Great! Where did you get the text and translation from?

B"H

The book, "Milchamos Ha-Shem" is on microfilm at the Hebrew University Library in Jerusalem (Givat Ram Campus), and I translated the text myself.

David

Regarding the fascinating quote from Rabbi Yehiya al-Qafih, defending the Yemenite tradition which is based primarily on the Rambam:
Did he say that ze'eir anpin is viewed as an angel?
That explanation is quite far from the understanding of all Kabbalists from the school of the Arizal. I question whether anyone ever held such highly unusual view. It is well known that ze'eir anpin is a matter of sefiros, not angels.

B"H
Rabbi Globus,

It sure would be nice if someone could rectify the difference between Rabbi Y. Qafih's view of the Zohar and that of his contemporaries.

I remember seeing written in his "Milchamos Ha-Shem" that he finds fault with the Zohar because of its saying that our prayers go directly unto the "zeir anpeen." He even quotes the source. I do not recall him saying that the "zair anpeen" was an angel, but I must have copied this from some kabbalistic source.

Sincerely,
David

Thanks for the clarification on ze'eir anpin. The various levels of Divinity spoken of in Kabbalah are surely complex.
To really go into this topic would be beyond the scope of this forum (and of my level of understanding...)

The dispute brought in the Pachat Yitzchak (containing letters from 30 Rabbis of his time) was on changing the Minhag of Askenazim putting on tephillin on Chol HaMoad because the Zohar said one goes to hell if one does it. All Askenazim upto the 17th century put on tephillin during Chol HaMoed. Rabbi, Doctor Lampreti was opposed to changing ones custom because of the Zohar and wrote "I don't care if Rashbi appear to me in a dream, I still wouldn't change my custom, (let alone because of something written in Zohar). Rav Lampreti was not opposed to study of the Zohar but felt that after Shabbtai Zvi and the conversion to christianity of Ramchal's students (because of their understanding of the Zohar) that it should no longer be available to the general population.

No one has a monopoly on Jewish thought. If people feel (a growing trend) that devakut (feeling close to HaShem) and meditation on spheres is the way to go, I do not think that that concentration on reincarnation and auras is not acceptable (as long as the Chasidim have shown that the new trend does not take them out of the halacha). History is the only judge and we always have to be suspicious of new trends.
However, it is important, that those who feel uncomfortable with demons, evil witches and magical curses and blessings, do not feel they do not have a place in Judiasm and there are ample sources to support their views as well.

Now why certain minhagim come and go, it a pretty much new field of study. Communities adapt minhagim or new forms of prayer for a variety of reasons, many of which have nothing to do with the original thought. Basically it justs feels right. Especially with Kabballistic customs, the reason is esoteric and the overwhelming majority of the people haven't the foggiest idea of its origin.

Aryeh Shore

If I am not mistaken,
Rav Moshe Feinstein ruled in a teshuva in Igros Moshe that Kabbalah should not be relied upon in order to be lenient.
That would accord with the views expressed about tefillin on chol hamoed.
(In the land of Israel, the custom is not to put on tefillin during chol hamoed, following the Gra, Ba'al Shem Tov and Arizal.)

B"H
Rabbi Globus,

Some years ago, I asked Rabbi Yoseph Qafih the question whether or not in Yemen they wore their Tefillin on the Chol Ha-Moed. His answer to me was that this matter was formerly disputed between the Ashkenazi Jews and the Sephardic Jews, the latter abstaining from wearing them many years ago. Yet, in Yemen, it was never practiced to wear them on the mid-festival days. Still, your question about Tefillin on the "Chol Ha-Moed" has already been answered by the book "Halachoth Gedoloth" (Hilchos Tefillin), written by Shimon Kiara in anno 743 C.E., which I shall quote herewith:

"They asked Mar Rab Yaakov the son of Habib a question concerning Tefillin and he answered, 'It is forbidden to put on Tefillin on the Chol Ha-Moed.' And [another] question was asked: 'How do we know that it's forbidden to put them on?' [To which it was replied], 'What is the reason? Because he has made it (i.e. the Chol Ha-Moed) like the Sabbath and the Feast Day'."

So, in this regard, the custom not to wear Tefillin on Chol Ha-Moed is not specifically a leniency brought down in kabbalistic works. It is rather an oral tradition not to do so.

Indeed, both, the Talmud (Menachos 36b) and Maimonides say that the Tefillin must be worn every day, except on Sabbaths and festival days. Since only these two days have been excluded, does this mean only them, and them alone?? Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) is neither a Sabbath, nor a festival day, and it is also excluded!! (For how often have we heard it said that the sanctity of the Sabbath is greater than that of the Yom Kippur?!) Yet, here it was obvious to all, since the Torah compares it to the Sabbath in many respects - except in eating. At any rate, we have proven here that the Gemara in Menachos 36b was never meant to be all inclusive. There were other days, besides the two mentioned in the Gemara, where the Tefillin could not be worn.

Sincerely, David

Regarding tefillin on chol hamoed:
This question appears in shulchan aruch. (It is an issue disputed by the Rishonim, actually.) The shulchan aruch rules not to wear, but the Rema rules to wear.
Thus for Ashkenazic Jews (who generally follow Rema) to not wear them, because of Zohar and Arizal, it would be using a Kabbalist view to decide leniently in a Halachic dispute.
The Ben Ish Hai indeed relies on Kabbalah to rule leniently, in certain cases, but this is not the accepted approach of Ashkenazic Halachic authorities.

B"H
Rabbi Globus,

I think when Rabbi Yoseph Qafih said "Ashkenazim vs. the Sephardim," he actually had in mind the Rama (Rabbi Moshe Iserlisch) and his followers, versus, Maran (the Shulhan Arukh) and his followers.

Since the author of "Halachos Gedolos" antedated all kabbalistic works known to us today (i.e. since the Zohar was discovered long after the teachings of "Halachos Gedolos"), it does not seem appropriate to use a late Kabbalist view-point in deciding leniently on a Halachic dispute, especially when there were mainstream Jewish views about the issue of Tefillin on Chol Ha-Moed prior to the kabbalistic view.

David

In Halachah,the later view (basra) actually is the decisive one, because the later authority knew all the views expressed before him, and weighed among them. The problem here is more one of apples and oranges: Halachah and Kabbalah.

Rabbi Globusת
I wish to relate to a number of points you raise.

a. Rabbi Yehiya al-Qafih, does not say that ze'eir anpin is viewed as an angel, because angels have a quite different definition in Judaism than the Zeir Anpin which, according to the Zohar (Bereshit) is the produce of the Nukva earth and Duchra heaven. And the Zohar says that our prayers are to be directed to that creature, because it is impossible to address prayers to God who is too far from us.

b. You say that "The various levels of Divinity spoken of in Kabbalah are surely complex". Well, the Torah teaches only ONE level of divinity, and we repeat this faith twice a day, every day of our life.

Two points which plainly expose the anti-Jewish faith of the Zohar.

c. You say that "In Halachah,the later view is the decisive one, because the later authority knew all the views expressed before him, and weighed among them".
This assertion is contradicted by:
1. The fact that dispersion made it impossible for Sepharadim to know what views were expressed by the Ashkenazim, and the proof is that the Rama "corrected" the Shulchan Aruch.
2. The source of any Psak hallacha has to be based on what chazal teach is the hallacha, and no later posek can change that.
3. Forgetfulness, innovations, and distortions of our sources did occur in the course of time, so that we rely dafka on those who were closer to the chain of tradition, and not those who emerged much later.
4. No "later view" which is contradiction with our tradition can be decisive - on the contrary, if it is contradicted, it is batel!

To Laurence Shore:
I am always interested in the way you present and develop your ideas, and the scope of the information you give. But I do not always see your conclusion as to what is right and what is not. For instance, you say "No one has a monopoly on Jewish thought".
Jewish thought started at Sinai, there we were commanded not to follow the inclination of our heart and the incentive of your eyes. This is Prohibition # 47 in the Sefer Hamitzvot of the Rambam: "We are forbidden to freely pursue our thoughts to the point of holding opinions (hashkaphot) which are contrary to the opinions taught by the Torah, but rather limit our thoughts within the limits of what the Torah commands as it is said "don’t follow your heart and your eyes" – following the heart is "minut" (a denial of God – see Halachot Tshuva Ch. 3), following your eyes is "znut" (immorality)…".
So when you rightly say that each one expresses his dvekut to Hashem in his own personal way, it also has to be within the limits of what the Torah teaches (to go in the ways of Hashem), and not by basing our inspiration for Avodat Hashem on things contrary to what the Torah teaches (like the concepts of the Zohar and reincarnation).
Rav Lampreti which you quote had a good point, but it seems he did not carry it out to its necessary conclusion. I would like to know more about him.

quote:

Originally posted by Rabbi Globus:
If I am not mistaken,
Rav Moshe Feinstein ruled in a teshuva in Igros Moshe that Kabbalah should not be relied upon in order to be lenient.
That would accord with the views expressed about tefillin on chol hamoed.

Rebbe Globus, Shalom!

The honourable Rabbi has said, furthermore, "In Halachah,the latter view (basra) actually is the decisive one, because the latter authority knew all the views expressed before him, and weighed among them," a statement made in response to my own that it does not seem appropriate to use a late Kabbalist view-point in deciding leniently on a Halachic dispute, especially when there were mainstream Jewish views about the issue of Tefillin on Chol Ha-Moed prior to the kabbalistic view.

Without beating upon this subject too long, I have always been of the understanding that Kabbalah is not halacha. Rabbi David Ben-Zimra, in his Questions & Responsa, Vol. I, responsum # 36 writes that "in every place where you find kabbalistic books contradicting an accepted practice brought down in the Gemara, go after the Gemara and the poskim. But in every place where [the kabbalistic practice] does not contradict [any teaching], such as [the kabbalistic practice] mentioned in [the book], Kenesseth Hagedolah, [and] where the practice has no mention in the Gemara, neither in the poskim, I have chosen to rely upon the words of Kabbalah."

So, in this regard, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein of blessed memory had due course to the words of the poskim (Halachos Gedolos) before he went and decided the issue of Tefillin on Chol Ha-Moed by reason of what he saw written in the so-called "latter" writings of Kabbalah.
Here, the subject of "latter" and "early," and basing a decision on the "latter," is not applicable in this case. This is my humble opinion.

Sincerely,
David

Indeed, David Ben-Avraham, you are right: the concept of earlier and latter is not applicable between Kabbalah and Halachah.
That is in fact when I meant by calling it a case of comparing apples to oranges.
Your quote from Rabbi David Ben-Zimra is quite apropos.

Dear R. Sheva,
I appreciate your erudition and your opinions.
In my humble opinion, an idea that can be traced back to both the Gra, the Baal Shem Tov and the Chida is an idea that is intrinsic to mainstream Judaism.
I think I have amply demonstrated that the Zohar not only fits this definition but is well represented even in the conservative and rationally oriented school of the Gra and his successors.

quote:

Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement) is neither a Sabbath, nor a festival day, and it is also excluded!! (For how often have we heard it said that the sanctity of the Sabbath is greater than that of the Yom Kippur?!)

Yet I have also heard that Yom Kippur is considered a Shabbos of all Shabbos.

quote:

This question appears in shulchan aruch. (It is an issue disputed by the Rishonim, actually.) The shulchan aruch rules not to wear, but the Rema rules to wear.
Thus for Ashkenazic Jews (who generally follow Rema) to not wear them, because of Zohar and Arizal, it would be using a Kabbalist view to decide leniently in a Halachic dispute.

Dear Rabbi Globus:

Are there other facets of Chol HaMoed practice about which these sources do not agree, or where we seem to not follow the Rema?

For example, in the order of shachris davening on Chol HaMoed, or specification of which inserts in Bircas HaMazon?

Does the Rema hold that one who wears tefilin on Chol HaMoed must remove them prior to mussaf?

Does he forbid unnecessary weekday work on Chol HaMoed such as gardenning and writing?

About the Rema and chol hamoed:
the two reasons given by the mishah berurah for removing tefillin before mussaf of rosh chodesh would apply to chol hamoed as well. the reason given in hilchos tefillin is the special kedushah, and the reason given in hilchos rosh chodesh is that the musaf amidah mentions the korbanos of the day.
Both apply to chol hamoed.

About your other questions: There are no other halachos in chol hamoed that come to my mind where the Rema holds differently from general practice, or where there is a similar disagreement between authorities.

quote:

the two reasons given by the mishah berurah for removing tefillin before mussaf of rosh chodesh would apply to chol hamoed as well.

If the reason were the same, its not clear why it would become manifest in different instructions.

I am referencing an Arstscroll Ashkenaz siddur which has Hallel on page 632/633 and Mussaf Shemoneh Esrei for Rosh Chodesh on page 644/645.

On page 632 the instructions read:

Those wearing tefillin on Chol HaMoed remove them at this point before reciting Hallel.


On page 644 the instructions read:

Tefillin must be removed before Mussaf. (It is preferable that they be removed after Kaddish). This should be done quickly and the tefillin should not be rolled up in order not to cause undue delay between Kaddish and Mussaf.


I think I have learned that the quickly removing also implies not putting the hand tefillin into the intermediate state before taking off the head tefillin.

Is one who wears tefillin on Chol HaMoed supposed to remove them quickly before Hallel?

But my main point is that since Hallel is recited on Rosh Chodesh with tefillin and the Chol HaMoed Hallel is without tefillin, wouldn't we think that the rule for removing them would likely be for somewhat different reasons?

Why do we leave tefillin on for Hallel on Rosh Chodesh?

quote:

But my main point is that since Hallel is recited on Rosh Chodesh with tefillin and the Chol HaMoed Hallel is without tefillin, wouldn't we think that the rule for removing them would likely be for somewhat different reasons?

Good questions.

Actually, it seems that both instructions in your siddur are "correct". The Rema in Siman 25 implies that one should take off the tefillin only before musaf of chol hamoed.

Whereas the Mishnah Brurah (ibid, sv 60) says in the name of later authorities that one should hurry to take them off before Hallel (the shaliach tzibbur after hallel, since he doesn't have time, at least on Pesach).
The reason given: Since some views say not to put on tefillin at all on chol hamo'ed, we take them off earlier.

This this appears to be a pesharah (compromise) between the views, rather than pointing to a new reason.

Practically speaking, though, you should take them off when everyone else does. If they take them off before Hallel, there could be a Halachic problem with keeping them on until Musaf: it might appear as if there are two Torahs, chas veshalom.

The same applies if you go to a shul where they do not put on tefillin at all on chol hamoed: you are not allowed to put them on there, only at home, in private. In such a case, your personal Halachic practice must be waived in face of the practice of the congregation, and you fulfill the mitzvah of tefillin later, at home.