Pyres and Incense - The Yerushalmi

Just a quick followup to my previous post about funeral pyres. The Yerushalmi has a slightly different take:

דף ב, ב פרק א הלכה ב משנה
אילו הן אידיהן של עכו"ם קלנדס וסטרנלייא וקרטסי' ויום גינוסיא של מלכים ויום הלידה ויום המיתה דברי ר"מ וחכמים אומרים כל מיתה שיש בה שריפה יש בה ע"ז ושאין בה שריפה אין בה ע"ז:

דף ג, ב פרק א הלכה ב גמרא

יום הלידה ויום המיתה עד כאן לציבור מיכן ואילך ליחיד. וכתי' בשלום תמות ובמשרפות אבותיך הראשונים וגו'. כיני מתניתא כל מיתה שיש בה עישון ושריפה יש בהן ע"ז ושאין בה עישון ושריפה אין בה ע"ז:

"Kini masnisa" basically means to reread the Mishna as if it said something slightly different. Thus, it is as if the Mishnah had the Chachamim say that "any death which has to it incense and burning has a component of idolatry." This offered as a harmonization with the Tosefta. It is true that pyres are burned in honor of kings, and there is no superstition in that. But that is burning articles owned or used by the king. However, it is still possible to burn other things, such as incense, such that it is clear that that is not the intent of the burning. And burning incense would be just such a thing.

Aside from the setama deBavli's harmonization, we see in Bavli Avodah Zarah a development of this idea. Thus, in Bavli:

'The burning of articles at a king's [funeral] is permitted and there is nothing of Amorite usage about it,' as it is said, Thou shalt die in peace and with burnings of thy fathers, the former kings that were before thee, so shall they make a burning for thee. And just as it is permitted to burn at the [funerals] of kings so it is permitted to burn in the case of princes. What is it that may be burnt in the case of kings? — Their beds and articles that were in use by them. In the instance of the death of R. Gamaliel the elder, Onkelos the proselyte burnt after him seventy Tyrian manehs. But did you not say that only articles in use by them could be burnt? — What is meant is [articles] 'to the value of seventy Tyrian manehs.' May other things then not be burned? Yet it has been taught: It is permitted to mutilate [an animal] at royal funerals and there is nothing of Amorite usage about it! — Said R. Papa [that refers to] the horse on which he rode.

Thus, the gemara, and Rav Pappa, surely realize that there is a limit to what one can burn where it is not considered superstitious, but over that line it is Darkei Emori. This is in line with the suggestion offered by the Yerushalmi, to distinguish between the two cases.

Is Burning A Pyre to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai An Idolatrous or Superstitious Custom?

{Note: Certainly not intended halacha lemaaseh. Rather, just something I want to explore.}

It would certainly seem potentially problematic. The practice of burning pyres for kings at their funerals turns out not to be a superstitious practice of the Emorites. In the Tosefta of Shabbos, perek 8, we read:

שורפין על המלכים ולא מדרכי האמורי שנאמר (ירמיהו לד) בשלום תמות ובמשרפות וגו' כשם ששורפין על המלכים כך שורפין על הנשיאים אבל לא על הדיוטות ומה הן שורפין עליו מטתו וכלי תשמישו מעשה שמת ר"ג הזקן ושרף עליו אונקלוס הגר יותר משבעים מנה.

Thus, in honor of kings, they made pyres where they burned things. This was a way of showing kavod, honor, and it is thus not a superstitious practice. This at the least means when Jews do it but may mean when gentiles do it as well.

This Tosefta therefore allows burning of pyres for Jewish kings, and also for the Nasi. The Nasi was the prince, the head of the Sanhedrin. The incident described in the Tosefta bears this latter point out. Rabban Gamliel the Zaken was a Nasi, and Onkelos the Convert burned more that 70 manehs worth in his honor.

However, the Tosefta notes, this is only for a king or a nasi. One should not do this for a hedyot, which in this context I would regard as a "commoner," non-royalty.

And though Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai was surely a great Tanna, he was not a Nasi. As such, burning pyres in his honor on the anniversary of his death (assuming it actually is the anniversary of his death and not a taus sofer) is perhaps misguided.

Perhaps we should simply cast hedyot as any non-prestigious person, in which case Rashbi was prestigious. What is the nature of the distinction of hedyot/non-hedyot? Does the pasuk allow and set precedent for burning pyres specifically for Jewish kings and royalty, thus encompassing the Nesiim. All Nesiim with the exclusion of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai were descended from Hillel, and thus from Bet David. But we see a pyre was made for Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. It could be a function of the office. Alternatively, the idea of king or nasi was that this is done for honor, as the gemara clarifies. And for a hedyot, perhaps it would not be done for honor, but rather for some superstitious purpose.

Of course, all sorts of reasons are given for the lighting of the bonfires. But surely they are being lit in honor of Rashbi's yahrtzeit. Which again, might be for a hedyot, or for a non-hedyot.

Add to that the following. To cite this site:

There is another reason. The fire represents the Jewish Neshama. (soul) It say in Proverbs, "The Soul of Man is Hashem's candle (light). The bonfire is a symbol of the igniting of the Jewish soul on this day, and its desire to come closer to Hashem.

Rebbi Yisrael of Rizhin, by way of the Rabbis of Sfas, purchased, at great expense, the right to light the main bonfire in Meron on Lag B'Omer for all time. It has passed on to his descendants even today as an inheritance.

Once when his grandson, the Sadigorer Rebbi was asked about this phenomenon, he answered, "Tens of thousands of souls have been healed because of this bonfire which is lit in the honor of the Holy Rebbi Shimon Bar Yochai!!"

It is one thing to do something in honor of someone, even if not a king or prince. But when you think that this fire has mystical properties (as can develop when talking about festivals attended by thousands of people for a kabbalistic personality), we might be wandering into dangerous territory. On the other hand, it could be that the festival somehow brings people closer to Hashem. I am not entirely sure how to interpret this statement. How have tens of thousands of souls been healed by the bonfire? Is this in a mystical sense?

It is also important to note that according to the setama digmara's interpretation and harmonization of the Mishna with the Tosefta (see my full citation of the Mishna and Gemara below in order to understand the following comments), it might well be that everyone agrees that burning pyres is not a superstitious custom, but rather that it is a mark of honor, and Rabbi Meir and the Sages argue whether idolatry happens at such events, if there is, and if there is not, such a pyre.

What follows is the Mishna and Gemara in Avodah Zarah about pyres for kings. There is the Mishna, from daf 8a:

THESE ARE THE FESTIVITIES OF THE IDOLATERS: KALENDA, SATURNALIA, KRATESIS, THE ANNIVERSARY OF ACCESSION TO THE THRONE AS WELL AS [ROYAL] BIRTHDAYS AND ANNIVERSARIES OF DEATHS. THIS IS R. MEIR'S OPINION. BUT THE SAGES SAY, A DEATH AT WHICH BURNING [OF ARTICLES OF THE DEAD] TAKES PLACE IS ATTENDED BY IDOLATRY, BUT WHERE THERE IS NOT SUCH BURNING THERE IS NO IDOLATRY. HOWEVER, THE DAY OF SHAVING ONES BEARD OR LOCK OF HAIR, OR THE DAY OF LANDING AFTER A SEA VOYAGE, OR THE DAY OF RELEASE FROM PRISON, OR IF AN IDOLATER HOLDS A BANQUET FOR HIS SON — THE PROHIBITION ONLY APPLIES TO THAT DAY AND THAT PARTICULAR PERSON.

And then the gemara, on Avodah Zara 11a:

THE BIRTHDAY AND ANNIVERSARIES OF KINGS DEATHS. [THIS IS R. MEIR'S OPINION. THE SAGES SAY IDOLATRY ONLY OCCURS AT A DEATH AT WHICH BURNING OF ARTICLES TAKES PLACE.] This implies that R. Meir is of opinion that at every death, whether there is burning of articles or there is no burning, idol-worship takes place — consequently, the burning of articles is not an [idolatrous] cult. From which is to be inferred that the Rabbis hold that burning [of articles at a funeral] is an [idolatrous] cult; what then of the following which has been taught: The burning of articles at a king's [funeral] is permitted and there is nothing of Amorite usage about it? Now if it is a cult of idolatry how could such burning be allowed? Is it not written, and in their statutes ye shall not walk? — Hence, all agree that burning is not an idolatrous cult and is merely a mark of high esteem [for the deceased]; where they differ is this: R. Meir holds that at every death, whether burning of articles takes place or does not take place. there is idol-worship; but the Rabbis hold that a death at which burning takes place is regarded as important and is marked by idol-worship, but one at which no burning takes place is unimportant and is not marked by idol-worship.

[To return to] the main text. 'The burning of articles at a king's [funeral] is permitted and there is nothing of Amorite usage about it,' as it is said, Thou shalt die in peace and with burnings of thy fathers, the former kings that were before thee, so shall they make a burning for thee. And just as it is permitted to burn at the [funerals] of kings so it is permitted to burn in the case of princes. What is it that may be burnt in the case of kings? — Their beds and articles that were in use by them. In the instance of the death of R. Gamaliel the elder, Onkelos the proselyte burnt after him seventy Tyrian manehs. But did you not say that only articles in use by them could be burnt?— What is meant is [articles] 'to the value of seventy Tyrian manehs.'

I am not sure that I agree with this harmonization, and would rather suggest that the Chachamim disagree with the Tosefta. Or rather that they would agree when done for gentile kings by gentiles, it is indeed an idolatrous cult and so it is a festival in that sense which is relevant to those halachos being discussed in Avodah Zarah. But whether Jews can burn pyres for their own kings -- since there is Scriptural basis for the practice for Jewish kings, it is done in honor of the Jewish kings, has precedent, and is not Darkei Emori. Thus, I would suggest the harmonization is misguided.

At the very least, I would point out that the Tosefta explicitly says that one should not burn such pyres for a hedyot, a commoner. And such is made clear in the gemara as well, when it cites that one may do so for a Nasi. This surely reads at odds with the harmonization which has the pyres always being only for honor. Except we can say that what all are in agreement to, according to the gemara, is that for kings it is only a mark of honor, rather than this being the case in general. But in other situations, indeed pyres may be superstitious.

Another point. Are we conflating pyres made at the time of death with pyres made on the anniversary of the death? The Tosefta appears to be talking about the king's funeral. Thus Onkelos burned 70 maneh worth at Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai's funeral, and the articles the king used are burned at the funeral.

In contrast, the Mishna refers to Yom HaLeida and Yom haMisa, which are anniversaries of the king's birth and death. This is a recurring, year to year, occurrence. Perhaps pyres in such a situation are indeed problematic for perhaps they can be cast as worship of the king, but at the actual funeral, burning the king's possessions so that no-one else can benefit from them, in honor of him, or expressing sadness in this way, is simply honor.

At any rate, these were just my musings, but not intended halacha lemaaseh in any way.