 |
| The Portuguese Synagogue or Esnoga of Amsterdam, completed in 1675. |
INTRODUCTION:
Tefilah betzibur, or praying together with a community - in a minyan - has long been considered a Halachic virtue. But what happens when a member of the community arrives at the synagogue late?
In such a
situation, Halacha prescribes a basic ‘order of priority’ in which some ‘lesser’
prayers and psalms may be left out so that the latecomer can recite the more
important Shmoneh Esrei, or Amidah, together with the
congregation.
Over time,
however, a new mystically-based practice emerged whereby the latecomer simply
followed the full order of the davening – so as not to ‘disturb the spiritual
channels of the prayers’. On this view, the davening is only effective when
one follows their precise and complete order. Still today, some groups of
Chassidim for example, continue to follow this practice (and I must say, so did
I).
In this
article, based extensively on the research of Professor Matt Goldish[1],
we shall explore the origins of this practice, which appears to fly in the face
of the normative Halachic protocols for prayer.
THE 1706
CONTROVERSY IN AMSTERDAM:
Our story
begins in the Portuguese synagogue in Amsterdam in 1706, where a certain R. David
Mendes da Silva arrived late for the prayer service. David Mendes da Silva continued his
davening in the usual order without omitting parts of the ‘less
important’ pesukei de zimrah and thus did not recite the Shmoneh Esrei together with the other
congregants.
While this
may not appear to have been a major catastrophe - and in many synagogues today
such a practice would hardly be remarkable - for that close-knit Portuguese
synagogue in Amsterdam in 1706 which took its communal practices very seriously,
it was considered a radical (if not subversive) departure from known and expected
Halachic standards.
Another
congregant present at that service, Nathan Curiel,
witnessed this event and was clearly troubled by it. He questioned the
recalcitrant worshipper as to the reasons for his divergent course of action. This
was the era of conversos and secret Sabbatians who had infiltrated the mainstream
community and any strange religious actions would have immediately aroused some
suspicion.
David Mendes da Silva didn’t hesitate to respond that his actions
were indeed better than the prescriptions presented in the popular law of the Shulchan
Aruch of R. Yosef Karo (1488-1575). He explained that the reason why it was
more important to keep to the full order of the prayers was because that
was what the Zohar prescribed - and this held true even if one had to
forgo the opportunity to pray the Shmoneh Esrei with the community.
R.
YITZCHAK SASPORTAS GETS INVOLVED:
Nathan Curiel duly brought the matter to the attention of R. Yitzchak Sasportas,
who although holding no official position in the community, was a respected Kabbalist
and Halachist. He was also the son of the famed and fierce
anti-Sabbatian R. Yakov Sasportas, who had previously exposed much disruptive Sabbatian
activity and had been associated with that same Portuguese synagogue.
The details
of this unfolding controversy are recorded in the book Siach Yitzchak
written by R. Yitzchak Sasportas. He made every effort not draw individual
names into the public arena and therefore used the pseudonyms Reuven and
Shimon (instead of David Mendes da Silva and
Nathan Curiel whose letters of correspondence are reflected in the work under
those pseudonyms).
THE
DEBATE BECOMES A CONTROVERSY:
The debate
that started in the Portuguese synagogue in 1706 took an interesting turn when
R. Yitzchak Sasportas noted that he had never come across this alleged view of
the Zohar that it is proper to follow the full order of the prayers even
if it means that one will not recite the Shmoneh Esrei with the
congregation.
R.
Sasportas also made mention of the principle that no mystical teachings from
whatever source, may ever get in the way of Halacha. Halacha is
not supposed to be derived from Midrashic or mystical material [although
this is not always the case, see A Mystical Side to R. Yosef Karo].
Soon, this event and the ensuing discussion flamed into a
full-blown controversy that
was to perpetuate for the next fourteen years. R. Yitzchak Sasportas records in
his book that the lay leaders of the community eventually decided to settle the
matter by submitting to adjudication by the ‘sages who sit in judgement’
and they sided with him. It seems that the ‘sages’ was a reference to R.
Tzvi Hirsch Ashkenazi, known as the Chacham Tzvi – the father of R.
Yakov Emden, one of the most prolific anti-Sabbatians and exposes of their
infiltration within the mainstream Jewish communities. The Chacham Tzvi
had so many altercations with suspected Sabbatian elements in Amsterdam,
including its rabbi, Shlomo Aailion, that he (the Chacham Tzvi) was eventually
forced to leave the city [see Nechemia Chiyun].
This case
is also apparently recorded and corroborated in the responsa of the Chacham
Tzvi referring to an incident which took place in Holland in 1706:
“Two people came to the synagogue while
the cantor was reciting the introductory psalms. One skipped through the
introductory psalms as the posqim of blessed memory recommend, in order to
recite [the 'Amidah] with the congregation. The other began with the start of
the morning blessings, reciting [the psalms] in order, and did not recite [the
'Amidah] with the congregation, claiming that this was the opinion of R. Shimon
bar Yohai in the Zohar, Parshat Be-midbar. Tell us, teacher, which is
preferable.”[2]
Again, interestingly, no names are mentioned but Goldish is
convinced that this responsum is referring to our case in the Portuguese
synagogue in Amsterdam in 1706.
In the meantime, the main player in the story, the latecomer
David Mendes da Silva found himself - after a series of many warnings - excommunicated
for a period of two weeks as a result of his insistence on following the ‘full
order of the prayers’ and not
joining in with the community. This disproportionately severe measure was
obviously an indication of something far larger at stake.[3]
THE INTERFACE BETWEEN KABBALAH AND HALACHA:
Goldish explains that there are many examples of cases similar
to the da Silva-Curiel controversy, where Kabbalah is pitted against Halacha. A well-known case in point would be the
debate over wearing Tefillin during Chol HaMoed, where again
traditional Halachic norms find themselves challenged by the newer
innovations of the Zohar. In that debate, Chassidim take their cue
from the Zohar and do not wear Tefillin during the intermediate
days of a festival, while traditionalists do.
The Tefillin on Chol haMoed case, however,
does have an explicit and clear source in the Zohar (which is not
necessarily a license to override Halacha). But the apparent ‘source’ in
the Zohar for David Mendes da Silva’s actions
regarding the ‘full order of the prayers’ overriding the Halachic
injunction to pray as a community, is rather tenuous, to say the least.
THE
‘CUSTOM OF THE ZOHAR’:
Let us now look at David Mendes da Silva’s source in the Zohar,
where at the end of Parshat BeMidbar, the structure of the prayers is
said to correspond to a cosmic structure within the universe:
Man, in entering the synagogue,
first cleanses himself by the [recital of the regulations concerning the]
sacrifices; then he accepts upon himself the heavenly yoke by the recital of
the hymns of King David. Then comes the prayer said sitting, which corresponds
to the arm-phylactery, followed by the prayer said standing, which corresponds
to the head-phylactery. So prayer is made up of both action and speech, and
when the action is faulty speech does not find a spot to rest in; such a prayer
is not prayer, and the man offering it is defective in the upper world and the
lower.[4]
While the Zohar does describe prayer as comprising
both an “action and speech” and emphasises that without either it is
considered “defective”, it does not unequivocally pronounce on the idea
that the entire prayer service must be recited in its exact order even at the
expense of missing out on reciting the Shemona Esrei together with the
congregation.
Furthermore, R. Yitzchak Sasportas points out that no one
prior to David Mendes da Silva had ever suggested that this Zohar permitted
people to renege on the requirement to say the Shmoneh Esrei together,
just so that they can say Pesukei deZimra in its order.
According to R. Sasportras, the only time we find an opening
to perhaps follow a teaching from the Zohar as a Halacha, is
where either the Talmud or earlier Halachic authorities remain
silent or undecided on a matter. This was not the case here, as Halacha
clearly prescribed leaving out some of the prayers so that the Shmoneh Esrei
can be said together as a community.
CHOOSING ZOHAR OVER HALACHA:
Goldish shows that Sasprotas’ last point of the supremacy of
Halacha over Kabbalah was by no means universally accepted and
that some Spanish rabbis believed in the supremacy of the Zohar under
all circumstances, no matter the prescribed Halacha.
This is why David Mendes da Silva actually had a point when
he wrote:
"Anywhere the posqim differ
with R. Shimon bar Yohai [i.e., the Zohar], and no compromise can be made
between them, we follow R. Shimon bar Yohai."[5]
David Mendes da Silva goes even further by bringing a surprising
prooftext from the Beit Yosef which was written by R. Yosef Karo himself who later went on to author the Shulchan Aruch:
"... we do not abandon the words of the Zohar for the words of the posqim."[6]
At first glance, this seems like a powerful support for
David Mendes da Silva as even the author of the Shulchan Aruch agrees
that we follow the Zohar over codified Halacha!
However, Sasportas is quick to note that da Silva omitted to
quote the particular context and the full sentence from R. Yosef Karo which began:
"Since this law is not
stated explicitly in the Talmud, we do not abandon the words of the Zohar
for the words of the posqim." [7]
In other words, David Mendes da Silva had quoted out of
context and only quoted half a sentence which anyway related to another matter
entirely. Thus, Sasportas concludes that under normal circumstances where we do
know the Halacha, we do not rule by the Zohar if it
contradicts that Halacha.
On the other hand, the question of leaving out the psalms
section of the davening, known as Pesukei deZimra, is not dealt
with in the Talmud. It is first spoken about much later, during the Gaonic
Period (589-1038). This means that technically – because it is not
discussed in the Talmud – it might be possible to argue that we can
choose to follow the Zohar on this matter. The problem is that, as
mentioned, the Zohar does not explicitly suggest that a latecomer must
recite the full Pesukei deZimra and miss out on saying the Shmoneh
Esrei with the community. The Zohar discusses the cosmic importance
of prayer in its proper order but it does not actively prescribe the
setting aside of the communal Shmoneh Esrei for such ends.
THE SIDDUR HA’ARI:
More than a century before David Mendes da Silva, the Siddur
of the Ari Zal (1534-1572) cited the very mystical work, Maggid Mesharim
of R. Yosef Karo:
"The maggid [heavenly
teacher] warned the Bet Yosef [i.e., R. Karo][8]
to come to the synagogue very early, so that he would be able to pray in order
and without omitting, because the one who does so confounds the conduits [of
heavenly influence].”
Perhaps this could serve as a source for the custom?
Here again, the cosmic order of the prayers is indeed emphasised
but there is no instruction to actively invalidate the injunction to recite the
Shmoneh Esrei as a community. On the contrary, according to this
account, R. Karo was specifically told to come to synagogue early in order to
say the Shmoheh Esrei with the congregation.
This is significant because, notwithstanding ‘confounding
the heavenly conduits’, R. Yosef Karo still went on to rule that Halachically
a latecomer must shorten the prayers because it is more important to say the Shmoneh
Esrei as a community.
DAVID MENDES DA SILVA’S ARGUMENT:
David Mendes da Silva held fast to his own argument that the Zohar was the source for this important practice. He persisted to say that R. Yosef Karo never saw that section of the Zohar that he (da Silva) claimed was the source of the practice to complete the prayers in their order and not recite the Shmoneh Esrei together with the community. Either that or, alternatively, da Silva suggests that R. Yosef Karo saw it but forgot it.[11]
‘HAPHAZARD’ PRINCIPLES REGARDING THE DERIVATION OF HALACHA FROM THE ZOHAR:
Notwithstanding all these theoretical principles, Goldish
cites Jacob Katz who notes that practically, the principles relating to the derivation
of Halacha from the Zohar are not as clearcut as we might
imagine. In reality, these guidelines are very much disorganized, or as Katz put
it, “haphazard”[9]
"At times the religious
precept, rite, or custom interpreted by the kabbalist seems to have been his
own creation, as no obvious source of a halakhic nature is in evidence to
support it."[10]
PUSHBACK AGAINST DA SILVA’S INNOVATION:
R. Yitzchak Sasportas was very worried about David Mendes da Silva’s innovation becoming widespread.
He wrote:
"If he [da Silva] found a
pomegranate, he discarded the inside and ate the shell."
Goldish explains:
“Sasportas is saying, in effect,
that da Silva has chosen a dangerous teacher, the kabbalah, but instead of
accepting the useful teachings and avoiding what is dangerous, he has done the
opposite….
He explicitly states his concern
that da Silva will cause the masses to be lax in synagogue attendance and
punctuality.”
Sasportas was particularly concerned that this innovation
which he rightfully feared would become a popular practice, originated from an
unlearned individual. David Mendes da Silva was not known as a Kabbalist
or a Halachist. Goldish describes him as “a
minor local rabbi”.
Sasportas does not attempt to hide his disapproval of the
personality of David Mendes da Silva, who he says has disingenuously ‘wrapped
himself in tallit that is not his’ by assuming undeserved Halachic
authority:
“You thought to wrap yourself in
a tallit which was not yours and to act arrogantly before the common people, as
if an amazing secret were hidden under your tongue, until the point where you
convinced even yourself and scorned the honor of our rabbis of blessed memory.”[12]
Sasportas continues his attack by chiding David Mendes da
Silva for no longer attending the classes of his former teacher because he
insolently claimed that he no longer had anything to learn from his teacher.[13]
Intriguingly, Goldish points out that the initials of David
Mendes da Silva’s teacher are given as ש״א which Professor
Yosef Kaplan has suggested might be either Shlomo Oliveira or Shlomo Aailion,
both important Amsterdam rabbis in this period. If R. Shlomo Aailion is indeed
identified as his teacher this would shed a complexly different light on the
discussion as Aailion was well-associated with the secret Sabbattians! This would also
explain why R. Sasportas and the Chacham Tzvi - known anti-Sabbatian
protagonists - were so concerned with opposing David Mendes da Silva’s mystical
innovations.[14]
(Scholem [Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah,1973:893] writes that in Amsterdam, Shabbatai Tzvi’s followers
used to meet in the house of their leader, Emanuel Benattar, the hazzan of the Portuguese Synagogue, and seem to have been unmolested by the Jewish authorities, possibly because they had the very pious and very wealthy Abraham Pereyra…)
R. Yitzchak Sasportas responds to da Silva and tells him
that:
"[T]his is not the way and
this is not the city [for such innovations]”.[15]
DAVID MENDES DA SILVA’S VIEWS GAIN TRACTION:
David Mendes da Silva’s innovative practice gained much traction
amongst elements of the wider community and continue to this day.
Goldish makes this point very strongly:
“Despite the factitiousness of
da Silva's interpretation and the clearcut condemnations of his view, the
practice of reading the psalms in order and forgoing the communal Amidah when
late for services has persevered and become very widespread.”
And this practice is even popular within the non-Chassidic
world as well. According to the Halachic work, Mishna Berura, published in the late nineteenth
century by R. Yisrael Meir haCohen:
"Many righteous men have
the practice of praying in order for this reason [fear of damaging the upper
and lower worlds] even when they arrive late to synagogue."[16]
והרבה אנשי מעשה נוהגים
להתפלל כסדר מטעם זה אפילו אם אחרו לבוא לבהכ"נ
CONCLUSION:
The Zohar and the Ari Zal do speak about the
importance of the order of the prayers, but they do not specifically suggest that
that order be maintained at the sacrifice of tefilah betzibur or the
communal Shmoneh Esrei.
Nevertheless, the vague and loose interpretation of a Zoharic
concept by ‘a minor local rabbi’ at best, or possibly an individual with
Sabbatian ties at worst, has now - in some circles - become ‘codified’ as law.
[1] HALAKHAH, KABBALAH, AND HERESY: A CONTROVERSY IN EARLY EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY AMSTERDAM by Matt Goldish, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
[2] She'elot uTeshuvot Chacham Tzvi, #36.
[3] It is most likely that David Mendes da Silva was suspected of being a secret Sabbatian considering the time, place and all the individuals involved in the event. However, Goldish believes the concern was more with the former conversos (who, coincidently, also fell prey more readily to Sabbatin influences). He writes: “The fact that da Silva's practice concerned synagogue activities, and especially the question of communal prayer, also had a special significance in the world of the former conversos. In Amsterdam and the rest of the marrano diaspora outstanding reverence was paid to the synagogue and its rites. The former conversos, who grew up under Catholicism, had become accustomed to a dichotomy whereby religion had minimal impact on daily business activities, but demanded strict honor and discipline inside the place of worship. The Amsterdam Portuguese synagogue and service were the focus of all congregational religious fervor, as we see reflected in the communal rulebooks. Seating in the synagogue was strictly regulated, being carefully ordered according to status and wealth. The honor of being called to the Torah was a matter for more rules, and often a source of disputes. Talking during services and Torah reading was strictly forbidden, as was leaving while the Torah was out of the Ark. One was permitted to sit or stand only at specific stages of the service. Nobody was allowed to raise his voice on the synagogue grounds, and one who struck a fellow Jew there, or even entered with a weapon, was subject to excommunication. These are only a few of the laws meant to preserve the sanctity of the synagogue and the service. This excessive attention given to synagogue ritual, which was not the norm in most Jewish communities, goes far to explain why our case hit a sensitive nerve.”
[4] Zohar (Mantua, 1558-60), p. 120v; Translation
by Harry Sperling and Maurice Simon, 2nd ed. (London/New York, 1984),
5:175-176.
[5]
See Da Silva's letter at the end of Siyach Yitzchak, p. 5v.
[6] Siyach
Yitzchak, p. 4r.
[7] Siyach
Yitzxhak, p. 20r.
[8] Parenthesis mine.
[9] Jacob
Katz, Post-Zoharic Relations, p. 294-5.
[10] Ibid., p. 286.
[11] Siyach
Yitzchak, p. 5r; da Silva's letter, p. 16r-v.
[12] Siyach
Yitzchak, p. 37v.
[13] Siyach
Yitzchak, p. 41r-v.
[14]
Goldish does not go so far as to accuse da Silva of engaging in Sabbatian
activity, although he does mention that (his possible teacher) R. Shlomo
Aailion was “a Sabbatean throughout his life as far as we can gather from
extant sources”. However, Goldish continues: “In our case, it was not
suspicion of Sabbateanism in da Silva's practice which raised the hackles of
Sasportas and Ashkenazi, but the general atmosphere of discomfort with any
unusual interpretation of the Zohar, which was the hallmark of Sabbatean
kabbalism.”
[15] Siyach Yitzchak, p. 23v.
[16] Mishna Berura Ch. 52.
