2

This answer from @Oliver mentions

The controversial book Hemdat Ha-yamim...

What is Chemdat HaYamim, and what is controversial about it? I know this is a very simple question but I wasn't familiar with the sefer, and I couldn't find anything online about it.

4

The work deals with laws and customs, particularly relating to the holidays. is strongly associated with Sabbatianism and was attributed by R. Yaakov Emden (e.g. in his Torat HaK'naot, Altona 1752, as noted here) to Nathan of Gaza; Shabbetai Tsvi's prophet. Many other rabbis followed R. Emden's assessment. Although not all of its opponents thought it was necessarily written by Nathan of Gaza, it was thought to be Sabbatian by many rabbis, both Sephardi and Ashkenazi.

Some rabbis, however, endorsed the work. R. Menahem Heilprin, for example, wrote this whole work K'vod Hakhamim to defend the book.

Note also this article which notes that the author of Yesod V'Shoresh HaAvodah, in his Last Will and Testament praises the study of Hemdat Yamim. In at least one edition of his will, the reference to the Hemdat Yamim was removed.

Similarly, as noted, the Hayyei Adam (klal 144) quotes the Hemdat Yamim as the source for Tefillat Zakka, and others, especially Sephardi writers quote the work regularly.

For example, as noted here, R. Hayyim Palache in Kol ha-Hayyim (Ma’arekhet he, no. 18 (pp. 17ff.)) defends the Hemdat Yamim, claiming that we should not disqualify it, no matter what the author believed about Shabbetai Tsvi.

As noted here, historians have similarly debated the nature of this work. Boaz Huss, following Yeshaya Tishby and Gershom Scholem believed the work to be Sabbatian, while Avraham Yaari was of the opinion that it was not Sabbatian. As noted here, David Kohn also held the work to be Nathan of Gaza's.

For R. Yehiel Goldhaber's lengthy discussion of the entire debate, see here.

  • Was waiting for you to link that piece in Wiki; that's significant per the debate among recent academics. See also R. Zevihi (Mi-zahav u-mi'paz p.567) in referencing much of the Sephardic bent, and concludes with his rabbi, R. Ovadiah Yosef's feeling of the sefer (subsequently published in his own Chazon Ovadiah, intro. to Arba Taaniot). More contemporary researchers still juggle these authors, Nathan of Gaza or Elgazi, each trying to demonstrate proofs one way or another. – Oliver Nov 3 '17 at 1:41
  • Your memory served correct. – Oliver Nov 3 '17 at 1:47
  • Do you remember what exactly is written in the Intro to Hazon Ovadya? R. Zevihi doesn't seem so noteworthy in terms of R. Yosefs view as he just says that it is permissible to learn, which is far from the endorsement implied by the fact that R. Yosef quotes it tens of times. – mevaqesh Nov 3 '17 at 1:50
  • Can check in a few. IIRC something to the effect that he didn't hesitate to cite it because the particular pieces (or the book en toto) aren't sabbateanistic. Interestingly enough, R. Meir Mazuz, in a Saturday night class, justified its use on similar grounds in that much of the content has well-based tradition, acknowledging that it very well may have been from Nathan of Gaza, yet belief in redemption was en vogue then - not that he was a bad dude. – Oliver Nov 3 '17 at 1:57
  • +1 - Goldhaber link. I only know of his article in Ha-pa'amon but didn't know offhand of online resources so didn't bother. (Worthwhile to note his article is from 2013.) – Oliver Nov 3 '17 at 3:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .