CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE OF THE SYNAGOGUE DUE TO RELIGIOUS PERSECUTIONS BY JACOB MANN HEBREW UNION COLLEGE. CINCINNATI, OHIO REPRINTED FROM THE HEBREW UNION COLLEGE ANNUAL VOLUME IV CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE OF THE SYNAGOGUE DUE TO RELIGIOUS PERSECUTIONS By JACOB MANN. Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati. Ohio. CONTENTS Introduction (pp. 242-45). I. Changes due to the opposition against the Shema' (pp. 245-61) 1. Shema' in the section DTK Nrr nViy 1 ? (pp. 246-51). 2. Shema' in the Kedushah (pp. 251-59). 3. Shema' at the taking out of the Scroll (pp. 259-61). 4. Shema' at the conclusion of Ma'arib (p. 261). II. Changes due to the opposition against the Trishagion (J^edu- shah) (pp. 261-77). 1. Trishagion in the service of the Synagogue (pp. 261-63). 2. Trishagion in the Christian liturgy (pp. 263-65). 3. Jewish conception of Trishagion versus Christian one (pp. 265-67) 4. Reports concerning the origin of NTIDT ncmp (pp. 267-70). 5. The original meaning of NTTDI ncmp (pp. 270-74). 6. Discussion of Sotah 49a with regard to NTIDI ntrmp (pp. 274-77). III. Objections to the daily 'Amidah (pp. 277-79). 1. D'ron ro-a in the Palestinian ritual (pp. 277-78). 2. Origin of l^ion rona in Ma'arib (pp. 278-79). IV. Changes in connection with the reading of the Torah and the Prophets (pp. 279-87). 1. The prohibition of the Deuterosis and the origin of the Piyyut (pp. 279-82). 2. Haftarot from Deutero-Isaiah at Sabbath Minhah in Babylon (pp. 282-86). 3. The "seven Haftarot of Consolation" in Babylon (pp. 286-87). 241 2097608 242 JACOB MANN V. Other Items (pp. 287-301). 1. The Decalogue in the Liturgy (pp. 288-89). 2. Tephillin (pp. 289-99). 3. The blowing of the Shofar on New Year (pp. 299-301). Conclusion (p. 301-302). Appendix: Date and Place of Redaction of Seder Eliyahu Rabba and Zutta (pp. 302-310). INTRODUCTION* ELIGIOUS persecutions, or rather persecutions directed against the steadfast adherence of the Jewish people to its conception of God and His teachings, naturally aimed first of all at the divine service of the synagogue. There the Jewish people gave public expression to its religious beliefs, its hopes and as- pirations. The liturgy of the synagogue reechoed the doctrine of Judaism, proclaimed the unity of God and the uniqueness of *The following abbreviations, besides the customary ones for periodicals, will be used in the subsequent pages. 'Amram =pxi anny an -no, ed. Warsaw, 1865; ed. Fr. =oVn anoy an mo, ed. Frumkin, Jerusalem, 1912. Elbogen = Elbogen, Derjud. Gottesdienst, 1913; the notes are cited from the 2nd edition. 'Ittim=Judah b. Barzillai, D'nyn nso, ed. Schor, 1902. Mann = Mann, Genizah Fragments of the Palestinian Order of Service (in Hebrew Union College Annual, II, pp. 269-338). Noldeke, Tabari = Geschichte der Perser u. Araber zur Zeit der Sassaniden. Aus der arab Chronik des Tabari (ibersetst u. mit ausfiihrlichen Erlauterungen u. Erganzungen versehn von Th. Noldeke, Leyden, 1879. S. E. R. =Nt3ir irr 1 nnoi nan irv^N nno, ed. Friedmann, 1902. Soferim = OHfliD rooD, ed. Miiller, 1878. Vitry = HB'i mrno, ed. S. Hurwitz, 1889. riN = Isaac of Vienna, ynr m, Zhitomir. ^"i=D'JiNjn niaiem, ed. Musafia, Lyck. D"n = R. Rabbinovicz, nnsiD 'pnpn. 3"n = nm3 nnon D'3ixjn niaipn, Jerusalem. B"n=mpiDD ma^n D'JiNjn maie>n, ed. Miiller. b'niv =$edekiah b. Abraham, tspVn 'Va, ed. Buber. V"o = Isaac ibn Gayyat, nriD0 'ny, ed. Bamberger. n*=nain ny D':ijn m.ain. hv jnmn i mal?nn ma: n'a, ed. Horowitz, 1881. CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 243 Israel, and reiterated the story of the Bible, the exalted orations of the Prophets and the soul-stirring outpourings of the Psalm- ists. Within the scheme of the order of divine service of the synagogue the preachers and interpreters found the opportunity of instructing and edifying the worshippers by the living word of the Torah. Some of these doctrines, publicly proclaimed in the syna- gogue, were construed by the ruling religions as challenges to their own teachings. The arm of the state was wielded to pro- scribe these doctrines. The Jews had to bow to the force majeure without giving up in the least their cherished beliefs and without their spiritual leaders lacking in ways and means of how to nullify the edicts that violated their elementary rights of religious conviction. Changes had to be made in the service to meet the new conditions imposed by the power of the state and the traces of these changes remained even after the emergencies, that had called them forth, disappeared with the setting in of new eras in the history of the nations to whom the Jews were subject. We propose to discuss here anew the data recording these changes in the service of the synagogue. The material available refers chiefly to the two great centers of Jewry at the beginning of the Middle Ages, to Palestine and to Babylon. The triumph of Christianity in the Roman Empire since the times of Con- stantine the Great (312 C. E.) till the conquest of the Holy Land by the Arabs (634-40 C. E.) had as a sequel the rising tide of intolerance towards the Jews in Palestine. In Babylon a change to the worse in the condition of her large Jewry set in towards the end of the reign of Yezdejerd II (454-5 C. E.) continuing with interruptions again to the period of the arrival of the Arabs (637 C. E.). The liturgy of the synagogue in both these countries received its more or less fixed form just during these periods when it had at the same time to withstand the pressure exerted by the ruling religions of Christianity and Zoroastrianism respectively. The records of this pressure and of the counteraction on the part of the Jewish spiritual leaders are scanty and often obscure. They are not contemporaneous but date chiefly from the Gaonic period when both Palestine and Babylon were already under Muslim sway. Yet they evidently are more or less based on trustworthy 244 JACOB MANN traditions that have come down from the times of trial and tribulation The two great religious persecutions that visited the Jewish people in Palestine previously, the one of Antiochus Epiphanes (168 B. C. E. and following) and the other of Hadrian (135-138 C. E.) have left no recorded changes in the liturgy 1 , in the first instance, and only a few cases, in the second one, for the good reason that during both of them the practice of Judaism as a whole had been prohibited. There was no question of modifying or eliminating certain features of the liturgy when the whole service of the Temple, in the former case, and of the synagogue, in the second one, had been proscribed as a part, indeed a promi- nent one, of the obnoxious religion of Judaism. Not so in the periods under discussion in this paper when Judaism as a whole had to be granted the right to existence and the state in Byzan- tium and in Persia respectively, at the instigation of the spokes- men of the ruling faiths, insisted only upon the elimination of certain objectionable features, which it had construed as public challenges on the part of the Jews to the doctrines of the respec- tive religions supreme in the two empires then containing the predominant part of the Jewish people. In Babylon these objectionable features consisted of the emphatic declaration of the unity of God (the Shema') as against the dualism of Zoroastrianism. A distinct polemic against the latter was also found in the exalted orations of Deutero-Isaiah that were used in the Haftarot (rryeraw mom). In Palestine more features of the liturgy found offence in the eyes of the church upheld by the Byzantine government. The Shema', the Trisha- gion (Kedushah), the 'Amidah (especially the twelfth benediction known as D'yan ro~a) , the preachings and teachings of the Rabbis (the Deuterosis) these were the offensive portions which the 1 About the supposed introduction of the Haftarah owing to Antiochus' pro- hibition of the reading of the Torah, see infra, p. 282. About the change in the time of sounding the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah, stated to have taken place during the Hadrianic persecutions, see infra, p. 299 ff., and about the rite of Tephillin, infra, p. 296. The changes in several religious customs owing to the dangers (HMD) during the Hadrianic persecutions are outside the scope of this paper which deals only with the service of the synagogue. CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 245 state tried to eliminate from the public service of the synagogue. These points will be discussed here seriatim adding for complete- ness sake other details of the divine service that called forth objections in the Gentile environment in which the Jews were living. Since our data are not contemporaneous but emanate chiefly from the later Gaonic period they have to be taken with great caution. The question frequently arises whether they are not post eventum explanations of liturgical features that could not be accounted for otherwise and therefore the general hypothesis of having been due to ~FDn r\yv 2 was conveniently advanced as their reason. Yet this general and oft repeated tradition of changes in the liturgy because of religious persecutions seems to be well- grounded and it would be hypercritical to dismiss it altogether as unhistorical. Anyhow the problem deserves to be traced and examined in its manifold ramifications. I CHANGES DUE TO THE OPPOSITION AGAINST THE SHEMA'. It would not be in keeping with our theme to discuss here anew the origin of the Shema' in the service of the synagogue and to trace the successive stages through which the Shema' was formed into a composite whole consisting of three Biblical pass- ages (Deut. 6.4-9, 11.13-21 and Numbers 15.37-41) introduced and concluded by benedictions (see Ber. 1.4) 3 The recital of the Shema' twice daily, morning and evening, was already an old established custom in the first century, C. E., still before the destruction of the Second Temple. The Shema' assumed its characteristic significance not only as a solemn theological asseveration of monotheism as against dualism, trinity or poly- theism but by the very designation of its first section (Deut. 3 The prototype for this general hypothesis would thus be the passage con- cerning the change in the time of sounding the Shofar in R. H. 32b mrj ny3 ur nis^on, the correct reading of which is w io0n nj?3 (cf. Dikduke Soferim, a. 1.). See infra, p. 299, note 124. i For the existing literature on this problem see Elbogen, Der jud. Gottes- diensdienst, p. 16, and notes (2nd ed.) pp. 513-515. 246 JACOB MANN 6.4-9) as "the acceptance of the yoke of heaven" D'D, cf. M. Ber. 2.2, Babli 13b, 14b) the Shema' had also a political connotation as a challenge to the yoke of Rome, the wicked mundane rule. The third section with its concluding reference to the redemption from Egypt and the subsequent Geullah benediction kept afresh in the minds of the people the hope of the ultimate restoration of Israel when the eschatological "kingdom of heaven" would become supreme on earth. The Talmudic literature records the recital of the Shema' only twice daily in accordance with the verse in Deut. 6.7 (~p32ai "|Qip3i, cf. Ber. 1.3: nnoiy DIN 'np nyt?:n a^w DIN 'n ny^n). It became a characteristic token of Israel that declares "the unity of God twice daily with love." 4 Yet in the post-Talmudic liturgy that has come down to us the first verse of Shema' recurs several times in the service outside the scheduled place assigned to the Shema' in the conjunction with the Tefillah of Shaharit and Ma'arib. What were the causes of these insertions? Some reasons advanced by the early authorities trace these insertions to the times of persecutions (~F!0n nyp) and therefore claim our attention here. 1. SHEMA' IN THE SECTION DIN Nrp o^iy^. The portion of the morning service preceding "lOfcW "P~o, which was usually recited by the individual Jew at home before proceeding to the synagogue for the public worship, 5 contains the first verse of Shema'. In the Palestinian ritual it is introduced 4 Thus in the morning prayer, to be discussed forthwith: iw . . . '131 yov DnniNi ~\ov n onn'Di TOD nv ^33 onmto npai aij? D'anym D'0'3D (this is the reading in 'Amram, ed. Fr., I, 51a, but Vitry, p. 60, has 100 D'trvDi ; in Kedushah of Musaph (to be discussed farther on, p. 251 ff.), ay iirv 1 yaw narma D'oys npai aij? 100 ann'on (the phrase nan3 o^ys was at- tacked already by Ben Baboi (about 800 C. E.), see infra, p. 255, note 26); like- wise in the litany of Dim Nim we read DV ^33 D'ays -\ov onn'on DIN iim. See also Cant. R. 7.11: 'Ol yov D'nmi D'oys nv ia DHn'Di. Cp. further S. E. R., pp. 13 and 15, and especially infra, notes 7 and 18. 5 See the data discussed by Mann, H. U. C. Annual, II, p. 273, and cf. also the account of Natan Ha-Babli (in Neubauer, Med. Jew. Chron., II, 83) : -|na ^nno non ]rm. CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 247 boldly after the benediction for the Torah (Mann, 280, 293), but in the Babylonian rite it is to be found within the beautiful sec- tion beginning with "inon D'np NT DIN KIT D^iy 1 ? and leading up to the privilege of Israel to declare the unity of God by the declara- tion of the Shema'. This verse is followed by a significant bene- diction emphasizing the sanctification of God's name in public and in conclusion the prayer for the restoration of Israel is expressed (see the version in 'Amram, ed. Fr., I, 5 la). The whole section was evidently known to the author of Seder Eliyahu Rabba (c. 19, ed. Friedmann, 118) where it is cited in a greatly shortened form due to the copyists, who only indicated its beginning and its end (see Friedmann's notes, a. /.). It is questionable whether the whole section was originally composed by the author of this Midrashic work, as it is frequently assumed, because he introduces it with the formula "HON p'D. 6 The whole setting of this section suggests a time of religious tribulation and trial when the declaration of the unity of God could only be made in secret ("inD2), viz. in the home of the individual Jew and not at the public worship. The benediction praising God for sanctifying His name in public (by some manifest action of His) significantly alludes by contrast to a time that demanded of the Jew (a mere human being) a sacrifice in doing this publicly. With right intui- tion R. Benjamin b. Abraham 'Anav, brother of the author of Shibbole Ha-Lekef (13th century), explains that the author of S. E. R. referred to a period when the Shema' could not be recited at the public worship of the synagogue and hence he impressed upon his contemporaries the duty of acknowledging the kingdom of heaven privately. 7 6 The text there omits inoa after D'DP NT but several authorities had this significant word as is evident from the discussion in *?'r\3V to be cited forthwith. Also 'Amram has it. 7 Vmp, ed. Buber, p. 6: 1'rnn^ 'JDD "incn D'DP NT DIN NT o^iy 1 ?. noi 1 ? K^P V'nn (Rashi) h'\ no^p ira-n l'D':3 '11 ...nnix 1 ? pinp 303 inx ]wi ...?'i^n "?! D'DP NT DIN NT iriD3 '3i :noi^ N"?P ni lop hv nn -IM N^X irv^N N3X nox thy -inoa. noi 1 ? 'INHP aro i"i; TIN ma^Q hv; orr^y "zap 1 ? arm DTnrn p hy ,v^u J'NT nvn^ I'Vis 11 vn N^I yov nN Nnp^ nN o'lrvai 'ID or "733 yov Ton TJB"? TDI^ UN ]'3"m. naiNP Nin |DP -\h y-\n .nnoa D'DP -IDIN ]3 *?y\ ."13 "^NiP 1 yov (onmNi=read 'HDIND noiNi H3HN3 D'DJJD -|or ]'t p hy ,nno3 "? D'3i3 znipo ior |'N IDPH ny3P 'D 1 ? '3'3n3 IDP npon 248 JACOB MANN Elgogen (p. 91) thinks it not impossible that R. Benjamin was right in his explanation and yet regards it more likely that the first verse of Shema' was inserted there in order to not delay the time set for its reading. His evidence is 'Ittim (p. 253) 8 which, in dealing with Sabbath morning, recommends that the weekly Sidrah should not be gone over at home before proceeding to the synagogue in order not to delay tP'p pr. This offers no proof whatever for Elbogen's preferred explanation of the inser- tion of Shema' at this juncture. But there is another statement (not cited by Elbogen) in a MS. Munich (given by Perles, M. G. W. J., XXV, 370-71) which probably emanates from the author of 'Ittim, R. Judah b. Barzillai, and which shows that this argu- ment of the delay of o"p pr was unknown and is therefore quoted as "a great secret" (^m TiD). 9 The whole passage was written by a critic of the Piyyutim and, as Judah b. Barzillai was such a one (as is evident from 'Ittim, p. 251 ff.), we may suggest that our statement is to be found in the missing part of 'Ittim dealing with the early morning service. Hence in the MS. the beginning should read somewhat like 'DI ^m TID KTirp TTID [ ho nsoa NXD^! . Be that as it may, the whole argument is hardly cogent or logical. On the basis of the statement in Ber. 13b a reference to DHXZD nN'jp, as the conclusion of the Shema', is supposed to be found in the lectionary mn where Ps. 81.11 is included. But this lectionary was recited in public (Ttaxa) after ~\otw -pin and not nrprra as the Shema' in NIT D^iy 1 ?. Moreover the whole lectionary was not at all fixed in earlier times. It is missing the Siddurim of 'Amram and Sa'adya (see 'Amram, ed. Fr., I, 70a, note in nisnan Tips). It is also not found in the Palestinian ritual though Soferim indicates its beginning (see Mann, p. 276). All these passages, quoted by R. Benjamin, were evidently in his copy of S. E. R. but were omitted by later copyists. Cp. also Friedm., KUD, p. 80. See also Tanya, ed. Hurwitz, p. 11. 8 Thus more correctly than p. 249, given in his notes (p. 527), which con- tains nothing on this subject. D'anyoi QOPD uxz> ir-iN. -\a-\b snioip D'D3n upn -p^ ^ni no &mrr vna cisci .(see Ber. 13b) N'jn mirr 'n hv v'p nr yoen DIIPD "^to' s?oe> cv ^33 nnaiNi onxn nx'X' nornV HO. Nrrsoa onxo n'X'i NnyDPH iina (K'pjn mirr -i) im (Ps. 81.11) "nnxD ynD i"?j?on 'n '3]. mon 'piDB3 up'n (see ibid.) "niora .N':n mm* 'no nuwjna on^ n 1:013, xbv "p mp'D D'OVBI nnxva nnx' DP CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 249 Following therefore the more probable clue of R. Benjamin b. Abraham 'Anav the date and place of this IDPH nyz? should be considered. Krauss (Studien z. byz.-jiid. Geschichte, 146-7) regards in a haphazard manner S. E. R. to be a product of Byzan- tium and the religious persecution, alluded to in S. E. R., is referred to those of "a Leo the Isaurian (723), a Basileos (868)!" But this view collapses under the weight of the historical evidence at our disposal. How is it that the whole passage from NH' D^IJ?^ to '" IDN ODTy 1 ? D3'nu n '3W3 is entirely missing in the Palestinian ritual but was taken over in the Babylonian Siddur? Surely the Holy Land was nearer to Byzantium than the distant Babylon. Moreover the persecution of Basileos (868) can hardly be con- sidered in view of the fact that 'Amram, whose eighteen years of Gaonate (the first ones of which were in rivalry to R. Na^ronai) fall between 862-80, already has the whole passage as a regular part of his Siddur sent to Spain. Needless to say passages from a Midrash, supposedly written in Byzantium, were not incorpor- ated by the Geonim with such speed in their ritual. Moreover a careful examination of the contents of S. E. R. clearly shows that the author lived for a considerable time in Babylon and that in a good deal of his work he depicted conditions of Jewish life in that country (see Appendix at end of this paper, infra, p. 302ff.). He himself was arrested during a raid carried out by the Persian authorities at the instigation of the fanatical Magians. As a result of this arrest the author records a disputation of his with a learned Magian on controversial matters pertaining to Judaism and Zoroastrianism. The dates to be found in the work, which lead down to the 10th century, 10 were evidently changed by the copyist whose text became the prototype of our texts, to suit his own time when he had prepared his transcript. 10 Pp. 6-7: ]no KX'i rvBon nio' hv a^sh *yc -pro nayr ir^y oa: me> irnya n:r HIND yaro nnv leads down to a date after 940 C. E. (4700 A. M.) and p. 163: .-IIKD yrn "in vray lyi o:rn man) a-m&oi brings us to 968. A third date gives an intermediate year, viz. 944 (p. 37: D'ypn rray iyi o^iyn ma DVD KXDJ a'jp "\ '01 (i.e. jubilees) o'D^iy nyaiNi. The first date rw niND yatfo inr is cited in Yalfcut Makhiri to Zechariah (14.7) as n:0 yaim DTPI niND vv, viz. 904 (see Poznanski, Z.f.H.B., XIII, 132), which shows clearly how the copy- ists changed the dates to suit their own times. 250 JACOB MANN The passage in S. E. R., reflecting the religious persecution under discussion with regard to the Shema', rather helps us to fix the time of redaction of the book, viz. not long after the fanatical outbreak against the Jews in Babylon and in Persia under Yez- dejerd II (454-5) during which the recital of the Shema' was forbidden as being a challenge to Zoroastrianism, as is expressly reported by the Geonim (see infra, p. 256 ff.) in connection with the Shema' in the Kedushah. The arrest of the author (or redactor) and his discussion with a Magian should be fixed in this time of trial and tribulation. The Jewish authorities of the time at first impressed upon their coreligionists the duty of reciting the Shema' (at least the first verse) privately in their homes before proceeding to the synagogue for the morning service. In the course of the religious persecution they invented also the strategem of inserting the beginning and the end of the Shema' in the Kedushah. The whole beautiful section from NIT cbiyh and onwards formed an impressive setting for the private ac- knowledgment of the unity of God and His kingdom. The author of S. E. R. quotes it as an anonymous composition of the Baby- lonian Rabbis of the time (nDN p'O). It was, however, not taken over into the Palestinian ritual, though the first verse of Shema' occurs therein before ~IDNP "[Ha, either as a later com- promise with the Babylonian custom or perhaps as a reminiscence of the custom of R. Judah the Patriarch. The redaction of S. E. R. not long after 455 renders it pretty certain that it should be identified with ra~i irrWt TID and its sup- plementary part N^m irr 1 TTD, cited in Ket. 106a, though the story related there connects it with R. 'Anan, the contemporary of R. Naljman b. Jacob (end of 3rd and beginning of 4th cen- turies). The author preferred to remain in obscurity citing several episodes and statements in the name of "Father" Elijah (in' 1 ?** frON), the great personality in Jewish folklore since Biblical times. The legendary relationship between Elijah and R. 'Anan was seized upon by the Saboraim in the 6th century to attribute to the latter the already by then famous work Seder Eliyahu Rabba and Zutta." Yet it is not out of question to 11 In the story in Ket. 106a, top, the phrase in^Nl no rv 1 ? 'jno mm seems to be a Saboraic gloss to explain the preceding sentence in'"? ^'n nin ]:y m CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 251 assume that there were known in Babylon as well as in Palestine teachings and episodes relating to Elijah which the author, living in the second half of the 5th century, incorporated into his work giving it the peculiar phraseology and form that render it as one of the most interesting literary productions in the field of Midrash. The reason for his division of the work into two parts, Rabba and Zutta, is not clear. Who knows whether he himself did not use the legend concerning R. 'Anan as a means to hide his own identity? Hence the Saboraim were guided by genuine tradition to declare the work to contain the substance of Elijah's teachings to R. 'Anan. 12 2. SHEMA' IN THE KEDUSHAH. The Kedushah in Musaph on Sabbaths and Festivals in the prevalent rites contains the insertion of the Shema' in a character- istic setting which again recalls a time of aroused religious feeling owing to outside opposition. After the actual Trishagion and its accompanying verse of Ezek. 3.12 (which will be discussed infra, p. 261 ff.) the text turns abruptly to a plea for God's mercy on the people that declare His unity daily, morning and evening, "twice with love" proclaiming the Shema' (citing the first verse). Then comes the emphasis that only "He is our God, our Father, our King, our Savior,"" a pleading again for His mercy to n'3J TINT as if iri'^tn "no existed even before R. 'Anan. Likewise, n'^ p'Dtn ly -mo seems to be an insertion all in order to justify the Saboraic identifi- cation Noir irrN -no ,rm WN 110 '-IDT irm. 12 The general conclusions are given here reserving further discussion of the problem of S.E.R. for the Appendix (infra, pp. 302-10). " a The juxtaposition of these attributes "Father, King and Savior" has evidently a polemical emphasis against Christianity which designated Jesus by the last two terms besides ascribing to him divinity (6(6s). As is well-known, Jesus is styled in the N.T. King (/SaaiXeus) and savior (ffUTrjp). In the well- known hymn irn^NJ ]'K we have also the juxtaposition of the attributes God, Lord, King and Savior, stressing still more the emphasis against Christianity which designated Jesus as lord (Kvfttos). This hymn is evidently modeled after the above passage in the Kedushah and perhaps would warrant the read- ing there mrm too instead of U'3K. The hymn is found in the Palestinian ritual for Saturday night with the proper beginning irn^NS 'D (see Mann, pp. 319, 324-5). In the light of the above remarks it probably dates from the 252 JACOB MANN become manifest by the redemption of Israel when His divinity will be proclaimed before all mankind, and concluding with the last phrase in the Shema', viz. wn!?N v ' 1 ^N. 'Amram (ed. Frumkin, II, 50b) briefly indicates this insertion : TDIDI ,-j 1 ? itfr ins as 1 ? nvn 1 ?, I'B'DiD BH /^Nifc>' yap. ("?npn> D'IDINI ,"ranx3 a ; ay.

prtn pios yov :im nrm 26 Ibid.: r\hyo 'D^3 inyi D'io3 Nina* "ranio D'oyo. onoiKp nr ]'3& bo Tiyi n^yo 's!?3 inyn o'loa nine or ^33 D'oys a'-im u noii a'ynnoi. Yet in the time of R. Hai this phrase was omitted at his school in Bagdad (see the pass- ages discussed by Mann, REJ., vol. 70, 123, note 1). See also Marmorstein, ibid., vol. 73, pp. 98-9, and my remarks, vol. 74, p. 111. a7 Ibid., p. 135: -p^o'i 1 ? pnp ]'3 yov onnw ]' K'n -too rupni K'n pp -j 1 ? yin mo' ^31 nm'D3i ]'Boioa "?3K ,i3"73 n3p bv nnn nlvDm K*?K io D'D'3 i n33 N"? yni np "?n' yn3 anow ]' vzoy ly : nano 256 JACOB MANN the Palestinian ritual ever became uniform in this respect with the Babylonian rite. On the other hand Gaonic reports of the 9th century trace the insertion of Shema' in the Kedushah to a prohibition of Yezdejerd II. The declaration of the unity of God was obnoxious to the ruling religion of Zoroastrianism with its dualistic concep- tion of the deity. Hence the government forbade the reading of the Shema' in its usual place in the service. As a subterfuge the Hazzan would intone in an unnoticeable manner (ny^nra) the first verse of Shema' as well as the conclusion (as'nV.x 'n '3) within the Kedushah of every service, both on week days and on Sabbaths and festivals. When this decree was annulled and the Shema' could again be fully recited at its proper place, the insertion in the Kedushah was removed from all the services and was only retained at the Musaph of Sabbaths and Festivals as a memorial of the persecution. Sar Shalom, Gaon of Sura (849-53) , in giving substantially the above account, speaks only in a general way of a persecution prohibiting the Shema'. 28 That he referred only to the situation in Babylon is evident from the fact that the daily 'Amidah could be recited because it would offer no objection to the Magians whereas in Palestine it had been proscribed owing to the benediction against heretics (a'ron n J~a) , as stated above (p. 254). But anonymous Gaonic responsa, cited in Shibbole Halleket, 29 give a more specific description of the manner of the cm ]'NP ?NIB>' ptui? nn'jn DUHD ixeo 73N ,nv ?33 nernp 13^3 D'31D D'D'31 n3P3 "? imp. This custom is also borne out by a Gaonic responsum (cited in Tosafot, Sanh. 37b) which gives an Aggadic explanation for it found in i^O'i emo (see REJ., vol. 70, p. 127, note 2). 28 Sar Shalom's responsum is quoted first in 'Amram, ed. Fr., 1, 139b,and is repeated in Vitry, p. 99, ''zn ino, p. 252, par. 504, 'Ittim, 280-81, r'lN, II, lie (22a). The parallel in Pardes, ed. Ehrenreich, p. 312, will be discussed infra. p. 259. The general reference to the persecution is, on'tow "?y mu mrusp 'JDD 1D1N rrn np'y ^3 erp nnp 1 ? nVz' (a well-known euphemism for Israel) *7tnz>' "? '01 nara ]'3 'jim ]'a rvinen n!?sn "733 rrpoys ny"73-3 im rrVp nmN. Sar Shalom speaks here only of the insertion of the Shema' in the Kedushah of Shaharit but the responsa, discussed in next note, clearly mention this insertion at every service. 29 Ed. Buber, p. 38: nuipm 'rmsa ?nnp3 ash nvnVi troys nm 1 ? in: n ( r .y DP> HOP ntnp iip' xbv DIB I^D < r. mnt') TU ,nnn3 ]'3 (r. nrnp> nemp hi ]'3 iy?3n^ upn Jinn CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 257 subterfuge to outwit the authorities by the insertion of Shema' into Kedushah and also by mentioning the occasion as due to the fanaticism of Yezdejerd II. This ruler (438 or 439-457) was notorious for his intolerance both towards Jews and Christians. Several sources of the Gaonic period refer to a persecution against the Jews about 454-5 which involved their being compelled to desecrate the Sabbath. 30 His death is reported to have been caused by the bite of a snake. R. Nahman mentioned in the above responsum is the Amora R. Nahman b. Huna, head of the school of Sura, whose death is reported to have taken place at about the time when Yezde- jerd's persecution began. Hence Halevy may be right in suggest- ing (Tnn, III, 93) to emend pro an niD'3 into pro ai niaa* in accordance with the report of Sherira Gaon and others. Our responsum adds another detail of the persecution, viz. the pro- hibition of the Shema' and the subterfuge of its insertion in the Kedushah. Yezdejerd's death in 457 only brought a temporary respite for the Jews. The rule of his son Peroz (459-484) was fraught with still more severe trials resulting (especially from 469-70 and onwards) in the closing of all schools and synagogues :s'D ,y DP :Npn tny^an 'KDI .313 ora ]'ai napa ]'ai ^ina ]'3 .nmoa j'a ,10133 ]'3 ippai .npirnn 'DD yop nanpn vbv '13 ?ny^ana n-miK 1 ? mip'rt no^i .na'n^n 'n '3 133&D n'33> uapo rrai -\hon iB3^ i-inr im KIDP !?B:I (454/5 Sel. =) Torn DIPS 3'3Pi win an na ]nm ai nn n'^y n'V'^a Kin i'i3 KPTP n'Ki Kn';yn ]m nni. Another version adds: rvmn n^csai rv33PD ]D my^3i. Cp. further Sherira's remark, ibid., p. 96. There are several variants as to the date but the above figure seems to be the most correct one. Cf. further the data given in the several versions of Kan o'jiy -no and D'K-IIDKI D'Kn -no (in Neub., Med. Jew. Chron., I, 177, 184; II, 246, 247, bottom; Marx, Lewy Festschrift, Hebrew part, p. 172). Also a Genizah fragment in Cambridge (T. S. 8 K 22.11) reads: r.3!?n HK ^n 1 ? irnuK ^y o"mD -i"?o mnr nm KJIH an p pm an IDKJ TDPH n. About the date see also Rappaport, ;-^o -\-\y (ed. Warsaw, I, 71 f.) and cf. Schorr, pi^nn, II, 120. 258 JACOB MANN and in kidnapping the Jewish youth by the Magians to initiate them into the religion of Zoroaster. And then the movement of the reformer Mazdak, which had its chief seat in Babylon, only added to the oppression of the Jews till its overthrow in about 528. 31 We may therefore assume that even when the Jews were allowed during these years of intermittent religious intolerance to meet for public service they could not openly proclaim their doctrine of the unity of God and had to make use of the subter- fuge of inserting it in the Kedushah. Indeed, Sherira Gaon speaks of years of persecutions and troubles right down to the close of Persian period (ed. Lewin, p. 99: rro^D *]1D3 nnsi TOP 'J pm 'i3i i'32> no3 iy Nm'nD '3inNi 'pis yapa 1 ? ^hy nn *?i CTDIS) . Hence the freedom of reciting of the Shema' fully at its proper place was probably not regained by the Jews in Babylon till the arrival of the Arabs and not immediately after the death of Yezdejerd II, as the above mentioned responsa would seem to indicate. We have thus two parallel accounts about this change in the liturgy referring to persecutions both in Babylon and in Palestine. The one in Babylon seems to have been the earlier one. Byzan- tium, copying its example from the Magian-ridden government of Persia, probably began to interfere with the Jewish divine service since the times of Justinian. The Jews in Palestine then made use of the same stratagem of inserting the Shema' into the Kedushah as their Babylonian brethren did before them. With the begin- ning of the era of freedom under Muslim rule, however, this innovation was relegated in Babylon only to the Musaph service on Sabbaths and Festivals, whereas in Palestine it remained in the Shaharit service also on these days since the Kedushah was not recited there on weekdays. In Babylon too the prohibition of the Shema' was the cause for its insertion into the passage D^iy 1 ? DIN NIT (as discussed above p. 249 ff.). In our analysis of the accounts we have endeavored to sepa- rate the data relating to Palestine and Babylon respectively in J J The troubles of the Babylonian Jews under Peroz (Njrzn tn'fl) and in consequence of Mazdak's reforms are well known. See also Noldeke, Aufsatze zur pers. Gesch., pp. 106-7, 109, 112-14, and Tabari, pp. 118, note 4, 141 ff., 162 ff., 455 ff., 465. CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 259 order to ascertain their historical veracity. Confusion has been caused by the passage in Pardes (ed. Ehrenhreich, p. 31 2)^ where, inside the responsum of Sar Shalom, Rashi inserted a gloss, which was a reminiscence of the prohibition in Palestine, whereas Sar Shalom no doubt dealt with the one in Babylon (as demonstrated above, p. 256). This whole reminiscence is connected with the obstacle placed before the Jews in Palestine to recite the Trisha- gion (as will be discussed infra, p. 267 ff.). Halberstam OIT^, VI, 1868, pp. 128-130) was on the right track in endeavoring to separate the various accounts and yet Graetz (M. G. W. J., 1887, 550 ff.) follows entirely the version as given in Pardes, without considering at all Halberstam's data, and Krauss (I.e., 33-34) certainly added nothing to the elucidation of the problem. Our above analysis," based on all the reports now available, enables us to comprehend better the occasions that gave rise to the insertion of the Shema' into the Kedushah. Of course all the reports could be discredited by the hypercritical argument of convenient and late allusions to the general hypothesis of notpn nyp. But as long as no other contemporaneous explanation of this liturgical problem is available the later Gaonic reports should be accepted as furnishing us with a more or less reliable tradition. 3. SHEMA' AT THE TAKING OUT OF THE SCROLL. The custom of reciting the first verse of Shema' at the taking out of the Scroll is mentioned first in Soferim 14.8 ff. 34 The whole passage there makes it evident that in the ritual of & After m'oya nylnns <0'p> moiN rvn p'& we read: nnoiK vn nu'xn ^31 .c'yna vni o'jvn oy nanrw nxun (pun on H'D^n> wo-in on ]'ron ira' N^P eri^a D'3,iiNn '3 ,Vipa D'D rroVo (insert n^3p> nm^ D'^i3' vn xh tnon ^'3031 ,-uh y3i into ,nnp^ nr my yaix ly iyr '3 my yaiNi niyp v^v iy DP O'ITIDD rn is it) nsmp onoin vm insai nnoa in' D'soxno Vn'i o'a^in D'anisn vn myp anoiN vn nnpn iinai (viz. m'oyi nmp> nnp onmKi .I'^Vonoi (tnxin nsnp .npnpa v3y nnmN i: 'SD "?3n "131 nanto c'oys. About Rashi's mention of these "watchers" (detectives) in the synagogues see also infra, pp. 259, with regard to the Kedushah itself, and p. 299, with regard to the blowing of the Shofar. See also Mann, REJ., vol. 70, p. 125, note 1. '3'n .mi.i nso *?v yoca ?noK yov ir 'N3 .yor y DIID in '3)3 3'nto ,-]n'3 '3v npi Kviz. TODD nms 260 JACOB MANN the author of Soferim the taking out of the Scroll was the occasion of a solemn ceremony including the proclamation of God's unity and emphasizing the Trishagion in the same sense. The com- bination of the Trishagion with the Shema' had clearly a polemi- cal point against Christianity (as will be shown infra, p. 270 ff.). It is difficult to ascertain when and where this custom arose. If the ritual of Soferim reflects that of Palestine, which is not always the case, then this whole custom goes back to an early time before Christian Byzantium censored the divine service of the syna- gogue. It may be taken for granted that when the state objected to the reading of the Shema' altogether the ceremony of n"D JiNXin had to be curtailed omitting at least the first verse of Shema' and the following Trishagion. The very reading of the Shema' in this connection was based upon a novel interpretation of the Mishnah (Meg. 4.5 : yap hy DTIS tfin 'an -roson) which seems to have found little acceptance, the author of Soferim himself mentioning the usual explanation that the Shema' there meant the regular Shema' of Shaharit (14.13: "IDN'P yntP hy oils N" 1 ! n&npl Tl "GCV, i. e. Kedushah of Yoser!) 35 The very fact that Shema' at n"D ntfnn is connected with the Maftir shows that it was only done on Sabbaths and Festivals. The custom originally spread to Italy only for the three Festivals but Abraham, the father of the author of V"raB>, introduced it for all Sabbaths and Festivals. 36 From there it was adopted in Bohemia (]y jnN) but not in western Germany which in this respect was alike to the French ritual where it is missing. 37 Also the Spanish ritual minn rm TDSDH rniNi (viz. ^a'nn bw 0:33 TD (citing several verses) ".31 '" . . .DYI^N triN now -mm .mrm miN piy oyn INI no'yia |iz>Nin pins . . .yoe> now .'JIN '"'7 iVnaai nv*?v ]iin" iVai ^>NIZ>' yoioa minn HK See Muller's note 25 on p. 190. # ^"naip ed. Buber, p. 56, par. 77: 13 nnp> n"o ]''xioa o"vi yov ,0'p^iy *73 npi Tax niia nxi] nain nm ,TTN'I mm nv ny o'ri nirgj annpa ,'iai onsio 'DD3 iyoi IDD I:NXDI ,jn:an 37 Or Zaru'a, II, 19a: noii ^'p *?'nna e>' on Vipa 'mi nnio n' 1 ? namn n'o a'nKi ,'ia mnx T,a^n ]'3iyi irn^n irm noix airi .mnn nnsn CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 261 omits the Shema' at the taking out of the Scroll because it has not been mentioned by 'Amram whose Siddur became basic for Spain. We have thus a remnant of a polemical asseveration of the Monotheistic doctrines of Judaism limited to a certain time in Palestine and adopted only by a small part of the diaspora, probably only after its re-insertion in Palestine with the conquest of the Arabs. 4. SHEMA IN MA'ARIB. It is not recorded what substitute for the Shema' in Ma'arib, which must have also been proscribed both in Babylon and in Palestine respectively just as in Shaharit, the Jewish authorities found it appropriate to suggest to the people needing guidance in the times of trial and intolerance. However, it is significant that in the Palestinian ritual for 2>"xio there is a section of Tahanunim at end of Ma'arib service including the first verse of Shema' fol- lowed by 100 N~nn amp irin "?n3 irn^N inx just as is the case with the insertion of Shema' before ~IDSP "|i"n in the same ritual (see Mann, p. 324, and cp. pp. 281 and 319). Who knows whether this whole liturgy did not originate at the time when the regular Shema' of Ma'arib was forbidden in Palestine and hence it was recited privately and later on it was retained in the public service? However, in the Babylonian and in other rituals it is entirely missing though some sort of Taljanun accompanied by Q'sx nV'SJ was permitted by Sar Shalom Gaon (see 'Amram, ed. Fr., I, 193b, top, cf. also Elbogen, 105-6). The custom of Shema' at bedtime (nDDn hy E>"p) does not seem to bear on the problem discussed in this paper and therefore it will not be considered here (see Ginzberg, Geon. I, 135 ff., and Mann, 287-88). II CHANGES DUE TO THE OPPOSITION AGAINST THE KEDUSHAH (TRISHAGION). 1. The Trishagion was invested with much solemity in the divine service of the synagogue. Isaiah's majestic imagery of the 'DIXI n'o N'xiai vip TOW nV'sn y'v tours N^N nr jnao or6 TN oiri ':ai . . ."n TIN or 1 ? DJI rmn o'piDD I'oio avhv "? iHn:o^ -\co w> ansio '0021 "3 VIN 'n^> i"?i3 .ann 'vt rmnpn -irw^i muo 1 ? yo&oi .a'pioon I^K *?D naiK rvn TUDonp yovo The last deduction is evidently incorrect. 262 JACOB MANN angels proclaiming God's holiness three times in succession (ch. 6.3) suggested to have this sanctification proclaimed also on earth in the synagogue of Israel. To this there was added the sentence which Ezekiel during his vision heard the beings of the Chariot proclaim in eulogy of God (ch. 3.12). The mystically inclined in Israel used this idea of the parallel sanctification of God both on high and on earth to weave around it dramatic fancies depicting the great stir caused among the heavenly hosts when Israel pronounced the Trishagion. The words of God's sanctification uttered by Israel in its synagogues became the material out of which the angels on high were weaving a crown to be placed on the head of the Creator (cf. "im if? urr inn). Already in Hullin 91b, bottom, the Kedushah of the angels is stated to be dependent on the Kedushah of Israel (so in MS. Munich: ntDD 1 ? nT ^Nitf' raswv iy rbynh rrvv pois errta i'Ni)." a Three groups of angels are supposed to take their turn daily when reciting the Trishagion, the first one starting with Sanctus, the second repeating it twice and the third one three times finishing off the whole verse as given in Isaiah whereas Ezek. 3.12 is recited by the Ofanim and the Hayyot. 38 From this Talmudic passage it would seem that the Trishagion in heaven was recited only once daily and yet in the synagogue the custom developed to repeat the Trishagion three times daily. Thus in Targum Sheni (to ch. 5.1) we read in Esther's prayer: ID" p .KO^y p ]ny htrw ]^i por nWi NDV ^zo 0np Brnp emp -pip. This threefold recitation is also mentioned several times in the mystical writings, cited first by the Geonim but probably dating from earlier times (the so- called Hekhalot writings). 39 Of these three occasions two would 3?a In the so-called Pirke of R. Eliezer (in Pseudo-Seder Eliahu Zuta, ed. Friedmann, p. 47) this statement is attributed to R. Eliezer the son of R. Yose the Galilean. 38 Cf. Hullin 92a top n^> nai Kin a']Di "|Tn.. See 'Amram, ed. Warsaw, I, 4b, where the passage is attributed to R. Ishmael and where it ends D'jsiNm IDT -p-Q DmnN piy enipn nvm, and 10b v 39 See Hekhalot Rabbati (in Eisenstein's D'amo 1X1N, I, lllb ff) 3.2; 3.3: ;rnp ns 1 ? onmn l ?n'B> nya np noi 1 ? art's ]nms ...or "733 D'oy ch. 9. 2-3: nnrw nVsm neny 'JN na 'V iTini nown D njpiD mr D'DiP 1 ? D'oye '3 . . .np '2s 1 ? onoiti !?mp'p ny ^aai m ^33 rraiyi nn;on np ':s^ onmn QT\WD (the parallel passage in 'Amram I, 4a, rightly omits CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 263 be the Kedushot of Shaharit and Minhah 40 whereas the third is dubious. Actually the Babylonian ritual has in the daily Shaharit alone three Kedushot, viz. inn rramp, m'Djn rramp and rramp toiDi, which with the Minhah Kedushah increase the occasions to four. On Sabbaths, including the tmoi nzmp recited on P'SID, the number grows to six. 41 This increase is traced to times of persecution and will be discussed forthwith after considering first the importance of the Trishagion in the Christian liturgy. 2. In the Christian liturgy the Trishagion (or Teisanctus) also has a prominent role. It is interesting that in the Eastern liturgies 42 the proper Trishagion has the following remarkable form: Holy God, holy strong, holy immortal, have mercy upon us (ay LOS 6 6e6s, #7105 iaxvpbs, 0,7105 adavaros, eXerjcrev ri/jias). Drews (in Herzog-Hauck, Realienencyklopddie f. prot. Theol. u. Kirche,3rd ed.,XX, 125 ff.), while rightly arguing that the Trisha- gion was taken over by the Church from the Jewish liturgy going back to the earliest times (ibid 127, 1. 19 ff.) 43 , has difficulty in explaining the above form of the Trishagion (ibid., p. 128). A legend connects its origin with an earthquake in Constantinople the word ivanyi; see also ^"TUP, eel. Buber, p. 19); ch. 10, end; 11.3: inrn m^y jnna DVI ov ^oa; 11.4: nmon n^sn yjna on or ^33; 18.3. The theme of the Kedushah of the angels being dependent on the Kedushah of Israel is further developed ibid., p. 122b, 123a, b. Another mystical text (ibid. HOa) speaks of angels reciting the Trishagion from morning to evening while others repeating ina from evening to morning. This idea is found already in S.E.R., ed. Friedmann, pp. 34, 84, 163, 193. Cf. also Midr. Ps., c. 19, ed. Buber, p. 166. Already in the book of Enoch (39.12) we read of angelic "watchers" ("those that never sleep" = ]'i*y) who recite the Trisha- gion before God. * See preceding note. 41 See Elbogen, p. 67. 42 Cf. the so-called early liturgy of James (in Writings of Ante-Nicene Fathers, VII, p. 538, col. 2) and the so-called liturgy of Mark (ibid., p. 553, col. 1). See also p. 557. Osterley in his new book ( The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy, Oxford, 1925, pp. 142-147) has entirely failed to consider the problem discussed here. Drews (p. 127, 11. 50-51) is of course incorrect in assuming that the Trishagion was recited already in the time of Jesus in the first benediction before the Shema', hence the so-called ism nnp (see infra, p. 274). The earliest Kedushah was the one in connection with the third benediction of the 'Amidah known as am rump. 264 JACOB MANN between the years 434-446. Drews thinks that it is older than the 5th century and yet cannot be granted much antiquity. "It is certainly not Jewish in origin because to call God adavaros is not Jewish but Greek. However why just this combination of the attributes "strong" and "immortal" was chosen and why this formula was afforded a place in the mass, is impossible to explain." An examination of the Targumic paraphrase of Is. 6.3 will, however, reveal the fact that the above form of the Trishagion is a re-formulation of the Targumic form in the sense of the Trinity. That Is. 6.3 was taken by the Christian divines to refer to the trinity is well-known (so, e. g., Origen and Gregory Nazianzen). 4 * The trinitarian interpretation of the Trishagion is also evident from the fact that all Eastern Christian liturgies have the end of the verse of Is. 6.3 (maa pn *?3 vbo) in the form "heaven and earth are full of Thy glory" (see Drews, ibid, p. 126, 1. 15ff., who offers no explanation for the leaving out of "?D, iraaa}. It seems to me that this was taken to refer to Jesus sitting in heaven at the right hand of God. It was at a time, when Christianity was not yet triumphant in the Roman Empire so that "the whole earth" could not yet be full of Jesus' glory, that in the Christian liturgy this sentence was remodeled in a general way to denote "heaven and earth are full of thy glory." Be that as it may, Targum paraphrases Is. 6.3 in the following threefold division : 'QBD .rrmiaa iaiy Njnx "?y trip ,rpnra rva nt&y mp vr KJHN "?:> ioV mtax '"' ,'0^y. It is remarkable that in the second sanctus reference is made to the earth "the work of His power (5&?a/us)" and in the third we have an allusion to his everlastingness. That the attributes "strong" and "immortal" (i. e. everlasting) in the second and third Christian sanctus re- spectively are parallels to God's "power" and "everlastingness" in the Targum is strikingly evident. Of course in the Targum these attributes are conceived in a sense of the absolute unity of God whereas in the Christian formula of the Trishagion they assume aspects of the Trinity. Without going into a discussion of the complicated development of the idea of the Trinity, it suf- fices to state that Jesus was regarded as the incarnation on earth 44 See Diestel, Gesch. d. Allen Testaments in d. Christl. Kirche, p. 122. CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 265 of God's Logos and that the Holy Spirit formed a third element through the fellowship of which the believer became united with Jesus (see Hasting's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, s. v. Trinity, XII, 458, col. 2, top.). 35 Now the Logos idea, was taken over from Philo who termed the Logos "the power (dvvot.iJ.Ls) of God or the acting divine wisdom." 46 In Christian thinking Jesus became "the power and the wisdom of God" (so Paul in 1 Cor. 1.24: xP^^ov deov ^vvafj-LV Kaideov (7O(f>Lav, see also verse 18). Hence in the second sanctus "holy strong" alludes to Jesus the embodiment of God's power (dynamis) while in the third "holy immortal" refers to the Holy Spirit by which the believers share in immortality. 3. The above Targumic paraphrase has an evident polemical point. It has a distinct allusion of to the idea of God's "power" (nTDJ, fivvajjiis) which was connected with the Philonic Logos. 47 45 See further Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, 4th ed., p. 213 ff. 46 About Philo's idea of the Logos see Zeller, Philosophie der Griechen, 4th ed. (1903), III, 2, pp. 418 ff. See also p. 417 about Philo's idea of two chief forces immanent in the Supreme Being the one being His mercy and the other His power; the former being the creative, beneficient, gracious and merciful force, the second being the royal, legislative and punishing force. God's mercy is called 6e6s while His power Kvpios. This is akin to the Rabbinic idea of D'om mo and |'in mo the former being designated by the Tetragram- maton and the second by Elohim (see, e.g., Gen. R., c. 33: mo 'n 1D3 mpo ^>33 (]'in mo Nin DTI^N TD: aipo ^>33 . . . o'om About the various conceptions of the "great dynamis" of God, the Logos, see further M. Friedlander, Synagoge u. Kirche, pp. 9, 77, 84, 88, 90, 93, 129-30, 226 ff. 47 Of course God is frequently spoken of in the Bible as "mighty" (im) and so also in the Talmudic literature; cf. e.g. the characteristic passage in Yoma 69b, as to what constitutes God's power (mu}) in connection with the phrase at the beginning of the 'Amidah mum inn ^n:n ^n (cf. Deut. 10.17). But the allusion in Targum to the world as "the work of His power" (nvnua tniy) is evidently a reference to the "great dynamis," the Logos, which Philo regarded as the instrument by which God created the whole world. (See the references cited by Zeller, ibid., p. 420, note 1). The influence of Philo's idea of the dynamis can also be detected in the attribute mi33 recurring many times in the Rabbinic literature as a synonym for God (see e. g., Makk. 24a, top: mayor mian 'DO rrrv K^I 'D3; Sabb. 88b: mi3jn 'BD NX'IP -IUHI -inn "73 parallel to n'npn 'Do N2' -nam inn ^3 As is well-known the dynamis plays a role in the Kabbalah as one of the ten ema- nations (Sefirot). However, the matter cannot be discussed here in detail. 266 JACOB MANN When it originated is difficult to say. Of course the Targum on the Prophets is traditionally attributed to Hillel's prominent disciple, Jonathan b. 'Uzziel (first half of 1st century, C. E., Meg. 3a). It is assumed that this Targum was adopted in Babylon in the third century as the official translation of the synagogue and that it was revised there to meet the linguistic pecularities of the Babylonian Aramaic. The Amora R. Joseph of Pumbedita seems especially to have devoted attention to this Targum, doing per- haps the revision work, and hence it is sometimes cited in his name (see Bacher, /. ., XII, 61a, b). Whatever may be the veracity of the tradition assigning the Targum on Prophets to Jonathan, the above paraphrase could hardly emanate from him as it is unlikely that he already would allude to the Philonic Logos, not to speak of going further to combat the Christian idea of Trinity which was yet in its embryo. But it is evident that this paraphrase was used in the synagogue in connection with the Trishagion to combat the idea of the Trinity. It is significant that in the so-called N~nDT nKTTp, whose origin is connected with a persecution prohibiting the recital of the Kedushah (to be dis- cussed forthwith), Is. 6.3 is given in Hebrew together with this Targumic paraphrase (and likewise the accompanying verse of Ezek. 3.12). Already R. Na^ronai Gaon (6th decade of 9th century) was asked for a reason for this Aramaic translation of the Kedushah (^"J, No. 90) who, however, failed to give a satisfactory answer (as will be shown further on). The reason after our above discussion is self-evident. It was to emphasize the Jewish inter- pretation of the Trishagion as against the Trinity. Later on the Targumic paraphrase was recited softly (WlVa) as it was found in Christian countries advisable not to proclaim in a loud voice (D~I "?lp2) such a manifest public declaration of faith. 48 That the spokesmen of the church, powerful in Byzantium < 8 See Vitry, pp. 73-4: (nr ^N nr topi ,'nna nxr 'JNI ,]v^ tui> i^n nnnpn ' '131 |'i ]o |'i I'VapDi ,iu'xn ay vnhi INBTTI DI ^ips Tirx rv^z> TDIN. Graetz, M. G. W. J., 1887, 553, rightly surmised the polemical point contained in the Aramaic paraphrase without, however, realizing its full significance. Yet he expressly threw out his suggestion for further examination by others (see p. 552, bottom). CHANGES IN THE SIVINE SERVICE 267 which ruled over Palestine, should have objected to this Jewish emphasis of the Trishagion is only natural. Indeed several reports speak of the prohibition of the Kedushah a substitute for which was found by the Rabbis in the NTIDI rramp beginning with iVX 1 ? 101 in order to circumvent the decree of the govern- ment. The term N~nD~T n&'np occurs only once in the Babylonian Talmud (Sotah 49a) without any indication of its contents. One could argue that there the term means the Kaddish which, as is evident from the phraseology of the Gaonim, also was connected with the act of sanctifying God. 49 It would fit in there in the context, viz. that after the study of a Halakhic theme (toiD) 50 in the synagogue the full Kaddish was recited beginning with tnpm ^Tin' whereas after an Aggadic theme (NfiTiN), viz. a sermon delivered by the preacher, who usually concluded his theme with a reference to the Redemption (n^iw or nom) expressing his prayerful wish that it speedily arrive, the last word of the speaker "Amen" would be taken up by the listeners with the exclamation '01 N3T mo rr p. SI 4. However, there is evidently a genuine tradition behind the identification of NTTDT rrcmp with the section known in the ritual as }V^7 N31, though the real meaning of the term seems to me to have been hitherto misunderstood. Let us at first cite what the authorities of the Gaonic period reported as to its 49 See R. Natronai's responsum (in ^') No. 90): J'^BIJI ]'^Drn vnzo n'n .mina ]'P 01 JM (read ]'Bnpo> jznpo J'nxi ...<'ip D'IOINI=> 1'inpoi )rv:B *?y Likewise in 'Amram, ed. Warsaw, 18a: 'tib'yh. ty znpDl; 19a; if'v enpoi; 25b: 'o-by ny. ly enpci; 29b; n'"?n npo nsinn DVD int^i; see also 30a, 31a. 50 NIID here would then mean niu^n nno. Thus a scholar who knew how to present the Halakhot in order was called ]~\~\o (]~\T\O, see Bacher, Exege- tische Terminologie, II, 136). As is well known, in Babylon, before it had its two organised schools in the 3rd century, the leader of the scholars in Nehardea was called tmo B>n (see Sherira's Letter, ed. Lewin, 78, 80). 51 The full faddish after study of Halakhot seems to be indicated in S. E. R., ed. Friedmann, p. 31: yorh yivi D'airoi D''3)i mm :HN toip HJIPP 'D 1 ? -|nx. On the other hand cf. Kohel. R., 9.15: nni arv jpmp ^njn IOP vr |DK vnn piyi (cf. Midr. Prov. c. 10, ed. Buber, 66) and still more explicitly in Midr. Prov., c. 14 (ed. Buber, 75):]'BDx: ^top'z* nyra nvou T33 268 JACOB MANN meaning and its origin. On the one hand its origin is ascribed to a persecution which involved the prohibition of the Kedushah. Thus in a responsum evidently emanating from Semahi b. Paltoi, Gaon of Pumbedita (872-890 C. E.), where it is not indicated which Kedushah was proscribed. 52 The same account is found in a more expanded form in Or Zaru'a (II, lie) where it is cited as a quotation from myixpnn "ISD.SJ There is further an account, evidently not Gaonic, which connected NTFDI rrcmp with the pro- hibition of the reading of the Torah with its Aramaic translation 54 a seemingly absurd combination which, however, will be seen further on to have its own explanation. On the other hand R. Natronai of Sura tries to connect this Kedushah with the former custom of extensive study by scholars after the service which study had to be given up owing to econ- omic reasons in order that the worshippers be not detained too 52 D-nsn 'BipV, 9a, where the passage or\hxvv\ seems to be a continuation of the previous responsum by Isaac $emah (b. Pal^oi), Gaon of Pumbedita (971- 90). It reads: "? nyenn mzj^D rnn nn oys ?ITDI ntzmp onoiN nab :nn"?i via 1 ? ]'DJ3J vn 3'riNi ,]'3^im n^snn ]'0"DD0 ty IVD^D 'mW ]av vm ,smp "?n' TIDN' pVnon xbv H3 yxoN3 nernp j'Wiai 'arm 'pios < r. JHDIXD 'ONI nViwa I'nms vn nvD on'BD. The following passage, beginning with '31^ HNI^, is Rashi's explanation, who tried to unify the various accounts, as will be seen forthwith. This responsum does not state which Kedushah was prohibited. Only Rashi explains that it refers to the Kedushah of 'Amidah evidently taking the phrase n'rsnn |'D"DD to mean the 'Amidah whereas it really means the whole service. Rashi's explanation is also repeated in Vitry, 108; Siddur Rashi, 217-18; Pardes, ed. Ehrenreich, 305-6. See also b'niv, p. 38. Also R. Isaac Ab-Bet- Din of Narbonne (^iDn, I, 33) took over Rashi's explanation but for the.Targumic paraphrase gives an explanation that it was done for ignorami. He then gives another explanation for tmoi nnp which shows how uncertain he was in understand- ing the whole matter. 53 no'D 1 ? *7i nynn nia^o (r. mn> nn DJ nnp -non myixpon nsoa nnD myi IPJ iy no .nemp nnpi 'piDB now ,]noi JH ID ]H j'Vapoi nirnp 1 ? n 1 ? ]'onnoi I'-inm ,p w pp .'i3i mnni nay vinrw " In Kobak's Jeschurun, Hebrew part, VI, 126-7, Halberstam edited from a MS. a passage evidently emanating from R. Eli'ezer Rokeah, who first cited a Gaonic responsum (D'ji)n mawro 'HNXO) about this Kedushah (similar to R. Na^ronai's in b'l, No. 90) and then adds: N^>P nyznn ms^o mn uyo -nyi npi noi 1 ?! iioron "73 mx nra 'n -jiy noi^ nna D'DDn lyapi lonn'i mina ,'nn '3ni ,nr CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 269 long in synagogue when due to attend to their making a living. 55 The whole account does not explain in the least the insertion of the Kedushah after the completion of the ordinary Tefillah whether we consider the earlier custom or the later one and yet this has been taken by modern scholars as a true explanation of rramp KTiDT.. 56 Rashi tried to combine both accounts and only added to the confusion of the problem. The two verses Is. 6.3 and Ezek. 3.12, to which R. Natronai clearly refers as having been retained even after the reading from the prophets had been given up, became to Rashi ]vxb ai and TVU nw i whereas the Ke- dushah verses themselves were really due to a persecution. 57 The same unwarranted combination of the different accounts we have noticed above (p. 359) in connection with the insertion of the Shema' in the Kedushah of the 'Amidah. Now if the Ked- ushah has also been prescribed by Byzantium, what becomes then of the report of the insertion of Shema' within it by reason of gov- 55 ^ - ] No. 90: DP v oyD no ,nn 'jtwrn ,nato nr *?n nr tnpi anbxvv inontsj ai 1 ? as if it could be called nennp -no> ?nemp -noa o'aan anunyap oyo nailDnn^innp 1 ? on':D 1 7y|' 1 7DUi]' l 7 l 7Bnavn!P3n > nopp'POipa:o':iis>N-i rua -p (without these verses 1'annai ,-irv in ton p ,0'piDD '' ia riipi waj j'trao '131 n'a Nrv JON piyp -mx 1 ? . ,R'a: *?v nens nm iann DD j'Dnnai IBKI nr ^ nr ipi nnois 3 (r. I'npa) ]npa a'ni ,n'apn ^w inaua D"D^ 'ia ini ponnai nn ': nvjy nnaip ]'DI . . .poiy no^na nxnn ,poi; n:D3 nxnn ,mina npyi . . .njBi topa laryi ia^a na^nn hy iaao: on'T npyoa ononn^ D'TD^n npy "? D'pios 'jr JHIN N'zua nnp^ npyp fl'yNi ,nVsn inn ov "?aa wuia nnp 1 ? p'pp 'n nr^ra nernpp anp'y K^ na 'ai .onaiyi D'yup 1'nyi amw The same responsum is ascribed in n'r, No. 55, to Hai. See further Vitry, p. 26. s 6 See Elbogen, 79, and Ginzberg, Geonica, II, 299. s' Cf. the whole passage in onon 'Dip 1 ?, 9a: onow u*w nrnpn nior an^ nn: firm mi3t3 npnp may 1 ? K"?P ana pran nw nup'n nan nyra npaa ]i'x^ ai -]ina nprrp hv iV^n mwipa anai vn D'aninn ora ij 1 ?,! naar ny& inil?i .nisna n' 1 ima an in'^ (so Rashi realized the point against the Trinity). Then he begins to recapitulate the other argument: rraa nn nyr ninr 1 ? jnja on^ n'n n^nnai ITS'? 3i D'piDD ': i^> K'aa ]mp vn a'Dyi ,npy 'aia "?a '121 on^Dn nn nonn ...aaipaa D'yup on |"nyi ...minn nwnp (read ]'ya> ]'a ona r'r Tina ntr 'o ,^KU vn "? (read ina> nar oycjn inr IBKI nr h nr npi DV ^aa nai^ iD'oin ny 'IDT c vn D'aniKn 'jaa nn n3'on3 n^onn "|ina nrnp nai^ i^is 1 . See further the parallel passages given above, note 52, end. 270 JACOB MANN ernment prohibition? No wonder then that owing to this vicious circle all the accounts relating to 10-M nyv have been suspected by modern scholars. 5. In my opinion N~r?D~ nBTip originally meant in Palestine the Trishagion recited after the Shema' at the taking out of the Scroll on Sabbath mornings for the purpose of reading the portion ("no, N~nD) of the respective week. That the weekly portion of the Torah in the Triennial Cycle prevalent in Palestine was known as KT1D is well established (see, e.g., the references given by Bacher, Exeget. Terminologie, II, 134). What more appro- priate psychological occasion could there be for emphasizing the doctrine of the unity of God than at the taking out the Torah that very Torah which Christianity claimed to have been super- seded by the new dispensation to recite the first verse of the Shema' and in connection therewith to reiterate the Trishagion with its Targumic paraphrase as not indicating the Trinity but rather being in accord with the strict Jewish conception of mono- theism? Thus quite early in the Christian period the spiritual leaders of Palestinian Jewry must have ordained to bring em- phatically the basic principle of Judaism to the notice of the wor- shippers assembled for the divine service on Sabbath morning. Then came the reading of the Torah with its Aramaic translation, likewise the prophetic lesson with its Aramaic Aggadic para- phrase and finally on the basis of the Scriptural readings the preaching and teaching of the Rabbis ending usually in depicting the Messianic age or alluding to the coming of the redeemer to Zion (^N13 ]V^7 N3i) which the worshippers would fervently take up with "pus Km rPDP N;T JDN eulogising God as above all human praises and pictures of consolation of Israel (NrD~Q hsa vb'tff Knorai NnratPin ,Km'zn). a Now that some such introduction and conclusion of the Scriptural readings were in vogue in the Palestinian ritual can still be detected from the scattered data. Above (p. 259 ff.) the 57& These four words indicate the contents of the service preceding this eulogy of God, viz. the various benedictions, the lectionaries from Scripture and the other praises, which were recited from the beginning of the morning service till the sermon of the preacher which contained 'consolations' (mom) probably in connection with the Haftarah of the week. CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 271 insertion of Shema' at n"D n^nn, preserved in Soferim, 14.8-9, has been discussed. It was based on a characteristic interpreta- tion of the passage in the Mishnah yo? *?? oils ton N'an Tason. Now Soferim continues to describe this ceremony of taking out the Scroll by stating that after the Shema' the Maf^ir con- tinues with a formula which resembles the Trishagion (14.10: ,ynp wans mm irn^ IHN ,Bmp ITJIIK ^vu wrk* ins 101x1 mm IDS? sun t/np Wins Vila irn^s in**)* 8 . The author explains this threefold sanctification to correspond to the three patriarchs (HUH ne^P ma) but more correct is the alternative reason as corresponding to the threefold sanctus (m. The ritual in Soferim evidently represents already a modi- fication by actually omitting the Trishagion with its Targu- mic paraphrase. This was the modified form already during the Muslim period after the vicissitudes of the custom as a result of the government proscription in the Byzantine period. For, such a custom as suggested above must have strongly offended the authorities when Byzantium became the champion of the Church. It is difficult to ascertain when the government stepped in to regulate the Jewish divine service according to its notions. The first definite information dates from 553 when Justinian issued his famous Novella concerning the Deuterosis (though other inter- ferences may be earlier). As a supplement of this edict then the Shema' and Kedushah (iNiioi nenip) at the taking out of the 58 The usual editions of Mas. Soferim have shortened this threefold sancti- fication but one MS. and the quotation in Or Zaru'a have the full text (see Miiller's note 39 on p. 195) which is evident also from 14.11; r\vbv pun" I^K. Interesting is the reference to God as "merciful" in view of the Christian version of the Trishagion ending with "have mercy upon us" (above p. 263)! 59 To explain that the author refers to the three Kedushot recited on Sabbath morning (]oio n0npi nnrw nv.tp ,-ixvi rwnp) would pre-suppose him following the Babylonian custom for which there is no evidence. In Palestine Kedushah was only recited in the Shaharit 'Amidah while irvn nzmp is also missing in the Genizah liturgical fragments of the Palestinian ritual (see infra, p. 274). 272 JACOB MANN Scroll had to be omitted. With the preachings of the Rabbis also proscribed, the subsequent Kaddish with tan rrov Nrp ]DX went too. Hence the report in the name of R. Benjamin b. Abraham 'Anav (the same who reported about the insertion of Shema' in Di Nrp D^iy 1 ?, above p. 247) of a prohibition of the Kaddish in the Hebrew language. 60 The reason given is not very convincing but the tradition of a proscription of "pino hran lo NIT pN seems to have some plausible basis because it followed the preachings (Deuterosis) of the Rabbis. 61 Our explanation of NTTDI namp as the Trishagion recited at n"D riNXin explains also its reported con- nection with the prohibition of the reading and the translating of the Torah (above p. 268). The ordinary Kedushah in the 'Amidah of Sabbath Shaharit was probably not proscribed as it contained merely Is. 6.3 and Ezek. 3.12 to which Christianity could not object as it too was having the Trishagion in its liturgy. It was therefore used by the Rabbis as a place wherein to insert the beginning and the end of the Shema' which had been prohibited. It was done secretly and slurred over in the intonation of the Hazzan (as described above, pp. 252). But the tmcn mzmp found now its place in ]V^? tai which was probably instituted at Sabbath Minhah before n"np. 6ia 60 b'niv, ed. Buber, p. 9: (cf. N'3n, ed. Hurwitz, p. 6d)I: i"i: TIN ]'D'3a 'am ^N-i0' ny ^aae> N*7N iiy N^I :rbyiJ? iriotw 103 nay jiz^a nn'n im'DN nVnnp tana rtD33i , '0'31 .HtH ]TO"?3 NSD3 mi 1x1 "? ,non (read ^tja^) n'raaB' s'yxi .ia ]'TDD D'a'iNn rn vbv 'DIN ]i"?a .nai^ 'aaiB mj;^ nai mn^Bini D'DJH inane" "?& na nay iir^a w 1 ? nann -ivnn^ The French authorities did not know of such an explanation. Hence Tosafot (Ber. 3a bottom) explains n'y iiaya ninn ]iw^a ]pn: npn whereas another, rather mystical, reason is given on account of the "serving angels" (Pardes, ed. Ehrenreich, p. 326: wrv vbv na ?'ipn 'DTN ]iVa onoi no 1 ? :DI "?x' OKI ]r a 'n-m ]iw^a onm UN -ja 1 ? .o^iyn nN lain' NDE> non Nin n'apn "? io v'n^o '131 na'ra p'n 1 ? N"?N p'ao, see also onsn 'Dip 5 ?, 7d, 8a). Cf. further Abudra- ham, ed. Prague 1794, 21b bottom, 22b. 61 See also Pool, The Old Jewish-Aramaic Prayer, the Kaddish, 1909, p. 20. fiia With regard to ]Vsh N31 on Sabbath Minhah there was a difference of custom in Babylon ; in Sura and all over Babylon it was recited after the read- ing of the Torah whereas only in the school of Pumbedita this was done before n'np (see Genizah responsum cited by Mann, 317, note 108: '30 naa nmoa Nai nN p nriNi miru ]mp nVia ^3aai (i. e. Sura) ibv na'0'a :v ]'3H3D CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 273 This service was not watched by the government as it contained nothing objectionable. The above whole ceremony in connection with the taking out of the Scroll was only at Shaharit as evident from the fact that it was assigned to the Maftir. There was no Haftarah in Palestine at Sabbath Minhah (unlike Babylon, see infra, p. 282 ff.). Hence the authorities could be outwitted by having at Minhah ]VX*? tai with Kedushah and its Targumic paraphrase. This explains the reports that people would assemble again in the synagogue (see notes 52 and 53), viz. for Minhah service after having had their Sabbath meals soon after midday. 62 Thus N~non rramp was originally a Palestinian custom for Minhah on Sabbaths. In Babylon there was no need for the whole ceremony at ri"o nNinn because her Jewry had not the same problem of emphasizing the unity of God in the Trishagion. The insertion of Shema' at the taking out of the Scroll was probably never adopted there because the Mishnah D"ns Kin N'3H Tason yotp *?y was interpreted differently (see above p. 260). Moreover since Yezdejerd's prohibition of the Shema' (above p. 256) it was not found advisable to add it at the taking out of the Scroll as it might endanger the whole reading of the Torah. Hence it is not mentioned in the Babylonian ritual in this connection though IDP Kim amp irarw *?nj wn 1 inx is still preserved in 'Amram (ed. Warsaw, p. I, 24a) as a relic of the Palestinian custom (or it may be it was taken over later on in the Muslim period). But npnp in ]vx"? N3i, as it had been evolved in Palestine, found niy ny 'OIK- j'npoi (viz. ]rx ton tovro NID imp Nma DID ru'&'ai j'snpoi mira ompi (viz. end of Kaddish). It seems that Pumbedita followed here the Palestinian custom as was the case also with another liturgi- cal item, viz. D^iy nann and not nan nant< as the beginning of the second benediction before Shema' (see Mann, 291). 62 The custom of holding the Sabbath morning service till noon is reported by Josephus (Vita, 54, 279), in describing the political meeting held in a synagogue (proseucha) at Tiberias on a Sabbath (evidently in connection with the service) during his governorship in Galilee (67 C. E.) which grew excited and "had certainly gone into tumult, unless the sixth hour (i.e. noon-time) which has now come, had dissolved the assembly, at which hour our laws require us to go to dinner on Sabbath-days." Cf. further R. Joshua's statement with regard to Yom Tob (Besah 15b): D3 1 ? rxm 'n^ rxn inp^n. For this arrange- ment evidently the description of the service on 1. Tishri in Neh. 8. 3, 10-12, served as a model. 274 JACOB MANN entrance in Babylon and it was even introduced for weekdays after Shaharit. There set in a desire of having three times Kedushah in Shaharit (viz. inn ntpnp, nTDjn rwnp and rmip NTTDT). 63 Altogether the Trishagion for mystical purposes was more solemn in the Babylonian ritual than in the Palestinian. Thus Abraham Maimuni reports that in the Babylonian syna- gogue in Fustat the Kedushah of the 'Amidah was recited standing whereas in the Palestinian synagogue sitting (see J.Q.R., V, 421-2). This difference in custom evidently went back to earlier times as prevalent in the respective countries Babylon and Palestine. 64 Moreover in Palestine the Kedushah was at all omitted during weekdays (see above, p. 255, note 37) though this may have been a result of the proscription of the daily 'Amidah. Also Kedushah of Yoser is missing in the Palestinian ritual and seems more likely to be a Babylonian innovation (see Mann, pp. 289-90). 6. This seems to me to be the only plausible explanation of this whole complicated problem of NTFDI n^np. It reconciles the various accounts and renders them more or less intelligible. There remains only to discuss briefly the passage in Sotah 49a wherein this Kedushah is mentioned as a unicum. The Mishnah (48a) contains a statement by Simon b. Gamliel, in the name of Joshu'a b. Hananya, that since the destruction of the Temple no day passes without some evil event ("a TNP DV ]'N p"ora mntP DVD rpVp) evidently referring to conditions in Palestine. Thereupon Raba, head of the school of Mehtiza in Babylon (337-352 C. E.), remarks that the curse of each succeeding day is greater than that of the previous one (49a : nun h&D iri77p rana on DV 73:1) . Now conditions of Jewish life in Babylon were not so bad in his time. It was the reign of Shapur II whose mother, Iphra Hormuzd ((N~i5N PDTin), especially befriended the Jews. 65 It is true that Raba <" Cf. note 55, end. 64 Just the reverse was the custom with regard to the Shema' which the Palestinians recited standing but the Babylonians sitting (see D'JHJD "jlVn, ed. Miiller, p. 10; Gaonic Responsa, ed. Harkavy, p. 399; Finkelscherer, Lewy Festschrift, 255). 65 See B. B. 8a, bottom, and lOb, bottom. When Raba drew upon himself the wrath of Shapur because a Jew, whom he had sentenced to be flogged, died as result thereof, Iphra Hormizd dissuaded her royal son from prosecuting Raba (see Ta'an. 24b and cf. Mann, I ?NI' norm 1 ? nsixn, X, p. 204-6). CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 275 complained of heavy expenses to keep the authorities in good humor 66 but, compared to contemporaneous conditions in Pales- tine during the reign of Constantius, the Babylonian Jews could regard themselves rather fortunate. It seems therefore that in commenting on the statement of the Mishnah, Raba was like- wise thinking of conditions in the Holy Land. He was well in- formed about them from the Babylonian scholars studying in Palestine who had to come back to their native country right from the beginning of Constantius' reign owing to persecutions. 67 He too was informed of the difficulties which the Patriarch was experiencing with regard to the fixing of the calendar (Sanh. 12a). How appropriate then was Raba's comment on R. Joshua's remark about conditions in Palestine since the destruction of the Temple that, as things were in his own time in the Holy Land, the evil ('curse') seemed to grow from day to day! After Raba's comment we have the passage: ion nnsy pt* 'toot Kmn ton rro NITNI NTTDI nzmpx ?D"po p el mini nvzns mo :"i) omo BT NH ,"3 ,'' ,av> OHIO N 1 ?! It is evident that the "world" means here the Jewish world and that there is a poignant allusion to the chaotic condi- tions in Palestine owing to the persecutions. The question is whether this passage is a continuation by Raba himself or is a later addition by the redactors of the Talmud or even by the Saboraim. It seems to imply the proscription of tmcn nzmp 66 Hag. 5b, top: Tap 'a Njnsa NJVTPD nca in'jn' o : mh now to "73? Of course since 337 or 338, when Shapur started his long drawn war against the Byzantine Empire, the Jews in Babylon were subjected to heavy war expenses together with the rest of the population but of a religious persecu- tion there is no evidence. As a matter of fact while the Christian population in Babylon was heavily punished for its loyalty towards Christian Rome (since 339-40) the Jews were not molested (see Noldeke, Aufsdtze zur pers. Geschichte, 98-99). Cf. also Funk, Juden in Babylonien, II, 41-46, who, how- ever, has overdrawn the picture and several of whose statements and supposed references have to be used with caution. 6 ? The so-called K3iym 'mm. Cf. Sherira's Letter (ed. Lewin, p. 61): |on mm p n'rm .KSID pri nimn KD'yoKi ''to KIDP r'o:i toil "3K 'an nnai ton 1 ? Kn'nn 'mm in"73i 'D'i am fan ]ija 'K^aa ]D. Cf. also Halevy, Tnn, 366 ff., 455 ff., 467 ff., whose conclusions also need a critical sifting. 276 JACOB MANN before the reading of the Torah and the Kaddish after the preach- ings of the Rabbis. These sanctifications of God recited under difficulties help to preserve the Jewish world intact. They seem to have been introduced already in Babylon, especially the form of -ncn rremp in ]V^> ai as evolved in Palestine to outwit the authorities who prohibited it before the reading of the Law. In Babylon the N~nDl nemp became a daily feature after the Shaharit service in connection with the study of the Bible and the Rabbinic tradition. If Raba is the author of this passage, we would have to assume the prohibition of NTTDI rwnp before n"np and its insertion in fpyff toi already in the time of Constan- tius for which, however, we have no direct evidence, though the general designation of his rule as time of ~rot? would render such an assumption possible. But it is more likely that the whole interference with the divine service of the synagogue dated from 553 in connection with Justinian's law about the Deuterosis. Hence this passage in Sotah 49a should be regarded as a later addition by the Saboraim, who realizing the significance of Raba's statement as reflecting conditions in the Holy Land in his own time, adjoined to it an item which resulted from Byzantine intol- erance about two centuries later. By that time Babylonian Jewry too had undergone periods of persecutions under Yezdejerd II, under Peroz, and under Kavadh in connection with the move- ment of Mazdak. During these trials they saw their schools dis- banded and their synagogues closed, the Shema' proscribed as well as the Haftarot from Deutero-Isaiah (see infra, p. 282 ff.), the Sabbath desecrated and even their children taken away from them to be brought up by the Magians. Though in the second half of the 6th century the force of Magian intolerance was not so oppres- sive, the Jewish position seems to have been still insecure. Sher- ira in his Letter reports of troubles and persecutions right down to the close of the Persian period which prevented the schools from functioning properly and altogether hampered the pursuit of the study of Judaism. 68 Hence in Babylon too the Jewish world was declared to exist on tenon ramp and m rpo rv \o after the sermons. These sanctifications kept alive in the hearts 68 See above, p. 258. CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 277 of the people the principle of monotheism and the hope of the Redemption. Thus the whole significant Talmudic passage in Sotah 49a, when properly illumined, casts additional light on the problem of NTFDI nemp as discussed in the previous pages. Ill OBJECTIONS TO THE DAILY 'AMIDAH. 1. The prohibition of reciting the daily 'Amidah in Palestine is expressly reported by Yehudai Gaon (above p. 253, cf. note 15), no doubt owing to benediction 12, the well-known D'ran roia, which in the Palestinian version had a direct reference to the Christians (annn). It is not stated since when this proscription came into force. Though Yehudai probably speaks of the last period of Byzantine rule in Palestine (since its reconquest from the Persians by Heraclius, 629), the prohibition may have been older and was re-enacted after the reconquest (see above p. 254). Epiphanius, himself a native of Palestine, in his famous work against the heresies (the Panarion, begun in 374) refers to this benediction recited three times daily and likewise Jerome who lived many years in Palestine (after 385 till his death in 420) , 69 In the absence of any definite information we have to assume that the prohibition started under Justinian about the same time when the Shema' and the Deuterosis were forbidden. But per- haps the references to this benediction by Epiphanius and Jerome caused the authorities to decree the proscription still earlier. What substitute was discovered by the Rabbis is also unknown. Should we say that the shortened 'Amidah, three versions of which have been preserved in the Palestinian ritual for Minhah, 70 originally served as a substitute for the proscribed full 'Amidah? Later on in the Muslim period, when the full 'Amidah could again be recited, these shortened 'Amidot then were relegated to the Minhah service. The direct reference to the Christians had in course of time to be omitted as was only proper. How long the original form was preserved in Babylon is also difficult to say. 6 See the passages cited by Schiirer, Geschichte d. jiid. Volkes, 4th ed., II, 544, note 161. Cf. also Krauss, JQR, V, 130 ff. 'See Mann, 300-302, 309-11. 278 JACOB MANN Only one version of 'Amram has a more or less similar formula- tion of the benediction to that of the Palestinian ritual. 71 In Babylon Jews and Christians were more friendly to each other especially since they would frequently share the common into- lerance of Magian fanaticism. Therefore it may be assumed that the Jewish leaders found it advisable to leave out this obnoxious reference. The burden of the benediction was directed more against lawbreakers within the Jewish fold informers, apostates, and heretics. 72 2. From the statement of the Church fathers it is evident that the 'Amidah was recited in Palestine also at Ma'arib though this was not obligatory (man rrmy nVsn). Now a report that is not earlier than the second half of the 13th century connects the third section in Ma'arib after the Shema', viz. the one beginning with PHI ]DK cbw 1 ? '"' ira, with the prohibition of the 'Amidah. This passage was supposed to consist of verses mentioning the divine name 18 times corresponding to JTIB!?. 73 But it is rather strange that the Palestinian liturgy, as preserved in the Genizah, has not at all this passage 74 though, of course, it could be argued that it was omitted in the Muslim period when the 'Amidah was reinstituted in Ma'arib. The Geonim speak only in a general way of the passage having been introduced by the later scholars ('Nina ]33"i), viz. of the Saboraic period. 75 But Rashi was led into evolving a theory of how the Babylonian scholars composed this section and forwarded it as a gift to the sages of Yabneh in lieu of 71 See Marx, Untersuchungen z. Siddur des Gaon R. Amram, Hebrew part, pp. 5-6. 72 The various forms of this benediction need not be discussed here. See Berliner, Raudbemerkungen zum tiigl. Gebctbuche, I, 50 ff., and also the literature cited by Elbogen, 2nd ed., pp. 516, 519. " See N'aen n'w, I, No. 14: 'O'a' n:prm nrorn rp na . . .-jVion nma "73 (insert n"' IDS nrorto n'' na vv nan a nm upni VTDJM ^Vsnn 1 ? vhv nrw invn .nnnn Ta nana nms m: .mm nVaat? s'yw .n'jBnap niana Abudraham, ed. Prague, 43a, quotes the same in the name of rnaruon "?ya, viz Asher b. Saul of Lunel, author of nunaon IBD, who lived in the 14th century (see Gross, Gallia Judaica, 281) and hence after Rashba (who died in 1310). See Mann, pp. 304-5, which is now modified by the present remarks. 75 See Na^ronai's responsum in 'Amram, ed. Warsaw, I, 25a, and 'Ittim, pp. 172-3. See also 'Amram, I, 19a. CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 279 the y'MZV received from them 76 a theory that is impossible on the surface since the whole section is not mentioned in the Talmud at all. The Mishnah laying down the rule that at Ma'arib the Shema' should be followed by two benedictions (Ber. 1.4) would certainly not have overlooked the third section had it been already in the hands of the scholars of Yabneh. The Gaonic tradition of its later origin is correct though it need not have been composed in Babylon by the Saboraim but in their time in Pales- tine as a result of the prohibition of the 'Amidah, probably by Justinian, hence in the 6th century in the Saboraic period. This would be borne out by the report of Ibn Yarhi (Manhig, p. 22b) who traces it to 3~iyo HPJN, viz. the scholars of Palestine. The very fact that the sources speak of 18 m~DfN and not 19 (only Ibn Yarhi has 19) would indicate a Palestinian origin where the 'Amidah consisted of 18 benedictions only. It is difficult to state certainties on this matter owing to lack of evidence but the Palestinian origin of "jVian ro-n should not be ruled out of likeli- hood. 77 The section was taken over by the Babylonian Jews though they could recite the 'Amidah and hence it had been retained even later on whereas in Palestine it disappeared with the re-introduction of the Ma'arib 'Amidah after the conquest of the Holy Land by the Arabs. The report concerning the "TOP, though mentioned first by R. Solomon ibn Adret, may go back to a much earlier source and need not have been invented by him especially as he was no doubt aware of the other explanations given for -j^iDn ro-a. IV CHANGES IN CONNECTION WITH THE READING OF THE TORAH ANA THE PROPHETS. 1. A restrictive regulation of the manner of reading the Torah and the Prophets was enacted by Justinian in the famous Novella 146 (in February 553). If we follow Juster's interpretation 78 , the 76 See the curious passage in Pardes, ed. Ehrenreich, 304, Vitry, 78, Siddur Rashi, 213-14, Vrap, p. 21a (where it is expressly quoted in the name of Rashi). 77 See Elbogen, p. 102-5, and notes (2nd ed.) ( P- 529, whose remarks on the problem are somewhat inexact. 78 See Juster, Les Juifs dans U Empire Remain, 1914, I, 369 ff. Juster (p. 280 JACOB MANN dispute about substituting for the Hebrew reading with its Ara- maic translation (Targum) a reading in the Greek language, as demanded by a number of Jews, gave the occasion to the Em- peror, when the matter came to his notice, to regulate the divine service of the synagogue. While granting freedom to the wor- shippers to have the Bible read in the language understood by them, either in Greek in the translation of the LXX or in that of Aquila (but in no other version), or in Italian, he forbade at the same time the Deuterosis, evidently meaning thereby the Oral Law which was the basis upon which the Rabbis developed their themes in addressing the worshippers after the reading of the Biblical lessons. In interpreting these lessons they would quote statements of the sages from Mishnah, Talmud or Midrash intro- ducing them by a formula such as O'DDn "\yy or pan un, hence using the verb n:P (Aramaic '3n) from which rwtPD = ^eurcpcocrts is derived. 79 The prohibition of the sermons meant that the people were deprived of Halakhic instruction and of Aggadic emulation, for these usually formed the themes of the sermons in connection with a Rabbinic interpretation of the Biblical lessons 370, note 3) argues (against Graetz) that the Greek was to supplant the Hebrew according to the demand of a minority section of the Jews. On the other hand Krauss (Studien zur byz.-jud. Geschichte, pp. 58 and 60) follows Graetz's view that this demand, granted by the Emperor, meant only the elimination of the Targum and the substituting for it the Greek version side by side of the original Hebrew. 79 In the writings of the Church fathers the term usually stands for Mish- nah (see the passages cited by Juster, p. 372, note 6) which term denoted "the Oral Law and its parallel to tnpo, the term for Scripture and its study" (see Bacher, Exegetische Terminologie, I, 122). Cf. the interesting passage of Epiphanius (cited by Juster) : Quantae traditiones Pharisaeorum sint, quas hodie vocant dtVTep&criv, et quam aniles fabulae evolvere nequeo Unde et doctores eorum "when they (the Rabbis) could not mention the words of the Torah (viz. the Oral Law) because the enemies decreed upon Israel not to study the Torah (rrnra pioy^)", exactly the same phrase as in Yehudai's statement. Thus Elbogen's argument 82 that Judah b. Barzillai's account is similar to that of the apostate Samuel ibn Yahya al-Magrebi, who traced the origin of the Piyyut to the persecutions in Babylon and in Persia due to the Magians, 83 falls to the ground. Either this apostate confused the reports or it may be that during the troubles and persecutions at the end of the Persian rule in Babylon, as reported by Sherira (above, p. 258), the Jewish services were interfered with and the Piyyut was used as a substitute for the Rabbinic instruction. But there is ground to believe that the Piyyut as such originated in Palestine as a result of Justinian's prohibition of the Deutero- 80 See Eppenstein, p. 26 ff., and cf. also Davidson, Mafrzor Yannai, XVI ff., whose theory of the cryptic language of the Piyyutim may however need still further substantiation. 81 P. 252: nyra "? |pn) K"?r mm^ K& 'tn ]noD^ o!?iyn unit i^ ]BTB jy K^P ^K"it' "?y o'3'wn jnni rn a mm nan T9nn ]^y vn "? 'o .nin^a lorn 'oy 1 ? Tnrn^i notn^ n^snn ^33 ]n^ |'3pno OHTSP D'osn vn ]3 ^yi ,min3 pioy 1 ? nvnni mnnr ini3 nixon 'pnpn mnsr nis^m D'3io D'D' ni3^m JPQ in ma'yn ^HKH .a'DVDi mmm 8J Derjiid. Gottesdienst, 283. J See Schreiner, M. C. W. J., XLII, 221. 282 JACOB MANN sis and that it took the place of the preachings of the Rabbis. 84 It continued to flourish even after the era of religious freedom had set in with the conquest of Arabs. R. Yehudai's criticism against the nnoyD, the Paitanic insertions in the Sabbath 'Amidah con- taining ~inm TIDN and Aggadah and breaking the scheme of the ritual, seems to have had little effect in Palestine. He could not stamp out the Piyyu even in Babylon, though he and several other Geonim subsequently had tried to limit its extent. 85 The Piyyut spread from Palestine to the whole of Byzantium and to Southern Italy, where Byzantine intolerance continued for a long time, and from there to other European countries. However, this is not the place to describe the growth and the spread of the Piyyut as the discussion here is only limited to the accounts of its having found a prominent place in the divine service of the synagogue as a result of persecutions ("T02>). 2. On the other hand the report that the very reading of the Haftarah from the Prophets having been a substitute for the reading from the Pentateuch, which had been proscribed by An- tiochus Epiphanes, 86 does not seem to have any historical basis. In the persecution of Antiochus the whole existence of Judaism was involved and not a mere item of the service such as the read- ing of the Torah. More credence, however, is to be given to the reports concerning the Haftarot read in Babylon at the Minhah service on Sabbath which had to be abolished on account of their proscription by the Persian government. This government action (fcTTDtp) is reported briefly without indicating its cause by R. Natronai in a responsum which reads (Geonica, 1 1 , 302, No. XXVI) : rrnm ?(Sabb. 24a) maa nn:m 'an TB-jnn ino (an^pt) 'vw ,(read N':un) 'aa rrjwa p'taso vn naaa nmoa pip vm> 8 4 Cf. also the passage in Pardes, ed. Ehrenreich, p. 229: ^n ~(23V 'sVi pyn 'aval rmanpi emo oipaa nay nayDrm nosm (read n^n> . See also Epstein, M. G. W. J., XLIV, p. 295-6, and Davidson, I.e., XVI. sSee Ben-Baboi's objections (REJ., vol. 70, 130-131, 133) based on R. Yehudai's and see Eppenstein, I.e., p. 39 ff. On the other hand see the defence of the Piyyutfm by R. Gershom Meor Haggolah (in ^YQ0, ed. Buber. 25-6), and Pardes, I.e. 86 See Abudraham, ed. Prague, 52b, and Elijah Levita ('3n, s.v. IDS). The latter has a report which ascribes to persecution to Antiochus Epiphanes. See also Elbogen, p. 175. CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 283 nm .ppioB '' ?y 1'S'oio vn K?I ,rry'a moron iui insert) ip^Dtp |V3i .Tasn 1 ?. 8 ? The original custom of Haftarot at Sabbath Minhah is no doubt Babylonian being in explicit contradiction to the Palestinian rite as laid down in the Mishnah (Meg. 4.1: ]'~np nrooa raBQi 'm 'an Rab (who returned to Babylon about 219 C. E., as usually accepted) refers to the Haftarot at Sabbath Minhah in Babylon as well-established. 88 87 This responsum is also to be found in I'n, No. 95 (among other responsa of Natronai) and is further cited in his name by R. Isaiah di Trani (yiaon 'a, ed. Livorno, 20b, bottom). Rashi (to Sabb. 24a, s. v. TUBon) cites it anonymously and incompletely: nmoa ninapa N'an Nnp 1 ? D^TI vnz> O'JiNJn niawna VINXO "!3i nwy 1 ? tibv mn nn D"ons 'O'ai ,0'piDB me>y; thus leaving out the essen- tial detail of rry'3 mam which helps to ascertain the reason of the proscrip- tion by the government. Graetz, M. G. W. J., 1887, 554-55, wrongly explains the responsum in l*n to refer to a Byzantine persecution, even suggesting that D"D"ifl ':ai is a corruption, due to the censor, for o"on ':ai. But the reading 3"D1D is now well-established by the Genizah text (in Geonica) which, needless to say, was not subject to the whim of a Christian censor. Graetz's other arguments are feeble as all ones e silentio are. Moreover in Palestine Haftarot at Sabbath Minhah were never in vogue as shown above in the text. 88 Sabb. 24a bottom: an io nino an now mno an na 'mrm an noi I'N na K^O^KP B'V "?E> Tarn 1 ? X'N nara nn:oa N'a:a TDBDH (so in MS. Munich) o'va nn:D3 K'aj. This reading is also in 'Ittim, 271, top. In Hai Gaon's responsum N3T is evidently a misprint because R. Matnah was a colleague of R. Yehudah b. Ezekiel (Ber. lib). The French Tosafists indeed realized the contradiction with the statement in the Mishnah (so R. Isaac ]prn in Tosafot, ibid.,s.v. N^D^KP) but the reply of R. Tarn is wholly unsatisfactory. He suggests that by "prophet" the Hagiographa are meant similar to the custom in Nehardea to read passages from them at Sabbath Minhah (Sabb. 116b: Knasn nnmaa D'3ina3 NVTD 'pDB Nynni3). But the whole passage there refers to study at the Bet Hammidrash and not to the service in the synagogue as has been rightly pointed out by R. Isaiah di Trani (ynaon 'o 20c): imp IN D'3in33 D'znn vn0 "?{ onn yoro N"? NTVD 'pos 'urn ^ nun: irm D'3i^> o'nn rn N"? i^axr nntp Ton'a JDI on 1 ? n'n "?a n33 nmo3 nn3. R. Isaiah after deducing evidence concludes (20d): yovo "? nTO 'poo ND'TK mofln "?i nm (read perhaps |'jy^) pa 1 ? N"?N. It is evident that R. Tam did not know of the respective Gaonic responsa, which explicitly indicate Haftarot from the Prophets, as otherwise he would not have made his fallacious sug- gestion. He also did not have the emendation n303 nvr6 *?nv 37, which Judah ibn Barzillai mentions ('Ittim, 271, top). It is evidently a later change by 284 JACOB MANN The custom must have been in vogue in Babylon long before the Mishnah became there the accepted code and the object of intensive study in the schools since the times of Rab and Samuel, or else it would have been abolished by reason of its contraditcion with the proscription in the Mishnah. The exalted orations of Deutero-Isaiah, by which the rvyB>'3B> mom are evidently meant, 89 were especially precious to the Jews in Babylon and in Persia since they dealt with conditions of the exiles in Babylon. Who knows whether their recital was not instituted in Babylon during the early Persian period before the conquest of the country by Alexander the Great? Living in a social environment where Zorastrianism was predominant, how better could the Jewish spiritual leaders impress upon their people the monotheistic principles of their faith than with such a passage as Is. 45.1-7, especially verse 7 : *?3 nvy 'n ':N jn Kim m^v nvy "pn torn TIN TJCV n^N? 9 For a group living in a heathen environment and away from the center in Palestine, such as the Babylonian Jews were, the glow- ing fervor and exaltation of the chapters of Deutero-Isaiah indeed were admirably suited for public reading on Sabbath afternoons. The aim of these prophecies, in the words of Driver (Introduction to the Literature of the O. T., 8th ed., pp. 230-31), "to arouse the indifferent, to reassure the wavering, to expostulate with the doubting, to announce with triumphant confidence the certainty copyists against which already R. Zerahya Hallevi (iiND to Alfasi, Sabb. a./.) protests. 89 Though the Talmud ( B. B. 14b) regards the whole of Isaiah as contain- ing "consolations" (Knom rr!?i3 rryBH, cf. also Ber. 57b: rrj?0' ODD ai^na) nnn nomV nsx 1 ), evidently referring to the cheerful visions to be found in chapts. 1-39 (e. g. 2.1-4; 9.1-6; c. 11-12; etc.), the term rvyr'30 niom stood for sections chiefly taken from Is. 40 ff., though chs. 34-35 may have been included. It should be noted that the Haftarot for mm rue* and onward, the well known Nnonn nyiv (to be discussed later on), are all taken from Deutero-Isaiah. About Isaiah, as the prophet of consolation, see also S. E. R., c. 16, pp. 82-3. 90 About the insertion of this verse in a modified form (viz. ^3n n 10131 for y~\ toui) in the morning service for the purpose of emphasizing monotheism against Zoroastrianism, see the attractive theory of Blau, REJ., vol. 31, pp. 190 ff. Who knows whether originally the benediction TIN T*v did not end with jn NTQI? Cf. Ber. lib where the change is explained to be due to a desire of using a more auspicious language (to^yo tw^). CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 285 of the coming restoration" held good for a long time after their first pronouncement. 91 The Haftarot from the "consolations" of Deutero- Isaiah at Sabbath Minhah thus were probably continued to be recited in Babylon and Persia for several centuries till the Sassanids came to power in 226 in the time of Rab. As the Talmud does not mention anywhere of their having been proscribed by the new government, we may assume that the Jews followed their time- honored ritual throughout the Talmudic period. The prohibi- tion, recorded by R. Natronai, probably took place during the fanaticism in consequence of the movement of Mazdak which brought great trials upon the Babylonian Jews towards the end of the 5th century and the beginning of the 6th. A verse like Is. 45.7 was regarded as a distinct challenge to the principle of dualism. Another objection may have been found by the fanati- cal Magians in the reference to Cyrus (Is. 44.28, 45.1) as achieving his glory for the sake of Israel (see Is. 45.4) since his memory was greatly revered by the Magians as the champion of Zoroastrian- ism. Altogether the great emphasis of Deutero-Isaiah on the nature of God as "the Creator, the Sustainer of the universe, the Life-Giver, the Author of history, the First and the Last, the Incomparable One" (in the words of Driver, ibid. p. 242) together with the glowing pictures of the restoration of Israel and the triumph of Zion must have been offensive to the spokesmen of Zorastrianism." Hence these Haftarot recited at Sabbath 91 But it should not be overlooked that Isaiah was a favorite book espec- ially in Palestine for the Haftarot of the Triennial Cycle. Out of the 45 Hafta- rot to Genesis, 29 are from Isaiah and out of the 29 to Exodus, 18 are from this prophet (see Dr. Buchler's discussion of the problem, JQR., VI, 54 and 60). Several of these Haftarot are from ch. 40 ff. Were we to know the exact Haftarot in Babylon at Sabbath Minhali it would be of interest to trace how many of them corresponded to the Palestinian Haftarot from Isaiah at the morning service. Who knows whether the many Palestinian Haftarot elim- inated in Babylon owing to the Annual Cycle had not found again their place in the Minhah services? a Both Rappaport (j'^D -py, ed. Warsaw, I, 336) and Weiss (Tm, IV, p. 5, note 7) missed the right point in trying to explain the reason of the pro- hibition. Altogether Rappaport's remarks on this problem of the Minhah Haftarot have been rightly criticized by Schorr (yi^nn, II, 143-4). 286 JACOB MANN Minhah were proscribed and were not again re-introduced in Babylon even after the intolerance had ceased, evidently because of the fact that the Haftarah of Minhah was against the Mishnaic prescription. Yet as late as in time of Hai Gaon there were still distant congreations in Elam and in the islands of the Persian Gulf, who retained the custom, 93 probably because the proscrip- tion of the central government at Ctesiphon in Babylon had no- sustaining power enough to reach these outlying communities among whom then the Haftarot at Sabbath Minhah had never gone out of practice. 94 The whole custom of Haftarot at Sabbath Minhah was one of the old differences in custom between Pales- tine and Babylon (as Schor in note 111 to 'Ittim, p. 271, rightly pointed out) just as the difference of the Triennial and Annual Cycles respectively. The collection of differences (cnruo !"frn) between these two countries, emanating from the Gaonic period, however, no longer mentions this item because at that time it had already long been abolished in Babylon, the seat of the academies. 3. Since the readings from Deutero-Isaiah were proscribed in Babylon, probably during the Mazdak movement, the question arises with regard to the Haftarot from the 9th of Ab to New Year, known as Nnortn nya^, which were taken exclusively from Is. 40 ff. Dr. Buchler (/. Q. R.,Vl, 64 ff.) was on the right track in suggesting that these Haftarot had originated in Palestine. Elbogen (p. 178, see notes (2nd ed.) p. 545) has really no evidence for his suggestion that they were ordained "probably in Babylon." Dr. Buchler 's theory is now strengthened by the remarkable discovery of H. St. John Thackeray (The Septuagint and Jewish 'Itim, p. 271: rrn unjDP . . .vim *pm ]n I^NI . . .;i3 "n iran^ |^> vn nmo 1 ? py am WV NmaDN nso v ]"tjn ,n3a nrnoa TTDSDP mnn nioipon ,n'y'3 Knom I'unn (read nnni> nnnz> NmaBN -inn .Nnom n 1 ? jmpi ru hzh .veoy iy m |*^'n D~\B bv DTI "Hi o^'y p-inn moipn P'i .n'DTa unom 'Ittim does not quote Hai's responsum fully (see the different version in llNon to Alfasi, a. !.) The phrase rvoTa Nnom seems to me to be spurious in view of the fact that in B. B. 14b the book of Jeremiah is described as toa-nn n'Vis (cf. also Ber. 57b: nujnisl? 2NT rvDT (~\BD mVna) nnn), though of course there are several passages that could have been selected containing consolations. * This removes the difficulty raised by Dr. Ginzberg, Geonica, II, 298, who likewise failed to realize the reason of the proscription of the Haftarah at Sabbath Minhah. CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 287 Worship, 1921, pp. 84 and 100) that the consolatory portion of Baruch corresponds more or less to these consolation Haftarot being dependent also on Deutero-Isaiah, just as the previous portions of this apocryphal book correspond to the three Haftarot of Punishment (stfrujnsn 'a) preceding the 9th of Ab as well as to the readings on the fast day itself (from Jeremiah and Job). If Thackeray's ingenious theory be right, then the Haftarot of Consolation are much earlier than the date suggested by Dr. Biichler (ibid. p. 72), viz. the post-Talmudical times. However, in Babylon these Haftarot from the n'y'a mom were never introduced simply because the local ritual used Isaiah's Consola- tions as Haftarot on every Sabbath at Minhah including the seven Sabbaths between the 9th of Ab and New Year. 95 With the proscription of these Minhiah Haftarot towards the end of the 5th century it would have been dangerous to adopt the "Seven Consolation" Haftarot as the morning Haftarot during these seven weeks. This cycle of 7 Haftarot thus evidently found no entrance in the Babylonian ritual before the beginning of the Muslim period. Since the Minhah Haftarot were not re-intro- duced, in spite of the removal of their proscription with the over- throw of the Sassanids, because of the explicit statement in the Mishnah that at Sabbath Minhah there should be no Haftarah, the cycle of Nnonn nyn from Deutero-Isaiah was thus adopted in Babylon for these seven weeks in accordance with the Palestin- ian custom. V OTHER ITEMS. In this section some items pertaining to the divine service of the synagogue will be discussed that underwent changes prior to the Byzantine and Sassanid periods respectively. The case of the Decalogue in the liturgy entails a change brought about by no 95 Dr. Buchler writes (/. c., p. 72, bottom): "the Babylonians were also apprised of the practice of reading the Haftarot exclusively from Isaiah" and as evidence he cites R. Natronai's responsum about the Minhah Haftarot as if it referred to Palestine! He overlooked the end of the responsum which says clearly that these Haftarot were abolished D"D1D 'jza, viz. the Sassanids, which can only refer to the Babylonian custom. 288 JACOB MANN government interference but by the Jewish spiritual leaders in Palestine in order to counteract the polemics on the part of Jewish heretics. The elimination of the recital of the Decalogue daily in the service led to a change in the contents of the Tephillin. This symbol in its revised form was a part of the practice of Judaism, proscribed by Hadrian in consequence of the Bar- Kokhba revolt, and did not regain for itself general observance even after the Hadrianic edicts had been annulled. Finally a reminiscence from the Hadrianic persecution towards its close we have in the change of the time set for "IDIP nypn on New Year with which our discussion terminates. 1. THE DECALOGUE IN THE LITURGY. This problem needs only brief mention here in view of my remarks elsewhere 96 in connection to the reappearance of the Decalogue in the daily service at the Palestinian synagogue in Fustat in the Muslim period continuing right down to the 13th century. The Decalogue, recited daily in the Temple by the officiating priests prior to the Shema', was eliminated in Palestine from the service of the synagogue some time after the destruction of the Temple (probably in the second century) because of heretical claims that only the Decalogue was Divine the rest of the Pentateuch consisting of later additions by Moses. How such claims could easily find acceptance among the people against the Rabbinic conception of D'O^n ]Q min and the Oral Law from Sinai is strikingly illustrated by the Nash Papyrus, being a fragment of an early liturgy prevalent in Egypt, wherein the Decalogue is followed by a Hebrew verse, not found in the Masso- retic text but in LXX before Deut. 6.4 (the beginning of the Shema'), "moa hx'w ':a DN TWO rm nts> D'ostPDm o'pnn n"?m onxo pNn on2C3. The elimination of the Decalogue prevailed in Babylon where attempts in the Amoraic period to re-introduce it in Sura and in Nehardea failed. But in Egypt apparently the Decalogue never disappeared from the liturgy. Anyhow we find it again in use in the Palestinian synagogue in Fustat throughout 96 See Mann, Jews in Egypt and -in Palestine under the Fatimid Caliphs, I, 221-23, and especially H. U. C. Annual, II, 282-4. CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 289 the Gaonic period right down to the time of Maimonides and beyond (1211). Whether this was only a local Minhag in Egypt or whether in Palestine too the Decalogue was re-introduced in the Muslim period cannot as yet be ascertained. 2. TEPHILLIN. The problem of the Decalogue in the liturgy has a bearing also on the contents of the Tephillin in early times. It is not within the scope of this paper to discuss fully the origin of the custom of Tephillin. 963 Whatever may have been the original form of the Biblical niN and msaiCD" it is evident that in the course of the period of the Second Commonwealth the Tephillin became the outward symbol of Q'OP ni3^o *?iy n*?3p. The very name rhan used in the Rabbinic literature for the phylactery seems to be connected with a ceremony at prayer-time. The modern explana- tion of the word from ^>n (= I 733) to attach, to affix, is not very illuminating as a better noun could have been formed from the roots Tp or ijy (viz. nefc or rrrj^).' 8 But even if this connotation 963 Rodkinsohn's work nvoh riVon (Pressburg 1883), while revealing the author's learning, basically suffers from lack of method and historical judg- ment. His theories need not, therefore, be dealt with here. Schorr's article (p^nn, V, 11 ff.) is indeed full of critical acumen but suffers from its too polemical tendency. While correctly realizing several features in the development of the custom, Schorr failed to obtain a clear view of the whole process. A radical fault of his was not to differentiate, when dis- cussing the data, between the wearing of Tephillin at prayer only, and the whole day. Abraham Krochmal (n^un ]i'jj, Lemberg 1885, pp. 24-37), too, fails to give a clear picture of the history of the rite of Tephillin though some of his remarks are well worth while. He rightly surmised (p. 35) that there were once Tephillin containing five Biblical sections including the Decalogue but failed properly to understand this fact. Blau's article (/. E. X, 26 ff .) is of a more informative nature than critical. In setting forth my own views it was not found feasible to enter into arguments on each point with the above authors but rather to let the data in their new construction speak for themselves. Cf. Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, III, 869 ff., and J. E., X, 26, 28. ' 8 Kohut in Aruch Completum, s. v. DDDD (vol. IV, 25-6) and ^on (vol. VIII, 258) and Jastrow, s.v. Cf. also the phraseology in Siphre (ed. Friedmann, p. 74b) : 'm mTpa iV omrpi. 290 JACOB MANN be granted, the expression n^sn (Aram. plur. J^BTl to distinguish it from rnVsn, prayers) was purposely chosen because the symbol had been originally meant to be used at prayer." With the intro- duction of the Shema' in the daily service as an essential part of it, the Rabbis thought it proper to symbolise this declaration of the Unity of God by the Tephillin finding a support for this symbol in the literal interpretation of the verses in Deut. 6.8, 11.18 (Ex. 13.9, 16). The symbol was ordained primarily at the daily morning service. The reason why Tephillin were not put on on Sabbath morning was rather due to the strictness of the Sabbath observance and to the fear of carrying the Tephillin from the home to the synagogue (n^nn). 100 By analogy to the Sabbath the Tephillin were not put on also at the service on the Festivals. The usual explanation of Sabbath and Yom Tob being them- selves symbols and requiring no further DIN is later and more of an Aggadic character. 101 The primary connection of Tephillin with the morning service in conjunction with recital of the Shema' is also borne out by the seemingly curious report of Jerome that the phylacteries contained the Ten Commandments. 102 Jerome does not even 99 So already in ^DD Vlp, the polemical work against which Judah Leon Modena wrote his nn nww (in n"?npn nrm, ed. Reggio, p. 39): n^nno 'D aiprmi n'onn Dnsp 3'rm ,1'Vsn aitnp pVi .inV n"?sn nyea (viz. pVsnm cnit* D'D'co vn .'101 ovn ^D cvzbb "inv 100 Cf. the cases of the Shofar, the Lulab and the Megillah when either New Year, or the 1st day of Tabernacles or Purim happened to fall on a Sab- bath (see R. H. 29b, Sukkah 42b-43a, Meg. 4b: 'n irvajn . . .nu uVa 1 ov m'H .n^ioi NDJ;O ir'm ,3^i!n ayo u"m ,vm:i ITIDK 101 Cf. R. 'Akiba's statement (Men. 36b): o'D'ai ninapa pVon DIN rrr "?n' m ]su ]nv D'aits D'DM mna ix' ni ]on^ 'D 'ui ~|T by niN 1 ? nm :V'n TDUID. This really applies only to Sabbath (Ex. 31.17). See also Mekhilta of R. Simon b. Yohai (ed. Hoffmann, p. 34). In the other Mekhilta (Bo. c. 17) the state- ment is ascribed to R. Isaac which seems more likely. 102 See Jerome to Mt. 23.6 (in Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 26, col. 174) hoc Pharisaei male interpretantes (sc. Dt. 6.8) scribebant in membranulis Decalogum Moysi, id est decem verba legis, complicantes ea, et ligantes in fronte, et quasi coronam capitis facientes, ut semper ante oculos moverentur. Likewise to Ezek. 24.15 (ibid, vol. 25, col. 230, top): Aiunt Hebraei hucusque Babylonios magistros, Legis praecepta servantes, decalogum scriptum in mem- branulis circumdare capiti suo, et haec esse quae jubeantur ante oculos et in fronte pendere, ut semper videant quae praecepta sunt. Et quia Ezechiel CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 291 mention the Shema' in the Tephillin. But when we consider that originally the Decalogue preceded the recital of the Shema' in the service having been eliminated some time after the destruction of the Temple (probably at the beginning of 2nd century C. E.) in order to deprive the heretics of one of their arguments against the divine origin of the entire Torah, Jerome's account becomes intelligible. We may safely assume that the Tephillin prior to the elimination of the Decalogue from the daily morning service really contained five Biblical sections, viz. the Decalogue, yw, yiDP as rrm, enpand-|'3' '3 rrm(Deut. 5.6-18, 6.4-9, 11. 13-21, Ex. 13.1-10, 13.11-16). The section from Exodus was cho en because of the mention of DIN and msoiB and at the same time referring to the redemption from Egypt it well corresponded to the usual third section of the Shema', viz. Numbers 15.37-41, which likewise concludes with a reference to D'~ixo nN'XV 3 When, however, the Decalogue was eliminated from the service it had also to be eliminated from the Tephillin. Jerome may have seen such early phylacteries and looking only at the beginning of the strip of parchment within he noticed first the Decalogue. Had he read on he would have found there subsequently the Shema' and the other sections. It may also be that the Tephillin Jerome saw belonged to a heretic who disobeyed the ruling of the Rabbis. 104 The Mishnah (Sanh. 11.3) clearly reflects the time when the Tephillin included the Decalogue and hence had five sections in stating: Toy 1 ? H3 i ?t ?sn TK nown .mm '-DID DHDID n:m nain 3"n D'-ISND nm hy ^orb memta n8n .-mafl mm nm by. Now what could these five Totafot (viz. five compartments of the phylactery on the head) contain if not the Decalogue that pre- sacerdos erat, nequaquam eum debere deponere coronam gloriationis, sed ligatam habere in capita. Hoc illi dixerint. The interpretation of "INS as Tephillin is reported in the name of Rab (Sukkah 25b, cf. Ber. 16b, top). 103 The order of the Biblical portions in the Tephillin, given in Men. 34b, refers already to the time after the elimination of the Decalogue. See infra, note 106, about the position of the Shema' section. I0 Cf. M. Megillah 4.8 about the different way of putting on Tephillin used by the Minim. Cf. also Blau, /. ., X, 27, col. 2, who thinks that Jerome was incorrect in this account. But our explanation solves the whole difficulty. Nor is the Nash Papyrus with the Decalogue before the Shema' heretical as Blau seems to think (sec above p. . 292 JACOB MANN ceded the Shema'? The phraseology of the Mishnah makes the Tephillin containing four Biblical sections already Sopheric but the change only took place after the destruction of the Temple long after the so-called period of the Sopherim. 105 One can even venture to suggest that the outward indication of the letter Shin on the head phylactery was ordained after this change to proclaim to all that the Tephillin began with Shema' (there being no room enough on the D'3 to write the word ynv in full, hence only letter P was enough for the indication). Iosa There- fore the letter appears on one side of the capsule containing the Biblical sections in the usual form (ff=yD2>) and on the other side with four tittles on the top (w) indicating that there were only four sections inside! 106 Later on the Shin on the head 105 Interesting is the discussion in Siphre (ed. Friedmann, p. 74b), which reflects the earlier time when the Tephillin contained the Decalogue: ,m'rp3, on nn nnnt nixo moTpp iu' '3 rvm '"? enp nm :IDIK '3M ]"iyi '131 noim p man Tnvppa irrit> ]H UK nnrm nixo OIDTP *v nrrnn my Cf. also par. 34 (p. 74a) which also reflects the elimination of the Decalogue from the daily recital prior to the Shema' o:'N nnriN nixo monp vbv /main " ios a For a similar abbreviation cf. R. Judah's statement (Yer. Meg. 7 la, 1. 20): v~n <]"rn=) vn ania 'iPn TIN. Cf. the different version in Meg. Ta'anit, end in Neub., Med. Jew. Laron., II, 23). See also M. M. Sheni 4.11. 106 This double form of Shin on the head phylactery is prescribed in the Gaonic work Nan xviav (cited in Tos. to Men. 35a s.v. ]'VanV0 )') : ]'n mi* na ]h rr^ i'B 'Ri ,'rn "\ VDii n '3 won. This was an old tradition no longer understood. The ending permitting a reversal was due to the later shifting of the order of the Biblical sections (see end of this note). Originally, after the elimination of the Decalogue, the Shema' was purposely put on the right side of the capsule, outside of which was the letter v=yov. The arrangement of the Biblical sections in the Tephillin underwent changes and was by far not fixed uniformly, as is evident from Men. 34b; NDD jnnr on rrm yov ,]'D'D -|to3' '3 rvm 'V mp ipio ix'3 :Yn tnipm ,rv b>0 iro'D |3 ,nip hv iro'D ]3 ,'pp "? :"3 no. The second version of the Baraita was evidently the original form. Formerly there was included the Decalogue too as in the daily service. After its elimina- tion there remained 4 sections beginning with Shema' which took its place on the right side of the capsule where outwardly there was (and still is) the letter p=yot. Then followed '*? enp ,y\ov DK n'ni and iK'3' '3 rrm, the last being placed on the left side of the capsule outside of which we have the letter Shin in the form K> to indicate that there were only 4 sections. But the desire to have the sections in the order of their occurence in the Pentateuch resulted in a re- CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 293 phylactery was regarded as a law to Moses from Sinai (]' TOO nti'D 1 ? ro^n pVfifDV) because its real purpose was no longer known. 107 The still later explanation of Shin as forming the word HP together with the knots of the head phylactery in the form of 1 and of the hand phylactery in the form of TT need not detain us long. 108 Beside its late origin it overlooks the fact that the hand phylactery was worn covered and that even the knot of the phylactery on the head was not always visible whereas symbols are essentially instituted for outward appearance manifest to all. All this only shows how successfully the Rabbis succeeded in removing the traces of the earlier Tephillin containing five Biblical sections so that the Tephillin in their new form became to shifting of the sections. Even after this reshifting the section Shema' still remained on the right side of the capsule (where Shin is marked on the out- side) in many Tephillin and should be so according to R. Tarn, who is sup- ported by Gajronic evidence (seeTos., ibid, s.v. tmprn: *?g j'O'D rvm pnp n"i (viz. on left side of the capsule) nnni finao yo 'in tnip "? ^NDPOI 'iai D'aao yinp DN rvm.) Cf. also Maimonides instructive responsum on the subject (o'amn mawn paip, I, No. 26, and in nivo ]D3 to r^en 'n ,min nwo, 3.5), where the reference to another Moses b. Maimon, of Cordova, who had composed a work on Tephillin, is rather suspicious. J 7 Men. 35a: 'roo nvob na^n ]'^DD hv ]*v "an IDNI. Babya b. Asher (nopn la, Lemberg, 1872, 116a) quotes similar statements of Abbaye with regard to 'n *?v n'bt and 'n bv TV but this reading is unwarranted (see note 108, end). 108 Cf. the legendary account of the heated discussion between Moses (sic!) and R. Tarn about the knot in the shape of iv on the hand phylactery (given by Gedalya ibn Yabya, n*?3pn rbvhv, ed. Lemberg, 1864, 69a, b, cf. the MS. version given by Kaufmann, REJ., V. 274-5) which shows that the whole combination of the three letters n is very late, bv m'PpnP . . .ir:n nvo b no ,'i DP D'^n^ om3D3 nniN i:pn o'D^n p .n'moi? K^I c^iy^> T'ix K^ Tra T 'vr\ ay nsnixo nj'p nno -\3 D'n'ixi? noi 1 ? IJJD' "? Nna nmry 1 ? IXT K 1 ? 1 'n. Even with regard toewnp I'^Dnaw ~\vp though it was regarded as nro^ n 'roo (see Men. 35b), it is nowhere indicated in the Talmud that it had the shape of n^n. Only later on the passage in the Talmud (ibid.) : 'n DP '0 pun 'oy "?o itoi Ptonp ]'^Dn I"?K IDIK ^nan K'T w:n .'IDI T^y Hip:, suggested the combination of a Divine name, viz. HP. So Rashi: n^li J'P OPH an ia ainap . . .'n DP (cf. also s.v. npp) but Tosafot rightly objects to this: nvniK i"? niyixiap Tvi r\">*?-n nnji I'^sn "?P npp D 'a in^ rip N^> snan oipai . . .HP bv DPH ]o 'a'pn "?i ]n nmoi. A still later explanation of letter p as being nrap^ ton is given by Babya b. Asher (nopn la, 115b, 116a). 294 JACOB MANN be regarded as being of hoary antiquity and the outward indica- tion such as Shin became a matter of guessing. All this was due to their struggle against the Minim and to their desire to obliter- ate as much as possible the details of this strife in order not to arouse new controversies. The symbol of Tephillin just as that of Sisit was employed by the Pharisees as a means in their endeavor to intensify the Jewish religious life and make it pervade everyday activities. The Rabbis and their disciples began to wear Tephillin the whole day, even after the divine service, in order to symbolize their constant awareness of "the yoke of the kingdom of heaven" for the acceptance of which the Shema' was the official declaration. Of this custom first mention is made in Talmudic reports referring to the 1st century, C. E. It combined both a religious as well as a sort of political demonstration inasmuch as the spiritual ITO^D D'DP was still staunchly hoped for by Israel though de facto Palestine was under the mundane, wicked rule of Rome (see also above, p. 246). Whereas the Tephillin of the Hasid in the time of Simon b. Shetah (Yer. Hag. 77d) probably were those used only at prayer and likewise those of Shammai, which he had from his maternal grandfather, 109 we hear of R. Yohanan b. Zakkai that he constantly wore the Tephillin both in winter and in summer and that his disciple R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanos followed suit. 110 The whole account shows that this was regarded as an act of extreme piety, especially in the summer when the heat made the wearing of Tephillin the whole day very uncomfortable. 111 Needless to say ordinary people, who had to labor either in the field, the 109 Mekh. Bo., c. 17, end, Mekh. of Simon b. Yohai (ed. Hoffmann, p. 35, top). In Yer. Erubin 26a this is reported in the name of Hillel and not of Shammai. 110 Yer. Ber. 4c, 1.10; N 1 ?! N0"p3 N 1 ? rrro TJ?T 'i^'sn rmn vb 'ar p ]W p"i VIHK n'oVn iry'^K "\ an: -pi .Kirvoa. R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanos wore his Tephillin even on his death bed (see the story in Yer. Sabb. 5b, bottom, Babli Sanh. 68a, Ab. de R. Natan, c. 25). Joshu'a b. Hananya, another famous disciple of R. Yohanan b. Zakkai, also seems to have worn the Tephillin constantly as is evident from the Sabb. 127b. 111 Hence R. Yohanan b. Nappaba would wear the head phylactery the whole day only in winter, ibid., 1. 11: P'3 1 ? 'in mz>n prn mm Nirroa jam* "i ?N tfu 1 ? mn "? rrH pvn mn N 1 ?! a"pa D-D ,prrnn. CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 295 workshop or in the market place, could not follow this Pharisaic example of piety. In this respect Dr. Biichler (Galil. 'Am-Haares p. 23, note 1) is right in emphasizing that only some scholars would practice this extreme symbolism of Q'OP mD*?D Viy rbip. It was also regarded as a sign of piety to enlarge the phylacteries in size in spite of the discomfort of their heaviness in wearing them and hence the Pharisees are accused of doing this only to show off before people (Matthew 23.5), though it is not certain whether this refers to the phylacteries worn only at prayer or whether also during the whole day. The wearing of Tephillin the whole day as an act of piety naturally gave rise to abuses by hypocrites as is evident from the story in Yer. Ber. 4c top. 1 " A foolish Hasid (ruw Ton) is illustrated by the example of his passing by a river and seeing a child drowning but delaying to go to its rescue till he takes off his Tephillin (in order not to desecrate them) while in the meanwhile the child is perishing." 3 How far the common people practiced the custom of Tephil- lin even at prayer is difficult to ascertain. R. Meir is reported to say that "there is no man in Israel, who is not surrounded by Misvot, viz. Tefillin on his head and arm and other symbols (Tos. Ber. 7.25: i2>N-n j'Vsn ,ITOK ms'po mxo ]' ^KTZPD DTK i* 7 r inis ms'pB nvx'x nyrnsi innsa nnrai ,ijmn I'^sni, cf. also Yer. Ber. 14d). Probably R. Meir meant here that at least some of these Misvot were kept by every Jew and should not be taken to reflect his actual experience of conditions in Palestine either before or after the Hadrianic persecutions. Moreover, this state- ment appears anonymously in quite a different form in Men. 43b." 4 Laborers in the field, or even in the homes of their 112 N^N mon -|V N^ :V"n ,rva HSDI man *ai Tpstn n na tna mn Kiaiy mnn -|nan ]'V'^. Cf. especially Pes. R. c. 22 (ed. Friedmann, lllb): ni-ray naiyi i^ini |my -|rvVm KBI: i^sn Knn t^tf. 113 Yer. So^ah, 19a, 1.14 ff : ,in:a yayao pirn nT ?now Ton inr 'K iroj nx nr nxin .v^'sn y^in KIHPJ oy .i]^'s ,^'Bn yi^nKPD 1 ? :noK. "* Joshu'a b. Hananya characterises the 'Am-Ha-ares as not putting on Tephillin (viz. even at prayer), Ber. 46b, but in So^ah 22a this statement is anonymous in reply to R. Meir, who had a more lenient view that the 'Am-Ha- ares be only stigmatised as such, if he does not recite the Shema'. This would show that R. Meir was fully aware of the fact that the laborers could not prac- 296 JACOB MANN employers, early in the morning evidently recited the Shema' and the Tefillah without putting on Tephillin (see Ber. 16a where Tephillin are not mentioned at all). Whatever may have been the extent of the prevalence of Tephillin before the Hadrianic persecutions, the prohibition of Judaism in the years 135-138 (or thereabouts) made the wearing of the Tephillin especially danger- ous because of their conspicuousness and tended to bring about laxity in the practice even after the removal of Hadrian's edicts by Antoninus Pius. The danger of Tephillin during this time of persecution is alluded to in M. 'Erubin 10.1 ("iWn ]D3D ru555i) and in Sabb. 49a (also 130a) in connection with the story of Elisha D'DJD 7^3. IIS Informers (a la After) probably pointed out to the government that the Tephillin, like the Shema' contained therein, had a special signifiance as a symbol of rroVo "ny nVap Q'Ot? as against the rule of Rome." 6 On account of the obvious danger people stopped putting on Tephillin even at prayer not to speak of wearing them in the streets. Only a saint like Elisha Q'-ttD "?j7a would expose himself to the danger. The discontinu- ance of the custom led to laxity even after Hadrian's time as is characteristically admitted by R. Simon b. El'azar, a disciple of R. Meir (Sabb. 130a)." 7 On the other hand the scholarly refugees from Palestine, who had sought safety in Babylon from Roman tice this custom even at prayer. However, R. Meir's statement in Sotah is reported in Ber. in the name of Eli'ezer b. Hyrcanos. 115 Schorr (fiVnn, V, 15) rightly suggests that D'D Vya really meant a member of the Haberim, who observed Levitical purity (cf. Bekhorot 30b; nrmt^ I'^apo 3'rmi D'DuV I'^po), though his identification with the Es- senes is not warranted. The explanation of the name in connection with the miracle of the Tephillin in Sabb. 49a is of course legendary but the prohibition of wearing Tephillin during the Hadrianic persecution reported there is quite historical. 116 Complete acceptance of this obligation (in the words of R. Yohanan, Ber. 14b, bottom) consisted of Tephillin, Shema' and 'Amidah, ^>3p'P nxnn ro!?D KYI in .^flrm v'p tnp'1 j'^sn rvri TT ^its'i nr .no^v O*DV DID'JO ^iy v^y noVe> O'DP. Though R. Yohanan lived long after the Bar Kokhba period, he no doubt reflects in this respect the sentiment maintained by the leading Rabbis centuries before. "' mri nya nn'D 1 ? an^y ]oxy Vtntf' non mxo "73 :noiN niy^K p P'T VDI ,aT3 npiniQ KYI ]"iy .n'roi ry jus (see D'I, a. 1., better lorn nj)BQ> .DT3 nsno 'n "iy ,'^'Bn D n^ CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 297 persecution, were especially zealous in spreading the custom in Babylon, as is reported by Sherira Gaon (see infra, note 122). But there too only some scholars would wear Tephillin the whole day (like Rab and others.)" 8 This continued later on to be the custom of the Geonim and the members of the academies." 9 But how far the ordinary people in Babylon made use of the symbol of Tephillin even at prayer is not evident. 120 Yet no doubt the insis- tence of the Rabbis gradually exerted its influence to make Tephillin the regular feature for all daily worhshippers in the synagogues. To sum up our discussion, the symbolism of Tephillin was meant primarily to emphasize the acceptance of "The yoke of the kingdom of heaven." Originally connected with the recital of the Decalogue and the Shema' in the morning, the symbol was extended to the whole day by the Pharisees in their endeavor to make the consciousness of their religious ideal the guide of their whole daily life. This extension was only meant for the scholarly class but it had its reaction in the ordinary people being lax in using the symbol of Tephillin even at prayer because the wearing of Tephil- lin the whole day became to be regarded as an act of extreme piety. The Hadrianic persecutions had their share too in weaken- ing the practice of the symbol. The Rabbis, especially in the 3rd century C. E., would endeavor to emphasize the importance of the symbol, some of them even resorting to the mystical fancy of God too wearing Tephillin (see Men. 35b and Ber. 6a). Their chief aim was to establish firmly this custom at prayer (see Ber. 14b, bottom, and 15a, top). On the other hand the wearing of Tephil- lin the whole day by all and sundry was not encouraged. It gave 118 Among the ten points of extreme piety attributed to Rab ('^'D ~\vy Knn'om) the 9th was: virw nvv i-\ jrm 1'^sro Tin ?TI rrnp (n'v, No. 178). The passage hints that the other disciples did not follow him in this practice. " Cf. Gaonic Responsa )'n, No. 84, n'0, No. 153 (in responsum of Sar Shalom) i 1 ?'}, No. 3; Ytn, I, 36 top, 46. " Rab characterises a sinner as one who fails to put on Tephillin (R. H. 17a: I'^on mo vhi nopnp :m no Tim 'NO .]BU3 ^sotf' 'JJBMD). But other readings have Simon b. Lakish instead of Rab. 298 JACOB MANN cause to abuses by hypocrites. Hence R. Yannai (1st half of 3rd century) came out with the statement that 'pJ TQ pnx j'^Dn." 1 He, no doubt, meant by it the wearing of them the whole day. But it was interpreted by several people in Gaonic times to refer even to Tephillin at prayer and it thus led to a general laxity of practice. The Geonim, when asked about their opinion, were eager to combat this tendency. Instead of clearly stating that R. Yannai referred only to wearing Tephillin the whole day, they explained away his statement to deal only with the time of perse- cution. They were misled by the gloss D'sw hyz jw^fco in Sabb. 49a (see note 121) to construe the whole statement of R. Yannai as dealing with the time of the Hadrianic persecution. 122 The obscurity prevailing about the meaning of R. Yannai's statement contributed greatly to the general laxity of wearing Tephillin even at prayer especially in Western Europe, viz. in France and Spain. As late as 1235 R. Moses of Coucy during his travels in the Provence and in northern Spain had to bestir himself to impress in his sermons his audiences with the duty of Tephillin at prayer. 123 This is the case with many a rite that in course of time 121 Yer. Ber. 4c, 1.6: ?|na ip'tnn N"? no 'JBD ,'pj pj jonx J^BD :'r 'an nn "IDI I'NOin 'JBD. It is doubtful whether from 'JBD is also by R. Yannai. In Babli (Sabb. 49a, 130a) R. Yannai is supposed to illustrate his remark by the example of Elishah D'Bja ^ya but in reality it seems a later insertion. 122 See the responsum attributed to R. Yehudai (fl'n, No. 62; n'v, No. 153 V0n, I, 45): ''D -p ,D'B:D Vya yp'^io 'p: pi manx ]'^'sn :noi^ DTK to OKI iDtpn nypa D'liDN nnm noa :D'Dan. Still more instructive is Sherira's respon- sum (^'naiP, ed. Buber, p. 382, cf. 'Itfur, ed. Lemberg, II, 26d, where it is ascribed to his son, Hai, the responsum probably emanating from father and son combined): 'yis :wpb p pyDP "\ tKD^yi Nan ina '!?rVrD xoya 'D n'm . (In '/f/Mr the reading is nVyi jjan which would then refer to wearing them the whole day). nya K'nn D'j:0ton D'JINJH naa WTS ,D'su "?ya yts'^Ni own ' Tl'iy mxD[ni ovp KD^H i Ninva vmo D ,1'V'sn j'n'iD DHD^nn mnipo 'i .mran (Here again it would seem that the point concerns the wearing of them the whole day). Sherira's reply was: (better mrj ''sn ]V3 D'r,in niD'D '"Nai ,rm ]'an 1'p'r'D nanrw |^on (better 'nuV) 'nin^ i^'a' x 1 ?! in '/#r: NID 'sn), mtpnia 'av nnvai ]ina D'Tnton (better in '/#r: *7aaa ]in3D> Vaaa. "3 About France see Tosafot to Sabb. 49a, s.v. y^a: "?y nn'n ]'i n'lfli nn'n c'oan 'D'a DJB> irTa n'lsi nsr mxo no. R. Moses of Coucy in J'DD, ]'2>y, par. 3, gives us fuller information about the laxity of observance: CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 299 lose their original symbolic significance and are practiced only by force of tradition. But even to rites the proverb ^03 'i^n "?DH can be applied. Some of them captured the imagination of the people and were scrupulously observed. Others, like Tephillin, had to go through a long time of neglect till they found a semb- lance of general observance. 3. THE TIME OF BLOWING THE SHOFAR ON NEW YEAR. The most significant feature of the New Year celebration was the blowing of the ram's horn (Shofar). It should have therefore introduced the divine service of the day and yet it is connected not with Shaharit service but with the Musaph. This change of time is traced back to the Hadrianic persecutions. Thus R. Yohanan explains the direction of the Mishnah (R. H. 32b) for the reader of Musaph to initiate the sounding of the Shofar as due to an occasion at "the time of perseuction." 124 Rashi's explanation that government officials would wait in the synagogues till the completion of Shaharit about midday in order to enforce the pro- hibition of "isitP njrpn, whereupon after their departure the Shofar was clandestinely sounded at Musaph, 125 is hardly to the point nut my . . .nimm I'sm 3"n nni in ?3V rrsm ?*-\v> nvn ir r\v~\s viem :iox3 ]'^'>n np'jn ,p'ix OIKD y^an nwv yv~\ m3 n'apn pen inr '3 on^ HUTS i^uy nniKD pirm 12? ]anx on inn ,miD -\~\i onr'^i o'yp-)^ jnar 'DPn p na'D nn'n D^IJ; nNna^ aw n'xpnm K'n inn 'nn . . .on'D' ^3 Dmn'n nim^na 'niyn? n'apn ^DKI ,Dnoin^ msoa 'nn (izau) Trpnn nmem itpyi c'n^K mnn^ 'nm jnun mm non '^y D'i .o'SJian mjvrm ji -JD inn 'n"n mxi n3 ]3i ,n'*'xi mnro Cp. also nopn ID (115b): j'T ^snnr ]'3in ':DD |nmna ...ypno 'n n'n nypn .nixo 1 ? I'a'ipo ]'inn oiro (viz. nirj ny3 :]inv an ID tnixo^. For nia^on mt), a phrase due to the censor, all Talmudic MSS. as well as other authorities have lorn nyp (see o'l, a.l.) which in the Talmud mostly means the Hadrianic persecution. The Hif'il ypno indicates that the reader gave the direction for the sound- ing (by announcing nypn, etc.) to the ypin ^ya. Had he himself blown the Shofar, the Kal ypin would have been used. " Rashi (ibid., s.v. nyra): vv ^3 on 1 ? vaiiN vm ,iypn tbv nn D'SMK |'BOiD3 yipn^ mvayn -jo 1 ? ,nnn n^Dn yp 1 ? myp. The same explanation is repeated in Vitry, p. 385 (cf. p. 352 in responsum of Joseph Bonfils), Or 300 JACOB MANN because during the Hadrianic persecutions the whole Synagogal service was proscribed. Moreover, the authorities would no doubt be attracted by the sound of the Shofar. Rashi had in mind the details in connection with the prohibition of the Shema' by the Byzantines (above, p. 259) when the rest of the Synagogal service was more or less permitted. Of course, during the Hadrianic persecution there were cases of clandestine fulfilling of ~IS1P njrpn by injecting the sound into a pit or a vat as is evident from the Mishnah (ibid. 27b, top)" 6 But open services were altogether prohibited and there could be no alternative of nypn isw at Musaph instead of at Shafrarit. With the help of the parallel passage in Yer. R. H. (59c, 11.48 ff.)" 7 we can understand R. Yoljanan's statement better. It was evidently towards the end of the persecution (known as ^sbw no^n)," 8 after Hadrian's death (138 C. E.) and at the beginning of Antonius Pius' reign, when the rigor of the persecution was relaxed and the local Roman authorities would allow the Jews in certain pacified districts to resume their religious practices while in other places, still under suspicion of harboring some turbulent elements of the population, watchfulness was still maintained. It would occur that the sounding of the Shofar caused excitement among the Roman garrison as a revolutionary signal especially when a multitude was assembled in one place, albeit in a house of worship. 129 This time of unequal conditions prevailing in Pal- estine at the end of the persecutions seems to be reflected in the Zarua, II, par. 264, h'mv, ed. Buber fol. 143 a.b., Tanya, ed. Hurwitz, p. 160. Only R. Hananel rightly quotes Yer. for the proper explanation. 126 hip DNI ,NI' yDP 1D10 "?ip DN .DB'fln iin 1 ? IN min -pn 1 ? IN inn -pnV ypinn NX' vb J?DP man. Hai Gaon (cited in v'v, I, 35, bottom) rightly explains this passage: one* (read mo"?Dn nnm) nvD^om nnrn 'D'a an 1 ? panic vn i^n anai 'i^:a yipnl?D ana D'NTno- "' rmPNin iypn nnN ays .jnnw nvyo ':BD :|jnr un DPS NHN 13 spy 'an pV 'on jirNi u'D .mrini ]n'hy nojn I'D^in on in'"?y NDB> fnao D'N3in rm 1'p'oy ]irN I'DiD'u |'iDN ]]'N ,1'ypim ""72:01 Nn'mNa j'Nnipi P'^XDI ynv iNnp. About the variants see Ratner (D'VpiTi )ViC run, to R. H., pp. 47-48). Several authorities (like Isaac ibn Gayyat in v'v and others) seem to have had in Yer. the following ending, noipoD nrr N"? rupnn noipn huiv B'yNi. 128 Cf. the meeting at Usha which took place IDBTI 'sWa (Cant. R. 2.5). " Cf. Amos 3.6: mrr N"? nyi ,Tj?a ~\BW ypn' DN? CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 301 Baraita (Yer. R. H., 59d top) stating that in one place the actual sounding of Shofar would take place while in another only a bene- diction over the Shofar would be recited. 130 One such an occa- sion, when the sudden sounding of the Shofar on New Year caused a panic in the Roman camp at a certain place in Palestine and resulted in an attack on the Jews assembled for worship, is re- ported by R. Yohanan. Hence, to assure the Roman authorities, the Jews would assemble in their synagogues on New Year and first occupy themselves with the Shaharit service and the reading of the Biblical portions. The authorities, suspicious of the Jewish assemblies, would become convinced that they were purely religious gatherings and would not be alarmed when the Shofar was sounded. This new arrangement thus remained in force even after the conditions that had called it forth had long passed in the course of time. In the absence of another tradition R. Yofranan's report deserves credence as he was informed in historical matters (see Bacher, Ag. d. Pal. Amor., I, pp. 207-08). Only later on R. Alexander gave an homilectic reason for the new custom as if to justify its retention even after the echoes of the Hadrianic perse- cution had long subsided. 131 CONCLUSION. The details discussed above, disregarding those dealt with in the last section (V), illustrate the struggle of the synagogue of Israel in the Magian-ridden empire of the Sassanids and still more y i'3-oo in mpD3i vypin inx mpoa, which 'Itfur (ed. Lemberg, II, 43b, middle) correctly interprets (probably on the basis of Gaonic tradition): 'i^)3 yipnV ]'TDOZ> TOPH 'nu unanooi. The question arises whether the whole benediction for -\BVP nypn was not instituted during the Hadrianic persecution as a substitute for the actual sounding of the Shofar which had been proscribed (see the discussion in Yer. R. H. 59d). 131 See Pes. R. c. 40 (ed. Friedmann, 167b, 168a): '3T ora Dms '3T no TD'SDio n^sm N'JN nrrto n'rsnn p ]'ypin J'N nn^ rmjoa^N '3i DP3 'ib p rmrv 'IDT pi3 i3n rmn nixo 'tr^o ]"i*o iw |'i3 DHDIJ; ant nyp3 'ID. Vitry, p. 385, correctly remarks that the retention of the custom later on was due to this homily: loipoo) noipQD (read ruon n> nrr V mnn (read, '131 np'DS3 302 JACOB MANN in Palestine under the rule of Christian Byzantium. In essence this struggle turned on the freedom of giving public expression to the basic principle of Judaism, Monotheism, though other aspects, such as the teachings of the Rabbis, figured therein. In the long run the synagogue prevailed in obtaining this freedom. The modification of such an item as Q'J'Dn roia, to remove its direct denunciation of the members of another faith, was a step in the right direction leading towards the acquisition of this freedom. The same applies to the adoration TT^y, on the whole a liturgical composition of sublime aspirations, yet marred at its beginning by a marked disparagement of the non-Jew. 132 These verbal dis- paragements are echoes of the times of trial and tribulation when amidst an environment of general religious intolerance the Jew was out of all proportion wronged as against his own wrongs to others. The protest of his outraged feelings found expression in the Selihah and in the Kinnah varieties of the Piyyut that seems to have been the outcome of Justinian's interference with the divine service of the synagogue rather than in the original liturgy the bulk of which dated from before the era of religious intolerance. It is this original liturgy, though modified in course of the ages, that still forms the basis of the divine service of the synagogue of today. APPEENDIX (TO PAGES 249-51). DATE AND PLACE OF REDACTION OF SEDER ELIYAHU RABBA AND ZUTTA. The various views about the time and the place of the authorship of this bi-sectional midrash are fully discussed by Friedman in his N13D (pp. 91-102) and need not be entered in here again in detail. Theodor in his review of this toao (M. G. W. /., vol. 47, 70-79), in criticizing Friedman's theory of assigning the work actually to the time of the Amora R. 'Anan, offers no sugges- tion of his own on the problem. The last to discuss the work is 132 About this adoration see Elbogen 80-81; cf. also Berliner, Rand- bemerkungen, I, 47-8, 49-50. Its daily recital at the end of the service is dated by Elbogen at about 1300. However, Vitry, p. 75, has it already with the CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 303 Eppenstein (Beitrdge zur Gesch. u. Liter, im Geon. Zeitalter, pp. 182-3), who fastens himself on one detail, viz., the designation of the non-Jew as 'la, to come to the conclusion that the redactor did not live in a Muslim country but in a Christian environment, in Southern Italy, forgetting that if the work referred to condi- tions in Babylon in the Sassanid period, this expression 'la, even if granting Eppenstein 's contention (already used by Giidemann) for argument's sake, would fit in well. G. Klein's curious theory (Der Alteste Christliche Katechismus u. die Jiid. Propaganda- Literatur, 1909, 68 ff.) that our work, in its original form, con- tained a program of proselytising for the heathens and was modified by a redactor living during the Crusades (sic!) need hardly be taken seriously. The writer is concerned with impress- ing upon his own people the ethics and morality of Judaism. The warnings against too intimate relations with the heathen (ed. Friedmann, pp. 45-48) are the best refutation of Klein's theory. In discussing this remarkable Midrash the historical consi- deration of the general political situation of Jewry, as reflected in our work, is so often lacking. All scholars, who have assigned the redaction of this Midrash to the 10th century by reason of the late dates (see above, p. 249, and note 10), have overlooked the significant fact that nowhere is there mentioned the rule of Islam extending, as it did then, from Persia and the eastern provinces to Babylon, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and whole of North-Africa and reaching out to Europe by the occupation of Spain and also of Sicily. The great majority of the Jewish people were then living in this vast territory under the sway of the Muhammedans. The only reference in the work of the children of Ishmael, "over whom God permitted no nation to rule," 133 evidently alludes to the more or less independent Arab tribes extending from the Arabian peninsula proper right to the confines of Babylon at the indication to recite it quietly (mi? 1 ? ir^y vrbi TDINI) evidently because of its anti-Christian beginning. In the ritual of the English Jews before the expul- sion in 1290 we find a long version also with a marked polemical allusion (JQR., IV, 56-7). In the Palestinian ritual, as preserved in the Genizah fragments, ir^y seems to be given at the beginning of the daily service (see Mann, 276 and 325). ' Ch. 14, ed. Friedm., p. 65: jm K 1 ? V3 riN ^J?DE' NTP xyop nto' 'j? ma^oi HOIK "jj 1 ? nizn n'apn. 304 JACOB MANN lower Euphrates. The author probably had specifically in mind the Arabs in the so-called kingdom of Hira (in the neighborhood of Kufa), the rulers of which, though vassals of the Sassanids, retained a good deal of independence. 134 Of the great change to the better in the political situation of the majority of Jewry, as compared to conditions under Christian Rome and Byzantium, that resulted from the tremendous political ascendency of Islam since the death of Muhammad and onwards, there is no allusion in our book which occupies itself so much with the sad treatment meted out to Israel by the D7iyn moiM depicting so poignantly their oppression and tyranny (see ed. Friedmann, pp. 15, 20, 24-5, 110, 111, 117, 120, 123, 133-4, 180, 197.) When the author speaks of the dominions, who had shared among themselves "the world," so that Israel might survive between them and not be persecuted in its entirety were there a united rule over it, I3S he clearly refers to the two great empires of his time, viz. that of the Sassanids and of Byzantium (as Fried- mann rightly maintaied, p. 114, note 11, end NHD, p. 82). Both these empires maltreated Israel in his time, as is evident from the re-iterated complaints of oppression, but fortunately a respite was given to the large Jewries in both empires, comprising the vast majority of the Jewish people, by the very fact that the oppressive acts occurred at different times, and were not guided by a united policy. This situation did not obtain at the time of R. 'Anan at the beginning of the 4th century (against Friedmann 's theory) because conditions in Babylon were really tolerable after the first flush of victory of the Magian Persians under Ardeshir (226 and following) had subsided. Likewise in the Roman empire the Jews were then still fully enfranchised, their political and civic status becoming imperilled only since the triumph of Christianity IM About the Arab kingdom of Pttra in the time of the Sassanids, see Noldeke, fabari, passim, and further Rothstein, Die Dynastie der Labmiden in al-Hlra, 1898. ' Ch. 20, pp. 113-114: m ^ ION .nn ipr 'o .mpa 1 ? Dipno naiy wn N'D: D^iyn Va N^D^'N :i^ THON tmaVoB n^ ,Q'u ':"? in'riy n n'apn p^n no MSD ona ipjn noy ,^aa -]bo nxnaian m -]!?D anmo (insert 1D3> inn ni] Ta tp 1 ? tru ':!? iD^iy n n'apn p^n K^> n CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 305 (since 312) and especially since the reign of Constantius (from 337). Likewise such a situation does not fit in for the 10th century (and in fact from the middle of the 7th century and onwards) when the Jews under the rule of Islam were by far better treated than under Christendom in spite of occasional outbreaks of fanaticism on the part of the dominant Muhammedans. More- over, no author or redactor writing in the 10th century, whether in Babylon or Palestine or in Italy, would speak of "the world" (viz. the one wherein the bulk of Jewry was concentrated) as divided among two nations and two empires (nD^DO 'DP), when the Jews in Christian Europe belonged to different dominions (Byzantium, the German empire, France, etc.) and when the Muhammedan world was split up into three Caliphates, viz. the ' Abbasid Caliphate centered in Bagdad, the Fatimid one centered in Mahedia, near Kairowan, and then after the conquest of Egypt in 969, in Cairo, and the Omayyad one centered in Cordova. The political background of the Jewish situation, as evident from a close study of our Midrash, leads us to the second half of the 5th century when the large Jewry in the Sassanid empire began to experience real religious persecution since the fanatical outbreaks of Yezdejerd II in 454-5, followed by that of his son Peroz. This coincided with the chronic intolerance against the Jews prevalent in Byzantium and resulted in a general *?x~\v JTi 1 ?, in spite of which Israel was preserved, because in its vast majority it was under "two nations and two dominions," viz. Persia and Byzantium, so often at war with each other and not pursuing a unified policy with regard to the treatment to be meted out to the Jews. There is further a clear reference to the Magians in Babylon and to their power in the state quite at the very beginning of our Midrash which those scholars, who assigned the work to the 10th century, ought to have first accounted for, in view of the element- ary historical fact that the political power of the Magians came to an end with the overthrow of Sassanid Empire by the Muslims in 639. The author relates 136 of an official raid (evidently against 136 Ch. 1, pp. 5-6: 'jioflm ,min&n ov nn"m ,c^iy;j ^.i) TO a iVno vrvi N'D in -nn *h to . . .j'njior anr 'l?3i IDD '^DI niysiD nioo DD '.Ttni .i^on n'33 306 JACOB MANN the Jews) in "a great city in the world" (probably Ctesiphon, the capital of the Sassanids) in the course of which he himself was arrested. A Magian priest (i?n) 137 had an argument with him about matters of difference between Judaism and Zoroastrianism, viz. why God had created repulsive creatures (D'PDTi D'XpE) which, according to Zoroastrian teaching, would be the work of Ahriman, the god of darkness and evil, and about the symbol of fire (light) as emanating from Hormuzd (Ahuramazda). This priest promised the captive his freedom, if he answered his questions, which indicates the political influence the Magians had on the government officials, whose raid probably was the result of the former's instigation. Such a situation obtained in Babylon and in Persia under the Sassanids, especially under Yezdejerd II and Peroz, who were dominated by the powerful Magian priests, but certainly not under the rule of Islam, not to speak of Italy where such a situation does not apply at all. The statement that "God created everything in His world except falsehood and iniquity" (Zutta c. 3, ed. Friedm. p. 175) 138 also seems to be directed against the Dualistic doctrine of Zoroastrianism that divided the creation between Ahuramazda and Ahriman. Further indication of the author's familiarity with Jewish conditions in Babylon we have in the story of his visit to "a large city in the Diaspora of Babylon" inhabited entirely by Jews. 139 1 ? [~^M "ion* 'w nr lai '"? TDNn DN :'^ TDK .Ninpn :i^ vnnN ?nn nsio -Q na ^so :^ na I'Ton . aamim STD nn ':DD .m'JN nr PN See also Friedmann, K13D, p. 82. Reifmann's emendation (cf. ibid 94, note 3, end) D'p'yaio "?ni -pra is unnecessary, as probably Ctesiphon, the capital of the Persian empire, is meant. w About the fanaticism of these Magian priests, see the Talmudic pass- ages cited in 'Arukh s.v. nan (ed. Kohut, III, 339-40). 138 Nia "? Viiy m'Di ,N-a "? ~ipn HTDD ^in iD^iya n'apn na ^3n. 139 Ch. 18, p. 100: n 1 ?!!) ^yh 'no:a:i ,^aa hv n"?n iina i^na 'n"n nn DJIB D'ia na TKI ^tott" nViDB*. Graetz (Geschichte, v., 4th ed., p. 335, note 2) takes *?aa in our book to denote Rome in order to assign the work to Italy. But for this there is no proof. The above story certainly applies better to the large Babylonian Jewry where there would be cities entirely inhabited by Jews. Graetz's further remark that "the twice repeated phrase: Gog and Magog's punishing judgment has already befallen the peoples (c. 3 and 5) surely (sic!) refers to the devastating invasions of the Hungarians into Italy during 889- CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 307 The story of the ignorant Jew, who raised his voice at the recital of the Kedushah (p. 66), also refers to Babylon. In the passage dealing with the Messianic times (c. 20, p. 113) evidently the Jews of Babylon are meant who would leave for Palestine and will be maintained by their non-Jewish neighbors. 140 In Babylon the Jews would leave behind all their sins and return to the Holy Land in purity. 141 Altogether from the cryptic passage in c. 18 (p. 98 top) it appears that the view was prevalent that Elijah had first to go down to Babylon before the appearance of the Mes- siah. 1 " 2 The Messianic hopes possibly inspired the author to put his Midrash into the framework of an account of Elijah's exper- iences during his peregrinations amidst Babylonian Jewry. Of the ardent desire and hope for the restoration of Israel, voiced by the Jews of his time amidst the tribulations of oppression, there are several indications in our Midrash. 143 The mystical manner of the book of presenting Elijah as perennially visiting Israel throughout the Diaspora (moipo "?J3 955)" is entirely unwarranted, as the text speaks of the coming and the down- fall of Gog in the Messianic times! See p. 15, top: KU"? Tny^ m I3trn ir>3i m DV ^33 Ton niNii irry run abiyi irxm^ by iai 1031 m nspo ^top' 'in by, and so on p. 24. By ^>N10' 'in the mountains of Palestine are meant (cf. Ezek. 36.1). Giidemann (Geschichte des Erziehungswesens u. der Cultur der Juden in Ilalien, p. 302) makes this passage to be a reference to the invasion of the Mo- hammedans into Italy. How theories are evolved out of misunderstood simple passages! (Cf. also Friedm., NUD, 99, note 3). If anything could at all be deduced from this general vague statement that Jewish oppressors are to be seen meeting with evil ends even at present, one could venture to find therein an allusion to the defeats of the Persians under Peroz at the hands of the Huns (or Haital) resulting in the death of this oppres- sive king in 492. Altogether the Huns were in the 5th century the most feared enemies of the Sassanids (see Noldeke, Tabari, 115, note 2, and 119 ff.). J < Ch. 20, p. 113: *?x-\w fin 1 ? i^in (viz. Babylon) pN3 onwjn DMJ ."7N1P' bv on'na -pn 1 ? ]itoi on 1 ? 13 '' P. 129: '"V ]'iino ]n3 j'^iyi ^7333 ]m I'mn VN-IP' bv irvrmiy bz. ' 4J Ch. 18, p. 98 top: ITPD u' O'KI bub n^>nn TIV 'KW ob-\yb 'mm roil. ' Ch. 4 p. 19 top: bv mas by n:tnoi in'DN 1 ? min 131 12 wv 03m osn ^3 13 no 1133 by\ D^PIT 1133 by nexoi IDHDI niKnoi ,ro' ^3 "?KI' bv 11133 byi n'3pn .nv 1 ?! Dir3 byi 3iip3 n'oxni? nyw ^yi pipon See further pp. 53; 110: |'3'iyai ]'D'3o ^Ki'3 ]H3 B" nupn D'ipr nD3 nsr TDD DT "733 -\nywb I'jjsoi |'inoi jnono ,non n'3^i nown n'3^ (repeated also on p. 112). 308 JACOB MANN Drrmnnn) induced the author to clothe the accounts of his own experiences of Jewish life in the form of Elijah having discussions with the sages at ^nan amon rva in Jerusalem (pp. 49, 51, 80, 122) and as hailing from Yabneh "the seat of sages and Rabbis." 144 The "great school of Jerusalem" and Yabneh are only metaphors of speech whereas really the Babylonian academies are meant. This fact of the author's presentation of his own experiences in the garb of Elijah's visit to Israel in the Diaspora is probably also the cause for his abandoning the usual Midrashic style of a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic and composing his work purely in a Hebrew, so full of choice and characteristic expressions (see the list given by Friedmann, N130, pp. 118 ff.), which renders it so unique in the whole Midrashic literature. Elijah, the prophet of Biblical times, transplanted among the angels, who were not supposed to understand Aramaic (according to a widely spread tradition, cf., e.g., So {ah 33a), naturally has to recount his journeyings, arguments and experiences in Hebrew! That no author in the Amoraic period could have written a work in such choice Hebrew and would have only to employ the Hebrew- Aramaic lingo found in the Talmud, is, of course, a weak argu- ment that hardly requires a refutation (see the pertinent remarks of Friedmann, N13D, 131, bottom, and 132, top). How haphazardly there was detected that "in the whole work there blows, so to say, a European air" (to use Graetz's metaphor) can be seen from the theories evolved from the references in the book to trade and commerce and to the business relations between Jews and non-Jews by Giidemann (/. c., 53-54) and Eppenstein (I.e., 183), as if Italy was the only country in the world wherein such conditions obtained among the Jews! In the Babylonian Talmud there are many references to the occupations of the Jews including their journeys for purposes of business. One has only to refer to those who made sea journeys (ND' 'mm, Sabb. 20b, 2 la, 90a, R. H. 2 la, bottom, etc.) and to those who travelled to distant Ahwaz (win '3) which route it took a caravan to cover there and back about 12 months (cf. B. K. 112b, bottom). Nu- ' P. 95: D'aii D'Dnn nipoo '] nn'D, Zufta, c. 1., p. 168, top. The latter title pi may refer to the Patriarchs who were thus styled. It certainly should not be construed in the sense of Rabbanites as against Karaites. CHANGES IN THE DIVINE SERVICE 309 merous data testify to their social and business relations with non-Jews in Babylon. Several statements of the Babylonian Amoraim reflect their observation of the standards of life of the non-Jews in their country. 145 The disputes, which our author had with people knowing or accepting the Bible only but not the Oral Law, have rightly been proved by Friedmann (N130, 93-98) to have no bearing whatever on Rabbanite and Karaite polemics, as Bacher and Oppenheim had maintained. Our Midrash rather reveals the significant fact that as late as the second half of the 5th century there were still in Babylon people who opposed the Oral Law, and that this skepticism towards Rabbinic Judaism probably continued sur- reptitiously in the following centuries till it was organized into a formidable movement since the times of 'Anan, the founder of Karaism. The whole evidence thus gathered from a close study of the work leads its origin back to Babylon in the Sassanid period (as Friedmann rightly maintained), however, not to the time of the Amora R. 'Anan but rather to the second half of the fifth century. The complaint of the great oppression of Israel in both world empires of that time, viz. Byzantium and Persia, reflect well conditions in the latter country since the close of the reign of Yezdejerd II (454-5). The item of the prohibition of the Shema' (above, pp. 247 ff.) strengthens this conclusion still more. W. Jabez 146 was on the right track in using the point of the prohibi- tion of the Shema' as a clue for fixing the approximate date of our Midrash but he soon went astray in explaining this prohibition to have fallen in the time of Heraclius after his reconquest of Palestine in 629. Hence our author became a Palestinian who even alluded to the then leader of the Palestinian Jews, viz. no less a person than Benjamin of Tiberias. Atlas (in D~on, 96-102) rightly refuted Jabez by realizing that this prohibition of the ' The whole matter cannot, of course, be entered in here. Cf. for the present Gezow, ^33 nnn: hy, 34-35, 41-43, and Funk, Die Juden in Babylonien, I, 18-19, 26-27. ' In Rabbinowitz's *?K-\W noia, I (1886), 382-86. Cf. the analysis of his arguments by Friedmann, HUD, 98-102, but he, too, has no clear view on the matter, even venturing to suggest (p. 101) that the passage in c. 19 (p. 110) TIK ]'D':a hy 3'PD3 }*? "in refers to Benjamin of Tiberias! 310 JACOB MANN Shema' should be connected with Yezdejerd's decree in 454-5. But he, too, soon lost his clue to go astray in his own speculation. 147 Our dating of the book places it prior to the conclusion of the Babylonian Talmud which took place around 500 C. E. Hence the Mishnah is cited several times (rutpoa D'DDn UP, see the enu- meration of the passages by Friedmann NUD, pp. 59-60) but never the Talmud as such. 148 Theodor's arguments (/. c., 77-78) really do not explain this fact in the least. Why not a single Amora is mentioned by name seems rather to be due to the tendency of the author to anonymous quoting. Hence there are found many quotations beginning with I~IDN, TIBK p'a ,D'O3n I~IDN (see the list, ibid. p. 60). But while realising this tendency it is not yet clear why he adopted this policy, though living at a time when the work of the Amoraim in Babylon was practically com- pleted. But this is evident that had the Babylonian Talmud been before him in a complete form, as the Mishnah was, he would have used the expression TioWn D'Don V (or perhaps toon) just as he introduced his Mishnaic quotations with the formula 1:2 rwaa D'Dsn. This consideration militates further against assigning the book to the 10th century when the Babylonian Talmud was the common property of Jewry all over the Diaspora. On the other hand in the second half of the 5th century the Babli, though arranged under the supervision of R. Ashi (d. 427) and his colleagues, remained still the guarded treasure of the Academies, 149 reaching its completion only about 500 and receiving still further additions and finishing touches by the Saboraim in the course of the 6th century. Living in Babylon our author also was not yet familiar with the Yerushalmi (supposedly concluded, or more correctly interrupted, about 425). A knowledge of the Yerushalmi seems to have penetrated to Babylon only later during the Gaonic period. 147 Cf. also Friedmann 's criticism, Kiao, 102, note 1. 148 In c. 18 (p. 106) the expression Tic"?n in the sentence: DDm Don 73 1 HJD bv nnrnc nxo tnpo hv nutsno na U3"?3 w ,'ncN 1 ? min nan n wv ^tn'D -iiQ7n 7V mawn TO noi means of course arguments deduced by means of the Biblical exegesis (see Bacher, Exeget. Terminologie, I, 199 ff.). On p. 68 (n:zn nnaxi no 1 ? nn^n emo) the word nnVn is evidently a gloss (cf. Friedm., K13D, p. 60). 149 Regardless of the mooted problem whether in an oral or written forn UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY mill! A 000108455 7