Dr. Yosef Tabory – Spring 2000


E-MAIL PAPER TO taborj@mail.biu.ac.il


Disclaimer: I am not responsible for typos, transliterations, or errors. 

If you find any mistakes, please e-mail me at jyuter@ymail.yu.edu.


All page numbers are references to the Hoveret



Wednesday June 28

With prayer, tendency to pray for immediate personal needs.  Issue is what do we mean by prayer and how do we communicate with God – how can he help us.  For some, prayer is like korbanot – have to get all details correct – meticulous service.  People think you just have to do the ritual properly like the sacrifice.  Others have their minds wandering. 


Present a paper and a test.  The paper will deal with one of the aspects of Tefilah.  Find what appeared in the meantime – pick a subject and read the articles and do more basic research in primary sources.  Read from the hoveret a book by Heineman and articles by Fleischer. 




Until Bayit Sheni

First, what is tefilla?  We think of it as not so much praise of God, but as personal immediate requests.  An ability to affect what God will do.  Some hold payer is not meant to influence God, but prayer is to change the person who prays.  He prays that he will be happy with what he has.  Cain has the first prayer as a request.  Adam doesn’t formalize a request.  Prayer is communication with God – we talk to God, God talks to us as nevua or Torah.  When we learn Torah, we are learning the word of God.  When we talk to God, we are basically praying.  When we think of prayer as a communication, Adam spoke to God and would be the first.  In tanach, all prayers are spontaneous.  With few exceptions, no formulaic blessings.  Mikra Bikkurim and Yidduyi Maaser.  Birkat Kohanim is addressed to the people – they are talking to people.  On a korban hatat, there is no formula for confessing the sin, but is required.  Shma’ is not a tefilla – it’s when we listen to d’var hashem.  Even those which are obligatory, they are only for specific times or occasions.  The tefilla of tehilim, Hanna and Yona are spontaneous and for a need.


In Bayit Sheni in sefer hitzonim, find other prayers.  Daniel is evidence that in the time of Daniel there was a custom to pray three times a day.  We don’t know when it started.  Daniel is at the end of Hurban bayit rishon.  Question is when did this custom start.  We pray three times a day depending on how you divide the day.  The tamid is morning and afternoon – you can do something tamid and it means perpetually like the menorah which was always burning.  Also have doing an action many times.  You can’t offer sacrifices 24hr a day, but you divide up the day to make it as if you are doing it all day.  The korban tamid is morning and night.  Hazal divided that into morning noon and night.  This is unique to Daniel and does not follow the pattern of korbanot.  Have in tehilim erev, boker and tzaharaim.


Find prayers in Qumran.  Also find that they prayed at specific times dutring the day.  What is unique about Qumran is that they broke away from the beit hamikdash.  The people who are obligated to pray 3 times a day is connected to korbanot in both time and theologically.  Fixed prayer becomes a ritual and it must also be done precisely.  You can’t just ask someone to pray regularly and spontaneously.  Once you formalize the prayer, you lose the spontaneity and the kavanah as well.  Tefilah is associated with korbanot and the idea that when the ritual of korbanot is no longer available, you look for an alternate worship of God.  Idea of ma’amadot – mishna in Taanint about the mishmarim.  This is only mentioned in passing; the mishna starts by saying that the kohanim did birkat kohanim 5 times a day, thus mentioned but as a digression.  Easy to add conjectures based on this.  Tabory wrote that the maamadot were originally a form of liturgy at a time when there was no temple worship.  Tefilla began at the time of the anshe kenesset hagedolah at the beginning of bayit sheni.  Some hold it began around bayit rishon. 


One of Tabory’s question is during the time of the hashmonaim when there were no korbanot, what did they do?  We know that at the time of the 2nd hurban, this was a major catastrophe and thought it was the end of Judaism.  He assumes that when the Syrians polluted the temple, there must have been a similar feeling.  When Shimon Hatzadik said that avoda was one of the 3 things on which the world stands  and lived before the hashmonaim – this was not a statement of R. Shimon, but a general feeling of the time and the need for avoda.


Today, we don’t have sacrifices, we have pasuk in Hosea the time will come when we can pay all those vows.  The hazal was we will pay the debt with our mouth – the study of the texts of the korbanot.  The maamadot are represented by hazal as being part of the liturgy of the temple.  The purpose was to stand at the beit hamikdash and read the torah.  The natural thing would be for them to read the korbanot – you read what you are doing.  The most obvious place of this was the kohen gadol on yom kippur who reads about seder avodat kohanim.  The king on hakel read parashat hamelech.  Two parshiot which talk about mezuzah therefore have two parshiyot.  4 for tefillin.  But with the kohanim, they read from bereishit – the days of the week.  Reading about the creation supports the creation.  You short circuit the maintaining of the world not by korbanot but by reading the creation. 


Clear that the kohanim ruled the mikdash.  The hahamim tried to take over (taharat hametzora main authority was the haham)  and tell the kohanim what to do, ultimately, the kohanim were in charge.  The yisraelim had nothing to do in the mikdash.  Maamadot come to stress the idea that everybody is an equal part of the korbanot.  Three are read in the maamadot – the division of 3 readers is not a natural division because on Sunday had to read part of Monday so that you have enough.  Every day, they read two days.  You divide into three for the three classes and give everyone an equal share – equal partners in the avoda.   On Friday, they read vayechulu – got the pesukim from Thursday.  They did not read on Shabbat – there were no maamadot on Shabbat because Shabbat was a time when everybody learned torah.  Evidence that people gathered to learn not to pray.  Therefore didn’t need delegation of people to.  Used Torah as avoda instead of korbanot – hadn’t gotten to prayer.  Formalized liturgy takes place.  The maamadot were an attempt of liturgical replacement of the korbanot or a surrogate.  One of the ideas they instituted was democracy and no need for Shabbat or yom tov.  When Philo writes about the pesach, everyone does their own korban.  Philo describing this says every Jew reaches the level of a Kohein. 


This reconstruction solve issue of the role of the kohanim in the maamadot.  In the time of hazal, find all three groups participated.  The kohanim stood on the steps, the levim stood on the duchan and the yisraelim stood outside and their observation was equivalent to participation.  By watching what the kohanim did they were doing the avoda themselves.  In the temple. we have three groups and the yisraelim were called the maamad.  Presumably, the kohanim were not part of the maamadim.  In the liturgical maamad, there were clearly kohanim.  Tabory argues that at some time when temple worship was not considered to be done properly, they looked for a substitute to keep the work going and instituted maamad of people going to different locations (no singular one because then like a bama conflicting with the temple) where everyone participates. 


Afterwards, when the temple was restored, hazal were not willing to give up the democracy, but couldn’t do it in the framework of the beit hamikdash.  They took the people from the maamad and some came to yerushalayim and were present at the avoda.  Tabory claims this was one of the original surrogates.  They did not use prayer, but used the learning of the Torah and did have the idea of equality.  No requirement for hazan to be a kohein. 


See the mishna in Tamid 5:1 of prayer in bayit sheni.  Didn’t have amida, but series of berachot.  The berachot which they said and the mahloket in the gemara (if ahava) and read shema, birkat kohanim emet veyatziv.  One or three brachot of hodaya if you include avoda (retzei) or not. Birkat shalom isn’t hodaya but a bakasha.  If only the kohanim, not a tefilla at all.  Clear that shalom was an appendix to the amida which ends with tov shimcha…lehodaot.  Also, you have mishtahavim at the beginning and the end by the hoyada.  You don’t have the 3-13-3 symmetry, have 3-14-1, but do have symmetry of bowing.  Included in the tefilla is the birkat kohanim but not the one from the mikdash.  Non-mikdashik concept because no place for 5 times a day birkat kohanim or neilah.  Have example of small liturgy at time of temple.


Have liturgy of kohein gadol and hakel.  This is a liturgy not just learning because the kohein added 8 berachot (according to hazal also said at hakhel).  Common to all three liturgies: all had blessings and they all developed around the reading of the Torah.  They add to this the berachot.  


Thursday June 29

Tefilla in the mikra: The torah says that in a time of tzara, ki tavo milchama…the Torah is prescribing a call to God v’hareiotem b’hatzotzrot.  Hazal have an opinion that this is terua’ with an instrument.   This implies that the Torah doesn’t mention any other way of explaining trouble.  From this pasuk, Ramban derives that if there is a hiyyuv of tefilla, it is only in a time of distress.  Sefer haHinuch says that according to the Ramban if someone is in a time of tzara doesn’t pray, misses a mitzvat ase.  Ramban himself isn’t clear in this statement if there is at all, then it is only in a time of trouble.  Bur Ramban says clearly at the end of the Sefer HaMitzvoth, he says explicity that he doesn’t count the mitzvah of tefillah even in the time of trouble. 


Tefilla of the Tannaim and Amoraim

What prayer do we have?  We have two full versions of havineinu (Bavli and Yerushalmi).  Personal prayers, yehi ratzons.  Asherei and last 5 perakim of tehilim.  Keddusha is mentioned as part of the liturgy in Sotah, but not the complete liturgy – a pasuk from yeshayahu (kadosh) and yehezkel (baruch).  Hazal understood the relationship as each one experienced the same thing differently – in kedusha, we see the melachim as a choir of angels.  Not two aspects of the same vision, but seeing something else – some says kadosh, some answer.  The third contribution of Yisrael is malchut – the only pasuk regarding malchut.  All the pesukim which mention malchut don’t refer to God.  Shma’ is also an expression of malchut, therefore not such an interpolation into keddusha as an alternative pasuk of expressing malchut.  You have several option of malchut.  We know how many berachot and the content or topics of the amida.  We know kiddush, birkot hanehenin, ends of asher yatzar (argument).  Also what we don’t say (modim twice).  Birchot hatorah, birchot hashaha, baruch shepetarani, birkat hamazon… We have a lot of tangential information about prayer.  We don’t really have a nusach of the amida, or the berachot of shema.  Therefore, we get to speculate as to what they did.



Chapter 1

Deal with communal prayer In bayit sheni, it stood on it’s own not part of ritual.  Doesn’t require intermediary, democraric, and  spontaneous.  Keva’ came into being in the early period of bayit sheni and crystallized in a fixed for afterwards.  Touches on philosophical aspects. 


Chapter 3

Forms of berachot – why our berachot begin in the second person and end in the third. Comes from two sources – the biblical (second person) and then the rabbinic clause when we describe the verb.  In tanach, “baruch hashem” is said to a human being (Moshe) not to God, talking about God in the third person.  The second model is the type which ends off longer paragraphs which ends off with a general act lifted from a pasuk.  Really the ata came in later to make the forms more similar, but really should all be in the third person. 


Chapter 4

Hazal looked down upon the shaliach tzibbur looking as “you.”  Hazal’s berachot are not in that style with a few exceptions (barchu, or a ger).  The main focus is two places where he tries to reconstruct how exceptions came about.  Prayer for taanuyot has “hu yaaneh etchem.”  Speculates this form was taken from the mikdash and the kohanim would respond as a confirmation.  The basic liturgy of the Kohanim as manded by the Torah was speaking to the people.  It is not clear that birkat kohanin has anything to do with the mikdash.  The same halachot which appear to be the same halachot with the avoda and the birkat kohanim, have different reasons (ba’al mum and not wearing shoes).  Hazal try to take away the pattern that the shaliach tzibbur is above the people.  In the metaphor of hazal, he represents the people before God.  Therefore he stands in front.  Not talking to the people, but to God in the name of the people. 


Chapter 5

What was the tefillah in the beit haknesset and the shul.  Have the tefillot integraly part of the avoda like hallel.  Those originated in the beit hamikdash.  The other’s were innovations prior to bayit sheni and were then incorporated into the avoda but on the periphery.


Chapter 6

On Hoshannot – primative form of poetry, but seems that they were bound by meter and the like and were bound by ancient meter.  Also had litany prayer – a series of petitions and responses.  How does the community express its participation?  Responses or as we saw, just watching.  Ps. 136 is a precursor to this.  A litany has a verbal response which recurs throughout the prayer.  Ki l’olam hasdo whether or not it makes sense (Sichon and Og).  We don’t always keep the litany formhas to deal with the nature of out participation where we feel that everybody says everything on their own.  Hallel was recited as a litant where the people responded and just said haleluyah.  Hallel of the halleluyah and of hodu l’hashem.  Today we have both – these two sections.  The Teimamin say halleluyah at the end of each section.  Tabory says they corrupted the ancient tradition.  Originally had two sections to it – it’s supposed to have halleluyah and the second is l’hodot and have hodu l’hashem ki tov.



Chapter 7

The actual tefilot were written at different points in time for different reasons.  Then they were defined as public prayer.  At some situations, participation could not be complete without total participation.


Chapter 8

See the Heineman doc


Chapter 9

The amida was more organic as creation as opposed to a given time.  We assume our amida was a compliation of other berachot and tefilot.  Since they come from randomly different sources, may have redundancies.  Some like Shabbat don’t follow the from and were probably from different sources.


Tehilat of Midrash

Hahamim would insert prayers.  Sometimes they would add praise to name of God.  At the end of the lectures, had informal prayers connecting what they were speaking about to God.  At the end they make a request e.g. the end of avot.   Ultimately when they combined the deradhot to the liturgy.  E.g. Uva l’tzion traces back to the derashot.  At the end, he discusses how prayer evolved – more and more formalities with openings for openings and closings for closings.  The Kadish dates back to 4th century after they said a halacha and at the end, they would give shevach.  The midrash elements do not talk to God, only make reference.


Wants to identity the characteristic as he sees it and goes through the differences between the yahid an rabbim.  Shows how the kaddish changes in different uses.  Despite the different realms of tefillah, have similarities.  Only have shem hashem no kinuyyim.  Gradual change to the formalized tzibbur which he places on hachmei Bavel – see geniza fragments which have the older forms.  


The essence of Heineman’s methodology is finding forms of tefillah.  Heineman attempts to understand tefillah from the texts themselves, not from historians or hazal. 



Bavel versus Eretz Yisrael of 1 and 3 year cycle.  Before the hurban, had beit kenesset just for learning torah.  Hahamim avoided these places.  After the hurban the cycle developed to read over the course of the year and this was brought over to Bavel.  The amida was instituted and was a dramatic change to Jewish ritual.  They didn’t like davening in batei kenesiyot.  In Eretz Yisrael, they cut it down to 1/3 to make room for the amida.


Fleisher abandoned form criticism and looked at the traditions.  There is no proof that people prayed in formal fixed patters before the hurban.  The beit haknesset was just a gathering place.  Never any evidence they davened in communal gathering.  Fleischer assumes that it didn’t exist.  There are several severe problems with his theory because we know in Eretz Yisrael, it was called beit hakenesset, but in hutz laaretz was called a place of prayer (proseusoche ?).  He didn’t look at the prayers themselves. 


According to Fleischer, there was no public tefilah before Rabban Gamliel.  Rabban Gamliel created word for word nusach which was not accepted.  When you look at the amida, it seems that it was compiled from different sources – it doesn’t seem coherent.  Fleischer tries to make it coherent.


Heineman holds the amida developed from different sources.  Fleischer holds it came all at once by R. Shimon Ben Gamliel.  But it seems today that the berachot don’t really go together – not by one author. 


 The thirteen middle berachot are made up of personal requests and then communal requests.  Goel yisrael doesn’t fit.  The amida is a hova on the individual and also communal.  The sifre (page 36 in hoveret) has a different order or matir assurim – he understands the geula as a geulah kelallit but of matir assurim.  Rava says Goel Yisrael is on the future – the one before is in past tense. 


The difference is how do we weigh the historical evidence.  If we look at the tefillah itself, Tabory agrees with Heineman – a collected canonization of different works.  But, this doesn’t fit in historically of people gathering together to pray.


Mishna (page 3 in Hovreret) Sotah about praying in different languages.  Some in all languages some only in lashon hakodesh.  This is a list, supposedly comprehensive.  But what about everything else?  You could assume not lashon hakodesh if people don’t understand.  Apparently, this is not a biblical list because it mentions tefillah.  This list of hazal as far as liturgy, is sporadic in some cases, we have complete texts, on other fundamental things, we don’t have the text.  We don’t have the texts of birkat hamishpat – whether it’s a restoration of judicial system or punishment and even in hazal have different traditions.  Important to hazal whether to start with ahavat olam or ahava rabba.  Talking about formative tekufa where some things were developed and others left open.


Read Lawrence Hoffman Canonization pages 1-9, 160-171 and any random chapter in the middle. 


Wednesday July 5

Papers – by next week have a paper

The course is divided into 1) history of prayer – how we get the minhagim we have today 2) History of the prayers themselves  Go to bibliography on tefila – reshimat hatefila…in the reference section divided up according to prayers.  Take one and update the bibliography and present the subject in an integrated manner with personal observations. 


For Monday: Read Stephen Reif Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspective…

Chapter 7 – (207-255)



Canonization – standard of what is appropriate and not.  Geonic period  was a time of canonization.  However, tefilla continues evolving.  I suppose, this depends on the definition of “canon.”  To a certain extent, tefila is canonized, but there is no set nusach.  No one can change the hatima of a beracha, but there are still differences (sephard, ashkenaz and eidut mizrach).  Hoffman claims this started in the time of the Geonim, but the Gemara already has rules of berachot – motzi or hamotzi so really the Gemara started the canonizing process.  During the period of the Geonim, nusach Eretz Yisrael came to an end totally – not really because of the Geonim, but the force the crusades had on Jewish life. 


When Jews settle, they take what they have, but change the nusach slightly.  The differences may be minor, but still form a new nusach.  No doubt in Eretz Yisrael itself there were different minhagim.  The Gemara talks about differences between yehuda and galil but not about liturgical differences.  The hoveret has differences between Sura and Pumpeditha.  There was no “nusach sepharad” – a liturgy for all Spain – but a nusach of Barcelona and the different communities. 


Sefer HaHilukim lists the differences between Bavel and Eretz Yisrael written at the beginning of Geonic period (possibly end of Talmud, but we don’t know when exactly).  He lists 40 hilukim, but don’t know why exactly picked.  Eretz Yisrael has a tendency to stand for many practices whereas Bavel sits.  We know the author lives in Eretz Yisrael  because he calls people “anshei mizrach” thus referring to Bavel and placing himself west in Eretz Yisrael.  The question is whether the reasons are accurate.  He explains that those who stand for shema are following Beit Shammai.  The problem is that to fully hold of Beit Shammai, you would stand for the morning and sit for night.  Dr. Tabory: we have a more fundamental difference of standing during tefila.  When you have something which needs and explanation, better to give a more comprehensive solution.  The interpretation of Beit Shammai only applies to Shema but nothing else.  Rather see from other cases, they tend to stand for other things.  Similarly, Ashkenazim tend to stand e.g. kaddish, Sepharadim don’t. 


The HaHilukim doesn’t take a stand and is not a comprehensive list.  He neglects the most important difference is the number of berachot  in amida.  Eretz Yisrael had 18, Bavel had 19.  The difference was on Bonei Yerushalaim Bavel have 1 beracha for David and 1 for Yerushalayim and Eretz Yisrael has one for both.  Hazal record they added birkat haminim and if Rabban Gamliel had 18, then at the time they added birkat haminim, they had 19.   Modern Scholarship holds Bavel added the beracha because the Rosh Gola was from David and it was added out of kavod.  Or Eretz Yisrael combined them because they wanted to preserve 18.  Common theme in liturgy of following numbers e.g. the 3 berachot in the morning – if one was knocked out, question is what you say instead.  The beracha according to Eretz Yisrael is “elokei david uboneh yerushalaim” the only one which has a double hatima which goes against the principle of “ein hatima b’shnaim”- or don't have two ideas in one beracha.  Note that the differences of minhagim might not have started in Bavel, but came from Eretz Yisrael.  Scholars like to trace Eretz Yisrael traditions to Sura, most likely Rav brought Eretz Yisrael traditions with him.  Eretz Yisrael traditions also continued in Ashkenaz. 


Page 6 number 7 in hoveret – Simhat Torah once every 3.5 years (175 parshiyot) or annually.  No fixed cycle, but several cycles.  In Eretz Yisrael itself there were various minhagim.  There could have been a place in Eretz Yisrael which read the Torah annually – we do know from here and elsewhere they there were differences within Eretz Yisrael itself regarding reading the Torah.  We don’t have evidence for an annual cycle in Eretz Yisrael.  Fleischer claimed the original reading cycle was one year and they shortened it because of derashot and piyutim. 


Earliest Siddur – R. Natanai Gaon in Sura.  Response to community in Spain.  See page 7 number 11.  Following Natanai Gaon, we have Amram Gaon which is the first real siddur and set the pattern for all other siddurim to come.  E.g. he writes the whole order of the tefillot from morning (Bamidmar 29 (the tamid) korbanot) and the like.  Amram included the text of the tefilla and the halachot – today have halachot of mashiv haruach, others have larger collections of halachot.  There is a critically scholarly edition by Goldschmidt, but a copyist was not a philological scholar and has in shema…aher and other obvious mistakes.  Therefore the manuscript underwent numerous changes, so scholars who quote Amram are aware it might not be accurate.  The copyist would change the text before the halachot.  Then the siddur of R. Saadiah Gaon was lost in 14th century and found in 19th century, published in 20th by three scholars.  The order does not make a practical siddur as the instructions are in Arabic.  It is assumed that the siddur of R. Saadiah Gaon presents a better tradition than Amram.  Since R. Saadiah Gaon was ignored for so many centuries, likely it’s closer to the original.  Naomi Cohen writes there is a contradiction between the instructions and the tefilla.  He calls 18 berachot, but there are clearly 19 and several of the hatimot follow Eretz Yisrael as opposed to Bavel.  Scholars accept it as more authentic, but still problematic. 


Pirkei Ben Baboi (pages 6-7) a grand-student of Yehudai Gaon.  He wrote a letter to North Africa regarding a mahloket between Eretz Yisrael and Bavel.  The border between Bavel and Eretz Yisrael was slightly east of the Jordan.  Same as difference between Persia and Rome.  The assumption was all Jews to the east followed Bavel and the west followed Eretz Yisrael.  The Jews from Eretz Yisrael traveled all over the world – see Cicero talks about Jews in Rome.  Jewish community in Spain in time of Visigoths.  The Arab conquest changed the political structures.  The dividing line was no longer north-south, but east-west border – basically runs through the Mediterranean (splitting north and south).  The political scheme in North Africa changed accordingly.  The Geonim utilized the economic might of the Islamic empire to increase their power and central authority.  Eretz Yisrael became less important and all communities disappeared except for Fostat which at one point was the capital of Egypt before Cairo. Cairo grew and Fostat became a suburb and eventually absorbed by Cairo.  The community carried on even when in Eretz Yisrael there were no communities.  Pirkei Ben Baboi writes a critique of minhagei Eretz Yisrael and calls any deviation a minhag shemad which were accepted and then became engrained in their culture.  One of the reasons for this was the Karaim who claimed the torah shebeal peh was corrupt because of all the mahloket.  The Karaim followed the minhagim of Eretz Yisrael as part of their polemic against the Geonim that there are alternative traditions.  Pirkei Ben Baboi considers the Talmud as an encyclopedia – if not mentioned in Talmud not a valid beracha.  Eretz Yisrael was free with creating new berachot.  See Page 17 number 5.  Also, Pirkei Ben Baboi criticized piyutim as not being real tefila. 


Thursday July 6

The Bibliography in the library is Z6371L5T31993


Read Guthold Article on page 13, and Peretz or Haran.


See Sarei HaElef Harishonim, EJ, Artscroll for sources if don’t know the sefer and date.


Rishonim – Geirush Sepharad

From the standpoint of liturgy, the end of Geonic period is marked by the end of minhag Eretz Yisrael.  This period has minhag Bavel as the only minhag.  In North Africa, there are some remnants of minhag Eretz Yisrael in hutz laaretz.  See page 9 in the hoveret.  Clear that the Romanians followed Eretz Yisrael but eventually adopted Bavel traditions.  They kept more minhagim of Eretz Yisrael.   Had back border of Yonina (actually Greece) and no sepharadim came and took over.  The exile forced the sepharadim out and they became the elite and took over the minhagim where they settled.  Therefore since the sepharadim didn’t take over, they didn’t adopt as many of the customs. 



For most Jews, was the gateway to Europe.  Before the Byzantine Empire was the capital of the world and Jews went through there.  It was known that Ashkenazim retained nusach Eretz Yisrael, but as long as we didn’t know what that was, we don’t know how much was retained.  Now we know, so Ashkenaz still firmly in Bavel tradition.  Clear that at one time they followed Eretz Yisrael, they adopted the Bavel at an early stage.  10th century – 1) Megillat Ahimatz was written by an Italian Jew and he collected stories about his ancestors in a poem form.  Two stories seem to imply the transfer of Bavel traditions.  1) Story of R. Silano: a darshan came who was honored with a derasha and read form a book.  R. Silano who lost his job as a darshan amended the sefer hamidrash to deal with what happened the day before.  Anyhoo, they put R. Silano in herem for making fun of this darshan.  Someone went to the Geonim on his behalf where he recited a version of a piyut.  Community felt bound to Eretz Yisrael – the darshan and the style were both from Eretz Yisrael – early dependence on Eretz Yisrael.  2) In Bavel, the mishna was learned as part of the Talmud not by itself.  Some have the Rambam.  Then have Bartenura as standard until Kehati.  Three manuscripts of just mishna, all from Eretz Yisrael.  Have midrash on all of Esther, but all included in Bavli.  In Eretz Yisrael, have greater variety of literature – piyutim and midrashim.  The manuscripts written in Italy shows a dependence on Eretz Yisrael.  Ahimaatz tells of Abu Aharon from Bavel who changed a lion into a domestic animal and was exiled.  One of his penances was he saw an animal grinding a grain (really a person) and released him.  Abu Aharon is known as a mystic and introduced this into Italy.  Symbolizes the idea that Bavel became the spiritual source in Italy. 


Also have 2) Book of Yosifon – Hebrew work based on Latin translation of Josephus.  Written in Italy because about this time – the author doesn’t quote aggadot from the Bavli.  Probably because the Bavli was unknown at this time. 


Toreno – found manuscript in Toreno which has early ancient Eretz Yisrael literature



Jews went from Italy to Provence and Spain.  Provence retained Eretz Yisrael minhag to ask for rain on 7 Heshvan.  In America have 4th or 5th of December because of rainy season in Bavel.  The halacha is 60 days after tekufa regardless of geography.  The Rosh in Spain tried to change it when there was a drought and did not succeed. 


The Jews who came to Spain – Christian Spain – we know that one of the rules was that the Christians were not allowed to have the Jews bless their fields.  Jews went from Provence to Spain and France and created their own minhagim.



Scholars argue if Jews came straight from Italy.  Some say Charles imported Jews from Italy to help build the economy.  The Jews of Germany follow the traditions of Italy.  Avraham Grossman claims that they came from France not Italy.  But strong evidence that although they followed the Bavli in conflict, still see Eretz Yisrael traditions.  According to the Italian theory, the Jews were faced with text of Talmud.  How did they reconcile it?  In Ashkenaz, they held that tradition takes precedence over written texts as seen in Ta-Shema.  Theory by Aptowitzer that they had a Sefer Yerushalmi which was not our Talmud Yerushalmi.  We found in the European (Italian) Geniza fragments.  When Ashkenazim copied books they also changed them.  Not so much for Talmud Bavli, but mostly midrashim.  At any rate, evidence influenced by Eretz Yisrael, but still a Bavli tradition – all said 19 berachot. 


Examples of Remnants of Eretz Yisrael Traditions

We always have 19 berachot.  But some hatimot, like birkat hashalom – Ashkenazim retained the Eretz Yisrael tradition of “oseh hashalom” and the hatima of avoda before duchaning on 3 regalim is also Eretz Yisrael which was retained.  The tefila of Yamim Noraim has its own special nusach and there is less room for a hazan to waver as people have an attachments to their own traditions.  Ari would daven sepharad during the year, but Ashkenaz for Yamim Noraim.  The ritual of the hagim enabled them to keep the beracha of avoda from Eretz Yisrael.  We have the hatima of hashkiveinu in maariv.  “Hapores…” was the hatima from Eretz Yisrael which was kept on Friday night. 


There are also remnants of Eretz Yisrael in Sepharadim e.g. Hapores.  We don’t know if they were influenced by Eretz Yisrael or Ashkenazim.



The minhag comes from 1) Sifrei d’bei Rashi – Mahzor Virtri, Sefer HaOreh, Siddur Rashi, etc… not complete books.  Thought there were three collections, really more but only these were published.  Also 2) England – Jews from France came to England from the Normans and followed the minhag of France.  Have Etz Hayim written by a Baal Tosafot.  Influence of Rambam on Etz Hayim.  English Jewish community ceased in 1270 – still long time and place from Rambam.  Nusach of France was different from Ashkenaz (ended in 1370 when exiled, many went to Germany).  Many French Jews emended their siddurim to match with the Germans. 


Ashkenaz Germany

Movement of Hasidei Ashkenaz – pietists.  Influenced the siddur.  Part of their methodology was counting the words of the tefilah.  This had a large effect on canonization.  R. Saadiah Gaon was opposed to “or hadash.”  Hasidei Ashkenaz, influenced by R. Saadiah Gaon, the Rokeach writes he heard that R. Saadiah Gaon was opposed to or hadash.  Rokeach adds that this was impossible because you need that for the number of words.  Also, the nusach of baruch sheamar.  Baruch sheamar has two parts.  The praise and the beracha. In the first part, there are two traditions.  What we have and an expanded tradition in R. Saadiah Gaon.  Hasidei Ashkenaz found exactly 87 words (paz).  Sepharardim had a more poetic introduction.  Eventually the Ashkenazim influence the Sepharadim which now has the Ashkenazik nusach.  Some have both in parallel columns. 


See page 9 Meiri in Magan Avot as a defense of minhag Provence: Claims that the custom of “el melech neeman” before shema, France, Germany, and Provence.  But, he doesn’t know of the source since it didn’t originate in Catalonia, Eretz Yisrael or Bavel.


Have ideology of reform in Ramban.  We can show the halacha was different so we’ll go back.  “No reformer as a reactionary.”  Ramban has to dig up sources how it was not originally their custom and has to fight against it.  The ideology of restoring a former situation.  “Tradition” is the minhag today not what happened 200 years ago.  Short attempt by R. Yonah to add it, but the community of Spain felt need to adapt it and when they brought in the Rosh, he changed the minhag which was then codified in the Tur. 


Back to Spain

At time of the Geirush, the Spanish Jews spread over the world.  In many places, they came in conflict with the residents.  The Jews from Spain look on the residents as “natives” and therefore inferior.  Kahal Geirush was not one mass because there were different minhagim from Aragon, Catalonia, Andalusia, etc.  Teshuva from Rashdam about changing minhagim (Page 11). 


Monday July 10

Geirush Sepharad and 20th Century

We have what seems to us two conflicting approaches. 1) influences of Kabbalah and 2) trend towards the medakdekim – correct grammar. 


Influence of Kabbalah – Mysticism

Mysticism goes back to the heichalot literature Yeshayahu and Yehezkel to some extent saw God and what was around him.  Mystics try to get into the same situation.  The heichalot literature describes going from one heichal to another.  Keddusha in tefilah is based on the mystical idea.  Hazal in the Keddusha we have complementary visions of angels in the choir and they sing their praise in the morning.  The shira according to hazal the shir (before yam suf even)   and the keddusha represents our participation as we are a part of the heavenly choir.  We do it as they do it or we do it together.  Keddusha itself influenced by mystical ideas.  Hasidei ashkenaz counting the words, also have hazal counting 18 times of mizmor l’hashem benei eilim.  Israel says shem havaya after 3 words, angels say it after 4. 


K’Gavna on Friday night is from Zohar.  Talks about the yihud of hashem because of the yihud of Shabbat.  And petach eliyahu.  Brich shmei is real actual tefillah not just a part of the Zohar.  Question if Brich Shmei was a prayer independent of the Zohar.  According to Ta-Shema, you can’t tell from the Zohar that there is a strong influence of Ashkenaz in the Zohar.  According to Faur, Ashkenazim influenced the Zohar. 


The next stage is the Ari.  The Ari was an Ashkenazi (Ashkenazi R. Ritzhak from Luria family).  We have a specific statement that the Ari davened sepharad except for yamim noraim where he davened Ashkenazi.  1534-1572 – assumption he used printed siddur, but we don’t know exactly.  The default of the siddur of the Ari – What did he say when there was no siddur?  Presumably, be didn’t say hanotein layaef koach – unknown in sepharad.  Ari explained mystical reasons for hanotein and did so in connection with malbish arumim.  See Page 19:9.  

We have other hibburm which influenced the Ari’s tradition.  Tolaat Yaakov, Seder Hayom…the Ari influenced the form of tefilah.  AS the ari spread out, people wanted to pray according to the Ari.  But the Ashkenazim could change to sepharadi.  Therefore they changed the Ashkenaz but called it nusach sepharad.  Same as ashkenaz, but accounted for Ari.


First Kabbalistic siddur 1560 in nusach Ashkenaz.  Ashkenazim who dealth with Kabbalah davened according to Ari.  Gra also davened Ari.  Since too many people were davening Ari, pattern that only special great people should daven nusach ari.  Leaders of hassidut davened this nusach sepharad to pray like their rebbes.  Thus became the standard nusach and called it nusach Ari because really ashkenaz with some changes.  Once it spread, 1st Lub Rabbi prepared first definitive edition of Ari for the Hassidim and made corrections.  Or hadash doesn’t appear in nusach Habad, possibly following R. Saadiah Gaon of not being the same topic.  In some areas, also like the Vilna Gaon – don’t include the pesukim before amida.  Pressure among hassidim o pray like to Ari.  Printers tried to print siddurim for both.  Original printers were careful about which siddur was which.  Difference in end of shomei tefillah.  Sometimes integrated to get a universality of Hashem listening to Shomei tefillah kol peh and shomeia teffilot amcha in parenthesis.  This required education among the people to know to skip the parenthesis. 


General outline of influence of Kabbalah on history of prayer.


We discussed the golim from Spain who spread out and took over and influenced them to accept their brand of nusach sepharad which was different than the native minhagim.  The North Africans followed the Rambam over the Tur and the Golim brought the Tur which was a result of Ashkenazo influence.  We discussed the Rashdam, and the situation in yerushalaim – page 11:2 about the “natives and moors.”  The Hida discusses they follow minhag sepharad, in all “legitamate synagogue” which have sifrei torah.  Many Ashkenazim daven with the sepharadim except on Yamim Noraim.  After the geirush, the Ashkenazi community dwindles in favor of the sepharadim. Eretz Yisrael had changed to sepharad. 



There is a adisagreement as to the original minhag.  First deal with siddur of Rambam.  Rambam has at the end of sefer ahava as a seder tefillah.  Some doubt if that was written by Rambam.  The oxford manuscript which was signed by the Rambam (after death of Rambam, no more changes people asked Rambam to send copies and Rambam signed copies that the manuscript was copied accurately Rambam didn’t want people copying the mishna torah directly – too valuable a copy).   People would copy with new text when Rambam made changes.  Anyhoo, the signature appears just before the nusach of the tefillah.  If this is not the Rambam, then we have no evidence of Rambam writing nusach tefillah.  Goldshmidt argues it was the Rambam – the places where the Rambam skips is where the Rambam writes in Yad.  Therefore only a mehaber would be so cognizant of what would be repeated.  Kapach argues that it is from the Teimanim.


There are in Teiman many ancient manuscripts.  Moshe Gavra from Bar Ilan concludes that the early Teimanim are close to R. Saadiah Gaon and only later did they follow the Rambam.  (Disrupts Kapach’s theory).   Inconsistencies with teshuvot, yad, and siddur. 


Also clear that Teiman was not as cut off from the world as people thought.  Addid was a major station on the routes to India.  Through Persia, Jews reached China in 12th-13th century.  Jews lived in the capital and when other forces became dominant, the capital moved and the Jews were stuck and cut off.  Chineese had nusach which represents early Persian minhag.  Later Persian minhag was sepharadi when they came. 


Slowly, Teiman influenced by other nushaot.  The exile of Musa in 17th century (See Page 11).  The Jews were exiled and when they returned, their books were gone.  Yihya ben shalom haKohen from Iraq imported mahzorim from Eretz Yisrael which was actually nusach sepharad printed in Europe.  He attempted to change the minhag and all but 3 shuls accepted minhag shami (north or Eretz Yisrael).  Yihyah Tzalach tries to turn back the clock and reinstitue the minhag of the Rambam .  He admits he’s changing because they used to follow the Shulhan Aruch. Original minhag according to him was Rambam.  Called Baladi or local minhag. In Teiman, they follow Baladi (Rambam) and Shami which it Eretz Yisrael.  Nature of tradition is that it changes and the desire to change is a type of reform movement. 



In Ashkenaz, an attempt to restire the tefillah according to the correct grammer.  Shabbtai Hasogfer (16th century) wrote a sefer and got haskamot from vaad 4 artzot and tried to restore grammer as it should be.  The Hebrew of the siddur (the amida) is written in both lashon mikra and middle Hebrew.  Evidence that the grammar is based on middle Hebrew.  Second person singular – modim anachnu lach.  The medakdekim tried to restore biblical Hebrew.  The distiction between the Hebrews was a disagreement found in the Talmud – Bavel thought the authentic Hebrew was that of the bible, Eretz Yisrael held of rabbinic.  Differnce in terms of Naaritzach and Naaritzcha – the medakdekim changed this and they were not consitent.  In Hoshanot, say lach.  Disagreements among the medakdikim regarding the rules of substitutions.  Morid hageshem or hagashem.  Some say the first words of kaddish are supposed to be in Hebrew.  The medakdekim followed  different principles of the nekudot.  See page 12.


Vilna Gaon

Question what the Vilna Gaon used.  Lived at period of intensive dikdukit endeavor.  We have of the Vilna Gaon statements of what he did to nusach hatefillah. Published as an addendum to Shulhan Aruch at end of seder hayom one page of hagahot.  Published more noted at end before hilchot pesach.  Among the hagahot printed in the original edition are: hanotein or

Perhaps the Vilna Gaon was trying to point out that hanotein is in past tense to reflect biblical tendencies.  But shease li kol torki is in past.


“Zeicher rav” has a note as to zecher from Radak.  Maggid of Polotsk wrote a commentary on the siddur, asked the Vilna Gaon for a haskama but don’t have it in writing.  Has “zecher” by ashrei.  Significant that the “Vilna Gaon’s siddur” is based on his commentary not on his text.  People took the regular tefillah and wherever the nusach was different, they corrected or typed in instructions.  E.g. between hamaavir sheina, the instructions say don’t answer amen, so they crossed out “lo – don’t” to match the Vilna Gaon.  Yitzhak Satanov was a maskil and a medakdek student Heideidenheim.  Added kriat hatorah with Redelheim.  Hatam Sofer recommended this edition. 


Tuesday July 11

Reform and Conservative Movements

Shabbtai Tzvi (b. 1626) After Shabbatai Zvi converted, people denied that they ever believed in him let alone followed him.  What is the influence of Shabbtai Zvi on Siddur?  We know he changed fast days into holidays.  Added prayer for the government but for melech hamashiach i.e. him – originally introduced on Shabbat and then spread to every day.  Tabory: saying the prayer for the medina is not a prayer but a pledge of alligence.  Shabbtai liked Mizmor 21 – uvishuatch = Shabbtai in gematria.  Node Beyehuda writes about that minhag.  Also, the kohanim duchaning – no reason shouldn’t be done every day.  During the time of Shabbtai, this was introduced in Sepharadi locales.  R. Yaakov Sasportas (?) argued to abolish it because this institution of the minhag was started by a kofer.  When Shabbtai cancelled 9 Av, he made a kiddush to hag hanehamot hazeh.  Did they introduce tefillot to have implicit Shabbtai messages?  Unclear. 



Reform means fixing something – something is wrong which needs to be fixed.  The way to resotre something is to reform it to its original form.  Similar to the Renaissance.  Our culture has become corrupt and we have to return to the way of out forefathers.  Tension between desire to continue “tradition” or memetic culture and to return to the way out fathers did before them.  R. Tam was one of those who was willing to ignore tradition in light of the texts.  E.g. we should dip karpas in haroset not salt water according to Rambam.  But according to the Mishna, the haroset was brought afterward.  Since it was not at the table couldn’t have been used. 


Vilna Gaon classic example of someone willing to critically examine the texts and would change halacha because of that.  Vilna Gaon first reform rabbi in this defintion because he was willing to go back to the original texts.  Might it dependent on their ability to change the minhag.  In reform, have Karaite tendencies that Hazal corrupted the text and go back to the Torah.  Choice of Shir shel Yom according to Vilna Gaon, had different ones for the hagim.  Also issue of reading Torah on Rosh Hodesh clear tradition how to divide aliyot.  Hatam Sofer analyzed the sources again and explained the differences in the text and justified the practive.


Late 18th century real Reform movement.  French Revolution helped develop.  After Napolean conquered Nesphalia (?), he set up Sanhedrin which decided to make changes to halacha.  Some of the changes, according to Heineman had they not been as extreme, maybe they would have had some approval.  E.g.  They first tried to allow kitniyot and to skip piyutim.  Also wanted to adopt the custom for all mourners to say kaddish together.  Letterman Shul in Benei Berak trying to restore tradition based on texts.  These suggestions were not so intolerable.  However, Napoleon also asked them to allow intermarriage, so Heineman not fully correct.  Reform rejected korbanot and erased all prayers for re-establishing the korbanot and they denied tehiyat hameitim.  The beracha of the amida though, might not be eschatological so recently someone suggested to say the beracha because tehiyat hameitim happens on a daily basis.  The original meaning could have been just on daily gevura of God.  The reform themselves have embraced tradition – can effect change through reinterpretation rather than actual change.


The Reform wanted to be just like the Goyim.  Understand against background of nationalism – national sense of belonging greater than religious.  In connection with issue of changing the language – but that is the halacha to pray in any language.  Females prayed in the vernacular as mentioned in R. Yonah.  WWI was first time had siddurim for both armies.  Among the other things the Reform did was cancel Kol Nidre – reflects minhag of Karaim who were against hatarat nedarim.  Hazal responded by making it normative by making a beracha.  Also lehadlik ner…instituted in Geonim.  Lighting candles in Mishna but not a beracha.  Geonim deemed it normative by making the beracha.  Geonim went along with hatarat nedarim. 


Reform call them “temples” because there was not going to be a third temple – this like a mikdash me’at.  Cancelled birkat kohanim.  Rabbi blessed with this beracha congregations as they left mimicking the priests.  The Kohein lost his maamad in bayit sheni.  In Christianity they were much higher in status in terms of doing things which others can’t.  Question when the minhag came in for not kohanim to say the beracha. 


The reform movement went to the extremes.  People left them to the Conservatives – break off from reform not from Orthodoxy.  When reform migrated to America, they kept German customs.  In America, became stronger against Israel and halacha.  Some denied hok hashevut – they did not want the law of return because not applicable to all American citizens. 


Modern reform have become active in Zionist movement and reinstituted Israel in the prayers.  The modern reform siddur has the tefillah lishlom, has Hebrew and can be opened from either side. 



History of Tefillah reflects Jewish people and its culture.  Originally, most Jews who davened davened askenaz.  The Jews from Eastern Europe and North Africa came who davened Nusach Sepharad.  Sephararim in Eretz Yisrael davened Eidut Mizrach.  There was an attempt to establish a nusach yahid which didn’t work out.  R. Goren in the army tried to institute nusach sepharad of Ashkenazim with some additions as a singular nusach for the army (added in prayer for Israel).  R. Goren didn’t account that most of the people who davened in the army davened eidut mizrach.  The state tried to create a single culture of Israel.  In technical yeshivot in the beginning davened nusach ashkenaz and made no consessions for eidut mizrach.  Recently, had a resurgence of eidut mizrach.  Started printing eidut mizrach for hazal.  Another attempt was done by Rinat Yisrael, but still couldn’t withstand reality.  Idea also to restore the nusach of the tefillah to the way it should be.  They had a committee led by Shlomo Tal.  Committee had a number of disagreements: 1) nusach of lehaniach tefillin – with a patach under hey and a dagesh under nun, or kamatz under heih.  Grammatically, the patach is correct because means to put on as opposed to set aside.  They decided to correct according to the grammar and then they changed it back to the tradition.  The Reform movement in Israel adopted Rinat Yisrael, but cut out things with which they disagreed. 


When immigrants moved from place to place, interesting to see who adopted what.  In Israel, no established community from scratch.  Now have new settlements with different minhagim.  How do they organize communities?  Started compromises from each nusach.  Some have the shaliach tzibbur decide.  Might switch for Shabbat.  Interesting problem for yamim noraim where each one davens according to own minhag. 


Siddur HaShalom – printed in Moscow.  Called HaShalom to show that Russia is a peace loving country and Jews could worship freely.  No Russian press which could print Russian letters.  They took (likely) American siddur and reprinted it with some changes – handwritten title page, medinat of Russia, and emphasized Al hanisim crossed out al hamilchamot.  Tabory suspects it’s American because of type of letters.  In one place looks like they copied Siddur tehilat hashem from Habad where a required text supposed to be on page 96 appears in tehilat hashem not in Siddur HaShalom.  This siddur shows the environment of the commnuty.


History of Scholaship

Started by Tzuntz.  Yaakov Mann published from the geniza.  Elbogen (?) attempt to update Hochmat Yisrael of prior generations.  Tzuntz’s book on aggadah was updated by Albeck.  Elbogen translated into English but not as well.


Wednesday July 12

Matbea Shel Beracha

First topic because they form the structure for all of tefillah.  Hazal have determined that the pattern of prayer must take the form of a beracha.  Any prayer without the beracha is “second class.”  Theoretically, if a person would just say, “rub a dub dub, thanks for the grub” you’d be yotzei.  But hazal established the Tippus implication of a check or contract where you need the basic idea or general form of the prayer of beracha and Matbea, the formula of the words themselves – like a coin, each is the same.  The patterns are the same, but the content may change.  Torah doesn’t prescribe a Matbea for beracha, hazal do and if you leave out the beracha part, you are not yotzei.  When you want to create a prayer, you omit the Matbea of a beracha.  Hazal wanted to established set rules to distinguish between real authentic or normative tefillot and the unofficial ones. 


Matbea as we understand it it shem and malchut.  Nature of “Beracha” (page 13) you bless someone by wishing something.  You should be blessed.  But how does that fit in with God?  If we assume baruch when talking to man means wish and when you talk to God it means praise.  Tabory thinks it’s consistent.  You wish God things – anthropomorphic – God wants or needs a beracha.  Moshe Greenberg – Baruch in connection with God has one meaning.  The basic problem with prayer to God is you don’t know how to talk to God.  The way our communication is formed with God is based on communications with human beings.  Basic stuctutre of amida is Shevach, bakasha, and hodaya.  Start with greeting, have request, and conclude with a salutation.  From of beracha doesn’t fit matbea of hazal.  No “Ata” in many berachot in tanach because not talking to God but about God.  That explains why the continuation is always in the third person.  There is “ata hashem lamdeini hukecha” which continues in second person.  We explain this anomaly: Historical  that Hazal added to the biblical form Heineman and Peretz hold that baruch hashem was the original and ata came in later.  Mahloket in Yerushalmi between Rav and Shemuel if you need it at all. Theological – Rashba you talk to God and then draw back to third person Grammatical – the problem is a mirage, because you have the same structure where you start in the second person and then go to second (roni akara, v’lo yelada).  In the Apocrypha see mixed forms of second and thirds forms. 


See in Tosefta use of Shem Hashem.  In Tanach see shem havaya with the nikud of adnut.  No where mentioned that that is a kri uchtiv – apparently early, proof from Septuagint which translates as Despot or ruler = adnut.  Philo has concept of middat hadin and rahamim but gets it backwards.  We don’t really know how it was used nor how to pronounce it.  English translations also reverse it (Lord our God instead of God our Lord).  Don’t know when it stopped, possible after bayit sheni.  Suggested that this Tosefta is talking about minut (derech aher) against the people who would never say shem havaya.  We use shem adnut as opposed to shem havaya because of the keddusha attatched to shem meforash – because of the high need for tahara, they used the kinnuyi instead.  Bialik – originally, adnut didn’t have keddusha but only a substitution for the original keddusha.  Eventually the substitution takes over the same level of keddusha. 


Hazal added malchut.  In the torah almost no expression of malchut – only expression in Tanach is Hashem yimloch…Shema is considered ol malchut shamayim but not an explicit expression.  Doesn’t seem that hazal just added it.  Tabory suspects that there were people who used malchut.  Clear that Rav wasn’t creating an innovation with ata, he was saying that it was normative.  Possibly the same with malchut – not a new institution, but deciding what was official.  Malchut added to stress that God is king of the world.  Some say it came from Hashmonaim – that hazal were responding to their malchut.  Possible in response to the Romans.  Melech malchei hamelachim – hazal say it’s to give shevach to other nations to recognize them.  The ruler of Persia was called melech hamelachim and the Sha in Persia was the Sha HaShain.  You go one better than them.  Koresh absorbed other kingdoms in his own.  One aspect that stressing that there are others who call themselves kings but you are higher. 


Melech haolam – means eternal in Tanach. 


Question of if yotzei when doesn’t follow the exact pattern of beracha (page 14). 


Amen is clearly a response – see from Sota.  Means 1) shevua 2) emmanut 3) kabbalat devarim.  Comes from Emmuna of some sort.  In Tanach, assumption is that it was supposed to be said as a response – not the satement of the one who says the beracha, but it was supposed to be used as a response.  In the mikdash, they do not say amen by berachot.  Tabory suspects that in the mikdash there was another response of baruch shem as a response to the shem hameforash.  We do have cases where Amen is said after your own beracha – you shouldn’t except according to Bavli in Birkat hamazon.  Question if this is an example of series of berachot like the Yerushalmi (hatov vehameitiv was added on later) or if this is the only case.  We do know from various minhagin that there were other amens in the beracha.  El melech neeman was put in to replace the amen you miss when praying alone.  Ramban argues not truly the end of a series because it is the beracha for keriat shema.  Fact that some answered amen shows they had a different concept as to the nature of berachot.  Others answered amen after gaal yisrael. 


Birkat Hamitzvot

Have additional part of vetzivanu.  In Tosefta, seems better for one person to say beracha in public with others answering. Yerushalmi implies that for mitzvor derabanan was “al mitzvat zekeinim.”  We pasken like R. Yehuda that each mitzvah gets a beracha. Historically speaking, Tabory assumes that at a certain stage people formulated the berachot in any way they wanted.  However there are some mitzvoth where we have the two forms of the beracha.  E.g. Torah (almitzvat and laasok) and tefilin.  Orginally, might have been interchangeable.  People tries to create specific meanings for each word – each form will be used for a particular circumstance.  Mahloket in pesachim how to say the beracha on biur.  Hazal did try to determine forms for levaeir and al mitzvah.  The principles which have come up are levaei  all agree you are going to do it.  Al could go either way.  Meiri has 4 principles when you can say L… 1) hayav to do it 2) have to do it for self 3) have to do it before the mitzvah 4) mitzvah has to be completed immediately.  Rambam argues you don’t categorize berachot – a father will say lamul for a brit if a mohel will say al hamila – judge each case on its own. 


Thursday July 13

Birchot Hashachat

If the Rambam hadn’t said there are 18 berachot, Freehoff’s thesis wouldn’t apply.  Model of 18 berachot was already present.  People impose patterns on what they see. 


Birkot Hapeulot

First in the siddur is modeh ani.  According to Talmud, supposed to say elokai neshama as soon as you get up.  Except for mahzorim, siddurim start with shaharit.  In Mishna, keriat shema starts with night, tefilah starts with shaharit.  Korbanot are determined by day – a kkorban is notar be the day.  Pesach and Yom Kippur have conflicts with the zeman of the Korban and the day.  Tefillah go morning to morning like the korbanot.  The heshbin of 100 berachot.  According to Natronai Gaon, it starts in the morning.  For Shabbat, seems to go from Fri night to before maariv even though it’s supposed to be morning to morning and you’d have less of a problem. 


The siddur with modeh ani or mah tovu.  Modeh ani isn’t mentioned in the Talmud at all.  Yerushalmi has little information – apparently only have mehayah meitim (page 16).  If you look at this Yerushalmi, does it mean that there were no more?  Could be this was the only one which was obligatory.  Kara hagever – when the rooster crows, say baruch hacham harazim – similar to hanotein lasechvi bina.  We tend to locate certain emotion with parts of the body – the hochma is in the kidneys and the bina in the heart.  The rooster knows what time it is to get up – when the rooster crows, make a beracha.  Clearly idea this refers to the rooster, but lehavcin bein yom…doesn’t appear in the Yerushalmi, only in the Bavli. 


The Bavli has a long sugya which discusses this.  Bavli has asher yatzar followed by hamapil which is said at night.  Disagreement as to the nusach of asher yatzar regarding the hatima Rav says “rofei holim,” Shemuel has “rofei kol basar.”  Shmuel’s  problem with Rav is that only for holim and implies that only sick people say that beracha. When there is a mahloket what the correct nusach, the proper is to do all or compromise on different occaisions.  In this case, Rav Papa says to do both. 


Sugya goes on to hamapil – note that we do have full versions asher yatzar and hamapil.  Talmud goes on to give list of berachot about when the rooster crows and after you open your eyes – everything based on a specific action.  Two types of actions: 1) General for humanity and 2) Specific for am yisrael which have to do with clothing: hat, belt, tzitzit, tefillin, shoes (sheasa li kol tzorchi) shoes were considered a luxury. 


You say matir asurim when you bow because you are free from sleep.  Roka haaretz…before you stand up.  Teimanim didn’t say this when they slept on the floor.  These berachot said before you covered your head and before netilalt yadaim.  Assume order in Talmud is random.  Order of berachot theoretically not meakev.  The Talmud presents us with an order of activities, but not required to do it in this order.  When you wash you face, it’s hamaavir shenei.  According to R. Saadiah Gaon, these are berachot for activities – peulot.  Hanotein lasechvi isn’t included it with R. Saadiah Gaon – rather when you hear it, besorot tovot etc. 


Page 7 – R. Natronai discusses when it changes to being said in the synagogue because of the idea of not saying the beracha before you wash your hands.  Another option would be to do the actions, wash hands and then bless.  But the connection between the actions and the berachot are lost.  Interesting question how you can say beracha on netilat yadayim.  Today, we understand netilah not having anything to do with tefillah (from Rashba).  According to Natronai need to say beracha as a hechser to say other berachot. 


In siddur R. Saadiah Gaon (Page 17:3) recognizes the alternate minhag of washing hands and then saying berachot.


Rambam against the transfer to beit kenesset – it goes for each individual based on his own actions.  Yet another break between the activities and the berachot when in the shul.  Some shuls start with birkot hashachar, some start with pesukei dezimra.  The Tosafot redefine the beracha of Hanotein…to something which happens to the person in the morning.  Tosafot try to connect it to an action.  In Turin have matir assurim and a mixture of berachot not found in Eretz Yisrael influenced by masora Bavli traditions but in lashon of Eretz Yisrael and having berachot which don’t appear elsewhere – have additions but exactly 18. 


In Tosefta, have shelo asai’s goy, isha, eved.  Concept that a person should praise God in tripartite division is first found in non-Jewish sources.  Plato thanked God born in time of Socrates, not born an animal, not a woman, and Athenian.  Appears in Persian sources also.  Point is that it was a cultural idea. 


Bavli in menachot: Bur is not an intrinsic quality – assumption is that if he keeps his eyes open he would know what to do.  He is still hayav in mitzvoth, but is just ignorant.  Text is corrupt – sheasani yisrael instead shelo asani goy.  Should be R. Yehuda but attributed to R. Meir.  We have a dialogue between a man and his son – basic difference between how to read.  Father didn’t like what the son was saying.  Clear to son that there had to be three and if you didn’t have it, you made up a third.  Question is who suggests to say shelo asani eved?  R.. Yehuda lived 150 R. Akiva his rabbi died 135 durin mered Bar Kochva.  Amoraim of Bavli lived 100-150 years later.  What happened between then with respect to shelo asani bur?  Not clear from the text if the son is suggesting to keep 3 berachot or the father is saying that there is a different tradition and the son is saying the wrong one.  Halachik tradition changed – shelo asani bur is out and shelo asani eved is replaced.  By changing the beracah changes the whole concept.  In the Tosefta, changed from obligation of mitzvoth to the status of the person.  Bur should not be said according to this source.


Pirkey rabbeinu hakadosh are midrashim arranged numerically – lists of 10, 7, 5…In the fours of this, there are 4 things to say all day and has bur with eved.  Solved the problem by including both.  Beracha of bur continued through the Meiri.


Eretz Yisrael tradition did not feel that safek berachot was not an issue and not wrong to add praises to God. 


Tradition for women to say 1) has made me a woman 2) Sepharadi sheasani kortzono – source of beracha minhag nashim 3) Ashkenazi – not made a beheima.  The mother of Marharil used to say shelo asani beheima.  For 1000 years, no discussion what women say.  In one period where 3 issues came up. 







Monday July 17

Pesukei Dezimra

Purpose – get into frame of mind before shma and amida.  From Sefer Haittim – people say what they want to say.  On Shabbat, davening starts later, but people get there early so they say a few extra perakim of tehillim.  Page 20 number 2 Geonim: People would read tehillim to fill up the time until it got light outside.  They didn’t say in during the 10 days or Yom Kippur.  New minhag came to learn torah in the morning.  The people who say tehillim can stop when they want.  Once people start learning, you have to finish and then you get into problems of finishing zeman.  The question is can  they be ozev the minhag of saying tehillim to learn Torah instead.  As we said before, birkat hatorah is really bediavad if someone wants to learn before davening because ahavat olam was the birkat torah.  Tehillim not considered learning Torah – part of the liturgy.  Once you institute an extra beracha, people would want to say it so they would get up early.  To be mehayev in the beracha, we do all three (Mikra, Mishna, and Talmud).  We currently have two traditions, one with korbanot through R. Yishmael and one from birkat kohanim through eilu devarim.  We don’t have an answer for this teshuva.  If the idea is that the perakim are to fill time, on Yom Kippur, you don’t need it as much.  Later development was to day it even on Rosh Hashana. 


No mention of beracha for Pesukei Dezimra in Talmud.   Meaning of “pesukei dezimra” is verses of praise or lectionaries.  We really say “pirkei dezimra” or full chapters.  The term pesukei dezimra appears in the Bavli.  We have yhi chavod as a lectionary.  Tosafot seems to have pesukei dezimra as referring to besukei dezimra.  Gomrim Hallel not really finishing hallel, but saying some “pesukei dezimra.”  Talmud has a problem finishing hallel on a daily basis – calls it a meharef umegadef.  Tabory thinks the concept of koreh hallel, they are referring to the hallel hamitzri which was instituted as a miracle – changing nature.  Implication that God is in conflict with nature and will intervene at given times.  Really, everyday is a miracle but we look at it as nature.  Pesukei dezimra talk about God as a creator of nature.  Yashir was not part of the Talmud and would  theoretically not be approved of by hazal for this reason.  The berachot don’t include yashir as we say “shirei david avdecha.” 


We don’t know the content in the Bavli.  Ashrei isn’t mentioned, but tehillah l’david is.  Functionally, ashrei is the same as mah tovu – an appropriate prayer to say when you come into shul.  Leibreich claims that it started with hodu and at some point they added ashrei and the rest, Vayevarech David ended it and Yashir came later.  Two separate units in our pesukei dezimra.  Leibreich claims it’s based on shem and malchut.  Different pesukei dezimra in Eretz Yisrael and Bavel.  The idea of a lectionary is early; the tehillim scroll from Qumran has a collection of verses.  The unique from of the Qumran scroll is responsive.  Idea of saying tehillah l’david daily (at any point) is certainly in Talmud (3 times a day not found in all girsaot and not in R. Natronai).  Nartonai had to stress importance, showing people didn’t really do it. 


In an alphabetical prayer, have a sense of completeness.  You have a cohesive unit which seems to incorporate all prayers of God without adding in extras.  Ashrei begins a sequence which ends at the end of tehillim.  Once people started asking what to do when you miss ashrei, shows it became part of the tefillah.  In this context, we have from Natronai saying ashrei by itself and later it was added by uva letzion and minha. 


Rambam talks about the berachot before and after.  In our tehillim, they appear as the hatimot of sefer tehillim – it’s a biblical beracha not in the formula of hazal.  According to maharam (quoted on tashbetz), the baruch hashem l’olam was the end and a good place for a hefsek.  R. Saadiah Gaon has after birkot hashachar a takanna to say mizmorim with two berachot 1) the beginning which we refer to as baruch sheamar.  P 22:4, seder olam zuta describes the choir and the hazan reciting it on Shabbat for the rosh gola.  Piyut introduced for special occasions. 


Hodu (21:10) is described in the seder olam as being said as the shir shel yom for the morning.  There said a shir twice a day for the kobanot – the morning shir was not the same as the afternoon shir. 


Really two units of pesukei sezimra.  The Eretz Yisrael unit we know from the geniza and comes from the period where the people following Eretz Yisrael were corrupted of Bavli.  Keriat hatorah in Faustad was that the kahal saying the parasha or the weekly division and the hazan reads the sedarim according to the ancient minhag.(6:7)  The people took upon themselves to read according to the Bavli tradition.  We also know they had their own “tefillat hashir” for pesukei dezimra – (21:1) included “shir” and its “book” – they would read 10 dibrot from a sefer Torah.  We don’t know exactly what they said.  Tabory suspects the shir is shir hamaalot and when we say it on Shabbat, could be an extension from the Eretz Yisrael tradition otherwise not included in the Bavli tradition, and Eretz Yisrael concludes with yashir just before shema, but not really part of pesukei dezimra. 


Natronai calls this hallel the “daily” hallel and mentions the beracha of baruch sheamar as does R. Saadiah Gaon.  Baruch sheamar is problematic as it isn’t mentioned in the Talmud but is attributed to hazal.  We know there was a beracha at the end of hallel hagadol and appear in nishmat appear in the Talmud in this context.  But they could have been “stock phrases.”  Nishmat itself is a poetic addition.  We have a pesukei dezimra for maariv (22:5)  custom in Eretz Yisrael to say mizmor before maariv at least on special nights.  We keep this custom Shabbat – kabbalat Shabbat is not entirelty from the Ari.  Mizmor shir is the ancient kabbalat Shabbat.  Notice that there is a beracha after the mizmor but not yehallelucha.  For the beracha before, they say baruch hashem leolam…


Tuesday July 18

Kaddish and Barechu

Both need a minyan, responsive and similarity in context, both are beginnings or endings.  Functionally, baruch hu was at the beginning and kaddish was the end, but both have changed in that baruch hu ends maariv in sepharad and kaddish of mussaf on Rosh Hodesh is a beginning.  You always need a  signal to start.  Since Kaddish is an ending, the only way to use it as a beginning is to say something before.  Therefore the kaddish after the keriah on minha of Shabbat is a siman to start davening the amida.  With Rosh Hodesh, you say kaddish after the keria.  Since you take off the teffilin you need another sign or in this case, the clap on the table. 


Both appear here because they are juxtaposeable because they follow pesukei dezimra. Raavad lists the first kaddish as after pesukei dezimra.(25-4:1)  1) after pesukei dezimra 2) after tefillah ½ kaddish after tahanun 3) after keriat hatorah 4) Titkabal after seder keddusha and had 5) stayed later to say mizmor extra kaddish 6) ashrei at minha 7) keriat shema 8) arvit.  Missing kaddish after minha.  Theoretically there should be another kaddish after minha – but there is tradition that there are 7 kaddishim in the day paralleling the  berachot for keriat shema.  


Kaddish marks the end.  The idea of kaddish is first mentioned in Daniel 25-3:1 Daniel responded to the vision with a form of our kaddish.  Daniel is talking in the third person.  In the kaddish itself, clear talking about god not to god.  Question as kirutei or kirtzono – which is according to its wishes the world or their will to be mekadesh.  In a Hebrew form have kiruteih referring back to the world which was created according to his will.  Clear not talking to God with hayeichon and uvyomeichon.  Heineman calls this one of the tefillot beit midrash as one talking to the community.  24:5 has a palestiniean text of the kaddish which has v’yatzmach purkanei…Probably removed in Ashkenaz from censorship.  The kaddish in this one not talking to God, but to community out of deference to the gaon.  The Ramban mentioned the teimannim included a kaddish for the Rambam.  Not unique, but many included a prayer for the leader of the community.  Call on the community to say amen – and they also say yehei shemei rabba which is the purpose the kaddish in the first place.  This source doesn’t have it because written for the hazan who didn’t need to day it. 


The motif of the first part is a plea or request that God’s name should be glorified.  We talk about God or name of God.  Praising the name of God already appears in tanach.  The second part is the same – a repetition of the first part.  In the Ashkenazi tradition, the second part is also in Aramaic.  In this source, the second half is in Hebrew.  We still have this with yehei sh’lama rabba and oseh shalom…Doubling of leaila as emphasis in Eretz Yisrael, retained in Ashkenazim on Yamim Noraim (also early minhag for hagim).  Tabory suggests this was dependant on the tune – that the tune kept the nusach. 


The basic kaddish is the first two paragraphs about the name of God being exalted or called ½ kaddish but really just the kaddish – to praise.  To this kaddish you can add additions.  This is how the Rambam describes the kaddish as well.(24:2)  Another way of saying kaddish is keddusha desidra – the learning session after davening ended with keddusha – not a request for sanctifying, but a declaration of sanctification. 



Rambam calls kaddish batra or titkabal or a prayer that prayer be received.  Almost never (selochot the exception) never a titkabal without connection to amida though it could be postponed.  Issue of how we understand the halacha of taking three steps backwards.  In the time of gemara, took steps before tahanunim of yehiyu l’ratzon as a tefillah letifillah.  Theoretically, no justification for 3 steps back in any other context.  It could be the words of ose shalom echo the end of the amida and triggers the reaction.   We have the kaddish derabbanan which follows out form after a siyum and cemetery. Ose shalom is added to the kaddish even when there are no other additions.  Any kaddish which is not followed by anything else that is obligatory takes the ose shalom.  Then the kaddish also serve as a beginning, it does not take the ose shalom because what follows it is hova. Ose shalom ends most prayer. 


Functionally barechu and yehei shemei serve as responses to shema (27:5)



When people do anything together, they need a sign to start.  Regarding calling up kohanim or you need two, you need a signal for them to start.(28:7)  Before the torah reading we say “al hakol” which some have as with a kuf meaning people should be quiet.  Also a sign for people who are about to read from the Torah.


28:10 – the Tanna (R. Akiva or R. Yohanan B. Zakkai) and the Met basically the saying of baruchu raises him. Issue of sechar vaonesh this isn’t prayer, but zechuyot.  Also if a person does good in this world which carries on, this could carry on for later.  Since both are davar shebikdusha doesn’t apply to the kattan but could possibly say kaddish. 


Wednesday July 19

Magbiha shefalim not in gemara, but in Natronai.  Tabory imagines Bach was right when he says Natronai had the beracha in his nusach because Natronai wouldn’t have added just one beracha – this is the only beracha he has not in gemara. Hanotein layaef koach is first found 13th-14th century in France, Smag.  The beracha was said by the Ari who transmitted a kavvanah to hanotein layaef koach.  Shulhan Aruch says not to say the beracha.  R. Hayim (Keneset Yisrael) Page 20:10 held it shouldn’t be said despite the story that he recanted.  Held Shulhan Aruch as a posek and methodology not an authority.  One was an early one knocked out for technical reasons, but the mystic one stayed in. 


Shema and its Berachot

“Dibarta bam” from gemara in menahot is for Talmud torah. Have concept of Talmud torah – two passages which mention that obligation.  30:1(the second) have idea of getting up and laying down.  Gemara accepts it as a reason, but don’t say balak because too long.  Tzizit because of the mitzvah of tzitzit – vayomer is associated with the mitzvah of tzitzit from mishna in berachot(30:2).  We have another aspect beyong limud torah, but on kabbalat ol malchut shamayim.  Not sure which came first.  Kabbalt ol malchut shamayim in shma is with the first verse.  The second deals with reward and punishment.  Not so much a kabbalt ol malchut shamayim, but specific for yisrael.  This distinction has to do with the way the shema was said.  Theme of kabbalat ol…became predominant – in aharonim have not yotzei mitzvah of kabbalat ol if no kavahana and no baruch shem. 


30:4 – Berachot 40 Clear that ben zoma didn’t hold of requirement to remember mitzraim.  In Eretz Yisrael, they did not say tzitzit at night, only during the day.  We also know that after R. Elazar b. Azarya they still didn’t say the third parasha. 


When you look at emet veyatziv, have two distinct units: 1) the amen of keriat shema – affirmation of kabbalat ol and until selah 2) birkat hageula.  They did say a beracha following keriat shema in the evening, but another amen.  Page 31:4 the addition of extra beracha makes up for the fact that you are missing a parasha. 


Since R. Akiva extended the theme in the haggadah, he had to finish with a hatima.   Connection between adding additional ideas and having a closing. 


Discussion of Ben Zoma as yetziat mitzrayim was accepted.  31 mahloket if have to repeat emet – the hazan who said keriat shema said ani hashem…and the community answered emet as a response.  Emet became a part of keriat shema and so a question of if the hazan should say it. 


Two apocryphal sources 30:1 Iggeret Aristaris Greek translation of the Bible key issue is going up and going out, but turns it into aspect of kabbalat ol and would push back this structure to bayit sheni.  In Hochmat Shelomo, not talking about keriat shema but some sort of tefillah.  Clear Josephus is referring to keriat shema because referring to mezuzot as well and deals with it as hodaya and not even kabbalot ol.  Possible reference to man which fell at the time of davening.  Idea of malchut shamayim affected the way keriat shema was said.  31:bet – mahloket how benei yisrael said shirat hayam either hallel or shema.  Hallel in shul was responsive, the congregation would repeat the first line.  Keriat shema was said in ½ sentences – hazan would say half and the congregation would say half – not kiyum of Talmud Torah, but of kabbalat ol – the method of saying keriat shema evolved based on kabbalat ol. 


Concept of “prosin shema” 32:10 – meaning to respond or “cutting up the shema” as the hazan would say ½.  Seem to have another reading of keriat shema after maftir.  Doesn’t make sense that it goes back to the first one.  32:13 in masechet soferim has keriat shema of sefer torah.  The fashion of saying keriat shema done to show kabbalat ol.  Possibly that R. Yehuda thought the normal was that the hazan said the first full verse and the kahal responded baruch shem.  The fault of Yericho were mafsik but in such a way they there was no place for a response of baruch shem if said responsively i.e. hazan said ½ of shema and kahal finished it off. 


Berachot of Keriat Shema

The Sefer Haikarim of Albo 1) God 2) Torah min hashamayim 3) Sechar vaonesh  the three principles are found in shamea.  As we interpret the idea of the second parasha of mitzvoth seem to go for torah, and the third for yetziat mitzraim that God is involved in history.  The first beracha of keriat shema is that God created the world, the second is birkat hatorah, and the emphasized of the 3rd is the geulah.  Question of which beracha said before keriat shema was birkat hatorah 32:2 from Yerushalmi.  Parallel passage in Bavli 34:2 – you expect a statement as “michlalah” then it is probably a mistake.  Gemara rejects opinion of yotzer or. 



Birkat Hayotzer

In connection with birkat hayotzer, discussion 33:1 as to the girsa.  Little in the Talmud about the nusach of the tefillah – therefore interested when actually lists the girsa.  In Geonic times, added or hadash.   We include a keddusha in birkat yotzer malachim said their shir at sunrise because the morning is the acclimation of God which was done by the sun, an agent of God which does work without being saying anything.  There are other angels who worship God vocally – thus the connection.  Heineman suggests it followed in the geula which follows it.  We don’t know when it was included, 33:7-8 in Tamludic times.  There was a keddusha which was said and R. Yehuda did it slightly differently as he said it with the hazan as opposed to responsively.   We don’t know which keddusha it was though.  Fleisher recently claimed that the amida started as a public prayer and this keddusha was included not as a reenactment, but just saying the pesukim. 


Monday July 24

Zemanei Tefillah

If you had to institute tefillot keva what are the possibilities for how many times of day and what hours during the day?


Three – Rabbinic

Twice – for the korbanot 1) Morning 2) afternoon

Keriat shema once for early morning and once when you go to sleep

Once – middle of the day because following Rambam only in sha’at tzara (feel it more in middle of the day).

Two concepts of Tamid.  Torah decreed we need a korban tamid – continuous.  Menachot 98 – tamid means always, or consistent in a certain time.  Concept of korbanot always on the mizbeach.   Therefore a tefillah once a day takes care of the tamid aspect.  Constantly doesn’t mean without a hefsek.  The idea of tefillah of tamid – even if at specific times of the day – tamid means constantly, but by doing it at certain parts of the day, means you are doing it constantly.


Another theory of time is maamadot – in the morning noon, evening, and neilah.  Although hazal explained they are with the kobanot, the maamadot don’t fit as they happen every day even without a musaf.  Four points picked to stress permanency.  If we see tefillah strictly korbanot, they should follow twice.  Time of shachar was morning until whenever and the ben haarbayim on a normal day was 9.5 hours because that is the zeman seudah for wealthy people and there is a concept of “lehem hamizbeach.”  It would make more sense to have it later, with a restriction of when it must be finished.  The korban took one hour from mishna in pesahim.  Page 38:1-2 Time of the middle prayer apparently noon. 


Question as to what hazal were thinking with regard to the zeman minha.  At a certain stage, hazal thought of it at minha ketana.  We know there is no birkat kohanim at minha because of wine.  At neilah on a fast, we have birkat kohanim.  On all other fasts, hazal say you do say it if you say minha later (minha gedola) in the day but not earlier so as not to get confused with the regular weekday minha.  The reason people prefer to daven earlier is because the time of the ketoret is considered an eit ratzon which means minha ketana.  We know in the time of Rishonim davened minha twice at minha gedola and ketana. 


Three times a day is suggested by Shemuel bar Nahmani because these are the times the day changes.  The afternoon is not as obvious. Yerushalmi says that the night prayer has no parallel for a korban – seems maariv existed independently of korbanot – and someone suggested because of the limbs.  Whoever instituted three times a day was probably not thinking of korbanot.  The one who says twice probably did.  Neilah is compared to the closing of the gates of the sky – cosmic event of the sun going down and the closing of the metaphor is that the sun goes through a gate in and out morning and night.  Attempt to fit in neilah with korbanot.  Almost nothing in hazal which mention neilah of the gates of the mikdah.  Some source of an importance of opening the mikdash in the morning – people heard the noise of the doors.  They did lock the doors, but there is no significance.  Not likely for this to be a reason for a tefillah, but the neilah of the sun would be. 


The parallel Bavli passage (39:3) the avot enacted them not a later institution learned from the avot and dependent on korbanot.  Maariv is connected to the eivarim and has its own maamad because they eivarim was not a hiyuv, only finishing off leftovers from the day.  Basically, the takkana to daven shaharit is from avraham. 


The fact that Raban Gamliel was metaken 3 times a day, doesn’t mean he didn’t see tefillah as a substitute for the korbanot.  People feel a lack or something missing when the mikdash was destroyed.  However, it doesn’t have to be and exact correspondence to the korbanot.  Practical differences are also saying a tefillah nedava on Shabbat.  Rambam says it’s assur.  Also



Threefold structure page 39.  Structure doesn’t reflect tripartite division but 3-14-1 and an appendix.  The hatima of retzei is mahzir shehinato but yirah naavod in Eretz Yisrael because that’s what the birkat kohanim ended the liturgy with in the mikdash.  Disagreement between Heineman and Fleisher if it gradually developed out of berachot or all written by Raban Gamliel (respectively).  Mahloket Shammai and Beit Hillel if Shabbat falls on Yom Tov – do you say two berachot for keddushat hayom or one longer beracha.  We know that Beit Shammai and Hillel ceased to exist with the hurban.  Therefore, the tefillah must have existed before the hurban.  Not totally true – the last of Shammai was R. Eliezer (shammuti) and the last Remnant of Hillel was R. Yehoshua (see tanur shel achani).  Tabory still thinks it was before the hurban.  If we think the amida for Shabbat existed before the hurban, we don’t know the weekday existed before the hurban.  Know of places of sabbateaon of places where they gathered on Shabbat.  If this is true, it helps undertand how the structure developed.  People took the basic structure which included shevach, (keddushat hayom is irrelevant), Avodat hamikdash (retzei) – in the time of the temple this would have a different meaning – one of maintining the mikdash not restoration, bakashot beforehand ending off with shema  koleinu or a prayer for the acceptance of prayer. 


One of the important sources is the passage from Ben Sira 39:3 have motives of amida and keriat shema and the berachot.  The first beracha is avot but the hatima is avraham.  There is an existing hatima of “magen avot” and in Ben Sira have it broken down.  Fleisher admits, the composers were aware of Ben Sira – one of the sources from which they worked.  In Eretz Yisrael, they had 18 berachot and Binyan Yerushayim was combined with David.  1) the Eretz Yisrael nusach was the original and split in Bavel because they had a rosh golah or 2) Eretz Yisrael combined them.  2 seems likely because Eretz Yisrael combines two hatimot.  Some argue that chapter 50 of Ben Sira was added later as was a piyut added based on the tefillah.  Most scholars say it was added before the destruction because of the phrase about Tzaddok. 


40:5 see 39:4 for more paralles.  One of the questions was geulah which appears in the personal tefillot.  In tehillim 103 have geulah connected to refuah.  Have a seder tefillot in taanit 40:6.  Use of mikra within tefillah – with the torah, you had berachot.  The basis for the maamadot is the torah – in earlier times, the tefillot were based on the torah.  A Yerushalmi says you can’t make a beracha out of a pasuk.  See page 42 from Turin – clear was meant to replace the original nusach.  In later siddurim, have the piyut in addition to tefillot. 


Tuesday July 25

Tefillah SheL’Ahar HaTefillah

Page 43:1.  The first tefillah is elokai netzor – the amida ends with shalom.  We have tefillot where things grow and repeat themselves – e.g. tefillah for the accepteance of prayer like shema koleinu and yehu leratzon imrei fi.  We discussed retzei is in of itself a request for prayer to be heard.  After the end of the amida, we have tahaninum.  You finish a unit with emet v’yatziv and therefore can’t say other “devarim” keep geula near tefillah.  But say such “devarim” after tefillah.  The nusach becomes fixed – as long as you are within the framework of the beracha, you can add – but if you want to say something personal, you need another forum.  The hiddush is that after the amida tefillot are still considered tefillah.  Once you give a moment for private prayer, it becomes keva – once there is a moment of prayer, people need something to say.  43:3 has a list of hachamim and what their personal prayer was.  They themselves didn’t say something else on a daily basis, but each one composed for his own a regular prayer.  Nothing personal in these bakashot and most follow a yehi ratzon pattern.  Idea of compromise – we use the different nuschaot at different times.  It is a moment for private prayer, but when that becomes kavua, we need something else…


Nefilat Kapayim (Tahanun)

44:1 have case of falling down on face.  No other part where nefilat apayim is a standard tefillah.  All we know is that it wasn’t done on Rosh Hodesh and it was a very powerful prayer – more so than the amida.  It was said at a regular time – at one moment the wife could guard him from saying the tefillah.  1) Bavel tradition goes back to tannaim and 2) Specific time of day.  Pashtut is that nefillat apayim is that a person falls completely to the ground.  Not clear if it is exactly bowing.  Very different from the status of the amida.  Some Rishonim say it’s ok to put your head down while standing. 


44:2 Rav did not fall.  Baveli tried to explain was a localized reason.  Theroretically, he wasn’t accustomed to it.  Bavli retrojecting this practice to Eretz Yisrael.


People did pray nefilat apayim – see it in tanach.  Question is was there a section of daily liturgy which was done with nefillat apayim.  The fact that she could guard him, there was a special moment, seems to imply it was a regular custom and that there were days were it wasn’t said.  Argument in 44:3 on locales when to say them.  Rav who founded Mata Mahasya follow more Eretz Yisrael traditions. 


Doing tahanun with nefillat apayim is stronger.  Have in Teshuvat R. Sar Shalom (44:4) not saying it at night.  Kabbalistic reasons for trying to get out tahanun – when you at a high spiritual level to a low one is supposed to be dangerous.  Multiple traditions in Abudraham about the mizmorim and each one can say what he wants. 


44:6 Story about saying vehu rahum – composition written by three people.  Standard nusach for Mondays and thurdays. 


Shomer Yisrael appears in selichot.  Tabory suspects it’s a delay for people who haven’t said shema’ and amida. 


Ashrei and Uva Letziyon

The structure of the sheiltot (halachik derashot) start with an aggadah and ends with a halachik question.  This form appears in the Bavli as well regarding moving David’s bidy on Shabbat.  All sheiltot end with “beram tzarich et l’meilaf.”  After tefillah there is a derasha, a sidra.  The classic end of a derasha is uva l’tziyon.  Have midrashim which explain pesukim.  All end with messianic hope that things will be better in the geula.  Uva l’tziyon is then the end of the derasha.  Instead of the derasha, we have ashrei and lam’natzeiach which is like another prayer for prayer to be accepted.  Have pesukim which have a targum. 


R. Saadiah Gaon explains when there is a tzibbur which learns together, there is a beracha sheb’raanu bichvodo.  Uva is the remnant of the sidra and the beracha after the learning. 


Yehi razton sheyishmor baolam haze – hazal report benei Eretz Yisrael would say beracha of lishmor hukaf for taking it off for the zeman they were supposed to because mitzvah of being shomer the mitzvah of tefillin.  Lishmor hukecha refers to tefillin and therefore don’t take off tefillin before then. 


Ein Kelihokeinu and Ketoret

Aleinu is supposed to be the end of tefillah.  When people add things on, they would be at the end of Aleinu.  But if you want to make sure people say everything, you put it before the end.  We already have ketoret in birkot hashahar.  It apparently belongs to larger sections called maamadot – sections learned after the tefillot.  Ein Kelikeinu is a mystical prayer.  Repetitious and follows a fixed form.  Mentioned in Mahzor Vitry.  However, this has a Tav at the end which signifies it was a Tosafot to the book. 


Wednesday July 26 – Final Class

The Tefillah of shaharit ends with uva l’tziyon.  In early siddurim, have “yoshev hahazan” which is a sign the davening is over.  In this tefillah after tefillah, have several components.  Tabory calls them maamadot because that is what Rishonim called after the tefillah.  Early maamadot had no reading for Shabbat, so added parashat of man.  Not tefillah is sense of prayer, but reading torah and neviim, and torah shebeal peh.


Find shir shel yom, aleinu, ain kelikeinu, and ketoret.  In later times, when people wanted to add more, they copied the pattern of maamadot and had a different one (mizmor) for each day. 


Shir shel yom

46:1 according to Divrei hayamim, David introduced shira into the mikdash connected with the korbanot.  Josephus (46:2) also attributed shira to David.  According to Josephus, shir shel yom only said on Shabbat.  In tehillim, the only one which has a title is Shabbat.  According to Seder Olam Tannaitic historical midrash R. Yosi (builds chonology of world) 1) The seder olam reports 1) said twice a day for shaharit and minha.  Hodu in divrei hayamim is one long mizmor, but made up of two mizmorim – seems one for day, one for night 2) Said same mizmor every day.  The reference to Shabbat was because this was the one said for Shabbat.  According to Josephus, this was the only one said – change from bayit sheni to seder olam. In Greek translation, have the opening for all but Tuesday. 


In Qumran psalm scroll had 365 mizmorim one for each day– the year is the solar year.  Theoretically on Shabbat they had two shirim on Shabbat…connected with the korban and nisuch hayayin.  Need two for Shabbat for musaf.  According to the Qumran scroll, every day had its own scroll.  According to Ben Sira, the shir was said at the time of nisuch hayayim which was also the time of prayer followed by birkat konahim.  In modern tefillah have different minhagim if said shaharit or mussaf.  Clear according to hazal that it was assosicated with the tamid.  The braita added to the Mishna gives a list of the weekly cycle.  The amoraim give a list of shir shel yom for mussaf – they said haazinu (haaziz lach) in six sections. For minha had cycle of three passages.  If it was done at nisuch hayayin, it must have been short since nisuch hayayin didn’t take that long.  This gives an idea 1/6 of haazinu of how long it took.  They didn’t say the whole shir.  1) There was shir at time of ben haarbayim although could only have been on Shabbat and 2) on Shabbat there was not standard shir and we don’t know what happened on weekdays.  For Shabbat Rosh Hodesh, they had the korban for Shabbat first but sang the shir for Rosh Hodesh.


What bothered hazal was the shir. Problems were they went wrong on the shir.  Question is what went wrong with the shir: either 1) didn’t say any shir because they were waiting and 2) they said the weekday shir – which implies that if they knew it was Rosh Hodesh, they would have said that mizmor.  On Shabbat, we know there was a cycle of mizmorim.  On Rosh Hashana normally said Harninu and would say it twice if it fell out on Thursday. 


Baveli Succah 54a (48:12) Tradition in Bavli about mizmorim in hol hamoed.  Argument as to what happens if mussaf of hol hamoed doesn’t get a shir when it falls on Shabbat.  Clearly referring to shir shel yom in the beit hakenesset.  Here have a problem of 2nd for galuyot. 


Tur O.C. 133 (48:17)


In the kenesset appears in the Bavli from the passage in succah at least in succah.  Some tradition of saying the Temple shirim in the kenesset.  The earliest documents we have refer to the evening from the geniza fragments.  All the Ari was mehadesh was the lechu neran’na.  The Ps 72 was an old custom to say.


Small masechtot mostly Eretz Yisrael with some Bavli influences.  Short, late, and has nothing to do with the Bavli.  Not a commentary on Mishna. 


Rambam says some have practive to say at end of davening



Assumed to have been composed by Rav because you have in a passage in Bavli and midrash an argument of when is the gezar din of people on Rosh Hashana.  Some say all judged on Rosh Hashana and sealed in Yom Kippurim.  Some say the din and the finalization is different for each person.  According to Rav, everyone has a gezar din on Rosh Hashana and finalized on Rosh Hashana as well and says this is the day of mishpat.  Gemara assumed from this statement both are on Rosh Hashana.  Talmud says this passage is taken from what Rav said – technical term for malchiyot, zichronot, and shoferot and find in our siddurim.  Therefore seems Rav wrote it.  Of course, differences between what Rav said and what we said.  Rambam has a quote of the beginnig of the piyut.  There is an insertion between Aleinu and al kein as a reshut for the shaliach tzibbur.  When the hazan deviates from the norm, he says a tefillah for permission.  Therefore we should differentiate between aleinu and al kein.  52:9  Functioning as two separate perakim.  Some try to date it back to Joshua based on 158 words – bin nun or first letters backwards of hoshea.  Hints in aleinu to refer to non-Jews and their Gods. 


First part of Aleinu clearly connected to mystical prayers.  Appears in passage on 52:9.  This is in first person – appropriate for a mystic – question which came first.  But this source is not consitent.  Seems to be the original was in the plural, but doesn’t deny that it came from heichalot.  The first part is mystical and the second part is malchut shamayim.  The first part (heichalot) serves as a good inroduction to malchuyot (from tekiyot).