Rabbeinu Avraham in his sefer Hamaspik is very concerned
with the decorum in Shul during prayer; to stand or to sit; in what direction
one should sit; people should sit in rows; etc…. In a discussion where he
argues that people should always be facing towards the Aron Hakodesh, including
when sitting, he quotes a Tosefta which describes seating arrangements during
prayer. One of the details in that Tosefta is that the elders sit with their
back to the Aron Hakodesh facing the people (see Hilchot Tefillah 11:4). Here
is an interesting snippet about the elders.
“It is incorrect to sit other than facing the Holy (Aron
Hakodesh) except for the elders who sit at the front of the Beit Knesset. These
elders are sages, based on the rabbi’s explanation of the verse “And you shall
defer to an elder” (Vaykra 19:32) they comment “An elder is one who acquired
knowledge” (TB Kiddushin 32b). The reason why elders are permitted to sit in
such a way is so that “the people should fear (respect) them”. In my mind, that
[their sitting this way] is not to be seen as obligatory, but rather as a
concession. Or possibly, the elders the Tanaim of that generation were
referring to, were those that seeing their faces elicited a greater
concentration on the part of the public, thus bringing them great benefit. In
our generation such people or any coming close to their status are non-existent
and no benefit will accrue from contemporary elders sitting that way, “with their
back to the holy”, other than their striving for power. Learning from them,
emulating them, causes people to sin rather than fulfill the purpose of their
sitting thus as described in the Tosefta. As we can see their sitting [facing the
people] they are perceived as a group that is schmoozing amongst themselves
rather than talking to God”.
How little things
have changed!
One of the things RABH is known for is his attempt to
introduce into the ritual the requirement to prostate spread eagled on the ground
during certain parts of the davening especially during the saying of the
Kadish, Halel, after every Halleluiah in the Pessukei Dezimra part of the
Morning Prayer, during the blessings for Kryat Shema etc…. He argues that one
of the reasons it did not make it as a requirement in Talmudic Halacha is
because of the difficulty people have doing this act so many times during
prayer. As he goes along in the discussion he proposes several other reasons
for the disappearance of this ritual. However, real authentic worship should
include it according to him. He writes a lot about it in a very polemical
fashion. It is clear that he encountered a lot of resistance to this idea.
There are some very interesting points that he brings out in this heated
discussion. He then lists several objections that people had and apparently voiced
to him against his introducing this form of worship as a normal part of the
ritual. One objection is that it is a form of worship that is customary with
non-Jews. Interestingly, many scholars have argued that RABH was strongly
influenced by Sufi theology. Apparently RABH himself already had to confront
that accusation. His answer is lengthy arguing that just because other
religions, religions that stem from Judaism adopt a Jewish ritual, that ritual
does not become illegitimate.
Another objection that RABH addresses is that it is
presumptuous for simple people to act in such manners of extreme devotion. He
differentiates between different acts of devotion, those that are presumptuous
and those that are acts of submission. RABH then quotes his grandfather’s
explanation of the verse:
יח פָּנָה, אֶל-תְּפִלַּת הָעַרְעָר; וְלֹא-בָזָה, אֶת-תְּפִלָּתָם.
18 When He hath regarded the prayer of the destitute, and
hath not despised their prayer.
The word עַרְעָר which JPS
translates destitute and Alter translates desolate is a word found only twice
in Tanach; here and in Yirmiyahu 17:6. Its meaning is obscure though in both
places the context is negative. Aruch based on the Targum Yehonatan translates
it as a thorny fruit or vegetable, others, including RABH quoting an
explanation he rejects, think it refers to a type of insect similar to the locust.
Others see it as referring to a childless barren person, one who cannot have
children, from the word ערירי. The problem
is that if the verse is taken literally none of these translations make sense
contextually. A fruit or vegetable or an insect do not pray and a barren man
who cannot conceive, no amount of prayer will help. This word עַרְעָר must therefore
have an allegorical meaning.
“I copy from my grandfather Rabbeinu Maimon: the verse is referring to a
person who is the opposite of a Tzaddik or a Chassid …. As if saying even one
who is not worthy to pray, should he turn to Him and petition Him, He will not
disappoint him depending on his concentration and genuineness. Not that it
refers to the prayer of an insect, a tree insect or something similar as many
mistakenly believe. This is the gist of his [grandfather] Pirush though not
verbatim and it is one of those wondrous explanations to one who understands.
It [not ignoring the prayer] is a generosity from Him; it is through the merit
of the earlier generations during which the prophets taught this based on the
spirit from the Holy [they had access to] that we dare in the later generations
to praise and exalt even if we have not reached perfection. Thus the next
verse:
יט תִּכָּתֶב
זֹאת, לְדוֹר אַחֲרוֹן; וְעַם נִבְרָא, יְהַלֶּל-יָהּ.
19 This shall be
written for the generation to come; and a people who shall be created shall
praise the LORD. “
RABH does not dwell on the exact meaning of the word. He says that should
one understand it to be an insect it cannot be taken literally. It is a
metaphor for an unworthy human who is allowed to praise and exalt HKBH in spite
of his low status. One can do so only if supported by revelation.
Another objection that RABH addresses is that it is not customary for
people to prostrate themselves during Davening. Here are excerpts from his
response:
“
One may oppose what we have clarified and proven regarding prostration
by resorting to the argument that these things are not according to custom and
that it is difficult to go against a custom since the Mishnah obligates one to
follow the custom…. Even more as the customs used to argue against our proposed
custom [of prostration] are very old and were performed in front of respected
sages, Torah scholars and promulgators of Halacha, and they did not see as
wrong what we have shown to be wrong nor have they suggested what we suggest.
This [my suggested custom] seems to be an innovation and an indictment of the
earlier [generations]. You may say anything you want in this matter, it brings
us back to what I said earlier that the widespread customs (minhagim) whether
they are popular or unpopular, ancient or recent, done in front of respected
[sages] or not, if we can prove them to be defective, we may not follow them. For
it is not impossible for later [scholars] to clarify matters that earlier ones
could not; it is quite common for the later ones to build on what the earlier
ones have already clarified giving them the ability to progress further and
arrive at conclusions that are different from the earlier ones…. This is not
because the later ones are always and in all circumstances better than the
earlier ones but because they have the ability to analyze the sayings of the
earlier generations building on them and learning from them. Using deductive
rules they [the later generations] can arrive at conclusions that obligate us
to act accordingly as long as they make sense and are based on accepted logical
rules…. There is therefore no reason for a fully rational person, one whose
intellect is perfect, to oppose things that were clarified by a later [sage] who
uses correct proofs, by arguing that earlier authorities have not said so. It
is well known that many of the Geonim argued on earlier ones unearthing things
the earlier ones did not discover. See the critical notes that Rabbeinu Yitzchak
the author of the Halachot (RIF 1013-1103) made on the Pirush of Rav Hai Gaon
(939-1038) in spite of the latter’s great abilities and knowledge, so too [his
critical notes] on Rabbeinu Nissim the author of “Megillat Setarim” (990-1062).
See all the critical notes on these two and others in his Halachot. Rabbeinu
Yosef Halevy (R. Yosef Migash (1077-1141) his [RIF] pupil disagreed with him on
many issues. My father, although he considered himself their pupil and in his
magnum opus refers to them as “my teachers”, because his father (Rabbeinu
Maimon) who was his [Rambam’s] teacher was a pupil of Rabbeinu Yosef, disagrees
with them wherever he found the truth to be against them. He even argues with
his father and says “my father is amongst those who forbid it and I am amongst
those who allow it” [MT Hilchot Shechita 11:10).
There is nothing wrong with sages and men of religion doing that. It is only the
ignorant masses and the like who must rely on their leaders but that does not
obligate sages to follow in their path.”
This is an amazing piece. RABH is suggesting that no custom (minhag) is
inviolate. If a scholar finds a minhag to be wrong and does so using the proper
rules that the Halacha systems dictate, he may follow his conclusions and
change that custom. A minhag is not necessarily an act but could also be a lack
of an act. If a scholar feels something should be done when it is not, such as prostrating
in the case of RABH, he must do his utmost to implement what he believes to be
correct. There is however a very important proviso; one must be knowledgeable,
well informed and use the tools Halacha provides. That condition satisfied, when
it comes to the truth, precedent is not binding.
So far I have pointed to interesting (at least to me) things that RABH dealt
with from a practical perspective. What were his theology and his philosophy
and how did that influence his Halachik and general thinking? I will hopefully
address that in upcoming posts.
