Tradition, Interpretation, and Change: Developments in the Liturgy of Medieval and Early Modern Ashkenaz 087820170X, 9780878201709

Citation preview

TRADITION, INTERPRETATION, AND CHANGE Developments in the Liturgy of Medieval and Early Modern Ashkenaz

Kenneth E. Berger Tradition, Interpretation, and Change Developments in the Liturgy of Medieval and Early Modern Ashkenaz

Hebrew Union College Press

HEBREW UNION COLLEGE PRESS © 2019 Hebrew Union College Press Typeset in Legacy Serif by Raphaël Freeman, Renana Typesetting Cover design by Paul Neff Design LLC Cover image: HUC Ms 652, Klau Library, Cincinnati, Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Berger, Kenneth E., 1947- author Title: Tradition, interpretation, and change : developments in the liturgy of Medieval and early modern Ashkenaz / Kenneth E. Berger. Description: Cincinnati : Hebrew Union College Press, [2019] Identifiers: LCCN 2018053924 | ISBN 9780878201709 (print : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Judaism--Liturgy--History. | Judaism--Germany--Customs and practices. | Ashkenazim. Classification: LCC BM672.A8 B47 2019 | DDC 296.4/509--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018053924 ISBN 978-0-87820-170-9 Printed in the United States of America

To my wife, Cheryl,  with love

Contents Acknowledgmentsxi A Note on Style

xiii

Introduction1

Tradition and Change

1



Tradition: Conservative Influences on the Liturgy of Ashkenaz2



Interpretation and Change

11



Ashkenaz and the Liturgy of Ashkenaz

13

Sources for the Study of the Liturgy of Ashkenaz

22



40

Printing and the Development of Ashkenazic Liturgy

1 The Old Will Be Renewed: Vehu Raḥum Interpreted and Reinterpreted47

The Recitation of Vehu Raḥum in Arvit



Early Explanations for the Recitation of Vehu Raḥum in Arvit53



Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-century Authorities on the Recitation of Vehu Raḥum63

49

Conclusion

66

Excursus: Vehu Raḥum in the Rite of the Land of Israel

72

2 Preserving the Old

81



Barukh Adonai Le’olam

83



Berakhah Aḥat Me’ein Sheva

97



The Recitation of Kiddush in the Synagogue

108

Conclusion

126

3 Interpretation and Praxis

129 vii

viii · Contents

Bameh Madlikin

129



The Torah Service: Taking Out and Returning the Torah

138



Summary and Conclusion

170

4 The Twelfth Century: Aleinu183 Introduction

183



The Origin of Aleinu184



The Inclusion of Aleinu in the Daily Service



The Evidence of the Siddurim189



Explanations for the Inclusion of Aleinu in the Daily Service190



Summary and Conclusion

188

200

5 Sephardic Influences: The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries203 Introduction

203

The Ḥatimah of Hashkiveinu206 The Ḥatimah of Barukh Adonai Le’olam207

The Concluding Petition of the Kedushat Hayom Blessing

210

6 Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century

219

Introduction

219



Hama’ariv Aravim

223



The Conclusion of Aleinu227



Berikh Shemei



Kabbalat Shabbat237

7 Save Us From Enemies, Sword, Famine, and Sorrow

229 255

Hatavat Ḥalom255

Seventy-two Verses



Pitum Haketoret262

8 Shelter Us under Your Wings

The Expansion of the Arvit Service on Saturday Night

258 271 271

Contents · ix Mourner’s Kaddish280

Summary and Conclusion

303



Excursus: The Text of Veyiten Lekha305



Excursus: The Repetition of the Last Verse of Veyehi No’am308

9 You Will Not Fear the Terror of Night

315

Introduction

315



Barukh Adonai Le’olam316



Berakhah Aḥat Me’ein Sheva319



Bameh Madlikin320



Additions to Arvit on Saturday Night



Veyehi No’am322

321

Hashkiveinu325 Conclusion

344

Excursus: Other Textual Issues in Hashkiveinu346

10 Conclusion

355



Varieties of Interpretation

355



Liturgical Factors

360



Multiple Interpretations

361

Appendix I: Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-century Siddurim from the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary

367

Appendix II: Authorities Cited in the Body of This Book

373

Appendix III: Siddur Pages

379

Works Cited

381

Table A Vehu raḥum in the Genizah: Shabbat Table B The Torah Service: Early Ashkenazic Rite

75 172

Table C The Torah Service: Additions prior to the Sixteenth Century177

x · Contents Table D The Torah Service: Seventeenth-century Additions

179

Table E Psalm 29

180

Table F Adoption of Sephardic Textual Variants in Ashkenazic Siddurim217 Table G Siddurim which Include the Text of Kaddish Shalem at the Conclusion of the Weekday Shaḥarit Service302 Table H Veyiten Lekha

306

Table I Hashkiveinu

353

Table J Haskiveinu: Variant Texts: Shabbat

354

Index407

Acknowledgments Even as a teenager I was interested in Jewish liturgical practices and in the meaning of the prayers that constitute the daily and Shabbat services. However, my first exposure to liturgy as academic discipline came in 1972–73, when I spent a year in Israel as a rabbinical student. That year, my wife and I took a course with Professor Joseph Heinemann at the Hebrew University. Not only did he stimulate my interest in the study of liturgy, but what I learned from his lectures and writings continues to inform my understanding of the development of Jewish liturgy in antiquity. When I returned to the New York area in 1979 to accept a rabbinic position, Dr. Ismar Schorsch, now Chancellor Emeritus of the Jewish Theological Seminary but then the Seminary’s Provost, encouraged me to continue my studies by enrolling in the Graduate School. I did so, earning my doctorate at the Seminary and then serving as an adjunct member of its faculty for many years. For over forty years now he has never failed to express an interest in my teaching and in my research, and he has always been ready with an encouraging word. Words cannot adequately express my gratitude to JTS Professor Menahem Schmelzer, my teacher, my dissertation advisor, and my academic mentor of many years. His warmth, his kindness, and his deep knowledge of Jewish books and of many areas of Jewish learning sustained me during my years in graduate school and ever since. I would also like to express my gratitude to Professor Ruth Langer of Boston College. Encouraged by my teachers at JTS to develop my dissertation into a book, but still unsure of myself, I decided to seek the opinion of a scholar outside of the institutional framework of JTS. I wrote to Professor Langer, whose books and articles I had read but whom I had never met, asking whether she would be willing to read and evaluate my dissertation, and indicate whether it would be worthwhile for me to “do something” with it. This book is, in part, xi

xii · Acknowledgments the result of her response. Not only did she encourage me to publish, she offered a detailed critique of my dissertation and suggested ways in which I could reformulate, expand, and develop what I had written. As my project approached completion, she again gave me excellent advice, this time about a section with which I was having some difficulty, and about preparing my book proposal. Professors Matt Goldish (The Ohio State University), Ephraim Kanarfogel (Yeshiva University), Moshe Rosman (Bar-Ilan University), and Michael D. Swartz (The Ohio State University) answered my questions and referred me to relevant literature in their own fields of specialization. Professor Jeffrey Hoffman and Rabbi Ben Kramer read all or part of my manuscript and offered valuable suggestions. Much of my research was conducted in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary. I am very grateful to Rabbi Jerry Schwarzbard, Special Collections Librarian, and his staff for all their help. Other invaluable resources include the Friedberg Genizah Project and the microfilm and digitalized manuscript collections at the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem. Leslie Rubin read an early draft of my manuscript. Her suggestions led to numerous improvements in style and in the formulation of my argument. I would also like to acknowledge Carl Pace and HUC Press’s two anonymous readers. Because of their comments and suggestions, this is a far better book than it would otherwise have been. Sonja Rethy edited my manuscript and guided it through the process of publication. It was a pleasure working with her. I would never have been able to complete this project without the help and encouragement of my family and friends. My children, Jonathan, Ari, and Rachel were a great source of support, as was Jonathan’s wife Laura; their confidence in me kept me going even when my own confidence flagged. My daughter-in-law, Professor Naomi Brenner, offered valuable practical guidance on the process of submitting a manuscript for publication. My wife Cheryl read and reread every draft of every chapter. Her questions and suggestions led me to clarify my discussion of many issues. We met at Hillel when she was a college freshman; we recently celebrated our fiftieth wedding anniversary. This book is dedicated, in love, to her.

A Note on Style CITATIONS The first citation of a published work includes the place and date of publication. For information regarding the publisher, see Works Cited. Footnote citations observe the following conventions: For rabbinic texts: References to tractates of the Talmud are to the Babylonian Talmud, unless otherwise noted. m. Mishnah t. Tosefta y. Yerushalmi; Talmud of the Land of Israel Rab. A work included in the collection known as Midrash Rabbah. Medieval and early modern rabbinic sources are often divided into numbered sections or paragraphs known as simanim. When citing modern editions of these works, the siman number is often followed by a page number, identified by “p.” or “pp.” To avoid confusion, I often precede the page number with “p.” even when the work is not divided into simanim. Contemporary scholarship frequently refers to the land of Israel in late antiquity as Palestine, and to the Talmud produced in the land of Israel as the Palestinian Talmud. However, Jews have historically referred to these as the land of Israel and the Talmud Yerushalmi. In this work, I usually refer to the Talmud Yerushalmi as the Talmud of the Land of Israel. When a reference to the Talmud of the Land of Israel or the Rite of the Land of Israel would result in an awkward sentence structure, I use the term Palestinian instead.

xiii

xiv  ·  A Note on Style

TRANSL ATION Translations of biblical passages are from Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1985). However, I have felt free to modify them to better fit their contexts, especially when understanding a midrash requires a different sense of the words. Translations of passages from the Zohar are from Daniel C. Matt, ed., The Zohar: Pritzker Edition (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004–17). Some translations of passages from the Babylonian Talmud are from The Talmud (London: Soncino, 1938). Others are my own, prepared after consulting the Soncino and other translations. Even when using the Soncino translation, I often adapted the language to reflect contemporary usage. Except where noted in the documentation, translations of other rabbinic texts are my own.

TRANSLITERATION In transliterating Hebrew, I used a simplified phonetic which, I hope, will enable non-specialists to decipher what has been written. I adhere to the following conventions: ‫ ח‬ḥ (pronounced as ch in Johann Sebastian Bach) ‫ כ‬kh (pronounced as ch in Johann Sebastian Bach) ‫ צ‬tz ‫ ק‬k An apostrophe has been inserted between two medial vowels to indicate a break between syllables, to preclude their being read as a dipthong. Hebrew words that are frequently anglicized, such as mitzvah, appear according to their common spelling. While the names of halakhic authorities and commentators are transliterated according to the system described above, the names of modern scholars are rendered according to their usual English equivalents. For example,

A Note on Style  ·  xv Ḥaim or Ḥayyim refers to a medieval authority, Haim to a modern authority with the same name.

EXCURSES I have written this book for an audience that includes both the specialist in Jewish Studies and the general reader interested in the history and development of Jewish liturgy. The excurses deal with technical issues that are often tangential to the discussion presented in the chapters with which they are associated. These are directed more toward the specialist in the field.

Introduction TRADITION AND CHANGE Tradition, Interpretation, and Change – the title of this book – is a twist on the title of a book edited by Mordecai Waxman that appeared almost sixty years ago: Tradition and Change: The Development of Conservative Judaism. 1 Tradition and Change is a collection of documents, speeches, and essays on the history, ideology, and sociology of the Conservative movement through the middle of the twentieth century. In his introduction to the book, Waxman discusses three elements that, he argues, “constitute the historical approach to Judaism which the Conservative movement has adopted.” 2 The first is that “a study of Jewish history has first of all made clear that each generation has built on the past.” The second is that “Judaism through the ages has manifested an inner dynamism,” 3 and has always responded to, or adapted itself to, changing conditions, whether historical events, such as the loss of Jewish sovereignty and the destruction of the Temple, new philosophical, religious, and cultural currents, or even new ethical insights. Finally, he suggests that changes in Jewish life have historically been evolutionary, and that Jewish tradition itself provides the mechanism for authorizing and sanctioning these changes. This historical approach, which the founders of American Conservative Judaism inherited from the European school of Positive-Historical Judaism, holds that “Judaism historically was both mobile and static, that it must in some measure adjust to the spirit



1 Mordecai Waxman, ed., Tradition and Change: The Development of Conservative Judaism (New York, 1958). 2 Waxman, Tradition and Change, 17. 3 Waxman, Tradition and Change, 16.

1

2 · Introduction of the time, and in measure resist it.” 4 Loyalty to the past must combine with a recognition that change and development have always been, and will continue to be, essential elements of a living tradition. My entire Jewish education, from my childhood through my rabbinical school and graduate studies, took place in institutions affiliated with the Conservative movement. I served as a congregational rabbi in Conservative synagogues for over thirty-five years, and for many of those years I was also an adjunct faculty member at the Jewish Theological Seminary. Given my background, it is not surprising that, as I began to work on this study of developments in the liturgy of Ashkenaz, I was prepared to find both tradition and change. My original intention was to present several case studies, demonstrating that the liturgy of Askhenaz continued to develop and change, absorbing new liturgies, perhaps rejecting others, and struggling with the tension between preserving the heritage of the past and acknowledging a changing historical context. What I found was much more interesting. Much of this book is devoted to a discussion of liturgical change in Ashkenaz, but before turning to change, I must discuss the central role of tradition, and especially the role of minhag (custom), in the life of Ashkenazic Jewry.

TRADITION: CONSERVATIVE INFLUENCES ON THE LITURGY OF ASHKENAZ Minhag The most significant factors that contributed to the Ashkenazic tendency to preserve its liturgical formulae are the importance attributed to minhag in Ashkenazic society and the influence of the interpretive approach of the siddur commentaries of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz. 5 According to Israel Ta-Shma, minhag played a far greater and far

4 Waxman, Tradition and Change, 7. 5 The term Ḥasidei Ashkenaz refers to members of a pietistic circle that emerged in

Introduction · 3 more important role in medieval Ashkenazic society than in any other Jewish community. “In the world of Ashkenazic Jewry, and only there, did minhag accompany halakhah (law) everywhere, such that there was hardly a law that was not embedded in a ramified framework of customary practices.” 6 In most cases, custom filled the lacunae where there were no specific laws to govern behavior, but there were also many cases where custom appeared to be in conflict with legal norms. In such cases, halakhic authorities sometimes sought to find a way of reconciling the custom and the law, while in other cases decisions were rendered that gave precedence to one or the other. 7 In upholding the authority of a custom, halakhic authorities frequently asserted that “custom prevails over halakhah.” Furthermore, Ashkenazic authorities asserted that Ashkenazic custom is more authentic than the customs of other Jewish communities, including those of Sepharad (Spain). Although I could cite many examples, I mention only two, one relating to the kashrut of a kind of bird, the other to a liturgical issue. R. Asher ben Yeḥiel (Rosh) was asked about the status of a particular species of fowl. Although the Torah establishes physical criteria for determining the kashrut of mammals and aquatic animals, it does not do so for birds, providing only a list of those that are permitted and prohibited. 8 The talmudic sages attempted to establish criteria for determining whether birds not mentioned in the Torah should be permitted, but were not entirely successful in doing so;





the Rhineland in the twelfth century. On Ḥasidei Ashkenaz and their approach to the liturgy, see below, pp. 7–11. 6 Israel M. Ta-Shma, “Halakhah, minhag umasoret beYahadut Ashkenaz bemei’ot ha-11–12,” in Minhag Ashkenaz hakadmon (Jerusalem, 1992), 16–17. On the centrality of minhag in Ashkenaz, see Ta-Shma, “Halakhah, minhag umasoret,” 13–39; Benjamin Shlomo Hamburger, “Minhag Ashkenaz,” Hama’ayan 27 (1987):1–10; Talya Fishman, Becoming the People of the Talmud: Oral Torah as Written Tradition in Medieval Jewish Cultures (Philadelphia, 2011), 176–81; Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael: mekorot vetoldot ( Jerusalem, 1989–  ) 1:235–37 (1990); 2:47–48 (1991). 7 On the relationship between minhag and halakhah, see Mark Washofsky, “Minhag and Halakhah,” in Walter Jacob and Moshe Zemer, Rabbinic-Lay Relations in Jewish Law (Tel Aviv and Pittsburgh, 1993), 99–126. 8 Lev 11:13–19.

4 · Introduction some communities held various birds to be kosher because it was thought they met these criteria, but the rabbis later held that these fowl were prohibited. 9 The kashrut of many species of bird remained the subject of discussion for centuries. Rashi, in his commentary to Ḥullin, states that a bird is held to be kosher only if there is a tradition that it is so. 10 This ruling was later codified by R. Moses Isserles, who ruled that “one should not eat any bird unless there is a received tradition that the species is permitted.” 11 After he relocated from Germany to Spain, R. Asher was asked about the kashrut of a bird that was held to be kosher by the Sephardim, but was identified by Askenazim as the ḥassidah, prohibited by the Torah. 12 In his responsum he discusses the relevant legal issues and precedents, and concludes: Know that I would not eat [a bird] that is held to be kosher according to their [i.e., the Sephardic] tradition, for I hold fast to our own tradition (masoret) and the tradition (kabbalah) of our ancestors, the sages of Ashkenaz, because the Torah was their legacy from their ancestors going back to the time of the destruction [of the Temple]. And it is the same with regard to the tradition (kabbalah) of our sages in France, more so than the tradition of the people of this land (Spain). 13 Three hundred years later, R. Joel Sirkes affirmed the superiority of Ashkenazic minhag over that of the Sephardim in his criticism of R. Shabbetai Sofer’s siddur, which includes several Sephardic textual versions. His comment concludes, “even though [this wording] is found in Sephardic siddurim, we rely only on the siddur of our forebears, the French and the Ashkenazim (Germans).” 14 9 Ḥullin 60b–63b. 10 Rashi on Ḥullin 62b, s.v. ḥaziva dedarash ve’achlah. 11 R. Moses Isserles, gloss to Shulḥan arukh Yoreh Deah (Y.D). 82:3. 12 Lev 11:19. 13 She’eilot uteshuvot haRosh, ed. Yitzhak Shlomo Yudlov (Jerusalem, 1994) kelal 20 siman 20; See also R. Jacob Moellin, She’eilot uteshuvot Maharil, ed. Yitzḥak Satz (Jerusalem, 1979) 95, pp. 169–71; Benjamin Shlomo Hamburger, “Minhag Ashkenaz,” 7–8; Benjamin Shlomo Hamburger, Shorshei minhag Ashkenaz (Bnei Brak, 1995), 1:76–77. 14 Bayit ḥadash on Tur O.H. 46, s.v. attah hu ad shelo nivra ha’olam.

Introduction · 5 Scholars have offered several explanations for the importance ascribed to minhag in medieval Ashkenaz. Israel Ta-Shma suggests that what came to be considered minhag derives from the practices brought to Germany by the founders of the Rhineland Jewish communities, who migrated to Germany from Italy in the ninth century, at the invitation of Carolingian rulers. 15 At the time, the Jewish communities of Italy were in the cultural sphere of influence of the land of Israel. While the Babylonian Talmud was known in Ashkenaz, it was but one of many sources, along with the Talmud of the Land of Israel and midrashic works composed in the land of Israel, that were studied in the academies in Mainz and Worms and consulted by authorities when making halakhic rulings. At the time, the practices they brought with them from Italy were not considered to be “merely” customary, for, as Ta-Shma argues, “in the tenth century, custom had no special status with respect to halakhah, because it was considered to be the essence of halakhah,” that is, it was identical with halakhah. 16 This changed during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, as the Babylonian Talmud came to be accepted, not as one of many sources for the determination of halakhah, but as the authoritative source of Jewish law. Customary practices, transmitted mimetically for generations, were now called into question when seen to be in conflict with practices encoded in the Talmud. In response to this challenge, the importance of preserving these practices was strongly reaffirmed, at times even when they were in conflict with explicit rulings in the Babylonian Talmud. Talya Fishman rejects what she refers to as Ta-Shma’s “overarching genealogical claims,” arguing, instead, that the Jews of Ashkenaz “saw themselves as the cultural heirs of both Palestine and Babylonia, and they recognized the authority of the Babylonian Geonim.” 17 15 Among the most important of those who migrated from Italy to the Rhineland were members of the Kalonymus family, many of whom served as religious and communal leaders of Rhenish Jewry from the ninth to the thirteenth centuries. On the Kalonymus family, see Joseph Dan, “Kalonymus,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. (Detroit, 2007), 11:747–749. 16 Ta-Shma, Minhag Ashkenaz hakadmon, 87. 17 Fishman, Becoming the People of the Talmud, 178. Avraham Grossman argues that

6 · Introduction According to Fishman, Ashkenazic Jewry’s emphasis on the binding nature of minhag should be seen as a response to, or as a consequence of, the inscription of traditional Jewish sources, in particular the Babylonian Talmud, in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. Prior to the First Crusade, the Talmud was but one of many sources studied in Rhenish yeshivot, and no special authority was ascribed to it as a source of practical halakhah. While both masters and students may have prepared written texts for reference, and students recorded their teachers’ comments in notebooks, instruction was primarily oral. As Fishman notes, “there is reason to speculate that the master was the text in the classrooms of pre-Crusade Ashkenaz.” 18 The inscription of the Talmud in Ashkenaz in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries gave rise to the textualization of Ashkenazic Jewry in the twelfth. Fishman uses the term “textualization” to refer to “the process by which a society comes to ascribe greater authority to the written record than to oral testimonies and witnessed acts.” 19 This process culminated in the work of the twelfth-century tosaphists, who “transformed the talmudic text from a collection of legal and nonlegal traditions into a prescriptive blueprint for Jewish life.” 20 But, as noted, many of the traditional practices of Ashkenazic Jewry were seen to be in conflict with the halakhah derived from the Babylonian Talmud. Fishman outlines three responses to this process, one of which was the inscription of Ashkenazic Jewry was never in the cultural orbit of the land of Israel. While eleventh-century authorities cited the Talmud of the Land of Israel, they did not regard it to be more authoritative than the Babylonian Talmud. While some liturgical practices had their origin in the Rite of the Land of Israel, Grossman suggests that they were observed, not because of their Palestinian origin but because they were regarded as customs inherited from their ancestors; Avraham Grossman, Hokhmei Ashkenaz harishonim: Koroteihem, darkam behanhagat hatzibbur, yetzsiratam harukhanit meireishit yishuvam ve’ad gezeirat 1096 (Jerusalem, 1981), 424–35. See also Haym Soloveitchik’s critique of Ta-Shma’s Minhag Ashkenaz hakadmon and of Ta-Shma’s thesis that early Ashkenazic halakhah was heavily influenced by Palestinian sources and traditions in the second volume of his collected essays; Haym Soloveitchik, Collected Essays Volume 2 (Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2014), 3–215. 18 Fishman, Becoming the People of the Talmud, 107. 19 Fishman, Becoming the People of the Talmud, 111. 20 Fishman, Becoming the People of the Talmud, 147.

Introduction · 7 minhag, evidenced by the surge in the production of minhag books, beginning in the twelfth century. Once inscribed, they could be considered to be on a par with the Talmud itself.  21 Throughout her book, Fishman emphasizes that the process of textualization and its effects on Ashkenzic culture paralleled, and was influenced by, developments in the contemporary German culture. 22

The Interpretative Approach of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz The importance attributed to minhag in Ashkenaz is the most significant factor contributing to the Ashkenazic tendency to preserve its liturgical formulae. There is, however, a second important factor: the interpretive approach of the siddur commentaries of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz. Ḥasidei Ashkenaz is the name ascribed to a pietistic circle, or movement, that emerged in mid-twelfth-century Germany. 23 Its 21 Fishman, Becoming the People of the Talmud, 17, 180. 22 Fishman, Becoming the People of the Talmud, 91–120. 23 On Ḥasidei Ashkenaz see Gershom G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York, 1941), 80–118; Ivan G. Marcus, Piety and Society: The Jewish Pietists of Medieval Society (Leiden, 1981); Salo Wittmayer Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2nd ed. (New York and London: Columbia University Press; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1952–83), 8:42–50; Ḥaim Ben-Sasson, “The Middle Ages,” in A History of the Jewish People, ed. Ḥaim Ben-Sasson (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1976), 545–52; Haym Soloveitchik, “Three Themes in the Sefer Ḥasidim,”AJS Review 1 (1976): 311–57; Elisheva Baumgarten, Practicing Piety in Medieval Ashkenaz: Men, Women, and Everyday Religious Observance (Philadelphia, 2014) 12–13, 72–77, 216–18; and Fishman, Becoming the People of the Talmud, 182–217. There is currently no consensus on whether Ḥasidei Ashkenaz was a small circle of pietists or a larger movement. Soloveitchik views Ḥasidei Ashkenaz as a distinct sect, stressing their disdain, even hatred, of those who do not adhere to its ideology or pietistic practices, while Baumgarten stresses their commonality with others in Ashkenazic society engaged in performing pietistic practices; Soloveitchik, “Three Themes,” 325–38; Baumgarten, Practicising Piety, 12–13. Baumgarten and Ben-Sasson argue that an awareness of developments in medieval Christian pietism is essential for understanding Jewish pietism. Soloveitchik, on the other hand, sees Ḥasidei Ashkenaz as a reactionary movement, as “an attempt by the leaders of the old [pre-Crusades] Ashkenazic culture to defend the received values and customary modes of understanding” in the face of the scholastic approach of the Tosaphists that was sweeping through Ashkenaz during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; Baumgarten, Practicing Piety, 22; Ben-Sasson, “The Middle Ages,” 546; Soloveitchik, “Three Themes,” 339–57. Fishman argues that “Rhineland Pietism, as a discrete phenomenon, was ‘born’ of the impulse to inscribe teachings

8 · Introduction leaders were R. Samuel Heḥasid of Speyer, his son R. Judah ben Samuel Heḥasid of Regensburg, and his disciple, R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms. 24 Ḥasidei Ashkenaz were distinguished by their asceticism, their pietism, their esoteric teachings, and their approach to the text of the prayers, expressed in the siddur commentaries written by R. Judah ben Samuel, R. Eleazar ben Judah, and by their disciples, including R. Abraham ben Azriel. It is, of course, their approach to the liturgy that is of interest to us here. The siddur commentaries of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz make extensive use of gematria and numerology in their treatment of the prayers. The number of words in a prayer, or even in a sentence or phrase, is said to establish a correspondence with other passages in the siddur, or with biblical verses that have an identical number of words. 25 In explanation of this approach, Joseph Dan writes: [Rabbi Judah] and his disciples evolved a mystical theory, according to which the words and letters of the various prayers are not accidental, nor are they only vehicles for their literal meaning. Their order and, especially their number, reflect a mystical harmony, a sacred divine rhythm, which was introduced by the rabbis who formulated the prayers during the period of the Second Commonwealth. 26 According to R. Judah and his disciples, the spiritual impact of the prayers derives from “the mystical connection that this text has with the secret divine infrastructure of existence, which is based and traditions that had previously been transmitted through oral and performed instruction; Fishman, Becoming the People of the Talmud, 185. On the approach of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz to prayer, see Joseph Dan, “The Emergence of Mystical Prayer,” in Studies in Jewish Mysticism, ed. Joseph Dan and Frank Talmage (Cambridge, 1982), 85–120; Dan, “Prayer as Text and Prayer as Mystical Experience,” in Torah and Wisdom: Studies in Jewish Philosophy Kabbalah and Halacha: Essays in honor of Arthur Hyman, ed. Ruth Link-Salinger (New York, 1992), 33–45; Israel M. Ta-Shma, Hatefillah haAshkenazit hakedumah ( Jerusalem, 2003), 46–53. 24 The leaders of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz were all members of the Kalonymus family; Joseph Dan, “Kalonymus,” 11:748. 25 For an English translation of a brief passage from R. Eleazar ben Judah’s commentary on the siddur, see Fishman, Becoming the People of the Talmud, 207–8. 26 Dan, “The Emergence of Mystical Prayer,” 91. For a somewhat different interpretation see Fishman, Becoming the People of the Talmud, 208–11.

Introduction · 9 upon the combination of letters and numbers, the elements used by God in the process of creation.” 27 One who adopts wording that differs from the “correct” text, said to have been inherited from their teachers and their teachers’ teachers going back to antiquity, disrupts the mystical harmony expressed by these prayers, rendering the prayers “not only useless but religiously and spiritually harmful.” 28 Ḥasidei Ashkenaz flourished for only three generations, but it exerted considerable influence on Ashkenazic liturgy for long thereafter. 29 Although later commentators and halakhic authorities did not pursue R. Judah Heḥasid’s methodology of associating the number of words in a liturgical passage with that of other liturgical passages and biblical verses, some did accept the view that each liturgical passage is to have a specified number of words. 30 We can see the influence of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz on later commentators and halakhic authorities in their discussion of the text of hashkiveinu, the second benediction following shema in the arvit (evening) service. According to R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms, the version of hashkiveinu recited on weekdays should have fifty-five words (current texts have sixty). 31 R. Eleazar’s view is later cited in the commentaries of R. Naftali Hertz Treves and R. Shabbetai Sofer. 32 None of the printed siddurim in our sample of early printed siddurim, however, follow the fifty-five-word prescription of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz. Nevertheless, many of these siddurim do omit one or more of the words or phrases omitted by R. Eleazar ben Judah. 33 Word count also came to be regarded as an important factor in 27 Dan, “Prayer as Text,” 38. 28 Dan, “Prayer as Text,” 37. 29 For a discussion of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz’s “sudden disappearance from the historical picture after only three generations,” see Fishman, Becoming the People of the Talmud, 186–88. 30 See, for example, Tur O.H. 51, 113, 114, 118, 125, 241, 551; Ephraim Kanarfogel, Peering through the Lattices: Mystical, Magical, and Pietistic Dimensions in the Tosafist Period (Detroit, 2000), 247. 31 R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms, Perushei siddur hatefillah larokeaḥ, ed. Moshe Hershler and Yehudah A. Hershler ( Jerusalem, 1992) 81, p. 459. These are said to correspond to the fifty-five words in Psalm 121. 32 Commentary of R. Naftali Hertz Treves to Siddur Thiengen 1560; Siddur Shabbetai Sofer of Przemysl, ed. Yitzḥak Sats (Baltimore, 1987) p. 281. 33 For a discussion of this issue, see below, pp. 348–50. For a description of early

10 · Introduction establishing the correct text of kaddish. In this case, the influence of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz is filtered through sixteenth-century kabbalah. The core of kaddish consists of an opening doxology, recited by the sheliaḥ tzibbur, expressing the hope for the imminent establishment of the kingdom of God, followed by the congregational response, “May His great name be praised forever and ever.” Following this response, the sheliaḥ tzibbur continues with the praise of God: “May His holy name be blessed, praised, glorified, exalted . . . ​beyond (le’eila) all blessings, songs, praises, and consolations which are uttered in the world.” R. Isaiah Horowitz reports reading in a kabbalistic manuscript that, from the beginning of the response, “May His great name be praised” to the concluding words of the following passage, “which are uttered in the world,” there are fifty-eight words. 34 But by the seventeenth century it had become customary in Ashkenaz to expand the praise of God expressed in the second passage by stating that God’s name “is to be praised above and beyond (le’eila le’eila) all blessings” during the period between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. 35 The addition of the extra le’eila results in there being fifty-nine, not fifty-eight, words in the passage. The correct number was restored by replacing min kol with the contraction mikol. This adjustment is mentioned by several seventeenth- and eighteenth-century authorities, including R. Yehudah ben Shimon Ashkenazi and R. Ḥayyim Mordecai Margoliot of Dubno, 36 and continues to be the practice printed siddurim to which I frequently refer as “the siddurim in our sample,” see below, Appendix 1, 367. 34 R. Isaiah Horowitz, Shenai luḥot haberit masekhet tamid perek ner mitzvah (Haifa, 1994), s.v. no’aḥ. He was probably quoting R. Moshe ben Makhir’s Seder hayom. See R. Moshe ben Makhir, Sefer seder hayom hamenukad ( Jerusalem, 1996) seder kavanat hakaddish, p. 18. In addition, there are twenty-eight letters in the response, “May His great name be praised”; see Orḥot ḥayyim din kaddish upeirusho 5; Beit Yosef on Tur O.H. 56, s.v. ule’inyan. The commentaries discuss the significance of the word count of various phrases in the kaddish. 35 Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 582:5, s.v. ein maḥzirin; Levush haḥur 582:8. 36 Sha’ari teshuvah on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 56:1, s.v. mevorakh, citing Be’er heitev. Be’er heitev on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 582:5 mentions the doubling of le’eila, but not the problem that this presents for the word count. The comment to which Sha’arei teshuvah refers is not in current editions of Be’er heitev. Sefer Maharil records the custom of reciting

Introduction · 11 in contemporary Ashkenazic communities. Here, then, is another example of the effect of word count in the fixing of the text of individual prayers.

INTERPRETATION AND CHANGE Given the importance Ashkenazic Jewry attributes to minhag and the influence of the siddur commentaries of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, which emphasize the precise formulation of liturgical texts, one might assume that Ashkenazim were committed to preserving ancestral custom and opposed to liturgical change. However, the reality is that the liturgy of Ashkenaz was never static. From a very early time, new liturgies and liturgical practices were incorporated into the service, the inclusion of various prayers was challenged, and variant readings of prayers became standard. When I began to work on this book my inclination was to view the evidence before me through the lens of tradition and change. However, as my work continued I came to realize the crucial mediating role of interpretation in the development of the liturgy of Ashkenaz. As will be seen in the chapters that follow, underlying my discussion of developments in the liturgy of Ashkenaz in the medieval and early modern periods 37 is the thesis that the interpretation ascribed to a particular prayer or practice often had a profound effect on the determination as to whether and when it is to be recited, as well as on the specific wording of the prayer. By interpretation I mean how a prayer or practice was understood, or the rationale for its recitation or performance. Interpretations respond to the questions: Why do we recite this prayer or perform this ritual? What function does

le’eila le’eila in the kaddish before barekhu on the pilgrimage festivals; R. Jacob ben Moses Moellen, Sefer Maharil, ed. Shlomo J. Spitzer (Jerusalem, 1989) seder tefillot shel Pesaḥ 2, p. 141; 12, p. 149; hilkhot Shavuot 3, p. 160; seder tefillot ḥag haSukkot 2, p. 379. 37 My terminus ad quem is 1700. Discussion of such eighteenth-century developments as the liturgical changes introduced by R. Elijah ben Solomon of Vilna and Hasidism merit separate studies of their own.

12 · Introduction this prayer serve? What is the anticipated, or hoped-for effect of its recitation? Each chapter of this book is devoted to one dimension of this relationship. In Chapter 1, I examine a case where new interpretations gave new meaning to an old liturgical text, without bringing about a significant change in practice. Chapter 2 is devoted to a study of several cases where new interpretations and legal arguments were brought to justify the continued recitation of prayers when the original rationale given for their recitation no longer applied, and when the continued recitation of those passages appeared to violate accepted halakhic norms. Chapter 3 focuses on cases in which changes in the interpretation of a liturgical practice led to changes in that practice or to the development of new liturgies, showing how interpretation plays a mediating role in resolving the tension between the desire to preserve traditional practices and the pressures toward change. In some cases interpretation justified the preservation of traditional practices, while in some cases it provided support for, or even stimulated, liturgical change. Chapters 4 through 6 discuss examples of new liturgical practices and changes in the text of established prayers that date from the beginning and then the end of the period we consider in this study. This investigation shows that liturgical change was characteristic not only of the early, formative period of the liturgy of Ashkenaz, but remains an ongoing process. Chapters 7, 8, and 9 discuss three themes, each of which provides a compelling rationale for the inclusion of a number of liturgical units. In Chapter 7, I examine the apotropaic nature of several liturgical practices. It was thought that the recitation of these texts protects one from danger or brings healing in the case of a serious illness. In Chapter 8, I discuss the idea that the performance of a liturgical practice can be of benefit to the dead. Finally, in Chapter 9, I discuss the belief that many of the prayers and rituals associated with the arvit service have the power to protect both the worshipper and others from the dangers of the night, in particular, the danger posed by demons. That the Jews of medieval Ashkenaz believed in the existence of

Introduction · 13 demons should be of no surprise to us. Their demonology was in part inherited from the Babylonian Talmud, which is replete with references to demons, and was in part drawn from the demonology of their Christian neighbors. 38 The danger of being accosted by demons was especially acute at night. Thus, Joshua Trachtenberg writes, “When the mysterious dim of the night settles over the earth the demons, dwellers in darkness, bestir themselves. Mazikim and lilin, lutins and faes, all flutter out of their hiding places.” 39 It is hard to overestimate the fear felt by those living in the Middle Ages when they were compelled to be out alone at night. There was as yet no street lighting, and the sounds of small animals scurrying nearby, or of branches snapping underfoot, could easily be thought to be the sounds of demons moving about. It was, of course, often necessary for people to be out at night. Therefore, protection from demons was sought through a variety of practices, rituals, and prayers. While most of these were recited or performed outside of any formal liturgical framework, many of the prayers that constitute the arvit (evening) service, including the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam on week nights, berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva and bameh madlikin on Friday nights, and the recitation of Psalm 91 and veyiten lekha on Saturday nights were thought to offer protection from demons.

ASHKENAZ AND THE LITURGY OF ASHKENAZ The term Ashkenaz has two connotations, a narrow one and a broader one. In its narrow sense, Ashkenaz refers to the Jewish communities of medieval Germany; in its more expansive sense it encompasses the Jewish communities of northern France, as well as 38 Joshua Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion (New York, 1939; reprint New York, 1979), 25–60. Trachtenberg’s book remains the best general survey of such beliefs. 39 Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstiton, 46.

14 · Introduction those of central and eastern Europe. 40 The liturgical rite of Ashkenaz has two main subgroups. 41 Western European communities adhered to what is usually referred to as minhag Ashkenaz, while communities east of the Elbe River, including those in eastern Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Moravia, Romania, Poland, and other eastern European countries used what is generally designated as minhag Polin. 42

Germany: Minhag Ashkenaz There is some evidence that Jews were already settled in Germany as early as the first century, but little is known about Jewish life in Germany prior to the tenth century. Carolingian rulers welcomed the immigration of Jewish traders, who settled in the towns along the Rhine and in other centers of trade in western Germany. Important Rhineland settlements included Cologne, Mainz (Mayence), Worms, and, somewhat later, Frankfurt and Speyer. By the end of the eleventh century, Jewish settlement had spread eastward with the establishment of Jewish communities in Regensburg, Bamberg, Würzburg, and Erfurt. The Rhineland communities flourished during the eleventh century, but were decimated during the First Crusade, in 1096. The twelfth and thirteenth centuries witnessed a decline in the status of the Jews of the Rhineland. Attacks on Jews were more frequent and widespread, and Jews were forced out of commerce and the trades, with moneylending becoming their main occupation. The Black Death of 1349 again led to attacks on the Jewish community, with many Jews fleeing to the east. While Jews returned several years later, the Jewish communities of Worms and Mainz never regained their former prosperity or their status as 40 On the term “Ashkenaz,” see “Ashkenaz,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. (Detroit, 2007), 2:569–70. 41 Hoffman argues that the concept of a liturgical rite is a social, rather than a geographical construct; Lawrence A. Hoffman, “Rites: A Case of Social Space,” in Beyond the Text: A Holistic Approach to Liturgy (Bloomington, IN, 1987), 46–59. 42 Stefan C. Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer (Cambridge, 1993), 180. The siddurim often refer to these communities as those of Ostraykh, Polin, Pihem, Merrn, Lita, and Raysen (Austria, Poland, Bohemia, Moravia, Lithuania, and Russia).

Introduction · 15 centers of Torah learning. The fifteenth century then witnessed a series of expulsions and readmissions. Following their expulsion in 1483, for example, a small remnant of the former Jewish community of Mainz returned. During the seventeenth century these Jews were subject to severe restrictions, with the size of the community being limited to only twenty families, and somewhat later, to ten. The Jews of Worms were forced to flee in 1615, but returned again the next year. However, the Jewish community of Worms never regained its former glory. 43 Little is known for certain about the origins of the liturgical rite of Ashkenaz. The rite follows the traditions established by the Babylonian Geonim, influenced both by the acceptance of the Babylonian Talmud by the Jews of Christian Europe in the tenth century and the widespread dissemination of Seder Rav Amram. But the Ashkenazic rite also preserves vestiges of the Rite of the Land of Israel, not only in its choice of piyyutim, but in aspects of the standard liturgy as well. 44 The Italian rite also preserves elements of the Rite of the Land of Israel, which may have been introduced into Ashkenaz under the influence of members of the Kalonymus family, who migrated from Lucca, Italy, and established a yeshivah in Mainz at the end of the ninth century. The emerging Ashkenazic rite combined the prayer traditions transmitted by the Babylonian Geonim with some Palestinian elements, but great stress was also placed on preserving local traditions. 45

43 H.H. Ben-Sasson, “The Middle Ages” in A History of the Jewish People, ed. H.H. Ben-Sasson (Cambridge, 1976), 394–95; H.H. Ben-Sasson, “Germany,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 7:518–24; Bernard Weinryb and Larissa Daemmig, “Mainz,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 13: 403–5; Zvi Avneri, “Worms,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 21: 226–27. 44 Piyyutim are liturgical poems inserted into the standard liturgy on festivals and special Sabbaths. 45 On the development of the German rite, see Reif, Judaism and Jewish Prayer, 170–76. Ta-Shma, “Halakhah, minhag, umasoret”; Ruth Langer, Cursing the Christians? A History of the Birkat Haminim (New York, 2012), 211–12. For a description of the German rite as it had developed by the thirteenth century, see Jonah Fraenkel, “Leḥeker toldot hasiddur haAshkenazi,” Mada’ei HaYahadut (=Jewish Studies) 41 (2002), 31–34.

16 · Introduction

Northern France From the standpoint of Jewish culture, the Jewish communities of Germany and those of northern France constituted one region until the twelfth century, sharing a literary and halakhic tradition, and holding similar religious and social worldviews. 46 Although Rhenish and northern French Jews shared a common cultural heritage, contemporary scholars are careful to distinguish between their liturgical rites. 47 The Northern French rite is known to us through references in various halakhic works, through the liturgical works of the School of Rashi, 48 R. Nathan ben Judah’s Sefer Hamaḥkim, 49 R. Menaḥem ben Yosef Ḥazzan’s Sefer Troyes, 50 and approximately forty extant manuscript siddurim, most of which preserve thirteenth-century texts. 51 In addition to these northern French manuscripts, several manuscripts of English provenance reflect the influence of the French rite on liturgical practice in England in the years following the Norman conquest. 52 German and northern French liturgical texts differ in word order, preferred vocabulary and phraseology, use of biblical verses, and their degree of dependence on the standard Babylonian formulae as transmitted in Geonic liturgical works. 53 Early liturgical manuscripts from these regions indicate that the German and Northern French rites were at first very similar, and that the differences between them increased over time. Notably, by 46 Ta-Shma, Minhag Ashkenaz hakadmon, 15. 47 Fraenkel, “Leḥeker toldot hasiddur haAshkenazi,” 34; Langer, Cursing the Christians, 215; Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 166–68. 48 Siddur Rashi, ed. Jacob Freimann with notes and introduction by Salomon Buber (Berlin, 1911); Sefer hapardes, ed. Haim Yehudah Ehrenreich (New York, 1948/49); Sefer ha’orah kollel piskei denim vehalakhot, ed. Salomon Buber (Lvov, 1905); and Maḥzor Vitry, ed. Aryeh Goldschmidt (Jerusalem, 2004). 49 R. Nathan ben Judah, Sefer hamaḥkim, ed. Jacob Freimann (Cracow, 1909). 50 R. Menaḥem ben Yosef Ḥazzan, Sefer Troyes, ed. Max (Zvi) Weiss, in Sefer hayovel lekhevod Mosheh Aryeh Blokh (Budapest, 1905). 51 Fraenkel, “Leḥeker toldot hasiddur haAshkenazi,” 30–31. 52 Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 169. The most important of these are MS Oxford Corpus Christi College 133 (dated 1189) and R. Jacob ben Judah Ḥazzan, Etz ḥayyim, ed. Israel Brodie with notes by Naftali Wieder ( Jerusalem, 1962–1967). 53 Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 167. For a description of the Northern French rite, see Fraenkel, “Leḥeker toldot hasiddur haAshkenazi,” 34.

Introduction · 17 the end of the twelfth century, the Northern French rite had assimilated significant elements from the Catalonian and Provençal rites. 54 The progressive differentiation between the German and Northern French liturgical rites reflects cultural differences between these two communities that emerged over the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Talya Fishman argues that these differences, in turn, paralleled the reassertion of regionalism that accompanied the breakdown of the Carolingian Empire. Thus, prior to the twelfth century, the Cathedral Schools of Germany and France had a common curriculum, but over the course of the twelfth century, the Cathedral School of France adopted the study of the liberal arts while the Cathedral Schools in Germany “continued to embrace the time-honored curriculum and pedagogic orientation” of the past. Similarly, “when rabbinic academies of northern France came to valorize the exercise of logic in the twelfth century, those of the Rhineland exhibited a form of nostalgia, pining for a bygone era when the master’s living presence had been all powerful.” 55 Although there are good reasons for distinguishing between the German and Northern French rites, there are also good reasons for considering them together. There is, of course, the similarity between these two rites at the beginning of the period under consideration. Furthermore, German and northern French Jews shared a religious and social culture. For example, through the eleventh century, French Jews, including Rashi, travelled to the Rhineland to study in the yeshivot of Mainz and Worms. With the decline of the German yeshivot as a result of the decimation of the Rhineland communities in the First Crusade, German students came to northern France to study in the academies of the French Tosafists. 56 The Jewish community of northern France came to an end with its expulsion in the fourteenth century, and its liturgical rite ceased to be a living tradition, except in the Piedmont communities of Asti,

54 Fraenkel, “Leḥeker toldot hasiddur haAshkenazi,” 34; Langer, Cursing the Christians, 215; Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 167–68. 55 Fishman, Becoming the People of the Talmud, 101–4. 56 Fishman, Becoming the People of the Talmud, 109–10.

18 · Introduction Fossano, and Montcalvo. 57 But with the expulsion, many of the Jews of northern France migrated to Germany and central Europe, bringing some of their own customs and traditions with them, even as they adopted the practices of their new host communities. Furthermore, Ashkenazic authorities were familiar with the customs and traditions of French Jewry through close contact with northern French scholars and their literary works, such as the liturgical works of the School of Rashi and R. Nathan ben Judah’s Sefer hamaḥkim – works which were frequently cited by later Ashkenazic authorities in their discussion of liturgical issues. For all of these reasons, I regard the German and Northern French rites to be of the same family of rites, and view the Northern French Rite as one of the sources of the Ashkenazic rite as it evolved over the medieval and early-modern periods. More importantly, I cite the opinions of French authorities along with those of Germany and Poland in my discussion of the evolution of the liturgical rites of Ashkenaz.

Eastern Europe: Minhag Ostraykh and Minhag Polin Early sources, including R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna’s Or zarua, refer to the traditions of the Jewish communities of Austria and the surrounding areas, including Bavaria, as minhag Canaan. 58 The Jewish population of this area grew substantially following the expulsion of the Jews of northern France, many of whom settled in Austria, bringing with them their own liturgical customs. What came to be known as minhag Ostraykh includes elements that can be traced both to northern France and to the Rhineland. 59 Attacks upon the Jewish communities of central and western Europe, especially 57 Langer, Cursing the Christians, 215; Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 167. 58 Hamburger, “Minhag Ashkenaz,” 5; Hamburger, “Yesodotav hahistori’im shel ‘minhag Ashkenaz’: petiḥah,” in Yuzpa Shamash, Customs of Worms Jewry, ed. Israel Mordecai Peles, with sources, commentary, and introduction by Benjamin Shlomo Hamburger, and an historical introduction by Erich Zimmer (Jerusalem, 1988), 71; Ruth Langer “Sinai, Zion, and God in the Synagogue: Celebrating Torah in Ashkenaz,” in Liturgy in the Life of the Synagogue: Studies in the History of Jewish Prayer, ed. Ruth Langer and Steven Fine (Winona Lake, IN, 2005), 133 n. 36. 59 References to minhag Ostraykh appear by the late fourteenth century; Hamburger, “Minhag Ashkenaz,” 5.

Introduction · 19 those associated with the Black Death in 1348, as well as periodic expulsions from the towns in this region during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, led to an eastward migration to Poland, whose Jewish population increased steadily until the middle of the seventeenth century. 60 The movement from the west towards Poland is reflected both in the provenance of the authorities whose rulings and interpretations are cited in this study and in the intended consumers of the siddurim included in the sample of early printed siddurim described in Appendix I. 61 Thus, while many of the early authorities cited lived in France or Germany, almost all of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Ashkenazic authorities cited came from Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, or Poland. 62 The shift in the Jewish population from the west to the east is also reflected in the shift in the intended audience of the siddurim in our sample, but here the evidence is more complex. Among the distinguishing features of minhag Poland are the following: the inclusion of the Torah blessings before the benedictions of birkhot hashaḥar, rather than after them; a distinct version of El erekh apayim, recited prior to the reading of the Torah on Monday 60 Ben-Sasson, History, 565; 628–30; 641–42. A reverse migration, from east to west, followed the Cossack invasion of the Ukraine in 1648 and the Swedish-Polish War several years later, but the Jewish community of eastern Europe maintained its dominance in numbers and in the prestige of its halakhic authorities; Ben-Sasson, History, 656–57; Mordecai Breuer, “The Early Modern Period,” in German-Jewish History in Modern Times, vol. 1: Tradition and Enlightenment 1600–1780, ed. Michael A. Meyer (New York, 1996), 97–98; Moses A. Shulvass, From East to West: The Westward Migration of Jews from Eastern Europe During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Detroit, 1971); Reif, Judaism and Jewish Prayer, 230–31. 61 Henceforth, I refer to these siddurim as “the siddurim in our sample.” 62 Rabbis Menaḥem Mendel Auerbach, David ben Samuel Halevi, Samuel Edels, Issachar Dov Eilenberg, Joshua Falk, Abraham Gombiner, Abraham ben Shabbetai Sheftel Horowitz, Isaiah Horowitz, Moses Isserles, Mordecai Jaffe, Solomon Luria, Moses Mat, Shabbetai Sofer, Joel Sirkes, and Nathan Nata ben Solomon Spira. Only Rabbis Judah Löw Kirchheim, Joseph Yuzpa Hahn Nordlingen, Yuzpa Shamash, and Yair Ḥayyim Bacharach were from Germany. Furthermore, the works of Rabbis Kirchheim, Nordlingen, and Shamash were minhag books, written to describe and to preserve the customs of their communities, while the writings of the Polish authorities were, for the most part, sifrei pesak, containing legal rulings intended for more widespread adoption.

20 · Introduction and Thursday mornings; LaEl asher shavat mikol hama’asim, recited on Saturday morning, includes the phrase tov lehodot ladonai; the Torah service on Shabbat begins with ein kamokha, and not vayehi binsoa, and veyiten lekha, recited on Saturday night, includes hamalakh hago’el oti and other verses not included in the Western minhag Ashkenaz. If we were to categorize the siddurim in our sample by including any siddur meeting any three of these five criteria as belonging to minhag Poland, we would find that only two of the ten siddurim printed during the sixteenth century would qualify. 63 Of these, Prague 16th century includes both versions of El erekh apayim, making it somewhat compatible with the Ashkenazic rite. Of the eight Ashkenazic-rite siddurim, only one makes any accommodation to adherents of the Polish rite: Mantua 1562 includes instructions that, in Poland, ein kamokha is to be recited. 64 When we look at the siddurim printed during the seventeenth century, we see a very different picture. Only four of this group display characteristics that are primarily Ashkenazic, 65 while nine are primarily Polish. 66 All of the Ashkenazic siddurim display at least one of the characteristics of the Polish rite. 67 While many of the siddurim that are representative of the Polish rite include both versions of el erekh apayim, 68 all include the early recitation of the Torah blessings, ein kamokha, and hamalakh hago’el oti. 69 Tov lehodot ladonai is absent in 63 Prague 16th century; Prague 1557. 64 Trino 1525; Venice 1545; Venice 1549; Thiengen 1560; Mantua 1562; Venice 1579; Venice 1599 109:19; and Venice 1599:20=21. 65 Venice 1662; Venice 1664; Venice 1682; and Frankfurt 1697. 66 Hanau 1628; Prague 1635; Verona 1648; Amsterdam 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Prague 1688; Dyhernfurth 1690; Amsterdam 1699, and Dessau 1700. 67 Venice 1664; Venice 1682; and Frankfurt 1697 provide for the early recitation of the Torah blessings; Hanau 1628 and Frankfurt 1697 provide for the recitation of the Polish version of El erekh apayim; Venice 1662; Venice 1664; and Frankfurt 1697 provide for the recitation of hamalakh hago’el oti in veyiten lekha. 68 Hanau 1628; Amsterdam 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Prague 1688; Dyhernfurth 1690; Amsterdam 1699; Dessau 1700. The relevant page is missing from the JTS copy of Verona 1648. 69 The page which might include the Torah blessings is missing from the JTS copies of Verona 1648 and Frankfurt 1697. Hanau 1628 and Dessau 1700 do not include the prayers recited when removing the Torah from the ark.

Introduction · 21 five of the Polish rite siddurim. 70 Siddur Amsterdam 1649 is primarily Ashkenazic, but it is more of a hybrid than the others; the absence of both ein kamokha and hamalakh hago’el oti, though, establishes its Ashkenazic credentials. However, it also includes tov lehodot ladonai and both versions of El erekh apayim, and it has the Torah blessings early in birkhot hashaḥar. Thus, most of the sixteenth-century siddurim in our sample were of the Ashkenazic rite, while most of those printed during the seventeenth century were of the Polish rite. Many of these accommodated adherents of the Ashkenazic rite to some degree, mostly by including the Ashkenazic version of El erekh apayim in addition to the Polish. In addition, the phrase hago’aleinu malkeinu mekaf kol ha’aritzim in the benediction after the shema is characteristic of the Ashkenazic rite. 71 It is found in almost all of the siddurim printed prior to 1630, in half of those printed between 1630 and 1682, and in none of those published after that time. All of this appears to reflect the emergence of the Polish rite as the dominant liturgical tradition in Europe during the seventeenth century, a development that was due to the movement of the center of European Jewish life from Germany to the east during that period. Of course, it is possible that the shift in the ratio of Ashkenazic to Polish siddurim in our sample may simply reflect the nature of the Jewish Theological Seminary’s collection. However, it is my judgment that, while seventeenth-century Ashkenazic siddurim may be somewhat underrepresented in the collection, the sample is consistent with what would be anticipated considering both the changed demographic reality of the time and the dominance of Polish authorities during that same period. 72

70 Hanau 1648; Verona 1648; Amsterdam 1664; Dyhernfurth 1690; and Amsterdam 1699. Tov lehodot ladonai does not seem to be a reliable indicator for siddurim published during the seventeenth century. 71 Kenneth E. Berger, Issues and Developments in the Liturgy of Ashkenaz during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: The Arvit Service (D.H.L. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2006), 67–68. 72 See also Meir Rafeld and Joseph Tabory, eds., Siddur Hanau 388 [1628] (Ramat Gan, 1994), 12–13.

22 · Introduction

SOURCES FOR THE STUDY OF THE LITURGY OF ASHKENAZ In this book I cite numerous primary sources, including classic rabbinic sources. Pre-medieval sources include the Babylonian Talmud, the Talmud of the Land of Israel, Tosefta, and early midrashic works. Medieval and early modern sources include legal codes and responsa, minhag books, siddur commentaries, and evidence from manuscripts and early printed siddurim. To facilitate understanding of the discussion that follows, I include a description of the principal genres of halakhic literature cited throughout this book.

Codes The Babylonian Talmud is the foundation upon which later developments in halakhah ( Jewish Law) are based. From the medieval period until today, discussions of halakhic issues almost always begin with an analysis of relevant talmudic sources. The Talmud is an encyclopedic work that includes the opinions, deliberations, and teachings of the Tannaim (rabbis who lived in the first two centuries of the Common Era) and the Amoraim (rabbis who lived in the third through the sixth centuries), mixed in with a great deal of non-halakhic material, including biblical interpretation, lore, and anecdotes about the lives of many of these rabbis. The Talmud is organized as a sort of commentary on the Mishnah, which was compiled in the early third century. It is structured in units called sugyot. A typical sugya might begin by citing the opinions of two or more Amoraim on a matter of halakhah. Their views are then subject to a variety of questions, posed by the anonymous editors of the Talmud: upon what do rabbis A and B base their opinions? How would Rabbi A respond to the stated opinion of Rabbi B and vice versa? Do one or both of these opinions conflict with the rulings of an earlier authority? The problem is that many, perhaps most, sugyot end without providing a clear halakhic ruling. In addition, the quantity and variety of materials included within the sugyot render the Talmud an unwieldly source for one seeking to determine the correct practice.

Introduction · 23 This is the function of a legal code. Codes are compendia of legal rulings arranged for easy reference. 73 While the material in some of the early codes was arranged according to the subject matter of the talmudic tractates, or even according to the order of the commandments in the Torah to which they are related, most medieval codes are arranged topically. In many codes, the halakhic rulings are accompanied by a discussion or digest of the talmudic sources on which they are based, along with a summary of the opinions of earlier medieval authorities. In others, only the halakhic rulings are stated. The earliest works of codification date from the Geonic period (sixth–eleventh centuries). Codes dating from the Geonic period include Halakhot pesukot, attributed to R. Yehudai ben Naḥman Gaon (mid-eighth century) 74 and Halakhot gedolot, attributed to R. Simeon Kayyara (ninth century). 75 The most important of the medieval codes are those of R. Isaac Alfasi, R. Moses Maimonides, R. Asher ben Yeḥiel, R. Jacob ben Asher, and R. Joseph Caro.

Hilkhot R av Alfas written by R. Isaac ben Jacob Alfasi (Rif, 1013–1103).  7 6 Alfasi, born in Algeria, studied with R. Nissim ben Jacob and R. Ḥananel ben Ḥusi’el in Kairouan. In 1045 he moved to Fez, and remained there for over forty years. In 1088, he was forced to flee to Spain, where he became head of the yeshivah in Lucena. Hilkhot Rav Alfas is essentially a digest of the talmudic tractates devoted to the discussion of laws operative in R. Isaac’s time. In each case he provides a summary of the talmudic discussion, followed by 73 Codes were also written to replace earlier codes to incorporate the views of more recent halakhic authorities; because the author of the new code disagreed with the methodology or decisions of prior codes; and to be expressive of regional customs. For an overview of codification and codes of Jewish law, see Menachem Elon, “Codification,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 4:765–81. 74 Recent scholars have questioned the attribution of Halakhot pesukot to R. Yehudai Gaon; Robert Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture (New Haven and London, 1998), 217–23. 75 On Halakhot gedolot see Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, 223–30. 76 On Alfasi and Hilkhot Rav Alfas see Simha Assaf and Israel M. Ta-Shma, “Alfasi, Isaac ben Jacob,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 1:692–641; Elon, “Codification,” 770.

24 · Introduction his own ruling on the matter. He frequently cites the Talmud of the Land of Israel and discusses instances in which the Geonim differed in their interpretation of a passage, but omits most of the aggadic material he felt to have no relevance for reaching a legal decision. Important commentators to Hilkhot Rav Alfas include R. Jonah ben Abraham Gerondi and R. Nissim ben Reuben Gerondi.

Mishneh Torah , written by R. Moses Maimonides (R AMBAM, 1135–1204).  7 7 Maimonides was a halakhic authority, commentator on the Mishnah, philosopher, and physician. Born in Cordoba, Spain, his family was forced to flee after the Almohad conquest of Andalusia in 1148. It is thought that they lived for a time in southern Spain, but by 1160 they had settled in Fez, Morocco, which was also under Almohad rule. They left Fez in 1165 for Israel, where they remained for about five months. They then left Israel for Egypt, spending some time in Alexandria but settling in Fustat. In 1177, Maimonides was appointed head of the Jewish community of Fustat and in 1185 was appointed a physician to the court. While Rambam wrote many responsa and also Sefer hamitzvot, a work enumerating the 613 biblical commandments, his major halakhic work was Mishneh Torah, a comprehensive code of Jewish Law. Mishneh Torah is a book of pesakim (rulings) containing halakhic rulings arranged topically, without reference to the talmudic or early rabbinic sources upon which they were based. However, many of the pesakim are accompanied by a theological or ethical rationale. Unlike other codes, which included only those laws which were operative at the time they were composed, Mishneh Torah covers the totality of Jewish Law, including laws relating to the monarchy, war, and 77 There is a vast literature on Rambam and his philosophical and halakhic writings. For an overview of his life and the Mishneh Torah, see Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, Jacob I. Dienstag, Arthur Hyman, Suessmann Muntner, and Bernard R. Goldstein, “Maimonides, Moses,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 13:381–97; Moshe Halbertal, Maimonides: Life and Thought (Princeton, 2013); Elon, “Codification,” 770–73; and Isadore Twersky, Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah) (New Haven and London, 1980).

Introduction · 25 the Temple ritual. Mishneh Torah is organized into fourteen volumes, each of which is divided into books (entitled “Laws of . . . ”), chapters, and individual halakhot. Important commentaries on Mishneh Torah include those by R. Abraham ben David of Posquières (Ravad), R. Meir ben Yekutiel Hakohen of Rothenburg (Hagahot Maimuniot), R. Yom Tov Vidal of Tolosa (Magid Mishneh), R. Joseph Caro (Kesef Mishneh), R. Abraham ben Moses of Bouton (Leḥem Mishneh), and R. Jacob Rosenes (Mishneh Lamelekh).

Piskei haRosh , or Sefer Asheri , written by R. Asher ben Yehiel (Rosh, c. 1250–1327).  7 8 R. Asher ben Yeḥiel, whose father was among the circle of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, was a student of R. Meir ben Barukh of Rothenberg in Worms and served for a time as a member of his Beit Din (rabbinical court). Following the imprisonment of R. Meir in 1286, R. Asher became Rabbi of Worms and the acknowledged leader of German Jewry. 79 Fearing that he, too, would be imprisoned and held for ransom, he fled to Spain in 1303. In 1305, he was appointed rabbi in Toledo, where he served until his death. Students from both Spain and Ashkenaz were drawn to his yeshivah. R. Asher introduced the analytical methodology of the tosaphists to Spain. Piskei haRosh follows the pattern of Hilkhot Rav Alfas, but covers most of the talmudic tractates and includes a brief discussion of the views of post-talmudic authorities. In his responsa and in Piskei haRosh, R. Asher considers the views of both Ashkenazic and Sephardic authorities, deciding between them on a case by case basis.

78 On R. Asher ben Yeḥiel and Piskei haRosh see David Derovan, “Asher ben Yeḥiel,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 2:563–64. 79 On R. Meir ben Barukh of Rothenburg, see Jacob Agus, “Meir ben Barukh of Rothenburg,” Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd edition, 13:782. In 1286, R. Meir and many other German Jews sought to leave Germany after the emperor Rudolph I of Hapsburg declared the Jews to be servi camerae and imposed an oppressive tax on the Jewish community. He was recognized and arrested in Goerz, Lombardy, and the ruler of the town delivered him to Rudolph, who put him in prison, where he remained until his death.

26 · Introduction

Arba’ah turim , written by R. Jacob ben Asher (TUR, c. 1260–1340).  8 0 R. Jacob ben Asher was the son of R. Asher ben Yeḥiel, with whom he studied. In 1303, he accompanied his father from Germany to Toledo, where he served as dayyan (judge). His major work was his code of Jewish Law, Arba’ah turim, usually referred to as the Tur. The Tur is organized into four divisions. The laws of prayer, as well as the laws dealing with the rituals of everyday life, such as Shabbat, the festivals, and fast days, are included in the first division, Oraḥ Ḥayyim (O. H.). Each division is divided in turn into chapters (entitled “Laws of . . . ”) and numbered sections (simanim). This organizational structure was adopted by later codifiers, including R. Joseph Caro and R. Mordecai Jaffe. In his discussion of each law, R. Jacob ben Asher quotes relevant sources from the Talmud and cites the views of earlier authorities. While the Arba’ah turim was written primarily for the benefit of Spanish Jewry, ben Asher includes the opinions of French and German authorities. Following his presentation of the sources, he provides a ruling on the halakhah under discussion, usually following the rulings of R. Isaac Alfasi. When Alfasi’s ruling was disputed by Maimonides or other important authorities, he followed his father’s opinions, as expressed in R. Asher’s responsa and legal rulings. Important commentaries on the Tur include those written by R. Joseph Caro (Beit Yosef ), R. Moses Isserles (Darkhei Moshe), R. Joshua Falk (Perishah and Derishah), and R. Joel Sirkes (Bayit Ḥadash).

Beit Yosef and Shulhan arukh (“Set Table”), written by R. Joseph Caro (1485–1575).  8 1 R. Joseph Caro was born in Toledo. After the expulsion of the Jews 80 On R. Jacob ben Asher and the Arba’ah turim, see Ephraim Kupfer and David Derovan, “Jacob ben Asher,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 11:30–31; Elon, “Codification,” 774–75. 81 On R. Joseph Caro and the Shulḥan arukh, see David Tamar, Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, R.J. Zwi Werblowsky, and Moshe Idel, “Caro, Joseph ben Ephraim,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 4:488–91; Elon, “Codification,” 775–77; Isadore Twersky, “The Shulḥan ‘Arukh: Enduring Code of Jewish Law,” Judaism 16:2 (Spring, 1967): 141–58.

Introduction · 27 from Spain in 1493, or somewhat before, his family moved, first to Portugal, and then, in 1497, to Turkey. Caro remained in Istanbul for about twenty-five years, and then lived for a time in Adrianople, Nikopol, and Salonika, where he was influenced by groups of pietists and kabbalists in those cities. In 1536, he left for Safed, where he studied under R. Jacob Berab. By the late 1530s he was the leading scholar in Safed. He headed the local beit din and served as the head of the communal council. His yeshivah attracted many students, and he wrote hundreds of responsa addressed to Jews throughout the diaspora. 82 In addition to being an outstanding halakhist, R. Caro was a leading kabbalist, whose students included R. Moses Cordovero and R. Moses Alsheikh. R. Caro’s most important halakhic works were Beit Yosef, an extensive commentary on the Tur; Kesef Mishneh, a commentary on parts of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah; and the Shulḥan arukh. In Beit Yosef, Caro expands upon R. Jacob ben Asher’s discussion of the sources underlying his rulings in the Tur, adding much additional material and providing his own ruling on the matter at hand. In his halakhic rulings, R. Caro generally followed the opinion of the majority of Alfasi, Maimonides, and R. Asher ben Yeḥiel. If only two of the three dealt with a particular matter and their opinions differed, he ruled according to the majority of five additional authorities. If none of the three had dealt with an issue, or when most of a group of thirty-two additional other authorities he consulted had ruled otherwise, he frequently accepted the view of this sub-group. 83 The Shulḥan arukh is a digest of the Beit Yosef, providing only R. Caro’s rulings and omitting all discussion of the underlying sources. It is based upon the structure of the Tur, except that the simanim are divided into individual, numbered halakhot (se’ifim). His intention was that the Shulḥan arukh would be of use to both scholars and the Reprinted in Judah Goldin, The Jewish Expression (New Haven and London, 1970), 322–42; Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, “Shulḥan Arukh,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 18:529–30, and Yaakob Dweck, “What is a Jewish Book?”, AJS Review 34:2 (November, 2010), 367–75. 82 Tamar, “Caro, Rabbi Joseph,” 488. 83 Elon, “Codification,” 777.

28 · Introduction larger community. According to Yaacob Dweck, “the earlier editions were addressed to young men. They were issued in various sizes, some of which could be carried around with ease, and were designed to be used anywhere, not only in the synagogue or in the study hall.” 84 The scholar could use it as a reference for determining the normative halakhah, and, if he wished, could find in the Beit Yosef a detailed discussion of the sources underlying Caro’s ruling in the Shulḥan arukh, while one who was not an accomplished scholar would find it to be a convenient handbook of normative Jewish practice. As noted above, R. Joseph Caro based his rulings primarily on those of R. Isaac Alfasi, R. Moses Maimonides, and R. Asher ben Yeḥiel, all of whom lived in Spain or in North Africa. He did not give due consideration to Ashkenazic traditions or to the rulings of later authorities. This deficiency, which would have rendered the Shulkhan Arukh unacceptable to much of Ashkenazic Jewry, was remedied when glosses written by R. Moses Isserles, a highly respected Polish authority, were appended to the printed text in the Cracow edition of 1578–1580. R. Isserles’s glosses, entitled Mappah (the “Table Cloth” on the “Set Table”), are abstracted from his more extended commentary on the Tur, and indicate where Ashkenazic practice differs from that prescribed in the Shulḥan arukh itself. 85 R. Isserles’s glosses, in combination with the commentaries of many Ashkenazic authorities, including those of R. David ben Samuel Halevi (Turei zahav), R. Shabbetai ben Meir Hakohen (Shakh), and R. Abraham Gombiner (Magen Avraham), were the decisive factors which led to the eventual acceptance of the Shulḥan arukh as the authoritative code throughout Ashkenaz. It was no longer an easily accessible handbook, but it was accepted as normative. Hilkhot Rav Alfas, Mishneh Torah, Piskei haRosh, the Arba’ah turim, and the Shulḥan arukh are the most important and influential of the medieval and early modern codes. However, many other codes were written during this period. Of these, I cite the following in 84 Yaacob Dweck, “What is a Jewish Book?”, 369. 85 When deciding a disputed question of law, R. Isserles rejected R. Caro’s practice of ruling according to the majority of a select group of early authorities and followed the principle that the halakhah is in accord with the later authorities (‫)הלכתא כבתראי‬.

Introduction · 29 the course of my discussion in the following chapters: Halakhot gedolot (Geonic), R. Judah ben Barzillai Al-Bargeloni’s Sefer Ha’itim (11th century, Spain), R. Abraham ben Isaac of Narbonne’s Ha’eshkol (12th century, Provence), R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna’s Or zarua (12th–13th centuries, Austria), R. Moses ben Jacob of Coucy’s Sefer mitzvot gadol (13th century, France), R. Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil’s Sefer mitzvoth katan (13th century, France), R. Zedekiah ben Abraham Anav’s Shibbolei haleket (13th century, Italy), R. Mordecai ben Hillel’s Sefer Mordecai (13th century, Germany), Rabbenu Yeruḥam ben Meshullam’s Toldot Adam veḤavah (14th century, Provence), R. Jacob ben Judah Landau’s Sefer ha’agur (15th century, Italy), R . Mordecai Jaffe’s Levush (16th century, Poland), and R. Moses Mat of Przemysl’s Matteh Moshe (16th century, Poland).

Responsa Responsa are written replies to questions addressed to rabbinic authorities. 86 In Hebrew they are referred to as she’eilot uteshuvot (questions and answers), or simply as teshuvot (answers). 87 The practice of exchanging written questions and responses is mentioned already in the Talmud, 88 but little is known about the practice until the post-talmudic, or Geonic period. 89 There are few recorded responsa dating from before the middle of the eighth century. By that time, most of the world’s Jewish communities were under Islamic rule, and most accepted the preeminance of the scholars of the two major Babylonian academies as authorities in matters of faith and practice. Tens of thousands of questions were sent to the Geonim, the heads of the academies of Sura and Pumbedita. Some requested interpretations of passages in biblical or rabbinic literature, some 86 On responsa literature, see Israel M. Ta-Shma, Slomo Tal, and Menahem Slae, “Responsa,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 17:228–39; Solomon B. Freehof, The Responsa Literature (Philadelphia, 1959), 13–98. 87 In contemporary scholarly literature, the term she’eilot uteshuvot is frequently abbreviated as shu"t. 88 Yevamot 105a (end); Ḥullin 95b. 89 On Geonic responsa, see Ta-Shma, “Responsa,” 17:229–30; Robert Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, 185–201.

30 · Introduction were of a theological nature, and some even dealt with medical or scientific subjects. But the vast majority related to questions of practical halakhah. Copies of the Geonic responsa were made by members of the academy or by their representatives at major junctures of the mail routes from Babylonia to the far-flung diaspora. Copyists often preserved groups of responsa in booklets or collections arranged according to various criteria. While most Geonic responsa have been lost, many are cited or quoted by later authorities. In addition, thousands of Geonic responsa were preserved in the Cairo genizah. 90 By the end of the Geonic period, many of the diaspora communities were already well-established and, instead of consulting the Babylonian academies, had begun to turn to local authorities with their queries. Most queries were sent by local rabbis seeking the council of eminent authorities in nearby cities, although queries might also be sent to other countries. In Ashkenaz, in particular, most questions now related to matters of halakhah or the interpretation of passages in the Talmud. Responsa issued by the Rishonim 91 tended to be longer than Geonic responsa (which were often very brief ), with the respondent discussing the differing views of earlier authorities on the issue at hand before ruling on the matter. Ashkenazic Rishonim rarely collected and published their responsa. Collections of the responsa of Ashkenazic Rishonim are usually the work of their disciples, who included collections of their teacher’s responsa in the halakhic works that they composed or edited. Responsa issued by later Ashkenazic authorities (Aḥaronim) did not differ in form from those authored by their predecessors. However, with the migration of French and German Jews eastward in the wake of the persecutions and expulsions of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, large new centers of Jewish life were established in Poland. Beginning with the sixteenth century, many responsa were written by prominent Polish authorities dealing with a host of 90 For a description of the process of collecting, deciding, and disseminating responses to queries submitted to the Geonim, see Ta-Shma, “Responsa,” 17:229–30. 91 “Early authorities,” who lived from about the middle of the eleventh century through the middle of the fifteenth. On the responsa of the Rishonim, see Ta-Shma, “Responsa” 17:230.

Introduction · 31 new issues both of a civil and a religious nature, that arose within and between these new communities. 92

Minhag Books Minhag books, works describing – and at times explaining – customary practices, are an invaluable resource for scholars engaged in the study of liturgical developments in medieval and early modern Ashkenaz, because they describe the actual liturgical practices as they were observed in the life of the community. In this, they are unlike legal codes, which are primarily prescriptive in nature. Although as a genre they focus on customary practices, minhag books differ from one another in several respects. Some describe the customs of a particular community, while others describe the personal practices of important rabbinic authorities; some discuss a wide range of topics, while others focus on customs relating to prayer and the observance of Shabbat and the festivals; some seek to justify local customs, as opposed to those of other communities, while others seek to document the customs of the authors’ communities in order to enhance the probability that they will be known to, and observed by, future generations. While it was written in southern France, not in Ashkenaz, R. Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel’s Sefer hamanhig is an important source of information relating to the early liturgical practices of Ashkenaz. Even though R. Abraham ben Nathan was a native of southern France, he studied at the academy of the tosafist R. Isaac of Dampierre, and travelled widely through northern France, Germany, and England, finally settling in Spain. In Sefer hamanhig he describes many of the customs of the Jews of northern France and Germany, in addition to those of the Jews of Spain and Provence, seeking to demonstrate these customs’ validity – even when they were not consistent with each other – by grounding them in traditional halakhic sources. In doing so, he maintains that each community should preserve its own traditional practices. 93

92 Ta-Shma, “Responsa,” 17:231–32. 93 Israel M. Ta-Shma, “Minhagim Books,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 14:278.

32 · Introduction The earliest known minhag books produced in Germany date from the twelfth century and describe the customs of individual communities, such as Speyer or Mainz. 94 Works produced during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries were, for the most part, written by disciples of important Ashkenazic authorities, who documented their masters’ customs because they thought them worthy of emulation. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century minhag books, on the other hand, documented local traditions. In part, they may be regarded as a response to the disruptions in Jewish life in central Europe which resulted from the religious conflicts which accompanied the Reformation. During the fifteenth century, Jews were expelled from most of the region’s imperial cities and from many of the German principalities, while the Jews of Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia suffered greatly during the Hussite wars (1419–1434). The authors of the minhag books written during this period sought to preserve their local customs, or to restore them when Jews were permitted to return to communities from which they had been expelled or had fled. 95 Among the Ashkenazic minhag books cited in this book are: Minhagei R. Abraham hildik Little is known for certain about R. Abraham Ḥildik. It is thought that he lived during the middle of the thirteenth century and that he was from Bohemia. 96 While his rulings are cited by a number of early authorities, including R. Abraham ben Azriel, his only work that has survived is his minhag book. A critical edition of this minhag book, based upon two manuscripts, 97 was edited by Shlomo Spitzer and published in Spitzer’s edition of Minhagei R. Abraham Klausner. 98 94 For a brief survey of minhag books, see Ta-Shma, “Minhagim Books,” 14:278–79. 95 Jay Berkovitz, “Jewish Law and Ritual in Early Modern Germany,” in Dean Phillip Bell and Stephan G. Burnett, Jews, Judaism, and the Reformation in Sixteenth-Century Germany (Leiden; Boston, 2006), 181–88, 493; Erich Zimmer, “Introduction,” in Yuzpa Shamash, Customs of Worms Jewry, (Jerusalem, 1988), 30–31, 61–69. 96 Shlomo Spitzer, “Introduction to Minhagei R. Abraham Ḥildik,” printed in Minhagei R. Avraham Klausner, ed. Shlomo Spitzer (Jerusalem, 2005), 193; Abraham ben Azriel, Sefer arugat habosem, ed. Ephraim D. Urbach (Jerusalem, 1962), 4:123–26. 97 Parma De Rossi 1233.2 and 1131. 98 R. Abraham Ḥildik, Minhagei R. Abraham Ḥildik. Printed in Minhagei R. Avraham

Introduction · 33 According to Spitzer, Minhagei R. Abraham Ḥildik is, for the most part, a précis or abridgment of the laws relating to prayer in Maḥzor Vitry or Siddur Rashi, with the material organized according to the calendar cycle. 99

Sefer tashbetz , by R. Samson ben Tzadok Sefer tashbetz describes in detail the customs and personal practices of R. Meir ben Barukh of Rothenburg, the leading halakhic authority of thirteenth-century Ashkenaz. 100 As a young man R. Meir ben Barukh studied in the academy of R. Isaac ben Moses, the author of Or zarua, and later continued his studies in Mainz and in France, where he studied under the tosafists R. Samuel ben Solomon of Falaise and R. Jeḥiel of Paris. On his return to Germany, he settled in Rothenburg, where he lived for over forty years. Over one thousand of his responsa, to communities in Germany, Austria, Bohemia, Italy, France, and Spain, have survived. Among his many students were R. Mordecai ben Hillel and R. Asher ben Yeḥiel. Sefer tashbetz became popular in Germany, Austria, Bohemia, and Poland, which led to the adoption of many of R. Meir’s practices throughout the lands of Ashkenaz.

Sefer haminhagim leR abenu Avraham Klausner   1 01 R. Abraham Klausner was an Austrian rabbinic authority who lived during the second half of the fourteenth century. He was one of R. Jacob Moellin’s teachers and was the primary teacher of R. Isaac Tyrnau. His Sefer haminhagim was the first minhag book to be cited by many later halakhic authorities. While the glosses in the book are the work of R. Abraham Klausner, the body of the book was adapted Klausner, ed. Shlomo Spitzer (Jerusalem, 2005), 191–253. 99 Spitzer, Minhagei R. Abraham Ḥildik, 194. 100 On R. Meir ben Barukh of Rothenburg, see Agus, “Meir ben Barukh of Rothenburg,” 13:780–83. 101 R. Abraham Klausner, Sefer haminhagim leRabbenu Avraham Klausner, 2nd ed., ed. Shlomo Spitzer ( Jerusalem, 2005). On R. Abraham Klausner and Sefer haminhagim see David Tamar, “Abraham Klausner,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 12:214; Shlomo Spitzer, “Introduction,” in Minhagei R. Avraham Klausner, 8–11; Yonah Y. Dissen “Introduction to 1978 Edition.” Reprinted in ibid., 15–19.

34 · Introduction from an earlier minhag book written by R. Ḥayyim Paltiel, which was in turn based upon a work by R. Hezekiah ben Jacob of Magdeburg. 102 The glosses draw upon traditions from the northern French School of Rashi, on the one hand, and the works of the students of R. Meir of Rothenburg, including R. Samson ben Tzadok, R. Mordecai ben Hillel, R. Asher ben Yeḥiel, and R. Jacob ben Asher, on the other. 103 Sefer haminhagim was first published in Riva di Trento in 1558, but was cited earlier by Rabbis Jacob Moellin and Israel Isserlein. 104

Hilkhot uminhagei R. Shalom miNeustadt R. Shalom of Neustadt was an Austrian rabbi who lived during the second half of the fourteenth century. He lived for a time in Vienna, but at some point moved to nearby Neustadt, where he established a yeshivah. He was a teacher of R. Isaac Tyrnau and the principal teacher of R. Jacob ben Moses Moellin. Many of his teachings are cited in Sefer Maharil. A critical edition of Hilkhot uminhagei R. Shalom miNeustadt was published by Shlomo Spitzer. 105

Sefer haminhagim , by R. Isaac Tyrnau R. Isaac Tyrnau was an Austrian rabbi who lived during the first half of the fifteenth century. 106 He studied with R. Sholom of Neustadt and R. Aaron of Krems, who also served as a rabbi in Neustadt, but his primary teacher was R. Abraham Klausner. Little is known about his early life. It is thought that he was from Vienna and that he later moved to the city of Tyrnau, but it is not certain whether this refers to Tyrnau in Austria or to Trnava in Hungary (now Slovakia). 107 His reputation rests on his sefer minhag, which describes 102 Spitzer, “Introduction,” 8; Dissen, “Introduction to 1978 Edition,” 16–19. 103 Dissen, “Introduction to 1978 Edition,” 18. 104 Tamar, “Abraham Klausner,” 214. 105 R. Sholom of Neustadt, Hilkhot uminhagei R. Shalom miNeustadt, ed. Shlomo Spitzer ( Jerusalem, 1997). On R. Shalom of Neustadt and his minhag book, see Spitzer’s introduction, 10–18. 106 R. Isaac Tyrnau, Sefer haminhagim, ed. Shlomo Spitzer (Jerusalem, 1979). On Isaac Tyrnau and his minhag book, see Spitzer’s introduction, 9–17; Shmuel Ashkenazi, “Isaac Tyrnau,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 20:219–20. 107 Ashkenazi, “Isaac Tyrnau,” 219–20; Spitzer, “Introduction,” 13.

Introduction · 35 the customs of minhag Austria and its surrounding areas. It was the most widely accepted minhag book in Ashkenaz, and was adopted by most communities in Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Moravia, and, as Jews migrated eastward, in Poland. R. Moses Isserles frequently drew upon it when writing his glosses to Shulḥan arukh. Sefer haminhagim appears with glosses, which are probably an anthology of comments by several authors. 108 It was first printed in 1566 and was subsequently reprinted over one hundred times, often as an appendix to a siddur. A critical edition was published by Sholom Spitzer in 1979.

Sefer Maharil of R. Jacob ben Moses Moellin R. Jacob Moellin (Maharil) was the outstanding rabbinic authority in late fourteenth-century and early fifteenth-century Austria and Germany. 109 Born in Mainz, he studied in Vienna with his primary teacher, R. Sholom of Neustadt, and also with R. Abraham Klausner and R. Meir Halevi. He returned to Mainz in 1387, where he succeeded his father as Rabbi of Mainz. He established a yeshivah which attracted students from all over Ashkenaz, many of whom came to be among the greatest rabbis of Germany and Austria in the next generation. Sefer Maharil is a collection of Maharil’s customs and practices, written by his student R. Zalman of St. Goar. It was the primary source on the customs of Ashkenaz utilized by R. Moses Isserles when he wrote his glosses on the Shulḥan Arukh, and was widely cited by Ashkenazic authorities in later generations. Sefer Maharil was first printed in Sabbionetta, in 1556. A critical edition was published by Shlomo Spitzer in 1989.

Leket yosher , BY R. Joseph ben Moses Leket yosher describes the customs and daily behavior of R. Joseph ben Moses’s teacher, R. Israel Isserlein, and includes many of his 108 Spitzer, “Introduction,” 17. 109 R. Jacob ben Moses Moellin, Sefer Maharil, ed. Shlomo J. Spitzer (Jerusalem: 1989). On R. Jacob Moellin and Sefer Maharil, see Hamburger, “Yesodotav hahistori’im,” 95–105; Ephraim Kupfer, “Jacob ben Moses Moellin,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 14:414.

36 · Introduction responsa and halakhic rulings. 110 Unlike most other minhag books, which follow the cycle of the Jewish year, Leket yosher follows the order of the Tur. Only the orders of Oraḥ ḥayyim and Yoreh dei’ah are extant. R. Isserlein served as rabbi in Marburg for over twenty years and as rabbi and head of the local rabbinical court in Neustadt from 1445 until his death. He attracted many students, including rabbis Israel Bruna and Moses Mintz, and addressed responsa to many of the leading rabbis of his time. Many of these are collected in his major work, Terumat hadeshen.

Customs of Worms (Minhagot Vermaise) , by R. Judah Löw Kirchheim.  1 11 R. Judah Löw Kirchheim came from one of the leading families of sixteenth/seventeenth-century Worms. 112 The main body of his minhag book was written between 1600 and 1615; glosses, including explanations, quotations from relevant sources, midrashim, and comments of an ethical nature (musar) were added later, from about 1625 until shortly before his death in 1631. 113 He describes the rituals and liturgical customs of the Jewish community of Worms for the course of the Jewish year, but also includes customs relating to life cycle events. His work is based upon his own observations, discussions with rabbinic and communal leaders, the community’s maḥzor, and other liturgical works used by the community. In his explanations of the customs of the Worms community he refers to a variety of other sources, including siddur commentaries, legal codes, and minhag books. 114 110 Joseph ben Moses, Leket yosher, ed. Jacob Freimann (Berlin, 1903; reprint New York, 1959). Freimann’s introduction appears at the beginning of the second part, Yoreh de’ah, vii–lii. On R. Israel Isserlein, see Simha Katz, “Israel ben Pethahiah Isserlein,” Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 10:768–69; on R. Joseph ben Moses, see Yedidya A. Dinari, “Joseph (Joselein) ben Moses,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 11:424. 111 Judah Löw Kirchheim, The Customs of Worms Jewry, ed. Israel Mordechai Peles (Jerusalem, 1987). On The Customs of Worms Jewry, see Peles’s introduction, 15–48; Berkovitz, “Jewish Law and Ritual in Early Modern Germany,” 491–502. 112 Peles, “Introduction to Kirchheim,” 24–26. 113 Peles, “Introduction to Kirchheim,” 31–34. 114 Peles, “Introduction to Kirchheim,” 28–31; Berkovitz, “Jewish Law and Ritual,” 494–97.

Introduction · 37

Yosef ometz: pesakim uminhagim , by R. Joseph Yuzpa Hahn Nordlingen.  1 15 R. Joseph Yuzpa Hahn Nordlingen was the head of the yeshivah and of the local rabbinical court in his native Frankfurt on Main. He completed his major work, Yosef ometz, in 1630. 116 It was copied and disseminated by his students, but was not published until 1723. In addition to describing the liturgical customs of the Jewish community of Frankfurt, Yosef ometz contains information about events transpiring in Frankfurt during the author’s lifetime. For example, he writes of the expulsion of Frankfurt’s Jews during the Fettmilch uprising in 1614 and states that he was among the first ten Jews to enter the city in 1616, after the emperor suppressed the revolt and invited the Jews to return. 117

Customs of Worms Jewry , by R. Joseph Yuzpa Shamash.  1 18 R. Yuzpa Shamash was born in Fulda, in 1604. He moved to Worms in 1623 to continue his studies and remained there for the rest of his life. He served the community as a scribe, ritual slaughterer, mohel, and, by the late 1640s, as its shamash. He began working on his minhag book in 1648 and continued to revise it over the next twenty-five years, editing the body of the text and adding numerous glosses. His minhag book gives an intimate and detailed description of the religious life of the Jewish community of seventeenth-century Worms. He describes both synagogue and life cycle rituals in detail, including instructions on the melodies used to chant various prayers. A copy of Customs of Worms Jewry, written by one of R. Yuzpa Shamash’s sons, includes glosses by R. Yair Ḥayyim Bacharach. Among R. Shamash’s other works are commentaries on the siddur and the Passover haggadah. 115 Joseph Yuzpa Nordlingen, Sefer Yosef Ometz (Frankfurt on Main, 1927/28; reprint Jerusalem, 1964/65). 116 On R. Joseph Yuzpa Hahn Nordlingen and Yosef ometz see Moses Mainz, “Ketzat mitoldot hameḥaber vedarkhi ḥayyav,” in Yosef ometz, v–vii; Alexander Tobias, “Joseph Yuzpa ben Phinehas Seligmann Hahn (Nordlingen),” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd edition, 8:231; Breuer, “The Early Modern Period,” 215–16. 117 Yosef ometz 953, p. 211; 1009, pp. 242–43. 118 Yuzpa Shamash, Customs of Worms Jewry. On R. Yuzpa Shamash and his minhag book, see Zimmer’s introduction, 23–39; Breuer, “The Early Modern Period,” 216.

38 · Introduction

Manuscripts and Early Printed Siddurim Manuscripts of early Ashkenazic siddurim are an important, even essential, primary source for the study of the development of the liturgy of Ashkenaz during the Middle Ages. The evidence they provide enables us to better document the incorporation of new liturgical texts into the liturgy and to trace the textual history of individual prayers. In a recent article, Yonah Fraenkel laments the failure of many, perhaps most, liturgical scholars to incorporate manuscript evidence in their research on the history of Jewish liturgy. Instead, they base their arguments solely on evidence derived from early halakhic sources and minhag books. Even when citing manuscript evidence, most bring testimony from just a few manuscripts. Fraenkel notes that Ezra Fleischer has shown that the texts of the prayers in the actual siddurim frequently provide a picture that differs from that which is found in halakhic works. 119 The failure of scholars to incorporate evidence from a broader range of manuscripts is due, in part, to the relative inaccessibility of these manuscripts. Manuscripts of early siddurim are to be found scattered in libraries around the world, with most of these libraries holding only a few in their collections. While many libraries have long had microfilm collections, these usually include films of their own manuscripts and perhaps those of a few additional libraries. In recent years, all that has changed. Research libraries have been digitalizing their manuscript collections and making them available for viewing over the internet, and, more importantly, the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the National Library of Israel has undertaken to collect copies of all extant Hebrew manuscripts and make them available in microfilm or digitalized form. Fraenkel notes that there are now microfilmed or digitalized copies of over one hundred fifty Ashkenazic siddur manuscripts, and approximately forty of the Northern French rite, in the National Library’s collection. Most of these date from the thirteenth century and later; only a few are from the end of the twelfth century. 120 119 Yonah Fraenkel, “Leḥeker toldot hasiddur haAshkenazi,” 29. 120 Ibid.

Introduction · 39 However, while manuscript siddurim are an important resource for the study of the development of the liturgy, the evidence they provide is problematic and must be used with care. For example, it is difficult to establish the date and provenance of many manuscripts with any certainty. Early manuscripts do not have title pages. Rather, scribes frequently included colophons indicating who had written the manuscript, when and where it was completed, and even by whom or for whom it had been commissioned. But that information is often lacking, either because no colophon had been included, or because the page upon which the colophon had been written has been lost. In such cases, scholars must rely on such characteristics as calligraphic style, the physical characteristics of the book, the selection of prayers included, and the wording of the prayers themselves to arrive at an educated estimate of the date and provenance of the work. Furthermore, it is not always clear what the inscribed text signifies. Is the manuscript an accurate copy of an older siddur, which the scribe had in hand, or did the scribe emend the text when transcribing it to conform more closely to the rite of his or his client’s community? Is the liturgy that of a specific community, such as the town of Worms, or does it reflect a wider, regional practice? And how many siddurim from a given period constitute an adequate sample from which valid conclusions can be drawn? 121 The format of these siddurim is also problematic. Scribes rarely recopied the texts of prayers for every time they were to be recited. For example, the weekday amidah might be transcribed only in the shaḥarit service. One who was reciting minḥah or arvit would have to turn to the shaḥarit prayers to find the text of the amidah. To complicate matters further, many manuscript siddurim lack instructions indicating when such prayers are to be inserted and where they might be found elsewhere in the volume. The incomplete nature of these 121 Changes were introduced into the texts of manuscripts through both scribal error and the intentional emendation of the texts, as well as through the incorporation of what were glosses written in the margins of the source text into the body of the copy. Because Hebrew texts were usually copied by scribes working independently, without supervision, they were more susceptible to variance than were texts copied by Christian scribes, who usually worked in workshops or monastic scriptoria; Fishman, Becoming the People of the Talmud, 5–7.

40 · Introduction siddurim led Fraenkel to conclude, for example, that “the absence of ‘aleinu leshabei’aḥ’ at the conclusion of the weekday prayers or those of Shabbat, and the absence of an instruction indicating that it is to be recited, does not indicate that it was not recited [on that occasion].” 122 Of course, neither does it indicate with any certainty that aleinu was recited on those occasions. In my discussion of developments in the liturgy of Ashkenaz, I include evidence drawn from medieval siddur manuscripts where I believe it to be most relevant, for example, to supplement the testimony of the halakhic sources regarding the incorporation of aleinu and the mourner’s kaddish into the daily and Shabbat services in Ashkenaz, beginning in the late twelfth century. Evidence is drawn from manuscripts dating through the fifteenth century. When discussing issues current during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, I rely on evidence drawn from early printed siddurim.

PRINTING AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ASHKENAZIC LITURGY The introduction of printing in the second half of the fifteenth century had a profound effect on the religious life of European Jewry. 123 It affected the way halakhah was studied in the yeshivot, and the way halakhic authorities decided issues of Jewish law, and it resulted in a far larger library of works available to the Ashkenazic intellectual elite than had previously been the case. Prior to the advent of printing, halakhic works and minhag books 122 Fraenkel, “Leḥeker toldot hasiddur haAshekenazi,” 32. 123 On the history of the printed Hebrew book, see The Hebrew Book: An Historical Survey, ed. Raphael Posner and Israel M. Ta-Shma ( Jerusalem, 1975). On the developments in European society accompanying the introduction of printing, see Elizabeth L. Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-modern Europe, Volumes 1–2 Complete in One Volume (Cambridge, 1979), especially chapters 1–4. On the impact of printing on Jewish culture, see David B. Ruderman, Early Modern Jewry: A New Cultural History (Princeton and Oxford, 2010), 99–111; Elchanan Reiner, “The Ashkenazi Elite at the Beginning of the Modern Era: Manuscript versus Printed Book,” Polin 10 (1977): 85–98.

Introduction · 41 circulated locally and had local import; they were not known beyond the circle of the disciples of the author. For example, an authoritative early Ashkenazic halakhic work, such as a précis of the laws on a particular topic, might be the subject of study in the yeshivah. The head of the yeshivah would lecture on the text, with his students noting his interpretations as glosses in the margins of their own copies of the manuscript. When these manuscripts were themselves copied, the glosses might be incorporated into the body of the text. “It was the new, complex text that they produced, which included parts of the original codes together with the teachings of the later authorities, that became authoritative, rather than the original text itself.” 124 That text might retain its canonical status for only a generation or two, as the teachings of the head of the yeshivah in the next generation were absorbed into the text, and the new, even more multilayered text became the codex to be studied. The advent of printing challenged the authority of the narrow canon of texts that had comprised the traditional Ashkenazic library. According to Elchanan Reiner: The evolution of this tradition since the mid-fourteenth century had been based on a limited canon created, for the most part, within the confines of Ashkenazi culture itself. Among its sources of authority, besides the literary tradition, were local custom, that is, the oral custom of each community, which in fact was largely considered to override the literary tradition.  125 Beginning in the late fifteenth century, a wide array of Sephardic works, including biblical commentaries, responsa and talmudic novellae, kabbalistic literature, and philosophical works began to flow into Ashkenaz from the new printing centers in northern Italy, Constantinople, Amsterdam, and elsewhere. 126 The wider availability of halakhic texts and compendia threatened to erode the authority of the rabbinic elite, as authority now shifted to the written text, 124 Elchanan Reiner, “The Ashkenazi Elite,” 92. 125 Reiner, “The Ashkenazi Elite,” 91. 126 Reiner, “The Ashkenazi Elite,” 92–93.

42 · Introduction available to everyone, and away from the oral teachings and rulings of the rabbinic scholar. 127 The introduction of printing also had a transformative effect on the experience of worship for many Jews. Prior to the advent of printing, few Jews were able to afford the purchase of a siddur, and most recited the prayers by heart or fulfilled their obligation to recite the prayers by listening to the sheliaḥ tzibbur recite the prayers aloud. 128 While some communities possessed a siddur for use by the sheliaḥ tzibbur, there is evidence that in many communities even the sheliaḥ tzibbur had to pray by memory. 129 The greater affordability of printed siddurim made it possible for many worshippers, especially those who had been unable to memorize the statutory prayers, to become much more actively engaged in the service. According to Stefan Reif: In the Jewish liturgical sphere the congregation had relied on the rabbi for the theory, on the ḥazzan for the practice and sometimes on an authoritative exemplar held at the synagogue for checking a text. Now there was a partial transformation of their involvement from doing little more than listening to actually reading a text. 130 Liturgical works were among the religious texts most frequently printed during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. According to Meir Rafeld and Joseph Tabory, liturgical works comprise only twelve percent of known Jewish incunabula – books printed before 1501 – and more than two hundred editions of siddurim and maḥzorim were printed before 1639. 131 Reif notes that evidence for the widespread availability of siddurim can be seen in artistic representations of synagogues and Jewish worship, for while “the artistic representations 127 Reiner, “The Ashkenazi Elite,” 87–88. 128 On the scarcity of siddurim in medieval Ashkenazic communities, see Abraham Berliner, “Hashpa’at sifrei-hadefus al tarbut hayehudim,” in Ketavim nivḥarim ( Jerusalem, 1945; reprint 1969), 2:129; Ta-Shma, Hatefillah haAshkenazit hakedumah, 29–32; Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 238; Ephraim Kanarfogel, “Prayer, Literacy, and Literary Memory in the Jewish Communities of Medieval Europe,” in Ra‘anan S. Boustan, Oren Kosansky, and Marina Rustow. eds., Jewish Studies at the Crossroads of Anthropology and History: Authority, Diaspora, Tradition (Philadelphia, 2011), 257–58. 129 Kanarfogel, “Prayer, Literacy, and Literary Memory,” 256, 258. 130 Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 238. 131 Rafeld and Tabory, Siddur Hanau, 6.

Introduction · 43 of earlier synagogues and Jewish worshippers show few prayer-books; the later they are, the more common become examples of their presence.” 132 The development of printing also had far-reaching effects on the siddur and on the liturgy itself. 133 Thus, Elbogen and Reif note that the availability of large numbers of printed siddurim contributed to an increase in the level of censorship of Jewish liturgical texts, as words and phrases deemed offensive to Christians or to the Church were altered or expunged. 134 It has often been asserted that the introduction of printing led to the standardization of religious texts and practice. 135 This is certainly true with regard to the text of the Talmud, as the layout and pagination of the Bomberg edition of 1519–1523 served as the model for most subsequent editions. 136 In the realm of praxis, the emergence of printed ḥumashim led to a dramatic reduction in the diversity of haftarot read on various occasions. 137 The question arises, what effect did the emergence of printing have on the siddur and the texts included in it? The emergence of the printed book did not result in the development of a standard format or content for the siddur. Indeed, the page format and even the contents of the Ashkenazic siddurim in 132 Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 238. 133 For a general discussion of the effects of printing on Jewish liturgy, see Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, trans. Raymond P. Scheindlin (Philadelphia; New York, 1993), 284–85; Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 235–40. 134 Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 285; Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 239–40; Yoel H. Kahn, The Three Blessings: Boundaries, Censorship, and Identity in Jewish Liturgy (New York, 2011), 45–59; Langer, Cursing the Christians, 103–4; 112–16. 135 On the contribution of printing to the standardization of Christian liturgies, see John F. Baldovin, “Christian Worship to the Era of the Reformation,” in The Making of Jewish and Christian Worship, ed. Paul Bradshaw and Lawrence Hoffman (South Bend, IN, 1991), 156. 136 Marvin Heller, “Designing the Talmud: The Origins of the Printed Talmudic Page,” Tradition 29:3 (1995): 40. The process of standardization was a gradual one. Yet, while “non-standard” editions of the Talmud were printed at least through the middle of the seventeenth century, the standard format was fully established by the beginning of the eighteenth; Heller, “Designing the Talmud,” 27. 137 David E. S. Stein, “The Haftarot of Etz Hayim: Exploring the Historical Interplay of Customs, Ḥumashim, and Halakhah,” Conservative Judaism 54:3 (2002): 70.

44 · Introduction our sample vary widely. Some siddurim include only the basic liturgy, while others include an extensive collection of additional readings, prayers, and supplications. Some include the full texts of the prayers each time they occur, while in others, the full text of the shema or of the amidah may appear only in shaḥarit, with just a reference to what is to be recited provided in the other services. Some very small siddurim omit those passages that are recited only by the sheliaḥ tzibbur or the prayers that surround the reading of the Torah. Furthermore, the printers of some of the siddurim devoted considerable attention to esthetic elements, such as typography, the use of “white space,” and decorative page borders, while others appear to have been completely unconcerned with esthetics. Printing, at least in its first one hundred and fifty years, also appears to have made only a limited contribution to the standardization of the wording of the prayers themselves. Indeed, the establishment of a correct, standardized text for the prayers does not appear to have been a major concern of the printers. Not only do a substantial number of variants persist throughout the period under study, but even where a commentary is printed alongside the text of the prayers, the wording of the prayer texts sometimes differs from that cited or prescribed by the commentary. 138 Thus, the text of hashkiveinu in Siddur Thiengen 1560 is not in accord with the commentary of R. Naftali Hertz Treves that is printed with it, nor is the text of the eulogy of hashkiveinu in R. Isaiah Horowitz’s Siddur sha’ar hashamayim consistent with that prescribed in his commentary. Similarly, the text of hama’ariv aravim in Siddur sha’ar hashamayim differs from that in the commentary. Sometimes a variant appears on one page, but not on another. For example, in the benediction hama’ariv aravim, Siddur Amsterdam 1664 and Siddur Dyhernfurth 1690 have ma’avir in the weekday service, but uma’avir in the Shabbat service. We can see the absence of a standardized text most clearly in the benedictions of birkhot hashaḥar, where our sample of siddurim 138 Aharon Mirsky has pointed to discrepancies between the wording of prayers cited in commentaries and the wording of the prayer texts in the siddurim themselves in two siddurim published during the twentieth century; Aharon Mirsky, “Shinuyei nusaḥ bein hapeirush levein hamitpareish besiddurim,” Kiryat Sefer 54 (1979):195–200.

Introduction · 45 displays over ten variations in wording or in the order in which the blessings are recited. However, the development of printing did contribute to the standardization of the liturgy in another way, for the new technology led to a reduction in the variety of liturgical rites, and to the ultimate disappearance of some. 139 As Elbogen explains, “The variety of rites also had to be reduced, for it did not pay to publish books of particular traditions for every tiny group.” With regard to the various rites of Ashkenzaz, this can be seen in the merging of the local rites of Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, and Russia into one “minhag Polin,” and to the publication of an ever-decreasing number of siddurim of the western “minhag Askhenaz,” a development evident already during the seventeenth century.

139 Abraham Berliner, “He’arot al hasiddur,” in Ketavim nivḥarim, 1:17; Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 284; Rafeld and Tabory, Siddur Hanau, 12; Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 236–37. Paradoxically, Reif argues that printing also contributed to the preservation of local rites that would otherwise have disappeared completely, p. 235.

Chapter 1

The Old Will Be Renewed: Vehu Raḥum Interpreted and Reinterpreted The old will be renewed and the new will be made sacred Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (Igrot Rayah I, 164)

Since the time of Leopold Zunz (1794–1886), the primary focus of Jewish liturgical research has been the history and development of liturgical rites, rituals, texts, and customs. 1 Less attention has been devoted to the history of the interpretation of those texts and rituals. By interpretation, I mean the determination of how a particular prayer or ritual was understood, whether by those who composed it, by those who instituted it in the liturgy, or by those who recited or performed it. There are, of course, notable exceptions. For example, Reuven Kimelman subjects both the “shema and its benedictions” and the weekday amidah to a detailed literary analysis, illuminating how these liturgical rubrics were understood in rabbinic circles in



1 For reviews of liturgical research, see Richard S. Sarason, “On the Use of Method in the Modern Study of Jewish Liturgy,” in Approaches to Ancient Judaism I, ed. William Scott Green (Missoula, MT, 1978), 97–172; “Recent Developments in the Field of Jewish Liturgy,” in The Study of Ancient Judaism I: Mishnah, Midrash, Siddur, ed. Jacob Neusner (New York, 1981); Reuven Kimelman, “Liturgical Studies in the 90’s,” in The Jewish Book Annual 52 (1994–5): 59–72; Lawrence A. Hoffman, “Jewish Liturgy and Jewish Scholarship: Method and Cosmology,” in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, ed. Martin Goodman (Oxford, 2002), 733–55; Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 1–21.

47

48  · The Old Will Be Renewed late antiquity. 2 Ruth Langer shows how a new understanding of the meaning of the public reading of the Torah led to the development of the elaborate ritual that now accompanies its reading. 3 Kimelman’s studies focus upon how a liturgical rubric was understood in one period, while Langer described how a new interpretation led to a change in the liturgy. In this and in the following two chapters, I examine the relationship between interpretation and liturgical practice. Each chapter is devoted to one dimension of this relationship. In this chapter we look at a case where new interpretations simply gave new meaning to an old liturgical text, without bringing about a significant change in practice. Through interpretation, the recitation of the ancient liturgy was infused with new meaning. The next chapter is devoted to a study of several cases where new interpretations and legal arguments were brought to justify the continued recitation of prayers when the original rationale given for their recitation no longer applied, and when the continued recitation of those passages appeared to violate accepted halakhic norms. The third chapter focuses on cases in which changes in the interpretation of a liturgical practice led to changes in that practice. The example I bring in this chapter is the recitation of vehu raḥum (Ps 78:38; 20:10) at the beginning of the evening (arvit) service, and I trace the history of its interpretation through the seventeenth century.



2 Reuven Kimelman, “The Shema‘ Liturgy: From Covenant Ceremony to Coronation,” in Kenishta 1, ed. Joseph Tabory (Ramat Gan, 2001): 9–105; “The Literary Structure of the Amidah and the Rhetoric of Redemption,” in The Echoes of Many Texts: Reflections on Jewish and Christian Traditions, Essays in Honor of Lou H. Silberman, ed. William G. Dever and J. Edward Wright (Atlanta, GA, 1981), 171–218. See also Joseph Heinemann, “Kedushah umalkhut shel keriat shema ukedushah de’amidah,” in Iyyunei tefillah, ed. Avigdor Shinan (Jerusalem, 1983). 3 Ruth Langer, “From Study of Scripture to a Reenactment of Sinai: The Emergence of the Synagogue Torah Service,” Worship 72:1 (1998): 43–67; “Celebrating the Presence of the Torah: The History and Meaning of Reading Torah,” in My People’s Prayer Book 3, ed. Lawrence A. Hoffman (Woodstock, VT, 2000), 19–27; “Shelavim kedumim behitpatḥutah shel hotza’at haTorah vehakhnasatah beveit hakeneset bey’mei habanayim,” in Kenishta: Meḥkarim al beit hakeneset ve’olamo, 2, ed. Joseph Tabory (Ramat Gan, 2003), 99–118; “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 121–59.

Chapter 1 · 49

THE RECITATION OF VEHU RAḤUM IN ARVIT Vehu raḥum is recited at the beginning of the arvit service, just before barekhu. Most of the sources that mention this custom indicate that the sheliaḥ tzibbur, the prayer leader, recites vehu raḥum, as in most congregations today. In some communities, however, it was recited responsively, with the sheliaḥ tzibbur reciting Psalm 78:38, and the congregation responding with both Psalm 78:38 and Psalm 20:10. 4 Kol bo describes a somewhat different practice: While the ḥazzan is still reciting [the words of the verse] vehu raḥum, the congregation should say, “The Lord our God is a compassionate God. Do not fail us nor let us perish; do not forget the covenant that You made on oath with our fathers, as it is written: For the Lord your God is a compassionate God: He will not fail you nor will He let you perish; He will not forget the covenant which He made on oath with your fathers (Deut 4:31),” and then go back and recite vehu raḥum. 5 The recitation of vehu raḥum at the beginning of arvit is not mentioned in either the Babylonian Talmud or the Talmud of the Land of Israel. It appears in Seder Rav Amram Gaon, 6 and in texts found 4 Kirchheim, 47. See also Vitry, seder tefillat arvit 2, p. 152 (only MS London), where the congregation recites Deut 4:31 after Ps 20:10; see also Goldschmidt’s notes 23 and 24 in the list of textual variants. 5 Sefer kol bo 28, p. 93. See also Vitry seder tefillat arvit 2, p. 152 (MS JTS 8092); R. Isaac Tyrnau, Sefer haminhagim, ed. Shlomo Spitzer ( Jerusalem, 1979), p. 15; Yosef ometz, 11, p. 4. 6 Seder Rav Amram 1:90, p. 51. See also Siddur Rav Saadiah Gaon, ed. Simchah Assaf, Israel Davidson, and Issachar Joel (Jerusalem, 1970), pp. 26, 41, where vehu raḥum (possibly only Ps 78:38) is included in the prayers recited by the individual who prays alone, but is not mentioned in the order of the service as recited by the congregation. Interestingly, R. Saadiah does include vehu raḥum before ashrei at the beginning of minḥah, both for the individual (p. 25) and for the congregation (p. 41). See Siddur Rav Saadiah, 41 n. 7; Yehiel Zimmels, “Studies in Siddur Rav Saadya,” in Rav Saadya Gaon, ed. J. L. Fishman (Jerusalem, 1943), 541. See also Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah hilkhot tefillah 9:1; R. Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel, Sefer hamanhig, ed. Yitzhak Raphael ( Jerusalem, 1978), p. 118; R. Solomon ben Samson of Garmaise, Siddur of R. Solomon ben Samson of Garmaise, ed. Moshe Hershler (Jerusalem, 1971) 74, p. 130; Sefer harokeaḥ hagadol, ed. Barukh Shimon Schneerson (Jerusalem, 1967) 319, p. 206;

50  · The Old Will Be Renewed in the Cairo genizah, our primary source for the liturgical practices of the Rite of the Land of Israel, often referred to as the Palestinian rite. 7 How, then, can we explain the appearance vehu raḥum at the beginning of arvit in the Babylonian and the Palestinian rites during the Geonic period, and then in all the later rites, including the Ashkenazic rite? One possibility is that it was felt to be appropriate to recite passages from Psalms at the beginning of the arvit service, just as the psalms of pesukei dezimrah precede the shaḥarit service, and ashrei (Ps 84:5; 144:15; 145; 115:18) precedes minḥah. 8 However, while this may





R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms, Siddur harokeaḥ, 78, p. 443; Vitry seder tefillat arvit 2, pp. 158–60; Kol bo 28, p. 93; Sefer Rabbenu David Abudarham, ed., Menahem Avraham Bra’un (Jerusalem, 2001), 304; Tur O.H. 237; Shulḥan arukh O.H. 237:1. The commentary on the siddur entitled the Siddur of R. Solomon ben Samson of Garmaise was attributed originally to R. Solomon ben Samson of Worms by its editor, Moshe Hershler. However, Avraham Grossman has shown that it was probably the work of R. Eliezer bar Nathan of Mainz; Avraham Grossman, Hokhmei Ashkenaz harishonim: Koroteihem, darkam behanhagat hatzibbur, yetzsiratam harukhanit meireishit yishuvam vead gezeirat 1096 ( Jerusalem, 1981), 346–48; Israel M. Ta-Shma, “Al kamah inyanei Maḥzor Vitry,” Alei Sefer 11 (1984): 82 n.2; Reuven Kimelman, “The Daily Amidah and the Rhetoric of Redemption,” Jewish Quarterly Review 79 (1985–1989): 184 n. 63. 7 See the excursus on Vehu Raḥum in the section “Rite of the Land of Israel,” p. 72–79. Vehu raḥum was recited in shaḥarit before barekhu in the Rite of the Land of Israel; Simchah Assaf, “Misefer hatefillah mei’eretz Yisrael,” in Sefer Dinaburg, ed. Isaac Baer, Y. Gutman, M. Shwabe (Jerusalem, 1949), 119–20; and Ezra Fleischer, Tefillah uminhagei tefillah Eretz Yisraeli’im bitekufat hagenizah ( Jerusalem, 1988), where it appears in T-S 6H 6/6 (pp. 245, 247), MS Paris IV.A.79 (pp. 266–67), T-S n.s. 154.12 (pp. 192–93, which has only Ps 20:10; see p. 193 n. 166). In addition, vehu raḥum appears before ashrei at the beginning of minḥah in Siddur Rav Saadiah, 25, 41. Siddur Rav Saadiah also has vehu raḥum at the beginning of arvit when recited by an individual, but not when recited by the congregation, 26, 41. See also Zimmels, “Studies in Siddur Rav Saadya,” 533–41. 8 Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 86. On pesukei dezimrah, see Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 72–76. On the recitation of ashrei at minḥah, see Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 85. Elbogen also suggests that vehu raḥum may have been added before arvit in order “to fill the time until nightfall,” but this explanation is not plausible, as the recitation of these two verses takes but a few seconds. See also Abraham ben Isaac of Narbonne, Sefer ha’eshkol, ed. Shalom Albeck (Jerusalem, 1934/35–1938), hilkhot tefillah 34b. See also the discussion of passages such as these in Ruth Langer, “Biblical Texts in Jewish Prayer: Their History and Function,” in Jewish and Christian Liturgy and Worship: New Insights into Its History and Interaction, ed. Albert Gerhards and Clemens Leonhard (Leiden; Boston, 2007), 63–90. Langer refers to such passages as centos,

Chapter 1 · 51 explain why it might be appropriate to recite passages from Psalms before barekhu at arvit, it does not explain why these particular verses were chosen for that purpose. 9 Yehiel Zimmels suggests that “this verse should be understood as a plea for forgiveness, in general. It represents the [worshiper’s] seeking permission [from God] to approach God in prayer and in supplication, and its purpose is not to seek forgiveness for any particular sin.” 10 Liebreich, however, rejects Zimmels’ explanation, both because the recitation of vehu raḥum at arvit is far removed from the prayers of supplication and petitions for pardon of sins that appear in the arvit service itself, and because he prefers to find an overarching explanation for the use of Psalm 78:38 throughout the liturgy. 11 He suggests that Psalm 78:38 finds repeated use, especially at the beginning of liturgical units, because the words, He is merciful, are “expressive of the loving and compassionate aspect of God’s character,” as opposed to the harsher quality of divine Justice. 12 The verse refers to a compassion that is not connected with forgiveness of sin, in particular, but with all of the other major themes of the liturgy. 13 According to Liebreich, as the worshiper prepares to recite the statutory prayers, he recites vehu raḥum, which reflects the complete “reliance of the worshiper upon divine love and compassion.” 14 Liebreich’s explanation of the role of Psalm 78:38 as the prelude to the arvit service is not convincing. It is true that the liturgy is replete with appeals to God’s mercy and with references to God as a Latin term that refers to a composition formed by joining scraps from several authors, or in this case, from biblical verses. She notes that rabbinic centos appear exclusively in the elements of the liturgy that crystallized after the rabbinic statutory prayers and that are recited before and after them; p. 71. 9 Liebreich, Leon. “The Liturgical Use of Psalm 78:38,” in Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman, ed. M. Ben Horin (Leiden, 1962), 368. 10 Zimmels, “Studies in Siddur Rav Saadya,” 541. 11 Liebreich, “The Liturgical Use,” 368. 12 Liebreich, “The Liturgical Use,” 369. See also Langer, “Biblical Texts,” 76–77, who argues that prayers of this type “often include words and phrases that are probably not part of the prayer’s message . . . understanding these prayers sometimes requires excluding parts of verses as extraneous to the composition’s message.” 13 Liebreich, “The Liturgical Use,” 369–71. 14 Liebreich, “The Liturgical Use,” 371.

52  · The Old Will Be Renewed the Merciful One, but that very fact argues against the necessity of including an additional reminder of God’s merciful nature at the very beginning of the liturgy. Furthermore, his thesis that it is the opening words of the verse 15 and not its continuation 16 that is the key to understanding its role in the liturgy is belied by the fact that this verse is almost always coupled with Psalm 20:10, May the King answer us when we call, which indicates that this passage is clearly intended to be an appeal to God’s mercy. Rather, following Zimmels, we must seek to understand the mindset of the pious Jew, about to begin his or her evening prayers. The worshiper approaches God, not only to praise Him, but also to seek blessing and salvation for the Jewish people. He desires to come into God’s presence, but does so in fear and in trepidation. His thoughts may echo those of the Psalmist (144:3): What is Man that You should be mindful of him; a human being, that You should think of him? He is aware, not only of his insignificance in the cosmic order, but of his imperfection as well. Can he dare hope that God will respond to the prayers of one such as he? So he recites vehu raḥum, whose comforting words not only reassure him of God’s forgiving, compassionate nature, but also express his plea that God grant atonement for his sins so that the prayers that he is about to utter will be deemed acceptable. To Psalm 78:38 and 20:10, Maḥzor Vitry and others add Deuteronomy 4:31, For the Lord your God is a compassionate God: He will not fail you nor will he let you perish: He will not forget the covenant which He made on oath with your fathers. 17 The biblical context of this third verse reinforces our understanding of vehu raḥum. In Deuteronomy 4:25–31, Moses warns the people of the terrible consequences that will befall them if they are unfaithful to God and to their covenant with Him once they are settled on the Land. But if they repent, they will find that God is also merciful and forgiving: 15 That is, He is merciful. 16 That is, and will not destroy; He restrained His wrath time and again and did not give full vent to His fury. 17 Vitry seder tefillat arvit 2, p. 152. See also Kol bo 28, p. 93; Tyrnau, p. 15, and Yosef ometz 11, p. 4.

Chapter 1 · 53 But if you search there for the Lord your God, you will find Him, if only you seek Him with all your heart and soul – when you are in distress because all these things have befallen you, and in the end, return to the Lord your God and obey Him. For the Lord your God is a compassionate God: He will not fail you nor will He let you perish; He will not forget the covenant which He made on oath with your fathers. 18

EARLY EXPL ANATIONS FOR THE RECITATION OF VEHU RAḤUM IN ARVIT The interpretations of medieval authorities who commented on vehu raḥum show a very different understanding from that of the modern critics cited above. 19 The varied explanations given by the medieval authorities have in common the notion that the recitation of vehu raḥum at arvit is related to issues of sin, punishment, and atonement that are quite specific to the time at which it is recited. Most frequently, these authorities and commentators mention several related reasons, which are presented as alternative explanations, for the recitation of vehu raḥum. The earliest presentation of these interpretations can be found in the works of the School of Rashi. Sefer hapardes 20 suggests four reasons for the recitation of vehu raḥum at the beginning of arvit, all relating to the issues of sin and atonement: the first three of these reasons also appear in Siddur Rashi 21 and in Maḥzor Vitry, 22 as well as in the writings and commentaries of later authorities. We refer to these interpretations as the “traditional explanations” for the recitation of vehu raḥum at arvit. 1. “[The sages] enacted the recitation of vehu raḥum in the evening service because at night there is no offering to atone for sin, but in the 18 Deut 4:29–31. 19 Neither R. Amram (p. 51) nor R. Saadiah (p. 26) provide a rationale for the recitation of vehu raḥum at the beginning of arvit. 20 Sefer hapardes, p. 302. 21 Siddur Rashi, 425, pp. 212–13. 22 Vitry seder tefillat arvit 2, p. 149.

54  · The Old Will Be Renewed morning and in the afternoon, when there are tamid offerings that atone, one need not recite it.” This interpretation is transmitted in the name of R. Eliezer ben Isaac “the Great” of Mainz. 2. “It was customary for sinners [who were subject to the punishment of lashes] to be flogged before arvit. As the punishment was concluded, the people would ask [God’s] mercy upon the one who had been flogged, and [one, or he, would] say vehu raḥum.” 3. “Those who administered the lashes would recite vehu raḥum and so forth as they counted out the lashes. As they concluded its third repetition, they would reach the number thirty-nine [which was the usual number of lashes imposed].” 23 4. The thirteen words in vehu raḥum correspond to the thirteen attributes of God’s mercy transmitted to Moses on Mt. Sinai. While Sefer hapardes presents these explanations as alternatives, there is a progression in their understanding of how vehu raḥum relates to atonement. The first explanation, given in the name of Rabbi Eliezer the Great, suggests that atonement is obtained through the Temple offerings. The problem presented is that while the morning and afternoon sacrifices atone for sins committed at night and through much of the day, there is no offering to atone for sins committed after the minḥah offering is sacrificed. According to Rabbi Eliezer, vehu raḥum was instituted to make up for the lack of a nighttime sacrifice. This interpretation is problematic in two respects. It appears to explain why vehu raḥum was recited at night while the sacrificial system still functioned, but it does not really do even that, for one might argue that the morning and minḥah offerings together should be sufficient to atone for sins committed throughout the entire day, with the morning offering atoning for sins committed after the 23 Vehu raḥum has thirteen words. On thirty-nine as the standard number of lashes, see Makkot 22b. According to the Mishnah, the lashes are administered while Deut 28:59, which has thirteen words, is recited and then repeated until the proper number of lashes has been meted out. The printed editions of the Mishnah also mention Deut 29:8 and Ps 78:38, each of which has thirteen words. Our sources on vehu raḥum mention only Ps 78:38 in this context. Three repetitions of this verse would comprise a total of thirty-nine words.

Chapter 1 · 55 previous day’s minḥah offering. What need is there for an additional atonement offering at arvit? Furthermore, it does not explain why vehu raḥum should be recited at arvit, or only at arvit, since the cessation of the sacrifices. It should now also be at shaḥarit and at minḥah. 24 The second and third interpretations cited in Sefer hapardes suggest that atonement for one’s sins can be obtained through the lashes that are meted out to the sinner by the courts. 25 In theory, at least, this means of atonement continues to be operative, even after the destruction of the Temple and the cessation of the offerings. But why, then, is vehu raḥum recited on Saturday night? After all, lashes were not administered on Shabbat afternoon. And what is to happen when the community no longer has the power, or does not exercise its power, to impose corporal punishment on transgressors? What if one’s sins are not of a nature that would make one liable to lashes? It is unclear how, according to these interpretations, the recitation of vehu raḥum is to effect atonement without the actual lashes being administered. Perhaps what is being suggested is that the recitation of vehu raḥum in the early evening came to be an ingrained custom at a time when corporal punish 24 Others who cite this interpretation resolve this issue by suggesting that since the destruction of the Temple, the recitation of the shaḥarit and minḥah tefillot, which correspond to and take the place of the morning and afternoon offerings, have the same effect. But since there was no evening sacrifice, the recitation of arvit has no atoning power. It is for this reason that vehu raḥum is recited at arvit, to atone for the sins committed by the people after the time of the minḥah prayers. See, for example, Hamanhig, pp. 118–19; Moses Mintz, She’eilot uteshuvot Moshe Mintz, ed. Jonathan Shraga Domb (Jerusalem, 1990/91) 81, pp. 393–94. R. Joel Sirkes, Bayit ḥadash on Tur O.H. 237, s.v. seder tefillat arvit sees vehu raḥum as a plea to God that He grant atonement despite the lack of a tamid offering. 25 Hoffman understands this as a reference to lashes that are meted out to dead sinners in Gehinnom. He arrives at this interpretation by arguing that the recitation of vehu raḥum, the change in the eulogy for the blessing formula of hashkiveinu, and the recitation of veshamru on Friday evening are all related to concern for the suffering of the dead in Gehinnom. In doing so, he reads the interpretation of later sources, especially the Zohar and the pseudoepigraphical writing of Moses de Leon, into the comments by sources from the School of Rashi that we have been considering. There is no indication in any of these sources that it is the dead in Gehinnom that are the recipients of the lashes. Lawrence A. Hoffman, The Canonization of the Synagogue Service (South Bend, IN, 1979), 74–79; My People’s Prayer Book IX, ed. Lawrence A. Hoffman (Woodstock, VT, 2005), 46.

56  · The Old Will Be Renewed ment was administered to sinners in the late afternoon, and that the custom of reciting this passage persisted even after the practice that gave rise to it was discontinued. However, there is little evidence that corporal punishment was meted out after minḥah in early Ashkenaz. According to Avraham Grossman, R. Gershom ben Judah prescribed flogging in at least two cases, and was probably not the only early Ashkenazic authority to do so. 26 While this may be the reality to which the sources from the School of Rashi refer, Grossman’s sources do not mention the time for the administration of these lashes. The administration of lashes was also a feature of the penitential practices of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, and was prescribed by later authorities influenced by them. 27 In his study of repentance and self-flagellation in the writings of German and Polish authorities from the mid-fourteenth through the mid-seventeenth centuries, Jacob Elbaum cites cases where lashes were prescribed as penance by R. Jacob Weil, R. Israel Bruna, R. Moses Mintz, R. Solomon ben Moses Leibish, R. Meir ben Gedaliah of Lublin and R. Isaiah Horowitz. 28 Of these, only R. Solomon ben Moses Leibish and R. Meir ben Gedaliah state that the lashes are to be administered between minḥah and arvit, and only R. Solomon ben Moses Leibish mentioned the recitation of vehu raḥum as the lashes were administered. 29 In this, they may have been influenced more by the literary sources under discussion than by a living tradition that lashes are to be administered before arvit and accompanied by the recitation of vehu raḥum. 26 Grossman, Ḥokhmei Ashkenaz harishonim, 132. See also Ephraim Kanarfogel, “Rabbinic Attitudes toward Nonobservance in the Medieval Period,” in Jewish Tradition and the Nontraditional Jew, ed. Jacob J. Schacter (Northvale, NJ, 1992), 14–17. 27 On the penitential practices of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, see Marcus, Piety and Society, 120–29; Jacob Elbaum, Teshuvat halev vekabbalat yisurim: Iyunim beshittot hateshuvah shel ḥokhmei Ashkenaz vePolin, 1348–1648 (Jerusalem, 1992), 11–17. On parallels with Christian penitential practices, see Marcus, Piety and Society, 7–9, and 150 notes 54, 62. 28 Elbaum, Teshuvat halev, 19–21, 25, 46–48, 217, 232. Authorities also mention the Ashkenazic custom of subjecting oneself to lashes on the eve of Yom Kippur, following minḥah; R. Jacob ben Moses Moellin, Sefer Maharil hilkhot erev yom hakippurim 5, p. 317; Tur O.H. 607 (end) and Shulhan arukh O.H. 607:6. My thanks to Ephraim Kanarfogel for referring me to the references in Grossman and Elbaum. 29 Elbaum, Teshuvat halev, 47, 232.

Chapter 1 · 57 Despite their weaknesses, one or more of these explanations is cited by almost all later authorities who sought to explain the recitation of vehu raḥum at arvit. All of these authorities cite the first of the traditional explanations, and all except Kol bo and Orḥot ḥayyim also quote one or both of the interpretations relating to the administration of lashes. 30 Many also suggest additional explanations and interpretations. For example, Siddur Rashi, Maḥzor Vitry, Kol bo, and Orḥot ḥayyim suggest that “because he sins throughout the day, in the evening he must recite vehu raḥum,” 31 An expanded version of the first interpretation cited in Hapardes appears in Vitry and in Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson, as well as in such Provençal and Sephardic sources as Hamanhig, Kol bo, Orḥot ḥayyim, Abudarham and Beit Yosef. 32 These sources quote a midrash on Isaiah 1:21 that appears in Midrash Tanḥuma, Pesikta deRab Kahana, Pesikta Rabbati, and Song of Songs Rabbah. 33 The text of

30 Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson 47, p. 130 (1, 2, 3); Hamanhig, pp. 118–19 (1,3); Sefer harokeaḥ 319, p. 206 (1); 78, p. 443 (2), p. 443; Zedekiah ben Abraham Anav HaRofe, Sefer shibbolei haleket hashalem, ed. Samuel K. Mirsky (New York, 1966) 49, p. 258 (1, 2); Kol bo ( Jerusalem, 1996/97) 28, p. 93 (1); Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen of Lunel, Sefer orḥot ḥayyim (Florence 1749/50; reprint Jerusalem, 1955) din tefillat arvit 1 (1); Abudarham (ed. Bra’un) 304; Sefer Abudarham hashalem, ed. Solomon Wertheimer ( Jerusalem, 1963), 137; 144 (1, 3, citing Hamanhig); Tur O.H. 237 (1, 2, 3); Tyrnau, p. 15 (1, 2); Beit Yosef on Tur O.H. 237, s.v. seder tefillat arvit and vezeh leshon hakol bo (1, 2, 3); Teshuvot Moshe Mintz 81, pp. 393–94 (1); Moses Mat of Przemysl, Matteh Moshe, ed. Mordecai Ḥanokh Knoblowicz (Jerusalem, 1977/78) 4:381 (1, 2, 3). The relationship between Kol bo and Orḥot ḥayyim is not clear, but they share much in common. They are thought by many to be the work of the same author, while others hold one to be an expansion or a condensation of the other. For a discussion of these issues, see Shlomo Zalman Havlin, “Kol Bo,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 12:272. 31 This interpretation is found in Siddur Rashi 425, p. 213; Vitry seder tefillat arvit 2, p. 149; Sefer harokeaḥ 319; Kol bo 28, p. 93; Orḥot ḥayyim din tefillat arvit 1; and Beit Yosef on Tur O.H. 337, s.v. vezeh leshon hakol bo. 32 Vitry seder tefillat arvit 2, p. 148 (only MS London); Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson 47, p. 130 (where it is attributed to R. Eliezer ben Isaac of Mainz); Hamanhig, pp. 118–19; Kol bo 28, p. 93; Orḥot ḥayyim din tefillat arvit 1; Abudarham (ed. Bra’un), 304; (ed. Wertheimer), 137, 144 (quoting Hamanhig); and Beit Yosef on Tur O.H. 237, s.v. vezeh leshon hakol bo. 33 Tanḥuma Phineḥas 13; Pesikta deRab Kahana, trans. William G. Braude and Israel Kapstein (Philadelphia, 1975) 5:17, 6:4, 15:7, pp. 119, 136, 281; Pesikta Rabbati, trans.

58  · The Old Will Be Renewed the midrash, which does not itself mention vehu raḥum, is as follows (Braude translation): Said R. Yudan in the name of R. Simon, no man who lodged in Jerusalem for a full day could stay possessed of his sin. How so? The morning offering made expiation for transgressions done in the nighttime; and the offering at dusk [minḥah] made expiation for transgressions done in the daytime. No matter what, no man who lodged in Jerusalem for a full day could stay in possession of his sin. And the proof from Scripture? Righteousness lodged in her (Isa 1:21) – [that is, “He who lodged in Jerusalem was made righteous”]. After citing all or part of this midrash, these sources refer to R. Eliezer’s teaching, that is, that the shaḥarit and minḥah services correspond to the morning and afternoon offerings, but that the arvit service does not correspond to an offering. Some note that vehu raḥum is also recited in the morning service, in pesukei dezimrah and in kedushah desidra, as well as before arvit, perhaps suggesting that vehu raḥum effects atonement in the absence of a morning tamid offering, as well. In the fifteenth century, R. Moses Mintz cited only the first of the traditional interpretations, but not those relating to lashes. He then continued with his own interpretation: “And also, since at night we entrust (mafkidim) our souls into His hand, we ask that He grant us atonement for our sins and return our deposit (pikadon), that is, our souls, as it is written: Into Your hand I entrust (afkid) my spirit (Ps 31:6). 34 Sefer hapardes and other commentaries use gematria and numerology to explain the recitation of vehu raḥum. Sefer hapardes relates that “there are those who say that the thirteen words of vehu raḥum correspond to the thirteen attributes of God’s mercy transmitted to Moses on Mt. Sinai.” 35 Presumably, the recitation of vehu raḥum

William G. Braude (New Haven, 1968) 15:24, p. 338; 16:7, p. 358; Song of Songs Rab. 1:9. 34 Teshuvot Moshe Mintz 81, p. 394 35 Exod 34:6–7a. This passage was recited when there was a need to assuage divine anger, and it came to be used as the core of the penitential prayers recited during

Chapter 1 · 59 would bring forgiveness for sins, much as the recitation of the thirteen attributes was thought to do. The interpretation of R. Eleazer ben Judah of Worms, one of the early masters of the pietistic school of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, makes much more extensive use of gematria and numerology. 36 Numerology and gematria were central features of the interpretive approach of both R. Judah ben Samuel Heḥasid and his student R. Eleazar ben Judah. According to Joseph Dan: Rabbi Judah maintained that the text of the prayers represents a harmonious structure, uniting all of Scripture, ancient, sacred texts, as well as all cosmic, celestial, and human phenomena. There is a numerical structure, Rabbi Judah insisted, which gives meaning to the number of the letters, words, names of God, specific letters and specific words in the prayers. The importance of the prayerbook cannot be judged by the understanding of the contents alone; the prayers are first and foremost a sacred text which reflects the harmonious, esoteric structure of existence.  37 R. Eleazar notes that the word aḥikha [your brother] in Deuteronomy 25:3 38 has the numerical value of thirty-nine, corresponding to the number of lashes imposed upon the sinner. This comment clearly refers to the third of our traditional explanations, but it does so in a novel way. R. Eleazer begins with gematria, but he then draws several additional connections using the tools of numerology. Thus, vehu raḥum, which has thirteen words, is recited three times during the shaḥarit service. 39 When these thirteen words are recited, God remembers the merit of the patriarchs, whose names have a total of thirteen letters, 40 and He remembers as well the thirteen attributes of the weeks leading up to Yom Kippur, and indeed, on Yom Kippur itself. See Rosh Hashanah 17b. 36 Siddur harokeaḥ 78, p. 443. 37 Dan, “Prayer as Text,” 37. 38 He may be given up to forty lashes, but not more, lest being flogged further, to excess, your brother be degraded before your eyes. 39 In the collection of verses recited at the beginning of pesukei dezimrah, in yehi khevod, immediately before ashrei, and in kedushah desidra. 40 ‫אברהם יצחק יעקב‬.

60  · The Old Will Be Renewed His mercy, 41 R. Ishmael’s thirteen hermeneutical rules, 42 and several other terms and concepts that appear in sets of thirteens. All of these correlations serve to evoke God’s mercy and compassion on those who recite vehu raḥum, and indeed, on the entire Jewish people. 43 While vehu raḥum is recited at the beginning of arvit on weekdays, it is omitted, according to Ashkenazic custom, on the eve of Shabbat and festivals. The origins and rationale for this custom are unclear. According to most manuscripts of Seder Rav Amram, Rav Amram ruled that vehu raḥum is to be recited on Shabbat. 44 Lawrence Hoffman refers to an “anonymous [Geonic] responsum carried in two sources which forbids its recitation,” but this responsum is probably a forgery by R. Moses de Leon, the primary author of the Zohar. 45 41 Exod 34:6–7a. 42 Baraita deRabbi Ishmael, the introduction to Sifra. It is recited daily in the birkhot hashaḥar section of the shaḥarit service. 43 It is interesting that while R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms provided all of these explanations for the recitation of vehu raḥum in shaḥarit, with regard to arvit he said simply, “Since they administer lashes between minḥah and ma’ariv, one says vehu raḥum . . . which has thirteen words to remind one of the merit of the patriarchs”; Siddur harokeaḥ 78, p. 433. 44 Seder Rav Amram II:3, p. 61. Hoffman, Canonization, 74–76, questions the authenticity of this reading. He notes that according to the Oxford manuscript the ḥazzan begins with barekhu, and argues that this reading is the correct one. But Hoffman’s argument is not convincing. According to Daniel Goldschmidt, this manuscript follows the traditions of northern France in the prayer texts that it contains. See Seder Rav Amram, xii. If he is correct, at least in this instance, the Oxford manuscript’s omission of vehu raḥum may reflect the later northern French and Ashkenazic traditions, rather than the view of Rav Amram himself. Simhah Assaf published a manuscript, much of whose material is drawn from Seder Rav Amram, which includes the recitation of vehu raḥum on Friday evening; Simhah Assaf, “Mitokh siddur tefillah kadmon,” in Misifrut haGeonim ( Jerusalem, 1932/33), 71–89. 45 Hoffman, Canonization, 75, refers to a responsum cited in Benjamin Menasseh Lewin, Otzar haGeonim (Haifa, 1928), 1:14. Lewin prints two variants of this responsum, one from Teshuvot haGeonim sha’arei teshuvah, ed. Moshe Mordecai Meyuhas, with notes and commentary by David Lavin and Wolf Leiter (Leipzig, 1858; reprint New York, 1946), 80; and the other from Sefer ha’eshkol, ed. Benjamin Tzevi Auerbach (Halberstadt, 1867; reprint Bnei Brak, n.d.) 26, p. 60. This responsum is not found in Albeck’s more reliable edition of Sefer ha’eshkol. In Sha’arei teshuvah it is attributed to R. Hai Gaon. But this attribution is questionable, and indeed, it is probably not a Geonic responsum at all. Current scholarship attributes it to R. Moses de Leon. For a discussion of this responsum see Scholem, Major Trends, 200 and n. 146; Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, ed. R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, trans. Allan Arkush (Philadelphia,

Chapter 1 · 61 Early Ashkenazic sources, such as Siddur Rashi, 46 Maḥzor Vitry, 47 and Or zarua 48 omit vehu raḥum, but without giving a reason for doing so, while the early Sephardic practice was to include vehu raḥum on Friday evenings. 49 A responsum attributed to Jacob of Marvege rules that both vehu raḥum and the eulogy shomer amo yisrael at the conclusion of hashkiveinu are to be omitted on Friday evening. It cites biblical verses that appear to indicate that peace and security reign on Shabbat, and argues that there is no need to be concerned about the dangers that might be averted through the recitation of these passages. 50 However, this responsum is in all probability also a forgery by R. Moses de Leon. It is natural that many of the explanations suggested for the omission of vehu raḥum on Shabbat reflect the interpretations given for its recitation on weekdays. Hamanhig suggests that the Franco-German custom of omitting vehu raḥum on Shabbat derives 1987), 200–201; Jacob of Marvege, She’eilot uteshuvot min hashamayim, ed. Reuben Margoliot (Jerusalem, 1956), xxiv n. 11; Israel M. Ta-Shma, “She’eilot uteshuvot min hashamayim – hakovetz vetosefotav,” Tarbiz 57 (1987): 51–56; and Nahman [Neil] Danzig, “Teshuvot haGeonim ‘Sha’arei teshuvah’ ve‘Shu’t min Hashamayim,’” Tarbiz 58 (1988): 21–48. Danzig provides a somewhat different evaluation of the manuscript history of this responsum, but agrees with Ta-Shma that it is the work of Moses de Leon. It is argued that de Leon forged this and other responsa, which contain ideas and teachings from the Zohar, and inserted them into Sha’arei teshuvah and the collection of responsa by Jacob of Marvege in order to support claims for the antiquity of the Zohar itself. Yehudah Liebes argues that the Zohar is the work of a circle of kabbalists that included de Leon, and that these responsa as well should not be ascribed to de Leon alone; Yehudah Liebes, “Hazohar kesefer halakhah,” Tarbiz 64 (1994/95): 598–601. See also Moshe Hallamish, Hakabbalah batefillah, bahalakhah, uvaminhag (Ramat Gan, 2000), 120 and n. 20. 46 Siddur Rashi 475, p. 240. 47 Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 1, p. 168. 48 Or zarua 20 5b. 49 Mishneh Torah hilkhot tefillah 9:9, where no distinction is made between the practice on weekdays and on Shabbat; Hamanhig, pp. 118–19; Abudarham (ed. Bra’un) 304; (ed. Wertheimer) 137, 144; Tur O.H. 267. See also Shamash 29, 1:34. According to Liebes, “Hazohar kesefer halakhah,” 582, vehu raḥum was omitted on Shabbat everywhere but in the area around Toledo. Vehu raḥum was also omitted on Shabbat in the early Italian rite; Abraham I. Schechter, Studies in Jewish Liturgy: Based on a Unique Manuscript Entitled Seder Ḥibbur Berakot (Philadelphia, 1930), 109. 50 ‫אין שטן ואין פגע רע‬. Jacob of Marvege, Teshuvot min hashamayim 74, p. 84.

62  · The Old Will Be Renewed from their understanding that vehu raḥum is recited in the evening because lashes are administered between minḥah and arvit. People stop working on Friday afternoon so as to sanctify Shabbat early, and no lashes are meted out on that day. Hamanhig then connects the Sephardic custom of including vehu raḥum on Shabbat to the lack of an evening offering, a rationale that applies on Shabbat, just as it does on weekdays. 51 R. Eleazer ben Judah of Worms, in Sefer harokeaḥ, explains the recitation of vehu raḥum as being due to the need for atonement in the evening, both because there was no nighttime offering in the Temple and because “people sin throughout the day and then ask forgiveness before going to sleep at night.” This being the case, it would seem that vehu raḥum should be recited on Shabbat, as suggested by Hamanhig, but Sefer harokeaḥ rules that vehu raḥum should be omitted, because “we do not recite prayers of supplication on Shabbat.” 52 However, in his commentary on the prayerbook, R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms attributes the recitation of vehu raḥum at arvit to the practice of flogging sinners in the evening, this time omitting mention of the offerings and the need for atonement. According to this interpretation, vehu raḥum would be omitted for the first of the reasons suggested by Hamanhig. 53 Kol bo associates the recitation of vehu raḥum with the lack of an atoning offering in the evening, but with a slightly different twist. The morning and afternoon prayers atone for sins because they correspond to the morning and afternoon tamid offerings. For a prayer to have atoning power, it must be related in some way to a Temple offering. This is as true for vehu raḥum as it is for the morning and afternoon amidot. The recitation of vehu raḥum in the evening brings atonement because the unconsumed limbs of the previous day’s offerings were burnt on the altar at night. But the leftovers from Friday’s offerings were not burnt on the altar on Friday night,

51 Hamanhig, pp. 118–19. See also Abudarham (ed. Bra’un), 304; (ed. Wertheimer), 137, 144. 52 Sefer harokeaḥ 49 and 319. 53 Siddur harokeaḥ 78, p. 443.

Chapter 1 · 63 for only Shabbat offerings could be placed on the altar on Shabbat. Thus, the recitation of vehu raḥum on Friday night would have no power to atone. Yet, atonement is both desired and necessary, so vehu raḥum was added to pesukei dezimrah in the morning service in order to make up for its absence on Friday night. 54 Elsewhere, Kol bo provides a more spiritual reason for omitting vehu raḥum on Shabbat: “And one does not recite vehu raḥum because it is a supplication, and one does not ask [God] for that which he needs [on Shabbat] lest he become saddened thereby, and it is forbidden for one to be sad [on Shabbat].” 55

SIXTEENTH- AND SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY AUTHORITIES ON THE RECITATION OF VEHU RAḤUM The explanations for the recitation of vehu raḥum, and for its omission on Shabbat, based upon the interpretations found in the early works of the school of Rashi, continue to appear in the comments of later authorities well into the seventeenth century. 56 However, the inherent weaknesses of these interpretations must have eased the way for the acceptance of new interpretations as the influence of the Zohar and other works of kabbalistic literature spread throughout Ashkenaz in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. By the sixteenth century there seems to have been an increasing awareness of the inadequacies of the traditional explanations for the recitation of vehu raḥum. Thus, R. Mordecai Jaffe, writing in the second half of the sixteenth century, continues to cite the lack of an atoning sacrifice at arvit and the two interpretations relating to the flogging of sinners as the reasons for the original institution of 54 Kol bo 28, p. 93. Kol bo’s views are cited in Beit Yosef on Tur O.H. 237, s.v. vezeh leshon haKol bo. 55 Kol bo 35, p. 37. 56 Mordecai Jaffe, Levush hatekhelet (Israel, 1967; reprint of Berdichev edition, 1818–1821), 267:3; Kirchheim, 31 in marginal note.

64  · The Old Will Be Renewed the recitation of vehu raḥum. But he admits that these traditional explanations no longer had much cogency, for in his time sinners were no longer flogged. Nevertheless, he concludes, we continue to recite vehu raḥum. 57 Increasingly, new interpretations were drawn from kabbalistic literature and thought. 58 R. Moses Mat of Przemysl, in the section of his halakhic work Matteh Moshe that deals with the laws of the weekday arvit sevice, mentions only the three traditional interpretations as explanations for the recitation of vehu raḥum. 59 But in the section dealing with the laws of Shabbat he relates an additional interpretation, taken from the Zohar. Three demonic powers, Mashḥit (Destruction), Af (Wrath), and Ḥeimah (Fury), are said to rule over Gehinnom (Hell) under the authority of Dumah, the ruler of Gehinnom. They and their assistants torment the souls of the wicked in Gehinnom throughout the week. Those suffering souls call out in their pain, but their cries go unheard and without response. The punishment of the wicked in Gehinnom begins daily at nightfall, and it is at precisely that moment that vehu raḥum is recited. 60 Vehu raḥum alludes to these three demonic powers, and should thus be seen as a prayer to alleviate the suffering of the souls of those who are being punished in Gehinnom: He is merciful; He will atone for sin and will not destroy (yashḥit); He restrained His wrath (apo) time and again and did not give full vent to His fury (ḥamato).  61 “However, once Shabbat begins, 57 Levush hatekhelet 237. 58 On the interpretation of vehu raḥum in kabbalistic sources and its influence on liturgical practice, especially in lands outside of Ashkenaz, see Moshe Hallamish, Hanhagot kabbaliot beShabbat (Har Nof, 2005), 252–57. 59 Matteh Moshe 3:381. 60 It is not clear whether, according to this tradition, the souls of those already in Gehinnom have some respite during the day, with their punishment resuming with renewed intensity at nightfall, or whether it is the souls of those newly condemned to Gehinnom whose punishment first begins with nightfall. 61 Matteh Moshe 4:424, citing Midrash Ruth hane’elam Zohar ḥadash 79b. The idea that the dead in Gehinnom have rest on Shabbat is found already in rabbinic literature; Sanhedrin 65b; Gen. Rab. 11:5; Pesikta Rabbati 23. On the power to alleviate the suffering of the sinners in Gehinnom through the recitation of prayers and the performance of mitzvot, see Tanḥuma ha’azinu (beginning). On the recitation of vehu raḥum and its effect on those who suffer in Gehinnom see also Zohar terumah II:130a.

Chapter 1 · 65 Judgment disappears from the world, the wicked in Gehinnom have rest, and the angels of destruction have no power over them.” 62 This interpretation also appears, somewhat earlier, in the kabbalistic prayerbook commentary of R. Naftali Hertz Treves (sixteenth century), which was drawn largely from the teachings of the Zohar and Sefer habahir. 63 It is also cited by R. Isaiah Horowitz in his commentary to the siddur. However, unlike Moses Mat, Horowitz omits any reference to the three traditional interpretations, and cites only the explanation drawn from the Zohar. 64 In his commentary on arvit on Shabbat, Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz begins by quoting from the Zohar on the salutary effect that the recitation of barekhu has on the union of the sefirot when it is recited with joy and a shining countenance at the onset of Shabbat. He writes that it is important that the evening service begin with these words of blessing [that is, barekhu], for through its recitation the Shekhinah (et) is joined with Tiferet (Adonai). 65 But “the Holy People are forbidden to begin addressing Her with a verse of judgment [such as vehu raḥum], for She has already separated from the mystery of the Other Side and all masters of judgment have withdrawn and disappeared from Her. Whoever arouses this below stimulates a similar arousal above, and the Holy Throne cannot be adorned with the crown of holiness.” 66 Horowitz, explaining this passage, writes: 62 Matteh Moshe 4:24, citing Midrash Ruth hane’elam Zohar ḥadash 79b. 63 Mal’ah ha’aretz de’ah (Thiengen, 1560). 64 Isaiah Horowitz, Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (Amsterdam, 1717), p. 146a. To the three powers mentioned by Moses Mat, Horowitz adds Avon (Sin). 65 The Sefirot are ten aspects of God. They are said to emanate from Ein Sof, the unknowable, completely transcendent aspect of the Godhead. They thus serve as a sort of bridge between Ein Sof and the material world. On the doctrine of the Sefirot, see Gershom Scholem, “Kabbalah,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 11:627–35. For a discussion of the Sefirot more accessible to the non-specialist, see David S. Ariel, The Mystic Quest: An Introduction to Jewish Mysticism (Northvale, NJ, 1988), 65–88. On the metaphor of joining the Bride and Groom through the recitation of daily and Shabbat prayers, see Lawrence Fine, Physician of the Soul, Healer of the Cosmos: Isaac Luria and His Kabbalistic Fellowship (Stanford, 2003), 224–25. 66 Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (Amsterdam, 1717) 191b, citing and interpreting Zohar terumah II:135. The translation is that of The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, translation and commentary by Daniel C. Matt (Stanford, 2004–2015), 1:135b. See also Menahem ben Benjamin of Recanti, Peirush laTorah vayera 26a.

66  · The Old Will Be Renewed One must not begin by awakening Judgment, that is by reciting vehu raḥum, in which are mentioned all of the heads of the masters of Judgment, viz. Avon, Mashḥit, Af, and Ḥeimah, may the Merciful One save us from them. She [Shekhinah] has separated Herself from all these messengers of Judgment, in that they have been removed to the clefts of the Great Deep, and they do not have the strength to arouse themselves back into the world, for [the onset of Shabbat] is the time for the awakening of Holiness in the world. . . . When [the Zohar] says that “whenever they are aroused [they return to their places and the Holy Place that seeks peace is oppressed by them],” this means that if one arouses and says vehu raḥum below, Judgment will be aroused above. Elsewhere he writes that the recitation of vehu raḥum is a remedy (segulah) to prevent the kelipot, or “husks” (i.e., the forces of evil), from working their will, but on Shabbat the husks do not have any power. Therefore, one who recites it on Shabbat impugns the honor of Shabbat by making it appear as though these forces would otherwise have the power to act on Shabbat. 67

CONCLUSION We have seen, then, that while there was no change in practice among Ashkenazic Jews with regard to the recitation of vehu raḥum, either on Shabbat or on weekdays, since at least the eleventh century the way in which this practice was understood did change over time. The recitation of vehu raḥum on weekdays follows the practice established already in the time of Rav Amram Gaon. But neither Rav Amram nor Rav Saadiah after him explained this practice; they merely noted that vehu raḥum is to be recited. 68 We do not know for sure whether 67 Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (Amsterdam, 1717), 163b. 68 But Rav Saadiah’s view is not clear. He mentions vehu raḥum in arvit only in the section dealing with prayers recited by the individual; he makes no mention of it in his discussion of the prayers of the congregation. He also omits mention of it in the prayers for Shabbat, where he writes, “After sunset keriat shema is recited. And there

Chapter 1 · 67 Rav Amram ruled that vehu raḥum is to be recited on Shabbat, for the manuscript evidence is equivocal. However, according to most manuscripts, it is to be included on Shabbat as well as on weekdays. The Babylonian practice, as established in Seder Rav Amram, is consistent: arvit is always preceded by vehu raḥum, and this may have been the case in the land of Israel as well. We can only guess at the rationale for this practice. Perhaps Zimmels was correct when he suggested that it is appropriate for one to seek God’s forgiveness for any sins that had been committed before approaching Him in prayer. The Jews of Ashkenaz limited the recitation of vehu raḥum to weekdays, omitting it on Shabbat. Sephardic Jews, at least prior to the fourteenth century, followed the older custom of reciting vehu raḥum even on Shabbat. Perhaps it was the lack of consistency in their practice, reciting vehu raḥum on weekdays but not on Shabbat, which led early Ashkenazic authorities, such as those associated with the school of Rashi, to provide us with the earliest recorded explanations for the recitation of vehu raḥum at arvit. But these early authorities provided us with not one, but several explanations for the recitation of vehu raḥum, and these explanations lead us to opposite conclusions with regard to practice. As noted by Sefer hamanhig, the explanation that relates the recitation of vehu raḥum to the lack of an atoning sacrifice in the evening provides support for the Sephardic practice of reciting vehu raḥum on Friday night, while the explanation that relates it to the administration of lashes supports the Ashkenazic practice of omitting vehu raḥum on Friday night, for, according to this interpretation, lashes were not administered on Fridays. But the origin of both of these interpretations seems to have been in Ashkenaz, and most Ashkenazic authorities who lived prior to the sixteenth century cite both of them as alternatives, usually without noting the conflicting outcomes to which they appear to lead. Many authorities also say that “since one sins throughout the day,

are some who include mention of Shabbat in the benedictions before and after [the shema] and say [asher kilah].” Asher kilah is a version of the first benediction before the evening shema that mentions God’s completion of Creation on the seventh day. See Siddur Rav Saadiah, pp. 26, 41, and 109.

68  · The Old Will Be Renewed in the evening one must recite vehu raḥum,” but this interpretation is not very different from that of R. Eliezer the Great, cited by almost all authorities, which connects the recitation of vehu raḥum with the lack of an atoning sacrifice in the evening. With the Zohar, however, we have the introduction of an entirely new understanding of the recitation of vehu raḥum at arvit: the idea that the recitation of vehu raḥum somehow alleviates the suffering of sinners in Gehinnom, whose punishment is intensified during the hours of complete darkness. The Zohar also rules that vehu raḥum is not to be recited on Shabbat, when the souls of those who have been condemned to Gehinnom have rest. 69 Yet, while the Zohar does appear to be the source for the interpretation that links the recitation of vehu raḥum to the suffering of the wicked in Gehinnom, 70 the tradition that the wicked find rest on Shabbat is much older. It is mentioned already in the Talmud and in midrashic sources, some of which suggest that the punishment of the wicked resumes at the moment that arvit concludes on Saturday night. 71 This interpretation found liturgical expression in Seder Rav Amram, which suggests that the respite of those in Gehinnom can be extended by delaying the conclusion of Shabbat by lengthening the arvit service through the addition of veyehi no’am on Saturday night. 72 In Ashkenaz, this 69 The Zohar was written in Spain, and with regard to matters that are purely in the realm of halakhah it tends to follow the rulings of Sephardic authorities. However, Ashkenazic custom was often followed in areas where there had not been a definitive ruling by Sephardic authorities, and in matters governed by custom; Jacob Katz, “Hakhra’ot haZohar bidevar halakhah,” Tarbiz 50 (1980/81): 414–16; Israel M. Ta-Shma, “Hapores sukkat shalom – berakhah vegilgulah,” in Minhag Ashkenaz hakadmon (Jerusalem, 1992), 153–56; and especially, Israel M. Ta-Shma, Hanigleh shebenistar: Leḥeker sheki’ei hahalakhah besefer haZohar (Tel Aviv, 1995). See also Hallamish, Hakabbalah batefillah, 319–21. 70 Orḥot ḥayyim din tefillat arvit 1, p. 94 also includes an interpretation similar to that found in the Zohar. This passage is not found in the parallel passage in Kol bo, thought to have been written by the same author, but it is in two MSS of Orḥot ḥayyim that I was able to check: JTS MS 6750, p. 34b (1499) and JTS MS 6481, p. 96a (1524). Nevertheless, this interpretation is not cited in the name of Orḥot ḥayyim by later Ashkenazic authorities, and it does not appear again until the sixteenth century, when it is attributed to the Zohar. 71 Sanhedrin 65b and Rashi, s.v. kivro shel aviv; Tanḥuma Ki Tissa 33; Pesikta Rabbati (ed. Braude) 23, p. 488. See also Zohar vayeḥi I:237b; terumah II:150b–151a; vayakhel II:203. 72 Seder Rav Amram II:37.

Chapter 1 · 69 interpretation was cited by authorities of the school of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz to explain the custom of drawing out the recitation of barekhu on Saturday night as well. 73 But the commentators of the school of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz did not extend this interpretation to the recitation of vehu raḥum at the beginning of arvit. That was the contribution of the Zohar. The teachings of the Zohar were rather slow in penetrating the world of Ashkenaz. It was not until the middle of the sixteenth century, a time when kabbalistic ideas were beginning to have a significant impact on Ashkenazic thought and practice, that the Zohar’s understanding of vehu raḥum found expression in the works of Ashkenazic authorities and commentators on the prayerbook. The Zohar was first printed in Mantua (1558–1560) and in a somewhat different recension, in Cremona (1559–1560). Previously, the study of the Zohar had been limited to those who had access to one of a limited number of manuscripts of its text, and many, if not most, of those who engaged in its study possessed only partial manuscripts. Recent scholarship has demonstrated that the texts of the Zohar and other important kabbalistic works were not widely available, even in printed editions, until the eighteenth century. Prior to that time, direct knowledge of the Zohar itself remained the possession of the elite. Nevertheless, teachings and practices derived from the Zohar were disseminated more widely through the publication of commentaries on a variety of traditional texts that quoted teachings from the Zohar, hanhagot (books advocating pietistic practices), and anthologies of teachings based upon the Zohar. 74 73 Siddur harokeaḥ 105, p. 588. 74 For information on manuscripts and early editions of the Zohar, see Gershom Scholem, “Zohar,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 21:658–59; The Wisdom of the Zohar: An Anthology of Texts, arranged by Fischel Lachower and Isaiah Tishby with an extensive introduction and explanations by Isaiah Tishby, trans. David Goldstein (London, Washington, 1989), 97–101. On the dissemination of the Zohar and hanhagot based upon the Zohar following the appearance of the first printed editions, see Ze’ev Gries, Sifrut hahanagot: Toldoteha umekomah beḥayei ḥasidei R. Yisrael Ba’al Shem Tov (Jerusalem, 1989), 13–16, 71–80 and “Ha’atakat vehadpasat sifrei kabbalah kemakor lelimudah,” Maḥanayim 6 (1993): 204–11; Boaz Huss, The Zohar: Reception and Impact, trans. Yudith Nave (Oxford; Portland, Oregon, 2016), 203–10; originally published as Kezohar harakia: Perakim

70  · The Old Will Be Renewed The first Ashkenazic authority to interpret the recitation of vehu raḥum in the light of the Zohar’s teachings may have been Naftali Hertz Treves, whose kabbalistic commentary on the prayerbook was published by his son Eliezer in 1560. Both R. Naftali Hertz Treves and R. Moses Mat continued to include the earlier explanations alongside those that were based on the Zohar, but the Zohar’s approach was the only one cited by R. Isaiah Horowitz in his commentary on the prayer book. Leon Liebreich, commenting on the explanations for the recitation of vehu raḥum found in the various medieval halakhic works and prayer book commentaries, concludes that “they cannot be taken seriously. Being purely homiletical, they are unsatisfactory from a critical standpoint.” 75 However, as Hoffman has noted, “such ‘unscientific’ notions were accepted as reality in Amoraic and Geonic times and may well have prompted the adoption of liturgical customs.” 76 In the case of vehu raḥum, these interpretations may have served to sustain what appears to have been the Ashkenazic practice from its very beginnings. But new interpretations can also lead to change in practice. Indeed, this may well have been the case in Sepharad, where the practice of reciting vehu raḥum on Friday evening was eventually abandoned, perhaps under the influence of the Zohar. 77 In sum, the recitation of vehu raḥum at the beginning of arvit on be-hitkablut haZohar uvehabeniyat erko hasemali ( Jerusalem, 2008), 240–48; Ta-Shma, Hanigleh shebenistar, 74, 81. The notes in the Hebrew edition of Huss’s book include bibliographical information omitted in the translation. 75 Leibreich, “The Liturgical Use,” 367–68. 76 Hoffman, Canonization, 210 n. 9. 77 So R. Ovadiah Yosef, She’eilot uteshuvot yeḥaveh da’at 8:48. Shulḥan arukh does not mention the recitation of vehu raḥum in arvit, neither in the laws of arvit on weekdays nor on Shabbat. In his commentary on the Tur, R. Joseph Caro elaborated upon the reasons for the recitation of vehu raḥum on weekdays given by the Tur, but did not state his own position. Regarding Shabbat, the Tur states: “And it is the practice in Spain to recite vehu raḥum as is done throughout the week, but in Ashkenaz they are not accustomed to saying it [on Shabbat]. And according to the reason that I wrote above (O.H. 237), that it is recited because of the lashes, it is proper not to recite it on Shabbat.” See Tur and Shulhan arukh 237; 267. This ruling of the Tur may also have had an impact on later practice in Sepharad.

Chapter 1 · 71 weekdays and its omission on Friday nights is mentioned already in some of the earliest sources relating to the liturgical practices of Ashkenaz. While this practice has remained unchanged since at least the eleventh century, the way in which it was understood did change over time. For centuries the explanations for the recitation of vehu raḥum first suggested in the works of the School of Rashi and in the teachings of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz were repeated by Ashkenazic halakhic authorities and commentators on the siddur. These explanations held that the recitation of vehu raḥum was of benefit to the living, relating it to issues of sin, punishment, and atonement. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries these explanations were supplemented, and in some cases, supplanted, by new ones, drawn primarily from the Zohar, whose teachings were spreading throughout Ashkenaz at that time. According to the Zohar, the recitation of vehu raḥum was of benefit to the dead, for it alleviated the suffering of the souls of sinners in Gehinnom. The Ashkenazic authorities who transmitted these interpretations agreed that, since lashes were not administered on Friday afternoon and the souls of the wicked in Gehinnom have respite from their suffering on Shabbat, vehu raḥum is omitted on Friday evening. All of these interpretations – whether those of the early Ashkenazic authorities who sought to explain an old practice for which a rationale had not been provided in Geonic sources, and those of later commentators who introduced new interpretations based upon the Zohar – infused new meaning into an old ritual. To paraphrase the words of Rav Kook, through the process of interpretation and reinterpretation, the old was renewed, and the new [interpretation] came to be held as sacred.

Excursus

Vehu Raḥum in the Rite of the Land of Israel In an earlier stage of my research on vehu raḥum I had noted that “the recitation of vehu raḥum at the beginning of arvit is not mentioned in either the Babylonian or the Jerusalem Talmuds, nor can it be found in any of the published liturgical texts from the Cairo genizah, our primary source for the liturgical practices of the Rite of the Land of Israel.” 78 On the other hand, Seder Rav Amram prescribes the recitation of vehu raḥum at the beginning of arvit, both on Shabbat and on weekdays. I suggested that “the Jews of Ashkenaz thus seem to have adopted the Babylonian custom for weekdays, and the Palestinian custom for Shabbat.” 79 Ruth Langer suggested to me that further research was needed to support this conclusion. My investigation of this issue was made possible by the Friedberg Genizah Project, which is in the process of digitalizing and cataloging all known documents from the Cairo genizah. In his seminal study of the Rite of the Land of Israel, Jacob Mann wrote, based upon his examination of the genizah fragments T-S 8H24.5, T-S 6H8.2, and ADD 3160.2, that “one thing is clear that in Palestine Ma’arib was not introduced by ‫ והוא רחום‬which occurs in all rituals since Amram.” 80 However, an examination of T-S 8H24.5 78 Berger, Issues and Developments, 25. 79 Berger, Issues and Developments, 43. 80 Jacob Mann, “Genizah Fragments of the Palestinian Order of Service,” Hebrew Union College Annual 2 (1925), 302. Reprinted in Contributions to the Scientific Study of Jewish Liturgy, ed. Jakob J. Petuchowski (New York, 1970); See also Hoffman, Canonization, 77.

72

Excursus · 73 indicates that the first line of the page begins le’olam va’ed. The preceding page has not been identified, and it may have included a heading, such as ‫( צלוה מעריב‬ma’ariv prayers) and vehu raḥum, in addition to barekhu et Adonai or barekhi nafshi et Adonai, either one of which would have introduced the words le’olam va’ed. Fragment ADD 3160.6 is introduced by a benediction that appears in several other genizah fragments: Praised are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us with regard to the recitation of the shema with a full heart, and to [proclaim His] unity with a willing spirit. 81 Neither vehu raḥum nor barekhu appear in this fragment. Mann suggests that this benediction may have been recited when the shema was recited during individual, rather than communal prayer. 82 Perhaps this is also the case with vehu raḥum. T-S 6H8.2 lacks both vehu raḥum and barekhu, but Mann argues that this document reveals “distinct traces of influence of the ritual of the Holy Land but are on the other hand portions of Minhag Miṣraim and as such contain borrowings from the Babylonian order of service.” 83 The evidence brought by Mann is not compelling. His conclusion is based on an examination of only three fragments, and the evidence of one of these is ambiguous; it may or may not have included vehu raḥum. I began my research on this issue by conducting several searches of the Friedberg database, compiling lists of documents from the genizah containing segments of the arvit service: weekday, Shabbat, Babylonian rite, land of Israel rite, Rav Saadiah, and “other.” I collated these lists and examined the documents that were tagged as representing either the Babylonian or land of Israel rites, producing a collection of documents that included the beginning of the arvit service. For the weekday service, I found thirteen documents tagged as

81 ‫ברוך אתה ה' א־להינו מלך העולם אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על מצות קריאת שמך על המליכו בלבב שלם‬ ‫וליחדו בנפש חפיצה‬. 82 Mann, “Genizah fragments,” 302. 83 Mann, “Genizah fragments,” 311. For transcriptions of T-S 8H 24.5, see pp. 306–7; T-S 6H8.2, pp. 319–20; Add. 3160 6.2 pp. 307–8. See also Israel Levi, “Fragments de rituels de prières,” Revue des études juives 53 (1907) 234.

74 · Vehu Rahum in the Rite of the Land of Israel representing the Rite of the Land of Israel. Of these, eight include vehu raḥum; 84 only four omit it. 85 As noted above, it is not clear whether the liturgy inscribed on the thirteenth document, T-S 8H24.5, originally included vehu raḥum. This evidence indicates that vehu raḥum was included at the beginning of arvit on weekdays in the Rite of the Land of Israel. The evidence for the recitation of vehu raḥum on Shabbat is not quite so clear, but it too supports the conclusion that vehu raḥum was recited at the beginning of arvit in the Rite of the Land of Israel. I found fifteen documents that have asher kilah, a variant of hama’ariv aravim that refers to God’s completion of Creation on the seventh day, designating it as the holy Shabbat. 86 Asher kilah is generally thought to have originated in the land of Israel. 87 Of these, twelve include vehu raḥum; it is omitted in only two. Furthermore, T-S AS 109.113, like T-S 8H24.5, begins with the words le’olam va’ed. The previous page may have had vehu raḥum and barekhu or barekhi nafshi. There are additional grounds for identifying these texts as being of the Rite of the Land of Israel. As is the case with asher kilah, references to Shabbat in the other blessings included in the rubric of “shema and its blessings” are thought to be indicative of the Rite of the Land of Israel. 88 Of the fifteen documents that have asher kilah, six have a poetic text beginning either lema’an ahavat amusim or lema’an kehunat amusim (or amusekha) for the blessing that follows. 89 Both of these variant texts include references to Shabbat. Of the six, only T-S H18.2 lacks vehu raḥum. Only two of the twelve texts that include asher kilah have the version of ahavat olam thought to be characteristic of 84 T-S 8H9.5; T-S 8H10.15; T-S Ar.36.58; T-S NS 157.26; T-S NS 265.44; T-S AS 106.79; T-S AS 110.111; and IV.A.75. The genizah documents that have vehu raḥum include only Ps 78:38; none have Ps 20:10. 85 T-S K27.17; T-S 6H8.2; Add.3160.6; and IV.A.1 (which is almost identical to T-S K27.17). 86 T-S H18.1; T-S H18.2; T-S 8H19.4; T-S NS 123.92; T-S NS 153.14; T-S NS 153.19; T-S NS 254.2; T-S AS 103.12; T-S AS 105.73; T-S AS 105.155; T-S AS 107.131; T-S AS 109.113; ENA 2969.30; ENA 3131.13; and ENA 3257.5. Hama’ariv aravim is the first in the series of blessings in the liturgical rubric “shema and its blessings.” 87 Hoffman, Canonization, 79. 88 Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud, 29–30; Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 188. 89 T-S H18.2; T-S 8H19.4; T-S NS 254.2; T-S AS 105.155; T-S AS 109.113; and ENA 2969.30.

Excursus · 75 the Babylonian rite. 90 TS H18.1 has another variant of this blessing. The rest of the texts are fragmentary and the text of the blessing that follows asher kilah is either missing or illegible.

Table A Vehu raḥum in the Genizah: Shabbat Text

Lema’an Vehu raḥum ahavat amusim or lema’an kehunat amusim

T-S H18.1

Yes

T-S H18.2

No

Yes

T-S 8H19.4

Yes

Yes

T-S NS 123.92

Yes

Ahavat olom – text similar to that in Ashkenazic rite

Has a different text for second blessing Yes

Yes

T-S NS 153.14

Yes

T-S NS 153.19

Yes

–

Yes

T-S- NS 254.2

Yes

Yes

T-S AS 103.12

Yes

T-S AS 105.73

–

–

–

–

–

Yes

–

–

–

–

–

T-S AS 105.155

Yes

Yes

T-S- AS 107.131

Yes

–

T-S AS 109.113

?

Yes

ENA 2969.30

Yes

Yes

ENA 3131.13

No

–

–

–

ENA 3257.5

Yes

–

–

–

– text of this blessing not included on this genizah fragment It would seem then, that at least six, and probably more, of these texts are of the Rite of the Land of Israel. However, the view that the recitation of asher kilah and the other references to Shabbat in 90 T-S NS 123.92 and T-S NS 153.14. This is similar to the text of ahavat olam that appears in the Ashkenazic rite. The version of ahavat olam that appears in the weekday service discussed above is similar to that of ahavah rabbah, recited in the morning service, except that it begins ahavat olam, not ahavah rabbah.

76 · Vehu Rahum in the Rite of the Land of Israel the blessings of keriat shema is indicative of the Rite of the Land of Israel is based, in large part, on Rav Amram’s strong opposition to their recitation. 91 Extant manuscripts of Seder Rav Amram also cite a responsum of R. Natronai Gaon which states that the standard version of hama’ariv aravim was recited in the two Babylonian academies on both weekdays and Shabbat. 92 We thus have two Babylonian Geonim expressing their opposition to the recitation of asher kilah. As Hoffman has shown, the Geonim who served from the time of R. Yehudai (757) through the time of R. Natronai and R. Amram (875) were determined to assert their authority and that of the Babylonian Talmud over all Jewish communities, everywhere. In the process, they argued “almost exclusively against the one major alternative center of traditional authority, Palestine.” 93 However, the identification of asher kilah is not as certain as it might seem. Shimon Fogel and Uri Ehrlich, in a study of the Babylonian and Palestinian texts of hashkiveinu from the Cairo genizah, identify asher kilah with the Babylonian rite. 94 The question regarding the recitation of asher kilah posed to R. Natronai, and the ruling of R. Amram, indicate that, whatever the practice in the academies, it was recited in some communities in Babylon. But this does not prove that asher kilah is of Babylonian provenance, as many of the liturgical variants thought to characterize the Babylonian were probably of Palestinian origin. While they eventually came to be accepted as normative in Babylonia, they fell into disuse in the land of Israel. 95 Asher kilah, along with the other insertions for Shabbat, appears in Siddur Rav Saadiah Gaon. 96 R. Saadiah served as head of the academy of 91 Seder Rav Amram II:3, pp. 61–62. 92 See also Yerahmiel (Robert) Brody, Teshuvot Rav Natronai bar Hilai Gaon (Jerusalem, 1994) 71, p. 180 for a somewhat different version of this responsum. Brody notes that R. Natronai’s response describes the practice in his own academy, but does not condemn the recitation of asher kilah. 93 Hoffman, Canonization, 164. See also Brody, The Babylonian Geonim, 113–21, 123–34. The dates are those provided by Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, 344. 94 Shimon Fogel and Uri Ehrlich, “Letoldot nusḥah hakadum shel birkat hashkiveinu,” Tarbiz 84:2 (2016): 85. 95 Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud, 66–67. 96 Siddur Rav Saadiah, 110.

Excursus · 77 Sura, but he was born in Egypt and lived in Israel before emigrating to Baghdad. The liturgy included in his siddur differs considerably from that in Seder Rav Amram, and many of these differences may reflect the practices of the early Egyptian rite or that of the Rite of the Land of Israel, to which he had been exposed both in Egypt and in Israel. 97 Unlike R. Amram, R. Saadiah appears to have been more tolerant of Palestinian customs; the polemics in which he engaged were directed mainly against the Karaites, not against Palestinian influences. 98 To further complicate matters, all of the genizah documents I considered have been tagged by the catalogers of the Friedberg Genizah Database as following the Babylonian rite. Four of them are tagged as also being of the Rite of the Land of Israel. 99 It is not clear to me why these texts were identified as exemplars of the Babylonian rite. It is possible that the presence of vehu raḥum was a major factor in their having been classified as belonging to the Babylonian rite. This identification would be called into question were the inclusion of vehu raḥum at the beginning of arvit found to have been just as characteristic of the Rite of the Land of Israel as it was of the Babylonian rite. Or the catalogers may have applied other criteria, such as those that led Ehrlich and Fogel to conclude that asher kilah is indicative of the Babylonian rite. It is frequently difficult to determine whether a liturgical text found in the Cairo genizah is of the Babylonian rite or of the Rite of the Land of Israel. 100 There are several eulogies that have been identified as having their origin in the Rite of the Land of Israel, including oseh hashalom at the end of sim shalom, and pores sukkat shalom at the end of hashkiveinu. In addition, there are a number of features that appear to characterize the Rite of the Land of Israel, such as the use of “double” eulogies at the end of several of the benedictions and the practice of concluding one’s own benediction with amen. 97 On this point, see the comment by Reif; Stefan C. Reif, Jewish Prayer Texts from the Cairo Genizah: A Selection of Manuscripts at Cambridge University Library, Introduced, Transcribed, Translated, and Annotated, with Images (Leiden; Boston, 2016), 92. 98 Hoffman, Canonization, 164. 99 T-S NS 153.14; T-S NS 254.2; T-S AS 105.73; and ENA 2969.30. 100 Reif, Jewish Prayer Texts, 7–8.

78 · Vehu Rahum in the Rite of the Land of Israel Emet veyatziv sometimes appears in texts from the Rite of the Land of Israel, instead of emet ve’emunah. However, many of the genizah’s liturgical documents include phrases and eulogies characteristic of both rites. Thus, a document that has benedictions with double eulogies may also have emet ve’emunah, or the benediction following the shema may conclude with the Babylonian ga’al yisrael and not the Palestinian tzur yisrael vego’alo. The Ben Ezra synagogue, in which the genizah was located, followed the liturgical traditions of the land of Israel. Indeed, most of what we know about the Rite of the Land of Israel has emerged from the study of liturgical texts from the Cairo genizah. However, it is known that by the Geonic period, from which most of these texts date, the Rite of the Land of Israel had incorporated many Babylonian customs and textual traditions. 101 Further, the “Palestinian” Ben Ezra synagogue was located in Fustat, and, as Mann notes, “it is a moot question, and one very difficult to solve, whether in that house of God Minhag Ereṣ Yisrael was adhered to in its purity without any admixture of a local Egyptian custom (Minhag Miṣrayim) such as can be detected in Sa’adya’s siddur.” 102 With regard to the Friday evening service, Mann states that “for Friday night no Palestinian texts are at all at our disposal,” arguing that the texts he studied “reveal distinct traces of the influence of the ritual of the Holy Land, but are on the other hand portions of Minhag Miṣraim and as such contain borrowings from the Palestinian order of service.” 103 We have noted that while most of the texts we have been considering include vehu raḥum, some do not. This may reflect the influence of one rite on the other, or it may reflect the fluidity of the Rite of the Land of Israel, which was open to much more variation than that of Babylonia. 104 Or some of these texts may be expressive of local, Egyptian custom. 101 Regarding Babylonian influences on Palestinian customs, both in the land of Israel and in Egypt, see Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, 117–21; Uri Ehrlich, Tefillat haamidah shel yemot haḥol ( Jerusalem, 2013), 4–6; Fleischer, Tefillah uminhagei tefillah, 215. 102 Mann, “Genizah fragments,” 269. 103 Mann, “Genizah fragments,” 311. 104 Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns, trans. by Richard S. Sarason (Berlin; New York, 1977), 29–30, 66.

Excursus · 79 It seems clear, then, that vehu raḥum was included at the beginning of arvit on weekdays in the Rite of the Land of Israel. The evidence for its inclusion on Shabbat is not as definitive. While we cannot say with certainty that vehu raḥum was recited on Shabbat in the Rite of the Land of Israel, there is no firm evidence that it was not, and considerable evidence that it was. If this was indeed the case, the liturgy prescribed by Rav Amram is in keeping with both Babylonian and Palestinian custom.

A Note on T-S 8H24.5 In his article “Genizah Fragments of the Palestinian Order of Service,” Mann provides a transcription of T-S 8H24.5. While examining a digitalized photograph of this fragment on the Friedberg Genizah Project website, I found his transcription of the benediction hama’ariv aravim to contain significant errors. Below is a corrected copy of that benediction. Mann, Fragment no. 7, p. 307

Corrected version

‫בא״י [מ״ה‬ '‫ב' א' ייי א־ל‬ ‫אשר ב]דברו מעריב ערבים בתבונה‬ ‫ ]דברו מעריב ערבים בתבונה‬. . . [ ‫[מ]שנה עתים מחליף את הזמנים ומסדר [מש]נה עתים מחליף את הזמנים ומסדר‬ ‫[את] ה[כו]כבים במשמרותים ברקיע [את הכוכבים‬ ‫כרצונו‬ ‫ומביא] לילה המבדיל בין יום ללילה יי‬ ‫ ] מפני חושך וחושך מפני אור מעביר צ[באות] שמו קדש ישראל בא״י‬. . . [ ‫ ]א לילה המבדל בין יום לליה ייי‬. . . [ .‫המעריב [ערבי]ם‬ ‫ ב א' ייי המעריב‬.‫ ]ות שמו קדש ישראל‬. . . [ .‫ ]ם‬. . . [

Chapter 2

Preserving the Old In this chapter I examine three cases where the process of interpretation was used, not to infuse old liturgical texts with new meaning, but to provide a new rationale or justification for their continued recitation when the circumstances which were thought to have given rise to their inclusion in the liturgy no longer applied. In each of these cases – the recitation of berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva and kiddush in the synagogue on Friday evenings, and of barukh Adonai le’olam in arvit on weeknights – the continued inclusion of these passages, unsupported by the now outdated rationale, appeared to violate established halakhic norms. We will see that, in at least two of the cases at hand, important authorities called for their elimination from the service. Others suggested a variety of new justifications for their recitation, justifications which applied to the specific case under discussion. Still others, ruling that these texts should be preserved but sensing the inadequacy of the new rationales, argued on behalf of two justifications which applied in all three cases. The first of these two justifications was offered by Maimonides in a responsum concerning the repetition of the amidah by the sheliaḥ tzibbur. According to the Mishnah, the sages ruled, contra Rabban Gamaliel, that every individual is obligated to recite the amidah. Asked why the sheliaḥ tzibbur recites the amidah aloud after the congregation has fulfilled its obligation by reciting it silently, the Talmud has the sages respond that the sheliaḥ tzibbur recites it for the benefit of those who are unable to recite it on their own. 1 When

1 m. Rosh Hashanah 4:9; Rosh Hashanah 34b.

81

82  ·  Preserving the Old asked whether the sheliaḥ tzibbur must recite the amidah aloud when everyone present is able to do so, Rambam responded that in all cases where the sages enacted the recitation of a prayer in response to a particular set of circumstances, they intended that the prayer be recited even when those circumstances are not present. Were this not the case, one would have to ask everyone present at every service whether he or she is able to recite the amidah independently. Rambam adds that this is also the case with berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva and the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue on Friday night, two of the prayers that are the subject of this chapter. Otherwise, every Friday night one would have to determine if the conditions that give rise to the recitation of these prayers are met. 2 Rambam’s approach was followed primarily by Spanish and Provençal authorities. The second argument for the retention of the prayers under discussion maintains that they should be preserved because it is a long-standing custom to recite them. This argument derives from the Talmud’s discussion of the observance of yom tov sheni shel galuyot, the “second day of the festival as observed in the diaspora.” The Torah prescribes the day of the month on which each of the festivals begins. According to the Mishnah, the beginning of the month was proclaimed by a rabbinical court in Jerusalem, based upon the testimony of witnesses who had seen the appearance of the new moon. Word was then sent by messenger to communities throughout the land of Israel and the diaspora. The rabbis enacted that the festivals be observed for an extra day in the diaspora, fearing that word of the beginning of the new month would not reach those communities before the onset of the festival. Instead, those living in diaspora communities would rely on their own determination of when the month had begun, but would observe the festival an additional day, to account for the possibility of error. By the early Amoraic period, the beginning of the new month was determined by calculation, rather than by the testimony of witnesses. Now it was possible for every community to know exactly when the festivals were

2 Moses Maimonides, She’eilot uteshuvot haRambam, ed. Joshua Blau (Jerusalem, 1960), 221.

Chapter 2 · 83 to be observed. In response to the question as to why the extra day of the festival should continue to be observed in the diaspora since the calendrical uncertainty no longer existed, the anonymous editor of the Talmud responds that a message was sent from the sages of the land of Israel urging them to “give heed to the customs of your ancestors that are in your hands.” The concern is also expressed that the circumstances that gave rise to this custom may recur at some time in the future. 3 The justification that the prayers under discussion should be preserved in the liturgy because it is an ancestral custom was given by many authorities, Ashkenazic, Spanish, and Provençal.

BARUKH ADONAI LE’OLAM Barukh Adonai le’olam consists of a collection of biblical verses drawn primarily from Psalms and a closing prayer for redemption, beginning yir’u eineinu and concluding with the eulogy, “the King, in His glory, may He rule over us and over all of His creation, for ever and ever.” 4 The verses included in the Ashkenazic rite deal with three primary themes: the proclamation of the kingship of God, the appeal for divine protection through the night, and the messianic hope that God’s enduring kingship will be established throughout the world. The second of these themes is also the focus of hashkiveinu, while the messianic hope for the establishment of God’s kingdom is the theme of the concluding passage, yir’u eineinu. This blessing is first mentioned in a responsum of R. Natronai Gaon, quoted in Seder Rav Amram Gaon. 5 It is not mentioned in the

3 Betzah 4b. ‫ זמנין דגזרו שמדא ואתי לאקלקולי‬,‫הזהרו במנהג אבותיכם בידיכם‬. Other formulations, such as ‫מנהג אבותינו תורה הוא‬, “the custom of our ancestors is Torah,” were also used. On minhag avoteinu Torah hu see Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael, 1:235–37 (1990); 2:47–48 (1991). 4 ‫המלך בכבודו תמיד ימלך עלינו לעולם ועד ועל כל מעשיו‬. Some versions have ‫המולך בכבודו‬, “Who rules in His glory.” On barukh Adonai le’olam in non-Ashkenazic rites, see Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 88–89. For a discussion of the variants in the wording of the eulogy, see below, pp. 207–9; Berger, Issues and Developments, 121–26. 5 Seder Rav Amram II:4, pp. 62–63. See also Brody, Teshuvot Rav Natronai 72, pp. 180–83. This responsum of Rav Natronai, preserved in Seder Rav Amram Gaon, was not

84  ·  Preserving the Old Talmud, and is, indeed, contrary to the statement of the Mishnah that two blessings are to be recited after the evening shema. 6 R. Natronai was asked whether one should recite barukh Adonai le’olam on Friday evening, as one does on the other nights of the week, or whether veshamru 7 should be recited instead. In his responsum, R. Natronai explains both why the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam was instituted, and why it should be omitted on Friday night. He notes that the Talmud records a disagreement between the Tannaim Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshua. Rabban Gamaliel maintains that the recitation of the evening amidah is optional, but R. Joshua maintains that it is obligatory. The Amora Rav later ruled that the law is in accordance with the one who says that it is optional, whereas Samuel ruled that the law is in accordance with the one who says that it is obligatory. 8 Rav Natronai continues: For Samuel, who ruled that the law is in accordance with the one who maintained that it is obligatory, one recites the tefillah immediately after shomer amo yisrael; for Rav, who ruled that the law is in accordance with the one who maintained that it is optional, we break off [or interrupt] with kaddish, to indicate that we have concluded. 9





originally included in Seder Rav Amram; see Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, 191–92. According to Brody, Rav Amram was a rival of Rav Natronai; his views would certainly not have been quoted by Rav Amram. 6 m. Berakhot 1:4. 7 Exod 31:16–17. 8 Berakhot 27b–28a. See also y. Berakhot IV:1 7c–d; y. Ta’anit IV:1 67d. While the later halakhah rules that the evening amidah is optional, the talmudic sources do not reach a clear conclusion; Israel M. Ta-Shma, “Tefillat arvit reshut o-ḥovah?” in Hatefillah haAshkenazit hakedumah ( Jerusalem, 2003), 115–26. 9 ‫פסקינן בקדושא למימרא דסיימינן‬. It is not clear whether the kaddish shalem or ḥatzi kaddish is intended. In the Vilna edition of the Talmud, it is Raba and Abaye who differ as to whether the law is in accord with Rabban Gamaliel or R. Joshua. A marginal note indicates that according to some versions, the text in the Gemara reads “and the law is in accord with the one who says it is obligatory, and Rav said that the law is in accord with the one who says that it is optional.” R. Natronai must have had a reading that attributed the first view to Samuel, and the second to Rav. Yoma 87b also

Chapter 2 · 85 And we affirm that whenever a dispute between Rav and Samuel is left undecided by the Gemara, the law is in accordance with Rav in matters of ritual law and with Samuel in matters of civil law. And here the disagreement is over a question of ritual law, and the law follows the view of Rav. And since the law is in accordance with Rav, who ruled [that the evening tefillah is] optional, the later rabbis came and enacted that after shomer amo yisrael one should recite verses that have in them praise and song, and since we recite the verses, they enacted [that we recite] a benediction after them. This applies on weekdays, but on Shabbat, since demons are abroad and the Jewish people must go to their homes before it becomes dark, because of the danger of satyrs (se’irin), or before the lamps go out [on Shabbat], they omitted [this passage] and restored [the practice prescribed in] the Mishnah: In the evening one recites two benedictions before it and two after it. And this is the custom in our academy and in Beit Rabbenu in Babylonia.  10 attributes this view to Rav. In our texts Samuel merely relates the disagreement between Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshua. Tosafot and Rosh also had a reading of Berakhot 27b according to which Rav ruled that the amidah of arvit is optional; Tosafot Berakhot 27b, s.v. vehilkheta kavatei deRav; Rosh Berakhot 1:5; Raphael Rabbinovicz, Dikdukei sofrim on Berakhot ( Jerusalem, 1960), 139. See also Brody, Teshuvot Rav Natronai 72, pp. 181–82. 10 It is not clear to whom the term Beit Rabbenu shebebavel refers. Halevy and others suggest that it refers to the synagogue of the Exilarch. However, the Exilarchs were not recognized scholars, and it is unlikely that the rabbis would have referred to the Exilarch’s synagogue as Beit Rabbenu. Beit Rabbenu shebebavel is mentioned only by the Geonim of Sura. Ginzberg, Aptowitzer, and more recently Brody believe Beit Rabbenu to have been an annex of sorts to the academy of Sura in Baghdad. Megillah 29a refers to a synagogue established by Rav in Sura. These authorities suggest that that synagogue was later transferred to Baghdad, along with the academy. According to Ginzberg, Beit Rabbenu was a house of study attached to the synagogue where younger students were prepared for entrance into the academy itself. Brody suggests that it was a place where the academy’s Tannaim engaged in the study of Tannaitic literature. Isaac Halevy, Dorot rishonim (Frankfurt on Main, 1918), 3:53a n. 15; Louis Ginzberg, Geonica (New York, 1909; reprint New York, 1968), 1:41–43 n. 2, 69 n. 16; Avigdor Aptowitzer, “Teshuvot meyuḥasot leRav Hai ve’ainan lo,” Tarbiz 1 (1930): 94; Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, 42; Shraga Abramson, Bemerkazim uvitefutzot bitekufat haGeonim ( Jerusalem, 1965), 37 n. 12. But see also David M. Goodblatt,

86  ·  Preserving the Old

Barukh Adonai Le’olam as a Substitute for the Amidah R. Natronai writes that barukh Adonai le’olam was instituted by the “later rabbis” 11 because the recitation of the amidah was deemed to be optional in the evening. Apparently he regarded this blessing to be a substitute for the amidah, as the amidah was omitted by many. This explanation of the origins of barukh Adonai le’olam was favored by most authorities who discussed this question. 12 Other commentators, while acknowledging that the halakhah is that the recitation of the amidah is optional at arvit, had difficulty accepting the idea that it had ever been commonly omitted and sought to explain why some people may have neglected its recitation. 13 Rabbinic Instruction in Sasanian Babylonia (Leiden, 1975), 118–19. Hoffman, pointing to the uncertainty over the referent of the term Beit Rabbenu shebebavel, prefers to leave it untranslated; Hoffman, Canonization, 201 n. 29. 11 According to Elbogen, this reference is to the Sabora’im, post-Amoraic teachers responsible for giving shape to the Babylonian Talmud (c. 550–700 CE); Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 88. Current scholarship refers to them as Stamma’im, “The Anonymous Ones,” because their views are stated without attribution. According to Jeffrey Rubenstein, “the Stammai’im dedicated themselves to the explanation, interpretation, and reworking of the Amoraic traditions they inherited and constructed the sugyot (literary units) that comprise the Talmudic text.” Jeffrey L. Rubenstein, “Social and Institutional Settings of Rabbinic Literature,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, ed. Charlote Elisheva Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee (Cambridge, 2007), 70. However, since there is no hint of the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam in the Babylonian Talmud, it probably postdates the Stamma’im. 12 R. Eleazar ben Joel Halevi, Sefer raviah, ed. Avigdor (Victor) Aptowitzer (Jerusalem, 1938) 4, p. 6; 32, p. 20; Kol bo 12, 28, 35; Orḥot ḥayyim din tefillat arvit 3; seder tefillot erev Shabbat 3; Rabbenu Jonah Gerondi Berakhot 2b, s.v. veyesh lish’ol; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 52, pp. 260–61; R. Asher ben Yeḥiel, Rosh Berakhot 1:5; Teshuvot haRosh kelal 4 siman 6; Tur O.H. 236; Abudarham (ed. Bra’un), 211; (ed. Wertheimer) 141; Levush hatekhelet 236:2; Matteh Moshe 3:386. This explanation probably underlies the comments in Tosafot Berakhot 27b, s.v. vehilkheta kavatei deRav; Tosafot Megillah 23a, s.v. keivan; and R. Jacob Moellin, She’eilot uteshuvot Maharil haḥadashot, ed. Yitzḥak Satz (Jerusalem, 1977), 1. 13 Perhaps it is this reluctance to admit that Jews would have willingly omitted the recitation of arvit that led some authorities to suggest that it was a governmental decree forbidding the recitation of the amidah at arvit that had led to the institution of barukh Adonai le’olam as a substitute; R. Asher ben Saul of Lunel, Sefer haminhagot, in Sifran shel rishonim, ed. S. Assaf ( Jerusalem, 1935), p. 138. This suggestion of Sefer haminhagot is later cited in Abudarham (ed. Bra’un), 311; (ed. Wertheimer), 141. See also R. Solomon ben Adret, Teshuvot Rashba 1:14. Elsewhere Rashba wrote that people

Chapter 2 · 87 Several explain that people were frequently too busy working, or that they were too tired after working in the fields all day to recite the full arvit service, 14 while others suggest that since the synagogues in Babylonia were located out in the fields, people were afraid to tarry until nightfall, the proper time for the recitation of the amidah. Instead, they came while it was still light, recited the shema and its blessings, followed by barukh Adonai le’olam, and then left after concluding with kaddish. 15 On the other hand R. Eliezer ben Joel Halevi of Bonn suggests simply that some people were not punctilious with regard to the recitation of arvit. 16 Whatever the reason for the people’s laxity with regard to the recitation of the amidah, Rav Natronai suggests that the “later rabbis” had felt that the recitation of the shema and its blessings alone was not sufficient. Something, such as a series of verses of praise and song, was needed to bring the recitation of the evening shema to a proper conclusion. Many note that even though synagogues are no longer located out in the fields, the custom of reciting barukh Adonai le’olam has endured. 17

Barukh Adonai le’olam as an Indicator that Arvit is Optional While most authorities agree with R. Natronai, that barukh Adonai le’olam originally served as a substitute for the amidah, others assume that the amidah had always been recited by most Jews. They maintain that barukh Adonai le’olam had been instituted, not as a substitute for the amidah, but to break the connection between the benediction of

recited the amidah after returning home from the synagogue; Ḥiddushei Rashba on Berakhot 4b, s.v. mesayei’a. 14 Hamaḥkim, pp. 11, 18; Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillot erev Shabbat 3; Abudarham (ed. Bra’un), 311; (ed. Wertheimer), 141. 15 Orḥot ḥayyim din tefillat arvit 3, citing R. Solomon ben Adret; Rosh Berakhot 1:5; Teshuvot haRosh kelal 4 siman 6; Tur O.H. 236; Levush hatekhelet 236:2; Matteh Moshe 3:386. Of course, this explanation is based upon the reason that Rav Natronai gave for omitting barukh Adonai le’olam on Shabbat. 16 Raviah, 3, p. 6; 32, pp. 19–20. 17 See, for example, Kol bo 28; Orḥot ḥayyim din tefillat arvit 4; Rosh Berakhot 1:5; Tur O.H. 236; Teshuvot Maharil haḥadashot 1.

88  ·  Preserving the Old ge’ulah and the beginning of the amidah, indicating thereby that the recitation of the amidah was technically optional at night. 18 This role was also ascribed to the recitation of ḥatzi kaddish between barukh Adonai le’olam and the amidah. Tosafot attributes this view to Seder Rav Amram, which explains that “kaddish is recited between [the benediction] of redemption and the evening amidah to teach that it is not necessary to join the benediction of redemption to the evening amidah because the evening amidah is optional.” 19 According to this understanding, the required prayers concluded with barukh Adonai le’olam. Kaddish was then recited to indicate that those who wished to do so were now permitted to return home. Even though the current practice is to recite the amidah at night, kaddish serves as a reminder that this is not required by the halakhah. 20

Barukh Adonai Le’olam Instituted on Account of Danger As mentioned in a previous section, some authorities claim that barukh Adonai le’olam had been enacted as a substitute for the amidah, 18 In contrast to the position taken by R. Joḥanan that one should recite the amidah immediately after the evening shema and its blessings, without interruption; Berakhot 4b. See Hapardes, p. 304; Siddur Rashi 428, p. 213; Vitry seder tefillat arvit 2, pp. 150–51; Hamanhig, pp. 119, 134–35; Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson 52, p. 135; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, in Siddur Solomon ben Samson of Garmaise, ed. Moshe Hershler (Jerusalem: 1971) p. 136; Turei zahav on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 236:2, s.v. ki nitkenu bimekom tefillah. According to most of these authorities, the verses of barukh Adonai le’olam were selected because together they contain eighteen occurrences of God’s name, corresponding to the eighteen benedictions in the amidah. However, in none of the versions of barukh Adonai le’olam, whether included in halakhic sources, in siddur manuscripts, or in early printed siddurim, are there eighteen or nineteen occurrences of God’s name. See my discussion in Issues and Developments, 116–21. For a discussion of the requirement that the benediction of redemption be joined to the amidah, see Israel M. Ta-Shma, “Semikhat ge’ulah litefillah,” in Hatefillah haAshkenazit hakedumah (Jerusalem, 2003), 101–9. 19 Tosafot Berakhot 4b, s.v. de’amar R. Yohanan. This explanation is not found in extant versions of Seder Rav Amram; Seder Rav Amram I:91, p. 53. 20 Tosafot Berakhot 27b, s.v. vehilkheta kavatei deRav; Siddur Solomon ben Samson 46, p. 129; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 130; Ha’eshkol (ed. Albeck) hilkhot tefillah 10b, p. 25; Kol bo 28; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 52, pp. 260–61; Rosh Megillah 3:5; R. Jacob ben Judah Landau, Sefer Ha’agur hashalem, ed. Moshe Hirshler (Jerusalem, 1960) hilkhot berakhot 94, citing R. Abraham ben David of Posqueres; Bayit ḥadash on Tur O.H. 267, s.v. vekeivan; Turei zahav on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 236:2, s.v. ki nitkenu bimekom tefillat.

Chapter 2 · 89 which was omitted because people were afraid to remain in the synagogue until nightfall, the proper time for the recitation of the arvit amidah. They were afraid of being harmed by demons, believed to be abroad in isolated areas at night. Tosafot also maintains that barukh Adonai le’olam had been instituted to avert the danger of demons, but in a somewhat different way. According to Tosafot, people did remain in the synagogue until nightfall in order to recite the amidah at its proper time. Barukh Adonai le’olam was added for the benefit of latecomers. Omitting barukh Adonai le’olam, whose recitation was not required by halakhah, they could catch up to the other worshipers, who had prolonged their prayers by including barukh Adonai le’olam. Everyone would then be able to finish at the same time and return home together. 21 R. Joshua Falk rejects this suggestion, arguing that latecomers are also obligated to recite barukh Adonai le’olam, making it unlikely that they would be able to catch up to those who had come to the synagogue on time. According to Falk, barukh Adonai le’olam differs from berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva, for which a similar explanation had been given. Berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva is omitted by an individual, who might then catch up to the rest of the members of the congregation, who had taken the time to recite it. 22

Now that the Evening Tefillah is Regarded as Though It Were Obligatory . . . ​ As previously stated, the first mention of the custom of reciting barukh Adonai le’olam as a fifth blessing in the order of the evening keriat shema and its blessings appeared in a responsum of R. Natronai Gaon. Our sources testify that the custom spread quickly through much of the Jewish world. Of course, there were those who 21 Tosafot Berakhot 2a, s.v. mevarekh shetayim lefaneha; Berakhot 4b, s.v. ve’amar Rabbi Joḥanan. Rav Natronai seems to have been concerned with the threat of demons who might endanger those who returned home alone through the fields in the dark, whereas Tosafot appears to have been concerned with the danger posed by demons to those who remained alone in the synagogue after the rest of the congregants had left for home; cf. Hamanhig, p. 138; Orḥot ḥayyim hilkhot tefillah 89. 22 Perishah on Tur O.H. 268, s.v. vetiknu otah. On berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva see below.

90  ·  Preserving the Old objected to its inclusion in the service, arguing that, according to the Talmud, only two blessings should follow the evening shema and that barukh Adonai le’olam constitutes an unwarranted interruption between keriat shema and the amidah. 23 Northern French and German authorities who opposed the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam include R. Samuel ben Meir and R. Nathan ben Judah, the author of Sefer hamaḥkim, who also noted the opposition of his father and his great-grandfather R. Azriel. 24 This opposition seems to have been short-lived, for none of the authorities mentioned by name in opposition to barukh Adonai le’olam lived after the thirteenth century. 25 Yet, even those who supported the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam had to justify its inclusion in the service, for all agreed that the evening tefillah had 23 According to the view of R. Joḥanan, Berakhot 4b. 24 The opposition of R. Samuel ben Meir is cited by Hamanhig, pp. 119–20; Ḥiddushei haRashba Berakhot 4b, s.v. mesayei’a; and Orḥot ḥayyim din tefillat arvit 4. See also R. Solomon ben Isaac, Teshuvot Rashi, ed. Israel Elfenbein (New York, 1943) 91, p. 117, which should probably be attributed to R. Samuel ben Meir. The opposition of R. Nathan ben Judah appears in Hamaḥkim, p. 11, and is mentioned in Kol bo din ashrei 12 and Orḥot ḥayyim din tefillat arvit 4. References to the opposition of R. Meir ben Barukh of Rothenberg found in some editions of halakhic works, including the responsa of R. Solomon ben Simeon Duran (Livorno, 1742; Jerusalem, 1968) 329, as well as in secondary sources, are based upon an incorrect reading of Hamaḥkim as quoted in Kol bo and Orḥot ḥayyim; Wieder, “Perakim betoldot hatefillah vehaberakhot,” in Hitgavshut Nusaḥ Hatefillah 1:167 n. 63. 25 Frequently, reference is made to those who opposed the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam in very general terms, such as “there are those among the great authorities who oppose”; Talmidei Rabbenu Jonah on Alfasi Berakhot 2b, s.v. veyesh; Kol bo din ashrei 14; Orḥot ḥayyim din tefillat arvit 4; Teshuvot Rashba 1:14; Ḥiddushei Rashba on Berakhot 4b, s.v. mesayei’a; Tur O.H. 236; Ha’agur 330. Sephardic authorities mentioned by name include R. Moses ben Naḥman and R. Isaac ibn Ghiyyat, mentioned by Talmidei Rabbenu Jonah and Orḥot ḥayyim, and R. Aaron ben Joseph Halevi, a disciple of Naḥmanides (Ramban), who is cited by Orḥot ḥayyim. Abudarham (ed. Bra’un), 312; (ed. Wertheimer), 141 cites Maimonides (Rambam) in opposition, but the text appears to be corrupt and should probably refer to Naḥmanides. Barukh Adonai le’olam is included in the Order of Prayer of Rambam, but it is incorporated into the text of hashkiveinu, thereby keeping the number of blessings following the shema at two; Daniel Goldschmidt, “Seder hatefillah shel haRambam al pi ketav yad Oxford,” in Mehkerei tefillah vepiyyut (Jerusalem, pp. 197–98). On Rambam’s approach to this blessing, see Naftali Wieder, “Perakim betoldot hatefillah vehaberakhot,” 1:169–72; Ruth Langer, To Worship God Properly: Tensions between Liturgical Custom and Halakhah in Judaism (Cincinnati, 1998), 89–93.

Chapter 2 · 91 long ago come to be regarded as though it were obligatory. 26 The continued inclusion of barukh Adonai le’olam was then explained as being in accord with the view that one should uphold established custom, even if the circumstances that gave rise to that custom no longer pertain. 27 Since it was now an accepted part of the service, it should not be considered an interruption between the blessing of ge’ulah (redemption, that is, emet ve’emunah) and the amidah. Just as the Talmud itself argues that hashkiveinu should be considered an extension of the ge’ulah benediction, so too should barukh Adonai le’olam be considered an extension of the ge’ulah benediction. 28

Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Authorities on the Recitation of Barukh Adonai Le’olam A new interpretation of the relationship between barukh Adonai le’olam and the amidah was suggested by the Polish kabbalist R. Nathan Nata ben Solomon Spira in his Megalleh amukot. 29 While previous interpretations of barukh Adonai le’olam explained its inclusion in the service in functional or halakhic terms, Spira provides a more spiritual rationale for the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam. Spira’s homily on Deuteronomy 3:23 develops a kabbalistic interpretation of a baraita that deals with the status of a servant whose master has

26 ‫ ואף על פי כן נהגו כל ישראל בכל מקומות מושבותיהם‬,‫ואין תפלת ערבית חובה כתפלת שחרית ומנחה‬ ‫ ;להתפלל ערבית וקבלוה עליהם כתפלת חובה‬Rambam hilkhot tefillah 1:6; see also Kol bo 28. Others, including Alfasi on Berakhot 27b; Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H.591:6, s.v. yatza, used the formulation ‫שוויה עליינו כחובה‬. 27 According to Kol bo 28 and Orḥot ḥayyim din tefillat arvit 4 the initial rabbinic enactment remains in effect. Rabbenu Jonah Berakhot 2b, s.v. veyesh, Rosh Berakhot 1:5, Tur O.H. 236 and Levush hatekhelet 236:2 state that the matter remains according to the original custom, or that the original custom was never annulled. Teshuvot Maharil haḥadashot 1 and Abudarham (ed. Bra’un), 311; (ed. Wertheimer), 141 refer to the tradition of minhag avoteinu beyadeinu, or minhag avoteinu Torah hi. 28 ‫כגאולה אריכתא‬. Tosafot Berakhot 4b, s.v. ve’amar R. Joḥanan; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 52, pp. 260–61; Teshuvot haRosh kelal 4 siman 6; Abudarham (ed. Bra’un), 312; (ed. Wertheimer), 141; Turei zahav on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 326:2, s.v. ki nitkenu bimekom tefillat. Levush hatekhelet 236:2 refers to barukh Adonai le’olam as an extension of the amidah, rather than as an extension of the benediction of ge’ulah. 29 R. Nathan Nata ben Solomon Spira, Megalleh amukot: 252 ofanim al parashat va’etḥanan (1690; reprint Brooklyn, 1975), ofan 250.

92  ·  Preserving the Old died. 30 According to the baraita, a female Hebrew servant serves neither her master’s son nor his daughter; a male Hebrew servant serves the son, but not the daughter; and a Canaanite slave serves both the son and the daughter. Spira draws a connection between the three lower worlds of emanation, 31 the three categories of servitude, and the three divisions of the day and their prescribed prayers. Shaḥarit is associated with olam haberiah and the female Hebrew servant; minḥah is associated with olam hayetzirah and the male Hebrew servant; and arvit is associated with olam ha’asiyah and the Canaanite slave. Olam ha’asiyah is the world of night, the material world, in which the kelipah of moznei mirmah is empowered and in which the forces of Esau, perhaps representing Christendom, hold sway. But there is also the hope for redemption, for the Canaanite slave is identified with Elijah, who will come to subjugate moznei mirmah and defeat the forces of Esau. The prophet Hosea said, Canaan has moznei mirmah [false weights] in his hand. 32 Suggesting that the name Canaan derives from the verb ‫כנע‬, “to subdue,” Spira interprets this verse as a promise that Elijah (Canaan) will subjugate the forces of moznei mirmah. Isaac’s statement to Esau, Your brother came with mirmah [guile] and took away your blessing, 33 is interpreted as “toward evening, when the kelipah of mirmah is dominant in the world, Jacob came and enacted the arvit prayer” [as a means of combating moznei mirmah]. 34 Spira writes, “Now, when we are deep in this bitter exile when the nations rule in this world, we serve the son and the daughter. ‘What is that service that is of the heart? It is prayer.’” 35 According to 30 Qiddushin 17b. Spira’s interpretation of this baraita draws upon that of Menahem Azariah da Fano, “Ma’amar yonat elem,” in Sefer ma’amarei haRema MiFano (Jerusalem, 1977), 19–21. 31 On the four worlds of emanation, see Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah (New York, 1974), 119, 142. 32 Hos 12:8. 33 Gen 27:35. 34 For the view that the patriarchs instituted the three daily services, see Berakhot 26b. According to Gershom Scholem, sixteenth-century Polish kabbalists placed great stress “on the war against the power of the sitra aḥra crystallized in the kelippot”; Scholem, Kabbalah, 79. 35 See Ta’anit 2a.

Chapter 2 · 93 Spira, barukh Adonai le’olam represents the son, the sefirah of Tiferet, while the amidah represents the daughter, the sefirah of Malkhut. The esoteric interpretation of the rabbinic ruling that the Canaanite slave serves both the son and the daughter is that, through the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam followed immediately by the amidah one serves, or receives, Tiferet and Malkhut. That these two prayers must be joined together is suggested by the rabbinic ruling that the evening amidah is optional (reshut), which is interpreted to mean that “the authority (reshut) of her husband is over her, and that it is impossible to speak of her [that is, to recite the amidah] without speaking of her husband [that is, reciting barukh Adonai le’olam]. 36

Standing for Barukh Adonai Le’olam The association of barukh Adonai le’olam with the amidah, developed in the interpretations that we have reviewed, did have an effect on praxis, at least among some. It led to the custom of standing during its recitation, a custom first mentioned in sixteenth-century sources. A century earlier, R. Jacob Moellin had written that one should rise to recite the evening amidah when the sheliaḥ tzibbur begins to recite kaddish, namely, after barukh Adonai le’olam. 37 In the sixteenth century, R. Moses Isserles, R. Mordecai Jaffe, and R. Moses Mat all note with approval the custom of standing for barukh Adonai le’olam, as it was instituted to replace or to correspond to the evening amidah, for which one stands. 38 However, opposition to standing for the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam quickly arose. Some authorities object that standing for this passage is a sign of yohara, excessive pride in one’s piety. R. Moses Mat responds to this objection by arguing that once a custom had become widely adopted, as this one had, one who observes it need not be concerned with yohara. Another objection is raised by 36 On the association of the daily prayers with the sefirot and the significance attributed to their recitation in the Zohar, see Lachower and Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 962–65; Zohar vayahkel II:200b–201a. 37 Sefer Maharil hilkhot tefillah 1, p. 435. 38 R. Moses Isserles, Darkhei Moshe ha’arukh O.H. 236, and gloss to Shulḥan arukh O.H. 236:2, s.v. ein lesapper; Levush hatekhelet 236:2; Matteh Moshe 3:387.

94  ·  Preserving the Old Rabbi David ben Samuel Halevi (Taz), who argues that standing for barukh Adonai le’olam might give the impression that one intends to fulfill his obligation to recite the amidah through its recitation. 39 R. Nathan Nata ben Solomon Spira also rules that one should be seated while reciting barukh Adonai le’olam, providing a kabbalistic rationale for doing so. 40 He cites a passage from the Zohar that teaches “a guest should always bow to the will of his host, even if it means changing his usual custom.” 41 The Zohar provides illustrations of this teaching. For example, even though the groom, Tiferet, does not normally eat or drink, he does so when he comes to his bride, Shekhinah, or Malkhut, to whom the sacrifices and libations are offered. “When a bride comes into the bridal canopy and expresses a desire to eat, is it not right that her bridegroom should eat with her, even though he is not accustomed [to eating]?” Similarly, the angels sent to Abraham’s tent did not normally eat or drink, but did so on that occasion out of respect for Abraham. 42 Spira concluded that since barukh Adonai le’olam, here designated as the bride, is called “the seated prayer,” one should recite it while seated. 43 R. Yair Ḥayyim Bacharach issued a stirring defense of the custom of standing for the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam. He criticizes those who sit while reciting barukh Adonai le’olam, accusing them of doing so in order to make a display of their piety, and referring to them as “those who make themselves as holy ones, [but who are really] frauds (lit. ‘thieves of the hearts of the humble’).” He writes that in rejecting hallowed custom, they had relied on the works of later authorities such as Sefer megalleh amukot, and concludes, “Would 39 Turei zahav on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 236:2, s.v. ki nitkenu. He relates that he thought of this argument on his own, and only later saw it reflected in the rulings of Maharil, cited by R. Moses Mat and R. Solomon Luria. 40 Megalleh amukot ofan 250. 41 Zohar Phineḥas III:241b–242a; see the commentary in Lachower and Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 927–30. 42 Genesis 18. 43 The Zohar refers to the shema and its blessings as ‫צלותא דמיושב‬, the “seated prayer,” in contrast to the amidah, or “standing prayer,” which follows; Zohar terumah II:132a, 133a, vayakhel II:200b; Phineḥas III:120b, 126a. Spira interprets this phrase to mean that the prayer itself, representing Shekhinah, is seated.

Chapter 2 · 95 that they should fulfill all that is written in the Shulḥan arukh! And even if they are worthy (sheleimim), it is not proper for them to show that they are punctilious [with regard to the correct observance of the law], contrary to the [accepted] custom.” 44 On the other hand, his contemporary, R. Abraham Gombiner, rules that one should sit, citing the earlier rulings of R. Nathan Nata Spira and R. Jacob Moellin, as well as that of R. Solomon Luria, as cited in the Matteh Moshe. 45

Summary We have seen that barukh Adonai le’olam was first mentioned in a responsum of R. Natronai Gaon, who served as head of the academy of Sura in the middle of the ninth century. This responsum indicates that in the academy and in Beit Rabbenu it was customary to recite barukh Adonai le’olam on weeknights, but not on Shabbat. On Friday evening, hashkiveinu was followed immediately by kaddish. 46 The relationship between the amidah and barukh Adonai le’olam continued to engage rabbinic authorities in the centuries that followed. They asked why the amidah might have been omitted at arvit, even if its recitation was considered to be optional, and they struggled to explain the relationship between the optional status of the amidah and the addition of barukh Adonai le’olam on weekdays. Barukh Adonai le’olam was understood by some as having been instituted as a substitute for the amidah for those who omitted the amidah in the evening. Others suggested that barukh Adonai le’olam served to break the connection between the recitation of shema and its blessings and the amidah, indicating that the arvit amidah is optional. This explanation is problematic because the inclusion of kaddish following the final blessing of that series already serves that function, and more important, over time the recitation of the amidah at arvit had come to be accepted as though it were mandatory. 44 Yair Ḥayyim Bacharach, Mekor ḥayyim, ed. Eliyahu Dov Pines (Jerusalem, 1981/82) O.H. 236:2. 45 Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 236:2, s.v. venahagu la’amod, citing Megalleh amukot ofan 250, and Matteh Moshe 3:387. 46 On weeknights kaddish was recited after barukh Adonai le’olam.

96  ·  Preserving the Old Still others said that barukh Adonai le’olam had been added to the service so that latecomers would be able to catch up before those who had come on time completed their prayers. They would then be able to return home in the company of the other worshipers, obviating the danger posed by demons who threatened those walking alone through the fields or remaining alone in the synagogue, which was thought to be inhabited by demons at night. However, in medieval and early modern Europe synagogues were located in town, not out in the fields as had once been the case, so demons no longer posed a threat to one who remained alone in the synagogue to compete his recitation of the full arvit service. How, then, could the continued recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam be justified? The factors that may have led to its having been instituted no longer applied, and its inclusion was contrary to the Mishnaic statement that two benedictions follow the evening shema. This question occupied commentators and poskim at least through the end of the seventeenth century. Some early authorities argued in favor of its continued inclusion on the grounds that one should uphold established custom even if the circumstances that gave rise to that custom no longer pertain. Others found a new, more cogent rationale for the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam in a kabbalistic interpretation that first appeared during the sixteenth century. 47 The opposition of important early Sephardic authorities, including Rambam and R. Isaac ibn Giyyat, led to its omission in the Spanish rite. In Ashkenaz, opposition to the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam arose again in the eighteenth century, on the part of Elijah ben Solomon, the “Vilna Gaon.” It was said that he omitted it and veshamru, so that he could join together the blessings of keriat shema and the amidah. 48 Yet, both were recited by the congregation 47 It is interesting that while R. Nathan Nata ben Solomon Spira’s ruling that one should sit while reciting barukh Adonai le’olam is cited by several later authorities, I did not find any references to his kabbalistic justification for the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam cited in later halakhic works or commentaries. 48 He must have considered ḥatzi kaddish to be an extension of the benediction of redemption; see Tosafot Berakhot 4b, s.v. de’amar R. Yoḥanan; Rosh Berakhot 1:5; Teshuvot haRosh kelal 4 siman 6; Tur O.H. 236.

Chapter 2 · 97 with which he prayed. 49 It may have been the personal example of the Vilna Gaon, many of whose students settled in Israel, that ultimately led to the elimination of barukh Adonai le’olam from the arvit service by most Ashkenazic communities in the land of Israel.

BERAKHAH AḤAT ME’EIN SHEVA Following the congregation’s recitation of the amidah and vayekhulu (Genesis 2:1–3) on Friday evening, the sheliaḥ tzibbur recites berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva, “one benediction comprising seven.” 50 This benediction has three parts: an opening passage, similar to the avot benediction of the amidah but lacking a eulogy; a poetic précis of the seven benedictions of the Shabbat amidah; and a concluding passage, identical to the concluding passage of the kedushat hayom benediction of the Sabbath amidah. The poetic précis of the amidah is called by its opening words, magen avot, “shield of the Patriarchs,” and this name is frequently used to refer to the entire composition. The origin and original function of this benediction is somewhat of a mystery. The avot passage is identical to that recited in the Rite of the Land of Israel, and the phraseology of magen avot is largely drawn from the eulogies of the Palestinian version of the Shabbat amidah. 51 It would seem then, that the recitation of this benediction must have originated in the land of Israel. Yet, both the Babylonian Talmud and the Jerusalem Talmud refer only to its recitation in Babylonia. Furthermore, as recited in the arvit service on Friday evening, it appears to have the same function as does the repetition of the amidah by 49 Elijah ben Solomon, Ma’aseh rav 67 in Sifrei haGra ( Jerusalem: 1985/86). 50 ‫ברכה אחת מעין שבע‬. On this benedication see Gedaliah Alon, “Me’on haberakhot,” Meḥkarim betoldot Yisrael 2:128–34; Louis Finkelstein, “The Development of the Amidah,” Jewish Quarterly Review n.s. 16 (1925/26): 24–28; Joseph Heinemann, “One Benediction Comprising Seven,” Revue des études juives 135 (1966):101–11; “Berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva,” in Iyyunei tefillah, ed. Avigdor Shinan (Jerusalem, 1983), 36–43; Shlomo Tal, “Birkat me’ein sheva,” in Peri ḥayyim: Kovetz ma’amarim (Tel Aviv, 1982/83), 42–49; Yehiel Zimmels, “Magen avot,” Sinai 15 (1943):17–22. 51 Alon, “Me’on haberakhot,” 129; Heinemann, “One Benediction,” 101 n. 2; 107–11; Tal, “Birkat me’ein sheva,” 46–47.

98  ·  Preserving the Old the sheliaḥ tzibbur at shaḥarit, minḥah, and musaf. However, the sheliaḥ tzibbur does not normally recite the amidah aloud at arvit, for the recitation of the amidah at arvit was held to be optional. 52 Why, then, was magen avot recited after the amidah on Friday night? The Jerusalem Talmud transmits a statement by Rabbi Yose beRabbi Bun, who said that it was recited in Babylonia as a form of kiddush when no wine was available. 53 An entirely different explanation is given in the Babylonian Talmud. There it states that although there is no legal requirement that the sheliaḥ tzibbur recite the amidah, the rabbis enacted that it be recited on an ordinary Shabbat “because of danger.” 54 We have, then, three possible explanations for the recitation of magen avot: it constitutes a repetition of the amidah on the part of the sheliaḥ tzibbur; it is a form of kiddush, at first recited only when wine was unavailable but eventually incorporated into the service every week; it was introduced to obviate a danger that would otherwise threaten individual worshipers or the community as a whole. Each of these explanations is problematic. We have already noted that there would seem to be no halakhic reason for the sheliaḥ tzibbur to repeat 52 According to the sages, cited in m. Rosh Hashannah 4:9 and t. Rosh Hashannah 2:18, the sheliaḥ tzibbur recites the amidah aloud to fulfill the obligation to recite the amidah on behalf of those who do not know how to recite it by themselves. If the individual worshiper is not obligated to recite the amidah at arvit, there would be no reason for the sheliaḥ tzibbur to recite it aloud. 53 y. Pesaḥim X:2 37c; y. Berakhot VIII:1 11d has R. Yose bar Rabbi. Presumably, R. Yose beRabbi Bun was referring to times when grapes were scarce in Babylonia and not enough wine was available for everyone to recite kiddush over wine at home. An alternative form of kiddush would then be recited in the synagogue. Apparently, wine was always readily available in the land of Israel, where vineyards were common. On the scarcity of wine in Babylonia, see y. Berakhot VIII:1 11d; Heinemann, “One Benediction,” 102 n. 4; Tal, “Birkat me’ein sheva,” 44. For a different interpretation of this passage, see Israel M. Ta-Shma, “Kiddush shel leil Shabbat beveit hakenesset,” in Minhag Ashkenaz hakadmon ( Jerusalem, 1992), 159, 169–70. 54 Shabbat 24b. Note, however, that this source refers to the sheliaḥ tzibbur going before the ark, a phrase usually referring to his recitation of the amidah. There is thus no indication that the amidah is to be recited in an abbreviated form; Heinemann, “One Benediction,” 102 n. 1. It is also noteworthy that if the reference is to the recitation of “one benediction comprising seven,” then identical terminology is used for both of these prayers.

Chapter 2 · 99 the amidah at arvit, for the recitation of the amidah at arvit was held to be optional. R. Yose beRabbi Bun’s explanation is also difficult, for he referred to the recitation of “one benediction comprising seven” as a Babylonian custom. Yet, it appears to be a text that derives from the Rite of the Land of Israel. Why is there no mention in any Palestinian source or by any Palestinian authority of the recitation of this Palestinian text in Palestine itself! Finally, the explanation provided in the Babylonian Talmud is also problematic, for it gives no hint as to the nature of the danger that is to be averted by the recitation of magen avot. Further, why does this explanation apply only to Shabbat? And why is a précis of the amidah recited, and not the entire amidah? Joseph Heinemann proposed a rather complex solution to this problem. 55 He suggested that magen avot was originally recited in the land of Israel at arvit on Friday evening in lieu of the full amidah. He noted that “in the evening service the amidah was not considered obligatory by the majority of rabbis and was not, as a rule, recited by most people. On the eve of Shabbat, however, it was felt to be appropriate to recite at least some brief prayer as a substitute, containing a kiddush or kedushat hayom.” 56 Another example of such a prayer is that recited by R. Zadok. 57 Shortened versions such as these fell into disuse as it became customary to recite the full amidah in the evening, both on Shabbat and on weekdays. 58 As magen avot fell into disuse in the land of Israel, its original function was forgotten. However, like many liturgical texts that originated in the land of Israel, it spread to Babylonia, where it came to be used as a kiddush in the synagogue when wine was scarce. This practice was also abandoned in time, due to opposition from authorities who maintained that kiddush must be recited where one eats the Sabbath meal, namely, at home. But while it no longer served as a form of kiddush, the custom of reciting magen avot persisted.

55 For a somewhat different approach, see Tal, “Birkat me’ein sheva,” 43–46. 56 Heinemann, “One Benediction,” 103. 57 t. Berakhot 3:7; Heinemann, “One Benediction,” 104–7. 58 Heinemann, “One Benediction,” 104.

100  ·  Preserving the Old Eventually, the reason for its recitation was forgotten, and the explanation that it was enacted to alleviate some danger was posited. 59

Berakhah Me’ein Sheva as Repetition of the Amidah While the Babylonian Talmud’s explanation that magen avot was instituted “because of danger” was accepted as normative by later authorities, the notion that it is a “repetition of the amidah” of sorts was also accepted by many authorities. Their treatment of two issues discussed in the halakhic sources reflects this understanding: whether one who has not recited the amidah may fulfill his obligation by listening to the recitation of berakhah me’ein sheva by the sheliaḥ tzibbur, and whether berakhah me’ein sheva should be recited by an individual who is not praying with a minyan. Whether one can fulfill one’s obligation to recite the amidah on Friday evening by listening to the sheliaḥ tzibbur recite “one benediction comprising seven” was already discussed by the Geonim. Rav Amram rules that one who has erred and did not include mention of Shabbat in the amidah on Friday evening has not fulfilled his obligation and must repeat the entire amidah. But Seder Rav Amram cites responsa by R. Moshe Gaon and R. Natronai Gaon, who differ with this view and who rule that one who did not recite the Shabbat amidah on Friday evening may fulfill his obligation by listening to the sheliaḥ tzibbur recite magen avot. 60 Many early northern French and Ashkenazic authorities, including Siddur Rashi, Sefer hapardes, R. Simḥah bar Samuel of Vitry, Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms, R. Mordecai ben Hillel, R. Meir Hakohen, R. Jacob Moellin, R. Jacob Landau, and R. Isaac Tyrnau, quote or refer to the 59 Heinemann, “One Benediction,” 102 n. 1. 60 Seder Rav Amram II:7–8, p. 64. While the responsa of R. Moshe and R. Natronai are most certainly not part of the original version of Seder Rav Amram, they must have entered into the text very early, as they are cited already in works of the school of Rashi. Brody argues that even Rav Amram’s ruling is secondary; Yeraḥmiel [Robert] Brody, “Leḥidat arikhato shel Seder Rav Amram Gaon,” in Knesset Ezra: Literature and Life in the Synagogue: Studies Presented to Ezra Fleischer, ed. S. Elizur, M. S. Herr, G. Shaked, and A. Shinan (Jerusalem, 1994), 31 n. 39. For R. Natronai’s responsum, see also Brody, Teshuvot R. Natronai Gaon 75, p. 185.

Chapter 2 · 101 responsa of R. Moshe and R. Natronai. They are also cited in two manuscripts of Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson. 61 With regard to the second question, most authorities, including R. Eliezer ben Joel Halevi of Bonn, R. Samson ben Tzadok, R. Mordecai ben Hillel, R. Meir Hakohen, and R. Isaac Tyrnau, rule that an individual should not recite berkakha me’ein sheva. This is consistent both with the idea that the recitation of berakhah me’ein sheva can be regarded as a sort of repetition of the amidah, and the halakhah that the amidah is repeated only in the presence of a minyan. R. Peretz ben Elijah of Corbeil, cited in Tashbetz and Abudarham, rules that an individual may recite magen avot, but without the avot or the concluding passage. It is these passages which give berakhah me’ein sheva its amidah-like quality. R. Jacob Landau cites the negative view of R. Eliezer ben Joel Halevi, but writes that the custom in Ashkenaz is for the individual to recite [only] magen avot. Nevertheless, R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms and R. Jacob Moellin rule that an individual must recite magen avot, with R. Eleazar ben Judah citing a ruling of “the Geonim,” and R. Jacob Moellin citing the view of R. Peretz.  62 61 Siddur Rashi 480, p. 212; Hapardes, p. 310; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat tefillat arvit 4, p. 173; seder Shabbat 2, p. 264 (only MS London); Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz 54, p. 142 n. 52; Sefer harokeaḥ hilkhot Shabbat 50; Mordecai Shabbat 284 in gloss; Hagahot Maimuniot on hilkhot tefillah 9:11, s.v. lefikhakh yaḥid; She’eilot uteshuvot Maharil, 135 (145), p. 229; Ha’agur 369; Tyrnau, p. 20 gloss 29; and Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson 55, p. 143 n. 9. Others who cite the responsa of R. Moshe and R. Natronai include Hamanhig, pp. 139–40; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 66, p. 286; Semag positive commandments 19, p. 101a; Tur O.H. 268; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 149; Beit Yosef on Tur O.H. 268, s.v. katav Rav Amram; and Shulḥan arukh O.H. 268:13. R. Amram’s ruling is quoted only by Hamanhig, the Tur, and Abudarham, all of whom rule with R. Amram that one who errs while reciting the amidah cannot fulfill his obligation through the sheliaḥ tzibbur’s recitation of magen avot. 62 Raviah 196, p. 240; R. Samson ben Tzadok, Sefer tashbetz (Jerusalem, 1973/74; reprint of Warsaw 1901 edition with new material), 236; Mordecai Shabbat 284; Hagahot Maimuniot on hilkhot tefillah 9:11, s.v. lefikhakh; Tyrnau p. 20 gloss 29; R. Peretz ben Elijah of Corbeil, cited in Tashbetz 236 and Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 148; Ha’agur 368; Rokeaḥ 50; Teshuvot Maharil 136 (146), p. 230. See also Semag positive commandments 19, p. 102a; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 66 p. 285; Tur O.H. 268; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 148; Beit Yosef on Tur O.H. 268, s.v. umah shekatav beshem avi ha’ozeri; and Shulḥan arukh O.H. 268:8. On the rulings of R. Peretz and the Sefer mitzvot katan, see Teshuvot Maharil 136 (146), p. 230 n. 6. He appears to be referring to an individual who is praying by

102  ·  Preserving the Old

Berakhah Me’ein Sheva Recited on Account of Danger The central interpretive issue for later generations was the question of the nature of the danger that was alleviated through the recitation of “one benediction comprising seven.” According to Seder Rav Amram, the rabbis were concerned for the welfare of those who come late to the synagogue on Friday evening. The congregation might leave to return home for the Sabbath meal after concluding its recitation of arvit, leaving the latecomer, who had not yet completed his prayers, alone in the synagogue, thereby placing him in danger from demons who were abroad at night. 63 Requiring the sheliaḥ tzibbur to recite berakhah me’ein sheva, thereby prolonging the service, would enable the latecomer to complete his own recitation of the amidah and leave the synagogue along with the rest of the congregation. However, Seder Rav Amram does not explain why this is a special concern on Friday evening. Rashi explains that in Babylonia the synagogues were located outside of the towns and villages. During the week people would return home after work and recite the arvit service privately. On Friday evenings, however, everyone would come to the synagogue for arvit. There were, of course, those who would arrive late, after the service had begun, and it was for the sake of these latecomers that the Sages had added berakhah me’ein sheva, as explained in Seder Rav Amram. 64 And while the merit accrued by Jews through their prepahimself. According to Kol bo 11, R. Peretz was ruling on a somewhat different issue: whether the congregation is permitted to recite berakhah me’ein sheva along with the sheliaḥ tzibbur. If it has the status of the sheliaḥ tzibbur’s repetition of the amidah, then its recitation by the congregation would be an unnecessary benediction, forbidden by the halakhah. According to Kol bo, R. Peretz wrote that it was customary [for the congregation] to recite magen avot [only] along with the sheliaḥ tzibbur. This does appear to be the meaning of R. Peretz’s gloss to R. Isaac of Corbeil’s Sefer mitzvot katan amudei golah 11. 63 Seder Rav Amram II:123, p. 164 refers to sakanah devei shamshah, the “danger of twilight [on Friday evening],” but the words devei shamshah are missing in MS Oxford Bod. Opp. Add. 4028. On II:12, p. 66 it states that the danger of twilight on Friday night is that mazikin, demons, are present at that time. However, this passage is most likely a later interpolation into the text of Seder Rav Amram; Brody, “Leḥidat arikhato,” 31 n. 39. On II:95, p. 131, the danger is said to be that of sheidim, another type of demon. See also II:123, p. 164. On devei shamsha as referring to twilight on Friday night, see Rashi on Shabbat 86b, s.v. velitablu bei. 64 Rashi, Shabbat 24b, s.v. mishum sakanah. Orḥot ḥayyim hilkhot tefillah 90 explains that

Chapter 2 · 103 rations for Shabbat, or the merit of Shabbat itself, was thought to offer protection from the threat of demons, this protection did not extend to those who went out alone on Friday night, or who, as in this case, remained alone in an isolated synagogue. Most of the early authorities follow this interpretation. While some, including Maimonides, do not state specifically that the danger is from demons, most refer to mazikin, with a few mentioning sheidim. 65 Maḥzor Vitry suggests that the concern is for the spirits of those who had died during the previous twelve months, who are given rest from their labors on Shabbat and are free to roam the countryside, 66 while according to R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen of Lunel it is the demon Lilith who wanders about on Friday night. 67 Almost all of the early authorities agree that the threat is to one who is left alone in the synagogue. R. Abraham bar Nathan of Lunel notes that it is especially dangerous to remain alone in a synagogue, “for the angel of death stores his weapons there.” 68 On the other hand, the synagogues were located out in the fields for the convenience of the landowners and their workers, who could then gather together for prayer at the appropriate times during the day. 65 Rambam, Hilkhot tefillah 9:11. Authorities who refer to mazikin include Rashi on Shabbat 24b, s.v. sakanah; Hapardes, pp. 307–8; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat tefillat arvit 4, pp. 172–73 (only MS London); Raviah 196, p. 241; Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson 55, p. 143; Hamanhig, p. 138; R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna. Sefer or zarua hashalem, ed. A. Marinberg (Jerusalem, 2001), 2:20; Semag positive commandments 19, p. 102a; Kol bo 35; Orḥot ḥayyim hilkhot tefillah 89; seder tefillat erev Shabbat 11; Ḥiddushei Ritba on Rosh Hashannah 11b, s.v. lailah hameshumar; Tur O.H. 268 (citing Raviah); Toldot Adam netiv 12 ḥelek 19 p. 102a; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 148 (citing Raviah). Authorities who refer to sheidim include Siddur Rashi 535, p. 267; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 142; Vitry seder Shabbat 2, p. 264 (only MS Sasson-Klagsbald 535). While mazik and sheid may have referred to different types of demons in antiquity, Joshua Trachtenberg argues that by the Middle Ages these terms, along with ru’aḥ, “were used indiscriminately in a generic sense and were often employed interchangeably in a single paragraph;” Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, 27–29. There were also those who suggested that the danger was from bandits; Naftali Wieder, “Berakhah bilti yadu’ah al keriat perek ‘bameh madlikin’ mitokh hagenizah,” in Hitgabshut nusaḥ hatefillah (Jerusalem, 1998), 324 n. 6; R. Manoaḥ ben Simeon Bedarshi of Narbonne, Sefer hamano’ah, ed. Elazar Hurvitz (Jerusalem, 1970), 152; Solomon Wertheimer, Batei Midrashot ( Jerusalem, 1952–1955; reprint Jerusalem, 1968), 2:84. 66 Vitry hilkhot Shabbat tefillat arvit 4, p. 172 (only MS London). 67 Orḥot ḥayyim hilkhot tefillah 89. 68 Hamanhig, p. 138. This notion is later cited in Orḥot ḥayyim hilkhot tefillah 89.

104  ·  Preserving the Old R. Mordecai ben Hillel suggests that the danger lies in one’s returning home alone at night from the synagogue. 69 R. Nathan ben Judah maintained that Friday evening was an especially dangerous time, for the influence of the red planet Mars, signifying war, pestilence, and retribution was dominant during the first hour following the onset of Shabbat. Therefore, it was not necessary to prolong the service when a festival began on a week night, when it would be expected that most people would come to the synagogue for arvit, just as they did on Shabbat. 70 We have seen that, from the eleventh century on, Ashkenazic authorities accepted Rashi’s interpretation that berakhah me’ein sheva had been instituted to prolong the synagogue service on Friday evening so that latecomers would not be left alone in the synagogues, which were located in the countryside, and thus be endangered by demons. R. Eliezer ben Joel Halevi appears to have been the first to have asked whether, and why, it should continue to be included in the service, given that European synagogues were located within the towns. His answer, that it should be included because its recitation had become an established custom, was later cited by both Ashkenzic and Sephardic authorities, including R. Yom Tov ben Abraham Ishbili (Ritba), R. Jacob ben Asher, R. David Abudarham, and R. Jacob Moellin, with R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna and Rabbenu Yeruḥam ben Meshullam of Provence expressing the same idea in somewhat different language. 71 69 Mordecai Shabbat 407. 70 Hamaḥkim, p. 19; Raviah 200, p. 269; Kol bo 35; Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat erev Shabbat 11. Raviah introduces this interpretation with, “there are those who explain,” while Kol bo and Orḥot ḥayyim cite R. Nathan. On the influence of the planets, and particularly Mars, see Rashi on Berakhot 59b, s.v. kol 28 shanim and Shabbat 129b, s.v. dekayemei lei ma’adim bezavei; Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer (ed. Friedlander), 6, pp. 32–33. 71 Mishum minhag avoteinu; Betzah 4b; Raviah 196, p. 241; Ritba on Rosh Hashanah 11b, s.v. lailah hameshumar; Tur O.H. 268; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 149; Teshuvot Maharil haḥadashot 1, pp. 2–3. The talmudic statement that we should continue to observe the second day of the festival “because it is a custom of our ancestors [in our hands]” also expresses the concern that the circumstances that gave rise to this custom may recur at some time in the future. R. Jacob Moellin writes that for this very reason the ancestral custom of reciting berakhah me’ein sheva should be maintained: there is always a possibility that, at some time in the future, synagogues will again be constructed in the outlying areas.

Chapter 2 · 105

Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-century Authorities on Berakhah Aḥat Me’ein Sheva Authorities who lived during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries added little that was new to the discussion of berakhah me’ein sheva. Several repeated the explanation that it had been instituted for the sake of those who came late to the synagogue on Friday evening. 72 There was far more discussion of two issues of immediate practical concern: whether it should or may be recited by an individual who recites arvit by himself, and whether the congregation may recite berakhah me’ein sheva along with the sheliaḥ tzibbur. Indeed, later authorities mention the explanation for the institution of berakhah me’ein sheva primarily because it implies that this benediction had been enacted for recitation only by the sheliaḥ tzibbur during the course of congregational worship. As we have seen, most early authorities rule that an individual should not recite berakhah me’ein sheva. However, R. Samson ben Tzadok and R. David Abudarham cite an earlier ruling by R. Peretz ben Elijah of Corbeil, who had ruled that an individual was permitted to recite berakhah me’ein sheva provided, however, that he did not begin

Or zarua 2:20 does not use the phrase mishum minhag avoteinu. Rather, it states that “since it was instituted [for a need] and they have become accustomed to reciting it in the synagogue, it is as though it had become obligatory [even though the original reason no longer applies]. R. Yeruḥam maintains that “since it was enacted, they did not uproot it from its place.” He attributed this ruling to Rashi, perhaps referring to Hapardes, p. 308; Toldot Adam veḤavah (reprint of Venice 1553 ed., Tel Aviv, n.d.) toldot Adam netiv 12 ḥelek 19 p. 102a. A somewhat different approach is taken by R. Solomon ben Adret, who writes that while berakhah me’ein sheva was instituted for the reasons stated above, the original enactment was that it should be recited under all circumstances. In this he followed the reasoning developed by Rambam in a responsum ruling that berakhah me’ein sheva should be recited even when no latecomers are present; Teshuvot haRambam (ed. Blau) 221; Teshuvot Rashba 1:323. The responsum of Rambam is also cited in Abudarham (ed. Bra’un), 261–62; (ed. Wertheimer), 117–18 and Beit Yosef on Tur O.H. 124, s.v. vekatav haRav David Abudarham. 72 Levush haḥur 268:8; Matteh Moshe 4:430; Perishah on Tur O.H. 268, s.v. mishum sakanah; Kirchheim, p. 52 gloss 6; Turei zahav on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 268:8, s.v. berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva. Matteh Moshe cites the Kol bo’s discussion of this issue verbatim.

106  ·  Preserving the Old or end with the berkahah formula. 73 R. Jacob Moellin later ruled that an individual should recite the passage from magen avot to zekher lema’aseh bereishit, following a ruling attributed to R. Isaac of Corbeil. 74 In the fifteenth century, R. Jacob Landau affirmed that it was the custom of Ashkenaz and France that the individual recites magen avot, without including the opening and closing passages. 75 By the sixteenth century this appears to have become the universal practice in Ashkenaz. Even when later authorities rule that an individual may not recite berakhah me’ein sheva in its entirety, they acknowledge that one may recite magen avot. 76 Kol Bo cites R. Peretz’s statement as having related to a somewhat different issue. He writes that, according to R. Peretz, it is customary for [the congregation] to recite magen avot until zekher lema’aseh bereishit along with the sheliaḥ tzibbur. While this custom is not mentioned by other early authorities, many later authorities did comment on it. R. Moses Isserles states that this was the customary practice, citing Kol Bo, while R. Mordecai Jaffe writes that it is the custom of some to do so (vekhen nohagin ketzat). Other authorities who refer to this custom include R. Joshua Falk, R. Yosef Yuzpa Hahn Nordlingen, and R. Yuzpa Shamash. 77

Summary According to the Babylonian Talmud, the rabbis instituted the sheliaḥ tzibbur’s repetition of the amidah at arvit on Friday evening on 73 Tashbetz 236; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 148. 74 Actually, the reference is to the statement by R. Peretz ben Elijah of Corbeil, cited above, in a gloss to R. Isaac of Corbeil’s Sefer mitzvot katan. 75 Tashbetz 236; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 149; Teshuvot Maharil 135 (146); Ha’agur 368. See also Tyrnau, p. 20 and gloss 29, who rules that an individual should not recite the beginning and concluding passages and that if he does so he has recited a benediction in vain. 76 Ḥiddushei Maharshal on Tur O.H. 268, s.v. veḥotem barukh attah adonai mekadesh hashabbat; R. Moses Isserles on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 268:8; cf. Darkhei Moshe on Tur O.H. 268 vekatav Abudarham; Levush haḥur 268:8; Matteh Moshe 4:430; Perishah on Tur O.H. 268, s.v. lo amrinan lah elah; Kirchheim, p. 52 gloss 6; Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 268:8, s.v. uvelo ḥatimah. 77 R. Moses Isserles on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 268:8; Darkhei Moshe on Tur O.H. 268 vekatav Abudarham; Levush haḥur 268:8; Perishah on Tur O.H. 268, s.v. lo amrinan lah elah, citing Isserles and S. Luria; Yosef ometz, p. 127; Shamash 1:29.

Chapter 2 · 107 account of danger. 78 This was understood to be a reference to the recitation of berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva, which, according to Seder Rav Amram, was enacted by the rabbis out of concern for the welfare of those who come late to the synagogue on Friday evening. According to Rashi, the synagogues in Babylonia were located outside of the towns and villages. The recitation of berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva would lengthen the service, enabling latecomers to catch up and to leave with the other worshipers at the conclusion of the service. They would not then be endangered by demons that were thought to be a threat to those who remained alone in the synagogue at night, or, according to others, people returning home alone on dark country roads. We have seen that a similar rationale was suggested by some authorities for the recitation of barukh Adonai le-olam. By the High Middle Ages, and most probably earlier, synagogues were located within towns and villages, and those who attended the synagogue at night were no longer thought to be in danger from demons. As was the case with barukh Adonai le’olam, there was a need to justify the continued recitation of berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva. After all, if no valid rationale could be found, one who recited it would be reciting an unnecessary benediction, a grave violation of a significant halakhic norm. Whereas halakhic authorities offered a variety of new rationales to justify the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam, in the case of berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva, they focused on two. The first, mentioned by R. Eliezer ben Joel Halevi, and following him, R. Jacob ben Asher, R. David Abudarham, R. Yom Tov Ishbili, and R. Jacob Moellin is that the recitation of berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva had become an established custom inherited from our ancestors. The other rationale, first proposed by Rambam and also mentioned by R. Solomon ben Adret, claimed that even though this prayer was introduced due to the danger posed for those who remained at night in synagogues located in the fields, the original enactment intended that it be recited consistently, whether or not there are latecomers and wherever the synagogue is located. 79 We have seen that both were given to justify the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam. 78 Shabbat 24b. 79 See above, pp. 81–83 and p. 104 n. 71.

108  ·  Preserving the Old

THE RECITATION OF KIDDUSH IN THE SYNAGOGUE The custom of reciting kiddush over a cup of wine in the synagogue on Friday evening dates back at least to the time of the early Amoraim. 80 The Babylonian Talmud relates that Rav and Samuel differed over whether one could fulfill his obligation to recite kiddush on Friday evening through its recitation in the synagogue: As for those people who have sanctified [the day] in the synagogue: 81 Rav said: They have not fulfilled their obligation with respect to wine, but they have fulfilled their obligation with regard to kiddush. And Samuel said: They have not fulfilled their obligation with regard to kiddush, either. But according to Rav, why must he recite kiddush at home? To fulfill the obligation on behalf of his children and his household. And according to Samuel, why must kiddush be recited in the synagogue? To enable guests to fulfill their obligation, for they eat, drink, and sleep in the synagogue. And Samuel is consistent with his expressed view, for Samuel said: Kiddush is recited only where one eats. 82 From this source we see that kiddush was recited over wine in some Babylonian synagogues in the time of Rav and Samuel. Rav ruled 80 On the early history of kiddush, see Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 94–95; Jonathan EtzHaim, “Kiddush haShabbat – Hishtalshelut hahalakhah,” Bar-Ilan 16–17 (1978/79): 70–85; Ta-Shma, “Kiddush,” 157–70; Gerald J. Blidstein, “Meihabayit leveit hakeneset – meiḥiddushei beit hakeneset habatar talmudi” in Ta Shma: Studies in Judaica in memory of Israel M. Ta-Shma, ed. Abraham Reiner, Joseph R. Hacker, Moshe Halbertal, Moshe Idel, Ephraim Kanarfogel, and Elhanan Reiner (Alon Shevut, 2011), 105–34. 81 From the phrase “As for those people who have sanctified [the day] in the synagogue” it is not clear whether kiddush was recited within the context of the communal arvit service or by individuals after the service had concluded; Ben-Haim, “Kiddush haShabbat,” 79 n. 54; Blidstein emphasizes the idea that the phrase “as for those people” indicates the popular, rather than rabbinic, origins of this practice; “Meihabayit leveit hakeneset,” 124–25. 82 Pesaḥim 100b–101a.

Chapter 2 · 109 that one may fulfill his obligation to recite kiddush by reciting (or by listening to) kiddush in the synagogue, while Samuel, who maintained that kiddush must be recited where one eats the Sabbath meal, ruled that one may not fulfill his obligation in that way. It would appear that Samuel was opposed to the practice of reciting kiddush in the synagogue, for the blessing recited would be an unnecessary or vain benediction. However, the Gemara suggests that even Samuel might have justified this practice as being of benefit to travelers who lodged in the synagogue, and who otherwise would not have had an opportunity to recite kiddush or to have it recited on their behalf. 83 A source in the Jerusalem Talmud may also testify to the Babylonian practice of reciting kiddush in the synagogue. R. Yose beRabbi Bun relates that in Babylonia, when there was no wine available for kiddush, the sheliaḥ tzibbur would recite berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva in lieu of kiddush. This implies that when wine was available, kiddush itself would be recited in the synagogue. 84 These sources indicate that during the Amoraic period it was customary in some, if not all, Babylonian synagogues to recite kiddush on Friday evening. 85 According to Samuel, who maintained that kiddush must be recited where one eats the Sabbath meal, this practice could be justified on the grounds that it enabled those who were lodging in the synagogue to fulfill their obligation to recite kiddush. After all, the synagogue was their makom se’udah, for they ate their Sabbath meal in the synagogue, that is, in a room adjoining the sanctuary. Samuel’s view, that kiddush must be recited where one eats, came to be regarded as the accepted halakhah. This gave rise to a problem, for by the end of the Amoraic period it was no longer customary for travelers to lodge in the synagogue. Yet, the practice of reciting kiddush in the synagogue had by then become firmly established. How could the continuation of this practice be justified? 83 Blidstein, “Meihabayit leveit hakeneset,” 125–26. 84 However, it is also possible that when wine was available, kiddush was recited at home, as required by Samuel, and not in the synagogue. 85 While many scholars maintain that the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue was a uniquely Babylonian custom, Ta-Shma posits that it was done in the land of Israel, as well; Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 94; Heinemann, “One Benediction Comprising Seven,” 102 n. 4; Ta-Shma, “Kiddush,” 159.

110  ·  Preserving the Old This problem has troubled rabbinic authorities since the time of the Geonim. There were those who claimed that kiddush should no longer be recited in the synagogue, that due to the absence of one whose obligation was to recite or hear kiddush, the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue would result in an unnecessary or vain benediction, which is prohibited by the halakhah. 86 However, most authorities sought to find grounds for justifying the continued recitation of kiddush in the synagogue.

Rav Natronai Gaon: Kiddush Wine Has Therapeutic Power The first authority to suggest a new rationale for the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue was R. Natronai Gaon, in a responsum that appears in Seder Rav Amram and which was widely quoted by later authorities, sometimes without ascription. 87 Rav Natronai rules that both kiddush and havdalah should be recited in the synagogue even when there are no guests eating there. With regard to kiddush, he notes that although the accepted halakhah is that one may recite kiddush only where one eats the Sabbath meal, kiddush should still be recited over wine in the synagogue. Why? Because tasting kiddush wine is therapeutic. The reason that the entire congregation tastes it is not because one is obligated to taste it. One is only required to listen to kiddush, and once one has listened to kiddush one has fulfilled one’s obligation and there is no need to taste [the wine]. The one who recites kiddush and gives [wine] to the congregation to taste does so because it is ther 86 See, for example, the views of R. Hai Gaon and R. Samuel Hanagid cited in R. Judah ben Barzillai Hanasi Al-Bargeloni, Sefer ha’itim, ed. Jacob Schorr (Cracow, 1903), p. 183. Rav Hai’s objection was later cited in Orḥot ḥayyim hilkhot kedushat hayom 9; Teshuvot Rashba 1:37; Tur O.H. 269; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 152; Ha’agur 371. See also Otzar haGeonim Pesaḥim 243. 87 Seder Rav Amram II:10, p. 65; Brody, Teshuvot Rav Natronai 76, pp. 186–89. R. Natronai’s responsum is quoted or cited in Siddur Rashi 481, pp. 212–13; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 5, pp. 174–75; Tosafot Pesaḥim 100b, s.v. yedei kiddush yatz’u; Ha’itim, pp. 179–82; Haminhagot, p. 174; Hamanhig, p. 144; Sefer harokeaḥ 50; Or zarua 2:20; Kol bo 31; Orḥot ḥayyim hilkhot kedushat hayom 9; Teshuvot Rashba 1:323; Tur O.H. 269; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 152; Ha’agur 371; Matteh Moshe 4:431; Turei zahav on Shulhan arukh O.H. 269, s.v. nohagim lekadesh beveit hakenesset. See also Brody, Teshuvot Rav Natronai, p. 186 n. 1.

Chapter 2 · 111 apeutic, and he gives them sufficient [wine] to dab on their eye lids, for it is said: “A long stride diminishes one’s eyesight by 1/500. And what is its remedy? [He can restore it] with kiddush on Friday night.” 88 Therefore, since there are occasions when there are those in the congregation who have no wine and who [therefore] recite kiddush on bread, 89 the sages enacted that kiddush be recited over wine in the synagogue, for healing. According to Rav Natronai, the halakhah follows the view of Samuel: kiddush must be recited where one eats the Shabbat meal. Nevertheless, kiddush is to be recited in the synagogue, not as a means of enabling those present to fulfill their obligation, but because it has therapeutic value. While kiddush wine consumed at home also has therapeutic value, those who are poor may not have sufficient means to purchase wine for this purpose. Thus, according to Rav Natronai, kiddush is recited in the synagogue for the sake of the poor who cannot afford wine for kiddush, and who would otherwise be deprived of the healing effects of kiddush wine. Rav Natronai does not reject Samuel’s rationale for reciting kiddush in the synagogue. That rationale was valid at a time when travelers ate and lodged in the synagogue. Rather he provides an additional rationale that would justify the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue in his own time. 90 Seder Rav Amram itself rules that kiddush is recited in the synagogue in order to enable those who eat in the synagogue to fulfill their obligation, following Samuel. 91 It is interesting to note, however, that Rav Amram also attributes a therapeutic explanation to a custom surrounding the recitation of kiddush, writing that one should stand for all of the prayers recited following the amidah until the sheliaḥ tzibbur has finished reciting kiddush, “for it strengthens the knees.” 92 88 Berakhot 43b. Long strides were regarded to be a mark of arrogance. 89 Which lacks the therapeutic value of wine. 90 Brody, Teshuvot Rav Natronai, p. 188 n. 6. Other Geonim suggest additional explanations for the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue. Thus, Rav Matityahu Gaon (or Rav Menaḥem Gaon) states that kiddush is recited in the synagogue to fulfill the teaching on Pesaḥim 106a that “one should mention [the sanctity of Shabbat] over wine at its entrance.” 91 Seder Rav Amram II:9, p. 65. 92 Seder Rav Amram II:12, p. 66. See also Halakhot gedolot at the end of hilkhot tzitzit;

112  ·  Preserving the Old Rav Natronai’s responsum was known to many of the early authorities, who were familiar with it through its inclusion in Seder Rav Amram, in collections of Geonic responsa, and through citations in the writings of earlier authorities. Whereas some authorities cite Rav Natronai’s rationale as the sole reason for reciting kiddush in the synagogue, many include it as one of several alternative explanations. In some cases, those who conceived these additional explanations may not have been familiar with Rav Natronai’s responsum, but explanations were also, in part, proposed in response to weaknesses in Rav Natronai’s approach, as we see below. Siddur Rashi and, following it, Maḥzor Vitry quote the passage from Seder Rav Amram, including Rav Natronai’s responsum, as the sole explanation for continuing the practice of reciting kiddush in the synagogue, even though travelers no longer board there. 93 R. Eleazar of Worms explains that kiddush is recited in the synagogue for the sake of the poor, who might not have sufficient funds for the purchase of wine. 94 While he does not mention the therapeutic effect that drinking kiddush wine has for one’s vision, nor does he refer directly to Rav Natronai’s responsum, his attribution of this interpretation to the Geonim suggests that it too should be understood in the light of Rav Natronai’s responsum, that is, since the poor will not have wine at home, they would not enjoy its therapeutic benefit were kiddush not recited over wine in the synagogue.

Rav Natronai’s Rationale Challenged R. Eliezer ben Joel Halevi, in his Sefer Raviah, rejects Rav Natronai’s rationale, arguing that “in this day and age, there is no one who is so poor that he does not recite kiddush [over wine] at home.” 95 Siddur Rashi 483, p. 213; Kol bo 35; Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat erev Shabbat 14; Darkhei Moshe ha’arukh on Tur O.H., s.v. mishum refuah; Matteh Moshe 4:431. 93 Siddur Rashi 481, pp. 212–31; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat kiddush useudah 5, pp. 174–75. See also Vitry seder Shabbat minḥah ve’arvit 3, p. 265 (only MS London), where the only rationale provided for the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue is that it is for the benefit of guests. 94 Sefer harokeaḥ 50. 95 Raviah 196, p. 241. He does not, however, argue that kiddush should not be recited in

Chapter 2 · 113 Others present additional objections to Rav Natronai’s explanation. R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna takes issue with his interpretation on several grounds. 96 He too asks why kiddush should be recited in the synagogue, since the consumption of kiddush wine also has therapeutic value when kiddush is recited at home. Like R. Eliezer ben Joel Halevi, he rejects R. Natronai’s explanation that the poor might not recite kiddush over wine at home, arguing that in his day everyone does so. Furthermore, he argues that the approach suggested by Rav Natronai could not serve to justify the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue in twelfth-century Ashkenaz, for in that time and locale it was no longer customary for the ḥazzan to pour wine on the worshipers’ hands so that they might dab it on their eyelids. How, then, could those present benefit from the wine’s therapeutic power? Finally, he asks why, if the recitation of kiddush was enacted because of its therapeutic value, did the Talmud explain that, according to Samuel, kiddush is recited for the benefit of lodgers? It should have said that kiddush is recited for its therapeutic value! R. Jacob ben Asher rejects another aspect of Rav Natronai’s explanation. 97 Rav Natronai had written that one who hears kiddush recited in the synagogue has fulfilled his obligation, even if he did not drink from the kiddush wine. R. Jacob ben Asher rejects this ruling, arguing that one cannot fulfill his obligation through the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue even if he does drink of the wine, for the obligation to recite kiddush can be fulfilled only when it is recited at the Shabbat table. Furthermore, since kiddush recited in the synagogue is of no effect, it is forbidden for one to drink the wine over which it had been recited. One must wait until a valid kiddush is recited at the table before partaking of the wine. Like R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna, he argues that according to the Talmud, kiddush is recited in the synagogue for the sake of guests, not because it has therapeutic value. He concludes that since guests no longer board

the synagogue. Instead, he maintained that it is recited because it is an ancestral custom. 96 Or zarua 1:752:9; 2:20. 97 Tur O.H. 269.

114  ·  Preserving the Old in the synagogue, kiddush should not be recited there. R. Jacob ben Asher’s objections were later cited by R. Jacob Landau in his Sefer Ha’agur. 98

Additional Justifications for the Recitation of Kiddush in the Synagogue Although they reject Rav Natronai’s rationale, many early authorities offer alternative justifications for continuing the practice of reciting kiddush in the synagogue. 99 R. Eliezer ben Joel Halevi suggests that kiddush should be recited in the synagogue simply because it is an established custom, inherited from our ancestors. 100 This explanation is cited somewhat later by R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna and by R. Jacob Moellin, in Kol bo and Orḥot ḥayyim (Provence), and in Sefer Abudarham (Spain). 101 R. Eliezer ben Joel Halevi and R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna also cite a passage from the Talmud of the Land of Israel according to which havdalah is recited over a cup of wine – even though it is also recited in the context of the amidah – for the benefit of young children. 102 They interpret this to mean that children are given wine to drink at havdalah, and suggest that this is the case with kiddush as well. R. Eliezer ben Joel Halevi does not explain how giving children a taste of wine benefits them, but according to R. Isaac ben Moses the children learn to listen to the benediction and respond amen, and 98 Ha’agur 371. 99 Although the following discussion focuses on the responses of Ashkenazic authorities to this issue, I cite the views of other authorities when appropriate. 100 Raviah 196, p. 241. 101 Or zarua 1:752:9, 2:20; Kol bo 50; Orḥot ḥayyim hilkhot kedushat hayom 8; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 152; R. Jacob Moellin, Teshuvot Maharil haḥadashot 1, pp. 2–3. Teshuvot Maharil cites this explanation in the name of the Or zarua. According to Sefer Maharil hilkhot tefillah 4, p. 439, the recitation of kiddush and havdalah over a cup of wine in the synagogue was customary in the Rhineland communities. 102 ‫לזכות את התינוקות‬, based on y. Berakhot V:2 9b; Raviah 196, p. 243; Or zarua 1:752:9; 2:20. Raviah’s text of the Yerushalmi differs from current editions, according to which havdalah is recited in the amidah in order to benefit the children: ‫ר׳ יעקב בר אידי בשם‬ ‫ר׳ יצחק רובא אמרה בתפלה אומרה על הכוס בשביל לזכות את התינוקות‬. Raviah was probably the Or zarua’s source for these explanations. See the comment by A. Marinberg in Sefer or zarua hashalem 2:20 n. 16.

Chapter 2 · 115 then taste of the “blessing,” that is, of the wine which is a source of blessing. 103 In his responsum on this issue R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna defends the tradition of reciting kiddush in the synagogue, developing an argument that does not appear in his code. In this responsum he argues that the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue was originally enacted by the sages, not so those who heard it would thereby fulfill their obligation to recite kiddush, but as a means of publicly sanctifying and honoring the Sabbath day at its inauguration. 104 Several Spanish and Provençal authorities argue that kiddush should be recited in the synagogue for the sake of those who lack the ability to recite it on their own. R. Jonah ben Abraham Gerondi, a thirteenth-century Spanish authority, argues that while the sages had ruled that kiddush must be recited where one eats the Shabbat meal, the biblical commandment that one recite kiddush over wine at the inauguration of Shabbat can be fulfilled anywhere, even in the synagogue. 105 Since this is the case, kiddush should be recited in the synagogue for the sake of those who do not know how to recite kiddush on their own. They would thus fulfill the biblical requirement that Shabbat be sanctified over wine, even if they did not fulfill the rabbinic requirement that kiddush be recited where they eat their Shabbat meal. R. Jonah’s position was rejected by R. Asher ben Jehiel. 106 However, R. David Abudarham cites it in response to R. Jacob ben Asher’s ruling that, in the absence of lodgers, it is preferable to omit the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue. 107 103 Or zarua 1:752:9 104 Or zarua 1:752:9. With regard to our passage in Pesaḥim, R. Isaac argues that the question there is not why the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue was originally instituted; rather the Talmud is dealing with a secondary question: could one fulfill one’s obligation to recite kiddush by listening to the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue or must one recite it at home? According to Rav, one could fulfill one’s obligation by listening in the synagogue; according to Samuel, one could do so only if he then ate his Shabbat meal in the synagogue, as travellers did. 105 On the biblical commandment that kiddush be recited over wine at the commencement of Shabbat based on Exod 20:7, see Pesaḥim 106a. The rule that kiddush must be recited where one eats the Shabbat meal derives from Isa 58:13; see Shabbat 118b. 106 Rosh Pesaḥim X:5. 107 Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 152.

116  ·  Preserving the Old Other sources that state that kiddush should be recited in the synagogue for the sake of those who lack the ability to recite it on their own include R. Jacob of Marvege, Kol bo, and R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen of Lunel. They suggest that those who are ignorant might come to learn kiddush through hearing it recited in the synagogue, thus making it possible for them to recite it at home. 108 But the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue is more than a pedagogical tool, for they argue that one may also fulfill one’s obligation to recite kiddush by hearing it recited in the synagogue. In taking this position, they base themselves not on R. Jonah Gerondi, but on a ruling of R. Nissim ben Jacob of Kairouan. According to R. Nissim, the ruling that one must recite kiddush in the place where one will eat the Shabbat meal applies in a case where one originally intended to eat in the place where kiddush was recited but then decided to eat elsewhere. In such a case, the kiddush that was recited is considered to be invalid, and one must recite it again before eating the Shabbat meal. However, if one recites (or listens to) kiddush with the intention of eating elsewhere, one fulfills one’s obligation, for it is as though one made a condition that the recitation of this kiddush is to take effect when one reaches the place where one is going to dine. In the case under consideration, because the person wishes to fulfill the obligation through kiddush recited in the synagogue even though the intention is to eat afterward at home, it is regarded as though the kiddush recited in the synagogue actually was recited at home. 109 Kol bo and Sefer Abudarham suggest an interpretation whereby the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue serves less to sanctify the day than to sanctify God’s Name, “for God is greatly publicized and His name is sanctified when they bless Him in assemblies [of people], as it is written: In assemblies bless God, the Lord, O you who are the fountain 108 Teshuvot min hashamayim 25; Kol bo 31; Orḥot ḥayyim hilkhot kedushat hayom 9. 109 R. Nissim’s ruling is quoted in Haminhagot, p. 174; Hamanhig, p. 144; Kol bo 31; Orḥot ḥayyim hilkhot kedushat hayom 9; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 70, p. 290; Rosh Pesaḥim X:5; Tur O.H. 273; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 152; and in Ashkenaz without ascription in Tosafot Pesaḥim 100b, s.v. vedei kiddush lo yatz’u; in Hagahot Maimuniot on hilkhot Shabbat 29:8, s.v. vekhen amar Rav Nissim Gaon; Ha’agur 372; Matteh Moshe 4:431 and Levush haḥur 269. This approach was questioned in Haminhagot, which states that it requires deeper investigation, and was rejected by Tosafot and Rosh.

Chapter 2 · 117 of Israel.” 110 Similarly, R. Jacob of Marvege wrote that kiddush and havdalah are recited in the synagogue because in the multitude is the glorification of the King. 111 This discussion focused on a variety of explanations offered by early authorities who sought to justify the still-current practice of reciting kiddush over wine in the synagogue on Friday evening in the face of the consensus that the halakhah is in accord with the view of Samuel, who ruled that kiddush must be recited where one eats one’s Shabbat meal. There were, however, a number of important early authorities who objected to the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue. Among the early authorities who oppose this practice are R. Hai Gaon, R. Samuel Hanaggid, R. Abraham bar Nathan of Lunel, Tosafot, R. Yitzḥak ibn Giyyat, R. Meir ben Barukh of Rothenberg, R. Asher ben Yeḥiel, R. Jacob ben Asher, and R. Jacob Landau. 112 Although they state their views in a strong manner, they recognize that they could not end a practice that early on had achieved almost universal acceptance. R. Abraham bar Nathan of Lunel writes, “I am amazed at the custom of Spain and Provence, whereby they recite kiddush in the synagogue on Shabbat and on the festivals.” R. Meir ben Barukh notes that it was the custom to recite kiddush in the synagogue “in all of the communities in Ashkenaz,” while R. Jacob ben Asher writes that “it is the custom everywhere that the sheliaḥ tzibbur recites kiddush in the synagogue. And I am astonished that this custom has spread in this way, for we follow the view of Samuel . . . and since guests no longer eat there it is close to being a blessing recited in vain . . . and if I had the power to do so, I would abolish it.”

Who Should Drink the Wine? Those who objected to the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue, and even some who found its recitation justifiable on other grounds, 110 Ps 68:27. Kol bo 50; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 152. Abudarham quotes the beginning of Ps 68:27; it is implied in Kol bo. 111 Prov 14:28; Teshuvot Min Hashamayim 25. 112 Ha’itim, p. 183; Hamanhig, p. 143; Tosafot Pesaḥim 100b, s.v. yedei kiddush yatz’u; Teshuvot Rashba 37; R. Meir ben Barukh of Rothenberg, Teshuvot, pesakim, uminhagim, ed. Yitzḥak Ze’ev Kahana ( Jerusalem, 1957), 178; Rosh Pesaḥim X:5; Tur O.H. 269; Ha’agur 371.

118  ·  Preserving the Old also forbade the one who recited kiddush from drinking the wine, maintaining that it was forbidden to drink the wine until one had recited kiddush at home. 113 But if no one was to partake of the wine, the blessing recited over the wine in the synagogue would surely have been recited in vain. The solution to this problem was, according to some authorities, to have a child drink the wine. 114 However, this solution was itself problematic, even according to some of the authorities who permitted it. Thus, R. Meir ben Barukh of Rothenberg writes: And I even objected to the [the custom of having the] ḥazzan give kiddush wine to the children to drink, for even though we hold that if a child is eating forbidden foods the beit din is not obligated to stop him [for as a minor he is not culpable for transgressing a biblical prohibition], in any case, they do not themselves give him [forbidden foods] 115 . . . But I changed my mind and now support the continuation of this custom, for the rule that we do not give that which is forbidden to a child applies only [when it is in violation of ] a prohibition, like [the eating of ] neveilot and tereifot and that which is like them . . . but the sanctification of the day is a positive commandment, and we cannot [derive the law from one of these cases to the other, for they are not analogous]. 116 At first R. Meir ben Barukh had been inclined to prohibit giving kiddush wine to a child, for if it is forbidden for an adult to drink of the wine, it should also be forbidden to give it to a child to drink. He changed his mind after coming to the conclusion that giving a child kiddush wine to drink is not analogous to giving a child non-kosher food to eat. Nevertheless, he remained opposed to the recitation of 113 R. Meir ben Barukh of Rothenberg, Teshuvot, pesakim, uminhagim, p. 178; Rosh Pesaḥim X:5; Tur O.H. 269. 114 Kol bo 35; Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat erev Shabbat 14; Teshuvot Rashba 37; 323; Tur O.H. 369; Tyrnau, p. 20. Raviah 196, p. 243 and Or zarua 1:752:9; 2:20 had also written that children drink of the kiddush wine, but had ascribed a different reason for that custom, suggesting that by doing so they taste of the “blessing,” that is, of the wine which is a source of blessing. 115 Yevamot 114a. 116 R. Meir ben Barukh of Rothenberg, Teshuvot, pesakim, uminhagim, p. 178.

Chapter 2 · 119 kiddush in the synagogue, proclaiming, “If I had the power to do so, I would abolish it, for if they did it in the time of the sages, they did it to enable guests who ate and drank in the synagogue to fulfill their obligation.” 117 Rabbi Meir ben Barukh’s ruling was later quoted by R. Meir Hakohen. 118 R. Joseph Caro, in his Shulḥan arukh, begins by noting that it is customary to recite kiddush in the synagogue. 119 He explains that those who recite kiddush there continue to do so – even though travelers no longer eat their Shabbat meal in the synagogue – because the original enactment remains in force. In this, they follow the ruling of Rambam and others who maintain that when the sages instituted a practice because of a particular contingency, their intention was that it should be performed consistently, whether or not the anticipated conditions are met. 120 However, Caro himself opposes the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue, arguing that according to Samuel, kiddush must be recited only where one eats the Shabbat meal. And, he adds, that is the custom in the land of Israel. Turning to the question of who, if anyone, may drink the wine over which kiddush was recited in the synagogue, he cites authorities who forbade the sheliaḥ tzibbur from drinking the wine, for reasons that we have already discussed, as well as authorities who permit the sheliaḥ tzibbur to drink it. 121 He concludes that “the universal 117 R. Solomon ben Abraham Adret also overcame reservations about giving the wine to a child to drink; Teshuvot Rashba 37; 323. 118 Hagahot Maimuniot on hilkhot Shabbat 29:8, s.v. vehamekadesh beveit hakenesset. 119 Shulḥan arukh O.H. 269. 120 Beit Yosef on Tur O.H. 269, s.v. venohagin bekhol mekomot shesheliaḥ tzibbur mekadesh; O.H. 124, s.v. vekatav haRav David Abudarham; Teshuvot haRambam (ed. Blau), 221; Teshuvot Rashba 37; 323; R. Nissim Gerondi Pesaḥim 19b–20a, s.v. le’afukei orḥim yedei ḥovatam; R. Vidal Yom Tov of Tolosa, Maggid mishnah hilkhot Shabbat 29:8, s.v. velamah mekadshin beveit hakenesset; Abudarham (ed. Bra’un), 261–62; (ed. Wertheimer), 117–18; See also Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 152, where this idea is expressed in terms of a minhag hakadmonim rather than takanat haḥakhamim. 121 Beit Yosef O.H. 269, s.v. vehamekadesh beveit hakenesset ein lo lishtot. Authorities who forbid include Rosh Pesaḥim X:5; Toldot Adam netiv 12 ḥelek 1 p. 65b–66a; Hagahot Maimuniot on hilkhot Shabbat 29:8, s.v. vehamekadesh beveit hakenesset; Mordecai Pesaḥim 35a, quoting R. Meir of Rothenberg. Authorities who permit include R. Samuel, in the name of R. Samson ben Samson Hasar miCoucy, and Sefer mitzvot katan. See also Tur O.H. 273, which cites an opinion in the name of the Geonim that if the one who

120  ·  Preserving the Old practice is in accord with those who forbid drinking [kiddush wine] when not at the [Shabbat table].” What, then, should be done with the wine? In response to this question, Caro brings the ruling of R. Meir Hakohen that one may give it to a child, distinguishing this case from that mentioned in the Talmud, where it states that one may not give forbidden foods to a minor. He argues that the case for giving it to a child is even stronger than suggested by R. Meir Hakohen. Because various authorities permit adults, namely, the sheliaḥ tzibbur, to drink the wine in the synagogue, it is not considered to be as serious a prohibition as that which forbids giving forbidden food to children. He maintains that even though the general practice is for adults to follow the stricter view and refrain from drinking kiddush wine, it may be given to a child. Furthermore, if no one drinks the wine, the sheliaḥ tzibbur will have recited a blessing in vain. He concludes that, “in any case, it is the universal practice that no adult drinks [the wine] in the synagogue.”

Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-century Authorities on the Recitation of Kiddush in the Synagogue Ashkenazic authorities of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries report that the custom of reciting kiddush in the synagogue on Friday evening is firmly established throughout the lands of Ashkenaz. However, they continue to struggle with the questions of whether and why this custom should be maintained, as well as the secondary issue of who should drink the wine over which kiddush was recited. Rabbi Moses Isserles opposes the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue but, in acknowledgment of the established practice, rules that the wine should be given to a child to drink, following the view of the Beit Yosef. 122 R. Mordecai Jaffe maintains that one cannot fulfill the obligation to say kiddush through the kiddush that is recited in the synagogue recites kiddush drinks sufficient wine to require the recitation of a blessing, the place where this occurs is considered to be a dining place (makom se’udah). Thus, he will have fulfilled his obligation to recite kiddush and can “complete” his meal at home. 122 Darkehi Moshe ha’arukh on Tur O.H. 269, s.v. va’ani timah and vehamekadesh asur lishtot.

Chapter 2 · 121 because this obligation can be fulfilled only at the Shabbat table. He rejects the argument of those who, following the ruling of R. Nissim, claim that if one recited kiddush with an intention of eating elsewhere, the recitation is valid. Instead, he argues that the only valid justification for continuing the practice of reciting kiddush in the synagogue is that suggested by Rambam, R. Nissim Gerondi, R. Meir Hakohen, and others, that is, the initial enactment, which instituted the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue, was meant to apply whether or not boarders were present, and therefore, continues to be in effect. Like many earlier authorities, Jaffe rules that the one who recites kiddush must not drink the wine, as one may do so only when one recites the benediction at the table. Therefore the wine should be given to a child to drink so that the blessing will not have been recited in vain. He concludes by advising that in locations where no established custom of reciting kiddush in the synagogue exists, it is preferable to omit it as no one fulfills the obligation through its recitation in the synagogue. 123 R. Moses Mat rules that kiddush should be recited over wine in the synagogue. He offers three explanations for this custom, all of which we stated previously: it is recited for the sake of lodgers; it has a therapeutic effect; and it is recited for the sake of those who do not know how to recite kiddush, who may learn it by hearing it repeated week after week, and who may also fulfill their obligation by listening to it. In this, he accepts the ruling of R. Nissim. 124 R. Joshua Falk, on the other hand, justifies the continued recitation of kiddush in the synagogue on the grounds that the sages’ original enactment is still in effect, citing R. Nissim Gerondi. 125 R. Joel Sirkes develops a somewhat different argument. He rejects the view of Rambam and R. Nissim Gerondi that the initial enactment of the sages is still in effect because nowhere does the Talmud speak of the sages instituting the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue. Indeed, from the wording of the passage in Pesaḥim, “as for 123 Levush haḥur 269. 124 Matteh Moshe 4:431. 125 Perishah on Tur O.H. 269, s.v. deha kaima lan keShmuel.

122  ·  Preserving the Old those people who have sanctified [the day] in the synagogue,” it is clear that the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue was a popular custom, initiated by the community and not by the rabbis. He writes that, according to Rav, one recites kiddush at home for the benefit of those who did not hear it in the synagogue. Its recitation in the synagogue is thus primarily for the sake of those who had no families, so that they would not have to recite kiddush alone at home. According to Samuel, whose view is accepted, the impetus for the emergence of this custom was the desire to provide for the needs of travelers who lodged in the synagogue, which was a communal responsibility. Everyone else must recite it at home at the Shabbat table. Those who did not know how to recite kiddush on their own were required to find someone to come to their homes and recite it for them. However, once the custom of reciting kiddush in the synagogue for the sake of lodgers took root, those who did not know how to recite kiddush came to the synagogue to hear it recited there rather than making an effort to find someone to recite it on their behalf at home. Sirkes suggested that this custom had persisted until his time because those who were ignorant came to rely upon it. Rabbinic authorities tolerated this reliance, even though it is not in accord with the ruling of the sages that kiddush must be recited where one eats one’s Shabbat meal, for in this way the unlettered fulfilled the biblical commandment that kiddush be recited over wine at the beginning of Shabbat, following the ruling of R. Jonah ben Abraham Gerondi. Had they attempted to suppress this custom, those who did not know how to recite kiddush, and did not find someone to recite it, would not have fulfilled the mitzvah. 126 Sirkes also maintains that a sheliaḥ tzibbur who recites kiddush in the synagogue should not drink of the wine because according to rabbinic law one may not partake of wine until one recites kiddush at the table. Instead, a child should drink the wine. He does not regard this as a deviation from the original custom, for even when lodgers were present the sheliaḥ tzibbur was permitted to have someone else drink the wine. However, because some authorities objected to giving 126 Bayyit ḥadash on Tur O.H. 269, s.v. nohagin.

Chapter 2 · 123 a child food or drink that was prohibited even according to rabbinic law, Sirkes rules that the wine should be given to a very young child who does not understand the import of his actions and to whom those reservations do not apply. Sirkes notes that, according to the Geonim cited by R. Jacob ben Asher, the sheliaḥ tzibbur could drink the wine if in addition to the mouthful customarily consumed when one recites kiddush, he drank a sufficient quantity to require the recitation of the blessing because that amount would constitute the beginning of his Shabbat meal. However, he rules that because the general practice was to drink only a mouthful of wine and no more after reciting kiddush, it is preferable that a young child drink the wine. 127 R. Abraham Gombiner upholds the custom of reciting kiddush in the synagogue, agreeing with R. Solomon ben Adret that, not only should kiddush be recited in the synagogue, it is the responsibility of the community to ensure that wine was available for this purpose. He reports that in “these lands” it is customary for those who provide wine for kiddush to purchase this honor by making an appropriate donation. 128 He writes that the wine should be given to a child to drink, marshalling the views of R. Meir of Rothenberg, R. Joseph Caro, and others that it is permissible to do so despite the concern that normally one is not permitted to give a child forbidden food or drink. He rejects R. Joel Sirkes’s ruling that it should be given to a very young child, accepting the view of R. Solomon ben Adret that to do so would result in the recitation of a blessing in vain, for the one who drinks the kiddush wine must understand the import of the blessing, or of benedictions in general. 129 R. Abraham Gombiner also accepts the ruling of R. Isaac Tyrnau

127 Bayyit ḥadash on Tur O.H. 269, s.v. ve-hamekadesh beveit hakenesset; Tur O.H. 273; see also Levush haḥur 273:5. 128 Magen Avraham on Shulhan arukh O.H. 269, s.v. yoter tov lin’hog. The mi shebeirakh prayer recited on behalf of the congregation before the Torah is returned to the ark on Shabbat morning includes a blessing for those “who contribute lamps for lighting [the synagogue] and wine for kiddush and havdalah”; Yizhak Baer, Seder Avodat Yisrael (Roedelheim, 1868; reprint Berlin, 1936/37), 230. 129 Magen Avraham on Shulhan arukh O.H. 269, s.v. mat’imo lekatan.

124  ·  Preserving the Old that if there is no child present, an adult should drink the wine. 130 He writes that the adult should drink an amount that would require the recitation of a blessing, and that he should do so with the intention of fulfilling his obligation to recite kiddush at home. Nevertheless, he is permitted to recite kiddush a second time at home. 131 Finally, the minhag books of R. Judah Löw Kirchheim and R. Yuzpa Shamash indicate that kiddush was recited in the synagogue in Worms during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Kirchheim writes that the ḥazzan removes his tallit before reciting kiddush, and Shamash writes that kiddush is recited by either the ḥazzan or the shamash of the synagogue. In addition, Kirchheim writes that bameh madlikin should be recited simultaneously with kiddush, so that the mourners would recite kaddish at the moment that both are concluded. All of this would seem to suggest that kiddush was not considered to be a part of the prescribed Friday evening service. This may reflect discomfort with its inclusion in the service. It is interesting to note that in explaining why the wine should be given to children, Kirchheim does not give the reason offered by most authorities, namely, since the ḥazzan is forbidden to drink the wine, it must be given to a child so that the blessing is not recited in vain. Rather he reverts to a much earlier interpretation, namely, that it is done for the benefit of the children, particularly “to educate them in the mitzvot and [to encourage them] to come to the synagogue.” 132

Summary We see that the custom of reciting kiddush in the synagogue on Friday evening, a practice mentioned already in the Talmud, was the subject of heated discussion on the part of halakhic authorities from the time of the Geonim through at least the end of the seventeenth century. It was the consensus that the halakhah accepted the view, 130 Tyrnau, p. 20 in Hagahot haminhagim. 131 Magen Avraham on Shulhan arukh O.H. 269, s.v. mat’imo lekatan. 132 Kirchheim, p. 53; Shamash 1:29, p. 35. However, a gloss in Kirchheim states that the wine is given to children so that the blessing will not have been recited in vain, for the one who recites kiddush is not permitted to drink it.

Chapter 2 · 125 based on the ruling of Samuel, that one could fulfill one’s obligation to recite kiddush only where one planned to eat the Shabbat meal; the original impetus for the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue was to serve the needs of travelers who lodged and ate in the synagogue, in a room adjoining the sanctuary. By the end of the Amoraic period the synagogue was no longer utilized as a lodging place, raising the question of whether the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue should be perpetuated or eliminated. While many early authorities sought to find new grounds that would justify its recitation, others, including R. Hai Gaon, R. Samuel Hanaggid, R. Yitzḥak ibn Giyyat, R. Abraham bar Nathan of Lunel, and – among the early Ashkenazic authorities – Tosafot, R. Meir ben Barukh of Rothenberg, R. Asher ben Yeḥiel, R. Jacob ben Asher, and R. Jacob Landau, objected to its recitation, even while admitting that the custom was firmly rooted and probably could not be eliminated through rabbinic decree. Among the authorities of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, R. Joseph Caro, R. Moses Isserles, and R. Mordecai Jaffe opposed the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue, while R. Moses Mat, R. Joshua Falk, R. Judah Low Kirchheim, R. Joel Sirkes, R. Yuzpa Shamash, and R. Abraham Gombiner maintained that it should be included, although some were ambivalent about it. As noted, many of these authorities, even those opposed to the practice, testify to the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue on Friday evening throughout the lands of Ashkenaz. It is remarkable that although our halakhic sources state that kiddush is recited in the synagogue on Friday evening, none of the siddurim indicate that this is to be done. There is simply no mention of the recitation of kiddush in any of the siddurim in our sample. 133 How are we to explain

133 Mention of the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue is also absent from many siddurim published during the early part of the eighteenth century. The earliest reference to kiddush that I found while conducting an albeit brief, incomplete survey of early eighteenth-century siddurim in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary was in a siddur printed in Jessnitz, Germany, in 1724. The full text of kiddush, including vayekhulu, appears after bameh madlikin. However, there are no explicit instructions indicating that it is to be recited in the synagogue, and the form of the kiddush is that of the one recited at the table. Instructions to recite havdalah

126  ·  Preserving the Old this omission? It is interesting that these siddurim also make no mention of the recitation of havdalah in the synagogue on Saturday evening. Both kiddush and havdalah are recited at home, as well as in the synagogue, and indeed, their primary locus is in the home, where they are recited every week by the head of the household. It might not have been regarded as necessary to include the texts of either of these benedictions, for they were surely known by almost everyone. But many of these siddurim do include the texts of other home rituals, such as the blessings recited after a meal and the zemirot sung around the Shabbat table. Moreover, why is there no comment or instruction indicating the point in the service at which kiddush should be recited? 134

CONCLUSION In this chapter we examined three cases where a rationale provided by the sages of the Talmud or by the Geonim for the recitation of a liturgical text no longer applied due to changes in the Jewish community. In each of these cases, the continued recitation of these prayers appears to violate established religious norms. Barukh Adonai le’olam was understood as a substitute for the amidah, which many people did not recite at arvit because it was considered optional; however, now, that is, in medieval Europe, “everyone” recites the amidah in the also appear in Jacob Emden’s siddur, Beit Ya’akov, Part 1: Amudei shamayim (1745), 342, where it states that a child should taste the wine. 134 Most contemporary Orthodox and Conservative siddurim published for use in the diaspora include either the text of kiddush or instructions that it be recited. See, for example, Baer, Seder avodat Yisrael, 194; Simeon Singer, The Authorized Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Commonwealth of Nations, second revised edition (London, 1962), 160; Philip Birnbaum, Daily Prayer Book (New York, 1949), 277; David de Sola Pool, The Traditional Prayer Book for Sabbath and Festivals (New York, 1960), 83–85; Nosson Scherman and Meir Zlotowitz, Siddur kol Yaakov: The Complete Artscroll Siddur (Brooklyn, 1984), 348–49; Jules Harlow, Siddur sim shalom (New York, 1985), 318; Jonathan Sacks, The Koren Siddur, ed. Raphaël Freeman (Jerusalem, 2009), 363. Despite this, personal observation indicates that recitation of kiddush is being eliminated at an increasing number of synagogues, probably under the influence of the custom of the land of Israel.

Chapter 2 · 127 evening service. The recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam is contrary to the Mishnah’s ruling that there are only two benedictions between the biblical passages which constitute the shema and the amidah. Berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva was said to have been instituted for the sake of latecomers on Friday evening at a time when synagogues were located in dark, isolated fields outside of the town limits. Enabling latecomers to catch up and to leave with those who had arrived on time meant the latecomers would not be subject to the supposed dangers from demons abroad at night. But once synagogues were located in town, there was no longer a concern about demons lurking in isolated areas. Berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva might now be considered an unnecessary blessing, the recitation of which is a violation of rabbinic law. In the third case, the halakhah was said to be in accord with the view that kiddush must be recited in the place where one eats one’s Shabbat meal, that it was recited in the synagogue on Friday night only for the benefit of lodgers who ate and slept in a room adjoining the synagogue. But synagogues stopped providing lodging and meals for travelers, so the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue on Friday nights might therefore be considered an unnecessary blessing. In each of these cases, various halakhic authorities struggled to provide new rationales for the recitation of these benedictions, whereas others sought to eliminate them entirely. The new rationales suggested by the defenders, or preservers, of these prayers were often unconvincing. These unpersuasive justifications led some to argue that the recitation of these prayers be maintained, either because those who instituted the prayers intended that they be recited consistently, whether or not the conditions that initially gave rise to their recitation were present at any particular time, or because their recitation had become a time-honored custom. It is possible that this is actually the reason that these texts were preserved in the liturgy of Ashkenaz. Despite the opposition of prominent authorities, people were simply unwilling to abandon ancestral traditions that had always been a part of the worship experience of their communities.

Chapter 3

Interpretation and Praxis In my examination of the relationship between liturgical practice and interpretation, thus far I have focused on cases where the liturgical practice remained constant while the interpretation of that practice, or the rationale given to justify that practice, changed over time. In the case of vehu raḥum (Chapter 1), the new interpretations infuse an ancient practice with new meaning. In the cases discussed in Chapter 2, new interpretations and legal arguments served to justify the continued recitation of liturgical passages when the circumstances thought to have led to their inclusion in the liturgy no longer applied, and when the continued inclusion of these passages, unsupported by the now outdated rationale, appeared to violate established halakhic norms. In all of these cases, interpretation serves a conservative function, justifying the preservation of traditional practices. In this chapter I focus on cases in which interpretation plays a much more dynamic role, contributing to a change in practice and even to the development of new liturgical practices.

BAMEH MADLIKIN Bameh madlikin provides us with a good case study illustrating the dynamic interrelationship between interpretation and liturgical practice. On the one hand, where multiple interpretations were offered, those preferred were those which were more consistent with practice. On the other hand, an appealing interpretation that was

129

130  ·  Interpretation and Praxis in tension with the dominant practice could provide the impetus for a change in practice. According to Seder Rav Amram, bameh madlikin, the second chapter of Mishnah Shabbat, is recited following kiddush in the synagogue on Friday evening. However, Seder Rav Amram does not explain the reason for its inclusion. 1 A benediction to be recited before bameh madlikin which stresses that all of the Shabbat laws, especially the law commanding the lighting of the Shabbat lamp, were given to Moses on Sinai and eventually transmitted to the sages, was discovered in the Cairo genizah. 2 This suggests that bameh madlikin may have been introduced into the service as a polemic against the Karaites, who would not make use of a lamp lit before the onset of Shabbat, based on Exodus 35:3. 3 Almost all of the sources written prior to the sixteenth century agree that bameh madlikin is recited at the conclusion of arvit, either before or following kiddush, 4 but they differ as to the reason for its inclusion in the service. Whatever the historical reason for its introduction into the service, the early authorities mention two reasons for the recitation of bameh madlikin. Almost all suggest that it is recited because it teaches the laws related to the lighting of the Shabbat lamps or because it reminds one of the kinds of wicks 1 Seder Rav Amram II:11, p. 65. Although Brody argues that this passage is an interpolation into the original text of Seder Rav Amram, it was already included in the version of Seder Rav Amram quoted by R. Judah ben Barzillai al Bargeloni in the eleventh century; Brody, “Leḥidat arikhato,” 31 n. 39; Ha’itim 140. 2 TS NS 299150 Wieder, “Berakhah bilti yadu’ah,” 335–36, 338–43. 3 The sages understood this verse as a prohibition against kindling a fire on Shabbat but ruled that it was permitted to make use of a fire that was kindled prior to the onset of Shabbat. R. Jacob Schor of Kuty, commentary to Ha’itim 140; Yitzḥak D. Gilat, “Leil hitkadesh Shabbat,” in Perakim be-histalshelut hahalakhah (Ramat Gan, 1992), 344–47; Wieder, “Berakhah bilti yadu’ah,” 329–43. 4 Seder Rav Amram II:11, p. 65; Siddur Rashi 480–82, pp. 242–43; Sefer harokeaḥ hilkhot Shabbat 50; Siddur harokeaḥ 86–89, pp. 180–97; Kol bo 35; Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat erev Shabbat 14–15; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 5, p. 175 (only MS London); Tur O.H. 269–70; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 153; Tyrnau, p. 20. In some cases the order is stated explicitly, while in others it is implied from the order in which these prayers and readings are discussed. For a discussion of the order of the prayers recited after the amidah on Friday evening, see my Issues and Developments, pp. 281–84, 289–95.

Chapter 3 · 131 and oils that are forbidden for this purpose. 5 However, many early Ashkenazic authorities claim that bameh madlikin was introduced, at least in part, for the same reason that berakhah me’ein sheva was introduced, that is, to delay the conclusion of the service. With a delay, latecomers could catch up and depart on time, and thus they would not be left alone in the synagogue where it was believed they were in danger from demons. 6 Almost all of these sources cite “because of danger,” as the primary reason; the idea that this prayer serves as a reminder that one should not use improper wicks or oils is an additional rationale. 7 Several early sources mention that in some places bameh madlikin is omitted when a festival falls on Friday because one is not permitted to set aside tithes or to make an eruv on a festival, obviating the need for a man to ask his wife whether she has set aside the tithes or prepared the eruv, as prescribed by m. Shabbat 2:7, the last mishnah in the chapter bameh madlikin. 8 Perhaps based on this tradition, 5 Ha’itim 140; Hamanhig, p. 145; Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson 56, p. 146; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 147; Hamaḥkim, p. 19; Kol bo 35; Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat erev Shabbat 15; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 5, p. 175 (only MS London); 156, p. 144; Tur O.H. 270; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 153. Raviah 199, p. 263 states that it is recited “to instruct the Jewish people.” 6 Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson 56, p. 146; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 147; Hamaḥkim, p. 19; Mordecai Shabbat 407; Sefer haminhagim leRabbenu Avraham Klausner 2nd ed., ed. Shlomo Spitzer ( Jerusalem, 2005) Sukkot 47 gloss 1, p. 42. Klausner cites this interpretation in the name of Rashi, but see Yehudah Dissen’s comment on p. 45 n. 10. It is also mentioned in Kol bo 35 and Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat erev Shabbat 15, both of which attribute this interpretation to the Geonim. See also Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 65, p. 284. 7 Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson 56, p. 146; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 147; Hamaḥkim, p. 19; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 5, p. 175 (only MS London; see n. 11, where Aryeh Goldschmidt argues that in this source this explanation applies to the recitation of kaddish, not to bameh madlikin); Kol bo 35 and Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat erev Shabbat 15. “Because of danger” is not mentioned in Hamanhig, an early Provençal source. Siddur harokeaḥ 87, p. 478 mentions only that it is recited to instruct those who are ignorant about which wicks and oils may be used, but this explanation is found only in MS Paris. The original text may not have included an explanation. Mordecai Shabbat 407 and Klausner sukkot 47 gloss 1, p. 42 mention only “because of danger.” According to Goldschmidt, the London MS of Maḥzor Vitry, which provided the basis for S. Hurwitz’s edition of Maḥzor Vitry, is actually a later work based upon Maḥzor Vitry, probably by R. Isaac bar Dorbelo; Goldschmidt, “Introduction,” 44–51. 8 Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 66, p. 286; Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat erev Shabbat 16; Tur

132  ·  Interpretation and Praxis the Sephardic authorities R. Jacob ben Asher, R. David Abudarham, and R. Joseph Caro suggest a different rationale for the recitation of bameh madlikin: 9 it reminds the worshiper that one is required to say three things to his wife on the eve of the Shabbat: “Have you separated the tithe? Have you prepared the eruv? Light the lamp!” 10

The Placement of Bameh Madlikin in the Order of the Service There is a clear relationship between the rationale brought to explain the recitation of bameh madlikin and the point in the Friday evening service at which it is to be recited. The preferred explanation was that which best explained or justified the accepted practice. On the other hand, acceptance of a proffered rationale could also lead one to advocate or even adopt a change in practice. All the earlier authorities report that most communities recite bameh madlikin at the conclusion of the arvit service. 11 This is in keeping with the interpretation that bameh madlikin was instituted to prolong the service so that latecomers would be able to complete their recitation of arvit on time and depart the synagogue at the same time as the rest of the congregation. This practice is also consistent with the other interpretation offered by the early authorities, namely, that bameh madlikin was included to teach the laws relating to the lighting of the Shabbat lamp. Almost all the authorities who commented on this issue through the thirteenth century mentioned one, and most often, both, of these interpretations. However, from Orḥot ḥayyim it is clear that by the late thirteenth century an alternative custom had emerged, for it notes that in some O.H. 270; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 153 (citing the Tur); Ha’agur 370; Tyrnau, p. 20 and hagahot haminhagim. According to the Tur, this is the custom of Ashkenaz. 9 Tur O.H. 270; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 153; Beit Yosef on Tur O.H. 270, s.v. venohagin lomar mishnat bameh madlikin. 10 m. Shabbat 2:7. 11 Seder Rav Amram II:11, p. 65; Siddur Rashi 480–82, pp. 242–43; Sefer harokeaḥ hilkhot Shabbat 50; Siddur harokeaḥ 86–89, pp. 180–97; Kol bo 35; Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat erev Shabbat 14–15; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 5, p. 175 (only MS London); Tur O.H. 269–70; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 153; Tyrnau, p. 20.

Chapter 3 · 133 communities bameh madlikin was recited either before minḥah or between minḥah and arvit. R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen of Lunel, the author of Orḥot ḥayyim, was not critical of this practice. He concluded that the placement of bameh madlikin in the service is determined by custom, and that one should follow the local custom. 12 R. David Abudarham writes that it is customary to recite bameh madlikin after kiddush, but he too is aware of a variant practice: I have heard that there are places where they recite this chapter between minḥah and arvit, and this is correct in my view. For what benefit is there in reciting it after arvit? That is not the time when one can prepare his wicks and lamps and perform labor. What has already been done has been done! Rather, when he recites it between minḥah and arvit, if he neglected to prepare [the lamp] he can go and prepare it! 13 We see from this that the prevalent custom during the fourteenth century, even in Spain, was to recite bameh madlikin at the conclusion of arvit, after kiddush. 14 Like R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen of Lunel, R. David Abudarham knows of a different custom, but unlike R. Aaron ben Jacob, he expresses a preference for that other custom over his own. His reason is consonant with the explanation that he gives for the recitation of bameh madlikin, namely, that it not only teaches the laws relating to the lighting of the Shabbat lamp, it reminds one to do so. In addition, it serves as a reminder of the three things that one is obligated to say to one’s wife on Friday evening. When bameh madlikin is recited early, that is, after minḥah, one who has neglected to fulfill these obligations still has time left to do so before the onset of Shabbat.

12 Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat erev Shabbat 15. 13 Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 153. Similar objections to the recitation of bameh madlikin at the end of arvit also appear in early sources from Ashkenaz, including Sefer Ra’avan by R. Eliezer bar Nathan of Mainz and the comments of R. Nehemiah ben Samuel, the scribe of MS Vatican 324, written in 1395; Wieder, “Berakhah bilti yadu’ah,” 202. 14 The laws relating to the recitation of bameh madlikin also appear after kiddush in Tur O.H. 269–70, where there is no mention of an alternate custom.

134  ·  Interpretation and Praxis Which communities recited bameh madlikin before arvit? Neither R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen of Lunel nor R. David Abudarham identified them, but we must assume that at least some of them were in Spain, for it was there that this custom ultimately emerged as the dominant practice. In the sixteenth century, R. Joseph Caro wrote that while the Ashkenazim and mustarev 15 recite bameh madlikin at the conclusion of arvit, the Sephardic practice is to recite it before arvit. He commended what he identified as the Sephardic practice of reciting it before arvit, for the reasons stated earlier by the Abudarham. 16

Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Authorities on the Placement of Bameh Madlikin The issue of the placement of bameh madlikin in the order of the Friday evening service generated considerable discussion among Ashkenazic authorities of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The discussion revolves around two questions: Should bameh madlikin be recited before or after arvit and, if the latter, should it be recited before or after kiddush? I focus on the first of these questions, as it is the one that is pertinent to the subject of this chapter. 17 As noted above, several Sephardic authorities interpret the recitation of bameh madlikin as a reminder that one must ask one’s wife whether she has separated the tithes and set the eruv and, if so, to light the lamps before the onset of Shabbat. According to R. Joseph Caro, this understanding should lead one to recite bameh madlikin before arvit, following the Sephardic custom, for, having been reminded to ask one’s wife whether she had fulfilled her three pre-Shabbat responsibilities, he would still have time to speak with her before Shabbat had he forgotten to do so before reciting minḥah. 15 The Arabic-speaking Jews who lived in the land of Israel prior to the arrival of the wave of refugees who came from Spain and Portugal after the Expulsion. See Sherayah Dablitski, “Ḥamishah minhagim la’eidot haSepharadim lemakom amirato shel perek bameh madlikin beleil Shabbat,” Moriah 219–20 (1993/94): 95–96. 16 Beit Yosef on Tur O.H. 270, s.v. venohagin lomar mishnat bameh madlikin. See also Shulḥan arukh O.H. 270:1. 17 For a discussion of the second question, see my Issues and Developments, 282–84.

Chapter 3 · 135 The first Ashkenazic authority to mention this explanation was R. Mordecai Jaffe. His acceptance of this explanation led him to conclude that although the custom in Ashkenaz was to recite bameh madlikin after arvit, the Sephardic custom of reciting it before arvit was preferable. 18 His younger contemporary, R. Joshua Falk, also refers to the Sephardic custom. Although he prefers his own Ashkenazic custom, he also expresses an understanding of the rationale underlying the Sephardic practice. 19 R. Joel Sirkes also follows the Tur in stating that bameh madlikin is recited because it contains the laws relating to the lighting of the Shabbat lamps and serves as a reminder to the householder to ask his wife whether she had separated the tithes and set the eruv, and then to request that she light the Shabbat lights. 20 However, Sirkes notes R. Joseph Caro’s objection to this explanation in light of the Ashkenazic custom of reciting bameh madlikin at the end of the arvit service. If the purpose of reciting bameh madlikin is to remind one to use acceptable wicks and oils and to check that the required tithes had been separated and the eruv put in place, it should be recited before Shabbat begins, that is, before arvit, for once arvit has begun it is too late to take corrective action. Sirkes responds that while the recitation of bameh madlikin at the conclusion of arvit does serve to remind one not to eat untithed food or to use the light of lamps with unfit wicks and oils, the primary rationale for the recitation of bameh madlikin must be sought elsewhere. Drawing upon the explanation that bameh madlikin was introduced to prolong the service, he suggests that it was introduced by, or for the sake of, those who were accustomed to reciting arvit early on Friday evening, well before sunset. Although one is permitted to recite arvit any time after pelag haminḥah, 21 kiddush may not be recited until nightfall. Sirkes suggests that those who recited arvit early would fill the time between the conclusion of arvit and dinner time with the study of 18 Levush haḥur 270:1. 19 Perishah on Tur O.H. 270, s.v. venohagin beAshkenaz lomar. His practice was to recite bameh madlikin before kiddush. 20 Bayit ḥadash on Tur O.H. 270, s.v. venohagin lomar mishnat bameh madlikin. 21 Approximately 11/4 hours before sunset.

136  ·  Interpretation and Praxis bameh madlikin, a chapter of the Mishnah that was chosen for the reasons suggested above. R. Abraham Gombiner defends the Ashkenazic custom. Sephardic Jewry recited bameh madlikin before arvit so that people would learn which oils and wicks are proper to use for the Shabbat lamp. He argues that this concern about wicks and oils is irrelevant for Ashkenazic Jews, who never use the wicks and oils prohibited by the Mishnah. Citing R. Abraham Klausner, he concludes that Ashkenazic Jews continued the traditional practice of reciting bameh madlikin at the conclusion of arvit for the sake of latecomers. 22 Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Ashkenazic authorities who discuss or list the order of prayers on Friday evening are almost unanimous in testifying that the custom in Ashkenaz is to recite bameh madlikin during arvit, either before or after kiddush. Included among those who place bameh madlikin at the end of arvit are R. Moses Mat, 23 R. Shabbetai Sofer, R. Judah Löw Kirchheim, R. Yuzpa Shamash, and R. Yair Ḥayyim Bacharach. The explanation that bameh madlikin is recited before arvit to remind the (male) worshiper to tell his wife to light the Shabbat lamps after separating the tithes and preparing the eruv led medieval Sephardic communities to abandon the earlier practice of reciting bameh madlikin at the conclusion of arvit and instead to recite it before arvit. This change was not adopted in Ashkenaz until much later. All the siddurim in our sample of Ashkenazic siddurim published during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries include bameh madlikin at the end of arvit on Friday night. Two important eighteenth-century siddurim with commentary, heavily influenced by Sephardic/kabbalistic ideas and practices, placed bameh madlikin during kabbalat Shabbat, just before lekha dodi. 24 These, in turn, began to have an influence 22 Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 370:1, s.v. kodem tefillat arvit. 23 Matteh Moshe 4:432; Stefan C. Reif, Shabbethai Sofer and his Prayerbook (Cambridge, 1979), 179; Kirchheim, p. 53; Shamash 25, p. 31; Mekor ḥayyim O.H. 269 in kitzur halakhot. 24 Horowitz, Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (1717), 158b; Jacob Emden, Siddur beit Ya’akov: Amudei shamayim (Altona, 1745; reprint with additional notes by Moshe Bik. New York, 1966), 338a. Horowitz’s siddur with commentary was published posthumously by his grandson. Other influential Ashkenazic authorities of the 18th–20th centuries who rule that bameh madlikin should be recited before arvit include R. Elijah

Chapter 3 · 137 on practice, as some Ashkenazic communities began to recite bameh madlikin at that point in the service, or just before arvit. 25

Summary Why was bameh madlikin introduced into the liturgy during the Geonic period? Was its recitation prescribed as a polemic against the Karaites, who forbade the use, as well as the kindling of, a lamp on Shabbat? Or was it introduced as a means of teaching the laws relating to the Shabbat lamps, prescribing which wicks and oils should be used and which avoided, as suggested by many early authorities? Or was it introduced for some other, unknown reason? What is clear is that from its inception it was recited at the conclusion of the arvit service, a practice consistent with the two explanations provided by almost all early authorities through the thirteenth century. Yet, one of those explanations, that bameh madlikin had been introduced for the benefit of latecomers, was problematic on two counts. First, it was clearly not the original rationale for the recitation of bameh madlikin; it was drawn, perhaps from a misreading of Seder Rav Amram, or from the Talmud’s rationale for the recitation of berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva. Second, it was no longer a cogent explanation, as synagogues were now located within settled areas, obviating the danger posed by demons to those who remained alone in isolated synagogues or who were returning home in the dark through the fields from those synagogues. The other interpretation, that it had been introduced to teach people which oils and wicks should be used, was not time specific, that is, it could be used to explain the recitation of bameh madlikin whether it was recited before or after arvit on Friday evening. ben Solomon of Vilna, Bi’urei haGra O.H. 270:1; Siddur ishei Yisrael al pi Maran haGra (reprint Jerusalem, 1981); R. Abraham Danzig, Ḥayyei adam helek 1 34:12; R. Yeḥiel Michael Epstein, Arukh hashulḥan O.H. 270:1–2. They all place bameh madlikin immediately after kabbalat Shabbat. See also Wieder, “Berakhah bilti yadu’ah,” 202. 25 See, for example, Philip Birnbaum, Daily Prayer Book, 251; David de Sola Pool, The Traditional Prayer Book for Sabbath and Festivals, 47; Shelomo Tal, Siddur rinat Yisrael, 206; Nosson Sherman, Siddur kol Ya’akov: The ArtScroll Siddur, 322; Jonathan Sacks, The Koren Siddur, 329.

138  ·  Interpretation and Praxis By the early fourteenth century, Sephardic authorities were proposing a new interpretation, that bameh madlikin had been introduced to serve as a reminder that one is obligated prompt one’s wife to separate the tithes and set the eruv, and then to light the lamps before the onset of Shabbat. This interpretation has greater cogency when used to explain the practice in some (in all likelihood, Spanish) communities to recite bameh madlikin before arvit, for, after arvit is recited, it is too late to separate the tithes, set the eruv, or light the lamps. It is not clear whether the practice in those communities gave rise to the explanation for the recitation of bameh madlikin later articulated by Rabbis Jacob ben Asher and David Abudarham, or conversely, whether this interpretation, originally taught by still-unidentified authorities, served as the impetus for the development of the practice. In any case, it is almost certain that the espousal of this interpretation in the Tur and Sefer Abudarham led Sephardic communities to abandon the earlier practice and to recite bameh madlikin before arvit, a change that was complete by the sixteenth century. Ashkenazic authorities continued to explain that bameh madlikin was recited to warn people not to use improper wicks and oils and, to a lesser degree, for the benefit of latecomers. However, by the sixteenth century Ashkenazic authorities were beginning to include the “Sephardic” explanation as part of their array of interpretations. Although Ashkenazic Jewry continued to recite bameh madlikin at the conclusion of arvit through the end of the seventeenth century, the appeal of the Sephardic explanation, adopted by an increasing number of well-recognized authorities, led many Ashkenazic communities, beginning in the eighteenth century, to adopt the Sephardic practice of reciting bameh madlikin before arvit on Friday evening.

THE TORAH SERVICE: TAKING OUT AND RETURNING THE TORAH I base my discussion of the liturgy and ritual surrounding the public reading of the Torah in the synagogue largely upon the work of Ruth Langer who, in a series of articles, traces the development of

Chapter 3 · 139 the Torah liturgy from antiquity to early modern Ashkenaz. Langer argues that the development of the increasingly elaborate ritual surrounding the reading of the Torah reflects an evolution in the meaning and significance attached to the act of reading the Torah in public. 26 This case is both more complex and more speculative than those discussed on the preceding pages. It is more complex because in most of those cases the liturgical practice remained constant while the significance attached to its performance changed over time. Bameh madlikin differs from the cases in previous chapters in that both the practice and its rationale changed. However, this was a one-time occurrence. As communities came to understand bameh madlikin as a reminder that one should complete the preparations for Shabbat and then light the Shabbat lamps, they began to recite it before arvit rather than at the conclusion of arvit. Once this change in practice was effected, no further changes occurred. In the case at hand, the liturgy continued to change as new ways of understanding the significance of the reading of the Torah emerged. It is more speculative because the meaning attached to the ritual was rarely articulated in literary sources, such as commentaries and legal compendia, but rather must be inferred from the ritual itself. As Langer writes: 27 The rabbis of late antiquity, with their constant engagement in the study of the Torah text itself and their focus on regularizing other elements of their new liturgical system, did not find it necessary to make elaborate ritual statements about the meanings inherent in the ritual reading of Scripture. Instead, they focused exclusively on clarification of procedures such as the frequency, language, extent, and type of participation appropriate for reading. But with time, some of the meanings implicit in the rabbinic system received voice and an elaborate liturgical moment evolved. While these meanings by no means remained static, a close reading of the early texts in light of themes which emerge later in the 26 Langer, “From Study of Scripture;” Langer, “Celebrating the Presence of the Torah”; Langer, “Shelavim kedumim”; Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God.” 27 Langer, “From Study of Scripture,” 43–44.

140  ·  Interpretation and Praxis medieval and modern rites enables us to interpret the symbolic role and little voiced (liturgically at least) centrality of the ritual Torah reading in the synagogue. Further complicating the matter, my analysis is based upon literary sources. It is impossible to know the degree to which the mythic or symbolic understandings conveyed by these sources were known to, or experienced by, most of those who actually participated in the synagogue service. 28

Public Reading of the Torah in Antiquity and Lateantiquity The public reading of the Torah, or of passages from the Torah, is a very ancient practice. 29 Although its origins are shrouded in obscurity, models and precedents for it are found in the biblical text itself. The Bible mentions several occasions on which Torah was read to the people. 30 The first is what the rabbis referred to as hakhel, or “gather,” based upon the opening word of Deuteronomy 31:12. According to Deuteronomy 31:10–13, “this teaching” (hatorah hazot) is to be read aloud to the people every seventh year, at the Feast of Booths (Sukkot), when the people come to the central sanctuary on pilgrimage. It is not clear who is to read from the Torah, but later tradition identifies this person as either Joshua, the king, or the high priest. 31 While there is no evidence from biblical sources that this

28 Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 121–22. 29 On the early development of the Torah reading, see Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 130–39; Lee I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven, CT, 2000), 135–44, 506–10, 545–51; Yitzhak D. Gilat, “Haderashah vekeriat haTorah beveit hakeneset beShabbat,” in Perakim behishtalshelut hahalakhah (Ramat Gan, 1992), 350–62. 30 In addition to the two sources discussed here, see Josh 8:34–45 and 2 Kings 23:2; Jeffrey Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy (Philadelphia, 1996), 499. In citing these sources, I am arguing that they served as models and precedents for later practices; I am not attesting to their historicity. 31 The “Torah” to which the passage refers is probably the Book of Deuteronomy, in part, if not in its entirety. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 292. See also m. Sotah 7:8; Josephus, Antiquities 4:209. Tigay notes that the entire book of Deuteronomy can be read aloud in three to four hours.

Chapter 3 · 141 ceremony was ever enacted, rabbinic tradition regards it as a mitzvah incumbent upon a Jewish king. The source from Deuteronomy is prescriptive. The other important biblical reference to the public reading of the Torah is descriptive. According to the Book of Nehemiah, 32 on the first day of the seventh month, Ezra the scribe read from the scroll of “the Teaching of Moses” from a bimah, a raised platform, to the people gathered before him in the square before the Water Gate, directly opposite the Temple. 33 Before reading from the scroll, he praised God, and the people responded, “Amen, Amen.” The reading was accompanied by a running translation and interpretation of the text. The people then celebrated the day as a festival, with feasting and the sending of portions to those in need. 34 The public reading of the Torah of Moses described in Nehemiah 8 was a one-time event, but there is considerable evidence that by the end of the Second Temple period, reading the Torah in public (likely patterned on these models from Deuteronomy and Nehemiah) had become an established custom, both in the land of Israel and in the diaspora. Lee Levine argues that “the existence of a regular communal Torah-reading framework was probably a prime factor in the creation of the Septuagint.” 35 Philo refers to the reading of the Torah on Shabbat, both in the proseuche (houses of prayer) in Alexandria 36 and by the Essenes. 37 Josephus refers to the 32 Neh 8:1–12. 33 As it is widely thought that the Torah was redacted during the Babylonian exile, the scroll from which Ezra read may well have included most or all the material in the Torah as we have it today. On the redaction of the Torah during the Babylonian exile, see Nahum Sarna and David Sperling, “Bible: The Canon,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 3:577–78; Jacob M. Myers, The Anchor Bible: Ezra-Nehemiah (Garden City, NY, 1965), lix–lxii. 34 On the first day of the seventh month as a festival, see Lev 23:23–25; Num 29:1–6. 35 Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 139. 36 Philo, Embassy to Gaius 156, cited in Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 137; Philo, Hypothetica 7.12; Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 147; Gilat, “Haderashah vekeriat haTorah,” 350. 37 Every Good Man is Free, 81–82; Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 137; Heather A. McKay, Sabbath & Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath Worship in Ancient Judaism (Boston; Leiden, 2001), 75. There is no evidence for a Torah reading as a component of the liturgy of the Qumran community. While a source from Qumran referring to a

142  ·  Interpretation and Praxis weekly reading of the Torah in the land of Israel, 38 as does the New Testament. 39 References to the reading of the Torah also appear in the Theodotus inscription, a dedicatory inscription found in a first-century Jerusalem synagogue. It relates that the synagogue was constructed for, among other purposes, the “reading of the Law and the study of the commandments.” 40 According to Second Temple and Tannaitic sources, the primary rationale for the communal reading of the Torah was didactic: “They read from the scroll of the Teaching of God, translating it and giving the sense, so they understood the reading” (Nehemiah); “[God] required them to assemble in the same place on those seventh days and, sitting together in a respectful and orderly manner, hear the laws read so that none should be ignorant of them.” (Philo); “[Moses ordained that] every week men should desert their other occupations and assemble to listen to the Law and to obtain a thorough and accurate knowledge of it” (Josephus). According to the Mekhilta, the knowledge of the Torah that the people gained through listening to it being read nourishes them and protects them from sin. 41 Furthermore, so that the passages that were read would be understood, the reading was accompanied by a consecutive translation into the

nightly gathering “in the place in which the Ten assemble” for purposes of worship and study refers to the practice of reading from “the Book,” (IQS6:6–8) it would seem that this should be understood more as a component of the study than as a public reading of the Torah; Langer, “From Study of Scripture,” 48; Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 141. 38 Josephus, Against Apion 2, 175; Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 137. 39 Acts 13:14–15; 15:21. According to Luke 4:16–30, Jesus read a prophetic text from a scroll in the synagogue in Nazareth. Presumably he read this as the haftarah following a reading from the Torah. See the comment on Luke 4:16–30 in Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Brettler, eds., The Jewish Annotated New Testament (Oxford, 2011), 106. Other scholars, including the anonymous reader of my manuscript, argue that, while Luke and Acts are “aware of the Jewish custom of reading from Scripture in the synagogue, having Jesus read from the book of Isaiah is a theological choice that serves the Christian message of the author [and that] the passage does not at all address the historical question of whether a reading from the Prophets customarily followed a reading from the Torah in Palestinian synagogues.” 40 Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 54–56. 41 Neh 8:8; Philo, Hypothetica 7.12; Josephus, Against Apion 2; Mekhilta vayissa 1; cf. Bava Qamma 82a.

Chapter 3 · 143 vernacular and, at least in the land of Israel, it was often preceded or followed by a homily (derashah). 42 While the rationale for the ritualized reading the Torah was didactic, it was always understood to be distinct from the actual study of the Torah. According to Nehemiah, the heads of the clans, the priests, and the Levites remained with Ezra for an extra day after he read the Torah to the entire people, to study and understand the words of the Torah. They studied what was written concerning the approaching festival of Sukkot, and then returned to their towns to instruct the people in its proper observance. As a result, Sukkot was observed in Jerusalem in the prescribed manner. And, we are told, Ezra read from the Torah every day of the festival. 43 The distinction between the reading of the Torah and the study of Torah appears in Second Temple and rabbinic literature, as well as in synagogue inscriptions. According to Philo and Josephus, both of whom also mention the reading of the Law on Shabbat, Jews spend the entire Shabbat day in study. 44 We have already seen that the Theodotus inscription states that the synagogue was established, among other purposes, “for the reading of the Law and the study of the commandments.” And of course, rabbinic tradition distinguishes between the ritualized reading of the Torah on specific occasions and the study of Torah, which should be one’s preoccupation. 45 42 According to rabbinic tradition, each verse of the Torah was to be followed by its targum into Aramaic, following the example of Ezra; y. Megillah IV:1 74d. It is not known whether in Greek-speaking communities, such as Alexandria, the Torah was read either in its Greek translation (Septuagint) or accompanied by a translation into Greek. Gilat argues – on the basis of a baraita in Shabbat 115a, which states that Scriptural texts written in Coptic, Median, Elamitic, or Greek, though they may not be utilized for the public reading of the Torah, may be saved from a fire on Shabbat – that all of these languages were used in the targum delivered in the synagogue; the language used depended upon the language spoken by those in the congregation. However, the context suggests that they may have been held for personal use; Gilat, “Haderashah vekeriat haTorah,” 358; cf. Shabbat 115a; t. Shabbat 13:2. For a discussion of targum and derashah as accompaniments of the Torah reading, see Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, pp. 144–51, 546–51; Gilat, “Haderashah vekeriat haTorah,” 350–54, 358–59. 43 Neh 8:13–18. 44 Philo, Special Laws 2, 62–63. On the intense study conducted by the Therapeutai, see Philo, The Contemplative Life, 30–31; Josephus, Antiquities 16, 43. 45 See also Tur Y.D. 270, where R. Jacob ben Asher, in a discussion of the commandment

144  ·  Interpretation and Praxis Levine argues that the liturgical reading of the Torah was introduced no later than the third century BCE, and that by the first century CE, “a weekly ceremony featuring the communal reading and study of holy texts had become a universal Jewish practice.” 46 Tannaitic literature indicates that by the end of the second century CE, the Torah was read on all the occasions that we read it today, and many of the details of what was to be read and how it was to be read were already established. 47 It is sometimes assumed that the early Torah readings were very brief and that they were read by one person. 48 By the end of the Tannaitic period the Torah was no longer read by one person, but by three or more readers, the number of readers determined by the level of sanctity of the day, 49 and the text was no longer read, but chanted. 50 The reading of the Torah took on the characteristics of a liturgical unit, with a benediction being recited before and after the reading of the lection.  51 that obligates everyone to write a Torah scroll, makes a distinction between the distant past, when the Torah was studied from scrolls, and his own time, when scrolls were used only for the ritualized reading of the Torah in the synagogue. 46 Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 139, 143. 47 m. Megillah 4:1–2 lists the occasions on which the Torah was to be read and the number of people called to read. m. Megillah 4:4 stipulates the minimum number of verses to be read by each reader. For the readings on festivals and special Sabbaths, see m. Megillah 3:4–5. t. Megillah 3:1–11 records a number of variant customs in this regard, and also indicates the haftarah to be read on each occasion. Amoraic sources discuss and elaborate upon these Tannaitic traditions and provide readings for the additional days of the festivals as observed in the diaspora; Megillah 21a–24a; 29b–31b. 48 Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 128; Gilat, “Haderashah vekeriat haTorah,” 357. 49 m. Megillah 4:1–2; Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 140; Gilat, “Haderashah vekeriat haTorah,” 357. 50 Megillah 32a. This is the view of R. Johanan, who said that if one reads [Torah] without melody or studies [Mishnah] without a tune, of him Scripture says (Ezek 20:25): Moreover I gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live. Abaye disagreed, arguing that requiring that the text be sung would preclude one who lacked a pleasant voice from participating in the reading. My assumption is that R. Johanan was commenting on a well-established practice. 51 Debra Reed Blank argues that from its inception the function of the public recitation of the lectionary was “not simply a didactic one . . . the Torah recitation evolved as a liturgical act and not as a study activity”; Debra Reed Blank, “‘Haven’t You Learned This Yet?’,” (y. Megillah 3:7, 74b): The Use of B’rakhot Around the Torah

Chapter 3 · 145 While the didactic function of the Torah reading did not disappear, a new understanding of this ritual emerged that eventually superseded it. This new understanding attached great symbolic significance to the public reading of the Torah: it came to be understood as a reenactment of the revelation at Sinai. Langer argues that this occurred in the years following the destruction of the Temple, which had been the place to access God. In the absence of the Temple, the Torah itself “was elevated in importance as the single object . . . best connecting the community with God’s revelatory voice, [and] didactic reading for the purposes of instruction faded in comparison with the symbolic concepts that reading Torah replicated Sinai and its continuation in Zion.” 52 That the reading of the Torah should be understood as a reenactment of Sinai is expressed in several rabbinic sources. For example, the Talmud cites a Tannaitic tradition that one who reads from the Torah in public must do so while standing. R. Abbahu (third century) taught that this is derived from Deuteronomy 5:28, where God says to Moses: And you, stand here with me [and I will tell you all of the commandments, the laws and the statutes that you shall teach them], which can be interpreted to indicate that God stood with Moses as He taught him the Torah. 53 In this text R. Abbahu appears to place the Torah reader in the role of God revealing the Torah to Moses. Other sources relate the reader to Moses proclaiming the Torah to the people. Thus, Deuteronomy Rabbah teaches that one must recite a benediction before reading the Torah, following the example of Moses, who is said to have recited a benediction before reading it to the people at Sinai. 54 Recitation,” Journal of Jewish Studies 54 (2003): 95; but see Langer, “From Study of Scripture,” 48–49. 52 Langer, “Celebrating,” 22; cf. “From Study of Scripture,” 49. On the anamnetic quality of the Torah reading, see Langer, “From Study of Scripture,” 51; Blank, “‘Haven’t You Learned This Yet?’,” 96–98. 53 Megillah 21b; Langer, “From Study of Scripture,” 52. 54 Deut. Rab. vezot haberakhah 11:6; see also Deut. Rab. nitzavim 8:2; y. Megillah 4:1 74d; Blank, “‘Haven’t You Learned This Yet?’,” 98. Blank also cites Deut. Rab. tavo 7:8, which, following the commentary of Moshe Mirkin, she suggests teaches that “just as God read the Torah to Moses, so too Moses read it to Israel,” 98. But the

146  ·  Interpretation and Praxis How are these ways of understanding the reading of the Torah reflected in the liturgy and rituals surrounding the Torah reading? While the Talmud does discuss the procedures for reading the Torah, namely, the number of those called to read on various occasions, the recitation of blessings before and after the reading, and the inclusion of targum within the context of the reading, it is silent regarding any ceremonies involving the removal of the Torah from the ark or the recitation of special prayers or blessings, such as prayers for civil and religious authorities, following the reading of the Torah. The Mishnah states that a blessing is recited before and after the reading of the Torah. 55 According to the Babylonian Talmud, the rabbis later decreed that each reader should recite a blessing before and after reading “on account of those who enter or leave [the synagogue] while the Torah is being read.” 56 This explanation is forced, for it assumes those who enter late or leave early would always do so and that they wouldn’t ask someone else who was present whether a meaning of that midrash is not clear, as the use of the verb kra in the context of the verses cited indicates “calling” rather than “reading” or “reciting.” It may simply be explaining the use of the verb kra in Deut 29:1 in the light of Exod 19:20. See also Kimelman, “The Shema‘ Liturgy,” 66 n.194. 55 m. Megillah 4:1, 2. For the requirement that blessings are to be recited before and after reading the Torah see Mekhilta bo 16, ed. Horowitz-Rabin, p. 61; t. Berakhot 6:1; Berakhot 48b; y. Megillah 4:1 74d. It is not clear whether these sources, with the exception of y. Megillah 4:1, refer to the public reading of the Torah in the synagogue or to the study of Torah. Later authorities disagreed as to whether the recitation of these benedictions has the status of a biblical or a rabbinic commandment; Encyclopedia Talmudit ( Jerusalem: Hotza’at Encyclopedia Talmudit, 1982–), 4:715–17, s.v. birkat haTorah. The Talmud of the Land of Israel mentions several different customs regarding the recitation of the Torah blessings. Elbogen suggests that these sources reflect three stages in the development of the Torah reading ritual, but Debra Reed Blank argues persuasively that these practices, all cited in the name of early Amoraim from the land of Israel, probably date back to the Tannaitic period and reflect the variety of local customs at that time. y. Megillah 4:1 75a; y. Megillah 3:8 74b; Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 140–41; Blank, “‘Haven’t You Learned This Yet?’,” 87–94. 56 Megillah 21b. The fear was that those who arrived after the Torah reading had begun would not have heard the recitation of the first blessing and would conclude that no blessing had been recited, while those who left before the conclusion of the Torah reading might assume that the recitation of a blessing was not required at its conclusion.

Chapter 3 · 147 benediction had been recited. Why, then, was this change in practice instituted? One possibility is that the change was due to the difficulty that many communities must have had finding enough readers capable of reading the required number of passages. According to the Tosefta, if a synagogue has only one person who can read, he should read all of the readings, sitting between each one. 57 This would fulfill the Mishnah’s requirement, for example, that seven read from the Torah on Shabbat. It seems to me that this would be very awkward and would appear to undermine the principle that several people are to be called to the Torah on any particular occasion. The custom of calling the requisite number of people who would recite only the Torah blessings, while an “expert” actually read the entire Torah portion, may have emerged in response to this problem. 58 According to Langer, on the other hand, “rather than simply a response to communal irresponsibility, as the Talmud suggests, this liturgical adjustment [namely, reciting the blessings before and after each of the passages is read] deliberately emphasized the meaning of the entire rite through the reiteration of its basic spiritual underpinnings [as a reenactment of Sinai].” She argues that, while the blessings do not speak specifically about Sinai, “both highlight the relationship which began there.” 59 For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that by the late Amoraic period, and probably much earlier, the practice of having every reader recite blessings before and after reading had become normative, both in Babylonia and in the land of Israel. 60 It is this practice that 57 t. Megillah 4:12; see Saul Lieberman, Tosefta Kifshuta: Megillah (New York, 1962), 5:1178–79. 58 Lawrence A. Hoffman, “The Reading of Torah – Retelling the Jewish Story in the Shadow of Sinai,” in My People’s Prayer Book IV, 12. See also Elbogen’s attempt to trace the development of the current practice, 140. He notes, however, that in the land of Israel, the Balkins, and in Italy, congregants still read their portions as late as the twelfth century. 59 Langer, “From Study of Scripture,” 50. For an alternative view, see Blank, “‘Haven’t You Learned This Yet?’,” 94–100. 60 It is not mentioned among the customs that distinguish Babylonian and Palestinian ritual practices.

148  ·  Interpretation and Praxis best expresses the idea that the public reading of the Torah is to be experienced as a reenactment of Sinai. Aside from discussing the recitation of the Torah blessings and the procedure for incorporating targum into the reading, rabbinic sources have little to say about rituals accompanying the reading of the Torah. It is clear, however, that being called to read was considered an honor, 61 and the act of rolling up the Torah scroll at the conclusion of the reading was thought to be a special honor. 62

The Torah Liturgy in the Geonic Period It is not until the Geonic period that we begin to see a ceremonial accompaniment to the reading of the Torah. But here too, we find that most Geonic sources, even those that discuss the laws relating to the reading of the Torah, make no mention of a ceremony of this type. The first detailed descriptions of a Torah ceremony appear in Seder Rav Amram and in Sofrim. Should we then assume that prior to Rav Amram’s time such ceremonies did not exist and that until the time they were composed, the Torah was still removed from the ark without an accompanying liturgy? Comparing the liturgies in Seder Rav Amram, Sofrim, and early manuscripts of later rites which include liturgies for removing the Torah from the ark, Langer found that they exhibited an identical form. The ritual included the recitation of a series of biblical verses and synthetic verses and, on Shabbat, a prayer for redemption beginning al hakol yitgadal veyitkadash. 63 Although the verses included in these liturgies vary from rite to rite, and even from manuscript to manuscript within a rite, there is a core set of verses which appears in all of them. This led Langer to conclude that underlying all of them is an urform, or prototype, that may date from the early Geonic or even the late Amoraic period. Why, then, is there little or no evidence for such a liturgy in the 61 Gittin 59b–60a. 62 Megillah 32a. 63 Synthetic verses are composed in a biblical style, often incorporating biblical phrases, which do not actually appear in the Bible. On the florilegium and the use of synthetic verses in Jewish liturgy, see Langer, “Biblical Texts,” 63–90; Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 123; and Langer, “Shelavim kedumim,” 102–3.

Chapter 3 · 149 responsa of earlier Geonim, in Siddur Rav Saadiah, in the corpus of liturgical texts discovered in the Cairo genizah, or in other sources from that time? It is possible that the silence of our sources testifies to the lack of such a ceremony, at least until the time of Rav Amram. There may, however, be other explanations for the failure of our sources to describe the liturgy for taking out the Torah and returning it to the ark. Langer suggests that those who composed those sources may simply have been following the example of the Talmud, which also makes no mention of such a ceremony. Another possibility is that since these ceremonies are in the realm of custom and not halakhah, they were not deemed important by the authorities of the time, who were mainly concerned with establishing or preserving halakhic norms. But this does not explain the absence of a ceremony for removing the Torah from the ark in the liturgical texts found in the genizah, which, being liturgical texts, are presumably for the use of the sheliaḥ tzibbur. Another possibility is that the liturgy was improvised by the sheliaḥ tzibbur, using the generally accepted form of the florilegium, a series of biblical verses and synthetic verses which together develop a theme. In any case, the liturgy for taking out and returning the Torah was often omitted from siddurim and maḥzorim well into the era when these works were printed, even though it is clear from medieval halakhic works and sifrei minhag that such liturgies did exist. 64 The earliest source from the Geonic period to mention such a ceremony is Haḥillukim, a brief work, written sometime between the Muslim conquest of Babylonia in the mid-seventh century and the tenth century. 65 It states simply: Easterners [that is, Babylonians] honor the Torah when it is brought in, and Palestinians when it is brought in and taken out, as it is written: 66 When he opened it up the entire people stood. 67 64 Langer, “Shelavim kedumim,” 100–101. 65 Robert Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, 112–13. 66 Neh 8:5. 67 ].‫ וכפתחו עמדו כל העם‬:‫;א״מ מכבדין את התורה בכניסה ובני א״י בכניסה ויציאה [כתורה וכהלכה שנאמר‬ Margalioth, Haḥillukim 49, p. 88.

150  ·  Interpretation and Praxis It is not clear what the author of Haḥillukim meant by the term “honor.” According to Mordecai Margalioth, it means that they stood when the Torah was taken out and returned, or perhaps that they followed it in procession. 68 But it is possible more was intended by the author of Haḥillukim. He may have been telling us that the Torah was honored liturgically, through the recitation of biblical verses or hymns when it was taken out and returned. Perhaps in his time there was already a liturgy to accompany the taking out and return of the Torah to the ark. His statement is very spare, and I cannot interpret it with any certainty; it cannot serve as a reliable witness to the existence or lack of a developed ceremony for taking out and returning the Torah during the Geonic period. 69 Seder Rav Amram and Sofrim both include detailed descriptions of ceremonies for taking out or returning the Torah. However, both sources are problematic, and the evidence provided by each must be evaluated with care. While the legal material preserved in the various manuscripts of Seder Rav Amram contains much that is probably original, the prayer texts have often been changed to reflect the liturgical practices of the copyists’ communities. 70 Yet, in the case we are considering there are few significant differences among the manuscripts, and there is evidence that the description of the Torah ceremony in Amram is very early and may actually describe the custom of the gaon’s academy in Babylonia. 71 The text of Sofrim is generally more reliable, but in recent years serious questions have been raised regarding its provenance and date, with some dating it as late as the twelfth century. 72 68 Margalioth, Haḥillukim, 173–74. He also notes that in Sotah 39a the word “they stood” in the proof text cited is interpreted as “they were silent.” However, see Langer, “Shelavim kedumim,” 100–101, who questions this interpretation. 69 Langer, “Shelavim kedumim,” 101. 70 Goldschmidt’s introduction to Seder Rav Amram, 7–11. Even the legal material has been reworked and contains many additions. According to Brody, the recension reflected in extant manuscripts was probably prepared around the year 900, in North Africa. It “completely eclipsed the original version of Amram’s work”; Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia, 192–93. 71 Langer, “Shelavim kedumim,” 110. 72 See below, p. 153.

Chapter 3 · 151 The liturgies in both Seder Rav Amram and Sofrim begin with a florilegium. 73 In both cases, the leader invites the congregation to praise God, reciting (Ps 34:4): Magnify the Lord with me; let us exalt His name together, to which the congregation responds with Psalm 99:5, 9. 74 On Shabbat, both originally included al hakol yitgadal veyitkadash, a prayer composed in what Joseph Heinemann referred to as “Beit Hamidrash style.” 75 Seder Rav Amram includes a liturgy for both taking out and returning the Torah. The first begins with Psalm 86:10 and the synthetic verse, “One is our God; Great is our God; holy and awesome is His name.” The sheliaḥ tzibbur takes the Torah from the ark and recites Psalm 34:4: Magnify the Lord with me and let us exalt His name together, to which the congregation responds (Ps 99:5, 9): Exalt the Lord our God and bow down to His footstool; He is holy! and Exalt the Lord our God and bow toward His holy hill, for the Lord our God is holy. This is followed by Psalm 20:10: The king will answer us when we call upon Him. 76 The sheliaḥ tzibbur then recites a florilegium including Deuteronomy 32:3, Psalm 113:2–3, Psalm 18:4, the synthetic verses, “From one end of the universe to the other, the Lord our God, the God of Israel is king, and His kingship rules over all,” and “He will rule over us forever,” to which the congregation responds “amen.” Then follows a formula to call up a kohen to read from the Torah. The congregation responds with Psalm 19:8–9, “The Lord is one God for Israel,” and Psalm 29:11. Following the Torah reading, the sheliaḥ tzibbur returns the Torah to the ark and recites Psalm 148:13–14. Sofrim includes only one ceremony, 77 and it is not clear whether it is for taking out or returning the Torah. 78 It appears as though much 73 Seder Rav Amram I:99; Sofrim 14:4, pp. 256–57. The ritual for Shabbat is summarized in Seder Rav Amram II:24, p. 72. 74 Seder Rav Amram I:99, p. 58; Sofrim 14:5, p. 257. Ps 99:5, 9 are missing in Sofrim, but see Langer, “Shelavim kedumim,” 103–4. 75 Sofrim 14:6, pp. 259–60. Al hakol is missing from Seder Rav Amram, but see the discussion in Langer, “Shelavim kedumim,” 104. On al hakol, see Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud, 259. 76 It is not clear whether this verse is recited by the sheliaḥ tzibbur or by the congregation. 77 Sofrim 14:4–9. 78 On this question compare Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud, 251–52 and the literature

152  ·  Interpretation and Praxis of it is to be recited by the maftir, the one who reads the haftarah, suggesting that this liturgy was recited after the haftarah had already been read. On the other hand, the verses and rituals that constitute the ceremony, when included in later rites, are found in the liturgy for taking the Torah out of the ark, in which case we would expect that it would be recited by the sheliaḥ tzibbur. Our confusion is due, in part, to the peculiar structure of this chapter of Sofrim; the liturgy that we are considering appears to have been inserted into pre-existing material, resulting in the impression that the one who recited the haftarah and not the sheliaḥ tzibbur is to recite this liturgy. 79 The liturgy described in Sofrim is more elaborate than the one in Seder Rav Amram. It begins with a lengthy florilegium including Psalm 84:5; 86:8; Exodus 15:11; Psalm 145:13; the synthetic verse, “The Lord is king, the Lord was king, the Lord will reign forever;” Isaiah 42:21; Psalm 29:11, and Nehemiah 9:6. At this point the maftir takes hold of the Torah, lifts it, and chants the shema, 80 which is repeated by the congregation. He then recites: One is our God; great is our God – holy! One is our God; merciful is our God – holy! Great is our God – holy and awesome is His name. This is followed by Psalm 71:19; 135:13; and “Let all ascribe strength to our God and glory to the Torah.” He then recites Psalm 34:4: Magnify the Lord with me and let us exalt His name together, but there is no mention of the usual response, Psalm 99:5, 9. It may have been assumed that this response would be recited by the congregation, as it is found in all the other rites that include Psalm 34:4. 81 This lengthy florilegium is followed by the prayer al hakol yitgadal veyitkadash. The maftir then lifts the Torah and recites, “One is our God; great is our God – holy and awesome is His name forever.” After this he chants, “The Lord is God, the Lord is His name,” which is

cited there, and Langer, “From Study of Scripture,” 64; “Shelavim kedumim,” 111. 79 For a discussion of this issue, see Langer, “Shelavim kedumim,” 111. 80 Deut 6:4. 81 Langer, “Shelavim kedumim,” 104.

Chapter 3 · 153 repeated by the congregation. This is done twice. Then he unrolls and lifts the Torah scroll, displaying three columns of text, turning in all directions so that it can be seen by the entire congregation, and says: This is the Torah which Moses set before the Israelites. 82 He concludes with Psalm 19:8–11, after which he hands the Torah to the ḥazzan hakenesset. 83 As I noted above, the date and provenance of Sofrim are a matter of dispute. While commonly considered to date from eighth-century Palestine, this assumption is based primarily upon evidence from chapters 1–9, dealing with the laws regulating the writing of a Torah scroll. Blank argues that the material in chapters 10–21, dealing with liturgical matters, was originally a separate work, later appended to chapters 1–9. It is “largely a reworking of m. Megillah, interlaced with other passages from Mishnah, Tosefta, Yerushalmi, Bavli, and independent baraitot and other passages.” 84 Although it draws heavily on sources from the land of Israel, it also describes practices and liturgies which cannot be identified as either Palestinian or Babylonian. 85 Noting that the earliest references to this section of Sofrim are to be found in the writings of eleventh-century Ashkenazic authorities, Blank argues for an Italian or Byzantine provenance, dating it from sometime prior to the eleventh century. 86 Despite the relatively late dating of Sofrim 10–21, some of the liturgical traditions described in it may be older. Thus, after comparing the material in Sofrim 14 to the other early known rites, Langer concludes that the Torah liturgy in chapter 14 is a later scribal addition to the original text of Sofrim, and that it seems to represent an otherwise unknown tradition from the land of Israel. 87 For our purposes, the provenance, or even whether it preserves the actual

82 Deut 4:44. 83 On the ḥazzan hakenesset see Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, pp. 412–17. 84 Debra Reed Blank, Soferim: A Commentary to chapters 10–12 and a Reconsideration of the Evidence (PhD diss., Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1998), 71. 85 These practices are not mentioned in Geonic sources or in documents found in the Cairo genizah. 86 Blank, Soferim, 54–72. 87 Langer, “Shelavim kedumim,” 110–16.

154  ·  Interpretation and Praxis rite of some community, is unimportant. 88 Scholars agree that it does preserve a very early liturgical tradition, probably pre-dating the known rites that emerged during the High Middle Ages. Our concern is with the emergence of a liturgy attached to the taking out and return of the Torah to the ark, and whether that liturgy expresses the understanding of the public reading of the Torah as a reenactment of Sinai. And, as we see below, it does. The liturgy in Seder Rav Amram appears to be a collection of biblical verses and synthetic verses which praise and glorify God in very general terms. While several of these verses refer to God as king, none explicitly refers to the Torah. 89 What is significant here is that the sheliaḥ tzibbur holds the Torah in his arms as he recites these verses, both after removing the Torah from the ark and when returning it. The Torah is the word of God, but more, it represents God’s presence in the synagogue. 90 But the idea that the reading of the Torah is a reenactment of Sinai finds little or no expression in Seder Rav Amram. This is not the case, however, with Sofrim. The idea that the reading of the Torah should be experienced as a reenactment of Sinai underlies the entire liturgy for taking out the Torah in Sofrim. 91 The florilegium which opens the liturgy praises God as king, reaching its climax with a synthetic verse praising God as king, past, present, and forever. Psalm 29:11 follows: The Lord will give strength to His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace. In the midrashic tradition, the word “strength” is interpreted as a reference to Torah. 92 Thus, God is 88 Langer, “From Study of Scripture,” 63. 89 According to midrashic sources, Ps 29:11 refers to the Torah, but that does not appear to be the reason for its inclusion here. 90 Langer, “From Study of Scripture,” 57–58. The idea that the Torah represents God’s presence in the synagogue is developed by Jeffrey Tigay; Jeffrey H. Tigay, “The Torah Scroll and God’s Presence,” in Built by Wisdom, Established by Understanding: Essays on Biblical and Near Eastern Literature in Honor of Adele Berlin, ed. M.C. Grossman (Bethesda, MD, 2013), 323–40. 91 See Langer, “From Study of Scripture,” 66. In the discussion that follows I intend to deepen and strengthen Langer’s arguments. 92 See, for example, Mekhilta shirata 3, p. 126; shirata 9, p. 147; baḥodesh 1, p. 205–6; baḥodesh 5, p. 221; Sifrei Deut 343; Num. Rab. bemidbar 1:3; Midrash Psalms 29.

Chapter 3 · 155 acclaimed as the king who gives the Torah to His people Israel. The maftir lifts the Torah and recites the shema, which the rabbinic tradition understood as a proclamation of God’s kingship. 93 After the congregation repeats the shema, the maftir recites a three-line poem which expands upon the shema. Each of the lines ends by proclaiming that God is kadosh, holy. As Heinemann shows, when used in reference to God in a liturgical context, kadosh is a functional equivalent of “king.” 94 This section reaches its climax with the synthetic verse: “Let all ascribe greatness to our God and give glory to the Torah.” As Langer notes, “Torah is thus the abiding symbol of God’s presence among the people. It is the perpetuation of Sinai, its covenant, and its theophany.” 95 At this point, the liturgy inserts al hakol, a prayer for redemption, after which the ritual calls for the recitation of a series of verses focusing on the Torah itself. The first of these verses, recited as the Torah is unrolled and raised so that all can see its text, states that this is the Torah which Moses set before the Israelites. The Torah from which they are about to read (or have just read) is identified with the very Torah given by God to Moses on Sinai. Finally, the ceremony concludes with more praises of the Torah, expressed in the words of Psalm 19:8–11. Thus, Sofrim bases the liturgy upon two motifs, the proclamation of God’s kingship and the gift of the Torah (God will give strength to His people). These two motifs, in the order in which they appear, are closely associated with the Sinaitic revelation in midrashic literature. For example, Mekhilta Baḥodesh presents a series of three comments on the commandment: You shall have no other gods before Me. 96 All these express the same idea; I quote only the first: Thou Salt Not Have Other Gods Before Me. Why is this said? Because it says: “I am the Lord thy God.” To give a parable: A king of flesh and blood entered a province. His attendants said to him: Issue some decrees upon the people. He, however, told them: No! When 93 m. Berakhot 2:2. 94 Joseph Heinemann, “Kedushah u ‘malkhut,” 12–21; see especially 15. 95 Langer, “From Study of Scripture,” 66. 96 Exod 20:2.

156  ·  Interpretation and Praxis they will have accepted My reign I shall issue decrees upon them. For if they do not accept My reign how will they carry out my decrees? Likewise, God said to Israel: “I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have other gods – I am He whose reign you have taken upon yourselves in Egypt.” And when they said to Him: “Yes, yes,” He continued: “Now, just as you accepted My reign, you must also accept my decrees: ‘Thou shalt not have other gods before Me.’” 97 This idea was also expressed by R. Joshua ben Korḥah, explaining why, when shema is recited morning and evening, Deuteronomy 6:4–9 is recited before Deuteronomy 11:13–21: Why does shema precede vehayah im shamo’a? So that one can first accept God’s kingship and then accept the yoke of the mitzvot. 98 These midrashim demonstrate the connection between the kingship of God and the revelation of the Torah on Sinai, which also finds expression in the Torah liturgy in Sofrim. 99 At Sinai, Israel accepted God’s kingship and then received the Torah. This experience is reenacted when the sheliaḥ tzibbur/maftir raises the Torah as he and then the congregation chant the shema, proclaiming that “this is the Torah that Moses placed before the people of Israel,” and then read from that scroll. The midrashic works in which this idea finds expression are of Palestinian origin, supporting Langer’s contention that Sofrim preserves an otherwise unknown liturgical tradition from the land of Israel. 100 Although the form of the liturgy in Seder Rav Amram is similar to that in Sofrim – both consist of chains of biblical and 97 Mekhilta baḥodesh 6, pp. 222–23. I quote Lauterbach’s translation (Lauterbach edition, pp. 319–20). 98 m. Berakhot 2:2. 99 See also the piyyut Anokhi beshem El Shaddai by R. Eleazar Ha-kallir: “And when my servants accepted the yoke of my kingship, I commanded: You shall have no other God besides Me”; Yonah Frenkel, ed., Maḥzor Shavuot lefi minhagei benai Ashkenaz lekhol anfeihem ( Jerusalem, 2000), 186–87; Kimelman, “The Shema‘ liturgy,” 72 n. 215. 100 In addition to the sources cited in my discussion of the acceptance of God’s kingship as a prelude to the giving of the Torah, the sources cited earlier, which teach that one who reads from the Torah must recite a blessing because Moses recited a blessing (Deut. Rab. vezot haberakhah 11:6, nitzavim 8:2), are also Palestinian in origin. R. Abbahu, the Amora who taught that the Mishnah’s rule that one must stand

Chapter 3 · 157 synthetic verses in praise of God and the Torah – the motifs that appear in Sofrim are absent from Seder Rav Amram, a Babylonian source. Scholars agree that traditions from the land of Israel underlie many Ashkenazic liturgical customs, and it is to the Torah liturgy of medieval and early modern Ashkenaz that I now turn.

The Torah Liturgy in Medieval and Early Modern Ashkenaz While they have much in common, the Torah services in the liturgies of the two main subgroups of the Ashkenazic rite are markedly different. 101 They are similar in that both include a call to proclaim God’s greatness and to exalt God’s name (gadlu), followed by a congregational response (rom’mu); both include the prose prayer al hakol yitgadal; and both include a formula for calling a kohen for the first aliyah to the Torah. The formula also invites the congregation to ascribe greatness to God and to give honor to the Torah, followed by a florilegium that fulfills the purpose of the invitation. The liturgy for returning the Torah to the ark at the conclusion of the Torah reading again includes a call to praise God’s name (yehalelu) followed by an appropriate response (hodo al eretz). The liturgies differ in that the eastern, or Polish Ashkenazic, tradition for taking out the Torah is introduced by a lengthy florilegium not included in the western, German tradition. By the sixteenth century, the florilegia in both the Ashkenazic and Polish rites had been expanded further through the inclusion of additional verses. Turning first to the western Ashkenazic rite, we find, in addition to the formula for calling the kohen to the Torah and the prose prayer al hakol, a series of biblical and synthetic verses praising God and the Torah and several petitions for Israel’s salvation and the messianic

while reading the Torah is based upon God’s having stood when He revealed the Torah to Moses, was also from the land of Israel; Megillah 21a. 101 See Table B below, 172. The Torah liturgy in the Northern French rite is almost identical with the German rite, differing in the inclusion of a few additional recited verses in the florilegium immediately after the kohen is called to the Torah. For this reason, the Northern French and German rites are grouped in the same column.

158  ·  Interpretation and Praxis redemption. What is noteworthy is that the liturgy surrounding the taking out and the returning of the Torah includes only one verse that refers to God giving the Torah to Israel, and none that reference Sinai. It would seem, then, that the understanding of the reading of the Torah as a reenactment of Sinai, or a continuation in some way of the Sinai experience, is not expressed in the early western Ashkenazic liturgy. However, this understanding of the Torah reading does find expression in the writings of early Ashkenazic commentators on the liturgy and in the writings of early halakhic authorities from both the Rhineland and northern France. 102 Two interpretations found in these sources infuse the reading of the Torah with a deeper, mythic significance. Connecting the reading of the Torah with the revelation at Sinai is a comment that notes that there are forty words in Psalm 19:8–9, 29:11, and 18:31, recited after al hakol, corresponding to the number of days that Moses spent on Mount Sinai. This comment appears in the siddur commentary of R. Eliezer bar Nathan of Mainz, 103 the siddur commentary of R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms, 104 and in Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz. 105 Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz also notes that the blessings recited by one who is called to read from the Torah contain forty words, further strengthening the connection between the public reading of the Torah and the Sinai experience. The author of Sodot hatefillah, printed with the commentary of R. Eleazar of Worms, was critical of the French rite, which includes additional verses after Psalm 18:31, because it disrupts this connection. 106 From the Rhineland this interpretation was 102 Zohar also describes the reading of the Torah in the synagogue as a reenactment of the revelation at Sinai; Zohar vayakhel II:206a. 103 Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson, 65, p. 169. According to Avraham Grossman, it was written, not by R. Solomon ben Samson, but by R. Eliezer ben Nathan; Avraham Grossman, Ḥokhmei Ashkenaz harishonim, 346–48. 104 Siddur harokeaḥ 96, p. 564. For a more detailed discussion of the interpretations in Siddur harokeaḥ and Sodot hatefillah, see Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 131–32. 105 Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, 170. According to Israel M. Ta-Shma, Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz is actually a version of Maḥzor Vitry; Israel M. Ta-Shma, “Al kamah inyanei Maḥzor Vitry,” 81–82. 106 Sodot hatefillah in Siddur harokeaḥ 74, p. 422. According to Joseph Dan, Sodot hatefillah is

Chapter 3 · 159 carried to northern France, where it was cited by authorities of the School of Rashi. 107 It is also cited by several Provençal and Spanish authorities. 108 The second interpretation introduces a new motif, whereby “the act of bringing the Torah out into the congregation recalls the movement of the original ark containing the Ten Commandments and the original Torah scroll to its ideal home and place of proclamation.” The Torah is taken from the ark, perhaps representing the Ark of the Covenant which stood in the First Temple in Jerusalem, and brought to a raised platform, from which it is read to the congregation, just as Ezra stood on a raised platform when he read the Torah to the people gathered below. 109 Thus, from the revelation at Sinai, the liturgy moves to the post-Sinai experience of ongoing revelation in the Temple in Jerusalem and, ultimately, in the contemporary synagogue. This motif was first expressed in the comments of early Ashkenazic and northern French authorities, and was then further elaborated through the inclusion of additional passages in the Torah liturgies of both the western and eastern European traditions. In the early western Ashkenazic rite, the Torah liturgy began with the sheliaḥ tzibbur taking the Torah and proclaiming: Magnify the Lord with me; let us exalt His name together. 110 The congregation responds by doing so, reciting: Exalt the Lord our God and bow down to his foot-

a thirteenth-century work which preserves many passages from the lost commentary of R. Judah Heḥasid on the siddur; Dan, “Emergence,” 88. Langer attributes Sodot hatefillah to the Rokeaḥ himself; Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 131. 107 Siddur Rashi 418, p. 209; Tosafot Megillah 32a, s.v. golalo. While the sources from the Rhineland date from approximately the same time as those from the School of Rashi, I speculate that since they are based on numerology – a central feature of the interpretations of Rhenish authorities going back at least to the time of R. Eliezer ben Nathan of Mainz – they originated in the Rhineland and were then brought to northern France, perhaps even by Rashi himself. 108 Kol Bo 2; Orḥot ḥayyim, hilkhot sheni veḥamishi 13, p. 48; Tur O.H. 139 and Abudarham (ed. Bra’un), 296; (ed. Wertheimer), 132. The Tur and Abudarham cite this interpretation, not on the verses under discussion, but on the forty words that comprise the Torah blessings. 109 Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 129–30. 110 Ps 34:4.

160  ·  Interpretation and Praxis stool. 111 Commenting on Psalm 34:4, early Ashkenazic and northern French authorities note that it contains six words, corresponding to the stops made every six paces when the Ark was carried up to Jerusalem in the time of David, with sacrifices being offered at each stop. 112 Rhenish sources that cite this interpretation include the Siddur of R. Solomon ben Samson, 113 Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, 114 and Siddur harokeaḥ; 115 Northern French sources include Siddur Rashi, Maḥzor Vitry, and Tosafot. 116 In the early eastern Ashkenzic rite, Psalm 34:4 (gadlu), the invitation to magnify God and to exalt His name, is preceded by a lengthy florilegium beginning with Psalm 86:8 (ein kamokha). 117 The first three verses praise God as king. They are followed by Psalm 29:11, May the Lord grant strength to His people; may the Lord bless His people with peace. Since “strength” is understood to be a reference to Torah, 118 the florilegium follows the pattern described above, whereby the proclamation of God’s kingship is followed by the revelation of the Torah. These verses are followed by a plea for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the shema, and the synthetic verse, “Our God is one; great is our God; holy and awesome is His name.” The emphasis of the florilegium is on the acclamation of God as king. While the theme of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai is implicit in the juxtaposition of verses acclaiming God as king and Psalm 29:11, the motifs of the journey of the Torah from Sinai to Jerusalem and the proclamation of Torah in, or from, Jerusalem

111 Ps 99:5, 9. Some recited only the second of these verses; Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 127. 112 II Sam 6:12–15. 113 Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson 65, p. 169 in a gloss by the scribe who states that he heard this interpretation from R. Eliezer ben Nathan. 114 Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, 169. 115 Sodot hatefillah in Siddur harokeaḥ 74, p. 422. 116 Siddur Rashi 418, p. 209; Tosafot Megillah 32a, s.v. golalo; and Maḥzor Vitry seder keriat hatorah 9, p. 124 (only MS London); 11, p. 281. See also Hamanhig, 154, Abudarham (ed. Bra’un), 285; (ed. Wertheimer), 127. 117 This is the case on Shabbat and the festivals. On weekdays, the Torah liturgy began with gadlu, and later with vayehi benso’a, as in the western Ashkenazic rite. 118 Mekhilta deshirata (ed. Horowitz-Rabin) 3, p. 126; Num. Rab. 1:3; Tanḥuma bemidbar 3.

Chapter 3 · 161 are absent.  119 In its thematic content and in its selection of verses, the florilegium introducing the Torah liturgy in the eastern Ashkenazic rite is closely related, but not identical, to that described in Sofrim. 120 R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna cites the similarity between the liturgy in Sofrim and the eastern Ashkenazic practice in support of the validity of the latter, as opposed to the German tradition of beginning with gadlu. 121 During the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, several additional verses were incorporated into the Torah liturgies in both eastern and western Ashkenaz. They first appear sporadically in siddur manuscripts dating from the late fourteenth or early fifteenth centuries, and were in widespread use by the mid-sixteenth century. There is little or nothing written about them in the halakhic sources and siddur commentaries of the period, and nothing is known of their origin or of how they entered into the liturgy. They appear in a variety of combinations in pre-sixteenth-century siddurim, and are sometimes written or printed in small letters or in columns parallel to the core text, with particular verses appearing in some manuscripts and not in others. All of this indicates “that there was a significant period in which some communities recited some or all of the new verses and others did not.” 122 These additions were appended to the Torah liturgy in three different places. The first group of verses, consisting of Numbers 10:35, Isaiah 2:3, and I Chronicles 29:11, was added to the florilegium recited when the Torah was removed from the ark. Deuteronomy 4:44 is recited at the conclusion of the reading of the Torah, as the 119 Langer notes that Ps 29:11 appears “embedded in the larger nonbiblical verse, Adonai melekh,” the last phrase of which is the conclusion of the Song at the Sea. This allusion to the crossing of the Sea, followed by a verse midrashically interpreted as a reference to the revelation of the Torah, may thus be seen as a reference to the journey towards Sinai; Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 135. 120 It has six verses in common with the ritual prescribed in Sofrim: Ps 86:8; 145:15; “The Lord is king, etc.”; Ps 29:11; Deut 6:4; and “Our God is One, etc.” Each of these rituals also includes verses not found in the others. 121 Or zarua 2:42. 122 Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 136–39. See pp. 138–39 for a list of pre-sixteenth-century manuscripts in which some or all of these verses appear.

162  ·  Interpretation and Praxis open Torah is lifted and displayed to the congregation, prior to being dressed in its mantle. The final group of verses, Numbers 10:36, Psalm 132:8–10, Proverbs 4:2, 3:18, and 3:15 are recited at the very conclusion of the Torah liturgy, as the Torah is returned to the ark. Our sources do not explain how or why these verses were incorporated into the Torah liturgy, but it is clear that, in addition to elaborating on the praises of God and Torah expressed in the “core” liturgy, these verses taken together convey the significance of the reading of the Torah that I have been discussing: the revelation of the Torah on Sinai; the journey of the Torah from Sinai to Jerusalem; and the proclamation of the Torah, first from Zion and ultimately in the local synagogue. The first of these verses, vayehi binso’a ha’aron, is an expression of the journey theme. When the Israelites broke camp and set out on the next stage of their journey from Sinai to the land of Israel, the Ark of the Covenant was carried before them, leading the way. 123 The Ark, a chest containing the stone tablets on which were inscribed the Ten Commandments (and according to one tradition, a Torah scroll as well), was perceived to be the throne of God. 124 According to Numbers 10:35, when the Ark was lifted and carried forward, Moses said, Arise, O Lord. May your enemies be scattered and may your foes flee before You! In the synagogue, this verse is recited as the ark is opened, just before the Torah is lifted from its resting place and given to the sheliaḥ tzibbur. Those who witness the Torah being lifted from the ark thus respond with the same words uttered by Moses when the Ark of the Covenant was lifted and carried forward. 125 Numbers 10:35 is followed by Isaiah 2:3, For out of Zion shall come forth Torah, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, articulating the Jeru 123 Num 10:33. But see also Num 2:17 and 10:21, which say that the sacred objects, including the Ark, were carried in the midst of the people. 124 On the Ark as the throne or footstool of God, see Jacob Milgrom, “Excursus 22,” in The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (Philadelphia and New York, 1990), 373–75. For the tradition that a Torah scroll was placed in the Ark along with the Tablets, see Bava Batra 14a; Num. Rab. 4:20. 125 On the significance of Num 10:38–39 in the Torah service, see Jeffrey E. Hoffman, The Bible in the Prayer Book: A Study in Intertextuality (D.H.L. diss., Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1997), 78–83.

Chapter 3 · 163 salem theme. This verse’s contiguity with Numbers 10:35 highlights the idea that the ultimate destination of the Ark was the Temple in Jerusalem. But Jerusalem alone was not to be the preserve of Torah. From Jerusalem it goes out to every Jewish community, from where it is again proclaimed through the public reading of the Torah in the local synagogue. 126 The third addition to the opening florilegium is I Chronicles 29:11, lekha Adonai hagedulah. Currently recited after the sheliaḥ tzibbur recites gadlu, but before the original response rom’mu, early siddurim often print it in a column parallel to gadlu, while siddurim that include instructions often indicate that it is to be recited quietly while the sheliaḥ tzibbur says gadlu. Langer suggests that it may have been added in accordance with the custom of R. Eleazar ben Judah’s father, R. Judah ben Kalonymus, who maintained that during the recitation of gadlu one should recite one verse each from Torah, Prophets, and Writings that includes the theme of God’s greatness. 127 Yet, while lekha Adonai hagedulah does proclaim the greatness of God, it does not meet R. Eleazar ben Judah’s requirement that three verses be recited. Furthermore, R. Eleazar ben Judah cites Sofrim, which states that one verse should be recited while the sheliaḥ tzibbur recites gadlu, but that verse is Psalm 145:3, not I Chronicles 29:11. 128 So perhaps we should not seek an explanation for the recitation of lekha Adonai hagedulah in his comment. It is possible that lekha Adonai hagedulah was added because it fulfills a liturgical function. Rom’mu, the original congregational response to gadlu, echoes the second half of Psalm 34:4. Thus, Magnify the Lord with me; let us exalt His name together is followed by Exalt the Lord our God. When lekha Adonai hagedulah is added, the congregation responds to both clauses of gadlu, proclaiming the greatness (hagedulah) of God and exalting Him (rom’mu). This is the case whether lekha Adonai hagedulah is recited while the sheliaḥ tzibbur is saying gadlu or after he does so, as

126 Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 139–40. 127 Siddur harokeaḥ 96, p. 544. 128 Siddur harokeaḥ 96, p. 543. This practice is not found in any extant manuscript of Sofrim; see Langer, “Sinai, God, and Zion,” 141 n. 50.

164  ·  Interpretation and Praxis has been the practice at least since the eighteenth century. 129 In addition, lekha Adonai hagedulah is a fitting conclusion to this segment of the liturgy, as it returns to the praise of God as king with which the florilegium began. Numbers 10:36, and when it halted, he would say, Return O Lord, You who are Israel’s myriads of thousands, opens the third group of verses. It continues the journey theme we saw in Numbers 10:35, which began the first set of verses that were added to the Torah liturgy during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. This is followed by Psalm 2:8: Advance O Lord, 130 to Your resting place; You and Your mighty Ark. These verses are especially appropriate, for they are recited as the Torah is returned to its place in the ark. The Torah which is read to the congregation is thus identified with the Torah that the Israelites carried in the Ark of the Covenant as they journeyed through the wilderness. Verses 9–10 of Psalm 132 follow but do not appear to add anything of significance to the Torah liturgy, and may have been included as a cluster with verse 9. 131 The closing verses, Proverbs 4:2 and 3:17–18, speak in praise of Torah as a source of wisdom. The Torah liturgy thus begins with praise of God, proclaiming God as king, and concludes with the praise of the Torah, God’s gift to His people. The last of the verses added during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries that we consider is Deuteronomy 4:44 (vezot haTorah), recited as the Torah is lifted and displayed to the congregation at the conclusion of the Torah reading. The practice of lifting the Torah and reciting vezot haTorah is mentioned already in Sofrim, 132 but there this ritual is performed before the Torah is read. 133 It is not clear when or why Ashkenazic communities adopted this practice, 129 Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 142. 130 Kumah Adonai. The word kumah means “arise” but can have the sense of “arise and go forth.” 131 Ps 132:9–10 also appear in the Sephardic rite, but there they are recited when the Torah is taken from the ark, before gadlu. Sometimes two or more consecutive verses appear in a florilegium even though only one of these verses, usually the first, relates to the thematic context of the florilegium as a whole; Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 141 n. 48; Langer, “Biblical Texts,” 76–77. 132 Sofrim 14:8. 133 In all the other rites, the Torah is lifted before it is read, as in Sofrim.

Chapter 3 · 165 as there are few references to it in early Ashkenazic sources. It does appear in some fifteenth- and in many sixteenth-century siddurim, indicating that by the sixteenth century it had already become widespread. 134 What is important for our purposes is that this verse expresses the understanding that the reading of the Torah is a reenactment of Sinai: “This is the [very same] Torah that Moses placed before the people of Israel.” Finally, I turn to several additional passages which were added during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The first of these is the synthetic verse, “Praised is the One who gave the Torah to His people Israel in His Holiness,” which was appended at the end of the opening florilegium, bringing it to a conclusion. The florilegium, in its expanded form, thus begins with Israel’s acclamation of God as king (ein kamokha), which paves the way for the giving of the Torah (The Lord grants strength to His people, with “strength” understood as a referent to Torah). The Torah is carried with the people on their journey from Sinai to Zion (vayehi beinso’a), from which it is then disseminated to the entire Jewish world (ki mitzion). Finally, it is received in gratitude by the people of Israel when they read from it in their local synagogues (barukh shenatan Torah le’amo yisrael). Reinforcing this understanding of the significance of barukh shenatan are instructions printed in some of the siddurim from that period which indicate that it is to be said while the sheliaḥ tzibbur is holding the Torah, or as the ark is closed, namely, at the point at which the Torah is taken from the ark and given to the people. 135 The message conveyed by the recitation of Deuteronomy 4:44 as the Torah is raised was strengthened by the addition of a phrase from Numbers 9:23, according to the word of the Lord through Moses. 136 In its biblical context, this phrase is related to the journey theme. There we are told that when Israel broke camp and continued on its 134 Prague 16th century; Amsterdam 1649; Amsterdam 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Prague 1688; Dyhernfurth 1690; Frankfurt 1690. 135 Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 149–50. 136 This phrase also appears, with the same referent, in Num 10:13 and Josh 22:9. It first appears in siddurim in the second half of the seventeenth century; Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 149 n. e.

166  ·  Interpretation and Praxis journey through the wilderness, it did so at God’s command, communicated through Moses. In the liturgy, however, it is connected to the Sinai theme, emphasizing that the Torah Moses gave to the people of Israel at Sinai, which is the same Torah that we read in the synagogue, is the word of God. Moses did not compose the Torah; rather, he served as God’s agent in delivering, or communicating, the Torah to Israel. Four additional verses were also added following the recitation of vezot haTorah: Proverbs 3:18, 3:17, 3:16, and Isaiah 42:21. Two of the verses, Proverbs 13:18 and 17, had already been incorporated into the Torah service, but at its conclusion, by the late fifteenth century. 137 Langer notes that Proverbs 3:18 and 17 appear together with Deuteronomy 34:4a in the Sephardic rite, and suggests that Ashkenazi Jews may have “borrowed this florilegium as part of its incorporation of Lurianic customs, most of which developed around the Sephardi rite of the Ari and his followers.” But she admits that the recitation of these verses at this point in the service is not mentioned as a custom of the Ari in the lists of his hanhagot written by his students. 138 Despite this, the recitation of these verses may well have been influenced by Sephardic practices, some of which were incorporated directly into the Ashkenazic rite during this period. 139 Another Sephardic practice incorporated into the Torah service in Ashkenaz, beginning in the sixteenth century, is the recitation of Psalm 29 prior to or as the Torah is returned to the ark. 140 Halakhic sources indicate that it was included in the Sephardic rite by the early eleventh century. R. Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel mentions this custom and provides an explanation for it: 141 137 MS Parma Biblioteca Palatine Codice de Rossi 1743 (757), dated late fifteenth century; Langer “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 139 n.a. However, Langer suggests that it might be more accurately dated at least a century later; 148 n.d. 138 Langer “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 151. 139 See my discussion in Chapter 5 for other examples of Sephardic influences on the liturgy of Ashkenaz. 140 On the inclusion of Psalm 29, see Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 152–54; Moshe Hallamish, Hanhagot kabbaliot beShabbat, 412–13; Abraham Berliner, “He’arot al hasiddur,” in Ketavim nivḥarim ( Jerusalem, 1969), 29. See also Fleischer, Tefillah uminhagei tefillah, 285 n. 48. 141 Hamanhig, p. 168.

Chapter 3 · 167 After concluding the Torah reading they recite the kaddish and return the Torah to the ark. The custom in Spain is to recite Ascribe to the Lord, O divine beings, 142 and it seems to me that the reason is that this psalm speaks of the revelation of the Torah. It is written: He makes [Mt. Lebanon and Mt. Sirion] skip like a calf, 143 [and it is written:] Why are you so hostile, O jagged mountain, 144 and it is written: The Lord gives strength to His people, 145 and O Gates, lift up your heads. 146 When the nations of the world heard the thunder and [saw] the lightning, they went to Balaam to learn what it was about. He said to them, “The Holy One, blessed be He, is giving the Torah to Israel.” This is why it is written: The Lord gives strength to His people. 147 O gates, lift up your heads – when Solomon brought the Ark up to the Holy of Holies, the gates [of the Temple] clung to each other, as it is stated in the chapter “With what wicks may one light.” 148 The recitation of Psalm 29 in Ashkenazic communities is mentioned already by sixteenth-century halakhic authorities. R. Mordecai Jaffe notes that “some are accustomed to say A psalm of David: Ascribe to the Lord, O divine beings when they return the Torah [to the ark].” While several of the seventeenth-century siddurim in our sample include Psalm 29 on weekdays, 149 Ashkenazic halakhic sources are unanimous in insisting that it be recited only on Shabbat morning. 142 Ps 29:1. 143 Ps 29:6. 144 Ps 68:16. The other mountains were jealous of Sinai; Mekhilta Baḥodesh 4; Mekhilta deRabbi Simeon ben Yoḥai Yitro, p. 144; Megillah 29a; Gen. Rab. vayeḥi 99; Midrash Psalms 68:9; Ha’itim, 280; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 174. 145 Ps 29:11. “Strength” is understood midrashically as a reference to the Torah. 146 Ps 24:7, 9. 147 Zevaḥim 116b. 148 Shabbat 30a. The gates tried to prevent Solomon from bringing the Ark into the Temple despite his entreaties, which included Psalm 24:7 and 9. They did not open until he said (II Chr 6:42): O Lord God, do not reject Your anointed one; remember the loyalty of your servant David. According to Sephardic sources, Psalm 27 was followed by Ps 24:7–10; Ha’itim 179; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 174; Tur O.H. 284 does not mention Ps 24:7–10. 149 Amsterdam 1649; Amsterdam 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Prague 1688. See Table E below, 180.

168  ·  Interpretation and Praxis They do so in accord with the rulings of R. Jacob ben Asher, R. Meir ibn Gabbai, and R. Moshe ben Makhir. R. Jacob ben Asher had explained the recitation of Psalm 29 by noting that it referred to the revelation of the Torah, and that according to the Talmud the seven benedictions that comprised the Shabbat amidah were enacted to correspond to the seven times the word kol (voice/sound) appears in that psalm. 150 While the first explanation would justify the recitation of Psalm 29 whenever the Torah is read, the second explanation supports its recitation only on Shabbat. In Tola’at Ya’akov, R. Meir ibn Gabbai’s kabbalistic commentary on the liturgy, he explained that when the Torah is returned to the ark it is customary to say Psalm 29 “because it has seven kolot corresponding to the seven kolot with which the Torah was given.” He then gives a kabbalistic rational for reciting it on Shabbat and for including Psalm 24:7–10. 151 The recitation of Psalm 29, along with Psalm 24:7–10 was also prescribed by R. Moshe ben Makhir in his Seder hayom. He describes Psalm 29 as “a song of glory recited in honor of the King of Glory” and notes that since Psalm 24:7–10 was recited when the Ark was brought up to the Temple, it is appropriate to recite it when the Torah is brought into its place. 152 Although all these works were known to Ashkenazic authorities, only the Tur and Tola’at Ya’kov are cited by seventeenth-century authorities. R. Mordecai Jaffe simply repeated the Tur’s explanation, without attribution. 153 R. Joel Sirkes, in his commentary on the Tur, was critical of those who did not limit the recitation of Psalm 29 to Shabbat, referring to that practice as a “custom of ignoramuses.” 154 150 Tur O.H. 284; Berakhot 29a. 151 R. Meir ibn Gabbai, Tola’at Ya’akov (Jerusalem, 1966/67) sod haShabbat, 47a. 152 R. Moshe ben Makhir Sefer seder hayom hamenukad seder keriat haTorah beShabbat, p. 105. 153 Levush haḥur 284:7. 154 Minhag burot; Bayit ḥadash on Tur O.H. 284, s.v. venohagin lomar biSefarad. Sirkes insisted that the seven-blessing amidah to which the Talmud refers on Berakhot 29a is the musaf amidah, despite the fact that the amidah recited at shaḥarit on Shabbat also has seven blessings. Based on this understanding, he ruled that Psalm 29 must

Chapter 3 · 169 R. Shabbetai Sofer, basing his ruling, not on the Tur, but on R. Meir ibn Gabbai’s Tola’at Ya’akov, also ruled that Psalm 29 should be recited only on Shabbat, referring to the widespread practice of reciting it whenever the Torah is read as a “mistaken custom.” 155 Largely due to Sirkes’s ruling, the recitation of Psalm 29 came increasingly to be limited to Shabbat morning, with Psalm 24 taking its place on other occasions. The first siddur to include Psalm 24 on weekdays appears to be that published by R. Yeḥiel Mikhal Epstein in 1697, 156 at the very end of the period under consideration in our study. The choice of Psalm 24 was probably determined by the occurrence of Psalm 24:7–10 in the Sephardic rite along with Psalm 29. Both psalms reflect, in their peshat (contextual meaning) and in the interpretations provided in midrashic sources, the major themes that I have been discussing: the revelation at Sinai; the journey of the Ark to its ultimate resting place in the Temple, and the commanding voice of God proclaiming Torah from the Temple. By the end of the seventeenth century, there emerged a new focus on the experience of the worshiper in the synagogue. Ruth Langer describes this process succinctly: 157 The resultant liturgy built on the logic of the previous set of changes. There, the Torah moved out from Zion to the synagogue; the new focus was on the experience in the synagogue itself. The recreations of the Sinai and Zion events, the personal reception of Torah through engagement both with the physical presence of the scroll in the synagogue and with its contents, enabled Diasbe recited when the Torah is returned to the ark, just before musaf, rather than when the Torah is removed from the ark. See also R. Eliyahu ben Benjamin Wolf Shapiro, Eliyahu tabba on Levush hatekhelet 134, s.v. katav haTur. 155 Siddur Shabbetai Sofer, hakdamah peratit 25, pp. 91–92. 156 Frankfurt 1697, p. 78a. It also appears in Isaiah Horowitz’s Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (Amsterdam, 1717), p. 118a, which was published later, but written prior to Frankfurt 1697. Psalms 24 and 29 were both recited in the Rite of the Land of Israel when the Torah was returned to the ark in the ceremony of “the procession of sefer hashir”; Fleischer, Tefillah uminhagei tefillah, 285 n. 48. 157 Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 145.

170  ·  Interpretation and Praxis pora Jews personally to experience the immanent divine presence. Many of the new elements of this liturgy responded prayerfully to this opportunity. Among the liturgical texts reflecting this new, more personal, tendency, are berikh shemei, a passage from the Zohar; the inclusion of Lamentations 5:21 at the conclusion of the florilegium recited as the Torah is placed in the ark; and Deuteronomy 4:4, which is recited as a congregational response to the prayer recited by the leader when calling the kohen for the first aliyah to the Torah. As this is largely an eighteenth-century development, a full discussion of this phenomenon is beyond the scope of my study. But its beginnings can be traced to the late seventeenth century. 158

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION In this and in the preceding chapters I examined the relationship between interpretation and liturgical practice. My analysis highlighted three ways in which this relationship played out. The recitation of vehu raḥum is an example of a case where new interpretations infused an old practice with new meaning. The liturgical practice remained constant, even as the significance attributed to the practice changed. Barukh Adonai le’olam, berakhah me’ein sheva, and the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue on Friday evening are cases where rabbinic authorities proposed new interpretations and legal arguments to justify the continued recitation of liturgical passages. They did so when the circumstances that were thought to have originally generated those practices no longer applied, and when the continued recitation of a passage appeared to violate accepted halakhic norms. 158 I discuss berikh shemei in greater detail below in my discussion of the influence of kabbalah on the liturgy of Ashkenaz. Lamentations 5:21 appears in Amsterdam 1664 and Amsterdam 1668. Deut 4:4 appears in several manuscripts dating from the seventeenth century or earlier, and in most eighteenth-century siddurim; Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 149 notes d and i, and p. 154. See also her discussion of the many personal prayers that first appear in the siddurim edited by Yeḥiel Mikhal Epstein; ibid. 155–58.

Chapter 3 · 171 In this chapter my discussion focused on two cases where changes in interpretation led to changes in liturgical practice. The first of these, the recitation of bameh madlikin on Friday evening, is rather straightforward. Early sources provided several different rationales for the recitation of bameh madlikin. Later halakhic authorities tended to prefer those explanations which were best suited to the practice in their own communities. Sephardic authorities preferred those explanations which were most consistent with the prevalent Sephardic practice of reciting bameh madlikin before arvit, while Ashkenazic authorities tended to prefer those explanations that justified its recitation at the conclusion of arvit. However, as familiarity with Sephardic teachings and practices spread through Ashkenaz during the sixteenth century, Ashkenazic authorities began to include the Sephardic explanations of bameh madlikin in the array of interpretations that they presented in their commentaries and halakhic rulings. Eventually this led to a change in practice, as, beginning in the eighteenth century, Ashkenazic Jews gradually adopted the Sephardic practice of reciting bameh madlikin before arvit. Finally, I devoted a great deal of attention to the evolution of the liturgy accompanying the removal of the Torah from the ark and its return at the conclusion of the Torah reading. In antiquity, the primary function of the public reading of the Torah was didactic; it provided a means for the teaching of Torah and Jewish practice to the assembled congregation. Ancient and late-antique sources which describe the public reading of the Torah give no indication that the reading was accompanied by any ceremony. The scroll was removed from the ark or chest in which it was stored, and then read to the assembly. 159 Over time, the act of reading from the Torah became increasingly ritualized. Lectionaries, both annual and triennial, developed, and multiple readers were called to a bimah to read passages from the Torah. Those called recited blessings before and after the entire reading; at a somewhat later date, blessings were recited before and after each passage. 159 On the ark in the synagogues of the talmudic era, see Jeffrey Hoffman, “The Ancient Torah Service in the Light of the realia of the Talmudic Era,” Conservative Judaism 42 (1989–1990): 41–47.

172  ·  Interpretation and Praxis It is not until the Geonic period that we first see evidence for a liturgy connected to the taking out and returning of the Torah. When we examined the liturgy presented in Sofrim, we saw that underlying it is the idea that the reading of the Torah is to be experienced as a reenactment of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Later this understanding of the Torah reading was made explicit in the writings of the leading authorities of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, the School of Rashi, and by several Provençal and Spanish authorities. Other motifs that underlie the Torah liturgy in Ashkenaz are the journey of the Ark from Sinai to the Temple in Jerusalem and its proclamation from Jerusalem to the entire Jewish world – from Sinai to Jerusalem to the local synagogue in which the Torah is read. My discussion of the evolution of the Torah liturgy in both western and eastern Ashkenaz showed how these motifs found expression in the liturgy, especially on Shabbat morning. The liturgy surrounding the Torah reading is quite lengthy and complex, but it provides us with an excellent example of a case where new ways of understanding the meaning of a ritual act led to changes in the liturgy associated with that act.

Table B The Torah Service: Early Ashkenazic Rite The following table presents a composite of the Ashkenazic and Polish rites as they appear or are described in early siddur manuscripts, siddur commentaries, and halakhic works. It includes only those elements of the liturgy relevant to my discussion. I omit references to prayers recited after the haftarah is read but before the Torah is returned to the ark, such as prayers for the welfare of the congregation and the government, the announcement of the beginning of the new month, av haraḥamim, and Psalm 145. 160 160 See Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 125. For a list of manuscripts, see Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 125 note a; 128 note a; 134 note a. Commentaries and halakhic sources include such early German and northern French works as Maḥzor Vitry, Siddur Rashi, the Siddur of Solomon ben Samson of Worms, Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, the Siddur commentary of R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms, and Sefer hamaḥkim. Few

Chapter 3 · 173 Translations of biblical verses are printed in italic. Translations of synthetic verses are printed in roman. Recited as the Torah is removed from the ark and then placed on the reading table: Source

Ps 86:8

Western Ashkenazic/​Northern French rite

Eastern European/Polish rite

‫ ֵאין ָּכמוֹ ָך ָב ֱא־ל ִֹהים‬There is none like You ָ ׂ‫ וְ ֵאין ְּכ ַמ ֲע ֶש‬,'‫ ה‬among the gods, O Lord, .‫יך‬ and there are no deeds like Yours.

Ps 145:13

‫ ַמלְ כו ְּת ָך ַמלְ כוּת ָּכל‬Your kingship is an eter‫ ו ֶּמ ְמ ׁ ַשלְ ְּת ָך‬,‫ עֹלָ ִמים‬nal kingship; .‫ ְ ּבכָ ל דּ ֹר וָ דֹר‬Your dominion is for all generations.

Synthetic verse drawn from Ps 10:16; 93:1; Exod 15:18 Ps 29:11

‫ ה׳‬,‫ ה׳ ָמלָ ְך‬,‫ ה' ֶמלֶ ְך‬The Lord is king; .‫ יִ ְמל ְֹך לְ עֹלָ ם וָ ֶעד‬the Lord was king;

the Lord will be king forever.

,‫ ה׳ עֹז לְ ַע ּמוֹ יִ ֵּתן‬The Lord grants strength ֹ‫ ה׳ יְ ָב ֵר ְך ֶאת ַע ּמו‬to His people; may the .‫ ַב ׁ ּ ָשלוֹ ם‬Lord bless His people with peace.

early eastern European authorities provide detailed information on the Torah liturgy. Exceptions are R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna; R. Abraham Ḥildik, and R. Isaac Tyrnau. The halakhic sources do not provide the full text of the liturgies they prescribe, usually indicating only the opening words of the passages to be recited. In some cases, only the beginning of the first passage is cited, but based upon other sources describing the same rite, we are led to assume that the verses not mentioned explicitly are implied by the header. Thus, a reference to ein kamokha is assumed to include Ps 145:13, “the Lord is king, etc.,” and Ps 29:11. Some sources also include “stage directions,” indicating what actions are preformed along with, or prior to, the recitation of a particular passage; Sefer or zarua hashalem 2:42; R. Abraham Ḥildik, Minhagei R. Abraham Ḥildik. Printed in Shlomo Spitzer ed., Minhagei R. Avraham Klausner ( Jerusalem, 2005) minhagei Shabbat, p. 249; Tyrnau, pp. 23, 26. See also Klausner hoshanah rabbah 58, p. 50; 59, p. 52; 61, p. 53 where it states that ein kamokha is to be recited on the festivals. He does not review the Torah liturgy for ordinary Sabbaths, but it must be presumed that ein kamokha is also recited on Shabbat.

174  ·  Interpretation and Praxis Source

Western Ashkenazic/​Northern French rite

Eastern European/Polish rite

,‫ַאב ָה ַר ֲח ִמים‬ ‫יט ָיבה ִב ְרצוֹ נְ ָך ֶאת‬ ִ ‫ֵה‬ ‫ ִּת ְבנֶ ה חוֹ מוֹ ת‬,‫ִצ ּיוֹ ן‬ .‫יְ רו ׁ ָּשלָ יִ ם‬

Ps 51:20

Compassionate father, May it please You to make Zion prosper; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.

,ּ‫ ִּכי ְב ָך לְ ַבד ָ ּב ָט ְחנו‬For we have trusted in ,‫ ֶמלֶ ְך ֵאל ָרם וְ נִ ּ ָשׂ א‬You alone; king, high .‫ ֲאדוֹ ן עוֹ לָ ִמים‬and exalted God; eternal master.

,‫ ׁ ְש ַמע יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬Hear, O Israel! The Lord .‫ ה׳ ֶא ָחד‬,ּ‫ ה׳ ֱא־ל ֵֹהינו‬is our God, the Lord

Deut 6:4

alone.

‫ ָ ּגדוֹ ל‬,ּ‫ ֶא ָחד ֱא־ל ֵֹהינו‬Our God is one; our ‫ ָקדוֹ ׁש וְ נוֹ ָרא‬,ּ‫ ֲאדוֹ נֵ נו‬God is our lord; holy . ֹ‫ ׁ ְשמו‬and awesome is His name.

Ps 34:4

Ps 99:5, 9

Al hakol yitgadal Prose prayer. For full text see Baer, Seder avodat yisrael, 224; For a translation, see The Koren Siddur, 505

,‫ַ ּגדְּ ל ּו לַ ה' ִא ִּתי‬ .‫וּנְ רוֹ ְמ ָמה ׁ ְשמוֹ יַ ְחדָּ ו‬ ,ּ‫רוֹ ְממ ּו ה׳ ֱא־ל ֵֹהינו‬ ‫וְ ִה ׁ ְש ַּת ֲחו ּו לַ ֲהדֹם‬ .‫ ָקדוֹ ׁש הוּא‬,‫ַרגְ לָ יו‬ ,ּ‫רוֹ ְממ ּו ה׳ ֱא־ל ֵֹהינו‬ ‫וְ ִה ׁ ְש ַּת ֲחו ּו לְ ַהר‬ ‫ ִּכי ָקדוֹ ׁש ה׳‬, ֹ‫ָק ְד ׁשו‬ .ּ‫ֱא־ל ֵֹהינו‬ ‫ַעל ַהכּ ֹל יִ ְת ַ ּגדַּ ל‬ . . . . ‫וְ יִ ְת ַקדַּ ׁש‬

,‫ ַ ּגדְּ ל ּו לַ ה' ִא ִּתי‬Magnify the Lord with .‫ וּנְ רוֹ ְמ ָמה ׁ ְשמוֹ יַ ְחדָּ ו‬me; let us exalt His name together.

,ּ‫רוֹ ְממ ּו ה׳ ֱא־ל ֵֹהינו‬ ‫וְ ִה ׁ ְש ַּת ֲחו ּו לַ ֲהדֹם‬ .‫ ָקדוֹ ׁש הוּא‬,‫ַרגְ לָ יו‬ ,ּ‫רוֹ ְממ ּו ה׳ ֱא־ל ֵֹהינו‬ ‫וְ ִה ׁ ְש ַּת ֲחו ּו לְ ַהר‬ ‫ ִּכי ָקדוֹ ׁש ה׳‬, ֹ‫ָק ְד ׁשו‬ .ּ‫ֱא־ל ֵֹהינו‬

Exalt the Lord our God and bow down to His footstool; He is holy! Exalt the Lord our God, and bow toward His holy hill, for the Lord our God is holy.

‫ ַעל ַהכּ ֹל יִ ְת ַ ּגדַּ ל‬May the name of the . . . . ‫ וְ יִ ְת ַקדַּ ׁש‬king of kings, the

Holy One, blessed be he, be magnified and sanctified and praised and glorified, and exalted and extolled in the worlds that he has created, this world and the world to come . . . ​

Chapter 3 · 175 Source

Western Ashkenazic/​Northern French rite

Eastern European/Polish rite

‫ִת ָ ּגלֶ ה וְ ֵת ָר ֶאה‬ ‫ַמלְ כוּתוֹ ָעלֵ ינ ּו ִ ּבזְ ַמן‬ ‫ וְ יָ חֹן ּ ְפלֵ ָט ֵתנ ּו‬,‫ָקרוֹ ב‬ ‫ו ְּפלֵ ַטת ַע ּמוֹ ֵ ּבית‬ ‫יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל לְ ֵחן וּלְ ֶח ֶסד‬ ‫וּלְ ַר ֲח ִמים וּלְ ָרצוֹ ן‬ .‫ֹאמר ָא ֵמן‬ ַ ‫וְ נ‬

May His kingship speedily be revealed and made manifest to us, and may He be gracious to our remnant and the remnant of his people, the House of Israel, in grace, and in kindness, in mercy, and in favor; and let us say, “amen.”

‫ הוּא‬,‫ַאב ָה ַר ֲח ִמים‬ ‫ הוּא‬,‫ַאב ָה ַר ֲח ִמים‬ ,‫יְ ַר ֵחם ַעם ֲעמו ִּסים‬ ,‫יְ ַר ֵחם ַעם ֲעמו ִּסים‬ ,‫יתנִ ים‬ ָ ‫וְ יִ זְ כּ ֹר ְ ּב ִרית ֵא‬ ָ ‫ וְ יִ זְ כּ ֹר ְ ּב ִרית ֵא‬,‫יתנִ ים‬ ‫וְ יַ צִּ יל נַ ְפ ׁשוֹ ֵתינ ּו ִמן‬ ‫וְ יַ צִּ יל נַ ְפ ׁשוֹ ֵתינ ּו ִמן‬ ,‫ַה ׁ ּ ָשעוֹ ת ָה ָרעוֹ ת‬ ,‫ַה ׁ ּ ָשעוֹ ת ָה ָרעוֹ ת‬ ‫וְ יִ גְ ַער ְ ּביֵ ֶצר ָה ַרע ִמן וְ יִ גְ ַער ְ ּביֵ ֶצר ָה ַרע ִמן‬ ‫ וְ יָ חֹן אוֹ ָתנ ּו‬,‫ וְ יָ חֹן אוֹ ָתנ ּו ַה ְ ּנשׂ ו ִּאים‬,‫ַה ְ ּנשׂ ו ִּאים‬ ,‫יטת עוֹ לָ ִמים‬ ,‫יטת עוֹ לָ ִמים‬ ַ ֵ‫לִ ְפל‬ ַ ֵ‫לִ ְפל‬ ‫ימ ֵּלא ִמ ׁ ְש ֲאלוֹ ֵתינ ּו‬ ‫ימ ֵּלא ִמ ׁ ְש ֲאלוֹ ֵתינ ּו‬ ַ ִ‫ו‬ ַ ִ‫ו‬ ‫ְ ּב ִמדָּ ה טוֹ ָבה יְ ׁשו ָּעה‬ ‫ְ ּב ִמדָּ ה טוֹ ָבה יְ ׁשו ָּעה‬ .‫וְ ַר ֲח ִמים‬ .‫וְ ַר ֲח ִמים‬

May our merciful father have compassion on the burdened nation, and remember the covenant with the mighty ones (the Patriarchs), and save us from evil times, and may he restrain the evil inclination within us, and may He be gracious toward us so that we will survive forever, and may He fulfill our requests in good measure, salvation, and mercy.

‫ִת ָ ּגלֶ ה וְ ֵת ָר ֶאה‬ ‫ַמלְ כוּתוֹ ָעלֵ ינ ּו ִ ּבזְ ַמן‬ ‫ וְ יָ חֹן ּ ְפלֵ ָט ֵתנ ּו‬,‫ָקרוֹ ב‬ ‫ו ְּפלֵ ַטת ַע ּמוֹ ֵ ּבית‬ ‫יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל לְ ֵחן וּלְ ֶח ֶסד‬ ‫וּלְ ַר ֲח ִמים וּלְ ָרצוֹ ן‬ .‫ֹאמר ָא ֵמן‬ ַ ‫וְ נ‬

‫וְ יַ ֲעזֹר וְ יָ גֵ ן וְ יוֹ ׁ ִשיע‬ , ֹ‫לְ כֹל ַהחוֹ ִסים בּ ו‬ .‫ֹאמר ָא ֵמן‬ ַ ‫וְ נ‬ ‫ַהכּ ֹל ָהב ּו ג ֶֹדל לֵ א־‬ ‫ל ֵֹהינ ּו ו ְּתנ ּו כָ בוֹ ד‬ ,‫ כּ ֵֹהן ְק ָרב‬.‫לַ ּתוֹ ָרה‬ .‫יַ ֲעמֹד (פב״פ) ַהכּ ֵֹהן‬

‫ וְ יַ ֲעזֹר וְ יָ גֵ ן וְ יוֹ ׁ ִשיע‬May He help, shield, , ֹ‫ לְ כֹל ַהחוֹ ִסים בּ ו‬and save all those .‫ֹאמר ָא ֵמן‬ ַ ‫ וְ נ‬who trust in him, and let us say, “amen.”

‫ַהכּ ֹל ָהב ּו ג ֶֹדל לֵ א־‬ ‫ל ֵֹהינ ּו ו ְּתנ ּו כָ בוֹ ד‬ ,‫ כּ ֵֹהן ְק ָרב‬.‫לַ ּתוֹ ָרה‬ .‫יַ ֲעמֹד (פב״פ) ַהכּ ֵֹהן‬

Let us all declare the greatness of our God, and give honor to the Torah. Let the kohen approach; arise “so-and-so” the kohen.

176  ·  Interpretation and Praxis Source

Western Ashkenazic/​Northern French rite

‫ָ ּברו ְּך ׁ ֶש ָ ּנ ַתן ּתוֹ ָרה‬ ‫לְ ַע ּמוֹ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ . ֹ‫ִ ּב ְק ֻד ׁ ּ ָשתו‬

Eastern European/Polish rite

‫ ָ ּברו ְּך ׁ ֶש ָ ּנ ַתן ּתוֹ ָרה‬Praised is the one ‫ לְ ַע ּמוֹ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬who has given the . ֹ‫ ִ ּב ְק ֻד ׁ ּ ָשתו‬Torah to His people

Israel in His holiness.

Ps 19:8–9 Ps 29:11 Ps 18:31

‫ימה‬ ‫ימה‬ ָ ‫ּתוֹ ַרת ה׳ ְּת ִמ‬ ָ ‫ּתוֹ ַרת ה׳ ְּת ִמ‬ ,‫ְמ ׁ ִש ַיבת נָ ֶפֹש‬ ,‫ְמ ׁ ִש ַיבת נָ ֶפֹש‬ ‫ֵעדוּת ה׳ נֶ ֱא ָמנָ ה‬ ‫ֵעדוּת ה׳ נֶ ֱא ָמנָ ה‬ .‫ימת ּ ֶפ ִתי‬ .‫ימת ּ ֶפ ִתי‬ ַ ‫ַמ ְח ִּכ‬ ַ ‫ַמ ְח ִּכ‬ ּ ּ ‫ּ ִפ ּקו ֵּדי ה׳ יְ ׁ ָש ִרים‬ ‫ִפקו ֵּדי ה׳ יְ ׁ ָש ִרים‬ ,‫ְמ ַשׂ ְּמ ֵחי לֵ ב‬ ,‫ְמ ַשׂ ְּמ ֵחי לֵ ב‬ ‫ִמ ְצוַ ת ה׳ ָ ּב ָרה ְמ ִא ַירת ִמ ְצוַ ת ה׳ ָ ּב ָרה ְמ ִא ַירת‬ .‫ֵעינָ יִ ם‬ .‫ֵעינָ יִ ם‬ ,‫ה׳ עֹז לְ ַע ּמוֹ יִ ֵּתן‬ ,‫ה׳ עֹז לְ ַע ּמוֹ יִ ֵּתן‬ ֹ‫ה׳ יְ ָב ֵר ְך ֶאת ַע ּמו‬ ֹ‫ה׳ יְ ָב ֵר ְך ֶאת ַע ּמו‬ .‫ַב ׁ ּ ָשלוֹ ם‬ .‫ַב ׁ ּ ָשלוֹ ם‬ , ֹ‫ָה ֵא־ל ָּת ִמים דַּ ְרכּ ו‬ , ֹ‫ָה ֵא־ל ָּת ִמים דַּ ְרכּ ו‬ ‫ ָמגֵ ן‬,‫ ָמגֵ ן ִא ְמ ַרת ה׳ ְצרו ָּפה‬,‫ִא ְמ ַרת ה׳ ְצרו ָּפה‬ . ֹ‫ הוּא לְ כֹל ַהח ִֹסים בּ ו‬. ֹ‫הוּא לְ כֹל ַהח ִֹסים בּ ו‬

The teaching of the Lord is perfect, renewing life; The decrees of the Lord are enduring, making the simple wise; The precepts of the Lord are just, rejoicing the heart; The instruction of the Lord is lucid, making the eyes light up. May the Lord grant strength to His people; may the Lord bestow on His people wellbeing. The way of God is perfect; the word of the Lord is pure; He is a shield to all who seek refuge in Him.

Prov 3:16–18

Northern French rite adds:

In her right hand is length of days, in her left, riches and honor. Her ways are pleasant ways, and all her paths, peaceful. She is a tree of life to those who grasp her, And whoever holds on to her is happy.

Prov 9:11

‫ימינָ ּה‬ ִ ‫א ֶֹר ְך יָ ִמים ִ ּב‬ ‫ִ ּב ְשׂ מֹאולָ ּה ע ׁ ֶֹשר‬ .‫וְ כָ בוֹ ד‬ ‫דְּ ָרכֶ ָיה ַד ְרכֵ י־נ ַֹעם‬ ‫וְ כָ ל־נְ ִתיבוֹ ֶת ָיה‬ .‫ׁ ָשלוֹ ם‬ ‫ץ־ח ִ ּיים ִהיא‬ ַ ‫ֵע‬ ‫יקים ָ ּב ּה‬ ִ ִ‫לַ ַּמ ֲחז‬ .‫וְ ת ְֹמכֶ ָיה ְמ ֻא ׁ ּ ָשר‬ ָ ‫י־בי יִ ְרבּ ּו יָ ֶמ‬ ‫יך‬ ִ ‫ִּכ‬ ‫וְ יוֹ ִסיפ ּו ְּל ָך ׁ ְשנוֹ ת‬ .‫ַח ִ ּיים‬

For through me your days will increase, and years be added to your life.

Chapter 3 · 177 Source

Western Ashkenazic/​Northern French rite

Eastern European/Polish rite

'‫וְ ַא ֶּתם ַהדְּ ֵב ִקים ַ ּבה‬ ‫ ַח ִ ּיים‬,‫ֱא־ל ֵֹהיכֶ ם‬ .‫ֻּכ ְּלכֶ ם ַה ּיוֹ ם‬

Deut 4:4

And you who held fast to the Lord your God are all alive today.

Recited when returning the Torah to the ark: Ps 148:13a

Ps 148:13b–14

‫ ִּכי‬,‫יְ ַהלְ ל ּו ֶאת ׁ ֵשם ה׳‬ . ֹ‫נִ ְשׂ ָ ּגב ׁ ְשמוֹ לְ ַבדּ ו‬

‫ ִּכי‬,‫ יְ ַהלְ ל ּו ֶאת ׁ ֵשם ה׳‬Let them praise the . ֹ‫ נִ ְשׂ ָ ּגב ׁ ְשמוֹ לְ ַבדּ ו‬name of the Lord,

‫הוֹ דוֹ ַעל ֶא ֶרץ‬ ‫ וַ ָ ּי ֶרם ֶק ֶרן‬.‫וְ ׁ ָש ָמיִ ם‬ ‫ ְּת ִה ָּלה לְ כָ ל‬, ֹ‫לְ ַע ּמו‬ ‫ לִ ְבנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬,‫ֲח ִס ָידיו‬ .‫ ַהלְ לוּיָ ּה‬, ֹ‫ַעם ְקרוֹ בו‬

‫הוֹ דוֹ ַעל ֶא ֶרץ‬ ‫ וַ ָ ּי ֶרם ֶק ֶרן‬.‫וְ ׁ ָש ָמיִ ם‬ ‫ ְּת ִה ָּלה לְ כָ ל‬, ֹ‫לְ ַע ּמו‬ ‫ לִ ְבנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬,‫ֲח ִס ָידיו‬ .‫ ַהלְ לוּיָ ּה‬, ֹ‫ַעם ְקרוֹ בו‬

for His name, His alone, is sublime.

His splendor covers heaven and earth. He has exalted the horn of His people for the glory of all His faithful ones, Israel, the people close to Him. Hallelujah.

Table C The Torah Service: Additions prior to the Sixteenth Century Based upon Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 138. Recited as the Torah is removed from the ark and brought to the reading table: Source: Num 10:35

‫ֹאמר‬ ֶ ‫ וַ יְ ִהי ִ ּבנְ סוֹ ַע ָה ָארֹן וַ ּי‬When the Ark was to set out, ָ ‫ וְ יָ ֻפצ ּו אֹיְ ֶב‬,‫ ה׳‬,‫ קו ָּמה‬,‫ מ ׁ ֶֹשה‬Moses would say: ,‫יך‬ ָ ֶ‫יך ִמ ּ ָפנ‬ ָ ‫ וְ יָ נֻ ס ּו ְמ ַשׂ נְ ֶא‬Advance, O Lord! .‫יך‬ May Your enemies be scattered, And may Your foes flee before You!

Isa 2:3

‫ ו ְּד ַבר ה׳‬,‫ ִּכי ִמצִּ ּיוֹ ן ֵּת ֵצא תוֹ ָרה‬For Torah shall come forth .‫ ִמירו ׁ ָּשלָ יִ ם‬from Zion,

The word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

178  ·  Interpretation and Praxis Source: I Chr 29:11

ָ ‫לך ה׳ ַה ְ ּג ֻד ָּלה וְ ַה ְ ּגבו ָּרה‬ ,‫וְ ַה ִּת ְפ ֶא ֶרת וְ ַה ֵ ּנ ַצח וְ ַההוֹ ד‬ ‫ לְ ָך ה׳‬,‫ִּכי כֹל ַ ּב ׁ ּ ָש ַמיִ ם ו ָּב ָא ֶרץ‬ ‫ וְ ַה ִּמ ְתנַ ּ ֵשׂ א לְ כֹל‬,‫ַה ַּמ ְמלָ כָ ה‬ .‫ֹאש‬ ׁ ‫לְ ר‬

Yours, Lord, are greatness, might, splendor, triumph, and majesty – yes, all that is in heaven and on earth; to You, Lord, belong kingship and preeminence above all.

Recited as the Torah is raised and displayed to the congregation: Deut 4:44

‫ וְ זֹאת ַה ּתוֹ ָרה ֲא ׁ ֶשר ָשׂ ם מ ׁ ֶֹשה‬This is the Torah that Moses .‫ לִ ְפנֵ י ְ ּבנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬set before the Israelites.

Recited as the Torah is returned to the ark: Num 10:36

'‫ ׁשו ָּבה ה‬:‫ֹאמר‬ ַ ‫ ו ְּבנֻ חֹה י‬And when it halted, he .‫ ִר ְבבוֹ ת ַאלְ ֵפי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬would say: Return, O Lord, You who are Israel’s myriads of thousands!

Ps 132:8

‫ ַא ָּתה‬,‫ קו ָּמה ה' לִ ְמנו ָּח ֶת ָך‬Advance, O Lord, to Your .‫ וַ ֲארוֹ ן ֻע ֶּז ָך‬resting-place,

You and Your mighty Ark!

Ps 132:9

ָ ֶ‫ כּ ֲֹהנ‬Your priests are clothed in ָ ‫ וַ ֲח ִס ֶיד‬,‫יך יִ לְ ְ ּב ׁש ּו ֶצ ֶדק‬ ‫יך‬ .ּ‫ יְ ַר ֵ ּננו‬triumph;

Your loyal ones sing for joy.

Ps 132:10

‫ ַאל ָּת ׁ ֵשב‬,‫ ַ ּב ֲעבוּר דָּ וִ ד ַע ְבדֶּ ָך‬For the sake of Your servant .‫יח ָך‬ ֶ ‫ ּ ְפנֵ י ְמ ׁ ִש‬David do not reject Your anointed one.

Prov 4:2

,‫ ִּכי לֶ ַקח טוֹ ב נָ ַת ִּתי לָ כֶ ם‬For I give you good instruc.ּ‫ ּתוֹ ָר ִתי ַאל ַּת ֲעזֹבו‬tion; Do not forsake my Torah.

Prov 3:18

,‫יקים ָ ּב ּה‬ ִ ִ‫ ֵעץ ַח ִ ּיים ִהיא לַ ַּמ ֲחז‬It is a tree of life to those .‫ וְ ת ְֹמכֶ ָיה ְמ ֻא ׁ ּ ָשר‬who grasp her,

And whoever holds on to her is happy.

Prov 3:17

‫ וְ כָ ל‬,‫ דְּ ָרכֶ ָיה ַד ְרכֵ י נ ַֹעם‬Her ways are pleasant ways, .‫ נְ ִתיבוֹ ֶת ָיה ׁ ָשלוֹ ם‬And all her paths, peaceful.

Chapter 3 · 179

Table D The Torah Service: Seventeenth-century Additions Based upon Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 148. Added to the verses recited when the Torah is removed from the ark: Source: Synthetic verse

ֹ‫ ָ ּברו ְּך ׁ ֶש ָ ּנ ַתן ּתוֹ ָרה לְ ַע ּמו‬Praised is the One who . ֹ‫ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ִ ּב ְק ֻד ׁ ּ ָשתו‬gave the Torah to His people Israel in His Holiness.

Zohar vayakhel II:206a

​ . . . ‫ ְ ּב ִר ְיך ׁ ְש ֵמ ּה דְּ ָמ ֵרא ָעלְ ָמא‬Praised is the name of the

Master of the Universe . . . ​

Added to the verses recited when the Torah is placed on the reading table: Deut 4:4

'‫ וְ ַא ֶּתם ַהדְּ ֵב ִקים ַ ּבה‬You, who hold fast to the .‫ ַח ִ ּיים ֻּכ ְּלכֶ ם ַה ּיוֹ ם‬,‫ ֱא־ל ֵֹהיכֶ ם‬Lord your God, are all alive today.

Added to Deut 4:44 when the Torah is raised and displayed to the congregation: Num 9:23, 10:13; Josh 22:9

.‫  ַעל ּ ִפי ה׳ ְ ּביַ ד מ ׁ ֶֹשה‬. . . according to the word of the Lord through Moses.

Prov 3:18

,‫יקים ָ ּב ּה‬ ִ ִ‫ ֵעץ ַח ִ ּיים ִהיא לַ ַּמ ֲחז‬It is a tree of life to those .‫ וְ ת ְֹמכֶ ָיה ְמ ֻא ׁ ּ ָשר‬who grasp her,

And whoever holds on to her is happy.

Prov 3:17 Prov 3:16

Isa 42:21

‫ וְ כָ ל‬,‫דְּ ָרכֶ ָיה ַד ְרכֵ י נ ַֹעם‬ .‫נְ ִתיבוֹ ֶת ָיה ׁ ָשלוֹ ם‬ ‫ ִ ּב ְשׂ מֹאלָ ּה‬,‫ימינָ ּה‬ ִ ‫א ֶֹר ְך יָ ִמים ִ ּב‬ .‫ע ׁ ֶֹשר וְ כָ בוֹ ד‬

Her ways are pleasant ways, And all her paths, peaceful. In her right hand is length of days, In her left, riches and honor.

‫ יַ גְ דִּ יל‬, ֹ‫ ה' ָח ֵפץ לְ ַמ ַען ִצ ְדקו‬The Lord desires, for the .‫ ּתוֹ ָרה וְ יַ ְאדִּ יר‬sake of His righteousness, to magnify and glorify [His] Torah.

180  ·  Interpretation and Praxis Recited as the Torah is brought from the reading table to the ark: Ps 29 Ps 24 on weekdays

‫ ָהב ּו לה׳ ְ ּבנֵ י‬,‫ִמזְ מוֹ ר לְ ָדוִ ד‬ ​ . . . ‫ֵאלִ ים‬ ‫ לַ ה' ָה ָא ֶרץ‬,‫לְ ָדוִ ד ִמזְ מוֹ ר‬ ​ . . . ‫ו ְּמלוֹ ָא ּה‬

A psalm of David: Ascribe to the Lord, O divine beings; ascribe to the Lord glory and strength. Of David. A psalm: The earth is the Lord’s and all that it holds; the world and its inhabitants.

Added after Prov 3:17 as the Torah is returned to the ark: Lam 5:21

ָ ֶ‫ ֲה ׁ ִש ֵיבנ ּו ה' ֵאל‬Take us back, O Lord, to ,‫יך וְ נָ ׁשו ָּבה‬ .‫ ַחדֵּ ׁש יָ ֵמינ ּו ְּכ ֶק ֶדם‬Yourself,

And let us come back; Renew our days as of old!

Table E Psalm 29 Source

Weekdays

Shabbat

Prague 16th century

–

x

Trino 1525

–

–

Venice 1545

–

–

Venice 1549

–

–

Prague 1557

Text of Torah Service is not included

–

Thiengen 1560

–

–

Mantua 1562

–

–

Venice 1579

–

–

Venice 1599 (19)

–

–

Venice 1599 (20=21)

–

–

Hanau 1628

Text of Torah Service is not included

Text of Torah Service is not included

Prague 1635

–

–

Verona 1648

Pages for most of shaḥarit are missing.

–

Chapter 3 · 181 Source

Weekdays

Shabbat

Amsterdam 1649

x

–

Venice 1662

–

–

Amsterdam 1664

x

–

Venice 1664

–

–

Amsterdam 1681

x

x

Venice 1682

–

–

Prague 1688

x

–

Dyhernfurth 1690

x

xa

Ps 24

x

Amsterdam 1699

Instruction: “On Mondays and Thursdays take out Torah.” Text of Torah service is not included

Text for this section of Torah service is not included.

Dessau 1700

Instruction: “On Mondays and Thursdays take out Torah.” Text of Torah service is not included

Text for this section of Torah service is not included.

Frankfurt 1697

a Has “ashrei, yehalelu.” My assumption is that one would continue with what is included on weekdays. x is included in this siddur. – is not included in this siddur.

Chapter 4

The Twelfth Century: Aleinu INTRODUCTION Despite the importance ascribed in Ashkenaz to preserving the practices and traditions of earlier generations, the reality is that change and development were as characteristic of the Ashkenazic rite as was the preservation of old minhagim. In Chapter 3, I described how new understandings of the meaning of the ritual of the public reading of the Torah led to the development of a rich and complex liturgy to accompany the removal of the Torah from the ark and later to escort it on its return to the ark at the conclusion of the Torah reading. In this and in the following two chapters I discuss several significant developments in the liturgy of Ashkenaz, drawn from both the beginning and the end of the period that is the focus of my study. In this chapter my focus is upon the incorporation of aleinu into the daily liturgy, a process that began in the twelfth century. In the next two chapters I discuss developments that reflect Sephardic and kabbalistic influences during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 1



1 The text of aleinu was subject to both censorship and self-censorship during the medieval and early-modern periods, and manuscripts and early printed siddurim display significant textual variants. For a discussion of these issues, see Ruth Langer, “The Censorship of Aleinu in Ashkenaz and its Aftermath,” in The Experience of Jewish Liturgy: Studies Dedicated to Menahem Schmelzer, ed. Debra Reed Blank (Leiden, 2011), 147–66; Berger, Issues and Developments, 210–30.

183

184  · The Twelfth Century: Aleinu

THE ORIGIN OF ALEINU Little is known about the origins of aleinu. Since it appears in the Rosh Hashanah liturgy as the introduction to the first unit of a passage included in the musaf amidah known as tekiyata devei rav, it has long been assumed that it was composed by the third-century Amora Rav. 2 However, as Joseph Heinemann has noted, devei rav is a term used in rabbinic literature to refer to practices or teachings current in the beit hamidrash, the rabbinic academy. 3 There is thus no reason to attribute the tekiyata devei rav to the Amora Rav. Furthermore, in all the classical rabbinic sources that mention tekiyata devei rav, the passages quoted are from the zikhronot section, the second unit of the tekiyata, and none refer to aleinu as the introduction to the first section, malkhuyot. 4 Therefore, we cannot be certain that aleinu served as the introduction to the malkhuyot section of the tekiyata devei rav in late antiquity. 5 In his seminal form-critical study of early rabbinic liturgy, Heinemann observes that there is something puzzling about aleinu: it bears many of the characteristics of prayers originally recited at the conclusion of the public study of Torah in the beit hamidrash, but it also has elements that suggest “that aleinu was composed against the background of the Temple service.” Like prayers of beit hamidrash origin, it speaks of God in the third person, using epithets rather than the divine name. Yet it differs from the beit hamidrash style in a number of important respects: it “contains no request for the establishment of the Kingdom of God, but rather conveys the impression 2 Tekiyata devei rav is mentioned in y. Rosh Hashanah 1:5 57a; y. Avodah Zarah 1:2 39a; Lev. Rab. 29:1; Pesikta deRav Kahana 23:1; and Tanḥuma ha’azinu 4. 3 On the composite nature of tekiyata devei rav see Daniel Goldschmidt, Maḥzor leyamim nora’im ( Jerusalem, 1970), 1: xxviii–xxix. On bei rav see Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud, 272; Goldschmidt, Maḥzor leyamim nora’im, 1: xxviii n.5. 4 Ruth Langer, “The Censorship of Aleinu,” 148. 5 Aleinu first appears as the introduction to the malkhuyot section of the tekiyata devei rav during the Geonic period. For a survey of the early appearances of aleinu in tekiyata devei rav, beginning in the tenth century, see Jeffrey Hoffman, “The Image of The Other in Jewish Interpretations of Alenu,” Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations 10:1 (2015), 4–6. Available at http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/view/5904.

Chapter 4 · 185 that God’s kingship over Israel is not a hope for the future, but that God is, in fact, undisputed King of Israel . . . [It] emphasizes the creation of the world and speaks of God as Creator and Master of all. It explicitly speaks of bowing down and falling on one’s knees, which suggests a connection with the Temple service.” 6 Heinemann speculates that the origins of the first paragraph of aleinu should be sought in the ritual of the anshei hama’amad, the divisions of priests, Levites, and lay people who served weekly rotations in the Temple. The priests and the Levites participated in the offerings and Temple rituals, while the lay members of the ma’amad represented the entire people on whose behalf the sacrifices were offered. 7 While the service of the anshei hama’amad centered around the reading of the Creation story of Genesis 1:1–2:3, with brief passages prescribed for each day of the week, Heinemann argues that “this reading – especially in view of the extremely brief daily portions of which it consisted – was almost certainly accompanied either by targum or a midrashic exposition. There could be no more fitting conclusion to such an exposition of the Creation chapter than the aleinu prayer,” which makes explicit the religious message implicit in the readings from the Creation story. 8 Heinemann’s suggestion that aleinu’s origins should be sought in the Temple liturgy of the anshei hama’amad has not gained wide acceptance among contemporary scholars, who have suggested several other possibilities. Meir Bar-Ilan sees its origins in the circles of the yordei merkavah mystics. A hymn appears in the work entitled Ma’aseh merkavah, the beginning of which is almost identical to aleinu, except that it is composed in the first person singular. 9 According to



6 Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud, 270–73. 7 m. Ta’anit 4:2–3; t. Ta’anit 4:2. Some of the lay Israelites accompanied the priests and Levites to Jerusalem, while others gathered together in the synagogues in their towns for special services. On the ma’amadot see Daniel Sperber, “Mishmarot and ma’amadot,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed., 14:317–19; Joseph Tabory, “Avodat Adonai shel anshei hama’amad,” in From Qumran to Cairo: Studies in the History of Prayer, ed. Joseph Tabory ( Jerusalem, 1999), 145–69. 8 Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud, 273–75. 9 For example, it begins alay leshabe’aḥ (it is incumbent upon me to praise), instead of aleinu leshabeaḥ (it is incumbent upon us to praise); Peter Schäfer, Synopse zur

186  · The Twelfth Century: Aleinu Bar-Ilan, the rabbis took a hymn that was composed in the singular and modified it in accordance with their view that prayers should be in the plural voice. It could not have been the other way around, for if aleinu was already known as the introduction to the malkhuyot of the tekiyata devei rav, the composer of the heikhalot hymns would not have had the effrontery to change it from the plural to the singular, or to omit some phrases and add others. He notes that while it was common to change biblical verses and prayers found in rabbinic sources from the singular to the plural when they were adapted for liturgical purposes, rarely was a text that was originally composed in the plural transformed into the singular. Bar-Ilan also notes, like Scholem, that the poetic forms, vocabulary, and metaphors of alay leshabe’aḥ are typical of those found throughout heikhalot literature. 10 Michael Swartz, looking at the same evidence, came to the opposite conclusion: aleinu predates Ma’aseh merkavah and was later adapted and incorporated into the heikhalot literature. 11 Swartz notes that alay leshabe’aḥ appears, along with other prayers and descriptions of the heavenly realms, in a narrative framework that relates the story of R. Akiva’s ascent to the highest of the seven heavens, where he had a vision of the angels of the Glory and the knot of God’s tefillin, presumably on the back of God’s head. In its context, alay leshabe’aḥ is a prayer of thanksgiving recited by R. Akiva in gratitude for his having had a vision of the divine throne and for his having ascended and returned in safety. Yet it contains no references to the Hekhalot-Literature (Tubingen, 1984), 206; Gershom G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition (New York, 1965), 105–6. 10 Meir Bar-Ilan, Sitrei tefillah veheikhalot (Ramat Gan, 1987), 32–38; “Mekorah shel tefellat ‘aleinu leshabei’aḥ’,” Da’at 43:125–40. Reprinted in Ta-Shma: Meḥkarim bemada’ei haYahadut lezikhro shel Yisrael M. Ta-Shma, ed. Abraham Reiner, Joseph R. Hacker, et al. (Alon Shevut, 2011) vol. 1, 5–24. See also Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 27–28 ns. 17–18. On the heikhalot hymns, see Philip S. Alexander, “Prayer in the Heikhalot Literature,” in Prière, Mystique et Judaisme: Colloque de Strasbourg, 10–12 Septembre 1984, ed. Roland Goetschel (Paris, 1987): 43–64; Bar-Ilan, Sitrei tefillah veheikhalot; David G. Lerner, “Hekhalot Rabbati: The Mystical Text and its Liturgical Elements,” Conservative Judaism 47:1 (Fall, 1994): 74–83; Gershom Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, 101–16; Michael D. Swartz, “‘Alay Le-shabbeaḥ: A Liturgical Prayer in Ma’aseh Merkabah,” Jewish Quarterly Review 77:2–3 (1986–1987): 179–90. 11 Swartz, “‘Alay le-shabbeaḥ,” 181.

Chapter 4 · 187 ascent and its dangers, to the heikhalot (heavenly palaces), or to any other aspects of R. Akiva’s experience. And while the first passage of alay leshabe’aḥ fits well into its context, the second passage, al ken nekaveh, does not, for “neither the hope for God’s future reign or the idea that the nations shall acknowledge God’s sovereignty appears elsewhere in Ma’aseh merkabah.” 12 Furthermore, the style of alay leshabe’aḥ and the other poetic passages in that section of Ma’aseh merkavah is also characteristic of early piyyut and other poetry of late antiquity. Thus, the strophes of alay leshabe’aḥ consist of “rhythmic poetic stichs, usually of three or four feet . . . set in parallel couplets,” with important nouns often appearing in construct form, such as adon hakol, yotzer bereishit, govhei meromim, and so forth. 13 Further support for the conclusion that alay leshabe’aḥ was adapted from an earlier source is its awkward shift from singular to plural and back again. Thus, it reads: Who has not made us like the nations of the world/ and has not placed us like the families of the land; Who has not placed my portion among them/ nor my lot like their masses. This suggests that a prayer composed, like most Jewish liturgical prayers, in the plural was imperfectly adapted to a context where it appears as a personal, impromptu prayer of an individual. Swartz concludes: ‘Alay leshabbe’aḥ is not inherently a mystical prayer. It did not arise from the context of the vision and description of the celestial 12 Swartz, “‘Alay leshabbeaḥ,” 188. 13 Swartz, “‘Alay leshabbeaḥ,” 185. Note that it is exactly these features that, according to Scholem and Bar-Ilan, characterize the heikhalot hymns. On the relationship between alay leshabe’aḥ and early piyyut, see Michael D. Swartz, “Piyut and Heikhalot: Recent Research and its Implications for the History of Ancient Jewish Liturgy and Mysticism,” in The Experience of Jewish Liturgy: Studies Dedicated to Menahem Schmelzer, ed. Debra Reed Blank (Leiden, 2011), 263–381; “Hekha­ lot and Piyyut: From Byzantium, to Babylonia and Back,” in Hekhalot Literature in Context: Between Byzantium and Babylonia, ed. Ra‘anan Boustan, Martha Himmelfarb, and Peter Schäfer (Tubingen, 2013), 41–62.

188  · The Twelfth Century: Aleinu hosts. Rather, the prayer was adapted to suit that context – either from ‘Alenu leshabbeaḥ in the Rosh haShanah liturgy or from another source that lay behind both. 14 In sum, while we cannot be certain about aleinu’s origins, it is undoubtedly quite ancient, probably pre-dating both its inclusion in tekiyata devei rav and its adaption and incorporation into Ma’aseh merkavah, and may well derive from the traditions of pre-classical piyyut.

THE INCLUSION OF ALEINU IN THE DAILY SERVICE The recitation of aleinu at the conclusion of one of the daily services first appears in the rite of northern France, and soon thereafter in Ashkenaz. Early northern French sources include several liturgical manuscripts, Siddur Rashi and Maḥzor Vitry, and Sefer hamaḥkim. 15 In Ashkenaz, it was first prescribed by R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms, who indicated that it is to be recited by individuals at the conclusion of shaḥarit, but his ruling probably reflects the teachings of his teacher, R. Judah Heḥasid. 16 Other early sources that mandate its inclusion in shaḥarit include Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz and R. Isaac Tyrnau in Ashkenaz; Kol bo and Orḥot ḥayyim in Provence, and Rabbi Jacob ben Asher in Germany and Spain. 17 Later Ashkenazic 14 Swartz, “‘Alay leshabbeaḥ,” 190. 15 MS Corpus Christi College 133, which dates from 1189; MS Paris BN heb 633; R. Jacob ben Judah Ḥazzan of London, Etz ḥayyim, ed. Israel Brodie (Jerusalem, 1962), 126; Siddur Rashi 419, p. 210; Vitry seder Shabbat 13, p. 131; and Hamaḥkim, p. 13. See also Ta-Shma, “Tefillat aleinu leshabe’aḥ ushe’eilat siyyum hatefillah” in Hatefillah haAshkenazit hakedumah: Perakim be’ofiyah uvetoldotehah” (Jerusalem, 2003), 144–47; Hallamish, Hakabbalah batefillah, 627–30. There are indications in Siddur Rashi and in Vitry that aleinu was not yet considered to be a part of the “official,” mandated shaḥarit service, but was rather a supplementary prayer; Ta-Shma, “Aleinu leshabe’aḥ,” 139–40, and notes 3–4 on page 140; Shamash 12 and n. 22, p. 1:17; 239, and note 105, pp. 2:72–73. 16 Sefer harokeaḥ 324, p. 221; Siddur harokeaḥ, p. 122. According to Siddur Rashi and Siddur harokeaḥ, aleinu is to be recited silently. 17 Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 126; Tyrnau, p. 15; Kol bo 16; Orḥot ḥayyim din hateḥinot vehamizmorim she’omrim aḥar shemoneh esrei 8; Tur O.H. 133.

Chapter 4 · 189 authorities who included aleinu in shaḥarit include R. Moses Isserles, R. Mordedai Jaffe, R. Moses Mat, R. Joel Sirkes, R. Judah Löw Kirchheim, R. Isaiah Horowitz, R. Menaḥem Mendel Auerbach, R. Abraham Gombiner, and R. Yair Ḥayyim Bacharach. 18 By the fifteenth century, the recitation of aleinu was prescribed by most prominent authorities who discuss the content of the arvit service, including R. Meir ben Barukh of Rothenburg, R. Isaac Tyrnau, R. Mordecai Jaffe, R. Moses Mat, R. Judah Löw Kirchheim, R. Joseph Yuzpah Hahn Nordlingen, R. Yuzpa Shamash, R. Menaḥem Mendel Auerbach, R. Abraham Gombiner, and R. Yair Ḥayyim Bacharach. 19

THE EVIDENCE OF THE SIDDURIM I was able to examine twenty-three manuscript siddurim dating from the fourteenth through the seventeenth centuries. All but one of these included aleinu at the conclusion of shaḥarit, 20 or, on Shabbat, musaf. Ten manuscripts included aleinu at the end of arvit. 21 All the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century printed siddurim in my sample include aleinu at the conclusion of shaḥarit, but only ten specifically include aleinu at the end of arvit. 22 Yet, the absence of aleinu in most 18 Darkhei Moshe O.H. 133 and Rema O.H. 132:2; Levush hatekhelet O.H. 133; Matteh Moshe 1:212–13; Bayit ḥadash on Tur O.H. 133, s.v. ve’aḥar aleinu leshabe’aḥ; Kirchheim, p. 40; Siddur sha’ar hashamayim, p. 121b; Ateret zekeinim O.H. 132:2, s.v. ve’omrim aḥar siyyum hatefillah; Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 132:2, s.v. aleinu; and Mekor Ḥayyim O.H. 132, s.v. aleinu leshabe’aḥ me’umad. 19 Sefer tashbetz 253; Tyrnau p. 15; Levush hatekhelet O.H. 1236; Matteh Moshe 1:212–13; Kirchheim, p. 48; Yosef ometz 59, p. 15; Shamash 2:245; Ateret zekeinim O.H. 132:2, s.v. ve’omrim aḥar siyyum hatefillah; Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 132:2, s.v. aleinu, erev vaboker, and yedaleg eḥad; and Mekor Ḥayyim O.H. 132, s.v. aleinu leshabe’aḥ me’umad. 20 JTS 4182; JTS 4057; JTS 4847; and JTS 4079c; Vienna NB 75; Paris BN 643; Vienna NB 75; Paris BN 643; Paris BN 641; London BL 27208; London BL 527086; London BL Add. 26954; Tel Aviv Gross GR 012.002; Munich 381; Leipzig UBL 1108; Oxford Opp. 647; Oxford Can. Or. 98; Frankfurt UB Oct. 227; Zurich Braginsky 253; Paris AIU 72; Cambrai A946; Oxford Opp. 776; Oxford Can. Or. 110; and Paris BN 1470. In JTS MS 4071, the page that might have indicated the recitation of aleinu at the conclusion of shaḥarit was missing. 21 JTS 4182; JTS 4057; JTS 4079c; JTS 4847; London BL 27208; London BL 527086; London BL Add. 26954; Frankfurt UB 227; Oxford Opp. 776; and Paris BN 1470. 22 Prague 16th century; Trino 1525; Venice 1545; Venice 1549; Venice 1579; Amsterdam

190  · The Twelfth Century: Aleinu of these siddurim should not be taken as an indication that aleinu was not recited at arvit by those who used these siddurim. Rather, it reflects the way the arvit service was printed in these books. In thirteen of these siddurim, the arvit service is printed in truncated form, and the weekday and Shabbat services are combined. 23 In most cases, shema and its blessings appear in full, including the special conclusion of hashkiveinu that is recited on Shabbat and barukh Adonai le’olam. This may be followed by instructions to recite ḥatzi kaddish and the amidah (but often even these are lacking) and the texts of prayers recited on Shabbat: veshamru, attah kiddashta (but not the full text of the Shabbat amidah), and berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva. Only three of the “combined” siddurim in our sample include instructions that aleinu is to be recited, but the compressed nature of these siddurim should caution us not to draw conclusions with regard to what, if anything, was meant to be recited after the amidah. 24 On the other hand, aleinu is specifically included in five of the eight siddurim in which the weekday and Shabbat arvit services are printed separately. 25

EXPL ANATIONS FOR THE INCLUSION OF ALEINU IN THE DAILY SERVICE How can we explain the incorporation of aleinu, previously recited only in the context of the Rosh Hashanah liturgy, into the daily service, both at shaḥarit and at arvit? Israel Ta-Shma argues that it first 1649; Venice 1662; Amsterdam 1681; Prague 1688 and Frankfurt 1697. The text of aleinu is printed at the end of arvit only in Amsterdam 1649. The other siddurim contain instructions – sometimes only in arvit for Shabbat – that aleinu is to be recited; however, they do not reprint the actual text. 23 Prague 16th century; Trino 1525; Prague 1557; Thiengen 1560; Mantua 1562; Venice 1599:19; Venice 1599:20; Hanau 1628; Prague 1635; Verona 1648; Venice 1662; Venice 1664; Venice 1682; Frankfurt 1697; Amsterdam 1699; and Dessau 1700. 24 Instructions to recite aleinu do appear in Prague 16th century, Trino 1525, and Venice 1662. Many of these “combined” siddurim are very small and were meant for individual use, much like the pocket siddurim available today. They are often very compressed and may omit some material found in the larger siddurim. 25 Venice 1545; Venice 1549; Venice 1579; Amsterdam 1649; Prague 1688.

Chapter 4 · 191 entered into the daily service in the context of ma’amodot liturgies, recited in conjunction with the shaḥarit and, sometimes, the arvit services. 26 According to Ta-Shma, traditions connected with the ma’amadot persisted well after the destruction of the Second Temple, and although the preservation of the memory of the ma’amadot took on a variety of forms, individuals in early medieval France and Ashkenaz adopted the custom of reciting a daily ma’amadot liturgy. 27 Ma’amadot liturgies appear in a number of early siddur manuscripts from the French rite, dating from the second half of the twelfth century through the thirteenth century. By the middle of the sixteenth century, these liturgies increasingly came to be published as separate works. 28 All the ma’amadot liturgies included the reading of portions of Genesis 1:1–2:3, verses from Deuteronomy 32 and elsewhere in the Torah, a psalm, and passages from the prophets, with different passages from each text designated for each of the days of the week, as well as a description of the sacrificial offerings, based upon Abaye’s description on Yoma 27b. Some of these liturgies include additional material: collections of biblical verses, psalms for recitation on special days, and biblical passages relating to the manna, Balak, and the Ten Commandments. While all the liturgies include the same core passages, the additional material varies from edition to edition. 29 Ta-Shma notes that the earliest extant version of the seder ma’amadot is also the most complete version. 30 It is also the only known version that includes aleinu, albeit in an expanded form, at the end of the ma’amadot. Significantly, it also includes a more standard version of aleinu at the conclusion of the shaḥarit service, where it is preceded by Psalm 83 and a collection of biblical verses. 31 Surveying the evidence, Ta-Shma concludes that the ma’amadot

26 Ta-Shma, “Aleinu leshabei’aḥ,” 143–53. 27 Sperber, “Mishmarot and ma’amadot,” 319; Ta-Shma, “Aleinu leshabei’aḥ,” 143–44. 28 Ephraim E. Urbach, “Mishmarot uma’amadot,” Tarbiz 42 (1972/73): 313–27. 29 Ta-Shma, “Aleinu leshabei’aḥ,” 144–47. 30 MS Corpus Christi College 133; Ta-Shma, “Aleinu leshabei’aḥ,” 144–45. See also Hallamish, Hakabbalah batefillah, 627–30. 31 Isa 8:10; Prov 3:25; Isa 46:4; I Kings 8:54–60; Micah 4:5. Ta-Shma, “Aleinu leshabei’aḥ,” 145.

192  · The Twelfth Century: Aleinu originally included not only the core passages, which he refers to as the seder ma’amadot or the seder ma’arakhah, but a variety of psalms and prayers, including Psalm 83, aleinu, and perhaps ein keloheinu as well. 32 By the middle of the twelfth century, the custom of reciting the ma’amadot gradually declined in Ashkenaz. In the process, some of the prayers and texts that had earlier been recited in the context of the ma’amadot, such as the recitation of the daily offerings, the list of levitical daily psalms, the passages relating to the manna, Balak, and Phinehas, aggadic passages from rabbinic literature, ein keloheinu, Psalm 83, and aleinu were absorbed into the daily service, most often at its beginning or end. Some of these passages were recited by individuals before the service began or after its formal conclusion, while some came to be recited by the congregation as a whole. They were at first absorbed into the shaḥarit service, and from there some came to be recited in conjunction with the arvit service, as well. 33 Ta-Shma’s thesis explains not only the development of the ma’amadot liturgies, but also the appearance of Psalm 83, ein keloheinu, amar Rabbi Eliezer amar Rabbi Ḥanina, and especially aleinu at the conclusion of the arvit service in Ashkenazic sources dating from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. By the end of thirteenth century, most of these texts had been eliminated from the arvit service, with only aleinu remaining. Ta-Shma’s thesis is highly suggestive, but the evidence that he brings is not conclusive. Thus, of all the ma’amadot liturgies considered by Ta-Shma, aleinu appears only in MS Corpus Christi College 133. It also appears at the end of the shaḥarit service in that manuscript. 34 Ta-Shma argues that this supports his thesis that prayers that once appeared in all (or at least most) ma’amadot liturgies migrated from the ma’amadot to the standard daily services. Yet we have no evidence from other earlier ma’amadot liturgies that the recitation of aleinu was widespread in ma’amadot liturgies before the middle of the twelfth century. On the other hand, our sources, 32 Ta-Shma, “Aleinu leshabei’aḥ,” 148–49. 33 Ta-Shma, “Aleinu leshabei’aḥ,” 143–44. 34 Hallamish, Hakabbalah batefillah, 627–30.

Chapter 4 · 193 including Siddur Rashi, Maḥzor Vitry, Kol bo, Orḥot ḥayyim, and the Tur testify to the inclusion of aleinu at the conclusion of the shaḥarit 35 and, in some cases, of the arvit services as well. It is possible that aleinu was introduced as a concluding prayer for the standard service sometime during the twelfth century and that the editor of MS Corpus Christi College 133 decided, for his own reasons, to include it in his seder ma’amadot as well. 36 Furthermore, while Ta-Shma posits that Psalm 83, and perhaps also ein keloheinu, were originally recited within the context of the ma’amadot, none of the extant ma’amadot liturgies includes either of these texts. While we cannot be sure how and why aleinu entered into the daily liturgy some time during the twelfth century, I suggest the following factors might explain why it spread and became an enduring part of the liturgy of Ashkenaz: its stirring rhetoric, its emphasis on the contrast between the true religion of Israel as compared to the beliefs and practices of the gentile nations, its ascribed antiquity, and its stress on the theme of the kingship of God. Sources from the late twelfth century and early thirteenth century, the time when aleinu first entered into the daily liturgy, speak of aleinu in the most glowing terms and ascribe to it great antiquity. R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms wrote that aleinu is “the Song of Songs.” 37 Kol bo, Orḥot ḥayyim, and Sefer hamaḥkim all say that, according to Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, “aleinu has within it great praise; therefore one must recite it while standing.” 38 These words were echoed 35 Siddur Rashi 419, p. 210; Vitry seder Shabbat 13, p. 131; Kol bo 16; Orḥot ḥayyim din hateḥinot vehamizmorim she’omrim aḥar shemoneh esrei 8; Tur O.H. 133. 36 On the other hand, aleinu is found among the preliminary psalms and readings of the shaḥarit service in some texts of the Rite of the Land of Israel discovered in the genizah; Mann, “Genizah Fragments,” 325; Fleischer, Tefillah uminhagei tefillah, 238–39. 37 Siddur harokeaḥ 132, p. 656; see also Abraham ben Azriel, Sefer arugat habosem, ed. Ephraim D. Urbach ( Jerusalem, 1962) 3:469; Naftali Hertz Treves, commentary to the liturgy of Rosh Hashanah in Siddur Thiengen 1560. 38 ‫ ;שבח גדול יש בעלינו לשבח‬Kol bo 16; Orḥot ḥayyim din hateḥinot vehamizmorim she’omrim aḥar yud ḥet 8; Hamaḥkim, p. 13. However, this statement does not appear in extant editions of Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer. Kol bo, Orḥhot ḥayyim, and Tashbetz 253 also note that the numerical value of the letters in the word aleinu (166) is the same as that in the word ‫“( ומעומד‬and standing”). This gematria was later mentioned by R. Moses Isserles, Darkhei Moshe on Tur O.H. 133, s.v. uvekol bo, who cited it in the name of the

194  · The Twelfth Century: Aleinu by R. Mordecai Jaffe and R. Moses Mat in the sixteenth century. R. Moses Mat added that he had read that one should recite aleinu with awe and trembling because when we recite aleinu, “the entire host of heaven hears it, and the Holy One, blessed be He, stands with the ‘family on high’ and all of them respond and say (Psalm 144:15): Happy is the people who have it so; Happy is the people whose God is the Lord.” 39 The stirring, elevated prose of aleinu may account, in part, for its popularity, but by itself it does not provide a sufficient explanation for the incorporation of aleinu into the daily service. Some have suggested that aleinu entered into the daily service in the wake of the martyrdom of the Jews of Blois during the blood libel of 1171. According to R. Ephraim of Bonn, the Jews of Orléans wrote a letter to Rabbenu Jacob Tam relating that the Jews of Blois chanted aleinu as they went to their deaths at the stake. 40 The introduction of aleinu into the daily service may be seen as an act of defiance or “vicarious vengeance” directed against the Christian majority for Kol bo; by R. Moses Mat, Matteh Moshe 1:212; by R. Moshe ben Makhir, Seder hayom hamenukad seder kavanat aleinu, p. 45, and in the commentary to Siddur Trino 1525. See also Teshuvot haRadbaz 8:33, which said that “one should recite beautiful praise like this several times a day,” and R. Ḥayyim Vital, Sefer sha’ar hakavanot (Jerusalem, 1997) sha’ar hakavanot inyan kavanat aleinu leshabei’aḥ, who described aleinu as “very great praise” (‫)והנה הוא שבח גדול מאד מאד‬. 39 Levush hatekhelet 133; Matteh Moshe 1:212; R. Abraham ben Shabbetai Sheftel Horowitz, Emek berakhah (Cracow, 1597; new edition with notes by Avraham Hayon (Jerusalem, 1998) 2:40 cited this in the name of Sefer hamusar. This passage from Emek berakhah is quoted in the commentary of his son R. Isaiah Horowitz, Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (Amsterdam, 1717), p. 122b. The passage also appears in the responsum of Moses de Leon that he attributed to Rav Hai Gaon; Elliot R. Wolfson, “Hai Gaon’s Letter and Commentary on ‘Aleinu: Further Evidence of Moses de Leon’s Pseudoepigraphic Activity,” Jewish Quarterly Review 81:3–4 ( January–April, 1991): 408; Naftali Wieder, “Be’itiyah shel gematria anti-Notzrit ve’anti-Islamit (bitefillat aleinu leshabei’aḥ),” in Hitgabshut nusaḥ hatefillah, 453 n. 2. 40 On the massacre of the Jews of Blois, see Baron, A Social and Religious History, 2nd ed., 4:137–38; Robert Chazan, “The Blois Incident of 1171: A Study in Jewish Intercommunal Organization,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 36 (1968): 13–31. The text of the letter from the Jews of Orléans can be found in Ephraim ben Jacob of Bonn, Sefer gezeirot Ashkenaz uTzarfat, ed. A. M. Haberman (Jerusalem, 1971), 126; Jacob R. Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World (New York, 1969), 127–31. The martyrdom of the Jews of Blois was also the subject of several seliḥot, including one by Ephraim’s brother, Hillel ben Jacob of Bonn.

Chapter 4 · 195 the anti-Semitic attack at Blois. 41 In support of this thesis, Jeffrey Hoffman argues that “there is no evidence of Alenu in a liturgical location other than the High Holiday prayers before the Blois massacre,” while its earliest attestation, MS Corpus Christi College 133, dates from 1189. 42 However, the story of the martyrs of Blois chanting aleinu most likely reflects the mythologization typical of martyrologies. 43 Hoffman acknowledges this, but argues that it is irrelevant; what matters is “that the Jewish communities of the region appear to have taken that report quite seriously and literally,” and that “it is quite plausible that Jewish communities in the region, following the report at Blois, began to chant Alenu on a daily basis in support of their faith that the martyrs of Blois went to their deaths singing of the superiority of Judaism over Christianity.” 44 Yet, none of the traditional sources cited in this study that prescribe or explain the inclusion of aleinu in the daily service refer to the massacre at Blois. Hoffman acknowledges this, but suggests that this omission may simply be the result of “prudence and self-preservation in the face of a powerful majority culture.” 45 However, if that were the case, they would have refrained from reciting aleinu altogether, whether in its standard formulation or in the more clearly anti-Christian formulation found in some of the northern French texts. 46 41 Hoffman, “The Image of The Other in Jewish Interpretations of Alenu,” 8. See also Ruth Langer, “The Censorship of Aleinu,” 151–52; Israel Jacob Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, trans. Barbara Harshav and Jonathan Chipman (Berkeley, 2006), 193–96. 42 Hoffman, “The Image of The Other in Jewish Interpretations of Alenu,” 7. 43 See the stories of the martyrdom of R. Akiba and R. Ḥananiah ben Teradion in Berakhot 61b and Avodah Zarah 18a, and the discussion of the treatment of the martyrdom of the Jews of the Rhineland during the First Crusade in eleventh-­century Crusade chronicles in Jeremy Cohen, Sanctifying the Name of God: Jewish Martyrs and Jewish Memories of the First Crusade (Philadelphia, 2004). 44 Hoffman, “The Image of The Other in Jewish Interpretations of Alenu,” 8–9. 45 Ibid., 8. 46 The passage beginning “for they bow down to vanity and emptiness, and pray to a god who does not save” was understood to be an anti-Christian polemic – the Hebrew word for “emptiness” having the same numerical value as “Jesus.” Northern French texts were more explicit, stating that they bow down to “a man of ash, blood, rotting flesh [inhabited by] maggots.” The translation is that of Hoffman, “The

196  · The Twelfth Century: Aleinu Rather, I would suggest that the Jews of medieval Ashkenaz, who had suffered through the First and Second Crusades, as well as incidents like the massacre of the Jews of Blois, whose faith was daily vilified by the Church, and who were subjected to oppressive disabilities under the law, to physical assault, to expulsion, and even to death, must surely have found comfort in the proclamation in aleinu that “they bow down to vanity and emptiness, and pray to a god who does not save, while we bend the knee, bow, and acknowledge the King . . . the Holy One, blessed be He,” and by the assurance that in the time to come, all will recognize the kingship of the God of Israel. Although this was not the sole reason for the incorporation of aleinu into the daily service, and even though it was not mentioned in any of the halakhic sources that I cite, it was probably an important contributing factor. 47 Great importance was also ascribed to aleinu through a tradition that it had been composed by Joshua. 48 This tradition seems to have originated among the pietistic circles of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz and spread from there to Provence. Rabbi Eleazar ben Judah of Worms wrote that aleinu was composed by Joshua when he first entered the land of Israel. When Joshua witnessed the vanity of the religion of its Canaanite inhabitants, “he began to lift his hands up towards heaven, fell on his knees in fear, and said aloud, in a melody that Image of The Other in Jewish Interpretations of Alenu,” 15. See also Berger, Issues and Developments, 221–22; Langer, “The Censorship of Aleinu,” 150, 153; Hoffman, “The Image of The Other in Jewish Interpretations of Alenu,” 14–16. 47 Another anti-Christian text that entered into the Ashkenazic liturgy at this time is shefokh ḥamatekha, a series of biblical verses beginning with Ps 79:6–7, calling upon God to pour out His fury on the nations who do not know Him, who have devoured Jacob and desolated his home, which are recited at the Passover seder; see David Arnow, “Sh’fokh ḥamatkha in the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael and the Passover Haggadah: A Search for Origins and Meaning,” Conservative Judaism 65:1–2 (2014): 49–52. 48 The attribution of aleinu to Joshua may reflect a desire to avoid or negate charges that the reference to those who “bow down to vanity and emptiness and pray to a god who does not save” is directed toward Christians and Christianity. On the other hand, it may reflect a tendency, seen already in rabbinic literature, to ascribe greater authority to Jewish practices by claiming that they were instituted by an important biblical figure. Another example of this is the claim that the patriarchs instituted the daily amidot; Berakhot 26b.

Chapter 4 · 197 gladdens the heart, aleinu leshabei’aḥ.” 49 Rabbi Judah Heḥasid taught that aleinu has 152 words, corresponding to the value of [Joshua] bin Nun. 50 Further evidence for Joshua’s authorship of aleinu was seen in the appearance of the letters of his original name, Hoshea, in the form of a reverse acrostic: 51 ‫ עלינו לשבח‬- ‫ע‬ ‫ שלא שם חלקנו כהם‬or ‫ שלא עשנו כגויי הארצות‬- ‫ש‬ ‫ואנחנו כורעים‬/‫ ואנו‬- ‫ו‬ ‫ הוא אלקינו‬- ‫ה‬ The notion that aleinu was composed by Joshua originated in Ashkenaz, but it soon spread from there to Spain and later to the Spanish dispersion, especially to Safed. R. Moses de Leon incorporated this tradition in a responsum on aleinu that he forged and attributed to R. Hai Gaon. 52 It was supposedly written in response to an inquiry from a group of three Ashkenazic rabbis asking about the origins of the custom of reciting aleinu on a daily basis. They indicated that they were in possession of letters from two authorities expressing two different views on this question. One, from R. Alfasi, said that while Joshua had composed aleinu when he entered the 49 Siddur harokeaḥ 132, p. 656. This entire passage appears also in Arugat habosem 3:469–70. See also Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, pp. 124, 126; commentary of Naftali Hertz Treves to the liturgy of Rosh Hashanah in Siddur Thiengen 1560. Presumably this idea is also expressed in the verse “they bow down to vanity and emptiness, and pray to a god who does not save, while we bend the knee, bow, and acknowledge the King . . . the Holy One, blessed be He.” After all, Joshua had not witnessed idolatrous practices for forty-nine years. 50 Siddur harokeaḥ 132, p. 659; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 126. See also Arugat habosem 3:470 and E. Urbach’s introduction, p. 98. Judah Heḥasid and R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms counted 152 words (the numerical equivalent of ‫ )בן נן‬from the beginning of aleinu until the words timlokh bekhavod, while R. Abraham ben Azriel counted 158 words (‫ )בן נון‬to adonai yimlokh le’olam va’ed. The commentary of Naftali Hertz Treves to the liturgy of Rosh Hashanah also uses the figure of 152 words; Siddur Thiengen 1560. 51 Kol bo 16, Orḥot ḥayyim din hateḥinot vehamizmorim she’omrim aḥar yud-ḥet 8; Hamaḥkim, p. 13; Arugat habosem 3:470; Shibbolei haleket hashalem, p. 470; Siddur harokeaḥ 132, p. 657; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 125; Commentary of Naftali Hertz Treves to the liturgy of Rosh Hashanah, Siddur Thiengen 1560. 52 Wolfson, “Hai Gaon’s Letter,” 365–410.

198  · The Twelfth Century: Aleinu land of Israel, the practice of reciting it daily was instituted by the Geonim. The other view, attributed to R. Gershom, maintained that it was instituted by the first-century Tanna, R. Johanan ben Zakkai. R. Hai’s response was that aleinu was indeed composed by Joshua, but that its daily recitation was first instituted by R. Johanan ben Zakkai. R. De Leon also mentions the idea that Joshua had composed aleinu in another forged responsum attributed to R. Hai, which he included in the collection of Geonic responsa Sha’arei teshuvah. 53 The tradition that Joshua had composed aleinu, and the responsum attributed to R. Hai, are cited by several authorities who lived in sixteenth-century Safed, including R. David ibn Zimra, R. Moshe ben Makhir, and R. Ḥayyim Vital, 54 but these citations received little mention in the writings of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Ashkenazic authorities. 55 The emphasis of aleinu on the themes of God’s unity, uniqueness, and kingship, which are associated with the recitation of shema, also helped to secure its place at the conclusion of the service. 56 Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz suggests that the custom of reciting aleinu at the conclusion of the service arose because aleinu includes the theme of God’s unity. 57 The connection between shema and aleinu was mentioned already in the fourteenth century by R. Ḥayyim ben Samuel of Tudela. He writes that after the conclusion of the prayers the people would remain in the synagogue for a while and recite aleinu. 58 But he 53 Wolfson, “Hai Gaon’s Letter,” 378–80. 54 Teshuvot haRadbaz 8:33; Seder hayom hamenukad seder kavanat aleinu, p. 45; Sha’ar hakavanot inyan kavanat aleinu leshabei’aḥ. 55 Sources from this period that mention the tradition that aleinu was composed by Joshua include the commentary of Naftali Hertz Treves, Siddur Thiengen 1560 (on the liturgy of Rosh Hashanah), where this tradition is attributed to R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms; Kirchheim, p. 40 gloss 44, 119 gloss 13; Emek berakhah 2:40; Mekor Ḥayyim O.H. 132, s.v. aleinu leshabei’aḥ me’umad, citing the Kol bo. 56 On the recitation of shema as the acceptance of “the yoke of the kingship of God,” see m. Berakhot II:2. 57 Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 124. 58 R. Ḥayyim bar Samuel ben David, Tzeror haḥayyim, ed. Samuel Hagai Yerushalmi (Jerusalem, 1966), mishpetei hatefillot 13, p. 18; Tashbetz 253. Cf. Menaḥem ben Solomon Hame’iri, Beit habeḥirah to Berakhot, ed. Samuel Dickman (Jerusalem, 1960), Berakhot 32a, who suggests a reason for sitting or pausing briefly before reciting aleinu.

Chapter 4 · 199 then notes that the Jews of France recited aleinu only after shaḥarit and arvit, when shema is also recited. 59 The kabbalists of sixteenth-century Safed and those influenced by their teachings insisted that aleinu be included in minḥah as well. 60 Asked whether aleinu should be omitted at minḥah, R. David ibn Zimra responded that “one should recite beautiful praises like this several times a day, even more so at minḥah.” Indeed, since shema is not recited at minḥah, one must recite aleinu leshabei’aḥ, which is in the place of shema, for it is the unification of God [yiḥud] par excellence. 61 R. Moshe ben Makhir commented that when one recites both shema and aleinu, one bears witness to the kingship of God. Thus, the final letters of the first and last words of Deuteronomy 6:4 form the word ed [witness], as do the first and last letters of aleinu. 62 ‫ אחד‬. . . ‫שמע‬ ‫ אין עוד‬. . . ‫עלינו לשבח‬ ‫ עד תמלוך בכבוד‬. . . ‫על כן נקוה‬ Among the Ashkenazic authorities, the themes of God’s kingship and the unification of God’s name were taken up by R. Joel Sirkes, who marshalled both spiritual and psychological rationales for including aleinu at the conclusion of all of the services: 59 R. Ḥayyim bar Samuel ben David, Tzeror haḥayyim, mishpetei hatefillot 13, p. 18 60 Ta-Shma, “Aleinu leshabei’aḥ,” 141 n. 5; Sha’ar hakavanot inyan aleinu leshabei’aḥ. But R. Menaḥem Lonzano ruled that it should be omitted at minḥah; Derekh ḥayyim 108b, citing Tola’at Ya’akov 21a. R. Israel Jacob ben Yom Tov Algazi also notes the opposition of Tola’at Ya’akov; Sefer shalmei tzibbur (Solonika, 1745/46); new edition with notes by Avraham Hayon (Jerusalem, 1998), 162b, 168a. R. Ḥayyim Benveniste wrote that while the Tur, Abudarham, and Derekh ḥayyim all omit aleinu at minḥah, the custom in his community, Constantinople, was to include it; Keneset hagedolah on Tur O.H. 234. R. Abraham Gombiner cited the rulings of R. Ḥayyim Vital and R. Ḥayyim Benveniste in favor of including aleinu at the conclusion of each of the daily services but noted the opposition of Tola’at Ya’akov as cited in Derekh ḥayyim, as well; Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 132:1, s.v. aleinu. In the Lurianic kabbalah, yiḥud is not merely the proclamation of the unity of God; rather it is an act that assists in effecting the unification of the divine sefirot. The commentary in Siddur sha’ar hashamayim cites the view of R. Abraham ben Shabbetai Sheftel Horowitz in Emek haberakhah that aleinu should be recited three times daily with intense kavanah. 61 Teshuvot haRadbaz 8:33. 62 Seder hayom hamenukad seder kavanat aleinu, p. 45.

200  · The Twelfth Century: Aleinu Its purpose is to impose upon our hearts the unity of the kingship of Heaven before we return [from the synagogue] to our homes, and to strengthen within our hearts the faith that [God] will remove the abominations from the earth, that the idols will be completely destroyed, and that the world will be perfected into the kingdom of God. For then, when all of the Jews engage in trade with the gentiles, who worship false gods and their abominations, and they [see that the gentiles] are successful, their hearts will not be turned towards the false gods, and it will not occur to them to sin, God forbid. 63

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Aleinu was introduced into the daily service in Ashkenaz during the second half of the twelfth century. In this chapter I considered Israel Ta-Shma’s thesis that aleinu was incorporated into the daily service in the context of the recitation of ma’amadot liturgies, most often at the beginning of the shaḥarit service. He argues that with the gradual decline of the custom of reciting the ma’amadot, some of the prayers and texts included in the ma’amdot, including aleinu, were absorbed into the daily shaḥarit service. In time a few of these passages came to be recited in the evening as well. While Ta-Shma’s thesis is highly suggestive, it is not supported by the available evidence, as only one of the extant ma’amadot texts includes aleinu. By the fifteenth century, the recitation of aleinu at the conclusion of shaḥarit and arvit became the norm in Ashkenaz. During the sixteenth century, kabbalistic influences led to its inclusion at the end of minḥah, as well. In all likelihood we can attribute the enduring place of aleinu in the liturgy to its stirring rhetoric, its emphasis on the contrast between the religion of Israel and the beliefs and practices of the gentile nations, its ascribed antiquity, and its stress on the theme of the kingship of God. Finally, I suggest that aleinu serves as a fitting conclusion to the 63 Bayit ḥadash on Tur O.H. 133, s.v. ve’omer aleinu leshabei’aḥ.

Chapter 4 · 201 shaḥarit and arvit services because it ties together the two major themes underlying the liturgy of these services: Israel’s acknowledgment of God’s kingship and the hope for the ultimate redemption and the establishment of God’s kingship over the entire world. The first of these themes, expressed in the shema and its blessings, is also the theme of the first paragraph of aleinu. The second theme is expressed through the recitation of the amidah and the second paragraph of aleinu, al ken nekaveh. 64 Prior to the inclusion of aleinu in the daily service, shaḥarit concluded with the recitation of kedushah desidra, which begins with the assurance that God will send a redeemer to Zion, and kaddish, which expresses the hope that God’s kingship will be established “in our life and in our days.” The arvit service concluded with kaddish. Both of these prayers thus continue the redemptive theme of the amidah that precedes them. 65 Aleinu, on the other hand, ties together, in a very stirring way, the underlying themes of both shema and its blessings and the amidah, serving as a wonderful closure to the entire service. While this dimension of aleinu was not mentioned in the sources that I discussed, it may well have contributed to the incorporation of aleinu as the concluding prayer of those services that included the recitation of shema and the amidah.

64 For a discussion of the weekday amidah as a prayer for redemption, see Kimelman, “The Literary Structure of the Amidah and the Rhetoric of Redemption.” Stefan Reif suggests that aleinu was added to the daily service because of “the need for formal conclusions to match what had come to be regarded as the formal body of the liturgical text.” However, he does not explain why aleinu was chosen for this purpose; Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 209. Aleinu also appears at the conclusion of shaḥarit in the siddur text that was incorporated into Siddur Rashi 419, p. 210 and Vitry seder shaḥarit 13, p. 131 (this appears to be an addition to the original text of Vitry). 65 This is the case even though kedusha desidra is a prayer for the coming of a messianic redeemer, while Kimelman shows that a messianic redeemer plays no role in the depiction of the eschatological redemption in the amidah; Kimelman, “The Literary Structure of the Amidah and the Rhetoric of Redemption,” 194–97. The eschatology of al ken nekaveh is thus closer to that of the amidah than is kedushah desidra.

Chapter 5

Sephardic Influences: The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries INTRODUCTION One of the most significant developments in the liturgy of Ashkenaz during the early modern period was the incorporation of phrases, prayers, and even an entire service drawn from the Sephardic and kabbalistic traditions. In this chapter, I discuss the influence of Sephardic traditions on the liturgy of Ashkenaz. The influence of kabbalistic traditions is the subject of Chapter 6. According to Erik Zimmer, by the middle of the fourteenth century Sephardic works, including works on philosophy and polemics, had reached both western and eastern Europe, and this was probably true of Sephardic liturgical works, as well. 1 However, an examination of Ashkenazic halakhic sources and early printed siddurim indicates that the Sephardic liturgical tradition had little influence on the Ashkenazic rite until the seventeenth century. Although the precise means by which Sephardic sources came to influence Ashkenazic practice at that time is not known for certain, the outlines of the process are clear. Throughout the Middle Ages, from the thirteenth through the sixteenth centuries, Jews had been expelled from much of western Europe. By the end of the sixteenth century, only the Ottoman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Kingdom had substantial Jewish populations; Jews remained in relatively few towns in Germany and

1 Erik Zimmer, “Gilgulo shel nusaḥ hatefillah be’amidah beleil Shabbat,” Sinai 103 (1988/89):167–68.

203

204 · Sephardic Influences Italy. 2 All of this changed during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when many conversos escaping from Portugal, seeking both economic opportunity and safety from the Inquisition, settled in the developing commercial centers of Western Europe, including Antwerp, Amsterdam, Hamburg, London, Bordeaux and its surrounding area, Livorno, Venice, and several other cities in northern and central Italy. 3 At the same time, Ashkenazic Jews – refugees from the 1648 Cossack rebellion in Poland and Ukraine, joined by Jews leaving small towns and villages in the German countryside – also migrated to Western Europe’s urban centers. 4 Most of these new Jewish communities were founded by Ashkenazic Jews, but in some cases, such as Amsterdam, the Sephardim arrived first, establishing a communal structure similar to that which had existed in the Italian cities and in pre-expulsion Spain. Even when settling in towns that already had Jewish populations, the Sephardim tended to keep aloof from the poorer and less cosmopolitan Ashkenazim, resulting in the establishment of separate communal structures in many of these cities. 5 On the other hand, as





2 Shmuel Ettinger, “The Modern Period,” in A History of the Jewish People, ed. Haim Ben-Sasson (Cambridge, 1976), 733. 3 On the establishment of Sephardic communities in the commercial centers of western Europe and their communal and cultural lives, see Ettinger, “The Modern Period,” 773–34, 777–78; Ruderman, Early Modern Jewry, 34–37, 65–74. Much has been written about the “Portuguese” community in Amsterdam. See, for example, Jozeph Michman, “Amsterdam: Sephardim until 1795,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd edition, 2:108–110; Cecil Roth, A History of the Marranos (Philadelphia, 1932), 236–51; and Ruderman, Early Modern Jewry, 68–72. 4 Many of the German Jews were displaced by the disruptions of the Thirty Years War, while others sought greater economic opportunity in the urban centers; Ettinger, “The Modern Period,” 734; Yosef Kaplan, “Peleitim yehudim meiAshkenaz umiPolin beAmsterdam biyemei milḥemet sheloshim hashanah uviyemei hagezeirot shebein 1648–1660,” Tarbut veḥevrah betoldot Yisrael biyemei habeinayim: Kovetz ma’amarim lezikhro shel Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson, ed. Menahem Ben-Sasson, Robert Bonfil, and Joseph R. Hacker ( Jerusalem, 1989), 587–622. 5 On the relationship between Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jews in these communities, see Ettinger, “The Modern Period,” 777–78; Ruderman, Early Modern Jewry, 68; Yosef Kaplan, “The Portuguese Community in 17th-Century Amsterdam and the Ashkenazic World,” in Dutch Jewish History: Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on the History of the Jews in the Netherlands, ed. Jozeph Michman ( Jerusalem, 1989), 23–45; Jozeph Michman, “The Self-Definition of the Sephardic Jews of Western Europe and their

Chapter 5 · 205 David Ruderman points out, “Jews of differing backgrounds [now] lived side by-side not only in Venice, Rome, and Mantua, but also in Amsterdam, Hamburg, Frankfurt am Main, London, Prague, Krakow, and Jerusalem.” 6 While Sephardim and Ashkenazim maintained separate communal structures, because they lived in close proximity to each other and engaged in business with each other they were exposed to each other’s social and religious customs. And although they had their own synagogues, there must have been occasions when Ashkenazim attended services in the local Sephardic synagogue. 7 Many of these Ashkenazic refugees did not remain in Amsterdam but left for other places, some returning to the regions from which they had come, perhaps bringing liturgical practices they had learned in Amsterdam with them. 8 Perhaps more important, several cities with Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities, including Amsterdam, Venice, Verona, Prague, and Frankfurt were home to important printing houses. Whereas in an earlier time Ashkenazic scholars had limited access to manuscripts of Sephardic halakhic and liturgical works, now both Ashkenazic and Sephardic prayer books were readily available at reasonable prices. As Ashkenazic Jews of both the rabbinic and lay elite were exposed to Sephardic texts and practices, they found some of these practices to be appealing and adopted them, either as individuals or as part of their public worship. Religious authorities responded to these practices, approving of some and rejecting others. As textual variants found in Sephardic versions of the prayers gained increased acceptance within the Ashkenazic community, printers, hoping for a





Relation to the Alien and the Stranger,” in Crisis and Creativity in the Sephardic World 1391–1648, ed. Benjamin Gampel (New York, 1997), 121–45. 6 Ruderman, Early Modern Jewry, 38. Sephardim in Amsterdam used the services of Ashkenazic butchers and ritual slaughterers, and employed Ashkenazim as domestic servants; Kaplan, “The Portuguese Community,” 25; Kaplan, “Self-Definition,” 122–23. 7 Amsterdam’s Spanish-Portuguese synagogue, dedicated in 1675, was built across the street from the Ashkenazic synagogue, dedicated in 1671. According to Yosef Kaplan, the earliest Ashkenazic settlers in Amsterdam “lived on the fringes of the Portuguese community” and worshipped in the Portuguese synagogues; Kaplan, “Peleitim yehudim,” 589. 8 Kaplan, “Peleitim yehudim,” 593.

206 · Sephardic Influences wider audience for their books, began to include some of these texts in new editions of the Ashkenazic prayer book, at first as alternative readings, and later as the normative text. In Chapter 3, I discuss the interpretation of bameh madlikin preferred by Sephardic authorities. This interpretation best supports its recitation before arvit on Friday night and later was adopted by influential Ashkenazic authorities, ultimately leading to a change in practice, with bameh madlikin being transferred from the conclusion of arvit to its beginning. 9 In that case, the adaptation of a Sephardic practice entailed a change in the order of the prayers recited on Friday evening. However, Sephardic influences on the Ashkenazic liturgical tradition can be seen primarily in small, seemingly insignificant changes in the text of several prayers and benedictions. In the following pages I look briefly at two such changes, both affecting just one word in the eulogy of a blessing, and then discuss in greater detail a more significant change in the text of the kedushat hayom blessing recited on Shabbat.

THE ḤATIMAH OF HASHKIVEINU On Friday night the ḥatimah of hashkiveinu differs from that recited on other days of the week. On weeknights the ḥatimah is shomer yisrael la’ad, “who protects Israel forever.” According to contemporary siddurim, the ḥatimah recited on Friday night is hapores sukkat shalom aleinu ve’al kol amo yisrael ve’al yerushalayim, “the One who spreads the tabernacle of peace over us and over His entire people Israel, and over Jerusalem.” Prior to the eighteenth century, however, almost all Ashkenazic sources began this phrase with the word pores, omitting the definite article. This reading is found in the liturgical works of the School of Rashi, the siddur commentary attributed to R. Solo

9 See above, pp. 129–38. While some sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Ashkenazic authorities expressed a preference for the Sephardic practice on this issue, the turning point came during the eighteenth century when such important authorities as Isaiah Horowitz (whose Siddur sha’ar hashamayim appeared posthumously in 1717), Jacob Emden, and R. Elijah ben Solomon of Vilna adopted the Sephardic practice.

Chapter 5 · 207 mon bar Samson (Sefer raviah), the siddur commentary of R. Eliezer ben Judah of Worms (Levush, Matteh Moshe), and in R. Judah Löw Kirchheim’s minhag book. 10 It is also found in all the siddurim in our sample, with the exception of Siddur Verona 1648, which displays the influence of the Spanish rite in other ways as well. Somewhat later hapores, with the definite article, appears in the siddur of R. Isaiah Horowitz, which also includes many Sephardic readings. The appearance of hapores in contemporary siddurim may be due to the influence of Baer’s Seder Avodat Yisrael, which has hapores, following the reading cited by Sephardic authorities and found in Sephardic siddurim. 11 I discuss hashkiveinu, the third benediction following the recitation of the shema in the arvit service, in more detail in Chapter 9.

THE ḤATIMAH OF BARUKH ADONAI LE’OLAM The eulogy of barukh Adonai le’olam has a complex textual history. 12 Although the wording of the eulogy varies greatly in its recitation among the rites, almost all Ashkenazic sources that cite the wording of this passage read as follows: 13

10 Hapardes, p. 308; Siddur Rashi 472, p. 240; Vitry seder Shabbat 1, p. 262; 155, p. 142; Siddur R. Solomon bar Samson 54, p. 138; Raviah 33; Sefer harokeaḥ 49; Siddur harokeaḥ 81, p. 458; 82, p. 472; ibid., in sodot hatefillah, p. 460; Levush haḥur O.H. 267:2; Matteh Moshe 2:425, p. 157, Kirchheim, p. 52. See also Shibbolei haleket (Mirsky edition) 51, p. 259. 11 See Baer, Seder Avodat Yisrael, 186 and notes. According to Reif, Baer’s Avodat Yisrael “became the text exemplar for the majority of editions subsequently printed in Western Europe”; Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 265. 12 Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 88–89. According to Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 409 n. 17, this benediction does not appear in Palestinian sources. However, Fleischer, on the basis of a piyyut included in Siddur Rav Saadiah, argues that it does; Fleischer, Tefillah uminhagei tefillah, 81–84. For a more complete discussion of barukh Adonai le’olam, see above, pp. 83–97. 13 Siddur Rashi 428, p. 213; Sefer Raviah 3, p. 6; Siddur harokeaḥ 82, p. 470; Kol Bo 28; Vitry seder tefillat arvit 2, p. 153 (this passage is missing from MSS JTS 8092 and Guenzburg-Moscow 841); Ha’agur 331, citing Seder Rav Amram; Siddur Shabbetai Sofer, p. 286. The exceptions are Hapardes, p. 304, which has melekh meshubaḥ umefo’ar ḥai vekayam tamid, hu yimlokh aleinu le’olam va’ed; and Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 136, which rejects our eulogy and proposes hamolekh bekhevodo tamid aleinu le’olam va’ed, etc.

208 · Sephardic Influences ‫המולך בכבודו תמיד ימלוך עלינו לעולם‬/‫ברוך אתה ה׳ אלקינו מלך העולם המלך‬ .‫ועד ועל כל מעשיו‬ Blessed are You, O Lord our God, the king/who reigns in His glory, may He always rule over us forever, and over all of His creation. The distinction between hamelekh and hamolekh already appears in our earliest sources, 14 but it is the subject of discussion in only a few of them. According to R. Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel, hamolekh was the preferred version in most areas of Provence and Spain, while hamelekh was preferred in the northern French communities. R. Abraham ben Nathan preferred hamelekh because the term hamolekh appears in the Bible in connection with the Persian king Ahasuerus 15 in a passage to which the rabbis ascribed a negative connotation. 16 They said that the term hamolekh, “who reigned [from India to Cush],” was used instead of hamelekh, “who was king,” to indicate that he ruled on his own authority, and not because he was of royal stock, for he had bribed his subjects into giving him the kingship. Even though the term hamolekh is also used in the Bible to refer to a king who was of royal stock, 17 R. Abraham ben Nathan concluded that it is not proper to use a term that has a negative connotation in reference to God. 18 On the other hand, Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz ruled in favor of hamolekh, citing a ruling of R. Samuel [bar Barukh] of Bamberg. 19 14 Siddur Rashi 428, p. 213; Raviah 3, p. 6; Siddur harokeaḥ 82, p. 470 (but see also 81, p. 461, where the reading is hamolekh); Kol bo 28; Vitry seder tefillat arvit 2, p. 154; and Hamanhig, p. 22 have hamelekh. Ha’eshkol, pp. 25, 93; Orḥot ḥayyim din tefillat arvit 3 and Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 136 have hamolekh. The Tur seems to have had hamolekh. See Tur O.H. 267 and note 13 in Tur hashalem, and the citation of the Tur in Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 236:4, s.v. hamelekh bekhevodo. In O.H. 237 the Tur, quoting Seder Rav Amram, has hamelekh, but see Seder R. Amram 1:91, p. 53, where the reading is hamolekh. R. Joseph Caro also had hamolekh, Shulḥan arukh (ed. Shulḥan arukh hashalem) O.H. 236:4 and Beit Yosef on Tur (ed. Tur hashalem) O.H. 236, s.v. katav haRambam. Among later authorities, Perishah on Tur O.H. 236, s.v. venusaḥ Ashkenaz and Yosef Ometz, p. 9 have hamelekh. 15 Esth 1:1. 16 Megillah 11a. 17 Jer 22:11. 18 Hamanhig, p. 122, in a passage which is found in MS. New York A. 19 Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 136 and n. 30.

Chapter 5 · 209 Few of the Askenazic authorities who lived in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries weighed in on this issue, presumably because they concurred with the reading generally accepted in Ashkenaz, hamelekh. However, R. Shabbetai Sofer and R. Abraham Gombiner discuss this question, and both rule in favor of hamolekh. R. Shabbetai Sofer prefers hamolekh, because it is a verbal form similar to that used in the eulogies of many other blessings, rather than hamelekh, the nominal form. 20 R. Abraham Gombiner, while referring to Sefer emek hamelekh’s criticism of those who say hamolekh, also rules in favor of hamolekh, citing its usage by Rambam and R. Jacob ben Asher. 21 The printed siddurim in our sample suggest that R. Abraham bar Nathan of Lunel’s observation, that hamelekh was the preferred form in France and presumably throughout Ashkenaz, continued to reflect conditions through the seventeenth century. Almost all the siddurim have hamelekh. Only one, Venice 1682, has hamolekh instead of hamelekh while three others have hamelekh but provide hamolekh as an alternative reading, printed in parentheses. 22 The appearance of hamolekh in some Ashkenazic siddurim in the second half of the seventeenth century may reflect the influence of the rulings of R. Shabbetai Sofer and, especially, those of R. Abraham Gombiner, but it may also reflect the increasing Sephardic influence on Ashkenazic liturgical texts and practices. However, either because of the considerations cited by R. Abraham bar Nathan of Lunel, or simply because it was the accepted text in Ashkenaz, hamelekh remained the dominant reading, with hamolekh appearing in few, if any, later siddurim.

20 Siddur Shabbetai Sofer, p. 286. Note that the text that is printed with R. Shabbetai Sofer’s commentary has hamelekh, but provides hamolekh as an alternative reading, printed in parentheses. See also hakdama kelalit I, p. 11, where he notes that hamolekh was also the reading in the siddur of R. Solomon Luria. 21 Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 236:4, s.v. hamelekh bekhevodo; Rambam seder tefillot kol hashanah 1; Tur O.H. 267 and p. 208 n. 14 above. 22 (‫ ;)נ“א המולך‬Amsterdam 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Dyhernfurth 1690.

210 · Sephardic Influences

THE CONCLUDING PETITION OF THE KEDUSHAT HAYOM BLESSING The petitionary conclusion of the kedushat hayom benediction for each of the amidot on Shabbat is “Our God and God of our ancestors, accept our rest” to which we refer as retzei vimenuḥateinu. The text in most of the early Ashkenazic sources, 23 with minor variations, is: ,‫ קדשנו במצותיך ותן חלקנו בתורתך‬.‫ רצה במנוחתנו‬,‫א־להינו וא־להי אבותינו‬ ‫ והנחילנו ה׳ א־להינו‬.‫ וטהר לבנו לעבדך באמת‬,‫שבענו מטובך ושמחנו בישועתך‬ ‫ מקדש‬,‫ ברוך אתה ה׳‬.‫ וישמחו בך ישראל אוהבי שמך‬,‫באהבה וברצון שבת קדשך‬ .‫השבת‬ Our God and God of our ancestors, accept our rest. Sanctify us through Your commandments and give us our portion in your Torah. Satisfy us from Your goodness, and make us rejoice in Your salvation, and purify our hearts to serve You in truth. Bequeath to us, Lord our God, in love and willingly, Your holy Sabbath, and may Israel who loves Your name rejoice in You. Praised are You Lord, who sanctifies the Shabbat. However, some printed Ashkenazic siddurim include a variant for the last phrase. Instead of veyismeḥu vekha yisrael ohavei shemekha, “and may Israel, who loves Your name, rejoice in You,” these siddurim have veyanuḥu vah yisrael mekadshei shemekha, “and may Israel, who sanctifies Your name, rest on it.” Almost all the earlier siddurim have veyismeḥu vekha; veyanuḥu vah appears first as an alternate, and then as the sole reading in siddurim printed after the middle of the seventeenth century. 24 Veyanuḥu vah eventually triumphed; it is the reading in all modern Ashkenazic siddurim. 23 For example, see Siddur harokeaḥ 84, p. 477; Vitry seder Shabbat 1, p. 263 (but not in MS JTS 8092) and seder Shabbat 9, p. 280 n. vav. However, R. Judah Heḥasid ruled that on Shabbat one should say veyanuḥu vekha ohavei shemekha, whereas on festivals one should say veyismeḥu vekha yisrael ohavei shemekha; Sodot hatefillah in Siddur harokeaḥ, p. 480. On Sodot hatefillah, see the introduction to Siddur harokeaḥ, xii; Dan, “Emergence,” 88; Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God,” 131. 24 The following siddurim have veyismeḥu vekha: Trino 1525; Venice 1545; Venice 1549; Prague 1557; Thiengen 1560; Mantua 1562; Venice 1579; Venice 1599, 109:19; Venice

Chapter 5 · 211 What are the origins of these two readings, and why did veyanuḥu vah eventually replace veyismeḥu vekha in the Ashkenazic liturgy for Shabbat? 25 Ezra Fleischer notes that veyismeḥu vekha appears in most early sources, whether from the east or the west, including Geonic sources and Siddur ḥibbur berakhot, which preserved the old Italian rite. 26 Erik Zimmer suggests that veyismeḥu vekha yisrael ohavei shemekha may have originally been the conclusion for umei’a’havatekha, while veyanuḥu vah yisrael mekadshei shemekha may have originally served as the conclusion for attah kiddashta, as it alludes both to the beginning (attah kiddashta) and to the eulogy of the benediction (mekadesh haShabbat). 27 Yet, even as attah kiddashta was being adopted 1599:20=21; Hanau 1628 facsimile; Prague 1635; Verona 1648; Amsterdam 1649; Venice 1664; Venice 1682; Prague 1688. Verona 1648 and Venice 1662 have veyismeḥu vekha kol yisrael ohavei shemekha. For a list of variants of these readings, see Hamburger, Shorshei minhag Ashkenaz, 1:62. Early siddur manuscripts also have veyismeḥu vekha; Zimmer, Gilgulo, 165 n. 15; Hamburger, Shorshei minhag Ashkenaz 1:60. The following siddurim have veyismeḥu vekha but present veyanuḥu vah yisrael mekadshei shemekha as an alternative, i.e., ‫וישמחו בך ישראל אוהבי שמך (נ״א וינוחו בה ישראל‬ )‫מקדשי שמך‬: Amsterdam 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Dyhernfurth 1690; Amsterdam 1699. Dyhernfurth 1690 and Amsterdam 1699 read vo, instead of vah, a reading which appears in Frankfurt 1697 minḥah. Veyanuḥu vah or vo appear as the exclusive readings in Prague 16th century and Dessau 1700. 25 Veyismeḥu vekha continues to serve as the concluding phrase of kedushat hayom on festivals. 26 Ezra Fleischer, “Tefillah upiyyut bemaḥzor vermaiza,” in Worms Maḥzor MS Jewish National and University Library Heb. 40 781/1/ facsimile edition (Vaduz: Cyelar Establishment; Jerusalem, 1985), 1:54. 27 Zimmer, Gilgulo,162–63. Attah kidashta introduces the kedushat hayom blessing on Friday night; yismaḥ Moshe and umei’a’havatekha are poems that introduce the kedushat hayom blessing in the shaḥarit amidah. Both are mentioned by early authorities. Umei’a’havatekha and veyismeḥu vekha appear together in liturgical texts from the Cairo genizah; Assaf, “Mitokh siddur tefillah kadmon,” 77. Veyismeḥu vekha also appears in the JTS Adler collection 2824, p. 16, published in Fleischer, Tefillah uminhagei tefillah, 27. Zimmer suggests that umei’a’havatekha . . . ohavei shemekha may have been the preferred version in Pumbedita, where the principle was established that the concluding phrase should refer back to the opening of the benediction, while veyanuḥu vah yisrael mekadshei shemekha may have been the preferred version in Sura, where it was held that the closing passage should anticipate the eulogy; Zimmer, Gilgulo, 162 n. 2; cf. Pesaḥim 104a.

212 · Sephardic Influences throughout Ashkenaz, the preference for veyismeḥu vekha persisted for centuries. 28 Veyanuḥu vah, on the other hand, was the preferred version among Sephardic and Provençal Jews. 29 R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen of Lunel, while critical of those who said veyismeḥu vekha, testified to a variety of practices in his day. He wrote: 30 One should say veyanuḥu vo yisrael mekadshei shemekha, and there are some who say veyanuḥu vah, and both versions are correct, for Shabbat is sometimes treated as a masculine noun and sometimes as feminine. . . And there are those who say that with regard to the eulogy on Shabbat that it should refer back to the [body of the] blessing, and [therefore] one should not say veyismeḥu vekha. [Furthermore] rejoicing is associated only with the festivals [and not with Shabbat]. 31 Rather, one should say vehanḥileinu beahavah uveratzon shabbat kodshekha. Barukh attah Adonai mekadesh hashabbat. And there are those who hold that one should say veyanuḥu vo yisrael mekadshei shemekha and that one should not say ohavei shemekha, for that which precedes the eulogy must anticipate the wording of the eulogy. And this is the law. And there are those who say that one should always say ohavei shemekha, and that the requirement that one must anticipate the eulogy is already fulfilled when he says [beahavah uveratzon] shabbat kodshekha. Go out and see what the people are actually doing. 32 While umei’a’havatekha was preserved in Italy, all the other rites, including the Ashkenazic, Sephardic, North African, Balkan, and Persian rites, adopted attah kiddashta; Berger, Issues and Developments, 138–40; Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 93; Zimmer, Gilgulo, 162, n. 1. 28 In Frankfurt and in some smaller Jewish communities, they continued to recite veyismeḥu vekha into the twentieth century; Hamburger, Shorshei minhag Ashkenaz 1:88–89, 93–95. 29 Zimmer, Gilgulo, 166; Hamburger, Shorshei minhag Ashkenaz 1:61–65, 70–72. 30 Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat erev Shabbat 6–8. 31 See Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 146–47; David Weingarten, “Yismeḥu bemalekhu­ tekha,” Areshet 5 (1985): 46–50. On the question as to whether Shabbat is a day of rejoicing and its role in the debate over which of these alternative readings is the preferable one, see Hamburger, Shorshei minhag Ashkenaz 1:65–70. 32 ‫ פוק חזי מאי עמא דבר‬is a principle that maintains that the custom of the community establishes the correct practice; see, e.g., Berakhot 45a.

Chapter 5 · 213 The recitation of veyismeḥu vekha continued to be the predominant practice in Ashkenaz, at least through the fifteenth century. The first major Ashkenazic authority to question this practice appears to have been R. Isaac Tyrnau, who raised some of the same issues R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen raised centuries earlier: It is the usual practice to conclude veyismeḥu vekha yisrael ohavei shemekha and so on, and this is [the text found] in most siddurim. And this is very surprising, for it does not anticipate the eulogy, nor does it refer back to the beginning [of the blessing], and rejoicing is associated only with the festivals. And I found in an old commentary, and I also heard from “experts,” 33 that one should say veyanuḥu vah yisrael mekadshei shemekha, and so on, and it anticipates the eulogy and refers back to the beginning very well. And this seems to be the essential [i.e., proper] practice. 34 Rejecting this view, R. Jacob Moellin defends the tradition of Ashkenaz. He writes of his displeasure with those who alter the traditional texts of the blessings. He dismisses the requirement that the closing phrase refer back to the beginning of the blessing, and insists that the other requirement, that the closing phrase anticipate the eulogy, did not mandate the use of specific words contained in the eulogy, but could be fulfilled through language that conveyed the same meaning. In this case, the requirement could be fulfilled through reference to a variety of means of sanctification, including “taking delight,” “rejoicing,” and “resting.” 35 Furthermore, he objects to the recitation of mekadeshei shemekha, arguing that it does not properly anticipate the eulogy, for there is no connection between mekadeshei shemekha, “those who sanctify Your name,” and mekadesh hashabbat, “who sanctifies the Sabbath.” 36 Although this issue does not seem to have been widely discussed by later halakhic authorities, including those of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, several of them indicate the preferred (or required) reading. 37 33 ‫בקיאים‬. 34 Tyrnau, p. 19. 35 ‫הן עונג הן שמחה ומנוחה‬. 36 Teshuvot Maharil haḥadashot O.H. 34. 37 R. Joel Sirkes cites veyanuḥu vah as the reading for this passage; Bayit ḥadash on Tur

214 · Sephardic Influences The evidence from our sample of early Ashkenazic printed siddurim suggests that R. Isaac Tyrnau’s objections to veyismeḥu vekha had little immediate impact on the practice of Ashkenazic Jewry. Only in the middle of the seventeenth century did veyanuḥu vah begin to appear in these siddurim, and even then it was usually included as an alternative to veyismeḥu vekha. 38 The growing popularity of veyanuḥu vah may be attributed, in part, to the cogency of the arguments raised by R. Isaac Tyrnau and, before him, by R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen, but it also reflects the spread of Sephardic and kabbalistic traditions throughout central and eastern Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Zimmer suggests that the commentary mentioned by Tyrnau may well have been a Sephardic commentary on the siddur. 39 The preference of kabbalists for veyanuḥu vah, as opposed to veyismeḥu vekha is noted by R. Jeḥiel Mikhal Halevi Epstein in the instructions that accompany the text of Siddur Frankfurt 1697. 40 R. Shabbetai Sofer maintains, both in his commentary and in his General Introduction, that veyanuḥu vah is preferable. 41 He notes that some who favored veyismeḥu vekha drew support from a reference to that version found in Sefer ḥasidim, 42 but argues that the text of Sefer hasidim might be corrupt, and even if it were accurate, it should be regarded not as an endorsement of that reading, but merely as O.H. 269, s.v. ve’omdim. R. Mordecai Jaffe, R. Abraham Gumbiner, and Menaḥem Mendel Auerbach favored veyismeḥu vekha; Levush haḥur 582:8, 619:2, 3; Magen Avraham O.H. 268:3, s.v havah leih lehatḥil; Ateret zekeinim on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 268, s.v. omer vayehulu; but see also the gloss in Shamash 29, 1:34, s.v. magen avot omrim. 38 The exception is Prague 16th century, which has veyanuḥu vah as its sole reading. Veyanuḥu vah does not appear again as a sole reading until Dessau 1700. R. Shabbetai Sofer, R. Jeḥiel Mikhal Halevi Epstein, and R. Isaiah Horowitz all included veyanuḥu vah as an alternative reading in their siddurim; Siddur Shabbetai Sofer, p. 291; Siddur Frankfurt 1697; Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (Amsterdam, 1717), p. 195b. The inclusion of veyanuḥu vah as an alternative reading in siddurim printed in the middle of the seventeenth century may reflect its adoption in practice by many Ashkenazic Jews somewhat earlier. 39 Zimmer, Gilgulo, 167–68. 40 Frankfurt 1697, pp. 98a, 104b, 106a. 41 Siddur Shabbetai Sofer hakdamah hakelalit, pp. 7–9 and p. 291; Reif, Shabbethai Sofer, 130. 42 Judah ben Samuel Heḥasid. Sefer ḥasidim, ed. Reuben Margoliot (Jerusalem: 1970) 882, p. 493.

Chapter 5 · 215 a reference to a reading that was prevalent in Ashkenazic siddurim in use at that time. He claims that in his own day more reliable editions of the siddur could be found, and they have veyanuḥu vah. Ruling in favor of veyanuḥu vah, he cites, in addition to the views of R. Isaac Tyrnau and R. David Abudarham, the kabbalistic tradition found in R. Moses Cordovero’s Sefer hapardes and the reading found in Sephardic siddurim. While preferring veyanuḥu to veyismeḥu vekha, some seventeenth-century sources state that, for kabbalistic reasons, one should say veyanuḥu vah at arvit, veyanuḥu vo at shaḥarit, and veyanuḥu vam at minḥah, a practice reflected in many later Ashkenazic siddurim. 43 Zimmer suggests that Tyrnau’s preference for veyanuḥu vah, as opposed to R. Jacob Moellin’s defense of the older tradition of Ashkenaz, might be seen as reflective of the development of the Austrian-Polish rite as a separate and distinct branch of minhag Ashkenaz, with veyanuḥu vah being adopted in the east, while veyismeḥu vekha retained its hold in the west. 44 The evidence of the siddurim in our sample appears to support this supposition. Of the siddurim published after 1650, all of those that are clearly of the western Ashkenazic rite have veyismeḥu vekha, while all of those that have veyanuḥu vah, whether as an alternative or as the sole reading, are either of the Polish rite or include many eastern traditions as alternative readings. 45 But this simply may be due to the limited size of our sample, 43 Zimmer, Gilgulo, 169. This does not seem to have been the practice of either R. Moses Cordovero or R. Isaac Luria, both of whom said veyanuḥu vah on Friday evening and veyanuḥu vo at shaḥarit, musaf, and minḥah; Hallamish, Hanhagot 271–72. The siddur of R. Shabbetai Sofer is in accord with Cordovero’s practice; Siddur Shabbetai Sofer hakdamah hakelalit, pp. 7–9 and pp. 291, 346, 394, and 439. R. Isaiah Horowitz’s Siddur sha’ar hashamayim is consistent in having vo for all the services on Shabbat. See also Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 268:3, s.v. tzarikh lomar, citing Kenesset hagedolah. For the significance attached to the change from va to vo [and vam], see Siddur Shabbetai Sofer hakdamah hakelalit, pp. 8–9; and Hallamish, Hanhagot 272. For other variants found in kabbalistic works, see Hamburger, Shorshei minhag Ashkenaz 1:63–65. 44 Zimmer, Gilgulo, 186. R. Isaac Tyrnau lived in Austria, whereas R. Jacob Moellin lived in Mainz. 45 Venice 1662, Venice 1664, and Venice 1682 are western Ashkenazic siddurim and have veyismeḥu vekha. Prague 1688 is a Polish rite siddur that also has veyismeḥu vekha.

216 · Sephardic Influences for of the ten siddurim in the sample published after 1650, five are of the Polish rite, and two more contain elements of both. 46 Veyanuḥu vah yisrael mekadeshei shemekha was later adopted as the standard in most Ashkenazic siddurim, including the influential siddurim of R. Jacob Emden, R. Elijah Gaon of Vilna, R. Wolf Heidenheim, and R. Yizḥak Seligman Baer; 47 veyismeḥu vekha yisrael ohavei shemekha was preserved in the ritual of Frankfurt Jewry. 48 In sum, almost all the earlier siddurim in our sample conclude “and may Israel, who loves Your name, rejoice in You.” Beginning with siddurim printed after the middle of the seventeenth century, “and may Israel, who sanctifies Your name, rest on it” appears, first as an alternative reading, and then as the accepted reading in Ashkenaz. The debate over these readings in the halakhic literature focused on both conceptual and formal issues. Thus, those who favored the second reading argued that rejoicing was associated, not with Shabbat, but with the festivals. 49 Authorities disagreed, as well, about which version best met the requirements that the conclusion of a benediction should both refer back to the beginning of the benediction and anticipate the wording of the eulogy. While the adoption of veyanuḥu vah was surely influenced by the debates over these issues, it may be attributed, in part, to the spread of Sephardic and kabbalistic sources and traditions throughout central and eastern Europe Amsterdam 1664, Amsterdam 1681, Dyhernfurth 1690, and Amsterdam 1699 are Polish rite siddurim that have veyismeḥu vekha with veyanuḥu vah as an alternative reading. Frankfurt 1697 also has veyismeḥu vekha with veyanuḥu vah as an alternative reading. Although Frankfurt 1697 is a western Ashkenazic rite siddur, it contains significant eastern rite readings as alternatives, with notations that these passages are recited in minhag Polin. Prague 16th century and Dessau 1700 are eastern rite siddurim that have veyanuḥu vah as the exclusive reading. 46 See above, p. 211 n. 24. Of the Polish rite siddurim published after 1650, only Prague 1688 has veyismeḥu vekha. 47 Zimmer, Gilgulo, 169. 48 Mordecai Noy, “Le gilgulo shel nusaḥ hatefillah,” Sinai 104 (1989/90):192; Hamburger, Shorshei minhag Ashkenaz, 1:87–88. 49 This question has implications for the recitation of yismeḥu bemalekhutekha in the amidot recited on Shabbat. For a review of the various arguments, see Weingarten, “Yismeḥu bemalekhutekha,” 46–51.

Chapter 5 · 217 during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, because veyanuḥu vah was the preferred reading in Sepharad. In addition, it may reflect the development and eventual dominance of the Polish rite within the sphere of Ashkenazic Jewry.

Table F Adoption of Sephardic Textual Variants in Ashkenazic Siddurim Hapores, not pores (Hashkiveinu)

Hamolekh, not hamelekh (Barukh Adonai le’olam)

Veyanuḥu vo Veyismeḥu bekha; some say (kiddush hayom for veyanuḥu vah Shabbat) (kiddush hayom for Shabbat)

Prague 16th century Verona 1648

x x

Amsterdam 1664

x

x

Amsterdam 1681

x

x

Dyhernfurth 1690

x

x

Frankfurt 1697

x

Amsterdam 1699

x

Dessau 1700

x

Chapter 6

Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century INTRODUCTION Prior to the sixteenth century, the liturgical practices of Ashkenaz were shaped primarily by the teachings of the School of Rashi and of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, and by Ashkenazic Jewry’s devotion to the preservation of local custom. The sixteenth century and especially the seventeenth century witnessed the emergence of kabbalah as a powerful force, exerting a strong influence on the spiritual life of Ashkenazic Jewry, including its liturgy. 1 The flowering of interest in kabbalah in Ashkenaz began in Germany and then spread to Poland. Kabbalistic works that had been virtually unknown in Ashkenaz prior to the end of the fifteenth century, 2 including the Zohar and the teachings of the kabbalists of Safed and their disciples, became the focus of intensive study by Ashkenazic authorities, who in turn cited these works in their commentaries and halakhic rulings. 3



1 On the influence of kabbalah on Jewish liturgy, see Moshe Hallamish, Hakabbalah batefillah; Hallamish, Hanhagot; Hallamish, “The Influence of the Kabbalah on Jewish Liturgy,” in Prière, Mystique ét Judaisme: Colloque de Strasbourg, 10–12 Septembre 10–12, 1984, ed. Roland Goetschel (Paris, 1987), 121–31; Shelomo Tal, “Hashpa’atah shel kabbalat haAri z"l al itzuv demuto shel siddur hatefillah,” Dei’ot 43 (1972/73): 181–85. Reprinted in Peri ḥayyim: Kovetz ma’amarim (Tel Aviv, 1982/83), 17–25. 2 Ta-Shma, Hanigleh shebenistar, 74, 81. 3 Almost all the Ashkenazic authorities cited in this study who were active from the second half of the sixteenth century through the end of the seventeenth century were serious students of kabbalah. Among those who cited kabbalistic works or ideas in their treatment of the liturgical issues under discussion are R. Naftali Hertz Treves, R. Mordecai Jaffe, R. Moses Mat, R. Shabbetai Sofer, R. Nathan Nata

219

220  · Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century Emissaries from Safed who travelled to the major centers of European Jewish life and came into contact with the leading rabbinic authorities of Ashkenaz facilitated the spread of kabbalistic teachings from the land of Israel to Germany and Poland. 4 However, it was the development of printing that truly paved the way for the spread of kabbalistic works and practices throughout Europe during the seventeenth century. 5 Kabbalistic works circulated widely, and were mentioned frequently by Ashkenazic authorities. Among the kabbalistic works mentioned by the authorities cited in this study are the Zohar; R. Todros Abulafia’s Otzar hakavod; R. Ḥayyim ben Samuel of Tudela’s Tzeror haḥayyim; R. Abraham ben Jacob Saba’s Tzeror hamor; R. Meir ibn Gabbai’s Tola’at Ya’akov; R. Ḥayyim Vital’s Sha’ar hakavanot; R. Menaḥem ben Judah Lonzano’s Derekh ḥayyim; R. Moses ben Makhir’s Seder hayom; R. Meir Poppers’ Peri etz ḥayyim; R. Israel Jacob ben Yom Tov Algazi’s Shalmei tzibbur; R. Nathan Nata ben Solomon Spira’s Megalleh amukot, and the writings of Menaḥem ben Benjamin of Recanti. Kabbalistic teachings served as the basis for new commentaries on the siddur, including those of R. Naftali Hertz Treves, 6 R. Isaiah Horowitz, 7 and the commentary included in Siddur Amsterdam 1681. The teachings of the Zohar and of the kabbalists of sixteenth-century Safed were cited in the discussions and rulings of seventeenth-century Ashkenazic halakhic authorities relating to the wording of the prayers and to many liturgical practices. By the second half of



ben Solomon Spira, R. Isaiah Horowitz, R. Joseph Yutzpa Hahn Nordlingen, R. Menaḥem Mendel Auerbach, and R. Abraham Gombiner. On the spread of kabbalah into Poland and the engagement of Polish authorities in the study and teaching of kabbalah, see Jacob Elbaum, Petiḥut vehistagrut ( Jerusalem, 1990), 183–222; on kabbalah in Germany, see Breuer, “The Early Modern Period,” 226–28. The study of kabbalah during this period remained, for the most part, limited to the elite; Moshe Idel, “‘One from a Town, Two from a Clan’ – The Diffusion of Lurianic Kabbala and Sabbateanism: A Re-Examination,” Jewish History 7:2 (Fall, 1993): 82–90; Gries, Sifrut hahanagot, 15–17, 71–73. 4 Elbaum, Petiḥut, 206–7. 5 Scholem, Kabbalah, 70–71; Ruderman, Early Modern Jewry, 103–5; Gries, Sifrut hahanhagot, 71. 6 Printed in Siddur Thiengen 1560. 7 Printed posthumously in Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (Amsterdam, 1717).

Chapter 6 · 221 the seventeenth century, printers began to incorporate many of the prayers and liturgical practices derived from both the esoteric teachings and the pietistic practices (hanhagot) of the kabbalists of Safed into their new siddurim. Moshe Hallamish and others document a host of rituals and liturgical practices that had their origins in kabbalah but were adopted by the larger community. The mechanism for this is not entirely clear, but it is probable that many of these rituals and liturgies were practiced first by circles and associations devoted to the study of the esoteric teachings of kabbalah and to the observance of many of the pietistic and ascetic practices of the kabbalists of Safed. 8 Such kabbalistic circles seem to have been responsible for the introduction of the liturgy of kabbalat Shabbat, at least in some communities. 9 As these liturgical practices gained wide acceptance, printers began to include them in newly printed siddurim, giving them even greater exposure. While Ashkenazic Jewry incorporated the recitation of a variety of verses, psalms, and prayers into its liturgy under the influence of kabbalah, it did not adopt the kabbalistic practice of reciting, or meditating on kavanot, in conjunction with the liturgy. In many cases, the kabbalistic origins of these customs would not have been apparent to those who observed them. 10 In some cases, the more esoteric 8 Breuer, “The Early Modern Period,” 174–75. 9 Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 132:2, s.v. korim; Kirchheim, 49. 10 The term kavanot (lit. “intentions”) refers to a technique utilized in kabbalistic contemplative prayer. It entails concentration on specific sefirot and the recitation of syllables derived from multiple permutations of letters of the Tetragrammaton and other divine names as one recites particular liturgical passages. The performance of kavanot enables the kabbalist to direct his mind and elevate his soul to the upper realms of divinity and to bring about the union of the male and female dimensions of God. In Lurianic kabbalah, the performance of kavanot also serves to free the sparks of divine light trapped in the kelipot, the shards of the vessels intended to capture the divine light as it radiated from Ein Sof at Creation. The vessels were unable to hold the light and shattered; the resulting shards represent the forces of evil. For examples of kavanot in English translation, see David R. Blumenthal, Understanding Jewish Mysticism: A Source Reader (New York, 1978), 169–76; Lawrence Fine, Safed Spirituality: Rules of Personal Piety. The Beginnings of Wisdom (Mahwah, NJ, 1984), 150. On contemplative prayer in the kabbalistic tradition, see Fine, Physician of the

222  · Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century elements of kabbalistic worship appear to have been minimized or eliminated as these practices became a part of the normal worship of Ashkenazic Jewry. An example of this phenomenon can be seen in the liturgy of kabbalat Shabbat. The liturgy of kabbalat Shabbat was at first disseminated in small booklets designated as Tikkunei Shabbat. 11 These booklets included, in addition to kabbalat Shabbat, home rituals and songs for the Shabbat table. Tikkunei Shabbat included explanations of the kabbalistic significance of these rituals and a framework of kavanot which were to be recited in conjunction with them. Once the recitation of kabbalat Shabbat gained acceptance outside of kabbalistic circles, printers began to incorporate it into their siddurim. At first they included the complete text of the Tikkunei Shabbat booklets, but by the last quarter of the seventeenth century kabbalat Shabbat was incorporated into the siddurim on its own, as a separate rubric. In most cases, this was done with little or no reference to its kabbalistic significance, and without the kavanot. The absence of a visible kabbalistic framework may have enhanced the appeal of these practices, most of which could now be seen as being meaningful and having liturgical integrity on their own. In this chapter I highlight a number of instances where the teachings and practices espoused in the Zohar and in the works that emerged from Safed in the sixteenth century influenced liturgical practice in Ashkenaz during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The adoption of the liturgy of kabbalat Shabbat is, perhaps, the most striking example of this phenomenon, but there were many others, as well. Kabbalistic sources were cited in support of readings which differed from those which had become traditional in Ashkenaz, including a variant reading in hama’ariv aravim, the reading veyanuḥu vah in the benediction of kedushat hayom on Shabbat, 12 and the recitation of Zechariah 14:9 at the conclusion of aleinu. 13 Kabbalistic Soul, 220–58. On the Lurianic myth and the breaking of the vessels, see Lawrence Fine, Healer of the Cosmos, 124–49. 11 See below, p. 242. 12 See above, pp. 214–15. 13 And the Lord shall be king over all the earth; in that day there shall be one Lord with one name.

Chapter 6 · 223 arguments were marshalled in support of the recitation of aleinu at the conclusion of minḥah, as well as at the end of shaḥarit and arvit. Kabbalistic sources were also cited by several authorities who held that pitum haketoret should be recited in conjunction with minḥah, not arvit. 14 In addition, a kabbalistic interpretation of barukh Adonai le’olam was suggested by the Polish kabbalist R. Nathan Nata ben Solomon Spira, and this interpretation provided the basis for his ruling that one should sit while reciting barukh Adonai le’olam. 15

HAMA’ARIV ARAVIM The text of hama’ariv aravim, the first in the series of blessings which surrounds the evening shema, was established very early in the development of the Ashkenazic rite and remained quite stable through the end of the seventeenth century. Our sources reflect differences with regard to only three issues: the use of the conjunctive vav before several of the verbs in the blessing; three elements of phrasing; and the inclusion of the concluding passage, “The Lord of Hosts is His name! O everlasting God, may He ever reign over us, always and forever.” 16 Here I limit my discussion to two variants in the phrasing of hama’ariv aravim, both of which likely reflect the influence of kabbalistic sources. All the early sources understand the correct phrasing of the opening lines of hama’ariv aravim to be as follows: 17

14 See below, pp. 266–67. 15 See above, p. 94. Many authorities express approval of the custom of standing for barukh Adonai le’olam, which was said to correspond to the amidah. 16 For a discussion of these issues, see my Issues and Developments, pp. 47–60. 17 While the full text of the blessing is not quoted in our halakhic sources, the passages that we are discussing are frequently quoted in their discussions of other issues. See Vitry seder tefilat arvit 2, p. 152, which has uvitevunah, indicating that beḥokhmah and uvitvunah both begin new phrases, and that there is a full stop after the word kirtzono. In Sefer Abudarham (ed. Bra’un), 305, the accepted phrasing is indicated through the insertion of commentary following each phrase. It has beḥokhmah pote’aḥ she’arim and uvitvunah meshaneh ittim. Siddur Shabbetai Sofer, 271, also has uvitvunah.

224  · Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century ‫אשר‬

1

asher

‫בדברו מעריב ערבים‬

2

bidevaro ma’ariv aravim

‫בחכמה פותח שערים‬

3

beḥokhmah pote’aḥ she’arim

‫ובתבונה משנה עתים‬

4

uvitevunah meshaneh itim

‫ומחליף את הזמנים‬

5

umaḥalif et hazemanim

‫ומסדר את הכוכבים‬

6

umesader et hakokhavim

.‫במשמרותיהם ברקיע כרצונו‬

7

bemishmeroteihem barakia kiretzono

,‫ גולל אור מפני חשך‬,‫בורא יום ולילה‬ .‫וחשך מפני אור‬

8

borei yom valailah, golel or mipnei ḥoshekh, veḥoshekh mipnei or.

Questions relating to the correct phrasing of hama’ariv aravim were first raised in the latter part of the sixteenth century. Referring to the text in lines 7–8, R. Abraham ben Shabbetai Sheftel Horowitz is critical of “those few ḥazzanim who attach the word kirtzono to the words borei yom valailah. They speak, but they do not know what they are saying.” 18 ‫ובתבונה משנה עתים‬

4

uvitevunah meshaneh itim

‫ומחליף את הזמנים‬

5

umaḥalif et hazemanim

‫ומסדר את הכוכבים‬

6

umesader et hakokhavim

.‫במשמרותיהם ברקיע‬

7

bemishmeroteihem barakia.

‫ גולל אור מפני‬,‫כרצונו בורא יום ולילה‬ .‫ וחשך מפני אור‬,‫חשך‬

8

kiretzono borei yom valailah, golel or mipnei ḥoshekh, veḥoshekh mipnei or.

He upholds the traditional phrasing, insisting that the word kiretzono be linked with the preceding phrase, bemishmeroteihem barakia. The blessing thus affirms that “God arranges the stars at all times according to His will,” not that “according to His will He creates day and night, rolling away light before darkness and darkness before light.” His ruling was later quoted with approval by R. Joseph Yuzpa Hahn Nordlingen and, in the seventeenth century, by R. Abraham

18 Abraham ben Shabbetai Sheftel Horowitz, Emek berakhah, 167. Abraham Horowitz was the father of R. Isaiah Horowitz, the author of Shenei luḥot haberit and the mystical commentary to Siddur sha’ar hashamayim.

Chapter 6 · 225 Gombiner 19 and R. Shabbetai Sofer. In his commentary on the siddur, R. Shabbetai Sofer cites the commentary of R. David Abudarham in support of his argument that kiretzono modifies umesader et hakokhavim bemishmeroteihem barakia (lines 6–7) and not borei yom valailah (line 8). His comments make it clear that the rejected reading was used by many ḥazzanim. 20 Another variant was mentioned by R. Naftali Hertz Treves. He writes that Sefer otzar hakavod reads the first clause of the blessing (lines 1–4) as follows: 21 ‫אשר בדברו‬ ,‫מעריב ערבים בחכמה‬ ‫פותח שערים‬ ​ . . . ‫בתבונה‬

asher bidevaro ma’ariv aravim beḥokhmah, pote’aḥ she’arim bitevunah . . . ​

Who with His word brings on the evening with Wisdom, opens the gates with Discernment . . . ​

This reading was then interpreted according to the kabbalistic ideas that are the subjects of Otzar hakavod. Treves does, however, cite the traditional reading, in the name of the R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms, and the prayer text in his siddur follows the traditional phrasing, not that advocated by the author of Otzar hakavod. 22 Furthermore, he does not indicate that the reading in Otzar hakavod was actually used in his community. From the comments by these authorities, it would seem that by the late sixteenth century these variant readings had gained acceptance among a significant element of Ashkenazic, and especially Polish, Jewry. However, with the possible exception of Naftali Hertz Treves, all the authorities cited opposed the use of the variant forms under discussion. Why, then, were these changes in phrasing introduced, and why were they adopted by many in the community, 19 Yosef ometz 29; Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 236, s.v. katav be’emek berakhah. 20 Siddur Shabbetai Sofer, 272, s.v. barakia kirtzono. 21 Commentary to Thiengen 1560; Todros ben Joseph Abulafia, Otzar hakavod (Warsaw, 1879; reprint Jerusalem, 1970), 16b–17a, commenting on Rosh Hashanah 21b. 22 It is difficult to draw conclusions regarding Treves’s approval or disapproval of the reading in Otzar hakavod for the usage of the traditional version of hama’ariv aravim by the prayer text. This is because the prayer texts in early printed siddurim are often not in accord with the readings cited in the commentaries that accompany them.

226  · Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century including a significant number of ḥazzanim? With regard to the first case discussed above, I was unable to find any authority who either advocated or explained the view of those who regarded kirtzono as the beginning of the phrase [kirtzono] borei yom valailah. It is possible that the preference for kirtzono borei yom valailah reflects an appreciation for the prosody of that reading, which results in two stichs, each consisting of four words: 23 ‫ומסדר את־הכוכבים במשמרותיהם ברקיע‬ ‫כרצונו בורא יום ולילה‬ But perhaps both of these variants should be viewed as a result of the spread of kabbalistic writings throughout the world of Ashkenazic Jewry in the latter half of the sixteenth century. The reading of the Otzar hakavod, cited by Treves, is elsewhere attributed to R. Isaac Luria (known as the “Ari”) himself. R. Ḥayyim Mordecai Margoliot of Dubno, in his commentary to the Shulḥan arukh entitled Sha’arei teshuvah, writes: 24 And in Shalmei tzibbur it is written that “in the writings of the Ari [R. Isaac Luria] it is written that one must be careful to say ma’ariv aravim beḥokhmah; poteaḥ she’arim betevunah, and with regard to this many have erred and mixed up the text [of hama’arivim aravim].” R. Ḥayyim Margoliot indicates that he is unable to find this ruling in any of the writings of R. Isaac Luria. The text of hama’ariv aravim in Peri etz ḥayyim, a recension of the teachings of Luria’s disciple R. Ḥayyim Vital written by R. Meir Poppers of Cracow, is the one that they were accustomed to reciting in his community, namely, beḥokhmah poteaḥ she’arim. Nevertheless, he notes that “the author of Shalmei tzibbur has accurate texts of R. Isaac Luria’s writings,” so it is possible that Luria had ruled that way. Indeed, this reading is found in R. Ḥayyim Vital’s Sha’ar hakavanot. 25 23 This was suggested to me by Menahem Schmelzer. 24 Sha’arei teshuvah on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 236:1, s.v. shetayim lifnei keriat shema; Israel Jacob Algazi, Shalmei tzibbur, 166a. 25 Vital, Sefer sha’ar hakavanot inyan tefillat minḥah, s.v. tefillat arvit.

Chapter 6 · 227 Thus it seems certain that the origins of this particular reading should be traced to kabbalistic circles. 26 Indeed, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the first variant discussed above also had its origins in kabbalistic circles. The author of Otzar hakavod and R. Isaac Luria might thus be seen as introducing changes in accordance with the practices of the kabbalists, while R. Abraham ben Shabbetai Sheftel Horowitz, R. Joseph Yuzpa Hahn Nordlingen, R. Shabbetai Sofer, and R. Abraham Gombiner sought to uphold the traditional Ashkenazic practice. While our sources indicate that some ḥazzanim and some members of the community adopted these changes in the traditional phrasing of ma’ariv aravim, almost all the siddurim in our sample preserve the traditional phrasing. The only exception is Siddur Amsterdam 1649, which has a space between the words barakia and kirtzono, indicating that it should be read kirtzono borei yom.

THE CONCLUSION OF ALEINU Several different customs pertain to the conclusion of aleinu. Early sources indicate that aleinu ends with “For the kingship is Yours, and You will reign in glory, forever.” 27 Our sources indicate that this remained the custom in Germany, at least in Frankfurt and in Worms, well into the seventeenth century. These sources indicate that the reason that no biblical verses were recited at the conclusion of aleinu was to preclude the necessity of reciting the mourner’s kaddish at that point. The mourner’s kaddish is recited after passages which end with a biblical verse, and it was the custom of Worms

26 This reading appears in a contemporary Moroccan siddur, Siddur darkhei avot hashalem (Tel Aviv, 2004), 227. 27 Sefer harokeaḥ hilkhot tefillah 224, p. 221; Siddur harokeaḥ 132, p. 659; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, 125–26; Vitry seder shaḥarit 13, p. 131. In the first two of these sources aleinu is said to have 154 words from the beginning until timlokh bekhavod. Since word counts were usually based upon whole units, such as sentences or entire prayers, this indicates that timlokh bekhavod was regarded as the conclusion of the prayer.

228  · Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century and Frankfurt to omit the mourner’s kaddish at the conclusion of the service. 28 Mordecai Jaffe, on the other hand, rules that the mourner’s kaddish is to be recited after aleinu. 29 He does not indicate the biblical verse (or verses) to include at the end of aleinu, but it was probably Exodus 15:18. Thus, R. Yuzpa Shamash, explaining the reason for the omission of the mourner’s kaddish after aleinu in the weekday arvit service, writes: And the reason that we do not conclude aleinu here with “and thus it is written in Your Torah: The Lord shall reign forever,” is that they [i.e., the Jews of Worms] have a tradition that the author of aleinu wrote only until “and You will reign in glory, forever,” and a number of years later they added to it this verse, so that a mourner could recite the mourner’s kaddish after it. And here in Worms they did not wish to add a verse for the mourner’s kaddish, because it is good not to multiply kaddishes. 30 One might think that this represents a difference between the custom of German Jewry in contrast to that of Polish Jewry, but Exodus 15:18 appears at the conclusion of aleinu in all the siddurim in our sample of printed siddurim from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It would seem that by the sixteenth century the inclusion of Exodus 15:18 was the norm among Ashkenazic Jews, but that some German communities preserved an old tradition by omitting it. Under the influence of kabbalah, Zechariah 14:9 came to supplement Exodus 15:18 at the conclusion of aleinu. R. Joseph Yuzpa Hahn Nordlingen writes that according to Sefer hakavanot one should recite Zechariah 14:9 at the conclusion of aleinu. He suggests that, following the custom of the Jews of Frankfurt, according to which no mourner’s kaddish is recited at that time, both Exodus 15:18 and Zechariah 14:9 should be omitted, but he concludes that an individ 28 R. Shalom bar Yitzḥak of Neustadt, Hilkhot uminhagei Rabbenu Shalom of Neustadt, ed. Shlomo J. Sptizer ( Jerusalem, 1997) 90, p. 39; Kirchheim, 48 and gloss 10; Yosef omeִtz 59, p. 15; Shamash 25, 1:31 in glosses, ketzat te’amim al minhagei Vermaisa asher shamati, 2:245. 29 Levush hatekhelet 133. 30 Shamash, ketzat te’amim al minagei Vermaisa asher shamati, 2:245–46.

Chapter 6 · 229 ual who does recite these verses has not transgressed. 31 R. Abraham Gombiner is less ambivalent; he rules simply that one should recite Zechariah 14:9 at the conclusion of aleinu. 32 R. Ḥayyim Vital argues for the inclusion of Zechariah 14:9 on kabbalistic grounds, but thematic considerations also recommend it as a fitting conclusion for aleinu as it clearly expresses the hope for the establishment of the messianic kingship of God, the primary subject of al ken nekaveh. However, its adoption into aleinu in Ashkenaz came slowly. The first siddur in our sample to include it is Frankfurt 1697, a siddur that contains a great deal of material that derives from Lurianic traditions. It was not until the eighteenth century that it became the standard reading in Ashkenaz.

BERIKH SHEMEI When the Torah is removed from the ark, it is customary to recite a supplication known, after its opening words, as berikh shemei. 33 Berikh shemei is taken from the Zohar, and is, in fact, the only prayer innovated in the Zohar: Rabbi Shim’on said, “When the Torah scroll is taken out to be read in public, heavenly gates of compassion are opened and love is aroused above. One should then say the following: Blessed is the name of the Master of the universe, blessed is Your crown and Your place. May Your will accompany Your people Israel forever. Show the redemption of Your right hand to Your 31 Yosef ometz 59, p. 15; Sefer hakavanot inyan kavanat aleinu leshabei’aḥ. 32 Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 132:2, s.v. aleinu. 33 For a discussion of berikh shemei, see Yitzḥak Frankel, “Berikh shemei,” in Siddur Shabbetai Sofer of Przemysl, ed. Yitzḥak Sats (Baltimore, 1987), 366–88; Hallamish, Hanhagot, 403–5; Hamburger, Shorshei minhag Ashkenaz, 1:158–86; Huss, The Zohar: Reception and Impact, 210–11; originally published as Kezohar harakia, 248–49; and Langer, “Sinai, Zion, and God in the Synagogue,” 146–50. Hamburger’s discussion focuses primarily on issues raised by nineteenth- and early twentieth-century authorities, but he also reviews the dispersion of berikh shemei in the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries and the views of various authorities regarding practices based upon the Zohar. The notes in the Hebrew edition of Huss’s book include bibliographical information omitted in the translation.

230  · Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century people in Your Temple, bring us some of the goodness of Your light, and receive our prayer compassionately. May it be Your will to prolong our life in goodness, and may I be counted among the righteous, so that You may have mercy upon me and protect me and all that is mine and that of Your people Israel. You are the one who nourishes all and sustains all; You are ruler of all. You rule over kings, and kingdom is Yours. I am a servant of the blessed Holy One, before whom I bow. Not in a human do I put my trust, nor in a son of God, 34 but only in the God of heaven, who is God of truth and acts abundantly in goodness and truth. In Him do I trust, and to His holy and glorious name I utter praises. May it be Your will to fulfill the desires of my heart – and the heart of all Your people Israel – for good, for life, and for peace.  35 Berikh shemei appeared in only a few works prior to the seventeenth century. Its first known appearance is in the manuscript of an Ashkenazic siddur dating from 1542. 36 Then, shortly before the appearance of the first printed edition of the Zohar (Mantua, 1558–1560), it was included in David ben Yosef’s Tefillah LeDavid, a collection of prayers attributed to R. Judah Heḥasid (Constantinople, 1538) and Le’et ḥen, a Hebrew grammar published by Immanuel ben Yekutiel of Benevento in Mantua (1557). It was also included in

34 Others interpret bar elahin as a reference to angels. Matt, noting that the Paris manuscript reads bar nash, “a human being,” sees this as an anti-Christian polemic; Matt, The Zohar, 6:175 n. 200. For a full discussion of the issue, see Frankel, “Berikh shemei,” 284–87 and Hamburger, Shorsehi minhag Ashkenaz 1:165–72. 35 Zohar vayakhel II:206a. The translation is that of Daniel Matt, The Zohar 6:174–75. Berikh shemei appears to be a later addition to the Zohar. Its authenticity was questioned by Moses Cordovero, and it does not appear in any of the older, more reliable manuscripts of the Zohar. It appears in full in the Mantua edition of the Zohar (1558–1560) and all later editions that are based on the Mantua edition; Matt, The Zohar, 6:175 n. 200. Later editions read: “May it be Your will to open my heart to Your Torah, and may You give me male children who will do Your will, and may You fulfill the desires of my heart.” On the prayer for male children, see Frankel, “Berikh shemei,” 284. 36 MS Basel Universitätsbibliothek R.IV.4; Langer, “From Study of Scripture,” 148 note b.

Chapter 6 · 231 a Sephardic siddur printed in Venice in 1584, where it appears in the weekday service. 37 Yitzhak Frankel suggests that berikh shemei was at first recited by individuals, and perhaps even by groups of kabbalists who, wishing to follow the Zohar’s prescription, read it from personal texts copied from manuscripts of the Zohar that circulated in their own communities. As knowledge of the Zohar was disseminated during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, so, too, did the practice of reciting berikh shemei spread. 38 But while Frankel maintains that the Zohar circulated in manuscript form prior to its publication, Matt argues that at first the Zohar circulated in sections and in booklet form, and that “probably no single complete Book of the Zohar existed until it was printed . . . in the sixteenth century, collated from various manuscripts.” 39 If that is the case, it is unlikely that the section of the Zohar in which berikh shemei appears would have been widely known, especially in light of its absence from many of the extant Zohar manuscripts. Further, as Frankel himself admits, there is no evidence as to how many may have recited it or in which places it was recited. If berikh shemei was recited at all prior to the sixteenth century, the number of people who recited it must have been very small. Indeed, it is questionable whether berikh shemei was recited at all prior to the sixteenth century, for, as Morris Faierstein notes, “even though there is evidence of the Zohar influencing this or that custom, there is no evidence of a group of individuals who attempted to live their lives according to the teachings of the Zohar. For most kabbalists, the teachings of the Zohar remained objects of theosophic speculation rather than a guide for daily living.” 40 This changed with the emergence of a community of kabbalists in Safed during the sixteenth century. The kabbalists of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Safed saw in the Zohar not only a focus of kabbalistic study and meditation, but a source for guidance in religious 37 Frankel, “Berikh shemei,” 268. 38 Frankel, “Berikh shemei,” 367; Huss, The Zohar: Reception and Impact, 211. 39 Matt, The Zohar, 1: xvi. 40 Morris M. Faierstein, Jewish Customs of Kabbalistic Origin: Their History and Practice (Boston, 2013), xviii.

232  · Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century practice, both private and communal. They engaged in practices and recited prayers prescribed by the Zohar, and they innovated new kabbalistic rituals inspired by the teachings of the Zohar. 41 This was the case with the recitation of berikh shemei. Thus, R. Ḥayyim Vital relates that his teacher, R. Isaac Luria, recited berikh shemei as prescribed by the Zohar, 42 and R. Moshe ben Makhir, Vital’s contemporary, cites the passage from the Zohar, including the complete text of berikh shemei, in his Seder hayom, a kabbalistic guide to daily spiritual practice. 43 Both Etz ḥayyim and Seder hayom were reprinted many times, in many editions, and contributed significantly to the spread of the practices of the kabbalists of Safed in the seventeenth century and beyond. Seventeenth-century halakhic authorities and commentators discussed the recitation of berikh shemei, and it appeared with increasing frequency in printed siddurim. Among the Ashkenazic authorities who referred to berikh shemei are R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller, R. Joseph Yuzpa Hahn Nordlingen, R. Abraham Gombiner, R. Yair Ḥayyim Bacharach, R. Yosef ben Solomon Calahora of Posen, R. Yeḥiel Mikhal Epstein, and R. Elijah Shapira. 44 The first printed Ashkenazic siddur to include berikh shemei was that edited by R. Shabbetai Sofer, which he completed in 1617. 45 In his introduction, he explains that he sought to include prayers culled from various kabbalistic sources, including Sefer hakavanot and Seder hayom. 46 It 41 Faierstein, Jewish Customs, xviii–xix; Hallamish, Hakabbalah batefillah, 122. 42 R. Ḥayyim Vital, Etz ḥayyim (Salonika, 1852), Sha’ar hakavanot derushei hasefer Torah derush 1; Peri etz ḥayyim sha’ar keriat sefer Torah chapter 1. 43 Seder hayom hamenukad kavanat ha’omed likro baTorah vehagbahatah, p. 40. It was first printed in Venice, 1599. 44 R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller, Divrei ḥamudot lepiskei haRosh leḥem ḥamudot Berakhot 2:6; Yosef ometz 504, p. 108; Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 262:1; Mekor Ḥayyim O.H. 134:2, s.v. teḥinah debarikh shemei demarei alma; R. Yosef ben Solomon Hadarshan Calahora of Posen, Sefer yesod Yosef (Frankfurt on Oder, 1679); R. Yeḥiel Mikhal Epstein, Sefer kitzur shenei luḥot haberit (Zhitomir, 1854), 21a; 39b. R. Elijah Shapira, Eliyahu Rabbah on Levush hatekhelet 134:4. 45 Siddur Shabbetai Sofer, pp. 359–60. He introduced it with a comment citing the passage in which it appears in the Zohar. R. Shabbetai Sofer’s commentary was not published during his lifetime, but the text of his siddur was printed in Lublin in 1617 and again in 1625. On the history of the publication of R. Shabbetai Sofer’s siddur and commentary, see Reif, Shabbethai Sofer, 53–62. 46 Siddur Shabbetai Sofer hakdamah haperatit, 92.

Chapter 6 · 233 later appears in three of the thirteen siddurim from the same period included in my sample and in eight of the seventeenth-century siddurim surveyed by Ruth Langer. 47 While its association with R. Isaac Luria was undoubtedly sufficient reason for prayer book editors to include it in the siddurim they were preparing for publication, its status was probably enhanced by an additional rationale associated with its recitation. In 1679, R. Yosef ben Solomon Hadarshan Calahora of Posen published Yesod Yosef, a work devoted to the sin of keri, having a nocturnal emission. He discusses some of the causes of keri, and provides tikkunim, acts which serve to remediate the effects of the sin. Among the tikkunim are serving as a sandek at the ritual circumcision of a baby, 48 being called to the Torah, and giving charity. The third tikkun in R. Yosef ben Solomon’s list is that one should “take care to recite berikh shemei when the Torah is taken out [of the ark].” 49 How did the recitation of berikh shemei come to be understood as a tikkun for the sin of keri? According to the Torah, Adam was 130 years old when he begat Seth, a child who was “in his likeness after his image.” 50 According to R. Jeremiah ben Eleazar, in the years following Adam’s expulsion from Eden but before the birth of Seth, Adam begat demons and male and female spirits. The anonymous editor of the Talmud explains that he did this through the semen that he emitted unintentionally. 51 According to Yesod Yosef, berikh shemei has 130 words, corresponding to the 130 years during which Adam sired demons through his nocturnal emissions. The recitation 47 Hanau 1628; Amsterdam 1649; Frankfurt on Main 1697; Langer, “From Study of Scripture,” 146 n. 65. Berikh shemei also appears in thirty-four of the thirty-eight eighteenth-century siddurim inspected by Langer, 148 note b. Langer does not include a list of the siddurim surveyed in her article. It does not appear in any of the pre-seventeenth-century manuscripts that I checked. 48 The sandek is the person who holds the baby on his lap during the berit milah. 49 R. Yosef ben Solomon Hadarshan Calahora, Sefer yesod Yosef (Frankfurt on Oder, 1679), n.p. For a brief discussion of the gravity with which the Jewish mystical tradition regarded even the involuntary emission of semen, see David M. Feldman, Marital Relations, Birth Control, and Abortion in Jewish Law (New York, 1974), 117–19. 50 Genesis 5:3. 51 Eruvin 18b.

234  · Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century of berikh shemei is thus seen to counteract the effects of the sin of which Adam, and the worshipper, were guilty. 52 Yesod Yosef was reprinted many times and, following Yesod Yosef, the recitation of berikh shemei was prescribed as a tikkun for keri in many other works, including R. Yeḥiel Mikhal Epstein’s influential Sefer kitzur shenei luḥot haberit. 53 As the recitation of berikh shemei was being incorporated into the liturgical practice of both Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities, a debate arose as to whether it should be recited both on Shabbat and on weekdays, or only on Shabbat. This issue arose due to an ambiguity in the text of the Zohar. The Zohar states that “when the Torah is taken out to be read in public . . . one should say the following.” This passage appears in the context of teachings related to the reading of the Torah on Shabbat. This might lead one to conclude that berikh shemei is to be recited when the Torah is taken from the ark on Shabbat. However, the phrase translated as “when the Torah is taken out” 54 can be understood to mean “whenever the Torah is taken out,” that is, on weekdays, as well as on Shabbat. The sources describing the practices of R. Isaac Luria and his circle are somewhat ambiguous. R. Ḥayyim Vital writes that it was R. Isaac Luria’s practice to recite berikh shemei [only] on Shabbat. However, R. Meir Poppers’ Peri etz ḥayyim, a recension of Vital’s teachings, notes that in the Kuntres, a shortened version of Vital’s much longer discourses in Etz ḥayyim, it states that Luria recited berikh shemei when the Torah was taken out of the ark, without mentioning Shabbat, implying that he also recited it when the Torah was read on weekdays. 55 Furthermore, R. Moshe ben Makhir’s Seder hayom cites 52 Not all versions of berikh shemei have 130 words. On this problem, see Frankel, “Berikh shemei,” 383. 53 Sefer kitzur shenei luḥot haberit, 21a. For other sources in which this tikkun appears, see Frankel, “Berikh shemei,” 382–83. Keri seems to have been of special concern to authors of pietistic works during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; for a discussion as to why this was the case, see Gershon Hundert, Jews in Poland-Lithuania in the Eighteenth Century: A Genealogy of Modernity (Berkely and Los Angeles, 2004), 131–37. 54 ‫כדמפקין ספר תורה‬. 55 Sha’ar hakavanot inyan shaḥarit shel Shabbat inyan hasefer Torah 73b; Sefer peri etz Ḥayyim sha’ar keriat sefer Torah 1.

Chapter 6 · 235 the Zohar’s ruling that berikh shemei should be recited when the Torah is taken out. This appears immediately following his statement that the Torah is read on Mondays and Thursdays, 56 which implies that, according to Seder hayom, berikh shemei is to be recited on weekdays, as well as on Shabbat. Siddur Shabbatei Sofer was the first printed Ashkenazic siddur to include berikh shemei; it appears there only in connection with taking the Torah from the ark on Shabbat morning. 57 Siddur Hanau 1628, a small-format siddur, does not include the liturgy that surrounds the Torah reading, but it does include the text of berikh shemei. 58 In that siddur, berikh shemei appears in the weekday shaḥarit service, printed in Rashi script, following El erekh apayim and before the concluding prayers, which begin with Psalm 20. Although there are no instructions indicating when it is to be recited, this is the point of the service at which the Torah would be taken from the ark and read on Monday and Thursday mornings. It is not clear why berikh shemei was printed in a font that differs from the standard prayers. It may be an indication that this is a “new” prayer, the recitation of which is optional. Meir Rafel and Joseph Tabory suggest that it may be an indication that it is not recited on weekdays, 59 but if that is the case, the editor could have printed it among the Shabbat prayers. It is more likely that it is an indication that berikh shemei should be recited on weekdays. We should assume that if it is to be recited on weekdays, it should also be recited on Shabbat. Completed just a year or two after the appearance of Siddur Hanau 1628, R. Joseph Yuzpa Hahn Nordlingen’s Sefer Yosef ometz states that “it is a nice custom to recite berikh shemei and so forth, for its recitation is based on the Zohar, and it is a great prayer.” This comment appears in the context of the laws relating to the reading of the Torah. While this section appears within the context of the

56 Seder hayom hamenukad, 40. 57 Siddur Shabbetai Sofer, 359–60; cf. 206, 429–30. 58 Siddur Hanau 1628 5b. 59 Rafeld, Meir and Joseph Tabory, eds., Siddur Hanau 388 [1628] facsimile edition (Ramat Gan, 1994), 32.

236  · Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century daily service, the laws relating to the Torah reading apply equally to the Shabbat and weekday readings. 60 The recitation of berikh shemei on weekdays was opposed by R. Abraham Gombiner, who ruled that it should only be recited on Shabbat, as stated in the Zohar. 61 R. Elijah Shapira, in his commentary on Levush, begins by quoting the ruling of Seder hayom, that “if one did not recite berikh shemei when the Torah was removed from the ark, one should say it when it is [raised and] opened before the congregation,” which he argues implies that berikh shemei should be recited whenever the Torah is taken from the ark, but concludes by citing the view of Magen Avraham, thereby indicating agreement with that view. 62 However, Magen Avraham’s view did not prevail; most Ashkenazic sources that appeared in the second half of the seventeenth century include berikh shemei in the weekday service. Siddur Amsterdam 1649 includes berikh shemei in the weekday Torah liturgy, but it does not appear in the prayers for Shabbat. Here, too, we should assume that if it is to be recited on weekdays, it should also be recited on Shabbat. R. Yair Ḥayyim Bacharach, in his commentary on the Shulḥan arukh, ruled in accordance with the instructions in the Zohar, that berikh shemei should be recited whenever the Torah is read. 63 Others who ruled that berikh shemei should be recited on weekdays include R. Isaiah Horowitz and R. Yeḥiel Mikhal Epstein, the author of an abridged version of Horowitz’s Shenei Luḥot Haberit and a siddur of his own. 64 The debate as to whether berikh shemei should be recited on weekdays continued into the eighteenth century and engaged both

60 Yosef ometz 504, p. 108. 61 Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 282:1. 62 Eliyahu Rabbah on Levush hatekhelet 134:4. 63 Mekor Ḥayyim O.H. 134:2, s.v. teḥinah deberikh shemei demarei alma. 64 Kitzur shenei luḥot haberit inyanei sefer Torah 34b; Sefer tefillah derekh yesharah (Frankfurt a.M., 1697) 89a. Even though Siddur sha’ar hashamayim was not published until 1717, it was written much earlier, some time between when Horowitz settled in Jerusalem in 1621 and his death in 1630. Kitzur shenei luḥot haberit quotes the passage from Seder hayom that was also quoted by Shapira, without citing the opposing view of Magen Avraham.

Chapter 6 · 237 Ashkenazic and Sephardic authorities. 65 In general, most eastern Sephardic communities (i.e., Eidot Hamizraḥ) limited its recitation to Shabbat, while Ashkenazic communities, especially those in eastern Europe, recite it on weekdays, as well as on Shabbat. 66 But berikh shemei is not recited in western European Sephardic congregations or in many Ashkenazic communities, particularly those that followed the German rite. 67

KABBALAT SHABBAT The most significant development in the liturgy of Ashkenaz during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is, undoubtedly, the introduction of kabbalat Shabbat, a liturgy for “welcoming the Sabbath.” The practice of reciting selected psalms and hymns to welcome the Sabbath originated among the kabbalists of sixteenth-century Safed, 68 and its spread through Ashkenaz during the seventeenth century is but another example of the impact that kabbalistic thought and practice began to have upon Ashkenazic Jewry at that time. As adopted in Ashkenaz, kabbalat Shabbat consists of the recitation of Psalms 95–99; Psalm 29; the hymn lekha dodi, composed by R. Shelomo Halevi Alkabetz; and Psalms 92–93. 69 In some places, ana 65 For a review of sources from the eighteenth century and later, see Frankel, “Berikh shemei,” 371–77; Hamburger, Shorshei minhag Ashkenaz 1:177–80. 66 Frankel, “Berikh shemei,” 376; Hamburger, Shorshei minhag Ashkenaz 1:160. 67 Baer, Seder avodat Yisrael, 122, s.v. berikh shemei; see also 222. His instructions before berikh shemei in the Shabbat and weekday services state that “some say berikh shemei, etc.” See also Hamburger, Shorshei minhag Ashkenaz 1:163–64. 68 On Safed spirituality, see Lawrence Fine, Safed Spirituality (Mahwah, 1984), 1–80; Pinchas Giller, “The Common Religion of Safed,” Conservative Judaism 55:2 (Winter, 2003): 24–37; Solomon Schechter, “Safed in the Sixteenth Century,” Studies in Judaism, Second Series (Philadelphia, 1908; reprint 1938), 202–306. The most detailed discussion of kabbalat Shabbat I have found is the one in Hallamish, Hanhagot kabbaliot beShabbat, 189–237. 69 On the inclusion of Ps 29 in kabbalat Shabbat, see Joseph Roth-Rotem, “Mizmor 29 beTehillim: leshe’eilat ‘haseder’ beseder kabbalat Shabbat,” Meḥkerei ḥag 5 (1993/94): 46–60.

238  · Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century bako’aḥ, a poem attributed to the Tanna R. Neḥunia ben Hakanah, was recited just before lekha dodi. 70 Prior to the adoption of kabbalat Shabbat, the custom in Ashkenaz was to begin the arvit service on Friday evening just as it was done on weekdays, except that vehu’ raḥum was omitted. 71 Various sources attributed the origins of kabbalat Shabbat to R. Moses Cordovero, the brother-in-law of R. Shelomo Alkabetz, and to R. Isaac Luria. However, Reuven Kimelman has shown that Luria, and perhaps even Cordovero, did not recite either Psalms 95–99 or lekha dodi. 72 The recitation of these passages may have been introduced somewhat later, perhaps by Cordovero’s disciples. 73 By the end of the seventeenth century, kabbalat Shabbat, including all of these passages, had spread throughout much of Ashkenaz. In the following two sections we provide an overview of this process, based upon the evidence found in halakhic sources, in minhag books, and in the Ashkenazic siddurim printed during the seventeenth century. 74 70 Ana bako’aḥ is a metrical poem in the form of an acrostic based upon the divine name of 42 letters. While it was attributed to the first-century Tanna R. Neḥunia ben Hakanah, ana bako’aḥ first appears among the thirteenth-century Spanish kabbalists; Stefan C. Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 249; Hallamish, Hanhagot kabbaliot, 221–24. Shelomo Tal attempts to support the association of R. Neḥunia ben Hakanah with ana bako’aḥ by suggesting that his name should be connected with this particular acrostic form; Shelomo Tal, “Ana bako’aḥ,” in Peri ḥayyim: Kovetz ma’amarim (Tel Aviv, 1982/83), 30–32. On the divine name of 42 letters, see Qiddushin 71a; Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, 94–95. 71 Yitzḥak Yosef Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat upizmon lekha dodi (Jerusalem, 1969), 3–4. 72 The question of what was recited in Safed and by whom is a complicated one. See the discussions in Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 5–6, 10; Hallamish, Hakabbalah batefillah, 319–21; Hallamish, Hanhagot kabbaliot, 209–11; and Reuven Kimelman, “Lekha dodi” vekabbalat Shabbat: Hamashma’ut hamistit (Jerusalem, 2003), 18–31. Kabbalat Shabbat, including Pss 95–99, 29; lekha dodi; and Pss 92–93 appears in Moshe ben Makhir’s Seder hayom, but with a different version of lekha dodi; Seder hayom hamenukad seder kabbalat Shabbat, p. 82. On the relationship between that version and the one composed by Alkabetz, see Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 30–31; Kimelman, Lekha dodi, 25–26; Yitzhak Maarsen, “Kabbalat Shabbat: Bikoret historit,” Jeschurun (E. Wohlgemuth) 9 no. 5/6 (1922): 85–86; Shelomo Tal, “Hashpa’atah shel kabbalat haAri z"l al itzuv demuto shel siddur hatefillah,” Peri ḥayyim, 22–23. 73 Kimelman, Lekha dodi, 23–25. 74 For a discussion of the spread of kabbalat Shabbat through the Sephardic dispersion

Chapter 6 · 239

The Evidence of the Halakhic Sources When we turn to the major codes that date from this period and their commentaries, we find that while a number of them refer to the recitation of Psalm 92 on Friday evening, none use the term kabbalat shabbbat in a liturgical sense, and none mention the recitation of Psalms 95–99 or lekha dodi. In these sources, the term kabbalat Shabbat refers, not to a liturgical framework for welcoming the Sabbath, but to the performance of an act which serves to mark the moment of one’s acceptance of the obligations and prohibitions of Shabbat. 75 The lighting of the Sabbath candles is one such act; the recitation of barekhu, the opening passage of the Shabbat liturgy, is another. 76 Prior to the spread of kabbalat Shabbat, Sephardim began the Friday evening service with vehu raḥum, whereas Ashkenazim began with barekhu. 77 While early sources suggest that Psalm 92 was, at one time, recited prior to arvit in some communities, this custom appears to have died out before the kabbalists of sixteenth-century Safed incorporated it into their new ceremony of welcoming Shabbat. 78 R. Joseph Caro was the first authority from this period to mention the recitation of Psalm 92 prior to arvit. He rules that certain acts forbidden on Shabbat may not be performed after one has recited Psalm 92, for the recitation of Psalm 92 marks one’s accepand the Middle-Eastern Jewish communities, see Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 6, 10–12. 75 In the kabbalistic tradition, on the other hand, kabbalat Shabbat refers to the welcoming of the Sabbath as one would welcome a guest, a bride, or a queen. On the meaning of kabbalat Shabbat, see Maarsen, “Kabbalat Shabbat: Bikoret historit,” 46–47; Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 4; Kimelman, Lekha dodi, 1–5. 76 Shulḥan arukh O.H. 261:4; 263:10. 77 Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 4. 78 On the antiquity of the custom of reciting Ps 92 prior to arvit on Friday evening see Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 37–38. The recitation of Ps 92 is mentioned in several early sources, including a text discovered in the Cairo genizah and a responsum of Rambam. One MS of Hamanhig contains a passage that mentions the recitation of Ps 92 as a custom of the Jews of Alexandria; Mann, “Genizah Fragments,” 295 (fragment 5), 311; Fleischer, Tefillah uminhagei tefillah, 173–80, 213; Teshuvot haRambam (ed. Blau) 178, pp. 326–27; ed. David Joseph ( Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 239–40; Hamanhig, p. 133. See also the discussion in Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 36–37; and in Kimelman, Lekha dodi, 10–12.

240  · Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century tance of Shabbat prohibitions. He further notes that this corresponds to “their” (i.e., Ashkenazic Jewry’s) recitation of barekhu. 79 R. Moses Isserles affirms that “in these regions (i.e., in Ashkenaz) it is not customary to recite [any] psalms at the beginning of Shabbat. Therefore, the recitation of barekhu serves to mark one’s acceptance of Shabbat (kabbalat Shabbat).” 80 In a similar vein, R. Mordecai Jaffe, a contemporary of R. Isserles, rules that it is forbidden to perform prohibited labor after barekhu, for the recitation of barekhu signifies one’s acceptance of Shabbat, “and in a place where they recite ‘A Psalm for the Sabbath Day,’ the recitation of the psalm constitutes the acceptance of Shabbat for them.” 81 This statement should not be taken as an indication that it was already customary to recite Psalm 92 in some Ashkenazic communities in Jaffe’s time, for it is probable that he was simply referring to the custom cited by Caro. Indeed, his ruling is identical to that of the Shulḥan arukh, except that it is stated from the perspective of one who follows the traditional Ashkenazic custom of beginning with barekhu. The recitation of kabbalat Shabbat, of lekha dodi, or even of Psalm 92 by Ashkenazim is not mentioned in R. Moses Mat’s Matte Moshe, 82 in the responsa literature of the time, or in any of the commentaries to the classical codes prior to that of R. Abraham Gombiner. In his Magen Avraham, R. Gombiner quotes R. Moses Isserles to the effect that psalms are not recited in Ashkenaz before arvit, and then notes that “now it is customary to recite ‘A Psalm for the Sabbath Day’ and so forth.” 83 It is not clear to what “and so forth” in R. Gombiner’s comment refers. It may refer to Psalms 95–99, 29, and lekha dodi, but this is not stated explicitly. The absence of any reference to the recitation of psalms or lekha dodi before barekhu on Friday evening in halakhic sources dating from the first half of the seventeenth century should not be considered 79 Beit Yosef on Tur O.H. 261, s.v. aval me’asrin et hademai; Shulḥan arkukh O.H. 261:4; 263:10. 80 Darkhei Moshe on Tur O.H. 261, s.v. uvemedinot elu. 81 Levush haḥur 261:3. 82 See Matteh Moshe 4:424. 83 Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 261, s.v. mizmor shir.

Chapter 6 · 241 conclusive proof that they were not in fact recited in Ashkenaz at that time. After all, the primary concern of most of these halakhic sources, including Magen Avraham, was the determination of the moment at which one is said to have accepted the prohibitions of Shabbat. 84 R. Joseph Caro ruled that one has accepted Shabbat once he has recited one of two liturgical passages, each of which might be said to begin the Friday evening service: barekhu (for Ashkenazim) or Psalm 92 (for members of the Safed community). R. Abraham Gombiner’s comment that it had become customary to recite Psalm 92 even in Ashkenaz was made in that same context. He was responding to the question: Does the recitation of Psalm 92 mark the beginning of Shabbat for those Ashkenazim who recite it, just as it did for those in Caro’s circle? 85 It is possible that he was aware of the custom of reciting Psalms 95–99 and lekha dodi, but did not mention it at that point because he felt that it was irrelevant to the question at hand. Indeed, elsewhere he refers to “kabbalat Shabbat circles,” without indicating exactly what these circles did or said. 86

The Evidence of the Printed Siddurim If the halakhic sources provide little information relating to the spread of kabbalat Shabbat through Ashkenaz, what information can we glean from other sources? Let us first look at the evidence of the printed siddurim published during the seventeenth century. There is no mention of the recitation of either lekha dodi or of any psalms before arvit in nine of the Ashkenazic siddurim from the seventeenth century in the collection of the Jewish Theological Seminary, 87 while 84 Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 4. Maarsen suggests that Caro did not mention the custom of reciting Pss 95–99, etc., because the custom of reciting kabbalat Shabbat had not yet spread beyond Safed, and thus would not have been known to those who turned to his works for halakhic guidance; Maarsen, “Kabbalat Shabbat: Bikoret historit,” 46. 85 Or perhaps by the Sephardim, who had, by his time, adopted R. Isaac Luria’s custom of reciting Pss 92–93 at the onset of Shabbat. 86 ‫חברה של קבלת שבת‬. Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 132:2, s.v. kor’im. The sources do not indicate the nature of the circles that recited kabbalat Shabbat, but see Breuer, “The Early Modern Period,” 174–75. 87 Venice 1599 109:19; Venice 1599 109:20=21; Hanau 1628 facsimile; Prague 1635; Venice

242  · Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century kabbalat Shabbat is found in its entirety in six, the earliest of which dates from 1649. 88 In addition, one siddur includes a section with the heading Tikkun Shabbat, consisting of the full text of lekha dodi and instructions to recite Psalms 92–93. 89 This section is printed, not with the arvit service, but toward the end of the siddur, after the text of the shema as it is recited at bedtime. In several of these siddurim, kabbalat Shabbat is included in a larger collection of readings for Friday evening, designated as Tikkunei Shabbat. 90 In addition to the kabbalat Shabbat liturgy, these include such elements as kabbalistic tikkunim and meditations, Song of Songs with a kabbalistic commentary, home rituals, and songs for the Sabbath table. Tikkunei Shabbat were originally printed as separate booklets, and were at first used only by individuals and small groups within the community, such as the circles mentioned by Magen Avraham. 91 As the practice of reciting these mystical texts

1662; Venice 1664; Venice 1682; Prague 1688; Dessau 1700. To these, Y. Cohen (13–14) adds Venice 1586/87; Venice 1590/91; Cracow 1596/97; Hanau 1616/17; Venice 1635; Sulzbach 1698/99. 88 Amsterdam 1649; Amsterdam 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Dyhernfurth 1690; Frankfurt 1697; Amsterdam 1699. To these, Y. Cohen adds Amsterdam 1666/67; Amsterdam 1677/78; Amsterdam 1680/81; Frankfurt on Oder 1686/87; and Berlin 1699/1700; Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 13–14. 89 Verona 1648. 90 Amsterdam 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Dyhernfurth 1690. 91 Editions of Tikkunei Shabbat published before 1650 include Cracow 1612/13 [?]; Prague c. 1624–28; Cracow 1629/30; Venice 1644/45; Prague c. 1650. For a listing and description of many editions of Tikkunei Shabbat, as well as a discussion of the problems relating to their dating and other bibliographic issues, see Haim Lieberman, “Sefer ‘tikkunei Shabbat,’” Kiryat sefer 38:3 (1963): 401–14; 39:1 (1963): 109–16; and Yitzhak Yosef Cohen, “Sefer ‘Tikkunei Shabbat,’” Kiryat sefer 39:4 (1964): 539–48. Lieberman argues that the edition listed in catalogues as Prague ‫ ת״א‬or ‫ ת״ג‬was actually published no earlier than 1650/51; Kiryat sefer 38:3: 401–4. Y. Cohen both criticizes and supplements Lieberman’s bibliography. See also Elbaum, Petiḥut, 200–2; Hallamish, Hakabbalah batefillah, 321; Rafeld and Tabory, Siddur Hanau facsimile, 33. There were undoubtedly manuscript editions of Tikkunei Shabbat as well. The library of the Jewish Theological Seminary has seven illuminated manuscripts of Tikkunei Shabbat dating from the eighteenth century; Menahem Schmelzer, “Decorated Hebrew Manuscripts of the Eighteenth Century in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America,” in Occident and Orient: A Tribute to the Memory of Alexander Scheiber, ed. Robert Dan (Budapest; Leiden, 1988), 338–41.

Chapter 6 · 243 spread and became more and more popular, they came to be included in the printed siddurim. The absence of kabbalat Shabbat from siddurim printed before the middle of the seventeenth century should not be taken as proof positive that kabbalat Shabbat had not yet taken root in Ashkenaz at that time. Its absence from the siddurim printed before mid-century, and indeed, from many later siddurim as well, might better be attributed to the printers having based their editions on older manuscripts or printed editions which themselves dated from before the introduction of kabbalat Shabbat. 92 Furthermore, as Y. Cohen notes, the Jews of Ashkenaz were reluctant to include in their siddurim prayers that had been composed in their own time or in the generations immediately preceding their own. 93 As both the popularity and the religious significance of kabbalat Shabbat became evident to the printers, they began to include it in their newer siddurim. Thus, the introduction to kabbalat Shabbat printed in several siddurim states: [These passages] were brought from the Holy Land to our lands, and the custom [of reciting them] has spread to almost all of the lands of Germany, Bohemia, Poland, and Moravia. Therefore, I decided to publish them to enable everyone to obtain merit. And fortunate is the one who follows this custom. Surely he will merit the day that is completely Shabbat and will spend his years in pleasantness. Amen and amen. 94

The Evidence of the Minhag Books Even as kabbalat Shabbat began to take hold in Ashkenaz, there were many who continued to adhere to the traditional Ashkenazic practice of beginning arvit on Friday evening with barekhu. The minhag books illustrate some of the dynamics of the process by which kabbalat Shabbat was either adopted or rejected by each community. Let us first consider the case of Worms. R. Judah Löw Kirchheim, 92 Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 14. 93 Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 13. 94 Amsterdam 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Dyhernfurth 1690.

244  · Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century in his Customs of Worms Jewry, writes that on the twenty-first day of Sivan 5391 (1631), “they began [to recite] kabbalat Shabbat here in Worms. They go to the synagogue before the [community is] called to the synagogue and receive the bride.” 95 However, a generation later, R. Yair Ḥayyim Bacharach notes that in Worms “they do not welcome Shabbat with psalms or the piyyut lekha dodi, as is the custom throughout Ashkenaz and Poland.” 96 Apparently, the recitation of kabbalat Shabbat was introduced by a small circle within the community that came to the synagogue early on Friday evening to “welcome the bride.” This practice was never officially adopted by the community and was eventually discontinued, never to be reinstituted. 97 Our sources do not indicate the reason for this, but Benjamin Hamburger, the editor of Yuzpa Shamash’s Customs of Worms’ Jewry, suggests that it may have been abandoned as the members of the circle that had instituted kabbalat Shabbat eventually died or moved away, perhaps as a result of the destruction of the Jewish community of Worms in 1689. 98 Sources relating to developments in Frankfurt are clearer, and the story that they tell is a fascinating one. In his minhag book Yosef ometz, R. Yosef Yuzpa Hahn Nordlingen writes: 99 Seder kabbalat Shabbat, which [some are] accustomed to [recite] here, is a recent innovation. It is a fine and good custom, and one who is unable to set aside the time to receive [Shabbat] with the congregation with song should at least be able to come somewhat early to the synagogue [so that he might be able] to

95 ‫יום כ״א סיון שצ״א מתחילין פה ק״ק וורמיישא קבלת שבת‬. Kirchheim, p. 49, in gloss. The correct date, found in a later abstract by R. Aaron Fuld drawn from Kirchheim’s original manuscript, was Sivan 27. In 5391, 21 Sivan was a Saturday, while 27 Sivan was a Friday. See Kirchheim, p. 49 n. 1; Shamash 29, 1:34 n. 2; Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 7. 96 Gloss to Shamash 29, 1:34. 97 Shamash 29, 1:34 n. 2; Maarsen, “Kabbalat Shabbat: Bikoret historit,” 52; Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 7–8. 98 Shamash 29, 1:34 n. 2. 99 Yosef ometz 588, p. 125. Yosef ometz was completed in 1630, suggesting a terminus ad quem for the introduction of kabbalat Shabbat in Frankfurt; Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 8.

Chapter 6 · 245 recite the psalms and the song [i.e., lekha dodi] in the synagogue as an individual. He further reported that he was among those who came early in order to recite kabbalat Shabbat along with the congregation. 100 However, his grandson Joseph Kosman, the author of Noheg ketzon Yosef (1718), writes that kabbalat Shabbat was not recited in Frankfurt. He relates that years earlier a circle (ḥevra kadisha) had been established that welcomed Shabbat. The procedure that was followed was quite complex. There were two synagogues in Frankfurt, the Old Synagogue and the New Synagogue. Kabbalat Shabbat was recited by this circle in the Old Synagogue, but not in the New Synagogue, which had become the main synagogue of the community. But even in the Old Synagogue the recitation was done in such a way as to show that it was not an officially sanctioned part of the service. A member of the group would first recite minḥah, and then the ḥazzan would recite kabbalat Shabbat from the bimah in the center of the synagogue, not from the place from which he usually chanted the service, that is, before the ark. Then the ḥazzan would recite minḥah for the entire congregation from before the ark and at the proper time, that is, at the time at which minḥah was also being recited in the New Synagogue. All of this took place only in the Old Synagogue; kabbalat Shabbat was never instituted in the New Synagogue, not in the official service nor by a ḥevra kadisha devoted to welcoming Sabbath. 101 Solomon Geiger, describing the recitation of kabbalat Shabbat in Frankfurt during the early eighteenth century, writes that while the psalms recited prior to lekha dodi were recited before the ark, lekha dodi and, it would seem, Psalms 92–93 were recited from the bimah from which the Torah was read. The ḥazzan led this part 100 Yosef Ometz 589, p. 125. 101 Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 8–9; Solomon Zalman Geiger, Divrei kehilot hamodi’a minhagei tefillot k"k Frankfurt (Frankfurt on Main, 1862–1868), 60–62. But as the Jewish community of Frankfurt expanded and new synagogues were constructed, kabbalat Shabbat came to be established in Frankfurt, as well. Indeed, R. David Hoffmann writes that Pss 95–99 and 29 and lekha dodi were recited in Frankfurt even when a festival fell on Shabbat, contrary to the general custom; R. David Hoffmann, Sefer melamed leho’il (New York, 1954) 1:48.

246  · Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century of the service without wearing a tallit, “to indicate that this was not part of the core of the service. 102 Thus, it would seem that there was considerable opposition to the introduction of this new practice of welcoming the Sabbath. Even where it was adopted there was sometimes the insistence that it be performed in a way that would clearly indicate that it lacked the status of the “real” statutory service which followed. We have seen that in Frankfurt it could be recited only in the Old Synagogue, and even then, only prior to the community’s recitation of minḥah. Elsewhere, the ḥazzan was required to read it from a text that was handwritten on paper or parchment, rather than from a siddur. 103

The Evidence of the Synagogue Wall Paintings From the second half of the seventeenth century until the middle of the eighteenth, wooden synagogues of a particular type, known as “Polish wooden synagogues,” were constructed throughout Poland and what is today western Ukraine and Belarus. 104 The sanctuaries of these synagogues were built according to a square plan, with the ark on the eastern wall, the entrance on the west, and the bimah in the center. The walls, and in some cases the ceilings, of these synagogues were filled with elaborate painted decorations including architectural, floral, and animal motifs, as well as inscriptions of rabbinic sayings, proverbs, and ethical writings. Of particular interest for our purposes are large panels usually found on all four walls of these synagogues, on which were inscribed the texts of prayers from the daily, Shabbat, and festival liturgies. The texts of these prayers were inscribed in letters large enough to be read from any location in the room. The panels were framed by architectural surrounds composed

102 ‫ ;להורות שאין זה מעיקר התפלה‬Geiger, Divrei kehilot, 60. 103 Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 13 n. 45. 104 For a discussion on the history and design of these synagogues, see Thomas C. Hubka, Resplendent Synagogue: Architecture and Worship in an Eighteenth-Century Polish Community (Hanover and London, 2003). Most of these synagogues were destroyed during World War II, but many were studied and photographed by scholars before that time.

Chapter 6 · 247 of columns and arches, similar to those which decorate the title pages of medieval Hebrew manuscripts and early printed books. 105 In his study of the wooden synagogue in the town of Gwozdziec, Thomas C. Hubka could find no simple unifying theme or purpose for the selection of the prayers inscribed on its wall panels. He notes that many of the passages are common liturgical texts, some associated with the reading of the Torah, whereas some indicate a mystical influence. Many of the prayers found in the Gwozdziec synagogue also appear in synagogues across Poland, seeming to be part of “a common, but not strictly uniform repertoire.” Texts reflecting the influence of kabbalah include berikh shemei, Ribono shel Olam maleh mishaloti (recited when the Torah is taken from the ark on festivals), Psalm 67 painted in kabbalistic fashion within a seven-branched menorah, and lekha dodi. 106 Where lekha dodi appears, it is inscribed on the western wall, near the entrance to the sanctuary. According to custom, the congregation turns toward the entrance of the synagogue as the last stanza is sung, to greet the Sabbath Bride, the Shekhinah. Some scholars believe that these inscriptions were intended to aid members of the congregation, who, lacking siddurim of their own, may have needed help in remembering these prayers, perhaps because they were not widely known or because they had been recently incorporated into the liturgy. However, some of the prayers were probably well known by the congregation, and in many cases, only a portion of a particular prayer was included. In the case of lekha dodi, the congregation would have had its back to the text through most of its recitation. Furthermore, these prayers encompass only a small fraction of the liturgy. Hubka suggests that these passages may have been chosen because of their symbolic value. For example, the high percentage of texts drawn from the Torah service “may be 105 Hubka, Resplendent Synagogue, 91. 106 Hubka, Resplendent Synagogue, 105. Lekha dodi does not appear in the Gwozdziec synagogue, but it was inscribed on the western wall of the synagogues in Choderow and Vishograd, and presumably, in many other synagogues, as well; Hubka, Resplendent Synagogue, 91, 107, 154; David Davidovitch, Tziyurei-kir bevatei-keneset bePolin (Jerusalem, 1968), 18.

248  · Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century an indication of the paramount importance that the rituals of the Torah service had acquired in Ashkenzic communities since the Middle Ages. 107 In any case, the appearance of lekha dodi, berikh shemei, and other texts which derive from kabbalistic sources testifies to the dispersion of kabbalistic texts and practices to the small towns of eastern Europe from the middle of the seventeenth through the middle of the eighteenth centuries. This conclusion is reinforced by evidence that the very design of these synagogues may have been influenced by kabbalistic ideas drawn from the Zohar. 108

Factors that Contributed to the Spread of Kabbalat Shabbat The recitation of kabbalat Shabbat eventually came to be accepted in almost all the Jewish communities of Ashkenaz. Several factors contributed both to its dispersion throughout the lands of Ashkenaz and to the degree to which it was ultimately adopted by Ashkenazic Jewry as a whole. First, as we have already seen, the seventeenth century, and in particular the second half of that century, witnessed the spread of kabbalistic teachings and customs throughout Europe. There were scholars engaged in the study and practice of kabbalah in many communities, large and small, and interest in kabbalah filtered down to the general public as well. 109 Indeed, some authorities, including R. Moses Isserles, protested this new focus on kabbalah, which came at the expense of the study of more traditional rabbinic texts. 110 This acceptance was due, to a significant degree, to the development of printing. Printed books were far more affordable than works available only in manuscript and were produced in considerable quantity, with popular works being reprinted many times. By 107 Hubka, Resplendent Synagogue, 106–8. 108 Hubka, Resplendent Synagogue, 140–49; 161–63. 109 Breuer, “The Early Modern Period,” 226–28; Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 38–39; Elbaum, Petiḥut, 183–222; Maarsen, “Kabbalat Shabbat: Bikoret historit,” 49–50. 110 Elbaum, Petiḥut, 183; Maarsen, “Kabbalat Shabbat: Bikoret historit,” 49.

Chapter 6 · 249 the middle of the seventeenth century, printed books, including siddurim, Tikkunei Shabbat, and printed editions of kabbalistic works, were available and utilized throughout Europe. Once new prayers and liturgical practices, including kabbalat Shabbat, were included in new editions of the siddur, they came to be regarded as more authoritative and were adopted by those who used these editions. 111 The popularity of kabbalat Shabbat was enhanced by its having emerged from the circle of R. Solomon Alkabetz, R. Moses Cordovero, and especially R. Isaac Luria, whose names were greatly revered. Their association with kabbalat Shabbat added greatly to its mystique, as did its origin in Safed, widely regarded as a holy city. 112 Thus, the editor of Siddur Amsterdam 1664 introduces kabbalat Shabbat by attributing the custom of reciting these passages to R. Isaac Luria, and notes that “they were brought from the Holy Land to our lands.” The prestige of kabbalat Shabbat was further enhanced by its having gained the strong endorsement of such major figures as R. Isaiah Horowitz, whose Shenei luḥot haberit, published in 1649, and commentary on the siddur, published posthumously by his grandson, had a tremendous impact on Ashkenazic Jewry. 113 While these factors surely contributed to the dissemination of kabbalat Shabbat and its acceptance by much of Ashkenazic Jewry, its popularity must also be attributed, in no small measure, to liturgical and spiritual considerations. 114 From the perspective of Jewish tradition, Shabbat is the most important day of the week. It is a sign of the covenant between God and the people of Israel, 115 it commemorates both the completion of God’s creation of the world

111 Maarsen, “Kabbalat Shabbat: Bikoret historit,” 53; Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 39. 112 Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 38. 113 Maarsen, “Kabbalat Shabbat: Bikoret historit,” 50, 52. Although the liturgy of kabbalat Shabbat is not discussed in Shenei luḥot haberit, Horowitz elaborated on the meaning of the Sabbath and its rituals in terms of the metaphor of marriage which underlies kabbalat Shabbat, and especially lekha dodi. He did include kabbalat Shabbat, with commentary, in his Siddur sha’ar hashamayim. Shenei luḥot haberit masekhet shabbat perek ner mitzvah; Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (1717), 158a–163b. 114 Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 39. 115 Exod 31:12.

250  · Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century and Israel’s redemption from Egyptian bondage, 116 and, according to the rabbis, it offers the Jew a foretaste of the World to Come. 117 Throughout the ages, it served as a sanctuary, providing the Jew with much-needed respite from the cares and concerns that preoccupied him or her during the course of the week. And yet, prior to the emergence of the ritual of kabbalat Shabbat, the arvit service recited at the inauguration of Shabbat differed little, especially in its opening passages, from that recited on weekdays. 118 Kabbalat Shabbat, beginning with Psalm 95 and its invitation to join together in joyous song before the Lord, and including lekha dodi, a hymn for welcoming Shabbat, personified as a bride, 119 thus provided an appropriate liturgical setting for marking the beginning of Shabbat, which had been lacking until that time. The psalms included in kabbalat Shabbat are particularly appropriate to the occasion. Not only does Psalm 95 begin with an invitation to join in singing the praises of God, it praises God as King, the creator of all: Come, let us sing joyously to the Lord, raise a shout for our rock and deliverer; let us come into His presence with praise; let us raise a shout for Him in song! For the Lord is a great God, the great king of all divine beings. In His hand are the depths of the earth; the peaks of the mountains are His. His is the sea, he made it; and the land which His hands fashioned.

116 Exod 20:11, 31:17; Deut 5:15. 117 Berakhot 57b; Mikhilta deRabbi Ishmael Tissa 1 on Exodus 31:13; Rosh Hashanah 31a. 118 There were some communities that did welcome Shabbat with song and the recitation of Ps 92, but this does not seem to have been the case in Ashkenaz; Kimelman, Lekha dodi, 9–13. 119 The idea that one should welcome Shabbat as a bride is found already in the Talmud; Shabbat 119a.

Chapter 6 · 251 Indeed, Psalms 95–99 all emphasize God’s kingship. 120 While the theme of the kingship of God is central to the liturgy as a whole, it has an especially close connection to Shabbat, for, according to the rabbis, God’s kingship was manifested through His creative acts on the first six days of Creation, while on the seventh day He assumed His kingship over the world that He had created. Thus, according to R. Akiva, Psalm 93 is recited on Friday because of its opening verse, The Lord is king, He is robed in grandeur; the Lord is robed, He is girded with strength, “for [on the sixth day] God completed His work of creation and reigned over His creatures.” 121 Furthermore, Psalm 93 was said to have been recited by Adam shortly after he was created, toward the end of the sixth day, 122 while Psalm 92, designated as the psalm for the Sabbath day, was said to have been recited by Adam when he repented from his having sinned by eating the forbidden fruit. 123 The kabbalistic tradition ascribed great significance to the recitation of these psalms within the context of kabbalat Shabbat. The six psalms that precede lekha dodi were said to correspond to the six days of the week, while Psalms 92–93 are associated with Shabbat itself. 124 As one recites each of the first six psalms, one should repent, removing himself from the kelipot, the sins that had overcome him on that day. These six psalms were also associated with the sefirot and with the mystical divine name of Forty-two letters. 125 120 Pss 95:3, 96:10, 97:1, 98:6, 99:1, 93:1. 121 Rosh Hashanah 31a. 122 Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer 11; Yalkut Shimoni on Ps 93. When the animals saw Adam, who was created in the divine image, they mistook him for God and began to worship him. He rebuked them and led them in praise of God, who had created them all. 123 Avot deRabbi Nathan 1; Midrash Psalms 92:3; Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer 19. According to some sources, Adam recited Ps 92 after having been taught the efficacy of repentance by Cain; Gen. Rab. 22:12; Yalkut Shimoni to Psalm 92. See also Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1968) 5:112 n.103; Leon Liebreich, “An Interpretation of the Sabbath Eve Liturgy,” Journal of Jewish Music 4:1–2 (1972): 20; Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 35–37; Menahem Weinstock, “Mizmor shir leyom haShabbat,” Areshet 6 (1986/87): 42–44. 124 For interpretations of the six psalms, see Hallamish, Hanhagot kabbaliot, 208–9; On Ps 29, see Hallamish, Hanhagot kabbaliot, 216–20; on Pss 92–93, see Hallamish, Hakabbalah batefillah, 317–18; Hallamish, Hanhagot kabbaliot, 238–46. 125 Maarsen, “Kabbalat Shabbat: Bikoret historit,” 82; Kimelman, Lekha dodi 9, 26–27;

252  · Kabbalistic Influences: The Seventeenth Century The jewel in the crown of kabbalat Shabbat is lekha dodi, a hymn welcoming Shabbat composed by R. Shelomo Halevi Alkabetz. Lekha dodi is composed of nine stanzas, written in clear biblical Hebrew, in the form of a name acrostic. It is replete with allusions to biblical verses, many drawn from the book of Isaiah, and to midrashic sources. The first two stanzas, the final stanza, and the refrain deal with the theme of Shabbat, depicted as a bride, while the middle stanzas speak to Jerusalem, calling upon the holy city to arise from its ashes, as redemption is imminent. 126 The chorus is based upon a passage in the Talmud: Rabbi Ḥanina robed himself and stood at sunset on the eve of Shabbat and said, “Come, let us go out to welcome Shabbat the Queen.” Rabbi Yannai robed himself on the eve of Shabbat and said, “Come, O bride; Come, O bride.” 127 The theme of going out to welcome Shabbat is developed in the second stanza, whereas in the last stanza it is the bride who approaches the community that awaits her arrival. The beauty of its language and of its imagery, as well as its proclamation that redemption is at hand, surely contributed to the popularity of lekha dodi, even among those who had little knowledge or understanding of kabbalah. But like the psalms of kabbalat Shabbat, lekhah dodi could be understood both according to its plain sense (peshat) and as an expression of kabbalistic ideas. While the ordinary Jew could understand it on the more superficial level, Kimelman asserts that “only a kabbalist attuned to its ideology could appreciate its [true] meaning. This meaning is clearly its intent, since only a kabbalistic poetic could unlock the meaning of the stanzas, its sequence, its rhyme pattern and its choice of expression.” 128 Amsterdam 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Dyhernfurth 1690. Similarly, ana bako’aḥ has six lines, with forty-two words. In Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (Amsterdam, 1717) the psalms are identified with the days of the week but not with the sefirot. 126 Kimelman, Lekha dodi, viii. On the metaphor of Shabbat as a bride and as queen see Kimelman, 2–9. 127 Shabbat 119a; cf. Bava Qamma 32a. 128 Kimelman, Lekha dodi, viii. Kimelman’s book is a detailed study of lekha dodi as an

Chapter 6 · 253

Customs Relating to the Recitation of Kabbalat Shabbat It was customary in many places to stand for all or part of the recitation of kabbalat Shabbat. Hallamish attributes this practice to kabbalat Shabbat’s having originally been recited by the kabbalists of Safed while standing in the fields outside of the city. Another widespread custom is to face toward the west while chanting the last stanza of lekha dodi, “Come in peace, the crown of her husband.” According to Hallamish, this is done to greet the Shekhinah, for according to one tradition, “the Shekhinah is in the west.” Others suggest that it was originally done in greeting to mourners, who entered the synagogue at this point in the service. 129 Lekha dodi was sung to many different melodies, with many communities, both Ashkenazic and otherwise, singing it to melodies that had long been used for other prayers and piyyutim, and even to melodies drawn from the secular music of the time. In some Ashkenazic communities, including Frankfurt on Main, the melody varied from stanza to stanza, and special melodies were used on particular Shabbatot, such as Shabbat Shuvah and the Shabbat before Tisha b’Av. In some communities, including in Prague, the singing of the psalms of kabbalat Shabbat and lekha dodi was accompanied by musical instruments. 130

expression of the teachings of the kabbalistic school of Alkabetz and Cordovero. On Lekha dodi see also Jacob Bezek, “Iyyunim belekha dodi,” Sinai 102 (1987/88):183–96; Bezek, “Lekha dodi – iyyunim nosafim,” Sinai 103 (1988/89): 230–34; Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 35; Moshe Hallamish, Hanhagot kabbaliot, 224–36; Judah Ratzhabi, “Lekha dodi shel hamekubal R. Shelomo Alkabetz umekorotav,” Maḥanayim 6 (1993/94): 162–69. 129 Bava Batra 25a; Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat 23; Hallamish, Hakabbalah batefillah, 317; Geiger, Divrei kehilot, 61; Nahum Wormann and Y.D. Bet-Halev, “Leminhag she’omrim ‘bo’i beshalom,’” Yeda-Am 10 (1953): 92–93. 130 Joseph Kosman, Noheg ketzon Yosef (1718) 39a; Geiger, Divrei kehilot, p. 61; Hoffman, Melamed leho’il 1:15; Bathje Bayer, “Lekhah Dodi: Musical Rendition,” Encyclopaedia Judaica 2nd ed., 12:634; Y. Cohen, Seder kabbalat Shabbat, 32–33; Macy Nulman, Concepts of Jewish Music and Prayer (New York, 1985), 12–16.

Chapter 7

Save Us from Enemies, Sword, Famine, and Sorrow The prayers which constitute the standard liturgy are, for the most part, prayers of praise, petition, or thanksgiving. In this chapter, and in the chapters that follow, I discuss prayers and liturgical rituals that are apotropaic in nature; that is, their recitation is thought to protect one from danger or to bring healing in the case of a serious illness. Some of these prayers are in the form of personal supplications recited by individuals at the conclusion of the formal congregational service, but most are recited within the context of the service. I begin with prayers and liturgical formulae recited with the expectation that they would protect the worshipper from a variety of dangers. While our primary concern is with prayers that are communal in nature, we will briefly describe several personal prayers, two recited to negate the adverse effects of bad dreams (hatavat ḥalom), and a supplication for well-being to which early siddurim refer as Seventy-two Verses. 1 I then turn to a closer examination of pitum haketoret, which is recited by and on behalf of the entire community. The following chapter will consider liturgical prayers and practices thought to alleviate the suffering of the dead in Gehinnom, and finally, liturgical responses to fears of the night.

HATAVAT ḤALOM Medieval and early modern siddurim usually include two forms of

1 ‫שבעים ושתים פסוקים‬.

255

256  ·  Save Us from Enemies, Sword, Famine, and Sorrow hatavat ḥalom. 2 The first is a ritual performed, not in the context of public worship, but in the presence of three friends of the person who has dreamt a bad dream. The ceremony is described in Berakhot 55b. In early printed siddurim the instructions are usually written in Yiddish, while the statements made by the dreamer and his friends are in Aramaic, as they appear in the Talmud. 3 He says seven times: I have dreamt a good dream. 4 The others say seven times: It is good and may it be good. May the Merciful One change it for good. And seven times: May it be decreed for it from Heaven that it may be for good and it will be for good. The dreamer then recites a passage containing nine biblical verses three times. The first three verses include the word “turn” (hafakh), the next three include “redeem” (padah), and the last three include the word “peace” or “well-being” (shalom). 5 In some siddurim this recitation is followed by the priestly blessing (Num 6:24–26). In all the siddurim the ritual concludes with the blessing, “May it be a good sign and good fortune for all of Israel.” The second ritual of hatavat ḥalom is recited by one who has dreamt a dream but does not know how to interpret it, or who does not remember what he has dreamt. In this case, the dreamer recites a supplication after each of the blessings of the priestly blessing as it is recited by the priests during the synagogue service. 6 This supplication is also mentioned in the Talmud. 7

2 For a review of halakhic sources relating to hatavat ḥalom, see Encyclopedia Talmudit 8:753–58. See also Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, 244–48. 3 Venice 1545; Venice 1549; Venice 1579; Venice 1599 109:19; Venice 1599 109:20=21; Prague 1635; Amsterdam 1649; Dyhernfurth 1690, with minor variations. See also Baer, Seder avodat Yisrael, 578–79. 4 This use of a euphemism to refer to a bad dream reflects the fear that mentioning it would increase the likelihood of its coming true. 5 Ps 30:12; Jer 31:13; Deut 23:6; Ps 23:6; Isa 35:10; I Sam 14:45; Isa 57:19; I Chr 12:19; and I Sam 25:6. 6 In Ashkenaz the priests recite the priestly blessing during the musaf service on the festivals. 7 Berakhot 55b. In our sample of early printed siddurim it appears in Prague 16th

Chapter 7 · 257 If one dreams a dream and does not remember what he dreamt, he should stand before the priests at the time they recite the priestly blessing and say: Master of the Universe, I am Yours and my dreams are Yours. I have dreamt a dream and I do not know what it means. May it be Your will, Lord my God and God of my ancestors, that all my dreams may be, for me and for all Israel, for good, whether I have dreamt about myself or about others, or whether others have dreamt about me. If they are for good, strengthen and reinforce them so that they may be fulfilled for me and for them as were the dreams of Joseph the righteous. If they need healing, heal them . . . And as you turned the curses of Balaam the wicked from curse to blessing, so too, turn all my dreams about me and all Israel to good. Guard me; be gracious to me; and accept me. The apotropaic nature of these rituals is clear. While the sages recognized that not all dreams are significant, dreams were widely thought to be omens, with bad dreams portending danger. The recitation of the formula of hatavat ḥalom serves to avert the threat intimated by the bad dream. 8 The Talmud states that one should recite hatavat ḥalom in the presence of three people; a later tradition prescribes that those present for the recitation be three friends. Presumably, reciting it in the presence of those who wish one well adds to the power of the ritual. It is also significant that the supplication one recites in the synagogue is recited while the priests bless the people. This is an especially propitious time not only because it is a moment of blessing, but because the blessing is thought to come directly from God through the outstretched fingers of the kohanim. 9



century; Venice 1579; Venice 1599 109:19; Venice 1599 109:20=21; Prague 1635; Amsterdam 1649, with minor variations. See also Baer, Seder avodat Yisrael, 359–60. 8 On the significance of dreams, see Berakhot 55a–57b; Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, 230–48. 9 The Midrash describes God as standing behind the kohanim, peering through the lattice made by the outstretched fingers of the kohanim; Pesikta deRav Kahana (ed. Braude) 5:8, p. 193; Song of Songs Rab. 2:9.

258  ·  Save Us from Enemies, Sword, Famine, and Sorrow

SEVENT Y-T WO VERSES Most Ashkenazic siddurim dating from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries include a collection of supplications under the rubric Seventy-two Verses that were to be recited at the conclusion of the formal shaḥarit service. Little is known about the origin of this liturgical rubric. Although it appears in eighteen of the twenty-five siddurim printed during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that I examined, as well as in some early manuscripts, I found almost no mention of it in books, journals, and bibliographies. 10 R. Shabbetai Sofer has a brief discussion of the selection and order of the verses in his hakdamah peratit, and includes additional background information in his commentary. He indicates that he had seen the Seventy-two Verses in a small siddur printed in Venice (1589/90), and cites other siddurim which interpret the liturgy according to kabbalah. In his comments, he notes that in the seder hama’amadot, the recitation of these verses is attributed to R. Judah Heḥasid. 11 10 Siddur Shabbetai Sofer hakdamah peratit 90–91; 958; Addenda, 321; Ephraim Kanarfogel, Peering through the Lattices: Mystical, Magical, and Pietistic Dimensions in the Tosafist Period (Detroit, 2000), 179–80 n. 110. The Seventy-two Verses are included in Prague 16th century; Venice 1545; Venice 1549; Mantua 1562; Lublin 1571; Venice 1579; Venice 1599 109:19; Venice 1599 109:20=21; Prague 1635; Verona 1648; Amsterdam 1649; Venice 1662; Amsterdam 1664; Venice 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Venice 1682; Prague 1688; Frankfurt 1697. The Seventy-two verses are included in only three of the twenty-three manuscripts dating from the thirteenth through the sixteenth centuries that I examined: Leipzig UBL 1108 (fourteenth century); Frankfurt UB Oct. 227 (fourteenth–fifteenth century); and JTS 4079c (1578). The first two have only the verses, not the additional supplications. 11 Siddur Shabbetai Sofer, 958. In a personal communication Ephraim Kanarfogel suggested that they may indeed be the product of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, and indicates that he has seen the attribution to R. Judah Heḥasid in a number of manuscripts, including MS Parma 1753 (de Rossi 997) and MS Livorno Talmud Torah 69. But he cautions that there are more manuscripts that do not include an attribution to R. Judah Heḥasid than do. It is clear that this material is very old, perhaps going back to Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, but that it proliferated during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. See also R. David ben Joseph Karkov (‫)קארקו‬, Tefillah leDavid (Constantinople, 1538), a compilation of prayers, most of which are attributed to R. Judah Heḥasid. It includes a collection of “Seventy-two Verses according to R. Judah HeḤasid,” but the selection of verses differs from those in the Ashkenazic

Chapter 7 · 259 The core of this unit, found in all the siddurim that include the Seventy-two Verses,” includes the following: 1. Seventy-two biblical verses, beginning with Psalm 3:4. In addition to words of praise, the verses speak of the worshipper’s trust in God’s protective care and of his faith that God will respond when called upon in time of need: You, O Lord, are a shield about me . . . I say of the Lord, my refuge and stronghold, my God in whom I trust . . . O you who fear the Lord, trust in the Lord! He is their help and shield . . . The Lord will guard you from all harm; He will guard your life. The Lord, will guard your going and coming now and forever . . . The Lord, supports all who stumble, and makes all who are bent stand straight . . . I call with all my heart; answer me, O Lord, that I may observe Your laws . . . O Israel, wait for the Lord now and forever. The verses conclude with shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) and the synthetic verse that follows shema when it is recited liturgically, “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and ever.” The seventy-two verses correspond to the mystical/magical divine name of Seventy-two. Although the Name of Seventy-two is mentioned already in rabbinic literature, no explanation of what is meant is provided. 12 According to Rashi, the Name of Seventy-two has seventy-two syllables, or triads, rather than seventy-two letters. It is derived from three consecutive verses in the Book of Exodus (14:19–21), each of which has seventy-two letters. The triads which comprise the divine name are constructed by joining together letters from each of these verses in a particular order. The first triad consists of the first letter of verse 19, the last letter of verse 20, and the first letter of verse 21. The next triad consists of the second letter of verse 19, the penultimate letter of verse 20, and the second letter of siddurim described in this section. The verses are followed by Ps 27; Pss 46:6, 84:13, and 20:10, to be repeated three times; Ps 84; and two supplications beginning “May it be Your will,” which also differ from those found in the siddurim. 12 Gen. Rab. 44:19; Pesikta Rabbati 15. According to R. Abin, God redeemed Israel from Egypt with His Name of seventy-two letters.

260  ·  Save Us from Enemies, Sword, Famine, and Sorrow verse 21. This process repeats until all the letters are used, resulting in seventy-two triads.  13 The Name of Seventy-two, as was the case with other artificially-created divine names, is often used for magical or theurgic purposes, and is thought to be the most powerful of all the divine names. According to Sefer Razael, a medieval Jewish guide to practical kabbalah, “whoever pronounces this name against a demon, it will vanish; at a conflagration, it will be quenched; over an invalid, he will be healed.” 14 2. Psalm 29, recited four times. Many of the siddurim explain that since the name of God appears eighteen times in Psalm 29, repeating the psalm four times results in seventy-two occurrences of God’s name. 3. Three biblical verses. Each verse is to be recited three times, after which the entire unit is to be recited three times: 15 The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our haven. O Lord of hosts, happy is the man who trusts in You. O Lord, grant victory! May the King answer us when we call. 4. Three additional biblical verses, to be recited three times: 16 According to the siddurim, the recitation of these verses prevents one from suffering an unnatural death. 17 You are my shelter; You preserve me from distress; You surround me with the joyous shouts of deliverance.

13 Rashi on Sukkah 45a, s.v. ani veho. According to a mystical tradition cited by R. Moses ben Naḥman, the entire Torah is comprised of the names of God. These can be extracted by dividing the letters which make up the Torah differently from the way in which of the Torah is normally read, or by applying special hermeneutical methods to the text of the Torah, as was done by Rashi in his comment on Sukkah 45a; Naḥmandes, Introduction to Commentary on the Torah. See also Elliot Wolfson, “The Mystical Significance of Torah-Study in German Pietism,” Jewish Quarterly Review 84 (1993): 47–50; Sholem, Kabbalah, 170. 14 Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, 95–98. 15 Ps 46:8, 84:13, 20:10. Siddur Shabbetai Sofer, 937. Some sources indicate that the recitation of these verses in particular was instituted by R. Judah Heḥasid. 16 Ps 32:7; Isa 26:4; Ps 29:11. 17 ‫מיתה משונה‬.

Chapter 7 · 261 Trust in the Lord for ever and ever, For in Yah the Lord you have an everlasting Rock. May the Lord grant strength to His people; may the Lord bestow on His people well-being. 5. In almost all cases, at least two supplications are included. In most of the siddurim, both of these follow the recitation of the biblical verses, while in some the first of the supplications appears between the seventy-two verses and Psalm 29. The first supplication refers directly to the recitation of the seventy-two verses and relates them to the Name of Seventy-two:  18 May it be Your will, Lord my God and God of my ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; the great, mighty and awesome one; God on high; Eh’yeh asher Eh’yeh; act for Your sake and for the sake of these verses of Your Torah, and for the sake of the Name of Seventy-two Names which is derived from these verses [Exodus 14:19–21], that you have compassion upon me and make my path successful, and that you be of help to me and to all that I have, and that you save me from the hand of the wrongdoers, and wickedness, evil, and all manner of afflictions that occur in the world. And sustain me with honor and not with shame, and fill my hands with abundance . . . . Yah at my right And the Blessed One at my left God before me And the Majestic One behind me And the Divine Presence above my head. May the One who makes peace in His heavens make peace among us and for all Israel, and let us say “Amen.” The second supplication consists of elaborate praises of God followed by a petition asking that God grant the worshipper a variety of

18 In R. Isaiah Horowitz’s Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (Amsterdam, 1717) the triads of the Name of Seventy-two are printed in a column parallel to one which contains the verses themselves; 46b–47a.

262  ·  Save Us from Enemies, Sword, Famine, and Sorrow spiritual and material gifts. It concludes with the liturgical benediction praising God as the one who listens to prayer (shomea tefillah). 19 In some siddurim this unit is greatly expanded, incorporating additional supplications, Maimonides’ ani ma’amin, and even two piyyutim: ha’aderet veha’emunah and atta hu Adonai Eloheinu bashamayim uva’aretz. The order of this material differs from siddur to siddur. The daily recitation of seventy-two verses, corresponding to the magical divine name of Seventy-two; the four-fold repetition of Psalm 29, resulting in seventy-two occurrences of the divine name; the three-fold repetition of two sets of three verses; and the explicit reference to the Name of Seventy-two in the supplication beginning “May it be Your will,” all testify to the theurgic nature of the liturgical unit “Seventy-two Verses.” Its apotropaic purpose is evident in the supplications and in the instructions indicating that the triple recitation of the passage beginning with Psalm 32:7 prevents one from suffering an unnatural death. In reciting the Seventy-two Verses, the worshipper draws down God’s power as a protective shield: 20 You, O Lord, are a shield about me . . . ​ Yah at my right And the Blessed One at my left God before me And the Majestic One behind me And the Divine Presence above my head.

PITUM HAKETORET I now turn to pitum haketoret, a baraita prescribing the ingredients that were to be compounded in the incense used in the Temple 19 R. Isaiah Horowitz objected to the inclusion of this benediction, arguing that its recitation had not been enacted by talmudic authorities; Shenai luḥot haberit derekh ḥayyim tokheiḥat musar, 233. 20 Cf. the liturgy for the bedtime keriat shema, which speaks of Michael on the right, Gabriel on the left, Uriel in front, Refael behind, and “above my head the divine Presence (shekhinat el);” Baer, p. 576; Maḥzor Vitry seder keriat shema al hamitah 3, p. 169; Siddur Rashi 429, p. 215; Matteh Moshe 3:399. Sefer Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 349 suggests that this formula be recited for protection when one goes out at night.

Chapter 7 · 263 in Jerusalem, which was incorporated into the liturgy at an early time. 21 According to Seder Rav Amram, pitum haketoret is recited “in memory of the Temple.” 22 Incense offerings accompanied both the morning and evening sacrifices, so the recitation of pitum haketoret was included in the morning and in the evening serves to commemorate the Temple ritual. It is also possible that it was introduced in accordance with the teaching that, since the destruction of the Temple, the recitation of the laws of the offerings is accounted by God as though the sacrifices actually are offered on the altar. 23 Only later is any apotropaic power ascribed to its recitation. Seder Rav Amram states that it is customary to recite pitum haketoret at the conclusion of the daily shaḥarit and arvit services. 24 It was incorporated into the daily and Shabbat liturgies of several of the rites, but its place in the service varies from rite to rite. 25 The recitation of pitum haketoret at the conclusion of arvit is mentioned in both Siddur Rashi and Maḥzor Vitry, where it is followed by a kaddish recited by a child, while Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson and Siddur harokeaḥ prescribe its recitation at the conclusion of musaf on Shabbat, following ein keloheinu. 26

The Debate over the Recitation of Pitum Haketoret By the fourteenth century opposition to the daily recitation of pitum haketoret had begun to emerge. Some authorities opposed the liturgical recitation of pitum haketoret, whether at shaḥarit or at arvit, while others objected specifically to its inclusion in the arvit service. Those who objected to the daily recitation of pitum haketoret 21 Keritot 6a and y. Yoma 4:5. For a discussion of the textual variants of pitum haketoret found in siddurim, see Tur O.H. 133 and commentaries; Menahem Kasher, Sefer divrei Menaḥem ( Jerusalem, 1977) 24, pp. 85–86. 22 Seder Rav Amram I:66, p. 40. 23 Ta’anit 27b. 24 Seder Rav Amram I:65, p. 39; I:66, p. 40. In the morning, and perhaps in the evening as well, it is to be preceded by mi keloheinu, a hymn that was later reworked so that the order of the first two stanzas was reversed, resulting in the more familiar ein keloheinu. 25 Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 71, 85, 90, 99; Kol bo 28; Orḥot ḥayyim din tefillat arvit 9. 26 Siddur Rashi 4, p. 4; 428, p. 214; Vitry hilkhot shaḥarit 3, p. 6; seder minḥah ve’arvit 2, pp. 154–55; Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson 71, p. 178; Siddur harokeaḥ 101, pp. 573–78.

264  ·  Save Us from Enemies, Sword, Famine, and Sorrow based their objection on the statement in Keritot 6a that one who omits even one of the prescribed ingredients when compounding the incense for the altar merits the death penalty. They argued that this ruling applies to the oral recitation of pitum haketoret as well, and held that one who omits mention of even one ingredient while reciting this passage is guilty of a capital offense. This argument has both prescriptive and explanatory power; that is, it is used both to explain why pitum haketoret is not recited in some communities and as the basis for halakhic rulings that one should never recite pitum haketoret as part of the daily service. R. Shalom of Neustadt explained that “those who omit pitum haketoret do so lest they skip something, and it is written with regard to it [namely, the compounding of the incense] that if any one of the ingredients is left out [the priest who compounds it] merits death.” 27 Similarly, R. Isaac Aboab, a fifteenth-century Spanish authority, rules that one should recite pitum haketoret only from a written text, lest one omit mention of one of the ingredients and thereby merit death. R. Joseph Caro cites Aboab’s ruling to explain why pitum haketoret is not recited in some places. 28 However, he rejects Aboab’s equation of the oral recitation of the recipe for the compounding of the incense with its actual compounding within the context of the Temple service. He further argues that even were we to accept Aboab’s view that the Talmud’s ruling applies to the oral recitation of pitum haketoret, one becomes liable to the death penalty only if one omits one of the eleven essential ingredients. R. Caro maintains that it is not difficult for one to maintain sufficient concentration to insure inclusion of these ingredients while reciting this passage every day, and concludes that the concern that one might inadvertently fail to mention all of the ingredients should not lead one to refrain from reciting pitum haketoret. Despite R. Caro’s closely reasoned argument setting aside the concerns raised by R. Isaac Aboab (and R. Shalom of Neustadt), the fear that one might inadvertently omit mention of one of the incense 27 Neustadt 93, p. 39. 28 Beit Yosef on Tur O.H. 133, s.v. vekatav rabbenu.

Chapter 7 · 265 ingredients when reciting pitum haketoret continued to affect both the rulings of later halakhic authorities and actual practice. Thus, while not actually discouraging the recitation of pitum haketoret, R. Solomon Luria writes that he had learned from his grandfather Rabbi Isaac that one should recite pitum haketoret from a book, and not from memory. While R. Caro rejects the equation of the recitation of pitum haketoret with the actual compounding of the incense, R. Solomon Luria upholds their equivalence, for prayer (including the recitation of pitum haketoret) has taken the place of the sacrificial offerings and the incense, as implied by Psalm 141:2, Take my prayer as an offering of incense, my upraised hands as an evening sacrifice. 29 According to R. Moses Isserles and R. Mordecai Jaffe, the custom in Ashkenaz is to omit pitum haketoret on weekdays, but to recite it on Shabbat and on festivals. On weekdays people are in a hurry to get to work. They rush through their prayers and might inadvertently omit mention of one of the ingredients of the incense. On Shabbat, however, people pray at a more leisurely pace and are able to focus more on what they are saying. 30 On the other hand, R. Abraham Gombiner writes that those who are punctilious about their religious behavior are accustomed to reciting pitum haketoret even on weekdays. He justifies this practice by citing the arguments brought by R. Joseph Caro, including R. Caro’s rejection of the equivalence of the recitation of pitum haketoret with the actual compounding of the incense, adding that, in regard to the compounding of the incense, one is liable to the death penalty only if one intentionally omits one of the ingredients. 31 We see that the fear that one or more of the ingredients of the incense might be inadvertently omitted during the recitation of

29 Teshuvot Maharshal 64. See also R. Ḥayyim ben Israel Benveniste, Kenesset hagedolah ( Jerusalem, 1960) on Beit Yosef O.H. 133. 30 Darkhei Moshe on Tur O.H. 133, s.v. vehaminhag; gloss to Shulḥan arukh O.H. 132:2; Levush hatekhelet 133. This view is also cited by R. Joshua Falk, who also accepts R. Caro’s view that only the omission of one of the eleven essential ingredients makes one liable to the ultimate punishment; Derishah on Tur O.H. 133, s.v. ḥayyav mitah; Perishah on Tur O.H. 133, s.v. umah shekatav nohagin lomar. 31 Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 132:2, s.v. yedaleg eḥad.

266  ·  Save Us from Enemies, Sword, Famine, and Sorrow pitum haketoret at the conclusion of the weekday service led some authorities to object to its recitation in the context of any weekday service, morning or evening. Such an omission, they argue, should be regarded with the same gravity with which the sages regarded the omission of one of the ingredients in the actual compounding of the incense for the Temple service in antiquity. Others reject this equation, and maintain that pitum haketoret should be regarded as any other prayer. By the fifteenth century, an additional objection arose to the recitation of pitum haketoret, but this time the objection was directed specifically at its inclusion in the arvit service. According to Seder Rav Amram, it is customary to recite pitum haketoret, but not the daily psalms, after the amidah at arvit. Seder Rav Amram explains this distinction by noting that though there was an incense offering in the Temple both in the morning and in the evening, the Levites chanted the daily psalms only in the morning. 32 While this passage from Seder Rav Amram is cited by several later authorities as the basis for the recitation of pitum haketoret in their own time, the recitation of pitum haketoret in the evening does not appear to have been a widespread custom. 33 However, I did not find any rabbinic authorities who lived prior to the sixteenth century who objected to its recitation at night. It is then that we first find the argument that one should not recite pitum haketoret at arvit because the incense offering was brought in the late afternoon, not at night. Authorities who raised this objection held that pitum haketoret should be recited after minḥah, if there is time to do so; if not, it should be recited before minḥah. The earliest authorities to raise this objection came from the circle of kabbalists living in Safed. Their views spread to Ashkenaz during the seventeenth century, as printed editions of their works made their way across the continent. Thus, R. Joseph Yuzpa Hahn Nordlingen writes in his Yosef ometz that he found this objection in R. Menaḥem ben Judah Lonzano’s Derekh ḥayyim. 34 To this objection 32 Seder Rav Amram I:93, p. 54. 33 See, e.g., Siddur Rashi 5, p. 4; Vitry hilkhot shaḥarit 3, p. 6. Hamanhig, p. 120, Kol bo 28, and Orḥot ḥayyim din tefillat arvit 9 note only that it was recited in “some places.” 34 Yosef ometz 500, p. 106.

Chapter 7 · 267 he adds that since nightfall actually marks the beginning of the next day, were pitum haketoret to be recited after nightfall, it would be accounted to the following day, whereas the sages regarded the evening incense offering as following the one brought in the morning of the same day. Therefore, pitum haketoret should be recited while it is still day, either before or after the minḥah service. The objection that the incense offering was not offered at night is also raised by R. Isaac Luria, whose views are later cited by R. Abraham Gombiner. R. Gombiner concludes that Rav Amram and those who rely upon him must have intended that erev be understood not as “night” but as “early evening,” and maintains, as did R. Hahn, that pitum haketoret should be recited before or after minḥah. 35

The Apotropaic Power of Pitum Haketoret While R. Joseph Yuzpa Hahn Nordlingen cites R. Menaḥem Lonzano’s criticism of those who prescribe the recitation of pitum haketoret at night (including R. Jacob ben Asher), he also finds grounds for permitting its recitation at any time, even after nightfall. He writes that according to R. Moshe ben Makhir, the recitation of pitum haketoret brings a halt to plagues and protects one from death. 36 Furthermore, one who recites pitum haketoret with great care, morning and evening, will be blessed with success and with abundance, as were the priests who offered the incense in the Temple (Yoma 26a). 37 He relates that after the epidemic of 1626–1627, he convinced the Jewish community 35 Magen Avraham on Shulḥan Arukh O.H. 132:2, s.v. erev vaboker. See Ḥayyim Vital, Sha’ar hakavanot derushei tefillat hashaḥar 3. Note, however, that both Seder Rav Amram and the Tur state explicitly that pitum haketoret should be recited “after they complete the arvit prayer.” 36 The belief that pitum haketoret brings a halt to plagues probably derives from the biblical story of the aftermath of Korah’s rebellion. God sent a plague to punish the people, and 14,700 are said to have died. Moses instructed Aaron to take a fire pan and incense into the midst of the people as the plague was raging among them. The incense expiated for their sin, and the plague came to a halt; Num 17:8–15. Since the destruction of the Temple, the recitation of the passage relating to the compounding of the incense takes the place of the incense offering itself. 37 Yosef ometz 500, p. 106, citing R. Moses ben Makhir, Seder hayom hamenukad seder pitum haketoret, p. 44.

268  ·  Save Us from Enemies, Sword, Famine, and Sorrow of Frankfurt to include pitum haketoret at the end of minḥah, when it was followed by kaddish, as was the custom at the conclusion of shaḥarit. R. Hahn concludes that since pitum haketoret is recited so that one might receive blessing and healing, it is permissible to recite it at any time. R. Lonzano’s views are also cited by R. Ḥayyim Benveniste, whose Kenesset hagedolah was highly regarded by both Ashkenazic and Sephardic authorities. 38 While R. Hahn cites R. Moshe ben Makhir’s Seder hayom, the belief that the recitation of pitum haketoret protects one from pestilence and other dangers is found already in the Zohar. 39 In the introduction to his siddur, R. Shabbetai Sofer quotes the relevant passages from the Zohar and writes that during the plague that swept through Poland in 1588–1589, the Jewish community recited pitum haketoret following an arrangement that had been established in earlier generations for this purpose. 40 The practice of reciting pitum haketoret as a means of warding off pestilence or of bringing an end to a plague appears to have come to Ashkenaz through Italy. Thus, the version of seder pitum haketoret included in R. Shabbetai Sofer’s prayer book is that arranged by R. Jehoseph ben Shraga. 41 The library of the Jewish Theological Seminary has within its collection several manuscripts and two printed editions of the text of pitum haketoret in small format. 42 The titles of several of these indicate that it is to be recited in order to avert or to bring about a halt to plagues and other troubles, and the contents are similar to the text found in R. Shabbetai Sofer’s siddur. 43 These editions were printed in Venice in 1587 and in 1657, the latter having been printed on behalf of the Jews of Ferrara. The manuscripts for which dates and provenance are provided are somewhat later, all 38 Keneset hagedolah on Tur O.H. 133, citing R. Menaḥem ben Jacob Lonzano, Shetei yadot etzba avodat hamikdash. 39 Zohar vayakhel II:218b–19a. See also Num 17:8–15. 40 Siddur Shabbetai Sofer hakdamah peratit 30, pp. 112–13, 117–18. 41 Siddur Shabbetai Sofer hakdamah peratit 30, pp. 118–27. 42 Abraham Yagel Galicchi, Sefer moshia ḥosim (Venice, 1587); Seder pitum haketoret (Venice, 1657); MS 4239; MS 4266; MS 4281; MS 4282; MS 4701; MS 5150; MS 5178. 43 Thus, the full title of the Venice, 1657 edition is Seder pitum haketoret shenohagim le’omram le’et tzarah shelo tavo ule’et magefah.

Chapter 7 · 269 having been produced in Italy during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. While it appears that some communities continued to recite pitum haketoret in the afternoon at minḥah, it was eventually eliminated from arvit. This is in all probability due to two factors: the objection raised that the incense offering was brought in the afternoon, not at night, and the desire to keep the arvit service brief to enable people to return home as soon as possible after nightfall. None of the siddurim published during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries included in our sample include pitum haketoret at the end of the arvit service.

Chapter 8

Shelter Us under Your Wings My investigation of the history of the interpretation of vehu raḥum in chapter 1 reveals that several important sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Ashkenazic authorities draw upon a passage in the Zohar linking vehu raḥum and the punishment of sinners in the afterlife. According to the Zohar, the punishment of the wicked in Gehinnom begins daily at nightfall, the very time when vehu raḥum is recited, and continues through the night. The Zohar suggests that the recitation of vehu raḥum somehow alleviates the suffering of those being punished. Drawing upon earlier rabbinic tradition, the Zohar also rules that vehu raḥum should not be recited on Shabbat, when the souls of those condemned to Gehinnom find rest. In this chapter, we see how the idea that liturgical practices performed by the living can alleviate the suffering of the dead also came to explain the expansion of the arvit service on Saturday night. Further, this idea is the factor most responsible for the emergence and spread of the custom of a mourner, usually referred to as an orphan, reciting kaddish at the conclusion of the service.

THE EXPANSION OF THE ARVIT SERVICE ON SATURDAY NIGHT If the punishment of those condemned to Gehinnom resumes at the conclusion of Shabbat, it follows that the duration of their punishment could be shortened by postponing the end of Shabbat. This postponement is accomplished musically and through the inclusion of additional prayers, psalms, and readings at the beginning and at 271

272  ·  Shelter Us under Your Wings the end of the arvit service. A variety of reasons are offered to explain the inclusion of these extra texts, and I review them in some detail. But in the explanations for all these cases, one of the reasons offered is that the prayer or reading is added to delay the onset of the punishment of sinners in Gehinnom.

Barekhu Two Geonic works, Seder Rav Amram and Halakhot gedolot, state that the recitation of the congregation’s response to barekhu should be prolonged “so that one would be protected from the dangers of that [i.e., the coming] week,” 1 an explanation that is later cited in Siddur Rashi, Hamanhig, Kol bo, Orḥot ḥayyim, and Sefer hamaḥkim. 2 Yet, while Seder Rav Amram as well as the sources that cite it state that prolonging the recitation of barekhu protects one from harm, the nature of this danger is not made clear, nor is it clear how prolonging the recitation of barekhu offers protection from harm. What is clear is that by the time of Rav Amram, the prolongation of barekhu, as well as the other additions to the Saturday evening service, assumes an apotropaic quality. Both earlier and later authorities propose several more spiritual explanations for the expansion of the arvit service on Saturday night. Some suggest that these additions, especially the prolongation of the chanting of barekhu and the inclusion of veyehi no’am/kedushah desidra, reflect a reluctance to bring Shabbat to a close. This reflects both the desire to preserve the sacred time of Shabbat as long as possible, 3 as 1 ‫ומבעי ליה לאינש לאוגודי בברוך ה' המברך באפוקי שבתא דניתצל מן הזיקה דההיא שבתא‬. Seder Rav Amram II:36, p. 80; Halakhot gedolot, end of hilkhot tzitzit, p. 507. 2 Siddur Rashi 517, p. 259; Hamanhig, p. 190; Kol bo 41; Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat motz’ei Shabbat 1; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 48, p. 220; Hamaḥkim, p. 27. R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms cites Rav Amram to the effect that the ḥazzan should prolong the recitation of barekhu on Saturday night, but he does not cite the explanation provided by Rav Amram; Siddur harokeaḥ 105, p. 588. This passage from Siddur harokeaḥ is quoted in Or zarua hilkhot motz’ei Shabbat 89, p. 24a and in Sefer Maharil hilkhot Shabbat 40, p. 223. 3 Hamanhig, p. 190; Siddur harokeaḥ 105, p. 588; Or zarua hilkhot motz’ei Shabbat 89, p. 24a; Kol bo 41; Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat motz’ei Shabbat 1; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 47, p. 219 (only MS London); Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 129, p. 423; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 183; Sefer Maharil hilkhot Shabbat 40, p. 223; Shulḥan arukh O.H. 293:1. Hamanhig, Abudarham, and Shibbolei haleket quote the saying of R. Jose, who said:

Chapter 8 · 273 well as the desire to avoid giving the impression that Shabbat is a burden that one is anxious to shed. 4 Others suggest that Shabbat is like an honored guest – a king or a queen – who should be escorted with song and with praise as he or she departs. 5 On the other hand, many Ashkenazic authorities do associate the prolongation of the recitation of barekhu with the respite provided to the spirits of the dead on Shabbat. Thus, Rabbi Eleazar ben Judah of Worms wrote: On Saturday night [after saying] vehu’ raḥum . . . ​the ḥazzan immediately recites barekhu, drawing it out at length, because the souls return to Gehinnom afterward, and as long as he draws it out they do not return [there]. Also, [barekhu is prolonged] in order to escort Shabbat as one must escort the King; and also in order to delay taking leave of Shabbat. This is my practice, and I heard that R. Eliezer ben R. Meshulam the Great, who was a ḥazzan, would draw out barekhu as long as he could. And it is also found in Seder Rav Amram that on Saturday night the ḥazzan should prolong barekhu. 6 The connection between the extended recitation of barekhu and the additional respite granted to the souls of the dead is also found in Siddur Solomon ben Samson, Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, Or zarua, Minhagei R. Abraham Ḥildik, and in a gloss by R. Abraham Klausner in Sefer Maharil. 7 “May my portion be among those who bring in Shabbat in Tiberias and who bring it to a conclusion in Sepphoris;” Shabbat 118b. Since Sepphoris was on a height, the sun appeared to set later there than in a city on the plain. 4 Berakhot 52a; Siddur Solomon ben Samson 117, p. 271; Orḥot hayyim seder tefillat motz’ei Shabbat 4; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 47, p. 219 (only MS London); Ḥildik minhagei shabbat, p. 251; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 129, p. 423. 5 Siddur harokeaḥ 105, p. 588; Or zarua hilkhot motz’ei Shabbat 89, p. 24a; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 129, p. 428; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 182; Sefer Maharil hilkhot Shabbat 40, p. 223; Tola’at Ya’akov sod motz’ei Shabbat 29b. 6 Siddur harokeaḥ 105, p. 588. On R. Eliezer ben R. Meshulam, see ibid., n. 3. R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worm’s reference to his own practice and that of R. Eliezer ben R. Meshulam the Great is later quoted by Or zarua hilkhot motz’ei Shabbat 89, p. 24a; Klausner, pesaḥ 123, p. 115; Sefer Maharil hilkhot Shabbat 40, p. 223. 7 Siddur Solomon ben Samson 77, pp. 184–85; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 185; Or zarua hilkhot motz’ei Shabbat 89, p. 24a; “She’eilot uteshuvot shel Rabbenu Kalonymus

274  ·  Shelter Us under Your Wings It is clear that the tradition of prolonging the chanting of barekhu through the use of a special melody continued, at least in some places, through at least the first half of the seventeenth century. Indeed, our sources indicate that the special melody that was used for barekhu also came to be used for vehu raḥum. 8 Yet, while a number of later authorities mention the prolongation of vehu raḥum and barekhu, few provide more than a perfunctory explanation of the custom. Thus, R. Moses Isserles, R. Mordecai Jaffe, R. Moses Mat, R. Judah Löw Kirchheim, and R. Isaiah Horowitz all state simply that this practice reflects the desire to prolong the sanctity of Shabbat. Only R. Moses Mat and a gloss in Kirchheim’s Customs of Worms Jewry mention some of the other explanations found in earlier sources, namely, that Shabbat should be escorted out with song, like a king, and that the drawing out of the chanting of barekhu prolongs the respite of the dead in Gehinnom. 9 Aside from R. Yuzpa Shamash, who mentions the custom but does not explain it, this practice is ignored by all the authorities consulted who flourished during the seventeenth century. R. Yair Ḥayyim Bacharach adds a gloss to Shamash’s work indicating that in Ashkenaz vehu raḥum is recited “slightly aloud,” but that is a far cry from the practice as described by earlier authorities. 10 This suggests that while the custom of chanting vehu raḥum and barekhu to a special melody was preserved for a time in Worms, and perhaps in other Rhineland communities as well, it appears to have been disappearing elsewhere by the middle of the seventeenth century. 11

hazaken be’inyanei kaddish, kedushah, ve’inyanei tefillah,” ed. Moshe Hirschler, Genuzot II (1985): 251; Sefer Maharil hilkhot Shabbat 40, p. 223. 8 Moses Isserles on Shulkhan arukh O.H. 293:3; Levush haḥur 293:1; Matteh Moshe 3:494; Kirchheim, 67–68; Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (Amsterdam, 1717), 222b; Shamash 41, p. 1:48; 56, p. 1:58; 160, p. 1:195. 9 Matteh Moshe quotes R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms, including R. Eleazar’s references to the practice of R. Eliezer ben R. Meshulam; Matteh Moshe 4:494; Kirchheim, p. 67 gloss 2. 10 ‫ ;באשכנז אומרי' קצת בקול‬gloss in Shamash 1:41, p. 48. 11 On the custom of prolonging barekhu through an extended chant, see Hamburger, Shorshei minhag Ashkenaz 1:195–210.

Chapter 8 · 275

Veyehi No’am and Kedushah Desidra According to the Talmud, the distinguishing characteristic of the arvit service on Saturday night is the recitation of havdalah, both as an insertion in the fourth benediction of the amidah, and with blessings over wine, spices, and a flame at the conclusion of the service. 12 Presumably, the arvit prayers are otherwise identical to those recited on ordinary weeknights. However, our sources indicate that already by the eighth century, arvit on Saturday night had been expanded to include Psalm 90:17; Psalm 91, 13 and kedushah desidra, beginning with Psalm 22:4. 14 Veyiten lekha, a series of biblical verses of blessing recited before havdalah, made its first appearance somewhat later; it is first mentioned in Siddur Rashi, a work which dates from the eleventh or early twelfth century. 15 The explanations offered for the drawing out of the recitation of barekhu are also proposed to explain the expansion of the arvit service through the inclusion of veyehi no’am and kedushah desidra. But additional explanations are also suggested for the inclusion of veyehi no’am. For example, veyehi no’am is considered to be a “psalm of blessing,” and was identified as the blessing with which Moses blessed the people at the completion of the erection of the Tabernacle, which was said to have occurred on a Sunday. Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz states that “since Moses our Teacher recited it at the erection of the Tabernacle, which occurred on the first day, we recite it on the night of the first [day of the week].” 16 12 m. Berakhot 5:2; Berakhot 33a. 13 I shall refer to Ps 90:17 and Ps 91, together, as veyehi no’am, after the opening words of Ps 90:17. 14 R. Aḥai Gaon, She’iltot Bereishit (ed. Mirsky) she’ilta I, p. 11; Seder Rav Amram II:36–37, pp. 80–81. The recitation of kedushah desidra may have originally been connected to the delivery of homilies on Saturday evening; Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 101–2. The first verse of kedushah desidra, Isa 59:20–21, is omitted at arvit because it is believed that the redemption will not take place at night; “Minhagei Vermaisa uMagentza devei Rashi verabbotav uminhagei Ashkenaz shel haRokeaḥ,” ed. Moshe Hirshler, Genuzot II (Jerusalem, 1985): 22; Kol bo 41; Orḥot ḥayyim seder motz’ei Shabbat 6; Tur O.H. 295; Levush haḥur 295; Matteh Moshe 4:499; Kirchheim 67 and gloss 5; Turei zahav on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 295, s.v. ve’omrim veyehi no’am. 15 Siddur Rashi 521, p. 260. 16 Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 187; Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson 78, p. 186; Raviah 378, p.

276  ·  Shelter Us under Your Wings I have noted that Seder Rav Amram, Halakhot gedolot, and later works that quote these two sources state that the recitation of barekhu should be prolonged “so that one would be protected from the dangers of that (i.e., the coming) week” 17 The inclusion of Psalm 91 must also be seen in this light. It offers the assurance that God protects the worshipper from a variety of dangers, 18 and its incorporation into the arvit service reflects the heightened sense of uncertainty and anxiety experienced by the Jew as the peace and security provided by Shabbat come to an end. Perhaps the greatest danger from which the recitation of Psalm 91 is thought to offer protection is that posed by demons, the subject of the next chapter. However, the prolongation of Shabbat also is said to be of benefit to the dead who are condemned to suffering in Gehinnom. The idea that the dead have respite from their suffering on Shabbat, and that their labors do not resume until the Jewish people complete the entire order of prayers on Saturday night, predates the Zohar and the Ashkenazic authorities cited above; it is found in rabbinic works dating from the eighth and ninth centuries, as well as in Seder Rav Amram. 19 Whereas Tanḥuma and Pesikta Rabbati indicate only that the punishment of sinners in Gehinnom resumes at the close of Shabbat after the Jewish people complete the recitation of their prayers, 20 She’iltot and Seder Rav Amram associate this specifically with the recitation of veyehi no’am. Thus, Seder Rav Amram states: 392; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 55, p. 224; Tur O.H. 295; Tyrnau, p. 5. On the identification of veyehi no’am as the blessing with which Moses blessed the people, see Rashi on Exod 39:43, where he mentions only Ps 90:17, and Shavuot 15b, s.v. veshir shel pega’im, where he includes Ps 91 as well. 17 Seder Rav Amram II:36, p. 8; Halakhot gedolot, end of hilkhot tzitzit, p. 507; Siddur Rashi 517, p. 259; Hamanhig, p. 190; Kol bo 41; Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat motz’ei Shabbat 1; Hamaḥkim, p. 27. 18 See Hapardes, p. 317. 19 Seder Rav Amram II:37, p. 81; Tanḥuma ki tissa 33; Pesikta Rabbati (ed. Braude) 23:8, p. 488; She’iltot Bereishit (ed. Mirsky) she’ilta I, pp. 11–12. 20 ‫כשהסדרים נשלמים‬. It is probable that the term sedarim should be regarded as a reference to kedushah desidra, which is also called seder kedushah. If this is indeed the case, then all these early sources associate the recitation of veyehi no’am and kedushah desidra with prolonging the respite of the dead in Gehinnom.

Chapter 8 · 277 The reason that it has become customary to recite veyehi no’am and kedushah desidra, singing it and prolonging it at the conclusion of Shabbat, is in order to delay the Jewish people in the completion of their sedarim, to prolong the rest of the wicked [and to delay their] return to Gehinnom, as it is said: “At the conclusion of Shabbat the angel who is appointed over the spirits calls out [to them], ‘Return to Gehinnom, to death, for Israel has already completed their sedarim.’” For this reason, the Jewish people draw out the service at the conclusion of Shabbat and recite veyehi no’am. 21 Tanḥuma and Pesikta offer Job 10:22 as a proof text: 22 A land where light is darkness, all gloom [tzalmavet] and disarray [velo sedarim]. What is the meaning of tzalmavet? “Go to death” [tze’u lamavet], for the sedarim have already been completed. The idea that the recitation of veyehi no’am and kedushah desidra delays the return of the dead to their punishment in Gehinnom is cited by almost all the early authorities who seek to explain their inclusion in the service on Saturday night. 23 While R. Joseph Caro did not find it necessary to comment on the inclusion of veyehi no’am in the Saturday evening service, saying only that “this entire section is obvious and requires no [further]

21 Seder Rav Amram II:37, p. 81. 22 Tanḥuma ki tissa 33; Pesikta Rabbati (ed. Braude) 23:8, p. 488. 23 Siddur Rashi 521, p. 260; Hapardes, p. 317; Hamanhig, p. 191; Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson 117, p. 271; Siddur harokeaḥ 105, p. 589; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 187; Teshuvot R. Kalonymus, p. 127; Kol bo 41; Orḥot ḥayyim seder motz’ei Shabbat 5–6; Vitry Hilkhot Shabbat 51, pp. 221–22; Hamaḥkim, p. 28; Shibbolei haleket (Mirsky) 129, pp. 424–25; R. Meir of Rothenberg, cited in Kirchheim, p. 67 gloss 5; Zohar vayakhel II:207a; Tur O.H. 295; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 184; Tyrnau p. 5, gloss 3; Tola’at Ya’akov sod motz’ei Shabbat, p. 29b. Siddur harokeaḥ, Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, Teshuvot R. Kalonymus, Kol bo, Orḥot ḥayyim, and the London MS of Vitry cite the midrash on Job 10:22; the others do not. Many of these authorities had previously stated that the punishment of the dead resumes after the recitation of vehu raḥum (see above, 273 n. 7). They do not seem to have been disturbed by the apparent contradiction between these two views. See the discussion of this question by A. Goldschmidt in Vitry p. 220 n.2.

278  ·  Shelter Us under Your Wings explanation,” 24 this issue is discussed by a number of Ashkenazic authorities who followed him. For the most part, they repeat the interpretations that I have discussed above, with some including several of these explanations in their comments. Thus, R. Moses Mat and R. Joshua Falk write that Psalm 90:17 is recited in the hope that the work of our hands will be blessed in the coming week; 25 R. Naftali Hertz Treves, R. Mordecai Jaffe, R. Moses Mat, R. Joshua Falk, R. Judah Löw Kirchheim, and R. David ben Samuel Halevi relate the recitation of veyehi no’am to Moses blessing the people at the completion of the construction of the Tabernacle. 26 R. Naftali Hertz Treves, R. Moses Mat, R. Judah Löw Kirchheim, and R. Abraham Gombiner all refer to the protection from demons offered by the recitation of veyehi no’am, 27 while R. Moses Isserles, R. Mordecai Jaffe, R. Moses Mat; R. Judah Löw Kirchheim, R. Joel Sirkes and R. Isaiah Horowitz write that these passages were included to provide additional respite to the dead in Gehinnom. 28

Veyiten Lekha The custom of reciting veyiten lekha at the conclusion of the arvit 24 Beit Yosef on Tur O.H. 295. 25 Matteh Moshe 4:497; Perishah on Tur O.H. 295, s.v. lefi shehu mizmor shel berakhah; Perishah and Derishah on Tur O.H. 295, s.v. keivan. 26 Commentary of R. Naftali Hertz Treves to the liturgy of motz’ei Shabbat in Siddur Thiengen 1560; Levush haḥur 295; Matteh Moshe 4:497; Perishah on Tur O.H. 295, s.v. keivan; Kirchheim, p. 67 gloss 4; Turei zahav on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 295, s.v. ein omrim seder kedushah. 27 Commentary of R. Naftali Hertz Treves to the liturgy of motz’ei Shabbat in Siddur Thiengen 1560; Matteh Moshe 4:497; Kirchheim p. 67 n. 4 (citing Matteh Moshe); Magen Avraham O.H. 231, s.v. veyehi no’am. 28 R. Moses Isserles on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 295; Levush haḥur 295; Matteh Moshe 4:497–99; Kirchheim, p. 67 glosses 2, 4, 5; Bayit ḥadash on Tur O.H. 295, s.v. ve’omer seder kedushah, Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (Amsterdam, 1717), p. 226a. R. Joel Sirkes associates this notion with Ps 22:4, the first verse of kedushah desidra as it is recited on Saturday night. He understands the verse as, And You are holy, [You] are enthroned on the praises of Israel, i.e., God remains seated on His throne until Israel has completed its prayers. Consequently, He also waits until that moment before having the wicked return to their punishment in Gehinnom at the end of Shabbat. Sirkes suggests that Ps 22:4 is recited because it has special relevance on Saturday night, and because it is included, kedushah desidra is also included in its entirety.

Chapter 8 · 279 service on Saturday night is first mentioned in the liturgical works of the School of Rashi, 29 and it appears to have been adopted very quickly throughout Ashkenaz. 30 (Yet, while R. Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel described the recitation of veyiten lekha as a universal custom, it was not, in fact, included in the Sephardic rite. 31) Many explanations were offered for the inclusion of veyiten lekha. According to Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, veyiten lekha was added to the service on Saturday night in order to prolong the service so that even those who come late to the synagogue, or who recite their prayers slowly, would be able to complete the required prayers before the service has ended, and would thus not be left alone in the synagogue after everyone else has left for home. 32 R. Isaiah Horowitz, in keeping with the mystical character of his commentary, provides an interpretation based on the teachings of the Zohar. 33 All of the other authorities who explain the inclusion of veyiten lekha suggest that it is recited so that Israel might be blessed during the coming week, 34 as a good sign for the week ahead, 35 or in accordance with the verse that they shall leave in joy and be led home secure. 36 Only R. Mordecai 29 Siddur Rashi 534, p. 267; Vitry seder motz’ei Shabbat 1, pp. 302–5. On veyiten lekha see Shorshei minhag Ashkenaz 1:213–19. According to Hamburger, 213, the original source for the recitation of veyiten lekha is Zohar, Introduction 1:14b. 30 Raviah 378, p. 393; Siddur harokeaḥ 107, pp. 595–603; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 190; Kol bo 41; Orḥot ḥayyim seder motz’ei Shabbat 9; Hamaḥkim, p. 28; Ḥildik minhagei shabbat, p. 251; Tyrnau, p. 5. 31 Hamanhig, p. 200. See Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 185. The custom of reciting veyiten lekha is mentioned by R. Zedekiah ben Abraham Anav HaRofe of Rome; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 129, p. 425. Tur O.H. 295 refers to the custom of reciting verses of blessing at the conclusion of Shabbat. However, he does not refer to veyiten lekha (Gen 27:28), but to Deut 28:12. 32 Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 190. This reason is also given as the rationale for the inclusion of veyehi no’am and kedushah desidra on Saturday night. 33 Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (Amsterdam, 1717), pp. 228a–229a. 34 Hamanhig, p. 200; Siddur harokeaḥ 107, p. 595; Kol bo 41; Orḥot ḥayyim seder motz’ei Shabbat 9; Tur O.H. 295; Levush haḥur 295; Kirchheim, p. 68 gloss 6. 35 ‫לסימן טוב‬. Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 129, p. 427; Kol bo 41; Orḥot ḥayyim seder motz’ei Shabbat 9; Hamaḥkim, p. 28; Darkhei Moshe on Tur O.H. 295, s.v. beKol bo. Hamaḥkim is careful to note that the recitation of veyiten lekha is not an omen, for Jews do not rely on omens [‫ ולא משום ניחוש כי‬,‫התקינו להתחיל פסוקים טובים לסימן טוב‬ ‫]לא נחש ביעקב‬, a comment that is quoted in the commentary to Siddur Trino 1525. 36 Isa 55:12. Siddur harokeaḥ 107, p. 595; Matteh Moshe 4:501; Kirchheim, p. 67 gloss 6.

280  ·  Shelter Us under Your Wings Jaffe writes that it was added in order to prolong the service so as to delay the return of the dead to Gehinnom at the conclusion of Shabbat. 37

MOURNER’S KADDISH We have seen that during the medieval and late-medieval periods it was thought that the suffering of sinners condemned to Gehinnom could be alleviated by liturgical practices performed by the living. Thus, the recitation of vehu raḥum at the beginning of the arvit service would elicit God’s mercy towards those in Gehinnom, whose punishment is intensified during the hours of complete darkness. It was also believed that their punishment is suspended on Shabbat, and that one could postpone the resumption of their suffering by drawing out the arvit service on Saturday night, thereby prolonging Shabbat itself. While these practices were thought to be of benefit to the souls of all who had been condemned to Gehinnom, the benefit is only temporary. For the souls in Gehinnom to have relief, it is necessary to recite vehu raḥum every weeknight, and while the resumption of their punishment at the conclusion of Shabbat could be delayed somewhat by prolonging the arvit service, their punishment does resume at the conclusion of the service. I now turn to the recitation of the mourner’s kaddish, an act thought to be much more powerful than those I have been discussing, for the recitation of the mourner’s kaddish was widely believed to have the potential to actually free the soul of a deceased parent from the jaws of Gehinnom. 38

The Emergence and Spread of the Mourner’s Kaddish The recitation of kaddish by a mourner, often referred to as an 37 Levush Haḥur 295. 38 Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 82. On the theurgic power attributed to the recitation of kaddish and its response, see Debra Reed Blank, “The Medieval French Practice of Repeating Qaddish and Barekhu for Latecomers to Synagogue,” in Liturgy in the Life of the Synagogue, ed. Ruth Langer and Steven Fine (Winona Lake, IN, 2005), 88–91.

Chapter 8 · 281 “orphan” (yatom), is first mentioned in three Ashkenazic works dating from the twelfth century: the London manuscript of Maḥzor Vitry, Or zarua, and the siddur commentary of R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms. 39 Other early authorities who refer to the custom of a mourner reciting kaddish at the conclusion of the service include R. Jacob Moellin, R. Isaac Tyrnau, R. Joseph ben Moses transmitting the customs and rulings of his teacher R. Israel Isserlein, and the Provençal authority R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen of Lunel. 40 R. Jacob Moellin and R. Israel Isserlein are concerned, not with when the mourner’s kaddish is to be recited, but with the question as to whether one who is not a mourner may recite kaddish when no mourner is present. 41 Moellin explains the institution of the mourner’s kaddish, indicating that it was introduced to enable young orphans who had not yet reached the age of bar mitzvah to elicit the desired responses from the congregation, in accord with the midrash of R. Akiva. 42 Since the recitation of the mourner’s kaddish is a custom not required by halakhah, even a child who is not old enough to lead the service itself is permitted to recite it. He indicates that the mourner’s kaddish had originally been instituted only on Shabbat, but that it was now included on a daily basis because of the proliferation of young mourners whose parents had died during the “time of wrath.” 43 In addition, there are adults who lack the skills 39 Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 53, pp. 223–24 (only MS London); Or zarua 2:50; Siddur harokeaḥ 107, pp. 602–3. Most of the additions to Maḥzor Vitry included in the London MS are thought to be the work of R. Isaac ben Dorbolo; Vitry, ed. Aryeh Goldschmidt, “Introduction,” 49–51. The mourner’s kaddish was at first recited after the death of a parent; later it came to be recited after the death of any member of one’s immediate family. 40 Teshuvot Maharil 64, p. 81; Teshuvot Maharil haḥadashot 28, p. 29; Tyrnau, pp. 15, 20, 5; Joseph ben Moses. Leket yosher, ed. Jacob Freimann (Berlin, 1903; reprint New York, 1959), 56–57; Kol bo 28, 36, 41, 37; Orḥot ḥayyim din tefillat arvit 8–9; seder tefillat erev Shabbat 16; seder tefillat motz’ei Shabbat 10. 41 Teshuvot Maharil 64, p. 81; Leket yosher, 56–57. This question is also discussed in Tashbetz 425. 42 This midrash, related in the London MS of Vitry, Or zarua, and the siddur commentary of R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms, will be discussed below. 43 This may be a reference to the attacks on the Jewish communities of the Rhineland in 1349, during the Black Death.

282  ·  Shelter Us under Your Wings required to lead the service but who wish to recite kaddish in memory of a parent, and there are also those who possess the necessary skills but who have come to regard the recitation of kaddish as being more efficacious than leading the service itself. 44 R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen of Lunel includes the recitation of kaddish without titkabel 45 at the conclusion of the service on weekdays, but does not indicate that it is to be recited by a mourner. Furthermore, he prescribes the recitation of kaddish derabbanan, not kaddish without titkabel, at the conclusion of the service on Friday and Saturday night. 46 This might suggest that these kaddishes are to be recited by the sheliaḥ tzibbur, not by a mourner. However, in his discussion of the laws of mourning, he cites the midrash of R. Akiva, referring to “Rabbi Ploni,” rather than R. Akiva, concluding, “It is because of this that the custom has spread for the son of one who has died to recite the concluding kaddish for twelve months and to recite the haftarah. 47 And there are those who [lead the] arvit prayers every Saturday night, for at that moment [the souls of ] the wicked who have had rest over Shabbat return to Gehinnom, and it is possible [kaddish] will protect them. And so may it be [God’s] will.” 48 One must therefore assume that the kaddish recited at the conclusion of arvit on Friday and on Saturday nights, as well as on weekdays, was recited by a mourner. We see, then, that by the fourteenth century the custom of a mourner reciting kaddish had spread to Provence. Taken together, these sources support the hypothesis that the custom of a mourner reciting kaddish at the conclusion of the service emerged in Ashkenaz some time during the twelfth century. Thus, R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms refers to its recitation on Friday night, while R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna attests to its recitation on Shab 44 Teshuvot Maharil haḥadashot 28, p. 29. 45 Kaddish shalem (the full, or complete kaddish), with the sentence beginning titkabel omitted. Titkabel asks that God accept the prayers of His people Israel. It is recited at the conclusion of a section of the service that includes the recitation of the amidah. 46 In addition, he does not indicate that kaddish is to be recited after ein keloheinu at the conclusion of musaf on Saturday morning; Kol bo 36, 37, 41; Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat erev Shabbat 16; seder tefillat musaf 4; seder tefillat motz’ei Shabbat 10; 47 Ploni is the Hebrew equivalent of “John Doe.” 48 Kol bo 114. This passage is not included in Orḥot ḥayyim.

Chapter 8 · 283 bat morning. By the early fourteenth century it was already included at the end of the service on weekdays. 49 References to the mourner’s kaddish by R. Joseph Caro, R. Moses Isserles, and R. Mordecai Jaffe indicate that by the sixteenth century the recitation of the mourner’s kaddish in the morning and in the evening, at both daily and Shabbat services, was almost universal. 50 However, the Rhineland communities of Frankfurt and Worms, while including the recitation of the mourner’s kaddish in the weekday morning service, included it in arvit only on Friday and Saturday nights. 51

The Evidence of the Siddurim Does an examination of manuscript and early printed siddurim support the conclusion that by the fourteenth century the mourner’s kaddish had achieved wide acceptance and that by the sixteenth century the recitation of the mourner’s kaddish at the end of both daily and Shabbat services was almost universal in Ashkenaz? Of the twenty-three manuscripts that I examined, only one, Paris BN 641, did not indicate that the mourner’s kaddish is to be recited after the morning or evening services on Shabbat or weekdays. 52 49 Kol bo 114, Teshuvot Maharil haḥadashot 28, p. 29; Tyrnau pp. 5, 15, 20. 50 Shulḥan arukh O.H. 25:13; Darkhei Moshe O.H. 133, s.v mashma; R. Moses Isserles on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 132:2 and Y.D. 376:4; Levush hatekhelet 133, 237; Levush haḥur 292. 51 According to Neustadt 90, p. 39, the mourner’s kaddish was not recited in the Rhineland on weekdays. However, according to later sources it was recited during shaḥarit, although not after aleinu; Kirchheim, p. 39; Shamash 12, 1:16–17; Yosef ometz 311, p. 66. For the omission of the mourner’s kaddish in arvit in Frankfurt, see Yosef ometz 59, p. 15. For Worms, see Neustadt 90, p. 30; Kirchheim p. 48 and gloss 10; Shamash 25, 1:31 in glosses; ketzat te’amim al minhagei Vermaisa asher shamati, 2:245. It was also omitted after ein keloheinu on Shabbat morning; Shamash, ketzat te’amim al minhagei Vermaisa asher shamati, 2:246. According to Shamash, it was recited in Worms in the weekday shaḥarit service before birkhot hashaḥar, after the recitation of chapters of Psalms during the summer, and after shir hayiḥud in the winter; and at the conclusion of the service, following the recitation of a series of verses; Shamash 6, 1:798; 12, 1:17. It was also recited after the study of Avot on Shabbat afternoon; after the derashah of the rabbi on Shabbat Hagadol; and after the reading of Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs on Sukkot and Pesaḥ; Shamash 72, 1:80; 92, 1:98. According to one MS of Sefer Maharil, in Mainz the mourner’s kaddish was recited only three times on Shabbat, and not at all on weekdays; Sefer Maharil 1, p. 608; see also p. 447. 52 For a list of manuscripts consulted see the list of Works Cited.

284  ·  Shelter Us under Your Wings Fifteen include the mourner’s kaddish at the conclusion of at least one of the morning services (weekday shaḥarit or Shabbat musaf ), 53 and sixteen include it at the end of at least one of the arvit services. 54 Nine manuscripts include the mourner’s kaddish at the conclusion of at least one morning and one evening service. 55 Turning to our sample of early printed siddurim, we find that the mourner’s kaddish appears at the conclusion of the weekday shaḥarit service in thirteen, or slightly more than half of twenty-four siddurim, 56 and in seventeen siddurim at the end of musaf on Shabbat morning. 57 The truncated form in which the arvit service is printed in many of the siddurim makes it difficult to determine whether the editors intended that the mourner’s kaddish be included in arvit on weekdays. In seventeen of the siddurim in our sample, the weekday and Shabbat arvit services are combined. 58 In most of the cases, the shema and its blessings appear in full, including the special conclusion of 53 JTS 4182; JTS 4079c; JTS 4847; Vienna NB 75; London BL 27208; London BL 527086; London BL Add. 26954; Tel Aviv Gross GR 012.002; Munich 381; Leipzig UBL 1108; Oxford Opp. 647; Frankfurt UB Oct. 227; Cambrai A946; Oxford Opp. 776; Paris BN 1470. 54 JTS 4182; JTS 4071; JTS 4057; JTS 4847; Vienna NB 75; Paris BN 641; London BL 27208; London BL 527086; London BL Add. 26954; Oxford Can. Or. 98; Frankfurt UB Oct. 227; Zurich Braginsky 253; Paris AIU 72; Oxford Opp. 776; Oxford Can. Or. 110; Paris BN 1470. 55 JTS 4182; JTS 4748; Vienna NB 75; London BL 27208; London BL 527086; London BL Add. 26954; Frankfurt UB Oct. 227; Oxford Opp. 776; Paris BN 1470. 56 Prague 16th century; Venice 1545; Venice 1549; Thiengen 1560; Mantua 1562; Venice 1579; Venice 1599:19; Venice 1599:20=21; Venice 1662; Amsterdam 1664; Venice 1664; Venice 1682; and Dyhernfurth 1690. Amsterdam 1649 and Prague 1688 have instructions that the ḥazzan is to recite kaddish after aleinu. 57 Prague 16th century; Venice 1545; Venice 1549; Prague 1557; Thiengen 1560; Mantua 1562; Venice 1579; Venice 1599:19; Venice 1599:20=21; Verona 1648; Amsterdam 1649; Venice 1662; Amsterdam 1664; Venice 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Venice 1682, and Prague 1688. 58 Prague 16th century; Trino 1525; Prague 1557; Thiengen 1560; Mantua 1562; Venice 1599:19; Venice 1599:20; Hanau 1628; Prague 1635; Verona 1648; Venice 1662; Venice 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Venice 1682; Frankfurt 1697; Amsterdam 1699, and Dessau 1700. Most of the siddurim refer to the mourner’s kaddish as kaddish yatom, while some refer to it as klein kaddish, the Yiddish equivalent for kaddish katan, “small kaddish.” On the term kaddish katan, see below, p. 287. Many of these “combined” siddurim are very small and meant for individual use,

Chapter 8 · 285 hashkiveinu that is recited on Shabbat and barukh Adonai le’olam. This may be followed by instructions to recite ḥatzi kaddish and the amidah (but often even these are lacking) as well as the texts of prayers recited on Shabbat: veshamru, attah kiddashta (but not the full text of the Shabbat amidah), berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva, and sometimes bameh madlikin. Keeping this in mind, I note the following: Weekday arvit service: Only Prague 16th century, Amsterdam 1649, and Prague 1688 include instructions that kaddish is to be recited after aleinu. Friday night arvit service: Seventeen of the siddurim include kaddish, usually specified as kaddish yatom (orphan’s kaddish) after bameh madlikin or aleinu. 59 Only seven make no mention of the mourner’s kaddish. 60 Of the siddurim that combine the weekday and Shabbat arvit prayers, eleven include instructions to recite the mourner’s kaddish at the end of the Friday night prayers, but no information about what to recite on weekdays appears after yir’u eineinu or the weekday amidah. 61 Saturday night arvit service: Given that the original locus for the recitation of the mourner’s kaddish was Saturday night, at the time when the punishment of the souls condemned to Gehinnom resumes, we would expect that most, if not all, of the siddurim would call for its recitation at the conclusion of Shabbat. In addition, according to later halakhic sources, kedusha desidra is followed by veyiten lekha, havdalah, and the mourner’s kaddish. However, even though

much like the pocket-sized siddurim available today. Often they are condensed and omit material found in larger siddurim, such as prayers recited by the sheliaḥ tzibbur. 59 Prague 16th century; Trino 1525; Venice 1545; Venice 1549; Thiengen 1560; Mantua 1562; Venice 1579; Venice 1599 109:19; Venice 1599 109:20=21; Verona 1648; Amsterdam, 1649; Venice 1662; Venice 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Venice 1682; Prague 1688, and Frankfurt 1697. Trino 1525 and Amsterdam 1681 state “and he recites kaddish according to local custom” after bameh madlikin. 60 Prague 1557; Hanau 1628, Prague 1635; Amsterdam 1664; Dyhernfurth 1690; Amsterdam 1699; and Dessau 1700. 61 Trino 1525; Thiengen 1560; Mantua 1562; Venice 1599:19; Venice 1599:20=21; Verona 1648; Venice 1662; Venice 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Venice 1682, and Frankfurt 1697.

286  ·  Shelter Us under Your Wings all the siddurim in our sample include veyiten lekha, the mourner’s kaddish is prescribed in only eleven of them.  62 Ten of the siddurim do not include instructions that the mourner’s kaddish is recited at the conclusion of arvit on weekdays or on Shabbat. 63 It is tempting to conclude that according to these siddurim, kaddish is to be omitted; however, the elliptical way these siddurim present much of the arvit service means we must be cautious about drawing conclusions regarding this question. In sum, the mourner’s kaddish appears at the expected locations in most, but not all, of the siddurim that I examined. While the absence of a reference to kaddish might seem to indicate that the scribe, editor, or printer of the siddur was of the view that kaddish should not be recited on that occasion, that is not necessarily the case. Some of those involved in the production of siddurim were not careful when determining the texts, and especially the instructions to include, and format also plays a role. In any case, mention of the mourner’s kaddish is least likely to appear in the small-format siddurim.

The French Tradition Sources that represent the traditions of French Jewry present a somewhat different picture. According to Siddur Rashi and Maḥzor Vitry, the kaddish at the conclusion of arvit is recited by a “youth,” or a “young child,” whether on Shabbat or on a weekday. Maḥzor Vitry explains that this is done “to teach the young children [how to lead the service],” 64 much the way children are invited to lead the concluding prayers on Shabbat morning in many contemporary synagogues. R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna noted that, unlike the Jews of Bohemia and the Rhineland, French Jews had no qualms about having an orphan recite kaddish at the conclusion of musaf on 62 Trino 1525; Venice 1545; Venice 1549; Thiengen 1560; Mantua 1562; Venice 1579; Venice 1599:19; Venice 1599:20; Venice 1662; Venice 1664, and Venice 1682. 63 Venice 1545; Venice 1549; Prague 1557; Venice 1579; Hanau 1628; Prague 1635; Amsterdam 1664; Dyhernfurth 1690; Amsterdam 1699, and Dessau 1700. 64 ‫נער‬: Siddur Rashi 428, p. 214; ‫ועומד הנער שלא הגיע לחינוך‬: Siddur Rashi 534, p. 267; 534, p. 267; ‫לחנך את התחנוקות‬: Vitry seder minḥah ve’arvit 2, p. 155 (MS London); seder Shabbat 4, p. 266. See also Hamaḥkim, p. 27, where he says that it is done to educate the children in the performance of the mitzvot.

Chapter 8 · 287 Shabbat morning. 65 R. Nathan ben Judah, writing in the thirteenth century, refers to the recitation of kaddish shel katan or kaddish katan at the conclusion of the service. The term kaddish shel katan indicates that this kaddish is recited by a child, while the term kaddish katan refers to kaddish without titkabel. 66 The problem is that the printed edition of his Sefer hamaḥkim, based upon the Vienna manuscript of the work, is inconsistent in its use of these terms. 67 It appears likely that the author used the term kaddish shel katan, which predominates even in the printed edition, but that a later scribe, familiar with the term kaddish katan, but not with the custom of having a child recite the final kaddish, substituted the term kaddish katan. Menahem Schmelzer has suggested that the French custom of having a child recite kaddish at the conclusion of the service on Saturday night may have contributed to the acceptance of the practice of having a mourner recite this kaddish, and that this, in turn, led to a change in terminology: The kaddish originally intended for recitation by a minor became the minor kaddish. . . . We can trace the development as starting out as an educational, training tool for youngsters, which turned into a kaddish for minor orphans and then later accepted as a mourner’s kaddish for any individual, minor or adult. Once this took place, this kaddish could not anymore be referred to as a kaddish for the minor, kaddish shel katan, so it was changed, by dropping off the shel, into kaddish katan, the short kaddish, in contrast to the full kaddish with titkabel.  68

65 Or zarua 2:50. 66 For the use of the term kaddish katan as a reference to kaddish without titkabel see Leket yosher, 56. 67 The term kaddish katan appears on pp. 28 and 44; kaddish shel katan appears on pp. 18, 43, 45, and 50. Freimann corrected kaddish katan to kaddish [shel] katan on pp. 33 and 41 on the basis of MS Hamburg no. 187. The term kaddish lekatan appears on page 39. 68 Menahem Schmelzer, “Kaddish” (unpublished paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of Jewish Studies, December, 1998).

288  ·  Shelter Us under Your Wings

The Story of R. Akiva and the Dead Man The earliest sources for the mourner’s kaddish – the London manuscript of Maḥzor Vitry, Or zarua, and the commentary of R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms on the siddur – all relate a story about R. Akiva that provides a rationale for this practice, a story to which many later authorities refer. 69 R. Eleazer of Worms brings this story to explain the custom of having an orphan recite kaddish after veyiten lekha on Saturday night. 70 According to this version of the story, R. Akiva once encountered a dark figure running through a cemetery, bearing a heavy burden. When questioned, the figure informed R. Akiva that he was dead, and that he had been condemned to go out every day to gather wood for the fires with which he was burned in Gehinnom. He told R. Akiva that his punishment would be commuted were his son to stand before the congregation and recite barekhu or kaddish, with the congregation responding barukh Adonai hamevorakh le’olam va’ed or yehei shemei rabbah mevorakh, respectively. R. Akiva searched and found the man’s son, taught him “Torah, keriat shema, the eighteen benedictions, and the blessing after meals. He stood him before the congregation and the son recited barekhu et Adonai hamevorakh and the congregation responded barukh Adonai hamevorakh; [he said] yitgadal [and they responded] yehei shemei rabbah. At that very moment they freed the dead one from his punishment.” R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms concluded, “And thus I found in Tanna devei Eliyahu Rabbah: A child who recites yitgadal saves his father from punishment.” 71 This version of the midrash of R. Akiva, along with R. Eleazar 69 Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 53, pp. 223–24 (only MS London); Or zarua 2:50; Siddur harokeaḥ 107, pp. 602–3. Numerous variants of this story appear in medieval sources; see Miron Bialik Lerner, “Ma’aseh hatanna vehamet: Gilgulav hasifruti’im vehahalakhti’im,” Asufot 2 (1988): 29–70. See also Israel M. Ta-Shma, “Ketzat inyanei kaddish yatom uminhagav,” in Minhag Ashkenaz hakadmon, 299 n. 1 for references to the literature. For a discussion of many of the sources and issues discussed in this chapter, see Leon Wieseltier, Kaddish (New York, 1998), 36–48, 126–32. 70 Siddur harokeaḥ 107, pp. 602–3. 71 Siddur harokeaḥ 107, pp. 602–3. The story is not found in extant versions of Tanna devei Eliyahu Rabbah. It is in Tanna devei Eliyahu Zuta, but see below, 289 n. 73.

Chapter 8 · 289 ben Judah’s attribution of the story to Tanna devei Eliyahu Rabbah, was later cited by R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna in his Or zarua to explain the custom of the Jews of Bohemia and the Rhineland of having an orphan recite kaddish after ein keloheinu at the conclusion of musaf on Shabbat morning. According to Maḥzor Vitry’s version of the midrash, 72 the dead man told R. Akiva that his punishment would be commuted if his son were to stand before the congregation and recite barekhu, eliciting the congregation’s response, yehei shemei rabbah mevorakh. This differs from the versions of this story found in other sources, most of which have the son reciting only kaddish, while the version in Tanna devei Eliyahu has the son reciting only barekhu. 73 It would appear, therefore, that either the reference to yehei shemei rabbah mevorakh in Vitry is secondary, or that the text should be emended, so that the son would recite either barekhu or kaddish, with the congregation responding appropriately. 74 However, according to Ta-Shma, the orphan in Maḥzor Vitry’s version of the story recited both ḥatzi kaddish and barekhu, and that the two were recited together. In support of this thesis, he cites two customs mentioned in Sofrim, 75 which he dates from the seventh or eighth century. While ḥatzi kaddish and barekhu are recited at the beginning of shaḥarit, prior to the yotzer blessing, Sofrim states that the sages ruled that they are to be repeated at the conclusion of keriat shema and its blessings, to enable latecomers to fulfill their obligation. Sofrim also cites a somewhat different practice: However, the people of the west and the people of the east were accustomed to reciting it 76 [not at the conclusion of keriat shema, but] after [the benediction of ] oseh shalom in the three [daily]

72 Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 53, pp. 223–24 (only MS London). 73 Tanna debe Eliyahu (ed. Braude) Eliyahu Zuta 17, pp. 488–89. In this version the protagonist is not R. Akiba, but R. Joḥanan ben Zakkai. 74 Vitry (ed. Horowitz), p. 113 n. 10. 75 Sofrim 10:6. 76 ‫לאומרו‬, “to recite it” (sing.). This could refer to either barekhu or to the unit consisting of kaddish and barekhu.

290  ·  Shelter Us under Your Wings amidot. [This practice was instituted] because of those who come late and those who leave early. 77 According to Ta-Shma, this passage from Sofrim indicates that ḥatzi kaddish and barekhu were recited together, whether as an introduction to keriat shema, at the conclusion of keriat shema, or at the conclusion of the amidah. He suggests that while this understanding of the relationship between barekhu and ḥatzi kaddish was no longer well known by the beginning of the eleventh century, Maḥzor Vitry’s version of the story may reflect that liturgical reality. The son in the midrash would thus have been taught to recite the ḥatzi kaddish and barekhu, not the mourner’s kaddish. 78 Ta-Shma’s thesis that ḥatzi kaddish originally served as an introduction to barekhu has been challenged by Debra Reed Blank. According to Blank, Ta-Shma’s argument assumes that the passage in Sofrim is early, dating from the seventh or eighth century. She demonstrates that the formulation of the passage in Sofrim cannot be dated prior to the thirteenth century. 79 If we regard Ta-Shma’s thesis as unproven, the problem in the text of Maḥzor Vitry remains. According to the text of Maḥzor Vitry, the son was to recite barekhu, with the congregation responding yehei shemei rabbah mevorakh, the response normally given to kaddish. It would seem then, as suggested earlier, that either the reference to yehei shemei rabbah mevorakh in Vitry is secondary or that the text should be emended, so that the son would recite either barekhu or kaddish, with the congregation responding appropriately. Maḥzor Vitry concludes its narration of the midrash by stating: “Therefore they [have established] the custom of having one who has no father or mother go before the ark at the conclusion of Shabbat to say barekhu or kaddish.” It does not indicate the point in the service at which the orphan was to recite kaddish or barekhu. It is possible 77 If kaddish and barekhu were to be recited only at the beginning of the service, latecomers would not hear them and might think that they are not included in the service. See Megillah 21a. 78 Ta-Shma, “Kaddish yatom,” 304–6. 79 Blank, “Repeating Qaddish,” 84 n. 45, 92 n. 71.

Chapter 8 · 291 that the intention is that the mourner serve as sheliaḥ tzibbur for the entire arvit service. 80 Later sources indicate that this custom spread from France to other areas of Ashkenaz and that it was still observed centuries later. 81 According to the various versions of the story about R. Akiva and the dead man, the recitation of either barekhu or kaddish has the power to save the souls of the dead from punishment in Gehinnom. Why was this power attributed to these particular prayers? Several rabbinic sources attribute such power, not to the recitation of kaddish itself, but to the congregation’s response. For example, according to the Talmud, one who responds “May His great name be praised forever and ever” is assured that he will have a place in the World to Come. 82 According to Otiot deRabbi Akiva (seventh-ninth centuries), when God hears the dead in Gehinnom respond with amen to kaddish recited at the conclusion of the Torah lesson that He delivers to the souls in Gan Eden (Paradise), He gives the keys of Gehinnom to the angels Gabriel and Michael and tells them to “open the gates of Gehinnom and raise them up from Gehinnom.” 83 Perhaps the power of kaddish and barekhu to effect atonement for the sins of those in Gehinnom derives from the nature of their recitation. In both cases, the leader invites the congregation to praise God with a doxology, and the congregation responds by doing just that. The recitation of kaddish and barekhu is thus a kiddush hashem, a sanctification of God’s name, which can be understood as an act “that causes others – Jews or non-Jews – to praise God or to recognize the wonder of God, His deeds, His Torah and Commandments.” 84

80 However, see Shamash 261, 2:114, where kaddish and barekhu are listed among the prayers reserved for recitation by mourners. 81 Teshuvot Maharil haḥadashot 28, p. 29; Leket yosher, 56; Ta-Shma, “Kaddish yatom,” 307. 82 Berakhot 57a. 83 Otiot deRabbi Akiba in Beit hamidrash, ed. Adolph Jellinek (reprint Jerusalem, 1967), 3:27–29; Solomon Wertheimer, ed. (Jerusalem, 1914), 25–28. 84 Reuven Hammer, Entering Jewish Prayer (New York, 1994), 282. See also y. Bava Metzi’a II:5 8c, where ethical behavior that goes above and beyond the demands of halakhah elicits such a response on the part of gentiles who benefited from that behavior.

292  ·  Shelter Us under Your Wings

The Emergence of the Mourner’s Kaddish in Twelfthcentury Ashkenaz Why did the custom of a mourner reciting kaddish emerge in twelfth-century Ashkenaz? An answer to this question has been suggested by David Shyovitz, who argues that “the rise and spread of the mourner’s kaddish [in the twelfth century] was a manifestation of changing beliefs about the nature of the afterlife and the relationship between the living and the dead.” These paralleled contemporary changes in Christian conceptions about the afterlife, developments of which Jews were well aware. 85 Prior to the twelfth century, there was no consistent, universally affirmed Jewish conception of the nature and duration of the soul’s punishment in Gehinnom. Among the rabbis, some assert that the souls of the wicked would suffer eternal damnation, while others maintain that their punishment was limited to one year, after which their souls would be annihilated, or, according to others, would gain entry into Gan Eden. While some attempted to force these competing views into a more coherent framework, suggesting, for example, that the souls of certain classes of sinners would be subject to eternal punishment while others would suffer for a limited time, authorities continued to debate these issues well into the medieval period. The ritual of reciting kaddish for a year after the death of a parent, along with the story of R. Akiva, its foundation myth, was 85 David Shyovitz, “‘You Have Saved Me from the Judgment of Gehenna’: The Origins of the Mourner’s Kaddish in Medieval Ashkenaz,” AJS Review 39:1 (April, 2015): 54. For a contrary view, see David Brodsky, “Mourner’s Kaddish, the Prequel: The Sassanian-Persian Backstory that Gave Birth to the Medieval Prayer for the Dead,” in The Aggada of the Bavli and its Cultural World, ed. Geoffrey Herman and Jeffrey L. Runbenstein (Providence, 2018), 335–69. Brodsky argues that the belief that a son could atone for the sins of his deceased father by performing mitzvoth emerged in Amoraic Babylonia, and was expressed in the earliest version of the story of R. Akiva and the dead man, which appears in Kallah Rabbati 2:9. It was known in twelfthand thirteenth century Spain and Provence, and from there versions of the story spread to Ashkenaz, where this belief took root. While conceding that concern with purgatory in twelfth-century Christian Europe was a contributing factor, he argues that the story of Rabbi Akiva was more directly responsible for the emergence of the mourner’s kaddish.

Chapter 8 · 293 expressive of a view of Hell “that was fundamentally temporary, from which anyone could be redeemed, and intended to ultimately purge the sinner of his ill deeds and elevate him, cleansed, to heaven.” 86 As the recitation of the mourner’s kaddish spread through Ashkenaz and beyond, this view came to be accepted as authoritative, reinforcing the mourners’ desire to recite kaddish whenever possible. Since more than one mourner was frequently in attendance at the synagogue, rules were established governing which mourner had precedence in reciting kaddish. Eventually, additional recitations of kaddish were incorporated into the service to provide opportunities for other mourners to lead kaddish. 87 Shyovitz supports his theses through a detailed analysis of the version of the story of R. Akiva as it appears in the siddur commentary of R. Eleazar of Worms, Or zarua, and the London manuscript of Maḥzor Vitry. The version of the story that appears in these sources differs from earlier versions in a number of significant ways. While in earlier versions the dead man was said to have been guilty of a variety of sins, these sources say that he had been a tax-collector “who favored the rich and killed the poor.” His face was said to have been black as coal, and he carried a bundle of thorns on his head. Shyovitz demonstrates that much of this description is drawn from a passage in the Talmud that deals with the punishment of sinners in the afterlife. 88 According to views expressed in this talmudic source, while the souls of some sinners are punished for only twelve months, others, including “those who spread their terror in the land of the living” are subject to eternal punishment in Gehinnom. R. Isaac bar Abin said that “their faces will be black like the sides of a pot,” while R. Judah said that such a person would never have a scholar for a son. R. Ḥisda commented that the phrase “those who spread their terror 86 Shyovitz, “Origins of the Mourner’s Kaddish,” 63–65. Kaddish was originally recited for the entire year after the death of a parent, but this was eventually shortened to eleven months, since it should not be assumed that the deceased was among those who required a full year in Gehinnom for the purgation of their sins; Sefer Maharil hilkhot semaḥot p. 599; Teshuvot Maharil 22. 87 See, for example, the gloss of R. Moses Isserles on Shulḥan arukh Y.D. 376:5. 88 Rosh Hashanah 17a.

294  ·  Shelter Us under Your Wings in the land of the living” refers to a parnas (community leader/tax collector) who instills excessive fear in the community. Several of these elements appear in our story: the dead man’s face was black; he told R. Akiva that he had been a tax collector who favored the rich and killed the poor; and his son was not only ignorant, he was uncircumcised. Our story also describes the dead man in ways that allude to Jesus: the bundle of thorns on his head recalls Jesus’ crown of thorns, 89 and he consistently refers to himself in the third person as “that man,” 90 a term used in many Jewish sources to refer to Jesus. Shyovitz brings these elements of the story, and others as well, to demonstrate that the story expresses the view that “intercessory prayers can benefit even those sinners whom earlier Jewish sources had deemed unredeemable.” 91 According to the earlier examples that I cited, and others like them, the one who recites “May His great name be blessed” is assured a place in Paradise or is saved from Gehinnom. The mourner’s kaddish differs from these cases in that here it is the recitation of the child of the deceased that saves his parent from Gehinnom; it was now thought that an act performed by the living can redeem the souls of the dead. That kaddish came to be regarded as an intercessory prayer in the twelfth century is crucial, for these developments paralleled developments in European Christianity. In particular, it was during the twelfth century that Christian writers began to speak of Purgatory as a place where the souls of those who are good, but who nevertheless have sinned, are sent to be purged of their sins before being sent to their reward in Paradise. While the idea that the souls of the dead were to be purged of their sins appears already in Augustine, it was in the twelfth century that it was thought that this would take place in a particular space called Purgatory. Just as there is a place where the souls of the righteous are rewarded, and a place where the souls of the wicked suffer eternal damnation, so too is there a place where 89 Matthew 27:29, Mark 15:17, John 19:2,5. 90 ‫אותו האיש‬. 91 Shyovitz, “Origins of the Mourner’s Kaddish,” 55–63.

Chapter 8 · 295 the purgation of sins occurs. 92 Along with the development of the idea that Purgatory exists in a particular space was the widespread acceptance of the belief that intercession on behalf of the dead can shorten the duration of the soul’s residence in Purgatory. Thus, the twelfth and thirteenth centuries witnessed a new emphasis on prayer, the endowment of masses, and charitable donations on behalf of the dead. 93 The parallels between developments in views about the nature of the afterlife during the twelfth century in the Jewish and Christian communities are clear. Ashkenazic Jews were certainly familiar with the beliefs and practices of the Christian communities in which they lived. Not only were they the subject of polemics, but Ashkenazic Jews would have had occasion to view Christian sculpture, paintings, and other representations of the Last Judgment and of Hell as they passed the churches and cemeteries in the towns in which they lived. 94 As Shyovitz has demonstrated, “the development of Mourner’s Kaddish can be seen as an attempt by Jewish halakhists to harness a traditional Jewish practice to fill a ritual need occasioned by shifts in the broader theological milieu.” 95

The Form of the Mourner’s Kaddish Which form of kaddish did the mourner recite – and why? The form of kaddish recited by mourners today (kaddish yatom) is similar to kaddish shalem, or full kaddish, except that the sentence beginning titkabel, asking that God accept the prayers of His people Israel, is omitted. The identification of the mourner’s kaddish with kaddish without titkabel is so complete that many believe that titkabel is omitted because this kaddish is recited by a mourner. Thus, in a popular commentary on the siddur, Elliot Dorff suggests that “the mourner’s kaddish omits 92 The first recorded use of the noun purgatorium, by Peter Comestor, appeared in the twelfth century, and the conception that there were three realms in the afterlife – Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory – was adopted at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274; Shyovitz, “Origins of the Mourner’s Kaddish,” 66. 93 Shyovitz, “Origins of the Mourner’s Kaddish,” 65–66. 94 Shyovitz, “Origins of the Mourner’s Kaddish,” 67–70. 95 Shyovitz, “Origins of the Mourner’s Kaddish,” 67.

296  ·  Shelter Us under Your Wings [the sentence beginning titkabel] that asks God to answer our prayers because, presumably, God did not grant the mourner’s prayers that the relative recover and live,” 96 while Ellen Frankel writes: 97 Why has this verse been omitted from the Mourner’s Kaddish? Perhaps the Rabbis understood that the mourner’s heart might be moved to ask for what is not possible or appropriate – for the restoration of the dead to life in this world, for revenge, for the ending of the survivor’s own life. Those distressed by the death of loved ones may not always turn to God with prayers and supplications acceptable to heaven – and, therefore, they are excused from uttering this request. However, while most of the siddurim in our sample indicate those points in the service where a mourner is to recite kaddish (by including a directive, such as “kaddish yatom” or “klein kaddish”), they do not include the actual text that is to be recited. In none of the siddurim is there any indication that the mourner is to omit titkabel. Only nine of the siddurim include the text of kaddish; in all these cases it is printed at the conclusion of the weekday shaḥarit service, following aleinu. And in all these siddurim it is kaddish shalem, and not kaddish without titkabel, that appears. 98 • In three of these siddurim, Venice 1545; Venice 1549; and Venice

1579, kaddish shalem is labeled klein kaddish, a term often used to refer to the mourner’s kaddish. • Amsterdam 1649 and Prague 1688 indicate that kaddish that appears after aleinu is to be recited by the ḥazzan, but in these siddurim kaddish shalem does not appear in its usual place, before aleinu. It would seem that, according to these siddurim, on weekday mornings kaddish shalem is deferred until after aleinu, and there is no mourner’s kaddish. • Similarly, in Prague 16th century and Thiengen 1560 there is no indication that kaddish is to be recited before aleinu. The text of 96 My People’s Prayer Book VI, 154. 97 My People’s Prayer Book VI, 156. 98 See Table G below, 302.

Chapter 8 · 297 kaddish shalem appears after aleinu, but without any indication as to who is to recite it. It is probable that the intention is that the sheliaḥ tzibbur should recite kaddish shalem after aleinu as a concluding kaddish, as was the case with Amsterdam 1649 and Prague 1688. • On the other hand, Amsterdam 1664 and Dyhernfurth 1690 include an instruction that kaddish is to be recited before aleinu, and print the text of kaddish shalem after aleinu. Neither indicates who is to recite kaddish after aleinu. It is probable that it is to be recited by a mourner, as Amsterdam 1664 has instructions that the mourner’s kaddish is to be recited at the conclusion of musaf on Shabbat. Is it possible that at one time kaddish shalem, and not kaddish without titkabel, was recited by mourners at the conclusion of the service, and do Venice 1545, Venice 1549, and Venice 1579, and perhaps Amsterdam 1664 and Dyhernfurth 1690, reflect this tradition? And why did the recitation of kaddish without titkabel become the standard practice at the conclusion of the service? A review of the halakhic literature does not provide a definitive answer to these questions. As was the case with the siddurim, most of these sources state simply that kaddish yatom or klein kaddish is to be recited at a particular point in the service, without specifying which form of kaddish is indicated by those terms. A check of the Bar-Ilan Judaic Library database failed to provide any source which identifies the mourner’s kaddish as kaddish without titkabel. Almost all the references to kaddish without titkabel in the halakhic sources relate to one of two liturgical contexts; in neither of those cases is this kaddish recited by an orphan or mourner. Most of the halakhic sources that refer to kaddish without titkabel do so in the context of their discussion of the liturgy for Tisha B’Av, the fast day of the ninth of Av. Tisha B’Av commemorates the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 597 BCE, and by the Romans in 70 CE. 99 The liturgy includes the reading of the biblical book of Lamentations and of kinot, poetic elegies 99 Other disastrous events that were said to have occurred on Tisha B’Av are listed in m. Ta’anit 4:6.

298  ·  Shelter Us under Your Wings mourning the destruction. 100 Among the changes in the standard liturgy as performed on Tisha B’Av is the omission of titkabel when kaddish is recited after the reading of kinot, immediately following kedushah desidra both in the evening 101 and in the morning. 102 The mood of Tisha B’Av is one of mourning, and many practices characteristic of mourning are observed on Tisha B’Av. For example, one does not wear leather shoes; one sits on the floor while Lamentations and kinot are read; and one avoids greeting or responding to the greetings of others. One might think, then, that the omission of titkabel is another mourning practice adopted by the community as a whole on Tisha B’Av. However, this proves not to be the case. 103 While many halakhic sources refer to the omission of titkabel on Tisha B’Av, and some provide an explanation for this practice, none refer to the recitation of kaddish without titkabel as a mourning custom. Further, the explanation for omitting titkabel relates specifically to Tisha B’Av. Citing Lamentations 3:9, And when I cry and plead, He shuts out my prayer, the sources speak of the impossibility of asking that God accept their prayers, given that they have just read that God will not respond to them. Others suggest that this verse means that “my prayers are closed up because of the depth of my mourning [over the destruction].” 104 100 On the kinot see Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 183–84. For a siddur for Tisha B’Av, including the full Ashkenazic liturgy, the book of Lamentations, and kinot with English translation, see Abraham Rosenfeld, The Authorized Kinot for the Ninth of Av (New York, 1979). 101 According to most of the sources, kaddish shalem is recited immediately after the amidah in the evening, before Lamentations is read. 102 According to the prevalent practice, kaddish shalem is not recited at all on the morning of Tisha B’Av. Some do recite kaddish shalem in the morning, holding that the mourning is more intense at night, when Lamentations is read. 103 But see Yekutiel Yehudah Greenwald, Kol bo aveilut (Jerusalem, New York, 1973), 273, citing Ma’avor Yakok. 104 This is why kaddish shalem can be recited before Lamentations is read. Sources which refer to Lam 3:9 include Sefer harokeaḥ 311; Ḥildik minhagei tisha b’av, p. 240; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Buber) 267, p. 256; Hagahot Maimuniot minhagei tisha b’av; Tyrnau, p. 81; Minhagei Zalman Yent in Tyrnau, p. 180; Beit Yosef O.H. 559, s.v. ve’omer kaddish belo titkabel; Levush haḥur 559:2; Kirchheim, p. 122, 124. Sources which prescribe the omission of titkabel on Tisha B’Av without providing an explanation for doing so include Raviah 890, pp. 675–76; Or zarua 2:416; Mordecai Ta’anit 636; Hagahot haRosh to Ta’anit IV:38; Tur O.H. 559; Klausner tisha b’Av 138, p. 128; Sefer Maharil hilkhot shiva asar betamuz vetisha b’av 21–24, pp. 251–56; Ha’agur

Chapter 8 · 299 If the custom of omitting titkabel on Tisha B’Av does not derive from its omission by mourners, perhaps the opposite is the case: its omission on Tisha B’Av, a national day of mourning, led to its omission from kaddish when recited by mourners. If so, this would not be the only case where a liturgical practice originally observed on Tisha B’Av was adopted by mourners. Another example is the omission of Isaiah 59:21 from kedushah desidra when kedushah desidra is recited during shivah: And this shall be My covenant with them, said the Lord: My spirit which is upon you, and the words which I have placed in your mouth, shall not be absent from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your children’s children – said the Lord – from now on, for all time. Halakhic sources give two reasons for omitting this verse on Tisha B’Av. The first is that one might think that one is making an eternal covenant whose terms are contained in Lamentations and the kinot, which have just been read. 105 The second is that the words which I have placed in your mouth shall not be absent from your mouth refer to the obligation to study Torah, and the study of Torah is not permitted on Tisha B’Av. 106 The second of these reasons might apply in a house where shivah is being observed. However, while a mourner who is sitting shivah is not permitted to study Torah, those who come to offer comfort are obligated to do so. For this reason, some Ashkenazic authorities rule that Isaiah 59:21 should be included in kedushah desidra in a house of mourning. 107 Despite this, the contemporary practice is to omit it. 108 858; Darkhei Moshe O.H. 559, s.v. vekhen katav beMordecai; Turei zahav O.H. 559, s.v. mitpallelin arvit. 105 ‫כמקים ברית על הקינות‬. 106 Ashkenazic authorities who explain the omission of Isaiah 59:21 by referring to one or both of these reasons include Siddur Rashi 406, p. 204; Raviah 890, p. 676; Sefer harokeaḥ 311–12; Ḥildik minhagei tisha b’av, p. 240; Mordecai Ta’anit 247; 637; Tur O.H. 559; Hagahot Maimuniot minhagei tisha b’av; Klausner 138, p. 128; Sefer Maharil hilkhot shiva asar betamuz vetisha b’av 24, pp. 255; Tyrnau, p. 83; Levush haḥur 559; Bayyit ḥadash O.H. 559, s.v. ve’od delo shayakh lomar. Non-Ashkenazic authorities who do so include Shibbolei haleket (ed. Buber) 267, p. 256; Kol bo 62, p. 249; Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat Tisha B’av 20; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 257; Beit Yosef O.H. 559, s.v. ve’od delo shayakh lomar. 107 Siddur Rashi 406, p. 204; Sefer harokeaḥ 312; Magen Avraham O.H. 131:4 s.v. ha’avel (citing Keneset hagedolah). See also Tur O.H. 559. 108 See, for example, Siddur kol Ya’akov: The Complete ArtScroll Siddur, 154; The Koren Siddur, 175; The Bond of Life (New York, 1983), 88. Halakhic authorities who rule that it should

300  ·  Shelter Us under Your Wings The second case discussed in the halakhic sources is the tradition transmitted in the medieval Northern French rite, of having a youth recite kaddish without titkabel at the conclusion of the service 109 so that he might learn how to lead the service. 110 Ashkenazic authorities were familiar with this practice, 111 and it may possibly have influenced the development of the mourner’s kaddish, with the mourner reciting the same form of kaddish at the identical place in the service as the youth had done according to the old French tradition. On the other hand, the omission of titkabel by the mourner may not have been influenced by the old French practice. Rather, it may be that the same rationale serves to explain the recitation of kaddish without titkabel in both of these cases. Perhaps because it is designated as the “full kaddish,” we tend to think of kaddish shalem as the standard, or “default” form of kaddish. We then ask why titkabel is omitted on specific occasions, as when it is recited by a mourner. But it is probably preferable to think of kaddish without titkabel as the standard form, to which additions are made on specific occasions. Titkabel asks that God accept the prayers of the people of Israel; therefore it is added only at the conclusion of a section of the service that includes the amidah, to which the rabbis referred as hatefillah, “the Prayer.” 112 When kaddish is recited at the conclusion of the study of rabbinic texts, or after the liturgical recitation of rabbinic texts, a passage asking God’s blessings on scholars and those who study Torah is recited. The mourner’s kaddish, like the kaddish recited by a youth, is recited after the recitation of a psalm, prayer, or reading that serves as an addendum to the statutory prayers; kaddish shalem has already been recited by the sheliaḥ tzibbur at the conclusion of the unit of statutory prayers. The addition of titkabel is therefore not appropriate in these cases. But when the mourner leads the be omitted include Kol bo 114, p. 475; Orḥot ḥayyim hilkhot avel 11; and Darkhei Moshe Y.D. 384 (citing Kol bo). 109 See above, pp. 286–87; Siddur Rashi 419, p. 201; Vitry seder shaḥarit 13, p. 130; seder minḥah ve’arvit 2, p. 155; seder Shabbat 4, p. 266; seder Shabbat 19, p. 292; Seder Shavuot 18, p. 574. 110 Hamaḥkim, p. 27. 111 Or zarua 2:50. 112 Abudarham (ed. Bra’un), 161; Levush hatekhelet 55:1.

Chapter 8 · 301 entire service, he recites kaddish shalem at the appropriate points in the service. 113 The form of kaddish recited by mourners today is kaddish without titkabel. Yet, several early printed siddurim appear to testify to a tradition whereby the mourner recites kaddish shalem. How are we to explain this anomaly? Given the dearth of evidence, I can only speculate. The midrash about R. Akiva, cited by many halakhic sources as the rationale for the recitation of kaddish by an orphan, suggests that when an orphan leads the congregation in the recitation of kaddish and/or barekhu, the soul of his deceased parent will be saved from punishment in Gehinnom. It may well be that, ideally, he would lead the entire service. But what if the orphan does not have the ability to lead the service? And what if the mourner is still a child, disqualified by his minority status from leading the congregation in the statutory prayers? It is for their benefit that an additional kaddish is added at the conclusion of the service, after the completion of the statutory prayers. Those who are able to lead the entire service do so, reciting kaddish shalem at its usual place, shortly after the recitation of the amidah, while those who are unable to, or disqualified from, leading the service are assigned the kaddish which is added at the end of the service. 114 Since this kaddish does not follow the recitation of the amidah, and kaddish shalem has already been said, the general practice as it developed is for the mourner to omit titkabel. In this, the mourner’s kaddish followed the pattern established in northern France, where a youth, for educational purposes, recited kaddish without titkabel at the end of the service. It is possible that the siddurim that have kaddish shalem at the 113 However, according to a later tradition, titkabel is omitted whenever kaddish is recited by the mourner during shivah, and, in some communities, titkabel is omitted during shivah even when the mourner is not serving as sheliaḥ tzibbur. Those who follow these customs may understand the omission of titkabel as being due to the reason suggested by Dorff, that is, it is omitted out of sensitivity to the mourner, whose prayers on behalf of the deceased were not answered.; Kol bo aveilut, 280; Maurice Lamm, The Jewish Way in Death and Mourning (New York, 1969), 106; Chaim Binyamin Goldberg, Mourning in Halachah (Brooklyn, 1991), 186 n. 44. 114 Levush hatekhelet 133:1.

302  ·  Shelter Us under Your Wings end of the service preserve an old tradition according to which the mourner said kaddish shalem at the end of the service, just as he would have done had he led the entire service. Or they may simply reflect ignorance or carelessness on the part of the editors of those siddurim. The three siddurim in our sample that label the kaddish shalem printed at the end of the weekday shaḥarit service as kaddish yatom or klein kaddish were all published in Venice in the middle of the sixteenth century. The printers may have based their editions on earlier siddurim or manuscripts in which that kaddish was to be recited by the sheliaḥ tzibbur as the concluding kaddish. They may have assumed that, since it appears after aleinu, it was to be recited by the mourner, and therefore labeled it as kaddish yatom. At present, I cannot tell which one is the more likely explanation.

Table G Siddurim which Include the Text of Kaddish Shalem at the Conclusion of the Weekday Shaḥarit Service Siddur

kaddish

Prague 16th century

aleinu

Instructions to recite kaddish yatom or klein kaddish after aleinu; text is kaddish shalem

x x

x

x

Venice 1549

x

x

x

Thiengen 1560

x x

Amsterdam 1649 Amsterdam 1664

x x

x x

Prague 1688 Dyhernfurth 1690

x x

x x

x x

x

Instruction that kaddish is to be recited by the ḥazzan; text is kaddish shalem

x

Venice 1545

Venice 1579

No instructions; text is kaddish shalem

x x

x= included

Chapter 8 · 303

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Medieval and early modern authorities cite the belief that ritual practices performed by the living could alleviate the suffering of the dead in Gehinnom as a rationale for the recitation of vehu raḥum at the beginning of the weekday arvit service and the expansion of the arvit service on Saturday night. This belief was also the primary factor behind the emergence and dissemination of the custom of an orphan, or mourner, reciting kaddish at the conclusion of the morning and evening services on weekdays and Shabbat. The recitation of vehu raḥum at the beginning of the weekday arvit service came to be viewed as a plea for mercy on behalf of the souls suffering in Gehinnom. The idea that the punishment of those in Gehinnom is suspended on Shabbat, found already in earlier sources, was suggested as the, or at least a, rationale for prolonging the chanting of vehu raḥum and for the inclusion of veyehi no’am, kedushah desidra, and veyiten lekha at the conclusion of the service on Saturday night. By prolonging Shabbat through the extension of the service that marked the end of Shabbat, it is possible to delay the resumption of the punishment of the souls in Gehinnom. The emergence of the belief that acts performed by the living could alleviate the suffering of the dead may be attributed, at least in part, to the influence of new ideas about the nature of the afterlife taking hold within European Christianity during the twelfth century. It probably also reflects the desire on the part of the Jewish community to develop a more authoritative Jewish understanding of the nature of the afterlife, in the face of widely divergent views found in earlier Jewish sources. These rituals differ in two important respects. First, the recitation of vehu raḥum on weeknights and the expansion of arvit on Saturday nights are thought to be of benefit to all the souls suffering in Gehinnom. The recitation of kaddish by one whose parent had died, on the other hand, is thought to be of particular benefit to the one on whose behalf kaddish is recited. Second, as I noted above, the benefit provided through the recitation of vehu raḥum, or the prolonging of the service on Saturday night, is only temporary. For the souls in Gehinnom to have relief, it is necessary to recite vehu raḥum every

304  ·  Shelter Us under Your Wings weeknight, and while the resumption of their punishment at the conclusion of Shabbat could be delayed somewhat by prolonging the arvit service, their punishment does resume at the conclusion of the service. The midrash about R. Akiva and the dead man, which serves as the foundation myth for the recitation of the mourner’s kaddish, suggests that if the mourner recites kaddish even once the soul of his parent will be redeemed from Gehinnom and elevated to Gan Eden – at least that is what happened to the soul of the wicked figure in the story whose son recited kaddish or barekhu on his behalf. In practice, however, it became customary for the orphan to recite kaddish, not once, or not even once a week, but as frequently as possible for up to a year – the length of time that, according to tradition, is the maximum term for the punishment of the souls of all but the most wicked. I was not able to find any discussion of this discrepancy in the halakhic literature of the medieval and early modern periods. Most authorities simply cite the story of R. Akiva as the rationale for the recitation of the mourner’s kaddish. R. Mordecai Jaffe, however, does touch on this issue. He rules that the mourner’s kaddish should be recited after aleinu at the conclusion of shaḥarit. Preferably, it should be recited by one who is in the year of mourning for a parent, but if such a mourner is not present, it should be recited by one whose parents are deceased. It is delegated to a mourner during his year of mourning for a parent because, as we learn from the story of R. Akiva, there is great benefit for the dead when he has a son who says kaddish and barekhu, and the benefit is even greater when this is done within the first year after death. 115 Here Jaffe seems to suggest that, while the recitation of kaddish is of great benefit to the dead parent, it does not bring an immediate end to the suffering of this soul in Gehinnom. This is why it is necessary to recite kaddish for eleven months or a year. By then it is assumed that the parent, who is not considered among those sinners who require a full year of punishment, will have suffered his or her punishment and be purged of sin. 116 115 Levush hatekhelet 133. 116 See above, 293 n. 86.

Excursus

The Text of Veyiten Lekha According to Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, the verses of blessing included in veyiten lekha were drawn from the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, so that one could fulfill his obligation to study Torah at the very beginning of the week and acquire merit for doing so. 117 This siddur notes that there are various local customs regarding the selection of texts to be included, with some places adding verses and rabbinic texts, all of which serve to enable the worshipper to acquire merit for engaging in the study of Torah. Veyiten lekha concludes with verses relating to the blessing of peace, for “great is peace, and beloved [is peace] before the Holy One, for if, God forbid, all Israel would worship idols but there was peace among them, they would be saved, as it is written, Ephraim is addicted to images – let him be, 118 while if there is dissension between them, there is no remedy for them, as it is written, Their heart is divided; now they shall bear their guilt.” 119 While Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz refers to a variety of local customs, there actually appears to have been considerable consistency in the selection of passages recited in Ashkenaz. 120 Indeed, there is little discussion of the composition of veyiten lekha in either the halakhic sources or in the minhag books. Most state simply that veyiten lekha is to be recited, with some suggesting a brief explanation of this practice. R. Yair Ḥayyim Bacharach noted that “in Ashkenaz [as opposed 117 Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 190. 118 Hosea 4:17. 119 Hosea 10:2. 120 The London MS of Vitry differs from that recited in Ashkenaz both in the ordering of the verses and in its inclusion of many verses not recited in Ashkenaz; Vitry seder motz’ei Shabbat seder arvit 1, pp. 302–5; Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 102.

305

306  · The Text of Veyiten Lekha to Poland] they abbreviate the text of veyiten lekha.” 121 Indeed, by the beginning of the sixteenth century, two traditions had emerged regarding the composition of veyiten lekha, with eastern European Jews including several blocks of material not recited in the west. The following table lists the passages recited in Ashkenaz, with those passages included in the Polish rite appearing in bold face:

Table H Veyiten Lekha Genesis 27:28–29 Genesis 28:3–4 Genesis 49:25–26 Deuteronomy 7:13–15 Genesis 48:16 Deuteronomy 1:10–11 Deuteronomy 28:3,6,5,4,8,12 Deuteronomy 15:6 Deuteronomy 33:29 Isaiah 44:22–23 Isaiah 47:4 Isaiah 45:17 Joel 2:26–27 Isaiah 55:12 Isaiah 12:2–6 Isaiah 25:9 Isaiah 2:5 Isaiah 33:6

I Samuel 18:14 Psalm 55:19 I Samuel 14:45 Isaiah 35:10 Psalm 30:12 Deuteronomy 23:6 Jeremiah 31:12 Isaiah 57:19 I Chronicles 12:18 I Samuel 25:6 Psalm 29:11 Megillah 31a: Rabbi Yoḥanan said . . . ​ I Kings 8:57 Deuteronomy 4:4 Isaiah 51:3 Isaiah 42:21 Psalm 128 122

R. Yair Ḥayyim Bacharach’s comment implies that he was of the view that the original, complete text of veyiten lekha was that preserved in the Polish rite, while German Jews recited an abridged version. It would seem, however, that both traditions are very old. Thus, the commentary of R. Eleazer of Worms is based on the shorter, German version, 123 while Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz’s reference 121 Mekor ḥayyim O.H. 295. 122 While most sources include Psalm 128 along with veyiten lekha, in Worms this psalm was recited after havdalah, even though veyiten lekha was recited before; Kirchheim, p. 68; Shamash 1:59, p. 62. 123 Siddur harokeaḥ 107, p. 595.

Excursus · 307 to the inclusion of additional texts in some communities indicates that more extensive versions also date back at least to the thirteenth century. 124 The full text of veyiten lekha is included in every one of the printed siddurim from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in our sample. Eleven include only those passages recited in Germany, 125 while twelve also include the passages recited in Poland. 126 In four of the latter, the additional passages are printed in a different font, with instructions indicating that these passages are recited in Poland. 127 By offering both alternatives, the printers of these siddurim were able to serve a broader market. All but two of the siddurim printed after 1600 include the additional passages, either as the standard text or as an alternative. Of course, this reflects the growing dominance of eastern European Jewry at that time.

124 According to Hamburger, Shorshei minhag Ashkenaz I, 217–18, the shorter version is the original one, but he admits that most of the “additional” verses are found already in Vitry, where the order differs from that in later Ashkenazic sources. 125 Trino 1525; Venice 1545; Venice 1549; Thiengen 1560; Mantua 1562; Venice 1579; Venice 1599:19; Venice 1599:20; Amsterdam 1649; Venice 1664; Venice 1682. 126 Prague 16th century; Prague 1557; Hanau 1628; Prague 1635; Verona 1648; Amsterdam 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Prague 1688; Dyhernfurth 1690; Frankfurt 1697; Amsterdam 1699; Dessau 1700. 127 Prague 16th century; Amsterdam 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Frankfurt 1697.

Excursus

The Repetition of the Last Verse of Veyehi No’am When veyehi no’am is recited on Saturday evening, it is customary to repeat the last verse, Psalm 91:16. This practice is a very old one, dating back to the time of the Geonim. Thus, Seder Rav Amram indicates that after the congregation recites Psalm 91 in its entirety, the sheliaḥ tzibbur repeats the last verse, after which the congregation continues with kedushah desidra. 128 Many later sources appear to reflect a somewhat different practice, whereby the entire congregation recites Psalm 91:16 twice. 129 While neither Seder Rav Amram nor Siddur Rashi explains this custom, Sefer hapardes, Hamanhig, and Shibbolei haleket suggest that the repetition marks the conclusion of the passages from Psalms

128 Seder Rav Amram II:36, p. 81. This practice is also mentioned in Siddur Rashi 521, p. 260; Siddur harokeaḥ 105, p. 589; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 51, p. 221, and among the later sources, in Kirchheim, p. 67. Minhagei Vermaisa uMagentza 51, p. 22 appears to suggest that the congregation repeats this verse after the sheliaḥ tzibbur. 129 Hapardes, p. 317, Hamanhig, p. 191; Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat motz’ei Shabbat 4; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 129, p. 425; Tur O.H. 295; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 184; Tyrnau, p. 5; Tzeror haḥayyim on Lev 1, p. 5; commentary of R. Naftali Hertz Treves to the liturgy of motz’ei Shabbat in Siddur Thiengen 1560; Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (Amsterdam, 1717), p. 226a; Matteh Moshe 4:497; Yosef ometz, p. 14; Ateret zekenim on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 295, s.v. ve’omrim; Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 295, s.v. pasuk veyehi no’am; Mekor Ḥayyim O.H. 295, s.v. vekoflin. The language of these sources is somewhat vague (e.g., “it is customary to double it and to say it twice”) and can actually describe either of these two practices. Rabbi Meir of Rothenberg was said to have repeated Ps 97:17 whenever he recited veyehi no’am; Tashbetz 258.

308

Excursus · 309 that have just been recited and distinguishes them from kedushah desidra which follows. 130 According to R. Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel, citing a tradition that he received from his teachers in France, repeating verse 16 “completes the divine name which emerges from it [Psalm 91].” He did not explain how this occurs, noting only that “the enlightened will understand,” a saying often used when an authority does not want to reveal esoteric teachings. 131 This interpretation was repeated by many authorities, both early and late, 132 but it has been explained in a number of different ways: 1. According to R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen of Lunel, veyehi no’am has 124 words. The addition of five words by repeating verse 16 yields 129, which is also the gematria for the divine name. 133 He writes that because the name of God emerges from Psalm 91, it has the power to protect one from danger, and it is for this reason that the sages referred to it as shir shel pega’im (the song against demons). This interpretation was later cited by R. Naftali Hertz Treves and by R. Moses Mat. 2. R. Moses Mat provides an additional explanation of how the repetition of Psalm 91:16 yields the divine name. He notes that the letter yod appears twice in the word bi’yeshu’ati. Thus, when verse 16 is repeated, there are four yods, comprising another of the mystical names of God. This explanation also appears in the commentary of R. Naftali Hertz Treves and in Magen Avraham.

130 Hapardes, p. 317; Hamanhig, p. 191; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 129, p. 425. 131 ‫ ;כי השלים השם המפורש היוצא ממנו נהגו כל ישראל לכפלו והמשכיל יבין‬Hamanhig, p. 191. 132 Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat motz’ei Shabbat 6; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 51, p. 221 (only MS London); Tur O.H. 295; Tyrnau, p. 5; commentary of R. Naftali Hertz Treves to the liturgy of motz’ei Shabbat in Siddur Thiengen 1560, citing Orḥot ḥayyim; Levush haḥur 295; Matteh Moshe 4:497; Kirchheim, p. 67 gloss 4; Yosef ometz, p. 14; Turei zahav O.H. 295, s.v. veomrim veyehi no’am; Magen Avraham O.H. 295, s.v. pasuk veyehi no’am. 133 It is not clear which divine name has the value of 129. Perhaps it refers to Adonai hu haElohim, one of the mystical names of God, which has the numerical value of 129; Shemuel Toledano, Sefer hakdamat ushe’arim leḥokhmat hakabbalah (Jerusalem, 1990), Section 1 gate 7, Chapter 7, pp. 190–91.

310  · The Repetition of the Last Verse of Veyehi No’am 3. Finally, S. Hurwitz, in his notes to Maḥzor Vitry, suggests that the repetition of verse 16 yields the divine name through a gematria. Verse 16 contains 27 letters, 54 when doubled. Fifty-four is the value of the tetragrammaton when each of the letters is spelled out in full: 20+6+22+6. 134 Other explanations for the repetition of Psalm 91:16 also rely on numerology. R. Zedekiah ben Abraham Anav HaRofe cites an interpretation according to which “the [number of ] words in veyehi no’am correspond to the [number of words] in keriat shema, less five words. Therefore they repeat orekh yamim, which has five words, so that the number of words will be correct.” 135 This interpretation appears also in a gloss to R. Judah Löw Kirchheim’s Customs of Worms Jewry. 136 The difficulty with this interpretation is that, according to tradition, there are 248 words in the shema, a number that far exceeds the number of words in veyehi no’am. R. David Abudarham relates a similar interpretation, based upon the repetition of the entire passage, which avoids this problem. Psalm 90:17–91:16 has 124 words, which, if repeated, would yield the desired number, 248. Since repeating the entire passage would be an imposition on the congregation, the first and last verses are doubled, symbolically representing the repetition of the whole. According to these interpretations, reciting veyehi no’am in this way is like reciting the shema, and the midrash states that “if you are careful to observe [shemor] the 248 words that are in keriat shema, the Holy One Blessed be He will guard [yishmor] your 248 limbs. 137 R. Naftali Hertz Treves suggests that the eighteen verses in Psalm 90:17–91:16, when 91:16 is repeated, correspond to the eighteen bless 134 ‫ ;יו״ד ה״א וי״ו ה״א‬Maḥzor Vitry, ed. Simon Halevi Hurwitz (Nuremberg, 1923) 147, p. 115 n. 21. 135 Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 129, p. 425. 136 Kirchheim, p. 67 gloss 4. 137 Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 184. Abudarham incorrectly states that this midrash is in Deut. Rab., but see Midrash Tanḥuma (ed. Buber) Kedoshim 6; Yalkut Shimoni Yitro 271, s.v. tania ein mevatlin. See also the addition in MS ‫ ג‬of Ḥildik minhagei shabbat, p. 251.

Excursus · 311 ings of the weekday amidah. 138 R. Samson ben Tzadok writes that when Psalm 91:16 is repeated, the number of words in veyehi no’am is equal to the gematria of the word “hakohanim” (the priests), namely, 130. He says that before the priestly Hasmoneans went into battle they would recite veyehi no’am seven times, and Psalm 91:16 twice more. This explanation was later quoted by R. Naftali Hertz Treves, R. Moses Mat, and R. Abraham Gombiner. R. Naftali Hertz Treves and R. Moses Mat write that this interpretation is based upon the tradition that the absence of the letter zayin (which has the numerical value of seven) in veyehi no’am teaches that no weapon (keli zayin) can harm one who recites vayehi no’am seven times. 139 R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen of Lunel transmits an additional explanation for the repetition of Psalm 91:16, based upon a rabbinic legend that Adam had abstained from sexual relations with Eve for a period of 130 years prior to the birth of Seth. 140 The Torah says that Seth was a son in his likeness after his image. 141 According to the midrash, during those 130 years Adam had relations with a variety of impure spirits who gave birth to offspring who were not “after his likeness,” namely, demons. According to R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen, since Seth was born in the 130th year, Adam had separated himself from Eve for only 129 years. The 129 words of veyehi no’am, including the doubling of verse 16, thus correspond to the number of 138 Commentary of R. Naftali Hertz Treves to the liturgy of motz’ei Shabbat in Siddur Thiengen 1560. 139 Sefer Tashbetz 258; commentary of R. Naftali Hertz Treves to the liturgy of motz’ei Shabbat in Siddur Thiengen 1560; Matteh Moshe 4:497; Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 295, s.v. pasuk veyehi no’am. Unlike Orḥot ḥayyim, Tashbetz counts 125 words in veyehi no’am. R. Naftali Hertz Treves writes that he found this interpretation in a “printed book.” None of these authorities explain how the Hasmoneans came to be connected to this tradition. The teaching that the absence of the letter zayin indicates that no weapon can harm one who recites veyehi no’am seven times appears in Tashbetz 257 and in Tyrnau, p. 5. 140 Eruvin 18b; Gen. Rab. 20:11; 24:6. See also Zohar bereishit I:54b–55a. Halakhic sources and commentators differ as to when the counting of the 130 years begins. Some count from the birth of Abel, while others count from his death, or from Adam and Eve’s expulsion from the Garden. 141 Gen 5:3.

312  · The Repetition of the Last Verse of Veyehi No’am years in which the demons were born to Adam. Reciting veyehi no’am causes those spirits to separate from man. 142 This explanation for the repetition of the last verse of veyehi no’am does not appear again in Ashkenazic sources until the sixteenth century, when it is mentioned by R. Naftali Hertz Treves, R. Moses Mat, and R. Menaḥem Mendel Auerbach. 143 Tzeror hamor draws parallels between the creation of the world and the construction of the Tabernacle, and between Adam and Aaron. The construction of the Tabernacle represents a new Creation, and Aaron is a new Adam. God commanded that Israel build the Tabernacle as a means of healing the breach in His relationship with man that has persisted since the time of Adam. This breach resulted in the birth of the demons referred to above, and in the various kinds of impurities and skin eruptions which are of central concern to the book of Leviticus, and for which the offerings provide a remedy. Thus, Psalm 91:10 states: No disease (nega) will touch your tent, where “tent” is understood as a reference to the Tabernacle. Tzeror hamor notes that “therefore, this psalm has 130 words, corresponding to the 130 years. Consequently, we double the verse orekh yamim to complete the number [130].” 144 We have seen that the custom of reciting Psalm 90:17 and Psalm 91, and of repeating Psalm 91:16, is a very old one, dating back to the time of the Geonim. This custom appears to have been universal, and it appears that no authority argued against the repetition of the concluding verse. Yet, while most of the siddurim in our sample include either the full text of veyehi no’am and kedushah desidra, or

142 Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat motz’ei Shabbat 4. 143 Commentary of R. Naftali Hertz Treves to the liturgy of motz’ei Shabbat in Siddur Thiengen 1560; Matteh Moshe 4:497; Ateret zekenim on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 295, s.v. ve’omrim veyehi no’am. 144 Tzeror hamor Lev 1, p. 5. See also Lev 13, pp. 36–37. R. Naftali Hertz Treves notes that he counted only 129 words in veyehi no’am, suggesting that Tzeror hamor had counted the entire psalm as though it were an additional verse.

Excursus · 313 instructions that they should be recited, only two of the siddurim indicate that verse sixteen should be repeated. 145

145 All the siddurim which print arvit for weekdays and for Shabbat separately, and two which combine these services, include the full text of veyehi no’am and kedushah desidra among the prayers which are to be recited on Saturday night: Prague 16th century; Venice 1545; Venice 1549; Venice 1579; Amsterdam 1649; Amsterdam 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Prague 1699; Dyhernfurth 1690. Eight siddurim contain instructions to recite these prayers, without reprinting the texts: Trino 1525; Thiengen 1560; Mantua 1562; Venice 1599:19; Venice 1599:20–21; Venice 1664; Venice 1682; Frankfurt 1697. Of these, only Treves’s commentary in Thiengen 1560 indicates that Ps 91:16 is to be repeated. This verse is printed only once in Venice 1549; in pesukei dezimra it is printed in the standard font, but in arvit for Saturday night it is printed in a smaller font, probably indicating special treatment. There is no mention at all of veyehi no’am – kedushah desidra at this point in the service in six of the siddurim, most of which are small-sized, personal siddurim: Prague 1557; Hanau facsimile 1628; Prague 1635; Verona 1648; Amsterdam 1699; Dessau 1700.

Chapter 9

You Will Not Fear the Terror of Night INTRODUCTION Dangers of the Night From time immemorial, night has been a time infused with a heightened sense of fear and anxiety. The dangers of the night were both real and imagined. In his study of the experience of night in the late medieval and early modern periods, A. Roger Ekirch notes that “just a short jaunt to a neighbor’s dwelling could be fraught with difficulty, as would returning to one’s residence.” 1 Travel through the countryside was especially dangerous. Poor visibility, rough terrain, and pock-marked roads contributed to accidents, many of which resulted in fatalities. 2 The darkness of night also provided cover for armed robbers, in cities and towns as well as in rural areas. 3 Night was also the time when demons, spirits, and ghosts were believed to prowl the countryside. 4 Ekirch notes that “the family patriarch bore a responsibility at bedtime for setting minds at rest by conducting prayers . . . Family prayers could either be a substitute for or a supplement to personal



1 A. Roger Ekirch, At Day’s Close: Night in Times Past (New York, 2005), 123. Another study of the night, which emphasizes the “transformation of the night” by the introduction of street lighting in the seventeenth century, is Craig Koslofsky, Evening’s Empire: A History of the Night in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, 2011). 2 Ekirch, At Day’s Close, 23–25. 3 Ekirch, At Day’s Close, 33–36, 139. 4 Ekirch, At Day’s Close, 4, 15–23, 139–40. However, fear of the night was not universal, and many engaged in both socializing and productive activity during the night; ibid., 5, 155–90.

315

316  · You Will Not Fear the Terror of Night devotions.” 5 A number of common themes ran through these prayers: thanks for spiritual guidance, requests for a peaceful sleep, appeals for forgiveness of sins, and pleas for divine protection from harm through the night. The well-known bedtime prayer, “Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep. If I should die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to take,” appears as early as 1777 in the New England Primer, but is probably older. 6 Some bedtime prayers were more specific. Ekirch cites a seventeenth-century verse that sought deliverance “from all sudden death, fire and theeves, stormes, tempests, and all affrightments.”  7

The Arvit Service and Fears of the Night Fear of the night is reflected in the interpretation of many Jewish liturgical texts and practices associated with the night, and especially with nightfall. Many of the prayers and rituals associated with the arvit service were understood as having the power to protect both the worshiper and others from the dangers of the night. Of course, foremost among these dangers was death itself. But, as we shall see, the fear of demons provided a rationale for the recitation (or the omission) of many of the prayers and readings that constitute the arvit service, including the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam on week nights; berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva and bameh madlikin on Friday nights; and the recitation of Psalm 91 and veyiten lekha on Saturday nights. Although most of these prayers have been discussed, it would be helpful to review some of the previous discussion in the context of the fear of the dangers of the night. 8

BARUKH ADONAI LE’OLAM According to R. Natronai Gaon, the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam on weekday evenings had been instituted by the “later rabbis” 5 Ekirch, At Day’s Close, 272. 6 The New England Primer (Boston, 1777). 7 Ekirch, At Day’s Close, 272. 8 Barukh Adonai le’olam and berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva are discussed in chapter 2.

Chapter 9 · 317 as a substitute for the amidah, which was omitted by many, who maintained that the recitation of the arvit amidah is optional: Since the law is in accordance with Rav, who held [that the evening tefillah is] optional, the later rabbis came and enacted that after shomer amo Yisrael one should recite verses that have in them praise and song, and since we recite the verses, they enacted that we recite a benediction after them. 9 Later authorities sought to explain why many presumably pious Jews might have omitted the amidah in the evening, despite its optional character. Some suggested that since the synagogues in Babylonia were located out in the fields, people were afraid to wait until nightfall, the proper time for the recitation of the amidah. Instead, they came while it was still light, recited the shema and its blessings, followed by barukh Adonai le’olam, and then left after concluding with kaddish. 10 Presumably, they were afraid that after nightfall they might be threatened by demons. Tosafot also maintains that barukh Adonai le’olam had been instituted to avert the danger of demons, but in a different way. According to Tosafot, people did remain in the synagogue until nightfall to recite the amidah at the proper time. Like berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva, barukh Adonai le’olam had been added for the benefit of latecomers. Omitting barukh Adonai le’olam, whose recitation was not required by halakhah, would enable them to catch up to the other worshipers, who had prolonged their own prayers by including barukh Adonai le’olam. Everyone would then be able to finish and return home together. 11 9 Quoted in Seder Rav Amram II:4, pp. 62–63. See also Brody, Teshuvot Rav Natronai 72, pp. 180–83. Others, assuming that most people had always recited the arvit amidah, argued that barukh Adonai le’olam had been instituted to break the connection between the benediction of ge’ulah and the beginning of the amidah, thus indicating that the recitation of the amidah was technically optional at night. For a full discussion of this issue, see pp. 84–88. 10 Orḥot ḥayyim din tefillat arvit 3, citing R. Solomon ben Adret; Rosh Berakhot 1:5; Teshuvot haRosh kelal 4 siman 6; Tur O.H. 236; Levush hatekhelet 236:2; Matteh Moshe 3:386. This explanation is based upon the reason that Rav Natronai gives for omitting barukh Adonai le’olam on Shabbat. 11 Tosafot Berakhot 2a, s.v. mevarekh shetayim lefaneha; Berakhot 4b, s.v. ve’amar Rabbi Joḥanan.

318  · You Will Not Fear the Terror of Night R. Natronai also attributes the omission of barukh Adonai le’olam on Friday night to the danger posed by demons: This applies on weekdays, but on Shabbat, since demons are abroad and the Jewish people must go to their homes before it becomes dark, because of the danger of satyrs (se’irin), or before the lamps go out [on Shabbat], they omitted [this passage] and restored [the practice prescribed in] the Mishnah: In the evening one recites two benedictions before it and two after it. 12 The recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam lengthens the service, if only by a few minutes. While this would not normally be a problem, on Shabbat people are especially anxious to return home early, first because worshipers returning home after dark might be endangered by demons, and second, so that they might arrive home and eat their Shabbat dinner before the lamps, which had been kindled while it was still day, went out. All Ashkenazic authorities agree that neither barukh Adonai le’olam nor its concluding passage, yir’u eineinu, are recited on Shabbat. R. Natronai’s responsum was cited or quoted by many of them, including Siddur Rashi, Maḥzor Vitry, and R. Moses Mat. 13 Some Ashkenazic sources quote a version of R. Natronai’s responsum that includes a third reason for the desire to conclude arvit as quickly as possible on Friday night: there are people who will have eaten only a little on the eve of Shabbat (i.e., on Friday) so that they might begin Shabbat with a hearty appetite. 14 R. Joshua Falk asks why a concern about the danger of demons on Shabbat led R. Natronai to omit barukh Adonai le’olam since, according to a midrash, Shabbat itself protects one from danger. 15 12 Seder Rav Amram II:4, p. 62. For a more detailed discussion of the relative danger posed by demons on weeknights and on Shabbat, see below, pp. 328–36. 13 Siddur Rashi 475, p. 240; Hapardes, pp. 307–8; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 1, pp. 168–69; Shibbolei Haleket (ed. Mirsky) 65, pp. 283–84; Matteh Moshe IV:426. It is also quoted in Hamanhig, pp. 134–35; Tur O.H. 267; Abudarham, 145. 14 Hapardes, p. 308; Shibbolei Haleket (ed. Mirsky) 65, pp. 283–84. On the variants in the responsum of R. Natronai as it was transmitted in many Ashkenazic sources, see Israel M. Ta-Shma, “Hapores,” 149–51. 15 Midrash Psalms 92:1.

Chapter 9 · 319 Falk suggests two possible explanations to reconcile this apparent contradiction. One is that Shabbat itself offers protection from the dangers one might face in town, such as illness, but that it does not offer protection from the demons that are in the fields, where the synagogues were located in R. Natronai’s time. The other possibility is that Shabbat offers protection to the extent that one need not pray for God’s protection. Yet, one should still be prudent and avoid venturing out to places where demons may be about, even on Shabbat. 16

BERAKHAH AḤAT ME’EIN SHEVA The paradigmatic example of a prayer recited due to the fear of demons is berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva, chanted by the sheliaḥ tzibbur after the congregation has recited the amidah on Friday evening. 17 A source in the Babylonian Talmud states that the rabbis enacted the recitation of this prayer “because of danger,” 18 an explanation that is accepted as normative by later authorities. According to Seder Rav Amram, the rabbis were concerned for the welfare of those who come late to the synagogue on Friday evening. 19 Rashi explains that Babylonian synagogues were located outside of the towns and villages. Most members of a congregation might return to their homes for the Sabbath meal immediately after concluding the arvit service, leaving the latecomer, who had not yet completed his prayers, alone in the synagogue, placing him in danger from demons who were abroad at night. Requiring the sheliaḥ tzibbur to recite berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva, thereby prolonging the service, would enable latecomers to complete their recitation of the amidah and leave the synagogue along with the rest of the congregation. It was necessary to prolong the service on Shabbat, but not on weeknights, because during the week people would return home 16 Derishah on Tur O. H. 267. 17 For a full discussion of the sources relating to berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva and to the fear of demons, see above, pp. 102–4. 18 Shabbat 24b; see above, p. 102 n. 64. 19 Seder Rav Amram II:123, p. 164.

320  · You Will Not Fear the Terror of Night after work and recite the arvit service privately. On Friday evenings, however, everyone would come to the synagogue for arvit. 20 This interpretation was accepted by the majority of early authorities, most of whom refer to the demons as mazikin, with a few mentioning sheidim. 21 Maḥzor Vitry suggests that the concern is for the spirits of those who had died during the previous twelve months, who are given rest from their labors on Shabbat and are free to roam the countryside, 22 while, according to R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen of Lunel, it is the demon Lilith who wanders about on Friday night. 23 Almost all early authorities agree that the threat is to one who is left alone in the synagogue. R. Abraham bar Nathan of Lunel notes that it is especially dangerous to remain alone in a synagogue, “for the angel of death stores his weapons there.” 24 On the other hand, R. Mordecai ben Hillel suggests that the danger lies in one’s returning home alone at night from the synagogue. 25

BAMEH MADLIKIN At least from the time of R. Amram Gaon, bameh madlikin, the second chapter of Mishnah Shabbat, has been recited during arvit on Friday night. 26 While the prevalent Ashkenazic practice is to recite it at the conclusion of the service, some authorities, influenced by the rationale for its recitation given by Provençal authorities and Sephardic sources, argue that it should be recited before arvit. 27 20 Rashi, Shabbat 24b, s.v. mishum sakanah. 21 Early Ashkenazic authorities who refer to the danger of demons include, in addition to Rashi and his disciples, the author of Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson, Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, R. Eliezer ben Joel of Bonn, R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna, and R. Moses ben Jacob of Coucy. Non-Ashkenazic authorities include Hamanhig, Kol bo, Orḥot ḥayyim, R Yeruḥam ben Meshullam, and R. David Abudarham. See above, p. 103 n. 65 for specific citations. 22 Vitry hilkhot Shabbat tefillat arvit 4, p. 172 (only MS London). 23 Orḥot ḥayyim hilkhot tefillah 89. 24 Hamanhig, p. 138. This notion is later cited in Orḥot Ḥayyim hilkhot tefillah 89. 25 Mordecai Shabbat 407. 26 Seder Rav Amram, II:11, p. 65. 27 For a full discussion of this issue, see above, pp. 129–38.

Chapter 9 · 321 Early authorities mention several reasons for the recitation of bameh madlikin. Almost all suggest that it is recited either because it teaches the laws relating to the lighting of the Sabbath lamps, or because it reminds one of the kinds of wicks and oils that may not be used for this purpose. 28 Yet, many early Ashkenazic and some Provençal authorities state that bameh madlikin had been introduced, at least in part, for the same reason that the berakhah me’ein sheva had been introduced, that is, to delay the conclusion of the service so that latecomers would not be left alone in the synagogue, and thus be endangered by demons. 29

ADDITIONS TO ARVIT ON SATURDAY NIGHT While the conclusion of the arvit service on Saturday night originally was virtually identical to that recited on weekdays, 30 by the eighth century it had been expanded to include the recitation of Psalm 90:17, Psalm 91, 31 and the kedushah desidra, beginning with Ps. 22:4. Veyiten lekha, a series of biblical verses of blessing, was added 28 Ha’itim 140; Hamanhig, p. 145; Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson 56, p. 146; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 147; Hamaḥkim, p. 19; Kol Bo 35; Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat erev Shabbat 15; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 5, p. 175 (only MS London); 156, p. 144; Tur O.H. 270; Abudarham (ed. Wertheimer), 153. Raviah 199, p. 263 states that it is recited “to instruct the Jewish people.” 29 Ashkenazic authorities include Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson 56, p. 146; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 147; Mordecai Shabbat 407; Minhagei Abraham Klausner, Sukkot 47 gloss 1, p. 42. See also Kol bo 35 and Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat erev Shabbat 15, both of which attribute this interpretation to the Geonim, and Hamaḥkim, p. 19. The idea that the recitation of bameh madlikin was introduced so that latecomers would not be endangered by demons may be based on a misunderstanding of Seder Rav Amram II:12, p. 66, by the early authorities. The text of Seder Rav Amram explains that the kiddushta was instituted by the sages because of the danger of demons. Elsewhere, Seder Rav Amram uses the term kiddushta to refer to berakhah me’ein sheva, not bameh madlikin; II:9, p. 64. This misunderstanding arose because II:12 appears immediately after the mention of the recitation of bameh madlikin; Wieder, “Berakhah bilti yadu’ah,” 324–26. 30 The havdalah ritual, added at the conclusion of Shabbat, is already mentioned in the Talmud; m. Berakhot 5:2; Berakhot 33a. 31 Usually referred to as veyehi no’am, based on its opening words.

322  · You Will Not Fear the Terror of Night somewhat later. Most of the early commentators and halakhic authorities who explain the expansion of arvit on Saturday night agree that the primary reason for the inclusion of these passages is to prolong Shabbat, whether to preserve the sacred time of Shabbat for as long as possible, to avoid giving the impression that Shabbat is a burden that one is anxious to shed, or to delay the resumption of the punishment of those condemned to Gehinnom, who enjoy respite from their suffering on Shabbat. 32 However, the authors of the Siddur of Solomon ben Samson and Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz applied the explanation in the Babylonian Talmud for the recitation of berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva on Friday night, which is to expand the Saturday night service. 33 Thus, the Siddur of Solomon ben Samson states: Veyehi no’am, seder kedushah, and also veyiten lekha were enacted in order to delay their leaving [the synagogue] on Shabbat so that no one would be left alone in the synagogue. Rather, he [i.e., the latecomer] will pray while the congregation recites all of this and leave with them. These prayers, barukh Adonai le’olam, berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva, bameh madlikin, and the extensions to the arvit service on Saturday night, were thought to protect those who came late to the synagogue in the evening. Latecomers were considered to be endangered by demons. Prolonging the service by the recitation of these prayers was considered a way of eliminating the possibility that they would be left alone in the synagogue or would have to return home alone after dark. I now turn to two prayers that were regarded as pleas for protection from demons on behalf of everyone.

VEYEHI NO’AM Of all of the prayers and readings appended to the service on Saturday night, veyehi no’am was thought to be the prayer that specifically 32 For a detailed discussion of these issues, see above, pp. 271–80. 33 Siddur Solomon ben Samson 78, p. 186; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 190.

Chapter 9 · 323 targeted demons. Indeed, the sages refer to it as shir shel pega’im, “the song against demons,” 34 and found within it numerous allusions to demons. Thus, commenting on Psalm 91:7, R. Isaac said: A thousand may fall at your [left] side – to the [left] hand, which has dominance with regard to the commandment of tefillin, are assigned a thousand angels to guard him from demons; and to the right [hand], which has dominance with regard to many commandments, ten thousand at your right – ten thousand angels are assigned to him to guard him from the demons. 35 Furthermore, the rabbis interpret the word nega in Psalm 91:10 as a reference to demons. 36 Developing a tradition that Psalm 91 was composed by Moses, 37 R. Joḥanan taught that the tent in that verse refers to the Tabernacle, thus indicating that when Moses completed the construction of the Tabernacle, demons came to an end in the world. 38 Drawing on these traditions, many medieval authorities stress the apotropaic power attached to the recitation of Psalm 91. Noting that it contains every letter of the Hebrew alphabet except the zayin, it was said that anyone who recites Psalm 91 will have no need for a weapon (keli zayin). 39 Many repeat the talmudic reference to Psalm 91 as shir shel pega’im; R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen of Lunel, R. Nathan ben Judah, R. Zedekiah ben Abraham Anav HaRofe, R. Meir ibn Gabbai, and among Ashkenazic authorities Naftali Hertz Treves, R. Moses Mat, R. Judah Löw Kirchheim, and R. Abraham Gombiner 34 See Rashi Shavuot 15b, s.v. pega’im. 35 Midrash Psalms 91:4. 36 Pesikta deRav Kahana (ed. Braude) 1:5, p. 15; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 129, p. 424. 37 Num. Rab. 12:3. 38 Pesikta Rabbati (ed. Braude) 5:10, p. 112. According to Pesikta deRav Kahana (ed. Braude) 1:5, p. 15, this is the view of R. Eleazar, contra R. Joḥanan. Since the destruction of the Temple, the successor sanctuary to the Tabernacle, demons are again a threat. 39 Hamanhig, p. 191; Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat motz’ei Shabbat 4; Hamaḥhkim, p. 28; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 129, p. 424; Abudarham, 184; Tashbetz 257. According to Hamanhig and Abudarham, this teaching is taken from a midrash, but they do not cite their source, and it is not found in any known midrashic work. See the note by Yitzḥak Raphael on Hamanhig, p. 191, s.v. bemidrash.

324  · You Will Not Fear the Terror of Night all refer to the protection from demons offered by the recitation of vayehi no’am. 40 When veyehi no’am is recited on Saturday evening, it is customary to repeat the last verse, 91:16, a practice dating back to the time of the Geonim. The literature provides many interpretations of this practice, but one in particular relates to the concerns of this chapter. 41 As we have noted, R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen of Lunel transmits an explanation for the repetition of verse 16 based upon a rabbinic legend that Adam had abstained from sexual relations with Eve for a period of 130 years prior to the birth of Seth. 42 The Torah says that Seth was a son in his likeness after his image. 43A midrash states that during those 130 years Adam had relations with a variety of impure spirits who gave birth to offspring who were not “after his likeness,” i.e., demons. According to R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen, since Seth was born in the 130th year, Adam had separated himself from Eve for only 129 years. The 129 words of veyehi no’am, including the repetition of verse 16, thus correspond to the number of years in which the demons were born to Adam. Reciting veyehi no’am causes those spirits to depart. 44 This explanation for the repetition of the last verse of veyehi no’am does not appear again in Ashkenazic sources until the sixteenth century, when it is mentioned by R. Naftali Hertz Treves, R. Moses Mat, and R. Menaḥem Mendel Auerbach. All these authorities attribute this explanation not to Orḥot ḥayyim, but to Tzeror hamor, a commentary on the Torah by the fifteenth-century Spanish kabbalist, R. Abraham ben Jacob Saba. 45 40 Hamanhig, p. 191; Teshuvot Rabbenu Kalonymus, p. 127; Kol bo 29; Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat motz’ei Shabbat 4; Hamaḥkim, p. 28; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 129, pp. 424–25; Abudarham, 184; Tola’at Ya’akov sod motz’ei Shabbat 22, p. 29b. Kol bo 29 says that since it is the song of pega’im, God will save one who recites it from any pega ra (evil occurrence). On the protective powers of Ps 91 see also Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, 112–13; Commentary of R. Naftali Hertz Treves to the liturgy of motz’ei Shabbat in Siddur Thiengen 1560; Matteh Moshe 3:497; Kirchheim, p. 67 n. 4 (citing Matteh Moshe); Magen Avraham O.H. 231, s.v. vayehi no’am. 41 For a discussion of the reasons given for the repetition of Ps 91:16, see the excursus on pp. 308–13. 42 Eruvin 18b; Gen. Rab. 20:11; 24:6. See also Zohar bereishit I 54b–55a. 43 Gen 5:3. 44 Orḥot ḥayyim seder tefillat motz’ei Shabbat 4. 45 Commentary of R. Naftali Hertz Treves to the liturgy of motz’ei Shabbat in Siddur

Chapter 9 · 325

HASHKIVEINU Hashkiveinu is the fourth in the series of blessings attached to the shema in arvit. Unlike the three which precede it, hashkiveinu has no parallel in the morning service. It speaks of the night, and of the fears and dangers associated with the night. As is clear from the Mishnah, at first the evening shema was not recited as part of a formal service along with the amidah. Thus, different time frames were prescribed for each, and the amidah was held by many to be optional at night, for there had been no corresponding nighttime offering in the Temple. 46 The shema was probably recited in the late evening, shortly before bedtime. It therefore would have been appropriate to conclude the recitation of the shema at night with a prayer asking for divine protection, not only from the dangers of night, but from other dangers as well. 47

Different Eulogies for Shabbat and Weekdays One of the most unusual characteristics of hashkiveinu is its dual Thiengen 1560; Matteh Moshe IV:497; Ateret zekenim on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 295, s.v. ve’omrim veyehi no’am. See above, p. 68 n. 70, for another case where an interpretation first found in Orḥot ḥayyim is not cited again until the sixteenth century, where it is attributed to a kabbalistic source, in that case, the Zohar. 46 m. Berakhot 1:1, 3; 4:1; Berakhot 27b. See Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 87. 47 The primary theme of hashkiveinu is the fear of the dangers that come with night and with sleep. The other threats that are mentioned are only secondary. Thus, a version of hashkiveinu found in the Cairo genizah reads: ‫נשכבה בשלום ונקיצה בשלום ופחד‬ ‫בלילות אל ימשל בנו‬, “May we lie down in peace and awaken in peace, and may the fear of night not rule over us” (Mann, “Genizah Fragments,” 308). On hashkiveinu as an apotropaic response to the fears of night, see also Reuven Kimelman, “The Shema‘ Liturgy,” 35–36 n. 2. Some medieval commentators saw a redemptive theme in hashkiveinu, based upon the conclusion in the Talmud that hashkiveinu does not constitute an unwarranted interruption between the blessing of redemption that precedes it and the amidah that follows. Instead, it is to be considered a ge’ulah arikhta, “an extended blessing of redemption;” Berakhot 4b; Vitry seder tefillat arvit 2, pp. 151–52 (MS London and, with significant variants, MS New York 8092); Ha’eshkol (ed. Albeck), p. 24; Hamanhig, p. 134; Kol bo 28; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 51, p. 260; Abudarham, 260; Levush hatekhelet 236:2; Matteh Moshe 385, p. 141. Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson 51, p. 134, understood hashkiveinu as a prayer for messianic redemption, for “in the future [God] will redeem them and make them lie down in peace and arise again to [eternal] life.”

326  · You Will Not Fear the Terror of Night eulogy: on weekdays the eulogy is shomer amo yisrael la’ad, “who protects His people Israel forever,” while on Shabbat the eulogy is pores sukkat shalom aleinu ve’al kol amo yisrael ve’al yerushalayim, “who spreads the tabernacle of peace over us and over all of His people Israel, and over Jerusalem.” 48 The latter is introduced by uferos aleinu sukkat shelomekha, “and spread over us the tabernacle of Your peace.” Hashkiveinu’s dual eulogy is mentioned as early as the time of the Geonim. Seder Rav Amram quotes a responsum by R. Sar Shalom (mid-ninth century), a predecessor of R. Amram as gaon of the yeshivah of Sura: Also, Sar Shalom said: In the yeshivah and in Beit Rabbenu it is not customary to say shomer amo yisrael at ma’ariv on the eve of Shabbat and festivals, but instead of shomer amo yisrael we conclude pores sukkat shalom aleinu ve’al kol adat amo yisrael ve’al yerushalayim. And we do not say anything [i.e., any other prayers] after it, but we immediately recite kaddish. But in the rest of the synagogues and places they say shomer amo yisrael la’ad, and then veshamru benai yisrael 49 and conclude with a eulogy. 50 But barukh adonai le’olam is not recited, neither in any other yeshivah nor anywhere in Babylonia. 51 As was the case with vehu raḥum, Seder Rav Amram tells us what should be recited on weekdays and on Shabbat, but does not provide any explanation for the change from one day to the other. The custom of Sura described by R. Sar Shalom and R. Amram may 48 See Table I, 353. Several benedictions conclude with a special eulogy during the period between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, and there are parallel benedictions, each with its own distinct eulogy, for the first two benedictions of keriat shema in shaִharit and in arvit. But hashkiveinu is unique in having different eulogies for weekdays and Shabbat. 49 Exod 31:16–17. 50 On Shabbat, Exod 31:16–17 was recited instead of the series of verses beginning barukh adonai le’olam, which were recited on weekdays. Like barukh adonai le’olam, Exod 31:16–17 was concluded with a eulogy, hamolekh bikhevodo tamid hu yimlokh aleinu le’olam va’ed. See Hamanhig, p. 134; Tur O.H. 367; Ta-Shma, “Hapores,” 144–45. 51 Seder Rav Amram II:4, p. 63. See also I:91, p. 52 and II: 3, p. 62. This responsum was also quoted in Siddur Rashi 475, p. 240; Hapardes, p. 308; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 1, p. 169; Hamanhig, p. 135; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 65, p. 283; Matteh Moshe 4:425, pp. 157–58.

Chapter 9 · 327 represent a combination of what were originally distinct Babylonian and Palestinian traditions regarding the eulogy of hashkiveinu. Evidence from the Talmud of the Land of Israel and the Cairo genizah suggests that the eulogy prescribed by R. Sar Shalom for Shabbat, pores sukkat shalom, was of Palestinian origin, and that it was recited throughout the week by the Jews of the land of Israel. 52 Shomer amo yisrael, on the other hand, was the eulogy normally recited by the Jews of Babylonia, as can be seen from R. Sar Shalom’s responsum itself. In Sura it was decided to incorporate both traditions into the liturgy, with each eulogy designated for its own occasion. 53 As the tradition established in Sura came to be adopted by other Jewish communities, commentators and poskim struggled to understand why different forms of the eulogy were prescribed for Shabbat and for weekdays. The need for protection seems to be expressed much more clearly in the weekday eulogy. What, then, are the dangers from which divine protection is sought, and why does there seem to be less need for divine protection on Shabbat than on a week night?

The Fear of Demons and the Text of Hashkiveinu While the text of hashkiveinu suggests that protection is sought from an array of dangers, including death during sleep, enemies, drought, sword, famine, and sorrow, the consensus among the medieval commentators is that the danger of demons – who are abroad at night – is the primary concern of this prayer. R. Zedekiah ben Abraham Anav HaRofe cites an interpretation that suggests that hashkiveinu was instituted “because at night one sleeps in a dark place and cannot see, he needs [God’s] protection more than in the daytime.” 54 This 52 For a discussion of the versions of hashkiveinu found in the Cairo Genizah, see below, pp. 350–51. 53 Jacob Gartner, “Hapores sukkat shalom,” Sinai 44 (1983–84): 252–54; Ta-Shma, “Hapores,” 142–45. Centuries later shomer amo yisrael was still recited on Shabbat in Seville and in Toledo; Hamanhig, p. 134; Abudarham, 144; Tur O.H. 367. On the rather complicated situation in Spain with regard to the eulogies of hashkiveinu, see also Ta-Shma, “Hapores,” 145–48. 54 Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 51, p. 260. He also quotes a passage from the Talmud

328  · You Will Not Fear the Terror of Night interpretation probably should be understood to mean that at night one needs special protection from demons, who cannot be seen in the dark. Other sources are explicit in indicating concern about the danger of demons as the underlying theme of hashkiveinu. 55 We must ask then, whether the threat of demons is of greater or of lesser concern on Shabbat than on weekdays, and how the change in the eulogy of hashkiveinu reflects this difference. This issue also has implications for the recitation of other passages in hashkiveinu, as we shall see below. The idea that demons do not pose a danger on Shabbat is found already in Midrash Psalms, in a comment on the verse, A psalm, a song for the Sabbath day: 56 A psalm, a song for the Sabbath day – for the day on which the demons rest [sheshavtu] from the world, for the day on which His people dwells in peace, as it is written (Isa 32:18): Then My people shall dwell in peaceful houses, in secure dwellings, in untroubled places of rest. 57 Were this our only source relating to the activity, or lack thereof, of demons on Shabbat, the rationale for the recitation of uferos on Friday night would be clear: since there is no danger from demons, there is no need to ask God for protection. Rather, He is to be praised for extending the tabernacle of His peace over Israel. However, other of the Land of Israel, according to which the sages prescribed the recitation of hashkiveinu in the evening to take the place of the third paragraph of the shema, which was not recited at arvit in the land of Israel. Thus there would be seven passages in the shema and its blessings at arvit, just as there are at shaִharit. This would fulfill the verse (Ps 119:164): I praise You seven times each day. y. Beraḥot I:8 3c; Midrash Psalms 6:1. This passage is also quoted in Raviah 33, 196, 269; Sefer harokeaḥ 49; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, pp. 136–37. The text of this midrash in Midrash Psalms, which reflects traditions of the land of Israel, indicates that pores sukkat shalom and shomer amo yisrael are to be recited on Shabbat and on weekdays, respectively. However, this passage is not original to the midrash; it was inserted to make the midrash conform to later practice. See Gartner, “Hapores sukkat shalom,” 253; Ta-Shma, “Hapores,” 141–42. 55 Hapardes, p. 308; Siddur Solomon ben Samson 54, p. 138; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, pp. 134, 139–40; Abudarham, 140: Levush hatekhelet 236:2; Matteh Moshe 385, p. 141; 425, pp. 157–58. 56 Ps 92:1. 57 Midrash Psalms 92:5.

Chapter 9 · 329 sources suggest that not only are demons active on Shabbat, they pose an even greater danger on Friday night than on other nights of the week: R. Jose the son of R. Judah charged Rabbi [Judah the Prince] with regard to three things: Do not go out alone at night . . . for it was taught: One should not go out alone at night, i.e., neither on Wednesday nights nor on Shabbat, because Igrat the daughter of Maḥalat and 180,000 destroying angels go forth, and each has permission to wreak destruction independently. 58 Elsewhere we learn that one should not go out alone at night for fear of demons, but that when one carries a torch, it is as though two people had gone out together, and therefore there is no danger. This would explain why Wednesday nights do not present a special problem, for one can carry a torch on a week night. 59 However, it is forbidden to carry a torch on Shabbat. Why then, is there less concern about the danger of demons on Friday nights than on other nights, as suggested by the change in the eulogy of hashkiveinu? One possibility is that Israel is protected from the heightened dangers presented by demons on Friday night because it has accumulated merit through spending the day preparing for Shabbat, and later, in the observance of the mitzvot of Shabbat. An extension 58 Pesaḥim 112b. Igrat bat Maḥalat was the queen of the demons. According to a story on Pesaḥim 112b, Igrat bat Mahalat accosted R. Hanina ben Dosa, who was under divine protection. He ordered her never to pass through settled regions. She pleaded with him to leave a little opening for her to do so, and he left her Wednesday and Friday nights. I have not seen an explanation for his choice of these nights, but they are evenly spread through the week. The Zohar (II:205a) gives an explanation based on the word me’orot being spelled defectively in Gen 1:14. Light is a symbol for Shekhinah, so the light of Shekhinah is diminished on Wednesday night. This void is filled by demonic evil (Me’erah). But there is no hint of that in the talmudic sources. The danger posed by Igrat bat Maḥalat on Shabbat is mentioned in Siddur Solomon ben Samson 54, p. 138; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, pp. 139–40; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 65, pp. 283–84. On the danger from demons on Shabbat, see also the responsum of R. Natronai Gaon quoted in Seder Rav Amram II:4, p. 62; Siddur Rashi 475, p. 240. 59 Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 140.

330  · You Will Not Fear the Terror of Night of this idea is the notion that Shabbat itself protects those who remember and observe it. This idea is expressed in a parable related in Sefer hapardes: It can be compared to a king who was separated from his army and came to another nation which did not know of him. He was afraid and took his weapons with him, in order to defend himself from those who sought to kill him. But when he arrived [back] at his own forces, he put down his weapons, as if to say that he no longer needed to protect himself, for his assistants and officers would protect him. So too, [throughout the week] Israel is in fear because they are busy [working] and cannot fulfill the mitzvot, and because the weekdays do not have the merit that Shabbat has. [Therefore] they must pray that they will not be harmed by the demons and say shomer amo yisrael, and the prayer is like a weapon for them. But when Friday arrives, they are all busy preparing [themselves] in honor of Shabbat, [so that they might] properly rejoice on it and rest on it. And great is the merit of Shabbat, for it protects those who remember it. Therefore, they do not require protection, and it is sufficient for them to pray that peace be spread [over them]. 60 A similar idea is expressed in a different parable, related in Siddur Rashi: It can be compared to two men, each of whom had a servant. One of the servants sat and watched his flock, while the other built a shed and locked it up after [bringing in] his flock, as is proper. A wolf and then a lion came and preyed upon [the flock] of the one that had not locked them up, but the one who had built his shed and covered it 61 was not afraid of either the wolf or the lion. So too, on weekdays, since Israel is not occupied with fulfilling mitzvot, they must pray ushemor tzeteinu uvo’einu, but on Shabbat, when they are occupied with mitzvot and are forbidden 60 Sefer hapardes, p. 108; Kol bo 35; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 65, pp. 283–84; Matteh Moshe 4:425, pp. 157–58. 61 ‫זה שסיכך ובנה דירו‬.

Chapter 9 · 331 from lighting [torches], the Holy One assures them that they need not fear, for surrounding them are the mitzvot of Shabbat, as it is written, veshamru benai yisrael et hashabbat berit olam, “the people Israel shall observe Shabbat as an everlasting covenant,” 62 that is to say, a covenant was enacted with them that they will not be harmed, for I protect them, and this is between Me and them. 63 Kol bo adds that it is necessary to pray for protection during the week because everyone goes out to work and needs protection while on the way, but on Shabbat and on the festivals people remain close to home and do not need this higher level of protection. Therefore they say uferos sukkat shelomekha, etc., “that is, since we need only observe this holy day, spread the tabernacle of Your peace so that we will be able to observe it in peace and in wholeness.” 64 In contrast, the Siddur of R. Solomon ben Samson of Garmaise places special stress on the danger that threatens on Shabbat, which is even greater than that on weekdays. Here the eulogy pores sukkat shalom is seen not so much as an expression of gratitude to God for the protection offered by Shabbat, but as a fervent prayer for protection: 62 This is a paraphrase of Exod 31:16–17. 63 Siddur Rashi 476, pp. 240–41; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 1, p. 170. The end of the passage in Siddur Rashi is deficient and was restored according to the version in Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, p. 140. Vitry has a more elaborate conclusion: “So too, on weekdays, when one walks in filthy alleys or to the privy and is afraid of demons who have permission on Wednesday nights and Friday nights to cause damage, he brings someone else with him, or he carries a torch in his hand, so that they will not harm him. Therefore it is necessary to pray ‘guard our going and coming . . . who guards His people Israel.’ But on Shabbat, even though [the demons] are permitted to cause damage, the observance of Shabbat protects them. Because of the merit of their being occupied with fulfilling a mitzvah and of their observing Shabbat, on which they are prohibited from kindling or transferring a fire, or from doing any manner of labor, they have no need for a torch or any kind of protection, for the Holy One has assured them that they need not fear, for the mitzvah of Shabbat shelters them and they have no need of anything else.” For a discussion of these parables, both in terms of their context in the works of the School of Rashi and their relationship to the Jewish mystical tradition, especially Sefer habahir, see Ta-Shma, “Hapores,” 151–56; Kanarfogel, Peering through the Lattices, 153 n. 54. The author, date, and provenance of Habahir are not known for certain; Philip S. Alexander, “Mysticism,” in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, ed. Martin Goodman (Oxford, 2002), 712–14. 64 Kol bo 35.

332  · You Will Not Fear the Terror of Night On the eve of Shabbat one says pores sukkat shalom aleinu, for Igrat bat Maḥalat goes out on Friday nights and on Saturday nights [sic], and if one must go out alone he cannot take a torch in his hand. Therefore they enacted the prayer pores sukkat shalom, [asking that God] spread His peace over us so that we will not be harmed. 65 R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms, on the other hand, writes that “there is no need for protection on Shabbat, for man is protected by the merit of Shabbat,” 66 or “there is no need for protection on Shabbat, for the Holy One Blessed be He protects Israel by means of Shabbat.” 67 He illustrates his point through a parable that is similar to that found in Siddur Rashi, but with a crucial difference: It can be compared to a king who had a shepherd guarding his sheep. Every day the shepherd would be in the field with his sheep, and he would remain awake at night in order to guard the sheep. But one night every week he would gather his sheep and bring them home to their shed, and he would sleep. Thus, throughout the days of the week the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps, 68 for this person goes out to the field and that one goes out to his labor. But on Shabbat, everyone returns home and there is no need for guarding, but [He] spreads out His tabernacle of peace. 69 According to the parable in Siddur Rashi, demons are a cause for concern on Friday night. It is only because Israel has spent the day fulfilling mitzvot in preparation for Shabbat, and because Israel is now observing Shabbat itself, that it cannot be harmed by the demons. But the parable in Siddur harokeaḥ implies that Israel has nothing to worry about on Friday night because Shabbat itself offers protection, regardless of Israel’s observance of the mitzvot of Shabbat. 65 Siddur R. Solomon ben Samson, p. 138. 66 ‫ ;כי בזכות השבת אדם נשמר‬Siddur harokeaḥ 81, pp. 458, 460. 67 ‫ שהקדוש ברוך הוא שומר ישראל על ידי השבת‬,‫ ;שהשבת אין צריך שמירה‬ibid., p. 472. 68 Ps 121:4. 69 Siddur harokeaḥ 81, p. 473.

Chapter 9 · 333 The commentary in Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz illustrates the sometimes unarticulated tension between these two approaches. On the one hand, it says that Shabbat itself protects Israel from the demons, but almost immediately after this we read that “therefore one must say uferos aleinu etc. on account of Lilith and Igrat bat Maḥalat, who regularly go out on the nights of Shabbat and festivals [sic].” This suggests the opposite of what was stated before, i.e., it is the recitation of uferos, or at least God’s response to Israel’s prayer, that offers protection from the demons on Friday night. 70 All these sources follow in the tradition of the Babylonian Talmud, according to which the threat of demons is even greater on Friday night than on the other nights of the week. Israel is protected from this danger by the merit that accrues through its observance of Shabbat, or, according to some, by the merit and power of Shabbat itself. Because Israel is protected from the dangers posed by demons on Shabbat, there is no need to pray for protection. Instead, it can offer the praise of God as the one who spreads His tabernacle of peace over Israel. But we have also seen that there is another tradition, one preserved in Midrash Psalms, according to which the demons desist from causing harm on Shabbat. It is this tradition that found expression in the kabbalistic tradition of the Zohar and in the pseudoepigraphical writings of R. Moses de Leon. The Zohar describes it in this way: Come and see: When the day is hallowed at the entrance of Sabbath, a canopy of peace hovers, spreading over the world. Who is the Canopy of Peace? Shabbat, when all spirits, whirlwinds, demons, and the entire dimension of impurity are hidden away within the eye of the millstone of the chasm of the immense abyss. For as soon as holiness arouses over the world, the spirit of impurity cannot arouse; one flees the other. Then the world enjoys supernal shelter, and we need not pray for protection, for example: “who guards His people Israel forever.” This has been 70 Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, pp. 139–40.

334  · You Will Not Fear the Terror of Night prescribed for weekdays, when the world does need protection, but on Shabbat a canopy of peace spreads over the world, which is sheltered on every side. Even the wicked in Hell are protected; all bask in peace, those above and those below. So in hallowing the day, we bless: “[He] who spreads a canopy of peace over us, over His entire people Israel, and over Jerusalem.” 71 R. de Leon seems to draw on the Palestinian tradition of Midrash Psalms. Yet, it is clear that he was familiar with the teachings expressed in the writings of the School of Rashi. In the responsum falsely attributed to Rav Hai Gaon published in Sha’arei teshuvah, de Leon states that just as one should not recite vehu raḥum on Shabbat, so too one should not recite the eulogy shomer et amo yisrael. In support, he cites a parable, or at least the opening words of a parable, which he assumed would be familiar to his readers: “It can be compared to a shepherd, and so forth.” He continues: Thus, throughout the week, when the spirits have charge over the world, one must say shomer amo yisrael, for how many are the accusers of Israel every day! But when Shabbat enters, they all leave their places and God alone is exalted, and behold, the sheep are protected under the tabernacle of peace. Therefore one must say hapores sukkat shalom aleinu ve’al amo yisrael ve’al yerushalayim, and this is the custom. 72 He also expressed his awareness of the tension between this view and that of the Babylonian Talmud, which became the basis for the teachings of the School of Rashi regarding the eulogy of hashkiveinu: Now, you might say, “But we have learned that a person should not go out alone on the eve of Wednesday or on the eve of Sabbath and one must be on guard. And yet we just said that on 71 Zohar bereishit I:48a. See also Zohar terumah II:130a–b; Menaḥem ben Benjamin of Recanti, Peirush latorah vayera 26a. The translation is that of Daniel Matt, The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, 1:152. See also Hallamish, Hakabbalah batefillah, 320 and n. 215. 72 Teshuvot haGeonim sha’arei teshuvah 80; see also Teshuvot min hashamayim 74; and p. 60 n. 45 above. See also p. 331 n. 63. This kabbalistic interpretation of hashkiveinu is also reflected in the prayer book commentary of R. Isaiah Horowitz, Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (1717), p. 163b.

Chapter 9 · 335 Sabbath eve people are protected from all accusers of the world and need not pray for protection!” Come and see: Certainly so! On the eve of Wednesday we must beware of them. Why? Because it is written . . . On Sabbath eve, since they all scatter to enter the cavern of dust, unable to rule, a solitary person should beware. Furthermore, although they have no power, they sometimes appear, and a solitary person must beware. This is how we have learned the matter; yet if so, the protection is defective! However, on Sabbath there is protection for the Holy People, and as Sabbath enters, the blessed Holy One crowns everyone of Israel, and they should preserve the holy crown with which they are adorned. Although [demons] do not frequent inhabited places, sometimes they appear to a solitary person and his good fortune turns bad. A person must be adorned with the holy crown and guard it! In any case, there is protection on that night for the Holy People, since the canopy of peace is spread over the world. . . .  73 This distinction, between the complete safety experienced by Israel on Shabbat and the danger that still threatens an individual who goes out alone on the night of Shabbat, also has its roots in Ashkenaz. As Israel Ta-Shma has shown, this distinction is already apparent in the additions made by the School of Rashi to R. Natronai Gaon’s responsum on the recitation of yir’u eineinu on Shabbat, as it appears in Sefer hapardes. 74 A somewhat different approach to this problem is suggested by R. Joshua Falk, in his commentary to the Tur. He suggests that no special protection is necessary on Shabbat in the city, but in the countryside there still exists the danger of demons. Thus, on Friday night there is no need to seek divine protection; it is sufficient that one protect oneself by avoiding those open places inhabited by mazikin. 75 We have seen that prayer book commentators and poskim 73 Zohar vayakhel II:205a. 74 Hapardes, pp. 307–8; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 65, pp. 283–84; Ta-Shma, “Hapores,” 149–56. 75 R. Joshua Falk, Derishah on Tur O.H. 267, s.v. vesiyyum devarav.

336  · You Will Not Fear the Terror of Night explained the change in the eulogy of hashkiveinu from weekday to Shabbat as reflecting the relative danger from demons on those days. But the various approaches to this issue that I have examined have more than mere explanatory power; they have implications for the wording of hashkiveinu that go far beyond whether to conclude the benediction with shomer or pores.

The Controversy over the Inclusion of Ushemor Tzeiteinu on Shabbat There is a liturgical rule according to which the phrase immediately preceding the eulogy of a benediction must anticipate the content of the eulogy. 76 This rule explains why the phrase uferos aleinu sukkat shelomekha is added at the conclusion of hashkiveinu on Shabbat, when the eulogy is hapores sukkat shalom aleinu. In most siddurim, this phrase is recited after ushemor tzeiteinu uvo’einu leḥaim uleshalom mei’attah ve’ad olam, which serves as the concluding phrase on weekdays. Some authorities rule that ushemor tzeiteinu should be omitted on Shabbat, for its function in hashkiveinu is to serve as a transition to the eulogy, and it is not needed for that purpose on Shabbat. 77 The issue in this case, however, is not merely a formal one, for one might also argue that ushemor tzeiteinu should be omitted on Shabbat for the same reason that the eulogy itself is changed; that is, it is not necessary to pray for protection on Shabbat because demons do not pose a danger on Shabbat. 78 And indeed, while not always providing a reason for their rulings, many authorities rule that ushemor tzeiteinu should be omitted on Shabbat. 79 R. Isaiah Horowitz goes 76 Pesaḥim 104a. 77 See Table J (B), 354; Hamanhig, p. 136; Tur O.H. 267 (quoting Hamanhig); Siddur Shabbetai Sofer hakdamah peratit 19, p. 87; Bayit ḥadash on Tur O.H. 267, s.v. ve’ein lomar; Turei zahav on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 267:3, s.v. eino ḥotem shomer. See also Levush haḥur 267:2. 78 Kol bo 35; Zohar terumah II:130a; Abudarham, 144; Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (1717), 163b. 79 Hamanhig, p. 136; Vitry hilkhot Shabbat 1, p. 169; seder Shabbat 1, p. 262; Tur O.H. 267 (quoting Hamanhig); Abudarham, 144; Tyrnau, p. 19; Shulḥan arukh O.H. 267:3; Siddur Shabbetai Sofer hakdamah haperatit 19, p. 87, p. 280; Reif, Shabbethai Sofer, p. 127; Bayit ḥadash on Tur O.H. 267; Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (1717) 163b; Turei zahav on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 267:3, s.v. eino ḥotem shomer. Isaac Tyrnau’s position is not quite clear. In prescribing the order of the service for Friday night, he wrote: ‫[השכיבנו] עד ושמור‬

Chapter 9 · 337 even further, and holds that for this reason everything from vehaser mei’aleinu through ushemor tzeiteinu should be omitted. 80 Others include vehagen ba’adeinu . . . vehaser mei’aleinu, perhaps because the specific dangers mentioned in this passage may be present even on Shabbat, but omit both of the concluding passages, ki [el] shomreinu and ushemor tzeiteinu, perhaps because the verb ṣ-m-r (guard) appears in both of them. 81 Yet, while many authorities rule that ki el shomreinu and especially ushemor tzeiteinu should be omitted on Shabbat, the general practice was to include both of these clauses. Ushemor tzeiteinu is found in all the siddurim in our sample, and only the words ki el shomreinu, and not the entire clause in which it appears, are omitted in Siddur Thiengen 1560. The result is a phrase that makes little sense, and it seems as though the printer must have misunderstood what to include. 82 The problem is illustrated most clearly in the case of ushemor tzeiteinu. Although many of the most influential poskim – from Rabbis Abraham bar Nathan of Lunel in the twelfth century through Isaiah Horowitz and Joel Sirkes in the seventeenth century – argued for the omission of this phrase, it was included in all the printed siddurim in our sample. In addition, R. Mordecai Jaffe, R. Joel Sirkes, and R. David ben Samuel Halevi all attest that it was customary in their time (and place) to recite it. 83 ‫אז אומרים ופרוס עלינו וכו׳ עד ירושלים‬. Shabbetai Sofer interpreted this to mean that ushemor tzeiteinu is included, while R. Joel Sirkes understands it to mean that it is to be omitted. 80 See Table J (D), 354. Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (1717), 163b. But this passage is included in the text of his siddur. The Sephardic rite omits the entire clause, from vehagen ba’adenu. See Abudarham, 144; Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, p. 93. 81 See Table J (C), 354. Hamanhig, p. 136, ruling on what he considers to be the proper practice according to the custom of French/Provençal Jewry; Tur O.H. 267; Shulḥan arukh O.H. 267:3; Siddur Shabbetai Sofer hakdamah peratit 19, p. 87; p. 280 (ed. S. Reif, 127); Bayit ḥadash on Tur 267, s.v. ve’ein lomar. The words ‫ ואין לומר כי שומרנו וכו׳‬are missing from the text of Hamanhig and from some editions of the Tur, but it is clear from the context that these authorities were of the opinion the ki shomreinu is to be omitted on Shabbat. See Derishah, s.v. ve’ein lomar, Bayit ḥadash on Tur O.H. 267, s.v. ve’ein lomar; and Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 267:3, s.v. keivan shehigia. 82 ‫ובצל כנפיך תסתירנו ומצילנו אתה‬, “Hide us in the shadow of Your wings, and You are the one who saves us.” 83 Levush haḥur O.H. 267:2; Bayit ḥadash on Tur O.H. 267, s.v. ve’ein lomar; Turei zahav on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 267:3, s.v. eino ḥotem shomer.

338  · You Will Not Fear the Terror of Night How, then, are we to explain the inclusion of ushemor tzeiteinu in the siddurim and in the liturgical practice of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Ashkenaz? While it is true that many authorities called for its omission, the only early Ashkenazic authority to do so explicitly was R. Simḥah of Vitry. 84 Sefer Hamanhig, and later the Tur, both state what they believe to be the correct Ashkenazic practice, but they are representatives of the Sephardic tradition. And from their comments on this issue it is unclear whether they were being purely prescriptive or whether they were describing an actual Ashkenazic practice with which they were familiar. 85 Other influential Sephardic authorities who omit ushemor tzeiteinu include R. David Abudarham and R. Joseph Caro. 86 R. Moses Isserles, the sixteenth-century Polish authority whose glosses on the Shulḥan arukh often indicate where Ashkenazic custom differs from that prescribed in the Shulḥan arukh, is silent on this matter, as is his Darkhei Moshe. One might conclude from this that both he and Polish/Ashkenazic practice were in accord with the ruling of the Shulḥan arukh. 87 But if indeed this was the practice of Polish/Ashkenazic Jewry, why is this tradition not reflected in the siddurim? 88 On the other hand, R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms ruled explicitly that one should recite ushemor tzeiteinu on Shabbat! 89

84 Vitry seder Shabbat 1, p. 262. For Maִhzor Vitry’s text of hashkiveinu, see seder tefillat arvit 2, p. 153. Vitry seems to have a slightly different version of the responsum of R. Sar Shalom Gaon from that of others who quote it. While the other sources have ‫תחת‬ ‫שומר עמו ישראל חותמין פורס סוכת שלום וכו׳‬, or something to that effect, Vitry reads, ‫חותמין‬ ‫במקום ושמור צאתנו ופרוס עלינו סוכת שלמך וכו׳‬. 85 Hamanhig, p. 136; Tur O.H. 267. Hamanhig states: ‫ומנהג צרפת פרובינצ׳ שחותמ׳ בפורש סוכת‬ ‫שלו׳ וראוי לומר כך וכו׳‬. 86 Abudarham, 144; Shulḥan Arukh O.H. 267:3. 87 This is indeed the conclusion drawn by R. Shabbetai Sofer; Siddur Shabbetai Sofer hakdamah peratit 19, p. 87. 88 For a discussion of this issue, see below, pp. 341–42. 89 Siddur harokeaḥ 82, p. 472. But R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms is the only authority to omit uferos aleinu sukkat shelomekha immediately prior to the eulogy. In this he was said to have followed R. Judah Heḥasid, who objected to it on the grounds that the phrase uferos aleinu had already been recited earlier in the blessing; Sodot hatefillah in Siddur harokeaḥ 82, p. 462.

Chapter 9 · 339

Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-century Authorities on Ushemor Tzeiteinu In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, R. Mordecai Jaffe, R. David ben Samuel Halevi, and R. Abraham Gombiner all sought to justify the inclusion of ushemor tzeiteinu despite the rulings of the Tur and the Shulḥan arukh, which call for its omission. 90 R. Mordecai Jaffe suggests that the primary objection to the recitation of ushemor tzeiteinu on Shabbat is that it serves as a transition to the eulogy for weekdays, shomer amo yisrael, and therefore serves no purpose on Shabbat when the eulogy is hapores. He rejects this concern, arguing that while the eulogy should include only those themes that reflect the central concern of the blessing, the body of the blessing is not thus restricted. Furthermore, even though Shabbat offers protection from demons, they are present on Shabbat even more than on weekdays. Therefore, while the eulogy of the blessing should not express a need for divine protection from demons, because Shabbat provides protection, it is appropriate to include ushemor tzeiteinu. This explanation is cited by R. David ben Samuel Halevi, who rejects it as inadequate. He bases his justification for including ushemor tzeiteinu on the comment in the Tur that “it is customary to recite the verse veshamru benai yisrael et hashabbat 91 to indicate that if they observe (yishmeru) Shabbat they do not require protection (shemirah).” 92 R. David ben Samuel interprets this comment to mean that if Israel observes Shabbat properly, in all of its details, Shabbat will protect them. However, he writes, “we know that we are not under the presumption of being among those who observe properly, and therefore we must pray for protection.” 93 Rabbi Abraham Gombiner also attempts to justify the inclusion of ushemor tzeiteinu on Shabbat. He cites a comment from the kabbalistic commentary of R. Menaḥem ben Benjamin of Recanti that 90 Levush haḥur O.H. 267:2; Turei zahav on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 267:3, s.v. eino ḥotem shomer; Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh 267:3, s.v. keivan shehigia. 91 Exod 31:16. 92 Tur O.H. 267. 93 Turei zahav on Shulḥan arukh O.H. 267:3, s.v. eino ḥotem shomer.

340  · You Will Not Fear the Terror of Night appears to support the recitation of ushemor tzeiteinu. However, in the end he relies on the Zohar’s distinction between the protection that Shabbat provides to the Jewish people as a whole, and the danger that still threatens an individual out alone on a Friday night. Since Shabbat offers protection to the people Israel, we replace shomer amo yisrael with pores, but since individuals still need protection from demons, it is proper to say ushemor. 94 It seems that although R. Mordecai Jaffe, R. David ben Samuel Halevi, and R. Abraham Gombiner rule in favor of the recitation of ushemor tzeiteinu on Shabbat, their primary concern is to justify the almost universal practice in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Ashkenaz of including its recitation in spite of the negative rulings of the Tur, the Shulḥan arukh, and more. Rabbi Joel Sirkes also takes note of the discrepancy between the halakhah codified in the sources and the contemporary practice, but he does not try to justify contemporary practice. Indeed, he holds that the halakhah is that ushemor tzeiteinu should be omitted, which also was the practice of earlier generations. How, then, to explain contemporary practice? Rabbi Sirkes places the blame squarely on the shoulders of the ḥazzanim: My heart tells me that this matter, and others like it, have come upon us on account of unworthy sheliḥei tzibbur who have been accepted in all of the communities because they sing for them with pleasant voices, even though they are not experts and do not know the laws of prayer. And the wealthy have exercised their power over that of the contemporary sages in this matter, as well. 95 He argues for the restoration of the earlier, correct practice as codified in the Shulḥan arukh, and indicates that there are a few able and knowledgeable ḥazzanim who have already begun to do so. R. Shabbetai Sofer, in the introduction to his prayer book, argues strongly in favor of the omission of ki el shomreinu and ushemor tzeiteinu. Citing all the early authorities who had ruled in this way, he rejects the arguments presented by R. Mordecai Jaffe as idiosyncratic 94 Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh 267:3, s.v. keivan shehigia. 95 Bayit ḥadash on Tur O.H. 267, s.v. ve’ein lomar.

Chapter 9 · 341 and self-contradictory. He also rejects R. Jaffe’s argument, which held that since it had become customary for the people to recite these phrases, this practice should be upheld. R. Shabbetai Sofer argues instead that the popular practice is due to the people’s ignorance. “They are accustomed to doing this because the teachings of the above-mentioned authorities (Geonim) had not been revealed to the masses of the people of Israel at the beginning, when this blessing was enacted, and [as a result] they do not distinguish between the holy [Shabbat] and the profane [weekday].” 96

The Problem of Complexity and the Influence of Printing on the Text of Hashkiveinu While unworthy ḥazzanim may have been partly responsible for the failure of most of Ashkenazic Jewry to follow the rulings of the poskim who called for the omission of ki el shomreinu, ushemor tzeiteinu, and other phrases 97 on Shabbat, perhaps the real explanation lies more in the complex nature of the changes that were prescribed. While it is expected that most Jews could learn to vary the text of the standard blessing by reciting a different eulogy on Shabbat, and even by adding a brief transitional clause immediately before the eulogy, it is too much to expect that they would be able to remember to omit one or more of the clauses that appear earlier in the prayer as well. Prior to the introduction of printing, most Jews prayed from memory, for the high cost of a manuscript siddur would have put it beyond the means of the ordinary Jew. When praying in the synagogue, they could have followed along with the sheliaḥ tzibbur, who would have led the prayers using a manuscript siddur belonging to the community. But scribes and printers alike sought to simplify their work as much as possible. Of the twenty-four siddurim in our sample, only eight print the arvit service for Shabbat and for weekdays in separate sections. In the vast majority of these siddurim, arvit is printed only once, and instructions are provided as to what 96 Siddur Shabbetai Sofer hakdamah peratit 19, p. 87. 97 Halakhic authorities and siddur commentaries propose additional omissions on Shabbat. See Table J below, p. 354.

342  · You Will Not Fear the Terror of Night should be omitted and what should be added on Shabbat. 98 Again, it is a rather simple matter to indicate that on Shabbat one should conclude hashkiveinu with uferos aleinu . . . pores sukkat and so forth. It would have been much more difficult to indicate clearly that some passages in the body of the blessing are to be eliminated as well. Even where commentaries that appear alongside the prayer texts call for the omission of one of the phrases in question, printers tended to print the familiar texts and not those prescribed by the commentaries. 99 Furthermore, even after the introduction of printing, many Jews continued to pray from memory, and the complexity of the prescribed changes made it difficult for them to recite the prayers correctly. Instead, people recited the same text of hashkiveinu on Shabbat as they did on weekdays, changing only the eulogy and introducing it with uferos. Some poskim, for example, Rabbis Joel Sirkes and Shabbetai Sofer, protested this practice, while others accommodated themselves to it and even sought grounds to justify it. 100

Summary Hashkiveinu is, in its essence, a prayer for divine protection through 98 Arvit for weekdays and Shabbat are combined in Siddur Prague 16th century; Siddur Trino 1525; Siddur Prague 1557; Siddur Thiengen 1560; Siddur Mantua 1562; Siddur Venice 1599a; Siddur Venice 1599b; Siddur Hanau 1628; Siddur Prague 1635; Siddur Verona 1648; Siddur Venice 1662; Siddur Venice 1664; Siddur Venice 1682; Siddur Frankfurt on Main 1697; Siddur Amsterdam 1699; and Siddur Dessau 1700. 99 Compare, for example, the commentary of R. Naftali Hertz Treves and Siddur Theingen 1560 on hashkiveinu, or the text of Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (1717) with R. Isaiah Horowitz’s commentary. 100 A difficulty with this explanation is that a survey of Sephardic prayer books available at the Jewish National Library website indicates that the only changes in the text of hashkiveinu for Shabbat in early manuscripts and printed siddurim are the addition of the concluding passage uferos and the use of Shabbat eulogy. However, this changed in the mid-seventeenth century. Sephardic siddurim dating from the mid-seventeenth century omit everything from vehaser mei’aleinu until uferos aleinu (see Table I [D]). Thus, Sephardim seem to have implemented the rulings that these phrases be omitted on Shabbat, while Ashkenazim did not. For early siddurim, see MS Nimes 0013; MS Paris 592; Lisbon 1490; Venice 1524, and 1552. For later siddurim, see Amsterdam 1648; Amsterdam 1661; Amsterdam 1709; Amsterdam 1740. For a contemporary siddur that omits these passages, see Seder Hatefillot According to the Custom of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews, ed. David de Sola Pool, 66. See also the contemporary Moroccan siddur, Siddur darkhei avot hashalem, 231–32.

Chapter 9 · 343 the night: “Cause us, O Lord our God, to lie down in peace, and awaken us, our king, to life.” This theme is then expanded with a petition that God protect us from a host of other dangers, including enemies, drought, war, famine, and sorrow. However, by the twelfth century, this blessing came to be understood as an appeal for protection from the threat posed by demons thought to be abroad at night. 101 This perception had implications for the wording of hashkiveinu recited on a Friday night since demons do not pose a threat on Shabbat, or – as others expressed it – Shabbat itself protects those who observe it. Thus, there is no need to ask God to protect us from demons on Shabbat; rather we praise God for spreading the tabernacle of His peace over us. While many halakhic authorities, both early and late, rule that passages interpreted as seeking protection from demons be omitted on Shabbat, the prevalent custom, as reflected in the printed siddurim in our sample, was to retain them, changing only the eulogy and the passage which introduces it. Some sixteenth- and seventeenth-century authorities continued to oppose the inclusion of these passages, while others sought to justify, or at least to explain, their inclusion. How did a prayer that essentially requests that we awaken to life in the morning come to be understood as a prayer for protection against demons? On a literal level, this understanding derives from the clause that asks God to “remove ‘Satan’ from before us and from behind us.” Satan, used here without the definite article, can easily be understood as a demon or as a reference to demons in general. The balance of the blessing, “for You are a God who guards us and saves us . . . Guard our going and our coming to life and to peace . . . ” can be understood in its entirety as a continuation of the plea for protection from the danger posed by Satan or by demons. As we have seen, some argued that all these clauses should be omitted on Shabbat, when demons are not a threat. 101 This understanding of hashkiveinu appears already in works of the school of Rashi, including Siddur Rashi and Sefer hapardes, as well as in the siddur commentary attributed to R. Solomon ben Samson. It is mentioned in many thirteenth-century sources, including Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, Siddur harokeaḥ, Shibbolei haleket, and the Zohar.

344  · You Will Not Fear the Terror of Night

CONCLUSION The threat posed by demons was thought to persist throughout the night. Why then, were these concerns concentrated so intensely in the interpretations of the prayers and rituals of arvit, a service that is recited at the very beginning of the night? One possibility is that people were far more likely to be out during the early evening hours. Therefore, fear of demons would be experienced more acutely at that time. However, it is possible that the fear of demons reported by our sources is expressive of a deeper concern. Drawing on the studies of cultural anthropologists, including Arnold van Gennup, 102 Victor Turner, 103 and Mary Douglas, 104 Neil Gillman and Lawrence Hoffman 105 have written about the role of ritual and religious myth in structuring reality, enabling us “to create a sense of cosmos or order in our lives.” 106 According to Gillman: Rituals reflect the myth by almost invariably focusing on the interface between two structures, either two inherent structures or two structures that the myth wants to highlight. Wherever we find a ritual, we almost always find a structural distinction. The operative metaphor seems to be that of a “threshold,” that is, the point where two structures meet. The ritual illuminates the threshold between these two structures, guides us from one structure into the other, and in so doing, brings the structural distinction into our awareness.” 107 Hoffman focuses on the idea that “the recognition of the movement from one of the two basic categorical realms to the other is

102 Arnold van Gennup, The Rites of Passage (Chicago, 1960). 103 Victor Turner, A Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual (Ithaca, NY, 1967); idem, The Ritual Process (Baltimore, 1969). 104 Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978). 105 Neil Gillman, Sacred Fragments: Recovering Theology for the Modern Jew (Philadelphia, 1990), 230–36; Lawrence A. Hoffman, “Havdalah: A Case of Categories,” Beyond the Text: A Holistic Approach to Liturgy (Bloomington, 1987), 41–45. 106 Gillman, Sacred Fragments, 230. 107 Gillman, Sacred Fragments, 232.

Chapter 9 · 345 commonly accompanied by the perception of a certain danger.” 108 While Gillman and Hoffman focus on the role of ritual in marking the boundaries between categories of time and space, especially the boundaries between the sacred and the profane, the idea that moments of transition are perceived as threatening or dangerous applies to transitions between natural categories, such as day and night, as well. We tend to experience our fear of the night most intensely precisely when the day passes into night, as we anticipate what lies ahead. Thus, our understanding that the prayers that we recite and the rituals that we enact at that time protect us from these dangers enables us to cope more effectively with those fears.

108 Hoffman, Beyond the Text, 42.

Excursus

Other Textual Issues in Hashkiveinu The halakhic sources, siddurim, and prayerbook commentaries of Ashkenaz show considerable variation in the text of this blessing; there are more textual variants for hashkiveinu than for any of the other blessings in the arvit service. Some of the variants discussed by the commentators and poskim are rarely, if ever, found in the siddurim in our sample, while some of the variants that do appear in the siddurim received little, if any, attention on the part of the poskim and commentators. And while some of these variants appear to be rather insignificant, perhaps reflecting differences in local custom or different manuscript traditions, others are the subject of much discussion, and may have something to teach us about the development and transmission of liturgical traditions in Ashkenaz. The following textual variants appear in Ashkenazic siddurim printed during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, or are mentioned in the works of Ashkenazic poskim and commentators of this period: 1. The phrase vehoshi’einu lema’an shemekha is omitted. Of the twenty-four siddurim in our sample, eleven lack the phrase vehoshi’einu lema’an shemekha, “save us for Your name’s sake.” 109 While this phrase appears in Seder Rav Amram and in Maḥzor Vitry, 110 it is omitted in the prayerbook commentaries of R. Eleazar

109 Prague 16th century; Venice 1545; Prague 1557; Venice 1579; Prague 1635; Amsterdam 1649; Amsterdam 1664; Amsterdam 1681; Prague 1688; Dyhernfurth 1690; Dessau 1700. 110 Seder Rav Amram I:91, p. 52; Vitry seder tefillat arvit 1, p. 153. This phrase is missing in

346

Excursus · 347 ben Judah of Worms and of R. Naftali Hertz Treves. 111 But it is not the subject of discussion by the poskim or by the commentators. They offer no explanations as to the meaning of its inclusion or exclusion, and appear to have attached little significance to this question. 2. The word oyev, “enemy,” is omitted. According to several authorities, the word oyev should not be included in the list of dangers from which protection is sought. It is missing from the text of hashkiveinu printed in Seder Rav Amram and in the prayerbook commentaries of R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms and of R. Shabbetai Sofer. 112 R. Solomon Luria writes that his maternal grandfather, R. Isaac Klober, omitted oyev for he felt that “enemy” was already included in the category of “sword.” 113 R. Shabbetai Sofer cites both R. Solomon Luria’s ruling and the absence of the word oyev in many old siddur manuscripts in support of its omission. Stefan C. Reif, noting the weakness of Luria’s explanation, suggests that the absence of oyev may actually be the result of censorship, or of self-censorship on the part of the scribes and editors of these prayerbooks. 114 Yet, despite its absence in the text of Seder Rav Amram, in the commentaries of R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms and R. Shabbetai Sofer, and in the ruling of R. Solomon Luria, the word oyev appears in all the siddurim in our sample. 3. The word el, “God,” is omitted from two phrases: ki el shomreinu umatzileinu attah and ki el melekh ḥannun veraḥum attah. Several sources omit the word el from one or both of the phrases ki el shomreinu umatzileinu attah 115 and ki el melekh ḥanun veraḥum only one of the manuscripts of Seder Rav Amram utilized by D. Goldschmidt in his edition of this work. 111 Siddur harokeaḥ 81, p. 458; Commentary of R. Naftali Hertz Treves in Siddur Thiengen 1560. 112 Seder Rav Amram I:91, p. 52; Siddur harokeaḥ 81, p. 458; Siddur Shabbetai Sofer, p. 280. 113 R. Solomon Luria, She’eilot uteshuvot Maharshal hashalem (Jerusalem, 1969), 64. 114 Reif, Shabbethai Sofer, 127 n.104. Christian censors may have regarded the term “enemy” as a reference to Christendom. 115 For You (are a God who) guards us and saves us.

348  ·  Other Textual Issues in Hashkiveinu attah. 116 The first el is omitted in Seder Rav Amram, in Sefer Abudarham, and in the early prayerbook commentaries of R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms and Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, and in three of the siddurim in our sample. 117 It is included in Maḥzor Vitry and in the Tur. 118 In the sixteenth century, R. Naftali Hertz Treves, following the view of R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms, writes that the first el should be omitted. It is missing in Siddur Venice 1545 and in Siddur Venice 1549; however, with one exception, Siddur Amsterdam 1649, it appears in all the siddurim in our sample printed after 1550. The second el is absent from only one of our siddurim, and it is not discussed in the commentaries or halakhic works. It is interesting to note that the one siddur that omits “el” in the second passage includes it in the first passage. 119 4. In addition, one siddur in our sample has veha’amideinu malkeinu leḥayyim uleshalom, and concludes shomer amo yisrael la’ad amen. Both of these variants show the influence of the Sephardic tradition on that siddur. 120

Word Count and the Text of Hashkiveinu How are we to explain the inclusion or absence of vehoshi’einu lema’an shemekha, oyev, and one or both occurrences of the word el in the rulings of the commentators and in the siddurim themselves? With the exception of R. Solomon Luria’s explanation of the omission of oyev, none of these cases was explained by the commentators. But taken together, they must be considered in the light of a comment by R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms that the version of hashkiveinu 116 For You (are a God who) is a gracious and merciful king. 117 Seder Rav Amram I:91, p. 52; Abudarham, 140; Siddur harokeaḥ 81, p. 458; Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, 134; Siddur Venice 1545; Siddur Venice 1549; Siddur Amsterdam 1649. 118 Vitry seder tefillat arvit 1, p. 153; Tur O.H. 267 end. 119 Venice 1579. Note too that while R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms omits the first “el,” he includes the second el; Siddur harokeaḥ 81, p. 458. 120 Siddur Verona 1648. See Abudarham, 140 and Rambam, hilkhot berakhot 1:9. According to Rambam, one should recite amen after his own benediction when it is the final benediction in a series. Such is the case with hashkiveinu, which is the final benediction in the series “the shema and its blessings.” See also Zohar bereishit 1:48a; II: 1301; Hallamish, Hakabbalah batefillah, 320 n. 214.

Excursus · 349 recited on weekdays has fifty-five words. 121 This tradition is cited in the commentaries of R. Naftali Hertz Treves and R. Shabbetai Sofer. Both R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms and R. Shabbetai Sofer arrive at the number fifty-five by omitting vehoshi’einu lema’an shemekha, oyev, and the word el in ki el shomreinu. R. Naftali Hertz Treves, on the other hand, includes oyev, but omits the el in ki el melekh. The only extended discussion of these omissions is that of R. Shabbetai Sofer, who writes: 122 Ki shomreinu – this is the version in manuscript siddurim, in Abudarham, and also in the siddur of R. Hertz. And R. Hertz wrote the following in his commentary on the siddur: “In hashkiveinu there are fifty-five words. And according to this, one should not say vehoshi’einu lema’an shemekha. One should not say ki el, but ki shomreinu umatzileinu attah ki melekh ḥanun veraḥum attah – and not el.” It appears that he wrote that the word el should be omitted twice in order not to go beyond the number of fifty-five words, but my opinion is that it is preferable [lit. more correct] to omit el only once, namely, the first time, saying ki shomreinu attah, since this is found in all the manuscript siddurim and also in Abudarham, but in ki el melekh one should not omit the word el, since it is found in all the manuscript siddurim. And with regard to the fifty-five words, I have already written above that one should omit the word oyev, and then one will have the requisite fifty-five words through shomer amo yisrael la’ad. And this is the case especially since the word oyev is missing in a manuscript siddur whose commentary is attributed to Mahariḥ [R. Judah Heḥasid]. The quotation from the commentary with which R. Shabbetai Sofer concludes is that of R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms. 123 When we look at the printed siddurim in our sample, we find that

121 Siddur harokeaḥ 81, p. 459. These are said to correspond to the fifty-five words in Psalm 121. 122 Siddur Shabbetai Sofer, p. 281. 123 Siddur harokeaḥ, 81, p. 459.

350  ·  Other Textual Issues in Hashkiveinu none follow this tradition of Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz. All include oyev, and none compensate by omitting both instances of the word el. Even the siddur in which the commentary of Rabbi Naftali Hertz Treves was printed does not follow the wording prescribed by him. It omits the words ki el shomreinu, resulting in an awkward phrase which makes little sense, and which appears nowhere else: uvetzeil kenafekha tastireinu umatzileinu attah. As noted above, the word el appears in almost all the siddurim published after 1550, and this seems to reflect the actual practice in most communities in Ashkenaz. Thus Rabbi Joseph Yuzpa Hahn Nordlingen writes: The kabbalist Hertz Treves, who was a sheliaḥ tzibbur, wrote in his commentary on the prayers that in hashkiveinu one should not say ki el shomreinu, but ki shomreinu, in accord with [the requisite] number of words, which he wrote is in accordance with the Rokeaḥ. And it appears to me that this is the reading recited in Worms, where the Rokeaḥ is buried. But here [in Frankfurt] and everywhere else, the custom is established to include it, and it is not in my power to change the reading which our ancestors bequeathed to us. 124

Additional Textual Issues: The Shabbat Eulogy As noted above, the eulogy recited on Shabbat, pores sukkat shalom, is of Palestinian origin, and seems to have been incorporated into the liturgy of Babylonian Jewry in the time of R. Sar Shalom, Gaon of Sura. Midrashic sources which refer to this eulogy quote it in an abbreviated form. 125 According to published editions of the Talmud of the Land of Israel, the full text of the eulogy was pores sukkat shalom aleinu ve’al amo yisrael ve’al yerushalayim, 126 “spread the tabernacle of peace over us and over His people Israel, and over Jerusalem.” However, there is evidence that the correct reading is the one found in 124 Yosef ometz 29, p. 9. 125 Lev. Rab. IX:9; Num. Rab. XXI:1; Deut. Rab. V:15. 126 y. Berakhot IV:5 8c.

Excursus · 351 texts of hashkiveinu discovered in the Cairo genizah: pores sukkat shalom aleinu ve’al amo yisrael menaḥem tzion uboneh yerushalayim [amen], “who spreads the tabernacle of peace over us and over His people Israel, the Comforter of Zion and the Builder of Jerusalem.” 127 The conclusion of the eulogy, menaḥem tzion uboneh yerushalayim, may have been changed in Babylonia to ve’al yerushalayim under the influence of R. Natronai Gaon, who forbade the use of dual eulogies, that is, eulogies that contain two seemingly unrelated elements. 128 According to R. Sar Shalom, as quoted in Seder Rav Amram Gaon, the eulogy is pores sukkat shalom aleinu ve’al kol adat amo yisrael ve’al yerushalayim, “who spreads the tabernacle of peace over us and over the entire community of His people Israel and over Jerusalem.” 129 Note that the version preserved in the genizah texts lacks the word kol (all), while the version in Seder Rav Amram has the word adat (community of ). The word adat does not appear in the responsum of R. Sar Shalom as it is quoted by later authorities, and it did not remain a part of the eulogy of hashkiveinu as it came to be recited in either the Ashkenazic or Sephardic traditions. The word kol, however, is absent from the eulogy as stated in Sefer ha’itim and in the first printed edition of the Tur. 130 According to Maḥzor Vitry, there were those who omitted kol, but R. Meir bar Isaac Sheliaḥ Tzibbur of Worms had insisted that it be included, for if one said alenu ve’al amo yisrael, referring to “us” and to “His people Israel” as two separate entities, he would be guilty of separating himself and his congregation from the rest of the Jewish people. Including the word kol, “over us and 127 On the correct reading of the Talmud of the Land of Israel, see Gartner, “Hapores sukkat shalom,” 252 n. 7; Ta-Shma, “Hapores,” 142 n. 2, and the references cited there. For the genizah texts, see Levi, “Fragments de rituels de prières,” 235; Assaf, “Miseder hatefillah,” 124–25; Jacob Mann, “Genizah Fragments,” 307, 324; and more recently, Fogel and Ehrlich. “Letoldot nusḥah hakadum shel birkat hashkiveinu,” 77–101. Assaf’s text has amen at the conclusion of the benediction. 128 Gartner, “Hapores sukkat shalom,” 254; Naftali Wieder, “Haḥatimot ‘oseh hashalom’ vehapores sukkat shalom’ beminhag bavel,” in Hitgavshut nusaḥ hatefillah bemizraḥ uvema’arav ( Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 106–7; Seder Rav Amram II:95, p. 130. See also the comment of Daniel Goldschmidt in his introduction to Seder Rav Amram, ix. 129 Seder Rav Amram II:4, p. 63. 130 Tur hashalem ( Jerusalem, 1990) O.H. 267 n. 8.

352  ·  Other Textual Issues in Hashkiveinu over the entire people Israel,” encompasses the congregation in the Jewish people as a whole. R. Meir bar Isaac was careful to include kol when he served as ḥazzan in Worms, and Rashi himself was said to have praised him for doing so. 131 The word kol appears in the text of the eulogy as it appears in the Zohar and in the Shulḥan arukh, and in all the siddurim in our sample. Siddur harokeaḥ is the only source which omits the word “yisrael” from the eulogy. This is in keeping with its comment that on Shabbat hashkiveinu has sixty words. 132 None of our other sources and none of our siddurim omit yisrael. As I discussed in chapter 5, Sephardic and Ashkenazic traditions differed with regard to the first word in hashkiveinu’s eulogy. Sephardim use the word “hapores,” 133 with the definite article, while Ashkenazim omit the definite article. 134 Both forms convey the same meaning, and both forms are used in the eulogies of other liturgical benedictions. Siddur Verona 1648 is the only one of our siddurim which has hapores, but, as we have seen, it displays the influence of the Spanish rite in other ways as well. R. Isaiah Horowitz also uses hapores, but his commentary is based upon the kabbalistic tradition of the Zohar. 135

131 Vitry seder Shabbat 1, p, 262. 132 Siddur harokeaḥ 81, p. 460. See sodot hatefillah in ibid., p. 462, where hashkiveinu is said to have sixty-one words on Shabbat. Note ‫ ב‬says ‫כה בסידור ר׳ הירץ ש״צ‬, but the commentary of R. Naftali Hertz Treves printed in Siddur Thiengen 1560 says that there are sixty words in hashkiveinu on Shabbat. 133 Zohar bereishit I:48a; Ha’itim, p. 172; Tur O.H. 267; Abudarham, 144; R. Solomon ben Adret, Teshuvot Rashba I:14; R. Menaḥem Hame’iri, Magen avot, ed. J. Last (London, 1909) 1, p. 20; Shulḥan arukh O.H. 267:3. 134 Hapardes, p. 308; Siddur Rashi 472, p. 240; Siddur R. Solomon bar Samson 54, p. 138; Raviah 33; Sefer harokeaḥ 49; Siddur harokeaḥ 81, p. 458; 82, p. 472; ibid., in sodot hatefillah, p. 460; Vitry seder Shabbat 1, p. 262; 155, p. 142; Shibbolei haleket (ed. Mirsky) 51, p. 259; Levush haḥur O.H. 267:2; Matteh Moshe II:425, p. 157, Kirchheim, p. 52. 135 Siddur sha’ar hashamayim (1717), 163b.

Excursus · 353

Table I Hashkiveinu ,‫ַה ׁ ְש ִּכ ֵיבֽנ ּו יְ יָ ֱא־ל ֵ ֹֽהינ ּו לְ ׁ ָשלוֹ ם‬

1

Cause us, Lord our God, to lie down in peace,

.‫ידנ ּו ַמלְ ֵּכֽנ ּו לְ ַח ִ ּיים‬ ֽ ֵ ‫וְ ַה ֲע ִמ‬

2

And awaken us, our king, to life.

,‫ו ְּפרוֹ שׂ ָעלֵ ֽינ ּו ֻס ַּכת ׁ ְשלוֹ ֶ ֽמ ָך‬

3

Spread over us the shelter of Your peace,

ָ ֶ‫וְ ַת ְּקנֵ ֽנ ּו ְ ּב ֵע ָצה טוֹ ָבה ִמ ְּל ָפנ‬ ,‫ֽיך‬ .‫יענ ּו לְ ַ ֽמ ַען ׁ ְש ֶ ֽמ ָך‬ ֽ ֵ ‫וְ הוֹ ׁ ִש‬

4

And guide us with good counsel,

5

And save us for Your name’s sake.

,‫ דֶּ ֽ ֶבר‬,‫ וְ ָה ֵסר ֵמ ָעלֵ ֽינ ּו אוֹ יֵ ב‬,ּ‫וְ ָהגֵ ן ַ ּב ֲע ֵ ֽדנו‬ ,‫ וְ יָ גוֹ ן‬,‫ וְ ָר ָעב‬,‫וְ ֶ ֽח ֶרב‬

6

Shield us, and remove from us enemy, pestilence, sword, famine, and sorrow.

,ּ‫וְ ָה ֵסר ָשׂ ָטן ִמ ְּל ָפנֵ ֽינ ּו ו ֵּמ ַא ֲח ֵ ֽרינו‬

7

And remove Satan from before us and from behind us.

ָ ‫ו ְּב ֵצל ְּכנָ ֶפ‬ .‫ירנו‬ ֽ ֵ ‫ֽיך ַּת ְס ִּת‬

8

And hide us in the shadow of Your wings.

.‫ִּכי ֵא־ל ׁשוֹ ְמ ֵ ֽרנ ּו ו ַּמצִּ ילֵ ֽנ ּו ָ ֽא ָּתה‬

9

For You are a God who guards us and saves us,

.‫ ִּכי ֵא־ל ֶ ֽמלֶ ְך ַח ּנוּן וְ ַרחוּם ָ ֽא ָּתה‬10

,‫ לְ ַח ִ ּיים וּלְ ׁ ָשלוֹ ם‬,ּ‫אתנ ּו וּבוֹ ֵ ֽאנו‬ ֽ ֵ ‫ו ׁ ְּשמוֹ ר ֵצ‬ .‫ֵמ ַע ָּתה וְ ַעד עוֹ לָ ם‬

11

On weekdays:

.‫ו ְּפרוֹ שׂ ָעלֵ ינ ּו ֻס ַּכת ׁ ְשלוֹ ֶמ ָך‬ ‫ָ ּברו ְּך ַא ָּתה ה' ַ(ה ּ)פוֹ ֵרשׂ ֻס ַּכת ׁ ָשלוֹ ם ָעלֵ ינ ּו‬ .‫וְ ַעל ָּכל ַע ּמוֹ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וְ ַעל יְ רו ׁ ָּשלָ יִ ם‬

Guard our going and our coming to life and to peace, now and always. On weekdays: Praised are You Lord, who guards His people Israel forever.

.‫ָ ּברו ְּך ַא ָּתה ה' ׁשוֹ ֵמר ַע ּמוֹ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל לָ ַעד‬

On Shabbat:

For You are a God who is a gracious and merciful king.

12

On Shabbat: And spread over us the shelter of Your peace. Praised are You, Lord, who spreads the shelter of peace over us and over all His people Israel, and over Jerusalem.

‫‪354  ·  Other Textual Issues in Hashkiveinu‬‬

‫‪Table J‬‬ ‫‪Variant Texts: Shabbat‬‬ ‫‪Omission of ushemor tzeteinu (B):‬‬

‫‪ַ 1 .1‬ה ׁ ְש ִּכ ֵיבנ ּו ה' ֱא־ל ֵֹהינ ּו לְ ׁ ָשלוֹ ם‬ ‫‪2 .2‬וְ ַה ֲע ִמ ֵידנ ּו ַמלְ ֵּכנ ּו לְ ַח ִ ּיים‬ ‫‪3 .3‬ו ְּפרוֹ שׂ ָעלֵ ינ ּו ֻס ַּכת ׁ ְשלוֹ ֶמ ָך‬ ‫‪4 .4‬וְ ַת ְּקנֵ נ ּו ְ ּב ֵע ָצה טוֹ ָבה ִמ ְּל ָפנֶ ָ‬ ‫יך‬ ‫‪5 .5‬וְ הוֹ ׁ ִש ֵיענ ּו לְ ַמ ַען ׁ ְש ֶמ ָך‪.‬‬ ‫‪6 .6‬וְ ָהגֵ ן ַ ּב ֲע ֵדנוּ‪ ,‬וְ ָה ֵסר ֵמ ָעלֵ ינ ּו אוֹ יֵ ב‪ ,‬דֶּ ֶבר‪,‬‬ ‫וְ ֶח ֶרב‪ ,‬וְ ָר ָעב‪ ,‬וְ יָ גוֹ ן‬ ‫‪7 .7‬וְ ָה ֵסר ָשׂ ָטן ִמ ְּל ָפנֵ ינ ּו ו ֵּמ ַא ֲח ֵרינ ּו‬ ‫‪8 .8‬ו ְּב ֵצל ְּכנָ ֶפ ָ‬ ‫יך ַּת ְס ִּת ֵירנ ּו‬ ‫‪ִּ 9 .9‬כי ֵא־ל ׁשוֹ ְמ ֵרנ ּו ו ַּמצִּ ילֵ נ ּו ָא ָּתה‬ ‫‪ִּ 1010‬כי ֵא־ל ֶמלֶ ְך ַח ּנוּן וְ ַרחוּם ָא ָּתה‬ ‫‪1111‬‬ ‫‪ 12‬‬ ‫‪12‬ו ְּפרוֹ שׂ ָעלֵ ינ ּו ֻס ַּכת ׁ ְשלוֹ ֶמ ָך‬ ‫ָ ּברו ְּך ַא ָּתה ה' ּפוֹ ֵרשׂ ֻס ַּכת ׁ ָשלוֹ ם‬ ‫ָעלֵ ינ ּו וְ ַעל ָּכל ַע ּמוֹ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וְ ַעל‬ ‫יְ רו ׁ ָּשלָ יִ ם‬ ‫‪Omission of all verses which reflect‬‬ ‫‪the need for protection from dan‬‬‫‪ger on Shabbat (D):‬‬

‫‪ַ 1 .1‬ה ׁ ְש ִּכ ֵיבנ ּו ה' ֱא־ל ֵֹהינ ּו לְ ׁ ָשלוֹ ם‬ ‫‪2 .2‬וְ ַה ֲע ִמ ֵידנ ּו ַמלְ ֵּכנ ּו לְ ַח ִ ּיים‬ ‫‪3 .3‬ו ְּפרוֹ שׂ ָעלֵ ינ ּו ֻס ַּכת ׁ ְשלוֹ ֶמ ָך‬ ‫‪4 .4‬וְ ַת ְּקנֵ נ ּו ְ ּב ֵע ָצה טוֹ ָבה ִמ ְּל ָפנֶ ָ‬ ‫יך‬ ‫‪5 .5‬וְ הוֹ ׁ ִש ֵיענ ּו לְ ַמ ַען ׁ ְש ֶמ ָך‪.‬‬ ‫‪[6 .6‬וְ ָהגֵ ן ַ ּב ֲע ֵדנוּ]‬ ‫‪7 .7‬‬ ‫‪8 .8‬‬ ‫‪9 .9‬‬ ‫‪1010‬‬ ‫‪1111‬‬ ‫‪ 12‬‬ ‫‪12‬ו ְּפרוֹ שׂ ָעלֵ ינ ּו ֻס ַּכת ׁ ְשלוֹ ֶמ ָך‬ ‫ָ ּברו ְּך ַא ָּתה ה' ּפוֹ ֵרשׂ ֻס ַּכת ׁ ָשלוֹ ם‬ ‫ָעלֵ ינ ּו וְ ַעל ָּכל ַע ּמוֹ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וְ ַעל‬ ‫יְ רו ׁ ָּשלָ יִ ם‬

‫‪Standard version (A):‬‬

‫‪ַ 1 .1‬ה ׁ ְש ִּכ ֵיבנ ּו ה' ֱא־ל ֵֹהינ ּו לְ ׁ ָשלוֹ ם‬ ‫‪2 .2‬וְ ַה ֲע ִמ ֵידנ ּו ַמלְ ֵּכנ ּו לְ ַח ִ ּיים‬ ‫‪3 .3‬ו ְּפרוֹ שׂ ָעלֵ ינ ּו ֻס ַּכת ׁ ְשלוֹ ֶמ ָך‬ ‫‪4 .4‬וְ ַת ְּקנֵ נ ּו ְ ּב ֵע ָצה טוֹ ָבה ִמ ְּל ָפנֶ ָ‬ ‫יך‬ ‫‪5 .5‬וְ הוֹ ׁ ִש ֵיענ ּו לְ ַמ ַען ׁ ְש ֶמ ָך‪.‬‬ ‫‪6 .6‬וְ ָהגֵ ן ַ ּב ֲע ֵדנוּ‪ ,‬וְ ָה ֵסר ֵמ ָעלֵ ינ ּו אוֹ יֵ ב‪ ,‬דֶּ ֶבר‪,‬‬ ‫וְ ֶח ֶרב‪ ,‬וְ ָר ָעב‪ ,‬וְ יָ גוֹ ן‬ ‫‪7 .7‬וְ ָה ֵסר ָשׂ ָטן ִמ ְּל ָפנֵ ינ ּו ו ֵּמ ַא ֲח ֵרינ ּו‬ ‫‪8 .8‬ו ְּב ֵצל ְּכנָ ֶפ ָ‬ ‫יך ַּת ְס ִּת ֵירנ ּו‬ ‫‪ִּ 9 .9‬כי ֵא־ל ׁשוֹ ְמ ֵרנ ּו ו ַּמצִּ ילֵ נ ּו ָא ָּתה‬ ‫‪ִּ 1010‬כי ֵא־ל ֶמלֶ ְך ַח ּנוּן וְ ַרחוּם ָא ָּתה‬ ‫אתנ ּו וּבוֹ ֵאנ ּו לְ ַח ִ ּיים וּלְ ׁ ָשלוֹ ם‬ ‫‪1111‬ו ׁ ְּשמוֹ ר ֵצ ֵ‬ ‫ֵמ ַע ָּתה וְ ַעד עוֹ לָ ם‬ ‫‪ 12‬‬ ‫‪12‬ו ְּפרוֹ שׂ ָעלֵ ינ ּו ֻס ַּכת ׁ ְשלוֹ ֶמ ָך‬ ‫ָ ּברו ְּך ַא ָּתה ה' ּפוֹ ֵרשׂ ֻס ַּכת ׁ ָשלוֹ ם ָעלֵ ינ ּו‬ ‫וְ ַעל ָּכל ַע ּמוֹ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וְ ַעל יְ רו ׁ ָּשלָ יִ ם‬ ‫‪Omission of ki El shomreinu and‬‬ ‫‪ushemor tzeteinu (C):‬‬

‫‪ַ 1 .1‬ה ׁ ְש ִּכ ֵיבנ ּו ה' ֱא־ל ֵֹהינ ּו לְ ׁ ָשלוֹ ם‬ ‫‪2 .2‬וְ ַה ֲע ִמ ֵידנ ּו ַמלְ ֵּכנ ּו לְ ַח ִ ּיים‬ ‫‪3 .3‬ו ְּפרוֹ שׂ ָעלֵ ינ ּו ֻס ַּכת ׁ ְשלוֹ ֶמ ָך‬ ‫‪4 .4‬וְ ַת ְּקנֵ נ ּו ְ ּב ֵע ָצה טוֹ ָבה ִמ ְּל ָפנֶ ָ‬ ‫יך‬ ‫‪5 .5‬וְ הוֹ ׁ ִש ֵיענ ּו לְ ַמ ַען ׁ ְש ֶמ ָך‪.‬‬ ‫‪6 .6‬וְ ָהגֵ ן ַ ּב ֲע ֵדנוּ‪ ,‬וְ ָה ֵסר ֵמ ָעלֵ ינ ּו אוֹ יֵ ב‪ ,‬דֶּ ֶבר‪,‬‬ ‫וְ ֶח ֶרב‪ ,‬וְ ָר ָעב‪ ,‬וְ יָ גוֹ ן‬ ‫‪7 .7‬וְ ָה ֵסר ָשׂ ָטן ִמ ְּל ָפנֵ ינ ּו ו ֵּמ ַא ֲח ֵרינ ּו‬ ‫‪8 .8‬ו ְּב ֵצל ְּכנָ ֶפ ָ‬ ‫יך ַּת ְס ִּת ֵירנ ּו‬ ‫‪9 .9‬‬ ‫‪ִּ 1010‬כי ֵא־ל ֶמלֶ ְך ַח ּנוּן וְ ַרחוּם ָא ָּתה‬ ‫‪1111‬‬ ‫‪ 12‬‬ ‫‪12‬ו ְּפרוֹ שׂ ָעלֵ ינ ּו ֻס ַּכת ׁ ְשלוֹ ֶמ ָך‬ ‫ָ ּברו ְּך ַא ָּתה ה' ּפוֹ ֵרשׂ ֻס ַּכת ׁ ָשלוֹ ם ָעלֵ ינ ּו‬ ‫וְ ַעל ָּכל ַע ּמוֹ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל וְ ַעל יְ רו ׁ ָּשלָ יִ ם‬

Chapter 10

Conclusion Ashkenazic rabbinic authorities and contemporary scholars alike have noted the central role of minhag (custom) in medieval and early modern Ashkenazic society. The importance ascribed to custom and tradition in Ashkenaz, along with the interpretive approach of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, which ascribed significance to every word in the received versions of liturgical texts, served as conservative influences, inhibiting liturgical change. Yet, as I point out in the introduction to this book, from a very early time, new liturgies and liturgical practices were incorporated into the service, the inclusion of various prayers was challenged, and variant readings of prayers became standard. I have argued that the interpretation ascribed to a particular prayer or practice, that is, how a prayer or practice was understood, or the rationale for its performance, often had a profound effect on the determination as to whether and when it is to be recited, as well as on the specific wording of the liturgical text.

VARIETIES OF INTERPRETATION These interpretations are not all of a kind: some are of a religious or spiritual nature; some are mystical or kabbalistic; and others are of a functional nature. Numerous examples could be provided for each of these types. I will mention but a few.

Religious and Spiritual Interpretations Included in the first category are interpretations that suggest that 355

356 · Conclusion the recitation of particular liturgical texts brings atonement for sins. Thus, vehu raḥum (Psalm 78:38, 20:10) refers to God as merciful, granting atonement for sins, rather than punishing the sinner. Its recitation at the beginning of the arvit service is said to atone for sins committed earlier in the day. According to another interpretation, the thirteen words of vehu raḥum were recited three times as the requisite thirty-nine lashes imposed on sinners by the court were administered. Its recitation served not only as a counting device, but as an expression of the hope that the lashes would atone for the sins of the recipient. In a similar vein, it was said that the recitation of pitum haketoret, the talmudic passage dealing with the compounding of the incense offering, serves as a substitute for the incense offering in the Temple. This is in accordance with the teaching that since the destruction of the Temple the recitation of the laws of the offerings is accounted by God as though the sacrifices actually are being offered on the altar. 1 Sixteenth-century authorities, such as R. Moshe ben Makhir and R. Joseph Yuzpa Hahn Nordlingen, wrote that one who recites pitum haketoret morning and evening will be blessed with success and with abundance, as were the priests who offered the incense in the Temple. 2 Even prayers not associated with the Temple offerings could bring atonement. Thus, the recitation of berikh shemei was said to remediate the effects of the sin of having a seminal emission. Spiritual interpretations were also used to explain the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue on Friday evening and the prolongation of the service on Saturday night. The recitation of kiddush in the synagogue was said to be an appropriate way of honoring and sanctifying Shabbat at its inauguration. The prolongation of the service on Saturday night was said to reflect a reluctance to bring Shabbat to a close, and the desire to prolong sacred time as long as possible. Shabbat was likened to an honored guest, who should be escorted with song and praise as she takes her leave.



1 Ta’anit 27b. 2 Yoma 26a.

Chapter 10 · 357

Mystical and Kabbalistic Interpretations An early and continuing influence on the liturgy of Ashkenaz was the interpretive tradition of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz. The siddur commentaries of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz made extensive use of gematria and numerology in their treatment of the prayers. The number of words in a prayer, or even in a sentence or phrase, was said to establish a correspondence with other passages in the siddur, or with biblical verses that have an identical number of words. In the view of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, the order and number of words in the prayers is evidence of “the mystical connection that this text has with the secret divine infrastructure of existence, which is based upon the combination of letters and numbers, the elements used by God in the process of creation.” 3 Thus, R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms noted that the word aḥikha [your brother] in Deuteronomy 25:3, where it is stated that the court may impose no more than forty lashes lest your brother be degraded, has the numerical value of thirty-nine. This corresponds, not only to the number of lashes imposed upon the sinner, but to the number of words in vehu raḥum, which is recited three times during the shaḥarit service. When these thirteen words are recited, God remembers the merit of the patriarchs, whose names have a total of thirteen letters, and He remembers as well the thirteen attributes of His mercy, 4 R. Ishmael’s thirteen hermeneutical rules, and other terms and concepts that appear in sets of thirteens. All these correlations serve to evoke God’s mercy and compassion upon those who recite vehu raḥum, and indeed, upon the entire Jewish people. The approach of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz can also be seen in the claim made by R. Eleazar, or perhaps by R. Judah Heḥasid, that aleinu was composed by Joshua when he first entered the land of Israel. It too was based on numerology – aleinu has 152 words, corresponding to the numerical value of the letters in the name Joshua ben Nun. While the connections drawn between the words of the prayers and other texts were only infrequently cited in the later literature,

3 Dan, “Prayer as Text,” 38. 4 Exod 34:6–7a.

358 · Conclusion the view that every prayer has a prescribed number of words was widely accepted. We can see this in the discussion of the text of hashkiveinu by later authorities. R. Naftali Hertz Treves and R. Shabbetai Sofer both cite the view of R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms that the version of hashkiveinu recited on weekdays has fifty-five words, but do not refer to the correspondences with other texts that R. Eleazar ascribed to this number. Primarily as a result of the introduction of printing, kabbalistic works spread throughout Ashkenaz in the sixteenth, and primarily in the seventeenth, centuries. Kabbalistic teachings served as the basis for new commentaries on the siddur, and liturgical practices that had their origin in kabbalistic circles were adopted by the larger community. Although the recitation of a variety of verses, psalms, variant readings, and prayers was incorporated into the liturgy of Ashkenaz under the influence of kabbalah, these practices were “normalized,” that is, the more esoteric elements of kabbalistic worship, such as the meditations on kavanot, were eliminated to the extent that the kabbalistic origins of these practices would not have been apparent to those who observed them. On the other hand, the popularity of some of these practices, such as the recitation of kabbalat Shabbat and berikh shemei, was due to some degree to their having been recited by R. Isaac Luria and his circle. Among the prayers and practices incorporated into the liturgy of Ashkenaz under the influence of kabbalah are the recitation of kabbalat Shabbat, berikh shemei, the recitation of Zechariah 14:9 at the conclusion of aleinu, the recitation of aleinu at the conclusion of minḥah, and variant readings in hama’ariv aravim and other prayers.

Functional Interpretations Many of the interpretations offered for the prayers discussed in this study are of a functional, or instrumental nature. For example, some prayers serve to indicate something about the services in which they are included. Kaddish shalem is recited at the conclusion of a major section of the service that includes the amidah, and ḥatzi kaddish marks the transition from one section of the service to another.

Chapter 10 · 359 According to one interpretation of barukh Adonai le’olam, it, like the ḥatzi kaddish which follows, is recited to break the connection between the benediction of ge’ulah and the beginning of the amidah, indicating that the recitation of the amidah is optional at night. And according to one view, kiddush is recited in the synagogue on Friday night, not for the sake of those who live in town and worship regularly at the synagogue – and who must recite kiddush at home – but for the sake of travelers who lodge in the synagogue. The recitation of kiddush in the synagogue also has instrumental value: tasting the kiddush wine is therapeutic, and dabbing it on one’s eyelids improves one’s vision. Many prayers were thought to offer protection from some kind of danger. The Babylonian Talmud states that the recitation of berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva was instituted “because [of an unspecified] danger.” 5 In addition, Seder Rav Amram suggests that drawing out the recitation of barekhu on Saturday night protects one from the dangers of the coming week. The recitation of Seventy-two Verses is also said to protect one from danger. In many instances, the danger that is to be averted is specified: hatavat ḥalom averts the threat intimated by a bad dream, and pitum haketoret wards off pestilence and brings a halt to a plague. Many prayers and liturgical practices associated with the recitation of arvit were said to offer protection from demons. This is especially the case with hashkiveinu and the recitation of veyehi no’am on Saturday night. The protection from demons offered by the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam on weeknights and the prolongation of the service on Friday and Saturday nights through the inclusion of berakhah me’ein sheva, bameh madlikin, veyehi no’am, and veyiten lekha is more indirect. These were said to have been added for the benefit of latecomers at a time when synagogues were located in the fields, outside of town. By omitting the recitation of these optional prayers, latecomers were able to catch up with the other worshippers and to return home in the company of others. They would otherwise be left alone in the

5 Shabbat 24b

360 · Conclusion isolated synagogue as well as would have to return home through the darkened fields, both of these being places where they would be endangered by demons. Although the recitation of particular prayers is said to protect the worshipper from danger, the recitation of other prayers is thought to protect others, namely, the souls of the dead suffering in Gehinnom. According to the Zohar, the punishment of the wicked in Gehinnom begins daily at nightfall. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century siddur commentators and halakhic authorities suggest that the recitation of vehu raḥum at the beginning of arvit alleviates the suffering of sinners in Gehinnom. In a similar vein, it was thought that the souls of the wicked find respite on Shabbat, an idea that is found already in rabbinic sources. The prolongation of the service on Saturday night through the extended chanting of barekhu and the addition of veyehi no’am and kedushah desidra was interpreted by many as a means of delaying the conclusion of Shabbat, thereby postponing the resumption of the punishment of the sinners in Gehinnom. These liturgical practices were thought to be of benefit to the souls of all who were condemned to Gehinnom. However, the relief provided is only temporary; their suffering is suspended on Shabbat, but resumes immediately afterward. Shabbat can be extended by prolonging the arvit service on Saturday night, but this delays the resumption of their punishment for only a few minutes. The recitation of kaddish by an orphaned child, or, following a later development, one observing mourning for a member of his immediate family, had the power to completely free the soul of the deceased from punishment in Gehinnom.

LITURGICAL FACTORS In addition to the interpretations or rationales discussed above, liturgical factors also played a role in influencing liturgical change. Thus, it is said that barukh Adonai le’olam was instituted because some words of praise or petition are needed after keriat shema in the

Chapter 10 · 361 evening, when the amidah was omitted by many because it was held to be optional. Seventeenth-century authorities argued that the Sephardic version of the concluding petition of the kedushat hayom blessing recited on Shabbat is preferable to that formerly recited in Ashkenaz because the Sephardic reading, veyanuḥu vah yisrael mekadshei shemekha, anticipates the ḥatimah of the benediction better than the Ashkenazic version. Liturgical considerations may also explain the inclusion of kabbalat Shabbat. Prior to the introduction of kabbalat Shabbat, the arvit service recited on Friday night began much as it did on weekdays. The absence of an appropriate liturgical setting for marking the beginning of Shabbat was remedied by the incorporation of kabbalat Shabbat, beginning with Psalm 95 and its invitation to join together in joyous song before the Lord, and including lekha dodi, a hymn for welcoming Shabbat, and Psalm 92, the “Psalm for the Sabbath Day.” In addition, commentators suggest that aleinu is an appropriate concluding prayer, not only because it proclaims the superiority of Judaism’s faith in one God, as opposed to the gentile nations “who bow down to vanity and emptiness, and pray to a god who does not save,” but because it incorporates the two themes of keriat shema: the kingship of God and the unity of God.

MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS With few exceptions, Ashkenazic authorities suggest multiple explanations or rationales for the recitation of the prayers I have discussed in the previous chapters. This is the case even when the Talmud or Geonic sources provide a single rationale for the recitation of the prayer. In some cases, multiple interpretations were offered by early Ashkenazic authorities, while in others, additional interpretations were introduced by later authorities. Sometimes the newer interpretations supplemented the earlier ones; at other times the newer interpretations became the dominant ones. Early Ashkenazic authorities attribute the recitation of vehu

362 · Conclusion raḥum at the beginning of arvit to the need for atonement of sins in the absence of an atoning sacrifice in the evening and associate it with the administration of lashes imposed upon sinners by the court. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries these explanations were supplemented, and in the case of some commentators, supplanted, by an explanation found in the Zohar, copies of which were then being disseminated throughout Ashkenaz. According to the Zohar, the recitation of vehu raḥum alleviates the suffering of the souls of sinners in Gehinnom. According to Geonic and most Ashkenazic authorities, barukh Adonai le’olam served as a substitute of the arvit amidah, which was considered to be optional. Others argued that barukh Adonai le’olam had been instituted, not as a substitute for the amidah, but to break the connection between the benediction of ge’ulah and the beginning of the amidah, indicating thereby that the recitation of the amidah was technically optional at night. Tosafot, however, maintained that it had been instituted to prolong the arvit service, for the benefit of latecomers. Bameh madlikin was already recited on Friday evening during the Geonic period, but our Geonic sources do not provide an explanation for this practice. Early authorities mention two reasons for the recitation of bameh madlikin at the end of the arvit service. Almost all suggest that it is recited because it teaches the laws related to the lighting of the Shabbat lamps, or because it reminds one of the kinds of wicks and oils that are forbidden for this purpose. However, many early Ashkenazic authorities claim that bameh madlikin was introduced, at least in part, for the same reason that berakhah me’ein sheva was introduced, that is, to delay the conclusion of the service. They regarded the interpretation that its purpose is to teach the laws relating to the Shabbat lamps to be a secondary explanation. Sephardic interpreters preferred a different explanation. They argued that the recitation of bameh madlikin serves, not to teach the laws relating to the Shabbat lamps, but to remind one to light the lamp. They ruled that bameh madlikin should be recited before arvit, not at its conclusion, so that the reminder would serve a purpose – there would still be time to light the lamp before the onset of Shabbat.

Chapter 10 · 363 During the eighteenth century, Ashkenazic communities began to change their practice, moving the recitation of bameh madlikin from the end of arvit to the beginning, under the influence of the Sephardic interpretation and practice. Practices which extended to the arvit service on Saturday night, such as prolonging the chanting of barekhu, and the inclusion of veyehi no’am, kidushah desidra, and veyiten lekha, were all ascribed a variety of interpretations. They were thought to have been instituted to protect one from the dangers of the coming week, or for the sake of latecomers, or to prolong the Shabbat respite of the dead in Gehinnom. Other commentators focused on the blessings that would accrue to the one who recites them, and some ascribed a more spiritual interpretation to the recitation on these passages, teaching that they were a means of preserving the sacred time of Shabbat as long as possible, or that they were a way of honoring Shabbat, personified as a guest, as it took its leave. Aleinu was incorporated into the daily liturgy of Ashkenaz in the twelfth century, and from the beginning many reasons were suggested to justify its inclusion. R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms praised its elevated prose, referring to it as the “Song of Songs.” It was said to have been composed by Joshua when he entered the land of Israel. Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz praises aleinu because it includes the theme of God’s unity. Later sources add that in addition to proclaiming the unification of God’s name, it bears witness to the kingship of God. There were, however, prayers and liturgical units which, by their very nature, have only one rationale for their recitation, or for which commentators and halakhic authorities attribute only one principal rationale. Included in this category are the mourner’s kaddish, recited to elevate the soul of the deceased from Gehinnom; hatavat ḥalom, recited to negate the adverse effects of a bad dream; the Seventy-two Verses, recited to protect the worshipper from harm; and kabbalat Shabbat, recited to welcome Shabbat before arvit on Friday night. Also in this category is hashkiveinu. Although the text of hashkiveinu seeks divine protection from a variety of dangers, the consensus among commentators and halakhic authorities, medieval and early modern alike, is that hashkiveinu is concerned with the danger of demons.

364 · Conclusion One interpretation was given for the recitation of pitum haketoret in the daily liturgy throughout the period under consideration, but an additional function was ascribed to it during the sixteenth century. Seder Rav Amram includes the recitation of pitum haketoret at the beginning of the daily shaḥarit and arvit services, explaining that it is recited “in memory of the Temple,” perhaps in accord with the teaching that, since the destruction of the Temple, the recitation of the laws of the offerings is accounted by God as though the sacrifices actually are offered on the altar. 6 By the sixteenth century, the recitation of pitum haketoret was thought to have apotropaic power, in that its recitation would bring a halt to a plague; several authorities mention it having been used for that purpose. The meaning ascribed to the reading of the Torah underwent a change early in its history, and this change had implications for the development of a liturgy associated with the Torah reading. According to early sources, dating from the Second Temple and Tannaitic periods, the primary rationale for the communal reading of the Torah was didactic, as a ritualized form of Torah study. In the years after the destruction of the Temple, the reading of the Torah came to be understood, first as a reenactment of the revelation of the Torah on Mt. Sinai, and somewhat later, as the continued proclamation of that revelation from Zion, and ultimately, in the local synagogue. As that interpretation emerged, a complex liturgy developed to express and to celebrate the revelation and ongoing proclamation of Torah. It is important to note that interpretations ascribed to a prayer were frequently drawn from those given earlier for other prayers. For example, Seder Rav Amram explains that berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva is recited to prolong the arvit service for the benefit of latecomers. The authors of the Siddur of Solomon ben Samson and Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz and later authorities cite this as the rationale for reciting bameh madlikin on Friday night, and veyehi no’am, kidushah desidra, and veyiten lekha on Saturday night. And, as noted above, Tosafot later argues that barukh Adonai le’olam was introduced for the same reason. Difficulties arose when a rationale provided by the sages or by the

6 Ta’anit 27b.

Chapter 10 · 365 Geonim for a liturgical practice no longer applied due to changes in Jewish life. In some cases, the continued recitation of these prayers appears to violate established religious norms. We have examined three such cases: the recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam, of berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva, and of kiddush in the synagogue on Friday night. Barukh Adonai le’olam was understood as a substitute for the amidah, which many people did not recite at arvit because it was considered optional; however, now, that is, in medieval Europe, “everyone” recites the amidah in the evening service. The recitation of barukh Adonai le’olam is contrary to the Mishnah’s ruling that there are only two benedictions between the biblical passages which constitute the shema and the amidah. Berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva was said to have been instituted for the sake of latecomers on Friday evening at a time when synagogues were located in dark, isolated fields outside of the town limits. Enabling latecomers to catch up and to leave with those who had arrived on time meant the latecomers would not be subject to the supposed dangers from demons abroad at night. But once synagogues were located in town, there was no longer a concern about demons lurking in isolated areas. Berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva might now be considered an unnecessary blessing, the recitation of which is a violation of rabbinic law. As I noted above, this explanation, that a prayer was instituted for the benefit of latecomers, was also applied to the recitation of bameh madlikin, and of veyehi no’am, kidushah desidra, and veyiten lekha. In the third case, the Talmud rules that kiddush must be recited in the place where one eats one’s Shabbat meal, and concludes that it was recited in the synagogue on Friday night only for the benefit of lodgers who ate and slept in a room adjoining the synagogue. But when synagogues stopped providing lodging and meals for travelers, the recitation of kiddush in the synagogue on Friday nights could be considered an unnecessary blessing. Medieval and early modern authorities sought to find new rationales to justify the continued recitation of these prayers, but these efforts were not entirely successful. Ultimately, some, not wishing to abandon an ancient practice, insisted that these prayers be recited

366 · Conclusion because of the principle of minhag avoteikhem beyedeikhem – in order to preserve an ancient custom, handed down through the ages from their ancestors. * * * Adherence to ancestral custom was a core value in the religious life of the Jewish communities of medieval Ashkenaz. Along with the interpretative approach of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, custom exerted a strong conservative influence on liturgical practice. Even when circumstances thought to have given rise to a liturgical practice no longer applied, there was a tendency to preserve the traditional practice, even when it now appeared to violate halakic norms. Yet, despite this conservative tendency, the liturgy of Ashkenaz was never static. Throughout the medieval and early modern periods new liturgies and liturgical practices were adopted, and variant wordings of prayers became standard. Using a variety of sources, including legal codes and responsa, minhag books, and manuscript and early printed siddurim, I have traced these developments, focusing on the tension between the desire to preserve Ashkenazic traditions and the pressures contributing to liturgical change. And throughout we have seen the crucial role interpretation played as a mediating force, serving as the vital link between these two polarities – tradition and change.

Appendix I Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-century Siddurimfrom the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary

The siddurim in the following list constitute the siddurim frequently referred to as “the siddurim in our sample.” References to Vinograd are to Yeshayahu Vinograd, Otzar hasefer haIvri: reshimat hasefarim shenidpasu be’ot Ivrit meireishit hadefus haIvri beshenat 1469 ad shenat 1863, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1993–1995). JTS Library Catalogue Title and Shelf List

Description

Prague 16th century 106:1

The prayer for the ruler refers to hakeisar romi ha­mithalal Karlos, a reference to Charles V Hapsburg (r. 1519–1558; crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 1530). This siddur thus dates from after 1530. The JTS copy is missing many pages, and many extant pages are fragmentary. The siddur was rebound, with some pages out of order. 151/2 × 20 cm. Not dated

Trino 1525 106:5

Title:Tefillot mikol hashanah Printer: Natanel bar Peretz Ḥalfan; Jacob ben Avigdor Halevi Katzav of Padua. Hebrew text with Yiddish translation. JTS copy is missing many pages, and many pages have been rebound in incorrect order. In addition to the JTS copy, I referred to pages photocopied from a well-preserved copy in the collection of Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati and a microfilm of a copy in the collection of the British Museum. Vinograd II:340 no. 1

367

368  ·  Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-century Siddurim JTS Library Catalogue Title and Shelf List

Description

Venice 1545 106:18; 107:8

Title: Seder tefillot keminhag haAshkenazim Printer: Marco Antonio Giustiniani. Vinograd II:248 no. 257 9 cm × 14 cm

Venice 1549 BM675D3A31549

Printer: Cornelius Adelkind. Hebrew text with Yiddish translation. Many missing pages. Pages with morning prayers up to Ps 136 replaced with MS; contains extraneous material from other siddurim, inserted and bound with this copy. 15 cm × 9 cm Vinograd II:250 no. 376

Prague 1557 RareYiddBM675D3A31557

Title page and many pages are missing. Hebrew text with Yiddish translation. JTS copy is missing many pages. 14 cm × 20 cm

Thiengen 1560 108:4,5,6,7

Title: Mal’ah ha’aretz de’ah Printers: Eliezer ben Hertz, Joseph ben Naftali. Contains a kabbalistic commentary by Naftali Hertz Treves. The JTS library has four copies. 20 cm × 12 cm Vinograd II:339 no. 4.

Mantua 1562 RareYiddBM675D3A31562

Title: Tefillah mikol hashanah Printer: Hashutafim. Includes a Yiddish translation by Eliahu Bahur Halevi Ashkenazi Levita. Bound with a copy of the book of Psalms. 21 cm × 14 cm Vinograd II:463 no. 92.

Venice 1579 108:21

Title: Tefillot mikol hashanah Printer: Alexandro Gordani. Missing through page 24b, the middle of the amidah for shaḥarit on weekdays. 9 cm × 15 cm Vinograd II:256 no. 643.

Appendix I · 369 JTS Library Catalogue Title and Shelf List

Description

Venice 1599 109:19

Title: Tefillah mikol hashanah keminhag k"k Ashkenazim Printer: Giovanni Di Gara. 12 cm × 18 cm Vinograd II:261 no. 885.

Venice 1599 109:20 = 21

Title: Tefillah mikol hashanah keminhag k"k Ashkenazim Printer: Giovanni Di Gara. These two siddurim are identical, but have slightly different title pages. While the pagination and layout are the same, 109:21 has some instructions not found in 109:20. 61/2 cm × 10 cm

Hanau facsimile 1628 BM656.S5.1994

Title: Tefillah mikol hashanah Ashkenaz uPolin Polish rite. Facsimile edition with introduction by Meir Rafeld and Joseph Tabory. 14.3 cm Vinograd II:163 no. 50.

Prague 1635 111:16a

Printer: Judah ben Alexander Katz. Includes instructions for the recitation of various prayers according to the custom of Bohemia, Poland, and Moravia. Title page is missing. No date, either in text or in colophon. 71/2 cm × 10 cm

Verona 1648 –1908:11

Title: Seder tefillot mikol hashanah keminhag Ashkenaz uPolin Printer: Hashutafim. Bound with, or printed together with Psalms. Verona 1649 and Seder Ma’amadot. Verona 1648. 9 cm × 5 cm (Vinograd II:290 no. 34); Vinograd II:290 no. 30.

Amsterdam 1649 RareYiddBM675D3A31649

Title: Tefillot mikol hashanah keminhag Ashkenazim Printer: Immanuel Benveniste. Instructions are provided in Yiddish, with some in Hebrew. 101/2 × 18 cm Vinograd II:34 no. 166.

370  ·  Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-century Siddurim JTS Library Catalogue Title and Shelf List

Description

Venice 1662 97:12

Title: Seder tefillot keminhag kehal kadosh benai Ashkenazim Printer: Giovanni Vendramin. No date on title page. JTS catalogue notes “after 1662.” 10 cm × 15 cm This volume contains pages from three different siddurim. The first section includes daily and Sabbath prayers through the middle of the group of “Psalms of Ascent” recited after minḥah on Shabbat. The second section has “Psalms of Ascent,” Shir Hakavod, followed by an unnunmbered section with Torah readings for weekdays, seliḥot, and Pizmon Lemilah. The third section, published in Crakow 1583/84, contains yotzrot according to the Polish rite. Only the first section was used in this study.

Amsterdam 1664 BM675D3A31664

Title: Seder tefillot keminhag haAskhenazim Printer: Uri Phoebus ben Aaron Halevi. 141/2 cm × 19 cm

Venice 1664 1908:14

Title: Seder tefillot keminhag k"k Ashkenaz Printer: Giovanni Vendramin. No date on title page; date is taken from colophon. Printed with Psalms and seder ma’amadot. For the Psalms, see Fuks II:256 no. 305. 61/2 cm × 10 cm

Amsterdam 1681 BM675D3A31681

Title: Seder tefillot mikol hashanah im peirush keminhag Polin Reisen Lita Pihem Merh’rin Printer: Uri Phoebus ben Aaron Halevi. Polish rite. The editor’s introduction states that the commentary in based upon the teachings of R. Isaac Luria. Some pages from another siddur are bound into this one to replace missing pages. 15 cm × 20 cm Vinograd II:42 no. 475.

Venice 1682 1908:17

Title: Seder tefillot keminhag kehilah kadosh Ashkenazim Printer: Bragadini. 4 cm × 8 cm Vinograd II:273 no. 1427.

Appendix I · 371 JTS Library Catalogue Title and Shelf List

Description

Prague 1688 98:6

Title: Tefillot mekol hashanah keminhag Pihem Polin Merh’rin Printer: Sons of Judah Bak. Polish rite. Bound with I. Tyrnau’s Minhagim, printed by Moses Katz, 1682/83; Psalms, Prague 1882/83; Kinot Letisha Be’Av, Prague. 19 cm × 14 cm Vinograd II:544 no. 592

Dyhernfurth 1690 RareBM675D3A31690

Title: Seder tefillot keminhag Polin Reisen Lita Pihem Merh’rin veAshkenaz. Printer: Shabbetai Meshorer Bass of Prague. Polish rite. Introduction by the printer states that the text is based upon the commentary of Shabbatai [Sofer] of Przemysl. Bound with the Book of Psalms, arranged for daily recitation, and I. Tyrnau’s Sefer Minhagim, published in Dyhernfurth in the same year. 14 cm × 20 cm Vinograd II:139 no. 13

Frankfurt 1697 BM675D3A31697

Title: Tefillah derekh yesharah Printer: Yeḥiel Mikhal ben Avraham Siegel Epstein. Frankfurt on Main Yiddish commentary. The commentary is also a translation or paraphrase of the prayers.

Amsterdam 1699 1908:18

Title: Tefillah leyamim umoadim Printer: Ḥaim Fila; House of Vils. No vocalization; frequent use of abbreviations. 4 cm × 6 cm

Dessau 1700 98:8

Title: Seder hatefillot im safer sha’arei tzion Printer: Simḥa Bunem. No vocalization. Includes prayers to be recited instead of kaddish and barekhu when no minyan is present.

Note: Stated dimensions are approximate.

Appendix II Authorities Cited in the Body of This Book

Titles of works written or attributed to these authorities are included only if cited. Aaron ben Jacob Hako- 13th–14th century hen of Lunel

Sefer orḥot ḥayyim

Abraham ben Isaac of Narbonne

c. 1110–1179

Sefer ha’eshkol

Abraham bar Nathan of Lunel

1155–1215

Sefer hamanhig

Abraham ben Jacob Saba

15th century

Tzeror hamor

Abraham ben Sheftel Horowitz

c. 1550–1615

Emek berakhah

Abraham Gombiner

1632–1683

Magen Avraham on Shulḥan arukh

Abraham Ḥildik

13th century

Minhagei R. Avraham Abraham Ḥildik

Abraham Klausner

15th century

Sefer haminhagim leRabbenu Avraham Klausner

Amram ben Sheshna Gaon

858–871

Seder Rav Amram Gaon

Asher ben Saul of Lunel

12th–13th century

Sefer haminhagot

Asher ben Yeḥiel

1250–1327

[Piskei] Rabbenu Asher

David Abudarham

14th century

Sefer Abudarham

373

374  ·  Authorities Cited in the Body of This Book David ben Samuel Halevi

1586–1667

Turei zahav on Shulḥan arukh

David ben Solomon ibn Zimra

1479–1573

Teshuvot haRadbaz

Eleazar ben Judah of Worms

1160–1238

Perushei siddur hatefilah larokeaḥ

Eliezer bar Nathan of Mainz

1090–1170

Eliezer ben Isaac the Great of Mainz

11th century

Eliezer ben Joel Halevi of Bonn

1140–1225

Sefer Raviah

Elijah ben Solomon of Vilna

1720–1797

Ma’aseh rav

Elijah ben Benjamin Shapiro

1660–1712

Eliyahu rabba on Levush

Gershom ben Judah

960–1028

Hai ben Sherira Gaon

939–1038

Ḥayyim ben Samuel of Tudela

14th century

Tzeror haḥayyim

Ḥayyim Benveniste

1603–1673

Kenesset hagedolah on Arba’ah turim

Ḥayyim Mordecai Mar- 1763–1820 goliot of Dubno Ḥayyim Vital

1542–1620

Isaac Aboab

1433–1493

Isaac ben Moses of Vienna

1180–1250

Isaac ibn Giyyat

11th century

Isaac Luria

1534–1572

Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil

13th century

Sha’arei teshuvah on Shulḥan arukh Sefer sha’ar hakavanot Sefer or zarua

Sefer mitzvot katan

Isaac Tyrnau

1380–1470

Sefer haminhagim

Isaiah ben Abraham Halevi Horowitz

1565–1630

Shenei luḥot haberit; Siddur sha’ar hashamayim

Israel Bruna

1400–1480

Israel Isserlein

1390–1460

Terumat hadeshen

Appendix II · 375 Israel Jacob ben Yom Tov Algazi

1680–1756

Sefer shalmei tzibbur

Jacob ben Asher

1269–1340

Arba’ah turim (Tur)

Jacob Emden

1697–1776

Siddur beit Ya’akov: Amudei shamayim

Jacob Landau

15th century

Sefer ha’agur

Jacob of Marvege

12th–13th century

She’eilot uteshuvot min hashamayim

Jacob Moellen

1365–1427

Sefer Maharil; She’eilot uteshuvot Maharil; She’eilot uteshuvot Maharil haḥadashot

Jacob Weil

15th century

Jeḥiel Mikhal Ben Abraham Halevi Epstein

d. 1706

Kitzur shenei luḥot haberit

Joel Sirkes

1561–1640

Bayit ḥadash on Tur

Jonah ben Abraham Gerondi

1200–1263

Rabbenu Yonah on Alfasi

Joseph ben Moses

1425–1490

Leket yosher

Yosef ben Solomon Calahora of Posen

1601–1696

Sefer yesod Yosef

Joseph Caro

1485–1575

Beit Yosef on Tur; Shulḥan arukh

Joseph Kosman

17th–18th century

Nohag ketzon Yosef

Joseph Yuzpa Hahn Nordlingen

1570–1637

Sefer Yosef Ometz

Joshua Falk

1555–1614

Derishah and Perishah on Tur

Judah ben Barzillai Hanasi Al-Bargeloni

11th–12th century

Sefer ha’itim

Judah Löw Kirchheim

d. 1631

Customs of Worms Jewry

Mano’aḥ ben Simeon Bedarshi of Narbonne

13th–14th century

Sefer hamano’aḥ

Meir bar Isaac Shaliaḥ Tzibbur of Worms

11th century

Meir ben Barukh of Rothenburg

c. 1220–1293

Teshuvot, Pesakim, uminhagim

376  ·  Authorities Cited in the Body of This Book Meir ben Gedaliah of Lublin

1588–1616

Meir ben Ezekiel ibn Gabbai

1480–1540

Sefer tola’at Ya’akov

Meir Poppers

d. 1662

Peri etz hayyim

Menaḥem ben Benjaim 1250–1310 of Recanti

Peirush latorah

Menaḥem ben Judah Lonzano

1550–1624

Derekh ḥayyim

Menaḥem Mendel Auerbach

1620–1689

Ateret zekeinim on Shulḥan arukh

Mordecai ben Hillel

1140–1298

Sefer Mordecai

Mordecai Jaffe

1535–1612

Levush

Moses ben Jacob of Coucy

13th century

Sefer mitzvot gadol

Moses Cordovero

1522–1570

Sefer hapardes

Moses de Leon

c. 1250–1305

Moses Isserles

1530–1572

Darkhei Moshe on Tur; glosses on Shulḥan arukh

Moses Maimonides

1135–1223

Mishneh torah

Moses Mat

1551–1606

Matteh Moshe

Moses Mintz

1420–1500

She’eilot uteshuvot Moshe Mintz

Moshe ben Makhir

16th century

Sefer seder hayom

Naftali Hertz Treves

16th century

Commentary on Siddur Thiengen 1560

Nathan ben Judah

13th century

Sefer hamaḥkim

Nathan Nata ben Solo- 1588–1633 mon Spira

Megalleh amukot

Natronai ben Hilai Gaon

928–865

Teshuvot Rav Natronai Gaon

Nissim ben Reuben Gerondi

1320–1376

Commentary on Alfasi

Peretz ben Elijah of Corbeil

13th century

Commentary on Sefer mitzvot katan

Rambam (see Moses Maimonides)

Appendix II · 377 Rashi (Shelomo ben Isaac)

1040–1105

Commentary on the Talmud; Teshuvot Rashi

Saadiah ben Joseph Gaon

882–942

Siddur Rav Saadiah Gaon

Samson ben Tzadok

13th century

Sefer tashbetz

Sar Shalom ben Bo’az Gaon

mid–9th century

Shabbetai Sofer

1575–1635

Siddur Shabbetai Sofer of Przemysl

Shalom bar Yitzḥak of Neustadt

c. 1350–1413

Hilkhot uminhagei Rabbenu Shalom miNeustadt

Shelomo Halevi Alkabetz

c. 1505–1580

Simḥah ben Samuel of Vitry

11th century

Solomon ben Abraham 1235–1310 Adret

Maḥzor Vitry She’eilot uteshuvot Rashba

Solomon ben Moses Leibush

d. 1591

Solomon ben Samson of Worms

11th century

Siddur of R. Solomon ben Samson of Garmaise

Solomon ben Simeon Duran

c. 1400–1467

She’eilot uteshuvot Rashbash

Solomon Luria

1500–1572

Todros ben Joseph Abulafia

1225–1285

Otzar hakavod

Yair Ḥayyim Bacharach

1638–1702

Mekor Ḥayyim

Yeruḥam ben Meshullam, Rabbenu

14th century

Toldot Adam veḤavah

Yom Tov ben Abraham Ishbili

1270–1342

Ḥiddushei Ritba

Yom Tov Lipmann Heller

1578–1654

Divrei Ḥamudot lepiskei haRosh

Yom Tov Vidal of Tolossa

14th century

Maggid mishnah on Mishneh torah

Yuzpa Shamash

1604–1678

Customs of Worms Jewry

Zedekiah ben Abraham 1225–1297 Anav HaRofe

Sefer shibbolei haleket

Appendix III Siddur Pages

In my discussion of the prayers listed below, I do not reproduce the entire text of the prayer. I have included the following table to assist readers who wish to have the text of the prayers before them as they read, or to see the prayers in their context. Baer

Siddur kol Ya’akov Koren Siddur (ArtScroll)

Aleinu

131–32

158–60

181–83

Bameh madlikin

191–95

322–28

329–31

Barukh Adonai le’olam

168–69

264–66

253–55

Berakhah aḥat mei’ein sheva

190–91

346–48

359–61

Berikh shemei

222

436

503

Expansion of the service on Saturday night (veyehi no’am; kedushah desidra; veyiten lekha)

304–9

594–608

695–709

Full kaddish / kaddish shalem

129–30

156–58

179

256–58

245

Hama’ariv aravim

164

Hatavat ḥalom

359, 578–79 696–98

833–35

Kabbalat Shabbat

178–82

308–22

311–25

Kedushat hayom

188

340

361

348–50

363

Kiddush in the synagogue of Friday night

—

379

380 · Siddur Pages Mourner’s kaddish

160

183–85

Pitum haketoret

245–47

—

476–78

559–61

Shema and its blessings (arvit)

164–69

256–66

243–55

Shema and its blessings (shaḥarit)

76–86

84–96

89–107

Torah service (liturgy for taking out the Torah and returning it to the ark) weekdays

122–25

138–48

159–69

Torah service (liturgy for taking out the Torah and returning it to the ark) Shabbat

222–34

432–60

499–545

Vehu raḥum

163

256

243

Works Cited Ashkenazic Siddur Manuscripts JTS MS 4182 (1300) JTS MS 4057 (1400) JTS MS 4071 (c. 1400) JTS MS 4479 (15th century) JTS MS 4804 (1508) JTS MS 4079c (1578) JTS MS 4812 (1700) JTS MS 9340 (1714) Vienna NB 75 (13th–14th century) Paris BN 643 (13th–14th century) London BL 27208 (14th century) London BL 527086 (14th century) London BL Add. 26954 (14th century) Tel Aviv Gross GR 012.002 (14th century) Munich 381 (14th century) Leipzig UBL 1108 (14th century) Oxford Opp. 647 (14th century) Oxford Can. Or. 98 (14th century) Frankfurt UB Oct. 227 (14th–15th century) Zurich Braginsky 253 (14th–15th century) Paris AIU 72 (14th–15th century) Cambrai A946 (14th–15th century) Oxford Opp. 776 (1471) Oxford Can. Or. 110 (1492) Paris BN 1470 (n.d.)

381

382 · Works Cited

Contemporary Siddurim cited: Birnbaum, Philip, ed. Daily Prayer Book. New York: Hebrew Publishing Company, 1949. De Sola Pool, David, ed. The Traditional Prayer Book for Sabbath and Festivals. New York: Behrman House, 1960. Singer, Simeon, ed. The Authorized Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Commonwealth of Nations; second revised edition. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode Ltd, 1962. Scherman, Nosson and Meir Zlotowitz, eds. Siddur kol Ya’akov: The Complete ArtScroll Siddur. Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1984. Harlow, Jules, ed. Siddur sim shalom. New York: The Rabbinical Assembly and The United Synagogue of America, 1985. The Koren Siddur, translated, introduced, and annotated by Jonathan Sacks, ed. by Raphaël Freeman. Jerusalem: Koren Publishers, 2009. Siddur darkhei avot hashalem. Tel Aviv: Minhag Avot, 2004.

Primary Sources Publication data is not provided for standard editions of the Talmud and codes, or for the commentaries that are printed with them. Bar-Ilan Judaic Library version 22 (Monsey, NY: Torah Educational Software). Avot deRabbi Natan, ed. Solomon Schechter. Vienna, 1887. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen of Lunel. Sefer orḥot ḥayyim. Florence 1749/50; reprint Jerusalem, 1955. Abraham ben Azriel. Sefer arugat habosem, ed. Ephraim E. Urbach. Jerusalem: Mikitze Nirdamim, 1962. Abraham ben Isaac of Narbonne. Sefer ha’eshkol, ed. Shalom Albeck. Jerusalem: Mikitze Nirdamim, 1934/35–1938.     . Sefer ha’eshkol, ed. Benjamin Zevi Auerbach. Halberstadt, 1867; reprint Bnei Brak, n.d. Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel. Sefer hamanhig, ed. Yitzhak Raphael. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1978. Abudarham, David. Sefer Abudarham hashalem, ed. Solomon Wertheimer. Jerusalem: Usha Press, 1963.    . Sefer Rabbenu David Abudarham, ed. Menahem Avraham Braun. Jerusalem: Or HaSefer, 2001. Abulafia, Todros ben Joseph. Otzar hakavod. Warsaw, 1879; reprint Jerusalem: Makor, 1970

Works Cited · 383 Adret, Solomon ben Abraham. Ḥiddushei Rashba on Berakhot.    . She’eilot uteshuvot Rashba. New York, 1957. Al-Bargeloni, Judah ben Barzillai Hanasi. Sefer ha’itim, ed. Jacob Schorr. Cracow, 1903. Algazi, Israel Jacob. Sefer shalmei tzibbur. Solonika, 1745/46; new edition with notes by Avraham Ḥayon. Jerusalem: Ahavat Shalom, 1998. Amram ben Sheshna Gaon. Seder Rav Amram Gaon, ed. Daniel Goldschmidt. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1971. Anav, Zedekiah ben Abraham HaRofe. Sefer shibbolei haleket hashalem, ed. Salomon Buber. 1975/76; reprint of Vilna 1886 edition.    . Sefer shibbolei haleket hashalem, ed. Samuel K. Mirsky. New York: Sura, 1996. Asher ben Saul of Lunel. Sefer haminhagot. In Sifran shel Rishonim, ed. Simhah Assaf. Jerusalem: Mikitze Nirdamim, 1935. Asher ben Yehiel. Rabbenu Asher on Beraḥot.    . She’eilot uteshuvot haRosh, ed. Yitzhak Shlomo Yudlov. Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 1994. Auerbach, Menaḥem Mendel. Ateret zekeinim on Shulḥan arukh Oraḥ Ḥayyim. Bacharach, Yair Ḥayyim. Mekor Ḥayyim, ed. Eliyahu Dov Pines. Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 1981/82. Benveniste, Ḥayyim. Kenesset hagedolah on Beit Yosef Oraḥ Ḥayyim. Jerusalem, 1960. Calahora, Yosef ben Solomon Hadarshan Calahora of Posen. Sefer yesod Yosef. Frankfurt on Oder, 1679. Caro, Joseph. Beit Yosef on Tur Oraḥ Ḥayyim.    . Shulḥan arukh Oraḥ Ḥayyim.    . Shulḥan arukh hashalem Oraḥ Ḥayyim. Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 1994–. Danzig, Abraham. Ḥayyei Adam. David ben Joseph Karkov (‫)קארקו‬. Tefillah leDavid. Constantinople, 1538. David ben Samuel Halevi. Turei zahav on Shulḥan arukh Oraḥ Ḥayyim. David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra. She’eilot uteshuvot Radbaz, ed. Yitzḥak Tzvi ben Naftali Ḥayyim Sofer. Bnei Brak: Et Sofer, 1974/75. Duran, Solomon ben Simeon. She’eilot uteshuvot haRashbash. Livorno, 1742; reprint Jerusalem, 1968. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms. Perushei siddur hatefilah larokeaḥ, ed. Moshe Hershler and Yehudah A. Hershler. Jerusalem: Makhon HaRav Hershler, 1992.

384 · Works Cited    . Sefer harokeaḥ hagadol, ed. Barukh Shimon Schneersohn. Jerusalem, 1967. Eliezer ben Joel Halevi. Sefer raviah, ed. Avigdor (Victor) Aptowitzer. Jerusalem: Mikitze Nirdamim, 1938. Elijah ben Solomon. Ma’aseh rav. In Sifrei HaGra. Jerusalem: 1985/86.    . Siddur ishei Yisrael al pi Maran HaGra (reprint Jerusalem, 1981) Emden, Jacob. Siddur beit Ya’akov: Amudei Shamayim. Altona, 1745; reprint with additional notes by Moshe Bik. New York, 1966. Ephraim ben Jacob of Bonn. Sefer gezeirot Ashkenaz uTzarfat. ed. A. M. Haberman. Jerusalem: Ofir, 1971. Epstein, Yeḥiel Michael. Arukh hashulḥan.    . Sefer shenei luḥot haberit. Zhitomir, 1854. Falk, Joshua. Derishah to Tur Oraḥ Ḥayyim.    . Perishah to Tur Oraḥ Ḥayyim. Fano, Menaḥem Azariah da. “Ma’amar yonat elem.” Sefer ma’amarei haRema miFano. Jerusalem: Beit Midrash Gavo’ah LeTalmud Vehora’ah Yismaḥ Lev – Torah Moshe, 1977, 1–124. Galicchi, Abraham Yagel. Sefer moshia ḥosim. Venice: Giovanni di Gara, 1587. Geiger, Solomon Zalman. Divrei kehilot hamodi’a minhagei tefillot k"k Frankfurt. Frankfort on Main: J. Kauffmann, 1862–1868. Gombiner, Abraham. Magen Avraham to Shulḥan arukh Oraḥ Ḥayyim. Halakhot gedolot, ed. Ezriel Hildesheimer. Jerusalem: Mikitze Nirdamim, 1971. Sefer hapardes, ed. Ḥaim Yehudah Ehrenreich. Budapest, 1923/24; reprint New York: Makhon Lemeḥkar Ulehotza’at Kitvei-yad Usefarim Atikim, 1958/59. Ḥayyim bar Samuel ben David. Tzeror haḥayyim, ed. Samuel Ḥagai Yeru­ shalmi. Jerusalem, 1966. Hershler, Moshe. “Minhagei Vermaisa uMagentza devei Rashi verabbotav uminhagei Ashkenaz shel Harokeaḥ.” Genuzot 2:11–28.    . “She’eilot uteshuvot shel Rabbenu Kalonymus hazaken be’inyanei kaddish, kedushah, ve’inyanei tefillah.” Genuzot 2:125–29. Ḥildik, Abraham. Minhagei R. Abraham Ḥildik. Printed in Shlomo Spitzer ed., Minhagei R. Avraham Klausner (Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 2005). Hoffmann, David. Sefer melamed leho’il. New York: A. L. Frankel, 1954. Horowitz, Abraham ben Shabbetai Sheftel. Emek berakhah. Cracow, 1597; new edition with notes by Avraham Hayon. Jerusalem: Ahavat Shalom, 1998. Horowitz, Isaiah ben Abraham Halevi. Shenai luḥot haberit. Haifa: Makhon Yad Ramah, 1994.

Works Cited · 385    . Siddur sha’ar hashamayim. Amsterdam, 1717. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna. Sefer or zarua hashalem, ed. A. Marinberg. Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim: 2001. Isserlein, Israel. Terumat hadeshen, ed. Samuel Avitan. Jerusalem, 1990. Isserles, Moses to Shulḥan arukh Oraḥ Ḥayyim.    . Darkhei Moshe ha’arukh to Tur Oraḥ Ḥayyim. Furth, 1760; reprint Jerusalem, 1968. Jacob ben Asher. Arba’ah turim Oraḥ Ḥayyim.    . Tur hashalem Oraḥ Ḥayyim. Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 1990. Jacob ben Judah Ḥazzan of Bonn. Etz ḥayyim, ed. Israel Brodie. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1962. Jacob of Marvege. Teshuvot min hashamayim, ed. Reuben Margoliot. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1956. Jaffe, Mordecai. Levush. Berdichev, 1818–1821; reprint Israel, 1967. Jonah ben Abraham Gerondi on Alfasi Berakhot. Joseph ben Moses. Leket yosher, ed. Jacob Freimann. Berlin: Mikitze Nirdamim, 1903; reprint New York: Menorah Institute, 1959. Judah ben Samuel Heḥasid. Sefer ḥasidim, ed. Reuben Margoliot. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1970. Kirchheim, Judah Low. The Customs of Worms Jewry, ed. Israel Mordechai Peles. Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 1987. Klausner, Abraham. Sefer haminhagim leRabbenu Avraham Klausner, 2nd ed., ed. Shlomo Spitzer. Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalyim, 2005. Sefer Kol Bo. Jerusalem: Even Yisrael, 1996/97. Kolin, Samuel. Maḥatzit hashekel on Shulḥan arukh Oraḥ Ḥayyim. Kosman, Joseph. Noheg ketzon Yosef. 1718. Landau, Jacob ben Judah. Sefer ha’agur hashalem, ed. Moshe Hirshler. Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 1960. Lieberman, Saul. Tosefta kifshuta on Tosefta Megillah. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962. Luria, Solomon. She’eilot uteshuvot Maharshal hashalem. Jerusalem: Otzar Hasefarim, 1969. Manoaḥ ben Simeon Bedarshi of Narbonne. Sefer hamano’aḥ, ed. Elazar Hurvitz. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1970. Margoliot, Ḥayyim Mordecai. Sha’arei teshuvah to Shulḥan arukh Oraḥ Ḥayyim. Margalioth, Mordecai. Haḥilukim shebein anshei mizraḥ uvenei Eretz Yisrael. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1937.

386 · Works Cited Mat, Moses of Przemysl. Matteh Moshe, ed. Mordecai Ḥanokh Knoblowicz. Jerusalem: Otzar Haposkim, 1977/78. Meir ben Barukh of Rothenberg. Teshuvot, pesakim, uminhagim, ed. Yitzḥak Ze’ev Kahana. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1957. Meir ben Ezekiel ibn Gabbai. Sefer tola’at ya’akov. Jerusalem: Mekor Ḥayyim, 1966/67. Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, 2nd ed., ed. Ḥayyim Saul Horowitz and Israel Abraham Rabin. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1970. Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael, ed. Jacob Z. Lauterbach. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1933. 2nd ed. 2004. Menaḥem ben Solomon Hame’iri. Beit habeḥirah to Berakhot, ed. Samuel Dickman. Jerusalem: Makhon HaTalmud HaYisraeli Hashalem, 1960.    . Magen Avot, ed. J. Last. London, 1909. Menaḥem ben Yosef Ḥazzan. Sefer Troyes, ed. Max (Zvi) Weiss. In Sefer hayovel lekhavod Mosheh Aryeh Blokh. Budapest, 1905. Midrash tanḥuma. Jerusalem: Eshkol, 1971/72. Midrash Tehillim, ed. Salomon Buber. Vilna, 1891; reprint Jerusalem, 1966. The Midrash on Psalms, trans. William G. Braude. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959. Mintz, Moshe. She’eilot uteshuvot Moshe Mintz, ed. Jonathan Shraga Domb. Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 1990/91. Moellin, Jacob ben Moses. Sefer Maharil, ed. Shlomo J. Spitzer. Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 1989.    . She’eilot uteshuvot Maharil, ed. Yitzḥak Satz. Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 1979.    . She’eilot uteshuvot Maharil haḥadashot, ed. Yitzḥak Satz. Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 1977. Mordecai ben Hillel on Ta’anit. Moses ben Jacob of Coucy. Sefer mitzvot gadol. Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 1993. Moses ben Makhir. Sefer seder hayom hamenukad. Jerusalem: Yisrael Ya’akov Vidavski Makhon Even Yisrael, 1996. Moses Maimonides. Mishneh Torah.    . She’eilot uteshuvot haRambam, ed. Joshua Blau. Jerusalem: Mikitze Nirdamim, 1960.    . She’eilot uteshuvot haRambam, ed. David Joseph. Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 1984.    . “Seder hatefillah shel haRambam al pi ketav yad Oxford.” Meḥkerei

Works Cited · 387 Tefillah Vepiyyut, ed. Daniel Goldschmidt. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1978. 187–216. Moshes ben Naḥman, Commentary on the Torah. Nathan ben Judah. Sefer hamaḥkim, ed. Jacob Freimann. Cracow: Ha’eshkol, 1909. Natronai ben Hilai Gaon. Teshuvot Rav Natronai Gaon, ed. Robert Brody. Jerusalem, Makhon Ofek, 1994. Nissim ben Reuben Gerondi on Alfasi Pesaḥim. Nordlingen, Joseph Yuzpa Hahn. Sefer Yosef ometz. Frankfurt on Main: Hermon, 1927/28; reprint Jerusalem, 1964/65. Otzar haGeonim, ed. Benjamin Menasseh Lewin. Haifa, 1928. Otiot deRabbi Akiva. In Beit hamidrash, ed. Adolph Jellinek; reprint, Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1967. 3:27–29. Otiot deRabbi Akiva, ed. Solomon Wertheimer. Jerusalem, 1914. Peretz ben Elijah on Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil, Sefer mitzvot katan. Israel: David Harfenes Mefizei Or, 1958/59; reprint of Satmar, 1935. Pesikta deRab Kahana, trans. William G. Braude and Israel Kapstein. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1975. Pesikta rabbati, trans. William G. Braude. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1968. Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, trans. Gerald Friedlander. New York: Bloch, 1916; reprint New York: Sepher-Hermon, 1981. Rafeld, Meir and Joseph Tabory, eds., Siddur Hanau 388 [1628] facsimile edition. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan, 1994. Recanti, Menahem ben Benjamin. Peirush laTorah. Berdichev 1818–21; reprint, Brooklyn: N. Gross, 1962. Saadiah ben Joseph. Siddur Rav Saadiah Gaon, ed. Simchah Assaf, Israel Davidson, and Issachar Joel. Jerusalem: Mikitzei Nirdamin, 1970. Saba, Abraham ben Jacob, Tzeror hamor hashalem, ed. Betzalel Vikalder. Bnei Brak: Hekhal Hasefer, 1989/90. Samson ben Tzadok. Sefer tashbetz. Jerusalem: Kolel Tohorat Yom Tov, 1973/74; reprint of Warsaw: U. Z. Unterhandler, 1901 edition with new material. Sefer ha’orah, ed. Salomon Buber. Lvov, 1905. Shalom bar Yitzḥak of Neustadt. Hilkhot uminhagei Rabbenu Shalom miNeustadt, ed. Shlomo J. Sptizer. Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 1997. Shamash, Yuzpa. Customs of Worms Jewry, ed. Israel Mordecai Peles, with sources, commentary, and introduction by Benjamin Shlomo Ham-

388 · Works Cited burger, and an historical introduction by Erich Zimmer. Jerusalem: Mif’al Torat Ḥokhmei Ashkenaz Makhon Yerushalayim, 1988. Shapiro, Eliyahu ben Benjamin Wolf. Eliyahu rabba on Levush. Siddur Ḥasidei Ashhkenaz. In Siddur Solomon ben Samson of Garmaise, ed. Moshe Hershler. Jerusalem, 1971. Siddur Rashi. ed. Jacob Freimann with notes and introduction by Salomon Buber. Berlin: Mikitze Nirdamim, 1911. Simḥah bar Samuel of Vitry. Maḥzor Vitry, ed. Simon Halevi Hurwitz. Nuremberg: Mikitze Nirdamim, 1923.    . ed. Aryeh Goldschmidt. Jerusalem: Otzar Haposkim, 2004. Sirkes, Joel. Bayit ḥadash to Tur Oraḥ Ḥayyim. Sofer, Shabbetai. Siddur Shabbetai Sofer of Przemysl, ed. Yitzḥak Sats. Baltimore: Ner Israel College, 1987. Solomon ben Isaac, Teshuvot Rashi, ed. Israel Elfenbein. New York, 1943. Solomon ben Samson of Garmaise. Siddur of R. Solomon ben Samson of Garmaise, ed. Moshe Hershler. Jerusalem, 1971. Song of Songs Rabbah. Spira, Nathan Nata ben Solomon. Megalleh amukot: 252 Ofanim al parashat va’etḥanan. 1690; reprint Brooklyn, 1975. Tanna debe Eliyahu, ed. William G. Braude and Israel J. Kapstein. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1981. Teshuvot haGeonim sha’arei teshuvah, ed. Moshe Mordecai Meyuḥas, with notes and commentary by David Lavin and Wolf Leiter. Leipzig, 1858; reprint New York: Feldheim, 1946. The Tosefta, ed. Saul Lieberman. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1955–1988. Tyrnau, Isaac. Sefer haminhagim, ed. Shlomo Spitzer. Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 1979. Vidal, Yom Tov of Tolosa. Maggid mishnah on Mishneh Torah. Vital, Ḥayyim. Sefer sha’ar hakavanot. Jerusalem: Yeshivat Hamekubalim Maharḥu, 1997. Wertheimer, Solomon. Batei midrashot. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1952–1955; reprint Jerusalem: Ketav Vesefer, 1968. Yalkut Shimoni on Psalms. Yeruḥam ben Meshullam. Toldot Adam. Venice 1553; reprint Tel Aviv: Lito-­ Ofset Lion, n.d. Yom Tov ben Abraham Ishbili. Ḥiddushei Ritba on Rosh Hashanah. Yosef, Ovadia. She’eilot uteshuvot yeḥaveh da’at. Jerusalem: Ḥazon Ovadia, 1977.

Works Cited · 389 The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, ed. Daniel C. Matt. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004–2017.

Secondary Sources Abramson, Shraga. Bemerkazim uvitefutzot bitekufat haGeonim. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1965. Agus, Jacob. “Meir ben Barukh of Rothenberg.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 13:780–783. Alexander, Philip S. “Mysticism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, ed. Martin Goodman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, 705–32.    .“Prayer in the Heikhalot Literature.” In Prière, Mystique ét Judaisme: Colloque de Strasbourg, 10–12 Septembre 10–12, 1984, ed. Roland Goetschel. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1987, 43–64. Alon, Gedaliah. “Me’on haberakhot.” Tarbiz 14 (1941/42): 70–74. Reprinted in Meḥkarim Betoldot Yisrael. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hame’uḥad, 1957/58, 2: 128–32. Aptowitzer, Avigdor, “Teshuvot meyuḥasot leRav Hai ve’ainan lo.” Tarbiz 1 (1930): 63–105. Ariel, David S. The Mystic Quest: An Introduction to Jewish Mysticism. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1988, Arnow, David. “Sh’fokh Ḥamatkha in the Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael and the Passover Haggadah: A Search for Origins and Meaning.” Conservative Judaism 65:1–2 (2014): 32–54. “Ashkenaz,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 2:569–570. Ashkenazi, Shmuel. “Isaac Tyrnau.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 20:219–20. Assaf, Simḥah. “Misefer hatefillah mei’erettz Yisrael.” In Sefer Dinaburg, ed. Isaac Baer, Y. Gutman, and M. Shwabe. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1949, 116–31.     . “Mitokh siddur tefillah kadmon.” In Misifrut haGeonim. Jerusalem: Darom Press, 1932/33, 71–89. Assaf, Simḥah and Israel M. Ta-Shma. “Alfasi, Isaac ben Jacob.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 1:639–641. Avineri, Zvi. “Worms.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 21:226–227. Baer, Y. Seder avodat Yisrael. Roedelheim, 1868; reprint Berlin: Schocken, 1936/37.

390 · Works Cited Baldovin, John F. “Christian Worship to the Era of the Reformation.” In The Making of Jewish and Christian Worship, ed. Paul Bradshaw and Lawrence Hoffman. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991, 156–83. Bar-Ilan, Meir. “Mekorah shel tefellat ‘aleinu leshabei’aḥ’,” Da’at 43:125–40. Reprinted in Ta-Shma: Meḥkarim bemada’ei haYahadut lezikhro shel Yisrael M. Ta-Shma, ed. Abraham Reiner, Joseph R. Hacker, et al. Alon Shevut: Tenuvot Press, 2011, vol. 1, 5–24.    . Sitrei tefillah veheikhalot. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan Press, 1987. Baron, Salo Wittmayer. A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2nd ed. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1952–83. Baumgarten, Elisheva. Practicing Piety in Medieval Ashkenaz: Men, Women, and Everyday Religious Observance. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014. Bayer, Bathje. “Lekha dodi: Musical Rendition,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 12:633–34. Ben-Sasson, H. H. “Germany.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 7:518–24.    . “The Middle Ages.” In A History of the Jewish People, ed. Ḥaim Ben-Sasson. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1976. Berger, Kenneth. Issues and Developments in the Liturgy of Ashkenaz during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: The Arvit Service. D. H. L. dissertation, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2006. Berkovitz, Jay. “Jewish Law and Ritual in Early Modern Germany.” In Jews, Judaism, and the Reformation in Sixteenth-Century Germany, ed. Dean Phillip Bell and Stephan G. Burnett. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2006. Berliner, Abraham. “Hashpa’at sifrei hadefus al tarbut haYehudim.” In Ketavim Nivḥarim. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1945; reprint 1969. 2: 113–42.    . “He’arot al hasiddur.” In Ketavim Nivḥarim. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1945; reprint 1969, 2: 9–144. Bezek, Jacob. “Iyyunim belekha dodi.” Sinai 102 (1987/88): 183–96.     . “Lekha dodi – iyyunim nosafim.” Sinai 103 (1988/89): 230–34. Blank, Debra Reed. “‘Haven’t You Learned This Yet?’,” (y. Megillah 3:7, 74b): The Use of b’rakhot around the Torah Recitation,” Journal of Jewish Studies 54 (2003): 85–106.     . “The Medieval French Practice of Repeating Qaddish and Barekhu for Latecomers in the Synagogue.” In Liturgy in the Life of the Synagogue, ed. Ruth Langer and Steven Fine. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005, 73–94.

Works Cited · 391    . Soferim: A Commentary to chapters 10–12 and a Reconsideration of the Evidence. PhD diss., Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1998. Blidstein, Gerald J. “Meihabayit leveit hakeneset – meiḥiddushei beit hakeneset habatar talmudi.” In Ta Shma: Studies in Judaica in Memory of Israel M. Ta-Shma, ed. Abraham Reiner, Joseph R. Hacker, Moshe Halbertal, Moshe Idel, Ephraim Kanarfogel, and Elhanan Reiner. Alon Shevut: Tenuvot Press, 2011, 105–34. Blumenthal, David R. Understanding Jewish Mysticism: A Source Reader. New York: KTAV, 1978. Breuer, Mordechai. “The Early Modern Period.” In German-Jewish History in Modern Times, vol. 1, Tradition and Enlightenment 1600–1780, ed. Michael A. Meyer. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996, 79–260. Brodsky, David. “Mourner’s Kaddish, the Prequel: The Sassanian-Persian Backstory that Gave Birth to the Medieval Prayer for the Dead.” In The Aggada of the Bavli and its Cultural World, ed. Geoffrey Herman and Jeffrey L. Runbenstein. Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2018, 335–69. Brody, Robert. The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998.    . “Leḥidat arikhato shel Seder Rav Amram Gaon.” In Knesset Ezra: Literature and Life in the Synagogue: Studies Presented to Ezra Fleischer, ed. S. Elizur, M. S. Herr, G. Shaked, and A. Shinan. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1994, 21–34. Chazan, Robert. “The Blois Incident of 1171: A Study in Jewish Intercommunal Organization.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 36 (1968): 13–31. Cohen, Jeremy. Sanctifying the Name of God: Jewish Martyrs and Jewish Memories of the First Crusade. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Cohen, Yitzḥak Yosef. Seder kabbalat Shabbat upizmon lekha dodi. Jerusalem, 1969.    . “Sefer ‘Tikkunei Shabbat.’” Kiryat Sefer 39 (1964): 539–48. Dablitski, Sherayah. “Ḥamishah minhagim la’eidot haSepharadim lemakom amirato shel perek bameh madlikin beleil Shabbat.” Moriah 219–20 (1993/94): 93–98. Dan, Joseph. “The Emergence of Mystical Prayer.” In Studies in Jewish Mysticism, ed. Joseph Dan and Frank Talmage. Cambridge: Association for Jewish Studies, 1982, 85, 120.     . “Prayer as Text and Prayer as Mystical Experience.” In Torah and Wisdom: Studies in Jewish Philosophy, Kabbalah, and Halacha: Essays in Honor of Arthur Hyman, ed. Ruth Link-Salinger. New York, 1992, 33–45.

392 · Works Cited    . “Kalonymus.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 11:747–749. Danzig, Naḥman [Neil]. “Teshuvot haGeonim ‘Sha’arei Teshuvah’ veshu’t min hashamayim.’” Tarbiz 58 (1988): 21–48. Davidovitch, David. Tziyurei-kir bevatei-keneset bePolin. Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1968. Derovan, David. “Asher ben Yeḥiel,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 2:563–64. Dinari, Yedidya A. “Joseph (Joselein) ben Moses.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 11:424. Dissen, Yonah Y. “Introduction to 1978 Edition.” In Minhagei R. Avraham Klausner, ed. Shlomo Spitzer. Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 2005. Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978. Dweck, Yaacob. “What is a Jewish Book?”, AJS Review 34:2 (November, 2010): 367–75. Ehrlich, Uri. Tefillat ha’amidah shel yemot haḥol. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013. Eisenstein, Elizabeth. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early-modern Europe, Volumes 1–2 Complete in One Volume. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. Ekirch, A. Roger. At Day’s Close: Night in Times Past. New York: W. W. Norton, 2005. Elbaum, Jacob. Petiḥut vehistagrut. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1990.    . Teshuvat halev vekabbalat yisurim: Iyunim beshittot hateshuvah shel Ḥokhmei Ashkenaz vePolin, 1348–1648. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1992. Elbogen, Ismar. Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History, trans. Raymond P. Scheindlin. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993. Elon, Menachem. “Codification.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 4:765–781. Ettinger, Shmuel. “The Modern Period.” In A History of the Jewish People, ed. Ḥaim Ben-Sasson. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1976. Etz- Ḥaim, Jonathan. “Kiddush haShabbat – Hishtalshelut hahalakhah.” Bar-Ilan 16–17 (1978/79): 70–85. Faierstein, Morris M. Jewish Customs of Kabbalistic Origin: Their History and Practice. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2013. Feldman, David M. Marital Relations, Birth Control, and Abortion in Jewish Law. New York: Schocken, 1974.

Works Cited · 393 Fine, Lawrence. Safed Spirituality: Rules of Personal Piety, The Beginnings of Wisdom. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1984.    . Physician of the Soul, Healer of the Cosmos: Isaac Luria and His Kabbalistic Fellowship. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003. Finkelstein, Louis. “The Development of the Amidah.” Jewish Quarterly Review, n.s. 16 (1925/26): 1–43, 127–70. Fishman, Talya. Becoming the People of the Talmud: Oral Torah as Written Tradition in Medieval Jewish Cultures. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. Fleischer, Ezra. “Keriat ḥad shenatit utelat shenatit baTorah beveit hakeneset hakadum.” Tarbiz 62 (1992): 25–43.     . Tefillah uminhagei tefillah Eretz Yisraeli’im bitekufat hagenizah. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1988.    . “Tefillah upiyyut bemaḥzor Vermaiza.” In Worms Maḥzor Ms. Jewish National and University Library Heb. 40 781/1/ facsimile edition. Vaduz: Cyelar Establishment; Jerusalem: Jewish National and University Library, 1985. Hebrew section, 1: 27–60. Fogel, Shimon and Uri Ehrlich. “Letoldot nusḥah hakadum shel birkat hashkiveinu.” Tarbiz 84:2 (2016): 77–101. Fraenkel, Yonah. “Leḥeker toldot hasiddur haAshkenazi,” Mada’ei haYahadut (=Jewish Studies) 41 (2002), 29–36.    . ed., Maḥzor Shavuot lefi minhagei benai Ashkenaz lekhol anfeihem. Jerusalem: Koren, 2000. Frankel, Yitzḥak. “Berikh shemei.” In Siddur Shabbetai Sofer of Przemysl, ed. Yitzḥak Sats. Baltimore: Ner Israel College, 1987, 366–88. Freehof, Solomon B. The Responsa Literature. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1959. Friedman, Mordecai A. “Hitnagdut letefillah uleminhagei tefillah Eretz-Yisraelim beshe’eilot uteshuvot shemin hagenizah.” In Kenesset Ezra: Literature and Life in the Synagogue: Studies Presented to Ezra Fleischer, ed. S. Elizur, M. D. Herr, G. Shaken, and A. Shinan. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1994, 69–85. Gartner, Jacob. “Hapores sukkat shalom.” Sinai 44 (1983/84): 252–65. Gilat, Yitzhak D. “Haderashah vekeriat haTorah beveit hakeneset beshabbat.” In Perakim behistalshelut hahalakhah. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan, 1992, 350–62.    . “Leil hitkadesh Shabbat.” In Perakim behistalshelut hahalakhah. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan, 1992, 344–47.    . Perakim behistalshelut hahalakhah. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan, 1992.

394 · Works Cited Giller, Pinchas. “The Common Religion of Safed.” Conservative Judaism 55 (Winter, 2003): 24–37. Gillman, Neil. Sacred Fragments: Recovering Theology for the Modern Jew. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990. Ginzberg, Louis. Geonica. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1909; reprint New York: Hermon Press, 1968.    . The Legends of the Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1909–1938; reprint 1968. Goldberg, Chaim Binyamin, Mourning in Halachah. Brooklyn: Mesorah, 1991. Goldschmidt, Daniel, ed. Maḥzor leyamim nora’im, vol. 1. Jerusalem: Koren, 1970. Goodblatt, David M. Rabbinic Instruction in Sasanian Babylonia. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Greis, Ze’ev. “Ha’atakat vehadpasat sifrei kabbalah kemakor lelimudah.” Maḥanayim 6 (1993): 204–11.    . Sifrut hahanagot: Toldoteha umekomah beḥayei Ḥasidei R. Yisrael Ba’al Shem Tov. Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1989. Grossman, Avraham. Ḥakhmei Ashkenaz harishonim: Koroteihem, darkam behanhagat hatzibbur, yetzsiratam harukhanit meireishit yishuvam ve’ad gezeirat 1096. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1981. Halbertal, Moshe. Maimonides: Life and Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013. Halevy, Isaac. Dorot Rishonim. Frankfurt on Main, 1918. Hallamish, Moshe. Hakabbalah batefillah, bahalakhah uvaminhag. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan, 2000.     . Hanhagot kabbaliot beShabbat. Har Nof: Orḥot, 2005.    . “The Influence of the Kabbalah on Jewish Liturgy.” In Prière, Mystique ét Judaisme: Colloque de Strasbourg, 10–12 Septembre, 1984, ed. Roland Goetschel. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1987, 121–31. Hamburger, Benjamin Shlomo. “Minhag Ashkenaz.” Hama’ayan 27 (1987): 1–10.     . Shorshei minhag Ashkenaz, vol. I. Bnei Brak: Makhon Moreshet Ashkenaz, 1995.    . “Yesodotav hahistori’im shel ‘minhag Ashkenaz’: petiḥah.” In Yuzpa Shamash, Customs of Worms Jewry, ed. Israel Mordecai Peles, with sources, commentary, and introduction by Benjamin Shlomo Hamburger, and an historical introduction by Erich Zimmer. Jerusalem: Mif’al Torat Ḥokhmei Ashkenaz Makhon Yerushalayim, 1988, 69–105. Hammer, Reuven. Entering Jewish Prayer. New York: Schocken, 1994.

Works Cited · 395 “Hatavat ḥalom.” Encyclopaedia Talmudit. Jerusalem: Hotza’at Encyclopedia Talmudit, 1982–, 8:753–58. Havlin, Shlomo Zalman. “Kol bo.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd edition. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 2007, 12:272. Heinemann, Joseph. “Berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva.” Iyyunei tefillah, ed. Avigdor Shinan. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1983, 36–43.    . “Kedushah umalkhut shel keriat shema ukedushah deamidah.” In Iyyunei tefillah, ed. Avigdor Shinan. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1983, 12–21.    . “One benediction comprising seven.” Revue des études juives 135 (1966): 101–11.    . Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns, trans. Richard S. Sarason. Berlin; New York: Walter De Gruyter, 1977.    . “The Trienniel Lectionary Cycle.” Journal of Jewish Studies 19 (1968): 41–48. Heller, Marvin. “Designing the Talmud: The Origins of the Printed Talmudic Page.” Tradition 29 (1995): 40–51. Hoffman, Jeffrey E. “The Bible in the Prayer Book: A Study in Intertextuality. D. H. L. dissertation, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2097.    . “The Image of The Other in Jewish Interpretations of Alenu.” Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations 10:1 (2015). Available at http://ejournals. bc.edu/ojs/index.php/scjr/article/view/5904. Hoffman, Lawrence A. The Canonization of the Synagogue Service. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979.     . “Havdalah: A Case of Categories.” In Beyond the Text: A Holistic Approach to Liturgy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987, 20–45.    . “Jewish Liturgy and Jewish Scholarship: Method and Cosmology.” In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, ed. Martin Goodman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, 733–55.    . “The Reading of Torah – Retelling the Jewish Story in the Shadow of Sinai.” In My People’s Prayer Book  IV. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 2000, 1–18.    . “Rites: A Case of Social Space.” Beyond the Text: a Holistic Approach to Liturgy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987, 46–59. Hubka, Thomas C. Resplendent Synagogue: Architecture and Worship in an Eighteenth-Century Polish Community. Hanover and London: Brandeis University Press, 2003. Hundert, Gershon. Jews in Poland-Lithuania in the Eighteenth Century: A Gene-

396 · Works Cited alogy of Modernity. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004. Huss, Boaz. The Zohar: Reception and Impact. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2016. Originally published as Kezohar harakia: perakim behitkablut haZohar uvehabeniyat erko hasemali. Jerusalem: Makhon Ben-Tzvi leḥeḳer Kehilot Yisrael baMizraḥ; Mossad Bialik, 2008. The notes in the Hebrew edition include bibliographical information omitted in the translation. Idel, Moshe. “‘One from a Town, Two from a Clan’ – The Diffusion of Lurianic Kabbala and Sabbateanism: A Re-Examination.” Jewish History 7:2 (Fall, 1993): 82–90. Kahn, Yoel H. The Three Blessings: Boundaries, Censorship, and Identity in Jewish Liturgy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Kanarfogel, Ephraim. Peering through the Lattices: Mystical, Magical, and Pietistic Dimensions in the Tosafist Period. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2000.    . “Prayer, Literacy, and Literary Memory.” In Jewish Studies at the Crossroads of Anthropology and History: Authority, Diaspora, Tradition, ed. Ra‘anan S. Boustan, Oren Kosansky, and Marina Rustow. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011, 250–70.    . “Rabbinic Attitudes toward Nonobservance in the Medieval Period.” In Jewish Tradition and the Nontraditional Jew, ed. Jacob J. Schacter. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1992, 3–35.    . “Peleitim yehudim meiAshkenaz umiPolin beAmsterdam biyemei milḥemet sheloshim hashanah uviyemei hagezeirot shebein 1648–1660.” In Tarbut veḥevrah betoldot Yisrael biyemei habeinayim: Kovetz ma’amarim lezikhro shel Ḥaim Hillel Ben-Sasson, ed. Menahem Ben-Sasson, Robert Bonfil, and Joseph R. Hacker. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1989, 587–622.    . “The Portuguese Community in 17th-Century Amsterdam and the Ashkenazic World.” In Dutch Jewish History: Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on the History of the Jews in the Netherlands, ed. Jozeph Michman. Jerusalem: Institute of Research on Dutch Jewry, Hebrew University, 1989, 23–45. Yosef Kaplan. “Peleitim yehudim meiAshkenaz umiPolin beAmsterdam biyemei milḥemet sheloshim hashanah uviyemei hagezeirot shebein 1648–1660.” In Tarbut veḥevrah betoldot Yisrael biyemei habeinayim: Kovetz ma’amarim lezikhro shel Ḥaim Hillel Ben-Sasson, ed. Menahem Ben-Sasson,

Works Cited · 397 Robert Bonfil, and Joseph R. Hacker. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1989, 587–622.    . “The Portuguese Community in 17th-Century Amsterdam and the Ashkenazic World.” In Dutch Jewish History: Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on the History of the Jews in the Netherlands, ed. Jozeph Michman. Jerusalem: Institute of Research on Dutch Jewry, Hebrew University, 1989, 23–45. Kasher, Menaḥem. Sefer divrei Menaḥem. Jerusalem: Beit Torat Shelomo, 1977. Katz, Jacob. “Hakhra’ot haZohar bidevar halakhah.” Tarbiz 50 (1980/81): 405–22. Katz, Simha. “Israel ben Pethahiah Isserlein.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 10:768–69. Kimelman, Reuven. “The Daily Amidah and the Rhetoric of Redemption,” Jewish Quarterly Review 79 (1985–1989): 165–97.    . “Lekha dodi” vekabbalat Shabbat: Hamashma’ut hamistit. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2003.    . “The Literary Structure of the Amidah and the Rhetoric of Redemption.” In The Echoes of Many Texts: Reflections on Jewish and Christian Traditions, Essays in Honor of Lou H. Silberman, ed. William G. Dever and J. Edward Wright. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1997, 171–218.    .“Liturgical studies in the 90’s.” In The Jewish Book Annual 52 (1994– 1995): 59–72.    . “The shema‘ Liturgy: From Covenant Ceremony to Coronation.” In Kenishta 1, ed. Joseph Tabory. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan, 2001, 9–105. Koslofsky, Craig. Evening’s Empire: A History of the Night in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Kupfer, Ephraim. “Jacob ben Moses Moellin.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 14:414. Kupfer, Ephraim and David Derovan. “Jacob ben Asher.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 11:30–31. Lachower, Fischel and Isaiah Tishby. The Wisdom of the Zohar: An Anthology of Texts. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Lamm, Maurice. The Jewish Way in Death and Mourning. New York: Jonathan David, 1969. Langer, Ruth. “Biblical Texts in Jewish Prayer: Their History and Function.” In Jewish and Christian Liturgy and Worship: New Insights into its History and Interaction, ed. Albert Gerhards and Clemens Leonhard. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007, 63–90.

398 · Works Cited     . “Celebrating the Presence of the Torah: The History and Meaning of Reading Torah.” In My People’s Prayer Book III, ed. Lawrence A. Hoffman. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights, 2000, 19–27.    . “The Censorship of Aleinu in Ashkenaz and its Aftermath.” In The Experience of Jewish Liturgy: Studies Dedicated to Menahem Schmelzer, ed. Debra Reed Blank. Leiden: Brill, 2011, 147–66.     . Cursing the Chirstians? A History of the Birkat haminim.” New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.    . “From Study of Scripture to a Reenactment of Sinai: The Emergence of the Synagogue Torah Service.” Worship 72:1 (1998): 43–67.    . “Shelavim kedumim behitpatḥutah shel hotza’at haTorah vehakhnasatah beveit hakeneset bey’mei habanayim.” In Kenishta: Meḥkarim al beit hakeneset ve’olamo 2, ed. Joseph Tabory. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan, 2003, 99–118.    . “Sinai, Zion, and God in the Synagogue: Celebrating Torah in Ashkenaz.” In Liturgy in the Life of the Synagogue: Studies in the History of Jewish Prayer, ed. Ruth Langer and Steven Fine. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005, 121–59.    . To Worship God Properly: Tensions between Liturgical Custom and Halakhah in Judaism. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1998. Lerner, David G. “Hekhalot Rabbati: The Mystical Text and its Liturgical Elements.” Conservative Judaism 47 (Fall, 1994): 74–83. Lerner, Miron Bialik. “Ma’aseh hatanna vehamet: gilgulav hasifruti’im vehalakhti’im.” Asufot 2 (1988): 29–70. Levi, Israel. “Fragments de rituels de prières.” Revue des études juives 53 (1907): 231–41. Levine, Amy-Jill and Marc Brettler, eds., The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven: Yale, 2000. Lieberman, Ḥaim. “Sefer ‘Tikkunei Shabbat.’” Kiryat Sefer 38 (1963): 401–14; 39 (1963): 109–16. Liebes, Yehudah. “HaZohar kesefer halakhah.” Tarbiz 64 (1994/95): 581–605. Liebreich Leon. “An Interpretation of the Sabbath Eve Liturgy.” Journal of Jewish Music 4 (1972): 22–30.    . “The Liturgical Use of Psalm 78:38.” In Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman, ed. M. Ben Horin. Leiden: Brill, 1962, 365–74. Maarsen, Yitzḥak. “Kabbalat Shabbat: bikoret historit.” Jeschurun 9. E. Wohlgemuth (1922): 46–53; 81–87.

Works Cited · 399 Mainz, Moses, “Ketzat mitoldot hameḥaber vedarkhei ḥayyav.” In Joseph Yuzpa Hahn Nordlingen, Sefer Yosef ometz. Frankfurt on Main: Hermon, 1927/28; reprint Jerusalem, 1964/65. Mann, Jacob. “Genizah Fragments of the Palestinian Order of Service.” HUCA II (1925): 269–338. Reprinted in Contributions to the Scientific Study of Jewish Liturgy, ed. Jakob J. Petuchowski. New York: KTAV, 1970. Marcus, Ivan G. Piety and Society: The Jewish Pietists of Medieval Society. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Marcus, Jacob R. The Jew in the Medieval World. New York: Atheneum, 1969. McKay, Heather A. Sabbath & Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath Worship in Ancient Judaism. Boston; Leiden: Brill, 2001. Michman, Jozeph. “Amsterdam: Sephardim until 1795.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd edition. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 2:108–110.    . “The Self-Definition of the Sephardic Jews of Western Europe and their Relation to the Alien and the Stranger.” In Crisis and Creativity in the Sephardic World 1391–1648, ed. Benjamin Gampel. New York: Columbia University Press, 1997, 121–45. Milgrom, Jacob. The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers. Philadelphia and New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1990. Mirsky, Aharon. “Shinuyei nusaḥ bein hapeirush levein hamitpareish besiddurim.” Kiryat Sefer 54 (1979): 195–200. Myers, Jacob M. The Anchor Bible: Ezra-Nehemiah. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965. The New England Primer. Boston, 1777. Noy, Mordecai. “Legilgulo shel nusaḥ hatefillah.” Sinai 104 (1989/90): 192. Nulman, Macy. Concepts of Jewish Music and Prayer. New York: Cantorial Council of America, 1985. Posner, Raphael and Israel M. Ta-Shma. The Hebrew Book: An Historical Survey. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1975. Rabbinovicz, Raphael. Dikdukei sofrim on Berakhot. Jerusalem: Me’ein Ḥokhmah, 1960. Rabinowitz, Louis Isaac. “Shulḥan arukh.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 18:529–30. Rabinowitz, Louis Isaac, Jacob I. Dienstag, Arthur Hyman, Suessmann Muntner, and Bernard R. Goldstein, “Maimonides, Moses,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 13:381–97. Ratzhabi, Judah. “Lekha dodi shel hamekubal R. Shelomo Alkabetz umekorotav.” Maḥanayim 6 (1993/94): 162–69.

400 · Works Cited Reif, Stefan C. Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.    . Shabbethai Sofer and his Prayer-book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.    . Jewish Prayer Texts from the Cairo Genizah: A Selection of Manuscripts at Cambridge University Library, Introduced, Transcribed, Translated, and Annotated, with Images. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2016. Reiner, Elchanan, “The Ashkenazi Elite at the Beginning of the Modern Era: Manuscript versus Printed Book.” Polin 10 (1977): 85–98. Rosenfeld, Abraham. The Authorized Kinot for the Ninth of Av. New York: Judaica Press, 1979. Roth, Cecil. A History of the Marranos. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1932. Roth-Rotem, Joseph. “Mizmor 29 beTehillim: lesh’eilat haseder beseder kabbalat Shabbat.” Meḥkerei Ḥag 5 (1993/94): 46–60. Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. “Social and Institutional Settings of Rabbinic Literature.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature, ed. Charlote Elisheva Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, 58–74. Ruderman, David B. Early Modern Jewry: A New Cultural History. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2010. Sarason, Richard. “On the Use of Method in the Modern Study of Jewish Liturgy.” In Approaches to Ancient Judaism: Theory and Practice,” ed. William Scott Green. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press,1978, 97–172.    . “Recent Developments in the Field of Jewish Liturgy.” In The Study of Ancient Judaism  I: Mishnah, Midrash, Siddur, ed. Jacob Neusner. New York: KTAV, 1981. Sarna, Nahum and David Sperling. “Bible: The Canon.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 3:577–78. Schäfer, Peter. Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literature. Tubingen: Mohr, 1984. Schechter, Abraham I. Studies in Jewish Liturgy: Based on a Unique Manuscript Entitled Seder Ḥibbur Berakot. Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1930. Schechter, Solomon. “Safed in the Sixteenth Century.” In Studies in Judaism Second Series. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1908; reprint 1938, 202–306. Schmelzer, Menahem. “Decorated Hebrew Manuscripts of the Eighteenth Century in the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America.” In Occident and Orient: A Tribute to the Memory of Alexander Scheiber, ed. Robert Dan. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado; Leiden: Brill, 1988, 331–52.

Works Cited · 401    . “Kaddish.” Unpublished paper presented at the annual conference of the Association of Jewish Studies, December, 1998. Scholem, Gershom. Jewish Gnosticism, Merkavah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965.    . Kabbalah. New York: Quadrangle/The New York Times Book Company, 1974.    . “Kabbalah.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 11:627–635    . Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. New York: Schocken, 1941.     . Origins of the Kabbalah, ed. R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, trans. Allan Arkush. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1987.    . “Zohar.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 21:658–59. Shulvass, Moses A. From East to West: The Westward Migration of Jews from Eastern Europe During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1971. Shyovitz, David. “‘You Have Saved Me from the Judgment of Gehenna’: The Origins of the Mourner’s Kaddish in Medieval Ashkenaz.” AJS Review 39:1 (April, 2015): 49–73. Soloveitchik, Haym. “Three Themes in the Sefer Ḥasidim.” AJS Review 1 (1976): 311–57.    . Collected Essays Volume 2. Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2014. Sperber, Daniel. Minhagei Yisrael: Mekorot vetoldot. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1989–.    . “Mishmarot and ma’amadot.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 14:317–19. Spitzer, Sholomo. “Introduction to Minhagei R. Abraham Ḥildik.” In Abraham Ḥildik, Minhagei R. Abraham Ḥildik. Printed in Minhagei R. Avraham Klausner, ed. Shlomo Spitzer. Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 2005. Stein, David E. S. “The Haftarot of Etz Hayim: Exploring the Historical Interplay of Customs, Ḥumashim, and Halakhah.” Conservative Judaism 54 (2002): 60–88. Swartz, Michael D. “’Alay Leshabbeaḥ: A Liturgical Prayer in Ma’aseh Merkabah.” Jewish Quarterly Review 77 (1986–1987): 179–90.     . “Hekhalot and Piyyut: From Byzantium to Babylonia and Back.” In Hekhalot Literature in Context: Between Byzantium and Babylonia, ed. Ra‘anan Boustan, Martha Himmelfarb, and Peter Schäfer. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013, 41–62.

402 · Works Cited    . “Piyut and Heikhalot: Recent Research and its Implications for the History of Ancient Jewish Liturgy and Mysticism.” In The Experience of Jewish Liturgy, ed. Debra Reed Blank, 263–381. Tabory, Joseph. “Avodat Adonai shel anshei hama’amad.” In From Qumran to Cairo: Studies in the History of Prayer, ed. Joseph Tabory. Jerusalem: Orḥot Press, 1999, 145–69. Tal, Shelomo. “Ana bako’aḥ,” Sinai 92 (1982/83): 287–89. Reprinted in Peri Ḥayyim: Kovetz Ma’amarim. Moreshet: Tel Aviv, 1982/83, 30–32.     . “Birkat me’ein sheva.” Tarbiz 41 (1971/72): 145–50. Reprinted in Peri Ḥayyim, 42–49.     . “Hashpa’atah shel kabbalat ha’ari z"l al itzuv demuto shel siddur hatefillah.” De’ot 43 (1972/73): 181–85. Reprinted in Peri Ḥayyim, 17–25. Tamar, David. “Abraham Klausner.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 12:214. Tamar, David, Moshe Idel, Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, and R. J. Zwi Werblowsky. “Caro, Joseph ben Ephraim.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 4:488–91. Ta-Shma, Israel M. “Al kamah inyanei Maḥzor Vitry.” Alei Sefer 11 (1984): 81–89.    . “Halakhah, minhag umasoret beYahadut Ashkenaz bemei’ot ha-11–12.” In Minhag Ashkenaz Hakadmon. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1992.    . Hanigleh shebenistar: Leḥeker sheki’ei hahalakhah besefer haZohar. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hame’uḥad, 1995.     . “Hapores sukkat shalom – berakhah vegilgulah.” Asufot 2 (1987/88): 177–90. Reprinted in Minhag Ashkenaz Hakadmon. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1992, 142–56.    . Hatefillah ha’Ashkenazit hakedumah. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2003.    . “Ketzat inyanei kaddish yatom uminhagav.” Tarbiz 53 (1984/85): 559–68. Reprinted in Minhag Ashkenaz Hakadmon, 299–310.    . “Kiddush shel leil Shabbat beveit hakenesset.” Asufot 1 (1986/87): 333–41. Reprinted in Minhag Ashkenaz Hakadmon, 157–70.    . “Minhagim Books.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 14:278.    . “Semikhat ge’ulah litefillah.” In Hatefillah haAshkenazit hakedumah, 101–9.    . “Sheeilot uteshuvot min hashamayim – hakovetz vetosefotav.” Tarbiz 57 (1987): 51–66.

Works Cited · 403    . “Tefillat ‘aleinu leshabei’aḥ’ ushe’eilat siyyum hatefillah.” In Frank Talmage Memorial Volume, ed. Barry Walfish. Haifa: Haifa University Press, 1993, 85–98. Reprinted in Hatefillah HaAshkenazit Hakedumah, 139–53.    . “Tefillat arvit reshut o-ḥovah?”. In From Qumran to Cairo: Studies in the History of Prayer, ed. Joseph Tabory. Jerusalem: Orlot Press, 1999, 131–44. Reprinted in Hatefillah HaAshkenazit Hakedumah, 115–26. Ta-Shma, Israel M., Menahem Slae and Slomo Tal. “Responsa.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 17:228–39. Tigay, Jeffrey. The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. Tobias, Alexander. “Joseph Yuzpa ben Phinehas Selgimann Hahn (Nordlingen).” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 8:231. Toledano, Shemuel. Sefer hakdamat ushe’arim leḥokhmat hakabbalah. Jerusalem, Shmuel Toledano, 1990. Trachtenberg, Joshua. Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion. New York: Behrman, 1939; reprint, New York: Atheneum, 1979. Turner, Victor. A Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967.     . The Ritual Process. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1969. Twersky, Isadore. Introduction to the Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah). New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980.    . “The Shulḥan ‘Arukh: Enduring Code of Jewish Law.” Judaism 16:2 (Spring, 1967): 141–58. Reprinted in Judah Goldin, The Jewish Expression. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1970, 322–42. Urbach, Ephraim E. “Mishmarot uma’amadot,” Tarbiz 42 (1972/73): 304–27. Van Gennup. Arnold. The Rites of Passage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Washofsky, Mark. “Minhag and Halakhah.” In Walter Jacob and Moshe Zemer, Rabbinic-Lay Relations in Jewish Law. Tel Aviv and Pittsburgh, Freehof Institute of Progressive Halakhah, 1993, 99–126. Waxman, Mordecai, ed. Tradition and Change: The Development of Conservative Judaism. New York: Burning Bush Press, 1958. Weingarten, Weingarten. “Yismeḥu bemalekhutekha.” Areshet 5 (1985/86): 46–51. Weinryb, Bernard and Larissa Daemmig. “Mainz.” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference, 13:403–5. Weinstock, Menahem. “Mizmor shir leyom haShabbat.” Areshet 6 (1986/87): 42–44. Wieder, Naftali. “Be’itiyah shel gematria anti-Notzrit ve’anti-Islamit (bitefil-

404 · Works Cited lat ‘aleinu leshabei’aḥ).” Sinai 76 (1974/75): 1–14. Reprinted in Hitgabshut nusaḥ hatefillah bemizraḥ uvema’arav. Jerusalem: Makhon Ben-Zvi, 1998:2: 453–68.    . “Berakhah bilti yadu’ah al keriat perek ‘bameh madlikin’ mitokh hagenizah.” Sinai 82 (1997/98): 197–221; reprinted in Hitgabshut Nusaḥ Hatefillah, 1: 323–51.    . “Haḥatimot ‘oseh hashalom’ vehapores sukkat shalom’ beminhag bavel.” In Hitgavshut Nusaḥ Hatefillah. 1:103–7.    . “Perakim betoldot hatefillah vehaberakhot.” Sinai 77 (1974/75): 116–38. Reprinted in Hitgavshut Nusaḥ Hatefillah. 1:155–80. Wieseltier, Leon. Kaddish. New York: Knoph, 1998. Wolfson, Elliot R. “Hai Gaon’s Letter and Commentary on ‘Aleinu: Further Evidence of Moses de Leon’s Pseudoepigraphic Activity.” Jewish Quarterly Review 81 (1991): 365–410.    . “The Mystical Significance of Torah-Study in German Pietism.” Jewish Quarterly Review 84 (1993): 47–50. Wormann, Nahum and Y. D. Bet-Halev. “Leminhag she’omrim ‘bo’i beshalom.’” Yeda-Am 10 (1953): 92–93. Yuval, Israel Jacob. Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, trans. Barbara Harshav and Jonathan Chipman. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. Zimmels, Yeḥiel. “Magen avot.” Sinai 15 (1943): 17–22.    . “Studies in Siddur Rav Saadya.” In Rav Saadya Gaon, ed. J. L. Fishman. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1943. Zimmer, Erik. “Gilgulo shel nusaḥ hatefillah ba’amidah beleil Shabbat.” Sinai 103 (1988/89): 162–70.

Index Notes: R. = Rabbi (pre-modern times). A page locator in italics indicates the page includes information in a tabular format.

A R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen of Lunel, 103. See also Orḥot ḥayyim on aleinu, 188, 192–93, 197n51 on bameh madlikin, 130n4, 131nn5–8, 133–34, 321nn28–29 on barekhu, 272–73 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 86n12, 87nn14–15, 87n17, 89n21, 90n25, 91n27, 208n14, 317n10 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 102n64, 103, 104n70, 320 on demons, 320 on the divine name, 309 on kaddish, 10n34 on kedushah desidra, 275n14 on kedushat hayom, 212–14 on kiddush, 110nn86–87, 111–12n92, 114, 116, 118n114 on mourner’s kaddish, 281–82 on pitum haketoret, 263, 266n33 on Ps 91:16, 308n129, 309, 311–12 on the Torah service, 158–59n108 on vehu raḥum, 57, 68n70 on veyehi no’am, 276n17, 277n23, 323–24 on veyiten lekha, 279n30, 279nn34–35 R. Abbahu, 145, 156–57n100 Aboab, R. Isaac, 264 R. Abraham ben Azriel (Arugat habosem), 8, 193n37, 197n50 R. Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel, 31, 103, 117. See also Sefer hamanhig on barukh Adonai le’olam, 87–88, 208 on being alone in a synagogue, 320

on berakhah me’ein sheva, 101n61, 103, 320, 321n28 on hashkiveinu, 336n77, 336n79, 337n81, 338 on kiddush, 117 on pitum haketoret, 266n33 on Psalm 29, 166–67 on Ps 91:16, 308–9, 323–24 on Saturday night, prolonging the service, 272, 276 on the Torah service, 166 on veyehi no’am, 277 on veyiten lekha, 279 on vehu raḥum, 55n24, 57, 61–62, 67 Abudarham, R. David, 133–34 on bameh madlikin, 138 on veyehi no’am, 310 Sefer Abudarham, 116–17, 138 Abulafia, Todros ben Joseph (Otzar hakavod) on berakhah me’ein sheva, 104, 320n21 on hama’ariv aravim, 225n21 kabbalah and, 200 Adam, 233–34, 251nn122–23, 311–12, 324 the afterlife, 292–93, 295, 303. See also Gehinnom Aḥaronim, 30 ahavat olam, 75n90 R. Akiva recitation of alay leshabe’aḥ, 186–87 on orphan reciting kaddish, 288–93, 301, 304 alay leshabe’aḥ, 185–86n9, 186–88

407

408 · Index aleinu, 183–201, 357. See also God as anti-Christian polemic, 194–96, 195–96n46 attribution to Joshua, 196–98, 196n48, 357 censorship of, 183n1, 195 conclusion of, 227–29, 227n27 connection to the Temple service, 184–85 endurance/popularity of, 193–94, 200 inclusion/justification of, 188–94, 199–200, 199n60, 363 kabbalistic influences on, 222–23 location in the service, 198–99, 361 origin of, 184–88, 184n5 shema and amidah and, 201 Alfasi (Rif ), R. Isaac ben Jacob, 23–24 on aleinu, 197–98 followers, 26–28 Algazi, R. Israel Jacob ben Yom Tov, 199n60, 220 al hakol yitgadal, 148, 151–52, 155, 157, 174–76 Alkabetz, R. Solomon, 249. See also lekha dodi amidah barukh Adonai le’olam and, 86–88, 88n18, 91–93, 95, 126–27, 317 Friday evening, 100, 101n61 optionality of, 84–88, 84–85nn8–9, 95, 98–99, 317, 325, 359–62, 365 repetition of, 81–82, 100, 106–7 sheliaḥ tzibbur and, 97–99, 98n52, 98n54 time of recitation, 84–87, 86–87n13, 95, 126–27, 317 R. Amram Gaon. See also Seder Rav Amram on the amidah, 100, 101n61 on asher kilah, 76 on bameh madlikin, 130 on barekhu, 272–73, 359 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 102, 107

on kiddush, 111–12 Rav Natronai Gaon and, 83–84n5 opposition to Palestinian influences, 77 on pitum haketoret, 263, 266–67, 364 on the Torah service, 148 –51, 154 on vehu raḥum, 49, 60 on veyehi no’am, 68, 275–77, 308 Amsterdam, 204–5 Siddur Amsterdam 1649, 21 on berikh shemei, 236 on hama’ariv aravim, 227 on kabbalat Shabbat, 249 on kaddish, 296–97 ana bako’aḥ, 238n70 anshei hama’amad, 185 Arba’ah turim. See Tur the ark journey theme, 159–60, 164–66 removal/return of Torah (see Torah service) arvit service expansion of, 271–76 fear of night and/protective aspects of, 13, 316, 322, 344–45 Friday evening, 98, 102–5 interpretations of/rationale for practices, 363 obligation/optionality of, 87–88, 91 (see also amidah) Saturday night, 271–73, 321–22, 363 R. Asher ben Saul of Lunel, 86n13 R. Asher ben Yeḥiel (Rosh), 3–4, 23, 25–26 Sefer Asheri. See Piskei HaRosh asher kilah, 66–67n68, 74–77 Ashkenaz, 13–14. See also Jews, Ashkenazic; liturgy, Ashkenaz; minhag Ashkenaz eastern Europe, 18–19 northern French rite and, 16–18, 158–60, 286 Rhenish Jewry/Rhineland, 5, 7–8n23, 14, 289

Index · 409 atonement, 55n24, 58–59, 356. See also pitum haketoret; sin/sinners; vehu raḥum Auerbach, R. Menaḥem Mendel (Ateret Zekenim) on aleinu, 189 kabbalah and, 219–20n3 on kedushat hayom, 214 on Ps 91:16, 312, 324 authority/tradition, rabbinic, 3, 41–42, 143, 373–77. See also customs/ customary practices; law; tradition(s); under individual names of rabbis B Babylonian rite, 75–78 Babylonian Talmud, 5–6, 15, 22 Bacharach, R. Yair Ḥayyim (Mekor Ḥayyim), 19n62, 37 on aleinu, 189, 198n55 on bameh madlikin, 136 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 94–95 on berikh shemei, 232, 236 on kabbalat Shabbat, 244 on Ps 91:16, 308n129 on veyiten lekha, 305–6 bameh madlikin interpretation of/rationale for, 129–33, 137–39, 171, 321, 321n29, 362 location in the service, 132–37, 136– 37n24, 206, 320, 362–63 barekhu apotropaic power/prolonging recitation/protection of, 272–74 freeing a dead soul, 288–91 ḥatzi kaddish and, 289–90 kabbalat Shabbat and, 239–41 union of the sefirot and, 65 Bar-Ilan, Meir, 185–86

barukh Adonai le’olam, 83–96, 316–18, 359–60, 362, 364–65 amidah and, 86–88, 88n18, 91–93, 95, 126–27, 317, 360, 362 arvit service and, 362 danger, averting, 88–89, 89n21 ḥatimah of, 207–9 omission on Shabbat, 318 opposition to, 90, 90nn24–25 while seated/standing, 93–95, 223 Bayit ḥadash, 26. See also R. Joel Sirkes beit hamidrash (rabbinic academy), 184–85 Beit Rabbenu shebebavel, 85–86n10 Beit Yosef (Caro), 27–28 Ben Ezra synagogue, 78 Benveniste, R. Ḥayyim, 199n60, 268 berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva 16th- and 17th-century authorities’ view of, 105 arvit service and, 98, 102–7, 319–20 justification/preservation of, 104–5n71, 107, 127 recitation of, 97–101, 105–6, 365–66 berikh shemei, 229–34, 230n35 atonement and, 356 recitation of, 234–37 birds, kashrut of, 3–4 Blank, Debra Reed, 153 on Ta-Shma’s thesis of ḥatzi kaddish, 290 on Torah reading ritual, 141–42n51, 146n55 Blois, Jews of, 194–95 blood libels, 194–95 Brody, Yerahmiel (Robert), 76nn92–93 C Cairo genizah, 72. See also genizah fragments Caro, R. Joseph, 23, 25, 26–28. See also Shulḥan arukh on bameh madlikin, 132, 134 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 208n14

410 · Index on hashkiveinu, 338–40 on kabbalat Shabbat, 239–41 on kiddush, 119–20, 125 on mourner’s kaddish, 283 on pitum haketoret, 264–65 on Ps 92, 239–40 on ushemor tzeiteinu, 338 on vehu raḥum, 70n77 on veyehi no’am, 277–78 works, 26–28 censorship, 43, 347n114 aleinu, 183n1, 195 hashkiveinu, 347 change, liturgical, 2, 11–12, 126, 360–61. See also interpretations/ interpretative approach; liturgy, Ashkenaz; tradition(s); under various rites Christianity/Christians. See also blood libels; censorship; Jesus on the afterlife, 292, 294–95, 303 anti-Christian polemics, 194–96, 195–96nn46–47 demonology and, 13 pietism, 7–8n23 scribes, 39n21 1 Chr 29:11, 161, 163, 178 See also lekha Adonai hagedulah codes. See law codes Cohen, Y., 243 Conservative Judaism, 1–2, 126n134 conversos, 204 Cordovero, R. Moses on berikh shemei, 230 kabbalat Shabbat and, 238, 249 on veyanuḥu vah, 215 Creation, 185 asher kilah and, 74 kingship of God and, 250–51 Tabernacle and, 312 customs/customary practices, 2–39. See also minhag books; tradition(s) community, 19n62, 212n32 Germany, 14

halakhah (law) and, 3–6, 91, 91n27, 96, 104, 104–5n71, 127, 365–66 liturgy and, 355, 364–65 (see also change, liturgical) preservation of, 19n62 (see also liturgy; tradition(s)) D Dan, Joseph, 8, 59 danger, 102–4 from bandits, 103n65 from demons (see demons/ demonology) night and (see night, fear of ) dark, fear of. See night, fear of R. David ben Samuel Halevi (Taz), 28 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 88n18, 94 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 105 on hashkiveinu, 336n77, 337, 339–40 on veyehi no’am, 275, 278, 309n132 R. David ibn Zimra, 198, 199 the dead. See also sin/sinners alleviating suffering of, 303–4, 360 (see also R. Akiva: on orphan reciting kaddish) punishment in Gehinnom, 274, 276–77, 277n23 demons/demonology, 13, 64 danger of, 102–3, 102n63, 103n65, 319–20, 327–33, 359–60, 365 fear of, 316–23, 327–29, 343 Shabbat and, 320, 328–31, 329n58, 343 Deut 3:23, 91–92 Deut 4:4, 170, 177, 179 Deut 4:25–31, 52 Deut 4:31, 49, 52 Deut 4:44, 161, 178–79. See also vezot haTorah Deut 6:4, 152, 174, 199, 259 Deuteronomy, 140n31. See also under individual verses

Index · 411 divine name(s), 88n18, 221n10, 251, 260n13, 309–10, 309n133. See also ana bako’aḥ; Name of Seventy-two Dorff, Elliot, 295–96, 301n113 dreams, 255–57 Dweck, Yaacob, 28 E Egyptian rite, 77–78 Ehrlich, Uri, 76–77 ein kamokha, 20–21, 160, 172–73n160, 173 Ekirch, A. Roger, 315–16 Elbaum, Jacob, 56 Elbogen, Jacob, 43, 45, 50–51n8, 147n58 R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms, 8–9, 357. See also Siddur harokeaḥ on aleinu, 188, 193, 196–97, 197n50, 363 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 101 on barekhu, 272n2, 273 on hama’ariv aravim, 225 on hashkiveinu, 338n89, 346–49 on kaddish, 288–89 on kiddush, 112 on pitum haketoret, 263 on Shabbat, 332 on Torah reading, 158, 163 on ushemor tzeiteinu, 338 on vehu raḥum, 59–60, 60n43, 62 R. Eliezer ben Isaac “the Great” of Mainz, 54, 68 R. Eliezer ben Joel Halevi on berakhah me’ein sheva, 101, 104, 107, 320n21 on kiddush, 112–14 on neglect of arvit, 87 R. Eliezer ben Natan of Mayence, 158n103, 160n113 R. Elijah ben Solomon (Vilna Gaon), 96–97 emanations. See Sefirot Emden, Jacob, 126–27n133, 136n42, 206n9, 216

erev Shabbat, 131–33. See also kabbalat Shabbat Exod 14:19–21, 259 Exod 15:18, 228 Exod 34:6–7a, 58–59n35 expulsions of Jews, 32 13th–16th century Europe, 203–4 from Frankfurt, 37 from Mainz, 15 Ezra, 141, 143 F Faierstein, Morris, 231 Falk, R. Joshua, 26, 89 on bameh madlikin, 135 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 89, 318–19 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 106 on demons, 318–19, 335 on kiddush, 121 on pitum haketoret, 265 on Shabbat, 335 on veyehi no’am, 278 fire, 130n3, 288, 331n63 Fishman, Talya, 5–7, 17 Fleischer, Ezra, 211 flogging. See punishment florilegia. See Torah service: ceremonial (ritual) aspects Fogel, Shimon, 76–77 fowl. See birds, kashrut of Fraenkel, Yonah, 38, 40 Frankel, Ellen, 296 Frankel, Yitzhak, 231 French/northern French rite, 16–18, 158–60, 286 G gadlu, 151, 157, 159–61, 160n117, 163, 174 Gehinnom. See also the dead; sin/ sinners; vehu raḥum providing respite for punishment of sinners, 71, 271–74, 276–80, 282, 303–4, 322, 360 (see also

412 · Index R. Akiva: on orphan reciting kaddish) suffering of the dead, 55n25, 64–65, 68, 68n70, 363 Geiger, Solomon, 245–46 gematria, 58–59. See also word count genizah fragments, 72–79, 75 geonim, 15, 76. See also authority/ tradition, rabbinic; under individual names German rite. See liturgy, Ashkenaz Gerondi, R. Jonah ben Abraham, 115, 122 R. Gersom ben Judah, 56 Gillman, Neil, 344–45 God, 210, 230, 259–62. See also Creation; divine name(s); kingship of God attributes reflected in aleinu, 361, 363 compassionate/merciful aspects, 49–54, 291, 356–57 Creation/kingship/Shabbat and, 249–51 exalting/praising, 10, 151, 157, 163 protection of, 327–28, 331–33, 343 role in the synagogue/Torah service, 151–52, 154–56, 164 sanctification of, 116, 291 Gombiner, R. Abraham, 28 on aleinu, 189, 229 on arvit, obligatory, 91n26 on bameh madlikin, 136 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 95, 209 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 116n76 on berikh shemei, 232, 236 on hama’ariv aravim, 224–25 kabbalah and, 220n3 kabbalat Shabbat and, 240–41 on kiddush, 123–25 on pitum haketoret, 265, 267 on Ps 91:16, 308n129, 309, 311, 323–24 on ushemor tzeiteinu, 339–40 on veyehi no’am, 278

Grossman, Avraham, 5–6n17, 56 Gwozdziec synagogue, 247 H haftarah. See prophets/prophetic texts R. Hai Gaon on kiddush, 117, 123 responsa, falsely attributed to, 60n45, 197–98, 334 halakhah. See law Hallamish, Moshe, 221 hama’ariv aravim, 44, 76, 79, 222–26, 223n17 Sefer hamaḥkim, 16, 18, 287. See also R. Nathan ben Judah Sefer hamanhig, 31, 339n78. See also R. Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel Hamburger, Benjamin on berikh shemei, 229n33 on kabbalat Shabbat, 244 on veyiten lekha, 307n124 Sefer haminhagim, 34–35. See also R. Isaac Tyrnau Sefer haminhagim leRabbenu Avraham Klausner, 33–34 Siddur Hanau, 235 Sefer hapardes, 16 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 88n18, 207n13, 318 on demons, 103n65 on hashkiveinu, 206–7, 328, 330, 343 on Ps 91:16, 308 on Shabbat, 330 on vehu raḥum, 53–55, 58 on veyehi no’am, 276n18, 277n23 Sefer harokeaḥ, 62. See also R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms Siddur harokeaḥ, 281, 288, 332. See also R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms hashkiveinu, 9, 44, 325–43, 343n101, 353 censorship of, 347 ḥatimah of, 206–7, 325–29, 331–36, 350–52 influence of printing, 341–42

Index · 413 recitation of, 327–28n54 redemptive theme, 325n47 for seeking protection, 327–36 textual variants, 342n100, 343, 346–50, 354 (see also ki el shomreinu; ushemor tzeiteinu) Ḥasidei Ashkenaz, 2–3, 2–3n5, 7–8n23, 7–11. See also Eleazar ben Judah of Worms, Judah Heḥasid, Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz on alienu, 196 on barekhu, 68–69 influence of, 9–10, 219, 355, 357, 366 interpretations/interpretative approach, 7–9, 59, 357, 366 on penitential practices/ punishment, 56 on Seventy-two Verses, 258n11 on the Torah reading, 172 Siddur Ḥasidei Ashkenaz on aleinu, 188, 196–98, 227, 363 on bameh madlikin, 131, 321nn28–29, 364 on barekhu, 273 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 208 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 100 on demons, 103n65, 320n21, 328n55, 329nn58, 60 gematria/numerology, 357 on hashkiveinu, 207n13, 327–28nn54–55 on ḥatzi kaddish in arvit, 88nn18–19 on prolonging a service, 322, 364 on protection of Shabbat, 333 on the Torah service, 158, 160 on veyehi no’am, 275 on veyiten lekha, 279, 305–7 hatavat ḥalom, 255–57 ḥatzi kaddish. See kaddish (ḥatzi) havdalah, 275, 321n30 at home, 126 in the synagogue, 114 R. Ḥayyim ben Samuel of Tudela, 198–99, 220

heikhalot literature, 186–87 Heinemann, Joseph, 99, 184–85 Ḥildik, R. Abraham, 32–33, 273, 279n30 Hilkhot Rav Alfasi, 23–24 Hilkhot uminhagei R. Shalom miNeustadt, 34. See also Shalom of Neustadt Hoffman, Jeffrey, 184, 195–96 Hoffman, Lawrence A., 55n25, 70, 344–45 Horowitz, R. Abraham ben Shabbetai Sheftel on aleinu, 194n39, 199n60 on hama’ariv aravim, 224, 227 Horowitz, R. Isaiah administration of lashes, 56 on adoption of Sephardic variants, 206 on aleinu, 189 on berikh shemei, 236 commentary on the siddur, 44, 343n99, 261n18, 220, 261n18 on hashkiveinu, 207, 334n72, 335–37, 352 on kabbalat, Shabbat, 249 on kaddish, 10 on kedushat hayom, 214n38, 215n43 numerology, 10 on prolonging Shabbat, 274, 278 on Seventy-two Verses, 262 Shenei luḥot haberit, 249 on Torah service, 169n156 on ushemor tzeiteinu, 336–37 on vehu raḥum, 65–66, 70 on veyiten lekha, 279 Hubka, Thomas C., 247–48 Hurwitz, S., 310 I Igrat bat Maḥalat, 329, 329n58, 332–33 incense/incense offerings, 262–68, 267n36 interpretations/interpretative approach, 11–12, 81–127. See also

414 · Index Ḥasidei Ashkenaz; under various liturgy entries adaption/change, 364–65 functional, 55n24, 83–91, 155, 358–60 (see also kaddish (ḥatzi); kaddish (mourner’s); kaddish (shalem); kiddush: in the synagogue) kabbalistic and mystical, 8–9, 357–58 liturgical practice and, 47–48, 63–65, 170–71, 360–61, 364–65 multiple, 361–62 religious/spiritual, 91–93, 355–57 ritual(s) and, 47–48, 71, 85, 172 Isa 2:3, 177 Isa 42:21, 179 Isa 59:21, 299, 299n106, 299–300n108 R. Isaac, 323 R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna on berakhah me’ein sheva, 104, 320n21 on demons, 103n65 on kiddush, 113–15, 115n104 on minhag Ostraykh, 18 on recitation of kaddish by an orphan, 282, 286–89 teacher of R. Meir of Rothenburg, 33 on the Torah service, 161 Isaac ibn Giyyat, 96, 117, 125 R. Israel Bruna, 56 Israelites, 162, 164, 185n7 Isserlein, R. Israel, 35–36 on mourner’s kaddish, 281, 287n66, 291n81 Isserles, R. Moses, 4, 26 on aleinu, 189, 193n38 on barekhu, 274 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 93 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 106 on hashkiveinu, 338 on kabbalah, 248 kabbalat Shabbat and, 240 on kiddush, 120, 125

on mourner’s kaddish, 283 on pitum haketoret, 265 Shulḥan arukh and, 28, 28n85, 34–35 on veyehi no’am, 278 Italian rite, 15 J R. Jacob ben Asher, 23, 26. See also Tur on aleinu, 188 on bameh madlikin, 132, 138 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 86n12, 87n15, 87n17, 91n27, 209, 317n10, 326n50 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 104, 107 on demons, 103n65 on hashkiveinu, 336n77, 336n79, 337n81, 338, 340, 348, 351, 352n132 on kiddush, 113–14, 115, 117, 125 on lashes, 56n28 on pitum haketoret, 263n21, 267, 321n28 on Ps 91:16, 308n129, 309n132 on Psalm 29, 168 on Torah reading, 143–44n45 on vehu raḥum, 61n49, 70n77 on veshamru, 339 on veyehi no’am, 277n23 on veyiten lekha, 279n31, 279n34 R. Jacob of Marvege, 60n45, 61, 116–17 Jaffe, R. Mordecai on aleinu, 189, 193–94, 228 on bameh madlikin, 135 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 87n15, 91nn27–28, 93, 317n10 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 105n72, 106 on hashkiveinu, 206–7, 325n47, 328n55, 336n77, 337, 339–40, 352n134 kabbalah and, 219 kabbalat Shabbat and, 240 on kaddish, 10, 300n112 on kedushah desidra, 275n14

Index · 415 on kedushat hayom, 213–14n37 on kiddush, 120–21, 125 on mourner’s kaddish, 283, 301n114, 304 on pitum haketoret, 265 on Ps 91:16, 309n132 on the Torah service, 167, 168 on ushemor tzeiteinu, 339–41 on vehu raḥum, 63–64 on veyehi no’am, 278 on veyiten lekha, 278–80 Jesus, 142n39, 294 Jewish communities Amsterdam, 204–5 eastern Europe, 19n60 Frankfurt, 37, 245n101 Italy, 5 Mainz, 14–15 northern France, 17–18 Worms, 14–15, 36, 244 Jews, Ashkenazic, 204–5. See also Ashkenaz; interpretations/ interpretative approach; liturgy, Ashkenazic acceptance of other practices, 216– 17 (see also kabbalah/kabbalistic tradition/Kabbalists; kabbalat Shabbat) Christianity/Christians and, 295 role of minhag, 2–6 textualization and, 6–7 Jews, Sephardic, 204–6. See also Sephardim/Sephardic traditions; under various entries for prayers and liturgy Job 10:22, 277 R. Jose ben R. Judah, 329 R. Joseph ben Moses, 35–36 Josephus, 141–43 Josh 22:9, 179 Joshua (person), 196–98 R. Joshua ben Korḥah, 156 R. Judah ben Samuel Heḥasid on aleinu, 188, 197, 197n50, 357

commentary on the siddur, 158–59n106 on hashkiveinu, 338n89, 349 Ḥasidei Ashkenaz and, 8–9 on kedushat hayom, 210n23, 214 numerology and gematria and, 59 prayers attributed to, 230 on Seventy-two Verses, 258, 258n11, 260n15 Judaism, historical approach, 1–2 K kabbalah/kabbalistic tradition/ kabbalists, 10, 357–58. See also Luria (the “Ari”), R. Isaac; Lurianic kabbalah; Sefer Razael; Zohar Ashkenazic students of, 219–20, 219–20n3 on kedushat hayom, 214–15, 215n43 ritual(s) and, 221–22, 231–32, 248 (see also kabbalat Shabbat) spread of practices, teachings, and texts, 219–21, 226, 232, 247–48, 358 kabbalat Shabbat, 250, 361 adoption of kabbalistic liturgy, 222, 237–49 associated customs, 253 lekha dodi and, 252–53 Ps 92 and, 250n228, 251, 329n78 recitation in Frankfurt, 245–46 spread to Ashkenazic communities, 237–49 kaddish, 10–11, 10–11n36 kaddish (derabbanan), 282 kaddish (ḥatzi), 88, 359 with barekhu, 289–90 transitional function, 358–59 kaddish (mourner’s), 280–86, 281n39 acceptance of, 283–86 as educational tool, 286–87 emergence in 12th century, 292–94, 292n85 form and location, 295–301

416 · Index foundation myth for, 288–93, 301, 304 freeing a dead soul and, 288–91, 360 French tradition, 286–87 protection of sinners in Gehinnom, 282 recitation of, 283n51, 286–89, 292–94 ritualistic aspects, 292–95, 303 kaddish (shalem), 282n45, 301–2, 358 kaddish yatom. See kaddish (mourner’s) Kalonymus family, 5n15, 8n24, 15 Karaites, 130, 137 kavanot, 221–22n10 kedushah desidra, 275–78, 275n14, 276n20, 299, 313n145 kedushat hayom, 210–17, 210–11n24, 211n27, 214n38, 215n43, 215–16n45, 361 keri (nocturnal emission), 233–34, 356 keriat shema (at bedtime), 262n20 Kesef Mishneh (Caro), 27 kiddush, 115n105, 365–66 at home, 126 the one who drinks the wine, 117– 24, 118n114 in the siddur, 125–26, 125–26nn133– 34 in the synagogue, 98, 108, 108n81, 110–25, 111n90, 119–20n121, 126n134, 127, 356, 359 therapeutic effect of wine, 110–13 ki el shomreinu, 337, 340 Kimelman, Reuven on amidah, 201n65 on lekha dodi, 238, 252 on shema and amidah, 47–48 kingship of God, 83 aleinu and, 185, 193, 198–201 proclamation in the Torah service, 151–52, 154–56, 160, 173–75 Kirchheim, R. Judah Löw, 36 on aleinu, 189

on bameh madlikin, 124, 136 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 105n72, 106n76 on hashkiveinu, 206–7, 352n134 on kabbalat Shabbat , 221n9, 243–44 on kiddush, 124, 124n132, 125 on mourner’s kaddish, 228n28, 283n51 on Ps 91:16, 323–24 on vehu raḥum, 49n4, 63n56 on veyehi no’am, 278, 323–24 on veyiten lekha, 279n34, 279n36, 306n122 Klausner, R. Abraham, 33–35 on bameh madlikin, 131, 321 on barekhu, 273 on the Torah service, 173n160 Sefer kol bo, 57n30 on aleinu, 188, 193–94, 197n51, 198n55 on bameh madlikin, 130–31nn4–7, 132n11, 321nn28–29 on barekhu, 272, 276n17 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 90n25, 91n27, 207–8nn13–14 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 86n12, 87n17, 101–2n62, 104n70, 105n72, 106, 320n21 on hashkiveinu, 325n47, 330n60, 331, 352n78 on ḥatzi kaddish, 88n20 on kedushah desidra, 275n14, 277n23 on kiddush, 110n87, 111–12n92, 114, 116–17 on mourner’s kaddish, 281n40, 282nn46, 48, 283n49 on pitum haketoret, 263n25, 266n33 on the Torah service, 159n108 on vehu raḥum, 49, 52n17, 57, 62–63 on veyehi no’am, 277n23, 324n40 on veyiten lekha, 279nn30, 34–35 Kook, R. Abraham Isaac, 47, 71 Kosman, Joseph, 245, 253n130

Index · 417 L Lam 3:9, 298, 298–99n104 Lam 5:21, 180 Landau, R. Jacob on berakhah me’ein sheva, 100–101, 106 on ḥatzi kaddish, 88n20 on kiddush, 114, 117, 125 land of Israel rite. See Rite of the Land of Israel Langer, Ruth, 48, 50–51n8, 51n12 on the immanent divine presence, 169–70 on the Torah service, 138–40, 145, 153, 166 lashes. See punishment latecomers to the synagogue, 102–4 concern/protection for, 89, 96, 102, 107, 127, 131–32, 317–22, 359–60, 362–65 recitation of ḥatzi kaddish and barekhu, 289–90 law. See also authority/tradition, rabbinic customs/customary practices and, 2–3, 5, 84–85 reading of, 142–43 (see also Torah service) sources (see law codes) tradition(s) and, 6, 129, 366 law codes, 22–29 Leket yosher (R. Joseph ben Moses), 35–36 lekha Adonai hagedulah, 163–64. See also 1 Chr 29:11 lekha dodi, 136, 237–42, 244–45, 147, 248–53, 361 Levine, Lee, 141, 144 Liebreich, Leon, 51, 70 Lilith, 103, 320, 333 liturgy. See also interpretations/ interpretative approach; ma’amodot liturgies censorship of (see censorship)

changing (see change, liturgical) influence of kabbalistic traditions (see kabbalah/kabbalistic tradition/Kabbalists) justification/preservation of, 7–8, 45, 81–127, 363, 366 recitation while seated/standing (see prayers/prayer service) rites, 14n41, 15 (see also under entries for various rites) of Torah service (see Torah service: ceremonial (ritual) aspects) liturgy, Ashkenaz, 15. See also minhag Ashkenaz; Minhag Ostraykh; Minhag Polin (Poland) change/interpretation/tradition, 1–2, 11–12, 183, 360–66 eastern Europe, 18–21 Germany, 14–17 influence of kabbalistic traditions (see kabbalah/kabbalistic tradition/Kabbalists) influence of Sephardic traditions, 203–17 northern France and, 16–18, 158–60, 286 sources, 22–40 Torah service, 172–77 (see also Torah service) Lonzano, R. Menaḥem on aleinu, 199n60 on pitum haketoret, 266–68 Luria, R. Isaac (the “Ari”), 226–27 on aleinu, 229 on berikh shemei, 232–34 on hama’ariv aravim, 226–27 kabbalat Shabbat and, 238, 241n85, 249 on kedushat hayom, 215n43 on pitum haketoret, 265, 267 Luria, R. Solomon on barukh Adonai le’olam, 95, 209n20 on hashkiveinu, 347

418 · Index on pitum haketoret, 265 Lurianic kabbalah, 166, 199, 221–22n10, 358 M ma’amadot liturgies, 191–93, 200 ma’aseh merkavah, 185–87 magen avot, 97–101, 106 Mahariḥ. See R. Judah Heḥasid Sefer Maharil, 35, 273 Maharil. See R. Jacob Moellin Maḥzor Vitry, 16n48, 131n7, 281n39, 310 on R. Akiva’s story, 288–90 on aleinu, 188, 192–93, 201n64, 227n27 on bameh madlikin, 130n4, 131n5, 131n7, 132n11, 321n28 on barekhu, 272nn2–4, 275n16 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 87–88n18, 207n13, 318 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 100–101, 103, 320 on demons, 103n65 on hama’ariv aravim, 233n17 on hashkiveinu, 205–6n10, 325n47, 326n51, 331n63, 336n79, 338, 346, 348, 351–52 on kedushat hayom, 210n23 on kiddush, 112 on mourner’s kaddish, 282, 286, 300 on pitum haketoret, 263, 266n33 on Ps 34:4, 160 on Ps 91:16, 308n128, 309n132 on vehu raḥum, 49n4, 52, 53, 57, 61 on veyehi no’am, 277n23 on veyiten lekha, 279n29, 305n120 Maimonides (Rambam), R. Moses, 23–25 on amen, 348n120 on arvit as obligatory, 91n26 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 90n25, 96, 209 on berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva, 103, 104–5n71, 107

justification/preservation of questionable customs, 81–82, 104–5n71, 107, 119, 121 kabbalat Shabbat and, 239n78 on kiddush, 119, 121 Mainz, 14–15 Mann, Jacob, 72–73, 78–79 manuscripts changes, 39n121 evidence from, 38–41, 60n44, 60–61n45, 148, 189–90, 283–84, 349 liturgical, 172–77 (see also siddurim) Zohar, 69, 231 Margoliot, R. Ḥayyim Mordecai (of Dubno), 226 martyrdom narratives, 194–95, 195n43 Mat, R. Moses of Przemysl on aleinu, 189, 193–94 on bameh madlikin, 136 on barekhu, 274 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 93 on kiddush, 121, 125 on Ps 91:16, 324 on veyehi no’am, 278, 309, 311–12, 323 on vehu raḥum, 57n30, 64, 70 Matt, Daniel, 231 Matteh Moshe, See R. Moses Mat of Przemysl mazikin. See demons/demonology R. Meir bar Isaac Sheliaḥ Tzibbur of Worms, 351–52 R. Meir ben Barukh of Rothenburg, 25, 33–34, 90n24 on aleinu, 189 on kiddush, 117–19, 125 Sefer tashbetz, 33 R. Meir ben Gedaliah of Lublin, 56 R. Meir ibn Gabbai, 168–69, 323 Mekor Ḥayyim. See Bacharach, R. Yair Ḥayyim midrash on Isaiah 1:21, 57–58 migration, Jewish, 14 east to west, 19n60

Index · 419 France to Germany/central Europe, 18 Italy to Germany, 5 to Poland, 30 to western European cities, 204 west to east, 19 minhag. See customs/customary practices minhag Ashkenaz, 2–7, 14–15 minhag books, 31–37. See also under individual titles kabbalat Shabbat and, 243–44 preservation of customs, 19n62 Minhagei R. Abraham Ḥildik, 32–33 minhag Mitzraim. See Egyptian rite Minhag Ostraykh, 18–19 Minhagot Vermaise (Customs of Worms), 36 Minhag Polin (Poland), 19–21. See also Polish rite Mintz, R. Moses, 55n24, 56, 57n30, 58 Mishnah on amidah, 81 on benedictions between shema and amidah, 127, 365 on lashes, 54 on public reading of the Torah, 146–47, 156–57n100 on shema, 325 Mishneh Torah, 24–25. See also Maimonides, R. Moses Moellin, R. Jacob, 35. See also Sefer Maharil on barekhu, 272n3,273n5 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 86n12, 87n17 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 100–101, 104n71, 106, 107 on customs, 35, 104–5n71 on ḥatzi kaddish, standing for, 91n27, 93, 95 on kaddish, 10n36 on kedushat hayom, 213, 215n44 on kiddush, 114

on lashes, 56n28 on mourner’s kaddish, 281–82, 283n49, 283n51, 291n81, 293n86 moon, new, 82 R. Mordecai ben Hillel, 33 on bameh madlikin,131n6, 321 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 100–101, 104, 320 Moses role in teaching the Torah, 145, 156–58, 166 Tabernacle/blessing the people and, 275, 278, 323 R. Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, 320n21 R. Moses de Leon, 60–61 on aleinu, 197–98 responsa forged by, 60–61, 194n39, 197–198 on Shabbat, 333–35 R. Moshe Gaon, 100–101, 100n60 R. Moshe ben Makhir on aleinu, 193–94n38, 198, 199 on berikh shemei, 232, 234–35 on kabbalat Shabbat, 238n72 on pitum haketoret, 267–68 on pitum haketoret/atonement, 356 on Psalm 29, 168 mourner’s kaddish. See kaddish (mourner’s) mysticism, 357–58. See also kabbalah/ kabbalistic tradition/Kabbalists N Name of Seventy-two, 259–62 names of God. See divine names R. Nathan ben Judah, 18 on aleinu, 188, 193, 197 on arvit, neglect of, 87 on bameh madlikin, 120–31, 321 on barekhu, 272 on barukh Adonai le’olom, 90 on Friday night as time of danger, 104 on kaddish, 286, 287, 300

420 · Index on kedushah desidra, 217 on veyehi no’am, 277, 324 on veyiten lekha, 279 R. Natronai Gaon, 76, 89n21, 351 Rav Amram Gaon and, 83–84n5 on asher kilah, 75–76 on barukh Adonai le-olam, 83–87, 95, 316–18 on berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva, 100–101 on kiddush, 110–13 responsa, 76n92, 100–101, 100n60 (see also responsa) Nehemiah (book), 141 New Month, 82 night, fear of, 13, 315–45, 359–60 R. Nissim ben Jacob of Kairouan, 116 nocturnal emissions. See keri (nocturnal emission) Nordlingen, R. Joseph Yuzpa Hahn, 37, 350, 356 on aleinu, 189, 228–29 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 208n14 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 106 on berikh shemei, 232, 235–36 on hama’ariv aravim, 224, 227 on hashkiveinu, 350 kabbalah and, 219–20n3 on kabbalat Shabbat in Frankfurt, 244–45 on mourner’s kaddish, 293n51 on pitum haketoret, 266–68, 356 on Ps 91:16. 308n129, 309n132 on vehu raḥum, 49n5, 52n17 northern France, Ashkenazic rite and, 16–18, 158–60, 286 Num 9:23; 10:13, 165, 179 Num 10:35, 161–62, 177 Num 10:36, 162, 164, 178 numerology, 8–9, 58–59, 310, 357–58. See also word count

O Orḥot Ḥayyim, 57n30, 324, 324n45. See also R. Aaron ben Jacob Hakohen of Lunel orphan’s kaddish. See kaddish (mourner’s) Orthodox Judaism, 126n134 Otzar hakavod, 225–27 P R. Peretz ben Elijah of Corbeil, 101, 101–2n62, 105–6 Peri etz ḥayyim, 234 Philo, 141–43 pietism. See Ḥasidei Ashkenaz Piskei haRosh, 23, 25 pitum haketoret, 262–63 apotropaic power of, 267–68, 267n36, 364 Italian sources, 268–69 recitation of/atonement and, 356, 363–69 Poland, 19. See also Minhag Polin (Poland) Polish rite. See also liturgy, Ashkenaz Torah service, 172–77 veyiten lekha, 306–7 Poppers, R. Meir (peri etz ḥayyim), 226, 234 Positive-Historical Judaism. See Conservative Judaism Siddur Prague 1688, 296–97 prayer books. See siddurim prayers/prayer service, 379–80. See also kabbalat Shabbat; liturgy; under various liturgical and prayer entries apotropaic, 255–354, 359–60, 364 bedtime, 262n20, 315–16 order of, 132–33 plural vs. singular voice, 185–86 supplications, 261–62 Torah service (see Torah service)

Index · 421 while seated, 93–95, 94n43 while standing, 93–94, 111, 145, 156–57n100, 193, 223, 253 printing of texts authority of texts and, 41–42 effects/influence of, 40–45, 205–6, 341–42 role in spread of kabbalistic practices/works, 69, 220–22, 248–49, 266, 358 prophets/prophetic texts, 142n39, 144n47, 191 protection. See danger; God; prayers/ prayer service: apotropaic Prov 3:16, 179 Prov 3:16–18, 166, 176 Prov 3:17, 178–79 Prov 3:18, 178–79 Prov 4:2, 178 Prov 9:11, 176 Ps 3:4, 259 Ps 18:31, 151, 176 Ps 19:8–9, 151, 153, 158, 176 Ps 29:11, 151–52, 154, 160, 161nn119–20, 167n145, 173, 176, 260n16, 306 Ps 34:4, 174. See also gadlu Ps 51:20, 174 Ps 78:38; 20:10. See vehu raḥum Ps 86:8, 160, 161n120, 173 Ps 90:17–91:16, 275, 278, 310–12 Ps 91:16, 308–12, 324 Ps 99:5, 9, 151–52, 174 Ps 132:8–10, 162, 164, 178 Ps 144:3, 52 Ps 145:13, 152, 163, 173 Ps 148:13a, 177 Ps 148:13b–14, 151, 177 Psalm 24, 169, 180–81 Psalm 29, 166–69, 180–81, 237, 260 Psalm 91, 13, 275–76, 308–9, 323–24 Psalm 92, 239–41, 239n78, 251 Psalm 93, 251 Psalm 95, 250–51 psalms, 250–51

Psalms (book), 50–51. See also under individual psalms and verses punishment alleviating/delaying, 303–4, 360 (see also R. Akiva; barekhu; Gehinnom: respite for punishment of sinners; kaddish (mourner’s); Shabbat: prolonging; sin/sinners) duration of, 292–93, 304 fire, 288 lashes, 54–56, 54n23, 55n25, 356 of the wicked, 62–65, 64nn60–61, 68, 71, 271–72, 276–77, 280 Purgatory, 294–95, 295n92 Q Qumran community, 141–42n37 R rabbinic authority. See authority/ tradition, rabbinic Rambam. See Maimonides, R. Moses Siddur Rashi, 16n48 on aleinu, 188nn15–16, 192–93, 201n64 on bameh madlikin, 130n4 on barekhu, 272 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 88n18, 207n13, 208n14, 318 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 100 on demons, 103n65 on hashkiveinu, 206–7n10, 326n51, 330–31, 343n101 on kaddish, 286 on kiddush, 110n87, 112 on pitum haketoret, 263, 266n33 on protection on Shabbat, 330–32 on Ps 34:4, 160 on the Torah reading, 158–59, 159n107 on vehu raḥum, 53, 57, 61 on veyehi no’am, 277n23

422 · Index on veyiten lekha, 275, 278–79n29 Rashi/School of Rashi, 4 on berakhah aḥat me’ein sheva, 102–5, 107 on demons, 319–20 on hashkiveinu, 206, 334–35, 343n101 liturgical works, 18 on Shabbat, 334–35 on the Torah service, 158–59, 172– 73n160 on vehu raḥum, 53–54, 63, 67, 71 on veyiten lekha, 279 Rav, 84–85, 84–85n9, 108–9 Sefer Razael, 260 reading of the Torah. See Torah service redemption, 201 from Egypt, 259n12 from Gehinnom, 293–94, 304 messianic, 325n47 Reif, Stefan, 42–43, 347 Reiner, Elchanan, 41 responsa, 29–31 R. Asher ben Yeḥiel, 25–26 Caro, R. Joseph, 27 R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna, 115 Isserlein, R. Israel, 36 Maimonides, 81–82, 104–5n71 R. Meir ben Barukh of Rothenburg, 33 R. Moses de Leon, 60–61, 197–98, 334 R. Moshe Gaon, 100–101, 100n60 R. Natronai Gaon, 76, 83–84, 95, 100–101, 100n60, 110–12, 318 R. Sar Shalom, 326–27 on vehu raḥum, 60–61, 60–61n45 Rif. See Alfasi, R. Isaac ben Jacob Rishonim, 30 Rite of Babylonia. See Babylonian rite Rite of the Land of Israel, 15, 72–79, 95 rites, 14n41, 15, 172–77. See also Babylonian rite; Egyptian rite; Italian rite; liturgy, Ashkenaz; northern France, Ashkenazic rite

and; Polish rite; Rite of the Land of Israel; Sephardim/Sephardic traditions ritual(s). See also Torah service aleinu and, 185 alleviating suffering, 303–4 (see also the dead; punishment; sin/ sinners) dreams and, 256–57 home, 126 interpretations/interpretative approach, 47–48, 71, 85, 172 kabbalah and, 221–22, 231–32, 248 (see also kabbalat Shabbat) mourner’s kaddish and, 292–95, 303 protective power of, 316, 344–45 structural distinctions and, 344–45 Rosh. See R. Asher ben Yeḥiel (Rosh) Ruderman, David, 205 S Siddur Rav Saadiah, 50n7 R. Saadiah, 49–50n6, 76–77 on asher kilah, 66–67n68, 76 on vehu raḥum, 49–50n6, 50n7, 53n19, 66n68 Saba, R. Abraham ben Jacob, 324 Sabora’im, 86n11 Safed R. Joseph Caro and, 27 kabbalah/kabbalistic tradition/ Kabbalists, 219–22, 231–32 kabbalat Shabbat, 241, 253 R. Samson ben Tzadok, 33. See also R. Meir ben Barukh of Rothenburg on berakhah me’ein sheva, 101, 105 on Ps 91:16, 311 Samuel on barukh Adonai le’olam, 84–85, 84–85n9 on kiddush, 108–9, 111, 117, 119, 122 R. Samuel ben Meir, 90 R. Samuel Heḥasid of Speyer, 8–9

Index · 423 R. Sar Shalom, 326–27, 338n84, 350–51 Satan, 343 Schmelzer, Menahem, 226, 287 second day of a festival, 82–83 Seder Rav Amram, 60n44, 72. See also R. Amram Gaon on amidah, 100 Ashkenazic rite, influenced by, 15 on bameh madlikin, 130n1, 321 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 208 concern for danger, 102, 102n63, 272, 321n29 concern for latecomers, 102, 107, 319, 364 on hashkiveinu, 326–27, 346–48 on kaddish, 88 on kiddush, 112 responsa of R. Moshe Gaon and R. Natronai Gaon, 100–101, 100n60 on sinners, 68, 276–77 on the Torah service, 150 unreliability of liturgical texts in, 150 on vehu raḥum, 49, 60n44 Sefirot, 65n65 Sephardim/Sephardic traditions, 4, 134. See also bameh madlikin; conversos; Jews, Sephardic; vehu raḥum; Zohar influence on Ashkenazic liturgy, 203–17 prayer books, 342n100 Seth, 233, 311, 324 Seventy-two Verses, 258–62, 258– 59nn10–11 Sha’arei teshuvah, 226 Shabbat, 249–50. See also erev Shabbat; kabbalat Shabbat apotropaic power of, 318–19, 327–35, 331n63, 343 demons and, 320, 328–33, 329n58, 343 imagery of, 250–51 kingship of God and, 250–51

lekha dodi and, 252 liturgical passages, recitation/ omission of, 60–76, 66–67n68, 75, 79, 85 prolonging of, 272–74, 303, 356 protection on (need for), 331–33 Shabbat lamps, 130–31, 137, 320–21 Shalmei tzibbur, 226 R. Shalom of Neustadt, 34–35 on mourner’s kaddish, 228n28, 283n51 on pitum haketoret, 264 Shamash, R. Joseph Yuzpa, 37 on aleinu, 189, 228 on bameh madlikin, 136 on barekhu, 274 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 106 on kiddush, 124 on mourner’s kaddish, 228, 283n5, 291n80 on vehu raḥum, 61n49, 174 on veyiten lekha, 306n122 Shapira, R. Elijah, 236 she’eilot uteshuvot. See responsa shefokh ḥamatekha, 196n47 sheidim. See demons/demonology shema, 47, 73–74, 87, 90, 310, 325. See also hama’ariv aravim; keriat shema (at bedtime) aleinu and, 198–99, 361 God’s kingship and, 156, 198n56, 199, 201 hashkiveinu and, 325–28 Torah service and, 152, 155 Shenei luḥot haberit (R. Isaiah Horowitz), 249 Shibbolei haleket. See R. Zedekiah ben Abraham Anav HaRofe R. Shim’on, 229–30 Shulḥan arukh, 27–28. See also R. Joseph Caro Shyovitz, David, 292–95 siddurim, 4. See also Siddur Amsterdam 1649; Siddur Hanau; Siddur

424 · Index harokeaḥ; Maḥzor Vitry; Siddur Prague 1688; Siddur Rashi; Siddur Rav Saadiah; Siddur of R. Solomon ben Samson of Garmaise; Siddur Verona 1648 Ashkenazic rite, 20–21, 173–77, 217 availability of, 42–43, 205–6, 248–49 commentaries, 2, 7–8, 11, 70, 158–59, 206–7, 357 (see also hashkiveinu) French rite, 158–59 kabbalat Shabbat and, 241–43, 249 lack of standardization, 43–45 manuscripts, 16, 38–40, 39n121, 161, 381 Polish rite, 19–21, 173–77 sample from the Jewish Theological Seminary Library, 367–71 Sephardic, 342n100 size, 190, 284–85n58, 286 siddurim pages for reference, 379–80 R. Simḥah of Vitry. See Maḥzor Vitry sin/sinners, 294. See also atonement; Gehinnom; punishment alleviating, 68, 71, 271–72, 276–77, 280, 303–4, 360–62 (see also R. Akiva) punishment/forgiveness of, 53–56, 58–59 Sirkes, R. Joel on aleinu, 189, 199–200 Askenazic minhag and, 4 on bameh madlikin, 135–36 commentary on Tur, 26 on hashkiveinu, 336n77, 336n79, 340, 342, 337 on ḥatzi kaddish, 88n20 on kedushah desidra, 278n28 on kedushat hayom, 213n37 on kiddush, 121–23, 125 on the Torah service, 168–69, 168–69n154 on ushemor tzeiteinu, 340 on vehu raḥum, 55n24 on veyehi no’am, 278

Sofer, R. Shabbetai, 4 on bameh madlikin, 136 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 209 on berikh shemei, 232, 232n45, 235 on hama’ariv aravim, 223n17, 225, 227 on hashkiveinu, 336n77, 336n79, 337n81, 338n87, 340–42, 347, 349, 358 on kedushat hayom, 214–15 on pitum haketoret, 268 on Psalm 29, 169 on Seventy-two Verses, 258 Sofrim, 153 on kaddish, 289–90 on the Torah service, 150–57 R. Solomon ben Adret, 104–5n71, 107, 133 R. Solomon ben Moses Leibish, 56 Siddur of R. Solomon ben Samson of Garmaise, 49–50n6 on bameh madlikin, 131nn5–7, 321nn28–29 on barekhu, 273 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 88n18 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 103n65, 320n21 demons and, 103n65, 320n21, 328n55, 331–32, 343n101 on expansion of Saturday night service, 373n4, 322 on hashkiveinu, 325n47, 331–32, 242n101 on ḥatzi kaddish, 88n20 Igrat bat Maḥalat, 329n58 on pitum haketoret, 263 Shabbat and, 331 on the Torah reading, 158n103 on the Torah service, 160 on vayehi no’am, 275n47, 277n23 on vehu raḥum, 51 Soloveitchik, Haym, 5–6n17 Spanish rite. See Sephardim/Sephardic traditions

Index · 425 Spira, R. Nathan Nata ben Solomon, 91–94, 96n47, 223 Stamma’im, 86n11 sugyot, 22 Sukkot, 143 supplications. See prayers/prayer service Swartz, Michael, 186–88 synagogues, 78. See also kabbalat Shabbat; latecomers to the synagogue Amsterdam, 205 danger of demons (see demons/ demonology) decorative walls and ceilings, 246–47 kabbalistic influences on, 248 location of, 87, 96, 102–3n64, 104, 107 T tabernacle/the Tabernacle, 312, 323. See also hashkiveinu Talmud, 5–6, 22, 43n136. See also Babylonian Talmud Talmud of the Land of Israel, 5, 5–6n17 Sefer tashbetz (R. Meir ben Barukh of Rothenburg), 33 Ta-Shma, Israel, 2–3, 5 on aleinu/ma’amodot liturgies, 190–93, 200 on kaddish, 289–90 Taz. See R. David ben Samuel Halevi (Taz) tekiyata devei rav, 184 texts, prayers and, 9–11. See also liturgy; printing of texts textualization of Ashkenazic Jewry, 6–7 thirteen (number) God’s mercy and, 54, 58–60, 357 word count, 54n23, 356–57 Tikkunei Shabbat booklets, 222, 242–43, 242n91 Tisha B’Av, 297–99, 298–99n104

titkabel, 282, 287, 295–301, 301n113 Torah scrolls, 143–44n45 Torah service, 138–40, 171–72, 364 additions, 177–80 Ashkenazic rite (early), 157–60, 172–77 benedictions, 144–48, 146nn55–56 ceremonial (ritual) aspects, 143–57, 156–57n100, 160–64, 166–72 chanting/public reading of, 140–45, 142n39, 144, 144n47, 144n50, 364 connection to the Temple and synagogue, 159–60, 164 journey of the ark theme, 159–60, 164–66 reenactment of revelation at Sinai, 145, 147–48, 154–56, 158–59, 164–67 removal from/return to ark, 138, 148–51, 157, 161–62, 167, 171–73, 173–81, 380 (see also berikh shemei) translation of public reading, 142–43, 143n42 Torah study, 143, 144n51, 299 torches, 329 Tosafot, 88–89, 89n21, 317, 362 Tov lehodot ladonai, 20–21 Trachtenberg, Joshua, 13, 103n65 Tradition and Change: The Development of Conservative Judaism, by Mordecai Waxman, 1 tradition(s). See also customs/ customary practices; interpretations/interpretative approach; kabbalah/kabbalistic tradition/Kabbalists; under various rites entries Ashkenazic (see Ashkenaz; Ḥasidei Ashkenaz) change and, 11–12, 41, 183, 295, 355, 366

426 · Index French, 286–87, 301 (see also French/northern French rite) halakhah (law) and, 6, 129, 366 liturgical, 15–21, 42–45, 68, 157 (see also liturgy; Torah service; under individual prayer entries) local, 31–32, 41 preservation of, 129, 302, 366 (see also liturgy) rabbinic (see authority/tradition, rabbinic) role of, 1–4, 127 (see also customs/ customary practices) Sephardic (see Sephardim/ Sephardic traditions) of Shabbat, 249–50 in Sofrim, 153, 156 Tannaitic, 144n47, 145 translations, 143n42. See also Torah service Treves, R. Naftali Hertz, 9, 44, 220, 342n99 on aleinu, 193n37, 197nn49–51, 198n55 on hama’ariv aravim, 225–26 on hashkiveinu, 346–50, 352n132, 358 on Ps 92:16, 308n129, 309, 311–12, 313n145, 324 on vehu raḥum, 65, 70 on veyehi no’am, 278, 310–11. 323–24 Tur, 23, 26, 28. See also R. Jacob ben Asher Tyrnau, R. Isaac, 33–35 on aleinu, 188–89 on bameh madlikin, 130n4, 131n8, 132n11 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 100–101, 106n75 Sefer haminhagim, 34–35 on kedushah desidra, 277n23 on kedushat hayom, 213–15 on kiddush, 118n114, 123–24 on mourner’s kaddish, 281

on Ps 91:16, 309n132 on the Torah service, 173n8 on ushemor tzeiteinu, 336–37n79 on vehu raḥum, 49n5, 52, 57 on veyehi no’am, 277n23 on veyiten lekha, 279n23 Tzeror hamor, 312, 324 U ushemor tzeiteinu, 336–39 V vehu raḥum, 48–79, 49–50n6, 356 alleviation of suffering of sinners, 68, 71, 271, 361–62 atonement and, 356, 361–62 kabbalistic interpretations, 64–69 recitation times, 50n7, 51–57, 60–61nn44–45, 61n49, 63–67, 70–71, 70n77 responsa on, 60–61, 60–61n45 Rite of the Land of Israel, 72–79 on Shabbat, 60–68, 70n77, 71–75 Siddur Verona 1648, 207, 352 veyanuḥu vah, 210–12, 210–11n24, 215–17, 215–16n45 veyehi no’am, 275–78, 308–13, 313n145, 322–25 veyismeḥu vekha, 210–17, 210–11n24, 215–16n45 veyiten lekha, 278–80, 305–7, 306, 306n122, 307n124 vezot haTorah, 153, 164, 178–79. See also Deut 4:44 Vilna Gaon. See Elijah ben Solomon (Vilna Gaon) Vital, R. Ḥayyim on aleinu, 193–94n38,198, 199n60, 229 on berikh shemei, 232, 234 on hama’ariv aravim, 226

Index · 427 W Waxman, Mordecai, 1 Weil, R. Jacob, 56 the wicked. See sin/sinners wicks and oils, 130–31, 137, 321 wine for kiddush, 117–24, 118n114 providing, 123, 123n128 scarcity of, 98n53 therapeutic effect, 110–13 word count, 9–11, 10n34, 54n23, 58–60, 357–58. See also numerology aleinu, 197n50 hashkiveinu, 348–50 Worms, 14–15, 36–37 Y Yesod Yosef, 233–34 R. Yom Tov ben Abraham Ishbili (Ritba), 104 yom tov sheni shel galuyot. See second day of a festival R. Yose, 98–99, 109 R. Yosef ben Solomon Hadarshan Calahora of Posen, 232, 233 Yosef ometz, 37, 235. See also R. Joseph Yuzpa Hahn Nordlingen Z Zech 14:9, 228

R. Zedekiah ben Abraham Anav HaRofe (Shibbolei haleket) on aleinu, 197n51 on bameh madlikin, 131n6, 131n8 on barekhu, 272n3, 273nn4–5 on barukh Adonai le’olam, 86n12, 91n28, 318nn13–14 on berakhah me’ein sheva, 101n62 on demons, 131n6, 323n36, 323– 24n40, 327–28, 329n58, 343n101 on hashkiveinu, 207n10, 325n47, 326n51, 327, 343n101, 352n134 on ḥatzi kaddish, 88n20 on kiddush, 116n109 on Ps 91:16, 210, 308–9, 310n135 on Shabbat, 335n74 on vehu raḥum,57n23 on veyehi no’am, 277n23, 323–24 on veyiten lekha, 279n31, 279n35 Zimmels, Yehiel, 51, 67 Zimmer, Erik on kedushat hayom, 211, 211n27, 215 on Sephardic texts, 203 Zohar, 60–61n45, 68–71, 68n69, 69–70n74, 229–32, 230n35 on Shabbat, 333–34 on berikh shemei, 234–35 influence of, 63–66 on vehu raḥum, 271, 362 Zohar vayakhel II:206a, 179

About the Author Kenneth Berger is Rabbi Emeritus of Congregation Beth Sholom in Teaneck, New Jersey. He received his doctorate from the Jewish Theological Seminary, where he served as Visiting Assistant Professor of Jewish Liturgy. He also taught at the Academy for Jewish Religion in Yonkers, New York, and in the Institute for Learning in Retirement at Bergen Community College. A graduate of the University of Illinois, he received his rabbinical ordination from the Jewish Theological Seminary. His primary research interest is the history and development of the Ashkenazic rite and the liturgical traditions of central and eastern European Jewry in the late medieval and early modern periods.