“… My words are the low point of the situation, submitting to the disciples of the Ba’al Shem Tov, to comprehend their holy words, the small one, Chaim Halberstam.”
Handwritten halachic responsum, signed in the holy hand of Admor Chaim Halberstam of Sanz, author of Divrei Chaim . Sanz, 1861.
Three pages crammed with clear eastern-European rabbinical script written by one of the scribes who served the author of Divrei Chaim . Between the lines, there are handmade revisions and additions written by the author of Divrei Chaim himself. At the conclusion of the letter, there is an additional line in his hand with his signature.
This responsum, discussing the prayer nusach (version) and the preference for “Nusach Ar”i” over “Nusach Ashkenaz,” was printed in Rabbi Chaim Halberstam’s famed work, the Divrei Chaim responsa, section II, siman 8. However, precise comparison between the original text and the printed version reveals dozens of differences – sometimes significant ones – between the two. This emphasizes the double significance of this autograph discussing a halachah that is close to the heart of the nation.
As soon as chassidut emerged in the 18th century, discussions arose regarding the version of prayer. One of the prominent features of the chassidic movement is expressed in this switch from “Nusach Ashkenaz,” the customary version used in Europe, to the “Nusach Ar”i,” also called “Nusach Sephard.” Nusach Sephard prayer books are based on Nusach Ashkenaz with some changes and additions to prayers. This was all influenced by the chassidic movement, which viewed the Ar”i’s kabbalah and his intentions in prayer as of extreme import – to the extent that they used it to change the version of prayer they had traditionally followed over hundreds of years. The first prayer book printed by the chassidim was the Siddur HaRav MiLiadi, which was arranged according to the Nusach Ar”i (Sklow, 1803). A Nusach Sephard siddur was printed in the Ukraine, Poland, and Galicia that was very different than the Siddur HaRav MiLiadi , corresponding to the opinions in the various chassidic courts.
The switch from Nusach Ashkenaz to Sephard triggered a sharp polemic between the chassidim and their opponents, and even amongst the chassidic courts. One of the primary claims in the polemic opposing chassidism was this switch in version of prayer, a switch that opposed halachah and that many believed was even contrary to the opinion of the Ar”i himself. This claim was mentioned in the first polemic publications, such as ” Zamir Aritzim V’Chorvot Tzurim,” (Oleksinetz 1872): “Our brothers of the house of Israel, did you not know that new things have come that our fathers did not know, that a suspicious faction has joined together […] and they are making societies amongst themselves and their religion is different than all of the Jewish Nation in their versions of prayer.” The first one to appreciate the importance of adapting the Nusach Sephard changes into the Ashkenazic siddur was Rabbi Dov Ber, the Maggid of Mezeritch, disciple and successor of the Baal Shem Tov, who viewed this issue from a kabbalistic level. He determined: “And the G-dly Ariza”l, to whom paths of the heavens were known, taught wisdom to the nation for those who did not recognize it … and he instituted the service compiled from a number of versions as known to experts. Therefore, everyone should grasp the path of the Ariza”l, which is good for every soul” ( Maggid Devarav L’Yaakov, Korzec, 1884, leaf 22).
Despite this, there was no consensus amongst halachic personalities regarding these changes to the nusach. One of the basic positions on the issue was expressed by a prominent adjudicator of the 18th century, Rabbi Moshe Sofer, who wrote in his S hu”t Chatam Sofer (Orach Chaim 1, siman 15) that the Ar”i wrote his intentions based on the Sephardic version of the prayer book, because he was Sephardic, and they do not match with the Ashkenazic prayer books. Therefore, only unique, rare personalities have the ability to make these changes: “And when the G-dly light, the Ar”i ztz”l researched and revised because he knew the content, he placed in his siddur everything correctly and revealed mysteries of the Sephardic version because he was Sephardic […] and my teacher the gaon … Natan Adler ztz”l led the prayers himself in the Sephardic version in the Ar”i’s prayer book, and the same is true of my teacher the gaon, the author of Hafla’ah , ztz”l. They were the only ones who prayed in Nusach Ar”i, and no other people in the minyan recited anything other than the Ashkenazic […], because someone who doesn’t know, can’t change our nusach.”
The Chatam Sofer’s clear position stood before the Divrei Chaim when he wrote this famous responsum. In the responsum, he discusses the Chatam Sofer’s claims one by one, while he clarifies that he wasn’t trying to disagree with the Chatam Sofer: “I am not an expert [even] in his mundane discussion, only what I saw and received from the mouths of the holy lofty great ones in the revealed and the hidden .” At the conclusion of the response, the Divrei Chaim determines that, “anybody whose soul is fine can rely on the leaders of the generation, the holy ones, who switched from Nusach Ashkenaz to Nusach Sephard. Since the Besh”t descended and grasped the Nusach Ar”i, everyone who believes in the Besh”t and his disciples is worthy of grasping the Nusach Ar”i and shouldn’t budge from it.”
The polemic surrounding the version of prayer didn’t end with this responsum. It generated the sharp rebuttal of Maharam Schick, disciple of the Chatam Sofer. In his responsa (Orach Chaim 43), he strongly opposes the Divrei Chaim’s determination and concludes: “and I am very astonished that the gaon of Sanz agreed to the opposite, that it is permissible to change.” In contrast, the author of Minchat Elazar of Munkacs argued against the position of the Maharam Schick and supported the Divrei Chaim.
Rabbi Chaim Halberstam of Sanz (1797-1876) was the rabbi of Sanz, Galicia and founder of the Sanz chassidut. He was one of the prominent Jewish leaders in 19th century Eastern Europe and was a disciple of Rabbi Naftali Tzvi of Ropshitz and of Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch of Zidichov. Most of his sons and sons-in-law were Admors, the most famous being his son, Rabbi Yechezkel Shraga Halberstam of Shinova. His progeny led many chassidic courts, such as Sanz-Klausenberg, Bobov and Stropkov.
At the same time, Rabbi Chaim was also famed as a halachic adjudicator and responder. He received rabbinic ordination from Rabbi Ephraim Zalman Margaliot of Brody and held halachic correspondence with the leading rabbis of his generation. He is noted for his stringent opinions regarding mikvaot; he sharply opposed use of machine matzah and tzitzit spun by machine. A few of his halachic rulings stormed the chassidic world, including the ruling that unmarried young men should lay tefillin on the intermediate days of the festivals [chol hamoed], and that the role of Admor is not meant to be passed down as an inheritance. A significant number of those that disseminated and continued his halachic path were active in Galicia and Hungary. His Divrei Chaim responsa is an important part of the halachic canon used for rabbinical adjudication in the modern era.
The Admor’s unique position as a prominent adjudicator of his time, along with his position as leader of a chassidic court, is what lent this responsum its sweeping influence and allowed for the penetration of Nusach Sephard in all the Ashkenazic chassidic communities. More than the particular point that this responsum discusses, it stands as a milestone and a critical crossroad in the resolution of the complex relationship between halachah and kabbalah in the world of halachah and rabbinical tradition. It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to state that from a historic perspective this responsum marked the successful penetration of kabbalah into the halachic corpus, from the workshop of the kabbalistic-halachic enterprise of Rabbi Yosef Karo.
Unique autograph of the author of Divrei Chaim of Sanz. Letters with his signatures are exceptionally rare. Halachic, kabbalistic, chassidic and historic document of extreme significance by every measure.
[3] pages. Ink on paper. 21×17 cm. Fine condition. Aging stains. Fold marks. Minimal professional reinforcements. Placed in a magnificent new leather binding.