Prayer in the Talmud: Forms and Patterns [Illustrated] 3110042894, 9783110042894

Table of contents :
Preface
List of Abbreviations
Introduction
Chapter I: The Statutory Prayers: Their Nature, Origin and Content
Chapter II: The Development of Prayers and the Problem of the „Original Text“
Appendix to Chapter II: The „Bônäh Yerûšālayîm“ Benediction – A Comparison of the Versions
Charper III: The Patterns of the Liturgical Bera¯ka¯h and their Origins
Chapter IV: The Address „You“ in Prayer
Chapter V: Prayer in the Temple
Chapter VI: Piyyût-Forms of Temple Origin
Chapter VII: Private and Non-Statutory Prayer
Chapter VIII: Law-Court Patterns in Prayer
Appendix to Chapter VIII: Sources
Chapter IX: The Fixed Statutory Prayers of the Synagogue
Chapter X: Prayers of Bêt Midrāš Origin
Chapter XI: The Genres of Prayer and their Formai Characteristic
Appendix A: Hebrew sources to Chapter II
Appendix B: Hebrew sources to Chapter VIII
Glossary
Selected Bibliography
Index A: General
Index B: Prayer-Texts

Citation preview

JOSEPH HEINEMANN PRAYER IN T H E TALMUD

w DE

G

STUDIA JUDAICA FORSCHUNGEN DES

ZUR

WISSENSCHAFT

JUDENTUMS

H E R A U S G E G E B E N VON E. L. E H R L I C H BASEL

BAND

IX

W A L T E R DE G R U Y T E R · B E R L I N · NEW Y O R K 1977

PRAYER IN THE TALMUD FORMS AND P A T T E R N S

BY JOSEPH HEINEMANN

W A L T E R DE G R U Y T E R · B E R L I N · NEW 1977

YORK

Revised version of the Hebrew original a ^ m a s m trwnn noipna n ^ s n n published in 1 9 6 4 , 2 n d edition 1 9 6 6 , by the Hebrew University Press English version by Richard S. Sarason

Library

of Congress

Cataloging

in Publication

Data

Heinemann, Joseph Prayer in the Talmud. (Studia judaica; Bd. 9) A revision of the work originally published in Hebrew under title: ha-Tefilah bi-tekufat ha-Tana'im veha-Amora'im. Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Jews. Liturgy and ritual-History. 2. Prayer (Judaism) 3. Rabbibical literature-History and criticism. I. Title. II. Series. BM660.H4613 1977 296.4 77-1906 ISBN 0-3-11-004289-4

CIP - Kurztitelaufnabme

der Deutschen

Bibliothek

Heinemann, Joseph Prayer in the Talmud: forms and patterns. - 1. Aufl. - Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 1977. (Studia Judaica; Bd. 9) Einheitssacht: Ha-tefiiäh bi-tequfat ha-tana'im we-ha-amora'im (engl.) ISBN 3-11-004289-4

Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Ohne ausdrückliche Genehmigung des Verlages ist es nicht gestattet, dieses Buch oder Teile daraus aui photomechanischem Wege (Photokopie, Mikrokopie) zu vervielfältigen. © 1977 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin 30 Printed in Yugoslavia Satz und Druck: Casopisno in grafi£no podjetje Delo, Ljubljana Einband: Wübben & Co., Berlin

PREFACE This English version of my Hebrew book Hat-tefilläh biteqnfat hat-tannä'im u^-ha-amôrâ'îtn, tibäh udefüsäyhä, which appeared in 1964 (the second edition, 1966, is unchanged except for some minor corrections) is not an exact reproduction of the original. Though I had at my disposal an excellent translation of the entire book (except for Ch. X), prepared by Rabbi Richard S. Sarason, Μ. Α., of which I made very extensive use, I have introduced many changes into the text. Not only does an English version require, at times, greater elaboration, while, at others, some minor, intricate matters of Hebrew philology are better omitted, but the considerable lapse of time since the Hebrew work was written made a revision of the entire book almost a necessity. Bibliographical references have been brought up-to-date; wrong references have been corrected (to no small extent thanks to the painstaking work of Rabbi Sarason); and I have shortened sections or elaborated them, wherever this seemed appropriate. Regarding some matters the presentation itself has been changed in the light of subsequent research. Only rarely did I have occasion to make substantive revisions in my arguments or conclusions; one notable case being the long footnote on p. 94 f. Throughout the book a great many specific prayers are referred to. For the convenience of the reader who may wish to locate and study them, page numbers are given (at least for the first few times any given prayer is mentioned) referring to the Daily Prayer Book, edited by Phillip Birnbaum, which is very likely the most widely used traditional Prayerbook, containing the Hebrew text side by side with an English translation. T o chapters II and VIII, there are appendices quoting a selection of sources. For the convenience of readers proficient in Hebrew, the original texts have been reproduced at the end of the volume. Jerusalem, February 1976

Joseph Heinemann

CONTENTS Preface

V

List of Abbreviations

IX

Introduction

1

Chapter I: The Statutory Prayers: Their Nature, Origin and Content . . . .

13

Chapter II: The Development of Prayers and the Problem of the „Original Text" Appendix to Chapter II: The „Bönäh Y e rûsâlayîm" Benediction - A Comparison of the Versions

69

Charper III: The Patterns of the Liturgical Beräkäh and their Origins . . . .

77

37

Chapter IV: The Address „You" in Prayer

104

Chapter V: Prayer in the Temple

123

Chapter VI: Piyyût-Fotms

of Temple Origin

Chapter VII: Private and Non-Statutory Prayer

139 156

Chapter VIII: Law-Court Patterns in Prayer

193

Appendix to Chapter VIII: Sources

208

Chapter IX: The Fixed Statutory Prayers of the Synagogue

218

Chapter X: Prayers of Bêt Midräs Origin

251

Chapter XI: The Genres of Prayer and their Formal Characteristic

276

Appendix A: Hebrew sources to Chapter II

288

Appendix B: Hebrew sources to Chapter VIII

292

Glossary

299

Selected Bibliography

302

Index A: General

305

Index B: Prayer-Texts

311

ABBREVIATIONS American Academy for Jewish Research AAFJR Harvard Th. R. Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual HUCA Journal of Biblical Literature JBL Journal of Jewish Studies JJS Journal of Semitic Studies JSS Jewish Quarterly Review JQR Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums MGWJ Neue Folge NF Révue Biblique RB Révue des Etudes Juives REJ Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart RGG Old Series OS VT; Vet. Test. Vêtus Testamentum Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZATW Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft ZD GM

BIRNBAUM Phillip Birnbaum, Daily Prayer Book, Hebrew Publishing Company, New York Davidson, Thesaurus I. Davidson, Thesaurus of Mediaeval Hebrew Poetry (Hebrew), New York 1924 (reprinted: 1970) Elbogen, Gottesdienst Ismar Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung,9 Frankfurt am Main 1931 Ginzberg, Commentary Louis Ginzberg, A Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud, (Hebrew), New York 1941-61 Goldschmidt, Haggädäh (i960) Daniel Goldschmidt, Haggâdâh säl Päsah wHòledòtähä, Jerusalem 1960 Goldschmidt, Mâbô' S.D. Luzatto, Mâbô' lemahzôr benê Róma', with notes and Introduction by D. Goldschmidt, Tel Aviv, 1964 Müller, Soferim J. Müller (ed.), Masechet Soferim, Leipzig 1878 Sedär Hibbûr Berâkôt Abraham I. Schechter, Studies in Jewish Liturgy, based on a· Unique Manuscript..Philadelphia 1930 Tosefta Ki-Fshutah S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshutah: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Tosefta, New York 1955

χ

Abbreviations

Variae Lectiones R. Rabbinovicz, Varine Lectiones in Mischnam et in Talmud Babylonicum, Munich 1867 f Zunz, D. gottesdienstlichen Vorträge L. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden historisch entwickelt2, Frankfurt a. M., 1892 Zunz - Albeck, Had-derâsôt, L. Zunz, Had-derasôt beYisrä'el [= translation of the above], edited and supplemented by Ch. Albeck, Jerusalem 1954

INTRODUCTION

In this study we shall examine Jewish prayers of the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods, paying particular attention to their literary and formal characteristics. We shall investigate the various categories of prayers with respect to both the formal patterns which occur in them and the different functions of each category. An attempt will be made to understand the nature and characteristics of the forms and their emergence out of their particular Sitz im Leben. We also wish to clarify the relationship of Jewish prayer, and of its various categories, to the conceptual world of Talmudic, or classical Rabbinic, Judaism which is its larger environment. Moreover, by elucidating this relationship, we hope to discover the conceptual-valuational significance which the various forms and stylistic elements may possess. The recurrence of certain forms in certain categories of prayers and their non-occurrence in other categories and, on the other hand, the complete avoidance of other forms whose use was at least theoretically possible, may shed some light on the assumptions and the intentions of the creators of the liturgy. We must also take into account the recorded opinions of the Mishnaic and Talmudic Sages on the subject of prayer - their attitudes, for example, toward the use of various divine epithets in prayer; their views on the role and the nature of praise in the worshipper's approach to God; their determination of the relative merits of individual as against communal prayer; their beliefs about the factors which may assist or prevent the acceptance of a petitioner's prayer; and so forth. We should, then, try to determine the extent to which these beliefs are reflected in the prayers themselves - in their style, structure, and content. This study will avail itself of all the relevant material in the talmudic and midrashic literature, both legal (H"läkäh) and nonlegal (Haggädäh). The latter includes Rabbinic sayings, stories, private prayers of individuals, and even the fictitious prayers which Rabbinic legend attributes to its Biblical heroes. While it will not be our primary purpose in this study, as we have indicated, to deal with the history of Jewish prayer or to probe its most ancient texts, we shall still be unable to ignore completely certain historical-philological problems. Indeed, there are instances when the method of form-criticism can provide us with just that perspective on the source materials which makes it possible to use them in solving questions of liturgical evolution and textual variants. This study, then, differs from its predecessors primarily in its consistent, though not exclusive, application of form-criticism to the field of Jewish

2

Introduction

liturgy. This method, which has proved to be so fruitful in numerous and diverse areas of literary research, has not as yet been employed systematically in the study of Jewish prayer except in the area of Biblical prayer, where important form-critical studies have been done by Hermann GUNKEL and his school; whereas our study will deal exclusively with post-Biblical prayer. Form-criticism looks for fixed, regular patterns of literary form. It examines those formal elements which have been observed to recur with a high rate of frequency and regularity in different literary creations - even when these creations do not date from the same period of time. For, as Goethe has noted, „impressed form which develops organically" possesses a high degree of stability and permanence1. After establishing these fixed forms, we must relate them to the various literary categories or genres in which they have been found to occur, and try to determine their function within each genre, noting the respective styles, the basic structures, and the other formal characteristics which are seen to predominate in them. Through comprehending the formal patterns which recur in the different kinds of prayers we can arrive at a fairly accurate understanding of the nature and significance of the prayers themselves. We must refrain, however, from drawing our conclusions on the basis of having isolated single stylistic elements which are observed to recur. Rather we must look for the recurrence of whole complexes of conjoining elements; for it is only by the conjuction of numerous formal characteristics that we may come to identify a particular pattern or genre. Formcriticism, as one of its major exponents has explained, proceeds simultaneously along two tracks: first, reconstructing the development of the generic forms out of a given situation and, secondly, analyzing the materials at hand according to the generic forms which they display. Only if the results of the two approaches match can we draw conclusions with any degree of certainty2. Only one scholar, Arthur SPANIER, has previously applied the formcritical method to the field of post-Biblical Jewish liturgical studies. The importance of his several articles, written in the 1930's, is attested to by the tangible results which they achieved in certain problematic areas of investigation. Nevertheless, they represent merely a first step, for Spanier's untimely demise left his work in this field unfinished. Spanier did not always bring to bear all of the relevant materials, and his work suffers from a certain amount

1 „ . . . Und keine Zeit und keine Macht zerstückelt Geprägte Form die lebend sich entwickelt" (Urworte, Orphisch); and cf., the context in which these verses are cited by Eduard NORDEN in his book, Agnostos Theos, Darmstadt, 1950, p. 201, and Norden's remarks there, p. 198: „ . . . und ewig menschliche Gedanken erhalten sich, wenn bildnerische Kraft ihnen eine Form verliehen hat, die dem Strome der Zeiten w i d e r s t e h t . . . " and also p. 133: „Denn die Macht der Tradition ist auf formalem Gebiete in Altertum unberechenbar gross gewesen . . . " 2

Martin DIBELIUS, From

Tradition

to Gospel,

London, 1934, p. V et

passim.

Introduction

3

of over-simplification. The generic categories of prayers which he identifies i. e., „confession", „thanksgiving", „petition", „doxology" - are much too formal and too general. His determination that certain forms belong only to this or to that genve, without having attempted a substantive proof which would refer to the Sitz im Leben and to the function of these forms, often seems arbitrary and dogmatic. Although we may not accept all of Spanier's conclusions, we must nonetheless acknowledge our debt in this book to his research. We are unaware of any other Jewish liturgical studies which have systematically employed the form-critical approach, and disagree with those who would see an example of this method in the work of Louis FINKELSTEIN 8 . Finkelstein draws far-reaching conclusions from an exclusive analysis of isolated stylistic elements, without ever having examined these elements within the broader stylistic and formal context of the particular prayers in which they appear, or having related them to the overall functional role of these prayers. Moreover, Finkelstein is interested primarily in the historical question of the evolution of the texts of the prayers and of their wording. He systematically attempts to reconstruct the „original text", whereas formcriticism was not designed to deal first and foremost with historical and philological problems. On the contrary, the method concentrates on those elements which are not time-bound and which, in fact, remain fairly stable over a period of time. Any contributions made by the form-critical method to the solution of chronological problems are purely ancillary. As it happens, form-criticism did enable us to solve some problems of chronology in this study - viz., that the 'âlênû prayer (BIRNBAUM, p. 135 f.) is older than the Teqfätff debê Rab (the prayers which accompany the blowing of the Ram's Horn on the New Year) in which it appears, or that the most primitive types of litanies (Hôsa'nôt), some of which are still to be found in contemporary liturgy (BIRNBAUM, p. 679 ff.), were in fact composed for use in the Temple service. But these conclusions are merely the by-products of an investigation of the formal patterns which are found in particular prayers, with an eye to their Sitz im Leben. Moreover, by this method we can only determine the origin of certain prayers in the most broad and general terms. We can assert, for example, that Grace After Meals (BIRNBAUM, p. 759 f.), in its original form, goes back to the ancient h'büräh meals, which were attended by ten or more habertm, without being able to ascertain more precise chronological data. The same reservations apply to the contribution of form-criticism to textual criticism. Here again, the form-critical approach may occasionally render assistance by directing our attention to certain types of changes and emendations which are found in the different textual variants, but this is not its primary function. Frederick C. GRANT, „Modern Study of the Jewish Liturgy", in ZAW (1953), p. 64. 3

LXV

4

Introduction

Our study also differs from previous liturgical studies in that we try to encompass all the various types of prayers and do not concentrate exclusively on the prayers of the community assembled in the synagogue (as did E L B O GEN). It is true that a number of articles have investigated certain prayers which were originally recited privately by the individual, such as the Supplications (tab"nûnîm; BIRNBAUM, p. 103 f.) and the preliminary Morning Benedictions (birkôt bas-sabar; BIRNBAUM, p. 13 f.) 4 , but these studies deal with the prayers as they appear in the liturgy today as parts of the public worship. We, on the other hand, will try to determine the original character of the categories of private prayers as they appear in the talmudic and midrashic sources. We shall also devote chapters to other categories of prayers, not all of which are found in the prayerbook, e. g., prayers which originated in the House of Study (bêt bam-midräs), benedictions by which a man blesses his fellow, „invitations to prayer", litanies, and so forth. A study of this nature and scope is desirable for another reason as well. More than half a century has elapsed since the publication, in 1913, of E L B O G E N ' S standard work on Jewish prayer5. Although the book was twice revised, the limited framework of appended critical notes made it impossible for the author to update his study thoroughly and to incorporate in it all of the subsequent developments in the field of liturgical studies. Since that time, a wealth of articles and monographs has been published, most of them scattered throughout the journals and the numerous Festschriften, which have contributed a great deal to our understanding of specific aspects of Jewish prayer. By and large, these articles have dealt with well-defined topics and, hence, have been limited in their scope. But no comprehensive work has been written which would attempt to integrate these different insights and to 4 Solomon B. FREEHOF, „The Origin of the Tahanun", in HUCA II (1925), pp. 3 3 9 - 3 5 0 , and „The Structure of the Birchos Hashachar", in HUCA XXIII (1950-51), Part Two, pp. 3 3 9 - 3 5 4 . The Grace After Meals, which Louis FINKELSTEIN has investigated in his article, „The Birkat ha-Mazon", in JQR (N. S.) X I X (1928-29), pp. 2 1 1 - 2 6 2 , and the Passover Haggadah, which has been examined by numerous scholars, and most thoroughly by Daniel GOLDSCHMIDT, in his Haggädäh säl päsah wnöUdötähä, Jerusalem, 1960, although neither are recited in the synagogue, nonetheless possess many of the characteristics of the statutory public prayers, as will be shown below. 5

Ismar ELBOGEN, Der jüdische

Gottesdienst

in seiner geschichtlichen

Entwick-

lung, Leipzig, 1913; second edition, revised with additional notes, Frankfurt-amMain, 1924; third edition, revised with additional notes, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1931. The fourth edition, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1962, is merely a photo-offset of the third edition. However, the Hebrew edition of Elbogen's work: Hat-tefilläh Β«-Yisrcfel (ed., J. Heinemann), Tel-Aviv, 1972, has been brought up to date through supplements and notes written by the editor, I. Adler, A. Negev, J. Petuchowski and H. Schirmann respectively.

Introduction

5

re-evaluate all of the research which has been done in this field. The approach up to now has basically been fragmented, not synthetic. Not only has the secondary literature burgeoned since the days of Elbogen, but we also have new and important primary sources at our disposal today which were either unknown or unavailable at the time of his writing. Although much of the material from the Cairo Genizah remains unpublished, the number of relevant Genizah texts which have been made available to the student of liturgy within the past sixty years has grown considerably. We note in particular the work of Jacob MANN® in this field. In addition to the Genizah materials, other important liturgical sources have now been published, among them, fragments of the old Italian Sedar hibbûr berâkôt, the Orders of Prayer (Siddûrîm) of the Babylonian Gâ'ôn, S e 'adyäh, and of Maimonides, and, most recently, a critical edition of the Order of Prayer of the Babylonian Gâ'ôn, Amram 7 . Last, but not least, the liturgical portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls published thus far can shed some light on the background and the early development of Jewish prayer. Not only is there a need for a new synthesis and a re-evaluation of previous liturgical research in the light of the new sources and the growth of the secondary literature, but it would seem that the time has come for a reassessment of some of the basic methodological assumptions which have been held until now by most students of Jewish liturgy. That such a methodological re-evaluation is necessary is again a consequence of the contemporary predominance in liturgical research of the short study, the limited scope of which does not allow for adequate discussion of the scholar's methodological premises. Most scholarship in the field of Jewish liturgy, as we have noted, has employed the historical-philological approach, with the aim of tracing the origin and development of the texts of the particular prayers and their wording. By comparing the different versions that have come down to us, scholars have attempted to discover, or to reconstruct, the authentic original text. Historical studies have investigated the gradual evolution of each of the major prayers, and also of the various Orders of Prayer and local rites. Indeed, so much work has been done in this area that it would seem to be exhausted, except for the filling in of some minor details. We do not question the value β Jacob MANN, „Genizah Fragments of the Palestinian Order of Service", in HUCA II (1925), pp. 269-338. 7 Abraham I. SCHECHTER, Studies in Jawtsh Liturgy, based on a unique manuscript entitled Seder Hibbur Berakot, Philadelphia, 1930; Siddûr Rab Se'adyäh Gâ'ôn, edited by Israel DAVIDSON, Simcha ASSAF, and Issachar JOEL, Jerusalem, 1940; „Maimonides' Rite of Prayer according to an Oxford Manuscript", edited by Daniel GOLDSCHMIDT, in Studies of the Research Institute for Hebrew Poetry, VII (1958), pp. 183-113; Sedär Rab Amram, edited by Daniel GOLDSCHMIDT, Jerusalem, 1971.

6

Introduction

of this work, nor do we have any doubt as to the validity of its major findings. We would instead maintain that form-criticism can be a useful supplement to the historical-philological method, and an effective counterweight against certain excesses in its application - viz., the exaggerated and forced dissection of texts, or the hastily-drawn and ill-founded conclusions arrived at through comparing certain textual variants, and so forth. But, primarily, form-criticism can inform us about additional aspects of the nature of the prayers to which philological research has not devoted enough attention. Without, then, negating the value of the historical-philological approach, there is still reason to question the validity of some of the fundamental assumptions made by certain scholars which, to our mind, have distorted their views on some fundamental issues. The systematic textual criticism developed by classical philologists and Biblical scholars, the primary tools of which are the comparison and analysis of textual variants, is undoubtedly a valid approach to genuine literary works - that is to say, to those compositions which in their original form were written. But it cannot be transferred as a matter of course to the field of liturgy without first determining whether or not the methodological tools are appropriate to the subject matter which is to be analyzed by them. Although the early prayers have come down to us in writing, there can be no doubt that, in their original setting, they belong to the domain of oral tradition. It is therefore legitimate to ask ourselves whether we can speak at all of an Urtext, viz., the one archetypal and „original" text, which can be reconstructed by a comparison of all of the extant versions8. It is interesting to note that similar reservations are being voiced today even in the field of Biblical criticism. Certain scholars are now claiming that the text of the Bible contains „double readings" of equal worth, i. e., that neither is the „original" or the „preferred" reading, nor is one a „variant" of the other, but that both represent ancient traditions which date from a period before the existence of a single standard textus receptus, from which it would be possible to „deviate" either accidentally or intentionally9. If we must allow for a „formative period", in which double readings of equal merit and authenticity existed side by side, when dealing with a written literary text, we certainly must do so when dealing with the creations of an oral tradition! Moreover, it is doubtful whether a number of the other conventions of classical philology are necessarily valid when applied to the field of liturgy, such as the rules-of-thumb that the shorter, unadorned version is always the earlier one, or that repetitions and double readings are to be discarded. In fact, only where internal evidence shows the text to be a composite of various 8 Cf., Maurice L I B E R S ' S criticism of Jewish liturgical studies in his article, „Structure and History of the Tefilah", in )QR (N. S.) X L (1950-1), pp. 331-357. • Shemaryahu TALMON, „Double Readings in the Masoretic Text", in Textus I (1960), pp. 144-184.

Introduction

7

sources or corrupt can we decide that it is not „original"'. But where several „good" versions of the same prayer have come down to us, they may well be equally old and authentic. We will enlarge on all of these points below, and, indeed, have found it necessary to devote a whole chapter to the problem of the „original text" of the Jewish prayers. It became clear to us in the course of our work that other routine assumptions of certain scholars need re-examining. Among Jewish legal authors of the Middle Ages, and among certain modern writers as well, a dogmatic approach is often encountered to the problem of the relationship between the legal norms of prayer, as they are set forth in the Talmudic sources, and the actual texts of the prayers themselves. These writers can only see the prayers as they are mirrored in the legal norms of the Haläkäh, and either close their eyes to instances which deviate from the norms or try somehow to harmonize the two. It seems to us more correct to assume the opposite: that at first many different forms of the same basic prayer grew up in a somewhat haphazard fashion, and that only afterwards, gradually in the course of time, did the Rabbis impose their legal norms on this vast body of material. If we were to use these legal norms as our starting-point and as our sole criteria for investigating the prayers themselves, we would be apt to dismiss precisely those cases from which it is possible to learn a great deal about the liturgy in its earliest stages of development, i. e., before the existence of a uniformlyaccepted, standardized set of halakic norms. Particularly in the „intermediate" range of prayers which fall somewhere between the statutory prayers of the community and the private prayers of the individual we shall observe a variety of stylistic phenomena which do not conform to the accepted halakic rules for the formulation of benedictions and petitionary prayers. From this observation, we may infer that these rules did not apply to this range of prayers during the Talmudic period. But if we were to shrug off these instances as „isolated phenomena" or as „deviations", we could never possibly arrive at this conclusion, or understand the real significance of such „deviations". We need to reappraise still other conventional assumptions which, to our mind, can lead to mistaken inferences from the source materials. Among the most glaring of these assumptions are the following: that a particular prayer or version not mentioned in the sources did not, therefore, yet exist; that a text which comes down to us in a Babylonian source is necessarily of Babylonian, and not of Palestinian, origin; that the versions found in the Genizah fragments (and other texts which represent the old Palestinian rite) are necessarily older, and hence more „original", than those texts which represent the Babylonian rite; that we must be careful to distinguish between those modern rites which were influenced by the old Palestinian rite (primarily the Italian, Ashkenazic and Romanian rites), and those which are derivatives of the Babylonian rite (the Sephardic and Yemenite rites). Although this latter distinction is, by and large, accurate, many scholars tend to

Introduction

8

exaggerate its importance. We must bear in mind that the Palestinian influence on the basic rubrics, even in the former group, is at most only marginal. The predominant influence on all the modern rites is unquestionably Babylonian, with merely traces of the old Palestinian formulations appearing here and there. Among the various approaches to the study of liturgy, one in particular has attracted much attention in recent years, namely, the method of „comparative liturgy", which was pioneered by Anton B A U M S T A R K . But it appears to us that this approach is quite limited in its usefulness to students of Jewish liturgy. Baumstark himself repeatedly emphasized the necessary conditions for the successful application of his method: „It is this abundance of forms which makes possible a comparative study of liturgies"10. But the variety which prevails in the early Christian liturgies is entirely lacking in the statutory prayers of the Jewish rites as they have come down to us. All of them, including the early Palestinian rite, are already relatively fixed and crystallized by the time that we first encounter them in the extant documents. The statutory prayers in all of the rites do not exhibit those variations in their essential features and basic structures which the method of comparative liturgy requires. All of our texts, in fact, reflect a relatively late stage in the development of the liturgy, when the basic elements are already common to all of the rites11. The comparative method would indeed be helpful if we actually possessed material from the earliest formative period of the liturgy - and perhaps it will be applicable once the remaining liturgical fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls will have been published12. But there are no fundamental differences between the Talmudic liturgical sources and any of the rites (including those represented in the Genizah fragments), the examination of which by the comparative method could yield any meaningful results. Not only are the basic structures and forms of the prayers identical in all of the rites, but the very order of the service itself - both of the daily prayers and of the prayers for sacred seasons in the liturgical calendar - is, for all intents and purposes, uniform. This is not the case with the early Christian liturgies, where the variety of basic forms provides the scholar with a criterion for

10

Anton BAUMSTARK, Comparative Liturgy, London, 1958, pp. 2-3. „ . . . die Abweichungen im Brauchtum erwecken den Anschein einer ungeheuren Mannigfaltigkeit... in der jüdischen Liturgie. In Wirklichkeit aber besteht sie aus sehr einfachen konstanten Elementen" . . . „Aus diesen Grundelementen setzt sich die Liturgie des ganzen Jahres zusammen". (ELBOGEN in Encyclopaedia Judaica, Berlin, 1934, X, pp. 1048-9, s. ν. Liturgie). 1! Cf. Shemaryahu TALMON'S attempt to discover common structural elements between the liturgical materials in the Scrolls and the later statutory prayers, in his article: „The Order of Prayers of the Sect from the Judaean Desert" (Hebrew) in Tarbiz XXIX (1960), pp. 1-20. 11

Introduction

9

distinguishing between the various rites and, within any particular rite, for characterizing the different liturgical occasions. At most, the comparative method could be applied to the non-statutory elements in Jewish liturgy, which never achieved the same measure of standardization as the statutory prayers in any of the rites - viz., the Penitiential Prayers (Selibôt), the Supplications (T"hanûntm), the different cycles of reading the Torah, etc. But even this range of liturgical material is too narrow for fruitful comparative results. It is doubtful whether any measure of regularity can be discovered in the order and structure of these prayers as they appear in the various rites. Indeed, any „order" would seem to be merely the result of random combinations of such prayers. Those comparative studies which have attempted to demonstrate the existence of regular patterns in this category of prayers, as, for example, LIEBREICH'S article on the benedictions which surround the morning „Verses of Song" (Pesûqê dezitnrä' or Zemîrôt; B I R N B A U M , p. 51ff.)33 or F R E E H O F ' S work on the preliminary Morning Benedictions14, are unconvincing. Rather, they leave one to doubt whether the „regularity" and the „systematic construction" which these authors have claimed to discover may not be, in fact, the result of their own ingenious constructions. Moreover, these studies deal with the texts of the „Verses of Song" benedictions and of the Morning Benedictions as they have crystallized in the modern rites, all of which, as we have noted, are derivatives of the old Babylonian rite. A cursory glance at these two liturgical rubrics as they appear in the old Palestinian (or Egyptian) rite of the Genizah fragments will reveal a multiplicity of different forms and an utter lack of unified structure. The regular systematic construction which these scholars think to have found evaporates into thin air15. 13

Leon J. LIEBREICH, „The Composition of the Pesuke de-Zimra", in Proceedings AAFJR XVIII (1948-49), pp. 255-267; „The Pesuke de-Zimra Benedictions," in JQR (N. S.) XLI (1950-51), pp. 195-206. 14 Cf. the article cited above in note 4. ls Although LIEBREICH does, in fact, make use of Genizah texts, he does not, nor could he possibly, claim to find in them the same fixed structure which he has „discovered" in the Pesûqê dezitnriT of the later rites. FREEHOF, on the other hand, does not even take note of the Birkôt has-sahar rubrics in the Genizah texts, which certainly do not display any of the regularity or purposeful structure and arrangement which he claims to have found in the later rites. Freehof's major „discovery" is that the number of short benedictions in the Birkôt has-sahar rubric always totals eighteen, and that this total is intended to correspond to the Eighteen Benedictions of the Tefilläh. He cites Amram, who explicitly fixes at eighteen the number of morning benedictions, relying on the authority of the Gâ'ôn Natrônai. (The two Töräh benedictions are included in this enumeration.) The same number recurs in the Italian Sedär hibbûr berâkôt, although the benedictions themselves are different, and the two Töräh benedictions are not included. Freehof claims (p. 347) that the

10

Introduction

Baumstark himself has been criticized18 for, despite the importance of his method and the accuracy of its results, the terminology which he employs is apt to be misleading. His „laws" of liturgical development do not necessarily reflect any objective historical reality. They are rather abstractions which we cannot apply with absolute certainty in every particular case. Nonetheless, they do provide a good descriptive theoretical model for understanding the development of the Christian liturgies. Several of Baumstark's „laws" would seem to be equally applicable to the development of Jewish liturgy, although we cannot here prove their validity by using the methods of their author. Baumstark's „first law", that the direction of liturgical development is always from variety toward uniformity, i. e., from a multiplicity of different versions to one standard version, appears to fit in well with the development of Jewish liturgy, too (even if we admit that most of the texts of the prayers which reached us already reflect a situation of relative standardization). His determination that „the primitive liturgical texts were for the most part improvisations" 17 , also seems to be valid with respect to Jewish prayer, as we shall see below. The second axiom of the „first law", that liturgical development proceeds from simplicity and brevity towards ever greater richness and prolixity 18 , too, appears to hold true for certain aspects of Jewish liturgy: the development, for example, of a different version for each of the several Sabbath '"mîdôt and, at a later stage, of a special text for the additional (Mûsâf) mtdäh. But this rule does not hold good for Jewish liturgy as a

Birköt has-sahar are not contained in Se'adyäh's Siddûr; however, they do appear on p. 88 of the published text, and their number is sixteen. (We cannot include the Töräh benedictions in this enumeration, as they are recorded separately, on p. 358, under a different rubric.) The total number of benedictions in the modern Ashkenazic rite is twenty-one, including the Töräh benedictions, whereas in the Sephardic and Romanian rites the total number in nineteen, also including the Töräh benedictions. (But it is difficult to include the benediction for washing hands and the benediction which begins, „'"sär yäsar" [„who has created man with wisdom"], in the Birkôt has-sahar of these latter rites, as they are separated from the main grouping of benedictions by an extended section of supplicatory prayers.) We, therefore, have difficulty in arriving at the number eighteen (or nineteen) in these rites, even if we include the two Töräh benedictions - whereas we must substract these two from the total number of benedictions in the Ashkenazic rite in order to arrive at nineteen. It is, thus, impossible to claim that the total number of the Birkôt has-sahar is eighteen in all of these rites, and that this figure is intentional. On the Birkôt has-sahar and the Pesûqê dezitnrä' rubrics in the Genizah fragments, see below, p. 163ff. 16 By Dom Bernard BOTTE, in his introduction to the third (French) edition (1953) of BAUMSTARK'S book. Cf. the English edition, Comparative Liturgy, p. vii. ff. 17 Op. cit. (above, η. 10), p. 17. 18 Ibid., p. 19.

Introduction

11

whole. Neither can Baumstark's other laws be summarily transferred to the field of Jewish liturgy, despite the existence of some isolated cases which would seem to fit them. The „second law" of liturgical evolution, viz., that „primitive conditions are maintained with greater tenacity in the more sacred seasons of the liturgical year" 19 , would seem to be borne out in Jewish liturgy by the preservation of old Palestinian formulae especially in the festival and high holy day prayers of the Ashkenazic and Italian rites; by the custom of reading the Aramaic translation (Targûm) of the Scriptural lesson from the Prophets only on festival days in the French and Italian rites in the Middle Ages; by the custom of reciting certain prayers out loud only on the high holy days, etc.20 But we cannot always be certain that the above-mentioned Palestinian formulae are necessarily always the more ancient ones and that it is for this reason that they have been preserved. (At all events, they are certainly not primitive!) It seems more likely that they have been preserved in the context of the festival liturgy due to the custom of reciting liturgical poems, or hymns (piyyûtîm), on these occasions, the bulk of which were written in Palestine. It would, then, be natural for some of the Palestinian prayer formulae, in which the hymns were embedded, to be taken over along with the hymns themselves. The validity of other Baumstarkian „laws" seems to be much more doubtful, and these should be applied to Jewish liturgy only with the greatest caution and with additional corroborative evidence brought to bear in each case. Distinguishing literary strata according to the rule that the shorter text is always the more primitive21 is a procedure of doubtful validity in the field of Jewish liturgy. So, too, is the determination that the most primitive elements retain the same liturgical functions in all of the rites in which they subsequently occur, if only for the reason that, in the relatively late stage of liturgical development that is reflected in all of our sources, practically all the basic structural and stylistic elements — and not just the „primitive" ones - are common to all of the rites. Before beginning our study proper, we should explain our use of terminology in this book. The Hebrew noun, Beräkäb, is generally rendered into English as „Benediction", or „Blessing". But in its specific, technical sense, it refers to that class of benedictions which are either part of the statutory public liturgy or are to be recited by the individual on certain prescribed occasions, and which all begin or conclude with the stereotyped formula, Bärük 'attäh '"dônây ('âl5hênû mäläk hä-oläm), „Blessed art thou, O Lord (our God, King of the universe)". We shall henceforth refer to this kind of benediction as a „liturgical Beräkäh". The liturgical Beräkäb, in its turn, is composed of two different formal elements: first, the stereotyped formula 19 20 21

Ibid., P. 27. Cf. Louis GINZBERG, Commentary, Op. cit., P . 3 0 .

III,

p. 2 1 .

12

Introduction

which we quoted above, and which we shall call the „introductory formula" of the benediction; and second, the specific praise of God in relation to some definite circumstance, which follows immediately upon the introductory formula, and to which we shall refer as the „main content" clause of the benediction. An example of such a „main content" clause would be hammost lähäm mitt hä-äräs, „who brings forth bread from the earth". If the beräkäh formula occurs at the beginning of a passage, we shall refer to it as the „opening" of the benediction; when the formula occurs at the end of a passage, we shall call it the „conclusion" of the benediction, or the „eulogy". However, the entire passage is also called a Beräkäh, or „Benediction". We thus may refer to Birkat Yerûsâlayîm, „the benediction for Jerusalem", or to Birkat haz-zän, „the benediction for sustenance". Another type of benediction which we will have occasion to discuss is the Birkat 'ädäm 'at h"berô, „the benediction by which a man blesses his fellow". This benediction is not a liturgical Beräkäh, as it contains none of the elements we have noted above.

CHAPTER ONE

THE STATUTORY PRAYERS: THEIR NATURE, ORIGIN AND CONTENT

„One hundred and twenty elders, among whom were several prophets, instituted the Eighteen Benedictions, and arranged them in their proper order" (B. Megilläh 18 a). „The men of the Great Assembly ordained benedictions and prayers, Qedussot and Habdâlôt for Israel" (B.B'râkôt 33 a). „The Eighteen Benedictions which Israel recites were ordained by the early generations of Sages Chakâmîm ha-ri'sônîm) [or: ,prophets']" (Sifrê on Deuteronomy, 343). „The early generations of pious men (b"stdîm ha-risonîm) ordained that Israel pray three times daily" (Midräs on Psalms, XVII. 4, 17). „Moses ordained that Israel pray three times daily" (TanhümcT KÎ täbo' 1). „Moses ordained the form of prayer" (].B e râkôt, VII, 11c). „The daily prayers were instituted by the Patriarchs" (B. Berâkôt 26 b). The common element in all of these Tannaitic and Amoraic dicta is the explicit recognition of their authors that the custom of public statutory and fixed prayer is an ancient tradition which they themselves had received from past generations. Since almost every one of these dicta attributes the institution of fixed prayer to a different generation, public body, or personage, nothing can be deduced from their joint testimony with any degree of surety, save for the great antiquity of that institution itself. Against these sources stands the much more precise testimony of B. Berâkôt 28 b, which provides us, in detail, with names, the place and the occasion of the institution: „Simeon hap-Îâqôlî arranged the Eighteen Benedictions in their proper order in the presence of Rabban Gamliel in Jamnia (Yavneh)." We may safely conclude, then, that the evolution of the fixed prayers began hundreds of years before the destruction of the Second Temple, and reached the period of consolidation and editing the precise nature of which we will examine below - in the generation following the destruction of the Temple. At that time, the details of the principal obligatory prayers and the laws which govern them were fixed and became halakically binding. The basic structures and content of the prayers determined at that time have never since been altered, and to this very day constitute the essential components of the Jewish liturgy (which has nonetheless expanded over the centuries, by the inclusion of numerous additional prayers and hymns not regarded as obligatory). Before we survey the historical evolution of the prayers themselves, we

14

The Statutory Prayers

must examine and evaluate the significance of this novel institution in Judaism which is known as „statutory public prayers". Prayer was, of course, customary among the Israelites from earliest times. Prayer at fixed times is already alluded to in the Bible as the practice of individuals (Daniel 6:11, Psalms 55 :18). Moreover, most of the Biblical psalms served as prayer-hymns, which were chanted by the Levitical singers in the Temple during the offering of the sacrifices, as a form of „musical accompaniment" to that ritual. But neither the spontaneous prayers of individuals (nor, for that matter, of the community as a whole when the occasion demanded), nor the cultic prayer-hymns of the Levites are the equivalents of the institution of fixed, communal prayer, which constituted a radical innovation of the Second Temple period, and which made an indelible impress on the entire religious life of the people by providing them with a completely novel form of religious expression. Communal fixed prayer, unlike the Levitical hymns, is a self-sufficient and independent form of worship, and is not a subordinate of, nor an „accompaniment" to, a more primary ritual or ceremony. It requires neither a holy shrine, nor a priestly „officiant" caste, which alone is empowered to perform it. Nor, on the other hand, is the fixed prayer of the community akin to that spontaneous outpouring of the individual's heart before his Maker on occasions of distress or of thanksgiving and adoration. Indeed, statutory prayer is referred to by the Sages as bôdâb - divine „service", or worship: „What kind of service is that which takes place in the heart? We must answer, ,It is prayer!'" (B. Ta'"nît 2 a, and parallels). Obligatory and fixed prayer is understood here to be a legitimate form of divine worship, on a par with the sacrificial cult of the Temple, through which Israel fulfills its daily communal obligations to the Lord: „Just as the sacrificial cult is called '"bödäh, so, too, is prayer called '"bôdâh" (Sifrê ort Deuteronomy, 41). This, in itself, is a startling innovation. But unlike the sacrificial cult, in which the entire people is assigned no active participatory role (the sacrificial rite being performed exclusively by the Temple priest in the name of the people, and on their behalf), the new form of worship is to be performed by each individual, by the entire community of worshippers, wherever they may be. The people themselves become both the performers and the bearers of the divine service. The democratization of the divine worship, then, constitutes another revolutionary aspect of fixed, statutory prayer, and paves a new, more intimate and immediate way by which man may approach God and fulfill his divine obligations, anywhere and at any time. As soon as prayer was understood to be an alternative form of statutory worship, i. e. to be '"bödäh, it became an integral part of organized communal religious life, and was stamped with its own unique fixed forms and patterns, formulae and idioms. Communal fixed prayer is, moreover, an authentic and original Jewish creation. In other ancient religions, regular worship-through-prayer was unheard of, save as a subsidiary element of other ritual and cultic forms, or as a device to be resorted to only in

The Statutory Prayers

15

extraordinary circumstances. Fixed prayer, in and of itself constituting the entirety of the divine service, was a startling innovation in the ancient world, which both Christianity and Islam inherited from Judaism. From what we have said above, it becomes evident that prayer was regarded as '"bödäh, in a manner analogous to the sacrificial cult, not only in the period following the destruction of the Second Temple, but even during the period of the Temple itself - the only difference being that, in the Temple period, prayer did not take the place of the sacrifices, but rather paralleled and complemented them: „The daily prayers were instituted to correspond to the daily sacrifices" (B. Beräköt 26 b). Through its daily prayers, which can be recited anywhere, the community is enabled, as it were, to offer up sacrifices of its own in addition to those which are offered up for it - but not by it - in the Temple. And, indeed, we have sources from the days of the Temple itself which clearly indicate that worshippers were scrupulous to recite their prayers at just those hours when the daily sacrifices were being offered up, and the incense burned, in the Temple since the one corresponds to the other 1 . It is probable that this situation accounts for the Tannaitic dispute regarding the obligatory status of the evening prayer, which does not correspond to any regular, statutory sacrifice. Statutory prayer was communal from its inception, just as the Temple sacrifice was a public ritual, but with the important difference that, with respect to prayer, a small nucleus of ten laymen (the quorum required to hold such a service) is sufficient to represent the entire people and to petition on its behalf. Indeed, there is no prayer in the fixed, statutory liturgy which the worshipper is to recite in the first person singular, „I"; he must always use the plural, „We". The individual prays as a member of the community, for the needs of the community as a whole. Even when the individual prays by himself, as he is halakically obliged to do when no quorum can be assembled, he will still recite the same prayers which the congregation recites, at the same hours, and using the same style. He will still use the first person plural forms in his prayers, and will still see himself as a member of the community and as its representative. But since the obligation of fixed prayer is first and foremost a communal one, it cannot be wholly or perfectly fulfilled by the solitary individual. He cannot, e. g., perform certain liturgical „acts of sanctification" (debârîm säbiqedussäh), which must not be performed 1 Cf., The Book of Judith 9:1, and Yehoshuah M. GRINZ'S comments, ad loc., in his edition, Jerusalem, 1957, p. 139; Luke 1 : 1 0 ; Josephus, Contra Apionem II, 23. Cf. also, Israel LEWY, „Ein Wort über das jüdische Gebet", in MGWJ X X X V , (1886), p. 115; and Shemuel SAFRAI, „'"bôdat ha-«lôhîm b»bêt ham-miqdäs has-senîin Sefär Y*rüsälayim I (1957), pp.372, 378; Gedaliah ALLON, TôMôt hay-yehûdîm be äräs Yisrael biteqûfat ham-Misnäh wehat-Talmûd, Tel Aviv, 1955, I, p. 166ff., and Mähqärtm bnôUdôt Yisrael, Tel Aviv, 1954, I, p. 284 ff.

16

The Statutory Prayers

when less than ten are present (Misnäh Megilläh, IV, 3; Β. Megilläh 23 b). As late as the period of the academy at Jamnia, where the arranging and editing of the statutory prayers was completed, the Sages still disagreed as to whether or not the individual was obliged to recite the weekday Eighteen Benedictions in their entirety (Misnäh Berâkôt, IV, 3). Moreover, the recitation of one entire prayer, the additional (Mûsâf) prayer for Sabbaths, New Moons, and festivals, was limited by some Sages to the presence of a häbär 'ir, which is usually taken to mean a „local congregation" (Misnäh Beräköt, IV, 7); hence the solitary individual was not allowed to recite this prayer at all. Nevertheless, the individual worshipper by no means loses his importance or his identity by simply dissolving into the larger communal unit. The significant innovation in this new kind of '"bödäh is precisely the active role which it assigns to each individual worshipper. In the Temple cult, as we noted, the people were mere onlookers - an „audience" which observed the „performance" of the sacrifices by the priestly „actors". The individual never offered up his own sacrifice; he only observed on the sidelines. But the service of prayer is performed by the people themselves, with the active participation of each and every individual. Even the role of the „Prayer Leader" (Seliah Sibbûr, literally, „the Emissary of the Community"), is merely a formal one - to recite the prayers aloud. For this task, no professional officiant is needed. On the contrary, every member of the community is judged worthy and fit to represent his peers. And although there were undoubtedly many people who were not fluent in the fixed prayers (being unable to remember those prayers which had been formulated by others, or to compose their own prayers according to the rules set down by the Sages), and who were thus necessarily dependent on hearing the prayers recited by the Prayer Leader in order to fulfill their obligation, nonetheless, their participation through listening was of an active nature, which found expression in the frequent responses: „Amen!", „Blessed be the Lord to whom blessing is due forever and ever", „May his great Name be eternally blessed", „Blessed be the name of his glorious kingdom for all eternity", etc. The role of the response in public prayer is, then, a vital and substantial one: through his response, the listener identifies himself with the prayers of the community and becomes an active participant in its worship, though he may himself be unable to recite these prayers. The value of this response is repeatedly stressed in the Talmudic and midrashic literature: „There is nothing which the Holy One (blessed be he!) values more than the ,Amen!' with which Israel responds" (.Deuteronomy Rabbäh, VII, 1); „Greater is he who answers, ,Amen!', than he who pronounces the benediction" (B. Beräköt 53 b); „The gates of Paradise are opened for anyone who answers, ,Amen!', with all his might" (B. Sabbat 119 b); etc. The hour of public worship in the synagogue is the occasion when the individual is given permission to raise his voice (Numbers Rabbäh, IV, 20), and to join in with the entire community; for prayer is not complete except

The Statutory Prayers

17

in the synagogue at the hour when the community holds its service (B. Berâkôt 6 a, 7 a; J. B'râkôt, V, 8 d; and numerous other passages). None of these statements, of course, is intended to negate or to question the legitimacy of the private prayer of the individual who pours out his heart before God, petitioning for his own personal needs. On the contrary, the individual may pray whenever he so desires. Indeed, some of the greatest of the Sages were wont to recite personal private supplications after the fixed public worship (B.Berâkôt 16b-17a), or even inserted them into the petitionary portion of the fixed prayers themselves. Moreover, the Sages insisted that each worshipper express something new in his own prayers every time that he prays2. But the obligation of worship, which falls on the individual Jew as a member of the Jewish people, can only be fulfilled through fixed communal prayer. We have attempted to show that the institution of fixed statutory prayer constitutes a radical change in Israel's religious life, establishing, as it does, a more personal, immediate relationship between the individual - as an integral part of the community - and his God. Further on, we shall examine the significance of the fact that God is directly addressed in prayer in the second person, „Thou", and by his Ineffable Name (the Tetragrammaton, which is, albeit, pronounced, dônây). Here, too, we note the shift in the direction of personalization and intimacy: in place of ritual formalism comes the direct expression of the worshipper's innermost longings, thoughts, and feelings, to which he himself gives voice. Yet, with all the novelty embodied in this new form of worship, the prayers themselves were not created ex nihilo. Biblical prayers and hymns, especially those in the book of Psalms, served as stylistic, formal, and linguistic sources for the new forms of prayer, which were freely derived from them. But unlike the members of the Dead Sea sect or the authors of some of the apocryphal books, the „early generations of pious men" who began the formulation of the fixed prayers would no longer take it upon themselves to compose completely new and original hymns and prayers in the classical style of the psalms. They limited themselves instead to much more modest and simple prayers which, however, made use of Biblical prayer motifs and employed Biblical phraseology and formulae. It is clear that the creators of the liturgy also had a pedagogical objective in mind, although this objective is not always explicit in those dicta which have been recorded in the Tannaitic and Amoraic sources. Yet, if each individual is required to pray daily at fixed times and in a set fashion, his prayer must in time become more than a mere device for giving expression to personal emotions and thoughts. It becomes, over and above this, a means for actually stimulating and arousing such emotions and thoughts. It is doubtful 1

Cf., ]. Berâkôt, IV, 8a; Β. B'râkôt 29b; and cf., below, p. 46.

18

The Statutory Prayers

whether the average man, absorbed as he is in the monotonous routine of daily life, would ever turn his thoughts spontaneously to God, except perhaps in times of extreme joy or distress. It is, then, the aim of fixed prayer to provide man with a stimulus to turn his thoughts to God; to remove the individual from the realm of the mundane and the routine, and to elevate his thoughts and feelings to the level of the Divine and the Absolute. This objective of self-education is manifest not only in the obligation to pray three times daily, but even more explicitly in the manifold benedictions which the Sages instituted for the individual to recite during the performance of his everyday functions, and which permeate his daily routine. A man is obliged to recite a benediction upon beholding any overwhelming or fearsome aspect of nature; before and after enjoying food or drink; on particularly joyous occasions. The benediction which is to be recited before eating, for example, is certainly intended to lift that mundane daily activity from its biological level of significance, and to transform it into an act of divine worship. The benediction to be recited upon performing a ritual commandment (Miswäh) is likewise geared to deepen the devotion and concentration of the individual, and to prevent him from performing the commandment mechanically. If the Sages saw fit to multiply the number of benedictions to the point where they said: „A man is obliged to recite one hundred benedictions each day" (B. Menâhôt 43 b), their pedagogical intent would seem to be obvious: the benediction aims to sanctify man's daily activities by constantly infusing their performance with a sense of holiness and with the consciousness of the Divine Presence. The principal content and purpose of these benedictions is to give praise and thanks to God for the abundant goodness which he has bestowed upon his creatures and, at the same time, to obtain permission from him to enjoy the fruits of this world; for „the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof" (cf., ß. B'râkôt 35 a-b). On the other hand, most of the Eighteen Benedictions (which the Rabbis of the Misnäh and the Talmud refer to as the Tefilläh, the „Prayer" par excellence), are petitionary in content. To be sure, each of these petitionary prayers concludes with a eulogy formula, and is thereby infused with elements of thanksgiving and praise to him who satisfies the needs of all his creatures. (For example, the petition, „Heal us, O Lord, and we shall be healed", concludes by praising him „who heals the stricken of his people Israel".) So, too, it was ordained that the Eighteen Benedictions (BIRNBAUM, pp. 81-95), open with prayers of praise, which are to be recited before the petitionary prayers, and close with prayers of thanksgiving, which are to be recited after them. Nonetheless, the primary purpose of the weekday Tefilläh is unquestionably to petition for Israel's necessities out of the firm conviction that the Lord will hear these supplications and respond favorably to them. The Talmudic Sages do not for one moment doubt a man's right to cry out to God in the hour of distress with the full conviction that his cry will be an-

The Statutory Prayers

19

swered: „When troubles beset a man, let him not cry out to Michael nor to Gabriel - but let him cry out to Me, and I will answer him immediately" (/. Berâkôt, IX, 13 a); ,,,Yea, when you multiply prayers' (Isaiah 1:15) - From this we learn that all who multiply prayers are answered" {]. Berâkôt, IV, 7 b); and numerous similar passages. Most philosophers, even among the ancients, have been greatly troubled by the thought that man, in burdening God with his numerous petty and insignificant requests, might be showing not a little disrespect for the Creator of the cosmos. To this problem, the Sages replied without hesitation: „The Holy One (blessed be he!) desires that his creatures pray to him, and he will accept their prayers" (TanhümäWay-yislah, 9); „The Holy One (blessed be he!) yearns for the prayers of the righteous" (B. Yebätnot 64 a); „If a man has a client, the first time he comes to visit, he will seat the client upon a couch; the second time, upon a chair; the third time, upon a bench. The fourth time, he will say, ,How this fellow forces himself upon me and bothers me!' But it is not so with the Holy One (blessed be he!). However much Israel presses and throngs into his house of worship, he is pleased" (Midräs on Psalms, IV, 3). If the individual in distress has the right to cry out to God in supplication, how much more so does the community - and the individual who prays for the needs of the community! Nor were the rabbis perplexed by another „philosophical" problem which has prompted many thinkers to deny the original simple and natural function of prayer and to attribute to it a pedagogical, „edifying" purpose only (i. e., that prayer „improves" the worshipper himself and elevates him to a higher level of piety). This problem may be put simply: is it conceivable that the prayers of men can influence the will of God? How can human entreaties alter the divine decree, once it has been promulgated? To these questions, the Sages answered with a disarming naivete: „Three things can annul the stern decree Prayer, Charity, and Repentance" (J. Ta'"niyyôt, II, 65 b); „Even if the Holy One (blessed be he!) has made a decree, he may annul it" (B. Sabbat 63 a); ,,,God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should change his mind' (Numbers 23 : 19) - Was it not a man who caused God to go back on his word? ,Nor a son of man that he should change his mind' Was it not the son of Amram who so persuaded God that he changed his mind?" (J. Ta'"niyyôt, loc. cit.). But it was precisely this naive simplicity in their conception of the nature and function of prayer which caused the Rabbis to agonize over a different problem: How could they still expect their prayers to be heard and answered after the destruction of the Temple, that catastrophe which brought about the removal of the Seklnäh - the indwelling presence of God - from their midst, and which ruptured the cord that bound Israel to their Father in heaven? Not only did the destruction of the Temple mean the cessation of the sacrificial cult, but it would also seem to make prayer, the „service of the heart," impossible: „Rabbi 'El'azar said: Since the day on which the Temple

The Statutory Prayers

20

was destroyed, the gates of prayer have been locked, as it is written (Lamentations 3 : 8), ,Yea, when I cry out and call for help, he shuts out my praye r . . A n d Rabbi 'El'äzär: said: Since the day on which the Temple was destroyed, an iron wall has separated Israel from their Father in heaven . . . " (B.Berâkôt 32 b). With the destruction of the Temple, the gates of prayer were locked - for the Temple was the gate of heaven: „Anyone who prays in Jerusalem is as one praying before the Throne of Glory, for there is the gate of heaven, and the entrance is open wide so that the prayers may be heard, as it is written (Genesis 28 : 17), ,And this is the gate of heaven' " (Midräs on Psalms, XCI. 7). Not all the Sages, however, accepted this harsh sentence, but argued against the view of Rabbi 'El'äzär: „Rabbi 'Änän said: the gates of prayer are never locked, as it is written (Deuteronomy 4 : 7 ) , ,For what great nation is there that has God so near to them as the Lord our God whenever we call upon him?'" [Deuteronomy Rabbäh, 11.12); and in the following statement of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi (which was made, it is true, in a halakic context), we can detect a strong note of protest against the notion a dividing iron wall: „Even a partition of iron cannot separate Israel from their Father in heaven" (Β. Pesähtm 85 b). In fact, the Sages found consolation for the destroyed Temple precisely in prayer, which was all that remained: „Rabbi Isaac says: At this time we have neither prophet nor priest, neither sacrifice, nor Temple, nor altar - what is it that can make atonement for us, even though the Temple is destroyed? The only thing that we have left is prayer!" (TanhûmâWay-yislab, 9). But the problem of how prayer was to be heard and answered in spite of the withdrawal of the Divine Presence still demanded a solution. Some of the Rabbis responded that even after the destruction, the Divine Presence did not remove itself from the Temple grounds: „Even though I have exiled you [from Zion], my Presence has not budged from there" (ibid.); „Rabbi 'El'äzär says: The Divine Presence does not budge from the sanctuary... Even though it is in ruins, its holiness remains" (Exodus Rabbäh, II, 2)3. But others refuted this pisition: „Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman said: Before the Temple was destroyed, the Divine Presence dwelt in its m i d s t . . . but since the Temple was destroyed, the Divine Presence has removed itself to heaven" (ibid.). If some of the Rabbis tried to solve the dilemma by asserting that the destruction of the Temple certainly did not entail the withdrawal of the Divine Presence to heaven, and that the Holy One still

3

Cf. GINZBERG, Commentary, III, p. 385; idem, Legends of the Jews, Philadelphia, 1928, VI, p. 392 ff. It is difficult to reconcile this statement of Rabbi 'El'äzär's with one quoted above in his name, and with another tradition which is attributed to him: „Rabbi 'El'äzär said: Prayer is greater than sacrifice" (B. Beräkôt 32 b). Perhaps some of the statements belong to Rabbi 'El'äzär, the Tanna, while the others belong to Rabbi 'El'äzär (ben P e dät), the Amora'? Textual variants which confuse Rabbi 'El'äzär with Rabbi Eliezer are also frequent.

The Statutory Prayers

21

said, „Pray to me in the direction of that city and I, in heaven, will hear" (Tanhûmâ1, loc. cit.), other proposed an even more daring solution (which came to be so acceptable in the course of time that today it appears more routine than daring): Although the Divine Presence may indeed have removed itself from the site of the destroyed Temple, it still dwells among the people in the synagogues and the houses of study! „Rabbi 'Abbahû in the name of Rabbi 'Abbahû said: ,Seek the Lord where he may be found' (Isaiah 55 : 6) and where may he be found? In the synagogues and the houses of study! ,Call upon him when he is near' - and where is he near? [In the synagogues and the houses of study!]" (]. Berâkôt, V, 8 d); „From whence do we learn that the Holy One (blessed be he!) is to be found in the synagogue? Because it is written (Psalms 82 : 1), ,God stands in the congregation of God.' And how do we know that if ten men are praying together, the Divine Presence is in their midst? Because it is written, ,God stands in the congregation of G o d ' " (B.Berâkôt 6 a ) ; „ . . . a n d remove yourself not from the synagogue and the house of study! The Holy One (blessed be he!) said: If you act thus, know that you will receive the Divine Presence!" (Deuteronomy Rabbäh, VII, 2) and this applies even to the synagogues in Babylonia (B. Megilläh 29 a) ! But how can the Divine Presence dwell in so many different places at the same time? Even this naive question found an intelligible answer: ,,,Hark! My beloved - behold he comes; leaping upon the mountains, skipping upon the hills! My beloved is like a gazelle or a young stag' (Song of Songs 2 : 8-9) . . . The Holy One (blessed be he!) leaps from one synagogue to a n o t h e r . . . in order to bless the people of Israel" (Song of Songs Rabbäh, ad loc.). We have seen that the foundations of community prayer were undoubtedly laid hundreds of years before the destruction of the Temple, and even before the Hasmonean period 4 , although public prayer had not yet received its fixed form at this early stage. The earliest definite and detailed information which we possess, however, relates only to the end of the Second Temple period. The Tannaitic sources tell us, for example, of the morning service of the priests in the Temple courtyard (Misnäh Tâmîd, V, 1); of the prayers of the 'ansê ma'"mâdôt, the representatives of the people in the provinces, who stood watch over the Temple sacrifices on a rotating basis; and of the order of prayers for public fast days (Misnäh Ta'"nit, IV, 2-3; II, 2-5); of the eight benedictions which the High Priest recited on the Day of Atonement (Misnäh YömäVII, 1); and so forth. But even these testimonies are sporadic and incomplete: the prayers for fast days are enumerated, but no communal prayers are mentioned for regular weekdays; the prayers of the priests in the Temple are attested, but there is no testimony to the prayers of the people outside of the Temple. We are told of a dispute between the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai (that is to say, a dispute dating from the end of 4

See below, p. 219 ff; and p. 224, note 17.

22

The Statutory Prayers

the Second Temple period) as to the number of benedictions that one is to recite in the '"mîdâb on a festival day which happens to fall on the Sabbath: whether one is to recite seven benedictions (the usual number on both Sabbaths and holidays which do not coincide), or whether one is to add an eighth benediction (that is to say, whether both liturgical occasions should be referred to in one composite benediction, or whether each should be mentioned in a separate benediction). A similar dispute between the two schools is recorded with respect to the New Year when it falls on a Sabbath - whether in this case one is to recite nine or ten benedictions (Tosäftä' Beräköt, III, 13). We learn from these disputes that already during the Second Temple period, the number and structure of the benedictions in the '"mtdäh for Sabbaths and festivals was fixed precisely. It is highly probable that the weekday '"mîdâb, too, was already recited during this period and that its form was no less fixed, although we have no explicit testimony to this effect which dates from the time of the Temple. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Eighteen Benedictions5 antedate the destruction of the Temple by a considerable period of time. The supposition that it was only at the time of Rabban Gamliel in Jamnia that Simeon hap-Pâqôlî instituted the Eighteen Benedictions and fixed their number at eighteen does not seem tenable. Of course, it is quite probable that not the same eighteen benedictions were recited in every place, nor necessarily in the same order®, but certainly the custom of a daily recitation of eighteen benedictions is earlier than the destruction of the Temple. This can be inferred from the very manner in which the term, „Eighteen Benedictions" (Semönäh 'äsreh), is employed by the Sages of Jamnia themselves (cf., for example, Misnâh Berâkôt, IV, 3). Its usage does not convey the impression that the name refers to a prayer which has just been introduced, but rather to a well-established custom. There would seem to be an implicit testimony to the existence of the Eighteen Benedictions at the time

* The nineteenth benediction, the prayer for the restoration of the Davidic monarchy, only became fixed and statutory in Babylonia. It was known in Palestine in the Tannaitic period, and even before that time, but did not come to be accepted there as a separate statutory benediction; it was rather combined with the prayer for the rebuilding of Jerusalem (see below, p. 67, and n. 42; also p. 225). Even as late as the Gaonic period, the '"mtdäh of the Palestinian rite, which continued to be used in some communities, contained only eighteen benedictions, according to the testimony of the liturgical Genizah fragments (cf., below, note 16), and the Qerôbôt of the ancient Palestinian liturgical poets. The prayer about the sectarians, which was „instituted" by the Sages of Jamnia, was not an additional benediction, but rather the expansion and revision of an already existing benediction. The number of benedictions was already eighteen before its „instiution". See below, p. 225. 6 Cf., for example, ELBOGEN, Gottesdienst, p. 245; and Saul LIEBERMAN, Tosefta Ki-fshutah, I, p. 53.

The Statutory Prayers

23

of the Temple in the mention of the „Twenty-four Benedictions" for fast days, which were first instituted in the Temple itself 7 . For these Twenty-four Benedictions are simply the total of „the daily eighteen, to which are added another six" )Misnäh Ta'"nit, II, 2). Various scholars have even gone so far as to try to determine the precise time of the composition and subsequent „revision" of each of the Eighteen Benedictions; but in general we do not possess adequate data for such precise determinations 8 . Only rarely does the text of a prayer as it has reached us testify to the occasion of its composition 9 . The earliest detailed information that we possess about the fixed statutory prayers, however, dates only from the Tannaitic (Mishnaic) period itself. The Misnäh and the other Tannaitic sources fix precisely the number and order of the benedictions in the '"mîdàh on the various occasions on which it is recited; of the benedictions which surround the Biblical paragraphs of the Scma' in the morning and the evening; of the benedictions in Grace After Meals; and so forth. These basic liturgical rubrics which are mentioned by the TanniFtm, have remained standard ever since that time (although certain minor details have subsequently been altered) - and to this very day we still find, for example, that the number of benedictions which surround the recitation of the Sema' is, „in the m o r n i n g . . . two before and one after; and in the evening, two before and two after" (Misnäh Beräköt, I, 4). So, too, the additional (Mûsâf) service for the New Year is recited today in exact conformity with the order and structure prescribed by Rabbi 'Aqiba: „One recites the benedictions about the Patriarchs Çâbôt), about God's Mighty Acts (Gebûrôt), and about God's Holiness (Qedus sat Has-sem), then inserts the verses about God's Sovereignty (Malkiyyôt) in the benediction about the Sanctity of the Day (Qfdussat Hay-yôm) and blows the ram's horn (Sôfâr), then recites the verses about God's Remembrances (Zikrônôt) and blows the ram's horn, then recites the verses about the ram's horn (Sôfârôt) and blows the ram's horn, then recites the Benediction for the Acceptance of the Service {'"bôdâh), the Thanksgiving Benediction (Hödä'äh), and the Priestly Benediction (Birkat kôh'nîm)"19 (Misnäh Rôs Has-sänäh, IV, 5). The central portion of any Jewish service today, be it a weekday, Sabbath, or festival service, is always the '"mtdäh (the „Standing Prayer", so designated by Sephardic Jews on account of the standing position in which it is to be

7

See below, p. 109 f. This point will be dealt with more fully below, passim. • See below, p. 34, and p. 67, note 42. 10 The Priestly Benediction (Birkat Köh"ttim) referred to in this passage is identical with the Prayer for Peace (Birkat has-sâlôtn); and not as FINKELSTEIN asserts in his article, „The Development of the Amidah," JQR (N. S.) XVI, (1925-26), p. 21, note 48. 8

The Statutory Prayers

24

recited, and which is called the T'filläh, the „Prayer" par excellence, by the Rabbis of the Misnäh, as we have noted). There is no statutory public service - morning (Sah"rit), afternoon (Minhäh), or evening (Ma'"rîb, or '"rbtt) - which does not include this prayer; in fact, there are certain services which consist solely of the '"mtdäh, viz., the afternoon service (Minhäh), the additional service (Müsäf) for the Sabbath and other occasions, and the concluding service (Ne'iläh) for the Day of Atonement. The '"mtdäh appears in several different forms: on weekdays the Eighteen Benedictions ($emönäh 'äsreh); on Sabbaths and festival - seven benedictions (Tefîllat Säba'); in the additional service for the New Year it numbers nine benedictions; on the public fast days which were proclaimed during the Temple period in time of drought, etc. (according to the Misnäh), it had twenty-four benedictions (although on the fast days which have a fixed position in the liturgical calendar - fasts such as the Ninth of 'Ab and the Seventeenth of Tammûz - it has been the custom since Talmudic times to add only one special benediction to the weekday number of eighteen, viz., a prayer for the efficacy of the fast, beginning with the words: '"nenû '"dônây '"nenû, „Answer us, O Lord, answer us!"). All of these various forms of the '"mtdäh share the identical three opening benedictions and three concluding benedictions. They vary only in the nature and number of the intermediate benedictions, which are petitionary prayers on weekdays; in their place only one benediction, devoted to the „Sanctification of the Day" (Qedussat hayyôm), is recited on Sabbaths and festivals. Only once in the Tannaitic sources (and this only toward the end of the period) do we find any mention of the Qedussäh, viz., the description of the sanctification of God by the ministering angels on high, which has its roots in the theophanies of the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel. Its core is the recitation of two verses from the Biblical accounts of these theophanies Isaiah 6 : 3 („Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory"), and Ezekiel 3 : 12 („Blessed be the glory of the Lord from His place"). Scholars are in disagreement as to whether this solitary Tannaitic passage (Tösäftä' Berâkôt, I, 9) refers to the Qedussäh in the '"mtdäh (BIRNBAUM, pp. 83, 393), or in the Yôser (the first benediction before the recitation of the Semä'; BIRNBAUM, pp. 71-73). But there is reason to believe that both forms of the Qedussäh came into being during, or even before, the Mishnaic period, the only question being to what extent either had been accepted as an integral part of the statutory worship in all places during this period 11 . Another prayer which certainly existed at the time of the Tannä'tm is the Qaddts (BIRNBAUM, p. 137), at least in its basic, skeletal form: „ . . . Magnified and sanctified be his great name . . . and may his kingdom c o m e . . . May his great name be blessed forever and ever". 11

See below, p. 230 ff.

The Statutory Prayers

25

There is no indication that this prayer, which today is found in several forms in the Synagogue service, was ever a part of the congregational service during the Mishnaic period. Rather, it appears to have been recited at the conclusion of the public sermon. As for the rest of the rubrics which today constitute the order of the Jewish service (Siddûr), the „verses of song" (P e sûqê dezimrcf, or Zemîrôt - a selection of psalms and various Biblical prayers which are recited today toward the beginning of the morning service, BIRNBAUM, pp. 51-69), were unknown as a statutory part of the service as late as the Amoraic period 12 , and the morning worship began only with the invitational formula, Bârekû ät dôttây [ham-mebôrâk] („Bless ye the Lord [to whom blessing is due]"), which today is found about a third of the way into the service (Misnäh Beräköt, VII, 3; and cf. Misnäh Megilläh IV, 3 - 4 ; BIRNBAUM, p. 71) l 3 . Several of the peliminary morning benedictions (Birkôt Has-sabar) are quoted in the names of Tanna tm (Β. Menâhôt 43 b; Tösäftä' Berâkôt, VI [VII], 18), but these benedictions were recited privately by the individual in his own home, and not aloud during the synagogue service. After having recited the '"mtdäh, each worshipper was allowed to recite his own private supplicatory prayers and petitions (Tabanûnim). Later, these became crystallized and fixed as the Tah"nûn rubric which appears in the modern rites at this juncture of the morning service (BIRNBAUM, pp. 103-117). The recitation of the Hallel (Psalms 113-118) on festivals and at the Passover Sedär (perhaps also during Hanukkah, but not on the New Moon) dates back to the time of the Second Temple. The public Scriptural reading from the Law (Tôrâb) and the Prophets (Haftäräh) is also an ancient custom. Already in the Misnäh, we find specified the number of readers for the various liturgical occasions on which the Töräh was to be read, and the enumeration of the special pericopes which were to be read on festivals and distinguished Sabbaths (some of which are Cf., ELBOGEN, Gottesdienst, p. 82 ff. There is some disagreement among scholars as to the precise meaning of the expression, pores 'ät ('al) Sema', but it almost certainly refers to the manner in which the $ema' was recited in public (the public recitation is introduced by the invitational formula, Bârekû 'ät '"dônây, „Bless the Lord"). Apparently the reference is to an antiphonal recitation as we find in Tösäftä' Sötäh, VI, 2 ff: „ . . . When Israel had crossed the Sea, the Holy Spirit alighted upon them and they s a n g . . . in the same way that one recites the Sema' for it is written ( E x o d u s 15 : 1 ) , ,And they spoke saying'. This teaches us that Moses would begin a line, then Israel would recite after him and conclude it. Thus Moses said, ,Then Moses s a n g . . . ' and Israel said, ,1 will sing unto the L o r d . . M o s e s said, ,The Lord is my strength and r e f u g e . . . ' and Israel said, ,This is my God and I will extoll Him . . . ' Moses said, ,The Lord is a man of war', and Israel said, ,The Lord is His name'. Cf. ELBOGEN, Gottesdienst, p. 4 9 6 ff., and recently: E. FLEISCHER, „Towards a Clarification of the 12

18

Expression 'Poreis ΆΙ Shema"', (Hebrew), Tarbiz XLI (1972), pp. 133-144.

26

The Statutory Prayers

not identical with the pericopes which are read today on these occasions; Misnäh Megilläh, III, 4—6; IV, 1-2). It seems that the pericopes to be read on regular Sabbaths were not standardized in all places during the Mishnaic period (unlike the modern custom of fixed weekly portions, or Pârâsôt), but that no less than twenty-one verses were to be read, and the reading was to be resumed on the following Sabbath at the same place where it had been interrupted. After each verse was read, it was translated (orally, without the help of a written text) into Aramaic, which was the Palestinian vernacular of the period14. But even these rubrics were not completely standardized. Only the number of the benedictions, their order of recitation, and their general content had been fixed, as well as the occasions of their recitation and the rules which governed them, but not their exact wording15. Extant sources frequently present us with alternate versions of the very same prayer, which are interchangeable in their usage: 'ämät we-yassíb, in the morning service, (BIRNBAUM, p. 77),

and

'ämät

wä-3münäb,

in

the

evening

service,

(ibid.,

p. 195),

for

example, are but two versions of the first benediction after the Sema'; while 'ab"bäb rabbäb, in the morning service (of the Ashkenazic rite; ibid., p. 73), and 'ab"bat 'öläm, in the evening service {ibid., p. 191), are alternative versions of the second benediction before the Sema'. So, too, the Eighteen Benedictions of the old Palestinian rite (as preserved in the Cairo Genizah fragments) are quite different in their wording from those of the current rites, even though these versions do not differ greatly in terms of their general content16. 14 See also my articles, „The ,Triennial' Cycle and the Calendar" (Hebrew), in Tarbiz X X X I I I (1963-64), pp. 3 6 2 - 3 6 8 ; and „The Triennial I.ectionary Cycle" in JJS X I X , (1968), pp. 4 1 - 4 8 .

This point will be taken up more fully in Chapter T w o below. Palestinian '"mîdâh, according to a Genizah fragment published by Solomon SCHECHTER, in JQR (OS) X (1898), pp. 6 5 6 - 5 7 : 15

le

I. Blessed art thou, O Lord, Our God and God of our fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, Great, mighty, and awesome God, God Most High, creator of heaven and earth, Our shield and shield of our fathers, Our refuge in every generation. Blessed art thou, O Lord, shield of Abraham. II. Thou art mighty - humbling the haughty, Powerful - calling to judgment the arrogant, Eternal - preserving the dead; Causing the wind to blow and the dew to fall, Sustaining the living, resurrecting the dead -

The Statutory Prayers

27

But even the actual structure of the prayers was not completely inflexible in the Mishnaic period, for, in certain instances, the Rabbis permitted separate benedictions to be joined together into one benediction, as, for example, in the abbreviated form of the '"midâh, me'ên $emönäb 'äsreb, „a summary [of the intermediate benedictions] of the Eighteen", beginning with H"bînenû (BIRNBAUM, p. 97), or in the special abbreviated form of Grace After Meals for laborers who, being pressed for time, were allowed to condense the second and third benedictions into one („they insert the benediction about Jerusalem into the benediction which thanks God for the gift of the land" - Tösäftä' Beräköt, V, 24). Separating a „composite" benediction into its constituent elements was also permitted: „The benediction about the sectarians is to be included in the one about the separatists; the benediction about the converts is to be included in the one about the elders; and the benediction about the restoration of the Davidic dynasty is to be included in the one about the rebuilding of Jerusalem. But if a man mentions each one in a separate benediction, he has fulfilled his obligation" (Tösäftä' Beräköt, O cause our salvation to sprout in the twinkling of an eye! Blessed art thou, O Lord, who resurrects the dead. III. Thou art holy and thy name is awesome And there is no god beside thee. Blessed art thou, O Lord, the Holy God. IV. Graciously favour us, our Father, with undertanding from thee, And discernment and insight out of thy Torah. Blessed art thou, O Lord, gracious bestower of understanding. V. Turn us to thee, O Lord, and we shall return, Restore our days as of old. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who desires repentance. VI. Forgive us, our Father, for we have sinned against thee. Erase and blot out our transgressions from before thine eyes, For thou art abundantly compassionate. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who forgives readily. VII. Behold our afflictions and defend our cause, And redeem us for thy name's sake. Blessed art thou, O Lord, Redeemer of Israel. VIII. Heal us, O Lord our God, of the pain in our hearts, Remove grief and sighing from us And cause our wounds to be healed. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who heals the sick of Israel his people. IX. Bless this year for us, O Lord our God, And may its harvest be abundant.

The Statutory Prayers

28

III, 25). And even though both the number of benedictions and the standard form which each benediction was to take (i. e., whether or not a particular benediction was t o begin a n d / o r conclude with the „liturgical beräkäh")

were

usually fixed, there were still frequent differences of opinion and divergences of local custom during the Mishnaic period in matters of this sort. Thus, for example, Rabbi Sâdôq did not conclude his recitation of the Sabbath eve Qiddús over wine with a eulogy (Tösäftä' Beräköt, III, 11), while Rabbi Yôsê the Galilean would conclude the final benediction of Grace After Meals (Hattôb ufkam-metîb,

in praise of him „who is good and who performs acts of

goodness"; BIRNBAUM, p. 7 6 5 ) , which was added by the Sages in Jamnia, with a eulogy (Tösäftä'

Beräköt,

I, 9; Β. Beräköt

48 b) -

both customs contrary

to the subsequent halakic norms. The Tannä'tm were also divided on the issue of whether or not it was necessary to recite Habdäläh

(the special benediction

for the end of the Sabbath which marks the temporal distinction between the holiness of the Sabbath and the prosaic nature of the workaday week) in the evening

m'idäh at the close of the Sabbath (BIRNBAUM, p. 201) as a separate

Hasten the time of our deliverance. Provide dew and rain for the earth And satiate thy world from thy storehouses of goodness, And bestow a blessing upon the work of our hands. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who blesses the years. X. Blow a blast upon the great söfär for our freedom, And raise a banner for the ingathering of our exiles. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who gathers the dispersed of his people Israel. XI. Restore our judges as of old, And our leaders as in days of yore, And reign over us - thou alone. Blessed art thou, O Lord, Lover of justice. XII. May there be no hope for the apostates, And speedily uproot the kingdom of arrogance in our own day. May the Nazarenes and the minim [sectarians] perish in an instant. May they be blotted out of the book of living, And not be written with the righteous. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who subdues the arrogant. XIII. Show abundant compassion to the righteous converts, And give us a good reward together with those who do thy will. Blessed art thou, O Lord, Stay of the righteous. XIV. Have compassion, O Lord our God, in thine abundant mercy, On Israel thy people, And on Jerusalem thy city, And on Zion, the abode of thy glory,

The Statutory Prayers

29

benediction (Misnäh Berâkôt, V, 2); and there are many similar disputes recorded in the Tannaitic sources. Only gradually, over a period of time, were all the details of the statutory prayers standardized; and last of all was the precise wording fixed. In fact, this process did not end until the period of the Ge'ôntm (c. 600-1100 C. E.); and even when the exact wording of the prayers was finally determined, different versions became authoritative in Babylonia and in Palestine. All the rites extant today have their ultimate origin in the Babylonian rite. It seems that the Palestinian rite preserved for a longer time a certain plasticity and flexibility, allowing both the worshipper and the Prayer Leader to vary the wording of the prayers and to add to them; and Palestine was also the birthplace of the Piyyût, the liturgical poem. Thus, for example, it was customary in Palestine to recite special versions of the benedictions which surround the Sema' on Sabbath eve, at the termination of the Sabbath, and for the different festivals. Not only would there be festive poetic additions to the body of the standard version of a benediction (as is customary with the And upon the royal seed of David, thy justly anointed. Blessed art thou, O Lord, God of David, Rebuilder of Jerusalem. XV. Hear, O Lord our God, the voice of our prayers, And have compassion upon us, For thou art a gracious and compassionate God. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who hears prayer. XVI. May it be thy will, O Lord our God, to dwell in Zion, And may thy servants worship thee in Jerusalem. Blessed art thou, O Lord, for it is thou whom we worship in reverence. XVII. We thank thee, Our God and God of our fathers, For all of the goodness, the lovingkindness, and the mercies With which thou has requited us, and our fathers before us. For when we say, ,our foot slips' Thy mercy, O Lord, holds us up. Blessed art thou, O Lord, to whom it is good to give thanks. XVIII. Bestow thy peace Upon Israel thy people, And upon thy city, And upon thine inheritance, And bless us all, together. Blessed art thou, O Lord, Maker of peace. The liturgical material from the Cairo Genizah which has been published to date is scattered among the various journals. A list of these articles will be found in the selected bibliography at the end of this book.

30

The Statutory Prayers

festival Ma'"rtbìm in the modern Ashkenazic rite), but we also find special poetic versions of the entire benediction - completely different from the standard version - in which the particular subject of the benediction and the special characteristics of the liturgical occasion (the Sabbath, for example) are woven together into one composition. Poems like these are still to be found in the Order of Prayers of the Gä'ön S e 'adyäh (c. 930 C. E.), and even today some continue to be recited in the Italian rite. Here, for example, is a poetic version of the first benediction before the Sema' in the evening (Ham-ma'arîb '"râbîm; BIRNBAUM, P . 191), which S e 'adyâh gives for Sabbath eve: Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, Who finished his work on the seventh day And called it a delight, his holy Sabbath. From even to even he ordained rest For his people Israel, according to his will. He rolls away the light before the darkness, And the darkness before the light. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who brings on the evening twilight.

(Siddûr Rab Se'adyäh Gä'ön, p. 110).

The Palestinian rite was doomed to oblivion, for all practical purposes, with the eclipse of Palestinian Jewry at the time of the Crusades, and the Babylonian rite ultimately predominated. Only in neighboring Egypt was the old Palestinian rite (or a rite very much akin to it) preserved for some time afterward, which accounts for the preponderance of Palestinian texts among the liturgical fragments of the Cairo Genizah, our main source of knowledge about this rite. It was the Babylonian Ge'ônîm, those meticulous sifters of fine detail, who set down the „final" standardized rite, with each of the major prayers carefully worded - that rite which became the basis of all the subsequent rites of the different Jewish communities around the world. In these rites we find only minor variations here and there in the wording of the prayers, most of which (at least in the statutory prayers) are mere substitutions of interchangeable words, one for the other. On the other hand, the differences between the various rites are quite substantial if one examines the liturgical poetry (Piyyûtîm), the Penitential Prayers (SHihôt), and the other non-statutory elements of the liturgy. The content of the statutory prayers clearly reflects the basic beliefs and tenets of faith of the Jewish people at the time of the Second Temple and during the Tannaitic period, their outlook on life and their aspirations. Since these prayers were cherished by the entire nation, they can present us with an accurate picture of its inner world. The prayers of praise and thanksgiving, and especially those which begin with a direct address to God in the second person - prayers such as 'attäh behartänü, „Thou hast chosen us from among

The Statutory Prayers

31

all p e o p l e s . . w h i c h is recited on the festivals (BIRNBAUM, p. 589), and 'attäb qiddastä, „Thou has sanctified the seventh day", which is recited on the Sabbath (BIRNBAUM, p. 267), and numerous other prayers in a similar vein17 - give classic expression to the belief in God as the creator of the universe. Some such benedictions also express the belief in God's unity (e. g., 'attäh 'ähäd, „Thou art one and thy name is o n e . . . " [ibid., p. 453], and, of course, the Sema' itself, which is not strictly speaking a prayer so much as it is a declaration of faith), and the belief in God's providential concern for the world that he has created - and particularly for his people Israel. God's providence and his might are revealed in the complete dominion which he exercises over both the cyclical changes of nature and the lives of men (for example, 'attäb gibbòr, „Thou art eternally powerful, O Lord", the second benediction of the '"mîdâh, speaks of God's might and control over nature, as well as his power to give and to sustain human life and to resurrect the dead; and 'attäb zôker ma'"sê 'ôlam, „Thou remembrest every deed since the creation of the world", in the additional prayer for the New Year, describes God's providence in human affairs and in history). A central tenet is that of Israelis chosenness, which was made manifest in God's gift of the Torah to Israel at Sinai, by which he „sanctified us". This belief is expressed in numerous prayers, among them, the benediction recited before the Töräh reading ( „ . . . who has chosen us from among all peoples and given us his Töräh" [BIRNBAUM, p. 123]); the prayers 'attäh behartânû („Thou hast chosen us from among all the n a t i o n s . . . " , and 'alênû lesabbeah, („It is our duty to praise the Lord of a l l . . . who has not made us like the other nations of the w o r l d . . . nor cast our lot with theirs" [ibid., p. 135]); the Qiddûs for the Sabbath and the festivals ( „ . . . for thou hast chosen us and sanctified us from among all p e o p l e s . . . " [ibid., p. 277]). Another tenet which finds expression in the liturgy is the belief in the possibility of Tesûbâh, repentance and return to God — the belief that God is ever ready to pardon repentant transgressors (for example, the prayer, 'attäh nôten yad lap-pôse'im, „Thou extendest thy hand to the transgressors", in the concluding service for the Day of Atonement). The majority of the prayers are addressed to „our God and God of our fathers", the historical God of Israel who brought his people forth out of the land of Egypt and gave them the Töräh and the commandments (miswôt) at Sinai. These prayers emphasize the principle of the redeeming merits of the 1 7 The late Prof. Leon J. LIEBREICH has called to my attention the special nature of those benedictions which begin with a direct address to God employing the word, 'attäh, „Thou", most of which are „confessions of faith" in miniature. By enumerating the basic motifs of these prayers, one can arrive at a fairly complete list of the theological principles of the Jewish religion which are embodied in the Siddûr.

32

The Statutory Prayers

Fathers, for whose sake God will have compassion upon their descendants (zekût 'âbôt); for example, „He remembers the devotion of the fathers, and will bring a redeemer to their descendants", in most versions of the first benediction of the mtdäh (BIRNBAUM, p. 81), or „ . . . and remember the Binding of Isaac today for compassion", in the additional prayer for the New Year. None of these instances, however, is meant to obscure the explicit recognition that the Lord is also God over all the world. The universality of his kingship is always emphasized by the insertion of the words, mäläk bä-oläm („King of the universe"), in the opening formula of every benediction 18 (excluding the first benediction of the '"mtdäh, which nonetheless expresses this idea in a subsequent phrase: „ . . . God Most High, Creator and Ruler of heaven and earth"), and particularly in the liturgy of the High Holy Days (most notably, in the prayers, á-beken ten pabdekä, which reads in part, „And now, Lord our God, instill the reverence of thee in all thy c r e a t u r e s . . . May all thy creatures come to revere thee, and may all created by thee bow down before thee, and may they form one brotherhood to perform thy will with a perfect h e a r t . . . " [BIRNBAUM, p. 657 f.]; 'âlênû Mabbeah, „It is our duty to praise the Lord of all, and ascribe greatness to the Creator of the u n i v e r s e . . . We therefore hope, O Lord our God, speedily to behold thy majestic g l o r y . . . when all the world shall be perfected under the reign of the Almighty, and all mankind will call upon thy n a m e . . . " ; and in the benediction about the Sanctity of the Day on New Year, „Our God and God of our fathers, reign over the whole world in thy glory, be exalted over all the earth in thy grandeur, and shine forth in thy splendid majesty over all the inhabitants of thy w o r l d . . . " [BIRNBAUM, p. 6 6 1 ] ) , and in the Qaddits („Magnified and sanctified be his great name in the world which he has created according to his will, and may he speedily establish his k i n g d o m . . . " ) . But the historical-particularistic element, on the one hand, and the universalistic element, on the other, are not perceived as conflicting with or as contradicting each other; they rather go hand in hand. An excellent example of the interpénétration of the two motifs is to be found in Grace After Meals, where God is praised in the first benediction for „giving bread to all flesh — He sustains and nourishes a l l , . . . and provides food for all of the creatures whom he has fashioned"; whereas in the second benediction, we move immediately to an expression of gratitude to God „for having brought us forth out of the land of Egypt, for thy covenant which thou hast sealed in our flesh, and for thy Töräh in which thou hast instructed us . . . " ; and in the third benediction, to the supplication, „Have compassion upon Israel, thy people, and upon Jerusalem, thy c i t y , . . . and upon the royal line of David, thine anointed . . . "

18 On the inclusion of the motif of God's Kingship into the introductory formula of the benediction, see below, p. 93 ff.

The Statutory Prayers

33

Throughout the liturgy, we find repeatedly juxtaposed the three basic and complementary motifs of Creation - Revelation (viz., the Giving of the Tôrâh) - Redemption, which in the Rabbinic world-view mark respectively the beginning of the history of mankind, the critical turning-point in the progression of that history, and the ultimate goal and final destination of the historical continuum 19 . This „triad" is represented, e. g., by the three benedictions which surround the Sema' in the morning: the first, the Yoser benediction ( B I R N B A U M , p. 71 f), describes God as the creator of the world, „who forms light and fashions darkness"; the second, the 'ah"bäh benediction (ibid., p. 73 f.), emphasizes the election of Israel through the Giving of the Tôrâh; while the third, the Ge'ulläh benediction (ibid., p. 77 f.), as its name indicates, speaks of the Redemption (even though this benediction refers primarily to the past redemption from Egypt). So, too, the eventual selection in most current rites of the three different versions of the benediction concerning the Sanctification of the Day, employed in the three Sabbath '"mtdäh prayers, may be explained in accordance with this tripartite motif: 'attäb qiddastä, in the evening prayer (ibid., p. 267), represents the Sabbath as „a remembrance of the work of creation"; Yismah mosäh, in the morning prayer (ibid., p. 353), portrays the Sabbath as a sign of the covenant which God made with Israel at Sinai; while the afternoon prayer, 'attäh 'ähäd (ibid., p. 453), alludes to the end of days, describing the Sabbath as a symbol of the Redemption and a foretaste of the world to come, in which all will enjoy „the bountiful rest of love, . . . the rest of peace and tranquillity, the rest of serenity and confidence, the complete and perfect rest in which thou delightest" 20 . The apparent conflict between the broad, universalistic conception of God as the Creator of the universe and the „narrow" particularistic-nationalistic conception of him as the God of Israel immediately disappears with the realization of the Rabbis that the election of Israel is a necessary step on the road to that final destination of „a world perfected under the kingship of the Almighty", when „all flesh shall invoke thy n a m e . . . and all men willingly accept the yoke of thy kingdom" (in the words of the 'âlênû prayer). The nations of the world, who „bow down to vanity and nothingness, and offer prayers to gods who cannot save", could never possibly attain this goal were it not for Israel, who acknowledge the One God, „the Lord of all", and prostrate themselves before „the Supreme King of kings"; for the people of Israel alone have with their own eyes beheld the mighty acts of the Lord, who brought them forth out of the land of Egypt. They witnessed the display of his regal power at the Red Sea and agreed to become his „kingdom of priests and holy nation".

" Cf., Franz ROSENZWEIG, Der Stern der ErlösungBerlin, 1930 (in English, The Star of Redemption, New York, 1971), Part Two. 20 Mahzôr Vitry, p. 155, section 162; Tûr, Sûlhân 'ârûk, 'ôrah Hayyîm, 292; ROSENZWEIG, op. cit., Part Three, p. 65 ff. (in English, p. 311 ff.).

The Statutory Prayers

34

Most prominently stressed in the prayers are those beliefs which were the subject of some controversy during the Second Temple and Tannaitic periods. Time and again, the beliefs in the resurrection of the dead and in the Sinaitic authority of the Oral Law (tòrat 'amät, „the law of truth") are emphasized. The former is repeatedly underscored in the second benediction of the mtdäh („Thou art eternally mighty, O Lord, thou resurrectest the dead, thou art mighty to s a v e . . . " ) ; and both motifs appear together in the benediction recited after the reading from the Tôrâh ( „ . . . who has given us the Tôrâb of truth and implanted within us eternal life" [BIRNBAUM, P. 123] 2 1 ; and in the Tôrâh benediction formula which is included in the prayer Ü-bä' le-Siyyôn [Qedussäh desidrä'/ - „Blessed be our G o d . . . who has set us apart from those who go astray, and given us the Tôrâh of truth, and implanted within us eternal life" [ibid., p. 131 f]). This emphasis was intended to undermine the position of those „sectarians" who „went astray" by denying the validity of the Oral Law and the belief in the resurrection of the dead, viz., the Sadducees. It also seems probable that the benediction which is recited before the public reading from the Prophets (Haftäräh), with its emphasis upon the „true prophets" (ibid., p. 373), was intended to discredit those „false prophets" and „false prophecies" which were rampant at the end of the Second Temple period, and which are reflected in some of the apocalyptic „visions" in the apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature 22 . These and similarly underscored motifs which appear in some of the prayers certainly bear witness to the time of their phrasing in this particular style. But the central motif in the world-view of the prayers is unquestionably the belief in the Redemption, and the longing for its realization. This motif is to be found primarily in the petitionary prayers (e. g., in the intermediate prayers of the Eighteen Benedictions, in the benedictions recited after the reading from the Prophets, and in the High Holy Day liturgy), where it is most often the major object of supplication. Occasionally, prayers for the Redemption will even penetrate into the benedictions of praise and thanksgiving. Typical of this phenomenon are the messianic supplications which are found at the end of the Yôser benediction („O cause a new light to shine upon Zion, and may we all soon be worthy to enjoy its brightness!"), at the end of the morning Ge'ulläh benediction after the Sema („O Rock of Israel, arise to the aid of Israel, and redeem Judah and Israel, as you have pro-

As opposed to the interpretation of Rabbi Jacob ben Asher (in Tûr, 'ôrah Hayyim, 239), who takes the expression, »the Tôrâh of truth", to refer to the Written Law, and the words, „who hast implanted within us eternal life", as referring to the Oral Law. 2 2 Prof. David FLUSSER has called to my attention the antiquity and the implications of these motifs. Cf. his article, „Sanktus und Gloria", in Abraham Unser Vater, Leiden-Köln, 1963, p. 142 ff. 21

The Statutory Prayers

35

mised!"), at the end of the morning 'ab"bäb benediction („O bring us in peace from the four corners of the earth, and make us go upright into our land, for thou art a God who workest salvation!"), and in 'al ban-nisstm (BIRNBAUM, p. 91 f.), the insertion into the mtdäh and Grace After Meals for Pûrîm and Hanukkâh 83 . Granted that the messianic supplications inserted in these prayers do not occur in all of the rites, and that some of the Ge'ônîm and the later codifiers of the law objected strenuously to them, nonetheless their persistence in many of the rites is an eloquent testimony to the impassioned yearning of generations of Jewish worshippers who were unable to restrain themselves from adding an urgent plea for the speedy coming of the future Deliverance whenever they were to recall, or to praise God for, the deliverances of the past. The manifold aspects of the future Redemption emerge most vividly in those prayers and benedictions in which Ge'ulläh is the proper subject, viz., the prayers for the ingathering of the exiles; for the total destruction of the wicked and of the „kingdom of arrogance"; for the happiness and the glorification of the righteous (and of the Jewish people), when the divine promises in which the people had for so long believed would be fulfilled; for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the Temple, and the return to its midst of the Divine Presence; for the restoration of the Davidic monarchy and the coming of the Messianic King from the line of David; for the submission of all flesh to the Lord alone; for the destruction of idolatry and the establishment on earth of the kingdom of God, with its universal acceptance by all mankind. These motifs, which when strung together give us a detailed picture of the nature and significance of the future Redemption, are elaborated in various prayers (among them, the Eighteen Benedictions; the prayers Ü-beken ten pahdekä and 'âlênû lesabbeah, in the High Holy Day liturgy; and the benedictions which are recited after the reading from the Prophets [BIRNBAUM, p. 375]). Not all the details enumerated above are always present in all the eschatological prayers, and occasionally there are shifts in emphasis and order, while some motifs may be combined. But these are minor considerations, and they do not alter the basic fact that the belief in the future Redemption was of paramount importance to the worshippers and to the composers of the prayers themselves. Only one aspea of the coming Redemption is hardly ever stressed: the aspect of the stern and awesome Day of Judgement, on which all of the wicked will be destroyed, and which precedes the age of „the World to Come". This motif is merely alluded to here and there, as in the present-day versions of the benedictions about the sectarians and the judges in the Eighteen Benedictions. It is probable that this singular absence of any emphasis on the „catastrophic" aspect of the Redemption is also intentional: it was most likely intented to discredit the fantastic descriptions found in the apocalyptic a

See below, p. 237 ff.

The Statutory Prayers

36

literature, wherein it is precisely the hair-raising and earth-shaking events accompanying the advent of the Messiah which are stressed. Just as the liturgy ignores the apocalyptic vision, so, too, does it generally avoid angelology and mystical descriptions of the „work of Creation" (ma'"seh bere'sît) and of the „vision of the Chariot" (ma'"seh tnärkäbäh), with the exception of the Q'dussäh and several other prayers, which were in fact composed in esoteric circles of mystics and which gradually penetrated into the statutory liturgy (in spite of certain strong objections to their inclusion) 24 . While the version of the Qedussäh which appears in the Yôser benediction merely describes the angelic praise of God (according to the Biblical accounts in Isaiah 6 :3 and Ezekiel 3 : 12), the Qedussäh in the '"mîdâh (in all its versions) takes a further, more daring step: the Jewish people now express their readiness to sanctify God's Name in the world below „in the same fashion that [the angels] sanctify it on high" (and so also in other versions: „We will worship thee and sanctify thee according to the mystic utterance of the holy seraphim", and, „The heavenly host will crown thee on high with thy people Israel assembled together below, and all will sanctify thee in one accord in the words of the threefold Qedussäh"). Here the Qedussäh which Israel recites on earth parallels and complements - and perhaps even supplants! - the Qedussäh recited by the angels on high. We find this expression of Israel's longing to join in with the heavenly choir not only in the introduction to the Qedussäh, but also in the body of the recitation itself. For in the version which is recited in the additional service (BIRNBAUM, p. 393), a third antiphonal choir enters to augment the ranks of cherubim and seraphim - the choir of Israel, which concludes the recitation with a verse that even the angels are unable to utter: „Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One!«. And it is to this verse - and not to the angelic praise - that the voice of the Lord himself responds, „I am the Lord thy God!". This short description of the statutory prayers, their origin and development, and their major characteristics 25 will have to suffice us. Further detailed information may be found in the literature, particularly in ELBOGEN'S important book. We have here attempted merely to survey the main areas and to furnish the reader with the necessary background so that he will be able to follow the analysis of the types of prayers and their formal characteristics, with which the major portion of this book will be concerned.

See below, p. 232 ff. On the entire subject, and especially on matters discussed in the first part of the chapter, cf. Shalom SPIEGEL, „On Medieval Jewish Poetry", in Louis FINKELSTEIN, ed., The Jews - Their History, Religion, and Civilization, Philadelphia, 1949, especially p. 539 ff. u

15

CHAPTER TWO

THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRAYERS AND THE PROBLEM OF THE „ORIGINAL TEXT"

T h e Jewish prayers were originally the creations of the common people. T h e characteristic idioms and forms of prayer, and indeed the statutory prayers of the synagogue themselves, were not in the first place products of the deliberations of the Rabbis in their academies, but were rather the spontaneous, on-the-spot improvisations of the people w h o gathered on various occasions to pray in the synagogue. Since the occasions and places of worship were numerous, it was only natural that they should give rise t o an abundance of prayers, displaying a wide variety of forms, styles, and patterns. Thus, the first stage in the development of the liturgy was characterized by diversity and variety - and the task of the Rabbis was to systematize and to impose order on this multiplicity of forms, patterns and structures. This task they undertook after the fact; only after the numerous prayers had come into being and were familiar to the masses did the Sages decide that the time had come t o establish some measure of uniformity and standardization. Only then did they proceed carefully to inspect the existing forms and patterns, to disqualify some while accepting others, to decide which prayers were to be statutory on which occasions, and by which prayers a man „fulfilled his obligation". W e can still find evidence in the Rabbinic sources of the initiative of the common people in creating prayers, many of which the Rabbis themselves rejected. W e note, f o r example, the following passage in the Tôsâftâ' (Sabbat, VII [Vili], 22), which is preceded by a long list of practices forbidden „on account of the ways of the A m o n t e s " (e. g., because they have the appearance of superstitious heathen practices): „ T h e following practices are permissible: A man beginning his w o r k may give thanks and praise to God. Before fermenting wine or leavening dough, he may pray that a blessing enter them and not a curse". W e are dealing here with folk customs of giving thanks to G o d before undertaking each new task 1 , and of reciting a prayer before leaving

1

Perhaps it is to this custom of reciting a benediction before the beginning of each new task that the Manual of Discipline refers in X, 14: „Before I move my hands and feet I will praise his name. Before I go out or enter, or sit or rise, and while I lie on the couch of my bed, I will praise him".

The Development of Prayers

38

wine to ferment or dough to leaven. These prayers were not instituted by the Sages, who, on the contrary, were skeptical as to whether they might not be considered „ways of the Amorites", even if their recitation was ultimately permitted. In Β. Ν e därtm 49 b, we are told that Rabbi Judah (bar 'Il'ay) would recite the following benediction when putting on his cloak: „Blessed be he who has wrapped me in a mantle". Here we have the private custom of an individual, which was an expression of personal piety and devotion, but which never became widespread. Many benedictions, however, which did gain popular acceptance may similarly have originated in the private practices of individuals. Thus we find traces of benedictions which were customarily recited (by individuals) upon beholding a loaf of bread (or any other foodstuff): „Rabbi Yôsê said: It is a custom among the people that one who beholds a fresh loaf will say: ,Blessed be he who has created this wheat (this bread)' " {]. Nedärtm, VI, 40 a)2. From the Rabbinic disputes as to whether or not „one who departs from the standard form which the Sages require in the formulation of benedictions" has fulfilled his obligation, we learn that such „unacceptable" formulae were at least as common and as widely spread among the people as those which the Rabbis deemed to be „acceptable". In other words, a multiplicity of benedictions with numerous diverse forms and idioms sprang up over the course of time, from which the Sages eventually selected certain versions and declared them to be normative. The nonnormative forms, however, remained in popular use, which necessitated a constant re-evaluation by the Sages - from the late Tannaitic period all the way down to the third century (at least)3 - of the question of whether or not one who continues to recite them has fulfilled his obligation. That those formulae which the Sages rejected persisted in use for quite a long time is attested to by the unexpected presence of non-normative benedictions over fruit and vegetables („appetizers", as it were) in a Passover Haggädäh found in the Genizah. Viktor A P T O W I T Z E R has expressed his amazement that such formulae could be preserved; but the very fact of their preservation would seem to furnish ample proof that the Sages were not always in control of the

2

Cf., Tosefta Ki-Fshutab, I, pp. 59-60, where LIEBERMAN assumes that other benedictions mentioned in the sources, which do not conform to the formal rules set down by the Sages, were also originally recited upon beholding various foodstuffs, and not necessarily upon partaking of them. It is, however, quite feasible that during the formative period before the prayers assumed a fixed standard form, the very same formula could serve as both the benediction to be recited upon beholding victuals and upon partaking of them. Cf. also B. Ta'"nît 8b for various prayers and benedictions recited by some when beginning to measure the harvested grain; see Rashi ad. loc., s. v. „bärük has-soleah beräkäh". * See my article, „The Formula melekh ba-'olam", in JJS II (1960), pp. 177-179.

The Development of Prayers

39

development of the liturgy, and that there were many instances in which popular custom proved to be stronger than Rabbinic norms 4 . A similar development took place regarding the formulation of oaths and vows. Here, too, a multiplicity of diverse formulae was created by the people and only afterward did the Sages decide which of these were to have binding legal force and which were not. Once again, a number of the disqualified formulae were among the most ancient ones - and once again we find that the halakhic norms did not supersede them completely5. Those formulations of prayers from the Tannaitic period which have reached us are primarily the ones which were selected by the Sages after careful sifting from among the many different forms that had been current from the time that the prayers came into being. But we may still find traces in the sources of alternative forms which ultimately came to be rejected. Before dealing with the different versions of the benedictions and prayers themselves (i. e., with their „main content" clauses, which vary from benediction to benediction), let us consider the introductory formula which is shared by all benedictions and which today bears the stereotype form, Bärtik 'attäh dônây ÇHôhênû rnäläk ha-'ôlâm) „Blessed art thou, O Lord (our God, King of the universe)". This formula 4 See Daniel GOLDSCHMIDT, Sedär Haggädäh säl Päsah, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1948, p. 7 ff., and also his Haggädäh (1960), p. 76 f., and p. 60 (on the benediction over massäh and märor, which is found in the Genizah fragments and departs from the halakhic norm). 5 On this matter, cf. Saul LIEBERMAN, Greek in Jewish Palestine, New York, 1942, pp. 115 f; especially pp. 120, 135, 139: „The Rabbis did their utmost to check the irrelevant terminology employed by the people in their oaths. They permitted, legalized, and encouraged the use of certain substitutes and ,handles' of vows and oaths, but they banned and nullified the validity of certain others . . . It is certain that Talmudic literature preserved only part of the popular swearing vocabulary... The Rabbis taught that only the word sebû'âh (or its substitutes) or the mention of His name (or His attributes) are binding in an oath. The swearing by all other objects, holy as they may be, is not valid. The people however did not listen to t h e m . . . Some Rabbis were ready to make concessions to the excessive popular zeal, but the majority... abode by the srict opinion of the law that all these popular oaths are null and worthless. But the Jewish masses also invented all kinds of substitutes f o r . . . valid and binding terms... In such cases the Rabbis had to confirm a great part of the substitutes... From the large number of substitutes they had to choose and select only the proper and adequate ones, and they concluded: ,No man has the right to add more terms (substitutes) to those selected by the Mishnayoth' {]. Näzir, I, 51a)." Notes the similarity between this ruling of the Sages regarding oaths and their ruling regarding the proper form of the benediction: „No one has the right to add more formulations to those which the Sages have fixed for benedictions" (/. Berâkôt, IX, 12 d).

The Development of Prayers

40

did not always contain the clause mäläk ha-'ôlâm („King of the universe") 4 , or the word 'attäh („Thou"); nor was the basic phrase, Bârûk '"dôtîây („Blessed be the Lord"), always used to the exclusion of all others. In the Dead Sea Scrolls we find the form, 'ôdekâb '"dônây („I will give thanks to Thee, O Lord"), used as an introductory formula alongside the form, Bârûk 'attäh dônây. On the other hand, in Ben Sira (51 : 12) we find a series of clauses which are familiar to us from the customary version of the Eighteen Benedictions - clauses such as „Shield of Abraham", „Redeemer of Israel", „who gathers the dispersed of Israel" - which are introduced by the formula Hôdû Ie... („Give thanks t o . . . " ; as for example, „Give thanks to the Shield of Abraham"). Many of the formulae of praise which appear in the Bible HallHû („Give praise t o . . . " ) ; Bäreku („Bless y e . . . " ) ; Nebarek („Let us bless . . . " ) , etc. - may also have served originally as introductory formulae to benedictions 7 . The supposition that other forms of the root b-r-k may have served at first, instead of the participle bârûk, may receive some support from the following considerations. It is well known that forms which depart from the norm generally point to older patterns that were subsequently discarded. Such an unusual pattern is to be found at the conclusion of the second benediction in G r a c e A f t e r M e a l s , Bärük

'attäh

'"dônây

'al hä-äräs

ufi-al

ham-màzôn

(„Blessed art thou, O Lord, for the land and for the food"; BIRNBAUM, p. 763), and also in the opening and concluding formulae of the abbreviated Grace (beräkäh 'ahat me'ên sälos, the „one benediction which comprises three"; ibid., p. 771), which is based on this benediction. So too, it would seem that there once existed a version of the „short final benediction" (ibid., p. 773), the benediction to be recited after eating vegetables, meat, etc., or drinking liquor, which read: „Blessed art thou, O Lord, for all that thou hast created" ('al kol mah säb-bärä'[tä]). This formulation ultimately became intertwined with another benediction, „Blessed art thou, O Lord, Creator of living things" (bòre' nffäsöt); the combination· which is found in the current rites is thus made up of two originally separate benedictions 8 . In no other benediction is the introductory formula, „Blessed art thou, β

See my article mentioned above in note 3, and below, p. 93 f. As in Ben Sira, 50 : 22, „Bless ye now the Lord, the God of Israel, who performs wondrous things on earth . . . " ; and cf. 45 : 25. 8 The hypothesis that the „short final benediction" of the current rites is actually a composite of two separate benedictions („Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, Creator of living things" and „Blessed art thou, O L o r d . . . for all that thou hast created") was first proposed by E. BANETH, „Textkritische Bemerkungen", in MGWJ LXX (1926), pp. 124-125, and was expanded upon by Eliezer LEVI in his book, Y«s