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

[Danny Schoemann]

As I said, I'm going to tackle these issues one by one, as I am trying
to get to clarity, and not to create a Megila-length post.

(Part 1 was cemeteries.)

Part 2- angels:

> : 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.

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

RMB responded:
> 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.

What does bechirah have to do with asking for a Bracha?

This is a new concept for me, and may finally help answer the age-old
question "what is a bracha and why does it work?"

RMB:
> 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.

OK - completely unfamiliar territory for me.

But since you mentioned it, the two "Shalom Aleichem" angels are not
in heaven, they are here in our living room.

RMB:
> As for a halachic argument, praying to angels is how dor Enosh invented
> AZ. (Hil AZ 1:1-2.)

I don't see angels mentioned there only stars and galgalim (which in
Mada 3:1 is defined as physical astronomic layers).

RMB:
> 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...

Yes, I see he snuck in the angels here.

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

I'm curious as to why that is more illogical than praying to a person
who has/had bechira. IOW what has bechira to do with being a
conduit/emissary of prayer? (Back I am to the "what is prayer"
question).

RMB:
> 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."

OK - that explains how he snuck in the angels, and why "it's silly" to
pray to angles when one could pray directly to Hashem.

But that argument would work regarding praying to people (dead or alive), too.

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

Interestingly enough a lot of effort is put into matching the Written
Torah with the Oral Torah.

I would have thought that it would make more sense (as in: Pesukim
have to be taken literally - ein mikrh yotzeh miday pshuto) that the
Oral Teachings have to be "twisted and turned" (or discounted) to fit
in with the Written Torah.

Why do we do it backward?

RMB:
> 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.

Didn't you just say it was illogical to make requests of something
that has no bechirah?

So for us it's illogical, but for HKBH it's sensible? Please explain.

> The Tur says simply that "mal'akh" is a reference
> to HQBH.

Always? Can't be, since when HKBH says he will send an angel to lead
us, Moshe request he do so 'personally".
So just here? (once again seems backwards - squeezing the psukim to
fit the "agenda", so to speak.)

> 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.

Once again the Malbim saves the day. (My late afternoon Oneg Shabbos
is learning Malbim)

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

Hey, maybe they don't mind dealing with angels? is that illogical? </funny>

> 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).

Kol Tuv

- Danny