The Month of Av: Unlucky or Misunderstood? (Part 2 of 2)

This is a sequel to The Month of Av: Unlucky or Misunderstood? (Part 1 of 2). I'm going to pick up right where I left off, without reviewing the facts or the questions.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Behold the Beyond, by Noah Bradley

The Month of Av: Unlucky or Misunderstood? (Part 2 of 2)

Three Disclaimers

Disclaimer #1: I realize now that I really should have written two other posts before tackling this "The Month of Av: Unlucky or Misunderstood?" series, in order to establish certain premises in a more efficient manner. As it stands, I'm too deep into the writing trenches now, so I'll just have to incorporate all of the ideas into this one post. As a result, my explanation is going to be a bit more round-about than my usual style, but I promise it'll come together at the end. 

Disclaimer #2: For the time being, I'm going to ignore the question about the "good mazal" during the month of Adar and focus exclusively on the "bad mazal" during the month of Av. If I succeed in clearly presenting my idea about Av, then you'll see what direction I would take in addressing the question about Adar. I just don't have it clear enough yet to write out. Maybe I'll take it up at Rosh Chodesh Adar later this year.

Disclaimer #3: I said this in Part 1 but it bears repeating here: this article is intended to be theoretical - not normative. Consult your rabbi before making any changes to your halachic practice. 

Diminishing Rejoicing, Avoiding Court Cases, and Bad Mazal

Let's start with the question: What does the Gemara mean when it says that the month of Av has "bad mazal"? The Ritva raises an objection to the premise of this question from the Gemara in Shabbos 156a which states: "there is no mazal for Israel." This would appear to contradict our Gemara in Taanis 29b, which indicates that the mazal of Av is bad for the Jews and the mazal of Adar is good for the Jews. 

The Ritva offers two resolutions to this contradiction: 

Even though "there is no mazal for Israel," that [statement] is only true of other days, but during these two months there is mazal, for such was decreed upon us from Heaven. Moreover, it is possible that [the term] "mazal" [in our Gemara about Av and Adar] is only a reference to the [Divine] decree, which is called "mazal" in common parlance. 

Both of the Ritva's answers explain that the special mazal of Av and Adar have to do with the Divine decree: either the mazal of Israel changes during these months because of the decree, or the decree itself is being called "mazal." 

The Baalei Tosafos on our Gemara agree with the Ritva's approach. They explain:

Rav Pappa said: Therefore, a Jew who has a court case with a non-Jew should avoid it during the month of Av, because its mazal is bad - the meaning of this is what was stated above: "liability is scheduled (lit. "rolled") for the day of liability" (Taanis 29a).

The Gemara cited by Tosafos addresses the question of how we know that both Batei ha'Mikdash (Holy Temples) were destroyed on the same day. After establishing that the first Mikdash was destroyed on the 9th of Av, the Gemara says:

From where do we know that the Second [Temple was also destroyed on the 9th of Av]? It was taught in a braisa: "merit is scheduled for the day of merit, and liability is scheduled for the day of liability."

According to Tosafos, "the mazal of Av is bad" doesn't have anything to do with the month being "unlucky," as we explained earlier. Rather, it means that Hashem decreed that the destruction of the second Mikdash should be scheduled for "the day of liability," the same day that the first Mikdash was destroyed. Thus, the statement "the mazal of Av is bad" simply means "Av was divinely ordained as a period of time designated for punishment." 

The question is: Why? What is the purpose or advantage of "scheduling" Klal Yisrael's punishments for a specific time period? The answer lies in the Rambam's opening remarks in Hilchos Taaniyos:

1:1 - It is a positive mitzvah of the Torah to cry out and to sound the trumpets on every tzarah (catastrophe) that befalls the community, as it is stated, “[When you wage war in your land] against the afflicter who afflicts you, you shall sound the trumpets, [and you shall be remembered before Hashem, your God, and you shall be saved from your enemies]” (Bamidbar 10:9), meaning to say: anything that afflicts you - such as drought, epidemic, locusts, and the like - cry out on them and sound [the trumpets].  

1:2 - This principle is one of the darchei teshuvah (ways of repentance), that at a time of the onset of an affliction, and [people] cry out and sound the trumpets, everyone will know that it was because of their evil conduct that this bad occurrence befell them, as it is written, “Your iniquities have turned away these things [to you], and your sins have withheld good from you” (Yirmiyahu 5:25), and this will cause them to remove the affliction from upon them.  

1:3 - But if they do not cry out and do not sound the trumpets, but instead say, “This is a natural event which befell us, and this affliction is a chance occurrence” - behold, this is a derech achzarius (way of cruelty), and will cause them to cling to their evil conduct, and [this] affliction and others will increase. This is what is written in the Torah, “[And if, with this, you do not listen to Me,] and you walk with me with chance, then I will walk with you in the fury of chance, [and I will also chastise you, seven times for your sins]” (Vayikra 26:26-28), meaning to say, when I bring an affliction upon you to cause you to do teshuvah, if you say that it is chance, then I will increase upon you the fury of that “chance.”

Chazal teach us that five tragedies happened on Tishah b'Av: (1) it was decreed that the generation of the Exodus would die in the Wilderness for their role in the Sin of the Spies, (2) the first Mikdash was destroyed, (3) the second Mikdash was destroyed, (4) the city of Beitar was besieged, and the Bar Kochba revolt led to many Jewish deaths, and (5) Jerusalem was razed to the ground. 

Since then, other terrible events have occurred on Tishah b'Av: the expulsion of Jews from England in 1290; the start of World War I in 1914, which directly led to World War II; the commencement of the Nazi's "Final Solution" in 1941; the start of the mass deportation of the Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto to Treblinka in 1942. If we take into consideration the entire month of Av, more tragedies can be added to the list: the beginning of the crusades on the 24th of Av in 1096; the expulsion of Jews from France on the 10th of Av in 1306; the expulsion of Jews from Spain on the 7th of Av in 1492; and more.

According to the Gemara cited by Tosafos, these misfortunes could have happened at different times of the year. However, if they did, it would be far easier for us to dismiss these catastrophes as "natural events" and "chance occurrences." Therefore, Hashem-Elokim - the One Who is merciful even when executing judgment - decreed that the month of Av should have "bad mazal." According to Tosafos, this means that He "scheduled liability for the day of liability," causing all of these tragedies to happen during the same time period. This is "merciful" because it makes it easier for us to recognize that these events were orchestrated by hashgachah (Divine providence), and this recognition will (ideally) motivate us to do national teshuvah, thereby ending our exile and our suffering.

This explanation sheds a new light on the obligation to "diminish rejoicing at the onset of Av." We are not obligated to diminish our rejoicing as an expression of natural mourning over the effects of these tragedies, but rather, this halacha aims to promote national bemoaning of the causes of those tragedies - namely, the "evil conduct which caused these events to befall us" - as a catalyst for national teshuvah. 

I believe this is where Rav Pappa's halacha comes in. The mishnah said that we should diminish rejoicing at the onset of Av, and Rav Pappa added: "therefore, a Jew who has a court appointment at a non-Jewish court should try to avoid it during the month of Av because it has a bad mazal (i.e. because Hashem scheduled our punishments for Av in order to awaken us to do teshuvah)." Why did he single out this specific activity of avoiding court appointments with non-Jews? Because avoiding court appointments with non-Jews frames our recognition of the month of Av as a time period in which the non-Jews have historically prevailed over the Jews, not because of nature or chance, but because of the midas ha'din shel ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu (the meting out of Divine Justice). 

In other words, without Rav Pappa's halacha, it would be easy for us to enter the month of Av and diminish our rejoicing purely as an expression of national mourning over the losses suffered by the Jewish people at the hands of non-Jews during this month throughout our history. But when Rav Pappa comes along and says, "How should we diminish our rejoicing? By avoiding court cases with non-Jews," he is framing our conception of the interaction between Jew and Gentile, Israel and the Nations of the World, not in terms of chance, not in terms of social or psychological dynamics, not in terms of geopolitical trends and world events, but in terms of midas ha'din. The focus on the theater of the beis din shel mata (earthly court) reminds us of the reality of the beis din shel maalah (heavenly court). Rav Pappa's institution underscores the fact that our fate as a nation is determined by our standing vis a vis God's justice, and our only salvation lies in teshuvah. 

According to this explanation, there is no reason to avoid other "risky" activities specifically during the month of Av. To the contrary - the effort to do so would detract from the framework set up by Rav Pappa's halacha, which highlights the theme of midas ha'din.

Ketev Meriri: the Scourge of the Three Weeks

We will now turn our attention to the second halacha we cited from the Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 551, which cautions us during the Three Weeks not to walk alone between the 4th and 9th hours of the day, and not to strike talmidim, all on account of the "Ketev Meriri." 

There are three questions we must answer: (1) What is the Ketev Meriri? (2) Why does the dominance of the Ketev Meriri during this time period make these specific activities hazardous? (3) Why is the danger of the Ketev Meriri present or increased during the Three Weeks?

The term Ketev Meriri is from Haazinu (Devarim 32:24). Here it is in context:

Hashem will see and be provoked by the anger of His sons and daughters, and He will say: "I shall hide My face from them and see what their end will be - for they are a generation of reversals, children whose upbringing is not in them. They provoked Me with a non-god, angered Me with their vanities; so shall I provoke them with a non-people, with a vile nation shall I anger them. For fire will have been kindled in My nostrils and blazed to the lowest depths. It shall consume the earth and its produce, and set ablaze what is founded on mountains. I shall accumulate evils against them, My arrows shall I use up against them; bloating of famine, battles of Reshef, Ketev Meriri, and the teeth of beasts shall I dispatch against them, with the venom of those that creep upon the earth. On the outside, the sword will bereave, while indoors there will be dread - even a young man, even a virgin, a suckling with the gray-haired man."

The word "ketev" means "cutting," and it is clear from the context that "Ketev Meriri" refers to some harmful and destructive phenomenon, but that's about all that's clear. Since this is the only place in Tanach where this phrase appears, the meforshim (commentators) struggle to understand what it means. Some associate it with a pasuk in Tehilim, which is the only other place in Tanach which uses this form of the word "ketev": "You shall not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day, nor the pestilence that walks in gloom, nor the ketev yashud tzaharayim (the destroyer who lays waste at noon)" (91:5-6), but there is no clear indication of what the meriri is, or how it "cuts." 

There are two places in the aggadic midrashim which expound on the Ketev Meriri at length. I'm going to cite both sources in their entirety before commenting on either of them, beginning with the Gemara in Pesachim 111b, which appears within the context of a larger discussion about sheidim (demons). Although I usually translate the Gemara myself, I decided to rely primarily on Artscroll this time, due to the obscure terminology:

"ketev meriri" - There are two ketev demons: one [that lurks] before noontime, and one [that lurks] after noontime. The name of the one that lurks before noontime is Ketev Meriri, and it appears, in a jug of kamcha (or "kutach"- a dipping sauce made of sour milk, moldy bread crusts, and salt), as a whirling mixing spoon. The name of the one [that lurks] after noontime is Ketev Yashud Tzaharaim, and it appears amidst the horns of goats as a whirling sieve.

Abaye was once going along and Rav Pappa went on his right side and Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua on his left side. He saw a Ketev Meriri coming towards his left side. [Abaye] then switched Rav Pappa to his left side and Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua to his right side. Rav Pappa said to [Abaye], "Why am I different such that [you] do not concern yourself with me?" [Abaye] said to him, "For you, the times are propitious (Rashbam: you are wealthy and blessed with good fortune and will not be harmed by the demon)." 

From the time of the first of Tammuz until the 16th, [the ketev demons] are certainly prevalent. From then on, it is uncertain whether or not they are prevalent. And they are found in the shadows of a chatzuva (a type of grass) that did not grow a cubit, and in the shadows of the morning and evening that are not a cubit long. And [they are found] predominantly in the shadows of a lavatory.

The second extensive aggadic treatment is in Midrash Eichah Rabbah 1:29:

Another interpretation of "all her pursuers have overtaken her trapped between the metzarim" is "days of misfortune," which are between the 17th of Tammuz and the 9th of Av, for during that time Ketev Meriri is prevalent, as it is said: "[you shall not fear] the pestilence that goes forth in the dark, nor from the ketev which lays waste at noon." 

Rebbi Abba bar Kahana and Rebbi Levi [discussed ketev meriri]. Rebbi Abba bar Kahana said: "It cuts down (i.e. wreaks havoc) during the passage of the noontime hours, from the beginning of the 6th hour [of daylight] through the end of the 9th hour." Rebbi Levi said: "It cuts down during the passage of the daylight hours, from the end of the 4th hour to the beginning of the 9th hour." It does not travel in the sunlight, nor in the shade, but in the shade that is adjacent to the sunlight.

Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish [also discussed ketev meriri]. Rebbi Yochanan said: "It is full of eyes, made up of layers upon layers, and hair upon hair." Rebbi Shimon ben Lakish said: "One eye is situated on its heart, and if anyone sees it, he dies."

Rebbi Abahu was sitting and teaching in a certain synagogue in his place in Caesarea. He saw a man holding a stick about to hit his fellow man. He saw a demon standing behind him, holding a metal rod. Rebbi Abahu rose up and screamed, saying to the man, "Why do you want to kill your fellow man?" [The man] asked, "With [a stick like] this someone can kill his fellow man?" [Rebbi Abahu explained:] "But there is a demon right behind you holding a metal rod. If you hit your fellow with this [stick,] he (i.e. the demon) will hit him (i.e. you) with that [rod] and he (i.e. you) will die.

Rebbi Yochanan used to demand that the Scripture teachers and Mishnah teachers not hold up the strap to the children [to punish them] during these days [when ketev meriri is rampant]. Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini used to demand that the Scripture teachers and Mishnah teachers release the youngsters [from school] during the four hours [when the ketev is rampant]. 

Instead of veering off on a lengthy tangent about Judaism's view of demons, I'll just quote the Meiri's commentary on: “A fool will believe anything, but a clever person will understand every step” (Mishlei 14:15). The Meiri writes: 

A fool will believe everything he hears, whether it’s possible or impossible, probable or improbable. But a clever person – one who investigates with his own mind – will understand every step. For example, if he hears something, he will investigate it with his own mind to see whether it is possible or impossible, probable or improbable. The Sages of Musar said: “If the speaker is a fool, then the listener should be clever.” Even though this is common sense advice, nevertheless, it is befitting for every intelligent person to analyze with his mind which ideas are proper to believe in.

The Meiri then goes on to provide examples in matters of Torah and in matters science which we are obligated to investigate in this manner, and not just blindly accept. As one of his examples of "scientific matters which are not contingent on matters of [Torah] belief," the Meiri lists "the existence or non-existence of demons." In other words, there is no "theological obligation" to believe in demons. Rather, each person must "investigate [the subject] with his own mind to see whether it is possible or impossible, probable or improbable." Similarly, Rav Hirsch wrote in his Letters on Aggadah:

In my opinion, the first principle that every student of Chazal's statements must keep before his eyes is the following: Chazal were sages of God's law - the receivers, transmitters, and teachers of His toros, His mitzvos, and His interpersonal laws. They did not especially master the natural sciences, geometry, astronomy, or medicine - except insofar as they needed them for knowing, observing, and fulfilling the Torah. We do not find that this knowledge was transmitted to them from Sinai.

Nowadays too it is enough for the non-specialist to know about any of these areas of knowledge whatever contemporary experts teach that is generally accepted as true. This applies to the lawyer vis-à-vis all other areas, to the mathematician and the astronomer regarding the natural sciences, and to the expert on flora regarding all other areas. We expect none of them to seek out the truth and satisfy his inclinations in any field other than his own specialty.

Moreover, even in the area where one is an expert, it is neither possible for him nor expected of him to know everything through personal investigation and experience. Most of his knowledge rests upon the investigation of others. If they have erred it is not his fault. It is sufficient and praiseworthy if his knowledge encompasses all that is accepted as true at his time and place and generation. The greatness of his wisdom is in no way belittled if in a later generation it is discovered that some of the things he maintained or accepted on the authority of others are unreliable. The same is true for Chazal in these areas. The greatest of them knew all the wisdom and science of all the great non-Jewish scholars whose wisdom and teachings became famous in their generations.

Having said that, there are three ways to understand these aggadic statements about the Ketev Meriri:

Approach #1: These statements of the Sages indicate their belief that the Ketev Meriri was a real physical threat, and they were correct. 

Approach #2: These statements of the Sages indicate their belief that the Ketev Meriri was a real physical threat, but we now know that they were incorrect.

Approach #3: These statements of the Sages were intended to be taken allegorically, and were written to teach us lessons in ethics, philosophy, psychology, metaphysics, etc.; they were never intended by their authors to be taken literally, as statements of scientific fact about a physical threat.

In my opinion, Approach #3 is the least likely. I have yet to see any meforshim who explain the Ketev references in Haazinu or Tehilim 91 allegorically, and I think it would be difficult to take most of the aggadic explanations of the Ketev Meriri in Pesachim and Midrash Eichah as metaphors. The fact that the Shulchan Aruch and Rema codify these precautionary measures as halacha show that they certainly didn't take these statements allegorically.

Approach #1 is also unlikely, but is more plausible than Approach #3. Don't worry: I don't think there's any basis for worrying about a demon "filled with eyes" who will kill you if you look at the eye in its heart, nor do I think there is a single scientist who believes that whirling spoon demons can be seen in sour dipping sauce or whirling sieve demons appear between goat horns.

However, there are grounds for saying that a person should take certain precautions when walking outside during the Three Weeks between the 4th and 9th hours. After all, these are the hottest days of the year, and the hottest times of day. Lest you think I'm being facetious, a number of Rishonim take this approach in their commentary on the reference to Ketev Meriri in Haazinu. The Ibn Ezra explains that Ketev Meriri refers to the damage caused "by the bitterness of the air." Ibn Caspi says that it refers to the severe sickness that comes about on account of "the unusually excessive heat that occurs during the summer days." The Ralbag provides a lengthy meteorological account of Ketev Meriri - one which I can't even claim to translate accurately. He says something about how "meriri" refers to "the lethal air that sometimes comes up from the earth at times of extreme heat." He theorizes how this air is a product of "the heat of the sun and stars combined with the phenomena in the belly of the earth which cause this harmful vapor to ascend." He also repeatedly mentions something about "putrefaction" or "mustiness," but I couldn't follow what he was saying.

Whether or not these proto-scientific explanations of Ketev Meriri are any more accurate than the belief in a literal havoc-wreaking demon, one thing is clear: these Rishonim understood the Ketev Meriri to be a reference to a natural, physical, environmental phenomenon, rather than as a spiritual force or supernatural creature (as most people think of when they hear the word "demon"). Moreover, they had no qualms about rejecting the validity of the Sages' descriptions provided in the aggadic midrashim cited above. One might argue that they weren't rejecting these statements, but merely interpreting them non-literally. Personally, I doubt it. It's a stretch to read those vivid and specific statements as referring to "hot air" or "musty vapor."

To my mind, Approach #2 is the most reasonable of the three. The Sages believed in the physical threat of something they called Ketev Meriri, which they associated with the references in Haazinu and Tehilim 91. Whether they thought it was a spiritual entity or a meteorological phenomenon, they genuinely believed that it could cause harm. They also thought that they had enough of an understanding of the nature of this threat to be able to lay down guidelines for how to avoid this harm. But they were wrong. After all, the Meiri said that we must investigate the question of whether such demons exist and reach our conclusions based on our own understanding. As far as I know, there is no scientific basis for believing in the reality of anything matching the Sages' detailed description of Ketev Meriri today. And, as Rav Hirsch said, this is not an indictment of the Sages' authority or intelligence. They were merely relying on the information that was available to them at the time, just as contemporary rabbis rely on the scientific data available to them today, even though today's science might be regarded as laughably false tomorrow.

Whichever of the three approaches you take, one thing is abundantly clear, and was the most shocking of my findings: the threat of Ketev Meriri has absolutely nothing to do with Tishah b'Av and the Three Weeks! The Gemara in Pesachim says that the threat of the Ketev Meriri is specifically during the first sixteen days of Tammuz, and it is uncertain whether we need to take precautions against the Ketev Meriri during the time period from the 17th of Tammuz until the 9th of Av. There is nothing in that Gemara or Midrash Eichah which makes reference to anything having to do with Tishah b'Av, Three Weeks, the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash, the prophecies of Yirmiyahu, or even the halachos of mourning and diminishing our rejoicing. The sole exception to this trend is the phrase "bein ha'metzarim," which is likely just a textual hook in the Midrash. Certainly the Rishonim who understood Ketev Meriri to be an environmental threat that is common during the hottest days of the year would not tie their explanations to the halachic institutions of the Three Weeks and Tishah b'Av. They would caution all people, Jews and non-Jews, to take these precautions against the Ketev Meriri, even before Tishah b'Av was instituted as a halacha. Likewise, they would tell people who live in colder climates not to worry at all about these guidelines.

Another thing is clear: according to the Gemara in Pesachim and Midrash Eichah, no matter which of the three approaches you take, there is no reason to avoid other "risky" behaviors. The Ketev Meriri works in very specific ways. The Sages even go so far as to identify the specific types of shrubbery and shadows in which the Ketev Meriri can be found. There is simply no basis in this original source material for claiming that other dangerous activities should be avoided - except, perhaps, other outdoor activities which might put you at risk for heat exhaustion or dehydration.

Conclusion

We initially set out to answer the question: Is there a basis for the widespread practice to avoid risky endeavors during the Nine Days or the Three Weeks, out of precaution?  The answer to this question is a resounding and unequivocal: NO!

Our findings may be summarized as follows:

At the onset of Av we diminish rejoicing, and the specific activity we avoid is scheduling court appointments with non-Jews. According to our explanation, this reinforces the proper teshuvah-framework (midas ha'din) for reflecting on the causes of the national tragedies which were scheduled to befall us during the month of Av.

Between the 17th of Tammuz and the 9th of Av, we refrain from walking alone outdoors between the halachic hours of 4 and 9, and we also avoid striking students - not because of anything having to do with the Three Weeks, the Nine Days, and Tishah b'Av, but because of the threat of the Ketev Meriri - a physical threat that is either real but limited to very specific parameters, or is not real at all.

Although I have stated in my disclaimer that this post is not intended to be normative, I can tell you that if you are the type of person who determines your halachic practice based on the rulings of the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema, then feel free to schedule your wisdom-teeth surgery during this time period without worrying about increasing your risk for harm. There's no need to further diminish your joy on account of baseless fear. 

Parashas Shoftim: How to Say Tehilim for the Sick Without Violating Halacha

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Devout Invocation, by David Palumbo
(Note: If this is what you think you're doing when you say Tehilm, then you're doing it wrong.)

Parashas Shoftim: How to Tehilim for the Sick Without Violating Halacha

Preface

Broadly speaking, there are two ways to say Tehilim (Psalms) for the sick: one which is halachically permitted and in line with Hashem's will, and the other which is halachically prohibited and is considered by Hashem to be an "abomination."

In Parashas Shoftim Moshe Rabbeinu warns Bnei Yisrael:

When you come to the Land that Hashem, your God, gives you, you shall not learn to act according to the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you one who causes his son or daughter to pass through the fire, a kosem kesamim (diviner), a meonein (astrologer), a menachesh (omen-reader), a mechashef (sorcerer), a chover chaver (one who recites incantations), one who inquires of Ov or Yidoni, or one who consults the dead. For anyone who does these is an abomination of Hashem, and because of these abominations Hashem, your God, banishes [the nations] from before you. You shall be whole with Hashem, your God. For these nations that you are possessing - they hearken to astrologers and diviners; but as for you - not so has Hashem, your God, given for you. (Devarim 18:9-14)

The Torah prohibition we will be discussing is chover chaver with a focus on its application to reciting Tehilim for the sick. In Part I we will examine the Sefer ha'Chinuch's treatment of the topic. In Part II we will summarize the various halacha l'maaseh (practical halacha) views.

Part I: Sefer ha'Chinuch on Chover Chaver

The Sefer ha'Chinuch [1] defines chover chaver as follows:

We are prohibited from making incantations about any matter. By this we are referring to a person who will recite words and tell people that those words cause benefit or harm in a certain matter. About this it is stated, “There shall not be found among you … a speaker of incantations” (Devarim 18:10-11). The Sifri says: “whether one charms a snake or a scorpion,” meaning to say, one who recites words upon them so that they will not bite him – according to his view. So too, if one recites words over an affliction in order to gain relief from the pain, etc.

According to this definition it would seem that if a person recites Tehilim and believes that the words themselves will have a beneficial effect on a choleh (sick person), then this would be a violation of chover chaver. 

The Sefer ha'Chinuch anticipates this question and addresses it head-on by citing a Gemara which ostensibly endorses the practice of reciting Tehilim in order to save a person from harm:

Now perhaps, my son, you will pose a question to me from what we read in the second chapter of the Talmud tractate Shevuos (15b): 

"The psalm against afflictions is with lutes and harps; and one says, 'He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High,' until 'For You, Hashem, are my refuge' (Tehilim 91); then he says, 'Hashem, how many are my foes,' until 'Salvation belongs to Hashem' (ibid. 3)." 

In other words, [the Talmud seems to indicate that] the recitation of these psalms works to provide protection from harm. And it was stated in the tractate Berachos (3a): "R. Yehoshua ben Levi would say these verses before going to bed [to protect himself from harm]."

The Sefer ha'Chinuch answers this difficulty by making a distinction. In doing so, he instructs us in how to say Tehilim in a manner which has a beneficial effect on our physical well-being without straying into chover chaver territory:

However, this matter is not similar to the matter of chover chaver that we mentioned, God forbid! Long ago, the Sages of blessed memory said in this regard (Shevuos 15b): "It is forbidden to heal oneself with words of Torah." Yet they mentioned to say these psalms since they contain words that inspire the soul that knows them to shelter in Hashem, to take security in Him, to establish a reverent fear of Him firmly in his heart, and to rely on His kindness and goodness. As a result of this inspiration, he will be protected from every harm, without a doubt. 

Therein lies the answer. If a person says Tehilim, believing that the words themselves will have a beneficial effect on the physical world, then - according to the Sefer ha'Chinuch - he or she has violated the Torah prohibition of chover chaver, and is considered on the basis of that act to be an abomination to Hashem, as the Torah unequivocally states: "for anyone who does these is an abomination of Hashem." However, if a person recites Tehilim, understands the meaning of what he is saying, and is inspired to trust, fear, and rely on Hashem, then he will not be in violation of halacha, and he will be protected from all harm.

The Sefer ha'Chinuch reinforces this distinction by quoting the Gemara's formulation of this same question, and the answer given there, which he explains in accordance with his view:

This is what was answered in the Talmud in this regard, for it was asked there: "But how could R. Yehoshua do this (i.e. recite these chapters of psalms against afflictions) when R. Yehoshua, himself, said it is forbidden to heal oneself with words of Torah?!" and the reply was given: "to protect is different." In other words, the Torah did not forbid a person to say words of Torah so as to inspire his soul in a good direction, so that this merit should shield him to protect him [but rather, the Torah only prohibited the recitation of words of Torah in order to heal].

The Rambam [2] codifies this distinction as halacha:

One who recites an incantation over a bodily affliction and reads a verse from the Torah, and likewise one who reads [Torah] over an infant so that he not be frightened, and one who places a Torah Scroll or tefilin on a child so that he will sleep – it is not enough that such people are included among the chovrim (incantation-sayers) and menachashim (omen-readers), but they [are also] included among the kofrim ba’Torah (the deniers of Torah), for they utilize words of Torah as remedies for the body, whereas they are truly only remedies for the soul, as it is stated, “[the words of Torah] shall be life for your soul” (Mishlei 3:22). But if a healthy person reads Scriptural verses and chapters from Tehilim so that the merit of their reading will protect him and save him from suffering and harm, this is permissible. 

It is reasonable to assume that the permissible type of Tehilim reading ("so that the merit of their reading will protect him") qualifies as using words of Torah as "remedies for the soul," as described by the Sefer ha'Chinuch. In other words, if a person reads Tehilim with the intention of "inspiring his soul in a good direction" and making an effort to internalize what he reads, then this will bring him merit, and save him from suffering and harm. 

Part II: Practical Halacha

While it is usually the policy of this blog to stay away from commenting on matters of halacha l'maaseh, I fear that some will read this post and feel at a loss about whether their own way of saying Tehilim constitutes a violation of halacha. They would then either cease saying Tehilim altogether, which would be detrimental insofar as this would deprive them of a means of connecting to Hashem, or else they would continue saying Tehilim, thereby running the risk of violating a Torah prohibition.

Thankfully, I found a tshuvah (responsa) by the Tzitz Eliezer [3] which summarizes six different views on how to (and how not to) recite Tehilim, in practice. Here is my summary of his summaries (i.e. I didn't go back and learn through all of the primary sources; I just paraphrased the conclusions as stated in his tshuvah). I've appended the psak (ruling) of my Rosh ha'Yeshiva to the end of this list, since this is the view I follow, and since it wasn't mentioned by the Tzitz Eliezer:

(1) Rambam / Shulchan Aruch [4]: It is prohibited to read Tehilim - indeed, any pesukim from Tanach - for the sake of healing a choleh, but it is permissible for a healthy person to read pesukim so that the merit of their reading will protect him (i.e. the healthy person) from harm.

(2) Meiri [5]: The recitation of Tehilim for healing is only prohibited if it is being relied upon as the primary remedy, but if the choleh is also taking medicine or undergoing medical treatment, then it is permissible to supplement this medical care with the recitation of Tehilim. 

(3) Maharsha [6] / Toras Chayim [7]: The recitation of Tehilim for healing is only prohibited if they are recited in the manner of an incantation, but if one uses Tehilim as a vehicle of tefilah (prayer) or learns Torah for the sake of learning, and requests from Hashem that the merit of this tefilah or learning should heal a choleh, then this is permitted. [8]

(4) Ritva [9] / Ohr Zarua [10] / Rabbeinu Yeshaya [11]: The recitation of Tehilim for healing is only prohibited if there is a physically manifest bodily affliction, but to relieve a non-manifest pain (e.g. a headache) is permitted. 

(5) Tzitz Eliezer #1: The recitation of Tehilim for healing is only prohibited if one selects specific Tehilim (or pesukim to say), but if one chooses Tehilim at random or follows one's normal routine (e.g. reciting Tehilim daily), then this is permitted.

(6) Tzitz Eliezer #2: The recitation of Tehilim for healing is only prohibited if said exclusively for a choleh, but if it is also said for the sake of those who are healthy, then this is permitted, since it demonstrates that the Tehilim are being said for the sake of merit and protection, as the Sefer ha'Chinuch described. 

(7) My Rosh ha'Yeshiva [12]: The recitation of Tehilim for healing is only prohibited if only Tehilim (and/or pesukim) are recited, but if one adds a tefilah (e.g. Mi she'Beirach) before or after the Tehilim, then this is permissible, since in this case, one is using the tefilah as a vehicle of beseeching God - as opposed to relying on the words of the Tehilim themselves. 

I hope that this list provides solace and guidance for those who choose to recite Tehilim for the sake of healing. While I advise those who plan on reciting Tehilim for the sick to consult their own posek (halachic decisor), that the Tzitz Eliezer can serve as a backup option for those who have not yet asked a shaila (halachic inquiry).

Concluding Thoughts

I think that the widespread practice of saying Tehilim for the sick is a good thing. I believe that most people relate to Tehilim exactly as they relate to tefilah, and that their recitation of Tehilim for the sick is in line with the view of the Maharsha and Toras Chaim cited above. 

Nevertheless, I think it is also important for people to be aware of the halachic and spiritual perils of relating to the recitation of Tehilim for the sick in the wrong way. There are definitely people out there who mindlessly recite Tehilim, in the manner of an incantation, without any idea what they're saying, and who relate to the Tehilim as a sort of magic charm. These are the people whom the Rambam condemned, and about whom Chazal said: "one who says an incantation over a wound has no portion in the World to Come" (Shevuos 15b; Sanhedrin 90a).

I believe it is important for all people - especially those just described - to be educated about the topic of chover chaver and to be informed of the Sefer ha'Chinuch's method of using Tehilim as a legitimate way to become closer to Hashem, in order to take refuge "in the [protective] shade of the Almighty" (Tehilim 91:1).

[1] Sefer ha'Chinuch, Mitzvah #512

[2] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha'Mada, Hilchos Avodah Zarah 11:6. It should be noted that whereas the Sefer ha'Chinuch defines chover chaver as "a person who will recite words and tell people that those words cause benefit or harm in a certain matter," the Rambam defines it as "a person who speaks words which do not belong to any language and have no meaning, but he – in his foolishness – imagines that those words produce a beneficial effect." And yet, the Rambam writes in our halacha that one who uses words of Torah to heal is included in the category of chover chaver. 

[3] Ha'Rav Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg, Tzitz Eliezer 17:30 

[4] Ha'Rav Yosef Karo, Shulchan Aruch: Yoreh Deah 179:8

[5] Rabbeinu Menachem ben Shlomo Meiri, Beis ha'Bechirah: Shabbos 67a

[6] Ha'Rav Shmuel Eidels (Maharsha), Chidushei Aggados: Shabbos 67a

[7] Ha'Rav Abraham Hayyim ben ha'Rav Naftali Tzvi Hirsch Schor, Toras Chaim: Shevuos 15b

[8] The Tzitz Eliezer learns that this is also the view of the Sefer ha'Chinuch, who only differentiated between the manner in which the Tehilim are being said, but didn't distinguish between a healthy person and a sick person.

[9] Rabbeinu Yom Tov ben Avraham Asevilli (Ritva), citation not provided by the Tzitz Eliezer

[10] Rabbeinu Yitzchak ben Moshe (Ohr Zarua / Riaz), citation not provided by the Tzitz Eliezer

[11] Rabbeinu Yeshaya di Trani (I think?), citation not provided by the Tzitz Eliezer

[12] I heard this verbally, but do not know whether an audio or written source is available. However, the Tzitz Eliezer cited the Mishnas Yaakov as suggesting an answer along these lines. 

Parashas Balak: On Citing Midrash as Proof

This week's dvar Torah focuses on an important methodological rule of thumb regarding the proper place of aggadic midrashim (i.e. the non-halachic teachings of Chazal). Enjoy! (For those who wanted the type of dvar Torah that can be "said over" at a Shabbos table - sorry for letting you down. This one is more like a regular blog post which happens to utilize something from the parashah.)

Parashas Balak: On Citing Midrash as Proof

"Bilam was as great of a navi (prophet) as Moshe Rabbeinu."

"WHAT?" 

"It's true." 

"Nonsense. The pasuk says, 'Never again has there arisen in Israel a prophet like Moshe, whom Hashem had known face to face' (Devarim 34:10). Moreover, the Rambam [1] maintains that belief in the uniqueness and superiority of Moshe's nevuah is one of the ikkarim (fundamentals). Anyone who claims that Bilam was equal to Moshe is an apikores. End of story!"

"Oh, so you're calling Chazal apikorsim?"

"Wait a minute - what do you mean?"

"Chazal explicitly equate Bilam with Moshe. In fact, the very pasuk you cited is the basis of their statement."

"I don't believe you. Prove it." 

The plaintiff pulls out the Torah Temimah, opens it to Devarim 34:10, and reads the version [2] of the midrash stated there:

"Never again has there arisen in Israel a prophet like Moshe" - [a prophet like Moshe] didn't arise in Israel, but [such a prophet] did in the nations of the world. Who was this? This was Bilam ben Beor. To what can this be compared? To the royal chef, who knows how much the king spends on his meals.

"Well? What do you have to say to THAT? Are you going to argue with Chazal's explanation? Are you going to accuse them of denying the yesodei ha'Torah?" 

The defendant is dumbfounded.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Midrashim are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they contain the deepest ideas. At the same time, they are frequently misunderstood in ways which lead to terrible distortions of Judaism. 

It is my belief that the three leading causes of such misunderstandings are: (1) confusion as to what midrashim are, (2) ignorance as to the proper method of learning midrashim, and (3) a widespread misunderstanding of the proper place of midrashim in the study of Torah. 

The aim of this dvar Torah is not to explain the meaning of the aforementioned midrash about Bilam and Moshe; if you are interested in an explanation, I refer you to the Ramban [3] and the Sefer ha'Ikkarim [4]. Rather, the purpose of this dvar Torah is to present the approach taken by the Geonim and Rishonim when faced with midrashic "proofs" for problematic notions.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the Disputation at Barcelona, Friar Paul posed a similarly troublesome question to the Ramban. The Ramban [5] recounts:

I arose and said: "Listen, all you peoples! Friar Paul asked me if the moshiach (messiah), about whom the neviim (prophets) spoke, has already arrived. I answered that he has not arrived. He then brought a book of aggadah which stated that on the day the Beis ha'Mikdash (Holy Temple) was destroyed, the moshiach was born. 

The problem presented to the Ramban by this midrash is clear: if the moshiach is to bring about the ultimate redemption, as the neviim repeatedly state, then how can it be true that the moshiach was born over a thousand years ago? And if this was stated in a midrash, how can the Ramban disagree? Here is the Ramban's response:

I responded that I don't believe in this [midrash]. Know that we have three types of books. 

(1) The first is the Biblia (a.k.a. "the Bible"), which all of us believe with complete conviction. 

(2) The second is called "Talmud," which is an explanation of the mitzvos of the Torah, for there are 613 mitzvos in the Torah and not a single one of them is unexplained in the Talmud, and we believe in it (i.e. the Talmud) in its explanation of the mitzvos. 

(3) We also have a third book called "midrash" or sermones (a.k.a. "sermons") - for example, when a clergyman gets up and delivers a sermon, and it is deemed to be good by one of the people who hears it, and he writes it down. Regarding [the contents of] this third book: if one believes in it, that is good; but if one doesn't believe in it, then it will not harm him. We have Sages who wrote that the moshiach will not be born until close to the end of times, when he comes to bring us out of exile. Therefore, I don’t believe in what this book says that he was born from the day of the destruction.

In short, the Ramban's answer was: "If your only 'proof' is a midrash, then there is nothing compelling me to believe it - especially when there are other midrashim which contradict it." 

The Ramban's approach to midrashim has its roots in the writings of the Geonim. Here are the words of three of the most prominent Geonim:

Rav Hai Gaon [6]: "Know that divrei agadah are not like teachings from Torah she’baal Peh. Rather, each one expounded on what occurred to his own mind; [they were stated] in the manner of “it is possible that” or “one might say” – not as a clear-cut matter. Therefore, we don’t rely on them."

Rav Sherira Gaon [7]: "These statements which are expounded from pesukim and are called “midrash” and “aggadah” are theories. Some of them are true [in a literal sense] … but many of them are not … Therefore, we don’t rely on divrei aggadah. The valid ones are those which are supported by rationality and Scripture. There is no end or limit to aggados."

Rav Saadia Gaon [8]: "We don’t rely on, nor do we bring proof, from any divrei aggadah, nor do we raise objections based on divrei aggadah."

Likewise, the Rishonim invoke this principle when confronted with midrashim which undermine well-established truths. For instance:

Shmuel ha'Naggid [9]: "'Hagadah' (a.k.a. 'aggadah' or 'aggadic midrash') is any explanation from the Talmud on a non-mitzvah topic - this is hagadah, and we only learn from it that which makes sense. It is incumbent upon you to know that established by the Sages as halacha regarding any mitzvah was received by Moshe Rabbeinu who received it from the Almighty, and we should not add to it nor subtract from it. But as for all of the explanations of the Scriptural verses - each of the Sages explained according to the ideas which occurred to him and what he saw with his mind. We should only learn from these explanations that which makes sense, and the rest we should not rely upon."

Ibn Ezra [10]: "The sum of the matter is what the Geonim said about drash: we don't raise objections against it, or from it."  

Ramban [11]: "We don't bring objections based on divrei aggadah." 

Rashba [12]: "These are only divrei aggadah, and we don't bring objections based on them." 

Ritva [13]: "How could we abandon all of these statements that were stated as halacha on account of that which was stated as divrei aggadah? ... Rather, it is certain that since these are divrei aggadah, and we don't bring objections based on them." 

The approach of these Geonim and Rishonim is clear: we do not bring objections from midrashim, nor do we rely on them for proof; there is no obligation to believe midrashim, and we only learn from midrashim ideas that are adequately supported by evidence and reason.

At the same time, we mustn't go to the opposite extreme and ignore or dismiss every midrash which appears problematic to us at first glance. Rather, we should strive for the ideal stated by the Rambam [14]:

When you encounter a statement of Chazal which seems to conflict with reason, pause and consider it, and realize that this utterance must be a riddle or a parable. Sleep on it, trying anxiously to grasp its logic and its expression, so that you may find its genuine intellectual intention and lay hold of a genuine concept, as Scripture says: “To find out words of delight, and that which was written uprightly, even words of truth” (Koheles 12:10).

Last, but not least, we must heed the Rambam's [15] other piece of advice for those who wish to understand the wisdom hidden in Chazal's midrashim: 

The only thing a person can do in addition to learning and striving in his involvement in Torah, is to direct his heart to Hashem and pray before Him and request that He graciously grant him knowledge and help him by revealing for him the secrets which are concealed in the Holy Writings, as we find that David did, as it is stated, "Unveil my eyes that I may perceive wonders from Your Torah" (Tehilim 119:18).

[1] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin Chapter 10

[2] Ha'Rav Baruch HaLevi Epstein, Torah Temimah on Sefer Devarim 34:10. The full version of the midrash can be found in Sifrei: Devarim, Piska 357:10, and Bamidbar Rabbah 14:20. These versions of the midrash are substantially different, in that they go on to enumerate the differences between nevuas Moshe and nevuas Bilam, thereby avoiding the problem altogether. Nevertheless, I have chosen to write about the Torah Temimah's version of the midrash because (a) this was the first version I encountered, and which bothered me for years until I looked up the original sources; and (b) because I wanted to write about this methodology point, and the Torah Temimah's version of this midrash made for a good conversation starter. And while we're discussing the Torah Temimah, I should note that he offers a nice interpretation of this midrash as well. 

[3] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Bamidbar 24:1-2

[4] Rabbeinu Yosef Albo, Sefer ha'Ikkarim 3:20

[5] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Ha'Vikuach

[6] Rav Hai Gaon, Otzar ha'Geonim l'Maseches Chagigah 67

[7] Rav Sherira Gaon, cited in Sefer ha’Eshkol, Hilchos Sefer Torah 60a

[8] Rav Saadia Gaon, Otzar ha’Geonim l'Maseches Chagigah, Miluim (p.65)

[9] Shmuel ha'Naggid, Mevo ha'Talmud

[10] Rabbeinu Avraham ben Ezra (ibn Ezra), Short Commentary on Sefer Shemos 2:9

[11] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Chiddushim: Maseches Yevamos 61b

[12] Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Aderet (Rashba), Chiddushim: Maseches Megilah 15a

[13] Rabbeinu Yom Tov ben Avraham Asevilli (Ritva), Chiddushim: Maseches Shabbos 65b

[14] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin Chapter 10

[15] ibid. Introduction