Jewish Folklore 10

Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein (1829-1908) was a man of great learning and integrity, with the ability to bridge chasms that appeared unbridgeable. Although the animosity against Hasidism and Hasidim that dated back to the Eighteenth-century had ceased being violent, the hatred and suspicion were still very much there (and still are to a large degree, although rarely spoken about publicly). Rabbi Epstein grew up among the opponents of Hasidism. His brother-in-law was the head of the great Yeshivah of Volozhin, the bastion of Lithuanian learning based on the teachings of Elijah of Vilna. Yet, for most of his life, he was the rabbi of predominantly Hasidic communities, even receiving ordination from Tzemach Tzedek (Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn, the third Rebbe of Chabad). His approach to halachah was unique for his time and place. When a question arose, it is to be assumed to be permissible, unless an obvious reason to declare it forbidden is present. Most of his contemporaries would give a knee-jerk response of "no" to new situations, searching only afterwards for justification for the "prohibition". In matters of dispute between Hasidim and their opponents, he would analyze each question objectively, often siding with the Hasidim, but just as often with their opponents. He quoted freely from rabbis of both streams, staying remarkably objective. The last decades of his life were dedicated to his magnum opus, the Aruch HaShulchan. On the surface, it appears to be merely an update to the Shulchan Aruch (16th century), including later opinions. However, this is far from the case. Following the order of the Shulchan Aruch, he approaches every topic chronologically. He begins with quotes from the Torah (where applicable), follows with Talmudic and related sources, analyzes the discussions of the Rishonim (Early Authorities; roughly between 1,000 and 1500 ce), followed by decisions of the Acharonim (Later Authorities, from about 1500 onward). So far, so good. But then he does something else. He analyzes the various opinions for their logic and their faithfulness to earlier sources. If there seems to be a "disconnect" he would ask how and why did it happen? A faulty text? A possibly invalid local tradition? He is always respectful of his predecessors, but that doesn't stop him from rejecting views that seem inappropriate. His final decisions often differ sharply with what had been accepted practice. Many accepted his rulings, many did not. Nevertheless, one could look at the Aruch HaShulchan and understand the development of each halachah, and even customs, from a perspective of over three thousand years. Prior to the Aruch HaShulchan, one would have needed an entire library for this kind of understanding. To the extent that Sepharadic works in halachah were available to him, he included their opinions in his work. Many Yeshivot accepted this great masterpiece as their primary "go-to" work for halachah. (It must be remembered that in traditional Lithuanian Yeshivot, the curriculum centered around analysis of Talmud, not practical halachah). Now, each halachic issue could be seen in its historical perspective, with both major and minor halachic sources carefully referenced and analyzed. In the U.S., the Aruch HaShulchan was THE accepted halachic work, until the 1950s. What changed? Judaism, particularly in America, was under attack. American Reform was generally unconcerned with halachah. The Conservative Movement, not yet separate from Orthodoxy, was questioning many traditional concepts and practices. Hasidism was still seen as a threat by many prominent rabbis. Most American Jews had arrived from Ukraine and Poland in the early twentieth century. Although there was little organized Hasidism in America before the 1950s, Hasidic ideas and practices were part and parcel of the Jewishness of these communities. Lithuanian rabbis regarded this as a danger to the integrity of the Judaism they followed and considered the only valid one. There was felt a need to "circle the wagons" The willingness of Aruch HaShulcah to consider innovation, might play into the hands of the Conservatives, while his conciliatory approach to Hasidism could open the doors to other threats to what the Lithuanians regarded as authentic tradition. Another work was sought and found. It was seen as a solution to outside challenges. It is known as the Mishnah Berurah. To be discussed next time.