In the siddur of Rav Yaakov Emden, it states that the stanza "Borchuni leshalom" in the song "Sholom Aleichem" is not a prayer to the angels to bless us, for it is strictly forbidden to pray to angels. Rather, it is a command to the angels to bless us.
How does this solve the problem? If angels do not have free will, and thus cannot decide whether or not to bless us, is it not heresy to command them to bless us? If Hashem already commanded them to bless us, why the need for our own command? And if Hashem did not command them to bless us, how can we instruct them to act of their own volition? Are we not thereby ascribing false power to the angels?
An antimissionary writes the following: "Those who do sing this popular prayer (barchuni l'shalom) on the Sabbath should envision a situation in which the angels will have to bless him. The Talmud (Shabbos 119b) relates that, returning home after the Sabbath services Friday evening, one is accompanied by two angels. If, upon entering one's home, the angels find the table set for the Sabbath meal, they are forced to bless the home with the blessing that this joy and preparation should occur the following week as well. It is for this situation, where the angels must bless him, that one should pray."
ReplyDeleteAnd the Moreh Nevuchim says, in book 2:VI, "In Midrash-Koheleth (on Eccles. x. 7) the following passage occurs: "When man sleeps, his soul speaks to the angel, the angel to the cherub." The intelligent reader will find here a clear statement that man's imaginative faculty is also called "angel," and that "cherub" is used for man's intellectual faculty. How beautiful must this appear to him who understands it; how absurd to the ignorant!"
I don't understand how your first paragraph answers the question. Are you suggesting that we are praying to Hashem for a situation that would force the angels to bless us? The Gemara is explicit that such a situation would entail setting our table before Shabbos. If our table is set, why would we need such a prayer? And if our table is not set, are we praying for a miracle?
ReplyDeleteRegarding your second paragraph: Are you suggesting that according to Rambam, we are praying to our "imaginative faculty?" What in the world would that mean in this context?
[Personally, I highly doubt that the Rambam sang sholom aleichem at all, let alone the stanza of borchuni leshalom.]
This Piyut is neither found in the Siddurim of the Rishonim or of the Teimanim. It's author is unknown and became popular only in the 18th century. So no, the Rambam did not recite it.
ReplyDeleteI have seen quoted that Rav Y. Weinberg zt”l (Fundamentals of Faith) answers: "Two angels accompany us home, one a messenger of good, the other a messenger of evil. Hashem gave them the following assignment: If the Shabbos table is set in its honor and all is in harmony, the good one says “May next Shabbos be the same,” and the other is forced to answer “amen.” When they come, we greet them, invite them in, and showing them that our home is properly honoring Shabbos, we invite (not beseech or pray to) them, to go ahead and do what they are assigned to do: bless us with a wish for a similarly shalom-like Shabbos next week."
Or maybe we are praying to God that the blessings of these angels should be bestowed and come to fruition.
The fact that this is not the simple meaning of the text in no way implies that there should be resistance to its recitation. You have already shown that the gemera is quite vague in Calev prayed (really to God) yet the it wrote it in passing. In fact the Torah itself writes passages that appear to portray God as having physical characteristics, yet it does not go out of its way to clarify.
I see from the previous comment that Rav Weinberg adds "...and all is in harmony" and "our home is properly honoring Shabbos". I think that this would answer your question about the set table. I know, I know, the gemara mentions only a set table and not family harmony or an overall honoring of Shabbos. Maybe the gemara _meant_ all that but only _said_ "set table."
ReplyDeleteSo, the antimissionary avoids the problem of praying to angels, but he still attributes to angels powers to bless the home. I can see many rabbis saying they have no such power, but the gemara sure seems to imply they do, free will or not.
"Are you suggesting that according to Rambam, we are praying to our "imaginative faculty?" What in the world would that mean in this context?"
I don't know about _praying_; just _speaking_. I think your question is less on me and more on the Rambam; I don't know what the Rambam means either.
Ohel Moed: Actually, my question is not on the Rambam at all. As I said earlier, and as corroborated by Avraham, Rambam did not recite sholom aleichem at all. I was asking you whether you intend to utilize Rambam's definition of "angel" to explain this unusual prayer.
ReplyDeleteAvraham: Rav Weinberg's answer minimizes the importance of the piyut, but preserves its legitimacy. Basically, it is a gesture of etiquette, not of consequence. Your own answer I see as problematic. Although we do find instances, such as the Gemara about Calev, where prayers to Hashem are metaphorically described as being addressed to angels, "sholom aleichem" creates a context that makes such an interpretation much more strained. We first greet the angels, welcome them into our homes, ask them to bless us, and then bid them farewell. Would you say that the entire welcome and farewell is also addressed to Hashem, or only the stanza asking the angels to bless us?
"I was asking you whether you intend to utilize Rambam's definition of "angel" to explain this unusual prayer."
ReplyDeleteOh, now I see what you were trying to say. (It probably didn't help matters when I put those two unrelated paragraphs, in my first post, next to each other.) No, I don't think I can use anything from the Rambam to back my saying "barchuni l'shalom." The only way that I could support my saying barchuni l'shalom, and not offend the Rambam, would be by hoping (yeah, just hoping) that "barchuni" has another meaning, perhaps just subtly different, from how we generally think of it.