 |
| Kefar Sachnin in Galilee |
Introduction:
This article—based extensively on the research by Professor R. Reuven Kimelman[1]—examines the twelfth of the eighteen (today nineteen) blessings of the Amidah, in an attempt to establish just who it is referring to. The nature of the ‘blessing’ is more of a curse and a petition for this community (or these communities) to “instantly perish.” The text of this prayer—which is today known as Bircat haMinim (Blessing denouncing the Heretics)—becomes a fascinating window into Jewish perceptions of the need to exclude the ‘other’ during the first century CE. The question is: who is this unnamed ‘other’ (or ‘others’)?
Different contemporary versions of the text
Nusach Ashkenaz
According to the Ashkenaz version of the Prayer Book,
we read:
וְלַמַּלְשִׁינִים אַל תְּהִי תִקְוָה וְכָל הָרִשְׁעָה כְּרֶֽגַע תֹּאבֵד וְכָל אֹיְבֶֽיךָ מְהֵרָה יִכָּרֵֽתוּ וְהַזֵּדִים מְהֵרָה תְעַקֵּר וּתְשַׁבֵּר וּתְמַגֵּר וְתַכְנִֽיעַ בִּמְהֵרָה בְיָמֵֽינוּ
“Let there be no hope for informers and may all wickedness instantly perish; may all the enemies of Your people be swiftly cut off, and may You quickly uproot, crush, rout and subdue the insolent, speedily in our days” (Siddur Ashkenaz).[2]
In this version, the textual references to any particular community remain ambiguous, employing broad terms such as “wickedness,” “enemies,” and “the insolent” rather than identifying specific groups. We know from the Talmud (b. Berachot 28b) that originally there were only eighteen blessings in the Amidah (standing prayer). Then Rabban Gamliel (d.c. 118 CE),[3] the head of the Sanhedrin at Yavneh, instituted the nineteenth blessing, ‘Bircat haMinim’ (the Benediction of [against] the Heretics). Rabban Gamliel II clearly felt he had good reason to add an extra benediction to an established prayer tradition.
According to the Artscroll commentary in the Schottenstein Edition:
“The blessing was composed in response to the threats of heretical Jewish sects such as the Sadducees…and the early Christians who tried to lead Jews astray…and used their political power to…slander them to the anti-semitic Roman government” (ArtScroll Siddur, Ashkenaz).
It is interesting to note that, although this passage is known as ‘Bircat haMinim,’ for some reason, the Siddur Ashkenaz does not use the word ‘Minim’ (Heretics). However, the ArtScroll commentary is quick to inform us just who this unnamed community of informers was:
“It is directed against the early Christians who informed against Jews to the Roman authorities after the destruction of the Second Temple, causing them to be put to an excruciatingly painful death” (Siddur Ashkenaz, ArtScroll).[4]
Nusach Ari
The Chabad Siddur, Tehillat Hashem, however, exhibits some significant differences and does use the term ‘Minim’ (Heretics):
וְלַמַּלְשִׁינִים אַל תְּהִי תִקְוָה, וְכָל הַמִּינִים וְכָל הַזֵּדִים כְּרֶגַע יֹאבֵדוּ, וְכָל אֹיְבֵי עַמְּךָ מְהֵרָה יִכָּרֵתוּ, וּמַלְכוּת הָרִשְׁעָה מְהֵרָה תְעַקֵּר וּתְשַׁבֵּר וּתְמַגֵּר, וְתַכְנִיעַ בִּמְהֵרָה בְיָמֵינוּ
Yet, in a typical mystical manner, the Chabad Siddur offers an esoteric explanation that completely sidesteps any allusion or hint to any particular historic community (not Sadducees, nor Christians, nor anyone else). Instead, it refers to mystical spiritual forces (Kelipot) caused by our misdeeds, who ‘inform’ on us in Heaven:
“In this blessing, one should focus his intent against all the accusing forces that were brought into being by his sins and now serve as negative influences against him in the sublime realms”.[5]
From a historical perspective, however, one may reasonably assume that if this blessing was instituted at such a critical juncture in Jewish history—shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple—it must have been directed against a concrete and identifiable group, or groups, perceived as posing a real and serious physical threat to Judaism. This perceived danger warranted an explicit liturgical protest, prompting the rabbis to alter the established order of prayer. There must have been a dire need to self-define and exclude the ‘other,’ and draw a line between who was officially Jewish and who was not:
“A decisive stage in the process of communal self-definition is reached when a community sets criteria for exclusion” (Kimelman 1981:226).
Kimelman unexpectedly argues that this unnamed group—set aside in Jewish public prayer for a curse and exclusion—was not the early Christians known as Notzrim, as most have assumed, but rather a Jewish-Christian sect known as Natzrim (Nazoraeans). These Jews observed the Shabbat on both Saturdays and Sundays. It is difficult to distinguish between Notzrim and Natzrim in the texts because the Hebrew letters are similar. Today, Notzrim would usually have a ‘vav’ (נוצרים), which, as paleographers warn, being a single-stroke letter, is often prone to error. Also, once knowledge of the ancient Jewish-Christian sect of Nazoraeans was forgotten, “the pronunciation was forgotten and the plene vav [Malei – full vav] was inserted…this often happened to no longer understood rabbinic terms” (Kimelman 1981:400 n.91).
The
historical record
An early version of this Bircat haMinim prayer was discovered just over a century ago in the Cairo Geniza. This fragment dates to around the Tenth century:[6]
“For the apostates let there be no hope.
And let the arrogant government be speedily uprooted
in our days.
Let the Notzrim
and the Minim be destroyed in a moment…
Baruch atah…who humblest the arrogant” (Cairo Geniza fragment 10th C).
There are at least six versions of Bircat haMinim that similarly reference Notzrim and Minin (which Kimelman argues could and should be read Natzrim). In fact, of these six versions, three indeed read Natzrim (נצרים) instead of Notzrim (נוצרים) (Marmorstein 1924).[7]
Furthermore, Professor Shimon Shavit informed Kimelman that one other Geniza fragment is actually vocalised as ‘vehaNatzrim’ (וְהַנָצְרִם). Also, a fifteenth-century Sefaradic Syrian prayer book, ‘Siddur Aram Tzova,’ has וְהַנִצְרִם (vehaNitzrim), which—whatever it means—certainly precludes Notzrim (Christians). On this reading, the Natzrim and Minim (who often seem to be referenced in conjunction with each other) are somewhat associated with each other.
Epiphanius
(d. 403)
Turning to a fourth-century Patristic[8] source to corroborate the historical association between Birkat haMinim and Natzrim (Nazoraeans), the early Christian writer and Bishop, Epiphanius, writes about the Natzrim as follows:
“[T]hey are…Jews and nothing else. However, they are very much hated by the Jews…[who] stand up in the morning, at noon and in the evening, three times a day and pronounce curses and maledictions over them…in their synagogues” (Epiphanius, Panarion: Translated by Klijn and Reinink, 1973, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, 173f).
Epiphanius is the first Christian source to mention the curses of the Jews, and he clearly does not suggest that the Jews are cursing Christians. Rather, they are cursing their own Jewish sect, the Natzrim (Nazoreans).
Jerome
(d. 420)
Another fourth-century Christian writer, Jerome, similarly refers (on four occasions!) to a sect of Jewish-Christians called Natzrim (Nazoraeans), and they are also called Minaeans (probably a reference to Minim). In one of his letters to Augustine, Jerome writes about Natzrim (Nazoraeans):
“[a] heresy is to be found in all parts of the East where Jews have their synagogues; it is called ‘of the Minaeans’ and cursed by the Pharisees [who were later identified as the rabbis] up to now. Usually they are named Nazoraeans…but since they want to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither Jews nor Christians” (Jerome, Letter to Augustine: Translated by Klijn and Reinink, 1973, Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects, 201).
Interestingly, according to Epiphanius, these Natzrim (Nazoraeans) are “Jews and nothing else,” but according to Jerome, “They are neither Jews nor Christians.” Nevertheless, these Natzrim (Nazoraeans) are described as the target of the curses.
Today, the twelfth blessing of the Amidah is known as Bircat haMinim, but this does not necessarily mean that it was always known by this designation. The Geniza fragment refers to Notzrin/Natzrim and Minim, and it is most likely that this blessing was originally called the blessing of ‘haNatzrim vehaMinim’ in its earlier formulations. Minim (Heretics) is sometimes just a synonym for Natzrim (Nazoraeans) “[s]ince one of the major sects behind the term [M]inin is Jewish Christianity” (Kimelman 1981:241).
Rabbinic
sources on Natzrim (Nazoraeans)
1)
There are two Talmudic references to Natzrim (Nazoraeans). The first is a reference to:
כְּפַר סְכַנְיָא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם
“Kefar Sechanya of Egypt (Mitzraim)” (b. Gitin
57a).
The problem is that there is no Kefar Sechanya in Egypt. There is, however, a Kefar Sachnin (כפר סחנין, סַחְ'נִין, סִכְנִין) in Galilee, twenty kilometres from Acre, which was known to be inhabited by Minim (Heretics) = Natzrim (Nazoraeans). In this case, it seems that the original intent of the Talmud was that Kefar Sachnin (Sechanya) was a place—not in Egypt (Mitzraim)—but in Galilee, inhabited primarily by Natzrim (Nazoraeans). Sometimes the Hebrew letters ‘mem’ and ‘nun’ are confused or interchangeable.
The ‘men’ and ‘nun’ are nasal consonants, and blur in common speech. This is often reflected in early scribal tradition. For example, שטן (Satan) is sometimes rendered as שטם (Satam), לבן (lavan) as לבם (lavam), and צאן (tzon) as צאם (tzom). Before the Masoretic text standardised spelling, such fluidity was common in Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts. In a similar vein, the words Mitzraim (צריםמ) and Natzrim (צריםנ) are identical, except for their first letters, ‘mem’ and ‘nun.’
This reading of the Talmudic text also makes more sense from a literary perspective, because if it were referring to a place name in Egypt, it would have stated ‘in’ Egypt (מצריםב), rather than ‘of’ Egypt (מצרים של). Once we change Mitzraim to Natzrim, substitute Sachnin for the non-existent Sechanya, the previously corrupted sentence now reads Sachnin as being full ‘of’ Natzrim (Nazoraeans and heretics), instead of Sechanya being ‘in’ Egypt, which it is not.
2) The second Talmudic source that references Natzrim (Nazoraeans) is a pericope dealing with fasting during Temple times (i.e., before 70 CE). The Cohanim (Priests) would fast for the Temple sacrifices to be accepted. The non-priests would also fast on particular days to seek favour for important issues that affected them at that time. For example, on Mondays they would fast for seafarers, on Wednesdays they would fast for babies suffering from croup, on Tuesdays for travellers in the desert, on Thursdays for the well-being of pregnant women, but on Fridays they would not fast out of deference to Shabbat. On Sundays, they did not fast either:
בְּאֶחָד
בְּשַׁבָּת מַאי טַעְמָא לָא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִפְּנֵי הַנּוֹצְרִים
“Why did they not fast on Sundays? R. Yochanan say:
because of the Christians” (b. Taanit 27b).
Historically, this reference to ‘Christians” seems most unlikely. It is more feasible that Natzrim (Nazoraeans) is intended, because, as noted earlier, a single-stroke letter is often prone to error. The Temple was destroyed around 70 CE, and:
“there is no evidence that Sunday was the Christian ‘Sabbath’ in Palestine before the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70” (Kimelman 1981:242).
R. Yochanan lived (albeit in Palestine) quite some time later, during the third century, and it seems he may have reflected his own reality back into earlier Temple Times. During R. Yochanan’s lifetime, Christianity would have had some time to diffuse among the various populations in the area. We also know that by that time, there was a community of Jewish-Christians, and they observed the Sabbath on both Saturdays and Sundays. R. Yochanan would have been aware of these Jewish-Christian communities, identified as Natzrin (Nazoraeans), especially since they “populated areas not far from R. Johanan’s home-town of Tiberius” (Kimelman 1981:242).
Furthermore, it is most feasible that he gave the reason why the non-priests don’t fast on Sundays as “because of the Christians”—or as we have argued, the Jewish-Christians, Natzrim (Nazoraeans)—because these Jewish-Christians did indeed fast on Sundays! On this reading, the Talmudic periscope is more consistent with historical evidence, and we additionally have an explanation for R. Yochanan’s ruling: he did not want Jews to replicate the practices of the Natzrim (Nazoraeans) by fasting on Sundays!
Are
Mimim (Heretics) and Natzrim (Nazoraeans) still Jewish?
Natzrim (Nazoraeans) and Minim (Heretics) were considered dissidents of some form, although still Jewish.
This is borne out by the Tosefta (Bava Metzia:2.31 and b. Avodah Zara 26a, according to the Spanish manuscript), where Minim (Heretics), apostates (people who convert to another religion) and informers (המינין, והמשומדין, והמסורות) are categorised as still being Jewish.
Furthermore, the same R. Yochanan referenced above uses the term Minim (Heretics) for Jewish schismatics (those who break away from the mainstream):
“Israel did not go into exile until it had split into twenty-four sects of Minim (Heretics)” (y. Sanhedrin 29c).
The
implication is that although R. Yochanan maintains that they brought about the
exile, all these sects are still Jewish.
Conclusion
If this examination and assessment is correct, then the curse embedded in the twelfth blessing of the Amidah—despite the common perception that its target was the Christians (Notzrim)—was instead directed against the Natzrim (Nazoraeans). It was not Jew on Christian, but Jew on Jew.
Analysis
I have to admit that the Chabad interpretation mentioned earlier, and interpolation in the English translation—although totally ahistorical and completely anachronistic—resonates well with the modern ear, as it points fingers at no one physical community, be it Jewish, Jewish-Christian or Christian. Instead, it metaphysically targets the universal notion of evil. The Lubavitcher Rebbe reads this prayer as directed against the forces of evil:
“…pause slightly between the words crush (תמגר) and subdue (תכניע), in consonance with the intent that uproot (תעקר), break (תשבר) and crush (תמגר) refer to the three forms of evil that must be completely eradicated. Subdue (תכניע) refers to kelipat nogah that needs only to be subdued and can be purified” (Hayom Yom, Tevet 26).
Accordingly,
the Bircat haMinim in the Chabad conceptualisation alludes to a
spiritual battle and subjugation of categories of negative spiritual forces, as
opposed to physical communities of people. It
is a beautiful and universal mystical exegesis and hermeneutic—but still, polemic
history remains an inescapable reality and most likely testifies to the
prayer’s original intent.
[1]
Kimelman, R., 1981, ‘Birkat Ha-Minim and the Lack of Evidence for an
Anti-Christian Jewish Prayer in Late Antiquity’, in Jewish and Christian
Self-Definition, Edited by E.P. Sanders, vol. 2, Fortress Press,
Philadelphia, 226-244.
[2]
Online source: Siddur
Ashkenaz, Weekday, Shacharit, Amidah, Against Enemies 1 | Sefaria Library.
Accessed on 5 March 2026.
[3]
According to the Talmud (b. Berachot 28b-29a), it was it was
Shmuel haKatan who composed the wording under the directorship of Rabban
Gamliel.
[5]
Online source: Shoveir
Oivim Umachnia Zeidi - Online Siddur with Commentary. Accessed on 5 March
2026.
[6]
Langer, R., 2011, Cursing the Christians? A History of the Birkat HaMinim,
Oxford University Press, 40.
[7]
Marmorstein, A., 1924, ‘The Amidah of the Public Fast Days’, JQR 15,
409-18, 415-17.
[8]
The early Christian writers are known Church Fathers. They shaped Christian doctrine
and practice between the around the second and eighth centuries CE.
Their writings are known as Patristic literature, from the Greek patēr (father = Church
Fathers).
No comments:
Post a Comment