Rabbi Eli Mansour, "Laws and Customs of Kapparot"

[David Shasha]

Laws and Customs of Kapparot

By: Rabbi Eli Mansour

It is customary to perform the "Kapparot” ritual on Ereb Yom Kippur – or, if necessary, anytime during the Aseret Yemeh Teshuba – which involves swinging a chicken around one's head while reciting a special text, and then slaughtering the chicken. The Rashba (Rabbi Shelomo Ben Aderet of Barcelona, 1235-1310), in one of his responsa, expressed his stern opposition to this practice, claiming that swinging and slaughtering chickens as a means of atonement constitutes "Darcheh Emori” – following gentile practices. He describes the efforts he made to abolish the custom in his area, and writes that "with the kindness of God” he succeeded in eliminating the custom. The Rashba's position was adopted by Maran, who writes in the Shulhan Aruch that the custom of swinging chickens for atonement should be abolished. This is also the view of the Peri Hadash (Rabbi Hizkiya De Silva, 1659-1698). 

However, it has been revealed that the Arizal (Rabbi Yishak Luria of Safed, 1534-1572) indeed followed and strongly encouraged the custom of Kapparot. We, of course, treat all the customs and practices of the Arizal with the utmost seriousness and respect, as they reflect the customs of the Kabbalistic tradition, which we follow. Therefore, we do not accept Maran's ruling on this issue, and we follow instead the custom of the Arizal to perform Kapparot with a chicken. This practice is also codified by the great Rabbi from Halab (Aleppo), the Eretz Haim Sutton, and by the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909). 

The concept underlying Kapparot is to bring to mind that everything done to the chicken should actually be done to the person. Specifically, the chicken endures all four forms of capital punishment that would be administered by a Bet Din for certain transgressions. Grabbing the chicken by the neck resembles Henek (strangulation); the slaughtering corresponds to Hereg (decapitation); the chicken thrown to the ground after slaughtering, resembling Sekila (stoning); and the chicken then roasted, symbolizes Serefa (burning). One should think in his mind while swinging the chicken that due to his sins he deserves all these forms of punishment, and he should think thoughts of sincere repentance and pray that he should spared the punishments which he deserves. Specifically a chicken is used for this purpose because a chicken is often referred to with the term "Geber,” which is also used in reference to people, and thus a chicken is an appropriate "substitute” for the human being. 

Another purpose of Kapparot is to have the opportunity to perform the Misva of Kisui Ha'dam, which most people do not generally have a chance to fulfill. The Torah requires covering the blood of a chicken after it is slaughtered with earth, which is a relatively simple act that fulfills an affirmative Biblical command. Before Yom Kippur, as we seek to accrue as many merits as we can, we perform Kapparot in order to have the opportunity to perform an additional Misva. One should therefore request from the Shohet to be able to cover the blood after the chicken is slaughtered. Before covering the blood, one recites the Beracha "Baruch Ata…Asher Kideshanu Be'misvotav Ve'sivanu Al Kisui Ha'dam Be'afar.” If one performs Kapparot with several chickens for himself and his family members, he should have his wife and children cover the blood of their chickens, with the Beracha, so they can be involved in this Misva. 

The custom is to take a chicken for every female in the family, and a rooster for every male. If one's wife is pregnant, then he takes for her two female and one male; a female for the wife herself, and both a male and female for the fetus, as its gender is unknown. (This applies even nowadays, when the gender can be determined through ultrasound, since the ultrasounds are not always precise.) One first performs the Kapparot for himself, before performing the ritual for his wife and then children. This is indicated by the verse, "Ve'chiper Ba'ado U'be'ad Beto” ("He shall atone for himself and for his household” – Vayikra 16:6), which suggests that one first brings atonement for himself, and only then for his household. This also follows logically; first one purifies himself, and then, once he has attained a state of purity, he is in a position to bring purification to the members of his family. 

Some have the custom of immersing in a Mikveh before performing Kapparot; this is recorded by the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Israel, 1870-1939), citing the Mateh Abraham. 

The chicken is swung three times around the head, during which one recites a three-phrase declaration – one phrase for each swing: "Zeh Halifati, Zeh Temurati, Zeh Kaparati” ("This is my exchange, this is my substitute, this is my atonement”). When swinging the chicken around someone else's head (such as wife or child), then he says, "Zeh Halifatcha, Zeh Temuratecha, Zeh Kaparatecha” for a male, and for a female he recites, "Zeh Halifatech, Zeh Temuratech, Zeh Kaparatech.” 

Although the words "Halifa” and "Temura” seem synonymous (as both denote "exchange”), there is a subtle but important difference between them. The term "Halifa” refers to substituting with something superior, whereas "Temura” means the opposite – exchanging something with something else that is inferior. When we begin Kapparot, we are inferior to the chicken, because we have sins on our record, while the chicken obviously has not committed any sins. We therefore begin Kapparot by proclaiming "Zeh Halifati,” indicating that we are substituting ourselves with something superior – the chicken. But then, once we've repented, we are superior to the chicken, and we therefore say, "Zeh Temurati” – we are substituted with something inferior. 

One must ensure to recite this declaration in the precise sequence of "Halifati,” "Temurati,” "Kapparati,” because the first letters of these words spell "H.T.K.,” which is the name of the angel assigned over inscribing people in the book of life (as in the phrase "Hotech Hayim,” referring to "cutting out” people for a sentence of good life). Furthermore, "H.T.K.” is the divine Name associated with Parnasa (livelihood) that is embedded within the famous verse, "Pote'ah Et Yadecha U'masbia Le'chol Hai Rason” ("You open your hand and willfully satiate all living creatures”). 

After swinging the chicken, one recites a brief prayer text in which he prays that whereas the chicken is killed, he should be spared for life. It is customary to mention one's name and the name of his mother in this prayer. (We generally use the mother's name when we pray for someone, or for ourselves, because the relationship to one's mother can be definitively verified.) When reciting this text, one should recite "Zeh Ha'tarnegol Yelech Le'mita Ve'ikanes Ani L'hayim Tobim U'le'shalom” ("This chicken shall go to death, and I shall go to good life and peace”). It is important to recite this text, and not the erroneous text of "Zeh Ha'tarnegol Yelech Le'mita Va'ani Ikanes…” This text is incorrect because it sounds as though one prays that both he and the chicken shall be killed, Heaven forbid ("Zeh Ha'tarnegol Yelech Le'mita Va'ani” – "This chicken shall go to death, and I”). One must therefore ensure to recite, "Zeh Ha'tarnegol Yelech Le'mita Ve'ikanes Ani…” This is the ruling of the Kaf Ha'haim. 

The Shohet should slaughter the chicken immediately after the individual swings it around his head; the chicken should not be left in a box to be slaughtered later. While slaughtering the chicken, the Shohet should have in mind that he seeks to "sweeten” the five "Geburot” in the "Yesod Ha'malchut.” He should also have in mind to repair the human souls that are reincarnated in the chicken, and to repair the soul of the individual for whom he slaughters the chicken. 

It is critically important to ensure that the Shohet who slaughters the chicken does so properly, in strict accordance with Halacha. Unfortunately, it sometimes happens that due to the heavy workload, as scores of people bring chickens for Kapparot, the Shohetim are fatigued and thus become lax with regard to the required inspections of their knives and the proper procedure of the slaughtering. Inspecting the knife requires Yir'at Shamayim (fear of God), and also concentration and patience. It could happen that one runs his finger over the blade three times without feeling a nick, but then the fourth time he notices the nick. If a Shohet is tired and overworked, he might not have the concentration or patience required to properly inspect the knife. It is therefore preferable for those who know how to perform Shehita to slaughter the Kapparot themselves, or for one to bring his chicken to a Shohet who is known to be competent and God-fearing. Additionally, it is proper for people to be assigned the job of inspecting the knives during Kapparot, so that the Shohetim, who are busy slaughtering, will not have to bear this responsibility. The Poskim warn that if a chicken is slaughtered improperly, whatever one has gained by performing this ritual is lost by the prohibition of eating non-kosher food. It should also be noted that if it is discovered that one's Kapparot chicken was slaughtered improperly, he has not fulfilled the Misva and must perform Kapparot with another chicken. (If, however, the chicken was found to be a Terefa, he does not need to repeat the Kapparot with a healthy chicken.) 

In light of this concern, it is acceptable to perform Kapparot earlier than Ereb Yom Kippur, in order to alleviate the pressure on the Shohetim. The preferred time for Kapparot is the early morning hours of Ereb Yom Kippur – based on Kabbalistic tradition – but it may be done earlier if necessary. This would even be preferable if there is concern that the Shohetim will be put under pressure and strain by having to slaughter chickens for many hours from the early morning hours of Ereb Yom Kippur. 

Some have the custom of giving the chicken to a poor person after the Kapparot. The Maharil (Rav Yaakov Ben Moshe Moelin, Germany, 1365-1427) strongly opposed this practice, as it is insulting to the poor to give them chickens upon which one has transferred his sins. Therefore, some have the custom to either leave the chicken with the Shohet, or to eat it oneself and give money to the poor. In any event, the atonement is achieved primarily through the slaughtering, and not by giving the chicken to the poor. 

If one cannot use a chicken for Kapparot, this custom can be observed by using money. The money should be given to a poor person as charity. If one performs Kapparot with money, this money cannot be counted toward his Ma'aser Kesafim (tithe of his income). The money serves as his atonement, as a kind of "ransom” for his life, and it must therefore not come from money that he would in any event have to give to charity. (Nor should the cost of slaughtering the chickens be counted towards one's Ma'aser.) 

If one uses a chicken, he should state explicitly that he does so "Beli Neder,” without accepting this as a lifelong practice, as he cannot know for certain that in subsequent years he will be able to perform Kapparot with a chicken. 

 

From Daily Halacha, September 20, 2012

 

 

Sephardim Becoming Ashkenazim: The Kapparot Ritual

 

Rabbi Eli Mansour’s article is an excellent example of the way in which Sephardim have assimilated into Ashkenazi Jewish culture.

 

The article examines the case of Kapparot which involves the occult use of a chicken that is transformed into an object of sin expiation. 

 

Like the other well-known Ashkenazi ritual Tashlich where human repentance is linked to reciting mystical texts over a live body of water which is to act as a receptacle to “accept” the sins that are magically transferred to the water, the Kapparot ceremony lacks formal Talmudic authority. 

 

The history of the Kapparot ritual is discussed in great detail by the scholar Jacob Z. Lauterbach in his comprehensive, monograph-length article “Tashlik” that can be found in his 1951 book Rabbinic Essays. 

 

Lauterbach finds that the Kapparot ritual was a transformation of the old Temple ceremonial of the two goats sacrificed on Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:5-10).  One goat is designated for God, the other for Azazel.  Much has been written about Azazel and this is not the place to review this voluminous and contentious discussion.  What is pertinent to the Kapparot ritual is that at some point after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple the Azazel sacrifice was continued by certain groups of Jews in a different form using a rooster.

 

Now in the rabbinic tradition the Temple ceremonial was ended in 70 CE and the priestly orders were essentially retired.  The persistence of the Kapparot/Azazel ritual was seen by the Sages as out of bounds and was therefore not included in the Talmudic laws.

 

Lauterbach explains:

 

“The silence of the rabbinical authorities about such a ceremony can, therefore, only mean that they objected to it and would not endorse it.  The Rabbis could not entirely forget that those ceremonies were based upon superstitious beliefs not quite compatible with Jewish religious teachings.  Of course, not all the Rabbis equally recognized the incongruity of these practices with Jewish doctrines.  In Spain, where the Rabbis were more rationalistic and philosophical, where even the Kabbalah was more of a speculative-theoretic order, the ceremony could not find popularity.  There the teachers could more readily recognize the superstitions underlying these ceremonies and felt more keenly their incompatibility with Jewish religious doctrines.  Among the German Jews, however, who were less inclined towards philosophical thinking, and who cultivated rather the practical Kabbalah, these ceremonies could more readily find acceptance.”

 

In the course of his exhaustive review of the Kapparot ceremony Lauterbach discusses the manner in which the carcass of the bird was disposed of and how throwing pieces into water was sometimes involved, reminding us of its connection to Tashlich.  The ceremony has clear pagan overtones and was thus not entered into the standard codes of Jewish law.

 

So while it is certainly true that the Kapparot ritual existed outside the Talmudic legal system and was approved of by certain Geonic rabbis and then passed along through the Gnostic Kabbalah-mysticism, the most authoritative codifiers of the Law did not accept its legitimacy.

 

The custom of Kapparot was known to Rabbi Joseph Qaro (1488-1575), compiler of the Shulhan Arukh, and explicitly rejected.  Interestingly, the Ashkenazi glossator Rabbi Moses Isserlitch (1520-1572) does indeed mention this custom in his gloss to Qaro’s text while Qaro explicitly rejects the custom.  This textual conflict reflects the occasional tension between the Sephardi legal codes and the Ashkenazi interpolations to those codes.  We should keep in mind that in spite of these differences the Shulhan Arukh remains the most authoritative work of Halakha for all Orthodox Jews today.

 

Sephardic rabbis were deeply concerned with the practical aspects of the Law while Ashkenazim were more intent on examining the Law in theoretical and scholastic ways with their PILPUL methods.  Codifying the Law and explicating the Talmud to extract precise rulings had been the desideratum of the Sephardic sages from an early time.  From Isaac Alfasi to Maimonides to Qaro there was a long and venerable Sephardic tradition of rabbinic writing that codified the Law. 

 

The Ashkenazi rabbis often wrote glosses to these codes which sometimes veered into snide and offensive invective that tried to undermine the logical presentation and rational ethics that underlay the Sephardic legal tradition.  The most famous examples of this phenomenon are the glosses of the Ashkenazi-trained Sephardi Moses Nahmanides (1194-1270) and his critical comments on Maimonides’ Book of Commandments and Provencal rabbi Abraham ben David of Posquieres (RABAD) (c. 1125-1198) on Maimonides’ opus Mishneh Torah.

 

What the Sephardim built, the Ashkenazim tore down.

 

In the case of Kapparot, as Rabbi Mansour’s article makes clear, the key – as it was with Ashkenazi tradition in general – is its reliance on Kabbalah-mysticism.  Appearing in the earliest years of Franco-German rabbinic culture, the mystical tradition marked a new linkage between the occult and normative Judaism. 

 

Rabbi Jose Faur has examined the matter in some detail in his classic article “Anti-Maimonidean Demons”:

 

https://groups.google.com/group/Davidshasha/browse_thread/thread/bb8dbc6acac5ec79/4e5c299e79fda349

 

I have also addressed the matter in my article “Killing Off Rational Judaism: The Maimonidean Controversy”:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-shasha/killing-off-rational-juda_b_498846.html

 

Through an occult process rabbis became shamanic figures who access a mythical-magical world that allow them to see things beyond the letter of the Law.  Ritual customs emerged to mark this mystical world, one of which is the “swinging the chicken” Kapparot ceremony that is meant to purge sin through the agency of magic.

 

Qaro, who was himself a practitioner of Kabbalah-mysticism, did not consistently rule in favor of these extra-legal rituals and in the case of Kapparot he stated quite emphatically that the ritual not be performed as it was redolent of pagan practices.

 

We would do well to read Jose Faur’s analysis in his classic work In the Shadow of History of Nahmanides’ position on the occult arts and Black Magic in the context of the Azazel sacrifice:

 

“R. Moses ben Nahman was not only a stern critic of Andalusian rationalism, but also an ardent believer in ‘the science of necromancy’ (hokhmat ha-negromansia) – that is ‘black magic.’  In a pivotal passage, he ascertained that the reason for discarding rationalism was the empirical evidence furnished by black magic.  In his commentary to the Pentateuch, on Leviticus 16:8, he explained that in the sacrifice to Azazel offered on the day of Atonement, the Jews furnish ‘a bribe (shohad)’ to propitiate Satan.”

 

In order to better understand Nahmanides’ position we must examine how Maimonides – the former’s arch-nemesis – looked at the commandments generally and the sacrificial system specifically.  In a famous passage in the Guide of the Perplexed Maimonides expresses his viewpoint:

 

“In order to eradicate these false principles [i.e. Idolatry], the Law commands us to offer sacrifices of only these three kinds: ‘Ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, of the herd and of the flock’ (Leviticus 1:2).  Thus the very act which is considered by the heathen as the greatest crime, is the means of approaching God, and obtaining His pardon for our sins.  In this manner, evil principles, the diseases of the human soul, are cured by other principles which are diametrically opposite.  This is also the reason why we were commanded to kill a lamb on Passover, and to sprinkle the blood thereof outside the gates.  We had to free ourselves of evil doctrines and to proclaim the opposite, viz., that the very act which was then considered to be the cause of death would be the cause of deliverance from death.” (Guide 3:46)

 

In his brilliant biography of Maimonides the great scholar Joel Kraemer elucidates the matter:

 

“The great attention that Maimonides gave to the sacrificial cult has puzzled scholars, since Maimonides taught that human beings had gone beyond the primitive level of worship and reached a more spiritualized way of serving God.  Human nature, Maimonides expounded, is incapable of abandoning customs and habits abruptly, and so God, by a gracious ruse, gradually weaned them away from sacrifices toward prayer and meditation.  Maimonides used his own historical anthropology to explain how people were moved away from Sabian types of worship.  In his discussion of reasons for the commandments he shifted from the natural sphere of God’s actions to the sphere of history and the question of a rationale for the commandments.  Nahmanides criticized Maimonides’ anthropological approach to sacrifices, which rendered them obsolete.  He rather viewed them positively as theurgic actions and supreme symbols.”

 

It is critical to understand that for Maimonides the rituals are historically grounded as a means to instruct Jews to know God and reject paganism.  The rituals are not in themselves magical actions that are part of the natural order.

 

The argument over a ceremony like Kapparot thus becomes intimately tied to the way in which Jewish Law is practiced and understood.  In the Ashkenazi tradition, following a mythic-romantic understanding of ritual, the ceremony is imbued with magical properties which are a necessary part of the natural order. 

 

In the Sephardic tradition, these ceremonies are all tools to bring us closer to God.  It is God that is the focus and not the ceremony.  Sephardic Sages like Maimonides did not reject the commandments; they saw the commandments as part of a rational process that was designed to bring us closer to God rather than as magical actions that changed the order of the natural world.

 

The case of Kapparot thus acts as a test of how rabbinical authority functions in Jewish tradition.  A custom that is rooted in a Temple ceremony that is not practiced after the destruction of the Temple is one that is extra-legal.  The most important code of Jewish law in the wake of Maimonides is Qaro’s Shulhan Arukh which rejects the custom.  The persistence of the custom throws the nature of rabbinical authority into question.  

 

But as Rabbi Mansour makes clear in his article, rabbinical authority becomes a matter of debate when it comes to the primacy of the Kabbalah and its mythical-theurgical values.  Indeed, it is true that the Ashkenazi Gnostic tradition did penetrate into many Sephardic rabbinical circles.  In spite of Qaro’s admonition in the case of the chicken ceremony, there were Sephardi legal scholars who did adopt the ritual.

 

What is so important to realize in the case of Kapparot and Tashlich is that both ceremonies promise a magical resolution to the process of repentance.  It is not simply a formal ceremony, but an actual, substantive transformation of a very human process which is designed to rid the individual of sin.  According to Qaro, following the Maimonidean paradigm, this can only be done through personal effort – by verbal repentance and prayer.  Repentance, Teshuba, is thus a rational process and cannot be relegated to some hocus-pocus magic.

 

So in spite of Rabbi Mansour’s valiant PILPUL – which affirms his rejection of the old Talmudic Law of Teshuba as it has been codified by both Maimonides and Joseph Qaro – the occult Kabbalah and its magical irrationalism remains primary.  No rational understanding can withstand the Jewish occult.

 

I have discussed the matter more generally in my article “Dangerous Mystic Motifs in Judaism”:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-shasha/dangerous-mystic-motifs-i_b_637535.html

 

At stake here is whether Jews are required to repent as rational human beings, or whether it is possible to remit one’s sins by magical incantations and chickens and bodies of water.

 

It is an existential-religious clash that is at the very center of the Sephardi-Ashkenazi divide.

 

 

 

David Shasha