Introduction
Yom Kippur is unique in
many ways. The aspect that I would like to discuss here is the idea of physical
self-affliction, something that elsewhere in the Torah we only find in a
negative way (as in the prohibitions against self-mutilation and leaving bald
patches as a sign of mourning), or as something that a person can voluntarily
take upon himself (as in the case of the nazir).
What is the idea
behind fasting and other forms of self-deprivation? The prophet Yeshayahu tells
us that the ultimate goal of fasting is 'untying the knots of wickedness' and
'releasing the crushed to freedom,' rather than merely 'bending ones head like
a fish-hook' and displaying sackcloth.[1]
However, the question remains as to what the actual fasting is supposed to achieve.
Could we not have days of repentance without fasting, perhaps enabling some to
concentrate more effectively on their prayers and self-improvement?
Furthermore, if
the only imaginable purpose of fasting is to lead a person to repentance, what
exactly did those who 'bent their heads like fish-hooks' think they were
achieving? It is hard to believe that all of these actions were only meant as a
show for others – if the general population were impressed by pretences like
these, taking it as sincere worship, this would at least have meant that the
majority were not worthy of the wrath of Yeshayahu.[2]
Thus, to me it
is clear that these people believed that there is an inherent value to
self-affliction, even without any improvement in their conduct. They were mistaken,
but how mistaken is not entirely clear. The question is whether or not there is
an inherent value to self-affliction for one who does meet the prerequisite of
examining his ways.
Purifying the
soul
The Chovos Halvavos
writes that there are two levels of abstinence. The basic level is the control
of one's physical desires in a manner designed to preserve physical health. Hashem
intentionally made man and many animals in this way, 'causing the soul to
suffer and be tested' in this world in order to purify it and 'be of the form
of the angels.'[3]
There is also a
unique level of abstinence, which has the purpose of 'fixing our souls' for
Olam Haba. After quoting several opinions as to what this abstinence consists
of, his favoured definition is abstinence from all physical relaxation and
pleasure, besides what a person cannot naturally live without.[4]
Although this
view did not become the mainstream in Spain, where the author of the Chovos
Halvavos (Rabbeinu Bachya ibn Pakuda) lived in the 11th century, the
Chasidei Ashkenaz
of the 12th and 13th centuries did adopt many practices
based on a similar philosophy. One example relevant to the days we are in now
is the concept of 'Teshuvas HaMishkal' – its proponents say that if one had any
forbidden physical pleasure, he should cause himself an equivalent level of
pain.[5]
One who learns the
Shulchan Aruch and its commentators in depth should see that the Chasidei Ashkenaz
had a significant influence on the accepted halacha in Ashkenazi communities.[6]
To this day, many say the Tefila Zaka prayer before Kol Nidrei at the start of
Yom Kippur.[7] One
of the more overlooked sections of this prayer contains the statement that we
are 'obligated' to atone for our sins through Teshuvas HaMishkal, however we
ask for mercy as we lack the strength to do so.
According to
this view, Yom Kippur is the day that all of us rise to the level we would ideally
be on the entire year, those unable to repeat this on a regular basis praying
that this one day of self-affliction should suffice to purify our souls and
prepare them for Olam Haba. It won't work without teshuva, but equally teshuva
can only be complete with an element of physical suffering.[8]
The opposing
view
This way of life
was rejected entirely by R' Saadya Gaon (born 882 in Egypt). He criticises a
group of people who distance themselves from the world in an extreme way,
detailing how impractical and dangerous this way of life is. He then argues
that abstinence should only be practiced in its correct place, which is when
something forbidden is presented to a person.[9]
Similar criticism can be found in the words of the Kuzari[10] and the Rambam.[11] In the case of the Rambam, rejection of the idea of purification
through physical suffering is fundamental – the physical can never be elevated
to a different inherent state and will always have the limitations we know of.[12]
According to
this, there is no inherent value to self-affliction and the people Yeshayahu
was criticising had missed the point entirely. Why then do we fast on Yom
Kippur? The Rambam explains that it is in order to fix our minds on repentance
and complete worship of G-d, without being distracted by physical needs. Work
is forbidden for the same reason.[13]
Affliction and
Cessation
According to
both views, it is important to pay attention to the language that the Torah
uses when telling us to fast. The usual translation of the term עינוי נפש, 'affliction of the
soul,' can be misleading. One thing is certain – at no time is there any mitzvah
or praiseworthy practice of actively causing oneself pain.[14]
The term עינוי
refers to the holding back of something usually wanted, rather than to active
affliction.[15] The
debate is whether one purpose of this passive affliction is to cause 'active'
suffering, or merely to be a preventative measure.
However, Chazal infer
that another verb used in reference to Yom Kippur also relates to abstinence. The
gemara learns from the extra word 'Shabbaton' that not just food and drink are
forbidden – washing, rubbing oil on oneself, wearing shoes and marital
relations must also be refrained from.[16]
As 'Shabbaton'
means rest, or cessation, this would appear to indicate that the purpose is
indeed the avoidance of distraction, rather than any inherent value to
suffering. Presumably all would agree that this aspect exists on Yom Kippur,
even if it is not the only reason for fasting.
On the other
hand, those who deny any inherent value to self-affliction have difficulty explaining
what the two different verbs used by the Torah (affliction and cessation)
represent. The Rambam uses the two terms interchangeably, and it would appear
that he understands that the Torah only described the 'Shabbaton' as an
'affliction' in order to clarify what it is we are supposed to rest from.[17]
Conclusion
Personally, here
I have a conflict between the view that appears to be slightly better supported
by the sources (that of the Chovos Halvavos and the Chasidei Ashkenaz) and the
position that makes more sense to me philosophically (that of the Rambam). As
this is ostensibly a non-halachic (or meta-halachic) issue, my aim on Yom
Kippur (and the rest of the year where possible) is to achieve the right frame
of mind rather than a physical purge from impurity.
Wishing all Klal
Yisrael a Yom Kippur used in the appropriate way (whatever that is!) and a Gmar
Chasima Tova.
[1] See Yeshaya 58:5-6 (and the rest of that section), read as the
Haftarah for Yom Kippur in the morning.
[2] There is a possibility that people fasted in accordance with the
practices of their ancestors, without any real thought as to why they were
doing so (such a phenomenon exists today as well among the non-religious,
traditional community, who tend to fast on Yom Kippur). However, the
castigation of Yeshayahu implies that people attached real value to what they
were doing, not just sentimental or cultural value.
[3] Chovos Halevavos, Sha'ar HaPerishus, chapter 1.
[4] Ibid. chapter 2. He goes on to explain the details of this at
length in the rest of Sha'ar HaPerishus.
[5] See Rokeach (R' Elazar of Worms), Hilchos Teshuva, siman 6 onwards.
This idea is one offshoot of the broader philosophy of the Chasidei Ashkenaz -
the mitzvos of the Torah that obligate all only consist of the bare minimum of
what Hashem expects of us. Thus they wrote extensively about additional
recommended practices that are not found in the Torah or even in the words of
Chazal.
[6] Although the group ceased to exist after the passing of the Rokeach,
many of the talmidim of the Rokeach and their talmidim (e.g. the Or Zarua,
Maharam MiRotenburg and the Rosh) were the primary Ashkenazi poskim together
with the Ba'alei HaTosfos. This is likely at least one of the reasons that the
Rema tends to be more stringent than the Shulchan Aruch in his rulings.
[7] This tefila was authored by R' Avraham Danzig (1748-1820, Eastern
Europe), the author of the Chayei Adam, who was not known as a mystic.
[8] A possible precedent to this view in Chazal could be the practice
of R' Tzadok, who fasted for 40 years in an attempt to prevent the destruction
of Yerushalayim (Gittin 56a).
[9] HaEmunos v'HaDeyos, Ma'amar 10. However, it is not entirely clear
from R' Saadya's words whether this rejection is for practical reasons alone,
or because of something more fundamental. For similar reasons it is hard to
find a concrete proof from the words of Chazal for this view – although there
is plenty of criticism of self-affliction, this may be merely for practical
reasons.
[11] Hilchos Deyos 3:1; Introduction to Avos (Shmona Prakim) chapter 4.
However, the Rambam does not share R' Saadya's view that abstinence should be
only from the forbidden – see Lust
- permitted and forbidden. The
common denominator between them is that physical pleasure is only negative insofar
as it distracts from constructive pursuits.
[12] See Moreh Nevuchim 3:12. This is also why Olam Haba has to be free
from physicality according to the Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 8:2).
[13] Moreh Nevuchim 3:43. See also Chinuch, mitzvah 313, who adds that
it would not be fitting for a servant to come to judgement in front of his
master whilst under the effects of food and drink, thinking about physical
things. However, against this one could argue that fasting may have the
opposite effect, diverting the attention of some to their physical hunger.
[14] On the contrary, active self-harm is forbidden. See Devarim 14:1 (where
this is the most explicit in the Torah) and Bava Kama 90b.
[15] Thus the same term is used by the Torah to describe nedarim, personal
undertakings to abstain from certain things (Bamidbar 30:14). The same verb is
used by Lavan when warning Ya'akov not to mistreat his daughters (Bereishis 31:50),
and this is understood by Chazal to be referring to the withholding of marital
obligations (Yoma 77a). See also Yoma 74b, where Chazal interpret this term similarly
regarding the Egyptians' treatment of Bnei Yisra'el.
[16] Yoma 74a. The rishonim debate whether or not these prohibitions are
Biblical or Rabbinic, but even if they are entirely Rabbinic, one can see from the
word used what Chazal's intentions were when making these restrictions.
[17] Hilchos Shevisas Asor 1:4-6
No comments:
Post a Comment