By Aaron Wertheim
Reviewed by Tovia Preschel
In a passage devoted to a Hasidic custom of preparing spices and myrtle leaves for Sabbath, Wertheim explains that the custom originated in Kabbalistic circles and is based on the story related in the Talmud of Rabbi Shimeon bar Yohai having met a Jew carrying two stalks of myrtles to welcome with them the Sabbath. Wertheim refers the reader to “Hemdat Hayamim” where the said custom is mentioned. May we add that this custom is already mentioned in the much earlier Shelo.
Another interesting passage deals with the Hasidic custom of making Hakafoth on the night of Shemini Atzereth. Among others the author discusses also the origin of the term “Simhath Torah”. His assertion that it is not used in the Tur is not correct.
Comprehensive chapters are devoted to a discussion of the various Nushaoth of prayer of Hasidim. He compares in detail Nasah Ashkenaz, Nusah Habad and the Nusah accepted among other Hasidim, and lists many of the minor differences among them.
Wertheim, however, does not attempt to trace the first appearance of the Nusah Ari to Eastern Europe. It seems that long before the advent of Hasidism, not only individuals influenced by the Kabbala of the Ari, but also groups were praying according to his Nusah. The Herem against the Hasidism proclaimed in Brody in the year 1772 forbids the praying in the Nusah Ari to all except to “the remnants to whom G-d calls, who pray in the first stiebel at the side of the Klaus of our community…who are people full of Torah, Gemara, and Poskim, and have knowledge of the secrets of the Kabbala…they have been praying for years according to the Nusah Ari; they had done so in the presence of the great rabbis of our community and these did not prevent them from acting thus”.
From this passage it is clear that even prior to Hasidism there were groups in Poland who were praying according to the Nusah Ari. It is also apparent therefrom that the term “Stiebel” for a Minyan has not originated with Hasidism.
Extremely fine are the passages devoted to the dresses and mode of dressing of Hasidim. Wertheim quotes the Hasidic Notrikon for Yarmulka – Yare Me’Elokim (we heard it differently: Yare Malka), and treats among others of the custom of buttoning the dresses on the left side.
May we remark that the latter custom was also prevalent among Jews in Lithuania. It may also have been practiced by Sefardic Jews. A book published in London more than one hundred years ago (L. Limner: “Cries of London and Public Edifices”, 1851) contains a picture of a Moroccan Jewish Peddler, carrying beneath it the following text: “Rhubarb-Find Turkey Rhubarb. This drug is carried about for sale by Turks often habited in the costume of their country. They are Turkish Jews as Mohammedans seldom travel. The mode of fixing his Caftan also indicates him to be one, as it is fastened on the left. The Turks adjust theirs on the right.”
It might well be that this custom, which is based on the motive “to strengthen the right over the left”, originated with Kabbalistic circles in Eretz Israel and thus spread not only among European, but also among Oriental Jews.
Year ago, talking with the aged Rabbi Meshullam Roth, of Czernowitz, about the custom of fastening one’s clothes on the left side, he called my attention to the words of the Rambam in Hichoth Tefilah (5,4). The Rambam says, that while saying Shemone Esrah one should place one’s right hand over the left one. This Din, which is explained by the Magen Abraham as embodying the principle of strengthening the right over the left, is neither found in the Talmud nor in the Midrashim. (See Kesef Mishne, ad loc).
Jewish Press
Feb. 17, 1961
In a separate paragraph devoted to the custom of Hasidim to pray at the graves of their Zaddikim, the author cites Rabbi J. B. Soloveichik to the effect that some of the Lithuanian Gedolim barred the visiting of their tombs. I will quote his words in full: In Volozhin there was an ordinance on the authority of the founder of the Yeshiva that that the disciples should not visit his tomb. The Gaon of Vilna never visited the grave of his parents. Only once did he visit the tomb of his mother and he regretted it all his life. Rabbi Hayim of Brisk never visited the grave of his parents, neither did so his son Rabbi Moshe.
These facts are very interesting—they certainly deserve closer study as they might reveal something of the attitude of these Gedolim towards death—but they are not representative of the views of Lithuanian Jewry. Lithuanian Jews, like Jews of other countries, visited the cemeteries on Tisha Be’av and on the eve of Rosh Hashana. Lithuanian Jews also visited the tombs of their Gedolim to pray there in times of distress. On the tomb of the Gaon, just like on the tombs of Hasidic Zaddikim, an Ohel had been erected and individuals came there to pray. Israel Klausner in his “History of the Jews of Vilna” tells us of the many “Kvittlach” deposited at the last resting place of the Gaon by suffering supplicants. A. Druyanov records that he had found “Kvittlach” on the tombs of the Beth Harlav in Volozhin. (“Reshumot” vol. 1 p. 372).
In this paragraph Wertheim quotes the Ari, that one should not visit cemeteries except for funerals (cited by the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch Orah Hayim 559), and with reference to the views of the above mentioned Gedolim, makes the following assertion: In this case the Lithuanian Gedolim have followed the views of the Ari, while Hasidim had not.
This assertion is not quite correct. The large literature on the Ari mentions frequently his visits to the tombs of Zaddikim and his recommendations to his disciples to visit these tombs and pray there. He warned, however, not to visit the same tomb twice on the same day. The Ari’s injunction not to visit cemeteries must therefore be understood to apply only to the graves of ordinary people but not to those of Zaddikim. Consequently the Hasidic custom to pray at the tombs of Zaddikim is in strict accordance with views of the Ari.
In the same chapter, Wertheim describes measures taken by Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum with regard to the burial of a pregnant woman, and denotes them as typical of the attitude of Hasidism towards the problems involved. May we remark that the Pinkas of the Lithuanian village of Druya tells us of the application of somewhat similar methods in an identical case more than two hundred years ago (“Reshumot” vol. 1 p. 373).
We have tried to convey to the reader the wide range of Wertheim’s book. This does not mean to say that he has covered all Hasidic customs. An additional chapter on the “Hasid in his Home” could have told us something of a custom of Hasidim not to eat with their wives at the same table, or of their abstaining from calling their wives by their names, but addressing them instead with “Her Nor.” An excellent study about the latter custom was written several years ago by Hayim Liebermann, the famous Lubavitcher librarian and bibliographer. In his chapter on the method of learning among Hasidim, Wertheim could have told us also something of the special place accorded to the study of the “Hok LeYisrael.” Many other Hasidic customs are not mentioned, such as those relating to wedding ceremonies, etc. We are not criticizing the author for not having included all these, as no single volume can describe adequately the numerous customs and usages of Hasidism. The book before us covers excellently the major part and the most important ones of all these, and its perusal should prove instructive and rewarding to many.
Jewish Press
Feb. 24, 1961