10

Which of the major authors or codifiers of halacha. . .

a) refer directly to or quote from kabala in their legal discussions?

b) employ conclusions based only on kabala in their legal argumentation and decisions?

msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
WAF
  • 23,730
  • 4
  • 46
  • 138
  • 4
    The Tzitz Eliezer wrote a public responsa (Volume 21, Responsa #5) titled "‫אם ומתי יש לפסוק כהזוה׳׳ק ובירורים שונים‬ ‫בענייני הלכה‬ " If and when we rule like the Zohar and different clarifications in concepts of Halacha". I didn't read the whole thing, but he brings many different opinions who talk about when to follow the Zohar/Kabbalah. - http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14520&pgnum=23 – Menachem Jun 06 '12 at 21:26
  • The reason why we don't wear tefillin for mussaf on rosh chodesh is kabbalistic; the radbaz has an important teshuva on it where he discusses the relationship of halacha and kaballah. – Baal Shemot Tovot Jun 15 '12 at 20:40
  • http://text.rcarabbis.org/halakha-and-kabbalah-rabbi-joseph-karos-shulchan-aruch-and-magid-mesharim-by-shlomo-brody/ – Double AA May 28 '13 at 11:22
  • 1
    Yabia Omer OC 2:25:12 – Double AA Dec 01 '13 at 19:08
  • http://shaashuim.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/halacha-and-kabbala-halachic-methodology-8/ – Double AA Dec 17 '13 at 06:49
  • http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/802001/Jonathan_Ziring/Halacha_and_Kabbala-_Generally_and_in_the_Psak_of_R_Ovadiah_Yosef – Eliyahu Jan 09 '14 at 21:09
  • @Eliyahu Great - thanks! Do you know anything about the speaker? – WAF Jan 10 '14 at 00:18
  • @WAF not really. I found this shiur from this blog post – Eliyahu Jan 10 '14 at 01:12
  • For a very thorough survey of a large variety of approaches see R. Zev Kraines's article in Dialogue (if I recall he authored an even longer Hebrew version which is available). – mevaqesh Apr 01 '15 at 22:45
  • 1
    This question needs more clarification. It is way too broad and/or subjective. Try limiting the range of the codifies/writers you are asking about. – Yaacov Deane Jan 31 '17 at 12:29

9 Answers9

7

First as far as being posek al pi Kabbalah the inyan is only L'Humra not L'kula. For instance the Zohar says one needs only to wait a half hour between eating meat and eating milk, but we do not hold that way.

Aside from that the list becomes quite extensive as Chanoch also said, from the Ramban down to today amongst Sephardi poskim. Of the modern Sephardi poskim, there is Rav Mordekhai Eliyahu ZTz"L, Rav Ovadiah Hedayya ZTz"L, Rav Ezra Attiah ZTz"L, Rav Yehuda Tzedaka ZTz"L, Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul ZTz"L, Rav Ovadiah Yosef ZTz"L, Rav Shlomo Amar Shlita ect. ect...

Then there were the Misnagdim, such as the Magen Avraham, GR"A and R' Haim of Volozhen.

Then there are the Hasidic Admurim.

Essentially poskim who consider what is written in Kabbalistic sefarim can be found in nearly every stream of Orthodox Judaism.

As far as employing conclusions based solely on Kabblah, not even the Ar"i HaKodesh did that. A good example is the time of laying Tefillin, al pi Kabbalah any time after Hatzot HaLailah is suitable. However the AR"I in defference to the Gemarra and prior poskim, restricted the time to no earlier than Alot HaShahar. There are excellent work ups on the entire Teshuva in R' Ovadiah Yosef's Halichot Olam, and R' Apjin's sefer Divrei Shalom, unfortunately neither are online. Ultimately the essential point is that the Kabbalah, is the inner aspect of the Torah, as such, and as many Mekubalim have elucidated to the point where to list them all would be an exercise in futility, though it is expoused briefly in the introduction to Eitz Haim, and the introduction of Sha'ar HaKavvanot, the Kabbalah gives a deeper meaning to the mitvot, and halakha, but can never directly contradict the p'shat(aka Halakha).

Double AA
  • 98,894
  • 6
  • 250
  • 713
Rabbi Michael Tzadok
  • 7,741
  • 20
  • 37
  • 1
    Thank you Mekubal for that last point. When someone mentioned to Rav Yaakov Weinberg a belief that the difference between Hasidim and Misnagdim is that when faced with a contradiction between Kabbalah and Gemara, the Hasidim pasken al pi kabbalah and Misnagdim pasken al pi Gemara, he responded "That is absolutely not true! If that were true you would be saying that the Hasidim are Apikorsim! They are not Apikorsim!" – Yahu Nov 05 '10 at 07:16
  • 2
    It is true that Kabbalah can never contradict conclusions reached based according to the Gemara; R' Avraham David Lavaut comments similarly in his Shaar Hakollel (1:1). However, it can indeed differ with the posekim's own conclusions, and he records there that R' Shneur Zalman of Liadi said (in contrast to what he himself writes in his Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 25:28) that we should follow the mekubalim in such cases. (In practice, Chabad custom varies; for example, we put on both tefillin standing, even though according to Kabbalah the shel yad should be put on while sitting.) – Alex Nov 05 '10 at 16:53
  • 1
    Yes, Alex. Sorry I was not clear about that. I do not believe Rav Weinberg had any problem with this concept. What was said to him was that when faced with a contradiction between the Kabbalah and the Gemara, that Hasidim follow the Kabbalah. On that he took great exception and defended the Hasidim. The idea that Kabbalah could help us understand a Gemara differently than the poskim is not apikorsus. – Yahu Nov 05 '10 at 17:48
  • 1
    Its not never. It is never l'kula, however, l'humra happens a great deal of the time. Such as rising for Tikun Hatzot, or davening netz, wearing two pair of tefillin at once, and the list could go on. – Rabbi Michael Tzadok Nov 06 '10 at 17:58
  • 1
    mekubal, I was not ignoring your answer and I do not believe Rav Weinberg was concerned with someone going like Kabbalah lehumrah. If someone has that tradition, or is on that level I am sure he would have no problem with that person doing so. I am sure his problem was with someone accusing Hasidim of paskening always based on Kabbalah, even when it outright contradicts Halacha even lekulah. On that he said "If that was so then they would be Apikorsim, and (I am telling you) the Hasidim are not Apikorsim!" – Yahu Nov 07 '10 at 01:58
  • one example comes to mind when al pi cabala is lekula, famous mahloket that rav ovadia says to be mahmir and not go in the mice on shabat, harav eliahu says to leakel – Avraham Dec 23 '10 at 10:31
  • 4
    The Zohar actually says not to eat meat and milk in the same "Sha'ah" (usual translation is "hour"). Some interpret that to mean a period of time (also "sha'ah") and say you only have to wait half an hour. see http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1149824/jewish/Meat-Milk.htm#footnoteRef39a1149824 – Menachem Jun 03 '11 at 20:49
  • 1
    What about Tefillin on CHol HaMoed (or lack there of) isn't that a kulo? – Yehoshua Apr 14 '13 at 21:51
  • 1
    @Yehoshua That would depend on what you saw as the kula or chumra. I would say not wearing Tefllin on Chol HaMoed is L'Chumra, as in treating Chol HaMoed with a higher level of sanctity. – Rabbi Michael Tzadok Apr 14 '13 at 23:35
  • 1
    @RabbiMichaelTzadok With svaras like that you uproot your whole distinction. Every chumra is a kula, remember. – Double AA Dec 01 '13 at 19:09
  • 2
    where is this Ramban you reference? – mevaqesh Apr 01 '15 at 22:46
  • 3
    This Michael Tzadok is a RASHA , SINNER AND MAKES OTHER SIN, HE'S NOT JEWISH, HE'S A MISSIONARY, WATCH A MENUVAL UGH!!! WATCH THIS VIDEO FROM RABBI TUVIA SINGER - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8g71VZrjCpg – TwoOs May 28 '21 at 03:22
5

The Alter Rebbe writes in his Shulchan Aruch HaRav Orach Chayim 25:28 (quoting the Magen Avraham 25:20): That when Kabbalah and Halacha conflict we only hold al pi Kabbalah when it is more stringent. In addition his S.A. has a great deal of Kabbalistic sources which he uses to come to a halachic conclusion.

An example of this is discussed here in regards the Baal haTanya's donning shel yad seated.

Community
  • 1
  • 1
    However, in the Alter Rebbe's siddur and second edition of the Shulchan Aruch, he did rule more al pi Kabbalah. See the Shaar HaKolel (1:1) - http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=16002&pgnum=18 . Alex sums it up in this comment: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/3826/kabala-in-halacha/8377#comment4270_3833 - see the Shaar HaKollel for an interesting story with Hillel Paritcher. – Menachem Jun 06 '12 at 22:26
4

If I'm not mistaken, the Shulchan Aruch/Beit Yosef's decision to not wear tefillin on Chol HaMoed is one of his only halachic decisions which is solely based on kabbala.

The GRA/Gaon MeVilna/Elijah of Vilna was particularly notable for integrating kabbalistic considerations into his rulings.

chaimkut
  • 749
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1
    I'll have to find the source (I recall seeing it at the end of Ikkar Tosefos Yom Tov to Moed Katan), but there is a halachic source for not wearing tefillin on Chol Hamoed - an alternate understanding of the phrase בכותב להניח in Yerushalmi Moed Katan 3:4. – Alex Dec 21 '10 at 15:37
  • There might be, but I don't believe that the Beit Yosef brings any such halachic sources for this particular ruling – chaimkut Dec 22 '10 at 15:56
  • @Alex: see here: http://thesanhedrin.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1742#1742 – Menachem Jun 20 '11 at 21:05
  • I read in Igrot Moshe that he said that Gra didn't Pasken to not wear Tefilin on Hol HaMoed because of Kabala. – Hacham Gabriel Dec 04 '11 at 00:25
  • @Alex If you can find that different understanding of that Yerushalmi I would love to see it. – Double AA Jun 06 '12 at 20:06
  • @DoubleAA: Beis Yosef, Orach Chaim 545 (ד"ה כתב סמ"ק). – Alex Jun 06 '12 at 23:07
  • Anyway, though, see the post in @Menachem's link, which cites Halachos Gedolos as saying that tefillin shouldn't be worn on Chol Hamoed - and that is for halachic reasons rather than kabbalistic ones. – Alex Jun 06 '12 at 23:14
  • @Alex Thanks. I know there are other halachik sources that discuss it. I just thought the Yerushalmi was unanimously viewed as being on one side. – Double AA Jun 06 '12 at 23:34
  • @Alex I'm trying to find that Sema"k inside and can't seem to locate it. Do you know what Siman/Page it can be found on? EDIT: Ahh, it's a typo in the Tur. Should be Sema"g. – Double AA Oct 15 '13 at 05:44
3

Rav Yaakov Moshe Hilel Shlita wrote an entire BOOK on this- called Geburat HaAri, where he talks about kabala and halacha mixing. Not quoting from his book, but basically the general approach is that if there is a Machloket Gemara-Zohar (Arizal) then we follow Gemara. However, if there is a Zohar (Arizal) in a case where there is NO Gemara, then we follow the Arizal. That's the generally accepted approach, but I recommend that book because he brings down the all the Rishonim and Aharonim's opinions and explains and goes it to much more detail. [He also discusses this in his book- Ed HaGal HaZeh]

Hacham Gabriel
  • 16,613
  • 61
  • 84
3

It's a very important part of Sephardic psak. Among the authorities of interest to look at: The Gaon HIDA, R' Chaim Palagi, R' Yaakov Hayyim Sofer (Kaf HaHayyim), R' Yosef Hayyim (the Ben Ish Hai), and to a lesser extent R' Ovadia Yosef.

R' Shneur Zalman of Liadi and other Chassidic poskim also poskin based on on kabbalah a lot.

Chanoch
  • 10,886
  • 1
  • 28
  • 56
2

Regarding a - The Chofetz Chaim in Mishna Berura often mentions the Zohar. See for example Volume 5 - 479:1:9:12 and Volume 3 - 290:1:3.

Regarding b - I do not think anyone employs conclusions based only on Kabala unless there is no other source for that matter.

Gershon Gold
  • 139,471
  • 12
  • 231
  • 553
  • 2
    Interestingly, over 75% of the MB's references to the Zohar happen in Volumes 1 or 2 of the MB. (I did not investigate its prevalence compared to other cited works.) – Double AA Oct 22 '13 at 10:29
  • 1
    Out of curiosity, could you cite an example or two of where the Chofetz Chaim mentions the Zohar? – Bochur613 Jan 05 '14 at 18:19
1

Two sources: The Vilna Gaon on Shulchan Aruch Yoreh De'ah Siman 89 Seif Koton 11. Kabbalah can be a reason to be Machmir. The Mishna Brura Siman 25 Seif Koton 42: Same as a Vilna Gaon. Also, if something is only mentioned in Kabbalah and not in the Poskim, we should act that way but "ein lakof" - we don't compel people to do it. If there is a Machlokess Poskim and the Kabbalah is like one side we follow the Kabbalah's side.

Eliyahu
  • 2,035
  • 14
  • 21
1

Reuvein Margolies wrote a book (article?) called HaRambam V'Hazohar, which apparently (I've never read it) shows places where the Rambam quotes the Zohar (translated into Hebrew) in the Mishnah Torah. If anyone has a link to where I could read this sefer online, that would be great.

Also, the Rambam in Hilchos Mezuzah (5:4), says that "Minhag Pashut" to write Sha-ddai on the outside of the Mezuzah, corresponding to the blank space between the Parshiot in the Mezuzah. The Kesef Misha (R' Yosef Cairo, who was a Kabbalist), quotes the Zohar that says we write it corresponding to the word "V'Haya". (I'm not sure what we do in practice, but if we did as the Kesef Mishna says, that would be paskening according to the Zohar).

Also, what about the Dutch custom of waiting an hour between Meat and Milk. When it talks about it in Shulchan Aruch, the GR"A quotes the Zohar. See the discussion thread on this answer.

This Sefer was just uploaded to Hebrewbooks.org. It is called Sefer Zohar HaRambam (published 5773 in Jerusalem) and says it has 22 concepts from the writings of the Rambam that appear to be based on Kabbalah and the Zohar. I have not read the sefer.

Community
  • 1
Menachem
  • 44,362
  • 6
  • 127
  • 247
  • 4
    It's just as plausible that the Zohar was quoting the Rambam. See Marc Shapiro's recent work "Studies in Maimonides and His Interpreters" – Curiouser Jun 21 '11 at 23:49
  • 2
    @Curiouser: If you believe that the Zohar came after the Rambam, sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar#Authorship – Menachem Jun 22 '11 at 04:40
  • 2
    For many reasons, I dont think it is very likely that the Rambam had or would have quoted the Zohar. Those passages in the Zohar were probably taken from the Rambam, but it doesn't mean the whole text was invented then. – Ariel K Jul 07 '11 at 23:17
  • 1
    @Menachem Even most of the more conservative views would accept some later editing to the text. – Double AA Jun 06 '12 at 20:00
  • @DoubleAA: sure, but how much later. I've seen it described something like: "The Zohar is attributed to Rashbi and his students", meaning that the majority was authored by Rashbi, and some by his students, transcribing his teachings. – Menachem Jun 06 '12 at 20:13
  • 1
    @Menachem I'm not a baki in this argument, but from the wikipedia page there in the name of R MM Kasher that "Many of the Midrashic works achieved their final redaction in the Geonic period. Some of the anachronistic terminology of the Zohar may date from that time." – Double AA Jun 06 '12 at 20:15
  • Plus if any of the things towards the end of the first paragraph here are correct, then you have to assume some sort of final editing process, not unlike what the gemara may have gone through. – Double AA Jun 06 '12 at 20:18
  • @DoubleAA: this series of articles address some of the skeptical claims: http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/663169/jewish/Authenticity-of-the-Zohar.htm – Menachem Jun 06 '12 at 20:42
  • 1
    He doesn't mention the vowel forms or the Crusades (as pointed out by Yaavetz as quoted in wikipedia above). I'm not arguing here in Higher Criticism. But there still would have to be some edited in passages. We have geonic bits in gemara too! I don't see why that is such a problem. – Double AA Jun 06 '12 at 20:54
  • @Menachem it should be noted that the articles you link to have been thoroughly debunked on the parshablog and may contain deliberate misinformation. Their author claims the misinformation was an innocent mistake, but either way, the Zohar has much worthier defendants, and certainly much more convincing detractors. BTW the bulk of current research indicates that Zoharic writing were brewing before de Leon, and that he was likely influential in authoring it, but not the sole author. The idea that the bulk Zoharic writings goes back to Tannaim or even Ammoraim, is TTBOMK not generally considered – mevaqesh Aug 11 '16 at 09:30
  • Numerous kabbalists, such as the Arizal declared that rambam did not know kabbalah. Even the legend that the kabbalists invented about rambam converting to become a kabbalist have this taking place at the end of his life, after he wrote MT. – mevaqesh Aug 11 '16 at 09:32
1

The source to wind the hand tefillin 7 times around the arm is based on Kabbalah (Niglah doesn't mention any amount of times one winds it around (See here and here)). Yet, the custom is to tie it 7 times (even though one isn't allowed to interrupt between the tfillin shel yad to shel rosh at all.)

ertert3terte
  • 40,485
  • 7
  • 96
  • 205
  • 1
    Even for niglah, it's not a hefsek. It's certainly no worse than 'pass the salt'. – Double AA Jun 06 '12 at 20:02
  • You are not allowed to even wink between the shel yad and shell rosh – ertert3terte Jun 06 '12 at 21:55
  • 1
    Winking has nothing to do with tefillin. Wrapping does (as does salt to bread). – Double AA Jun 06 '12 at 21:56
  • 1
    Besides, who says you can wink between HaMotzi and eating? http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/11732/759 – Double AA Jun 06 '12 at 22:04
  • The Rosh thought it better to go straight to the shel rosh but even he wouldn't make you make a new bracha if you finished wrapping first, and many disagreed with the Rosh anyway https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/80630/759 https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/68964/759 clearly those people all agree with me. – Double AA Jan 22 '24 at 05:11
  • @DoubleAA Even if we correlate wraps with salt (which I'm not prepared to do) the fact remains that it's better to abstain from both לכתחילה and to minimize non crucial activities as much as possible. The fact that they aren't fatal doesn't detract from their undesirability. It is only with the kabbalistic significance that we're ab initio doing it. – Nahum Jan 22 '24 at 14:56
  • @Nahum ...or were just practicing like the Rambam (and סתימת רוב ראשונים). But yes that's basically what I just said above. The Rosh is just saying "might as well not do extra things for no reason" so even a non-halachic reason (like a kabbalistic reason, or a convenience reason for someone not good at managing a poorly secured shel yad) could be sufficient. That's hardly "ruling like kabala over halacha". – Double AA Jan 22 '24 at 15:10
  • @DoubleAA לכתחילה halacha is also halacha and introducing kabbalah to override normative halacha as codified in Tur and SA qualifies in my book for terming it "ruling like kabala over halacha". – Nahum Jan 22 '24 at 15:20
  • @Nahum No interest in playing word games with you. Whatever this is "overriding" we can agree it's at most extremely minimal. – Double AA Jan 22 '24 at 15:27