[Avodah] To Whom Should One Pray At A Tzaddik's Kever?

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 04:59:18PM +0300, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: R' Micha Berger claimed:
:> And in fact, asking a mal'akh is *more* problematic than asking the
:> neshamah of a tzadiq. After all, when the same tzadiq was alive, asking
:> him for a berakhah wouldn't have been an issue.
: 
: 1. What is your source for this? Talking to dead people ("asking the
: neshamah of a tzadiq", no?) seems to be Doresh El Hameisim - one of the
: 365 possible aveiros.

Only if you are using magic so that they can answer back, that's why it's
in the pasuq with menasheish umechasheif and "ve'sho'eil ov veyid'oni
vedoreish el hameizim".

: Where do we find an issue talking to angels? Those angel-related piyutim
: that you skip are not of recent vintage...

I was talking philosophically, not halachically. People have bechirah,
and it makes sense to ask a living person for a berakhah. There is more
to compare to asking a niftar.

Angels and bechirah is a complicated topic. But I believe consensus is
that at least while in shamayim, they don't have any or don't have any
opportunity to use it.

As for a halachic argument, praying to angels is how dor Enosh invented
AZ. (Hil AZ 1:1-2.) As the Rambam later writes in 2:1:
    The essence of the commandment of AZ is not to worship any of the
    created, not a mal'akh, nor a sphere, nor a star, nor 1 of the 4
    elements nor anything made of them. Even though the worshipper knows
    that Hashem hu haElokim...

And thus, the Rambam's 5th iqar. (Where he also invokes the illogic of
making requests of something that has no bechirah.)

Which is likely from the Y-mi Berakhos 63a, which quotes R' Yudan [ie
Yehudah] speaking in his own name (mishmeih dideih). When a person has
a benefactor and is need, he goes to the benfactor's door and calls a
servant or ben bayis over and relays the message.
    But HQBH isn't like this. "If a person has a tzarah, he shouldn't
    pray to Michael or Gavriel, rather he should pray to Me, and I
    will answer him immediately."

Similarly, meforashim on Bereshis 48:16 work to explain away the problem
in "hamal'akh hago'el osi mikol ra".

The Chizquni refers back to the previous pasuq, where Yaaqov beraklhah
begins, "Ha-elokim asher..." and says it's a request to the Borei to have
the mal'akh who saves me bless the children. The Netziv gives a variant
of the same idea. Thus Tur says simply that "mal'akh" is a reference
to HQBH. The Or haChaim defines "mal'akh" here as "ma'amar Hashem".
According to the Malbim, Yaaqov is asking the mal'akh relationship that
we had with the RBSO should continue and thereby bless.

OTOH, Rashi and Ralbag (ad loc) are not bothered, apparently.

And then there is the whole "hiskhabdu mekhubadim" said to mal'akhim before
entering the bathroom. (E.g. Rambam, Tefillah 7:5) Which includes "izruni,
izruni, shimruni, shimruni" -- clearly baqashos. Or does it -- the
Bodleian MS. Huntington 80 autographed (!) manuscript doesn't have "izruni".

And the Ri ben Yaqar only has "shimruni" as well, and says it's like "va'aviv
shamar es hadavar" -- ie wait for me.

R' Yaaqov Emden (Mor uQetzia on Tur OC 3) says that because they're being
referred to as "mesharsei elion", we avoid violating the 5th iqar. And
yet in his Sidddur Beis Yaaqov he is against saying "Borchuni leShalom"
in Shalom Aleikhem (as is the aforementioned Gra).


So, there is some kind of line to be drawn when speaking to angels. The
Gra draws it in a more restrictive place than most, and thus curtails
saying piyutim that are commonplace.

Shalom Aleikhem was written in the early 17th century; it was only
around a century old when the Yaavetz objected to it, and something like
150 yrs old in the Gra's day.

Machnisei Rachamim, however, dates back to the late geonim, probably
around 900 CE or so. That's a LOT of peer review.

IOW, just because I can't bring myself to say something I am not sure
I can say without thoughts of AZ -- if I am thinking at all -- doesn't
mean I think no one else should say them. It is not so much that I
am convinced of shitas haGra, and even if I were, it's obviously the
mi'ut's opinion. Rather, the magnitude of AZ scares me. And even if
these piyutim are intended in a manner that is mutar, who is to say my
own kavanah threads that needle?

(FWIW, I say 4 verses of Shalom Aleikhem anyway. The number 4 was intended
to provide one verse to accompany the mal'akhim through each of the
4 olamos. However, there is a verse said after Borchuni according to
the Kaf haChaim, a nusach followed by the Edot haMizrach. I don't know
what their symbolism is for 5 verses. But by saying their BeShivtechem
leShalom instead, I preserve the number 4. And when guests are over,
or I am not home, I can just mumble the first word and not make an issue
of saying something other than "Borchuni".)


...
: 3. BTW: See the Be'er Heitev at the end of 559:10 quoting the Ari z"l
: that one should never go to a cemetery except for a burial...

Interestingly, that seems to be the practice of Beis Brisk, although I
am guessing their source isn't the Ari.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
micha at aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507