Subject: What is the source for the minhag of Chasidim to have HaKafos on Shmini Atzeres night? - msg#00220

[The following was written in response to off list discussion that was spawned by Prof. Levine’s post on this matter].

Let me preface this by saying that I have no expertise in Kisvei Arizal and
in the various versions of the manuscripts and prints etc. I am also not an
expert in minhogim at all, but Torah hi ulilmod ani tzorich.

Let me summarize what Yaari writes (thanks to Dr Levine for a link to
the PDF - See http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/yaari_hakafos.pdf ):

First he has a whole discussion (p 261-266) about the source of going
around the bima, and shows that until the time of the Ari, they did not go around 7
times, rather only once (in those places that went around at all).

From 266 he quotes Shaar Hakavonos (SH) of R' Chaim Vital (RCV), that the
minhog was to go around 7 times, and that this took place ST after
Shacharis, Mincha and Motzei ST. Then he quotes R' Yaakov Tzemch (RYT) in
Nogid Umtzaveh, this minhog in the name of Ari, but with the important difference, that RYT brings it as if hakofos took place the NIGHT of ST and the morning. The same in Chemdas Hayomim (CH), where after he brings similar to what RYT writes, he complains about those that don't do hakofos the night of ST.

Yaari assumes that the discrepancy between the Shaar Hakavonos and RYT and
CH, is explained by the fact that RYT and CH used corrupted manuscripts,
while the "proper version" of the Shaar Hakavonos was only printed much (almost 150) later, in 1852.

He then goes on the bring the Shelah, who apparently does not mention
hakofos at all, and several Sefardim from a hundred years later,
that do mention it concerning the night of ST.  Ad kan devorov.

In summary, his point is that 7 hakofos is an invention
of the Ari, and that the Ari did hakofos on ST day and Motzoei ST, and
that the later ones who bring minhog Arizal for ST night were based on a
corrupted manuscript.

Leaving aside the question, that if the Ramo brings a minhog of hakofos
(at least one) - by day and night, would not have the Shelah mentioned it?
Are we to conclude that he disagreed with making even one hakofo?

Also, everyone agrees that Ari did hakofos (whether by day or by night) - why
would the Shelah not mention them at all? Are we to presume that the Shalo did
not hold of the minhog of the Ramo either, in addition to minhog of Arizal?

In fact, he brings NONE of the minhogim of ST?! So are we to conclude he did
none of the minhogim?

Point being - omission may not be a proof of anything.

In addition, we will leave aside the question, that if (according to
Yaari) RYT and CH had their own manuscripts of Shaar Hakavonos, that do
not match the printed version (published  over a hundred years
later) – “mi gilo lo roz zeh?” of which is the correct version of SH?

Maybe the edition first printed in Saloniko 1852 is the corrupted version?!

This is a matter that we should leave to the experts...

However, I believe Yaari’s entire argument is based on an error.

RYT and CH were not quoting the SH, but rather the Pri Eitz Chaim (PEC), which incidentally, was printed MUCH before the SH  - which Yaari does not reference at all -  in Shaar Halulov Perek 8, where he writes:

"Minhog Yisroel, shebeyom SA osim simcha gedolo lifnei hasforim, umakifin zayin hakofos im hasforim, vekorin oso simchas torah ... (here he brings the Zohar) ... va'ani ro’isee lemori Z'L, shehoyo holech lifnei hasforim, vehoyo meraked umeranen vesome’ach bechol yecholto bechol hazayin hakofos belaylo. ubeyom lo reisi..." - which is exactly the wording of RYT!

Similarly the CH is basing himself on the PEC and not on the SH.

I have seen quoted a similar signon from 2 Siddurei Arizal (which I do not own) - apparently also based on the PEC. [I also saw a reference to Mishnas Chassidim, but I am not sure of the exact wording there, as I do not have it either].

Now of course one can claim that there is a contradiction in the Arizal
(or rather - RCV) between PEC and SH, but I see no evidence of corrupted
manuscripts, especially since talmidim of RCV - RYT, and the compilers of
of Siddur Arizal (plus the anonymous author of CH), must have had the minhog to do
it the night of ST, which (to my mind) would be a stretch to say that they were relying ONLY on corrupted manuscripts, and not on a actual minhog that they witnessed and kept).

Concerning doing hakofos the night of SA, which sparked this discussion -
I no longer see the problem, since once we accept the version of PEC (as
was accepted by CH, RYT, Siddur Arizal) that he did hakofos the night of
ST, therefore the minhog chassidim just extended that minhog in chutz
lo'oretz to SA (as written also in the CH, and see Shaar Yisoschor of the Munkatcher who deals with this issue - though he does not bring the CH (for understandable reasons). and feels -and so was his minhog - that hakofos should be done the day of SA also!).

One further point: The chiddush of Arizal on ST was not so much the idea
of hakofos - which are mentioned already in Ramo and in earlier sources
(as brought by Yaari) - the chiddush was in SEVEN hakofos (though the PEC
refers to it as a "minhog yisroel"!) vs 1. It seems strange to me
that Arizal would not have done hakofos AT ALL the night of ST (which was
already a common minhog by many), and ONLY did them in the morning (and
the night after).

One last point: The question will not only be on "Chassidim", but on all
those that make 7 hakofos ST night and day (which I believe is the common
minhog) – and which according to Yaari would have no source at all, because
of the same "corrupted reading".

Bottom line: The minhog of hakofos at night of ST, and (according to those that do it) on SA, is not a mistake, but has strong sources IMHO.

CGS