning of devekut in Hasidic thought and practice, their differences are not relevant to this chapter. The basic principle of the superiority of devekut in Hasidism still remains. 30 The concept of devekut can be traced to the passage in Deuteronomy 11:12: “To love the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways and to cleave unto him.” For a discussion of devekut, see Scholem, “Devekut or Communion with God,” and Piekarz, “Ḥasidism as a Socio-Religious Movement.” 31 See Nadler, The Faith of the Mithnagdim. 32 Although it was not always possible for the average Jew to become one with God, one could achieve this level through his tzaddik. If they cleaved to him, they could accomplish devekut through the possibility of achieving this lofty goal. 33 Scholem, “Devekut or Communion with God,” 205. 34 Ibid., 216.

113

114

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

The priority of devekut over Talmud Torah aroused considerable hostility from the Mitnagdic leadership.35 In all polemical writings against Hasidism, its religious advances were cited as proofs of its subversive and anti-rabbinic tendencies.36 Rabbi Danzig commences the Ḥayei Adam with the following preface to the morning laws (The Laws of Prayer and Blessings)37: It is a positive commandment from the Torah that a person should at all times cleave in his thoughts to the Holy One, blessed is He, as it is written (Deuteronomy 10:20): “The Lord, your God, shall you fear, [Him shall you serve,] to Him shall you cleave, [and in His Name shall you swear].” Is it possible for a human to [actually] cleave to the Holy One, blessed is He? [No;] rather, the meaning is that one should constantly cleave to the Lord in his thoughts, as it is written (Psalms 16:8): “I have set the Lord before me always.” This is the great general principle of the Torah and of the righteous of the high levels, for when one sits alone in his home, one’s conduct is different than if he sits, or conducts his business and movements [when he is] in the presence of a great king. [Furthermore], one’s speech and demeanor are not the same when one is with the members of one’s household and when one is at the court of the king. All the more so when a person places in his heart that the Great King—the Holy One, blessed is He, who fills the entire world with His glory, is standing over him and observing his actions, as it is written (Jeremiah 23:24) “can a man hide in concealments 35 Schochet, The Hasidic Movement, 76–78, discusses the prioritization of devotional literature. The Besht (Ba’al Shem Tov), the founder of the Hasidic movement, is said to have unequivocally extolled the study of devotional literature over the study of Torah. The Besht phrased his conviction dramatically and picturesquely, declaring that it was none other than the crafty evil inclination that persuaded one to concentrate on the study of Talmud and its commentaries, in order to cause neglect of the study of musar, which was indispensable in leading to a proper reverence for God. For the Besht, study of devotional literature and not study of talmudic texts was the true method of achieving religious piety. 36 See Piekarz, The Beginnings of Hasidism, primarily 377–392. 37 There are significant differences in these paragraphs between the first edition published in 1810 and the second edition published in 1818. Both were published during Rabbi Danzig’s lifetime. I feel that it is important to offer the greater part of the text to the reader. This is because (a) it has not been published in English, and (b) a comparison between the two versions would assist the reader in fully understanding the issues being discussed.

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

and I not see him?—the word of the Lord! Do I not fill the heaven and the earth?—the word of the Lord.” Then immediately one will experience fear of - and obedience to - the Lord, and be aware of His supervision [of human events] and continuously be embarrassed before Him (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 1). One should not be embarrassed by those who mock38 him in the worship of the Creator, His Name be blessed, and at least not quarrel with them. The essence of the worship of the Creator is in concealment—He hides His good deeds from humans. Please look and see what is written in the holy Zohar in Ḥayei Sarah and Shelaḥ.39 Meritorious is the one who belittles himself in this world, how great is he and high in the world to come . . . one who is small is great and one who is great is small). Even in this, a person needs to know that—Heaven forbid—the [evil] inclination has not seduced them to perform a good deed. [In this case, they will feel the urge to perform a good deed] in public. Regarding this, it is said (Proverbs 20:18) Ḥinukh: “[Thoughts conceived in council will be firm;] wage war with strategies.” See Ḥovot ha-Levavot,40 the section of Sha’ar Yiḥud haMa’aseh (chapter 8). When a person cleaves in his thoughts to the Lord, His Name should be blessed, his actions will certainly be for the sake of Heaven, as it is written (Proverbs 3:6): “in all your ways know Him [and He will smooth your paths].” I do not believe that Rabbi Danzig made a random choice in commencing his code with the theme of devekut. While the topic is found in many other halakhic and non-halakhic works such as Maimonides’ texts, Sefer 38 Many of the statements presented in the preamble are found as adjudicated laws in the Ḥayei Adam. I will identify some of them. For example, in Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Fasts and Tishah b’Av (klal 135:11), Rabbi Danzig writes, “Those who walk amongst non-Jews and are accustomed to wear shoes [on Tishah b’Av], although they are not to be protested against, since there are great [authorities] that permit this—nevertheless, there is no reason for this, and regarding [the argument] that the non-Jews will mock us—[already] without this [pretext] they mock us!” 39 The quote from the Zohar can be translated thus: “Meritorious is the one that belittles himself in this world, how great is he and high in the world to come. . . . One who is small is great, and one who is great is small.” 40 This classic ethical treatise was created c. 1040 by Rabbi Baḥya ibn Pakudah of early eleventh-century Zaragoza, Spain. It was originally written in Arabic but was translated into Hebrew by Rabbi Yehudah ben Shaul ibn Tibun, a member of a classic family of translators of the Rishonim. The Ḥovot ha-Levavot was published in many editions: Naples, 1590; Venice, 1648; Constantinople, 1650; Krakow, 1693; and others.

115

116

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

ha-Ḥinukh, Ḥovot ha-Levavot and so forth, no other work makes this topic its opening declaration. Rabbi Danzig’s attention to this topic is part of his polemic against the Hasidim. The challenge of Hasidism, as found in other instances in the Ḥayei Adam, was a primary issue for any Mitnagdic rabbi living in eighteenth-century Vilna. This is even more true for Rabbi Danzig, who considered himself a student of two vigorous opponents of this movement, the Gra and Rabbi Yeḥezkel Landau. Rabbi Danzig does not limit his discussion of devekut to paragraph 1 and paragraph 5. He later returns to the issue. 5:2 Not to believe in any other power except for God, as it is said (Exodus 20:3): “You shall not recognize the gods of others in My presence.” Even if one were to agree that the Holy One, blessed is He, controls the entire universe, except that one imagines in his mind that some portion of the control of the universe has been transferred to a malakh (angel), star, or human, this constitutes belief in idolatry, and the denial of the essence of the Holy One, blessed be He. A person should believe that the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself in His Glory [alone] governs all the worlds and that there is no malakh, star, or any power capable of action without His Will; therefore He is called the “God of Gods (Elohei haElohim)—He is the God of the Powers and the Lord of the Lords, the great, mighty, and awesome God” (Deuteronomy 10:17). 5:6 Not to turn after the thoughts of the heart and the sights of the eyes, as it is said (Numbers 15:39): “. . . and not explore after your heart and after your eyes after which you whore,” and the Sages explained the meaning of “after your heart” as a reference to heresy; and “after your eyes” as a reference to sexual immorality (BT Berakhot chapter 1 [12b]). In the general category of heresy are all foreign thoughts that are in opposition to the knowledge of the Torah.41 In the general category of sexual immorality are all the lusts of this world, and if a person concentrates his mind on filling the lust for a particular thing, he will be drawn to this one thing, to lust for it forever. These are the commandments that a person is capable of fulfilling every moment (Sefer ha-Ḥinukh 25 [belief 41 In Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings (klal 10:12), Rabbi Danzig writes regarding the law of studying Torah, “it is permitted to learn other subjects of wisdom by chance, the only thing being that one not read the books of the apikorsim.”

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

in the existence of god], 426 and 417 (the unity of god), 418 (the love of god), 432 (to fear the Holy One, blessed is He), 387 (not to turn after the thoughts of the heart and the sight of the eyes);42 and through this to also fulfill the additional positive commandment of “and to cleave to Him” (Deuteronomy 11:22). Rabbi Danzig commences paragraph 5 with a statement which can be considered as a continuation of paragraph 1: how to perform devekut. He is informing the reader what should be constantly in one’s mind and heart. The basis of his clarification and its point of departure is the Sefer ha-Ḥinukh.43 Some sections from the Sefer ha-Ḥinukh are quoted directly; others are paraphrased or added. The five sub-divisions of paragraph 5 are as follows: Ḥayei Adam sub-division 1 is based upon section 25; sub-division 2 is based upon section 28; 3 is based upon section 426; 4 is based upon section 417; 5 is based upon section 130 (although this source is not cited by Rabbi Danzig); and 6 is based upon section 387 (not 487). Rabbi Danzig’s conclusion is “built upon the backs” of the works of prominent rabbinic authorities such as the Sefer ha-Ḥinukh, thus giving credence to his opinion. He emphasizes his understanding of devekut, in contrast to ḥasidut, and concludes this section, based upon the Sefer haḤinukh, by stating, “and also fulfill the additional positive commandment of ‘and to cleave to Him’ (Deuteronomy 11:22),” thus implying that the overriding theme of his preamble is devekut. The Ḥayei Adam chooses not to cite the Sefer ha-Ḥinukh 434 that explains Deuteronomy 11:22 by stating that devekut means cleaving to Torah scholars.44 This was, once again, a part of his implicit polemic with Hasidim, who argued that the full realization of the mystical cleaving to God can only be accomplished by the tzaddik (or, in our case, the Torah scholar). An additional point to direct the reader of the Ḥayei Adam towards Rabbi Danzig’s rejection of Hasidism is found in 5:2. Explaining the 42 Different editions list different statements in the Ḥayei Adam that have their sources in the Sefer ha-Ḥinukh. The first two editions of the Ḥayei Adam list the following places: the introduction, klalim 25, 26, 417, 418, 432, 387. The places listed in the above text are from a recent edition of the Ḥayei Adam. 43 This work was published anonymously in thirteenth-century Spain. Contemporary scholars have voiced different suggestions regarding the author of this book. See Ta-Shema, “Meḥabero ha-amiti,” 787–790. 44 Rabbi Danzig also ignores a similar explanation of devekut found in BT Ketubot 110b. He cites section 130 in the Sefer ha-Ḥinukh but does not discuss its content.

117

118

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

prohibition of idol worship, Rabbi Danzig identifies three elements that can lead to this sin—angels, stars (hosts of heaven), and human beings. The Sefer ha-Ḥinukh, in his discussion of idol worship (section 28), refers to Naḥmanides’ commentary to Exodus 20:3: “You should not have another God before My Presence.” Naḥmanides identifies three categories of idol worship: angels, stars, and metaphysical beings such as evil spirits and other gods. Only while discussing the topic of stars does Naḥmanides include the human being. He writes that one of these categories: . . . was the worship of human beings. When people of a country saw that a certain individual, such as Nebuchadnezzar, had great power, and that his star was very much in ascendancy, they thought that by accepting his worship upon themselves and directing their thought towards him, their star would also ascend toward his. They would also think that by their attaching their thoughts to him, his success would be augmented on account of the power of their souls directed towards him. . . . Naḥmanides does not include human beings into a separate category, as he suggests that all worship of humans is ultimately triggered by the influence of stars. For Rabbi Danzig, however, humans are a major issue. I suggest that Rabbi Danzig’s choice of including “human being” as a category of idol worship alludes to the Hasidic leader—the rebbe or the tzaddik. The Hasid believed that if he could not achieve devekut alone, it could be accomplished through his attachment to the tzaddik.45 Rabbi Danzig takes care to warn his readers that this practice should be dismissed as idolatry.

Prayer46 Hasidic behavior during prayer was an object of derision for the Mitnagdim. The Hasidim were accused of unrestrained behavior with excess frivolity, such as clapping, jumping, whirling, twisting with wild abandon, somersaulting, and fervent dancing. They were also faulted with shouting and 45 Piekarz, “Hasidism as a Socio-Religious Movement,” discuses this attachment to the tzaddik in greater detail. 46 For a detailed discussion of Hasidic prayer, see Schochet, The Hasidic Movement, 37–43; Louis Jacobs, “Hasidic Prayer,” in Essential Papers on Hasidism, ed. Gershon David Hundert (New York and London: New York University Press, 1991), 330–346; Nadler, The Faith of the Mithnagdim, 50–77; and Aaron Wertheim, Law and Custom in Hasidism (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing Inc., 1992), 128–167.

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

shrieking ecstatically in Yiddish and mouthing meaningless utterances even during times when prayers are required to be either in silence or without interruption. Allan Nadler47 divides the Mitnagdic critique of Hasidic prayer into three categories: social, legal, and theological. The social critique claimed that a threat was introduced to the traditional social order, as the Hasidim established separate houses of worship and published their own prayer books, following the mystical traditions of Rabbi Yitzḥak Luria. Legal critique was concerned with the total disregard by the Hasidim for the prescribed times and place of prayer services, as well as their behavior in the synagogue as described above. Finally, theological arguments tackled the Hasidic inversion of the traditional religious hierarchy that placed prayer above Torah study.

Prescribed Times In various places in the Ḥayei Adam, Rabbi Danzig stresses the importance of adhering to the prescribed prayer times. For example, in book 1, klal 27:1, Rabbi Danzig states emphatically, “it is prohibited to be late to pray the Shaḥarit (morning) prayers.” In paragraph 2, he continues, “if one deliberately prays within [the permitted] time period of four hours, he may pray until noon. It seems to me this means exactly noon. If he prays later than noon, there is no way to compensate.” The language is similar to the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 89:1, except for his opening declaration, “it is prohibited to be late to pray the Shaḥarit (morning) prayers.” In Beit Avraham 12, Rabbi Danzig reinforces his concern and emphatically recommends observing the proper times for prayer. While discussing the Shema prayer, he writes, “be very, very careful to read the Shema on time. . . . Therefore, be very diligent not to behave in a lenient fashion.”

Praying Quietly In book 2, klal 139:2, Rabbi Danzig discusses prayer during the High Holidays: Although the legal authorities have written that on Rosh haShanah and Yom Kippur it is permitted to pray in a slightly raised 47 Nadler, The Faith of the Mithnagdim, 50–51.

119

120

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

voice, nevertheless, all who fear the word of God should pray in a whisper as one does throughout the entire year, for it is stated in the Zohar (1:209a) that if one’s voice is loud enough that his fellow is able to hear his prayer, then his prayer is not heard on high. Therefore, every person must be careful regarding this [matter],48 especially given the fact that those that permit [raising one’s voice in prayer] only permit a slight raising of one’s voice, and not as is done by the ignorant masses, with shouts and loud voices. The Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 582:949 permits praying on Rosh ha-Shanah and Yom Kippur in a loud voice, in contrast to the remainder of the year when this is prohibited. Rabbi Danzig disagrees with Rabbi Karo and rules differently. He chooses not to cite either the Magen Avraham (101:4) or the Eliyah Rabba (582:20) who offer a similar ruling to his opinion, but rather, the Zohar50 as his basis of adjudication.51 Furthermore, in the Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings, book 1, klal 22:11, it states: One should say the words in a whisper in order to hear what he is saying. However, one must be careful—when whispering—that even someone standing near him will not hear his voice, as it is written about Hannah (1 Samuel 1:13), “Hannah was speaking to her heart—only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard.” Even on Rosh ha-Shana and Yom Kippur, and even if all are praying from prayer books, prayer should be uttered in a whisper, not just to avoid confusion. There are other reasons that require prayer to be said specifically in a whisper.52 The Hasidim, as discussed above, prayed in loud voices.

48 The Sefer Ma’aseh Rav (203) states that “one should not raise [his] voice more than [in] the prayers of the entire year,” indicating the opposition of the Gra to such a practice; see also the Bi’ur ha-Gra (582:22). 49 See also Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 101:3. 50 The Zohar served as a strong influence on Hasidic thought and behavior. Such a source would challenge Hasidic customs. 51 As I stated above, the Hasidim were known to pray very vocally. This ruling reflects Rabbi Danzig’s anti-Hasidic approach. 52 Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 101:2, permits praying out loud in certain instances.

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

Prayer Location In book 1, klal 17:1 when discussing places where it is permissible to pray, Rabbi Danzig writes: The locations that are appropriate for prayer are not equal, for prayer in a sanctified place is not similar to prayer in an unsanctified place.  .  . . The fifth location: if it is impossible for one to pray with ten [others], or one is [traveling] on the road, then one should at least pray in a house that has windows. However, it is prohibited to pray in a field, unless one is on the road. Nevertheless, in an emergency one should seek to pray among trees [and not in an open field]. This alternative provides another answer to the difficulty raised by the Tosafot regarding Isaac, as it is written: “[Isaac went out] to meditate (la-suaḥ) in the field” (Genesis 24:63). The commentators write that this word was understood to refer to the trees (siaḥ, “plant growths”) that were in the field. I was fortunate and saw this explanation in the Baḥ53: “Siḥa can only refer to prayer.” The Baḥ notes that it is not written, “Isaac went out to the field,” for then it would be irrelevant whether there were trees or not. [But siaḥ is mentioned.] Therefore, the Baḥ expounded the [extra] word as also meaning prayer [besides the interpretation of the commentators: “trees”]. In the Zohar (Beshalaḥ 60) it is understood that praying among trees is of no avail; therefore, one should not rely on this interpretation, except if one has no other place [in which to pray].54 In the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 90:5, the law prohibits praying in the fields, unless one is a traveler, in which case it is permitted. The Ḥayei Adam, in the above paragraph, discusses the possibility of praying in the field between trees, and the Baḥ (Tur, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 90) is cited as the source suggesting this possibility. Rabbi Danzig turns to the Zohar to reject the Baḥ and prohibits praying between trees except in case of emergency.55 53 The Bayit Ḥadash, a commentary on the Arba’ah Turim written by Rabbi Yoel Sirkis (1561–1640) of Poland. 54 This Zohar source is also quoted in the Magen Avraham (90:6), focusing on praying in a building. 55 The ruling against a leading Shulḥan Arukh commentator and adjudicator in favor of the Zohar follows the accepted guidelines for using the Zohar as a source of halakhic decision-making. That is, the Zohar may be applied in the case of a dispute amongst

121

122

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

This ruling, once again, is a probable part of Rabbi Danzig’s polemic against Hasidim; they were known to go to the forest to pray among the trees. In book 1, klal 17:45, Rabbi Danzig discusses the possibility of building an additional place of worship in the same locale as an existing one. A major issue with the Hasidim was that they broke away from the community, organized their own places of worship, and changed the prayer nusaḥ (order).

Kabbalah Ḥayei Adam, book 1, klal 10:12, states: One should only study Scriptures, Mishnah, Gemara, halakhic works, and books of ethical instruction. By so doing, a person acquires both olam ha-zeh (this world) as well as the olam haba (the world to come). Nevertheless, it is permitted to learn other subjects of wisdom periodically, but one must not read the books of the apikorsim (scoffers). A person should not study the wisdom of the Kabbalah until his belly is filled with Gemara and halakhic works. He should be one with great fear of Heaven, always sitting, immersed in the study of Torah. However, without this [level of piety], it is prohibited [to study Kabbalah]. Rabbi Ḥayyim Vital56 was exceedingly stringent about this matter. He said, “Great is the esteem of him who achieves the derivation of novel insights into the Torah!”, as is mentioned in many places in the Zohar, including the Introduction to Genesis. This is what it says (section 1, 4:2): “We learn: At that moment when a matter of the Torah is newly explained by a human mouth, this novelty ascends and stands before Kudsha Brikh Hu. And Kudsha Brikh Hu takes this novel matter, kisses it, and crowns it with seventy crowns and so forth.” And fortunate is he if he derives the novelty according to proper structures (derekh ha-emet). However, if— the poskim. This approach is presented in Rabbi Ḥayyim Mordekhai Margolis’ (d. 1818) Shulḥan Arukh commentary Sha’arei Teshuvah, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 26:14. 56 Rabbi Ḥayyim Vital (1543–1620) lived in the Land of Israel and was a prominent student of Rabbi Moshe Cordovero (1522–1570) and Yitzḥak Luria Ashkenazi (Ari, 1534–1572), prominent master of the Kabbalah and important source for many customs based on his teachings and personal conduct. Rabbi Vital put the kabbalistic wisdom he learned from the Ari into the well-known work entitled Etz Ḥayyim.

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

Heaven forbid—one would arrive at a novel idea that is not proper and is structured using inappropriate methods through preposterous casuistry (pilpul shel hevel)—look at what the Zohar says to enlighten you: “Come and see, one who is not habituated in the mysteries of the Torah and discovers new insights without knowing their foundations as is fitting, this novelty ascends and so forth.” See there what is caused through doing this. Also, see Parshat Balak, where it is written (185:2): “If the novelty be egregiously unspeakable, woe to that shamefulness to which it pushes him. . . .” Let this note suffice. The issue of studying metaphysical subjects (pardes) is discussed by Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema) in glosses to Shulḥan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 246:4. Rabbi Isserles bases his ruling on Maimonides’ wording in Mishneh Torah, Yesodei ha-Torah 4:13. Rabbi Danzig goes beyond the Rema and turns to the comments of Rabbi Shabbetai ha-Kohen on the Rema’s gloss (adding the study of Kabbalah to the pardes)57 for his presentation of the ruling. The author of the Hayei Adam adds to the words of these rabbis, “and he should be one with great fear of Heaven, always sitting, immersed in the study of Torah. However, without this [level of piety], it is prohibited [to study Kabbalah].” Following his literary pattern throughout his book of laws, Rabbi Danzig emphasizes the need for vigilant and diligent behavior from his readers even if, as in this case, there are only a select few. Rabbi Danzig then turns to Rabbi Ḥayyim Vital, the renowned student of Rabbi Yitzḥak Luria (the Ari), to reinforce his ruling. Rabbi Danzig did not choose any other leading rabbinic authority; rather, he turned very specifically to an acknowledged scholar of Kabbalah. If a rabbi of this stature and education was stringent about who was qualified to study mystical texts, there was little space left to argue. I suggest that in addition to the explicit aspect of this law, which discourages the study of Kabbalah by laymen, there is also an implicit meaning. This insertion can be considered a part of Rabbi Danzig’s polemic against the Hasidic movement, whose foundation was built on Kabbalah, a theme found throughout the Ḥayei Adam.58 57 Pardes is a kabbalistic term that reflects all areas of Torah study. 58 See chapter 3 in this book, where I also discuss other kabbalistic sources in the Ḥayei Adam that reflect this polemic. Wilensky (“Hasidic-Mitnaggedic Polemics,” 247) discusses the attitudes towards Torah study in early Hasidism throughout his two volumes.

123

124

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

Rabbi Danzig reiterates his prohibition of studying Kabbalah without the proper preparation in his Beit Avraham. In this work, he paints a grim picture of people who forsook the study of Talmud for the sake of Kabbalah. The Hasidim fit this profile. I decree upon you, by the authority of the heavenly angels, that you should not push yourselves to study Kabbalah before you have filled yourself with Talmud and codes and before you know the way of God and how to perform all of His commandments, and before you have become true God-fearers who occupy themselves only with Torah. Only then is the one who merits this [that is, Kabbalah] considered to be fortunate. But be not like the evildoers who despise the study of our holy Talmud, which is our very lifeline; for it was upon the basis of the content of the Talmud that God established a covenant with us and gave us the Torah. Cursed are the evildoers who say that there is no benefit from the study of Talmud. Quite the contrary, it is the gate of the Lord, for it is impossible for any person to enter into the service of God without the study of the Talmud and codes. Still, fortunate is the one who merits both of these [that is, the study of the Talmud and the Kabbalah]. (Beit Avraham 43)59

Kavanah The author of the Ḥayei Adam made clear his negative attitude to people who would blindly follow kabbalistic practices, as many Hasidim were taught to do. In the previous chapter, I have already discussed his argument in book 1, klal 18:2. There, Rabbi Danzig formulates an understanding of kavanah that directly negates the interpretation. It is repeated throughout the Ḥayei Adam—as in book 1, klal 24:2. To support his view, Rabbi Danzig turns to the renowned Rabbi Shlomo Luria, an important authority for the religious behavior of the Hasidim. Rabbi Shlomo Luria discourages involvement in the study of the esoteric, since it is not properly understood. This attack from a respected authority should have been especially painful for the Hasidim. In book 1, klal 18:2, he writes:

59 Translation adapted from Nadler, The Faith of the Mithnagdim, 43. See Asher Weiss, Klalei ha-Mitzvot (Jerusalem: Makhon Minḥat Asher, 2018), 1–11, where he discusses and explains this principle as a Torah obligation.

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

The Sages instituted that “A psalm by David” (Psalms 145) be said three times every day (BT Brakhot 4b). This commandment is decisive: if one was equally balanced [between merit and sin], then he will be reckoned to be mostly of merits by the recitations, and it is decisive that he will be worthy of the world to come; therefore, one is obligated to have intention in it. Know, that every place where it is written “intention is required,” it means that one concentrates on the meaning of the words. However, one should not concentrate on the [elaborate] intentions (kavanot) and Names [of God or angels].60 Due to our many sins, we are soiled, and without doubt the one that so concentrates “cuts the plantings.” Even those who study the writings of the Ari only understand the words and not the mystical subjects, even one in a thousand will not be found to be an expert in this, and God sees the heart. Go and see that the great man, the Maharshal,61 dealt at great length with this in his responsa, and came to the following conclusion: “Therefore, my friends, do not go on the way with them, and it is not for you to occupy yourself in hidden matters of those who show off in expounding novel insights as if they know and understand the mysteries of the Torah and its secrets. Would that they knew at least the open parts! How beautiful is the expression of Rabbi Shimshon of Kinon, who said that after he studied the secrets of Kabbalah, he prayed like a day-old child. . . .”62 Therefore, conduct your way [appropriately] so you may receive according to what are entitled to have. Know that all who alter what they deserve weaken their claim to entitlement. Let our position be strong. Rabbi Danzig discusses the obligation for praying with proper intent while reciting the Ashrei prayer three times a day. He first clarifies the meaning of kavanah, “know that every place it is written ‘intention is required,’ it 60 See the Sefer Ma’aseh Rav (41) regarding a similar approach to intention in prayer. 61 Rabbi Shlomo Luria (the Maharshal, c. 1510–1573) of Poland. He has written a widely influential commentary, entitled Yam shel Shlomo, on seven tractates of the Talmud: BT Bava Kama (Prague, 1618); Ḥullin (Krakow, 1635); Yevamot (Altona, 1740); Beitzah (Lublin, 1636); Kiddushin (Berlin, 1766); Gittin (Berlin, 1761); and Ketubot (Warsaw, 1850). 62 This responsum of the Maharshal is noted as siman 98 in Shem Gedolim of Rabbi Ḥayyim Yosef David Azulai, at letter Shin §26. This responsum of the Maharshal is noted as siman 98 in Shem Gedolim of Rabbi Ḥayyim Yosef David Azulai, at letter Shin, paragraph 26.

125

126

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

means that one concentrates on the meaning of the words.” This understanding of kavanah is repeated throughout the Ḥayei Adam—as in book 1, klal 24:2. It directly negates the Hasidic interpretation of kavanah. After explaining how one should properly pray, he challenges those who attempt to pray according to the special intentions formulated by Rabbi Yitzḥak Luria, the sixteenth-century master of Kabbalah. He argues that one may think he is fulfilling the words of Rabbi Luria, but only one in a thousand really does that. To support his view, Rabbi Danzig turns to the renowned Rabbi Shlomo Luria, an important authority for the religious behavior of the Hasid, who discourages involvement in the study of the esoteric, since it is not properly understood.63

Ascetic Piety The Hasidim advocated avodah be-gashmiyut (serving God through material gratification).64 In opposition to the Mitnagdic negative view of the vanities of the world, this concept included an understanding of any activity, including food, drink, merrymaking,65 and sex, as part of serving the divine. The Hasidim taught that one can achieve spiritual joy through earthly celebrations, social and sexual66 intercourse, feasting and drinking, or by extolling the gratification of physical appetites to achieve spiritual joy.67 Rabbi Danzig speaks against bodily appetites and worldly pleasures throughout the Ḥayei Adam.68 He already addresses this issue in the opening paragraph of his code: [A]nd the Sages said [M. Avot 2:12], “all of your actions should be for the sake of Heaven,” even matters left to the sovereignty of the individual; for example: eating and drinking, walking and sitting, getting up, sexual relations, speech, and all the needs of 63 The Ḥayyei Adam warns his readers against following other practices of the Ari (see book 2, klalim 130:11, 130:22, and 144:20), but I could not find evidence confirming that they were adopted by the early Hasidic community. 64 For a detailed discussion, see Nadler, The Faith of the Mithnagdim, 78–102. 65 The Hasidic approach to joy and merrymaking reminded the Mitnagdim of Frankism. See Schochet, The Hasidic Movement, 58. 66 For a discussion of sexual improprieties, see ibid., 44–48. 67 See ibid., 58. 68 The Ḥayei Adam served not only as code of law but also as a platform for musar. It is not evident that Rabbi Danzig’s pro-ascetic approach was included as part of his Hasidic polemic or just as musar, but it does negate Hasidic teachings and behavior.

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

the body—they should all be for the service of the Creator or for something that leads to His service. Even if one was thirsty and hungry, if they would eat [or drink] for their pleasure, then they are not praiseworthy; rather, one’s intention should be that eating and drinking are for the maintenance of their life to serve the Creator. Similarly, even if one sits on the secret of the upright and stands in the place of the righteous and goes in the counsel of the perfect - if they do [one of these actions] not for their own pleasure, to fill their desires, [but for the sake of God,] His Name should be blessed, then he should do it; and if this is not the case, he should not do it. In his commentary on the Passover Haggadah, Rabbi Danzig reiterates his reproach: Desire and lust, they are not praiseworthy, unless people do these [things] for the sake of Heaven. Regarding sleep, it is not necessary to state, that at a time when one is able to be involved with Torah [study] and the commandments, one should not sleep excessively for personal pleasure. Even when one is tired and needs to sleep so that he will be refreshed, if he sleeps for mere physical enjoyment, he is not considered praiseworthy. Ultimately, one’s intention should be to sleep for bodily rest as required to maintain one’s health, and not go insane in [the study of] Torah as a result of sleep deprivation. Similarly, with regard to sexual relations— even when they are mandatory as mentioned in the Torah—if [a man] does it to fill his desire or to pleasure his body, this is condemnable! Even if his intention was [to have sexual relations] in order to have children who would serve him and [eventually] fill his place,69 this is not praiseworthy. Rather, his intention should be to have children so that they would serve the Creator, or to fulfill the commandment of mandatory regular sexual relations [with his wife], as a person repaying a debt. Similarly in speech, even to discuss words of wisdom, his intention must be to serve the Creator or to do something that will lead to His service. The general principle is this: a person is obligated to observe his path 69 Regarding the possibility of passing on positions in the community to one’s son, see the Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings (29:17).

127

128

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

in life with his eyes and his heart and weigh all of his actions on the scale of his reason; and when he sees that a thing will bring him to the service of the Creator of worldly and material pleasures [only then should he do it]. He also writes:70 In the middle years of his life, man ought to conduct himself as he does on the intermediate days of the festivals [that is, Ḥol haMo’ed, when we are only allowed to engage in labors whose neglect might result in serious economic loss. In other words, man ought only to engage in that which is absolutely necessary for the mere survival of the body, and all superfluous material pursuits are forbidden]. Nonetheless, in our days, it has become impossible to abrogate the evil instinct entirely. . . . So there is a hint [in the Torah] that we must slaughter an unblemished lamb, which refers to our evil instinct at its very height. For the lamb is a symbol of Samael, the chief officer [of the demonic forces], which must be slaughtered at its height, that is, in the middle of the month [of Nissan]. So must man slaughter his evil inclination. . . . Now, the mitzvah is to consume the paschal lamb broiled and not [slowly] cooked; this is a hint that every pleasure with which man indulges his evil inclination should be enjoyed very quickly and not deliberately slowly, like the broiling, which is rapid. This is done so that the evil inclination does not [receive the opportunity to] dominate the man. And we may not break the bones thereof [of the paschal lamb]. For it is the nature of man that when he derives great pleasure from food, he tends even to gnaw at and suck the bones. Thus, we are taught not to derive too much pleasure from the food we eat, only that which is absolutely necessary for the sake of performing the mitzvah (and no more). It [the paschal lamb] is eaten only at night; this indicates that the physical appetites only apply to the night, which is our worldly existence. . . . And the stranger may not partake thereof; this teaches that someone who has become estranged from God because his evil 70 Translation adapted from Nadler, The Faith of the Mithnagdim, 91–92.

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

appetites dominate him must minimize his indulgences and abstain even from those things that are legally permitted to him. (Toledot Adam 22b)71

Evildoers In addition to book 1, klal 10:12 cited above, Rabbi Danzig in book 1, klal 17:5, while discussing the laws of praying in the synagogue, mentions evil friends, the letzanim (“scorners”). I suggest that Rabbi Danzig is referring to the Hasidim and the practices of the Hasidim discussed above, which included bizarre and loud behavior during prayer. He writes: Although it is a great commandment to pray in the beit ha-knesset (synagogue), woe be to him who stumbles there through evil friends with worthless talk, mocking, and similar things.72 He has no share in the God of Israel. (The holy Zohar greatly elaborates on the punishment for this, and these are its words in Terumah: “Woe to the one who speaks profane words in the beit ha-knesset, for he demonstrates dissent, woe to him for diminishing the bonds of trust, woe to him for by such he demonstrates his atheism [stating] that God is not found there, and that he has no portion in Him and has no fear of Him. He conducts himself with contempt in the highest designated form of worship.”) [Worthless talk] will make it impossible to hear the reading of the Torah or the prayer of the shliaḥ tzibur in the beit ha-knesset—it is better to pray in his home with ten [others].73

Concluding Remarks The illustrations from the writings of Rabbi Danzig I have cited above do not explicitly identify an anti-Hasidic polemic. It can be argued (as I have 71 In his ethical will, Beit Avraham, Rabbi Danzig warns his children against the dangers of worldly pleasures. For example, in §15, he speaks of pleasures of eating food and in §48, of sexual issues. 72 The Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings (63:17), writes: “Due to our many sins, the people of our generation, even those that study [Torah], are not careful with this and speak words of scorn. There is nothing for a person to speak of except words of Torah or business that is their life.” 73 See also Rabbi Danzig’s ethical will, Beit Avraham 43, discussed above.

129

130

Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Polemic Against Hasidism

suggested above) that several of these examples are nothing more than the recording of Jewish law. While this may be true, I believe there is an implicit message from the author. The author of the Ḥayei Adam lived during the era of the Mitnagdic-Hasidic controversy, in its central location. Morevoer, he was a follower and devotee of the Vilna Gaon. This had to have had an impact on his views—if not consciously, then (which I believe was the case) at least subconsciously. As Boltanski and Thevenot74 correctly argue, a person who realizes that something does not work rarely remains silent. This person must, therefore, express some type of discontent to others of his community. Rabbi Danzig demonstrated his discontent through his writings, where he expressed his views through an imperative of justification75 while adhering to a strict rule of ethical behavior, even though he did not explicitly identify his target. The observant Jewish world and its religious traditions are not readily open to radical change. Hasidism was a force that could bring about the disintegration of traditional social institutions. Rabbi Danzig would not and could not accept this threat.76

74 Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thevenot, “The Sociology of Critical Capacity,” European Journal of Social Theory 3, no. 3 (1999): 360. 75 See ibid. 76 See Katz, Tradition and Crisis, 9.

5

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

In 1810, and again in 1818, Rabbi Avraham Danzig published his comprehensive code of Jewish law, the Ḥayei Adam. This work was the first such publication to become popularly accepted by Jewish laymen (and subsequently by learned rabbis) since the publication of Rabbi Yosef Karo’s Shulḥan Arukh. The Ḥayei Adam focuses primarily on Jewish laws that regulate daily behavior, the laws of the Sabbath, and holidays (all found in Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim). This code offered some unique features: 1. its brevity compared to the Shulḥan Arukh; 2. the inclusion of sections not from Oraḥ Ḥayyim; and 3. the inclusion of musar (moral and ethical principles) rather than solely rule-centered discipline or halakhah.1  Rabbi Danzig expresses his attitude toward the study of musar in the Ḥayei Adam. In the Laws of Torah study, book 1, klal 10:12, he writes, “A person only needs to study Pentateuch, Mishnah, Talmud, the adjudicators, [and] books of musar.” Musar is placed on the same level as the primary books of religious study. He further discusses this matter in the Laws of Yom Kippur, book 2, klal 143:1, where he states, “It is an absolute obligation for every 1 Tchernowitz, Toledot ha-poskim, vol. 3, 278–283, discusses Rabbi Danzig’s incorporation of musar in his text and offers additional examples of musar throughout the Ḥayei Adam.

132

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

person to study daily from the books of piety (musar), whether it be a little or much. This obligation is greater than all of his other [Torah] studies, [and this is so] even if he needs to forgo the study of a chapter of Mishnah or his other studies.” It seems that Rabbi Danzig is in compliance with the approach of the Vilna Gaon. Although the author of the Ḥayei Adam does not follow all of the Gaon’s guidelines,2 his inclusion of musar teachings confirms that they had similar views.3

Methodological Considerations Musar was not a prominent part of earlier codes such as the Tur Shulḥan Arukh or Rabbi Karo’s Shulḥan Arukh. On the other hand, the author of the Ḥayei Adam presented musar alongside his exposition of rules (halakhah). This chapter will focus on how Rabbi Danzig used his legal treatise, the Ḥayei Adam, as a platform to convey various Jewish moral and ethical principles to his readers as well as a means to emphasize the importance of neglected practices. Prior to discussing musar in the Ḥayei Adam, I feel it imperative to understand what musar means. Tishbi and Dan define musar as, “to instruct the path one should take during his religious and social life in order to reach a higher religious level, above the required minimum for a Jewish life that has been set by the halakhic literature.”4 For a deeper understanding, I turn to the excellent essay by Benjamin Brown, “From Principles to Rules and from Musar to Halakhah: The Ḥafetz Ḥayyim’s Rulings on Libel and Gossip.”5 Brown offers his reader an extensive discussion explaining the different aspects of musar. As a basis for his conceptual framework, he turns primarily to the work of Ronald Dworkin6 (which I will discuss below).

2 For example, the Vilna Gaon demanded that one’s study be for its own sake (li-shema), and Rabbi Danzig argued that one should study Torah even if it is not for its own sake. See Etkes, Rabbi Israel Salanter, 24. 3 On the Vilna Gaon’s understanding of musar, see ibid., 17–27. 4 Isaiah Tishbi and Joseph Dan, “Musar Literature and its History,” in Mivḥar sifrut ha-musar, ed. Isaiah Tishbi and Joseph Dan (Jerusalem: n.p., 1971), 10, note 21, and 11. 5 Benjamin Brown, “From Principles to Rules and from Musar to Halakhah: The Ḥafetz Ḥayyim’s Rulings on Libel and Gossip,” Dinei Israel—Studies in Jewish Law and Halakhah 25 (2008): 171–256. 6 Ronald Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978).

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

Brown defines morality as a system of universal autonomous humanistic norms, which are regarded as “natural.”7 While there are certain challenges to this understanding, I accept it for the purpose of this discussion. Brown then differentiates between rules (halakhah) and principle (musar): “Rules are standards that determine the normative status of concrete actions, while principles determine goals that the actions are supposed to achieve.”8 As stated above, Brown turns to Dworkin, who developed the differentiation between rules and principles: I call a “principle” a standard that is to be observed not because it will advance or secure an economic, political, or social situation deemed desirable, but because it is a requirement of justice or fairness or some other dimension of morality. Rules are applicable in an all-or-nothing fashion. If the facts a rule stipulates are given, then either the rule is valid, in which case the answer it supplies must be accepted, or it is not, in which case it contributes nothing to the decision. A principle like “no man may profit from his own wrong” . . . states a reason that argues in one direction but does not necessitate a decision. If a man has or is about to receive something as a direct result of something illegal he did to get it, then that is a reason which the law will take into account in deciding whether he should keep it. There may be other principles or policies arguing in the other direction—a policy of securing title, for example, or a principle limiting punishment to what the legislature has stipulated. If so, our principle may not prevail, but that does not mean that it is not a principle of our legal system, because in the next case, when these contravening considerations are absent or less weighty, the principle may be decisive. The distinction between rules and principles has a significant implication. Principles have a dimension that rules do not—the dimension of weight, or importance. When principles intersect . . . , one who must resolve the conflict has to take into account the relative weight of each. . . . Rules do not have this dimension. . . . If two rules conflict, one of them cannot be a valid rule. The decision as to which is valid, and

7 Brown, “From Principles to Rules,” 177, note 10. 8 Ibid., 179.

133

134

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

which must be abandoned or recast, must be made by appealing to considerations beyond the rules themselves. In other words, rules are treated as standards that determine the normative status of concrete actions, while principles determine goals that the actions are designed to achieve. Yet, as Brown9 points out, these terminologies may be misleading when applied to Jewish law, as they suggest that ethical or moral considerations are devoid of unquestioning obligation no matter what. However, Jewish law is not an issue of moral choice but of requirement. Even in the area of morality, there is an implication of some goal towards which one could work. The individual is expected to climb and strive towards that goal as an ethical choice. Brown10 chooses the terminology, in general ethics, of “a duty to aspire.” He states that “the duty to aspire is weaker than the duty to act or not act in a particular manner, as one can fulfill it, even by a minimal deed or perhaps even by mere intention. Nevertheless, it is still a duty.” In discussing musar, one must go beyond merely a body of universal humanistic morals. Musar literature did not necessarily differentiate between religious commandments and individual social ethics.11 Brown12 thus argues, “It may thus be appropriate to classify musar as ‘religious ethics,’ thus emphasizing that it is a system of norms that belong to the particular religious tradition and its values.” Musar’s goal in Jewish literature is to improve one’s practical conduct and behavior. Musar statements are in many instances not only recommendations but, as we will discuss below, are also binding. Musar, or principle-centered literature, comprises two models: a) binding: in that one is duty-bound to aspire towards achieving a goal; and b) recommended but not binding: practices inculcating “pietistic virtue.” Both of these categories are often blurred when compared to halakhhic rule-centered literature, which generally is not articulated as embodying any ethical goal.13

9 10 11 12 13

Brown, “From Principles to Rules,” 180. Ibid., 181. Tishbi and Dan, “Musar Literature,” 10, note 21, and 13. Brown, “From Principles to Rules,” 189. Ibid., 190.

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

The H.ayei Adam Rabbi Danzig, in his Ḥayei Adam, does not offer any decisive approach to musar. I suggest that he includes three different models: (a) the classical approach to musar literature; (b) the interpolation of musar within halakhah; and (c) halakhic musar. Rabbi Danzig’s writings demonstrate that he was well versed in the classic works of musar literature written throughout Jewish history, from the Gaonic period to his own.14 These works are described in Joseph Dan’s survey; he discusses various periods, genres, and conceptual approaches. Rabbi Danzig succeeded in incorporating various genres of musar into his work. It appears that this incorporation is not an original contribution of Rabbi Danzig’s, as other books - including legal literature - also did this. Rather, the unique quality of his work was the incorporation of musar into his comprehensive code of law. Before continuing to discuss the Ḥayei Adam, I believe it is important to clarify Rabbi Danzig’s relationship with his community in Vilna, as shown in the Ḥayei Adam. During his lifetime, he succeeded in publishing two editions of the Ḥayei Adam (1810 and 1818). As he describes it in klal 155:41, an explosion destroyed a warehouse that housed his merchandise, and this led to the loss of his livelihood.15 This resulted in his accepting a position in the community as a religious functionary (moreh tzedek). The first edition of the Ḥayei Adam was published in 1810 after his personal tragedy, while the second edition was printed after he received a position as a rabbinic functionary. In the second edition, Rabbi Danzig expresses an even greater concern for individual Jews and their spiritual needs than is found in the 1810 edition. For example, in klal 144:1, the introduction to the Laws of Yom Kippur, Rabbi Danzig discusses what the Jews are required to do as they enter this holy day. This section, based on musar considerations, is not present in the first edition.16

14 J. Dan, Hebrew Ethical and Homiletical Literature (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1975). 15 See also Mayer, “Rabbi Avraham Danzig and His Works,” 11–17. Rabbi Danzig relates the story of this tragedy in the Ḥayei Adam, book 2, klal 155:41. 16 I thank my student Shmuel Yudelzon for bringing this to my attention.

135

136

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

The Classical Approach to Musar Literature  In his introduction to his ethical will, Beit Avraham (published 1817), Rabbi Danzig discusses his general introduction to his works (first published in Zikhru Torat Moshe) and explains, “Also, in the introduction to Zikhru Torat Moshe, until [the words] le-shem v’lehe-tihila—that is, the whole unit—[the essential factor is] musar and the fear of the Lord (yirat Hashem).” The entire first section of this general introduction follows a format adapted from a genre common in the Middle Ages. Tishbi and Dan17 offer eleven different genres of musar used during that historical period. Number 11 is musar as presented through derush (homiletics). This genre includes derush based on exegeses of biblical passages. Also included in this genre are lengthy parables and folktales.18 Storytelling served as a literary tool to attract or entertain the reader. In the first section of the general introduction, Rabbi Danzig himself applies this literary style. He begins with a lengthy parable of an ancient king and the deprived people who eat at his table. The moral of this story is to teach the proper behavior for a Jew. Rabbi Danzig ties the moral of this story to the conduct of his reader, illustrating the need for him to correct his behavior patterns.19 Rabbi Danzig continues by presenting and discussing two of the three most severe transgressions in Jewish law, murder and sexual misconduct (the third being idol worship). Employing the term toledot (derivative categories), Rabbi Danzig discusses various concerns: bad or evil thoughts, embarrassing a friend, lashon ha-ra (libel or gossip) and the virtue of believing in the Lord. He employs a homiletic style, citing the Bible and its classic commentaries such as those written by Rabbi Shlomo Yitzḥaki (Rashi, 1040–1105) and Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Yehudah Abarbanel (1437–1508), the Talmud, Sefer Ḥaredim, and the Zohar. He emphasizes the importance of avoiding sin and the proper performance of mitzvot. These sources and citations are not for halakhic purposes but rather for musar concerns. Even if a source (such as the Talmud) discusses a halakhic issue, Rabbi Danzig takes the opportunity to interpret it through the lens of musar.

17 Dan, Hebrew Ethical and Homiletical Literature, introduction, 13. 18 Ibid., 18. 19 Rabbi Danzig uses parables numerous times as a didactic means of writing. See the Ḥayei Adam’s last introduction and the introduction to Beit Avraham. See also Mayer, “Rabbi Avraham Danzig and His Works,” 110, note 19.

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

Finally, Rabbi Danzig completes this section in a literary style, comparable to many introductions in which he discusses his writings and their goals. But the following section is unexpected, as it is an entire musar homily dealing with the topic of ga’avah (arrogance or smugness). As stated above, he writes in the Beit Avraham that musar, in his general introduction, ended after the first section. However, we are now presented with an entirely new homiletic essay that seems to appear as a supplement or afterthought. The first edition of this introduction, published during Rabbi Danzig’s lifetime, included this supplement, which suggests his awareness of its significance. Katznelbogen,20 in his edition of the Ḥayei Adam, divides this supplement into subsections with headers that only in part describe the content of the discussion about ga’avah and Rabbi Danzig’s intent. They are (a) “Coarseness in Arrogance” and (b) “Distancing Oneself from the Personality Traits that Cause Arrogance.” In addition to these two sections, Rabbi Danzig also discusses a topic that I will term “Coarseness in the Arrogance of Illustrious Ancestry (Yiḥus).” This discussion about ga’avah seems to suggest a separate musar work or homily prepared by Rabbi Danzig and interpolated at the end of the introduction. He commences this discussion by stating that it is copied from Sefer Midot ha-Gadol. I believe this to be a book prepared by Rabbi Danzig that was never published.21 As was earlier the case, an examination of this new section on ga’avah incorporates all the components of homiletic musar. This includes personal stories and parables from the Talmud, as well as creative allegories. The Talmud references are not halakhic but rather aggadic or ethical. Homiletic analysis is shown in passages from the Torah, Prophets, and Writings (primarily Psalms and Proverbs). He also focuses on biblical personalities such as King David. The first section of ga’avah, “Coarseness in Arrogance,” uses the above type of sources to inform the reader of the severity of the sin of arrogance. The second section, “Distancing Oneself from the Personality Traits that Cause Arrogance,” discusses how one distances oneself from the sin of arrogance. Rabbi Danzig structures his discussion around the dreadful four types of nega’im (plague on the skin) to identify leprosy, thus presenting a terrible and frightening picture of ga’avah to the reader. Rabbi Danzig introduces the third section, “Coarseness in the Arrogance of 20 Printed by Friedman (Jerusalem, 2008). 21 Mayer, “Rabbi Avraham Danzig and His Works,” 147, included this book as an unpublished work of Rabbi Danzig.

137

138

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

Illustrious Ancestry (Yiḥus),” as dealing with “an injurious blow that does not appear in the Torah.” He recognizes and acknowledges that while good yiḥus is a good thing, boasting about it is not. Aggadic stories from the Talmud, as well as homiletic interpretation of biblical passages, are used to substantiate this argument.  Rabbi Danzig then returns to the general topic of ga’avah, employing what seems to be his preferred genre—the parable—and, as earlier, presents a lengthy imaginary discussion. Here, he creates a dialogue with a rabbinic scholar, designed to show the pitfalls of arrogance. In the text of the Ḥayei Adam, we find one lengthy insert that is also presented using the overall genres of musar. It appears in book 2, klal 143:1, “The Laws of the Ten Days of Repentance and the Eve of Yom Kippur.” This section is concerned with the severity of sinful behavior. He urges the reader to take seriously not only major sins, but also transgressions that would seem less severe in the eyes of the sinner, such as lashon ha-ra (gossip) or making a false oath. To convey his message, Rabbi Danzig turns to the various genres of musar (discussed above), such as the insertions of Midrash, talmudic aggadot, the Bible (especially Proverbs and Psalms), and the parable. When possible, he also turns to talmudic law. For example, he offers proof texts to show that lashon ha-ra is worse than the three cardinal sins—murder, idolatry, and adultery (referred to above). After a lengthy discussion of these iniquities and the prohibitions against them, Rabbi Danzig turns to the process of repentance, while also emphasizing the importance of penitence during the High Holiday period.

Halakhic Musar Before discussing this approach, it should be emphasized that a halakhic style of presentation is not sufficient to classify such a piece of writing as Jewish law. To be considered as such, it must be based on appropriate and recognized halakhic sources. Joseph Dan22 argues that the literature of halakhah and the literature of musar are the two oldest types of Jewish writing that have survived throughout the history of rabbinic documents. Even though there have been dramatic changes in content and style, they are the only genres that have survived throughout history. Dan continues 22 See Brown, “From Principles to Rules,” 201, and Joseph Dan, Jewish Mysticism and Jewish Ethics (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1986), 1–5.

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

to explain that there is a pronounced dissimilarity between talmudic law and talmudic midrashic ethics. Halakhah puts ethical considerations in the center of its deliberations, and when the law is concluded, it reflects the ethical attitudes of its formulators. While there is such overlap between musar and halakhah, there is a distinct difference as well. The halakhah, being a legal system, strives to present the required minimum necessary for the accomplishment of a certain commandment, so that the individual performing it will be certain that he had conformed to the religious and social standards that the Jewish faith imposes on him. . . . The aggadah, on the other hand, is concerned with the maximum religious and ethical achievement that an individual can attain: it points out tasks and needs without limit, which enable the believer, if he so chooses, to adhere toward perfection both in the human and in the devotional-religious fields.23 In other words, the halakhah outlines the minimum requirement, while musar (or aggadah) guides one regarding how to achieve perfection or a higher level of Jewish behavior. Even understanding the closeness and intersecting of musar and halakhah, Jewish law still prevails, and observing it is the first requirement of every Jew. A Jew must adhere to Jewish law, while musar will help him in fulfilling that Jewish law in the most careful and exact way. There is also a grey area that appears to belong to musar, while it also has elements of halakhah. For example, gossip is usually considered to fall under the category of musar, but there are proof texts categorizing gossip as a halakhic musar. We find this approach in the Ḥayei Adam, though it is not exclusive to this work. Including a non-legal segment in a rabbinic code is not unique to the Ḥayei Adam. Maimonides in Mishneh Torah and Rabbi Karo in his Shulḥan Arukh also include such sections in their codes. Rabbi Danzig—in the Ḥayei Adam, book 1, klal 68—presents a dedicated chapter in which he goes beyond mere ethical and moral considerations.   Klal 68 encompasses twenty-five paragraphs and is titled “The Law of the Conditions regarding every Mitzvah with which One is Required to be Cautious.”24 Rabbi Danzig seems to be using the term mitzvah as a 23 Dan, Jewish Mysticism, 4. 24 A translation done by Dashiell Ferguson of this klal is at the end of this chapter.

139

140

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

generic term, or as a suggestion of appropriate religious behavior (including halakhic musar). The title implies that it does not necessarily refer to halakhic instructions, but rather to musar, or, as we discussed above, serves as a guide to achieving a higher level of Jewish religious behavior (what may be termed midat ḥasidut). A closer examination of the twenty-five paragraphs reveals how each principle discussed therein is beyond ethics and halakhic musar. The paragraphs include various types of mitzvot, Torah obligations (de-oraita), rabbinic obligations (de-rabanan), and recommendations for a higher level of Jewish behavior (midat ḥasidut).25 I will present four examples. 1. Torah obligations (de-oraita). In paragraph 1, Rabbi Danzig discusses the principle “one does not pass on the performance of a mitzvah.”26 In other words, if one encounters a mitzvah, but would prefer to set it aside in favor of observing another mitzvah, the first commandment takes precedence. The Ḥayei Adam writes that “this is a prohibition from the Torah.” Rabbi Danzig discusses three ramifications of this principle, one of which is that the person must be confronted with two mitzvot. Rabbi Danzig offers various examples of this principle. For instance, if one has in front of him the tallit (prayer shawl) and tefillin (phylacteries), the one he first encounters is the one he is required to put on first. The Ḥayei Adam also discusses exceptions to this rule, as in the case when one is confronted by two Torah-obligated laws, but one is stricter than the other. Rabbi Danzig offers an illustration concerning Jewish soldiers in the Russian army. In an instance when a soldier has guard duty on the day prior to Yom Kippur, resulting in the lack of opportunity to put on tefillin that morning, he is offered the possibility of exchanging his guard duty for Yom Kippur. If the soldier is not on duty today, he will be able to properly pray today’s Shema, but he will not be able to observe Yom Kippur tomorrow. The question posed is, 25 Two rabbinical commentaries on klal 68 were published: Avraham David Liebowitz, Nasiach be-Chukecha (Palo Alto, CA: MBH Publications, 2008); and Eliezer Steinberger, Shomer mitzvah (Jerusalem, 2017). They discuss this paragraph in detail, offering various opinions and different solutions. 26 For a detailed discussion of this principle, see Asher Weiss, Klalei ha-Mitzvot (Jerusalem: Makhon Minḥat Asher, 2018), 1–13.

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

should he allow the immediate mitzvah to pass (or not be observed) for the sake of observing Yom Kippur, or should he rather seek to implement the immediate commandment? This, explains the Ḥayei Adam, does not fall under the principle of “one does not pass on the performance of a mitzvah,” and the soldier follows the stricter of the two mitzvot. The stricter mitzvah is chosen in two cases. First, if one is confronted by two mitzvot, one with which the individual is actually dealing, and one of concern to the community, the individual mitzvah takes precedence. Second, the performance of a light mitzvah may be delayed if it can be completed on a higher level at another time. 2. Rabbinic obligations (de-rabanan). In paragraph 3, Rabbi Danzig presents a rabbinically required mitzvah: “Commandments should not be performed in bundles.” He explains this as meaning that one should not perform two commandments at the same time, because the person will not be able to perform both with the same speed (and precision). Regarding this introduction, the Ḥayei Adam states, “this principle was introduced by the Sages.” One of the illustrations offered is that of bringing two babies at the same time to one location to be circumcised. 3. The ninth mitzvah listed by Rabbi Danzig is that “one must have proper attention to fulfill the commandment [he is performing].” The rabbi explains that this mitzvah only applies to biblical commandments, such as reciting the Shema or eating matzah on Passover. If the commandment was solely ordained by the Sages, proper intention is not required. The rabbi offers an innovative understanding of intention.27 He explains that intention is required only in specific cases, such as that of a person who recites the Shema (a Torah obligation) while he studies the Torah. However, if one performs the mitzvah in the standard manner, it is considered acceptable even if it is performed without specific intention to execute the mitzvah. For example, if a person recites the Shema in the same way as it is read in the proper order of prayer, or “when one eats matzah or blows the shofar or takes the lulav, [all being Torah commandments], even though one is not intending to fulfill the commandment, he has still fulfilled [the commandment], for 27 Steinberger, Shomer mitzvah, 174–186, discusses this original ruling by Rabbi Danzig.

141

142

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

he performed this in order to fulfill the commandment, even though he had no intention.” One may wonder why this law appears in this klal. It suggests greater leniency, not greater care in the fulfillment of commandments. I would assert that it follows Rabbi Danzig’s overall agenda, in which he shows his concern for—and understanding of—the layman. By offering such leniency, he again manifests his concern for the spiritual well-being of his fellow Jews.28 4. In paragraph 13, the Ḥayei Adam offers a recommendation for a higher level of Jewish behavior (midat ḥasidut). Rabbi Danzig explains the great joy of observing a commandment, drawing on the Ari’s conclusion based on Deuteronomy 28:47, “because you did not serve Hashem, your God, amid joy and goodness of heart, when everything was abundant.” The Ari interprets this verse as contrasting the joy that is found in the service of Heaven with the joy produced by the enjoyment of all worldly pleasures, precious stones, and pearls. He concludes that the greatest joy should rather come from the fulfillment of the commandment.  Rabbi Danzig has introduced an additional mode of behavior in the service of the Lord, encompassing not just actions that are required by the Torah or the Sages, but also behavior that could influence one’s spiritual level. Because the rabbi understood the importance of giving tangible guidelines to the layman and the unlearned Jew, he included a discussion of proper behavior in this klal, a chapter dedicated to raising the level of adherence of the observant Jew, especially in areas in which he may be lax.

Within the Text of the H.ayei Adam When the term le-zaher (“be careful”) appears in a code of law, this usually implies a suggestion going beyond the letter of the law, or a call for additional stringency. I would classify this as a form of musar. The Ḥayei Adam uses this term (according to a Bar Ilan database search) 127 times. Musar, 28 I will discuss this in further detail below.

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

in this instance, is not used to strengthen ethical behavior, but rather to demand stricter adherence to the law. I will cite three examples that use the term “very careful” (le-zaher me’od) from the multitude of times le-zaher appears in the Ḥayei Adam. In these cases, the word me’od (“very”) is added to create the expression “very careful.” A. In book 1, klal 6:3 and 5, when discussing the laws of answering amen following a blessing, the Ḥayei Adam states,  One must be very careful that when one says amen that every letter will be recognizable, one should not snatch (yaḥtof) the alef or swallow [the pronunciation] of the nun and if (he does not) his punishment is great. . . . Every person should be careful to listen to the blessing in order to respond amen. . . . These laws are based on Shulḥan Arukh 124:8. In this classic commentary, Rabbi Karo only quotes the law but does not offer any of the warnings suggested by Rabbi Danzig. In fact, Rabbi Bloch’s commentary on the Ḥayei Adam, Lev Adam,29 sends the reader to the books of musar as the source for Rabbi Danzig’s rulings. B. In book 1, klal 21:3, Rabbi Danzig discusses the correct time that one should recite the morning Shema. He continues to discuss the exact time when this prayer is read, and he writes, “One must be meticulous and very careful not to be late, for it is a biblical [prohibition], for it is written ‘when you have risen’ and after that [time] it is not considered to rise.” As above, this term does not appear in Rabbi Karo’s Shulḥan Arukh (chapter 58) or its commentaries. C. In book 2, klal 154:6, when discussing the laws of Ḥanukah, Rabbi Danzig writes, “One should be very careful with lighting [Ḥanukah] candles, and even a poor person who is dependent on charity for his sustenance must borrow or sell his robe in order to be able to light [Ḥanukah candles].30

29 Aharon Yosef Bloch, Lev Adam (Brooklyn, 1967). 30 For a detailed rabbinic discussion of this law, see Binyamin Yehoshua Zilber, Beit Barukh (n.p., 1963).

143

144

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

Rabbi Karo,31 in Shulḥan Arukh 671:1, cites this law and emphasizes the need to be very careful. Here, Rabbi Danzig duplicates the language of Rabbi Karo. Apparently, he felt that the words “very careful” were sufficiently important to include in his abridged code. Finally, some more examples of musar in the text of Rabbi Danzig’s code are found in his references to Kabbalah: his quotations of kabbalistic texts and mentions of their author. For example, he writes that the Zohar is very stringent regarding this law, and that the Ari observed that law.32 The rabbi understood the sensitivity of his readers; since Kabbalah had a strong influence on their thinking and actions, they would pay special attention to such sources.

Concluding Remarks We have found that the Ḥayei Adam went beyond the organizational structure of a code of law, as demonstrated in Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah and Rabbi Karo’s Shulḥan Arukh, which primarily present halakhic norms. We have also established that Rabbi Danzig, in his Ḥayei Adam, went beyond the letter of the law. His concern, his agenda, and his priority were the layman’s religious and spiritual cares, expressed within his presentation of the law and in the discussion of how individuals must fulfill their halakhic obligations. However, throughout the Ḥayei Adam, Rabbi Danzig made a conscious effort to demand a higher level of religious behavior. As a businessman who - for most of his adult life - was travelling and interacting with the lay world, he was aware of the thoughts, behavior, and of what he posited as the religious needs of the less learned Jews. Thus, it was not sufficient for Rabbi Danzig merely to present the law, as there was a need to emphasize where the ba’al ha-bayit (layman) needed to be careful or even especially careful.33  The Ḥayei Adam conveys the message that its author is, on the one hand, a strict adherent to Jewish law as manifested in earlier codes and commentaries, and on the other, an independent thinker. Rabbi Danzig defied those rabbinic opinions that discouraged the printing of books of law, especially the abridged editions, created for the layman.34 These rabbis 31 Rabbi Karo is actually quoting the Tur Shulḥan Arukh, chapter 671. Maimonides, Laws of Ḥanukah 4:12, says to be careful but does not state “very careful.” 32 See the chapter on mysticism (chapter 3), where I offer examples. 33 See the introduction to this book, where I discuss this issue. 34 This issue is also discussed in my introduction.

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

were of the opinion that the pronouncement of halakhah was to be reserved for the communally certified learned rabbi, and that all other Jews were required to seek out the opinion of such a rabbi when faced with a halakhic question. They feared that works authored by those outside the guild would threaten the organizational structure and hierarchy of the Jewish community. The Ḥayei Adam encouraged the opposite. Rabbi Danzig went so far as to state in his introduction that after a while, a person who studies his Ḥayei Adam every day will be well versed in the laws of the Shulḥan Arukh. In addition, Rabbi Danzig was prepared to challenge the views expressed in the Magen Avraham, a major Shulḥan Arukh commentary by Rabbi Avraham Gombiner (c. 1635–1682), which supplemented Rabbi Karo’s Shulḥan Arukh, and in the legal opinions voiced by the preeminent Rabbi Eliyahu, the Vilna Gaon. Challenging the Vilna Gaon was an extraordinary thing to do, especially for a resident of Vilna such as Rabbi Danzig.  The European rabbis also had reservations about accepting the halakhic work of a businessman. They felt that a man whose entire life and whose entire time was not consumed by the study of Torah did not have the authority or the right to present a code of law. Nevertheless, the Ḥayei Adam succeeded for many years in becoming the decisive book of law for the layman—though not for the rabbis. It was not until the printing of the Mishnah Berurah, which at the beginning of the twentieth century cited the Ḥayei Adam approvingly, that Rabbi Avraham Danzig would be recognized as a rabbinic authority.35 Now, he can be given the credit as the leader of the democratization of halakhah36 namely, providing an opportunity for all Jews to study Jewish law. The following is a translation of klal 68.

Chapter 68 The Law of the Conditions regarding Every Commandment that One is Required to be Cautious with 1  The accepted law is that one does not pass on [the performance of] the commandments [of the Torah], meaning that the first commandment that one encounters must be performed and not set aside because one 35 See chapter 6 of this book. 36 I thank Dr. Israel Singer for this term.

145

146

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

would prefer at that time to perform another commandment and [only] afterwards perform the first commandment. [This principle is relevant] even more so if one would set the commandment aside completely in order to perform another [commandment and not return to the first one]. This is a prohibition from the Torah, as it is said (Exodus 12:17): “You shall safeguard the matzot.” If the word matzot is read with different vowels, it becomes the word mitzvot [that is, “commandments.” The verse would then teach] that [the commandments] should not be allowed to become leavened and allowed to grow old. See Tosafot to Yoma 33, and see also Magen Avraham 147. [However,] the Radbaz, in a responsum in his first volume (529), writes that [this principle] was introduced by the Sages. However, hidden from him were the words of the Tosafot [on this matter] and such is written in Tosafot to Zevaḥim 22. [The principle of not passing on the performance of the commandments] is all the more applicable [and it is therefore] prohibited to allow [the commandments to undergo] fermentation for no reason whatsoever, and plan to perform them at some [undetermined] time in the future. The [idea of] invoking the prohibition of allowing the [commandment to undergo] fermentation [is in reference] to the time-relevant aspect [of the particular commandment]. This [principle] is subdivided into three categories: (1) [The principle] of not passing on [the performance of the commandments] is not relevant except when one desires to perform two commandments. For example, if he wants to put on both a tallit (garment worn to accomplish the commandment of tzitzit) and tefillin, then he must first perform whichever article he encounters first. However, if one only has time for the performance of one commandment, then it is not relevant to invoke this [principle] of not passing on [the performance of the commandments]. In fact, the law is just the opposite: one should seek out the weightier commandment. In the example of a choice between tzitzit and tefillin, the tefillin are weightier, as they are an article of higher sanctity as well as an obligation of the person’s self. So it happens in similar situations. Alternatively, when one is confronted with [a conflict between two commandments], one that occurs with more frequency and the other that occurs with less frequency, then the commandment that occurs more frequently should receive precedence, as it is the accepted law that frequency is superior

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

(and so is written by the Tosafot there explicitly). [This principle applies] also if one [commandment] is subject to [approaching] time limitations, whereas the other [commandment] has no such time limitation. This is proven in BT Kiddushin 29b: [regarding one confronted with the conflicting obligations of] redeeming his [firstborn] son and ascending [to Jerusalem] for [one of the three] Pilgrimage Festivals, Rabbi Yehudah said that he should ascend . . . as this commandment has a time limitation, but the Sages said [he should] redeem [his son], as it is said (Exodus 34:20): “you shall redeem every firstborn of your sons” and so also writes Maimonides in Mishneh Torah in the Laws of Firstborns 11:4. If this is the case, then the reason here is the strength of the verse. However, in the case of other commandments, the Sages would agree [with Rabbi Yehudah], and this is written in Magen Avraham 656. Even if there was in front of a person a Torah commandment that must be performed on that day—only that if it was performed on that day, one will not be able to do a weightier Torah commandment on the following day—then the commandment of the following day receives priority. Therefore, it appears to me that a Jewish soldier must go on their designated guard duty on the day preceding Yom Kippur and in similar situations, even if by doing this he will not be able to put on the tefillin on that particular day but will be able to fast the next day, Yom Kippur. Even [in a situation where it is only a matter of] saying the Shema the following day, and he is able to switch his designated guard duty of the following day, [then the principle of] not passing on the commandments is not involved, and it is better that he not read [the Shema] on that day. This only applies for a brief period of time [such as a day or a couple of days], since with this [period of time] it is not reasonable to be concerned that one might die [and lose all ability to perform the commandments]. But for [the period of] a few days, thorough investigation is required, because then maybe it would be reasonable to be concerned that he might die. Such is written by the Magen Avraham in the beginning of chapter 25 [where he brings a] proof from the Yalkut that even [in the period] from the night that begins the Sabbath until Motza’ei Shabbat (the night following the Sabbath), one should not set aside [the performance of a commandment].

147

148

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

(2) This principle is only relevant with regard to a commandment that can be performed by an individual. If an individual is not engaged in performing a commandment with his body, and other people are engaged in [that commandment], then—even though it is written that “in a multitude of people is a king’s glory” (Proverbs 14:28) - it is permitted to set aside this commandment. [It is also permitted] go to another place to see [the performance of the commandment], for the commandment will also be performed there. This is explicit in BT Yoma 70, where it is taught: one that sees the cow and goat that are burning does not see the Kohen Gadol when he is reading, and it is not because one is not allowed. . . . The distinction is obvious: this is not because of the problem of passing over commandments. The law established in the commentary of Rashi is that [an individual can pass over the commandment performed] “in a multitude of people” (Proverbs 14:28) . . . since he is not engaged in it. (3) A commandment should not be allowed to remain without being performed, as it is said that “a commandment that comes to your hand should not be allowed to become leavened.” This principle applies specifically when one is able to perform the commandment now, as it would be performed after a period of time. However, if one is not able to perform the commandment now as he would be able to tomorrow, and if he waits he will perform [the commandment] in the finest manner, it is better that he wait a day or [several] days in order to perform [the commandment] in the finest manner. So it is written in the Shulḥan Arukh 426. However, in the Sefer Ḥasidim, it is written that if one is able to perform [the commandment] immediately, even though it will not be so nice, it should still be performed immediately (see the Nishmat Adam 1). 2  There should not be any contempt heaped upon a commandment. There are three conditions in this principle. (1) [The commandment] should not be performed in a state of lightheadedness and in a contemptible fashion. This is learned from the verse (Leviticus 17:13), “[any man of the Children of Israel and of the proselyte who dwells among them who will trap a beast or bird that may be eaten,] he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth.” The tradition received by the Sages is that the verse teaches

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

that how [the blood] was spilled is how it should be covered, so if he slaughtered with his hand, he should cover the blood with his hand. [The Sages do] not specifically [refer to] his [bare] hand: it is permitted to use a utensil, because the slaughtering was done with a utensil. [The purpose of their comment is] to exclude the use of one’s foot in the covering [of the blood] because it signifies contempt [to use one’s foot]. Rashi’s commentary to BT Shabbat 22 [states] that the paradigm for all such cases is the [covering of the] blood, which is understood as a genuine exposition of the verse from the authority of the Torah. (2) The commandment should not be performed with contempt to the manner of performing it. [In particular,] one should not give greater honor to his body than to the commandment. For example, one should not be afraid that he will dirty his hand or body through [the performance of] the commandment and therefore put his sleeves over his hands. So shouted the people in the Temple courtyard to the Kohen Gadol who wrapped his hand in silk before he performed the service (see Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 651:7). (3) Similarly, it is prohibited to benefit from a commandment the entire time the commandment [remains valid]. Therefore, it is prohibited to make use of tzitzit when they are attached to a tallit (21); similarly, it is prohibited to use the decorations of the sukkah (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 667), and to eat the etrog or smell the hadas or the lulav (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 653), and to make use of the Ḥanukah candles. Even to kindle a regular light from the Ḥanukah candles is prohibited (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 674). Even [to kindle a regular light] from the beit haknesset (synagogue) candles is prohibited by the law, except that the custom is to be lenient, and the heart of the court conceded to this (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 54). All of this is in order to prevent the commandment from being held in contempt. 3  Commandments should not be performed in bundles. [That is,] one should not perform two commandments at the same time, because he may not be able to perform both with the same amount of alacrity [and precision]. This principle was introduced by the Sages, as was explicitly written by Tosafot to Sotah 8. As it is proven there, both for

149

150

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

Rabbi Shimon and for Rabbi Yehudah, the reason is the words of the verse, “[the Kohen shall bring] her [near and have her stand before the Lord]” (Numbers 5:16). The principle that commandments should not be performed in bundles is not invoked [in the Talmud because] even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the reason derived from the verse is that one’s heart should not be haughty. [A question arises] whether it is permitted to place before a person two things with each of which a different commandment can be performed. For example, [is it allowed] to bring two infants to one house for their circumcision, or [to put together] two cups, one over which to say Birkat ha-Mazon and one for the Sheva Berakhot? The answer is given by the Magen Avraham in the end of 147, where he writes that according to Maimonides it is permitted and according to Tosafot it is prohibited. 4  One who is engaged in [the performance of] a commandment is exempt from [the performance of another] commandment. This [principle] is learned from the verse (Deuteronomy 6:7): “you shall speak of them .  .  . while you walk on the way.” You are obligated [to perform a commandment] when you are simply walking, but not when you perform another commandment. Otherwise, it would have been written “while sitting and walking.” This principle is applied specifically when one would be required to exert himself after another [commandment]. For example, agents that were dispatched for the purposes of a commandment during Sukkot are exempt from [dwelling in] the sukkah, even at night, even though they are not traveling at night. If they were required to exert themselves [to build or search] for a sukkah at night, this would create problems for their mission (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 640). Similarly, one who is digging a grave for a corpse or guarding a corpse, even though it is not his kin, and although he has the opportunity, he is [still] exempt from saying the Shema and the prayer. However, if one finds a constructed sukkah at the inn and would not have to trouble himself at all, he is then obligated [to dwell] in the sukkah. Similarly, if there were two people guarding a corpse or digging a grave, and one person would be enough to do the work, then one should guard or dig and the other should say the Shema, and then they should switch and allow the other person to say the Shema (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 71). According to Maimonides and the Geonim, they should not bother, because both of them are exempt [from performing another commandment] (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

Ḥayyim 38 and Magen Avraham 9). One is not exempt except when actually engaged in the [performance of the] commandment. For example, [one is exempt from all other commandments] at the time when he is returning a lost item to its owner, or another [person] was returning the lost item of his fellow that was found. However, if one already found the lost object and placed it in his house, even though his guarding it is the performance of a commandment, nevertheless, it is not [considered as being] engaged in [the performance of] the commandment (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 38). 5  [Now we turn to] enhancement of a commandment, as it is said (Exodus 15:2), “this is my God and I will praise Him.” In BT Sukkah at the beginning of the chapter called Lulav ha-Gazul (29b), it is understood from Rashi that [this principle] is of Torah origin, and so too is it understood in BT Shabbat 133b, and also in the Ḥiddushim of Rabbi Eliyahu Mizraḥi on the Semag in the laws of the lulav. In the Tosafot, it is understood that it is only the ideal expression of the commandment). Therefore, one is required to perform every commandment with all of his power so that it will be as attractive as is possible. The Sages taught (BT Bava Kama 9b): “Enhance a commandment until [you add] a third [part to its full cost].” There are those who say that even if one has already acquired an etrog or another item that is fitting to fulfill the commandment with a limited [budget], and afterwards one finds another such item, it is a commandment to add up to a third beyond the cost of the first one [that he acquired] and to exchange the first one he acquired [for the new item]. If his fellow does not want to exchange but only to sell, one is not required to buy the second one, since he has already acquired [an item suitable for the performance of the commandment]. There are those who say that if one has already acquired [an item], he is not required to add any additional cost, and it is only when there are two [items] before him and one is more expensive by a third, then he should acquire the more beautiful [one] and add a third [of the cost]. One that adds [to the expenses of performing a commandment] is added [reward] in the world to come (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 656). Included in this general principle is the idea that one should select the better option and properly elevate a particular commandment. So it is written (Deuteronomy 12:11): “[it shall be that the place where Hashem, your God, will choose to rest His Name—there shall you bring everything that I commanded you: your

151

152

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

burnt-offerings and your feast-offerings, your tithes and what you raise up with your hands,] and the choicest of your vow-offerings [that you will vow to Hashem].” 6  Those who have alacrity perform commandments early. A commandment that is to be fulfilled during the day should be performed early in the morning, as it is written (Genesis 22:3): “so Avraham woke up early in the morning.” Similarly, a commandment that is to be fulfilled at night should be performed at the beginning of the night. Therefore, it is appropriate to pray the nighttime prayer as soon as the stars emerge in the night sky. Even if by waiting one will be able to perform [the commandment in] “a multitude of people” (Proverbs 14:28), it is better to be with those that have alacrity and perform it earlier. So it is stated explicitly in BT Rosh ha-Shanah 32b regarding what Hillel said. 7  It is better that one performs a commandment personally rather than appoint an agent to perform it [on their behalf]. Thorough investigation is required if one could perform the commandment himself, but then the commandment would not have received so much glorification. For example, one wants to write a sefer Torah (Torah scroll) and his handwriting is not so beautiful, but if he hires a scribe, [the writing] will be beautiful. Which option is preferred? Thorough investigation is required in the responsa of the Mabit 49. 8  One should perform the entire commandment and not merely a portion of it, as it is written (Deuteronomy 8:1): “the entire commandment that I command you today you shall observe to perform.” Rashi explains, quoting the Midrash, that if one began [the performance of] the commandment, he must complete it. The Sages taught that one who begins [the performance of] the commandment and does not complete it, buries his wife and children, as is found with regard to Judah who began the rescue of Joseph and did not complete it. Nevertheless, if one suffered some coercion and was unable to complete the commandment, the verse elevates the commandment on his behalf as if he had completed it. 9  One is required to have the proper intention to fulfill the commandment [they are performing] because it is established as authoritative, [ruling] that commandments require proper intention. [This principle applies] specifically to the commandments of the Torah; however, commandments instituted by the Sages can be fulfilled even without the proper intention (Magen Avraham 60). It appears to me that this applies specifically to one saying the Shema in the way of study. (See BT Zevaḥim

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

2b and see, there, the Tosafot ‫שא םתס ה״ד‬.) Similarly, when one is forced to eat matzah and he thinks that it is a weekday [and not the first Yom Tov of Passover], or one was blowing the shofar to play a song, and other such cases. However, if one said the Shema in the way we read [it] in the order of prayer, and also when one eats matzah or blows the shofar or takes the lulav, even though one is not intending to fulfill the commandment, he has still fulfilled [the commandment], for he did this in order to fulfill the commandment, even though he had no intention. See Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 66 and 675. See also Tosafot Sukkah 42 ‫ אמר אביי ד״ה‬and Tur 60 and 651. Even if we hold the opinion that commandments require proper intention, it applies only when one is normally performing the commandment. However, if one’s explicit intention is not to fulfill the commandment, then we must make certain that he has not fulfilled [the commandment] against his will. So it is written by Tosafot in Sukkah 39. The Rosh and the Tur also write that one should intend to not fulfill [the commandment] until saying the blessing. Magen Avraham 651:12 repeats [this ruling] and comments that there are those who say that [commandments] do not require intention. In truth, the intention of the Shiltei Giborim, without doubt, is like the ruling of the Tosafot and the Rosh, except that the quill did not discharge with precision. There are those who say that even if commandments do not require intention, [this principle can only be applied] specifically to a matter that contains an action; however, for matters that contains only speech, intention is required according to all opinions (see the Beit Yosef on Tur 60 and 588 and in the Pri Ḥadash there). 10  A commandment should not come to be performed through a transgression; for example, if one steals the tzitzit or matzah or a lulav or any other [item required to perform a] commandment (see Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 11 and 649). This principle is of Torah origin, as it is written (Leviticus 1:2): “a man—when he brings from you an offering to the Lord,” which excludes stolen items. One must be extremely careful to distance himself from anything that contains stolen property in [the performance of] a commandment, and if this is not the case, he makes [the commandment] into a prosecutor [against him] (see what I have written in the Nishmat Adam to Ḥayei Adam 3:7). 11  Every commandment that one is able to perform in a group should be performed with the group and not individually, as it is written (Proverbs 14:28): “in a multitude of people is a king’s glory” (see BT

153

154

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

Pesaḥim 64 and Yoma 70). The Sages taught (Rashi on Leviticus 26:8 based on Torat Kohanim) that there is no comparison between a large number of people who perform a commandment and a small number who perform it. In BT Menaḥot 62a, it is understood that three [people] constitute “a multitude of people” (Proverbs 14:28). 12  One should be precise in the performance of a commandment in accordance with all its details and particulars, as is stated [in the Gemara (Talmud)] that the remains of blood are the remains of a commandment and they ascend upon him as if he was not atoned. 13  [Note also] the great joy of the commandment. The Ari explains that this is [based on] the verse (Deuteronomy 28:47): “because you did not serve Hashem, your God, amid joy and goodness of heart, when everything was abundant,” meaning to say that they did not find more joy in their service [of Heaven] than with all [worldly] enjoyments, precious stones, and pearls. [The greatest joy] should rather come from amidst the joys associated with [the fulfillment of] the commandment. 14  One should run in pursuit of the commandment, as it is written (Hosea 6:3): “let us know, let us strive [to know the Lord like the dawn whose emergence is certain],” and it is written (Psalms 119:32): “I will run in the way of Your commandments.” The Sages taught (BT Berakhot 6b): it is a commandment to run to the beit ha-knesset (synagogue) and to the beit ha-midrash, and it is the law for all the commandments. One should expend much exertion in [the performance of] the commandment, and according to the toil is the reward (M. Avot 5:23) (see all of this in the Sefer Ḥaredim). 15  One should wait for and expect [the time] when a commandment will come to his hand so that he can fulfill it, as it is written (Deuteronomy 5:1): “and be careful to perform them,” meaning to say they were waiting to perform them, as in [the verse], “but his father kept the matter in mind” (Genesis 37:11). 16  One should not perform a commandment on the cheap; rather, he should acquire it with full payment, as it is written (2 Samuel 24:24): “but the king told Araunah, ‘No; I shall purchase it from you for a price, and I shall not offer up to the Lord my God free elevation-offerings!’ So David bought the threshing floor and the cattle for fifty silver shekels.” The Zohar is very severe on this matter. 17  One should perform the commandment from out of the love of the Lord, and not for any other reason and not for any benefit that is in

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

the world. Likewise, one should not perform the commandment as if he were obligated in a matter and wanted to free himself of it like a burden. Rather, it should be performed out of love, [to the extent] that even if he was not commanded regarding the [particular] commandment, he was paralyzed [waiting] to perform it, to bring satisfaction to the Holy One, blessed is He, that His Will is on this. 18  One should perform the commandment from out of fear [of Heaven]. Even rational commandments, such as financial assistance to the poor, honoring one’s father, refraining from stealing and sexual transgressions, which are matters that reason obligates [humans to observe], should not be performed or abandoned due to the dictates of reason. Rather, perform or abandon all commandments for fear of Hashem Who has ordained them. As Rashi comments on Leviticus 20:26, quoting the Sifra, one should not say it is impossible [to eat] pig, and instead it is possible for me, but my Father in Heaven has commanded me [to not eat it]. 19  One is obligated to fulfill the commandment even if they are required to spend up to a fifth of their fortune (Eliyah Rabba in the name of the Riv). However, one is not required to spend more than a fifth of their wealth [on the fulfillment of the commandment], even if the commandment will be lost. [This applies] specifically with regard to positive commandments. However, to avoid transgressing a prohibition, one is obligated to give away all his money before he transgresses, as it is written (Deuteronomy 6:5): “and with all your resources” (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 656). If one is required to uproot himself from his home and travel to another city to fulfill the commandment, thorough investigation is required. 20  Every commandment that has no pursuer, nor one seeking it, should be sought out and [its observance revived], for it is like a corpse with no kin to bury it. And the commandment for all who encounter the corpse is to bury it. The [forsaken] commandment testifies against us and says “how bad am I, for I am hidden from everyone” (Sefer Ḥasidim 105). 21  One ascends in [matters of] holiness and does not descend, as it is written (Numbers 17:3): “as for the fire-pans of these sinners against their souls—they shall make hammered-out sheets as a covering for the Altar, for they offered them before Hashem, so they became holy; they shall be for a sign to the Children of Israel.” This means that since these fire-pans had been sanctified, it is prohibited to lower them [to an inferior status].

155

156

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

Therefore, items associated with holiness must be placed in a genizah (a long-term storage area for sacred items) [when they can no longer be used and are allowed to decay in dignity]; for example, mezuzah, tefillin, their straps and cases, and especially items associated with a sefer Torah (Torah scroll). However, items associated with a commandment that has been completed may be thrown [away and are not required to be placed in the genizah], for example, tzitzit and sukkah and similar items. Nevertheless, one should be careful not to make shameful items from them. Similarly, a tallit used in the commandment [of tzitzit] that has been worn out should not be made into a shameful item. It is good to place such items in the genizah or to burn them. It is also prohibited to place in the aron kodesh (cabinet in which the Torah scrolls are stored in the synagogue) other books, a tallit, tefillin, and especially a tzedakah (public assistance) box, and obviously the coins that are in it. The curtains that are no longer used are customarily placed there, meaning to say that the heart of the court conceded to this. The aron kodesh is only called [by this title] because it is made to be a chest, and it is only made for the honor of the Torah. Some say that a hollow space made in a wall, whether the wall is made of stone or wood, cannot be called an aron kodesh. In particular, if damaged books are placed there, then the holiness of the aron kodesh does not fall upon this space at all. If there is a hole in [the wall of] the synagogue, it is permitted to place an aron kodesh there so that it will close off the wall to [protect the synagogue from] the impurity associated with corpses. If it was not placed there permanently, then there is no difference if it is placed here or there. Regarding the custom of book-binders who cut [material] from the margins of [other] books [of Torah scholarship], it is appropriate for them to be cautious and to not cut more from what was already cut the first time. In this [matter], there is [a reasonable basis] to say that from the beginning [they cut] only what was permitted for the book [to remain] sanctified, and this is not so the second time (see Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 154 and 334 and Magen Avraham 24). Also, coins with the four-letter Name [of God] should not be pinned on the jewelry of [the cover of] the sefer Torah (Torah scroll), because these coins were minted for the sake of idolatry, and likewise they should not be stored in one’s domain (see the Baḥ and the Taz, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 16).

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

22  It is an established principle throughout the entire Torah that a positive commandment prevails over a prohibition if they are in conflict. However, a positive commandment does not prevail over a prohibition and a positive commandment; and even though the positive commandment is also linked to a prohibition, it is of no avail (see Bava Metzia 30 and Rashi and the Rif there). [This applies] specifically to a situation where one is not able to fulfill both [the commandments and avoid the conflict altogether]. However, if he is able to fulfill both of them, then the positive commandment does not prevail over the prohibition. In particular, [the positive commandment prevails if] one transgresses the prohibition in the particular moment that he is fulfilling the positive commandment - for example, [performing] a brit milah (circumcision) when there is tzara’at (contagious illness [on the male organ]), and a sheet with tzitzit, where the uprooting of the prohibition and the fulfillment of the positive commandment come in the same moment. However, if one needs to uproot the prohibition even a moment earlier, the positive commandment does not prevail. Importantly, this applies to a situation where the prohibition is not prevailed upon and the prohibition remains [for a longer time]. However, if in any event one is required to prevail over the prohibition, even though he does not fulfill the positive commandment now, [the positive commandment] nevertheless prevails. See this discussed explicitly in the Ḥiddushim of the Rashba on the first part of M. Shabbat 19 called “Rabbi Eliezer d’milah,” where he answers the difficulty raised by Tosafot there ‫׳ד״ה ׳שלא ברצון‬. Specifically, [he says that] a positive commandment prevails over a prohibition; however, a weighty positive commandment prevails over a lighter positive commandment, even though the weightier commandment has not yet been fulfilled, and its performance will uproot the lighter commandment. See BT Pesaḥim 59a, Tosafot ‫׳ד״ה ׳אתי עשה‬, and see BT Menaḥot 40a and BT Yevamot 5 and the Tosafot there. However, a positive commandment that one person performs on behalf of many people always prevails (Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 446 and Magen Avraham 2). 23  It is prohibited to make a particular commandment more stringent using the commandments [of the Torah], as it is said (Deuteronomy 4:2): “you shall not add to the word that I command you [nor shall you subtract from it, to observe the commandments of the Lord, your God, that I command you],” specifically when it is one’s intention to do

157

158

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

so. For example, one says that perhaps we should dwell in the sukkah on Shmini Atzeret and also that we should eat matzah on the eighth day of Passover, despite the fact that it is written in the Torah [to eat matzah] only seven days, and he also says that this law comes from the tradition of the Oral Torah—that the Torah commands to live in the sukkah and to eat matzah for eight days—and he intends to dwell in the sukkah and to eat matzah in order to fulfill the commandment of the Torah. Similarly, if one were to put on two pairs of tefillin, those of both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam at the same time, and say that both of them are fitting and that this is the commandment from the Torah according to the Oral Torah, behold: this [person] has transgressed. However, if one sits in the sukkah and eats matzah on the eighth day [of the respective festivals of Sukkot and Passover] because of a [legitimate] doubt regarding the calendar date, and similarly when one puts on two pairs of tefillin, those of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam (even at the same time, because of the doubt that one of them might be unfit) in these and all similar cases, it is not an instance of the prohibition “you shall not add” (Deuteronomy 4:2). If one puts on two pairs of tefillin, those of Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, at the same time and also if one were to take two fit lulavin at the same time, behold: this person has transgressed even though it was not his intention to add. The established legal principle is that one who transgresses at the time of the performance of the commandment does not require intention [to add]. However, when it is not the time of the performance of the commandment, then intention is required to transgress. Similarly, when one adds [to the commandment] and makes five tzitzit, five strings, five paragraphs, or five battim of tefillin, this is a transgression. However, it is permitted to perform one commandment even a hundred times in a single day. Although one has fulfilled the commandment from the Torah when he takes the Four Species that constitute the lulav once in a day, nevertheless it is permitted to take them even a hundred times in a single day. And yet, if one were to say that it is an obligation from the Torah to take the lulav the entire day, he has transgressed. And so it is in all similar cases. However, it is the prerogative of the court to create a fence for the [preservation of the] Torah in all matters, [even to the extent that they are able] to uproot a positive commandment or a prohibition according to the [situation of the] hour (BT Yevamot 90). One that transgresses words [of the court] violates the verse, “[according to

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

the teaching that they will teach you and according to the judgment that they will say to you, you shall do;] you shall not deviate [from the word that they will tell you, right or left]” (Deuteronomy 17:11). Just as it is prohibited to add to the Torah, so too is it prohibited to subtract - for example, to make three [corners of] tzitzit [on a garment] and [only take] three species of the lulav. See Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Mamrim, chapter 2 and the Semag, Prohibitions, 374 and the Sefer haḤinukh 454 and the Oraḥ Ḥayyim 34 and the Magen Avraham 3 and BT Rosh ha-Shanah 28 and BT Sanhedrin 78 and BT Eruvin 98. See also what I wrote in the Nishmat Adam in the Laws of the Sukkah on the laws of the Four Species and the lulav. Some say that even transgressing in the time when the commandment is performed requires intention, according to the opinion that all commandments require intention. See Magen Avraham 651:27, and see the Eliyah Rabba there; namely, that he writes in the name of the Rosh in the chapter called “Lulav ha-Gazul” that it is not [the case] and is in accord with the opinion of the Shulḥan Arukh. 24  [We now turn to] commandments that contain a branch; that is, when one wants to perform this particular commandment, one is required to first perform another commandment. Even though after the fact it is not intrinsic, if there is any possibility to perform the branch, then it is prohibited to perform the desired commandment until one first performs the branch. However, if there is no possibility to perform the branch before [performing a commandment], since it is not intrinsic [to the performance of the commandment], it is permitted to perform the [desired] commandment. BT Gittin 28b and Tosafot ‫׳ד״ה ׳והא בעי סמיכה‬. 25  “He who obeys the commandment will know no evil [and a wise mind will know time and justice]” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). This means that when one desires to perform the commandment, he is obligated to perform the particular commandment with obedience and patience and not perform it with haste and abruptness (as in, “but his father kept the matter in mind” [Genesis 37:11]), and one should settle well how he will perform [the commandment]. So it is found regarding Passover that we are required to eat with haste because of the haste of the Shekhinah, and [the Torah] comes to warn, “so shall you eat it: your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; you shall eat it in haste—it is a pesaḥ (paschal) offering to Hashem” (Exodus 12:11) (see the Asarah Ma’amarot). It appears to me that this relates to the

159

160

The Democratization of Halakhah: The H.ayei Adam and Musar

verse, “you shall safeguard the matzot” (Exodus 12:17). This principle is the foundation [for the practice] of saying, “Behold, I am ready and prepared to fulfill . . .” that is, I am already ready and prepared [before performing the commandment]. This is [corroborated by the verse] “prepare [to go] towards your God, O Israel” (Amos 4:12), meaning that you should prepare yourself beforehand and not [perform the commandment] with abruptness and suddenness. I have experienced that when I perform a commandment with abruptness, it is not fulfilled in the appropriate manner. Therefore, one must be cautious about this. 

6

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

In 1810, Rabbi Avraham Danzig published his magnum opus, Ḥayei Adam, the first fully encompassing code of Jewish law since Rabbi Yosef Karo’s (1488–1575) Shulḥan Arukh (1563). As a result of its popularity and of the great demand for this code, Rabbi Danzig published a second edition in 1818. As stated in its introduction, the Ḥayei Adam was written primarily for educated laymen, and it attempted to summarize the views of Rabbi Yosef Karo’s Shulḥan Arukh and its commentaries. The Ḥayei Adam was organized differently from the Shulḥan Arukh: instead of chapters, the topics discussed were organized in klalim,1 based on what the author viewed as the logical organizational structure of the laws. This was a drastic change from the format used by Rabbi Karo and his predecessor Rabbi Ya’akov ben Asher (the Tur, 1270–c. 1340), the author of Arba’ah Turim. Furthermore, Rabbi Danzig did not indicate the sources on which he based his adjudication. Although his code became very popular among laymen, and it succeeded in being republished many times, the rabbis criticized his work. In addition to the deviation from the organizational structure of the Shulḥan Arukh, the rabbis felt that a man such as Avraham Danzig, who was not a practicing rabbi and had spent the majority of his adult life as a businessman, was insufficiently knowledgeable to publish a definitive code of 1 The word perek is a more common choice to denote “chapter.” A klal can be translated as “principle,” but in this case it means “chapter.”

162

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

Jewish law. Furthermore, a popular code offered laymen the knowledge to halakhically rule themselves, thus threatening the authority of the rabbis.2 An additional factor deterring the rabbis from recognizing the Ḥayei Adam as a credible code of law was that Rabbi Danzig, on different occasions throughout his code, criticized the Gaon of Vilna, Rabbi Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman (Gra, 1720–1797).3 Especially for a rabbi such as Rabbi Danzig, who was living in Vilna during the lifetime of the Gra, such behavior was unacceptable.4 Rabbi Yisrael Meir ha-Kohen Kagan (known as Ḥafetz Ḥayyim, 1838– 1933), who was the founder of the Radin yeshivah (1869), became one of the most influential rabbis of Orthodox Judaism during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The Ḥafetz Ḥayyim’s magnum opus, the Mishnah Berurah,5 is a six-volume halakhic commentary on Rabbi Yosef Karo’s Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim (laws of everyday behavior and of festivals). Similar to the Ḥayei Adam, the Mishnah Berurah was primarily written for learned laymen.6 Based largely on later rabbinic commentaries to the Shulḥan Arukh, the Mishnah Berurah offers the modern-day reader new opportunities to follow the halakhah, taking the contemporary social reality into consideration. The Mishnah Berurah follows the organizational structure of the Shulḥan Arukh, using its chapters and paragraphs as the basis for commentaries, and each page of the Mishnah Berurah also includes the text of the Shulḥan Arukh, Rabbi Yehudah Ashkenazi’s (died 1742) Ba’er Heitev, Rabbi Moshe Rivkash’s (1590–1671) Be’er ha-Golah, and Rabbi Ḥayyim Mordekhai Margolis’ (died 1818 or 1829) Sha’arei Teshuvah. Rabbi Kagan accompanied the Mishnah Berurah with an in-depth gloss, aimed at his learned rabbinic readership, entitled Bi’ur Halakhah. He also added an enhanced footnote section called Sha’ar ha-Tziyun, which included sources cited in the Mishnah Berurah, as well as additional discussions of the specific 2 See the introduction to this book for a discussion on this topic. 3 See Mayer, “Rabbi Avraham Danzig,” 27–28. Mayer also argues that an additional reason for discontent with the Ḥayei Adam is the argument with the Magen Avraham (see note 14). Examples of spaces where the Ḥayei Adam argues with the Gra are book 1, klal 42:2, and book 2, klal 142:10. 4 There is limited biographical information on Rabbi Avraham Danzig. See Tchernowitz, Toledot ha-poskim, vol. 3, 274–288; and Mayer, “Rabbi Avraham Danzig and His Works.” 5 For a short biography of Rabbi Kagan and a discussion of the Mishnah Berurah, see Simcha Fishbane, The Method and Meaning of the Mishnah Berurah (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing, 1991). 6 First published in separate volumes between 1884 and 1907.

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

laws cited. The Bi’ur Halakhah identifies its themes by an asterisk placed in the text of the Shulḥan Arukh, indicating the topic for discussion. The Sha’ar ha-Tziyun footnotes are identified by a Hebrew number placed in the text of the Mishnah Berurah, adjacent to the relevant subject. The Mishnah Berurah displaced the popularity of the Ḥayei Adam in the second half of the twentieth century. It became so popular that the rulings of the Mishnah Berurah are included in selected new editions of the Ḥayei Adam and the Arukh ha-Shulḥan.7 This, I suggest, can be attributed to the overall recognition and authoritative leadership of the Ḥafetz Ḥayyim, the increase in numbers of learned laymen who would be able to study and understand this text; and the availability of the English translation of the Mishnah Berurah. Due to the Ḥayei Adam’s reputation, we do not find this text cited as an authoritative opinion in halakhic works published in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.8 For example, Rabbi Yeḥiel Mikhel ha-Levi Epstein does not refer to the Ḥayei Adam in his book of laws, the Arukh ha-Shulḥan.9 By contrast, Rabbi Kagan cites the Ḥayei Adam many times throughout his Mishnah Berurah. In fact, not only does he cite this work, but he places it alongside the classic and leading rabbinic Shulḥan Arukh commentaries, such as Rabbi Avraham Gombiner’s (1634–1682) Magen Avraham, Rabbi David ha-Levi Segal’s (1586–1667) Taz, Rabbi Yoel Sirkis’ 7 Written by Rabbi Yeḥiel Mikhel ha-Levi Epstein (1829–1908), the Arukh ha-Shulḥan was published in numerous small volumes between 1884 and 1893. 8 Although not categorized as a halakhic work, the Minḥat Ḥinukh by Yosef Babad (1800– 1874) cites the Ḥayei Adam. Moreover, in an essay discussing a responsa letter from Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried, Menashe Refael Leiman, “Teshuvat ha-gaon Rabbi Shlomo Gantzfrid b’inyan tikunim l’Kitzur Shulḥan Arukh” [Hebrew], Sinai 93 (Nissan-Elul 1983): 53, argues that the Ḥayei Adam served as one of the primary sources for the Kitzur Shulḥan Arukh. I agree with Leiman’s understanding; but it is also possible that for an author of one concise code (Kitzur Shulḥan Arukh), it is easier to use another concise code (Ḥayei Adam) than any longer work. In addition, the Ḥayei Adam is cited twice in Rabbi Avraham Hirsch ben Jacob Eisenstadt’s Pitḥei Teshuvah (Yoreh De’ah 113 and Ḥoshen Mishpat 427). The Ḥokhmat Adam, written primarily for a rabbi or a learned scholar, is cited there twenty-seven times. The Ḥokhmat Adam was published in 1815–1816, five years after the Ḥayei Adam and with an approbation from Rabbi Ḥayyim of Volozhin. This approbation placed the Ḥokhmat Adam in a higher category than the Ḥayei Adam and ensured its greater acceptance in the rabbinic world. 9 He does refer to the Mishnah Berurah numerous times, primarily in the Bi’ur Halakhah. See Michael J. Broyde and Shlomo C. Pill, “Reflecting on When the Arukh ha-Shulḥan on Oraḥ Ḥayyim was Actually Written: Citations of the Mishnah Berurah in the Arukh ha-Shulḥan,” May 30, 2019, https://seforimblog.com/2019/05/arukh-hashulhan/, for a list of these sources. Thus, Rabbi Danzig was obviously aware of Rabbi Kagan’s sources.

163

164

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

(1561–1640) Bayit Ḥadash, and others. He even refers to the Ḥayei Adam along with one or two other leading rabbinic commentators, and he states that its rulings are confimed by “other later rabbinic authorities” (sha’ar Aḥaronim).10 It is not clear why the Ḥafetz Ḥayyim gave such credence to the Ḥayei Adam. I suggest there are a number of reasons that can be considered, though not empirically proven. 1. Yoshor,11 in his biography of the Ḥafetz Ḥayyim, relates the story that the Ḥafetz Ḥayyim taught a class about the Ḥayei Adam to the laymen of his community. These types of classes were common in Eastern Europe as a result of the Ḥayei Adam’s popularity. While this biography can be considered a hagiographical source, given Rabbi Kagan’s personality and general biography, this would not be implausible.12 Teaching the Ḥayei Adam could bring a person closer to appreciation and respect for Rabbi Danzig’s work. 2. Rabbi Kagan lived for a period of time in Vilna, the home of Rabbi Danzig. One can assume that since in Vilna there was particular reverence and loyalty to this work, it might have had an effect on the Ḥafetz Ḥayyim. 3. Even a cursory examination of the Ḥayei Adam reveals it to be much more encompassing than a mere code of Jewish law. It also incorporates musar (moral and ethical behavior), including halakhic musar.13 To write a monograph of law and include musar, even if directed towards educated laymen, was not customary. Like Rabbi Danzig, Rabbi Kagan showed great concern for musar, as his many publications testify. Although Rabbi Kagan did not follow the genre of the Ḥayei Adam in his Mishnah Berurah, I suggest that Rabbi Danzig’s code had a strong impact on the Ḥafetz Ḥayyim, and consequently on his acceptance of the Ḥayei Adam. Rabbi Danzig’s discussion of musar gave to him, in the 10 See, for example, Sha’ar ha-Tziyun 244:23. 11 Moses M. Yoshor, The Chafetz Chaim: The Life and Works of Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications Ltd., 1984), 144. 12 See Fishbane, The Method and Meaning, for a discussion of Rabbi Kagan. 13 See chapter 5, “The Democratization of Halakhah: The Ḥayei Adam and Musar,” where I discuss Kabbalah and musar in the Ḥayei Adam. See also Brown, “Dynamic of Continuity and Change,” 130–197.

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

Ḥafetz Ḥayyim’s mind, the status of a leading rabbinic adjudicator, along with other leading Aḥaronim. While the above reasons are speculative, they offer a possible insight into the thought pattern of Rabbi Kagan and his approach to halakhah.

Structure of the References to the H.ayei Adam in the Mishnah Berurah The Ḥayei Adam is integrated into all of Rabbi Kagan’s three commentaries: the Bi’ur Halakhah, Sha’ar ha-Tziyun, and the Mishnah Berurah. In all three commentaries, the Ḥayei Adam’s opinion or quote sometimes appear alone as a proof source, independent of any other commentary. In other cases, the Ḥayei Adam may be presented as part of a group of rabbinic opinions (even though the other rabbinic authorities in this group are considered more authoritative than Rabbi Danzig) or proof texts for a specific argument or opinion concerning a particular law. In the Bi’ur Halakhah and the Mishnah Berurah text, the Ḥayei Adam is primarily used as a source applied to a larger halakhic discussion, while in the Sha’ar ha-Tziyun (where the Ḥayei Adam is most frequently cited) we often find it unaccompanied and used as a proof text without any further explanation or discussion. In such cases, it is not uncommon to find Rabbi Kagan remaining inaccurate to Rabbi Danzig’s overall intention. In all these instances, the Ḥayei Adam may be quoted, paraphrased, or merely referred to by name.

The Text of Mishnah Berurah (MB) To examine each time Rabbi Kagan cites the Ḥayei Adam in his three units in the Mishnah Berurah would be excessive for this chapter. As representative examples, I will focus on selected chapters that include Laws of Morning Blessings, Tzizit, Sabbath, and Festivals. The recent Oz ve-Hadar edition of the Mishnah Berurah has proved very helpful in my research. This is the only available edition of the Mishnah Berurah that cites the references to the Ḥayei Adam in full. Other editions, following the style of the first editions of the Mishnah Berurah, only write the name of the source, Ḥayei Adam, but without further information. As discussed, Rabbi Kagan divided his work into three separate commentaries:

165

166

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

1. Mishnah Berurah, which explains and adjudicates based on laws found in Rabbi Karo’s Shulḥan Arukh; 2. Bi’ur Halakhah, an in-depth, rabbinic analysis and discussion of specific Shulḥan Arukh laws; and 3. Sha’ar ha-Tziyun, a footnote-style commentary on the Mishnah Berurah. This chapter will only focus on the instances in which the Ḥayei Adam is cited in the Sha’ar ha-Tziyun, and as a stand-alone reference without additional sources. While it is also important to investigate the use of the Ḥayei Adam in the Mishnah Berurah and Bi’ur Halakhah commentaries, as well as the instances in the Sha’ar ha-Tziyun when the Ḥayei Adam is cited along with other adjudicators such as the Shulḥan Arukh and the talmudic commentaries, this chapter is only an exploratory study. Additional analysis will be left for future research work. I have randomly selected twenty-nine instances in the Sha’ar haTziyun. This book usually features a footnote-style presentation of sources, and only the Ḥayei Adam is cited as a stand-alone source. I have identified the source in the Mishnah Berurah by citing the chapter of the Shulḥan Arukh, the subparagraph of the Mishnah Berurah, and the footnote number of the Sha’ar ha-Tziyun. The Ḥayei Adam is identified by volume (or book) number, klal (chapter), and paragraph. 1.  MB 1:9:18 Chapter 1 of the Shulḥan Arukh in the Mishnah Berurah commentary, while discussing the laws of rising for morning prayers, writes in subparagraph 9,14 . . . In any case (18) if someone is unable to rise before the morning light due to a weak constitution or knows that if he gets up when it is still dark he will sleep at the time of the prayer/service, it is better /for him/ to sleep as required. Nevertheless, he should be very careful to get up an hour—or at least half an hour—before the attendant calls /him to go/ to the synagogue, to be clean and to prepare himself for praying with the congregation.

14 All translations of the Mishnah Berurah are based on the Pisgah Foundation (Feldheim Publishers) edition.

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

The number (18) sends the reader to the Sha’ar ha-Tziyun, which cites the Ḥayei Adam. This law is Rabbi Kagan’s sole source. Rabbi Danzig writes in book 1, klal 1:3, Even though it is worthy of every God-fearing person to rise a few hours prior to daybreak in winter, and also in summer to pray vatikin, it is a total obligation to rise an hour or at least a half-hour before sunrise to go to the synagogue so that he will be able to prepare himself for cleanliness and for praying with the congregation. While Rabbi Danzig does make a similar statement in the Ḥayei Adam, book 1, klal 1:3, he states a more stringent ruling, “that it is a total obligation to rise an hour or at least a half-hour before sunrise to go to the synagogue so that he will be able to prepare himself.” Furthermore, the Mishnah Berurah does not insert Rabbi Danzig’s explanation as to why someone may not be able to get up in the morning. Thus, while the basic ruling of the Ḥayei Adam is presented in the Mishnah Berurah, the full obligation of the Ḥayei Adam is not introduced. It is also noteworthy that Rabbi Kagan cites the Ḥayei Adam when referring to the more lenient aspects of the law. 2.  MB 4:14:20 In chapter 4, subparagraph 14, when discussing the laws of washing of the hands in the morning, the Mishnah Berurah states, Impairs the beer.  .  . . One touched food before he washed his hands. (20) One should not forbid the food because of this. However, initially, one must be extremely careful around any food. If one did touch food /before washing his hands/, they must be rinsed three times. Likewise, one should not inhale tobacco before washing the hands. Number (20) refers the reader to the Sha’ar ha-Tziyun showing the source of this law, Ḥayei Adam, book 1, klal 2:2. An examination of the Ḥayei Adam reveals a much more complex presentation of the law. The opinion presented by Rabbi Kagan is only one view amongst the different ones discussed in the Ḥayei Adam. Rabbi Kagan is offering the Ḥayei Adam as a source for lenient behavior.

167

168

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

3.  MB 4:17:26 Either for a vessel.  .  . . /A washing of the hands where these requirements have not been complied with/ may (27) even remove the evil spirit. Consequently, if one does not have a whole vessel, he is permitted to wash /his hands/ from a perforated vessel. Likewise, /one may wash his hands/ from a pump, although in such /a case/ the application of a human being is required, as explained below in the laws concerning the washing of the hands /for a meal/. . . . The topic under discussion is the cup used for the washing of one’s hands in the morning. Rabbi Kagan (in subparagraph 17) focuses on Rabbi Moshe Isserles’ (Rema, c. 1530–1572) statement that permits even a broken cup. He cites the Ḥayei Adam’s (book 1, klal 2:3) lenient view that washing with a broken vessel wards off evil spirits, this being the central reason for washing one’s hands in the morning, upon rising from sleep. Rabbi Kagan does not cite the continuation of the Ḥayei Adam, which writes, “le-khatḥila (the preferred solution is that) one should be careful (le-zaher) in all these instances [to have a whole vessel and proper flow of water].” I suggest that Rabbi Kagan distorts the overall meaning of the Ḥayei Adam with this omission. 4.  MB 8:4:8 With the tallit. That such a covering /of the head/ humbles a person’s heart and leads him to fear heaven. . . . The Baḥ writes that the tallit must be over the head from the beginning of the prayer until the end. One should, at any rate, stand wrapped in this /manner in the tallit/ for at least as long as /it takes/ (8) to walk four cubits. Rabbi Kagan is discussing the laws of wrapping oneself in a prayer shawl for the morning prayers. After citing the requirement of the Bayit Ḥadash (also known as Baḥ, by Rabbi Yoel Sirkis, c. 1561–1649) to cover one’s head throughout the entire prayer service, Rabbi Kagan quotes the Ḥayei Adam’s leniency (book 1, klal 12:3) regarding covering one’s head for a shorter period of time. What is not clear is why the footnote number 8 is not placed before the words “One should,” which is the beginning of the Ḥayei Adam’s statement.

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

5.  MB 8:13:18 If they wish. This wording implies that it is preferable for all of them to make the blessing /individually/. In actual fact, the opposite /is true/. It is preferable, initially, for one /of them/ to make the blessing /he makes/ serve /also/ for others to fulfill /their obligation/, because /of the principle that/ “the glory of the King is in the multitude of people.” This accords with /what is ruled/ below in Sec. 298, Par. 14. However, it is not the practice now /to act/ in this manner/. (18) /The reason/ may be that not everyone is able to have in mind to fulfill /his obligation by listening to someone else’s blessing/ or/, when he makes the blessing, to have in mind/ that/ his blessing/ should serve for /those who are listening to it/ to fulfill /their obligation/. See the Sha’arei Teshuvah. The Mishnah Berurah is citing the Ḥayei Adam, book 1, klal 5:17 to explain the dominant custom for each person to make a blessing on his own tallit, rather than to bless one for the entire group. While the quote and the explanation are found in the Ḥayei Adam text, the overall law presented by Rabbi Danzig differs from that of the Mishnah Berurah. The Mishnah Berurah states that it is preferable for that one blessing to encompass all, thus suggesting that this involves an obligation. The Ḥayei Adam uses the terminology “it is a great mitzvah (mitzvah min ha-muvḥar)” and not “preferred.” While Rabbi Kagan placed his footnote number (18) only before the explanation to his ruling, this cannot be taken out of context of the entire paragraph found in the Ḥayei Adam. 6.  MB 8:17:25 And one should not deviate. That is, for the small tallitot which we /wear/, in which we do not wrap ourselves. However, one may word the blessing le’hitatef /even/ initially for a small tallit, in which one wraps oneself as described in Par. 3. After the event (be’di-avad) (25), one will have fulfilled /the obligation to make a blessing/ if the blessing le’hitatef is worded in the case of any small tallit, or if worded al mitzvat tzizit for a large tallit. Rabbi Kagan in subparagraph 17 continues to discuss the blessings for both the small and large prayer shawls. He cites the Ḥayei Adam (book 1, klal 12:4) who permits the interchange of the blessings for a large tallit and for

169

170

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

a small tallit. While Rabbi Kagan places his footnote number (25) immediately prior to inserting the Ḥayei Adam’s leniency, he writes the word be’diavad (“after the event”). In constrast, the Ḥayei Adam states le-khatḥila (“preferred”) to refer to the blessing l’hitatef, when it is made initially for a small tallit in which one wraps himself. I suggest that even though the footnote number comes after the word bedi-avad, the impression of the reader is that this leniency is Rabbi Danzig’s opinion. In fact, Rabbi Danzig states that the preferred solution is to make the blessing on a small tallit. 7.  MB 8:22:33 In vain. . . . Even in the morning, one may put on his tallit without examining /the tzitzit threads/, if by /making such/ an examination he will have to neglect praying /together/ with the congregation or if he was called to ascend to /the reading of/ the Torah, provided he knows that the threads were whole the previous day. (33) Nevertheless, the correct /practice/ is to inspect /the threads/ a little /to the extent/ that he can. . . . The discussion in subparagraph 22 is concerned with the necessity to check the fringes of the tallit and to ensure that they remain undamaged. Rabbi Kagan’s ruling is not different from the Ḥayei Adam (book 1, klal 12:1) but he adds the words “he knows that the threads were whole the previous day.” As in 8:17, the Mishnah Berurah inserts the footnote number (directing the reader to the Ḥayei Adam) immediately after his innovation. Although somewhat misleading, I believe that the Mishnah Berurah is offering a lenient approach to the views of the Aḥaronim (the later adjudicators)15 and does not require a total checking of the threads. It would seem that Rabbi Kagan is presenting his readers with a mode of musar.16 8.  MB 8:24:38 And he had in mind to discharge /his obligation/. This is the practice nowadays. We make a blessing over the large tallit and 15 This opinion is presented in the first part of sub-paragraph 22. 16 Musar is presented as a system of ethical principles and values that a person should try to implement to the best of his abilities, while halakhah is a system of rules governing the actions of the individual through obligations and prohibitions. See Benjamin Brown, “‘Soft Stringency’ in the Mishnah Berurah: Jurisprudential, Social, and Ideological Aspects of a Halakhic Formulation,” Contemporary Jewry 27, no. 1 (October 2007): 10.

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

have in mind by means of that /blessing over/ the small tallit. This is more commendable than the practice of some people, who make a blessing over the small tallit and straightaway make a blessing over the large tallit, (38) as they cause a superfluous blessing /to be said/. Furthermore, even if they would make a long interval between /their putting on of/ the small /tallit/ and /their putting on/ of the large tallit, it would /nevertheless/ not be proper /for them/ to make a blessing over /the small tallit/ in several instances. /For example, it could not be proper /because/ it is a garment which is open at the sides below /and/ the larger /part/ of /the garment/ is not open, because /the garment/ is smaller than the /minimum/ size /for which tzitzit is required/, given below in Sec. 16, or because they slept in /the garment/ at night, /in which case one should also not make a blessing over it/, as /explained/ below in Par. 16 in the Mishnah Berurah. As in the above sub-paragraphs, Rabbi Kagan continues to discuss the blessings to be made when putting on tzitzit, whether it be a tallit gadol (large prayer shawl) or tallit katan (small prayer shawl, worn by most men under their shirts). The Mishnah Berurah cites the Ḥayei Adam (book 1, klal 12:5), which states “as they cause a superfluous blessing /to be said/.” This lenient principle is correctly found in the Ḥayei Adam, and Rabbi Danzig uses this expression in different contexts. While the concept is cited correctly, it can mislead the reader of the Mishnah Berurah. The Mishnah Berurah is following its pattern: to give credit to all sources from where citations are quoted, even though they might be out of context. 9.  MB 8:30:45 This /also has/ the same /ruling/ as making interruptions. . . . Likewise, if one made the blessing Al Mitzvat over a small tallit / which one wears all day/, as is our practice, and took hold of the larger tallit immediately /to put it on, then/ if he had expressly in mind to discharge /his obligation to make a blessing over the large tallit/ by means of /the blessing/ Al Mitzvat, he does not need to make another blessing. If he did not have anything in mind / when he made the blessing Al Mitzvat/, he must make another blessing /over the large tallit/, since then he will merely have in mind that /the blessing/ Al Mitzvat /should serve/ for the small

171

172

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

tallit, However, initially (45) one should, at any rate, definitely avoid making a blessing over the small tallit if he had in mind to put on the large tallit immediately, because /by doing so/ he is causing a superfluous blessing to be made. . . . Rabbi Kagan is discussing a case when a man makes the blessing over a small tallit and immediately wraps himself with his larger tallit. The question discussed is whether he is required to make an additional blessing. Rabbi Danzig (book 1, klal 12:5) addresses this question by stating, “it is forbidden to make a blessing on both. . . .” Rabbi Kagan uses the word “preferable” (le-khatḥila) and then cites the Ḥayei Adam writing yesh le-zaher (“one should be careful to avoid” to make the superfluous blessing). The Ḥayei Adam (in contrast to the Mishnah Berurah) cautions its audience rather than defining this as an absolute prohibition, thus suggesting a consideration for leniency. 10. MB 250:4:11 Every person should make them as his example. That is, even the most elegant /of men/. (11) This should especially be so during the short days and even more so where one sees that it is already close to the Sabbath, when one should exert himself with all his might. I have seen virtuous men, great in Torah learning, who would sweep the house themselves during the short days /when there is little time for the Sabbath preparation/, so that the Sabbath will not be desecrated. This is a full-fledged obligation incumbent on every man. For what difference does it make whether one does not have anyone to prepare /the house/ for him or whether the one who does it for him has no time. The text from footnote 11 until the end of the subparagraph is an exact quote from the Ḥayei Adam, book 2, klal 1:3. I suggest that Rabbi Kagan chose to quote verbatim this section of the Ḥayei Adam not only to amend and clarify the Shulḥan Arukh, but also to offer words of musar. 11. MB 256:1:4 A half hour . . . before Sabbath . . . . (4) Aside from this, since the womenfolk, upon arriving /home/ from the shops, usually bathe and dress in their Sabbath clothes before lighting the Sabbath

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

lights, if they leave /the shops/ late, they will—God forbid— become involved in a dubious desecration of the Sabbath. It is, therefore, most proper that they leave /their shops/ early. The Mishnah Berurah quotes, verbatim, the Ḥayei Adam (book 2, klal 5:9), which brings musar to his readers. Rabbi Kagan is concerned with what would seem to be their social reality, and he seeks to ensure that there is no desecration of the Sabbath. The parallel section in the Ḥayei Adam, referring to legal behavior, is not cited by Rabbi Kagan. He chose in this instance to include - in the Mishnah Berurah - the musar, not the halakhah, which was not the intent of the Ḥayei Adam. 12. MB 261:22:19 Some period of time. It is not sufficient, however, to add merely some minute amount of time as a supplement; it must be somewhat more. The period of the supplement together with the bein ha-shemashot period (19) totals almost one-half hour. (See Bi’ur Halakhah.) Rabbi Kagan (in his Bi’ur Halakhah commentary), in a rare instance, offers his rationalization for citing the Ḥayei Adam. He explains that the discussion in the Talmud and its commentaries is not clear as to when it is necessary to stop working before the beginning of the Sabbath. Thus, he opts for the Ḥayei Adam’s (book 2, klal 5:1) clarification: the required time is thirty minutes. This, I believe, suggests that Rabbi Kagan follows Rabbi Danzig in an instance of hilkheta ke-batra’ei17 (a ruling according to a later or the latest rabbinic authorities). 13. MB 263:24:34 Ner shel Yom Tov. If a festival (Yom Tov) falls on Sabbath, one says: (34) . . . shel Shabbat ve-shel Yom Tov. Rabbi Kagan turns to the Ḥayei Adam’s laws (book 2, klal 95:14) that discuss holidays to clarify the ritual prayer recited over the candles when the Sabbath and the holiday fall on the same day. Here, Rabbi Kagan not only refers the reader to the Ḥayei Adam but also writes “Ḥayei Adam in the 17 This term is best defined as “the final decisor” (see footnote 29).

173

174

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

Laws of Festivals.” In the Mishnah Berurah 514:11:48, Laws of Festivals, the same law is repeated but without giving credit to the Ḥayei Adam. 14. MB 263:48:55 Not. . . . But if /the lights/ were kindled in a place in the house which will be used, it is permitted to move them afterwards and place them in some other place, for /then/ the entire house is in its /proper/ place. /However/, the Levush is strict even with respect to this. (55) Where there is a need to do so, one may be lenient / and move them/. . . . The topic under discussion is moving the Sabbath candles after they have been lit. The Mishnah Berurah cites the Levush (the code by Rabbi Mordekhai Yaffe, 1530–1612), 263:10, which takes a strict stance prohibiting the moving of the candles once lit. The Mishnah Berurah then chooses to quote the Ḥayei Adam (book 2, klal 5:14), which offers the possibility for moving the candles when needed.18 15. MB 271:78:85 One need not repeat. . . . [But all this applies only (85) where it develops that the cup contained water or the like, /that is,/ some substance which does not constitute a beverage /fit for kiddush/ at all. But if it is discovered that it contained beer or some other beverage which is considered ḥamar medinah (a popularly accepted drink) in that area /and thus fit for kiddush/, it is not necessary to take another cup for kiddush but /only/ to recite the blessing she’ha-kol over it and to drink it.] The topic under discussion concerns what happens if, while making kiddush on Friday night, one discovers that the cup contains a popularly accepted drink rather than wine. The Ḥayei Adam (book 2, klal 6:17) offers a clarificatory leniency: one does not require to repeat the kiddush, but rather to only recite the blessing over the new drink. Rabbi Kagan cites this leniency and identifies his source in footnote 85 as the Ḥayei Adam. 18 Rabbi Kagan choses to cite the Ḥayei Adam as his source, even though there are earlier sources such as Rabbi Eliyahu Shapira (1660–1712) who offer the same ruling. In this instance, Rabbi Danzig would be considered the later decisor; thus, the principle of hilkheta ke-batra’ei (the law is according to the last adjudicator) will apply.

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

16. MB 272:27:36 According to the Rosh. . . . (36) For actual halakhic practice, one should be scrupulous, initially, not to make kiddush /on Friday/ night on any beverage except wine, or /to make kiddush over/ bread if there is no wine in that city (as below). For many of the great Rishonim follow the stringent ruling that one does not fulfill the obligation to kiddush with /other beverages/. In addition, the author /of the Shulḥan Arukh/ renders no decisions as to the proper halakhic practice for this. Rabbi Kagan is decisive, in his ruling, to use only wine or bread for the kiddush ritual. The Mishnah Berurah states that this law is le-khatḥila (“preferable”), a claim not found in the Ḥayei Adam (book 2, klal 6:9), although inferred. Rabbi Kagan’s ruling is based on the Ḥayei Adam, and he does not reference other earlier rabbinic authorities. Furthermore, an examination of the Ḥayei Adam will show that using bread instead of wine is the custom, not the law. 17. MB 274:2:3 Whole. . . . (3) If one does not have a whole loaf /of bread/, he is not disqualified /from fulfilling his requirement/. /In the same manner/, kiddush may be recited even over /a piece of/ bread the size of an olive. The proper practice is that the one who breaks open /the bread/ should consciously intend to exempt all the company seated /at the table/ with /his/ ha-motzi blessing, and he should also instruct the company that they consciously intend to fulfill /their obligation/ with his blessing. /This is/ in order that everyone /present/ will fulfill /the requirement of/ two loaves. When exempting others /with his blessing/, one should /first/ say: “bi-reshut raboti” (with my master’s permission), even if he is the host or the greatest /Torah scholar/ present, for this is in the manner of humility. The entire section of subparagraph 2 following footnote 3 is a direct quote from the Ḥayei Adam (book 2, klal 7:2). Rabbi Kagan is presenting a lenient view found in the Ḥayei Adam. An additional factor is the musar suggested in the Ḥayei Adam, when he states, “for this is in the manner of humility.” Rabbi Kagan is quoting the Ḥayei Adam in his discussion on how

175

176

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

to perform the ritual blessing of the two loaves of bread on Friday night, Saturday lunch, and for the third meal. In the Ḥayei Adam, the phrase “If one does not have a whole loaf [of bread], he is not disqualified [from fulfilling his requirement]” may refer to the first of the second Sabbath meal, during both of which kiddush is recited. The Mishnah Berurah only focuses on the morning kiddush. 18. MB 583:5:6 A sweet year. . . . There are people who refrain from cooking on Rosh ha-Shanah sour kinds /of food, such as/ borscht and the like. Therefore, those who eat fish as a symbol that they should be fruitful and multiply like fish do not cook /the fish/ in vinegar. Now (6), all these devices are performed entirely to be symbolic of good. Therefore, it is self-understood that one should take extreme care not to become angry on these days. Apart from / the fact that it is necessary to do so in any case because of/ the gravity of the prohibition /involved, it is also desirable/ so that / one’s conduct/ should be symbolic of good. One should just feel happy and confident /of the lovingkindness/ of the Almighty, / backed/ by repentance and good deeds. The Mishnah Berurah is discussing the foods that are used as symbolic representations at the evening meal on Rosh ha-Shanah. He quotes the Ḥayei Adam (book 2, klal 139:6) from the words “are performed” to the end of the subparagraph. Rabbi Kagan focuses on the Ḥayei Adam’s positive approach to the purpose of these symbols, which includes the musar aspects presented by Rabbi Danzig. Other aspects discussed in this paragraph of the Ḥayei Adam are ignored, but the Mishnah Berurah does not take them out of the context of the Ḥayei Adam’s statements. 19. MB 585:5:16 Or he already fulfilled. . . . (16) The universal practice is to be lenient /about this/. /The blowers make the blessing/ which serves for /the listeners/ to fulfil their /obligation/ in all cases. One should not protest against them, as /this practice/ accords with the prevailing ruling, as the Pri Ḥadash and the Gra write.

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

The Mishnah Berurah is concerned with the practice of permitting a man who has already fulfilled the obligation of hearing the shofar and its blessing to repeat them for someone who has not. Rabbi Kagan quotes the lenient ruling of the Ḥayei Adam (book 2, klal 141:7), who permits this possibility. While Rabbi Danzig did permit the blower to repeat the blessing, the Ḥayei Adam text suggests that he preferred not to allow this. 20. MB 604:4:12 /The psalms/ La-Menatzeyaḥ and Mizmor Le-Todah. / The psalm/ La-Menatzeyaḥ /should not be said/ because /the expression/ be’yom tzarah (on a day of trouble) is written in it. / The psalm/ Mizmor Le-Todah /should not be said/, because at the time when the Beit /ha-Mikdash (the Holy Temple) was standing/, it was forbidden to offer any offering on Yom Kippur eve, and / meat was/ to be eaten. /The reason was/ that /by offering it then/, one would have curtailed the time during which it could be eaten. This follows in view /of the fact/ that all offerings /which are to be eaten/ may be eaten at least for a day and /during/ the night which follows /the day/. On Yom Kippur, one cannot eat and/, therefore, by offering such offerings on the eve of Yom Kippur/ (12) they would thus have brought about /that their meat/ should become disqualified. Rabbi Kagan placed his footnote reference to the Ḥayei Adam at the end of subparagraph 4. The whole subparagraph consists entirely of a direct quote from the Ḥayei Adam, book 2, klal 144:3. Rabbi Kagan also ignores the conclusion of book 2, klal 144:3, where Rabbi Danzig discusses additional prayers related to sacrifices. 21. MB 605:2:5 A practice of those who are conscientious. . . . /There are/ localities (5) where many /people/ gather together /for the slaughtering/ and they push one another. The slaughterers are awake all night with resentment and they do not feel the knife /to test it for notches/ owing to the considerable /amount of/ work /that they are required to do, so that the slaughtering/ can lead to /the transgression of/ the prohibition against /eating the meat of a dead animal not

177

178

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

halakhically slaughtered/. In /these circumstances/, it is preferable to slaughter the kaparot a day or two before Yom Kippur, as the time /which is suitable/ for /the slaughtering of/ the kaparot is throughout the Ten Days of Penitence. . . . 22. MB 605:2:6 A practice of those who are conscientious. . . . Alternatively, / people in these localities/ should circle (6) money above their heads which will be considered meritorious for them, so that they should not stumble into /transgressing/ the prohibition against / eating/ neveilah, Heaven forbid. 23. MB 605:2:7 A practice of those who are conscientious. . . . Someone who is able and wishes /to act/ in the choicest /manner/ should summon (6) the slaughterer to his home in the early morning. . . . In section 605, paragraph 1, the Shulḥan Arukh discusses the custom of kaparot, a ritual performed on the day before Yom Kippur.19 This ritual involves the symbolic transposition of one’s sins to another object. The popular custom was to use a fowl, but objects (especially money) were introduced as a replacement for the fowl. Rabbi Karo discouraged the custom, while Rabbi Isserles (the Rema) did not. Rabbi Kagan turns to the Ḥayei Adam for a sizeable section that makes up subparagraph 2. The Mishnah Berurah does not follow the sequence of the Ḥayei Adam, but rather, it places the quotations in a different order to formulate his subparagraph. While Rabbi Kagan is careful to quote the Ḥayei Adam accurately, he does not present the message of Rabbi Danzig, which is that it is preferable to use money rather than birds since the slaughtering of fowl could lead to other halakhic challenges. 24. MB 605:9:20 One should cast. /This is/ because it is usual for fowls to feed on stolen /food/ and the entrails are the first vessels that receive the stolen /food/. (20) Therefore, we shun eating them in order to 19 See Simcha Fishbane, The Slaughter of a Rooster at the Jewish Festival of Yom Kippur: An Explanation of the Ritual of Kapparot (Lewiston, NY, and Lampeter, UK: Edwin Mellen Press, 2017), for a discussion of this ritual.

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

impress on our hearts /the need/ to shun stealing. /This is/ also / done/ to be merciful. /We reason that/ just as one has mercy on living creatures by providing them with /food/, Heaven will /also/ have mercy on the individual. Rabbi Kagan quotes the Ḥayei Adam a fourth time, borrowing from book 2, klal 144:4. He discusses the custom of throwing the entrails of the fowl used for kaparot20 to the birds. Although he places footnote 20 before the word “therefore,” the actual quote begins with the words “and the entrails.” I suggest that Rabbi Kagan sought to emphasize the musar aspect of this custom presented in the Ḥayei Adam, “to shun stealing.” The Mishnah Berurah continues with an additional aspect: the Turei Zahav (also known as Taz, by Rabbi David ha-Levi Segal of Lvov, 1586–1667) gives a musar urging to “have mercy on the birds.” 25. MB 608:12:16 He may eat again.  .  . . There are /authorities/ who write that / according to/ the practice, after one has eaten /a meal/, he is forbidden to eat /again on the eve of Yom Kippur/, since the cessation /of the meal/ is like a verbal acceptance /of the fast/. Therefore, it is proper /for one/ to say explicitly, before /he makes/ the blessing for after a meal, that he is not yet accepting the fast upon himself. (16) One should at least express this /abstention from acceptance/ mentally. The Mishnah Berurah is discussing the possibility for one to continue eating on the eve of Yom Kippur after the completion of eating the final meal and before the commencement of the fast. Rabbi Kagan introduces the Ḥayei Adam’s leniency (book 2, klal 144:12), stating that it is sufficient for one to only think that he does not yet begin the fast after he completes the meal and recites the blessing (Birkat ha-Mazon). Then, he will be able to continue to eat until the designated time to stop.21 Rabbi Danzig cites this ruling based upon the Shulḥan Arukh commentators, the Magen Avraham, and the Gra against the opinion of the Rema. Rabbi Kagan turns to the Ḥayei Adam for his ruling (following the principle the hilkheta ke-batra’ei).

20 I discuss this custom ibid. 21 This leniency contradicts the opinion of the Rema.

179

180

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

26. MB 614:9:11 Of leather. . . . This ruling is /only/ applicable at a time other than / when one is praying the equivalent of/ the eighteen/-blessing/ prayer [Shemoneh Esrei]. At the time when one is praying /the equivalent of/ the eighteen/-blessing/ prayer, however, one is forbidden to stand on pillows and cushions, even if they are not of leather. This is because one would appear arrogant if he would then stand on pillows and cushions, even if they are not three handbreadths high. On the other hand, a person is permitted to stand on a little grass, to interrupt the distance between /himself and/ the ground (11) if he has caught a cold. The Mishnah Berurah is quoting the Ḥayei Adam’s leniency (book 2, klal 145:21) permitting a sick person (even mildly sick) not to have to stand on the bare floor on Yom Kippur. In footnote 11, Rabbi Kagan—in addition to citing the Ḥayei Adam—adds the explanation, “the reason for this is that it does not appear as arrogant.” This is an additional example of the prudence Rabbi Kagan showed when an explanation was offered while citing the Ḥayei Adam. 27. MB 683:1:3 One should say the complete Hallel.  .  . . As to whether it is permitted to say Hallel /on Ḥanukah/ in the house of a mourner, see the Sha’arei Teshuvah (3) However, the mourner himself should definitely not say it. The discussion of this law is concerned with the reciting the Hallel prayer, in the home of a mourner during the holiday of Ḥanukah. Hallel symbolizes joy, but the home of the mourner represents despondency. Rabbi Kagan cites the clarificatory leniency of the Ḥayei Adam (book 2, klal 154:40), exempting the mourner from reciting the prayer. While the conclusion is the same, there is a clear difference in intent. Rabbi Danzig writes (book 2, klal 154:40): “therefore, it would seem the mourner should not say it.” Rabbi Kagan writes in a different way: “However, the mourner himself should definitely not say it.”22

22 Emphasis added.

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

28. MB 686:7:17 It is permitted to eat on account of the circumcision.  .  . . On the other hand, the people who are themselves involved in the circumcision are permitted to eat on Thursday after the circumcision (17) and they do not need to fast on the morrow. The topic under discussion is the Fast of Esther that falls on the Sabbath (Purim being on Sunday) when it is forbidden to fast, which is therefore rescheduled to Thursday. On Thursday, a circumcision was to be celebrated with its mitzvah meal (se’udat mitzvah). The Rema rules that the participants at the se’udat mitzvah can eat but must then fast on Friday to compensate for not having fasted the previous day. This compensation also included the ba’alei brit (those directly concerned with the circumcision, such as the parents). Rabbi Kagan deviates from his literary pattern, and rules against the Rema, not requiring the ba’alei brit to make up for their omission and fast the next day. This leniency is based on the ruling of the Ḥayei Adam in book 2, klal 155:3. Footnote 17 in the Mishnah Berurah references the Ḥayei Adam, but in footnote 14, Rabbi Kagan offers a more detailed discussion commencing with the statement, “the law is like him [the Ḥayei Adam].” 29. MB 696:26:30 The burying of his dead has precedence.  .  . . The Magen Avraham raises a problem. /He notes/ that where other people / are involved/, this /ruling/ is understandable. However, /there is no basis for ruling that/ the pre-burial mourner is obliged to read the Megillah /before the burial/, as he is, of course, exempt /then/ from /the performance of/ all mitzvot. /Consequently, after the burial, when the mourner is obliged to read the Megillah/, he will not /be ruled to/ have fulfilled /this obligation/ with /the reading/ that he heard /together/ with the congregation, in view /of the fact/ that at the time /when it was read/ he was not obliged /to hear it/ at all. The Magen Avraham, therefore, concludes that even if /the pre-burial mourner/ heard the reading /of the Megillah/ for the congregation (30), he should read it again, after the dead person has been buried. Rabbi Kagan discusses the obligation of an onen (the pre-burial mourner) to hear the reading of the Megillah on Purim. He concludes, based on the

181

182

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

ruling of the Magen Avraham, that the onen is exempt from this obligation, but even if he does hear the reading of the Megillah before the burial, he should hear it a second time after the burial. Rabbi Kagan adds, as part of footnote 30, the Ḥayei Adam’s (book 2, klal 155:38) clarificatory leniency that the second reading does not require a blessing. An examination of the Ḥayei Adam shows that Rabbi Danzig did rule that a blessing need not be repeated, but in a different context. The Mishnah Berurah, based on the Magen Avraham, argues that the onen did not fulfill his obligation in the first Megillah reading. The Ḥayei Adam rules that he did fulfill his obligation, and therefore, when he reads the Megillah a second time, he should not recite the blessing. The following chart on pp. 184–185 summarizes how Rabbi Kagan uses the Ḥayei Adam in his Mishnah Berurah.

Concluding Remarks As discussed above, the Ḥayei Adam was presented as a summary of Rabbi Karo’s Shulḥan Arukh and its commentators, written primarily for educated laymen, and it was not intended to serve the rabbinic authorities or adjudicators. Numerous rabbis objected to the publication of the Ḥayei Adam. Some argued that such a book would serve as a manual for laymen to make their own decision without the assistance of their rabbis, so this book should be forbidden. It removed, from the rabbis, the power to decide on the correct application of the Jewish law; thus, rabbinic authority could be challenged. Others believed that since Rabbi Danzig was a businessman for the majority of his adult life, he did not have the right to publish such a volume. Rabbi Ḥayyim of Volozhin (1749–1821), a colleague of Rabbi Danzig, refused to give approbation to the Ḥayei Adam. It is unclear why, but Marc Shapiro23 attributes Rabbi Ḥayyim’s action to the first reason. With his decision to incorporate the rulings of the Ḥayei Adam in the Mishnah Berurah, Rabbi Kagan raised the role and the status of the Ḥayei Adam and put its author on an equal level with other leading rabbinic authorities. This also allowed Rabbi Kagan to protect the authority of the practicing rabbis.24 23 Marc B. Shapiro, Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History (Oxford, UK, and Portland, OR: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2015), 20. 24 See Brown, “Soft Stringency,” 15.

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

If we examine the table summarizing the above discussion, the following conclusions can be made. 1. It was not until Rabbi Kagan’s Mishnah Berurah that the rabbis changed their attitude to Rabbi Danzig and his Ḥayei Adam. Rabbi Kagan elevated the Ḥayei Adam to the level of the leading Shulḥan Arukh commentaries. These included the Magen Avraham, the Taz, Eliyah Rabba, and others. I believe that Rabbi Kagan viewed Rabbi Danzig as a posek aḥaron who could be classified under the precept of hilkheta ke-batra’ei;25 that is, when there is a dispute amongst earlier halakhic adjudicators, the law rules according to the latest rabbinic authority. As we mentioned previously, Rabbi Kagan follows the decisions of the Ḥayei Adam when there is a dispute between other leading rabbinic authorities. In many instances, Rabbi Kagan also chooses to quote the Ḥayei Adam despite the fact that a similar ruling or explanation may be found in an earlier commentary. Although not discussed in this chapter, when the Ḥayei Adam is cited in the Sha’ar ha-Tziyun alongside other rabbinic authorities, he is usually placed last, with the exclusion of other rabbis who are generally considered of greater stature. 2. Both the Ḥayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah are considered to lean towards stringent rulings. A closer examination of both works will reveal (implicitly) a strong consideration for the authors’ social reality, but the topic of this chapter focuses on the Mishnah Berurah’s rulings, not on Rabbi Danzig’s work. Benjamin Brown has argued26 that Rabbi Kagan, in writing his Mishnah Berurah (penned primarily for the layman), was seeking leniencies, or at least what he termed “soft stringencies.” Given the fact that the Ḥayei Adam was known to be a work that emphasized stringencies, it was easier for the readers of the Mishnah Berurah to accept the instances and rulings when Rabbi Danzig ruled with leniency, because they could be sure that he would not be too

25 For a detailed discussion of this precept, see Menaḥem Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles [Hebrew] (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1973), 232–236. 26 Brown, “Soft Stringency.”

183

2:5:9

2:5:1

2:95:14

2:5:14

2:6:17

4:17:26

8:4:8

8:13:18

8:17:25

8:22:33

8:24:38

8:30:45

250:4:11

256:1:14

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 261:22:19

13 263:24:34

14 263:48:55

15 271:78:85

2:1:3

1:12:5

1:12:5

1:12:1

1:12:4

1:5:17

1:12:3

1:2:3

1:2:2

4:14:20

1

-

-

-

-

X

-

X

X

X

X

X

-

X

X

X

X

-

-

-

-

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

-

-

-

-

-

X

-

-

X

-

X

X

-

-

-

-

-

X

X

X

-

-

X

-

-

-

-

-

Continued

-

-

X

X

-

-

-

-

-

-

X

-

-

-

HA Misleading Leniency Exact Musar Clarification Source Quotation 1:1:3 X X -

MB Source 1:9:18

184 A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

686:7:17

X

2:155:3

29 696:26:30 2:155:38

X

28

2:154:40

2:145:21

683:1:3

X

27

605:9:20

24

2:144:4

X

-

605:2:7

23

2:144:4

X

614:9:11

605:2:6

22

2:144:4

26

605:2:5

21

2:144:3

X

-

604:4:12

20

2:141:7

-

25 608:12:16 2:144:12

585:5:16

19

2:39:6

-

-

583:5:6

18

2:7:2

2:144:4

274:2:3

17

X

X

X

X

X

-

-

X

X

-

X

X

-

-

-

-

partial

X

-

partial

X

-

X

X

-

-

-

-

-

X

X

-

X

-

-

X

X

-

-

-

-

-

X

-

-

-

X

-

-

-

MB HA Misleading Leniency Exact Musar Clarification Source Source Quotation 16 272:27:36 2:6:11 X A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

185

186

A New Role and Status: The H.ayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah

lenient.27 Even when musar was included in the halakhah (what Brown28 terms halakhic musar), it did not always refer to a stringent decision or ruling. I suggest that the Mishnah Berurah goes beyond soft stringencies. As Rabbi Kagan’s son argued,29 his father’s primary concern was with lenient rulings and decisions that would be feasible for laymen. While this is not explicitly evident in the Mishnah Berurah, an examination of the rulings of the Ḥayei Adam chosen for inclusion by Rabbi Kagan will reveal this implicit intent. In the examples studied in this essay, nineteen out of the twentynine case studies offer lenient rulings; nine suggest musar (which, as a rule, should challenge leniency), and three of these nine rulings, although they suggest a lenient halakhah, include musar. 3. Sixteen of the twenty-nine examples I studied showed the citations from the Ḥayei Adam to be misleading. To clarify this statement: Rabbi Kagan, it would seem, works in a genre that does not require him to be loyal to the overall ruling and message of the Ḥayei Adam. His quotations from the Ḥayei Adam are very focused on specific statements. Rabbi Kagan chose narrow-focused phrases, which were sufficient to support his ruling and—at the same time—to give credit to the Ḥayei Adam. I have not researched other rabbinic works to see if this literary style was unique to the Mishnah Berurah, or if it was also used by the other rabbinic authorities. As a last point, Rabbi Kagan saw—in the Ḥayei Adam—an inspiration to develop the genre of popular halakhic works for educated laymen. Brown shows that this genre was not accepted by the rabbinic world. According to his approach to halakhah, as manifested in the Mishnah Berurah, which was directed towards the non-rabbinic group, Rabbi Kagan required the backing of a leading halakhic predecessor to take this bold step and create a new type of code and Shulḥan Arukh commentary. The Ḥayei Adam and its author, Rabbi Danzig, became those broad shoulders for Rabbi Kagan.

27 I would like to thank Prof. Benjamin Brown for bringing this point to my attention. 28 Brown, “Soft Stringency,” 11. 29 Ibid., 8.

7

Jewish Pride in Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam as Instantiated in the Aleinu Hymn1

In a unique literary pattern, different from other codes, Rabbi Avraham Danzig incorporates, in his Ḥayei Adam (first published in 1810),2 a homiletic chapter (klal) analyzing the prayer Aleinu. Although Rabbi Danzig includes, in his code, other non-halakhic inserts such as in the laws of Yom Kippur, these additions are not separate chapters but, rather, directly related to the chapter where they are inserted. Neither are they homiletic in character. I suggest3 that the section on the mystical meaning of Aleinu was added by a later publisher, with the intention of honoring Rabbi Danzig with a special accolade. Typically, at the end of a volume, there is an empty page, which enabled this unique addition to the code. Our earliest text of Aleinu dates to the Amidah of the Rosh ha-Shanah Musaf section in Seder Rav Amram Gaon.4 While this work is no earlier than the ninth century, circumstantial evidence has led scholars to suggest that the piyyut of Aleinu was composed as early as the Second Temple era,5 or 1 I would like to express my deep heartfelt appreciation and gratitude to Professor Herb Basser for his guidance, assistance, and input with this chapter. 2 He succeeded to publish a second revised edition of the Ḥayei Adam in 1818. 3 See chapter 3 of this book. 4 See Seder Rav Amram Gaon, ed. Daniel Goldschmidt (Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1971), 113–114 and 141. 5 Aharon Mirsky, “Ha-shirah bi-tekufat ha-Talmud,” Yerushalayim 2 (1967): 161–179.

188

Jewish Pride in Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam as Instantiated in the Aleinu Hymn

at the beginning of the Amoraic period. In an epistle attributed to Ḥai ben Sherira Gaon (d. 1038), we read that the author of the liturgical Aleinu prayer was Moses’ disciple, Joshua son of Nun. It has been cogently argued that this epistle is a late forgery and was never penned at all by Ḥai Gaon.6 The point of the forgery was to stake a claim in medieval lore that this prayer dates to the coming of the ancient Israelites into the Promised Land. Joshua’s mission was understood to be the conquest of that land and its purging from all idolatry and idolaters. As Israel entered the territory, precautions were taken to ensure they would not join in the worship of Canaanite gods. God alone was to be Israel’s center of worship. As the theme of the Aleinu prayer is the recognition of a single God—the true God of Israel—and the removal of all other forms of worship, the attribution to Joshua seems reasonable. Yet, this suggestion cannot be taken seriously and any claim for it must be dismissed, even if authoritative rabbis accept the dating. To think that a Gaonic source substantiates this date is to ignore the evidence of forgery, of the prayer’s verbatim use of Isaiah (30:7, 45:20, 45:23; all from later than Joshua’s time), and its post-biblical phrases.7 Although not found in full until the ninth century, there is reason to date this prayer (now in two paragraphs)—known from the Musaf service of Rosh ha-Shanah—to the fourth or even the third century.8 The section in which Aleinu is found, “Tekiata de-Rav,” might be that early since it contains phrases common to rabbinic citations that likely date from this period. Slightly later Gaonic sources also place the first paragraph of the hymn in the Musaf service of Yom Kippur. Rabbi Ephraim of Bonn, a contemporary of the Jews of Orléans who witnessed the events of the 1171 massacre, 6 Elliot R. Wolfson, “Ḥai Gaon’s Letter and Commentary on ‘Aleynu’: Further Evidence of Moses de Léon’s Pseudepigraphic Activity,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 81 (1991): 379, note 9. 7 G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition, 2nd ed. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965), 27–28. Such phrases include yotzer bereishit, gedulah, shevaḥ, ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu, kisei kevodo (moshav yekaro), shekhinat uzo. See also S. Stern and J. Isserles, “The Astrological and Calendar Section of the Earliest Maḥzor Vitry Manuscript (MS ex-Sassoon 535),” Aleph: Historical Studies in Science and Judaism 15, no. 2 (2015): 199–318. 8 See Ruth Langer, “The Censorship of Aleinu in Ashkenaz and Its Aftermath,” in The Experience of Jewish Liturgy: Studies Dedicated to Menaḥem Schmelzer, ed. Debra Reed Blank (Leiden, Netherlands, and Boston, MA: Brill, 2011), 148–149. See also Michael D. Swartz, “‘Alay Le-Shabbeaḥ’: A Liturgical Prayer in Ma’aseh Merkavah,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 77 (1986–1987): 179–190. As well, see Meir Bar-Ilan, “Mekorah shel tefilat ‘Aleinu le-Shabeaḥ,’” Da’at 43 (1999): 5–24; he argued for an early date.

Jewish Pride in Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s Hayei . Adam as Instantiated in the Aleinu Hymn

wrote an elegy. The rabbis of the area wrote to Rabbeinu Tam. They claimed that the Jews of Blois were consigned to flames for a blood libel and that the martyrs sang Aleinu as the flames towered over them. Rabbi Ephraim also noted that the hymn was sung. Here, we have a clear implication: the hymn was known well enough by that date to identify it by its melody.9 Perhaps it was already a common daily prayer in the synagogue, or perhaps the liturgy drew inspiration from the martyrs and subsequently was recited after morning prayers in commemoration of them.10 Already in the twelfth-century Maḥzor Vitry (France and Germany), we find the hymn included in the daily Shaḥarit morning service. It is possible that these sources place it in the morning liturgy but that worshippers ended all other prayer services by singing it together or else reciting it quietly after every prayer service. Around this time, we find—in some Ashkenazic liturgies—a phrase inserted in the piyyut of Aleinu, which was perhaps written for commu-nal recitation.11 The original hymn refers to emptiness as va-rik, popularly interpreted through its numerical value, 316 (vav = 6 + reish = 200 + yud = 10 + kuf = 100), which was the numerical equivalent to that of the name “Jesus” (Yeshu, yud = 10 + sin = 300 + vav = 6). To this line, a scribe has added an expansion. His purpose was to make it abundantly clear that the reference is to Jesus and his worshippers, “impure and adulterous, dying in their iniquities, worshipping a man [of shame], decomposing in the dust, rotten with worms and maggots.”12 The comprehensive legal code of Jewish law, Tur S hulḥan Arukh, composed by Ya’akov ben Asher (1270–1340), mentions the Aleinu composition (Oraḥ Ḥayyim 133:1) as a conclusion to the morning prayer service “as we 9 “The Christian people came and asked us ‘What kind of a song is this, for we have never heard such a sweet melody?’ We knew it well for it was the song: ‘It is incumbent upon us to praise the Lord of all.’” 10 Helene Wagenaar-Nolthenius, “Der Planctus Iudei und der Gesang jüdischer Märtyrer in Blois anno 1171,” in Mélanges offerts à René Crozet . . . à l’occasion de son 70 anniversaire (Poitiers, France: Société d’études médiévales, 1966), 881–885. 11 There is some textual support for Yisrael Ta-Shema’s assertion of an early date in the Second Temple period (see his “Mekorah u-mekomah shel tefilat ‘Aleinu le-Shabeaḥ’ b’sidur ha-t’filah: Seder ha-ma’amadot u-she’elat siyum ha-t’filah,” in Sefer ha-zikaron l’-Efrayim Talmage, ed. Barry Walfish [Haifa: Haifa University Press, 1993], 90). Siddur Rashi 419 remarks that silent meditation of Aleinu fulfills the Talmud’s suggestion that the pious remain after the prayers to meditate. Rabbi Elazar of Worms (late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries) requires such silent recitation of this prayer before departing from the synagogue. 12 Moshe Ḥallamish, “Nusaḥ kadum shel ‘Aleinu le-Shabeach,’” Sinai 110 (1992): 263–265.

189

190

Jewish Pride in Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam as Instantiated in the Aleinu Hymn

return to our homes with mind at ease, daily.” He mentions two alternate readings in this poem of praise and hope, kisei kevodo and moshav yekaro (“throne of glory”). Ostensibly, they are synonymous, but the Tur sees the first reading as meaning “the throne of glory is above the heavens,” while the second implies that “God’s dwelling is in the heavens.” The latter reading is the one he prefers, and that reading was prevalent everywhere but Eastern Europe. There, the second reading was rejected because the word “glory,” yekaro (which contained the same letters as va-rik), was also a numerical equivalent of the word “Jesus” (Yeshu). This created a possibility of interpreting the line “we bow down to his throne of glory” as suggesting the throne of Jesus. Thus, in Eastern Europe, this reading was rejected in favor of kisei kevodo, which means the same thing but bypasses the mention of yekaro.13 Rabbi Yoel ben Shmuel Sirkis (also known as the Baḥ, 1561–1640) suggests that these words actually fortify the mind of the Jew against idolatrous thoughts, as the Jew moves from the synagogue into the non-Jewish world, by instilling the notion of God’s ultimate kingship and control of the world.14 He remarks that every Jew has dealings with Gentiles (Christians) in one way or another. Importantly, Jews should not measure religious truth by happenstance - namely, political and economic criteria. At present, Jews are politically unsuccessful, but it is no reason to contemplate conversion to Christianity. In fact, Jews often would spit (a practice criticized by many rabbis, but not all, in a synagogue) when saying va-rik.15 In 1703, the Prussian government banned reciting this offending phrase. Even where the custom was not to recite the hymn aloud, the officials insisted that the hymn must be said aloud, and they stationed inspectors to monitor the removal of the offensive phrase. After this date, the phrase disappeared from printed siddurim (prayer books). It had been an accepted custom in France and Germany to recite the Aleinu during morning or afternoon prayers, and at least from the times of 13 The text brilliantly expresses the idea that “they” (the nations of the world) bow down to emptiness (le-hevel va-rik) “but” (aval, Abudraham’s reading for the common ve-) “we Jews” bow down to moshav yekaro, with a parallel near-reversal of the letters. This sophisticated literary device is lost in the Polish (and Lithuanian) reading. See the Sefer Ma’aseh Rav [Kol Mefarshim edition], sec. 52 and notes, and Siddur Vilna, which notes that the text of Eliyahu of Vilna was moshav yekar. This reading is also found in Siddur ha-Gra. 14 See his comments to Tur Oraḥ Ḥayyim 32:4. 15 The pun is that the root RWQ in Hebrew refers to spittle, in the form of rok. Several rabbis sanctioned the act of spitting, including Rabbi David ha-Levi Segal in his Turei Zahav (Taz) commentary on Rabbi Karo’s Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim 133.

191 the Ari in the sixteenth century, it became customary for mystics to recite it in the liturgy at the end of every service when people would leave the synagogue after prayers concluded. Perushei Sidur ha-Tefilah la-Rokeaḥ 101 suggests that Aleinu should be said quietly, and the author of these laws of prayer (324) seems to say that one should add more meditations of similar import. The point is to leave the synagogue and enter the dominant Christian space with the knowledge that Jews are favored by God and that their survival depends on their ability to resist the calumny that surrounds them. If Jews were products of the devil in Christian eyes,16 Christians were no less so in Jewish eyes. If Christian priests believed Jews were destined to acknowledge their truths, the second paragraph of Aleinu suggests that Christians were destined to acknowledge the truth of Jewish belief. The irony is that Aleinu17 and Christian sources18 find common ground in Isaiah 45:23, “To Me every knee will bow, every tongue will confess loyalty,” a text equally cherished by both religious communities. It is precisely here where Jewish and Christian monotheisms may meet and the universalist message of the respective sources should find common ground. But they do not. The first paragraph of Aleinu had long been particular and exclusionist in respect to Christians, as we will see in the interpretation given in Rabbi Danzig’s Ḥayei Adam. Even if not citing the contentious wording of the hymn’s historically understood anti-Christian allusions, he leaves little doubt as to his intentions. Indeed, he goes further, denying that Gentiles have spiritual souls. He does not at all acknowledge the tenor of the second paragraph’s universalism. After I focus on Rabbi Danzig’s codified comments on the saying of Aleinu and his unconventional addition of the explanation of this hymn into his legal code19 in translation, I will reflect on the far-ranging issue of combining theology and law. My observations and research on Rabbi Danzig’s explanation have been placed in footnotes so that his text (in English translation) may boldly stand on its own. 16 See Joshua Trachtenberg, The Devil and the Jews: The Medieval Conception of the Jew and Its Relation to Modern Antisemitism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1943). 17 “To You every knee must bend and every tongue must swear loyalty.” In Isaiah, the speaker is God, “bow to Me,” and so it is quoted in Romans. In Aleinu, the speaker is the person who prays and addresses the deity, “To You.” 18 Romans 14:11. 19 The daily recitation of this prayer is not mentioned in the two major works of Jewish Law, Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah and Rabbi Karo’s Shulḥan Arukh.

192

Jewish Pride in Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam as Instantiated in the Aleinu Hymn

Book 1, klal 32: [Priestly Blessing with] Raising of Hands 35:20 Aleinu le-Shabeaḥ is said [towards the conclusion of the service], and it must be stressed that it is to be said with fear and trembling, shaking and reverence.21 This awe is due to the fact that all the Hosts of Heaven stand and listen to them [Israel, saying Aleinu] while the Holy One, blessed be He, stands together with his Heavenly Retinue. Then all respond in chant to this hymn by declaiming, “Fortunate be the people that such has come to pass to it; [Fortunate be the people of whom YHWH is its God”]22 (Psalms 144:15).23 Now, Joshua [Hoshea - see Numbers 13:16] composed this hymn when he conquered Jericho. He signed his name [within the verses of the hymn]: H-V-SHE-A, coded by initial letters of block phrases and meant to be read in reverse: ayn in the word aleinu, shin in the phrase she-lo sam, vav in the phrase va-anaḥnu korim, heh in the phrase hu eloheinu. [The fuller text in various editions adds:] And [this is] what we declaim [elsewhere in the service prior to korbanot]: “Fortunate are we; how good is our portion!”24 This refers to our share in the Land of Israel. “And how pleasant our lot.”25 This refers to the Holy One, blessed be He. “And how beautiful our inheritance.” This refers to the Torah, since it is called the inheritance of the 20 In the first edition, these words were attached to the end of klal 32:34. 21 Rabbi Yosef Karo’s code, Shulḥan Arukh, does not mention the recitation of Aleinu, but Moshe Isserles (Rema; c. 1550) adds the following brief notice to Rabbi Karo’s Shulḥan Arukh: “Aleinu is recited at the conclusion of the [morning] prayers while standing. One should take care to recite it with purposeful concentration. Upon reciting the passage ending with ‘a deity who cannot save,’ one pauses slightly before saying ‘while we bow down.  .  . .’” Tur Shulḥan Arukh remarks that this is done in order to emphasize the contrast—we bow to God and they do not. Yehudah Ashkenazi’s Ba’er Heitev commentary on Rabbi Karo’s work advises: “And one should recite Aleinu with fear and trembling, for all the hosts of Heaven are listening and the Holy One stands with his heavenly retinue, and they all respond in chant by saying ‘Happy is the people that such is its lot. . . .’” Here, we have the sources of Rabbi Danzig’s elucidation. 22 We now see the scene where the heavenly angels join in the hymn by extolling the blessed servants of God, Israel. 23 All editions have the following angelic scene suggested by the Merkabic/Heikhalot language in Aleinu: shekhinat uzo, yotzer bereishit, kisei kevodo. This section is followed by an exegetical addition, which is not present in all editions. 24 Ḥelkeinu is common to this hymn and to Aleinu. 25 Goraleinu is common to this hymn and to Aleinu.

193 community of Jacob (Deuteronomy 33:4). [Indeed,] we are fortunate, for we get up early etc. [And we come in the evenings to be in the synagogues and study houses where we unify Your Name each and every day]. And say [twice with love] Shema Yisrael:26 . . . [the Lord our God, the Lord is one]—for we are a part of His light; therefore, we are able to testify about him that He is one. [We have elaborated upon this elsewhere at length.]27 26 If he refers to the Shema of the sacrificial prayer service, as appears to be the case, it may be interesting to note that, according to the Sefer Ma’aseh Rav, Eliyahu (the Gaon of Vilna), either omitted the words Shema Yisrael or said those words but omitted the rest of the verse when reciting the sacrificial section of the morning prayers. The Hagahot Maimoniot’s comments on Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, Laws of Ahavah, seder tefilot le-kol ha-shanah, contain the following gloss in respect to the Aleinu liturgy created by Rabbi Elazar of Worms (1165–1230, one of the Ḥasidei Ashkenaz), the Musaf of Rosh ha-Shanah (Jewish New Year): “There is an established custom recorded by Rabbi Elazar of Worms: When the congregation [or cantor?] recites ‘He is our God,’ the cantor [the congregation?] recites the following verses: ‘You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other. Acknowledge and take to heart this day that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth below. There is no other’ (Deuteronomy 4:39). ‘Hear O Israel! The Lord our God the Lord is One’ (Deuteronomy 6:4). ‘Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it’ (Deuteronomy 10:14). ‘For the Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, mighty, and awesome God who is unbiased and takes no bribe’ (Deuteronomy 10:17). ‘I will proclaim the name of the Lord. Oh, praise the greatness of our God!’ (Deuteronomy 32:3). ‘Blessed be the name of the Lord from this time forth and for evermore’ (Psalms 113:2).” The end of the liturgy was thus accompanied by praises that glorified the greatness of God. Rabbi Danzig adduces a rabbinic image of how God is praised and glorified. 27 This was added in brackets in the text. This addendum, which Rabbi Binyamin Yehoshua Zilber (see the annotated edition of Zilber’s Beit Barukh) and others placed at the close of the section dedicated to Aleinu, was likely suggested by the law that requires the Aleinu hymn to be said while standing. Rabbi Danzig sees in this a type of interactive humanangelic praise, which is suggested by the mystical terms that characterize Merkabic hymns praising the Holy One and His holy possessions: the Holy Land, the Holy Torah, and the Holy Israel (the Jews). While speculating on the heavenly setting of the praise, Rabbi Danzig uncritically accepts that it was composed by Joshua. We mentioned above why this belief is unacceptable, and the putative letter of Sa’adya where it originated is very likely a complete forgery, as Wolfson noted. But for nineteenth-century rabbis, theological development and vocabulary are unknown concepts. It is also of interest to note that Rabbi Danzig’s typology fits the Lurianic gnostic notion, which posited that some nations have souls of light, or coming from God, while the souls of others come only from angels. In his fuller commentary on this hymn, Rabbi Danzig will elaborate on the metaphysical superiority of Jews to non-Jews. For him, Jews are ontologically different from non-Jews, not simply culturally different. Jews form a nation and not only a religion. Some talmudic passages uphold this supersessionist view, while others do not. Moses Mendelssohn championed the view that Jews could be citizens of any

194

Jewish Pride in Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam as Instantiated in the Aleinu Hymn

Interpretation of [the Prayer] Aleinu le-Shabeah.28 Since this hymn is a stunning exaltation of high importance, I copy [this section] here from my homiletic interpretations. The intended meaning of the hymn derives from a close reading of its four-fold apparent reiterations:29 (a) she-lo asanu,30 (b) ve-lo samanu,31 (c) she-lo sam [ḥelkeinu],32 and (d) ve-goraleinu,33 which are differentiated by the four categories in which Israelites are

28

29 30 31 32 33

country, adopt any nationality, and share a religion much as Catholics or Unitarians do. On the other hand, Rabbi Danzig’s claim goes beyond the evidence of the hymn: his idea is that the souls of Israel are of a different substance than those of non-Jews, and not simply higher by a degree of holiness. This view was shared by many Eastern European rabbis and kabbalists, as well as some apologists: for example, Malbim suggested that converts could never enter Judaism but formed a separate group at the periphery of the Jewish nation (Torah ve’ha-Mitzvah commentary to Leviticus 4:2). However, at its literal level, the hymn itself only claims that Israel’s worship of the one God of the Universe is superior to the worship of false gods practiced by other nations, and nothing more. Rabbi Danzig included his exegesis of the hymn in his legal work to explain its poetic meaning, as it suggested itself to him. We will turn our attention to that discussion now. The entire morning prayer service is sandwiched between these two hymns, Ashreinu and Aleinu, and the wording of one echoes the wording of the other. The two hymns, according to Rabbi Danzig, refer to God, the Land of Israel, and Torah. In essence, for him, the Jews here acknowledge their creed: Israel’s king, homeland, and culture. While it makes sense to position this mystical exegesis of Aleinu within the section dedicated to the concluding morning prayers, where it was in the first two editions that Rabbi Danzig saw through the press, later printers relocated this unit to various other sites: the end of section 1 (after the laws of reciting the bedtime Shema), or between Laws of Sabbath and Laws of Festivals. Most likely, later editors preferred to keep homiletic material separate from liturgical material, especially when the material was anti-Christian and demeaning to other faiths. Publishers were well aware that censors could prevent the publication of a work on these grounds. Its size also fluctuated. The third edition of 5585 is larger than earlier editions, as it contains notes of Moreh Tzedek, Rabbi Yisrael ben Rabbi Eliezer. However, this edition omits almost the entire explanation of Aleinu, likely because of its flagrant anti-Christian sentiments, and it only preserves the sentences ending with “We can testify he is one.” This abbreviated version was copied in the Vilna editions of 5599 and 5609 and in the Berlin edition of 5624. On the other hand, the Tchernowitz edition of 5624 restored the full Bi’ur Aleinu, and the Vilna edition of 5682 also kept it intact. In many editions, the full text appears on the last page of the Ḥayei Adam. In the final section of this chapter, I will speculate on the reasons for this placement. These are not simple poetic repetitions of the same thing. Rather, each term has its own referent. “He has not made us.” “He has not put us.” “He has not put our portion.” “Nor our lot.”

195 distinguishable from all the idol worshippers .34 (a) Their souls emanate from another source, as the kabbalists have said that “the souls of Israel emanate from the light of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written, ‘the light of God is the soul of Man’ (Proverbs 20:27). ‘And you [Israel] are called Man etc.,”35 which is not so of the souls of the idolaters that emanate from powers [the word “powers,” sarim, is a substitution for a similar-looking word shedim, “demons”] and primal elements.” See Zohar 1 (Bereshit 47a), where the first letters of the names [of demons] Agrath, Lilith, Maḥlath, Na’amah spell alman. It seems to me that to this anagram alludes the verse “That lo alman [with no alman], Israel [came from] his God” (Jeremiah 51:5), which means that Israel is not from alman but from God] (See Me’orei Or 1709).36 (b) All idolaters have laws and practices, each suited to his particular country—unlike Israel, for its laws are according to the Torah, as it is written, “He tells his statutes to Jacob” (Psalms 147:19). (c) All nations are governed by their guardian powers— which is not the case for Israel. As the Rabbis said, Israel is not subject to any of the ruling powers (BT Shabbat 126a). Only the Holy One himself, , and through his Glory, rules over them, as it is said in Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer (chapter 24). , God cast lots with the Angels of the Nations, and the nation of Israel fell to the rulership of the Holy One. This is the meaning of the verse, “for the lot of God is his nation; Jacob is the region of his legacy” (Deuteronomy 34 I indicate the fuller readings in the Zilber edition of 1963, Bnai Brak, Israel, by using these symbols: < >. 35 BT Yevamot 61a, Zohar 1 (Bereshit) 2b. 36 The literal translation of the verse is “that Israel has not been forsaken of its God.” This concept was expressed by Meir ben Yehudah Leib ha-Kohen Poppers (c. 1624–1662), a Bohemian rabbi and kabbalist, who popularized the teachings of Rabbi Yitzḥak Luria: Or Tzaddikim (Hamburg, 1690) and its expanded version, Or ha-Yashar (Fürth, 1754); Or Penei Melekh and its abbreviated version, Sefer Kavanot Tefillot u-Mitzvot (Hamburg, 1690); Me’orei Or, which was called Me’orot Natan (Frankfurt, 1709) when it appeared with the commentary Ya’ir Nativ of Nathan Mannheimer and Jacob ben Benjamin Wolf; and Mesillot Ḥokhmah (Shklov, 1785). Still in manuscript are: Or Rav, Or ha-Avukah, Or Zaru’a, Or Ner, Derushim al ha-Torah, Matok ha-Or, and more.

196

Jewish Pride in Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam as Instantiated in the Aleinu Hymn

32:9), . Accordingly, each nation worships the power ruling it, as Naḥmanides explains (Exodus 20:2). (d) The whole world is divided among the countries ruled by their own guardian powers, the Land of Israel, which is hallowed with its various sacred entities. This is what we say in our great praise of Aleinu. It was for this reason that Joshua composed it and not Moses, for these four great gifts had not yet been completed in his lifetime. This is why the hymn says she-lo asanu ke-goyei ha-aratzot. The initial letters shin, ayin, kaf, and heh have a numerical total of 395, as do nun, shin, mem, and heh [making the word neshamah, “soul”]. And this rhetorical device affirms the central motif, for we find that asiyah (“making”) is a word used to indicate “making souls,” as it says in the Midrash on the verse, “and I will make you into a great nation” (Genesis 12:2): “I will make you a new entity” (Genesis Rabbah 39:11), [which refers to the soul,] as Scripture tells us, “And the souls they made [in Ḥaran],” upon which the Rabbis say that this refers to the process of converting people (Genesis Rabbah 39:14); and as Scripture further says, “God who made for us37 the soul” (Jeremiah 38:16). Also, we say in the morning blessings, “. . . who has not made me a Gentile. . . a slave . . . a woman,” on which the Ari (Rabbi Yitzḥak Luria) explains that these souls are incomparable with those [of the reciters], for “made” here signifies “made our souls.”38 Ve-lo samanu etc.: “He has not put us as the families of the earth.” The term “put” is an allusion to passages in Scripture referring to Torah study and performing commandments. So it is written in Scriptures: “He put there a law for them” (Exodus 15:25); “[you shall teach it to the Children of Israel] putting it in their mouths” (Deuteronomy 31:19); and again, “you will put my words upon your hearts” (Deuteronomy 11:18). As well, “and this the Torah which Moses put [before the Children of Israel]” 37 Printers put in a yud here instead of a nun vav. 38 That is, “did not make our souls [Gentile].  .  . .” Here, Rabbi Danzig reveals his understanding, common to that period in Eastern Europe, that women’s souls were inferior to, and made differently from, men’s.

197 (Deuteronomy 4:44) and likewise, “[and these are the judgments] that you will put before them” (Exodus 21:1). As for the line she-lo samanu, this means that “he has not put us within a system subject to judicial civil codes, but rather, within a system subject to Torah and commandments.” And when the hymn says ke-goyei ha-aratzot, it means that our souls are not like those of the nations of the earth. When it says ke-mishpeḥot, it means that we are unlike them in respect to our governance through Torah law. “Nations” is an allinclusive category, while “families” comprise individual subsets of the general category. This was pointed out by the author of the Akeidat Yitzḥak,39 who explained the passage in Isaiah 1:4, “woe to the sinful nation, a people whose guilt is great.” Everyone shares a commonality of soul while each people has distinctive laws and customs of its own. She-lo sam ḥelkeinu: He has not put our portion [amongst their lands]. This phrase refers to our portion in this present world, as he bestowed upon us the Holy Land. And the word vegoraleinu, “nor [is] our lot [according to all their multitudes],” refers to the lottery [of the guardian angels and God] by which our lot fell to the possession of the Holy One, blessed be He.

Law as a Product of Legal Philosophy Many Jewish biblical commentators, including ancient and medieval rabbis, were of the notion that codes of law require an overarching statement of the nature of the society and individuals this legal system is to serve. This notion reaches across many societies. For example, the American Constitution begins with an exemplary preamble. The Torah has long been seen as the basis of Jewish law, and even though its legal teachings do not begin until the second book of the Torah, the first book is seen as background to the Sinai revelation. This first book, Genesis, portrays the creation of the world, the founding of its major societies, and the stories of dysfunctional Israelite families eventually leaving their homeland. Divine promises are made to the Patriarchs and will subsequently unfold in the later books of the Bible. The stage is set for the subjugation of Israel. The narrative behind the legal setting encompasses the revelation of divine commandments based on the story where God created the world and formed a relationship with the Patriarchs. What follows is a story of war and deliverance, which is entry to the Promised Land. The guiding theology of the Bible, spelled out in full over its legal and prophetic compilations, is that the key to Israel’s success is in their obedience to the revealed law. Raabi Danzig sees Aleinu as the statement par excellence of Israel’s unique and favored status in relation to all the other nations, owing to their complete obedience to the law. But what is this law? It is that which is between the covers of Rabbi Danzig’s writings. Aleinu is the preamble to the Jewish life lived as God ordained, and its place is at the end of prayer, just as one goes out of the synagogue and into the world, where one would continue to learn and obey God’s law. It may well be that the editions that placed the interpretation of Aleinu at the very end of the book did so because this section contains no laws and seems to have been added as an afterthought. Not all editions included it in its entirety. On the other hand, 42 This was added in brackets in the text. The reference appears to be to Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, vol. 2, siman 38.

199 if the author copied it from his sermonic teachings, it means that he considered his words, in this case, to be as important as his legal writings. That some placed it at the end may indicate that just as the hymn itself comes at the conclusion of the prayer service, so its explanation is well put at the close of a legal oeuvre. It is a vision of a future time when Israel will be at peace with all the nations and will be accorded a place of singular honor and deserved vindication.43 While a few exceptional rabbis were able to appreciate the achievements of the Enlightenment, most showed no engagement with the paradigm shifts of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, including Eliyahu, the Gaon of Vilna. He subscribed to the very ancient model of the four elements: wind, fire, earth, and water. Although he had a positive attitude towards the classical works of mathematics and science, he remained unenlightened in the advances of his own day. Knowledge was to be gained by unlocking the secrets of Scripture through the methods of Kabbalah and Midrash. Likewise, Rabbi Danzig exhorted his readers through the medium of Scripture as viewed through the prisms of kabbalistic and midrashic thinking.44 This thought pattern informed his views of Israel and the nations. For him, the world of Scripture, rabbinic literature, and kabbalistic writings still endured in his own day. The Gentile was an idol worshipper, devoid of a pure divine soul, and he lived in a depraved society.45 The Torah-observant Jew, who studied and lived a life of piety, inhabited a holy space blessed by the watchful eye of the divine architect of the Jewish nation, which was ontologically different from that of other nations. Rabbi Danzig’s thinking was binary. His world was divided into Israel and a mass of undifferentiated others, with no appreciation of their spirituality (which he could not contemplate). Legal scholars are guided by an overarching sense of the political values and aims of their societies that retain the same spirit, even though they might require adjustments and amendments as times change. For Rabbi Danzig, the teachings of Moses 43 That is, if we accept this insertion to be Rabbi Danzig’s and not that of the publishers. 44 Although I believe that Rabbi Danzig was aware of the new ideas that appeared in his times. 45 At the same time, Rabbi Ya’akov Emden espoused a positive view of Christianity. See Jacob J. Schacter, “Rabbi Jacob Emden, Sabbateanism and Frankism: Attitudes Toward Christianity in the Eighteenth Century,” in New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations—In Honor of David Berger, ed. Elisheva Carlebach and Jacob J. Schacter (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2012), 359–396.

200

Jewish Pride in Rabbi Avraham Danzig’s H.ayei Adam as Instantiated in the Aleinu Hymn

were inviable and, if understood properly, would continue to guide the nation of Israel as they had always done. Without these teachings, Israel would cease to exist. Rabbi Danzig presented very detailed expositions of the legal categories, and he did not always make explicit the systematic theology guiding the practices at hand. Only in his exposition of Aleinu does he address the larger picture of the unity of God, Torah, and Israel.

Addendum

1. Book 1, klal 22:12

:‫ רק שיתפללו בלב שלם‬,‫ מוטב שיתפללו בלשון שמבינים‬,‫מי שאינו מבין לשון הקודש וכן הנשים‬

Whoever does not understand the holy tongue [Hebrew], and also the women, it is preferable that they pray in the language they understand, as long as they pray with their whole heart. 2. Book 1, klal 48:20

,‫ חייבות‬,‫ ואם אכלו עם אנשים‬.‫ רשות בידם‬,‫ ואם רצו נשים לזמן בפני עצמן‬.‫ אין מזמנין עליהם‬,‫נשים ועבדין וקטנים‬ :‫ויוצאות בזימון שלנו אף על פי שאינן מבינות‬



Women, slaves, and children cannot help to form a zimmun quorum. If women would like to make a zimmun of their own, they are permitted. And if they eat with men, they are obligated [to form a zimmun] and fulfill their mitzvah of zimmun through the men, even if they do not understand [the blessings of the zimmun].

3. Book 1, klal 3:38

‫ וזה מנהג שאין‬,‫ אינן מתפללות ומברכות‬,‫ שכל זמן שהן בימי נדות קודם ז' נקיים שלהן‬,‫יש מקומות נוהגות הנשים‬ ‫ אבל‬.‫ מכל מקום מיום ראשון דסליחות נכנסות לבית הכנסת ומתפללות‬,‫ ואפילו במקומות שמחמירים‬.‫לו יסוד‬ ‫ ומכל מקום לא יסתכלו בספר תורה בשעה שמגביהים אותו‬.‫ ומברכות ומתפללות‬,‫במדינתנו נוהגין היתר לעולם‬ :‫ ונראה לי שלא יכנסו לבית הקברות עד שיטבלו‬.‫להראות לעם‬



There are locations (Jewish communities) where women are accustomed, as long as they are in their menstrual days, before the [beginning of the] seven clean days, not to pray and make blessings. And this custom has no basis, even in locations (communities) that rule stringently. In any case, from the first day of Seliḥot, [women] enter the synagogue and pray. But in our land (community), it is our practice to always permit, and they bless and pray. In any case, [women who are menstruants] should not look at the Torah scroll when it is raised and shown to the whole nation (community). And it appears to me [that menstruating women] should not enter the cemetery until they have immersed [in the ritual bath].

202

Addendum

4. Book 1, klal 47:2

‫ ונשים הם‬.‫לפי שברכת המזון הוא דאורייתא לפיכך כל ספק שיסתפק בו חייב לברך כדין כל ספק דאורייתא לחומרא‬ ‫ מה שאין כן כהנים‬,‫ י[ על הארץ הטובה ונשים אין להם חלק בארץ‬,‫ספק אם חייבות מן התורה מדכתיב ]דברים ח‬ ‫ מכל‬.‫ ויש אומרים משום שלא ניתן להם ברית ותורה‬.‫ולוים אף על פי שאין להם חלק מכל מקום יש להם ערי מגרש‬ ‫ ונראה לי אם לא אכלו כדי שביעה‬.‫מקום אם אכלו כדי שביעה ונסתפקו אם ברכו הוי ליה ספק דאוריתא וצריכין לברך‬ :‫אין צריך להחמיר‬



Since the Grace After Meals is a Torah obligation, if there is any doubt, he is obligated to bless as in all instances where there is a doubt whether a Torah obligation has been fulfilled. This ruling is stringent. Regarding women, there is a doubt whether they are obligated from the Torah, for it is written (Deuteronomy 8:10): “on the beautiful land,” and women did not receive a portion of the land. This is not the same as with the Kohanim (the priests) and Levi’im (Levites), who also did not receive a section of the land; nevertheless, they received arei migrash (“cities of fields”). There is another opinion [explaining the doubt regarding women:] they did not receive the covenant and the Torah. In any case, if they ate until they were content, and they were unsure if they blessed [Birkat ha-Mazon], since there is a doubt regarding women, she must bless again. And it seems to me that if they [women] did not eat until they were content, then there is no reason to be stringent [and they are exempt from repeating the blessings after the meal].

5. Book 2, klal 5:8

‫ צריך לשאול על‬,‫ ואפילו אם אין לו מעות‬.‫ והמצוה חלה בין על אנשים או נשים‬.‫יהיה נזהר מאד בהדלקת נרות בזמנה‬ ‫ מוטב שלא יאכל יותר ויקנה נר‬,‫ ואפילו אם לא יהיה לו רק לחם‬.‫ והוא קודם מלקדש על היין‬.‫הפתחים כדי להדליק‬ :‫לשבת‬



One must be very careful to light the candles on time. This mitzvah falls on both men and women. Even if a man does not have money [to purchase the candles], he must go from door to door and ask [money] in order to light [the candles]. And this [lighting Sabbath candles] should take priority over kiddush on the wine. Even if a man only has bread, it is best to eat less [so that he will have enough money] to purchase a candle for the Sabbath.

6. Book 2, klal 1:1

‫ דיש‬,‫ לא מבעיא אם נכנס למרחץ‬,‫ אבל בערב שבת‬,‫נ"ל דאף על גב דמצוה להתפלל לכתחלה מנחה בזמן מנחה קטנה‬ ‫ כדי שיהיה‬,‫ ראוי להקדים להתפלל מנחה‬,‫ ואפילו אם אינו נכנס למרחץ‬,‫אומרים דאסור ליכנס לאחר חצות עד שיתפלל‬ ‫ כי הנשים‬,‫פנוי בעת קריאה לבית הכנסת שלא יצטרך לילך מביתו עד שיזרז את בני ביתו שידליקו נרות בזמנם‬ :‫ ישגיח על זה לזרזן‬,‫ ולכן‬.‫ ומכל שכן המשרתות‬,‫תעמצלות בכך ומתאחרות והרבה פעמים באות לידי חילול שבת‬

Addendum



It appears to me that even though it is preferred that [the ideal time] to [pray] Minḥah is at [minḥah] ketana (the latest time), but on the eve of Sabbath, [we pray Minḥah earlier, so] it is not a problem when one enters the bathhouse. There is another opinion: that it is forbidden to enter the bathhouse after midday until one prays [Minḥah]. And even though he does not enter the bathhouse, it is proper to pray Minḥah early in order for him to be free when [he hears] the call to the synagogue, so that he would not have to leave his home until he hastens to his family to light candles on time. That is because women are lackadaisical in this area and are late and many times they desecrate the Sabbath, and even more so [this applies] to the female servants. Therefore, he should supervise this in order to hasten them.

7. Book 2, klal 5:9

‫ ואם‬.‫ וטוב שיברך הבעל‬.‫ תדליק ברך‬,‫ ואפילו היא סומא‬.‫ מפני שהיא כיבתה נרו של עולם‬,‫האשה קודמת למצות הדלקה‬ ‫ וגם צריכות להתפלל‬.‫ ואשרי להם‬,‫ ונוהגות ללבוש מקודם בגדי שבת‬.‫אוכלת במקום שיש בלאו הכי נרות לא תברך‬ ‫ אמנם בימים הקצרים שמתאחרת לישב‬.'‫ דאם לא כן כיון שכבר קיבלה שבת צריכה להתפלל ערבית ב‬,‫מנחה תחלה‬ ‫ לכן טוב להזהיר להן שיקדימו לבוא‬,‫בחנות ואחר כך רוחצת ולובשת ובין כך יבואו חס ושלום לספק חילול שבת‬ ‫ ואם הבעל‬.‫ מצוה יותר שתדליק כך במלבושי חול מלבוא חס ושלום לספק חילול שבת‬,‫ וכשמתאחרת‬.‫לרחוץ וללבוש‬ ‫ ומצוה גדולה יותר לישב בחושך מלחלל‬.‫ מצוה גדולה שהוא ידליק הנרות ולא ישגיח בקטטת אשתו‬,‫רואה שמתאחרת‬ ‫ מצוה גדולה שלא ידליק אלא יצוה‬,‫ ואם רואה שהוא קרוב לבין השמשות ופשיטא ספק בין השמשות‬.‫שבת חס ושלום‬ ‫ ועל כל פנים סמוך לחשיכה יזרז האיש לאשתו ויאמר לה להדליק‬.‫ ואשרי השם דרכיו הכל לשם שמים‬.‫לנכרי להדליק‬ :‫נרות‬



The woman precedes the man in fulfilling the mitzvah of lighting [candles] because she extinguished the light of the world. Even if she is blind, she should light and make a blessing  and it is preferable if her husband blesses. If she eats in a place where there are candles, she should not bless in any instance. And they have the custom to dress early in their Sabbath clothing, and it is good for them. They also should pray Minḥah first; otherwise, since she already received the Sabbath, she must [make up for the Minḥah by] reciting Ma’ariv twice. However, on shorter days [when] she [may be] late because she was sitting in the store and washed and dressed only afterwards, that consequently [may] bring her to the possibility of transgressing the Sabbath, God forbid. And therefore, it is best to warn them to wash and dress earlier. And when she is late, the mitzvah is greater for her to wear her weekday clothing rather than, God forbid, face the possibility to desecrate the Sabbath. And if the husband sees that she is late, it

203

204

Addendum

is a greater mitzvah for him to light the candles and avoid getting into an argument with his wife. It is a greater mitzvah to sit in the dark rather than desecrate the Sabbath, God forbid. If he sees that twilight is arriving, either clearly or if he is actually doubtful whether twilight has arrived, it is a great mitzvah that he does not light but rather commands a non-Jew to light. Happy is the one who pursues everything for the sake of heaven. Nevertheless, when dark approaches, the husband should hasten his wife to light the candles [immediately]. 8. Book 2, klal 5:11

‫ ואם‬.‫ והמנהג שאשה מדלקת ואחר כך פורשת הידים ומברכת שבהדלקה זו מקבלת שבת‬.‫מברכין קודם הדלקת הנרות‬ ‫ תוכל להתנות שאינה מקבלת שבת‬,‫ ובשעת הצורך‬.‫ דברכה היא תחלת ההדלקה‬,‫ לא תוכל להדליק‬,‫תברך תחלה‬ ‫ מכל מקום‬.‫ אין צריך להתנות‬,‫ ואם האיש מדליק‬.‫ ואפילו תנאי שבלב סגי‬.‫ ואז תוכל לברך קודם הדלקה‬,‫בהדלקה זו‬ .‫ מותרין שאר בני הבית במלאכה עד שיקבלו שבת‬,‫ ומכל מקום אף שלא התנו האשה או האיש המדליק‬.‫טוב להתנות‬ ‫ אבל ביום טוב נראה לי דראוי ונכון‬.‫ כיון שכבר הלצא הם מוקצה‬,‫ויש אומרים דמכל מקום אסור ליגע בנרות שהדליקה‬ ‫ רק כיון שאין חכמה לאשה לכן נוהגת לעולם לברך אחר ההדלקה‬,‫שילמד כל אדם לאשתו שתברך קודם הדלקה‬ :(‫)ובספר דגול מרבבה כתב ונראה לי להורות שביום טוב תברך קודם הדלקה‬



They should make a blessing before lighting the candles. The custom is that women light [the candles]. And then she spreads [open her] hands and blesses, because through this lighting, she welcomes the Sabbath. If she blessed first, she is unable to light because the blessing initiates the lighting ritual. In time of need, she may make a condition that she does not accept the Sabbath by this lighting [candles] and then she may make the blessing before lighting. And even a condition made in the heart is sufficient. If a man lights, he does not have to make a condition, but it is preferable to do so. And if the man or the woman who lights the candles did not make a condition, the other members of the household are permitted to work until they accept the Sabbath. There are those who say that it is forbidden to touch the candles she lit since, for her, they are considered muktzah. But regarding lighting candles on a holiday, it appears to me that it is necessary and correct that every man should teach their wives to bless before lighting. Since women lack wisdom, they would continue forever to bless after it was lit. (It is written in the book Dagul me-Revavah, and it seems to me that on a festival, you should bless prior to lighting.) [However, the standard fixed procedures for the Sabbath and for festivals were not distinguished because women lack the

Addendum

understanding to discern the legal differences between the days, and they might come to light Sabbath candles improperly. The Sabbath procedure became standard practice to bless after her lighting (also on festivals) based on Sabbath habits.] 9. Book 2, klal 5:13

.‫ ויעשה נרות יפים‬.‫ ועל כל פנים ראוי שלא לפחות מב' נרות נגד זכור ושמור‬.'‫ ןיש מדליקין ז‬,‫יש נוהגין להדליק י' נרות‬ ‫ תדליק‬,‫ וכן אם שכחה כמה פעמים‬.‫ תדליק כל ימיה נר א' יותר ממה שהיתה רגילה‬,‫ואשה ששכחה פעם אחת להדליק‬ ‫ אינה צריכה‬,‫ ולכן אם נאנסה ולא הדליקה‬.‫ והדבר הוא משום היכר שתהא זהירה מכאן ולהבא‬.‫תמיד נר א' יותר‬ ‫ יעשה נרות ארוכין שיהיו‬.‫ וא"ר כתב דלאו דוקא שתוסיף נר א' אלא שתוסיף מעט שמן או נר א' יותר וארוך‬.‫להוסיף‬ ,‫ אבל אם הן קצרות שאינן דולקות עד האכילה‬.‫ ולפחות שידלקו כל זמן אכילה‬,‫דולקות עד הלילה להשתמש בהן בלילה‬ ‫ ולא קיימו‬,‫ הוי ברכה לבטלה‬,‫וכן המדליקים בבית ואוכלים בגגות ובחצר ואינן דולקין בביתו בלילה שישתמש בהן‬ ‫ ואם מצטער הרבה לאכול בבית מפני הזבובים‬.‫ ואין לאדם לאכול אלא במקום הנרות שהוא מעונג השבת‬.‫המצוה‬ :‫ כי הנרות נצטוו לתענוג ולא לצער‬,‫ מותר לקדש ולאכול בחצר אף על פי שהנרות בבית‬,‫וכיוצא בו‬



There are those who have a custom of lighting ten candles, and there are those who light seven candles. In any case, it is proper not to light less than two: [one] for zakhor and [one] for shamor. And she should make beautiful candles. When a woman forgets one time to light, she should light for the rest of her life an additional candle, one more than she usually lights. And if she forgets numerous times, she must always light an additional one [for each time she forgets]. The reason for this is to provide [her]  with a reminder, that she should be careful now and in the future. And if she forgets to light because of circumstances out of her control, she does not have to add another one. The Eliyah Rabba wrote that she is not specifically required to add another candle; rather, she may add a little oil to the lamp or use a longer candle. And the candles should be long so that they will remain lit until the night and be used throughout the night, or at least they will stay lit through the meal. But if [the candles] are short and do not stay lit throughout the meal, or if one lights in the house, but eats on rooftops (in the gardens) or in a courtyard and does not light the candles in order to use them in the home at night, it is considered a blessing said in vain (berakhah le-vatalah), and one would not have fulfilled the mitzvah. And one should only eat where there are candles because that is oneg Shabbat (Sabbath pleasure). And if one is very uncomfortable eating in the home because of the flies or anything similar, even though the candles are in the house, it is permissible to make kiddush and eat in the courtyard even though the candles

205

206

Addendum

were lit in the home, since the candles were commanded for us to receive pleasure and not pain or discomfort. 10. Book 2, klal 5:14

‫ ולכתחלה יזהר שלא‬.‫ ועיקר הדלקה תלוי בנרות שעל השלחן‬.‫צריך להדליק במקום שרוצה להשתמש שם לאכילה‬ ‫ מותר לטלטל ולהניחם במקום אחר‬,‫ אף כשבירך והדליק על השלחן‬,‫ וכשצריך לכך‬.‫לטלטל הנרות ממקום למקום‬ :‫ לא יפה עושין‬,‫ אבל הנשים שמדליקות בסוכה בחג ומטלטלות לתוך הבית‬.‫ דכל הבית הוי מקומם‬,‫באותו בית‬



One must light in the place where one would like to eat, and the essence of the lighting is that the candles should be on the table, and initially, one should be careful not to carry the candles from place to place. But if it is necessary, even though a blessing was made and the lamps were lit on the table, it is permissible to move them and place them in a different location in the house, since the whole house is considered as their place. But [as for] the women who light candles in the sukkah on the holiday and carry the candles into the home, it is not appropriate what they do.

Appendix 1

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig1 Dashiell Ferguson

The great classic, the Ḥayei Adam (“Life of Man,” Vilna, 1810) of Rabbi Avraham Danzig (1748–1820), stands at a unique place in the history of the codification of halakhah. It was published more than two-and-a-half centuries after the first printing of the great Shulḥan Arukh (Venice, 1565) of Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488–1575) and the Sefer ha-Mapah (Krakow, 1571) of Rabbi Moshe Isserles, the Rema (c. 1530–1572). The Ḥayei Adam was able to digest the fundamental commentaries that were written2 upon the Shulḥan Arukh by that time: most notably, the Shakh3 (1646, 1653), the

1 Not all the facts presented by Mr. Ferguson in this section agree with my presentation. I did not change them or request them to be noted, but I left them as is. (S. F.) 2 This period coincided very closely with the spread of the technology of the printing press, allowing for rapid diffusion of newly published books. Though earlier forms of the technology existed in China, the first press using movable type appeared in Europe around 1450. It was created by Johannes Gutenberg (c. 1398–1468). 3 While the Shakh (1622–1663) did not write a commentary on the Oraḥ Ḥayyim, and his name therefore only rarely appears in parentheses in the Ḥayei Adam, his writings were known to Rabbi Danzig. A ruling from the Shakh on Yoreh De’ah (246:5) appears early in the introduction to the Ḥayei Adam and underlies its existence as a published book.

208

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

Taz (1692), the Magen Avraham (1692), and the commentary of the Gra (1720–1797).4 The Ḥayei Adam is a code of halakhah that covers the Oraḥ Ḥayyim (everyday life and commandments related to calendar events) and a few selected sections of the Yoreh De’ah (for example, the law of Talmud Torah5 and mezuzah6). It is written in clear and concise language that communicates to the beginner7 as well as to the advanced8 student, each according to their level of understanding, a feature possessed by many of the great classics of Torah scholarship. Throughout the Ḥayei Adam, material is identified by its origin (the Torah, the Sages, custom, and ḥiddushim or novel insights), giving the reader the context of the laws that they are studying so that an accurate understanding of the halakhah can be communicated. Rabbi Danzig presents the material of the Oraḥ Ḥayyim in an original and unique organizational structure that facilitates quick reference and focused study. The Ḥayei Adam discards the old and familiar order of the Tur Shulḥan Arukh, which has 697 chapters in the Tur Oraḥ Ḥayyim, whereas for the same material (with some matters from the Tur Yoreh De’ah included), Rabbi Danzig only needs 220 chapters. After the publication and acceptance of the Ḥayei Adam, Rabbi Danzig applied his organizational and literary skills to the vast material of the Yoreh De’ah, from slaughtering animals and preparing their meat for consumption to the laws of mourning the deceased,9 in a book he titled the “Wisdom of Man”—the Ḥokhmat Adam (Vilna, 1812). When Rabbi Danzig entered into some areas of law in the Ḥayei Adam, he composed short essays outside of his main text in which he weighed earlier sources, sought 4 The first edition of the Bi’ur ha-Gra (‫ )באור הגר״א‬on the Tur Shulḥan Arukh included only the comments on Oraḥ Ḥayyim (Shklov, 1803) and was printed together with the Magen Avraham and the Be’er ha-Golah. The Ḥayei Adam, published only seven years later, is one of the first books to cite the opinions of the Gra found in this authoritative commentary, a tradition continued perhaps with more consistency by the Mishnah Berurah. The Bi’ur ha-Gra on the other Turim appeared in later editions: Grodno, 1806 (on the Yoreh De’ah), Vilna and Grodno, 1819 (on the Even ha-Ezer), and Königsberg, 1857 (on the Ḥoshen Mishpat). See the text below for the relationship of Rabbi Danzig to the Gra. 5 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings 10. 6 Ibid. 15. 7 Indeed, the Ḥayei Adam writes so in the introduction. 8 The Ḥayei Adam was Rabbi Yisrael Meir ha-Kohen’s (1838–1933) constant companion during the composition of his Mishnah Berurah (completed in 1906). Perhaps this indicates that Rabbi Danzig might be called an advanced scholar. 9 Rabbi Danzig included some material from the Even ha-Ezer on the laws of marriage, but not on divorce.

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

out precedents, and engaged his advanced readers, and these essays appear as a sporadic commentary on the Ḥayei Adam under the title Nishmat Adam (“Breath of Man”). A similar commentary that accompanies his Ḥokhmat Adam is entitled Binat Adam (“Understanding of Man”). The author of the Ḥayei Adam, Avraham Danzig (the son of Rabbi Yeḥiel Mikhel), was born in 1748 in the port city of Danzig10 on the coast of the Baltic Sea. Born into a scholarly family,11 young Avraham seems to have benefited from a substantial education in traditional Jewish literature under his father’s supervision. In his youth, Avraham left his family’s home to study in the city of Prague under the great posek (authority of the halakhah) Rabbi Yeḥezkel Landau, the Noda bi-Yhudah (1713–1793).12 This educational opportunity is a reliable indication of the young man’s perceived promise in the study of Torah, as only capable and talented students were given such educational opportunities in that era. Avraham also studied under Rabbi Yosef Liebermann in Prague, who—after some years of diligent study—pronounced the eighteen-year-old a ḥaver, or “fellow,” an indication of his competence in Torah scholarship and the cultivation of a good character.13 It is evident that his time in Prague left an impression 10 Danzig (Yiddish ‫דאנציג‬, Polish Gdańsk), a port city on the Baltic Sea, was granted its first charter in 1226, joined the Hanseatic League in 1361, and was annexed by Prussia in 1793. The city was besieged and captured by French forces in 1807. Danzig has long been an important center of commerce. It is situated on the southern coast of the Baltic Sea, near the Rivers Motława and Leniwka (a branch of the Vistula). 11 In the Introduction to the Ḥokhmat Adam, Rabbi Danzig names an ancestor of his, Rabbi Shmuel of Hafenbruk, who authored the Neḥamot Tziyon (Berlin, 1772), a commentary on the Book of Isaiah. 12 The Noda bi-Yhudah (Rabbi Landau) was the Chief Rabbi of Prague since 1754 and a significant posek of the era. Noda bi-Yhudah is the title of his influential collection of responsa published in two editions: the Mahadurah Kama (Prague, 1776) and the Mahadurah Tanina (Prague, 1811), which was published posthumously and included comments of the author’s son, Rabbi Shmuel Landau. Rabbi Landau also authored the Tziyun le’Nefesh Ḥayah (widely known by its acronym Tzelaḥ), a collection of ḥiddushim on three tractates of the Babylonian Talmud: BT Pesaḥim (Prague, 1783), Berakhot (Prague, 1791), and Beitzah (Prague, 1799). Rabbi Landau also authored the Dagul me-Revavah (Prague, 1794) and Ḥiddushim on the Shulḥan Arukh. Rabbi Danzig cites the Noda bi-Yhudah several times in the Ḥayei Adam: Laws of Prayer and Blessings 14:5 and 31:34; Laws of Sabbath, 5:11 (where the Dagul me-Revavah is referenced); Laws of Rosh Ḥodesh 118:13; Laws of Passover 126:10 and 127:3, regarding sugar; and the Laws of Ḥanukah 154:41. Note that all of these references are to the published works of Rabbi Landau and not specifically to any rulings that Rabbi Danzig may have heard communicated orally when he studied under Rabbi Landau. 13 Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings 68:25, contains Rabbi Danzig’s sober reflection on his own religious conduct.

209

210

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

on Rabbi Danzig, as he records some customs of the Jewish community of Prague in the Ḥayei Adam; see the Laws of Sabbath (5:2); Laws of Festivals (83:2); Laws of Simḥat Torah (153:7); and the Laws of Purim (155:8). For much of his life, Rabbi Danzig resided in the city of Vilna14 in Lithuania, and he made his living as a traveling merchant, which allowed him to support himself and his family from the work of his own hands as well as travel throughout Europe. In the late eighteenth15 and early nineteenth centuries, the politically divided region where he traveled experienced profound changes, and various monarchies and empires were frequently at war. Jewish travelers such as Rabbi Danzig frequently encountered difficulties observing various laws, and Rabbi Danzig sought to give practical counsel to his readers. For examples, see his attention to blessing (59:11), prayer (24:31), study (16:3), netilat yadayim (40:11–12), or zimmun (48:6–7) during travels; his instruction that travelers should pack some bread and extra tzitzit (64:5–6); or his analysis of how someone on the road and spending Sabbath in an inn should properly honor the holy day (5:7). In the laws of tzitzit (11:9), Rabbi Danzig writes, “. . . and in France (be-Tzarfat) I saw that 14 Vilna is the principal city of Lithuania. It was granted rights in 1387 and its university was founded in 1579. The city suffered during the Russian-Polish conflict of 1654– 1667, and it was annexed by Russia after the third partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1795. In 1800, Vilna had around 6,900 Jewish taxpayers, according to Encyclopedia Judaica. The Ḥayei Adam records some customs of the Jewish community of Vilna. See the Laws of Sabbath 71:13; the Laws of Passover 129:12; the Laws of Sefirat ha-Omer 131:11; and the Laws of Fasts and Tishah b’Av 133:21 and perhaps 135:23. See also the Ḥokhmat Adam 69:1, 89:1, and 132:10, and the Nishmat Adam, Laws of Sabbath 1:8, part 1. 15 In January 1782, the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II (1741–1790) issued his “Edict of Tolerance,” which regulated Jewish residency and life in Lower Austria, including the city of Vienna. A year earlier, he had issued his “Patent of Tolerance,” which extended religious freedom to non-Catholic Christians. As the “Edict” stated, “we have no intention by virtue of these new ordinances to increase the number of the members of the Jewish religion in Vienna or in general elsewhere in our states; nor do we wish to bring foreign [Jews] here without important cause and special merits recommending them.” The Noda bi-Yhudah, Rabbi Yeḥezkel Landau (1713–1793), the Chief Rabbi of Prague since 1754, responded in a derashah given on Shabbat ha-Gadol [March 23,] 1782, “. . . that bitter Egyptian exile was unlike the experience in Persia. Although we were in exile there, we were considered important and respected. Cyrus and Darius were compassionate and merciful toward us. This is also the case in our own time, when our lord his majesty the emperor has decided to help us and to raise us from our degradation.” See Paul Mendes-Flohr and Jehuda Reinharz, eds.), The Jew in the Modern World—A Documentary History (Oxford, UK, and New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

the garment is called kamizoil or vest,16 which is open from the back, and they made tzitzit in its four corners, and they are praiseworthy, the only thing being that they are required to be careful that most of it will be open.” Rabbi Danzig stressed the importance of studying Torah while on the road (64:5), and in the introduction to the Ḥokhmat Adam, the author provides a biographical detail: “the merchants will testify regarding me, that even at the time I was traveling in Leipzig [in Saxony (later part of Germany), the location of the famous trade fair], I never refrained from taking with me Gemara, Mikra [Scripture], and Mishnah.” See also the Ḥokhmat Adam 151:11 regarding Rabbi Danzig’s familiarity with the custom of the Jewish community of Berlin.17 While the name of the community is not mentioned, in Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Sabbath 4:3, it is written, “I have seen places where the beit ha-knesset is on the other side of a river, and [the community] sends the shamash (community functionary) to acquire a resting place on the pram on behalf of all the people of the city, and this is an erroneous practice.” In his Nishmat Adam (Laws of Festivals 101:1), Rabbi Danzig mentions that he traveled to the city of Leszno (annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia in the Second Partition [1793] of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) where he visited Rabbi Ya’akov of Lissa (1760–1832). Many passages of the Ḥayei Adam give contemporary readers a strong sense of continuity between our world and the world of Rabbi Danzig. The clock measures time.18 Coffee appears throughout the book: from the early morning (16:1) and inside the meal (43:11); to preparing it for Sabbath (2:5); enjoying it on Sabbath (16:9 and 63:2–3), on festivals (82:7 and 83:2), on Passover (125:24), and sometimes it’s needed just before the Megillah is read on the night of Purim. Alcohol other than wine can be utilized for kiddush on Sabbath morning (6:18), and there are people in the community 16 The word used by the Ḥayei Adam, ‫( ועסט‬vest), is related to the German Weste and the English vest (from the Latin vestis, from the verb meaning “to clothe”), a sleeveless coat worn beneath the coat. Introduced as a fashion by Charles II of England (1630–1685), it was derived from an article of clothing observed in the Persian court of the Safavid Dynasty (1501–1736). 17 Berlin was the capital of the Kingdom of Prussia from 1701. Berlin was home (from 1743) to the Jewish scholar Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786), who was granted the status of Schutzjude (“Protected Jew”) by Frederick the Great (1712–1786) in 1763. His principal published work was Jerusalem, oder über religiöse Macht und Judentum (Berlin, 1783). Napoleon (1769–1821) and his French forces entered Berlin in October 1806 after the Prussian defeat at the Battle of Jena. 18 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Sabbath 44:19 and 65:4; and Laws of Yom Kippur 145:30.

211

212

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

that come to a celebration “only to drink” (133:16). There is herring.19 One should wear their hat when they pray (22:8), but the hat one wears on Sabbath should not have a wide brim (42:6). The Ḥayei Adam mentions tobacco several times, but only to limit its use: during the saying of the Shema (21:5), on festivals (95:13), on Passover (127:3), and on Tishah b’Av (135:27). Rabbi Danzig understood the challenge of pursuing scholarship whilst expending significant effort to earn a living under difficult, discriminatory, and indeed sometimes oppressive conditions. He attempted to provide practical instructions on how to wage battles for the sake of preserving the Torah, which he saw as focused on the home20 and dependent upon the family, particularly women: Therefore, every person is required to establish in their home a place [for Torah study] and place there [books of] Gemara (Talmud) and Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) or Tehillim (Psalms) and other holy books [of Torah scholarship], even [published] in the Yiddish language if one does not understand the Holy Tongue (Hebrew).21 When one is free from their [mundane] involvements and whenever they are finished with their work, one should turn [to their place of study] and read. And the modest women are able to save their souls and the souls of their husbands and children. When their husbands come home from work and they are tired and do not remember to give a portion of their strength and intellect to Torah [study], the women have an obligation to remind [their husbands to study Torah] and not place on their souls the sin and guilt of negating the study of Torah both day and night, for this transgression is the greatest in the entire Torah.22 Rabbi Danzig was married to a woman named Sarah, and though few details of her life are known (e.g. she was injured in the gunpowder explosion of 1803; see below), she is likely the mother of his children mentioned in the gunpowder explosion. In 1794–1812, Rabbi Danzig sat on the beit 19 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Sabbath 20:6; and Laws of Festivals 102:6. 20 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings 17:5. 21 See also Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings 22:12; Laws of Festivals 102:11; Laws of Passover 119:24, 130:12, and 130; “Concise Overview of the Seder” 7; Laws of Rosh ha-Shanah 138:8; and Laws of Purim 155:20. 22 Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings 10:14.

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

din (court of Torah law) of Vilna, undoubtedly an indication that his scholarship and character were known and respected in his community many years before any of his books were published. In nineteenth-century editions of the Ḥayei Adam and the Ḥokhmat Adam, Rabbi Danzig is always identified as the author of the other book, and long after his death, the printers included with his name the title ‫—מו״ץ דק״ק ווילנא‬Righteous Guide of the Holy Community of Vilna. In the winter of 1803 (the night of 16 Kislev),23 Rabbi Danzig and his family survived a deadly gunpowder explosion in their neighborhood that claimed many of their neighbors’ lives and destroyed many nearby homes.24 This is Rabbi Danzig’s account published seven years later in the Ḥayei Adam: In the room that my entire household was in, two half-walls and a single beam fell. The wall fell on my daughter Vitkah, [injuring her so severely] until there was [only] a step between her and death. Similarly, my wife was injured in the face, her upper lip was in many pieces and all her bottom teeth were broken in her mouth. In the room where I dwell with my son, the windows and doors were broken and the walls were ruptured, and also, there were two holes in my son’s roof. From my entire household, including me, not one emerged without at least [the loss of] a drop of blood, and the Lord, He should be blessed, in His mercy and kindness, considered the blood for us like an offering to atone, and saved us, and we all remained alive. Although I had damage worth many hundreds, the Lord, He should be blessed, in His kindness exchanged damim le’damin (money for blood). Other than us, due to our many sins, thirty-one souls were killed.

23 In 5564, 16 Kislev fell on December 1, but because the explosion occurred “at the beginning of the night,” the proper Gregorian calendar date of the explosion would be Wednesday night, November 30, 1803. 24 Regarding the storage of gunpowder, in the amount sufficient to kill so many people, in such close proximity to civilian quarters, it appears to be the common practice of the governments of the eighteenth century that military personnel and supplies were imposed upon the civilians in the areas in which they operated. The Third Amendment (1791) to the Constitution of the United States reads, “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

213

214

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

The date 16 Kislev was established as a personal Purim for the family and their descendants.25 It appears that the Danzig family recovered from the ordeal of the gunpowder explosion and continued to reside in Vilna. But one can imagine the solemn observances in memory of the many victims of the tragedy —all of whom are named in the first edition of the Ḥayei Adam—on the yartzeit in the years that followed, united in solidarity with the solemn nature of the personal Purim described by Rabbi Danzig for his family in the Ḥayei Adam.26 His family now likely saw Rabbi Danzig hard at work as the project of his life, a bold and innovative literary effort, commenced. In truth, it is not clear when Rabbi Danzig began writing the Ḥayei Adam, though it is evident that he was already a capable and skilled writer at the time of its publication, indicating years of writing and editing experience. His variant spellings of various vernacular words point to the book being written at different times and not all at once. It is evident that Rabbi Danzig meditated deeply on how to present the material as he decided to abandon the chapter numbering of the Tur and Shulḥan Arukh, though he retained the general thematic structure of the Tur Oraḥ Ḥayyim, following Jewish life from arising in the morning to Purim. While he kept the general sense of the laws of everyday prayer and blessings followed by the laws of the Sabbath and the year, Rabbi Danzig consolidated what in the Tur and Shulḥan Arukh are multiple chapters into a single unit or chapter, which he named a klal, or “general category.” Inside each klal he composed numbered paragraphs27 that outline and detail the topic to which the klal is devoted, reminiscent of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah. The resulting structure was an original approach to the organization of the material in a way that facilitates quick reference as well as regular study. Rabbi Danzig also included several topics that were codified in the Tur Yoreh De’ah that he evidently felt his intended audience should have access to - namely, the laws regarding the study of Torah,28 mezuzah,29 and the practice of rising in the presence of a scholar of Torah and of the elderly.30 He also included a klal (68) devoted to elucidating twenty-five consequential 25 See the account of the gunpowder explosion at the end of the Laws of Purim 155:41 in the Ḥayei Adam. 26 Ibid. 27 Almost half of the chapters in the Ḥayei Adam have up to ten paragraphs, and less than ten percent of the chapters have more than thirty paragraphs. 28 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings 10. 29 See ibid. 15. 30 See ibid. 69.

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

principles of halakhah that pertain to all the commandments, and which are encountered frequently in the discourse of halakhah, thus inviting the uninitiated to serious analysis (lamdut). This modern feature, which has become pervasive in Jewish educational materials in our time, owes much to the inclusive vision of Rabbi Danzig. In 1810, the Ḥayei Adam was published in Vilna, and the book became a widely renowned classic almost immediately. Just four years later, Rabbi Ḥayyim of Volozhin (1749–1821) would write in his approbation to the Ḥokhmat Adam that the Ḥayei Adam “. . . was accepted and has spread out through the entire territory of Israel.” Rabbi Danzig, a respected scholar, community leader, and established family man in his sixties, was now a famous author among the Jewish population of Europe, and beyond (the public library in San Francisco, California listed the Ḥayei Adam in its inventory in 1888).31 Undoubtedly, the Jewish community of Vilna took pride in the publishing success of one of its long-time and honored residents. In the summer of 1812, Rabbi Danzig and his neighbors in Vilna, subjects of the Russian Empire since 1795, endured the invasion by the forces of the French Emperor Napoleon (1769–1821), who entered the city on June 2832 during their ill-fated invasion of the Russian Empire.33 Certainly, many hardships were imposed upon the local population during this campaign,34 as the civilian inhabitants of the areas in which armies marched 31 The Ḥayei Adam was known to the author of the Kaf ha-Ḥayyim (Jerusalem, 1905), Rabbi Ya’akov Ḥayyim Sofer (1870–1939), who was born in Baghdad and studied under the Ben Ish Ḥai, Rabbi Yosef Ḥayyim of Baghdad (1832–1909), and in 1904 moved to the Land of Israel. Who knows when the first copies of the Ḥayei Adam made their way to the Land of Israel? In his Sha’arei Tzedek (Vilna, 1812), Rabbi Danzig writes (Sha’arei Mishpetei Aretz 11:15) that “one who dies [in the Land of Israel] and leaves sefarim [Jewish books], they are not to be taken outside of her [Israel’s] borders, even [to other provinces with] in that [same] empire. . . .” 32 June 28, 1812 was 18 Tammuz 5572, the day after the public fast of 17 Tammuz; see Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Fasts and Tishah b’Av 133:4. The French Grande Armée contained its highest number of soldiers at this stage in their invasion of the Russian Empire. It is interesting that at this point, Napoleon had already visited the Land of Israel in 1799 during his invasion of Egypt and the Land of Israel. 33 Mendes-Flohr and Reinharz, The Jew in the Modern World, 1995, part 3, document 17: Reaction to Napoleon by the Hasidim of Poland (c. 1814) reveals that the Hasidic leaders held both sides in the debate about Napoleon’s success in his invasion of the Russian Empire. Some argued that if Napoleon defeated the Tsar there would be a better material situation for the Jews, but their religious faith would be weakened. 34 Rabbi Danzig dealt with the difficult repercussions of the French invasion in his capacity as a community leader; see Binat Adam, Sha’ar Beit ha-Nashim 18:35.

215

216

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

were expected to provide food and supplies, sometimes in exchange for compensation35 and sometimes not. Eastern Europe was forested and provided many logistical challenges for the invading French forces. On September 7, 1812,36 the Battle of Borodino was fought west of the city of Moscow; it was the largest battle of the invasion, which left some 70,000 soldiers dead upon its conclusion. Napoleon seized Moscow on September 14, 1812 (8 Tishrei), but he found the city abandoned and empty of supplies. Then, fires caused extensive damage and Napoleon departed. From October through December 1812, the French forces retreated westward, suffering heavy losses from sporadic attacks and famously on account of the famed Russian winter. In less than a decade, Napoleon himself would be dead. Two years later, Rabbi Danzig’s oldest son, Moshe Shalom (1794–1814), a proficient scholar in his own right,37 died from a certain disease on Purim. Rabbi Danzig was so disturbed by the conduct of the Ḥevrah Kadishah (burial society) of Vilna which handled the preparation of his son’s body that he wrote a manual for them to work from, entitled Hanhagat Ḥevrah Kadishah ve’ha-Avel (The Conduct of the Burial Society and the Mourner), which appears at the end of the Ḥokhmat Adam in the section “Kuntres Matzevat Moshe.” Rabbi Danzig combated the ignorance he encountered through education, and he applied his literary talent. Another son, Yitzḥak (d. 1853), married a granddaughter of the Vilna Gaon,38 and he was apparently involved in many aspects of communal leadership in Vilna. His third son, Ḥiya (d. 1863), was also active in communal affairs, especially in the creation of hospitals and charitable institutions. It is clear that Rabbi Danzig had at least one daughter in 1803, as one named Vitkah is mentioned in the account of the gunpowder explosion as being “a step away from death” after a wall collapsed on her. In his introduction to the Sha’arei Tzedek (Vilna, 1812), a guide to observing the laws dependent upon the Land of Israel, Rabbi Danzig indicates at least a second daughter in his family.

35 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Festivals 98:4, regarding soldiers. 36 This was 1 Tishrei—Rosh ha-Shanah, the day of divine judgment. 37 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Festivals 100:14, where his father quotes him. 38 The bride was the daughter of the Gra’s son Rabbi Yehudah Leib. Rabbi Danzig refers to the Gra as his relative through marriage in his approbation to the Sefer Ma’aseh Rav (Vilna, 1832) which is dated 1817, and in his introduction to the Zikhru Torat Moshe (Vilna, 1817).

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

In his introduction to the Sha’arei Tzedek (Vilna, 1812), Rabbi Danzig also explains his reasons for writing that book, which discusses the laws of the Land of Israel: At the time of the collapse of the houses in the courtyard in which I reside that was in the year 5564 (1803), as is explained in the end of my book Ḥayei Adam, I vowed a great vow that when I would be privileged to marry off my son and daughters, I would then ascend to the holy city, to Jerusalem, to be there all the days of my life and to serve the Lord. And I said, “perhaps I will merit such if the Lord would mercifully give [me] my sign and give me permission from the courtyard of our Master the Tsar (‫אדוננו‬ ‫ )הקיסר‬by means of a passport (‫)פרספרט‬.”39 Rabbi Danzig endeavored to join and assist the budding movement of immigration of Ashkenazim from Europe to the Land of Israel, including parties composed of those students of the Gra from Lithuania who had begun establishing communities in the Land of Israel in the early nineteenth century.40 By writing the Sha’arei Tzedek, which teaches with concise clarity (as was his style) the laws dependent upon the Land of Israel, Rabbi Danzig advocated Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel (then

39 It must be noted that the Land of Israel was ruled (from 1517 to 1917) by the Ottoman Empire during the lifetime of Rabbi Danzig, and the Russian Empire had long been in conflict with the Ottomans. The two empires fought three wars during the lifetime of Rabbi Danzig (1768–1774, 1787–1792, and 1806–1812), which created a difficult situation for those Jews who found themselves subjects of the Tsar due to Russian expansionism in the three partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1772, 1793, and 1795) and wished to emigrate to that part of the Ottoman Empire. See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings (63:5). See also Sha’arei Tzedek, Sha’ar Mishpetei ha-Aretz 15:1. 40 Some followers of the Gra left for the Land of Israel in different groups, most notably in 1808–1809, and settled mainly in Safed and Jerusalem, establishing communities that would be known collectively as the Perushim, which over time had a profound impact on the customs of the Ashkenazim in the Land of Israel. Among the influential figures of the Perushim was Rabbi Yisrael ben Shmuel of Shklov (1770–1839), the author of the influential Pe’at ha-Shulḥan (Safed, 1836).

217

218

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

occupied by the Islamic41 Ottoman Empire since 1517)42 that was completely grounded in the education and holiness that the Land demanded. (In the Sha’arei Tzedek, Rabbi Danzig notes that the kabbalists taught that the Land of Israel is surrounded on all sides by water—the Jordan River and the Dead Sea, and the Naḥal Mitzrayim [Brook of Egypt] and the Mediterranean Sea, and the Euphrates River—to hint that all that enter the Land must pass through water to remove the impurity [mikveh] and accept the holiness of the Land.)43 He also thought that before making aliyah (“ascension”—taking up residency in the Land of Israel), “one should be an expert in all the laws that are explained in this book in order that one not trade their reward [of living in the Land] for their loss [of violating the laws of the Torah concerning the Land due to ignorance].”44 He also believed that it was better to stay in the Exile if one was able to support oneself there but would be dependent upon the community if one made aliyah. Citing the Maharam Schiff (1608–1644),45 Rabbi Danzig writes that this is what was intended by the Sages when they said, “it is better for a person to serve idolatry and not 41 The Ḥayei Adam does not contain any references to the followers of this religion, though Rabbi Danzig does mention Ishmaelites (‫ )ישמעאלים‬in the Ḥokhmat Adam (75:11 and 13). Seven Ottoman sultans reigned during Rabbi Danzig’s lifetime, and there were seven more until the dissolution of the office in 1924. The Ottomans did not end the practice of demanding the jizya (extortion payment) from non-believing subjects (dhimmi) until 1856. Rabbi Danzig writes in Sha’arei Tzedek, Sha’ar Mishpetei ha-Aretz 11:33: “The shoḥtim (kosher slaughterers) near the Ishmaelites are in a situation where a Jew takes the kosher [slaughtered animals] and they take the treif [slaughtered animals], and according to their religion it is not fit until the shoḥet (slaughterer) says close to the slaughter ‘Allah vakbar’ (‫[ )אללה וואקבר‬really, Allahu Akhbar], meaning to say, ‘Mighty God,’ and therefore, the shoḥet is required to ensure that he first slaughter a bird and intend to exempt everything that is slaughtered, as [saying this Arabic phrase] afterwards would be an interruption between the blessing and the slaughter, or else the blessing should be said after the slaughtering has already begun before the proper slaughter is completed.” 42 During the lifetime of Rabbi Danzig, the French revolutionary government launched an invasion of Egypt and the Land of Israel (1798–1801). The expedition was commanded by Napoleon Bonaparte, then an influential and well-regarded general, and it included a large number of scholars and scientists. When the French expedition failed, all artifacts collected by the expedition were turned over to the British, including the Rosetta Stone found in 1799, which has been in the British Museum (established 1753) in London since 1802. 43 Sha’arei Tzedek, Sha’ar Mishpetei ha-Aretz 11:6. 44 Ibid. 11:3. 45 Meir ben Ya’akov ha-Kohen Schiff, born in Frankfurt, served as the rabbi of several European communities. He wrote a commentary on the Talmud and other works, and he died in Prague.

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

require [assistance from other] creatures,” which is understood in the light of another statement of the Sages, “all that dwell [outside the Land of Israel have no God].”46 (Rabbi Danzig, in his commentary on this statement in Binat Adam 2, indicates that this was the very concern of the biblical character Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, who expressed the desire to go to his own land and not continue on to the Land of Israel with the Children of Israel; see Numbers 10:29–32.) In his later years, Rabbi Danzig, a subject of the Tsar of Russia since the Third Partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1795, and after 1812 no longer a judge on the beit din (court of Torah law) in the Jewish community of Vilna, oversaw the printing of his books (all published in what would be the last ten years of his life, 1810–1820). Then he corrected and expanded his masterpiece, the Ḥayei Adam, as he prepared its definitive edition which is in our hands today. Undoubtedly, he could have prepared more manuscripts for printing. Rabbi Avraham Danzig passed away during the Ten Days of Repentance47 on 4 Tishrei, 5581 (Tuesday, September 12, 1820) at the age of seventy-three, the numerical equivalent (gematria)48 of the name of his classic masterpiece, the Ḥayei Adam.

The Vilna Gaon Rabbi Danzig knew the Gra (‫—)גר״א‬the great Gaon Rabbeinu Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman Kramer of Vilna—personally (both men resided in Vilna at the same time), and he is to be included in the reckoning of those capable scholars who were his students. The Gra pursued a very rigorous personal regime in Talmud Torah49 and did not teach in any institution,50 but he 46 Ibid. 11:4. 47 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Yom Kippur 143:1; and Laws of Fasts and Tishah b’Av 132:5, 10, 26, 27, and 28. Rabbi Danzig died on the day after the public fast of Tzom Gedalya (3 Tishrei). He addresses this fast in Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Fasts and Tishah b’Av 133:2. 48 Gematria refers to the practice of counting numerical equivalences of Hebrew words, based on numerical meanings attached to the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. This practice was known since ancient times. The numerical total of the letters that make up the words Ḥayei Adam is equivalent to 73: ḥet = 8 + yud = 10 + yud = 10 + aleph = 1 + dalet = 4 + mem = 40. 49 See the Sefer Ma’aseh Rav (59–60). 50 The Gra’s student Rabbi Ḥayyim of Volozhin (1749–1821) founded the Eitz Ḥayyim yeshivah (known to the Lithuanian initiates simply as “Volozhin” in 1803), which influenced all subsequent yeshivot in Europe, and later in the Land of Israel, the United States of America, and elsewhere. The yeshivah was closed by Rabbi Naftali Tzvi

219

220

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

would receive scholarly visitors and discuss Torah with them. In the Toledot Adam (in the section titled Avadim Hayinu51), Rabbi Danzig relates an encounter he had with the Gra on Purim, in which an esoteric matter in Torah was discussed. He writes, . . . and like this matter I heard from the Gaon, the Ḥasid of blessed memory, once on Purim.52 I asked before him, why did the Sages say .  .  . ? Since his trait was only to say things in a simple way, only the headings of things, he responded concisely [and asked] whether I understood the verse in Parshat Eikev (Deuteronomy 11:4). I said to him that I still did not understand, and he asked me why I did not understand, is it not written . . . ? And then I understood his intention, and stated the matter before him, and he listened, and it appeared that he agreed that my intention was good. It must be noted that this encounter happened before 1797, many years before the publication of the Ḥayei Adam (1810) and the fame it generated for Rabbi Danzig. As he states himself in the introduction to the Toledot Adam, he composed the work in his twenties (1768–1778). Presumably, the conversation took place after Rabbi Danzig concluded his learning in Prague under the great Noda bi-Yhudah (1713–1793). It, therefore, appears that this story hints at the possibility of other encounters between the two men, but no others are related by Rabbi Danzig in such detail (see Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Blessings 5:27, where he writes, “I heard from the mouth of the Gra . . .”; ibid. 54:3; and the uncensored text of the Ḥokhmat Adam 89:1). Rabbi Danzig was thoroughly familiar with the personal opinions and customs of the Gra, which he apparently derived both from personal observation (perhaps Rabbi Danzig would pray with the Gra in his minyan), and from the Bi’ur ha-Gra on the Oraḥ Ḥayyim, which was first published

Yehudah Berlin (1816–1893) in 1892 under pressure from the Tsarist authorities to alter its curriculum. 51 See Haggadah shel Pesaḥ im bi’ur Toledot Adam le-ba’al ha-Ḥayei Adam ztz′′l (Jerusalem: Mekhon Torah she’be-Khtav, 2004), 47. 52 The Sefer Ma’aseh Rav (248) states that the Gra “would make his meal [on Purim] with drinking and joy, all of it during the day, and when it became dark, he would pray Ma’ariv and [then] returned to his learning.” The Sefer Ma’aseh Rav (249) states that the Gra advocated giving cooked chicken or cooked fish as mishloaḥ manot on Purim.

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

in 1803, as attested by the many references that appear in the Ḥayei Adam.53 Rabbi Danzig is the source of some intimate biographical information. For instance, he was familiar with how the Gra personally prepared his khrein (horseradish—Armoracia rusticana) to make maror for the seder, as the Laws of Passover 130:3 relate: The Gra customarily did not shred it before he came [home] from the beit ha-knesset (synagogue) [on the night of the seder], so that all its taste would not dissipate, for then the commandment is not fulfilled, or he would shred it during the day and place it in a vessel and cover the vessel until the beginning of the seder, and then spread it on the plate, and through this dissipate its sharpness [somewhat], and then he crushed it, and a ke-zayit (a quantity equal to an olive’s bulk) would remain, and he was able to eat it in goodness.54 53 It appears that the Gra is mentioned in a little more than 2% of the 3,112 paragraphs and in less than 20% of the 220 chapters that constitute the sefer (Jewish sacred text). While Rabbi Danzig frequently mentions the opinion of the Gra in the Laws of Prayer and Blessings, and occasionally in the Laws of Rosh ha-Shanah, Yom Kippur, Passover, Ḥanukah, Purim, Tishah b’Av, and Sukkot, the Gra is only cited twice in the Laws of Sabbath, the section that constitutes a third of the entire code. While many of the invocations correspond with the opinions and practices recorded in the Sefer Ma’aseh Rav (Vilna, 1832), the only book that is referenced by the Ḥayei Adam with regard to the opinion of the Gra is the Bi’ur ha-Gra (Shklov, 1803) on the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim. Ordinarily, the Ḥayei Adam refers to this commentary of the Gra as the Bi’urei ha-Gra; for example, see the Laws of Prayer and Blessings 14:16. In other places - for example, Laws of Prayer and Blessings 9:3 - the Ḥayei Adam uses, “and so wrote the Gra (ve-khen katav ha-Gra),” though it must be noted that the Gra himself did not personally bring his commentary to print. Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Blessings 5:27, states, “I heard from the mouth of the Gra (sham’ati mi-pi ha-Gra)”; and Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Blessings 54:3 adds: “However, I heard from the holy mouth of the Gra (sham’ati mi-pi kadosh ha-Gra).” See also the uncensored text of the Ḥokhmat Adam 89:1. The Gra is also cited in the Ḥokhmat Adam 149:24. 54 The Mishnah Berurah (473:36) records, in essentially the same language as the Ḥayei Adam, this entire account of the practice of the Gra, but it does not cite the Ḥayei Adam. Rabbi Danzig also provides an illuminating story in the Laws of Sukkot 153:5: “However, our master the Gaon, the Ḥasid (Pious) Eliyahu was very stringent with regard to the requirement to sleep at night [in the sukkah] and also to eat the entire day in the sukkah as is the obvious reading of the Gemara. Once, it was very cold on the eighth night, and he said that although on the other days one would be exempt from the sukkah, nevertheless - to show the halakhah to his students - he commanded that they clothe themselves well and sleep in the sukkah.” This opinion of the Gra is cited by the Mishnah Berurah (668:6), and the Sha’ar ha-Tziyun (4) cites the Ḥayei Adam (Vilna, 1810) and the Sefer Ma’aseh Rav (Vilna, 1832) as the source.

221

222

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

It sounds like Rabbi Danzig was perhaps at the Gra’s table for multiple sedarim in order to write with such detail about his teacher’s personal practice. Rabbi Danzig also wrote about the Gra as an eminent, even legendary figure. The approbation (haskamah) of Rabbi Danzig (along with that of Rabbi Ḥayyim of Volozhin, another student of the Gra) appeared on the first edition of the Sefer Ma’aseh Rav (Vilna, 1832), a concise digest of the opinions and customs of the Gra written by a devotee.55 Rabbi Danzig writes: [T]he great qualities of the master and teacher, the Gaon of Israel and His holy one, my relative through marriage, our master Eliyahu the Ḥasid (Pious) of Vilna, are already known in the gates. And more [is also known:] that he was a sage in Torah and fear [of Heaven, that he would] learn understanding, listen, and investigate the good customs that he practiced in his beit hamidrash (house of study). Regarding these customs, it is said that they arise as a cure, and in the expanse of time they are coming to be forgotten. And because of this, my beloved [friend, presumably the author of the Sefer Ma’aseh Rav, Rabbi Yissakhar Ber (1779– 1855), a devotee of the Gra,] was stirred like my spirit, and he collected all of the customs and halakhot pesukot (legal rulings) that the Gra, of blessed memory, practiced. All the people that will hear and learn them will have the fear of the Lord enter their hearts, and they will also go in the paths of life. . . .56 55 While his approbation is dated 1817, the book was first printed fifteen years later in 1832, more than a decade after the deaths of Rabbi Danzig (1820) and Rabbi Ḥayyim of Volozhin (1821). Evidently, it existed for many years without being brought to print, for reasons that are not clear, and certainly not for lack of rabbinic endorsement. It is ironic that Rabbi Danzig gave his approbation (haskamah) to any sefer, because he was opposed to the concept of approbations in general. As he wrote in his introduction to the Ḥayei Adam, “Behold, my mind had been set on not acquiring any approbations, as it was not my intention in any event to embellish myself because I am aware that there is nothing in me that can be embellished. However, the essence of this composition is for the youth and the laymen, and I know that the first thing they look at is the [book’s] approbations. I, therefore, obtained approbations, but only from [a few of my local] people and companions in our community . . . and also, it was not my desire to print their [actual] quotes but only their signatures, for it is not my desire that they [the readers] should rely upon me since I have already warned regarding this.” 56 It must be noted that Rabbi Danzig very infrequently notes that the community that witnessed the customs of the Gra actually adopted them. See Ḥayei Adam, the Laws of Prayer and Blessings (11:12 and 31:40) and the Laws of Fasts and Tishah b’Av (133:21);

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

Rabbi Danzig wrote about the greatness of the Gra in his introduction57 to the Zikhru Torat Moshe (Vilna, 1817): [W]e were fortunate to see, with our eyes, my relative through marriage, Master and Teacher, the Gaon of Israel and His holy one, our master Rabbi Eliyahu the Ḥasid (Pious). He was like one of the Rishonim (the earlier, medieval authorities). All the measures that were counted by the Sages in the talmid ḥakham (Torah scholar),58 it was seen and revealed to all that they were in him, whether regarding Torah, fear [of Heaven], or his personal conduct. All of Shas (six orders of the Mishnah) [with the] Bavli and Yerushalmi (Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds),59 the Sifra, Sifrei, Mekhilta,60 Tosefta,61 and all the Midrashim were arranged in his mouth. And even more than this: [he was also knowledgeable about] the poskim (authorities), both the Rishonim (earlier ones) and the Aḥaronim (later ones), and even the commentary of Rashi and the Tosafot, as is apparent from his compositions. Behold, his learning regime was as if commanded upon us by Moses our Teacher, peace be upon him, as he was teaching the Written Torah with its Oral explanation.62 It is known that he would expound see also the Laws of Prayer and Blessings (31:40), the Laws of Passover (131:13); and the Laws of Tzitzit 11:12. 57 The Introduction is a long work of great importance as a source of musar (ethical development), and Rabbi Danzig urged that it be studied regularly along with his ethical will, the Beit Avraham (Vilna, 1839). 58 Despite knowing the Gra personally, Rabbi Danzig writes in Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Rosh Ḥodesh 118:7 regarding the absence of a talmid ḥakham. This idea appears in the Ba’er Heitev (547:3) and the Mishnah Berurah (547:12) in the name of the Magen Avraham (1634–1682). See also the Sha’ar ha-Tziyun (547:4) for the same point. 59 The Jerusalem Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi), compiled in the Land of Israel, dates from around 400 CE, and the Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli) emerged around the year 500 CE. 60 These are the main collections of Midrash Halakhah produced by the Sages; that is, the verses of the Torah are expounded for their legal implications. 61 The Tosefta is a collection of statements of the Tannaim that were not included in the Mishnah. It is often cited by the Babylonian Talmud to clarify the statements of the Mishnah. 62 The Sefer Ma’aseh Rav (59–60) records what the author knew the learning regime of the Gra to be: “§59 Immediately after the [morning] prayer, [the Gra] read some of the seder [of the weekly parshah] twice from the [Hebrew text of] Mikra [Scripture] and once from the Targum [Aramaic translation] and he completed [the seder] on erev Shabbat [see Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Sabbath 7:9]. He did not say the Targum after each verse, but only after every subject, when he reached the opening or the closing [sections

223

224

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

on every letter and dot [in the Torah scroll], as is apparent from his composition on the [Written] Torah. All of this was in the revealed portion [of Torah], and more than this, he was a sage in the hidden portion [of Torah].63 Even if all the seas were of ink, we would not be able to explain his words, for all of his words were hints and require great explanation. His holiness and perishut (pious separation)64 are known to all. His conduct was not to walk four cubits without Torah and tefillin,65 and he was comforting to every person. From [all] his days, no touch of pride or attempt to lord over the creations [was found in him],66 [and] fortunate is the eye that saw all these. His generation saw and rejoiced, as his merit is a shield upon us.67

in the Sefer Torah]. Or [he would read the Targum] after a place that appeared more of a break in the subject [matter]. §60 To study after the [morning] prayer immediately for three hours without interruption. To study a chapter of Mishnayot and to review well. To study Rav Alfas [commentary of the Rif (1013–1103) on the Talmud] every day and to review well. Sifrei musar [personality development] many times every day. To study Mikra [Scripture], aggadot [non-legal talmudic texts], and Midrashim [expounding of the Bible by the Sages]. To study Gemara—two dafim [folios] every day with the commentary of Rashi [1040–1105] and to review well. To study the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim [Venice, 1565], and to review well each and every day. To study a masekhta [talmudic tractate] orally. To study in a tallit and in the tefillin of Rashi, of blessed memory, specifically. To study the halakhot regel by regel [some understand this passage as meaning that the Gra studied the Zohar every day].” 63 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings (10:12). 64 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Passover 130; “Concise Overview of the Seder” 4; and the Laws of Prayer and Blessings 36:4. See also the Sefer Ma’aseh Rav (81 and 191). 65 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings 14:18, regarding why it is customary to wear the tefillin for only a short period of time. 66 The Gra did not hold any official community position in his lifetime. His “authority,” or influence, spread as a result of his status as an exceptional scholar, recognized by his contemporaries. See Pirkei Avot (1:10), “Shemayah said: love the work and hate the rabanut (authority).” The commentary of the Gra to this statement of Shemayah refers readers to BT Pesaḥim 87b and Berakhot 55a, where the Sages taught that the rabanut is life-threatening. The Ḥayei Adam cites the opinions and customs of the Gra many times but only rarely describes them as being shared by his community; see footnote 56 above. 67 He was addressing the statement (67) of the Maharil (c. 1365–1427) who, in turn, cited the Sefer ha-Agudah (Krakow, 1571), that the law of a talmid ḥakham does not apply in the contemporary era. As Rabbi Danzig stated, this applied even more so in his own time.

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

The Times In the region of his birth, Rabbi Danzig was an eyewitness to the decline and subsequent imperial partitions and eventual extinction of the empire he was born a subject of, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth,68 long the home to the majority of the Ashkenazim (since their migration from Western Europe some centuries before).69 Little political information is found in the Ḥayei Adam,70 though a record of discrimination against Jews briefly appears.71 The police72 make an appearance in the Laws of Eruvin 75:22. His hometown of Danzig was annexed by the Prussian Empire in 1793, and in 1807 it was besieged and captured by French forces.73 The home he knew for much of his life, Vilna, was annexed by the Russian Empire in 1795, thereby making Rabbi Danzig and his family subjects of Tsar Alexander I (1777–1825)74 and victims of the anti-Jewish policies that were long the hallmark of imperial Russian (and later Soviet) bureaucracy and despotism.75 Russian sovereignty, in their western territories, was interrupted by the French invasion of 1812, as already noted. The presence of large numbers of French troops (perhaps as many as 500,000) and the 68 The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in 1791, adopted what was Europe’s first modern political constitution, and the world’s second after that of the United States of America (1788). Known as the “May 3 Constitution,” it lasted only a year, as the territory of the Commonwealth was annexed by foreign powers and its existence was threatened by profound internal instability and treachery. 69 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Passover 127:1. 70 Included is the blessing upon seeing a king of the nations of the world; see Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings 63:6. 71 For the Jewish badge imposed on clothing, see Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Sabbath 56:15. See also Laws of Fasts and Tishah b’Av 135:11 for general hostility. 72 The word used in the Ḥayei Adam, ‫( פאליציא‬politzie), is related to the German word Polizei and the English word “police,” used in its modern meaning from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. 73 The Prussian forces were defeated by the French at the Battle of Jena-Auerstedt, October 14, 1806 (2 Cheshvan). 74 In his introduction to the Sha’arei Tzedek (Vilna, 1812), Rabbi Danzig writes regarding his desire to immigrate to the Land of Israel, “.  .  . and give me permission from the courtyard of our master the Tsar (‫ )אדוננו הקיסר‬by means of a passport (‫ )פרספרט‬. . .” It is to this Tsar that Rabbi Danzig was forced to petition. 75 Jews who lived in the territories (formerly of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) annexed by the Russian Empire were compelled to live in the Pale of Settlement, first introduced by an edict of Catherine II (1729–1796) in 1791. With changing borders, the Pale existed until the Tsarist government was overthrown in 1917. Rabbi Danzig and his family would have resided in the guberniya (from the Latin gubernator, and related to the English governorate) of Vilna.

225

226

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

associated fighting undoubtedly produced countless difficulties for the local population, as it was customary at that time for land armies to live off the produce—acquired usually with force—of the territory of their operations. After the defeat of Napoleon and the collapse of his empire,76 the Congress of Vienna (1814–1815) secured the peace of the victors in Europe for a few decades,77 and it confirmed the partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the empire where the majority of the Ashkenazim resided. These Jews, still reeling78 from the terror of the massacres of Jews during the uprising (1648–1654) of Bohdan Khmelnytsky (c. 1595–1657), the disillusionment that came in the wake of the disastrous messianic movement of the famous false messiah and apostate Shabbetai Tzvi (1626–1676), and the communal problems introduced recently by the early instigators and adherents of the Hasidic movement,79 were now mostly subjects of the Tsar, condemned to a century of persecution, despair, and dislocation that grew in intensity and terror. Rabbi Danzig lived through an era of significant change in human history. Kingdoms based in Europe were solidifying global empires on 76 Paris fell on March 30, 1814 (9 Nisan, when Rabbi Danzig was in shloshim for his son), and Napoleon was exiled to the Mediterranean island of Elba. He escaped in February 1815, returned to France, again led the French forces against a coalition of his enemies (mainly Britain, Prussia, and Russia), and famously lost the battle of Waterloo. Napoleon surrendered to the British and was exiled to the isolated South Atlantic island of St. Helena, where he died on May 5, 1821, less than a year after the death of Rabbi Danzig. 77 The next war on land among the European Powers was the Crimean War (1853–1856), which saw the British and French Empires fight the Russian Empire on the north shore of the Black Sea on behalf of the declining Ottoman Empire. This policy was reversed in the First World War (1914–1918) when the British, French, and Russian (until 1917) Empires fought in an alliance against the Ottoman Empire. 78 Perhaps the language here is overly dramatic, as Jews of the eighteenth century had multiple issues to contend with. However, note that the Jews of the “Kingdom of Poland” observed a fast on 20 Sivan to recall the events of 1648. The Ḥayei Adam mentions it in Laws of Fasts and Tishah b’Av 132:26 and 34. In 132:34, it is said that: “. . . 20 Sivan, since the custom is fixed with most of Israel, the law is like a public fast for all matters”; whereas almost a century later (and 250 years after the actual events), the Mishnah Berurah (249:22) indicates that 20 Sivan is an individual fast. 79 The early adherents of the Hasidic movement suffered a ḥerem (excommunication; see Ḥokhmat Adam 172) several times, twice in 1772, and again in 1781. The founder of the Hasidic movement, Rabbi Yisrael ben Eliezer (c. 1698–1760), known to his followers as the Ba’al Shem Tov, died in what is now a small town in western Ukraine (Yiddish ‫מעזשביזש‬, Polish Międzybórz or Międzybóż), and the site of a massacre of Jews during the Ukrainian uprising of 1648.

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

multiple continents. When Rabbi Danzig was a young man, the British Empire80 had become the dominant power in North America and the Indian subcontinent after the Seven-Years’ War (1756–1763). A group of thirteen British colonies along the Atlantic coast of North America later rebelled against their mother country and declared their independence in July 1776.81 After a lengthy war (1775–1783) with French assistance against the British Empire, the United States emerged as a completely unique and successful experiment; it was an independent republic that had neither a monarchy nor an official religion (Jews suffered from never being members of the official religion, Christianity or Islam, of any monarchy in the Exile).82 In little more than a century, it would welcome large numbers of Ashkenazim83 fleeing the tyranny of the Russian Empire and its anti-Jewish policy,84 offering religious freedom and a safe and prosperous home without a tradition of anti-Jewish hatred, while exposing Old World people to the revolutionary ideas and culture of the New World. The first synagogue85 80 The Jews had been expelled from the Kingdom of England by Edward I (1239–1307) in 1290. After 1655, some Jews began to enter England during the Protectorate (1653– 1659) of Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658), though their status was not official. The first synagogue in this period of settlement was opened in London in 1701. In 1753, the British Parliament granted citizenship to a limited number of foreign-born Jews, but the law failed in the face of hostile opposition. Full rights were only secured in 1858, when an Act of Parliament ended anti-Jewish restrictions and the first Jewish member of Parliament was able to take his seat (the first Jew had been elected to a seat in 1847). 81 July 4, 1776 was 17 Tammuz 5536, a public fast recalling five tragic events; see Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Fasts and Tishah b’Av 133:4. 82 The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” It was adopted on December 15, 1791 (19 Kislev 5552), and seemed well suited to the spirit of Ḥanukah, which began on 25 Kislev, less than a week later , with its propagation of a miracle. But see Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Ḥanukah 154:12, regarding the contemporary era. 83 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Passover 127:1. 84 Tsar Alexander II (1818–1881) was assassinated in St. Petersburg, and in 1882, the so-called May Laws regulating Jewish life in the Russian Empire were issued. It is said that in the nineteenth century, the Russian Empire sought to have a third of the Jews under its control killed outright in pogroms, a third that would flee and emigrate (many able to find a haven in the United States), and a third that would accept baptism and be welcomed into Russian Orthodox Christianity and supposedly mainstream Russian society as well. The final goal of the May Laws was the total disappearance of Jews from the Russian Empire. 85 The building is now a National Historic Site and is called the Touro Synagogue after Yitzḥak Touro (1738–1783), who was its rabbi from 1760 to 1779. Born in Amsterdam,

227

228

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

in the United States was built in 1763 in Newport, Rhode Island.86 A representative of the Jewish community of Newport delivered a gracious welcome address when George Washington (1732–1799), the first President of the United States (1789–1797), visited Newport on August 17, 1790 (7 Elul 5550). The President’s reply indicated his enlightened and friendly approach to the exile-weary Jewish community of the new country: “May the Children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig-tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”87 This letter from a head of state to an official representative of a Jewish community was revolutionary in its era, as it breaks the long tradition of the toleration of the Jews in Christendom. Toleration is the decision of a dominant group to grant a condescending relationship to a vulnerable and subservient minority; and just as it is granted, it can be revoked.88 However, in his letter, Washington pioneers a tradition entirely free of this unequal and unstable approach, and he treats the Jews as equal citizens—and citizens of a constitutional republic are not subjects of an absolute monarchy. The other great political revolution of the era occurred in France beginning in the summer of 1789. The question of the status of the Jews in the new order became an issue in December 1789, when the eligibility of the Jews for citizenship was debated in the French National Assembly. The question of the Jews living in post-1789 Europe remained an issue in European politics for the next 150 years. The question was only settled in Western Europe after its occupation by American forces in 1945. The Touro supported the British cause during the American Revolution (1775–1783), and he subsequently had to flee to Jamaica (a British possession from 1655 to 1962), where he died. 86 One of the cornerstones of the synagogue was laid by its principal benefactor Aaron Lopez (1731–1782). Lopez was born in Portugal into a family of conversos—Iberian Jews whose forebears had apostatized to Roman Catholicism, especially after the massacres of 1391 and the Order of Expulsion of 1492. He was able to openly practice Judaism in the British colony of Rhode Island but was refused citizenship twice, in 1761 and 1762, despite meeting the legal requirements. He became the wealthiest man in Newport by the early 1770s through the success of his diverse business holdings, but his fortune suffered greatly during the American Revolution (1775–1783). 87 This language is based on Micah (4:4), which appears to have been a beloved verse of George Washington (1732–1799), the first American President, as it is invoked in his other writings. 88 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Prayer and Blessings (17:11), for an example of governmental interference in Jewish worship.

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

French National Assembly eventually extended their own Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (passed on August 26, 1789) to the Jewish inhabitants of France on September 28, 1791.89 The conquering armies of Napoleon Bonaparte forced the end of the old era of the relationship between the Jewish community and the non-Jewish power structures (church90 and state) in the areas under their military control. The ghetto91 walls of many cities92 were removed by order of the French forces, as in the city of Padua in September 1797. Subsequently, Napoleon, as Emperor of France (1804–1814), was sent numerous complaints about “the Jews” and convened a gathering of Jewish “notables” in July 1806, which consisted of 112 scholars, businessmen, and other representatives. Called the Assembly of Jewish Notables, it was tasked with answering several questions on the relationship of the Jews to the countries in which they lived in the Exile. The response of the Assembly of Jewish Notables was readied in August 1806, and while Napoleon was satisfied with the answers to his questions, he wanted the Jews to solemnly accept them with the force of Jewish law that he knew to be a powerful force over many centuries. Thus, in September 1806, a summons was issued for the grandly named Parisian Sanhedrin to convene;93 it met in Paris from February to April 1807 and endorsed the answers of the Assembly of Jewish Notables, as instructed. Napoleon followed this with his “Infamous Decree”

89 This was 29 Elul 5551, which was the eve of Rosh ha-Shanah. 90 Napoleon led a French army into Italy in 1796. He defeated Papal troops and eventually seized Rome without a fight in 1798. Pope Pius VI (1717–1799) was taken prisoner by the French forces when he refused to renounce his temporal authority. The Papal States were annexed to Italy in 1870 and the State of Vatican City was created in 1929 during the fascist government (1922–1943) of Benito Mussolini (1883–1945). 91 The word “ghetto” has been an English word since c. 1610 and means “the part of a city to which Jews are restricted.” Its origin is unknown; perhaps it comes from Italian and refers to the foundry in Venice where the Venetian ghetto was located, or it is related to the Italian borghetto, which is related to the English borough. Some say it might be based upon the Hebrew word get, “bill of divorce.” 92 In 1555, the Bishop of Rome, Gian Pietro Carafa (later Pope Paul IV, 1476–1559) issued his decree Cum nimis absurdum, which established the Roman ghetto. The Jews were forced to reside exclusively in the ghetto, which resulted in cramped and uncomfortable conditions for generations of Jews. 93 The convening of this Sanhedrin was the subject of the derashah of the first native-born rabbi in the United States, Rabbi Gershom Mendes Seixas (1746–1816), given at the Spanish and Portuguese Congregation of New York City on January 11, 1807 (2 Shevat 5567).

229

230

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

(March 17, 1808)94 that restricted Jewish civil and economic rights in his empire and was supposed to last for ten years after which it would either have achieved its discriminatory aim or would be extended. Fortunately, ten years later in 1818, Napoleon was in exile on the island of St. Helena in the South Atlantic and the “Infamous Decree” was not extended. Towards the very end of the life of Rabbi Danzig, the first signs of the new Jewish sectarian movement known as Reform95 were appearing in various locations in the German-speaking lands of Central Europe. At first, small prayer gatherings of activists began being organized around 1810, and then in 1819, a printed prayer book appeared reflecting many significant departures from the traditional siddur. The remainder of the nineteenth century would witness the rise of this movement in Europe and the United States. Abraham Geiger (1810–1874) of Frankfurt was a principal early activist. Rabbi Danzig also lived when distant96 corners of the world were still being encountered and mapped by Europeans for the first time. After Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), third President of the United States (1801– 1809), purchased (in 1803) the vast territory in North America called Louisiana from the French Empire (then at war with various coalitions of European states continuously from 1803 to 1815), he commissioned an expedition of exploration (1804–1806) led by Meriwether Lewis (1774– 1809) and William Clark (1770–1838) that eventually reached the Pacific Ocean and returned to deliver their report of significant scientific import. In the Old World, the famed Rosetta Stone had been found a few years before in 1799 during the French invasion of Egypt and the Land of Israel (1798–1801) by Napoleon Bonaparte. The great British explorer and navigator, Captain James Cook (1728–1779) discovered (1778) the Sandwich 94 March 17, 1808 was 18 Adar I 5568. 95 “Reformed Judaism” as an English term first appears in 1843. 96 Shortly before the life of Rabbi Danzig, in 1744, in the distant deserts of Arabia, a new empire was founded by the union between a political leader in Nejd, Muhammad bin Saud (d. 1765), and a pious preacher, Muhammad ibn Adb al-Wahhab (1703–1792). That state existed in central Arabia from 1744 to 1818. Under its second ruler, AbdulAziz bin Muhammad (d. 1803), the Saudian forces raided Karbala in 1802, massacred many residents, and destroyed the tombs of Hussein ibn Ali and Ali ibn Abi Talib. In 1818, this state was forcibly brought to an end by the Ottoman Caliphate. Led by Ibrahim, Pasha of Egypt (1789–1848), the Ottomans captured and publicly beheaded the fourth ruler Abdullah bin Saud in Constantinople in 1818. Descendants of the two men later established the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932, after the capital Riyadh was seized in 1902 and Mecca in 1924 by Abdulaziz ibn Saud (1876–1953).

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

Islands (later known as the Hawaiian Islands) while exploring the Pacific Ocean, and he was later killed in those islands. Economic life in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was rooted in agriculture, and Jews found employment on the latifundia of the Polish nobility (szlachta) as leaseholders and tax-collectors in an arrangement in which the natural resources and peasantry were exploited for the extraction of revenue. Noblemen with vast estates sold leases (arenda)97 to Jews who, in turn, sold subleases to other Jews who pursued the economic incentives of the feudal opportunities available to them; such opportunities included managing mills, distilling and distributing alcoholic beverages, and tax-collecting. It was in Britain in the late eighteenth century that improvements in agricultural techniques, manufacturing (especially the rise of mills and factories), and technology (especially the steam engine) constituted what became known as the Industrial Revolution (c. 1750–c. 1850), whose influence then began diffusing to other lands as well. Britain was an expanding global empire; plants, people, and manufactured goods traveled on the sea between continents. Rabbi Danzig, raised in a port city and a merchant by trade, was familiar with international commerce, and he mentions some agricultural products that were imported into Europe from overseas. Sugar, presumably made from sugar cane98 in the European colonies in the Caribbean islands99 and South America dependent on slave labor, arrived in the Northern European seaports of Hamburg and Amsterdam,100 and it eventually seems to have made its way east, as Rabbi Danzig resided in Vilna. Indeed, Rabbi Danzig was a contemporary of many individuals who shaped the age and its revolutionary nature: Rabbi Ḥayyim of Volozhin (1749–1821), the renowned scholar and founder of the Volozhin yeshivah; Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady (1745–1813), the founder of Ḥabad/

97 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Passover 124:13, and Nishmat Adam, Laws of Passover 8. 98 Saccharum officinarum, a tall perennial Old-World grass widely cultivated in tropical and subtropical regions. The Mishnah Berurah (202:73) describes the process of making sugar from sugar cane. 99 Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Sabbath 8:25, mentions something called “English pepper” (‫)ענגלישע פעפער‬. This appears to be allspice, the dried fruit of Pimenta dioica, a plant native to the New World. The Ḥayei Adam and the Mishnah Berurah (297:1) acknowledge its difference from ordinary pepper (Piper nigrum). 100 See Ḥayei Adam, Laws of Passover 127:3.

231

232

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

Lubavitch Hasidism;101 Rabbi Naḥman of Bratslav (1772–1811); Mayer Amschel Rothschild of Frankfurt (1744–1812), a founder of modern international finance; Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), American author of the Declaration of Independence and President of the United States (1801– 1809); American politician Alexander Hamilton (c. 1755–1804);102 James Watt (1736–1819), the Scottish inventor (well-known for his improvements to the steam engine, patented in 1775); the Spanish court painter Francisco José de Goya (1746–1828); British poet and artist William Blake (1757–1827); and Toussaint Louverture (1743–1803), leader of the Haitian Revolution (1791–1804).

The Books Responding to the challenges of his generation, Rabbi Danzig turned to writing, giving the world an extensive and practical legal literature for everyday life. His works103 were written for beginner students and, at the 101 Rabbi Shneur Zalman (1745–1813) was the author of three famous books: the Tanya (1796), a work of Hasidic philosophy; the Shulḥan Arukh ha-Rav, a code of law; and a siddur based on the teachings of the Ari (1534–1572). Rabbi Shneur Zalman was accused by the Tsarist authorities of transferring money to the Ottoman Empire and was arrested for treason in 1798. He was released on 19 Kislev, which his followers celebrate as a holiday. 102 Hamilton was born out of wedlock on the island of Nevis, a British colony in the Caribbean (first spotted by Columbus in 1493), and he later moved to the island of St. Croix, a Danish colony. Unable to attend a church school on account of his illegitimacy, he received a private education from a Jewish lady on St. Croix. His son, John Church Hamilton (1792–1882), wrote a biography of his father (1834), where he states: “Rarely as he dwelt upon his personal history, he mentioned having been taught to repeat the Decalogue in Hebrew at the school of a Jewess, when he was so small that he was placed standing by her side on a table.” He began attending King’s College (established 1754) in New York City in 1773. He served as the first Secretary of the Treasury (1789–1795). Alexander Hamilton was killed in a pistol duel with the sitting (third) Vice-President of the United States (1801–1805) Aaron Burr (1756–1836) in Weehawken, New Jersey, on July 11, 1804 (3 Av) during Thomas Jefferson’s first term as President. 103 The works of Rabbi Danzig were officially reviewed by the Tsarist censors, as was customary in his place and time, and the title pages of the first editions of the Ḥayei Adam and the Ḥokhmat Adam include the line: “with the permission of the Censor (‫ )הצענזור‬that is in the Academy (‫ )אקאדעמיע‬of the Holy Community (‫ )ק״ק‬of Vilna.” Alhough the Jews occasionally censored their own works for their own purposes, the censorship of Jewish books by non-Jews has a long history in the Exile. For most of early printing, no Jewish book was published in Europe without first gaining the approval of the censor; that is, censorship of Jewish books was not a unique feature of tyranny directed personally against Rabbi Danzig. Of most concern to the censors was any

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

same time, for those who were capable of learning but were not able to navigate the difficult terrain of the Shulḥan Arukh and its extensive and frequently conflicting commentaries, as well as the vast library of significant responsa (‫)שו״ת‬104 that had developed by the turn of the nineteenth century. Rabbi Danzig was adept at fashioning this extensive and sometimes difficult material into successful handbooks that emphasized concise instruction and user convenience, especially in locating desired sections and answering specific questions. Rabbi Danzig was aware of widespread ignorance and incompetence in matters of halakhah among the Jews of Europe, and he masterfully designed handbooks that address themselves to a literate audience sometimes already familiar with the subject matter. In addition to the Ḥayei Adam, Rabbi Danzig composed a companion analytical commentary entitled the Nishmat Adam. Rabbi Danzig went on to compose other classic works of halakhah in the wake of the success of the Ḥayei Adam. In 1812, Rabbi Danzig published the Ḥokhmat Adam (Vilna, 1812)105 and its companion work of analysis and responsa, the Binat Adam, on the material of the Yoreh De’ah;106 and the Sha’arei Tzedek (Vilna, 1812), a short work on passage dealing with non-Jews in general and any passage that invoked opposition to the claims of a non-Jewish religion in particular. Books printed in kingdoms under the influence of the Catholic Church were subject to its infamous censorship regime, and it maintained an official Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited Books) between 1559 and 1966. Note the adoption of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in the distant New World in 1791: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” 104 In Hebrew, she’elot u’teshuvot (‫ )שו״ת‬literally means “questions and answers.” Collections of answered questions is a genre of Jewish legal literature that goes back to the time of the Babylonian Geonim, and the seeking of answers from a scholar is an even more ancient feature of Jewish life. The responsa literature usually deals with difficult questions that are not obviously addressed in older codes. New items of technology or culture will usually be addressed in the responsa literature, and over time these answers are incorporated into new codes. 105 The biographical introduction to the Beit Avraham (Jerusalem: Zikhru Torat Moshe, 1968) tells a story regarding the publication of the Ḥokhmat Adam. The story is that after Rabbi Danzig completed the writing of the Ḥokhmat Adam, the French forces captured Vilna (1812) and a French soldier seized the manuscript of the Ḥokhmat Adam, causing Rabbi Danzig to despair over the lost effort of many years’ work. Thus, Rabbi Danzig went to the commander of the French camp and pleaded for the return of his stolen manuscript. A miracle occurred and the very soldier who stole the manuscript came to call upon the commander. Then the Lord placed favor in the eyes of the commander, who ordered the soldier to return the stolen manuscript, which Rabbi Danzig brought hurriedly to print. This story also appears in Rabbi Danzig’s second introduction (hakdamah aḥaronah) to the Ḥayei Adam. 106 The Ḥokhmat Adam contains 172 chapters.

233

234

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

the laws concerning the Land of Israel. In 1817, Rabbi Danzig published the Zikhru Torat Moshe, a concise digest of the laws of Sabbath, and the Mitzvat Moshe, a work based on Sefer Ḥaredim (Venice, 1601), which arranged the commandments of the Torah to facilitate study. In 1818, Rabbi Danzig published the Toledot Adam, a commentary on the Passover Haggadah. It first appeared as part of an anthology of Haggadah commentaries, entitled Ma’aleh Beit Ḥorin (Vilna, 1818), that included the commentary of the Gra. In addition, Rabbi Danzig authored an approbation (dated 1817) for the first edition of the Sefer Ma’aseh Rav (Vilna, 1832), a digest of the customs and opinions of the Gra written by a devotee. Rabbi Danzig also published multiple eulogies for the Gra, who Rabbi Danzig personally knew and from whom he learned Torah. Rabbi Danzig wrote his own ethical will with the intention that it be published and utilized (along with the introduction of the Zikhru Torat Moshe, which features a powerful attack on pride and haughtiness) as a source of musar (ethical development) for his children and the wider world. The Beit Avraham (Vilna, 1839), as the ethical will is called, proved a popular classic, and has appeared in many editions printed in many locations (Warsaw, 1841; Königsberg, 1859; Pressburg, 1859; and others). Thus, Rabbi Danzig began his literary career with lucid works of halakhah and finished it with stirring works of musar.

The Greatness of the Books The stature and significance of the Ḥayei Adam was observed and acknowledged by its contemporaries; the book enjoyed wide critical acceptance and commercial success, and it was printed many times (among them: Vilna/ Grodno, 1829 and Lemberg, 1846).107 In the nineteenth-century editions of 107 By the 1970s, the Ḥayei Adam had been printed over a hundred times. Most of these editions were presumably printed in the rabbinic Hebrew (lashon ha-kodesh) in which the work originally appeared, but Yiddish translations were also published in Europe before the First World War (1914–1918). I have, in my possession, an abridged version of the Ḥayei Adam and Ḥokhmat Adam printed in Vilna in 1883 (by the Press of the Widow and the Romm Brothers). There appear to be three contemporary Hebrew editions of the Ḥayei Adam available at the present time: the ubiquitous and affordable single-volume Sefer Ḥayei Adam ha-Menukad (Jerusalem: Bruchman, 1994), which is printed without comments; the two-volume Ḥayei Adam ha-Shalem, which includes the text of the Nishmat Adam as well as some comments regarding textual variants (Jerusalem: Me’orot Dat, 1988); and the Ḥayei Adam im Nishmat Adam im Piskei Mishnah Berurah (Jerusalem: Friedman, 2007), an edition that respects the Ḥayei Adam as a living text with commentary and proper introduction. It serves the reader well, as it

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

the Ḥayei Adam and the Ḥokhmat Adam, Rabbi Danzig is always identified as the author of the other book, and long after his death, the printers included after his name a title, ‫—מ״ץ דווילנא‬the Righteous Guide of Vilna. In an edition of the Ḥayei Adam (Warsaw, 1859) printed almost forty years after his death, Rabbi Danzig is introduced on the title page as “the Rav, the Great Luminary, the famous, our Master. . . .”108 The Ḥayei Adam was accepted as an important text by Rabbi Ḥayyim ben Yitzḥak of Volozhin (1749–1821)—the famous student of the Gra, author of the classic Nefesh ha-Ḥayyim (Vilna, 1824), and the founder of the influential Volozhin yeshivah (and personal friend of Rabbi Danzig, as intimated in the introduction to the Ḥokhmat Adam). Rabbi Ḥayyim testified about the success of the Ḥayei Adam, “I saw to help the great man, for is he not the great and famous Rav, our master and teacher, Avraham Danzig, and in one that ascended for him, that his book that was based on the Oraḥ Ḥayyim, was accepted, and has spread out through the entire territory of Israel.” The Mishnah Berurah (completed in 1906)—by the great Ḥafetz Ḥayyim, Rabbi Yisrael Meir ben Aryeh Ze’ev ha-Kohen (1838– 1933) of Radin109—included the Ḥayei Adam in the company of the fundamental authorities (enumerated in its introduction) that he relies upon to shape his extensive anthological commentary on the Shulḥan Arukh, Oraḥ Ḥayyim. Commentaries were eventually written on the Ḥayei Adam during the nineteenth century. That commentaries were written on it confirms the popular success of the book; that is, scholars saw it as a fitting book on which to write a commentary because people were reading it. The Tosafot Ḥayyim (2nd edition, Warsaw, 1888) of Rabbi Shlomo Finkelstein (‫—שליט״א‬he was still alive at the time of this printing) contains a description: Sefer Tosafot Ḥayyim—in it are added many laws and measures from the poskim (authorities) and the responsa (‫ )שו״ת‬that were publicized from after the Ḥayei Adam until the last of the Aḥaronim (later authorities), and also many laws from the Shulḥan Arukh and the famous commentators of the Shulḥan Arukh that adds extensive footnotes to the Nishmat Adam and brief statements that link the Ḥayei Adam to the comments of Rabbi Danzig’s widely known reader, the Mishnah Berurah. 108 The Hebrew is: ‫הרב המאור הגדול המפורסם מוה׳ אברהם דאנציג ז״ל מו״צ דווילנא‬. 109 The Polish (now Belarusian) town of Radin (Yiddish ‫ראדין‬, Polish Raduń). The Ḥafetz Ḥayyim established a yeshivah in Radin in 1869, which operated, usually with significant difficulty, until the Soviet Union invaded eastern Poland in 1939 in the premeditated aggression of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that began the Second World War. The invasion forced both the closure of the yeshivah and the desperate flight of its students.

235

236

The Life of the Man: The Life and Times of Rabbi Avraham Danzig

the Ḥayei Adam omitted. As well, it explains the words of the Ḥayei Adam many times in a place that needs explanation, and [it explains] other good qualities that are impossible to detail, but one that sees the upright [character of the work] will find in it all doubts [removed] and specifically, [the reader will appreciate studying the] laws in clear and concise language. Commentaries were also written on the Zikhru Torat Moshe.

Appendix 2

Rabbinic Texts and Authors Referred to in This Volume

Abarbanel, see *Yitzḥak ben Yehudah Abarbanel R. Aharon ha-Kohen (fourteenth century)—Provençal rabbi and author of the *Orḥot Ḥayyim Akeidat Yitzḥak—commentary on the Torah by *R. Yitzḥak ben Moshe Arama Ari, the, see *R. Yitzḥak Luria Arukh ha-Shulḥan—halakhic treatise based on the *Shulḥan Arukh, by *R. Yeḥiel Mikhel ha-Levi Epstein R. Avraham ben Yeḥiel Mikhel Danzig (1748, Gdansk–1820, Vilna)—rabbi in Vilna and author of several important halakhic treatises R. Avraham Gombiner (c. 1633, Gombin–1683, Kalisz)—dayan and head of the yeshivah in Kalisz, author of *Magen Avraham, the preeminent commentary on *Shulḥan Arukh, *Oraḥ Ḥayyim R. Avraham Tiktin (1764, Schwersenz [present-day Swarzędz, Poland]–1820, Breslau)—rabbi in Breslau R. Avraham Zacuto (1452, Salamanca–1515, Jerusalem)—rabbi, astronomer, historian, author of the book of Jewish history Sefer ha-Yuḥasin Ba’er Heitev—commentary on the *Shulḥan Arukh, by *R. Yehudah Ashkenazi and R. Zekhariah Mendel ben Aryeh Leib Baḥ, see *R. Yoel ben Shmuel Sirkis and *Bayit Ḥadash Bayit Ḥadash—commentary on the *Tur, by *R. Yoel ben Shmuel Sirkis Be’er ha-Golah—annotations to the *Shulḥan Arukh, by *R. Moshe Rivkash Beit Avraham—will of *R. Avraham ben Yeḥiel Mikhel Danzig to his descendants

238

Rabbinic Texts and Authors Referred to in This Volume

Beit Barukh—commentary on the *Ḥayei Adam, by *R. Binyamin Yehoshua Zilber Beit Yosef—commentary on the *Tur, by *R. Yosef Karo Ben Ish Ḥai—halakhic treatise by *R. Yosef Ḥayyim of Baghdad Binat Adam—collection of expansive notes to *Ḥokhmat Adam, by *R. Avraham ben Yeḥiel Mikhel Danzig R. Binyamin Yehoshua Zilber (1916–2008)—halakhist, author of responsa Az Nidberu and *Beit Barukh on the *Ḥayei Adam Bi’ur ha-Gra—commentary on the *Shulḥan Arukh, by *R. Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman Bi’ur Halakhah—in-depth discussions of the *Shulḥan Arukh included in the *Mishnah Berurah, by *R. Yisrael Meir Kagan Dagul me-Revavah—commentary on the *Shulḥan Arukh, by *R. Yeḥezkel Landau Darkhei Moshe—commentary on the *Tur and *Beit Yosef, by *R. Moshe Isserles R. David ha-Levi Segal (1586, Volodymyr-Volynskyi–1667, Lvov)—rabbi of Lvov and author of the *Turei Zahav (often referred to as the Taz, an acronym of the title of his magnum opus) R. Elazar Fleckeles (1754, Prague–1826, Prague)—av beit din of Prague R. Elazar of Worms (1165, Mainz–1230, Worms)—rabbi and dayan of Worms, pietist, and halakhist Eliyah Rabba—commentary on the *Levush, by *R. Eliyahu Shapira R. Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman (1720, Sialiec [present-day Belarus]–1797, Vilna)—prominent talmudist, kabbalist, and halakhist (often referred to as the Gra, commonly understood as an acronym of “the genius, our teacher Eliyahu”) R. Eliyahu Mizraḥi (1435, Constantinople–1526, Constantinople)—Chief Rabbi of the Ottoman Empire, head of a yeshivah, and halakhist R. Eliyahu Shapira (1660, Prague–1712, Prague)—head of the yeshivah and preacher in Prague, author of *Eliyah Rabba R. Ephraim of Bonn (1132–1196)—German tosafist and paytan Eshel Avraham, see *Pri Megadim Gra, see *R. Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman Ḥafetz Ḥayyim, see *R. Yisrael Meir Kagan R. Ḥai ben Sherira Gaon (939–1038)—the last of the Babylonian Geonim and head of the Pumbedita yeshivah Ḥai Gaon, see *Ḥai ben Sherira Gaon

Rabbinic Texts and Authors Referred to in This Volume

Ḥakham Tzvi (c. 1658, Trebic [in Moravia]–1718, Lvov)—R. Tzvi Hirsch Ashkenazi, rabbi in Altona and later in Amsterdam, halakhist. Often referred to as the Ḥakham Tzvi after his responsa of that name Halakhot Ketzuvot—halakhic treatise from the period of the Geonim, author unknown R. Ḥayyim Benveniste (1603, Constantinople–1673, Izmir)—rabbi of Izmir and author of *Kenesset ha-Gedolah R. Ḥayyim Margolis (c. 1780–1823)—av beit din of Dubno and author of Sha’arei Teshuvah R. Ḥayyim of Volozhin (1749, Volozhin–1821, Volozhin)—rabbi, kabbalist, author of *Nefesh ha-Ḥayyim, and founder of the Volozhin yeshivah R. Ḥayyim Vital (1542, Safed–1620, Damascus)—kabbalist and exponent of *R. Yitzḥak Luria’s teachings Ḥemdat ha-Yamim—compendium of kabbalistic practices and customs, which first appeared in the eighteenth century Ḥokhmat Adam— compendium of halakhic rulings based on *Shulḥan Arukh, *Yoreh De’ah, by *R. Avraham ben Yeḥiel Mikhel Danzig Ḥoshen Mishpat—the fourth section of the *Tur, dealing with civil law (consequently, the Tur’s division of sections was adopted by the *Shulḥan Arukh and later authors) Ḥovot ha-Levavot—book of ethics written by R. Baḥya ibn Pekudah of Zaragoza (c. 1050–1120) Igrot Moshe—collection of responsa by R. Moshe Feinstein (1895–1986) Kaf ha-Ḥayyim—commentary on the *Shulḥan Arukh, *Oraḥ Ḥayyim and *Yoreh De’ah, by *R. Ya’akov Ḥayyim Sofer Kenesset ha-Gedolah—commentary on the *Tur, by R. Ḥayyim Benveniste Kitzur Shulḥan Arukh—concise halakhic code by *R. Shlomo Ganzfried Kuntres Matzevat Moshe—halakhic monograph on the laws of mourning by *R. Avraham ben Yeḥiel Mikhel Danzig Levush—halakhic code by *R. Mordekhai Jaffe Mabit (1505, Salonica–1585, Jerusalem)—R. Moshe ben Yosef di Trani, rabbi of Safed and halakhist (“Mabit” is the acronym of “Moshe ben Yosef Trani”) Magen Avraham—commentary on *Shulḥan Arukh, *Oraḥ Ḥayyim, by *R. Avraham Gombiner Magid of Mezeritch (c. 1710, Lokachi–1772, Hannopil)—R. Dov Ber of Mezeritch, disciple of *R. Yisrael ben Eliezer (Ba’al Shem Tov) and, subsequently, leader and disseminator of the Hasidic movement

239

240

Rabbinic Texts and Authors Referred to in This Volume

Maharal (1520, Poznan–1609, Prague)—R. Yehudah Loew, av beit din and head of the yeshivah in Prague, kabbalist, philosopher, and halakhist (the moniker “Maharal” stands for “our teacher, Rabbi Yehudah Loew”) Maharam Schiff, see *R. Meir ben Ya’akov ha-Kohen Schiff Maharash, see *R. Shalom of Neustadt Maharil, see *R. Ya’akov Moelin Maharshal, see *R. Shlomo Luria Maḥzor Vitry—compendium of customs and practices connected to the siddur by R. Simḥah ben Shmuel of Vitry (died c. 1105) Maimonides (1138, Cordoba–1204, Fostat)—R. Moshe ben Maimon, prominent halakhist and author of the *Mishneh Torah legal code (often referred to as the Rambam, an acronym of his name) Malbim (1809, Volochysk–1879, Kiev)—R. Meir Leibush ben Yeḥiel Mikhel Wisser, Chief Rabbi of Bucharest and biblical commentator (the moniker “Malbim” is an acronym of his name) R. Manoaḥ (thirteenth century)—Provençal rabbi and commentator on the *Mishneh Torah Me’orei Or—kabbalistic treatise by *R. Meir ben Yehudah Leib ha-Kohen Poppers R. Meir ben Ya’akov ha-Kohen Schiff (1608, Frankfurt–1644, Prague)— Chief Rabbi of Prague and talmudist (often referred to as the Maharam Schiff, “Maharam” being an acronym for “our teacher, Rabbi Meir”) R. Meir ben Yehudah Leib ha-Kohen Poppers (c. 1624, Prague–1662, Jerusalem)—Bohemian kabbalist and exponent of *R. Yitzḥak Luria’s teachings R. Menaḥem Steinhart (1768, Fuerth–1825)—rabbi of Hildesheim R. Meshulam Finkelstein (died 1933)—rabbi in Warsaw, halakhist, and author of the *Tosafot Ḥayyim R. Meshulam Zalman Cohen (1739, Rawicz–1819)—dayan in Fuerth and halakhist Minḥat Ḥinukh—commentary on the medieval Sefer ha-Ḥinukh, by *R. Yosef Babad Mishnah Berurah—commentary on *Shulḥan Arukh *Oraḥ Ḥayyim, by R. Yisrael Meir Kagan Mishneh Torah—halakhic code by *Maimonides Mitzvat Moshe—a synopsis of biblical and rabbinic laws culled from the *Sefer Ḥaredim, by *R. Avraham ben Yeḥiel Mikhel Danzig

Rabbinic Texts and Authors Referred to in This Volume

R. Mordekhai Bennet (1753, Csurgo–1829, Carlsbad)—Chief Rabbi of Moravia R. Mordekhai Jaffe (1530, Poznan–1612, Prague)—rabbi of Poznan and halakhist, author of the *Levush R. Moshe ben Naḥman (1194, Girona–1270, Acre)—commentator on the Torah and Talmud, kabbalist, and Chief Rabbi of Catalonia (often referred to as the Ramban, an acronym of his name, and also Naḥmanides) R. Moshe Isserles (1530, Kazimierz–1572, Krakow)—dayan and head of a yeshivah in Krakow, author of the *Sefer ha-Mapah and *Darkhei Moshe (Rabbi Isserles is also known as the Rema) R. Moses Mendelssohn (1729, Dessau–1786, Berlin)—philosopher and communal leader R. Moshe Mintz (1750–1831)—av beit din of Obuda, Hungary R. Moshe Rivkash (1590, Prague–1671, Vilna)—rabbi in Vilna and author of *Be’er ha-Golah R. Moshe Sofer (1762, Frankfurt–1839, Pressburg)—rabbi and head of the Pressburg yeshivah (often referred to as the Ḥatam Sofer after his responsa of that name) Naḥmanides, see *R. Moshe ben Naḥman R. Naḥman of Bratslav (1772, Medzhybizh–1811, Uman)—founder of the Bratslav Hasidic court Nefesh ha-Ḥayyim—kabbalistic and ethical treatise by *R. Ḥayyim of Volozhin Nishmat Adam—collection of expansive notes to *Ḥayei Adam, by *R. Avraham ben Yeḥiel Mikhel Danzig Noda bi-Yhudah—collection of responsa by *R. Yeḥezkel Landau Oraḥ Ḥayyim—the first section of the *Tur, dealing with the laws of prayer, the Sabbath, and holidays (consequently, the Tur’s division of sections was adopted by the *Shulḥan Arukh and later authors) Orḥot Ḥayyim—halakhic treatise by *R. Aharon ha-Kohen Or Zaru’a—halakhic treatise by R. Yitzḥak ben Moshe (1180–1250) Pe’at ha-Shulḥan—halakhic treatise on the laws pertaining to living in the Land of Israel by *R. Yisrael ben Shmuel of Shklov Perushei Sidur ha-Tefilah la-Rokeaḥ—commentary on the siddur by *R. Elazar of Worms Pri Ḥadash—commentary on the *Shulḥan Arukh, *Oraḥ Ḥayyim and *Yoreh De’ah, by R. Ḥizkiyah da Silva (1659–1698)

241

242

Rabbinic Texts and Authors Referred to in This Volume

Pri Megadim—supercommentary on the *Taz, *Oraḥ Ḥayyim and *Yoreh De’ah (Mishbetzot Zahav), the *Magen Avraham (Eshel Avraham), and the *Shakh (Siftei Da’at), by R. Yosef Teomim (1727–1792) Rabbeinu Peretz (died 1295)—French tosafist Rabbeinu Tam (c. 1100, Ramerupt–1171, Troyes)—French tosafist and halakhist Radbaz (1479–1573, Safed)—R. David ben Shlomo ibn Abi Zimra, Chief Rabbi of Egypt, head of the Cairo yeshivah, and halakhist Rambam, see *Maimonides Ramban, see *R. Moshe ben Naḥman Rashba (1235, Barcelona–1310, Barcelona)—R. Shlomo ben Avraham ibn Aderet, rabbi in Barcelona, halakhist, and talmudist Rashi, see *R. Shlomo Yitzḥaki Riv (1290, Provence–1350)—R. Yeruḥam ben Meshulam, rabbi and halakhist (“Riv” is an abbreviation of “our Rabbi Yeruḥam”) Rivash (1326, Barcelona–1408, Algiers)—R. Yitzḥak ben Sheshet, rabbi of Algiers and halakhist (“Rivash” is an acronym of “Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Sheshet”) Rosh (c. 1250, Cologne–1327, Toledo)—R. Asher ben Yosef, halakhist and talmudist Seder Rav Amram Gaon—compendium of customs and practices connected to the siddur by R. Amram ben Sheshna Gaon (c. 810–875) Sefer ha-Ḥinukh—anonymous thirteenth-century work listing and elaborating on the Torah’s six hundred and thirteen commandments Sefer ha-Mapah—glosses to the *Shulḥan Arukh, by *R. Moshe Isserles Sefer ha-Minhagot—thirteenth-century halakhic treatise by R. Asher bar Shaul Sefer Ḥaredim—treatise listing and elaborating the commandments by R. Elazar Azikri (1533–1600) Sefer Ḥasidim—compilation of pietistic practices by *R. Yehudah ben Shmuel of Regensburg Sefer Ma’aseh Rav—collection of *R. Eliyahu ben Shlomo’s practices by *R. Yissakhar Ber Sefer Mitzvot Katan—halakhic treatise presented as an abridged version of the *Semag, by R. Yitzḥak ben Yosef of Corbeil (often referred to as the Semak, an acronym of its name) Sefer Yere’im—halakhic treatise discussing the six hundred and thirteen commandments by R. Eliezer ben Shmuel of Metz (c. 1140–1237)

Rabbinic Texts and Authors Referred to in This Volume

Semag—acronym of Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, a thirteenth-century halakhic treatise enumerating and analyzing the six hundred and thirteen commandments by R. Moshe ben Ya’akov of Coucy Semak, see *Sefer Mitzvot Katan Sha’ar ha-Tziyun—footnotes to the *Mishnah Berurah, by R. Yisrael Meir Kagan Sha’arei Teshuvah—commentary on *Shulḥan Arukh, *Oraḥ Ḥayyim, by *R. Ḥayyim Margolis Sha’arei Tzedek—halakhic monograph on the laws pertaining to the Land of Israel by *R. Avraham ben Yeḥiel Mikhel Danzig R. Shabbetai ben Meir ha-Kohen (1621, Vilna–1662, Holesov)—member of the Vilna beit din and author of the *Siftei Kohen (he is often referred to as the *Shakh, after the acronym of the title of his magnum opus) Shakh, see *R. Shabbetai ben Meir ha-Kohen and *Siftei Kohen R. Shalom of Neustadt (fourteenth century)—rabbi and head of the Vienna yeshivah, later in Wiener Neustadt (often referred to as the Maharash, an acronym of “our master, Rabbi Shalom”) Shiltei Giborim—commentary on the Rif, by R. Yehoshua Boaz ben Shimon Barukh (c. 1518–1557) R. Shimon Klacker (1754, Altona–1812, Kassel)—rabbi in Stockholm R. Shimshon of Kinon (thirteenth century)—French talmudist, author of Sefer Keritut, a treatise on talmudic methodology R. Shlomo Ganzfried (1804, Ungvar–1886, Ungvar)—dayan in Ungvar and author of the *Kitzur Shulḥan Arukh R. Shlomo Luria (1510, Brisk–1573, Lublin)—av beit din and head of the yeshivah in Lublin, prolific halakhist and talmudist (often referred to as the Maharshal, an acronym of “our teacher, Rabbi Shlomo Luria”) R. Shlomo Yitzḥaki (1040, Troyes–1105, Troyes)—preeminent commentator on the Tanakh and Talmud (often referred to as Rashi, an acronym of “our Rabbi Shlomo Yitzḥaki”) R. Shmuel of Falaise (c. 1300)—French tosafist R. Shneur Zalman of Liady (1745, Liozna–1812, Pena)—Hasidic leader, founder of the Ḥabad/Lubavitch Hasidic court, and author of Shulḥan Arukh ha-Rav Shulḥan Arukh—preeminent halakhic code by *R. Yosef Karo Siftei Kohen—commentary on *Yoreh De’ah, by *R. Shabbetai ben Meir ha-Kohen Taz, see *R. David ha-Levi Segal and *Turei Zahav

243

244

Rabbinic Texts and Authors Referred to in This Volume

Toledot Adam—commentary on the Passover Haggadah, by *R. Avraham ben Yeḥiel Mikhel Danzig Torah ve’ha-Mitzvah—commentary on the Torah by the *Malbim Tosafot Ḥayyim—commentary on the *Ḥayei Adam, by *R. Meshulam Finkelstein Tur—halakhic code by *R. Ya’akov ben Asher Turei Zahav—commentary on the *Shulḥan Arukh, by *R. David ha-Levi Segal Tziyun le’Nefesh Ḥayah—novellae on the Talmud by *R. Yeḥezkel Landau R. Ya’akov ben Asher (c. 1270, Cologne–1340)—author of the *Tur R. Ya’akov Emden (1697, Altona–1776, Altona)—prominent halakhist R. Ya’akov Ḥayyim Sofer (1870, Baghdad–1939, Jerusalem)—halakhist and kabbalist, author of the *Kaf ha-Ḥayyim R. Ya’akov Moelin (1360, Mainz–1427, Worms)—rabbi and head of the Mainz yeshivah, codifier of Ashkenazic customs (often referred to as the Maharil, an acronym of “our master, Rabbi Ya’akov Levi”) R. Yeḥezkel Landau (1713, Opatow–1793, Prague)—Chief Rabbi of Prague and prominent halakhist (often referred to as the Noda bi-Yhudah after his collection of responsa, and also the author of ha-Tzelaḥ, a collection of homilies) R. Yeḥiel Mikhel Epstein (1829, Babruysk–1908, Novogrudok)—rabbi of Novogrudok and author of the *Arukh ha-Shulḥan R. Yehudah Ashkenazi (died c. 1743)—dayan in Tykocin, co-author of *Ba’er Heitev R. Yehudah ben Shmuel of Regensburg (1150, Speyer–1217, Regensburg)— head of a yeshivah in Regensburg, pietist, and author of *Sefer Ḥasidim R. Yisrael ben Eliezer (c. 1698–1760, Medzhybizh)—founder of the Hasidic movement, also known as the Ba’al Shem Tov R. Yisrael ben Rabbi Eliezer (died after 1825)—halakhic decisor in Vilna and editor of the *Ḥayei Adam’s third edition (1825) R. Yisrael ben Shmuel of Shklov (1770, Shklov–1839, Tiberias)—talmudist, leader of the Ashkenazic community in Palestine, and author of the *Pe’at ha-Shulḥan R. Yisrael Meir Kagan (1838, Dzyatlava–1933, Radin)—founder and head of the Radin yeshivah, communal leader, and author of the Ḥafetz Ḥayyim and *Mishnah Berurah R. Yissakhar Ber (1779–1855)—halakhic decisor in Vilna, compiler of *Sefer Ma’aseh Rav

Rabbinic Texts and Authors Referred to in This Volume

R. Yitzḥak ben Moshe Arama (c. 1420, Zamora–1494, Naples)—rabbi and philosopher, author of *Akeidat Yitzḥak R. Yitzḥak ben Yehudah Abarbanel (1437, Lisbon–1508, Venice)— philosopher, biblical commentator, community leader, and statesman R. Yitzḥak ben Yosef of Corbeil (died 1280)—French tosafist and author of *Sefer Mitzvot Katan R. Yitzḥak Luria (1534, Jerusalem–1572, Safed)—influential kabbalist and originator of the Lurianic school of Kabbalah (often referred to as the Ari za”l, commonly understood as an acronym of “our master Yitzḥak, of blessed memory”; also referred to simply as the Ari) R. Yitzḥak Touro (1738, Amsterdam–1783, Kingston)—rabbi in Newport, Rhode Island, United States R. Yoel ben Shmuel Sirkis (1561, Lublin–1640, Krakow)—av beit din of Krakow and famous halakhist (often referred to as the Baḥ, an acronym of his commentary on the *Tur called *Bayit Ḥadash) R. Yonah Gerondi (c. 1210, Girona–c. 1264, Toledo)—talmudist and ethicist Yoreh De’ah—the second section of the *Tur, dealing with ritual law (consequently, the Tur’s division of sections was adopted by the *Shulḥan Arukh and later authors) R. Yosef Babad (1800, Przevorsk–1874, Przevorsk)—rabbi of Ternopil and author of *Minḥat Ḥinukh R. Yosef Ḥayyim of Baghdad (1832, Baghdad–1909, Baghdad)—rabbi and leader of the Jewish community of Baghdad, halakhist, kabbalist, and author of the *Ben Ish Ḥai R. Yosef Karo (1488, Toledo–1575, Safed)—prominent halakhist, author of two of the most influential halakhic treatises - *Beit Yosef on the *Tur, and *Shulḥan Arukh R. Yosef Liebermann (eighteenth century)—rabbi in Prague Zikhru Torat Moshe—halakhic monograph on the laws of the Sabbath by *R. Avraham ben Yeḥiel Mikhel Danzig

245

Bibliography

Asaf, David, ed. Tzaddik and Devotees: Historical and Sociological Aspects of Hasidism [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2001. Bar Ilan, Meir. “Mekorah shel tefilat ‘Aleinu le-Shabeaḥ.’” Da’at 43 (1999): 5–24. Basser, Herbert. “Codification of Jewish Law.” In Encyclopedia of Judaism, edited by Jacob Neusner, Alan J. Avery-Peck, and William Scott Green, vol. 4, 1668–1671. Leiden, Netherlands, and Boston, MA: Brill, 2003. Ben-Lulu, Yosef. “Kitniyot b’Pesaḥ.” PhD dissertation, Bar Ilan University, 1998. Biale, David, David Assaf, Benjamin Brown, Uriel Gellman, Samuel C. Heilman, M. J. Rosman, Gad Sagiv, Marcin Wodziński, and Arthur Green. Hasidism: A New History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018. Bloch, Aharon Yosef. Lev Adam. Brooklyn, NY, 1967. Boltanski, Luc, and Laurent Thevenot. “The Sociology of Critical Capacity.” European Journal of Social Theory 3, no. 3 (1999): 359–377. Brown, Benjamin. “Ha-ba’al ha-bayit: R. Yisrael Meir Ha-Kohen, ‘ha-Ḥafetz Ḥayyim.’” In The Gedolim: Leaders Who Shaped the Israeli Ḥaredi Society [Hebrew], edited by Benjamin Brown and Nissim Leon, 11–22. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, n.d. ———. “Dynamic of Continuity and Change in Jewish Religious Life.” In The Comeback of “Simple Faith”: The Ultra-Orthodox Concept of Faith and Its Development in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Simcha Fishbane and Eric Levine, 130–197. Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2017. ———. “From Principles to Rules and from Musar to Halakhah: The Ḥafetz Ḥayyim’s Rulings on Libel and Gossip.” Dine’ Israel—Studies in Jewish Law and Halakhah 25 (2008): 171–256. ———. “Ha-kabbalah b’pesikat ha-Ḥafetz Ḥayyim.” Meḥkarei Yerushalayim b’maḥshevet Yisra’el (2011): 342–485. ———. The Lithuanian Musar Movement: Personalities and Ideas [Hebrew]. N.p.: Moden Publishing House Ltd., 2014. ———. “Soft Stringency in the Mishnah Berurah: Jurisprudential, Social, and Ideological Aspects of a Halakhic Formulation.” Contemporary Jewry 27, no. 1 (October 2007): 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02965545.

Bibliography

Connerton, Paul. How Societies Remember. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Cygielman, Shmuel Arthur. The Jews of Poland and Lithuania before 1648 (5408): Prolegomena and Annotated Sources [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Cygielman Publishers, 1991. Dan, Joseph. Hebrew Ethical and Homiletical Literature. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1975. Dan, Joseph. Jewish Mysticism and Jewish Ethics. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1986. “Danzig, Avraham.” In Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 5, 1298. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1974. Douglas, Mary. Cultural Bias. London: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1979. Dubnov, Shimon. Toledot ha-Ḥasidut. 4th ed. Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1965. Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1982. Dworkin, Ronald. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978. Eliyahu, Mordekhai. Imrei Mordekhai, vol. 1. Jerusalem, 2000. Elon, Menaḥem. Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1973. ———. Jewish Law: History, Sources and Principles, vol. 2. Philadelphia, PA: The Jewish Publication Society, 1994. Etkes, Immanuel. The Beginning of the Hasidic Movement [Hebrew]. N.p.: Ministry of Defense, 1998. ———. The Gaon of Vilna the Man and His Image. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2002. ———. Rabbi Israel Salanter and the Mussar Movement: Seeking the Torah of Truth. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2010. ———. The Origins of Jewish Secularization in Eighteenth-Century Europe. Philadelphia, PA and Oxford, UK: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010. Fishbane, Simcha. The Boldness of a Halakhist: An Analysis of the Writings of Rabbi Yeḥiel Mikhel Halevi Epstein (the Arukh Hashulḥan). Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2009. ———. The Method and Meaning of the Mishnah Berurah. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing, 1991. ———. The Slaughter of a Rooster at the Jewish Festival of Yom Kippur: An Explanation of the Ritual of Kapparot. Lewiston, NY, and Lampeter, UK: Edwin Mellen Press, 2017. Fishman, David E. Russia’s First Modern Jews: the Jews of Shklov. New York and London: New York University Press, 1995. Flatto, Sharon. The Kabbalistic Culture of Eighteenth-Century Prague: Ezekiel Landau (the “Noda Biyehudah”) and His Contemporaries. Oxford, UK, and Portland, OR: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2015.

247

248

Bibliography

Gellman, Leon. Ha-Noda bi-Yhudah u-mishnato. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1961. Goldrett, A. Y. “Al ha-sefer Ḥayei Adam u-meḥabro.” Sinai 71, no. 56 (Av-Elul 1972). Ha-Kohen, Yisrael Meir. Mishnah Berurah with the Oz ve-Hadar commentary, vol. 5. Jerusalem: Oz ve-Hadar, 2007. Ḥallamish, Moshe. ———. Kabbalah in Liturgy, Halakhah, and Customs [Hebrew]. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University, 2000. ———. “Nusaḥ kadum shel ‘Aleinu le-Shabeaḥ.’” Sinai 110 (1992): 263–265. ———. “Yosef Karo—Kabbalah and Halakhic Decisions” [Hebrew]. Da’at 21 (Summer 1989): 85–102. Hundert, Gershon David, ed. Essential Papers on Hasidism. New York and London: New York University Press, 1991. Jacobs, Louis. “Hasidic Prayer.” In Essential Papers on Hasidism, edited by Gershon David Hundert, 330–346. New York and London: New York University Press, 1991. Kahana, Maoz. “The Allure of Forbidden Knowledge: The Temptation of Sabbatean Literature for Mainstream Rabbis in the Frankist Moment, 1756–1761.” The Jewish Quarterly Review 102, no. 4 (Fall 2012): 589–616. ———. From the Nodah bi-Yhudah to the Ḥatam Sofer: Halakhah and Thought in Their Historical Moment [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2015. Kahana, Maoz, and Ariel Evan Mayse. “Hasidic Halakhah: Reappraising the Interface of Spirit and Law.” AJS Review 41, no. 2 (November 2017): 375–408. Kahana, Maoz, and Michael K. Silber. “Deists, Sabbatians and Kabbalists in Prague: A Censored Sermon of R. Yehezkel Landau, 1770” [Hebrew]. Kabbalah: Ketav et le-ḥeker kitvei ha-mistika ha-yehudit 21 (2010): 349–384. Katz, Ben-Zion Z. Rabanut, Ḥasidut, Haskalah [Hebrew]. Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1956. Katz, David. “A Case Study in the Formation of a Super-Rabbi: The Early Years of Rabbi Ezekiel Landau, 1713–1754.” PhD dissertation, University of Maryland, 2004. Katz, Jacob. Divine Law in Human Hands. Jerusalem: Magnes Press and Hebrew University Jerusalem, 1998. ———. “Halakhah and Kabbalah: First Contacts” [Hebrew]. In Zion: Yitzḥak F. Baer Memorial Volume, 148–172. N.p.: Historical Society of Israel, 1979. ———. Out of the Ghetto. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. Katz, Jacob, and Bernard Dov Cooperman. Tradition and Crisis: Jewish Society at the End of the Middle Ages. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2000. Katznelbogen, Hillel. “Ḥagot v’tikunim la-sefer Ḥayei Adam me-tzem kitve yad shel ha-meḥaber za’l.” Tevunot (Tishrei 2018). Klausner, Yisrael. The Jewish Community of Vilno in the Days of the Gaon [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Rubin Mass, 1942. Kosover, Mordekhai. “Ha-mazkir ba’al Ḥayei Adam et Kant? He’ara li-he’ara bibliografit.” Ha-Do’ar, New York, November 1969, 2nd ed., 29. Lamm, Norman. Torah for Torah’s Sake. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 1989.

Bibliography

Langer, Ruth. “The Censorship of Aleinu in Ashkenaz and Its Aftermath.” In The Experience of Jewish Liturgy: Studies Dedicated to Menaḥem Schmelzer, edited by Debra Reed Blank, 148–149. Leiden, Netherlands, and Boston, MA: Brill, 2011. Lebowitz, Avraham David. Nasiach b’Chukecha. Palo Alto, CA: MBH Publications, 2008. Leiman, Menashe Refael. “Teshuvat ha-Gaon Rabbi Shlomo Gantzfrid be’inyan tikunim le’Kitzur Shulḥan Arukh” [Hebrew]. Sinai 93 (Nissan-Elul 1983): 53. Leiman, Shnayer Z. “Rabbi Ezekiel Landau: Letter of Reconciliation.” A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought 43, no. 4 (Winter 2010): 85–96. Mayer, Mordekhai. “Rabbi Avraham Danzig and His Works” [Hebrew]. Master’s thesis, Bar Ilan University, 2000. ———. “Rabbi Avraham Danzig: His Unpublished Literary Enterprise” [Hebrew]. Sidra: A Journal for the Study of Rabbinic Literature (2003): 41–52. Mendes-Flohr, Paul, and Jehuda Reinharz, eds. The Jew in the Modern World - A Documentary History. Oxford, UK, and New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Meyer, Michael A., and Michael Brenner. German-Jewish History in Modern Times. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998. Mirsky, Aharon. “Ha-shirah bi-tekufat ha-Talmud.” Yerushalayim 2 (1967): 161–179. Nadler, Allan. The Faith of the Mithnagdim: Rabbinic Responses to Hasidic Rapture. Baltimore, MD, and London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1997. Otto, Rudolf. The Idea of the Holy. London; Oxford, UK; and New York: Oxford University Press, 1950. Pely, Ḥaggai. “Kabbalah bi’Pesikato shel R. Yosef Karo.” Kabbalah: Ketav et le-ḥeker kitvei ha-mistika ha-yehudit 26 (2012): 243–272. Perl, Gil S. The Pillar of Volozhin. Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2012. Piekarz, Mendel. The Beginning of Hasidism [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1978. ———. “Hasidism as a Socio-Religious Movement on the Evidence of Devekut.” In Hasidism Reappraised, edited by J. G. Weiss and Ada Rapport-Albert, 225–248. London and Portland, OR: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1996. Rubin, Nissan. ———. Twisting Frames: Dynamics of Change in Rabbinic Literature [Hebrew]. Tel Aviv: Ha-kibbutz ha-meuḥad, 2019. Saiman, Chaim N. Halakhah: The Rabbinic Idea of Law. Princeton, NJ, and Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press, 2018. Schacter, Jacob J., “Rabbi Jacob Emden, Sabbateanism and Frankism: Attitudes toward Christianity in the Eighteenth Century.” In New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations—In Honor of David Berger, edited by Elisheva Carlebach and Jacob J. Schacter, 359–396. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2012. Schochet, Elijah Judah. The Hasidic Movement and the Gaon of Vilna. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc., 1994. Scholem, Gershom Gerhard. “Devekut or Communion with God.” In The Messianic Idea in Judaism, Gershom Gerhard Scholem, 203–227. New York: Schocken Books, 1971.

249

250

Bibliography

———. Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition. 2nd ed. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965. ———. Kabbalah. New York: Meridian, 1978. Sendor, Meir. “The Rule for Admissibility of Kabbalah in Halakhah.” In Be’erot Yitzḥak: Studies in Memory of Isadore Twersky, edited by Jay M. Harris, 269–283. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press, 2005. Shapiro, David Shlomo. “Ha-mazkir ba’al Ḥayei Adam et Kant?” Ha-Do’ar, New York, November 3, 1967. Shapiro, Marc B. Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History. Oxford, UK, and Portland, OR: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2015. Swartz, M. The Jewish Quarterly Review 77 (1986–87): 179–190. Stampfer, Shaul. Lithuanian Yeshivas of the Nineteenth Century. Oxford, UK: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1995. Steinberger, Eliezer. Shomer mitzvah. Jerusalem, 2017. “‘Alay Le-Shabbeaḥ’: A Liturgical Prayer in Ma’aseh Merkavah.” Tamar, David. “Dinim ha-meyusadim al ha-Zohar v‘al ha-kabbalah be‘Shulḥan Arukh uveBeit Yosef.” Saini 115 (Tishrei-Heshvan 1994): 69–76. Ta-Shema, Yisrael M. ———. “Isur kitniyot b’Pesaḥ—Toledotav u’pesharo.” Asufot: Sefer shana le’mada’ei ha-yahadut 3 (1999): 347–355. ———. “Mekorah u-mekomah shel tefilat ‘Aleinu le-Shabeaḥ’ be’sidur ha-tefilah: Seder ha-ma’amadot u-she’elat siyum ha-tefilah.” In Sefer ha-zikaron l’Efrayim Talmage, edited by Barry Walfish, 90. Haifa: Haifa University Press, 1993. ———. “Rabbi Yosef Karo: Between Spain and Germany” [Hebrew]. Tarbiz (TishreiḤeshvan 1990): 153–170. Tchernowitz, Chaim. Toledot ha-poskim. New York: Jubilee Committee, 1947. Tishbi, Isaiah and Joseph Dan. “Musar Literature and its History.” In Mivḥar sifrut ha-musar, edited by Isaiah Tishbi and Joseph Dan. Jerusalem: Newman Press, 1971. Trachtenberg, Joshua. The Devil and the Jews: The Medieval Conception of the Jew and Its Relation to Modern Antisemitism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1943. Twersky, Yitzḥak. “Harav Yosef Karo Ba’al ha-Shulḥan Arukh.” Asufot: Sefer shana l’mada’ei ha-yahadut (1989): 245–262. ——— [as Twersky, Isadore]. “The Shulhan Aruk: Enduring Code of Jewish Law.” Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought 16, no. 2 (Spring 1967): 141–158. Wagenaar-Nolthenius, Helene. “Der Planctus Iudei und der Gesang jüdischer Märtyrer in Blois anno 1171.” in Mélanges offerts à René Crozet . . . à l’occasion de son 70 anniversaire, 881–885. Poitiers, France: Société d’études médiévales, 1966. Weiss, Asher. Klalei ha-Mitzvot. Jerusalem: Makhon Minḥat Asher, 2018. Weiss, Joseph. “Torah Study in Early Hasidism.” In Studies in East European Jewish Mysticism and Hasidism, edited by David Goldstein, 56–68. London: Vallentine Micthell, 1997. Wertheim, Aaron. Law and Custom in Hasidism. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing Inc., 1992.

Bibliography

Wilensky, Mordecai L. “Hasidic-Mitnaggedic Polemics in the Jewish Communities of Eastern Europe: The Hostile Phase.” In Essential Papers on Hasidism, edited by Gershon David Hundert, 244–247. New York and London: New York University Press, 1991. ———. Hasidim and Mitnaggedim: A Study of the Controversy Between Them in the Years 1772–1815 [Hebrew] (2 vols.). Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1970. Wolfson, Elliot R. “Ḥai Gaon’s Letter and Commentary on ‘Aleynu’: Further Evidence of Moses de Léon’s Pseudepigraphic Activity.” The Jewish Quarterly Review 81 (1991): 365–409. Yoshor, Moses M. The Chafetz Chaim: The Life and Works of Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin. Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications Ltd., 1984. Zeitlin, Solomon. “Hanukkah: Its Origin and Its Significance.” The Jewish Quarterly Review 29, no. 1 (1938): 1–36. Zilber, Binyamin Yehoshua. Beit Barukh. Bnei Brak, Israel, 1963.

251

Index Abarbanel, Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Yehudah 136, 245 Abraham (biblical figure) 29, 228 adultery - see sexual immorality/misconduct aggadah/aggadot 17, 98, 137–138, 139, 224–62 agriculture - see also shmita 56, 231 Aḥaronim (post-medieval rabbis) 2, 164, 165, 170, 223, 235 Akeidat Yitzḥak 197, 237, 245 alcohol - see also beer; liquor; wine 49, 80–46, 211, 231 Aleinu prayer 94, 187–200 as preamble 198 attitudes towards Christianity in 191, 194–28 amen, saying 143 Amidah - see Shemoneh Esrei Amoraim (later Talmudic rabbis) 42, 188 Amos, Book of 160 anti-Semitism/discrimination/oppression 11–12, 35, 66, 212, 225–227, 229–230 apikorsim (scoffers) - see also heresy 31–36, 72, 116–41, 122 aron kodesh (chest to store Torah scrolls) 156 Arukh ha-Shulḥan vii, 12, 163, 237, 244 asceticism 105, 126 Ashkenazi, Rabbi Yehudah - see Ba’er Heitev Ashkenazic (European) Jews 41, 42, 44, 45, 54–27, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63, 64, 69, 112–27, 189, 217, 225–227, 244, 245 Austria - see also Vienna 62, 210 Avot (tractate in Mishnah) 23–24, 25, 126, 154 Azikri, Rabbi Elazar ben Moshe - see Sefer Ḥaredim Azulai, Rabbi Ḥayyim Yosef David 75–41, 125–62 Ba’al Shem Tov 21–17, 114–35, 226–79, 240, 244 Ba’er Heitev 46–15, 76–42, 162, 192–21, 223–58, 237, 244

Baḥ (Bayit Ḥadash) 87, 90, 121, 156, 163–164, 168, 190, 237, 244, 245 Basser, Herb vii, 11 Bava Kama (tractate in Babylonian Talmud) 151 Bava Metzia (tractate in Babylonian Talmud) 157 Bayit Ḥadash - see Baḥ beer - see also alcohol 167, 174, Be’er ha-Golah 162, 208–4, 237, 241 Beit Avraham 15, 106–13, 119, 124, 136–137, 223–57, 233–105, 234, 237 Beit Barukh 143–30, 193–27, 238 beit din (court of Torah law) 46–13, 51, 56, 60, 212–213, 219 beit ha-knesset - see synagogue(s) beit ha-midrash (study house/hall) 75, 85, 108, 111, 112, 154, 193, 197, 222 Beit She’an (town in Israel) 51, 53 Beit Yosef 15, 36, 38, 43, 69, 72, 153, 238, 245 Beitzah (tractate in Babylonian Talmud) 42 Ben Ish Ḥai 215–31, 238, 245 Ben-Lulu, Yosef 60, 63 Bennet, Rabbi Mordekhai 61, 241 Benveniste, Rabbi Ḥayyim 70, 239, Berakhot (tractate in Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds) 31, 74, 79, 116, 154, 224–66 Berlin 4, 211, 241 Bible - see Scripture Binat Adam 14–15, 209, 215–34, 219, 233, 238 Birkat ha-Mazon (Grace After Meals) - see also zimmun 15, 150, 179, 202 Bi’ur ha-Gra - see also Vilna, Gaon of 81–50, 88–61, 120–48, 208–4, 220, 221–53, 238 Bi’ur Halakhah 52–24, 76–42, 162–163, 165–166, 173, 238 blessings - see also prayers 34, 93, 110–21, 143, 153, 169–172, 174, 175–177, 179, 182, 201–206, 210, 214, 221–53 blood, prohibition to consume 80, 148–149 Bohemia - see also Prague 195–36, 240

Index

Boltanski, Luc 130 Bratslav, Rabbi Naḥman of 232, 241 bread 33–35, 41, 47–48, 82, 175–176, 202, 210 Britain/British Empire 226–77, 227, 230–231 Brown, Benjamin 132–134, 170–16, 183, 186 buckwheat 44–45, 46, 55, 57, 58 candle(s) 143, 149, 173–174, 202–206 censorship of Jewish materials by Gentiles 36–51, 111–25, 190–191, 194–28, 232–103–233–103 child/children 26, 50, 53, 75, 108, 111, 112, 127, 152, 201, 212 Christians/Christianity/Christendom - see also Jesus 12, 189–9, 190–191, 199–45, 227–228 circumcision 51, 141, 150, 157, 181 cloves 48 coffee 80, 211 Cohen, Rabbi Meshulam Zalman 61–62, 240 commandment(s) (mitzvah/mitzvot) 2, 15, 22, 26, 28–31, 33, 44, 50, 53, 74, 77–78, 83–84, 92, 109–110, 112, 116, 127, 128, 134, 139–140 adding to/subtracting from 157–159 alacrity in performing 112, 149, 152 as intention 3, 74, 84 benefiting from 149 enhancement of 53, 151–152 exemptions from/exceptions to 140, 150 joy in performing 97, 142, 154 negative - see various categories of prohibition(s) performance of - see also halakhah, observance of 3, 25, 33–34, 35, 83, 92, 94, 96–98, 109–110, 115, 124, 128, 136, 139–142, 145–160, 181, 196, 205 performing two (at once) 141, 149–150 positive 24, 28, 31–32, 56, 79, 91–92, 108, 111, 114, 155, 157 rabbinic - see also prohibition(s), rabbinic 140–141, 152 Torah/biblical - see also prohibition(s), Torah/biblical 79, 91, 109–110, 140–141, 151, 152, 153, 202 transgression of 31, 39, 91, 109–21, 111, 112, 136, 138, 153, 155, 157, 158–159, 177–178, 203–204, 212 with time limitations 146–147

communities (Jewish), organizational/ social structure of 4, 7, 12, 39, 104, 106, 119, 130, 145 confession (viduy) 16, 76, 91 Connerton, Paul 10, 11 Consistory, Westphalia 59–62 Constitution, American - see also United States 198, 213–24, 225–68, 227–82, 233–103 Cordovero, Rabbi Moshe 72–37, 122–56 corpse(s) - see also dead, resurrection of the 78, 88, 150, 155, 156 Crimean War 226–77 custom(s) 2, 10, 25–27/28, 41–65, 70, 72–37, 75–76, 78–44, 81, 112–27, 120–50, 122–56, 149, 156, 169, 175, 179, 201, 208, 210, 220, 222, 224–66, 239, 240, 242, 244 observance of 42, 46, 61, 63 Dagul me-Revavah 67, 204, 209–12, 238 Dan, Joseph 132, 135, 136, 138–139 Danzig (city in Poland/Germany) 13, 66, 209, 225, 237 Danzig, Rabbi Avraham 237, 239 agenda/message/purpose of 4, 9, 11, 37, 39–40, 64, 74, 98, 106, 130, 136, 142, 144, 178 anti-Hasidic polemics of 32, 73, 86–56, 87–59, 88–62, 92, 98–84, 102–130 approbations of (in the Sefer Ma’aseh Rav) 216–38, 222, 234 as businessman/merchant 3, 7, 10, 144, 145, 161, 182, 210, 231 as community leader 215, 216 as dayan (judge) 68 as independent thinker 3, 8, 67, 144 as kabbalist 98–82/83 as moreh tzedek (religious functionary) 4, 68–14, 135 as posek (halakhic decisor) 3, 66, 68, 161, 164–165, 183, 209 as rabbinic authority 145 attitudes towards Jews vs. non-Jews 193–27–194–27, 198–199 audience of 233 biographers of 3–8, 18 family of 15, 105, 209–210, 212–216, 225 fame of 7, 13, 215, 220, 235, gunpowder explosion in 1803 affecting family of 212–214, 216 influences on/worldview of 18–19, 37, 41, 95, 135 life of 59, 68–13, 102–103, 105, 135, 161, 209, 211, 219

253

254

Index

personality/modesty of 7 thinking of 7, 9, 16, 199–200 writing process of 15–16, 36–40, 63, 95–96, 106–14, 214, 232–234 see also Ḥayei Adam Darkhei Moshe 15, 238, 241 David (biblical figure) 74, 83, 137, 154 dead, the: burial of - see also corpse(s) 181–182, 216 resurrection of 111–25 derush - see also homiletics/homilies 72–34, 136 Deuteronomy, Book of 20–12, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 44, 45, 79, 88, 91, 108, 109, 111, 113–30, 114, 116, 117, 142, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 157, 158, 159, 192–193, 195–197, 202, 220 devekut (cleaving to God) 20, 21, 24, 27–28, 30–34, 32, 33, 113–118 diaspora/Exile, Jewish 45, 76, 108, 210–15, 218, 227, 229, 232–103 Douglas, Mary 39 Durkheim, Emile 39 Dworkin, Ronald 132–133 Ecclesiastes, Book of 83, 159 Eiger, Rabbi Akiva 61 Elazar of Worms, Rabbi - see also Perushei Sidur ha-Tefilah la-Rokeaḥ 189–11, 193–26, 238, 242 elderly, honor of the 16, 214 Eliyah Rabba 1, 2, 72, 81–48, 88, 90, 91, 120, 155, 159, 174–18, 183, 205, 238 Eliyahu ben Shlomo Zalman, Rabbi - see Vilna, Gaon of Elon, Menaḥem 64 emancipation, Jewish (in France and Germany) - see also Haskalah 18, 60–36, 95 Emden, Rabbi Ya’akov 60, 68, 199–45, 244 Enlightenment - see Haskalah Ephraim of Bonn, Rabbi 188–189, 238 Epstein, Rabbi Yeḥiel Mikhel ha-Levi - see Arukh ha-Shulḥan eruvin (enclosures within which to carry on Sabbath) 22, 23–23 Eruvin (tractate in Babylonian Talmud) 159 ethics/morality 9, 133–134, 137, 139 etrog (citron for Sukkot) 149, 151 evil inclination 21–17, 25, 94, 114–35, 115, 128 excommunication (ḥerem) 62, 226–79 Exodus, Book of 28, 29, 32, 116, 146, 147, 151, 159, 160, 196–197 Ezekiel, Book of 85 fast day(s) - see also Tishah b’Av 23–23, 25–27, 51, 181, 215–32, 219–47, 226–78, 227–81

Feinstein, Rabbi Moshe - see Igrot Moshe festivals 22, 23–23, 42, 76–42, 131, 147, 173–174, 204–205, 210, 211–212, 241 firstborn sons, redemption of 147 Fleckeles, Rabbi Elazar 62, 238 France/French Empire/French Jewry 4, 42, 55, 61, 189, 190, 210, 225–226, 227, 230, 242, 243, 245 Frankfurt 218–45, 230, 232, 240, 241 Frankists/Frankism 105, 126–65 French Revolution 68, 228–229 fruits, dried 46–47 four elements, Greek theory of 68, 199 ga’avah (arrogance) 137–138 Ganzfried, Rabbi Shlomo - see Kitzur Shulḥan Arukh Gdansk - see Danzig (city) Gemara - see Talmud gematria (numerical value/equivalency) 89–64, 189, 190, 196, 219 Genesis, Book of 27, 73, 86, 121, 152, 154, 159, 196, 198 genizah 156 Gentile(s) (non-Jew[s]) 12, 25–27, 47, 49, 80–46, 115–38, 190, 196, 197, 199, 204 Geonim/Gaonate 12, 42, 57, 58, 135, 150, 188, 233–104, 238–239 Germany/German Jewry/German language 37, 42, 46–13, 48–17/18, 55, 67, 189, 190, 211, 230, 238 Gerondi, Rabbi Yonah 23, 245 ghetto 229 Gittin (tractate in Babylonian Talmud) 159 God 21–17, 24–27, 28–31, 69, 84, 89–90, 108, 114–115, 116–117, 124, 150, 151–152, 153, 155, 157, 188, 190–198, 200, 219 blasphemy/desecration of 39, 62 fear of 24, 30, 71, 114–115, 117, 124, 136, 155, 167, 192, 222 love of 20–12, 29–31, 113–30, 117, 154–155 worship/service of 84, 126–127, 142, 194–27 Gombiner, Rabbi Avraham Abale - see Magen Avraham gossip - see lashon ha-ra Gra - see Vilna, Gaon of Grace After Meals - see Birkat ha-Mazon Greeks, ancient 36–38 group-grid theory 39 ḥadash (prohibition of eating new grains until Passover) 52–53 Ḥafetz Ḥayyim - see Kagan, Rabbi Yisrael Meir

Index

Haggadah, Passover 15, 19–8, 29, 96–76, 106–13, 127, 234, 244 Ḥai ben Sherira Gaon 188, 238 Ḥakham Tzvi 60, 239 ha-Kohen, Rabbi Shabbetai - see Shakh ha-Kohen, Rabbi Yisrael Meir - see Kagan, Rabbi Yisrael Meir halakhah 1, 2–7, 7, 9, 19, 22, 40, 61, 63, 64, 84, 104, 108, 131, 132, 138–139, 162, 170–16, 173, 186, 207–208, 221–54 as rules 133–134 “careful” (“le-zaher”) in observance of 142–143, 168, 172 democratization of - see also Ḥayei Adam, popularity of 145, 215, 233 observance of - see also commandment(s), performance of 34, 70, 76, 96–98, 109–110, 119, 124, 126, 136, 139–141, 142, 144, 198–199 “preferred” (“le-khatḥila”) solution in 168, 169, 170, 172, 175 reconciliation between Zohar and 81–82, 99–101 relationship between Kabbalah and 70–71, 81–82, 94–95, 97–98 see also Jewish law/legal system halakhic authorities 6, 14, 64 halakhic code(s)/treatise(s) 66, 109, 237–239, 241–243, 245 halakhic/legal literature 41, 132, 135, 138, 232, 233–104 Halakhot Ketzuvot 42 Ḥallamish, Moshe 70 Hallel (prayer recited on festivals, Rosh Ḥodesh, etc.) 180 handwashing, ritual (netilat yadayim) 17, 22, 23, 33–35, 167–168, 210 Hannah (biblical character) 87–60, 120 Ḥanukah 22, 23, 35–38, 143, 149, 180, 221–53, 227–82 Hashem - see God Ḥasidei Ashkenaz (rabbis of medieval France/Germany) 69, 193–26 Hasidism/Hasidim 9, 11, 69, 102–103, 110, 120–50/51, 126, 129, 130, 215–33 conflict with Mitnagdim 9, 18, 19, 21, 23, 28, 39, 67–68, 95–96, 102–106, 116, 118–119, 130, 226 Ḥabad/Lubavitch 231–232, 244 Hasidism, theology of 20, 113, 123 ḥasidut (personal piety) 64, 117 midat ḥasidut (higher level of Jewish behavior) 140, 142

Haskalah - see also emancipation 9, 10, 18, 19, 37, 39, 44, 61, 62–63, 65, 66–67, 92, 95–96, 199 Ḥatam Sofer - see Sofer, Rabbi Moshe Ḥayei Adam 239 acceptance by Rabbi Y.M. Kagan (Ḥafetz Ḥayyim) of 163–165, 235 account of gunpowder explosion in 1803 in 213 approbations (haskamot) in 4–11, 7–8, 68, 163–8, 182 as legal code/code of law 1, 10, 41, 66, 68, 106, 144, 145, 161–162, 164, 208 as summary/digest of Shulḥan Arukh 3, 95, 161, 182, 207–208 audience of - see also Ḥayei Adam, convenience of 23, 34, 172, 214, 233 classes/study groups about 8, 17, 164 commentaries on 140–25, 143, 235, 238, 244 contrast with Shulḥan Arukh 15–16, 214 convenience of (for everyday readers) - see also Ḥayei Adam, audience of 5–6, 9, 13, 14–15, 22, 208, 232–233 criticism/reputation of 68–13, 161–163 kabbalistic sources in 68–97, 99–101 literary aspects of 1, 92, 137 mentions of the Gra (Vilna Gaon) in 220–224 musar in 135, 142–144 organization of 4–5, 15, 22, 161, 208, 214 popularity of - see also halakhah, democratization of 8, 12, 17, 131, 161–163, 215, 234–236 prefaces/preambles/introductory remarks in 22–38, 92, 105–10, 114, 137 printing/publication of 4, 12, 15, 18, 41, 59, 114–35, 131, 135, 161, 182, 187, 207, 215, 219, 220, 234–235 relationship between Mishnah Berurah and 163–186 subdivisions in 32, 117 subjects in 15–16, 21, 22, 38, 63 see also Danzig, Rabbi Avraham Ḥayyim of Volozhin, Rabbi 4–11, 68, 106–11, 163–8, 182, 215, 219–50, 231, 235, 239, 241

255

256

Index

headcovering 168 Hebrew language 25–30, 89–64, 112, 115–40, 163, 190–15, 201, 212, 219–48, 223–62, 229–91, 232–102, 233–104, 234–107, 235–108 Ḥemdat ha-Yamim 75, 239 heresy - see also apikorsim 31, 90–65, 67, 105, 116 ḥiddushim (novellae/novelties/novel insights) 2, 6, 14, 73, 75, 122–123, 151, 157, 208, 209–12, 244 hilkheta ke-batra’ei 173, 174–18, 179, 183 history, Jewish 37 historical research 10–11 Ḥokhmat Adam 4–11, 14, 58, 66, 80–46, 163–8, 208–209, 211, 213, 215, 218–41, 220, 221–53, 226–79, 232–103, 233–235 Ḥol ha-Moed (intermediate days of festivals) 22, 128 holidays - see festivals holiness 39, 93–94, 155–156, 199, 224 Holy One Blessed be He - see God Holy Temple (in Jerusalem) 34, 35–36, 85, 111, 149, 177 home 24, 85, 112, 114, 129, 155, 172, 178, 180, 203, 205–206, 212 homiletics/homilies - see also derush vii, 62, 67, 97, 136–138, 187, 194 honey 48 Horodetsky, Shmuel 107 horseradish (khrein) - see also maror 78, 221 Hosea, Book of 154 Ḥovot ha-Levavot 17, 23, 25, 27, 115–116, 239 Hungary 62, 63, 241 idolatry/idol worship 28, 29, 32, 33, 111, 116, 118, 136, 138, 156, 188, 190, 195, 199, 218 Igrot Moshe 46–13, 239 illness - see sick person Industrial Revolution 231 Isaac (biblical figure) 86–87, 121 Isaiah, Book of 85, 111–25, 188, 191, 197 Islam 12, 218, 227 Israel: Land of 54, 72–37, 92–66, 122–56, 192, 196, 197, 215–31/32, 216–219, 225–74, 242, 243, 245 People of - see also Israelites/Children of Israel 29, 45, 52, 58, 64 State of 65 Israelites/Children of Israel - see also Israel, People of 29, 35, 41, 148, 155, 188, 194–196, 198, 200, 219

Isserles, Rabbi Moshe 1, 2, 44, 46–15, 50, 60, 61, 63, 71, 74, 123, 168, 178, 179, 181, 192–21, 207, 238, 241, 242 Jacobson, Yisrael 59, 61 Jefferson, Thomas 230, 232 Jeremiah, Book of 24, 31, 111, 114, 195, 196 Jerusalem 35, 56, 111–23, 147, 217, 237, 239, 240, 244, 245 Jesus - see also Christians/Christianity/ Christendom 189–190 Jethro (biblical figure) 219 Jewish law/legal system - see also halakhah 197–200 Jewish People, the - see Israel, People of Joseph (biblical figure) 152 Joseph II (Holy Roman Emperor) 210–15 Joseph, Julie vi, 98–86 Joshua (biblical figure) 30, 188, 192, 193–27, 196 Joshua, Book of 108 Judaism 69 Conservative 65 Orthodox/rabbinic/traditional - see also Orthodox Jewish community 16, 37, 39, 162 Reform - see Reform movement Kabbalah - see also mysticism/mystics 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 30–34, 66–98, 99–101, 105, 122–124, 144, 199, 218, 238–241, 244–245 study of 66–97 Kaf ha-Ḥayyim 215–31, 239, 244 Kagan, Rabbi Yisrael Meir (Ḥafetz Ḥayyim) vii, 8, 12, 83–53, 95–74, 98–85, 162– 165, 167–183, 186, 208–8, 235, 245 Kahana, Maoz 69, 97 Kant, Immanuel 29–33 kaparot (ceremony on Yom Kippur Eve) 178–179 Karo, Rabbi Yitzḥak 70 Karo, Rabbi Yosef - see also Shulḥan Arukh 1, 13, 15, 21, 69, 71, 144, 161, 178, 238, 244, 245 Katz, Jacob 62, 94 kavanah/kavanot (intention[s]) 74–75, 104, 110, 124–126, 141, 152–153, 157–159, 180 Kenesset ha-Gedolah - see Benveniste, Rabbi Ḥayyim Ketubot (tractate in Babylonian Talmud) 32–39, 117–44 Khmelnytsky massacre 226

Index

kiddush (ceremony over wine) 174–176, 202, 205, 211 Kiddushin (tractate in Babylonian Talmud) 147 Kings, Book of 30 kitniyot (legumes), prohibition of 41–65 Kitzur Shulḥan Arukh 12, 163–8, 239, 243 Klacker, Rabbi Shimon 59, 243 Kohen/Kohanim (Israelite priest[s]) 33, 35, 150, 202 Kohen Gadol (Israelite high priest) 148, 149 kosher/food prohibitions 42, 55, 56, 79–81, 155, 177–178 Kuntres Matzevat Moshe 15, 216, 239, Landau, Rabbi Yeḥezkel 13, 18–19, 21, 28, 37, 48, 66–67, 96, 97–98, 105, 116, 209, 220, 241, 244 lashon ha-ra (gossip) 136, 138, 139 layman/laymen, Jewish 4, 7–9, 15, 18, 20, 23, 34, 61, 73, 76, 82, 95, 113, 123, 131, 142, 144, 161–162, 164, 182, 183, 186 leavened food (ḥametz) 45, 46–48, 49, 50–20, 55, 57, 60, 64 Leipzig 4, 211 leniency/leniencies, halakhic 62, 99–101, 119, 142, 149, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176–177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183–186 letter of the law, going beyond the 142–144 Lev Adam 143 Levi’im (Levites) 202 Leviticus, Book of 2, 80, 85, 92, 148, 153, 154, 155, 194–27 Levush 72, 107–16, 174, 239, 241 Liebermann, Rabbi Yosef 13, 209, 245 liquor - see also alcohol 52–24 Lithuania/Lithuanian Jewry 22, 68, 97, 106, 190–13, 210, 217 Loew, Rabbi Yehudah - see Maharal Lord, the - see God lost item/object, returning a 151 lulav (palm branches for Sukkot) 141, 149, 151, 153, 158–159 Luria, Rabbi Shlomo 52, 72, 75, 124, 240, 243 Luria, Rabbi Yitzḥak 17, 69, 72, 74, 75–78, 85–55, 95, 97, 99–101, 102, 119, 122–56, 123, 126–63, 142, 144, 154, 191, 193–27, 195–35, 196, 232–101, 237, 239, 240, 245 Mabit 152, 239, Magen Avraham 1, 2, 6, 14, 47, 71, 72, 81, 85–55, 87–58, 88, 91, 97, 120, 121–54, 145, 146, 147, 150–151, 152, 153, 156,

157, 162–3, 163, 179, 181–182, 183, 208, 223–58, 237, 240, 242 Maharal 67, 240, Maharam Schiff 218, 240 Maharash 43, 243 Maharil 43, 224–67, 240, 244 Maharshal - see Luria, Rabbi Shlomo Maḥzor Vitry 189, 240 Maimonides - see also Mishneh Torah 69, 79, 150, 240, 241 Malbim 194–27, 240, 244 Margolis, Rabbi Ḥayyim Mordekhai - see Sha’arei Teshuvah maror (bitter herbs) - see also horseradish 77–78, 221 martyr(s)/martyrdom 89–90, 189 Maskilim - see Haskalah mathematics 68, 199 matzah/matzot (unleavened bread) 45, 49–50, 58, 59–60, 77, 141, 146, 153, 158 matzah shmurah 50, 63–64 Mayer, Mordekhai 107 meat, consumption of 51, 53, 104, 177–178, 208 Megillah, reading of (on Purim) 181–182, 211 Megillah (tractate in Babylonian Talmud) 85 Menaḥot (tractate in Babylonian Talmud) 154, 157 Mendelssohn, Moses 37, 193–27, 211–17, 241 Merkabic language/hymns - see also mysticism/mystics 192–23, 193–27 Mezeritch, Magid of 102–103, 240 mezuzah 16, 83–84, 107, 156, 208, 214 Micah, Book of 91, 228–87 Midrash/Midrashim 17, 138, 152, 196, 199, 223, 224–62 millet 44–45, 46, 55 Minḥat Ḥinukh 163–8, 240, 245 Mintz, Rabbi Moshe 63, 241, Mishnah - see also Talmud; Torah, Oral 72, 109, 122, 211, 223, 224–62 Mishnah Berurah vii, 38–57, 47–16, 76–42, 95–74, 98–85, 162–186, 221–54, 223–58, 231–98/99, 235, 238, 241, 243, 245 organizational structure of 162 popularity of 163 printing/publication of 8, 12, 145 quotes from Ḥayei Adam being misleading in 170, 171, 184–185, 186

257

258

Index

Mishneh Torah - see also Maimonides 11, 16, 22, 27, 30, 36–37, 56, 74, 107, 123, 139, 144, 147, 159, 191–19, 193–26, 214, 240, 241 Mitnagdim 9, 20–21, 28, 95, 98, 105, 107, 113–114, 126 in the Land of Israel - see Perushim mitzvah/mitzvot - see commandment(s) Mitzvat Moshe 15, 234, 241 Mizraḥi, Rabbi Eliyahu 151, 238 Moelin, Rabbi Ya’akov - see Maharil Moravia 61, 239, 241 Moscow 216 Moses (biblical figure) 29–30, 188, 196, 199, 219, 223 mourner - see also onen 180, 181 mourning 15, 76, 208, 216 murder 111, 136, 138 musar 9, 19, 21, 22–23, 34, 72–34, 82–83, 92, 93–94, 95–98, 99–101, 106, 111– 112, 114–35, 131–144, 164, 170, 172, 173, 175, 176, 179, 184–186, 223–57, 224–62, 234 as principles 133–134 halakhic 135, 138–142, 164 literature (classical musar) 135, 136–138 observance of 82, 133 relationship between halakhah and 135, 136–140, 144–145 mustard 46, 48, 78–44 mysticism/mystics - see also Kabbalah; Merkabic language/hymns 19–6, 20–21, 32, 67–68, 71, 74, 84, 88, 92–95, 97–98, 99–101, 113, 117, 119, 123, 187, 191 Nadler, Allan 119 Naḥmanides 32, 54, 118, 196, 241 Napoleon 59, 211–17, 215–216, 218–42, 226 the Jews and 229–230 Newport, Rhode Island - see also Touro, Rabbi Yitzḥak 228 niddah - see women, menstruating Nishmat Adam 2, 15, 16, 36, 44, 46, 55–58, 78–44, 148, 153, 159, 209, 211, 233, 241 Noda bi-Yhudah - see Landau, Rabbi Yeḥezkel non-Jews - see Gentiles Numbers, Book of 31, 83, 111, 112, 116, 150, 155, 192, 219 offerings/sacrifices - see also paschal lamb/ offering 83, 151–153, 154, 177, 213 onen (pre-burial mourner) - see also mourner 181–182

Orthodox Jewish community - see also Judaism, Orthodox 1, 15, 130 Orḥot Ḥayyim 43, 237, 241 Or Zaru’a 43, 241 Otto, Rudolf 39 Ottoman Empire 217–39, 218, 226–77, 230–96, 232–101, 238 Palestine - see Israel, Land of parable (mashal) 136–138 pardes (metaphysical study) 74, 123 parents, honoring 16, 91–92, 107, 155 paschal lamb/offering (korban Pesaḥ) - see also offerings/sacrifices 128, 159 Passover/seder 22, 25–28, 29, 41–65, 76–77, 141, 153, 158, 211–212, 221–222 Patriarchs (biblical) - see also Abraham; Isaac; Jacob 198 Pe’ah (tractate in Jerusalem Talmud) 91 Pentateuch - see Scripture perishut (pious separation) 64, 224 Perushei Sidur ha-Tefilah la-Rokeaḥ - see also Elazar of Worms, Rabbi 191, 242 Perushim 217–40 Pesaḥim (tractate in Babylonian Talmud) 42–4, 51, 53, 154, 157, 224–66 pesak (rabbinic legal ruling/adjudication) 7, 8, 67, 70, 86–88, 97–98, 99–101, 120–122, 179, 183, 186, 222 Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer 195 pleasure(s) 26, 31, 126–129, 142, 205–206 Poland/Polish Jewry/Polish language 42, 45, 52–23, 61, 68, 78–44, 87–57, 121–53, 125–61, 190–13, 226–78, 231, 237 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 81–49, 210–14, 211, 219, 225–226, 231 poor, financial assistance to the - see tzedakah Poppers, Rabbi Meir ben Yehudah Leib haKohen 195, 240 poskim (rabbinic legal authorities/decisors/ adjudicators) 42, 43, 52, 56, 71, 80–81, 95, 97, 131, 166, 170, 182, 223, 235 potatoes 46–13, 57, 58 Prague - see also Bohemia 19–6/8, 37, 62, 66–67, 209–210, 220, 238, 240, 241, 244, 245 prayer(s)/praying - see also blessing(s) 15, 20, 22, 23, 24, 74–75, 79–82, 84–85, 86–87, 88–91, 92–93, 102–103, 104– 105, 113, 118–122, 129, 152, 166–167, 168, 170, 177, 180, 189, 198–199, 201, 210, 220, 221–53, 228–88, 241

Index

prayer services: morning (Shaḥarit) 76, 79, 92, 93, 119, 166, 168, 189, 190, 192–21, 193–26, 194–28, 197–41, 223–224–62 Musaf (late morning) 187–188, 193–26 afternoon (Minḥah) 102, 190, 203 evening (Ma’ariv) 103, 203, 220–52 Priestly Blessing (Birkat Kohanim) 192 priests, Jewish - see Kohanim Pri Ḥadash 50, 51–52, 54, 56, 80, 153, 176, 242 Pri Megadim 81–48, 85, 242 printing press 207–2 prophet(s)/Prophets 29, 45, 58, 64 prohibition(s): custom-based 58–59 rabbinic - see also commandment(s), rabbinic 56, 57 Torah/biblical - see also commandment(s), Torah/biblical 44, 51, 53, 55, 56, 80, 109–21, 146, 157, 158 proof text(s) 83, 94, 95, 97, 99–101, 138, 139, 165 Proverbs, Book of 25, 27, 45, 54, 58, 112, 115, 138, 148, 152, 153, 154, 195 Prussia 59, 190, 209–10, 211, 225, 226–76 Psalms, Book of 24, 30, 74, 89, 91, 93, 112, 114, 138, 154, 177, 192, 193–26, 195, 212 Purim 22, 36, 38, 181, 210, 211, 214, 216, 220, 221–53 personal (in response to 1803 gunpowder explosion) 214 Rabbeinu Peretz 43, 242 Rabbeinu Tam 158, 189, 242 rabbinic authority/authorities 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 16, 18, 32, 37, 41, 42, 44, 56, 62, 63, 65, 67, 70, 74, 95–96, 117, 123, 162, 164, 173, 175, 182, 183, 186, 188, 224–66, 235 Rabbis, the - see Sages, the Radbaz 146, 242 Radin (town in Belarus/Poland) 162, 235, 245 Rambam - see Maimonides Ramban - see Naḥmanides Rashba 16, 157, 242 Rashi 136, 148, 151, 152, 154, 155, 157, 158, 223–224–62, 243 Reform movement 9, 10, 59–61, 62–63, 65, 66, 230

religious behavior - see halakhah, observance of Rema - see Isserles, Rabbi Moshe repentance (teshuvah) 16, 138 responsa 48, 55–28, 62, 65–44, 67, 75, 152, 163–8, 209–12, 233, 235, 238, 239, 241, 244 rice 43, 44–45, 46, 55 Rif 157, 224–62, 243 Rishonim (medieval, post-Gaonic rabbinic sages) 2, 53, 60, 95, 109–20, 175, 223 ritual bath/bathhouse (mikveh) 52, 201, 203, 218 Riv 155, 242 Rivash 54, 242 Rivkash, Rabbi Moshe - see Be’er ha-Golah Romans, ancient 35, 46–15 Romans, Book of (New Testament) 191–17/18 Rosh, the (Rabbi Asher ben Yosef) 153, 159, 175, 242 Rosh ha-Shanah 22, 23–23, 51, 87–88, 119–120, 175, 187, 188, 193–26, 216–36, 221–53 Rosh ha-Shanah (tractate in Babylonian Talmud) 152, 159 Rosh Ḥodesh (New Month) 76–42 Russia/Russian Jewry/Russian language/ Tsarist Empire 37, 42, 68, 78–44, 105, 140, 210–14, 215, 217–39, 219, 225–227, 232–101/103 Sabbateans/Sabbateanism - see also Shabbetai Tzvi 19, 66–67, 105 Sabbath 15, 16, 17, 22, 23–23, 51, 53, 78, 88, 131, 147, 172–176, 202–205, 210, 211–212, 214, 221–53, 241, 245 Safed (Israel) 43, 68, 69, 217–40, 239, 242, 245 saffron 47 Sages, the 25, 31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 45, 52, 58, 74, 79–80, 110–21, 111–25, 112, 141, 142, 147, 148–149, 150, 152, 154, 195, 196, 208, 218–219, 220, 223, 224–66 Samuel, Book of 83, 87–60, 120, 154 Sanhedrin (Great Court of Jerusalem) 56 Sanhedrin (tractate in Babylonian Talmud) 56–57, 159 Sanhedrin, Parisian 229 Scholem, Gershom G. 20, 113 science 68, 199 Scripture (Bible/Torah) 37, 109, 112, 131, 136, 138, 196, 198–200, 208, 211, 212, 223–62, 224

259

260

Index

secularism/secularization 11, 12 Seder Rav Amram Gaon 187, 242 sefekot (questionable rules) 2 Sefer ha-Ḥinukh 27, 31, 32, 115–118, 159, 240, 242 Sefer ha-Mapah 207, 241, 242 Sefer ha-Minhagot 42–6, 242 Sefer Ḥaredim 83, 92, 136, 154, 234, 241, 242 Sefer Ḥasidim 23, 72–34, 112, 148, 155, 242, 244 Sefer Ma’aseh Rav 46–13, 74–39, 88–61, 120–48, 125–60, 193–26, 197–41, 216–38, 219–49, 220–52, 221–53/54, 222, 223–62, 224–64, 234, 243, 245 Sefer Mitzvot Katan (Semak) 43, 60–61, 243, 245 Sefer Yere’im 17, 85, 243 Sefer Yosippon 38–58 Segal, Rabbi David ha-Levi (Taz) 1–4, 2, 72, 156, 163, 179, 183, 190–15, 207–208, 238, 242, 244 Seliḥot (penitential prayer services) 201 Semag (Sefer Mitzvot Gadol) 151, 159, 243 Semak - see Sefer Mitzvot Katan Sephardic (Mediterranean/Middle Eastern) Jews 55–27, 65, 92–66 se’udat mitzvah (meal connected with a commandment) 181 sexual immorality/misconduct 31, 80–46, 111, 116, 136, 138, 155 sexual relations, permitted 26, 58, 76–77, 126–127 seyag/safeguard/protective fence (for Torah commandments) 45, 50, 51, 53, 55, 57, 58, 64, 158 Sha’ar ha-Tziyun 46–13, 162–163, 165–167, 183, 221–54, 223–58, 243 Sha’arei Teshuvah 80–46, 87–59, 122–55, 162, 169, 180, 239, 243 Sha’arei Tzedek 54, 215–31, 216–218, 225–74, 233–234, 243 Shabbat (tractate in Mishnah and Babylonian Talmud) 36, 38–58, 149, 151, 157, 195 Shabbetai Tzvi - see also Sabbateans/Sabbateanism 18, 226 Shakh (Siftei Kohen) 5, 13, 51, 52, 71, 72, 74, 109, 123, 207, 242, 243, 244 Shapira, Rabbi Eliyahu - see Eliyah Rabba Shapiro, Marc 182 Shema prayer 81, 88–91, 119, 140, 141, 143, 147, 150, 152–153, 193, 194–28, 197, 212 Shemoneh Esrei prayer 79, 93, 110–21, 180, 187

Shenei Luḥot ha-Brit (Shelah) 72–34, 100 Sheva Berakhot (post-wedding celebrations) 150 Shiltei Giborim 153, 243 Shimon bar Yoḥai, Rabbi 68 Shimshon of Kinon (Chinon, France), Rabbi 75, 243 shmita (sabbatical year in Israel) 56 Shmuel of Falaise, Rabbi 43, 243 Shneur Zalman of Liady, Rabbi 9, 71, 106–107, 231–232, 244 shofar, blowing the 141, 153, 176–177 Shulamit (Hebrew newspaper) 59, 63 Shulḥan Arukh 1, 2, 3, 11, 13, 14, 34, 44, 67, 69, 72, 85, 95–96, 107–16, 132, 139, 143–144, 145, 148, 159, 161, 162–163, 166, 175, 178, 179, 182, 191–19, 192–21, 207, 214, 233, 235, 237–239, 241–242, 244–245 Even ha-Ezer 208–4/9 Oraḥ Ḥayyim 3, 13, 18, 25, 27, 47, 49, 70–30, 73, 76–42, 80–81, 82–83, 85, 87, 88, 90–91, 106, 108, 115, 119–120, 121, 131, 149, 150–151, 153, 155, 156, 157, 162, 208, 224–62, 235, 237, 239–243 Yoreh De’ah 16, 49, 50, 53, 56, 58, 63, 71, 73, 74, 84, 106, 107–17, 108, 208, 239 siddur (prayer book) 87–60, 190, 230, 232–141 Siftei Kohen - see Shakh Sifra 155, 223 sick person 50, 51, 53, 55, 157, 180 Sinai, Mount, revelation at 30, 68, 198 Sirkis, Rabbi Yoel ben Shmuel - see Baḥ slaughter/slaughterers, ritual 89, 104, 149, 177–178, 208, 218–41 slaves/slavery 28, 41, 196, 201, 231 sleep 26–27, 90–91, 110, 127, 166, 168 Sofer, Rabbi Moshe 62, 241 soldier(s), Jewish 59–60, 61, 63, 140–141, 147 Solomon (biblical figure) 33 Sotah (tractate in Babylonian Talmud) 149 Spain/Spanish Jewry 12, 25–30, 32–38, 43, 44, 54–26 speech, manner of 24, 26 stealing 155, 179 Steinhart, Rabbi Menaḥem 59, 240 stolen items/objects - see also lost items/objects, returning a 153, 178, 233–105

Index

stringency/stringencies, halakhic 2, 41, 43, 52–54, 55, 58, 71, 76, 80, 82–83, 86–88, 95–96, 98, 99–101, 122, 123, 142, 144, 157, 167, 174, 175, 183, 186, 201–202 study hall/house - see beit ha-midrash sugar 48–49, 209–12, 231 Sukkah (tractate in Babylonian Talmud) 151, 153 Sukkot/sukkah 22, 23–23, 149, 150, 156, 158, 206, 221–53 synagogue(s) 60, 75, 84–85, 108, 111, 119, 121, 129, 149, 154, 156, 166–167, 189, 190–191, 193, 197, 198, 201, 203, 211, 221 takanot (rabbinic enactments) 56 tallit (prayer shawl) 140, 146, 149, 156, 168, 169–172, 224–62 Talmud - see also Mishnah; Torah, Oral 2, 5, 13, 15, 21–17, 23, 36, 60, 70–71, 95, 109, 112, 122, 136–138, 150, 154, 173, 189–11, 211, 212, 221–54, 224–62 Babylonian (Bavli) - see also specific tractates 2, 70, 223 Jerusalem (Yerushalmi) - see also specific tractates 2, 70, 79, 223 study of 23, 72, 104, 106–11, 109, 122, 124, 131 Talmud Torah - see Torah study Targum (Aramaic translation of Scripture) 223–62–224–62 Ta-Shema, Yisrael 42, 189–11 Tannaim (earlier Talmudic rabbis) 42, 223–61 Taz - see Segal, Rabbi David ha-Levi technology 12 tefillin (phylacteries) 16, 81, 107–17, 140, 146, 156, 158, 224 terumah (heave offerings) 33 Thevenot, Laurent 130 Tikkunim 89, 100 Tiktin, Rabbi Avraham 61–62, 237 Tishah b’Av - see also fast days 25–27, 76, 80–46, 115–38, 212, 221–53 Tishbi, Isaiah 132, 136 tobacco 49, 167, 212 Toledot Adam 15, 106–13, 129, 220, 234, 244 Torah: as basis of halakhah/Jewish law 198 Oral - see also Mishnah; Talmud 30, 109, 158, 223 reading of the 84, 170 study of 5, 13, 16, 19, 20–21, 26, 27, 31–36, 35, 71, 72, 73–74, 84–54, 104, 107–112, 113–114, 116–41, 122,

129–72, 131–132, 141, 172, 196, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 219 Written - see also Scripture 30, 109, 223–224 Torah scholar (talmid ḥakham) 4, 32, 76–42, 104, 117, 163–8, 175, 214, 223, 224–67 Torah scroll 75, 152, 156, 201, 224 Tosafot 57, 109–20, 113–27, 121, 146–147, 149–150, 153, 157, 159, 223 Tosafot Ḥayyim 235–236, 240, 244 Tosefta 223 Touro, Rabbi Yitzḥak - see also Newport, Rhode Island 227–85–228–85, 245 Tur/Tur Shulḥan Arukh 11, 17, 22, 36, 38, 43, 72, 85, 87, 92, 95, 107–16, 132, 144–31, 153, 161, 189–190, 192–21, 208, 214, 237–239, 241, 244–245 Turei Zahav - see Segal, Rabbi David ha-Levi Twersky, Rabbi Isadore (Yitzḥak) 21, 70 tzaddik, Hasidic 20–14, 32, 33, 68, 113–32, 117, 118 tzedakah (public financial assistance to the poor) 85, 143, 155, 156, tzitzit (fringes/tassels) 83–84, 107–17, 146, 149, 153, 156, 157, 158–159, 170, 171, 210–211 United States - see also Constitution, American 219–50, 227–230, 232–102, 245 vessel(s) 34, 47, 49 Vienna - see also Austria 210–15, 243 Vienna, Congress of 226 Vilna 9, 13, 21, 37–55, 54, 68, 103–104, 135, 145, 162, 164, 210, 213–215, 216, 219, 225, 231, 233–105, 237, 238, 241, 243, 244, 245 Gaon of 9, 13, 19, 21, 28, 46–13, 67–68, 78–44, 81–82, 88–61, 96–97, 102–103, 105, 116, 130, 132, 145, 162, 176, 179, 190–13, 193– 26, 197–41, 199, 208, 216–38, 217, 219–224, 234, 235, 238 Vital, Rabbi Ḥayyim 72, 74, 99–101, 122, 123, 239 Volozhin, Rabbi Ḥayyim of - see Ḥayyim of Volozhin, Rabbi vow(s) 50–54 Washington, George 228 wife/wives - see also women 25–28, 26, 76, 108, 127, 152, 204, 213 wine - see also alcohol 46, 49, 51, 174–175, 202 women - see also wife/wives 35–48, 58, 112, 172, 196, 201–206, 212

261

262

Index

menstruating (niddah - seven days of purity) 25–28, 58, 201 worship, house(s)/place(s) of - see synagogues Ya’akov ben Asher, Rabbi - see Tur/Tur Shulḥan Arukh Yevamot (tractate in Babylonian Talmud) 157, 158, 195–35 Yiddish language 48–18, 112, 119, 212, 234–107 yiḥus (illustrious ancestry) 137–138 Yissakhar Ber, Rabbi - see Sefer Ma’aseh Rav Yitzḥak ben Yosef of Corbeil, Rabbi - see Sefer Mitzvot Katan (Semak) Yitzḥaki, Rabbi Shlomo - see Rashi Yoma (tractate in Babylonian Talmud) 111, 146, 148, 154

Yom Kippur 16, 22, 23–23, 75–76, 87–88, 93–94, 109–21, 119–120, 135, 138, 140–141, 147, 177–180, 188, 221–53 Yosef Ḥayyim of Baghdad - see Ben Ish Ḥai Zacuto, Rabbi Avraham 70, 237 Zevaḥim (tractate in Babylonian Talmud) 146, 152–153 Zikhru Torat Moshe 15, 136, 216–38, 223, 233–105, 234, 236, 245 Zilber, Rabbi Binyamin Yehoshua - see Beit Barukh zimmun - see also Birkat ha-Mazon 15, 201, 210 Zionism 12 Zohar 17, 25, 67–97, 99–101, 115, 120, 121, 123, 129, 136, 144, 154, 195, 224–62