Tefillah 039

46:
We must now turn our attention to the last of the passages that were added into the first benediction before the Shema – last in sequence, not necessarily chronologically last. This is the passage that beings with the Hebrew words Titbarakh tzurenu [Siddur Sim Shalom page 110; Siddur Va'ani Tefillati page 337]. Of all the four additions which turn what was originally the briefest of benedictions into one of the longest it is this last which has been in the past the subject of great controversy.

Before we go into this matter in detail perhaps it would not be amiss to point out here an error which so many times creeps into this benediction because of its egregious length. Many cantors have the habit of chanting out loud the beginning of this benediction (which comes immediately after Bar^ekhu) in such a manner that a congregant who is not fully cognizant of the structure of our prayers is tempted to respond 'Amen' after the words uvoré et ha-kol. This is wrong, because the end of this benediction is not reached until several pages later. The knowledgeable cantor will lower his or her voice when chanting the words uvoré et ha-kol so as to indicate to the congregation not to respond 'Amen' at this point.

47:
Now let us restore our attention to the problematic passage which begins Titbarakh tzurenu.

From earliest times there have been members of our people who have been attracted to mysticism and the more spiritual aspects of the Jewish religion. One of the spiritual exercises practiced by the Greek philosophers who followed in the wake of the teachings of Plato was to try and commune with God directly. Sometimes they would sit for several hours with their head between their knees in an attempt to enter into a trance-like state in which they could be vouchsafed visions of the divine. Certainly there were Jews who were much influenced by these neo-platonic exercises and transferred them into a Jewish religious framework. In our study of tractate Avot we noted several great sages who fervently indulged in such mystic tendencies. See, for example, Avot 131. Then, again, we noted the mystical tendencies of Rabbi Akiva and some of his contermporaries: see Avot 132.

48:
One group of mystics that was formed after the Talmudic age came to an end was given the name Yor^edé Merkavah, 'Those that Descend to [the ultimate meaning of] the Chariot'. We do not know when this group came into being but it certainly flourished from the early years of the Geonic period onwards – say, around the year 600 CE. Another topic which was of enormous fsacination for them was heaven itself, seen by them as being a series of celestial palaces. The Hebrew word for 'palaces' is Hekhalot and so the literature created by this group is often termed 'Hekhalot Literature'. But they are also called Yor^edé Merkavah because of their overriding interest in God's 'chariot' which is described in the prophecies of Ezekiel. The term 'chariot' – merkavah in Hebrew – came to designate the whole host of heaven, the panoply of angels that surround the divine throne. The origin of their conception is to be found in the vision of the prophet Isaiah as described in the 6th chapter of his book:

The other prophet who envisages the heavenly host is Ezekiel:

These two vision, combined, served as the basis of the vision of the divine court – Merkavah – of the mystics of the Geonic period.

49:
One of the traits of Jewish mystics throughout the ages can be identified by a strong desire for their visions and conceptualizations to be accepted into the standard liturgy. The Yor^edé Merkavah had developed a complete angelology, with a name and function for each of the main participants in the heavenly entourage. And they pressed very hard indeed for some kind of reference to their ideology to be accepted into the liturgy. And, of course, they succeeded. The prime example of such a passage added to the liturgy is the Kedushah, which, as we shall see when we reach our discussion of the Amidah, is an amplification of the third benediction of the Amidah. Another example is the Kedushah which comes towards the end of the daily morning service which begins with the Hebrew words Uva l^eTziyyon, where the song of the heavenly chorus is given in Aramaic.

50:
The passage which we are now discussing, Titbarakh tzurenu, is a third such Kedushah. The inclusion of the other two Kedushot was by no means universal, and the mystics had greater success among Babylonian Jewry than they did among the Jews of Eretz-Israel. In Eretz-Israel the Kedushah of Uva l^eTziyyon was not really accepted and the Kedushah of the Amidah was restricted to Shabbat and Yom Tov only. The Kedushah which we are now discussing was never accepted into the ancient liturgy of Eretz-Israel in any shape or form. And in Babylon also, it met with stiff resistance for a long while.

51:
This Kedushah is known as Kedushat Yotzer because this benediction is called the Yotzer benediction. In Babylon a compromise was eventually reached: the mystics would have their way and the Kedushat Yotzer would be taken into the regular liturgy, but their opponents would also be able to express their disapproval: this Kedushah would be recited while seated, not standing in humble reverence.

To be continued.

In Tefillah 038 Dov Goldberg offered his father's explanation of why a minyan consists of ten people. Earlier, Henry Ray Wengrow had offered a different explanation, but he now writes:

Having publicly said that I preferred to think that a Minyan was based on the Genesis story, I now concede the wisdom of the rabbinic explanation, which should not surprise me, because I find compelling the counter by Dov Goldberg’s report of his father’s suggestion. I also love it, and indeed how much more difficult it might be, if not impossible, to form a Minyan. Thank God we do not have to make that distinction, but leave the determination of the righteous to God.

This discussion is now closed.