Dancing in the moonlight: the evolution of a simple blessing

One of the more peculiar communal rituals we regularly indulge in is the monthly Kiddush Levanah – a blessing over the new moon following which participants greet each other as long lost friends (“Shalom Aleichem!”) and then proceed to hold hands and dance slowly in a circle.

Talmud Reclaimed explores the relationship between Kabbalah and Halacha – and the different methodologies employed by legal authorities when these sources do not agree. The laws relating to Kiddush Levanah offer a perfect framework for exploring these methodologies as well as more broadly the way in which various Rishonim balance up halachic sources in order to determine Halacha.

One particular peculiarity about the law of Kiddush Levanah is that the main law itself appears to be missing from the primary halachic source: the Talmud Bavli. Instead of the expected location in Masechet Berachot, it is only a tangential passage in Sanhedrin where the latest time for reciting this blessing is debated. The primary obligation itself, as well as the earliest time for performing Kiddush Levanah do not merit a mention.

With the Bavli holding its silence, the earliest commentaries and halachic codes appear to draw upon the Yerushalmi, which places this law where it seems most suited – in the chapter of HaRo’eh among numerous other blessings recited over natural or historical phenomena:

“One who sees the moon in its renewal should say Blessed [is the God who] renews the months”.

As Talmud Reclaimed details, while the Rambam and Rif both consider the Bavli to be the more legally authoritative of the two Talmuds, this is only because it was sealed and published after its Palestinian counterpart and is thus considered to have superseded it. On occasions such as this where the Bavli is silent, the Yerushalmi’s prior teaching remains legally binding. In view of this, Rambam, Rosh, Rashi and others all rule simply that the blessing can be recited from the very first sighting of the moon (Rambam and perhaps Rashi even consider this to be the ideal time). A minority opinion of Rabbeinu Yonah requires one to wait three days – presumably in order for the moon to have sufficiently “renewed” to warrant a blessing. Yet all of this still seems very distant from the ceremony as it is customarily practiced today.

For further clarification of the popular practice we need to examine post-Talmudic sources, starting with Masechet Soferim – a work understood to have been authored in the Land of Israel during the Geonic period. Here for the first time we discover recommendations that the blessing be recited on Motzei Shabbat with due pomp and circumstance.

Characteristically, Rambam and other Rishonim who follow his strict legal methodology, do not record this as law since being post-Talmudic it lacks formal legal authority. Notwithstanding this, the custom to perform the ceremony on Motzei Shabbat became increasingly popular and widely practiced to the extent that it has practically been formalized as law in the popular perception. The positions of Rashi, Rambam and others that it should ideally be recited at the first opportunity, and the Gra’s protest against unnecessarily delaying the performance of a mitzvah (particularly against those who delay until after Yom Kippur and Tishe Be’Av) are rarely acknowledged.

The reason for this seismic shift in the popular approach to Kiddush Levanah would appear to lie not simply in Masechet Soferim but rather in a kabbalistic teaching of Rabbi Yosef Gikatilla which introduces a notion that is absent from both Talmuds: that the blessing should not be recited until at least the seventh of the month for kabbalistic reasons.

This opens a can of worms which is thoroughly parsed in Talmud Reclaimed. In theory it is agreed by all – including Rav Yosef Karo’s Beit Yosef and the Mishneh Berurah – that in a clash between Talmud and the Zohar it is the Talmudic conclusion which must be followed for Halachah. Nevertheless, Rav Yosef Karo’s Shulchan Aruch is widely credited with introducing kabbalistic considerations into mainstream halachic dialogue. Talmud Reclaimed shows the extent to which delicate legal reasoning is engaged in order to demonstrate that the Zohar can be reconciled with the Talmud. The case in hand is particularly difficult to reconcile, the Bach arguing strongly that the seven-day ruling should not be followed as it opposes Talmudic law.

With Kiddush Levana gradually transformed from a blessing over viewing a natural phenomenon – one of the group of Birchot HaRo’eh – to a communal Motzei Shabbat celebration of the moon, its focus can be seen to have shifted significantly. The text of the Berachah specifically addresses God, and makes reference to a prophecy of Yeshaya in order to pray to God to renew and redeem his Chosen People (the “amusei baten”) – a symbolic association with the renewal of the moon. Writing in his commentary to Mishneh Torah, Rabbi Yosef Kappach notes critically how the customary verses and dances which have slowly attached themselves to the blessing have gradually shifted the focus of the ceremony from a prayer to God to the moon itself – sometimes even appearing to address it.

Where this all leaves us is uncertain. But it may be fair to comment that what was initially one small prayer to God has seen itself transformed into one giant leap in the popular evolution of Halachah!

For more information about Talmud Reclaimed: An Ancient Text in the Modern Era and Judaism Reclaimed: Philosophy and Theology in the Torah, visit www.TalmudReclaimed.com.

For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.

Tefillin on Chol HaMoed: can the Zohar challenge Talmudic law?

One of the central themes in Talmud Reclaimed (available in the US in the coming days) is a thorough exploration of the status of Talmudic law in the modern era. What does it mean to say that “Ravina and Rav Ashi are sof-hora’ah” [the conclusion of authoritative legal rulings]?

An important case study in this analysis relates to a halachic question with which many Jews are grappling with this week: should Tefillin be worn in the intermediate Chol Hamoed days of a festival?

The Talmudic law on this matter is somewhat ambiguous: while tefillin should not be worn on Shabbat and Yom Tov, it is unclear whether this extends to the less restrictive intermediate days of the festivals. Medieval halachic authorities were divided on the matter; while it was unanimously agreed that tefillinshould be worn on these days, they disputed whether a blessing should be recited since this was a situation of doubt. Rabbi Yosef Karo, however, sought to resolve the matter by introducing a strongly worded kabbalistic prohibition against performing this commandment on Chol Hamoed, adding that:

"… since our Talmud is inconclusive on the matter, who can dare to actively oppose the words of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai who prohibits it so powerfully?"

As a result of Rabbi Karo’s reliance upon Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai’s mystical writings, the custom in Israel—and increasingly also in the rest of the world—is not to wear tefillin at all on these days, even without reciting a blessing.

Not all, however, were satisfied with Rabbi Karo’s conclusion. Rabbi Shlomo Luria, a leading authority in the same era, fought fiercely for the primacy of the Talmud in the process of determining Jewish law. Responding to Rabbi Karo’s embrace of Zoharic sources within the context of legal discussion he stated forcefully that

"even if Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai stood before us in order to change our practice we would not listen to him since in most matters the halachah does not accord with him."

Even for those who fully embraced the authenticity of the Zohar and considered that it represented ancient Jewish traditions, its teachings were predominantly regarded as belonging to the category of non-legal aggadah which is traditionally kept apart from Jewish law. This meant that strong opposition to the use of Kabbalah for the purpose of establishing halachah emerged even among those who accepted its mystical insights.

Prominent authorities such as the Bach, Chatam Sofer and Nodah BiYehudah similarly sought to exclude the input of mystical sources in the halachic process in rulings relating to sending away the mother bird and chalitzah. Nevertheless, popular practice in subsequent generations gradually approved and broadened the Shulchan Aruch’s innovation and, despite the concerns of notable scholars, it has increasingly been regarded as a legitimate source of Jewish law.

Nevertheless, a degree of uncertainty remains as to the level of legal authority which Kabbalah is to be accorded and how, precisely, it should be integrated into the pre-existing corpus of Talmudic teachings and rulings. As Rabbi Karo appeared to recognise, and as the Mishnah Berurah has more recently affirmed, kabbalistic teachings cannot be considered binding where they deviate from Talmudic sources. How strictly this theory is to be applied, however, has been subject to significant disagreement. Rabbi Menachem Azaria (Rama) MiPano, for example, ruled that the Zohar is to be followed even if this requires a stretched reading of the relevant Talmudic source in order to avoid a contradiction. Some of the rulings of Rabbi Karo himself appeared to apply kabbalah in a way that was inconsistent with how the Talmud had previously been understood.

The Vilna Gaon, meanwhile, is recorded as having cryptically asserted that “in no place is the Zohar in conflict with the Talmud”, adding that it is legitimate to base a stringent ruling upon the Zohar even when the Talmud is lenient. The context of the Gaon’s statement concerns whether one must refrain only from passing in front of a person who is praying, as the Talmud requires, or even from passing by in any direction, as the Zohar encourages. While the Gaon is prepared to view this simply as an added stringency rather than as a contradiction, Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein (Aruch HaShulchan) expresses great difficulty in accepting this kabbalistic stringency since it prohibits a practice that the Talmud clearly and unanimously permits.

Notwithstanding Rabbi Epstein’s objection, it is evident that numerous kabbalistic stringencies and customs have become seamlessly integrated into the body of commonly-practiced Jewish law as a result of their inclusion by Rabbi Karo in the Shulchan Aruch. In many circles, laws originating from Kabbalah are now regarded as more authoritative than those of the Talmud, with Rabbi Yosef Chaim from Baghdad (Ben Ish Chai) granting unchallengeable authority to the legal positions of the Arizal on the basis that they were divinely inspired, having been communicated by Eliyahu HaNavi.

The Ben Ish Chai’s position that the Zohar’s supernatural origin rendered its content halachically unassailable is itself vulnerable to challenge. Even if it could be ascertained that the Zohar and writings of the Arizal did originate with Eliyahu, it is still far from clear that they could be relied upon as part of the halachic process. The Talmudic rabbis contemplated the authority that might be accorded to supernatural input of Eliyahu within their debates and rejected the notion that this could influence the outcome to change an accepted practice:

If Eliyahu should come and declare…“chalitzah can be performed with a sandal”, we would not listen to him. [Yevamot 102a]

As Rambam explains, the rabbis of the Talmud were applying a fundamental principle of Jewish law of “it is not in Heaven!” which establishes that any attempt by a prophet to rely upon supernatural sources to determine halachah is invalid. Moreover, any prophet who attempts to do so actually demonstrates that he is a charlatan. In a powerful rejection of the suggestion that mystical sources can claim superior halachic authority over the Talmud on the basis of their supernatural origin, Rav Ovadyah Yosef wrote:

We have concluded “it is not in Heaven!” so what basis is there to set aside the mainstream legal authorities and instead grasp the words of the Arizal as if they were given to Moshe at Sinai?

First posted on Facebook 2 October 2023, here.