Why are there disagreements about routine religious rituals?
Would these not naturally tend to be preserved with unanimity over time? R. Nieto, represented by the scholar, answers that some such disagreements are about how to apply Rabbinic enactments and others arose because the High Court was not able to decide certain laws.
Does R. Nieto's logic work for laws that are not Rabbinic in origin? Can it, for example, explain why, until R. Abbahu enacted a combination of long and short sounds, blew the Shofar on Rosh Hashana as short, broken sound and others as a wailing, longer sound ? How could the disagreement about the order in which parchments are arranged within the phylacteries have come to arise, a matter of dispute between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam ?
R. Reuven Margolios in his edition of 'Sheilot and Teshuvot min Hashemaim' discusses these questions with his customary thoroughness and erudition and concludes that these commandments were from start to be fulfilled in two different ways (1). In other words, two distinct manners of observance were prescribed from Sinai; one for the common folk and another for mystics(2). The mystics could be trusted with this knowledge for they are aware of spiritual power that can be invoked by performing these commandments in an alternate fashion . According to the Zohar , both phylactery arrangements are correct but Rashi's version is for periods of suffering and dispersion while R. Tam's arrangement befits the time of redemption (3). The Zohar also says something very similar about the two modes of Shofar blowing.
There is archeological evidence for the idea that more than one mode of observance coexisted historically. Aruch Hashulchan(4) cites a number of sources that reveal that two different arrangements of phylacteries existed already in the times of the Geonim, much before the times of Rashi and Tosafot. The earliest pair of tefillin that has been examined in regard to this question is the one discovered in the burial place of prophet Ezekiel and it was written according to Rashi(5) . How far back in history can the disagreement between Rashi and R. Tam be traced? Interestingly, excavations in Massada have unearthed many pairs of tefillin; some of them follow the view of Rashi and others of R. Tam(6) . Is it possible that some followers of Messianic pretender Bar Kochba rearranged their tefillin in accordance with the view later reported by R. tam because they believed that Redemption has already arrived (7)? We do not know. This example, however, demonstrates that R. Nieto's explanation is widely applicable and capable of satisfactorily resolving these types of questions.
It is likely that other observances were also from the beginning given with a variety and latitude to how they could be fulfilled. Great many commandments are fulfilled through an experience and "in the heart". Any of a number of observances that awakened necessary feelings and emotions could be acceptable to fulfill these commandments. Among them are such common rituals as prayer, mourning, enjoyment of festivals, remembering the Sabbath, Exodus, Miriam, and the incident of Golden Calf as well as certain required declarations. Much later, the Rabbis formalized these observances and standardized their rituals because the times have changed and they were at risk of not being properly kept and preserved if left to the discretion of each individual . It is at that point that disputes arose about how best to accomplish the purpose of the commandment or as to details of what the original enactment had been(8).
____________
________________Tefillin of Rashi and R. Tam.
[1] The idea that there may be more than one way of fulfilling these commandments was first offered by no lesser figure thatn R, Hai Gaon as cited in Ritba R"H 33b.
[2] R. Margolies cites a number of passages that explicitly state this regarding both tefillin and Shofar blasts.
[3] Divrei Shaul (Megila 16b) suggests that this is why the tefillin that were discovered in the grave of prophet Ezekiel were written according to Rashi, for Ezekiel lived in exile and tefillin of R. Tam are not appropriate outside the Land of Israel. See Be'er Heitev (38,5) in the name of Ari.
[4] O"CH 34
[5] Piskei Tosafot to Menachot 34b write that in Nehardea and Jerusalem two pairs of ancient phylacteries were found, one in accordance with Rashi and one in accordance with R. Tam.
[6] S. Goren, Torat Hamoadim, pp.496-510 and Machanaim 62, 5-14, 1961. Pairs that are arranged in a way not brought down by any Rishonim were also found Massada; these contain a number of other serious deviations from the Halacha and may be tefillin of various sectarians who joined the Zealots in Massada. Such pairs of tefillin were also discovered in Qumran - in a community that clearly did not follow the traditions of the Sages.
[7] In Sefer Emunat Chachamim as quoted by R. Margolios, R. Abiad Sar Shalom suggests that tefillin of Rashi are used after the destruction of the Temple and of R. Tam while it was still standing. See Gittin 58 a where it is said that forty baskets of tefillin were found on the heads of those who were killed in Betar,
[8] For a more detailed discussion of this point see M. Levin, With all your heart: The Shema in Jewish worship, practice and life, Targum/Feldheim, 2002, pp.175-178.
Comments