problems with prayers (studies in the textual history of early rabbinic liturgy) || 18. a genizah...

18

A Genizah Fragment of Grace After Meals

Tracing ideas

Any genuine attempt at reconstructing the form and content of medieval Hebrew prayer must ultimately be dependent on the sound decipherment and analysis of the manuscript evidence. If one is researching the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean of about a millennium ago, the primary source is undoubtedly the rich collection of material from the Cairo Genizah. Through its old, worn and fragmentary pieces, much has already been revealed about the development of post-talmudic Jewish liturgy but the picture still remains hazy and incomplete.1 An overall sense of what occurred is gradually emerging and this is especially true in connection with the Babylonian and Palestinian rites and their input into the later evolution of the oriental and occidental rites. It must be admitted, however, that the details of the process are yet to be convincingly mapped. If this is true with regard to the philological and historical aspects, it applies even more to the tracing of theological ideas and their adjustment by way of the close examination of liturgical texts. Obviously, scholars cannot justifiably speculate on how such ideas were maintained or altered without basing themselves on the critical comparison of a fair number of accurately reconstructed texts. At the same time, it has to be acknowledged that no reliable theories about such developments will emerge unless there is an interest in building them. Here we are confronted with a virtual tabula rasa because of an exclusive preoccupation with the recording of textual variations on the part of some specialists and a conviction that different words merely reflect the same theology on the part of others.2 The purpose of this study is to make a modest contribution, in a small area, to the history and theology of medieval Jewish liturgy by way of the critical examination of one Cambridge Genizah fragment of the rabbinic grace after meals. Some information will be provided about how the piece found its way to Cambridge and a description will be offered of its codicological and

1 M. Schmelzer, 'The contribution of the Genizah to the study of liturgy and poetry', PAAJR 63 [1997-2001] (2001), pp. 163-79; see also chapter 12 of this volume.

2 See the collected work of D. Rappel, Pithey Ha-She'arim: Gates to the Jewish Liturgy, eds. Y. and N. Rappel (Tel Aviv, 2001).

Brought to you by | Heinrich Heine Universität DüsseldorfAuthenticated | 134.99.34.168

Download Date | 3/27/14 7:05 AM

334 Chapter Eighteen

palaeographical nature. Following a transcription of the Hebrew text, a number of textual variants from each paragraph will be discussed and the importance of these will be assessed for various aspects of Jewish liturgical history. Finally, an attempt will be made to compare each paragraph with other medieval versions and to draw some general conclusions.

Description

According to Cambridge University Library's records, its Hebrew manuscript Add. 3162 was purchased by the Oxford Egyptologist, the Reverend Greville J. Chester, in Egypt and presented to the Library in 1891.3 Given that geographical and chronological background, and the fact that the other thirty-two items that Mr Chester presented to the Library all have the standard characteristics of Genizah texts, it may confidently be assumed that this manuscript also derives from that same Cairo source.4 Each of its four paper folios (in two bifolia, stitched together at top and foot of folios) measures 15 χ 10 centimetres, ff. l v -3r have Hebrew text on 13-14 lines, while there is scribbling on f. l r and f. 4v is blank. Although there is significant staining and damage, the loss of text is minimal and the manuscript constitutes a complete text of the set of blessings following a meal (birkat ha-mazon), including an extensive list of 1ΒΠΊΠ ('May the Merciful One...') verses. The text on f. lv is headed by the phrase lira ro-o 'am 'awn ('In the name of the Merciful One, the grace after meals') and concludes on f. 4r with the Judeo-Arabic note nV?N ]1573 γοό1?^ rran ('The end of the grace, with the help of God').5 Two systems are used for filling lines in which there is insufficient space for a whole word. According to one, the first half of what resembles the letter alef is used (f. lv, line 11) and in the other the first letter of the word is transcribed (f. 2r, line 13) but the whole word is then written again in the new line. The end of the text is indicated by a dot with a circle around it (f. 4r, line 7). The letter kaf throughout the text has an unusual shape that makes it appear almost like mem. The vowel points are standard Tiberian with an occasional rafeh sign but there is no hataf under the het of the word lamn, which is sometimes

3 This information is recorded in the Manuscripts Class Catalogue at Cambridge University Library. I am grateful to the Syndics of the Library for their permission to publish the text and the plate that appears at the end of this volume.

4 S. C. Reif, Hebrew Manuscripts at Cambridge University Library: A Description and Introduction (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 30 and 32.

5 In my brief description of this fragment in Hebrew Manuscripts (see n. 4 above), I misread the final letter of the third word of this Judeo-Arabic sentence. It is definitely a final nun and not a zayin.



Grace after Meals 335

abbreviated to mn.6 The word is treated as a prefix and not an independent entity and there is some plene spelling, as in the case of the word nnauw (f. 2r, line 7). The second person masculine pronominal suffix follows the Mishnaic Hebrew -akh and not the Biblical Hebrew -kha. At the end of the third benediction, the last word is followed by two dots indicating the conclusion. There is then a space before and after the word 1ΏΚ. This is perhaps a reflection of the talmudic discussion concerning the use of 'amen' at the end of benedictions in general and this benediction in particular and the difference of opinion concerning whether it is to be declaimed or recited quietly.7 In view of all the data just given, there is a prima facie case for establishing the original provenance of the manuscript in the Syro-Palestinian-Egyptian area in the classical Genizah period. Dr Edna Engel of the Hebrew Palaeography Project at the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem has tentatively suggested to me that it should be dated to the twelfth century.8

Text

l v lira ro-o 'am 'aaa

W7 ORF7 irvu awiai | iona man V?ia D wn m im [ tftisn i"7a irn1?« ΠΓΙΝ inn isn nraa lira iraâ | ir-iorr "?NI ΙΛ ΊΟΠ Ν1? ΤΠΠ | mn laas? ποπ Ό | IRA

tt lira ivnm | s1? -piy i:rf?tin Va1? onsai | ir xin '3 Vran iau> naya | tf?iy •jiitn 'n tt I ystrai η τ nx nms nana | rion anai rams ίαη | 9 [new r]nria

ΐτπ ηηκ -pia

2r liiai α"π mim rria rami | naio man p s i:rt>n:n Ό | irrfjx ™ η1? mi: .Vsn πκ inna | °?yi i:ny7irm> -pixn 'pin | yi anas? rraa wioi | ansa pxa i:nxsinu> "?yi |

pin I r?nNti> nâi norai iom | im a"n yi Dma i? inrnn | Vyi i n t r a nnaBW Vrnn I iau> nx tranaai mi» | i:x irnVxDîd "OT iai | sai ny aa i:nx mVai

naiai nyaon n°?3Xi naxa | 7yi aViyV ampm

6 Some of these various features are exemplified in the plate that appears at the end of this volume.

7 BT, Berakhot 45b; compare PT, Berakhot 5.5 (9c) which does not specifically refer to this example of the use of amen.

8 I am grateful to Dr Engel for this helpful suggestion which was made to me at the Library in Jerusalem early in 1997. On the matter of scribal transmission, see M. Beit-Arie, Unveiled Faces of Medieval Hebrew Books: The Evolution of Manuscript Production -Progression or Regression? (Jerusalem, 2003), with comments relating to the matter of line-fillers on pp. 32-48.

9 This is the only place in the manuscript where the paper has disintegrated and left a lacuna in the text.




2 v I -pram ipmns m a m | mna Ι:1? nan -fr in: -HPX | naim ρ χ η "w "PnVx ηκ

• m | :inan °?yi ρ χ η | nrix i n a rf?o ^τηη la^1? | πτσι irtra : yatiri Vmn "7ΠΪΠ man Vyi 1-piaa pwa ivs "7571 η τ ν | D ^ I T "?5η lay "?iou" bui \ lr1?» im1?«1 1 1

nx n:ai lraâ | naipa1? πττπη mna τ η | ma ma1?»! τ·1?» iati> κηρ: | i im ampm

3r -ρ-α I p x ^ U T P rix | varna n:ian ™ nnx - p a | ram i:nat!n nam1? u^ym aim I p m n "iân apsr amp | irwnp ή ' - η ν ira1?» i r a s | nVim -f?a irn^N«•> nrw

"?ai mann 110m in 7y"7 i ^ a r xin | i ^ a i sin ray a u a χιη | ανι •τ Vaa^ a'oam Noa "?y -nnm1 'ma . p x a i n w a n a r w | p m n .nyi nViy1? ι1?»11 p m n am

'mn .maa

3v TO1 I 'mn .irnsn 'aanna nyr | p m n .nrym i:1? , ,r | p m n .nvaaip i:a ,l?v

irnw ytr I 'mn . i r a n *?aa | 'mn . i n ' ntraa -pa' | 'mn . i ra ipa n*?na •nm m n y a "?a 1a »ER | annas'?^ -URFRIRA la1^11 V1?» Ί:·?3ΝΒ> in"?ti>n -pa·' | 'mn .iraâ

nny i:1? mm p m n | aV?w naio ir^y ons 1 1 p m n .DTmrn °?a v"?y |

4r I ntinyi laâ myiu" Vnsa | .Kan tf?iyn "n1?! mtran -ân | nx'a1? i r a r p m n ,-pioi

"?y aV?w I n w varrn son r a n a a | QY?B> nana .tf?iy iy | lynrti τη 1 ? la'ira1? 7on 1^NHi" Va

:ny?N iiya nana1?« nVaa

Variants

For the purposes of this brief paper, only a limited number of the numerous, interesting variants will be listed and discussed, and they will be cited according to folio and line as in the above text: 1. F. lv, 1. 5: The use of the word IMS indicating that 'God's love is with us' is recorded in the twelfth-century Franco-German Mahzor Vitry. It is, however, specifically opposed by the Spanish liturgist David Abudraham on the grounds that it does not appear in the original biblical phrase and is theologically suspect in that it limits the divine love to Israel.10 It occurs in numerous Genizah texts and the reason for its inclusion may be an interest in stressing the Jewish relationship with God and a reluctance to use the purely biblical formula in favour of an adjusted rabbinic one.11

10 Mahzor Vitry, ed. S. Hurwitz (2 vols; Nuremberg2, 1923), 1.52, Sefer Abudraham (Warsaw, 1877), p. 174, and Sefer Abudraham Ha-Shalem, ed. S. Α Wertheimer (Jerusalem, 1963), p. 322.

11 See Genizah texts CUL T-S NS 159.10 and 230.15, and T-S AS 104.76 and 107.181. Another Genizah fragment in which the word ia»y has been added to the biblical phrase is CUL T-S Ar.37.262 which contains an expanded version of the text to found in Sa'adya's prayer-book; see Siddur R. Saadya Gaon, eds I. Davidson, S. Assaf and Β. I. Joel, Jerusalem, 1941; second edition, Jerusalem, 1963), p. 102. See also L.




2. F. lv, 1. 5: The form 1310 rather than 131031 is a reflection of earlier texts in which reference is made to God's goodness, almost as an hypostasization, in both halves of the sentence, apparently in an original form that read aits D ir? ion1 Vsi IT? "ion vft Vran Olttl ('His divine goodness has never failed us nor will any of his goodness ever fail us'). An alternative such as απ1? or TITÖ was later employed in order to avoid the duplication of the word 310, or because its original sense was no longer clear, and to make a more specific reference to the provision of food. Such alternatives then became the subject of the whole sentence and the first use of 310 was adjusted to an adverbial use by the addition of a preposition, i.e. 131031 or 131ΒΏ1, so that it was no longer God's goodness that had never failed or would never fail but rather the food that was provided by God's goodness.12 The current phraseology appears to represent a transitional stage between the two formulas.

3. F. lv, 1. 6: The expansion of the second phrase mentioned in the previous note into lira lrD^a inptr ^xi ('and May our King never allow us to lack food') and the use of the pi'el conjugation appears to give God, as it were, a more active role in preventing a lack of food. Given that the subject of the entire first paragraph of the grace is the divine provider of food, and the possibility that in an early phraseology the sense of 310 was as an epithet of God, perhaps this expanded version has still preserved such a sense in its use of the pi'el.13

4. F. lv, 1. 10: In the various versions, one of two alternative verbs is employed to describe God's provision of food, both of them in the hiph'il, namely, 1ΌΏ or (as here) rpnn. The former is Biblical Hebrew while the latter is Mishnaic Hebrew and the option chosen in a

Finkelstein, 'The Birkat ha-mazon', JQR, NS 19 (1928-29), p. 243, and B. S. Jacobson, Nefro Binah (Hebrew; 5 vols; Tel Aviv, 1968-83), vol. 3 (1973), p. 55.

12 The phrase begins with laioi (but also includes the words nrf? and/or pra) in Genizah fragments CUL T-S NS 159.10 and 230.15, and T-S AS 104.70 and 105.94 while T-S AS 107.181 has the word with the preposition, 1HD31. See also Finkelstein, 'Birkat ha-mazon' (see n. 11 above), p. 243, and Jacobson, Netiv Binah (see n. 11 above), pp. 55-56. On this and similar variants, see Hazofeh 10 (L. Blau Festschrift,1926), pp. 213-15.

13 Compare the ending of the first paragraph of the fourth benediction in the later Ashkenazi and Italian rites (ΉΊρπ; "7ί< Q^irt), as in S. D. Luzzatto (ed.), 'D3 TClffn nma T ^ W N P"P ΠΜ (2 vols; Livorno, 1856), 1.101a, and S. Baer, Seder 'Avodat Yisra'el (Rödelheim, 1868), p. 559. On the use of aicn for addressing God, compare the conclusion of the penultimate benediction of the 'amidah in numerous Genizah texts, many of them reflecting the Palestinian rite: iinirf? "f? aim (Ό Good One, who deserves thanks'); see Y. Luger, The Weekday Amidah in the Cairo Genizah (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 2001), p. 186. Genizah fragments CUL T-S NS 230.15 and AS 104.176 have another version that may represent an intermediate stage: "ΙΟΓΡ NL ΙΗΟ'Π IÖ Vnan imoi lira ιΛ.




particular line of tradition consequently reflects that tradition's notion of what kind of language is preferable in the rabbinic liturgy.14

5. F. Iv, 1. 12: Whether or not to conclude the body of a liturgical text, immediately before the benediction itself, with a biblical verse was a controversial matter and rites were not always consistent in their practices. Of the three verses commonly used with the first three paragraphs of the grace (respectively, Psalms 145:16, Deuteronomy 8:10 and Psalms 147:2), this version has the first two. Among the words used to introduce the verses are mnDD, naxD and •"p1?· In this version, TiöND is used in the first benediction and 3WDD in the second (f. 2,1.14).15

6. F. 2r, 1. 2: The phrase p x ur^mn ('you have given us a land as an inheritance') presupposes that the worshipper is in the land of Israel, while the alternative irirnx nx römn ('you have given our ancestors a land as an inheritance'), which occurs in many other versions, is undoubtedly more suited to those praying in the diaspora. The former version is, however, still retained by Sa'adya and perhaps also by Maimonides (about whose preference there is some textual doubt) before later giving way more widely to the latter. Earlier Genizah fragments often begin the benediction with the phrase n'7m "7V1 lrmx TJ irmax, perhaps an alternative Palestinian version and position for the phrase being discussed.16

14 Some examples of liturgical objection to the Mishnaic Hebrew stem ιρη are discussed in S. C. Reif, Shabbethai Sofer and his Prayer-book (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 127, 188, 195, 220,298, and 303-4.

15 On the matter of the inclusion of a verse, see PT, Berakhot 1:8 (3d) and the interpretations offered by N. Wieder, The Formation of Jewish Liturgy in the East and the West: A Collection of Essays (Hebrew; 2 vols; Jerusalem, 1998), 1.285-91 (originally published in Tarbiz 43 (1974), pp. 46-52), I. Ta-Shma, 'Eyn omrim berakhah pasucj' in Sefer Raphael, ed. J. E. Movshovitz (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 2000), pp. 643-51, and Jacob ben Judah Hazzan of London, The Etz Hayyim, ed. I. Brodie (3 vols; Jerusalem, 1962-67), 1.166. For the variation in the introductory word, see Finkelstein, 'Birkat ha-mazon' (see n. 11 above), pp. 243-57, and Jacobson, Netiv Binah (see n. 11 above), pp. 55-59. Among Genizah fragments, CUL T-S K8.7 (= J. Mann, 'Genizah fragments of the Palestinian order of service,' HUCA 2 (1925), no. 18, reprinted in Contributions to the Scientific Study of Jewish Liturgy (ed. J. J. Petuchowski, New York, 1970)) and Bodley, Heb. f. 47 (Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, vol. 1, ed. A. Neubauer (Oxford, 1886); vol. 2, ed. A. Neubauer and A. E. Cowley (Oxford, 1906), no. 2734) have the verse while CUL T-S AS 102.22 and AS 107.181 do not.

16 Saadya (see n. 11 above), p. 102 and E. D. Goldschmidt, 'The Oxford Ms. of Maimonides' book of prayer' (reprinted from Studies of the Research Institute for Hebrew Poetry in Jerusalem 7 (1958), pp. 183-213) in his collected articles entitled On Jewish Liturgy: Essays on Prayer and Religious Poetry (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1978), p. 215. See also Finkelstein, 'Birkat ha-mazon' (see n. 11 above), pp. 247-49 and Jacobson, Netiv Binah (see n. 11 above), pp. 57-59. Among Genizah fragments that have the introductory phrase and/or the word 'mVran are CUL T-S K8.7 (= Mann, 'Palestinian order' (see n. 15 above), no. 18), NS 154.95,235.173 and 271.14, and AS 108.134.




7. F. 2r, 1. 3: Among the subjects required by the talmudic teachers to be mentioned in the second paragraph of the grace are God's covenant with Israel and the Torah and these are linked up with the topic of daily sustenance.17 Hence the phrase here that simply covers four topics: Tirm •"Π mini rp-n ('covenant, Torah, life and food'). The problem is that this version also includes later in the paragraph (lines 7-10) an expansion of each of these four topics. It may speculatively be proposed that what is probably being reflected here is a stage at which the expansion had found a place after various other appended phrases. It had not yet totally displaced the original but was co-existing with it, perhaps because their places in the paragraph were not contiguous.18

8. F. 2r, 1. 12: In the most expansive versions there is here an expression of thanks to God's name and a wish for his name to be blessed forever, with a possible application of various epithets to His name.19 Here in the statement wnpm ΠΛΠ nx ΠΌ-ηηΐ -f7 mi» UN ('we thank you and bless your great and holy name') the first half gives thanks directly to God and the second blesses his great and holy name. This version appears to represent a mid-point - though not necessarily a chronological one -between the shortest and longest texts.

9. F. 2v, lines 2-5: The passage immediately before the benediction in this instance is a plea for future sustenance: 'Speedily remember for us the covenant with our fathers and in your great goodness bring us satisfaction and we shall thank your great name forever'. There are at this point in some Genizah texts, in the Rumanian and, to a lesser extent, in the Italian rites pleas for future deliverance and restoration that undoubtedly have messianic overtones.20 The text here appears to

17 BT, Berakhot 48b-49a and PT, Berakhot 1.9 (3d). 18 Only the four words, and no expansion of them, are to be found in Saadya (see n. 11

above), p. 102, Siddur Rabbenu Shelomo ben Nathan, ed. S. Hagi (Jerusalem, 1995), p. 118, and Genizah fragments CUL T-S NS 154.95, 159.120, 230.29, 235.173 and AS 102.22, and Bodley, Heb. f. 47 (Neubauer, Catalogue (see η. 15 above), no. 2734).

19 Contrast the version of Saadya (see n. 11 above), p. 102, and Genizah fragment CUL T-S NS 174.14, which read: TOL D ' J I S ) ' ? L A W N X C R O - I N A I Η 1 ? Π Τ Ι Ο U N ('we thank you and bless your name forever'), with that of The Etz Hayyim (see n. 15 above), 1.167, which has: im oVwV Tan 'Π ta παι ηη» 173Π' ηπιχ pnnai -f? min ('we thank you and bless you; may your name be blessed in the mouth of all living continually forever'). See also Finkelstein, 'Birkat ha-mazon' (see n. 11 above), pp. 247-51 and Jacobson, Netiv Binah (see n. 11 above), pp. 57-59. CUL T-S K8.7 (= Mann, 'Palestinian order' (see n. 15 above), no. 18) has 7S>1 T A N now T A N 1 while NS 197.14, though barely legible, appears to read 75/1 aW7 7'an natt> ynrn.

20 Seder Tefillot Ha-Shanah Le-Minhag Qehillot Romaniya (Constantinople, 1574) = Rumanian rite, f. 80a; Luzzatto's τ^Χΰ1« m s (see n. 13 above), f. 100b; Finkelstein, 'Birkat ha-mazon' (see n. 11 above), p. 251, and Jacobson, Netiv Binah (see n. 11 above), p. 59; E. D. Goldschmidt, On Jewish Liturgy (see n. 16 above), p. 161; CUL T-S NS 271.128 and AS 107.181.




be more mundane, unless the phrase irwM inwn (in which the verb is vocalized in the pi'el conjugation) carries a more figurative and spiritual sense. 10. F. 2v, 1. 7: The prayer for Jerusalem occurs in the daily 'amidah, the haftarah and wedding benedictions, and the grace. The factors common to all the versions and rites are the mentions of God's people Israel, the city of Jerusalem and the Temple, with amplifications of these and variations in their order.21 The inclusion of the worshippers themselves among the potential recipients of the divine mercy, as flagged here by the inclusion of the word lr1?!?, is not universal and may reflect a concern to move from the people as a whole to the local congregation.22

11. Ff. 2v-3r. The simplest versions all make reference in the latter part of the third benediction to the return of the dynasty of David and some also include the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the restoration of the Temple service.23 More complex formulations either expand on the messianic theme or prefer to stress the need for independence and security with regard to future sustenance, or sometimes do both.24 The additional phraseology that is followed here is also used in some versions of the musaf 'amidah for festivals ΠΓ333 irnaun mir^ lr^ym ('bring us up into Jerusalem and grant us the joy of seeing it rebuilt') and lays the emphasis on the city's reconstruction.25

21 For sources and discussion of this Jerusalem benediction, see S. C. Reif, 'Some notions of restoration in early rabbinic prayer' in Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. J. M. Scott (Leiden, Boston, Köln, 2001), pp. 293-94, reproduced in an updated form as chapter 9 of this volume.

22 The word ir'jy is not included (or, is excluded?) in Seder Rav Amram Gaon, ed. E. D. Goldschmidt (Jerusalem, 1971); collated with Seder R. Amram, part 1, ed. D. Hedegärd (Lund, 1951), p. 45, and Goldschmidt, 'Maimonides' (see n. 16 above), p. 216, but otherwise occurs in numerous sources representing various rites and periods, including Genizah fragments such as CUL T-S NS 271.128 and Bodley, Heb. f. 47 (Neubauer, Catalogue (see η. 15 above), no. 2734). Similarly, Mahzor Vitry (see n. 10 above), 1.52, and Luzzatto's T ^ w x jnm (see n. 13 above), f. 100a, add the word

to the end of the phrase Ι^ϊ inp3E\ 23 As, for example, Saadya (see n. 11 above), Goldschmidt, 'Maimonides' (see n. 16

above), Siddur Rabbenu Shelomo (see n. 18 above) and the Persian rite (JTSA ENA 23), and Genizah fragments Bodley, Heb. f. 47 and f. 36 (Neubauer, Catalogue (see η. 15 above), nos 2734 and 2738), CUL T-S K8.7 (= Mann, 'Palestinian order' (see n. 15 above), no. 18) and AS 102.22. See also Finkelstein, 'Birkat ha-mazon' (see n. 11 above), pp. 253-54, and Jacobson, Netiv Binah (see n. 11 above), pp. 59-60.

24 Amram (see n. 22 above) in the form that we have it, p. 45, matches these formulations; see also The Etz Hayyim (see n. 15 above), 1.167, Mahzor Vitry (see n. 10 above), 1.52, Genizah fragments CUL T-S H18.8 and H11.74 (= Mann, 'Palestinian order' (see n. 15 above), nos 21 and 19), Luzzatto's Τ^ΧΪΡΝ >ma (see n. 13 above), f. lOOab, the Rumanian rite, (see n. 20 above), f. 80a, and Finkelstein, 'Birkat ha-mazon' (see n. 11 above), pp. 255-57.

25 Saadya (see n. 11 above), pp. 151-52; I. Elbogen, German edition, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Frankfurt am Main, 1931; reprint,




12. F. 3r, 1. 2: Although the use here of the definite article in the word nmn occurs in some other Genizah texts and has survived in early versions of the Yemenite rite,26 it is more commonly absent not only in the case of the shorter formula n^WIT run ('builder of Jerusalem') where the first word is construct and militates against such a form but even where the longer formula d ^ w i t riK mm is employed.27 In the latter case, the use of the definite article is, strictly speaking, more grammatically sound and may even stress God's power but has been eliminated possibly by contamination with the alternative rendering.

13. F. 3r, lines 5 -6 : Although there is no consistency in the earliest Genizah fragments, the text after the opening benediction in the later versions and rites (but not here) generally included the word ·?νπ ('God') before any of God's other epithets.28 Was the original ambivalence about opening the description with the word 1Γ3Ν ('our Father') born out of a hesitation to over-emphasize God's fatherhood since this was so central a notion in Christian theology and such anathema to dominant Islamic conceptions of God? There is also variation with regard to the inclusion of a reference to God's holiness,

Hildesheim, 1962), pp. 132^10; Hebrew edition, nniüD'nn nninnDnm ^ν-μί rfrann (eds J. Heinemann, I. Adler, A. Negev, J. Petuchowski and H. Schirmann, Tel Aviv, 1972), pp. 100-105; English edition, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History (trans, and ed. Raymond P. Scheindlin, Philadelphia, Jerusalem and New York, 1993), pp. 111-17; Mann, 'Palestinian order' (see n. 15 above), pp. 325-32; Jacobson, Netiv Binah (see n. 11 above), 4.14-27; and E. Fleischer, Eretz-Israel Prayer and Prayer Rituals as Portrayed in the Geniza Documents (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 93-159.

26 As in Persian rite MS JTSA ENA 23, Siddur Rabbenu Shelomo (see n. 18 above), p. 120, and Genizah fragments CUL T-S K8.7 and H11.74 (= Mann, 'Palestinian order' (see n. 15 above), nos 18 and 21), and Bodley, Heb. f. 47 (Neubauer, Catalogue (see η. 15 above), no. 2734). The Tiklal of Yahya ben Joseph ibn Salih (three vols, Jerusalem, 1894), 1.168, omits the definite article and has a note objecting to its addition. See, however, earlier manuscripts of the Tiklal (e.g. CUL Add.1200, f.l51r, Add.1727, f. 222v, Add. 1729, f.87r, and Add. 1754, f,103v) which have the definite article, and Finkelstein, 'Birkat ha-mazon' (see n. 11 above), pp. 253-58.

27 Saadya (see n. 11 above), p. 102, Amram (see n. 22 above), p. 45, Goldschmidt, 'Maimonides' (see n. 16 above), p. 216, Bodley, Heb. f. 36 (Neubauer, Catalogue (see η. 15 above), no. 2738) (D^wrr nx nra sin τπ ^ x ) , The Etz Hayyim (see n. 15 above), 1, p. 167, and Luzzatto's 'γ^νβ'ν ros (see n. 13 above), f. 101a.

28 Saadya (see n. 11 above), p. 102, Goldschmidt, 'Maimonides' (see n. 16 above), p. 216, The Etz Hayyim (see n. 15 above), 1.168, Mahzor Vitry (see n. 10 above), 1.52, Siddur Rabbenu Shelomo (see n. 18 above), p. 120, Luzzatto's TOKO'S (see n. 13 above), f. 101a, Genizah fragments CUL T-S K8.7 and H18.8 (= Mann, 'Palestinian order' (see n. 15 above), nos 18 and 19), sometimes in the expanded form TO1? "pnnri 'jxn or 'jsn iv1? -pair. See also the Persian rite in MS JTSA ENA 23, Rumanian rite (see n. 20 above), f. 80a, Finkelstein, 'Birkat ha-mazon' (see n. 11 above), pp. 259-62, and Jacobson, Netiv Binah (see n. 11 above), pp. 34-35.




some of the early texts making no reference to it29 while it appears here, and widely in the later rites, as npv1 ump lrwnp ('our Holy One, the Holy One of Jacob'), the words apr ©πρ following the verse in Isaiah 29:23.30

14. F. 3r, lines 8-9: Although late medieval and early modern versions refer to both God's goodness to the worshippers (using the Hebrew root no1) and His bestowal on them of a list of bounties (using the Hebrew root as activities of the past, present and future, this appears to be an attempt to impose a more balanced and rational structure on a looser, original sentence, with the support of statements made in the Tosafot and by R. Asher ben Yehiel of Toledo.31 In the earliest texts there are sometimes as few as two expressions - one for each verb - and in other instances more than one tense is represented in the uses of the verb *?m.32 In the case of our manuscript, the first verb occurs only as a participle, i.e. in the present tense. The second verb has the perfect and imperfect, which may carry the senses of the present (with or without a change of vowels) and the jussive: Kin uns rpüö Nin mti 7 M CRANN | lorn in ΤΙ;1? Ί Λ Ώ Γ ΝΊΠ | ΊΛΏΛ ('He is good to us; he provides (or, has provided) us, He will (or, may He) provide us forever with favour, love, mercy and all good').

15. The fourth benediction is followed by a group of short entreaties that address God as inmn ('the merciful one') and deal with a variety of special needs. The evidence of the earliest texts indicates that these were added in the post-talmudic period much in the same way as special pleas were appended to the end of the 'amidah. They provided an opportunity for the individual and/or the community to allude to the specific requirements of their time and place in their standard

29 Saadya (see n. 11 above) has no reference to holiness while Genizah text, Bodley, Heb. f. 36 (Neubauer, Catalogue (see η. 15 above), no. 2738), has apy1 tt>np mnpa.

30 Genizah texts CUL T-S K8.7 and H18.8 (= Mann, 'Palestinian order' (see n. 15 above), nos 18 and 19) and all the major rites and authorities.

31 Tosafot on Berakhot 46b and Rosh's section 22 on Berakhot 49a. The Etz Hayyim (see n. 15 above), 1.168, Abudraham, p. 176, and Abudraham Ha-Shalem (see n. 10 above), p. 326, order the tenses as present, past and future while the Italian and Ashkenazi rites in Luzzatto's T' NB'K run (see n. 13 above), f. 101a, and Baer, 'Avodat Yisra'el (see n. 13 above), p. 558-59, have past, present and future. See also Sefer Ha-Manhig, ed. I. Raphael (2 vols; Jerusalem, 1978), 1.223.

32 Saadya (see n. 11 above), p. 103, Amram (see n. 22 above), p. 46, Goldschmidt, 'Maimonides' (see n. 16 above), Mahzor Vitry (see n. 10 above), 1.52, Siddur Rabbenu Shelomo (see n. 18 above), p. 120, and Genizah texts CUL T-S H18.8 (= Mann, 'Palestinian order' (see n. 15 above), no. 19), T-S NS 230.29 and 230.74, T-S AS 102.22 and 104.45, and Bodley, Heb. f. 36 (Neubauer, Catalogue (see η. 15 above), no. 2738). See also the Yemenite, Persian and Rumanian rites as in Tiklal (see n. 26 above), f. 168b, MS JTSA ENA 23, Rumanian rite (see n. 20 above), f. 80a, Finkelstein, 'Birkat ha-mazon' (see n. 11 above), pp. 259-63 and Jacobson, Netiv Binah (see n. 11 above), pp. 64-66.




prayers.33 As such, they came to be expanded but at the same time also acquired a degree of standardization that was to a large extent at odds with their original intent, not an uncommon feature of traditional rabbinic liturgy. Even in the fourteenth century commentary of David Abudraham, he was still able to offer the relaxed judgement that 'every worshipper may recite whichever of these he wishes and needs'.34 For the liturgical historian they are especially interesting when they testify to special pleas that are not commonly known from other sources. In the case of the manuscript under discussion, the three texts that warrant particular attention are the fifth, sixth and seventh. They appeal to God to save the community from poverty (nvaya ΐΛ1^),35 to thwart the evil intentions of Israel's enemies (unsn Oüim ivv),36 and to remove sickness from among the worshippers (irmpa rrtnn I'D·).37 There is of course no way of knowing whether these pleas have been transmitted from earlier communities and situations as part of a traditional text but it is certainly possible that they reflect the problems of a community whose economic, political and medical conditions are not ideal.

Summary of data

The data provided above should now be interpreted thematically in terms of their relevance to the more general history of Jewish liturgy. Once again, the point must first be made that each of the textual preferences may not necessarily reflect the situation of the scribe committing it to writing since it may simply have been inherited and adopted from an earlier tradition. On the other hand, it will be possible by way of such a thematic assessment, and subsequently with the assistance of a synoptic analysis of the texts within each benediction and how they relate to other versions, to arrive at some tentative conclusions. These will attempt to locate the manuscript in the broader framework of the evolution of medieval Hebrew prayer.

33 Finkelstein, 'Birkat ha-mazon' (see n. 11 above), p. 234, exaggerates the antiquity of these addenda which are more accurately assessed by A. Z. Idelsohn, Jewish Liturgy and Its Development (New York, 1932), p. 124. See also Jacobson, Nefro Binah (see n. 11 above), pp. 66-75, and Genizah fragments CUL T-S H11.74 and H18.8 (= Marrn, 'Palestinian order' (see n. 15 above), nos 21 and 19) for early examples of these addenda.

34 Abudraham, p. 176, and Abudraham Ha-Shalem (see n. 10 above), p. 326. 35 As in Amram (see n. 22 above), p. 46, Luzzatto's T NO1« xu» (see n. 13 above), f. 101a,

Rumanian rite (see n. 20 above), f. 80b, and Genizah fragment CUL T-S AS 101.67. 36 Saadya (see n. 11 above), p. 103, and Genizah fragment CUL T-S NS 230.68. 37 Saadya (see n. 11 above), p. 103, Persian rite in JTSA ENA 23, and Genizah fragment

CUL T-S NS 230.68.




It emerges from the texts discussed above in paragraphs 2, 6, 8, 12 and 13 and relating, respectively, to Olö, un^mn, wnpm "?τππ ηηϋ/, nmn and "?sn, that there are here remnants of early formulations or tendencies that were amended or eliminated in most of the rites and versions as they evolved in the latter part of the Middle Ages. In addition, there are some phrases that have in them elements of the novel, rare or even unique. Paragraphs 3 and 9, with reference to unpn) and u1? "OH note two such examples and also noteworthy in this connection are the inclusion of the two biblical phrases non aroi vamD ('in accordance with his mercies and numerous kindnesses') and uns nräi pin nns ('you graciously lend us'). The first of these survived only in some Sefardi versions and in the Persian rite38, and the latter, which was apparently an old Palestinian formulation, is to be found in the Persian and Rumanian rites39. Moves towards conflation or expansion, and tendencies towards literary and linguistic standardization are to be detected in the texts discussed above in paragraphs 7, 8 and 14, with regard to the phrases irai • " n mim n n n , · ? π π -\m n s οόίπώί f? a n i a u s

wnpm, and the verbs 3üV?ai. The phrase fan iws rmnn tt, at the end of the first paragraph but not discussed above, may also represent a fusion of two alternatives, namely, vnmn W and sin iuw *737.40 On the other hand, there are also clear indications of the kind of inconsistency that perhaps predated or led to attempts at standardization, as in a) the case of vpnni; b) the use of verses towards the end of the benediction, noted in paragraphs 4 and 5 above; and c) with regard to the interchange of the words Ό, "itz;s and the prefix -ti>.41

In the matter of theology, some points that arose in the course of the textual discussion above should now be drawn together and summarized. The addition of the words uas and U'Vy referred to in

38 Isaiah 63:7. See Finkelstein, 'Birkat ha-mazon' (see n. 11 above), p. 246, Jacobson, Netiv Binah (see n. 11 above), p. 56 and JTSA ENA 23.

39 Psalms 37:26. See Finkelstein, 'Birkat ha-mazon' (see n. 11 above), pp. 248, 250 and 252. The phrase is preserved in Genizah fragments CUL T-S NS 271.14 and 271.128, T-S AS 107.181 and 109.104 and partly in Amram (see n. 22 above), p. 45 (only rrto), and the Persian rite in JTSA ENA 23 floi tai sen umx pin roiNiP).

40 Clear evidence for such a development may be identified in the variants to be found for this phrase, such as W , rrima W?, >ra hp« W?, mnxi W?, l'T nron W i nnan W , and sin lira "ρΛι v n v n W ; ('for all', 'for all his creatures', 'for all that he has created', 'for all the creatures', 'for all the creatures and all the work of his hands', and 'for all his creatures and for all that he has created'). See Finkelstein, 'Birkat ha-mazon' (see n. 11 above), pp. 243-46, Jacobson, Netiv Binah (see n. 11 above), pp. 55-57. Genizah fragments CUL T-S AS 102.22 and AS 107.181, and Bodley, Heb. f. 47 (Neubauer, Catalogue (see η. 15 above), no. 2734) have Χ"η "TON W . The Etz Hayyim (see n. 15 above), 1.166, argues for ninan W? and objects to both i ra 1WN and rrrma.

41 See the Hebrew text above, lv, lines 5 and 8, 2r, line 2; lv, line 10, 2v, lines 2 and 10; 2r, lines 4 and 6 - 9 , 3 r , 1. 7 and 3v, lines 8-9.




paragraphs 1 and 10 may indicate the presupposition of a closer relationship between God and the worshipping community. With regard to God's provision of food, the texts discussed in paragraphs 2 and 3 appear to vacillate between an ideology that accepts a direct, divine part in this process and one that prefers circumlocutions that would then leave God less open to blame for a conceived failure in this connection. Perhaps the worshipper's image of God also lies behind the use of the definite article with mm and the lack of the word Vxn before the word ΊΓ3Ν noted in paragraphs 12 and 13. The former stresses a transcendental power not simply a process of reconstruction and the latter demonstrates no objection to beginning a benediction with an allusion to God's paternity. The pictures drawn of the future, messianic age, which are sometimes very colourful in Jewish liturgy, are somewhat more mundane in the phraseology noted in paragraphs 9 and 11. As far as the extended use of divine epithets is concerned, there are examples with regard to God's name and holiness cited in paragraphs 8 and 13 but no pronounced tendency in this manuscript to indulge in such language.

Synoptic comparison

If one lists each of the phrases recorded in the four benedictions of the grace as they occur in the manuscript under discussion and compares them with the earliest known witnesses of the rabbinic version of this prayer, the results are not all what one might expect. Far from fully matching the Babylonian or Palestinian rites or the subsequent oriental and European versions that succeeded them, the phrases appear to exchange their allegiances on a regular basis, not only from benediction to benediction but also within each benediction. In the case of the first of these (on the general provision of food), the first part of the text conforms to Genizah fragments that reflect various Palestinian versions of the tenth to the twelfth centuries and to the prayer-book of Solomon ben Nathan who flourished in Sijilmasa, south-west Morocco, in the twelfth century.42 The remainder of the first benediction, on the other hand, has more in common with the Persian rite and some Sefardi versions, not all of them closely linked with the Babylonian tradition.43

The expansion of what was probably an original and talmudically sanctioned reference to ρΤΏΙ ΓΡΠ mim nnn ('covenant, Torah, life and food') into four descriptions of how these items relate to Israel is an

42 This applies to the phrases up to and including the word ypnm. 43 Compare the texts provided in Finkelstein, 'Birkat ha-mazon' (see n. 11 above), pp.

243-46, and Jacobson, Netiv Binah (see n. 11 above), pp. 55-57, and see JTSA ENA 23.




early post-talmudic phenomenon. Its occurrence here is most reminiscent of the formulations that are already found in some Genizah fragments of both the Palestinian and Babylonian variety and that are later widely followed, especially in the Franco-German, Rumanian and Persian rites. The remainder of the second benediction has most in common with the Rumanian rite.44 The characteristics of the third benediction in our manuscript are parallel to those of the Persian rite and the prayer-book of Solomon ben Nathan of Sijilmasa, and, to a lesser extent, to those of the Rumanian rite.45 Intriguingly, the situation with regard to the fourth paragraph changes again. Here, there is a close similarity with Seder Rav Amram, which presents itself as having originated with Amram ben Sheshna Gaon in ninth-century Babylonia, with the prayer text of Maimonides in twelfth-century Egypt, with the Rumanian rite and, to a lesser degree, with that of Persia.46

What then is the liturgical provenance of the manuscript being discussed? It appears to belong to those many Genizah texts that represent a mixture of what are commonly known as Babylonian and Palestinian elements. This should occasion no surprise since such texts do, in fact, generally outnumber those that may be characterized as more 'purely' Babylonian or Palestinian. It has more in common with Seder Rav Amram and Maimonides than it does with the prayer-book of Sa'adya ben Joseph Gaon of Sura. Given that it is now well recognized that the text of Seder Rav Amram, as it was transmitted for some three or four centuries after its author's time, was altered to match the notions of the scribes who were copying it and the rites of the communities in which it was being used, that work, as it has reached us, may itself also

44 The longer formulation, expanding on all or some of the four subjects approved by the Talmud, is to be found in Genizah fragments CUL T-S K8.7 (= Mann, 'Palestinian order' (see n. 15 above), no. 18), NS 271.14 and 271.128, AS 105.207 and 107.181 and in Goldschmidt, 'Maimonides' (see n. 16 above), p. 216, as well as in The Etz Hayyim (see n. 15 above), 1.167, Mahzor Vitry (see n. 10 above), 1.52, the Rumanian rite (see n. 20 above), f. 80a, and Persian rite (JTSA ENA 23). Only the four words themselves occur in Saadya (see n. 11 above), p. 102, and Siddur Rabbenu Shelomo (see n. 18 above), p. 120, and in Genizah fragments, CUL T-S NS 154.95, 159.120 and 235.173, and Bodley, Heb. f. 47 (Neubauer, Catalogue (see η. 15 above), no. 2734). See also Finkelstein, 'Birkat ha-mazon' (see n. 11 above), pp. 247-52, and Jacobson, Netiv Binah (see n. 11 above), pp. 57-59.

45 Finkelstein, 'Birkat ha-mazon' (see n. 11 above), pp. 253-58, and Jacobson, Netiv Binah (see n. 11 above), pp. 59-64, Siddur Rabbenu Shelomo (see n. 18 above), p. 120, Rumanian rite (see n. 20 above), f. 80a, and MSS Bodley, Poc. 262 (Neubauer, Catalogue (see n. 15 above), no. 896) and JTSA ENA 23.

46 Amram (see n. 22 above), p. 46, Goldschmidt, 'Maimonides' (see n. 16 above), p. 216, Finkelstein, 'Birkat ha-mazon' (see n. 11 above), pp. 260-62, and Jacobson, Netiv Binah (see n. 11 above), pp. 90-93; Rumanian rite (see n. 20 above), f. 80a, and JTSA ENA 23.




be classed as a hybrid version.47 Similarly, the text preferred by Maimonides is a reflection of his Andalusian origins as well as of his long residence in Egypt. Even the rites of Persia and Rumania, which are rightly said to incorporate Palestinian characteristics, undoubtedly fused those together with Babylonian and other elements before the split into the more standardized oriental and European rites that occurred in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.48 It may therefore be concluded that the manuscript here being analysed is just another example of the mixed, inconsistent and evolving versions that were typical in the age of Maimonides in the Eastern Mediterranean area. Such versions had opted for the overall structure and content of the Babylonian versions, together with some of the Palestinian traditions, but were still adjusting minor aspects of the texts to match their own preferences and propensities.

Conclusions

A number of more general conclusions, that are important for an accurate understanding of Jewish liturgical history, may also be derived from the data provided by this Genizah fragment of the grace after meals and from its relationship with other versions. The twelfth-century rabbinic liturgies clearly still displayed a considerable variety of textual detail that remained in flux even if the major factors had become more solidified. The crystallization of the definitively recognizable rites of Europe and the orient was only in its early stages. There were still tensions between traditional transmission and novelty, between inconsistency and standardization, and between the biblical and rabbinic varieties of Hebrew language. The image of God, the nature of his relationship with the worshipper, and the notion of the messianic era were all concepts that were, in their smaller detail if not in their major configuration, open to liturgical adjustment. Historians should be ready to find among the manuscript sources numerous examples of texts that are not purely Babylonian or Palestinian. They should be cautious about making facile claims about the direct dependence of later rites on one or other of these two alternatives, and should place Seder Rav Amram, as it has come down to us, among the formae mixtae of the post-geonic period and not within the purer

47 Wieder, Formation (see n. 15 above), 1.53 and 163, S. C. Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspecives on Jewish Liturgical History (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 185-87, and R. Brody, 'The enigma of Seder Rav 'Amram' (Hebrew) in Knesset Ezra: Literature and Life in the Synagogue: Studies Presented to Ezra Fleischer, eds S. Elizur, M. D. Herr, G. Shaked and A. Shinan (Jerusalem, 1994), pp. 21-34.

48 Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer (see n. 47 above), pp. 161-64.




Babylonian versions of the ninth century. In plotting a graph of Jewish liturgical history in the high middle ages, and attempting to locate rites, texts and manuscripts within it, researchers should attempt to use all the factors at their disposal. These include linguistic, literary, historical and theological data as well as more technical palaeographical and codicological features. It should be recognized that there are considerable differences between the prayer-books of Solomon ben Nathan of Sijilmasa and the Sefardi rites and that this testifies to the fact that there were a variety of oriental rites that lay behind the North African and Spanish developments. It is consequently questionable to argue, as some recent researchers have done, that the North African rite is exclusively western and Sefardi rather than oriental and that this is borne out by its similarities to the versions of Sa'adya and pre-crusader Palestine. Our manuscript appears to belong to a genre that is in or close to North Africa and still retains mixed Babylonian and Palestinian elements as well as similarities to the modified version of Seder Rav Amram and the prayer-book of Maimonides. The prayer-book of Solomon ben Nathan is simply another example of the variety that still existed in North Africa in the twelfth century.49

49 My conclusions are therefore at odds with the theories proposed by S. Zucker and E. Wust, 'The oriental origin of "Siddur R. Shlomo b. R. Nathan" and its erroneous ascription to North Africa' (Hebrew), Kiryat Sefer 64 (1992-93), pp. 737-46.

