You know me by now with my interest in words and terms. Sometimes the origins of words and term can tell us a lot.
Chasidic writers talk a lot about "pnimiyus haTorah." Since we all know what the word means, I never paid attention. But recently I saw someone who claimed that the Ari and the Vilner Gaon talk about p'nimiyus haTorah, which made me pause. AFAIK, both of those source talk a about the qabbolo and the sodos of qabbolo, but I do not recall either using the term "pnimiyus haTorah."
I may be wrong,
Does anyone know a use of the term "pnimiyus haTorah" before Chasidus started?
so Ohr haChaim is possibly the source for the chasidic usage, since he was very much used by them. As was the alSheikh.
The Malbim is after the advent of Chasidus.
The AlSheikh is the earliest, and he was a talmid of the M'habber and one of the rebbis of R. Chaim Vital. But he was not a talmid of the Ari, and although he lived at the time, his works do not use qabbolo much except for references to the Zohar. In one of his letters, he discusses his education and never mentions qabbolo.
Which leads me back to my original question: despite the claims made, I do not remember either the Ari nor the Vilner Gaon using the term when they refer to qabbolo.
I am not quibbling (although curmudgeons such as I do that all the time). I am trying to discover the origin of the notion that "p'nimiyus haTorah" is taken as separate method/\area of study vs. "chitzoniyus haTorah," which is the way it seems to be used nowadays. That is a major change from just referring to ideas that are indicated but not mentioned explicitly. The latter is more akin to the idea of "Da'as Torah" advanced nowadays, which means that it is implicit but not explicit, but is not considered (yet?) a separate area for study.
: so Ohr haChaim is possibly the source for the chasidic usage, since he was very much used by them. As was the alSheikh.
:
: The Malbim is after the advent of Chasidus.
But not a Chassid. (In fact, he was publicly attacked by numerous
Chassidim on allegations of being a Maskil. The Belzer Rebbe spoke up
in his defense. Ger still won't use him.) Which was why I thought he
was an interesting example.
Ger won't use Malbim? I do not doubt you but I am a little surprised. My father was a Gerrer chossid and definitely did use Malbim! But maybe a Hirschian--Gerrer chossid is not representative?
: Ger won't use Malbim? I do not doubt you but I am a little surprised.
: My father was a Gerrer chossid and definitely did use Malbim! But maybe
: a Hirschian-Gerrer chossid is not representative?
My question was about the origin of the phrase in its current meanings.
Once a phrase is popularized, it is used by everyone, because the new meaning is not considered strange anymore.
A slightly different example: before chasidus, no one shockled during davening (not any Jews anywhere that I have heard about). Swayed, yes, but no one calls swaying "shockeling." After chasidim popularized it, it was not considered strange any more and was adopted by almost all groups.
It was never seen in the old days in Breuer's or Teimani shuls. Nowadays, however, even some Teimani younger guys have started doing it. I do not know about what goes on now in Breuer's.
Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union
In a message dated 6/6/2018 1:44:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, mesorah@lists.aishdas.org writes:
A slightly different example: before chasidus, no one shockled during davening [-- Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel]
>>>>
Since I have known shuckeling in davening all my life, it comes as news to me that there was no such thing before chassidus came along. Admittedly, my life post-dates the advent of chassidism. Maybe the action existed but not the Yiddish word for it?
There is even a Torah reason for shuckeling, Tehillim 35:10
"Kol atzmosai tomarna....All my bones will say, Hashem who is like You?"
No. Swaying existed during davening, but not shockeling.
The posuq, as you can see, does not define what action is being taken. You must be able to realize that it is chasidim who use this posuq as a "proof," but the posuq does not mean that at all. Swaying would also meet the description, as would any other action.
Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union
In a message dated 6/6/2018 2:32:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, mandels@ou.org writes:
No. Swaying existed during davening, but not shockeling.
The posuq, as you can see, does not define what action is being taken. You must be able to realize that it is chasidim who use this posuq as a "proof," but the posuq does not mean that at all. Swaying would also meet the description, as would any other action.
Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
>>>>>
I am not sure what is the difference between swaying and shuckeling, except perhaps the speed and extent of forward motion.
Yes (sigh) I realize that Dovid Hamelech did not actually have shuckeling in mind when he wrote Tehillim, and probably did not have any movement in mind at all. But the way people use this pasuk suggests shuckeling is an old thing. Swaying, if you prefer.
You can call "chasidus" old , but I do not. And from the evidence, it did not start with the first generation, when some chasidim were still dancing and turning somersaults with "hislahavus" during davening (yes, historical record, but most people never heard of this either).
Shockling was unheard of before chasidus, and it originated in Eastern Europe.
Which is why...
it has a Yiddish, not a Hebrew name, not like "hislahavus." Customs that were new in Europe were given names in Hebrew; the old Jewish customs have Hebrew or Aramaic names. Like Challah or Bris.
Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union
In a message dated 6/6/2018 3:08:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, mandels@ou.org writes:
Shockling was unheard of before chasidus, and it originated in Eastern Europe.
Which is why...
it has a Yiddish, not a Hebrew name, not like "hislahavus." Customs that were new in Europe were given names in Hebrew; the old Jewish customs have Hebrew or Aramaic names. Like Challah or Bris.
Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
>>>>
You wrote "Customs that were new in Europe were given names in Hebrew."
I assume you meant to say, customs that were new were given names in /Yiddish/. Old customs have Hebrew or Aramaic names.
Like davening? Bentshing? Leining? Commemorating a yahrzeit?
The use of the pasuk "Kol atzmosy" as a remez to movement of the body
during davening long antedates chasidus. It appears in the Abudarham, and
is cited in the RM"A in OC 48.
Davening, bentshing and leining are not customs, and the terms are
merely translations of their Hebrew names. Minhagim which are not
universal do not, as a rule, have Hebrew names -- yahrzeit is, indeed, an
excellent example, as are ufruf, badeken, vachnacht, upsheren and others.
Never heard licht-tzinden for Shabbos candles, only licht bentshen. "Tzinden" would be used for lighting candles or a stove any time, or even turning on an electric light, not davka for Shabbos.
Bentsh-lecht is a verb and means light candles. Did you bentsh lecht yet? Did you light candles?
Licht-bentshen is a noun and means candle-lighting. What time is licht-bentshen (or lecht-bentshing)? What time is candle-lighting?
As for the original question, why the emphasis on the blessing rather than the lighting? I'd say that in the olden days people lit candles every night for light. Lighting candles wasn't the big deal, lighting candles /for Shabbos/ was the big deal.
