Wednesday, November 16, 2011

More Incorruptible Moroccan Kabbalists


Yeranen Yaakov takes note of a story from Arutz Sheva: Another Moroccan Kabbalist's Body Reburied Whole.
The body of Rabbi Reuven Ajeyani, Rosh Yeshiva of the Etz Chaim Yeshiva in Sefrou, Morocco was interred Wednesday in the Jerusalem Har Hamenuchot cemetery, 70 years after the rabbi passed on.

Rabbi Ajeyani was famous for his vast knowledge of Talmud and Kabbalah, and was known for his blessings that brought about Divine salvation for countless followers.

The body of Rabbi Ajeyani was found miraculously intact, without signs of decomposition, demonstrating his true virtue.

And he links it to an earlier story "about Moroccan Kabbalist brothers Ribbi Avraham Tangi and Ribbi Shelomo Tangi, where the same occurred".

I would link it to another phenomenon, which purportedly occurs to various Catholic saints: incorruptibility.
Incorruptibility is a Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox believe that supernatural (or Godly) intervention allows some human bodies (specifically saints) to avoid the normal process of decomposition after death as a sign of their holiness. Bodies that reportedly undergo little or no decomposition, or delayed decomposition, are sometimes referred to as incorrupt or incorruptable.
The Wikipedia page has multiple pages of saints to which this has happened. And see this web site all about the phenomenon:
What is most astounding of all is the fact that for each incorrupt body discovered, after research has been done to determine who the person was, it has always been determined that the person was an extremely devout Catholic. This inevitably leads to the question, How can the process of decay, which has no intelligence, choose which bodies to devour and not to devour, and why do they happen to be devout Catholics? (For claims of incorrupt Orthodox Christians, we could not find proof for them during our research. Please see our page on the subject here.) There is no other way to describe this phenomena than to state that it is supernatural rather than natural, and that it is simply miraculous.
One explanation why this only seems to occur to devout Catholics is that it is Catholics specifically who believe in and venerate saints, and that this is a trait specific to many saints.

Now, there are ways of accounting for incorruptibility aside from supernatural cause. There is the possibility of fraud, such as the embalming of the body or of people simply lying; and there is the possibility of natural causes:
Physical causes include conditions such that decomposition is significantly slowed down. There are a number of ways of retarding decomposition, but the mechanism commonly stated is that of saponification.[3] Another environmental condition that can be the cause of retarding decomposition is a burial ground that is cool and dry. The retardation of decomposition also occurs if the ground is composed of soil that is high in certain compounds that bring the bodies' moisture to the surface of the skin. It is also suggested that bodies with low amounts of muscle and body fat tend to resist decomposition better.[citation needed]
Alternatively, bodies may simply have been embalmed, which greatly decreases the rate at which they decompose.[3]
Surely Orthodox Jews don't believe that this is really a supernatural occurrence happening to devout Catholics. And so, whatever explanation they would offer for the Catholics might readily be transferred to many or all of the cases involving Jewish saints kabbalists / tzaddikim.

How did this belief enter Judaism. Did it develop internally, or was it borrowed from the Catholics? Or did the Catholics get it from us?

There is a Talmudic basis for this belief. First, in Bava Metzia 84b:
On his death-bed he said to his wife, 'I know that the Rabbis are angry with me, and will not properly attend to me. Let me lie in an upper chamber,12  and do you not be afraid of me.' R. Samuel b. Nahmani said: R. Jonathan's mother told me that she was informed by the wife of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon: 'I kept him lying in that upper chamber not less than eighteen nor more than twenty-two years. Whenever I ascended there, I examined his hair, and [even] if a single hair had fallen out, the blood would well forth. One day, I saw a worm issue from his ear, whereat I was much grieved, but he appeared to me in my dream and told me that it was nothing. ["This has happened," said he,] "because I once heard a scholar insulted and did not protest, as I should have done." 
Perhaps Rabbi Eleazar beRabbi Shimon is different, for we see from a different story that (after he worried about a possible misdeed and complained that he was rotting) they performed an experiment and discovered that his extracted fat did not rot and develop worms. (See indeed Chiddushei Aggadat of Maharsha, who makes this connection.) But we might not extrapolate from this to the general case of tzaddikim, that they do not rot.

The other Talmudic basis comes from a story about a different Tanna, Rabbi Achai bar Yoshia, in Shabbat 152b:
R. Mari said: [Even] the righteous are fated to be dust, for it is written, 'and the dust return to the earth as it was'. Certain diggers were digging in R. Nahman's ground, [when] R. Ahai b. Josiah11  snorted at them. So they went and told R. Nahman, 'A man snorted at us.' He went and asked him, 'Who are you?' 'I am Ahai b. Josiah.' 'But did not R. Mari say. [Even] the righteous are fated to be dust?' said he. 'But who is Mari,' he retorted 'I do not know him.' Yet surely a verse is written, 'and the dust returns to the earth as it was'? he urged. 'He who taught you Ecclesiastes did not teach you Proverbs,' he answered, 'for it is written, But envy is the rottenness of the bones:12  he who has envy in his heart, his bones rot away. [but] he who has no envy in his heart, his bones do not rot away.' He then felt him and perceived that there was substance in him. 'Let my master arise [and come] to my house,' he invited him. 'You have thus disclosed that you have not even studied the prophets, for it is written, And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves,'13  said he to him, 'But it is written, for dust art thou, and unto dust thou shalt return?'14  'That means one hour before the resurrection of the dead', replied he.
This would be a rejection of the thesis (of the Amora, Rav Mari) that even the bodies of tzaddikim decompose. However, note that they are discussing the rotting away of the bones, rather than the rotting away of the flesh. And the prooftext from Mishlei speaks about the bones, not the flesh. Though דאית ביה מששא, "that there was substance in him", might well refer to R' Achai bar Yoshia having flesh as well.

Still, we cannot necessarily extrapolate to the preservation of the entire body, including flesh.

The conflation of flesh not decomposing with the bones being intact is apparently something that has occurred in the past. Thus, as S. wrote in a comment in both Yeranen Yaakov posts about the Chida and the Gra:
In all likelihood their skeletons were intact. In at least two other cases of reinterment, the Gra and the Chida's skeletons were said to be intact by those who dealt with the bodies, and we have their words from the time or the reinterment, but in retellings it got expanded to intact bodies, hair, etc.
So, what is my reaction to hearing this recent miracle story?

1) It would be neat if it indeed happened.

2) Still, "pics or it didn't happen." I don't just believe every single claim put forth without evidence. There are people out there who accidentally distort aspects of stories. And even some (including some Jews) who deliberately distort or make up miracle stories in order to inspire others. Given that the people in question were kabbalists, such as this latest one, who "was famous for his vast knowledge of Talmud and Kabbalah, and was known for his blessings that brought about Divine salvation for countless followers", it would be a great disgrace if someone said that his body was not intact. And given the expectation in the past, based on other Moroccan kabbalists, it is a pretty safe bet that someone would ask. Certain people would then conclude that he (like the Gra and the Chida) as not the great kabbalist and tzaddik he was renowned to be. That would be a tremendous bizayon. Such pressure could influence someone shading the truth, or even getting embalmed. (A sort of a reverse of the Or HaChaim regarding Yaakov Avinu getting embalmed.)

3) Even with pics, it would be nice (though obviously not practical, or kavod hameis) to test for signs of embalming or saponification.

There is a famous Or HaChaim which explains why Yosef had his father Yaakov embalmed.
"And the physicians embalmed him -- Yosef did this because of his father's honor, for such was the rule of the honored ones, and all the more so the greats of the nobility. Or else, in order that they should not err regarding him, when they did not embalm him, [to think] that he did not die, or that he died and did not rot, and make him into a deity. For such is a wonder in the polluted nations, and this would result in them not allowing him to ascend to the land of his burial. And if not for one of the aforementioned reasons, the matter is simple that {even} without embalming, he would not have rotted, And go and learn from the incident of Rabbi Eliezer beRabbi Shimon ben Yochai, as is stated in Shas."

The Ohr HaChaim was also a Moroccan kabbalist, who passed away in 1743.

36 comments:

Mighty Garnel Ironheart said...

My local Chabadnik once told me the story about how one of his Rebbes was re-interred and just before they put the coffin in the ground the people involved opened it to see if this story that perfect tzaddikim don't recompose was true. After all, he had been a Chabad rebbe so naturally he had been a perfect tzadik. And miracle of miracles! The body was indeed intact and unblemished.
And I pointed out to him: let's say you're one of these guys who is cracking open the coffin. All you see is a pile of bones. What do you do? Tell people what you saw? Impugn the reputation of your great and perfect Rebbe? Or do you tell them what they want to hear so as not to damage their faith?

S. said...

Since you brought up the Catholic angle, I wonder if there weren't cases with minimal decomposition due to the use of sarcgophogi which, perhaps, were sometimes air tight.

Mar Gavriel said...

I think that וסובב here simply means: "and this would result in..."

yaak said...

I'm in favor of throwing cold water on Vaday lies, but not in favor of throwing cold water on Sefeikot. Why do so for something you are not sure of? Are you saying that you have enough of a reasonable amount of proof that you like to debunk something based on a safeik? It is nevertheless still a safeik. Your statement of "It would be neat if it indeed happened" shows that you are not dismissing it out of hand.

I'm in favor of letting things lie unless it is absolutely proven otherwise. Especially if those things provide inspiration. If the abosolute proof comes later, provide it later. Don't provide it prematurely.

joshwaxman said...

Mar Gavriel:
Thanks. I corrected the post, and I'll try to keep this in mind for the future.

yaak:
Well, for one thing, the world is filled with things that would indeed be really neat if true. But it is not good, IMHO, to have such an "open mind" as to automatically accept all such things uncritically, especially where they provide 'inspiration'. It puts people into the practice of automatically believing all sorts of incredible and inspiring claims, even those which sof kol sof are theologically or medically problematic.

I also would not like the hamon am or rabbanim to be so automatically accepting of such sorts of claims.

kol tuv,
josh

S. said...

Yaak

"I'm in favor of throwing cold water on Vaday lies, but not in favor of throwing cold water on Sefeikot."

Fine, so let's throw water on the Gra and Chida's alleged lack of decomposition. If I provide you with the relevent material, will you do a post on it?

Also, to add to what Josh is saying, such beliefs don't *only* enhance emunah. They also erode it in many people.

joshwaxman said...

I'll also admit that I don't find this belief entirely neutral, even if inspiring.

Why?

1) According to the above analysis, it might well present a corruption of the authentic Jewish belief, and borrowing of an idea from another religion. Shouldn't we wish to preserve the integrity of authentic Jewish beliefs?

2) Tzaddik-worship is something I find problematic, but is endemic among certain (unspecified) Jewish populations. This is parallel to the adoration of Catholic saints. We find that people in danger pledged pilgrimages to the graves of Saints; when a similar practice arose for pilgrimages to the graves of tzaddikim, it was condemned by some poskim. (This, rather than the specific visiting of the grave, is what I am pretty sure was the problem.) People light candles for specific tzaddikim who are famed for specific results, in the same way Catholics light candles to petition their specific saints. And so on and so forth, such as (Chabad and others) legitimizing direct petitioning of the deceased tzaddik. So to grab incorruptibility from Catholic saints and ascribe it to various venerated tzaddikim seems like it may be part of this general, troubling pattern. So yes, by all means, one should think critically about this topic.

kol tuv,
josh

yaak said...

Don't think this is only a Moroccan thing. Another story is brought down with the Vizhnitzer Rebbe and the Hazon Ish here.

What I don't understand is that you almost always take the skeptical side. It's OK and even admirable to question. However, after all is said and done, why not say, "Well, we have these testimonies so who cares whether the Xtians made this up (they didn't) or not - let's be inspired by these testimonies."? That's the position I take. I don't believe everything either. However, it seems that to be overly critical is also wrong. It leads to questioning everything - which in my opinion is more dangerous than questioning nothing.

It doesn't lead to Rebbe worship. Those who are ignorant of the halacha and worship a rebbe will do so whether these stories are true or not. However, if it can inspire people to be more like the rebbe, it should be promoted - not criticized - assuming there is a possibility of Emet there. That's my position.

joshwaxman said...

it does not only extend to extremes of Rebbe worship. see this link, and how the Chabad rabbi misinterprets the Kitzur Shluchan Aruch to support the position that one may directly address the deceased tzaddik.

And it is attitude, not just worship.

A similar belief is that someone should directly address Rochel Imeinu at her kever to intercede, and that she would then go out and act as an independent force, as a lookout for booby-trapped houses in Gaza. I understand that Rav Mordechai Eliyahu, ztz"l might have thought it theologically permissible, but others would disagree strongly and say that it is superstition and doresh el hameisim. And the laughable 'proof' then provides evidence to one side of this machloket.

kol tuv,
josh

yaak said...

Addressing the deceased Tzaddik is not a position solely allowed by Chabad and Rav Mordechai Eliyahu ZT"L, but Rav Ovadia Yosef Shlit"a allows it too.

See here:

אלא שכתב מרן הרב עובדיה יוסף שליט"א, שההולך לבית הקברות, לא ישים מגמתו נגד המתים, שכאילו הם יושיעו אותו ויעזרו לו, אלא יבקש רחמים מהשם יתברך בזכות הצדיקים שוכני עפר. ואם ירצה יוכל לבקש מן הנפטר שיהיה לו למליץ טוב, לבקש עליו רחמים מהשם יתברך.

S. said...

Putting aside the theological issues, let's talk about skepticism. I happen to think it is a very valuable tool that helps one stay secure. Now you certainly don't need to tell me that too much skepticism can be harmful, so please don't bother to point this out.

So unless you disagree that skepticism can be a very valuable quality, how do you reconcile skepticism with believing stories like this without any verification whatsoever? Skepticism is a mindset, as is gullibility. I submit that you cannot be sufficiently skeptical in the sense that it is helpful to avoid scams, hamrful junk medicine, etc. and also exhibit zero skepticism toward claims like these.

I'm also curious if you would address my point about such stories and beliefs also having a spiritually harmful effect on certain type of people (call them skeptically inclined, if you like). I assume that I don't have to spell out what I mean by that?

yaak said...

Yes, it may harm certain kinds of people to believe a story and then find out it not to be true. I'll admit that. To me, it is worth the risk to promote such a story, provided there is a good basis to believe the story. The inspiration it provides is invaluable.

צדיקים ילכו בם ופושעים יכשלו בם

As a blogger, my obligation is toward the Hamon Am. I will posit that more people get inspired than those who will be disgusted by claims proven false. Especially the readers of my blog, who are not the rationalist type, will be inspired.

Those who read your blogs will likely be inspired too if you would just let it happen. Instead, you err on the side of skepticism, which is an inspiration opportunity lost.

joshwaxman said...

yaak, I know. but there is another side, which disagrees and entirely 'disproven' by such evidence. plus, even Rav Ovadiah Yosef (and R' Eliyahu) speaks of asking them to beseech in turn. but this is different than beseeching powerful agents with bechira who go out by themselves to act. this approaches multiple deities.

but regardless, S. makes some good points regarding skepticism vs. gullibility.

yaak said...

but this is different than beseeching powerful agents with bechira who go out by themselves to act. this approaches multiple deities.
Of course I agree with the Hiluk you make. And so does the Chabad.org link you provided earlier. I don't think anyone that is included in Orthodox Judaism believes otherwise.

but regardless, S. makes some good points regarding skepticism vs. gullibility.

Yes, they were good points, but so were mine, IMHO.

joshwaxman said...

yet i think this is going to be the eventual effect of such Mama Rochel stories in the Hamon Am; transforming her into a sort of Jewish Virgin Mary. in earlier generations, people set a table for Eliyahu HaNavi, which was possibly problematic. there is quite often a downside to these 'inspiring' stories, in that they create a false Jewish theology.

by the way, I'd have to see Rav Ovadiah's basis inside, but often it is based on the controversial idea that one can directly address angels to deliver our prayers to Hashem. a position Rav Ovadiah Yosef holds.

in this instance, I think I know better than Rav Yosef, because he was unaware of a source -- Tobit. see here, in the post and then comment section, for elaboration.

S. said...

>Yes, it may harm certain kinds of people to believe a story and then find out it not to be true.

That is not even close to what I meant. I meant people who can't stomach the religion if it isn't even sort of reasonable. Believe me, many a Jew is lost because of this stuff. Every year we send an awful lot of shiny eyed, pure hearted 5 year olds onto a path of ultimately rejecting Judaism, because of stories like these.

>I'll admit that. To me, it is worth the risk to promote such a story, provided there is a good basis to believe the story. The inspiration it provides is invaluable.

Since I think we were talking about two separate things, I'll ask you again if you think it's worth the risk in this case? My point is that a lot of people tend toward skepticism. Usually not when they're children. But they grow up to think they're rabbeim were credulous fools. Aren't their spiritual needs also something to consider?

>As a blogger, my obligation is toward the Hamon Am.

I don't see how B follows from A, but even so, is that why you would not post about how the Gra and the Chida's remains were skeletons when their body was removed?

>Especially the readers of my blog, who are not the rationalist type, will be inspired.

Okay, you've got a point there.

But what about my question of whether or not cultivating a very credulous, non-skeptical mind is safe? I mean, how do you balance it? Or grapple with it? Isn't critical thinking, well, critical? (Pun intended.)

If you like, I'll share an anecdote that is somewhat related. Let's say this is more about experience and worldliness rather then skepticism, although skepticism comes into play too.

Someone tells me that "Someone came into my [huge] yeshiva, and he attracted a crowd. He was saying that all you need to do is let him make a copy of your driver's license, and he'll pay you $100. He explained that the government was minting some gold coin, and everyone is entitled to buy a set small number of them. So what this guy was doing was paying people for their right to purchase, and in this way he can accumulate many more than he would be allowed. He found a loophole."

He also told me that while the guy was doing his demo, one or two people passed by and said "Hey, he did it before. He really did pay me $100."

Okay, let's remove any question of whether this was a scam, and let's say the guy really does pay $100. Who says this is a "loophole?" Is it legal? I have no idea. Neither does anyone of the bochurim. And if it isn't and they get caught? Well, said the person who told me about it, you'd just say you had nothing to do with it. Gee, real smart. Mr. Lawman comes knocking on your door because you did something illegal, and you tell him, "Huh? Never heard of it." Yeah, that's going to work.

Now, this loophole may be very lomdish. I have to admit, it is very smart of the investor guy to think of it. But how could no one think that there isn't at least a chance that it is illegal? And that if it was they could get into very serious trouble.

This is lack of experience. It is also lack of skepticism in a way, because frankly you should be suspicious if someone tells you that he will give you $100 and all you have to do is let him make a photocopy of your driver's license.

And you think this thing is extraordinary? I assure you that it is not. Again, I stress that I have no idea if the entire thing was or wasn't kosher.

yaak said...

Josh, you worry too much (about Virgin Mary and Shabtai Tzvi scenarios which will never happen again in mainstream Judaism) and - Bimhila to you - you know too little - perhaps more than me, but definitely not more than Rav Yosef - even in this instance. (What you said is like scratching the blackboard to me.)

S,

How is the religion not reasonable by believing such stories? If we are to believe in Matan Torah, Keriat Yam Suf, Daniel in the lion's den, Hanania Misha'el Va'azarya in the furnace, then why can reasonable people not believe that a corpse of some tzaddikim do not decay?

Those who grow up and tend toward skepticism need a good dose of Emuna taught to them. Yes, Emuna can be taught and should be taught. Those whose Rabbeim didn't teach them Emuna have what to complain about. Those who were taught Emuna, but learned secular sources and are now questioning everything they learned were obviously not taught Emuna properly.

As I said before,
צדיקים ילכו בם ופושעים יכשלו בם

I'm not sure why you so desparately want me to blog about the Hida and the Gr"a. I know the story with Rav Mordechai Eliyahu ZT"L and the Hida's bones, if that's what you mean.

Yes, skepticism in money matters is a good thing, so don't try selling me the Brooklyn Bridge.

joshwaxman said...

"Josh, you worry too much"
we are already there, not for Virgin Mary scenarios, but with an extremely superstitious and backwards Judaism in some sectors. start with lighting candles to saints. or believing in every ganiff that claims he is a miracle-worker.

" and - Bimhila to you - you know too little - perhaps more than me, but definitely not more than Rav Yosef - even in this instance"
irrelevant. i certainly have not seen all the sources Rav Ovadiah Yosef has seen, but in all likelihood this one critical source is one he has not seen. Or does Rav Yosef regularly read seforim chitzonim?

Without knowing the details of Tobit, he finds a certain interpretation of the gemara compelling. With Tobit, the gemara means something entirely different -- that the angels are postmen hearing and carrying messages which were spoken by people who were directly addressing Hashem.

it is similar to how Eliyahu Segal can learn a Yerushalmi better than Rav Chaim Kanievsky.

And my Emunas Chachamim is such that I believe that these chachamim would be modeh al haEmes, even if most of their followers would not even consider the merits of the arguments, depending instead on the Daas Torah of such pronouncements.

How to distinguish between X and Y in terms of Emunah is a good question. (Though to take an example by appealing to authority, Rambam believes in all those things but would likely laugh at many of the superstitious beliefs that many Jews hold dear.) But when one DOES conflate X and Y and say that it is a deficiency of Emunah when one does not believe silly and flimsily supported Y, then one undermines everything. I want nothing to do with such "Emunah".

yaak said...

Ignoring your first point, I think we just disagree on what's silly and flimsily supported.

yaak said...

Regarding arguing on Rav Ovadia, see p.1, left column here. It tells you the right method of disagreeing with him, if one must.

joshwaxman said...

An interesting idea, though the end seems to indicate that they are against opposing the Gadol HaDor period.

But let me ask: Assuming we hold like this particular chiddush of Tosafos, could one distinguish between a case of a single Gadol HaDor for all Klal Yisrael, such as Eli, who would be granted the status of Rabbo Muvhak over Shmuel; and the Gadol HaDor of another different Kehillah, of Sefardim, which an Ashkenazi almost never holds like and does not typically learn his Torah? Could it be that Rav Ovadiah Yosef would not have the status of Rabbi Muvhak vis a vis me?

Aside from all this, with all the great respect and self-doubt, if expressed, you would miss the major point here, which is:

No, non-Chassidic Ashkenazim do NOT hold that this is an acceptable thing to do. In fact, what Rav Mordechai Eliyahu did is theologically problematic, from this perspective. And don't hide behind Rav Ovadiah Yosef. He has his interpretations (which other Gedolim argue with), but ultimately, even if he says it, we will still say it is theologically wrong.

And if so, what are we to make of this "inspiring" story of Rochel Imeinu.

Also, that this is yet another example of Sefardi superstition; but that is another issue entirely.

yaak said...

though the end seems to indicate that they are against opposing the Gadol HaDor period.

Not at all. I believe you misread it. It said to go ask Rav Ovadia personally rather than publishing articles in Halachic journals (or blogs for that matter) with one's point of disagreement.

But let me ask: Assuming we hold like this particular chiddush of Tosafos, could one distinguish between a case of a single Gadol HaDor for all Klal Yisrael, such as Eli, who would be granted the status of Rabbo Muvhak over Shmuel; and the Gadol HaDor of another different Kehillah, of Sefardim, which an Ashkenazi almost never holds like and does not typically learn his Torah? Could it be that Rav Ovadiah Yosef would not have the status of Rabbi Muvhak vis a vis me?

To say that Rav Ovadia would only be the Rav Muvhak of Sepharadim is totally false. He constantly cites the halacha for Ashkenazim in his works. To say that Ashkenazim do not typically learn his Torah is also totally false. It may have been true 30 years ago, but his Halachic decisions has become very mainstream Ashkenazi de rigueur learning. I would consider him the Rashkebehag, so yes, he should be considered the Rav Muvhak of even Josh Waxman.

No, non-Chassidic Ashkenazim do NOT hold that this is an acceptable thing to do. In fact, what Rav Mordechai Eliyahu did is theologically problematic, from this perspective. And don't hide behind Rav Ovadiah Yosef. He has his interpretations (which other Gedolim argue with), but ultimately, even if he says it, we will still say it is theologically wrong.

"theologically wrong"? Again, Rav Ovadia agrees that one should not pray to the deceased, Has Veshalom. Nevertheless, to ask them (as a favor - not as a prayer) to intercede on one's behalf should not be theologically wrong at all. Is it theologically wrong to ask a live Tzaddik to pray for you? Name one source that considers this theologically wrong. (And to say that a statement of Rav Ovadia's is "theologically wrong" without naming sources behind it is itself theologically wrong.)

(I'm aware of the Rambam's supposed opposition to going to Kivrei Tzadikim in general - see this section of the Wikipedia article where he notes that the Rambam himself went to the Me'arat Hamachpela to pray. Note also there the alternate definition of "Bikur Kevarot".)

joshwaxman said...

I can ask a *live* tzaddik even to ACT for me, so of course I can ask him to pray for me. No one would say that interacting with a live human being would be considered 'doresh el hameisim'! (Yes, I am aware of the extension / moreh heter people make from live tzaddikim.)

The issue is whether one may directly address angels and the dead, and thus make a pantheon of forces in Shamayim that one should daven to. Where do you think the opposition to directly addressing the meisim (e.g. in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch) comes from? They think it is theologically right, but just technically not permissible?

joshwaxman said...

"It may have been true 30 years ago, but his Halachic decisions has become very mainstream Ashkenazi de rigueur learning"

learning, sure. but that does not make him into the 'Gadol Hador' of Ashkenazim, in the same way that Eli was the singular posek hador. It makes him into a great talmid chacham that people of another community are generally aware of. There is a key element in Tosafot's equation that is missing here. **Why** specifically do you think Tosafot saw fit to equate the two, and is that element present here? (I also strongly suspect that Gadol HaDor is a homonym here.)

yaak said...

"Doreish El Hameitim", according to my admittedly limited understanding, is defined as asking the Meit for advice via a seance or something similar. This is NOT at all the same. One is not trying to have a 2-way conversation with the deceased here. Please show me the source in the Kitzur Shulhan Aruch where he specifically forbids this.

Yes. The element is present here. Don't hide behind your being Ashkenazi non-Hasidic. If one can say Rav Moshe Feinstein was the Poseik Hador (and he was), one can say the same about Rav Ovadia. If one wants to argue on him, one needs to be VERY sure and should consult many rabbis and even talk to him directly first before doing so.

I think you're missing the general point here - that we've as a society grown accustomed to a general contempt of great rabbis which is unhealthy, unhalachic, and blasphemous as well.

joshwaxman said...

here is the source for you, with the relevant part bolded:

Kitzur Shulchan Aurch 128:13

נוהגין לילך בערב ראש השנה אחר תפלת שחרית לבית הקברות להשתטח על קברי הצדיקים ונותנים שם צדקה לעניים ומרבים תחנונים לעורר את הצדיקים הקדושים אשר בארץ המה שימליצו טוב בעדנו ביום הדין. וגם מחמת שהוא מקום קבורת הצדיקים, המקום הוא קדוש וטהור והתפלה מקובלת שם ביותר בהיותה על אדמת קודש. ויעשה הקדוש ברוך בוא חסד בזכות הצדיקים אבל אל ישים מגמתו נגד המתים השוכנים שם, כי קרוב הדבר שיהיה בכלל ודורש אל המתים אך יבקש מהשם יתברך שירחם עליו בזכות הצדיקים שוכני עפר כשבא אל בית הקברות אם לא ראה את הקברים שלשים יום צריך לברך אשר יצר אתכם בדין וכו' כשבא אל הקבר יש לו לומר יהיה רצון שתהא מנוחתו של (פלוני) הקבור פה בכבוד וזכותו יעמוד לי.

joshwaxman said...

"If one can say Rav Moshe Feinstein was the Poseik Hador"

I am not so sure Tosafos would say that, especially for Sefardim, but likely for chassidim and maybe even others. The idea (as I understand it at present) was that since he functioned as the one primary teacher / decisor, Eli had the status of Rebbi Muvhak for Shmuel and all of klal yisrael.

yaak said...

It's not clear, but it could be that the Kitzur is totally in agreement with Rav Ovadia. It could be that he's saying that if the final destination of the prayer is the Meitim, that is close to Doreish El Hameitim. However, he doesn't discuss the case of asking the Meitim to pray to Hashem on one's behalf.

I could see the words of the Kitzur both ways.

joshwaxman said...

I suspect that you are influenced to see it both ways because you want to establish like Rav Ovadiah Yosef and have no one disagree with him. Much like that Chabad Rabbi in the link above ran roughshod over the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, because he wanted everyone to say like the chassidim.

(Do you think people were not doing precisely this in the time of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, that he wouldn't have thought of this possibility? ישים מגמתו means to address himself. Don't address the meisim. Speak to Hashem and refer to the merit of the meisim.)

I also suspect that Rav Ovadiah Yosef was responding directly to this Kitzur Shulchan Aruch and rejecting it. Compare the quotes. From KSA:
...ודורש אל המתים אך יבקש מהשם יתברך שירחם עליו בזכות הצדיקים שוכני עפר

with Rav Ovadia Yosef:
אלא יבקש רחמים מהשם יתברך בזכות הצדיקים שוכני עפר. ואם ירצה יוכל לבקש מן הנפטר שיהיה לו למליץ טוב, לבקש עליו רחמים מהשם יתברך.

Can you ask Rav Yosef how he understands the KSA?

Regardless, with all honor due to Rav Yosef, my well-rooted theology is that this is NOT ultimately an acceptable practice. And so, I don't find this story inspirational, any more than I find Igros Kodesh stories to be 'inspirational'. Or Catholic exorcism stories inspirational. The attitude on the ground are one that is already extremely problematic, and then approaches idolatry (in the future).

yaak said...

I'm not going to doubt your "well-rooted theology", but neither should you doubt mine.

Eilu Ve'eilu is what I say. You want to believe Rahel Imeinu stories, great. You don't want to, fine.

It should not be a cause of rejection from either side as both have Yesodam Beharerei Kodesh.


Or is only Josh Waxman's "well-rooted theology" directly from Sinai to the exclusion of everyone else's?

I don't reject your theology, but I worry yours will cause us to lose our Emuna. You worry mine will cause us to follow another Shabetai Tzvi. Therefore, let's call it an Eilu Ve'eilu and move on.

joshwaxman said...

what do you mean 'doubt'?

if you want to act in that way, fine. you have halachic sources. and vesalachta la'avoneinu, ki RAV hu.

but do i think it is wrong? sure. and you DO think mine is wrong.

Elu veElu has its limits. There is no Elu veElu on metzius, in general. Is there on theology? Does Satmar think Zionism is legit, even though they don't, because of Elu veElu?

Not everything is reducible to "Oh no!!! Another Shabsai Tzvi!!", from my side. That is very easy to dismiss. It is more like, 'please, please, don't encourage more superstition, based on extremely unsophisticated ways of looking at the world and Jewish sources.' It is not the destination (Shabtai Tzvi) but the attitude along the way.

yaak said...

Yes, I firmly believe there is Eilu Ve'eilu in theology. Even if Satmar doesn't say so re: Zionism, they should.

There are 12 Shevatim.

Using words like "superstition" do deligitimize Talmudicly-based Jewish thought only underscores the emptiness of your argument. The same with calling Kabbala unsophisticated. It is so much more sophisticated than you can imagine.

joshwaxman said...

There is only one thing that is ultimately true. Even if we don't know what it is.

Yes, there are twelve shevatim.

"The same with calling Kabbala unsophisticated"
Who called kabbalah unsophisticated. Unsophisticated ways of looking at the world is the line of thought that Rav Eliyahu having davened at kever Rachel is a "confirmation" of the Mama Rachel story. As one example. Or unsophisticated ways of analyzing a Zohar to read what it does not say, in order to discern a 'prediction' about the terrible things that happened in Mumbai. Or thinking that Baba Elazar or Nir Ben Artzi must both have been legit, and that this is the word of Hashem on the matter, because some Rabbi interpreted a Torah Code in this way.

yaak said...

Yes, I agree that sometimes believers rush to fit square pegs into round holes while trying to understand the world around them. I have no doubt that those who do so do so LeShaim Shamayim, but sometimes, they are ultimately wrong.

The list that you listed has some examples of this, but some that are not examples of this. Many of the items you listed are legitimate and should not be listed with the others.

This is not a measure of sophistication, but rather, of belief vs. skepticism.

joshwaxman said...

I don't think that it is a matter of trying to fit square pegs into round holes. I think that in many cases, it is a matter of the people involved having a bad process. Sometimes a result of amaratzus, sometimes a result of being legitimately crazy, sometimes not having a basic understanding of psychology or probability, and so on and so forth.

Over and over, it is like watching a train wreck. I am talking about things much more broad than what you post on your blog, to prematurely clarify.

To choose a random example, like belief in Elenin as apocalypse, and that NASA is covering it up, and that this is what the Torah and the Mayans predicted, and that even after Elenin turned out to be nothing, indeed, that WAS the prediction, and so on and so forth. A train wreck of stupidity. And people get in the habit of thinking that way.

yaak said...

I tend to agree with you about that.

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin