Machnisei Rachamim: Do We Need Protekzia To Reach God?

An exploration into the history and controversy surrounding this ancient piyut.

During these special days of Divine Mercy, we recite each morning Selichos, supplications, begging for forgiveness in the advent of Judgement Day, Yom Kippur. Amongst the many piyutim included in the Selichos is the piyut of Machnisei Rachamim. This piyut is said at the end of Selichos, asking the Malachim, angels, to please bring our supplications and cries before the Master of the World.

מכניסי רחמים הכניסו רחמינו לפני בעל הרחמים משמיעי תפלה השמיעו תפלתנו לפני שומע תפלה משמיעי צעקה השמיעו צעקתנו לפני שומע צעקה מכניסי דמעה הכניסו דמעותינו לפני מלך מתרצה בדמעות השתדלו והרבו תחינה ובקשה לפני מלך רם ונש. הזכירו לפניו השמיעו לפניו תורה ומעשים טובים של שוכני עפר יזכור אהבתם ויחיה אותנו בטרם שלא תאבד שארית יעקב כי צאנו של רועה נאמן היה לחרפה. ישראל גוי אחד למשל ולשנינה מהר עננו ופדנו מגזרות קשות והושע ברחמיך הרבים משיח צדקך ועמך

Angels of mercy! Bring our plea for compassion before the Presence of the Lord of mercy. Angels of prayer! Cause our prayers to be heard before Him Who hears prayer. Angels of weeping! Cause our cries to be heard before Him Who listens to cries. Angels of tears! bring our tears before the King Who is appeased by tears. Intercede for us and amplify supplication and entreaty before the King, Almighty, Who is exalted and uplifted. Mention before Him, cause Him to hear of the Torah learning and good deeds of our ancestors who repose in the dust. May He remember their love and give life to their descendants so that the remnant of Jacob will not perish; for the flock of the faithful shepherd has become a disgrace; Israel the unique nation [has become] an example and a byword [of humiliation]. Hasten and answer us, God of our deliverance, and redeem us from all harsh decrees, deliver in Your abundant mercy Your righteous annointed and Your people.

This idea of praying to Malachim has not been without controversy. Indeed, it has caused much confusion as to whether this piyut should be said or not. I would like to explore the history of the controversy, and attempt to clarify if it is correct to say this piyut.¹

As an aside, it is interesting, that there have been many piyutim that we skip in Selichos or which simply do not appear anymore, as the Gedolim felt they were improper. Machnisei Rachamim, of unknown origin², always managed to sneak back into the machzor. This only deepens the curiosity to understand the nature of this piyut and the history of its controversy.

The Rambam in the fifth of his thirteen fundamentals of faith writes³:

“The fifth fundamental is that it is only befitting to serve, exalt and spread awareness of Hashem, however, you should not do so to anything which is beneath Hashem, including angels, stars, planets, comets etc… as they are all controlled by Hashem and do not have free choice. And one should not make these as intermediaries with which to reach Hashem, rather we should direct all our thoughts to Hashem alone.”

This is seemingly based on the Talmud Yerushalmi⁴ which says that when a person needs help, he cannot go directly to a wealthy benefactor for help, rather he must speak to the doorman, who will then decide if he can speak to his master. But Hashem, does not work like that. If someone needs help, he should not cry to Gavriel or Michael, rather, Hashem says, he should cry directly to Me and I will answer him immediately.

This Rambam is the source for the controversy. As Machnisei Rachamim, amongst many other piyutim are directly contrary to this, because we are asking the Malachim to intercede on our behalf. Among the more popular of such piyutim, we find: Shalom Aleichem, Hamalach HaGoel, Malachi Rachamim, and Bamarom Yelamdu in Birkas HaMazon.

The Talmud⁵ quotes Rebbe Yochanan who says: “Anyone who asks for their personal needs in Aramaic, the Malachim will not be able to help him, as they do not know Aramaic.

However, we find many times that tefillos were said in Aramaic, does this contradict Rebbe Yochanan? The question was posed to Rav Shereira Gaon⁶ who answered that the only time one should not daven in Aramaic is if he is directing his tefillos to the Malachim. However if one is directing his tefillos to Hashem he can ask in any language. We see that the Gaonim seem to suggest that beseeching of Malachim is normal, this only deepens our question on Rebbe Yochanan.

Alternatively, Rav Ovadia Yosef Zt’l⁷ explained that this halachah only applies when davening alone as opposed to when davening with a tzibbur. When one davens with the tzibbur, the Shechina is there in a higher concentration and therefore one does not need help to bring his tefillos to Hashem. However, when davening alone, although the Shechina may be there, it is in a much lower concentration and therefore needs the Malachim. Therefore, one who is davening alone should not daven in a language that the Malachim do not understand.

The Orchos Chaim⁸ and the Kol Bo⁹ explain that Rebbe Yochanan was merely trying to teach us to focus on our tefilla. Aramaic was not the spoken language, and as result was not spoken easily. Therefore, davening in Aramaic would cause people to become confused, trying to break their teeth on the words. This would cause them to lose their focus and kavannah on the meaning of the words.

The Kol Bo explains further¹⁰, that the statement by Rebbe Yochanan that Malachim do not know Aramaic, is not referring to literal Malachim rather it means the “positive energy from which comes good - this is called “Malachai HaShares”. According to this understanding, Rebbe Yochanan was saying that not only should one not daven to a Malach, but that a Malach has absolutely nothing to do with our tefillos. Our tefillos go directly to Hashem, regardless.

In addition to the Rambam mentioned above, Rav Yosef Albo¹¹, Ramban¹², Abarbanel¹³, amongst others, all agree that davening to Malachim is akin to Avoda Zara, idolatry. The sole direction and focus of our tefillos should be towards Hashem. The Ramban¹⁴ says clearly that we cannot use Malachim as intermediaries between us and God. He goes on to say very clearly that for this reason one should not recite Machnisei Rachamim.

The Maharam M’Rottenberg¹⁵ also writes that it is prohibited to use Malachim as intermediaries between us and God. Therefore, he calls for a cessation of the saying of Machnisei Rachamim. His basis is that we don’t find anywhere amongst the Avos, Nevi’im or even the Anshei Knesses Gedola an instance of tefilla that is directed to an entity other than Hashem. The Maharam explains that when Yaakov Avinu said Hamalach Hagoel, it was not a tefilla to the Malach, rather it was a tefilla that the One who sent the Malach should also bless the ne’arim.

Rav Yehuda bar Yakar, the primary Rebbe of Ramban, explains¹⁶ that although we find the concept of Malachim bringing our tefillos to the Kisei haKavod, we do not find that the Nevi’im would ask the Malachim or the deceased to daven for us. Rather they would go to the Tzaddikim of the generation and ask them to daven for us. Therefore, he suggests that the piyut Machnisei Rachamim, is not at all directed at the Malachim, rather it is directed at the Tzaddikei Hador that they should take our cries and daven on our behalf.

However, the Shibolei HaLeket says¹⁷ that there is no problem of saying Machnisei Rachamim. He proves it from the Gemara¹⁸ that says that one should always daven that he should not be prosecuted from the Malachim. Rashi explains this to mean that the Malachim should help and ask for Rachamim on his behalf. We see clearly, says the Shibolei HaLeket, that one needs to ask the Malachim to help him and not prosecute him. The Rashash¹⁹ says that this Gemara is only talking about an individual, but not a Tzibbur, as explained above. Therefore, according to the Rashash this would not be sufficient proof to permit the recital of Machnisei Rachamim.

The Rokeach²⁰ explains the reason why we would need a Malach to intermediate on our behalf. He writes: “During the period of the Beis Hamikdash we were very close to Hakadosh Baruch Hu and we did not have to talk via Shliach. Once the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed, we became like Avadim, and we need to send a representative to Hashem.”

This issue continued to provoke controversy over the centuries.

Acharonim:

The Mahari Bruna writes²¹ that the idea to direct our tefillos towards the Malachim is only a form of humbleness of not talking directly to the King. Therefore, there is no problem to say Machnisei Rachamim and it should not be looked upon as davening through an intermediary.

The Mabit²² and the Maharal²³ explain at length why it is that we can ask tzaddikim to daven for us and not Malachim. The Mabit explains that a person may come to treat a Malach as an entity that can change things for his good if he davens to them. However a tzaddik is a human and no one will make that mistake. Additionally, a Malach is not in this world and dealing with the issues we deal with, rather the sole function of the Malach is to praise Hashem. This might lead one to think that Malachim are above nature and befitting to be prayed to. However, the tzaddik understands the ways of the world and they also have to deal with earthly issues, therefore people will not be mistaken the same way.

The Maharal suggests that we change the language of Machnisei Rachamim to be directed towards Hashem and not towards the Malachim.

“The One who brings in mercy should bring in our mercy. The One who hears tefilla, should hear our tefilla. The One who brings in the tears should bring in our tears and therefore I will try and increase my tefilla before you etc…”

Ashkenaz and Sefard

As there was still a clear disagreement over whether we should say Machnisei Rachamim or not, this led to much confusion and strife in communities across the globe.

One such communal debate took place about three hundred years ago in the community of Trieste, Italy. This became a controversy between two camps. The more philosophical and rationalist camp and the more kabbalistic and traditional camp. This was in essence representative of what would become known as Ashkenaz and Sefard.

This controversy started when the Etz Shasul, Reb Gedalya ben Shlomo of Poland allowed Machnisei Rachamim to be said, explaining²⁴ that Malachim do not have free choice, so if they are beseeching Hashem on our behalf it is only because Hashem wants them to do that, hence, it is a kavod for Hashem.

The Hadras Kodesh, R’ Yitzchak bar Yakov Yosef HaLevi, also defended²⁵ the saying of Machnisei Rachamim as it brings more honor to Hashem when we do not request things from him directly, rather through intermediaries. This is also a recognition of the beseecher that he recognizes his place vis a vis God. He is humble and approaches God via a middle agent.

This was vehemently opposed by the more rationalist camp and erupted in a war of pamphlets published by the two sides²⁶. At the end, they presented the argument to the two leading Rabbanim of Italy, Rav Shabsi Elchanan Recanati and Rav Shimshon Morpurgo, who both agreed that one can say Machnisei Rachamim and similar tefillos.

Reform Movement

With the rise of the Reform movement, the controversy erupted once again. The early leaders of the movement attempted to abridge the Siddur and cut out the parts they deemed unnecessary. This caused a fascinating twist of positions. While the controversy had earlier had a Halachic focus, whether or not this is akin to Avoda Zara, and both the questioners and those who answered were sincere Talmidei Chachamim who cited their sources. Now, the questioners were irreligious, who were questioning the legitimacy of Machnisei Rachamim, and whether it was necessary to include it as part of the Siddur. Therefore, the Rabbanim had to change from a Halachic approach to a Hashkafic approach. They did not want to give the Reform any sort of chance to feel victorious in their attempts to change the mesora of Klal Yisrael. Now, Machnisei Rachamim, which was something that was in our mesora for generations, was not to be erased from the Siddur, as that would open a floodgate for other such changes.

This issue became a focal point of controversy throughout Germany and ultimately led to the creation of Kehilas Adas Yeshurun which would allow people to daven as per Mesoras Yisrael.

It was during this period that the question as whether or not to include Machnisei Rachamim in selichos, was bought to many Gedolim, who ruled that one should definitely continue saying Machnisei Rachamim²⁷.

The Chasam Sofer²⁸, ruled that really the Maharal is correct that we do not need a meiltz, intermediary, to daven for us, but since the tzibbur says it, we should not change from what the tzibbur does. He added that he himself says an extended Tachanun to avoid saying Machnisei Rachamim.

In 1879, the leaders of United Synagogue of London came to the Rav, Chief Rabbi Nathan Marcus Adler, who was referred to by the Chasam Sofer as a Gadol HaDor²⁹, with a list of changes to be made to the Siddur, including all tefillos directed at Malachim. Rav Adler was forced to agree to these demands, and this was a factor which led to his decision to resign from his position. The resulting split in the community ultimately led to the establishment of Khal Machzikei HaDas, which was founded by Rav Meir Lerner. One of the activists who was involved in the founding of this new Kehilla was Rav Michoel Levi, the son-in-law of Rav Samson Rafael Hirsch. This community was centered on respecting and valuing Mesoras Yisrael.

Rav Samson Rafael Hirsch was the leader who fought the most against the Reform movement to defend the Torah. In a letter³⁰ to his son-in-law, Rav Michoel Levi, who was facing strong Reform opposition to his efforts to build up Kehilla in England, Rav Hirsch wrote very strongly that one should continue to say Machnisei Rachamim. He reasoned, that just like we can ask people to daven for us, we can ask Malachim to daven for us, and therefore there is no reason not to say Machnisei Rachamim. This seems to be directly contrary to the Maharal and the Mabit who clearly differentiated between Man and Angel. However, based on the politics of the time, it is understandable why he showed his support for it.

Today:

More recently, Rav Yitzchak Weiss³¹, and others have ruled that one should not say Machnisei Rachamim. However, Rav Moshe Feinstein³² and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach³³, ruled that one could say it as long as it is understood that one is asking the Malachim to bring the tefilla to Hashem, but not actually davening to the Malachim.

There is still no clear consensus as whether or not one should say Machnisei Rachamim or not. However, it seems that nowadays people enjoy the chizuk of a nice inspirational niggun. R’ Chaim Benet composed a beautiful tune to Machnisei Rachamim. It was popularized by Mordechai ben David and has caused the piyut to be more accepted. It is indeed sung aloud in shuls across the globe.

tl;dr Machnisei Rachamim is a piyut which has caused controversy since the times of the Gaonim, through the Rishonim and Acharonim. The controversy took a twist with the rise of the Reform movement and the piyut has now gained world-wide acceptance thanks to an inspiring niggun by Mordechai Ben David.

(Originally written in 2015)

1. Much of this is based on an article by Rav Shlomo Sprecher in Yeshurun Vol #3

2. It appeared as far back as the Gaonim, Rav Amram Gaon, Rav Sherira Gaon and Rav Hai Gaon - see Otzar HaGaonim, Taanis, 24-26

3. Peirush Mishnayos, Sanhedrin, Perek Chelek

4. Brachos 63a

5. Shabbos 12b

6. Shu’t HaGeonim Siman 373 - Harkavy

7. Yechave Daas Volume 3, Siman 43

8. Krias Shema 19

9. Siman 10

10. See also Elya Rabba Siman 62 and Shl’a on Rosh Hashanah #26 in the comments.

11. Sefer HaIkkarim 2/17

12. Bereishis 46;1

13. Rosh Emuna Chapter 12

14. Parshas Yisro

15. Berlin Ed. Pg 325

16. Perish Tefillos and Berachos pg 73

17. Siman 252

18. Sanhedrin 44b

19. Sanhedrin 44b

20. Teshuvot Rav Eliezer M’Germazia

21. Siman 275

22. Shaar HaTefilla Perek12

23. Nesivos Olam, Nesiv Ha’Avodah Perek 12; Netzach Yisrael 16

24. Peirush on Sefer Ikarim - Maamar 2, Perek 28

25. Machzor Hadras Kodesh

26. See Sefer Pachad Yitzchak - צרכיו

27. Igros Rav Akiva Eiger pg. 78-79
For the full history - see Rav Sprecher’s article pg. 721- 725

28. OC 166

29. Siman 38, Likutei Michtavim

30. See Rav Sprecher’s article pg. 728

31. Shu’t Siach Yitzchak 411

32. Igros Moshe OC 5:43

33. Halichos Shlomo, Tefilla