"For one thing, until the Shela (1558-1630), there’s no record of any such minhag. So it’s obviously not something that the Torah or Chazal felt was important."
I don't see why this is a compelling argument for anything. Do you have that problem with any minhag not mentioned in Chazal? Do you not do anything not mentioned in Chazal or the Torah? Do you refrain from Slichos during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva? Or any of the other hundreds of minhagim in Klal Yisrael? What about...Kol Nidrei?
"The Gemara (Nedarim 23:) does mention the possibility of annulling your vows in advance at the start of a new year but says nothing about seeking the removal of previous vows...But I’m aware of no halachic reason for this pro forma attempt to annul previous vows. In fact, the text of hataras nedarim itself acknowledges that it can’t work:"
The same questions apply to Kol Nidrei (also not mentioned in Chazal, yet it predates the Kabbalists and I'm sure you say it!) and says the Bais Yosef:
ומ"ש בשם הרא"ש ומיהו נראה כמנהג קדמונים דלשון כל נדרי מוכח שנתקן על הנדרים שעברו עליהם וכו' עד כי לכל העם בשגגה הכל בפסקיו בסוף יומא ומבואר בדבריו יישוב על מה שהוקשה לר"ת דמה שהקשה דבעינן חרטה אנן סהדי דכל מי שעבר על נדרו הוא מתחרט מעיקרו כדי להנצל מן העונש. ומה שהקשה דבעינן שלשה הדיוטות הרי כל הקהל אומרים אותו איש איש בלחש וגם לחזן הקהל מתירין והא דצריך לפרט הנדר דהיינו כשהנודר בא לפני החכם להתיר לו נדרו אולי נדר על דבר מצוה ולא יתיר החכם נדרו
> "I don't see why this is a compelling argument for anything. Do you have that problem with any minhag not mentioned in Chazal?"
Well no one can possibly keep ALL the thousands of minhagim that have found their way into popular practice over the centuries. We have no choice but to pick and choose. But, as I've written many, many times before, I choose to avoid recent minhagim whose purpose is primarily theurgic (meaning, that seek to use ritual behavior to force change on the universe rather than to support halacha and emuna).
This example is consistent with my general approach.
Kol Nidrei is different for a number of obvious reasons, primary among them that it's not theurgic and that it actually works to annul at least קבלת מעשי מצוות from previous years.
Yes, I understand that, but I don't see why "Chazal don't mention it" is an argument against minhagim on their own. Do you meant that if Chazal had mentioned it, you would do it even though it's theurgic (אמן יהא שמיה רבה comes to mind. It's just as easy to interpret that as theurgic as Hataras Nedarim.), but now that they didn't, you avoid the theurgic minhagim?
And do you have any evidence that Hataras Nedarim is theurgic (as opposed to Kol Nidrei) besides for the fact that the Shlah is the earliest souce?
If Chazal did mention (and require) it, then I'm certainly not going to object. The rulings of Shas are binding. Although I don't believe there's any passage in Chazal whose simple reading implies a theurgic angle. אמן יהא שמיה רבה is a statement of our willingness to collaborate with the kehila in a campaign of kiddush shem shomayim (as R' Hirsch explains it). Nothing theurgic there.
The "evidence" that hataras nedarim is theurgic is:
1. Because there's no reasonable halachic or moral explanation (I've yet seen) for the text - particularly when you take into account all the repetition
2. Because the Shela was on the record as eager to promote the theurgic practices of the Ari
Ok, I think we've discussed this before. I see no evidence that Kabbalists are any more theurgic than Chazal themselves. כל האומר אמן יהא שמיה רבה בכל כחו קורעים לו גזר דין של שבעים שנה sounds as theurgic as you can get. Sure, you can explain it non-theurgically, but you can do the same with the Kabbalists, and the Kabbalists themselves explain themselves non-theurgically.
But let's say your right, that there is some difference between Kabbalists and Chazal. So you basically don't trust anything from anybody who accepted the Arizal because whatever they say, no matter the actual rationale they give, they might be influenced by theurgism? From our previous conversation about Tehillim, it emerged you have the same attitude towards the Magen Avraham (!!!!!) that you are now showing for the Shlah. So basically throwing out 99% of Orach Chayim related halacha/minhagim/poskim from the past 500 years? Is this really the direction you want to go in? Do you believe this was R' Hirsch's derech? Does anybody else hold like you?
> "כל האומר אמן יהא שמיה רבה בכל כחו קורעים לו גזר דין של שבעים שנה sounds as theurgic as you can get"
Why? The Torah itself associates actions with the possibility of Divine reward for mitzvos. That's hardly news. But I believe the simplest reading of that passage (an of many others like it) is that anyone who trains himself to *regularly* plan for kiddush hashem activities in his life will almost certainly come to live a life of tzidkus. Why *wouldn't* such a person avoid a gezar din?
> "So you basically don't trust anything from anybody who accepted the Arizal because whatever they say, no matter the actual rationale they give, they might be influenced by theurgism?"
Who said anything about "trust". I (following the approach of many historic gedolim) choose not to adopt one of the primary pillars of Tzfas theology. Theurgism was a significant inspiration of the Ari's whole program - in his own words (or at least in the words that are attributed to him - he never permitted anything of his to be published).
Where have you seen me rejecting any halachic authority? Like anyone else, I adopt those minhagim that are consistent with my tradition. I should note that, years ago, I asked R' Shlomo Miller if this was appropriate and he had no problem.
"Why? The Torah itself associates actions with the possibility of Divine reward for mitzvos...anyone who trains himself to *regularly* plan for kiddush hashem activities in his life will almost certainly come to live a life of tzidkus. Why *wouldn't* such a person avoid a gezar din?"
100% agreed, and that is definitely a possible and probable reading. But it's not the simplest possible reading. The simplest reading is that saying the words אמן יהא שמיה רבה with all your strength will theurgically rip up the gzar din.
"Theurgism was a significant inspiration of the Ari's whole program - in his own words."
I thought that many Kabbalists interpreted him and all of Kabbala as non-theurgical. I will try to find a source.
"Where have you seen me rejecting any halachic authority? Like anyone else, I adopt those minhagim that are consistent with my tradition."
For example, here. The Shlah gives a totally normal halachic, non-theurgic explanation for hataras nedarim, and connects it to kol nidrei: דשנינו במס' נדרים כ"ג הרוצה שלא
יתקיימו נדריו כל השנה יעמוד בר"ה ויאמר כל נדר שאני עתיד לידור יהא בטל, וזה מקור מנהגנו לומר כל נדרי בערב יוהכ"פ כמבואר בשו"ע סי' תרי"ט אבל זריזין מקדימין למצוה ואנחנו מקדימין לערב ר"ה לעשות שני ענינים אחד לתקן מה שכבר קלקל ולהתיר הנדרים על העבר ועוד שאנחנו מוסרים מודעה להבא לבטל הנדרים ושבועות
But you are rejecting him because you suspect he might have been motivated by theurgic considerations, since elsewhere "the Shela was on the record as eager to promote the theurgic practices of the Ari". Same with saying Tehillim derech Tefilla, I showed you a Magen Avraham who allows saying the Hallel of Tehillim on Rosh Hashana דרך תחינה ובקשה and you dismissed it since the Magen Avraham brings many minhagei Ari, therefore he was probably prompted by theurgic considerations in this case too, despite not giving any indication of such. That's what I mean throwing out, because any minhag or psak you find puzzling, you can just say oh he was motivated by theurgic considerations like you are doing here, since 99% of poskim accept and bring various minhagei Ari.
The standard German machzor (including the latest edition [Basel, 2020], which I own) features Hattaras Nedarim prominently at the beginning of (interestingly) the Yom Kippur (not Rosh Hashanah) volume. As you know, I grew up in the K'hal Adath Jeshurun (Frankfurt am Main, aka Hirschian) community in Washington Heights, upper Manhatttan. And as I recall, Hattaras Nedarim was regularly and dutifully recited in Rabbi Breuer's kehillah every year. I never heard of anyone there hesitating to do so because of the reason(s) you cited. Which of course does not even in the least diminish from the truth or accuracy of anything you wrote. It is just very unlikely that the general community was aware of any of the connections or considerations you mentioned. Nor did their rabbis (to the best of my knowledge) bring it to their attention.
I have always thought it was a (in the football, not religious context) hail mary way to get around vows we may have made. maybe this works, and along with kol nidrei, can get the community at large out of possibly serious sins. the only problem, which you alluded to, is if people think it works, and and therefore won't consult their LOR on actual annulment
A Lakewood dayan actually once told me that, for some reason, nedarim just aren't much of a problem these days: people rarely make them. Things were obviously very different in previous generations.
"For one thing, until the Shela (1558-1630), there’s no record of any such minhag. So it’s obviously not something that the Torah or Chazal felt was important."
I don't see why this is a compelling argument for anything. Do you have that problem with any minhag not mentioned in Chazal? Do you not do anything not mentioned in Chazal or the Torah? Do you refrain from Slichos during the Aseres Yemei Teshuva? Or any of the other hundreds of minhagim in Klal Yisrael? What about...Kol Nidrei?
"The Gemara (Nedarim 23:) does mention the possibility of annulling your vows in advance at the start of a new year but says nothing about seeking the removal of previous vows...But I’m aware of no halachic reason for this pro forma attempt to annul previous vows. In fact, the text of hataras nedarim itself acknowledges that it can’t work:"
The same questions apply to Kol Nidrei (also not mentioned in Chazal, yet it predates the Kabbalists and I'm sure you say it!) and says the Bais Yosef:
ומ"ש בשם הרא"ש ומיהו נראה כמנהג קדמונים דלשון כל נדרי מוכח שנתקן על הנדרים שעברו עליהם וכו' עד כי לכל העם בשגגה הכל בפסקיו בסוף יומא ומבואר בדבריו יישוב על מה שהוקשה לר"ת דמה שהקשה דבעינן חרטה אנן סהדי דכל מי שעבר על נדרו הוא מתחרט מעיקרו כדי להנצל מן העונש. ומה שהקשה דבעינן שלשה הדיוטות הרי כל הקהל אומרים אותו איש איש בלחש וגם לחזן הקהל מתירין והא דצריך לפרט הנדר דהיינו כשהנודר בא לפני החכם להתיר לו נדרו אולי נדר על דבר מצוה ולא יתיר החכם נדרו
> "I don't see why this is a compelling argument for anything. Do you have that problem with any minhag not mentioned in Chazal?"
Well no one can possibly keep ALL the thousands of minhagim that have found their way into popular practice over the centuries. We have no choice but to pick and choose. But, as I've written many, many times before, I choose to avoid recent minhagim whose purpose is primarily theurgic (meaning, that seek to use ritual behavior to force change on the universe rather than to support halacha and emuna).
This example is consistent with my general approach.
Kol Nidrei is different for a number of obvious reasons, primary among them that it's not theurgic and that it actually works to annul at least קבלת מעשי מצוות from previous years.
Yes, I understand that, but I don't see why "Chazal don't mention it" is an argument against minhagim on their own. Do you meant that if Chazal had mentioned it, you would do it even though it's theurgic (אמן יהא שמיה רבה comes to mind. It's just as easy to interpret that as theurgic as Hataras Nedarim.), but now that they didn't, you avoid the theurgic minhagim?
And do you have any evidence that Hataras Nedarim is theurgic (as opposed to Kol Nidrei) besides for the fact that the Shlah is the earliest souce?
If Chazal did mention (and require) it, then I'm certainly not going to object. The rulings of Shas are binding. Although I don't believe there's any passage in Chazal whose simple reading implies a theurgic angle. אמן יהא שמיה רבה is a statement of our willingness to collaborate with the kehila in a campaign of kiddush shem shomayim (as R' Hirsch explains it). Nothing theurgic there.
The "evidence" that hataras nedarim is theurgic is:
1. Because there's no reasonable halachic or moral explanation (I've yet seen) for the text - particularly when you take into account all the repetition
2. Because the Shela was on the record as eager to promote the theurgic practices of the Ari
Ok, I think we've discussed this before. I see no evidence that Kabbalists are any more theurgic than Chazal themselves. כל האומר אמן יהא שמיה רבה בכל כחו קורעים לו גזר דין של שבעים שנה sounds as theurgic as you can get. Sure, you can explain it non-theurgically, but you can do the same with the Kabbalists, and the Kabbalists themselves explain themselves non-theurgically.
But let's say your right, that there is some difference between Kabbalists and Chazal. So you basically don't trust anything from anybody who accepted the Arizal because whatever they say, no matter the actual rationale they give, they might be influenced by theurgism? From our previous conversation about Tehillim, it emerged you have the same attitude towards the Magen Avraham (!!!!!) that you are now showing for the Shlah. So basically throwing out 99% of Orach Chayim related halacha/minhagim/poskim from the past 500 years? Is this really the direction you want to go in? Do you believe this was R' Hirsch's derech? Does anybody else hold like you?
> "כל האומר אמן יהא שמיה רבה בכל כחו קורעים לו גזר דין של שבעים שנה sounds as theurgic as you can get"
Why? The Torah itself associates actions with the possibility of Divine reward for mitzvos. That's hardly news. But I believe the simplest reading of that passage (an of many others like it) is that anyone who trains himself to *regularly* plan for kiddush hashem activities in his life will almost certainly come to live a life of tzidkus. Why *wouldn't* such a person avoid a gezar din?
> "So you basically don't trust anything from anybody who accepted the Arizal because whatever they say, no matter the actual rationale they give, they might be influenced by theurgism?"
Who said anything about "trust". I (following the approach of many historic gedolim) choose not to adopt one of the primary pillars of Tzfas theology. Theurgism was a significant inspiration of the Ari's whole program - in his own words (or at least in the words that are attributed to him - he never permitted anything of his to be published).
Where have you seen me rejecting any halachic authority? Like anyone else, I adopt those minhagim that are consistent with my tradition. I should note that, years ago, I asked R' Shlomo Miller if this was appropriate and he had no problem.
> "So basically throwing out 99% of Orach Chayim"
"Throwing out"? "99%"?
"Why? The Torah itself associates actions with the possibility of Divine reward for mitzvos...anyone who trains himself to *regularly* plan for kiddush hashem activities in his life will almost certainly come to live a life of tzidkus. Why *wouldn't* such a person avoid a gezar din?"
100% agreed, and that is definitely a possible and probable reading. But it's not the simplest possible reading. The simplest reading is that saying the words אמן יהא שמיה רבה with all your strength will theurgically rip up the gzar din.
"Theurgism was a significant inspiration of the Ari's whole program - in his own words."
I thought that many Kabbalists interpreted him and all of Kabbala as non-theurgical. I will try to find a source.
"Where have you seen me rejecting any halachic authority? Like anyone else, I adopt those minhagim that are consistent with my tradition."
For example, here. The Shlah gives a totally normal halachic, non-theurgic explanation for hataras nedarim, and connects it to kol nidrei: דשנינו במס' נדרים כ"ג הרוצה שלא
יתקיימו נדריו כל השנה יעמוד בר"ה ויאמר כל נדר שאני עתיד לידור יהא בטל, וזה מקור מנהגנו לומר כל נדרי בערב יוהכ"פ כמבואר בשו"ע סי' תרי"ט אבל זריזין מקדימין למצוה ואנחנו מקדימין לערב ר"ה לעשות שני ענינים אחד לתקן מה שכבר קלקל ולהתיר הנדרים על העבר ועוד שאנחנו מוסרים מודעה להבא לבטל הנדרים ושבועות
But you are rejecting him because you suspect he might have been motivated by theurgic considerations, since elsewhere "the Shela was on the record as eager to promote the theurgic practices of the Ari". Same with saying Tehillim derech Tefilla, I showed you a Magen Avraham who allows saying the Hallel of Tehillim on Rosh Hashana דרך תחינה ובקשה and you dismissed it since the Magen Avraham brings many minhagei Ari, therefore he was probably prompted by theurgic considerations in this case too, despite not giving any indication of such. That's what I mean throwing out, because any minhag or psak you find puzzling, you can just say oh he was motivated by theurgic considerations like you are doing here, since 99% of poskim accept and bring various minhagei Ari.
Rabbi Clinton -
The standard German machzor (including the latest edition [Basel, 2020], which I own) features Hattaras Nedarim prominently at the beginning of (interestingly) the Yom Kippur (not Rosh Hashanah) volume. As you know, I grew up in the K'hal Adath Jeshurun (Frankfurt am Main, aka Hirschian) community in Washington Heights, upper Manhatttan. And as I recall, Hattaras Nedarim was regularly and dutifully recited in Rabbi Breuer's kehillah every year. I never heard of anyone there hesitating to do so because of the reason(s) you cited. Which of course does not even in the least diminish from the truth or accuracy of anything you wrote. It is just very unlikely that the general community was aware of any of the connections or considerations you mentioned. Nor did their rabbis (to the best of my knowledge) bring it to their attention.
Yeah. I figured that was the case. And I suspect that even R' Hirsch himself might have said it. But, as you say, the questions still remain in place.
I have always thought it was a (in the football, not religious context) hail mary way to get around vows we may have made. maybe this works, and along with kol nidrei, can get the community at large out of possibly serious sins. the only problem, which you alluded to, is if people think it works, and and therefore won't consult their LOR on actual annulment
A Lakewood dayan actually once told me that, for some reason, nedarim just aren't much of a problem these days: people rarely make them. Things were obviously very different in previous generations.
perhaps that Dayan doesn't hang around enough am haratzim. but as we say on YK, we expect such people to attend kol nidre
I know plenty of people who have made mistakes in them, myself included.