Louis Ginzberg.

Geonica (Volume 1) online

. (page 13 of 20)
Online LibraryLouis GinzbergGeonica (Volume 1) → online text (page 13 of 20)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

literature ; and the shortened grace after meals, which we
have in three different forms, the one from the Talmudic
time arranged for working men, and two later forms ^ for

discussion. From the ancients he might have invited the reply pi ds^
□3n xin. In their sight it was not a petty difference, not any more
insignificant than the much-mooted question whether i3ii should or
should not close with "jinon, about which we have varying opinions,
beginning with the time of Rabbi Akiba (Berakot, III, 7), down to the
last of the Amoraim (ibid., 50 a ; Yer. Berakot, VII, 11 c).

^ The correct interpretation of the Tosefta passage may be found with
so early an authority as n^'^i^i , Berakot, 8 a.

^ Besides the miJpa Q"ni of the Polish Rabbis of the sixteenth century
handed down by Rabbi Joel Sirkes, in nn r.^a, on n"x, 192, there is
a much older shortened form of the grace after meals in 'n 'mx, I, 36 d,
by Rabbi Aaron of Lunel.




various emergencies. The shortening of the pTDn na'nn is
particularly interesting, in view of the fact that the prayer
was held to be Biblical, while all the others were based
on Rabbinical authority only.

The reason for the abridgment of the Yozer is plainly
stated — an individual may not recite the Kedushah. Dr.
Elbogen maintains that this prohibition is a fiction pure
and simple, based upon a misunderstood passage in the
Talmud. Nevertheless, many of the Geonim, as well as
most of the old authorities down to and including Mai-
monides, were actually of the opinion that the reciting
of the Kedushah by a single person was forbidden ^, and
from their point of view, whether correct or not, they
were compelled to formulate an abridged Yozer. A dif-
ference of opinion existed only regarding the extent to
which it should be curtailed. Rabbi Saadia, following
the lead of the Talmud on i:rnn, retained only the frame-
work of the Yozer, he omitted the numerous embellish-
ments attached to it, while others of the Geonim left the
Yozer itself as unabridged as possible, even when it was
intended for private devotion, and omitted only the
Kedushah^. I would venture a step further, and would
assert that the Kedushah of the Yozer is the oldest form
in which this prayer appears, the Kedushah in the 'Aniidah
being specifically Babylonian ^ This would be the only

^ The views of the Geonim regarding this point are collocated by
Dr. Biichler, in R. E. J., LIII, 220-30. Maimonides, it is alleged, changed
his view ; comp. Caro, Bet Yosef, n"M, 59. The long discussions on this
point in the old authorities leave the impression that the old view, based
upon the Talmud exclusively, was opposed to the recital of the Yozer
Kedushah by the individual, and the other view came into vogue only
through DnciD 'co.

2 It should be borne in mind that in the olden times an individual
absented himself from the -nil* nbcn only if he had no time or if there
was sickness, hence the aim to make the th' nbcn as short as possible.

^ In the Midrash ha-Gadol, I, 278, the following sentence is quoted from
an unknown Midrash: d2v 'b'bb m\n 'b^bn ri-cnp "? ^bii, that is, four
Kedushot for each day, viz. : (i) i!JV 'tp ; (2) nnn^ b^ m>DS' 'ip : (3)
N-iiDi 'ip ; and (4) nniD bv htoj? 'ip, to which are added on the Sabbath


way of making clear why the Palestinians, as late as the
year 800, continued to offer strenuous opposition to the
' A'^nidah-Kedushah on week-days, which, as appears from
G. S., p. 48 et seq., was forced upon them by the Babylonians.
If it had been an old constituent part of the daily
service, what other reason would suflfice to explain the
omission of the holiest part of the 'Amidah in Palestine?
It is even questionable whether the ^Amidah-Kedushah
was known to the Babylonian Talmud itself. Berakot,
21 b, is not decisive. All that may properly be inferred
from this passage is that in Babylonia, and perhaps also
in Palestine, the third Benediction of the 'Amidah con-
tained the trisagion, though not necessarily as an inde-
pendent paragraph, as we have it in our Kedushah, but
as an integral part of the Benediction, somewhat like this :
b i6^ n1^^3:^ '"^ m'lp ^)i\> mip nin^D lotJ^ i<ni:i nns m^\>^
nUD |*"iNn , corresponding to the closing sentence of the third
Benediction for n^^^n ^ii,i and ni23, on which days, in view
of their judicial character, the verse Isa. v. 16 is used
instead of Isa. vi. 3. This would serve also to make clear
Rabbi Huna's point of view. As the passage in Berakot
informs us, he had no objection to an individual's reciting
the ^ Ainidah-Kedusliah in his private devotion. Rabbi
Huna subscribed to the accepted principle : T\m'i\>y^ "131 73
^''d ninan xn^ n!?, but he saw in the ' Amidah-Kediishah
only a part of the third Benediction, the t^^^] nm^p, in-
tended for private as well as public worship. Furthermore,
it should be taken into consideration that the MSS.
and the old authors did not have n^^^np in this Talmud
passage as in our text, but C^np. Apparently, then, the

the Ilusaf Kedushah and the ^inDT 'ip at the going out of the Sabbath.
Accordingly, this Midrash did know the xniDT 'ip for the Sabbath After-
noon Service, which, as is shown in G. S., pp. 288-9, is of Babylonian
origin. The Targum Sheni, V, i, has an interesting passage bearing on
the subject : poi nbn sov b^i XDM-p .... ^s-iUJ\ At the time of this
Targum, then, the HMCi 'ip formed no part of the regular public service.
1 It is well known that the formula nr\ii XDMp was the old dth nmp ,
and not vMj} nnN.



subject dealt with is not the Kedushah, but the words-
'P'p c>np in the third Benediction.

The " Ainidah-Kediishah received sanction and character
as an independent prayer only under the influence of the
Babylonian mystics. The conception conveyed by it is
the mystical idea that God receives his "crown" from
Israel as from the heavenly host, when they adore him
by means of the trisagion ^. The old Kedushah contained
nothing of this notion. It merely ascribed holiness to God
in the words of the prophet Isaiah. It was against this
mystical idea that the Palestinians during Geonic times
contended inch by inch. First the Babylonians living in
Palestine achieved their purpose of inserting the Kedushah
in the Sabbath service, and this was far from beina: the
only Faitanic addition made to it 2. In the end, the
Babylonian Kedushah slipped into the week-day service
as well. In Geonic times the Babylonian Jews living in
Palestine played pretty much the same part as the Polish
Jews in Germany during the last three centuries. Fault
was found with them on all sides, but after all they were
"the scholars," and, do what one would, their authority
compelled recognition. Now, as the 'Amidah-Kedushah
is the product of the Babylonian mystics, so the Yoze^^-
^edushah goes back to the Palestinian mystics. Josephus
(de hello Judaico, II, 8, 5) says of the Essenes : " They
speak not a word about profane things before the rising
of the sun, but they offer up the prayers they have received
from their fathers facing the sun as if praying for its
rising.^' Alutatis mutandis, a Yozer is nothing but the
prayer at sunrise, and if the liturgy preserved for us had
not had a Kedushah in the Yozer^ we should logically have
been compelled to assume its sometime existence there.

^ Comp. Bloch's essay on the ni3-ra mv in Monatsschrift, XXXVII, 305.
Our author goes too far when he assigns the origin of the Yozer-Kednshah
to the Babylonian mystics.

^ Albargeloni, in n^iyn 'c, 251, expresses his decided opposition to
■piv 'jan. Of course, his protest against this old insertion was vain.


In the whole of the prophetical literature there is nothing-
suitable for a Yozer except the glorification of the Lord
by the celestial host, described by Isaiah, which we call
the Kedushah ^.

Furthermore, the difference between the Palestinian and
the Babylonian Kedushah calls for consideration. The
Yozer- Kedushah like the Palestinian ' Aviidah- Kedushah
has nothing of the " crowning of God," which is so dis-
tinctly conveyed by the Babylonian ' Amidah- Kedushah.
When the Palestinians, acting under compulsion by the
Babylonians, accepted the ^ A^nidah- Kedushah, they divested
it of this mystical concept, and fitted it into the Yozer-
Kedushah — additional evidence for the independence of
the two Keduehot, for while the Babylonians know only
the form with "IDD for the ^ Ainidah- Kedushah, no trace
of the "crown" can be discovered in the Yozer-Kedushah,
as, furthermore, the Palestinians have only K^lpJ or "jSi'^lpJ
for the '^ A'lnidah- Kedushah ^.

The above exposition can lead to but one conclusion,
that the Yozer-Kedushah is pre-Geonic and Palestinian,
and as a consequence the short Yozer in the Seder is exactly
what it is said to be, an abridgment for private worship,
and not the original Palestinian Yozer. It is nevertheless
indisputable that the short Yozer is not properly to be
accounted an original constituent of the Seder Rah Arara'in.
There can be no doubt that it was taken from the Seder

^ Rapoport, Biography of Kalir, note 20, gives so convincing a statement
of the connexion between the Yozer and the Essenes that nothing
remains to be added to his words. Dr. Hoffmann, in the Introduction
to the D^x;n ^mo, goes so far as to conjecture that the Essenes were
called conn after Din " the sun," but this explanation of the expression
□■"Dnn rh:y2 seems to me very forced, ccnn would rather appear to be
nothing more than a variation of D^inn. Then n'L^'•^u nbJQ would be a
" Collection of Proverbs."

^ Comp. G. S., pp. 48-9, where the nns formula is dealt with in detail.
The statement made there that the Italian ritual, before being influenced
by the Kabbalah, knew only -inD, is corroborated by the words in bn^iur,
13 : "\nD -iDib l^r^n ^'ynxcyi\ Comp. also Berliner Hoffmann, Magasin, Hebrew
supplement ira -i!Ji«, 1886, p. 1 1 , where "inD is given as the Kedushah, 'lis? an:c.


of Kabbi Saadia. Not only is it missing in the MSS.
of the Seder Rah Amvam, but we know from Bondi,
SidduT des Rabhl Saadia, 13, that this short Yozer is
actually in the MS. of the Seder of Kabbi Saadia ^.

Whether the formula nn"i nnns for the second She'ina
Benediction is really traceable to Eab Amram, is question-
able, for as late as the time of Kabbi Sherira and Kabbi
Hai it began with thy]) nnns everywhere in Babylonia except
in the synagogue of Kohen-Zedek, and there is no likeli-
hood that Kabbi Amram would have given a decision
deviating from the universal Babylonian custom. It seems
that we have again met with a '* correction " made for
the purpose of bringing the Seder into agreement with the
views of the Franco-German authorities 2.

The addition of P^n nmro for the summer is mentioned
by Kabbi Abraham, in the Manhig, 16, as a Proven9al
custom, not known to the Seder Rah Amram ; yet in our
text of the Seder it is given ^.

Abudraham, 6"], speaks with disapprobation of the
" common people " who say ^^thv '•ro^y^i in the ^{mD^ ^mip,
the only correct form being N^Di?y oi'ya, as the Seder Rah
Amrami has it. Again our text agrees with the supposed
preference of the common people.

The addition to the Geullah in the Evening Service in
our text of the Seder, 19 a, is most suggestive. Kab Amram
(6 b) is peremptory in opposing the insertion of the idea
of the future redemption in the Geilllah of the Morning
Service. It is absolutely inconceivable that he would have

^ From -^''^r, I, 52, it may even be gathered that the short Yozer in the
S'^iD read other than in our text.

^ It is true, so early an authority as the Gaon Rabbi Hanina, the
disciple of Rabbi Jehudai, expressed himself in favour of nn nin.y ;
oomp. j"n, 125. But the statement . . . -jb^xi JMn i:2rai is contradicted
by Rabbi Sherira. It may be that the Minhag was changed in the later
time of which Rab Sherira speaks.

^ Accordingly, Rapoport {Kalir, note 33) is not right when he says
that Kalir and the Sephardim agree in having h'Q for the summer, as the
old Sephardic ritual did not have it.


been so inconsistent as to permit its insertion in the Evening-
Service. Moreover, from the Kesponsum by Sar Shalom
given in G. S., p. 91, it appears that the insertion originally
had its place in the Geullah for the morning. It is there-
fore probable that it occupied this place in the copy upon
which our text is based, as, indeed, the amplified Geullah
was most generally identified with the Morning Service ^.
But the copyist of the Seder could not stultify himself
to the extent of giving the expanded Geullah side by side
with the Gaon's disapproval of it. Hence the insertion
disappeared from the Morning Prayer, while, in the
Evening Prayer, there being no remark of Rab Amram's
to deter them, the copyists followed the custom with
which they were familiar in the Geullah for the evening.
Now, as neither the Sephardim nor the Ashkenazim in
later times had an amplified evening Geullah, the inference
is that the model for our text of the Seder must have been
an old Spanish prayer-book containing these additions.
As for their origin, the Genizah fragment enables us to
say with certainty that they came from Palestine, whence
they reached also the Morning Service in the old Orders
of Prayer of the Ashkenazim and Sephardim, from which
the opposition of the Geonim did not succeed in removing
them entirely. Hence the fact that the insertion in the
Geullah is missing in the Sulzberger MS. of the Seder
proves nothing with regard to its high antiquity as com-
pared with the printed text. It belongs to a time in which
the amplified Geullah was no longer a general custom, and
the copyists of the Seder therefore had no occasion to put
it into their copies.

For the endeavour to arrive at a valuation of our text,
the ntOJon bv ^''P, 19 b, is of great importance. In the
Genizah fragment published by Professor Schechter in
the J. Q. K, X, 6^^, there is a Shema" Benediction before
13-13, running thus : ^^n) nb^ nnb D^^ron^ f2pii n''m ^''^<3
nvsn. Recently, another Genizah fragment was reproduced

1 Comp. the Genizah fragment in R. E. J., LIII, 236.


in the R.E.J., LIII, 240-1, by Professor Levi, and it con-
tains a Benediction with almost absolutely the same
wording. The accepted opinion is that this Benediction
was unknown hitherto, until the publication of these two
fragments. No explanation came readily to hand when
and why this special Shema' Benediction was added to the
other two of Tannaitic origin. Another striking point is
that this Benediction is not directly before the Shema in
the two Genizah fragments, but before 13 "13. Does it seem
reasonable to suppose that a Shema Benediction was
recited before iDia ?

Light is thrown upon the bearing of this Benediction
by a Responsum of Rabbenu Hai's, and by the remarks
of a number of the old authorities about the Shema Bene-
diction before bedtime. Rabbi Hai, n''::^, 57, decides against
the use of nnnxn ^yb'orh^ v^^ nnp bv f2p^ r\"'o^ ••''xn before
the HDcn b ^''\>. Thus it appears that the Shema" Bene-
diction of the two fragments contains nothing new. It is
merely a variant of Rabbi Hai's form, a form to be found
also in D^^n 'nns*, I, 43 c, Abudraham, 23, and 'Iffur, II,
34 c^. Its import is conveyed to us in an observation
made by Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel, on the beginning of
BeraJwt, which is repeated by his son Rabbi Jacob, in
TiiT, OraJi Hayyim, 235. According to a well-known
custom 2 the Evening Prayer was said at the synagogue
immediately following upon the Afternoon Prayer, even
if night had not yet set in. This necessitated the repetition
of the Shema after nightfall. As the Rabbinical injunction
requires its recital at nigJit, the authorities insisted upon
its being said before going to bed, even if it had been
prayed at the synagogue in the Evening Service. Some

* Comp, also bn"ar, 40, and Tosnfot, on Berakot, 2 a, catchword ^no^NO,
end, and HulUn, 105 a, bottom.

2 This custom must have arisen in Palestine and spread thonce to the
European countries, but it gained no foothold in Babylonia, on account
of the opposition of the Geoniin. Comp. Eabbi Hai's Responsum in h":, 78;
and n"ur, 76 ; quoted also by many old authorities.


ordered, that with the Shema the two Benedictions also
were to be repeated^, for the reason that they, too, had
been recited in the synagogue before nightfall. Rabbi
Amram, however, says Rabbi Asher, was of opinion that
it was not obligatory to say over again the Shema Bene-
dictions in their full wording. A brief Benediction,
according to the usual formula of the miD^n, sufficed. There
can hardly be a doubt but that Rabbi Asher found this
view of Rabbi Amram's in his Sede7' under n^ron bv ^"\>.
In our text it is missing, in consonance with the opinion
of the later authorities ^, who permitted neither this nor
any other Benediction in connexion with the r\\::i'or\ bv ^"\>-
There is only one MS. of the Seder in which the ab-
breviated Benediction appears, the Oxford MS. Even there,
however, it seems probable to me that the passage Dllpl
'di nnsnp was not derived from the Seder, but from some
other source. My reason is that as it now reads in the
Oxford MS., it contains a contradictio in adjecto. If stress
is laid upon the recital of a Benediction before the Shema
at bedtime, and if stress is laid upon it for the reason that
the Evening Service is held before nightfall, the appointed
time for the Shema, then it would follow that the whole
Shema"" should be repeated, not merely the first Parashah,
as our text and the Oxford MS. provide ^. It is also worthy
of note that the passage in question is not in its proper
place in the Oxford MS. It should have read b^pb l"inr3i
QK n>m ny v^^ p njitj^i<n n^-ia N-ripi nD^?!^ n'12^ n):ibi^ '\:'bv
Tintoi yiDK^. The original Shema' Benediction before
nt:Dn bv ^'^?, which was nothing but an equivalent for the
two long Benedictions which accompanied the Sheona'
when it was recited before nightfall, was looked upon
later as a special Benediction* for n^J2n bv ^"\>, without
reference to the time of saying the Shema in the

^ Comp. rr:v 'i n^obn, Berakot^ beg., and Caro, Bet Yosef, n"x, 235.

^ Comp. Tosafot, Berakot, beg., and Albargeloni, quoted in brf'^y^', 40.

^ Comp. Rashi and Tosafot, Berakot, beg.

* Thence the opposition of Rabbi Hai to this Benediction ; he says,


Evening Service, \Ybether after or before nightfall.
This is the conception that finds expression in the
Oxford MS., as it does in later ritualists, and it is a
conception that is not wholly in accord with Rab
Amram's view.

This analysis enables us to understand the Sheona' Bene-
diction in the Genizah fragments. A substitute for the
prescribed Shema Benedictions in the evening was a
common expedient in congregations where the Evening
Service took place in the synagogues before nightfall, as
was the case outside of Babylonia^. But there were cir-
cumstances requiring an alternative Benediction even in
the Morning Service, either for an individual who had time
only for the Shema , but not for the whole Morning Prayer,
or for the whole congregation on fast days and holidays,
on which the elaborate service was so long drawn out
that the Shema might fall beyond the proper time^. In
such cases, and similar ones, Shema' was recited in private
devotion before the regular service, with the short Bene-
diction in the Genizah fragments. For this reason it is
not given as a Shema' Benediction after nm nnnx or P,2ni^
Qb)V, but as coming before ID^n, because only an individual,
and he only if he does not recite V^^ nmn, is to recite
the short Benediction. It is, in fine, a special Benediction,
Avhich really should have no place in a regular Order
of Prayers.

It is highly probable that the introduction of Shema'
with the three words pN: ']bD ^N is only a remnant of this
very Shema' Benediction. The opposition to it must have
been strong enough to force out r\)J?i2) d::^ which was
replaced by I^D ^N. Accordingly, the complete introduction
must have run thus at some time after r\)J?i2) DK^ was
omitted : nvan D's:ni oi'tr 22^2 id'-^dj frxi I^d !?«, and all that
remained of it were the first three words.

^ Comp. above, p. 137, n. 2.

^ Comp. Yer. Berakot, I, 3 c ; the Geonic Eesponsum quoted in Albarge-
loni, zi'T^VTi 'd, 255 ; j?"-ic, 3 a, and r\"ii, I, 6 c.


An old addition, derived from the Sephardic prayer-
book, is the congregational prayer )12^ ^nn^^ 27 b. So
early an authority as Albargeloni had it in his copy of
the Seder Rah Amraon, as he tells us in D^nyn 'd, 250,
while Tur, Orali Hayyim, 57, reports the reverse about
his copy. That it was missing in the model for our text
is evident from the fact that it does not appear in the
Week-day Service, though there is no reason for reciting
this prayer on the Sabbath exclusively ^

The order of the verses 'di inpnvi ♦. . piv "inpnv is stamped
as incorrect by Abudraham, and he recommends that they
be recited as they succeed each other in the Seder Rah
Amraoii. But our text has the repudiated arrangement,
except in the New Year Service, where the order is that
recommended by Abudraham.

What Rabbi Abraham ben Nathan says in his Manhig,
^^ a, makes it plain that in his copy of the Seder the
Talmud sections are not set down to be recited at the end
of the Afternoon Sabbath Service, and the passage Nt:n — "'piS
is properly enough found to be missing in the Oxford and
the Sulzberger MSS.

The formula for pin nnj^ at the end of the Sabbath, as
given in our text, differs from that quoted in the Manhig,
33 b, from the Seder. As Maimonides agrees with the
Manhig, it remains only to assume that our text was
shortened in this passage.

The prayer ♦ ♦ . ijnn ^<'''l^<, on page 31b, is known to the
Manhig only as a Spanish custom, and to justify it the
author resorts, not to the Seder, but to a Yerushahni
passage, and we may be sure that it did not occur in his
copy of the Seder. This throws doubt upon the authen-
ticity of the whole section, from TT-vn^N* until nyit^'^i?, all the
more as it is missing in the Oxford MS. That it is, in
spite of this, an addition of respectable age may be inferred

Albargeloni, it is true, deals with the Sabbath Service, but it is fair
to assume that he had ra\r nnnuj' of the Week-day Service also before him.
The editor of the d^toh 'd observes that it is not contained in our »"nD !


from its being quoted from the Seder Rah Amvam by Ibn
Gajat, ^"'^, I, 15, as the Tur, Orah Hayyion, 299, does also.
Nevertheless, it is recognised as an interpolation by the
circumstance that it is a piece put in between the Hahdalah
and the draining of the Habdcdah cup. It does not seem
likely that between the Benediction over the wine and
the drinking of the wine itself so long an interval would
be interposed as is required for the recital of this piece,
the rule being that a Benediction is to be followed at once
by the enjoyment of the food and drink over which it is
said. It is therefore much simpler to assume that it was
taken from some other source, and as the copyist could not
well attach it to the Halakic portion of the Seder, there
was nothing for him to do but join it to the Hahdalah.

On 41 b, in the Order of Prayers for the second day
of the Passover, the counting of the 'Ooner is missing. Yet
it was present in the copy of the Seder used by Rabbi
Aaron of Lunel, as appears from a remark of his in nims
D^'-n, I, 84 a.

As an adjustment in conformity with the Sephardic
rite, we may consider pD") ^n bii in the first Benediction
of the 'Amdah for the New Year, which Abudraham
attributes to the ignorance of the people. He accuses
them of having changed this Benediction as given in the
Seder Rah Ainirarn. Our text again agrees with the custom
of the ignoramuses. If we call to mind how zealous the
Geonim were in denouncing any change in the 'Ariiidah,
there can be no doubt as to the correctness of Abudraham's
version of the Seder in comparison with our text.

Another change in the 'Amidah for the New Year is
the insertion of ^^p NnpD niLD DV. Of the Seder Rah Amram
it did not form a part, for which we have the clear
testimony of the author of the ManJdg, S'Z-^. It is a
peculiarity of the Spanish liturgy, and our text was here
subjected to an importation from it.

The remark made by Ibn Gajat on the changes in the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 15 16 17 18 19 20

Online LibraryLouis GinzbergGeonica (Volume 1) → online text (page 13 of 20)