Controversy over Prayer Practices in Early 18th C. Amsterdam

Halakhah, Kabbalah, and Heresy: A Controversy in Early Eighteenth-Century Amsterdam
Author(s): Matt Goldish

Source: The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 84, No. 2/3 (Oct., 1993 - Jan., 1994), pp. 153-
176
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1455351
Accessed: 24-10-2017 13:14 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1455351?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to The Jewish Quarterly Review
This content downloaded from 80.178.85.71 on Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:14:47 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW, LXXXIV, Nos. 2-3 (October, 1993-January, 1994) 153-176
HALAKHAH, KABBALAH, AND HERESY:

A CONTROVERSY IN EARLY
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY AMSTERDAM
MATT GOLDISH
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
ABSTRACT
In 1706 a controversy arose in the Portuguese Jewish community of

Amsterdam concerning the proper practice when arriving late at morning
services: should one omit the psalms, as the Shulhan Arukh requires, or
should one pray in order and miss the communal 'Amidah, as one of the
disputants claimed the Zohar requires? The question was brought before
R. Isaac Sasportas, and later before the Hakham Sevi Ashkenazi in
Hamburg, both of whom wrote virulently against the allegedly kabbalistic
solution, which they held to be an ignorant misinterpretation of the Zohar.
Despite the clearcut condemnation of that opinion, the controversy was
rekindled in 1720. The whole episode is described in Sasportas' lengthy
responsum Siah Yishaq, which has been preserved in at least four
manuscripts.
Siah Yishaq is important for several reasons. It is among the largest
documents known concerning the interaction of halakhah and kabbalah. It
tells us something about Jewish life and law in Amsterdam at that time. It
also reflects the effects of certain socioreligious forces in the Amsterdam
community, which rendered all questions involving possible misuse of the
kabbalah, especially in prayer, highly sensitive. These forces included the
influx of Lurianic kabbalah into Northern Europe at that time, andfears
of Sabbatean heresy.
I. THE EVENTS
One day in the winter of 1706 a Portuguese Jew in Amsterdam

named Nathan Curiel entered his synagogue and observed a certain
local scholar, David Mendes da Silva, arriving late for the morning
service. Curiel knew that the Jewish legal authorities required a per-
son in such circumstances to follow a specific procedure, skipping
most of the introductory psalms (pesuqe de-zimrah) in order to pray
the central 'Amidah prayer together with the congregation. Da Silva,
however, instead of following this course of action, proceeded to
recite the psalms in order, thus omitting the communal 'Amidah
154 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW
recitation. Curiel approached da Silva and questioned him concern-

ing his action. In reply da Silva chided Curiel, stating that his prac-
tice was of superior merit to that recommended by Joseph Qaro and
the other legal authorities because it was derived from the mystical
work Zohar, attributed to the ancient R. Shimon bar Yohai.'
This seemingly trivial incident precipitated a controversy which
remained alive for fourteen years, involved the greatest halakhist
of the generation, caused the implementation of the Amsterdam
Jews' most stringent sanction, and occasioned hundreds of pages
of polemical exchange. Following a description of the events, the
significance of this episode in the history of the halakhah-kabbalah
dialectic will be discussed, and some heretical overtones and accu-
sations involved in the debate will be noted.
Most of the details of this controversy are known to us from the
book Siah Yishaq (SY) of Isaac Sasportas, which is preserved in at
least four manuscripts.2 Sasportas was the authority to whom Cu-
riel turned following his encounter with da Silva. Sasportas was a
scholar in both halakhah and kabbalah, although he did not serve
in any official rabbinic capacity.3 He was also the son of the well-
1 Isaac Sasportas, Sefer Siah Yishaq, MS Rosenthaliana #213, pp. Ir-2r.

2 The manuscripts are:
Amsterdam, Ets Hayyim 47 B 1 (=Jerusalem Institute of Microfilmed Manu-
scripts #3611; incorrectly catalogued by Fuks and Fuks-Mansfeld as 47 D 1); does
not contain the information on the title page of the two other Hebrew MSS identify-
ing it as SY, but rather an apparently tentative title, D"o Wv rn.
London, Asher Meyer #5 (=Jerusalem Institute #5416). The title-page of this MS

is reproduced in M. Gaster, History of the Ancient Synagogue of the Spanish and
Portuguese Jews (London, 1901), p. 33.
Amsterdam, Rosenthaliana #213 (=Jerusalem Institute #3832).
Columbia University X893 Sa7 (in Spanish; no title page).
I have listed the MSS in the order in which I believe they were copied. They all ap-
pear to be autographs, written very neatly and bearing the same dates. The content is
essentially identical except for marginal notes and corrections. MS Ets Hayyim has a
great many corrections, most of which have been incorporated into MS Rosenthaliana,
and the number of lines per page is quite uneven. MS Asher Meyer has fewer correc-
tions and more even pages. MS Rosenthaliana is very beautifully executed, and is ob-
viously the most polished version of the tract. MS Columbia University is a truncated
Spanish version of the treatise missing the last section containing da Silva's letter. It
is clearly later, as reference is made (p. 78) to the original of 1720 on which it was
based. All references in this paper are to MS Rosenthaliana unless otherwise noted.
3 Sasportas' sensitivity to his lack of rabbinical credentials is reflected in his re-
peated apologies (e.g., pp. 2r-v) for entering into the realm of scholarship. This is
mainly rhetoric; he was a solid scholar and very well aware of it.
HALAKHAH, KABBALAH AND HERESY-GOLDISH 155
known controversialist Jacob Sasportas, a member of the Portu-

guese rabbinical court at Amsterdam, who had died eight years
previously. The elder Sasportas had a reputation as a staunch and
doughty defender of rabbinic tradition against many sorts of here-
tics and detractors.4 Now Isaac took up the cudgels and proved
himself a true son.
The first 24 folios of the 143 folio total in SY describe the events
of 1706 and cite two exchanges of letters between Sasportas and da
Silva. Sasportas attests that his epistles were kept anonymous, ap-
pearing under the name of "Reuven," so as not to embarrass their
recipient should others see them. Da Silva wrote back under the
name "Shimon."5 Curiel, says Isaac Sasportas, asked him whether
he had ever heard of an opinion in any book or manuscript like that
which da Silva had expressed in the name of the Zohar. Sasportas
states categorically that he had never seen such an opinion; that his
late father, known as a great kabbalist, had acted as the posqim
(halakhic authorities) advise; and that he believes no such opinion
exists in the Zohar, which strongly supports prayer with the com-
munity (tefillah ba-sibbur) over private prayer (tefillat yahid). Fur-
thermore, according to Sasportas, one should not involve mysticism
in halakhic matters.6 Upon hearing Sasportas' reply, Curiel re-
quested a short written statement of his opinion, which Sasportas
supplied, in the name of "Reuven." A while later da Silva, referred
4 On Jacob Sasportas, see his Sefer Sisat Novel Sevi (ed. with notes and introduc-
tion by I. Tishby, Jerusalem, 1954); idem, Responsa 'Ohel Yacaqov (Amsterdam,
1737); Avraham Gross, "The Image of Rabbi Jacob Sasportas from his Responsa
'Ohel Ya'aqov" [Hebrew], Sinai 93 (1983): 132-141; Tishby, "Letters of Rabbi Jacob
Sasportas against the Livorno Leaders from the Year 1681" [Hebrew] Qoves 'al Yad
4(1944): 144-159; idem, "New Information on the 'Converso' Community in London
according to the Letters of Sasportas from 1664/5" [Hebrew], ed. A. Mirsky, A. Gross-
man, and Y. Kaplan, Exile and Diaspora (Hebrew Volume), pp. 470-496; Elie Moyal,
Rabbi Jacob Sasportas [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1991); and my Rabbi Jacob Sasportas:
Defender of Torah Authority in an Age of Change (MA thesis, Hebrew University
of Jerusalem, 1991). In a manuscript of Jacob Sasportas' responsa and correspondence
(MS Yeshiva University-Mendel Gottesman Library), there is a letter found between
pages 61 and 62 from the London rabbi, Hakham Joshua da Silva, which indicates
that the elder Sasportas saw his son Isaac as the most promising scholar among his
children, and requested da Silva to keep a special eye on him while he remained in
London.
5 On the anonymity of the letters, see SY, pp. 3r-v, 7r, 8r, 28r, 31v. In the later
stage of the controversy, in 1720, Sasportas points out that he was presented with da
Silva's reply "publicly" (p. 25r).
6 gy, pp. lr-2v.
to here by his initials (o"m; elsewhere, vt o"lx),7 sent a reply

through Curiel in the name of "Shimon," and Sasportas again re-
sponded as "Reuven."8 His second letter is dated "Parshat Ki
Tis's'a'" (around February, 1706).9 All these letters are written in an
inflammatory and accusatory tone, sharpened for rhetorical invec-
tive rather than persuasiveness, in the style of the time.
Following this repartee, Sasportas tells us that the argument
became known throughout the community and an uproar ensued.
He states that the parnasim (communal lay leaders), motivated "by
their love of peace," decided to bring the matter before the "sages
who sit in judgement" (pmtn 5,v nvw omn-following Judg 5:10)
for adjudication. The "sages" sided with Sasportas, and with that,
he says, the matter seemed to be over.'0
The "sages" is apparently a reference to R. Sevi Hirsch Ash-
kenazi, the "Hakham Sevi" (ca. 1660-1718)." Ashkenazi was per-
haps the most celebrated halakhic decisor of his generation, and
certainly one of the very few to whom both Ashkenazim and Seph-
ardim would turn.'2 Though born in Moravia, he had studied in the
Sephardi yeshivot of Salonika (whence the title "Hakham," as per
the Sephardi custom), and afterward returned to Europe to serve as
rabbi in Altona. From 1710 to 1714 the Hakham ministered in Am-
sterdam's Ashkenazi community, where he was embroiled in major
controversies which eventually forced his departure.
7 The acronym v"r o"-m may be a play on the fourth blessing in the weekday
'Amidah prayer, which in the Ashkenazi pronunciation begins 'Attah honen le-adam
da'as ("You bestow wisdom upon man").
8 SY, pp. 2v-3r. P. 3r contains Sasportas' first letter; pp. 3v-5r is da Silva's reply;
and pp. 5r-8r contain Sasportas' interjected general comments before his second letter
to da Silva, pp. 8r-24r. The first letter (p. 3r) is really a Hebrew summary of that given
to Curiel, presumably in Spanish or Portuguese. Sasportas says there that this is his
reply derekh kelal, i.e., a paraphrase, and mentions also what he wrote be-la'az, that
is, in the Spanish or Portuguese original. MS Ets Hayyim contains several marginal
notes in Spanish, presumably in Sasportas' hand.
9 SY, p. 24r.
10 Ibid., p. 24v.
11 On him see Jacob J. Schacter, Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works
(Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1988) and the bibliography cited there. Emden was
the son of the Hakham Sevi."
12 His published responsa, She'elot u-Teshuvot Hakham Sevi (Amsterdam, 1712
and numerous subsequent printings) contain many queries from the western Sephardi
diaspora, dealing with both technical and doctrinal issues. Perhaps the most famous
of the latter is #18, from the London Sephardi kehillah, on whether Hakham David
Nieto's equation of God and nature should be considered heresy.
The following question appears in She'elot u-Teshuvot IHakham

Sevi, #36:
To Holland; lyar [Spring] 5466 of the Creation [1706]: Two

people came to the synagogue while the cantor was reciting the
introductory psalms. One skipped through the introductory
psalms as the posqim of blessed memory recommend, in order to
recite [the 'Amidah] with the congregation. The other began with
the start of the morning blessings, reciting [the psalms] in order,
and did not recite [the 'Amidah] with the congregation, claiming
that this was the opinion of R. Shimon bar Yohai in the Zohar,
Parshat Be-midbar. Tell us, teacher, which is preferable.
There can be no doubt that this responsum refers to our case,

though no names are mentioned. In fact, when Sasportas quotes the
entire responsum later in his polemic as a support for his position,
he oddly makes no mention of the fact that the decision was
directed against da Silva himself during the early stage of the con-
flict, in 1706.13
Sasportas indicates quite clearly that after several warnings to
desist from his opinions, da Silva had been excommunicated for
two weeks during the first stage of the debate.'4 This ban was not
recorded in the community registers (a common enough practice),'5
and may have been declared simply against whoever was dissemi-
nating the beliefs of da Silva without naming him personally.'6 Da
Silva cannot have been affected too adversely by the ban, as he was
elected a member of the "Biqqur Holim" society in 1707, a high
honor. 17
3 SY, pp. 75v-77v.

4 SY, p. 28r.
15 See Yosef Kaplan, "The Social Functions of the Herem in the Portuguese Jew-
ish Community of Amsterdam in the Seventeenth Century," Jozeph Michman (ed.),
Dutch Jewish History (Jerusalem, 1984-89) 1: 132-135.
16 Sasportas states that the lay leaders removed the ban after a short period,
"though they were not unaware of the author's identity" (SY, p. 28r). Apparently da
Silva's letters came to the attention of the lay leaders, and they declared a ban on
whoever wrote them, though they indeed knew his identity. How such a ban might
have worked and what its purpose was it not clear.
17 Livro dos Acordos da Na,do e Ascamot, vol. B, Amsterdam City Archives,
The Portuguese Community of Amsterdam, p. 436. He received many other commu-
nal honors in the following years. In 1717 a certain Yacob Gomez de Silva, appar-
ently another distant relative, dedicated his "Sermao de Principio y Fin" to David
Mendes da Silva in terms of great honor (MS Ets Hayyim 48 D 46 [2]).
The second phase of the controversy came unexpectedly in 1720.

Sasportas reports that another Amsterdam lay leader, David de
Pinto, approached him and told him that da Silva had addressed a
reply to Sasportas' letters of 1706 concerning communal prayer. He
stated that da Silva had also sworn an oath that Sasportas was in-
capable of understanding his writings or of responding to them.
Sasportas claims that although the original argument did not con-
cern him but only Curiel and da Silva, he felt the obligation to re-
spond.'8 What follows (SY 25v-120v) is a thorough if disorganized
treatise against da Silva's views, couched in insulting language
which insinuates suspicions concerning the man's sanity, character,
religiosity, and scholarship. There is a more subtle personal note as
well: Sasportas recalls how "you behaved like a brother to me over
these last fourteen years. I joined in the celebration of your daugh-
ters' marriages, rejoicing along with you. I recall how we rode to-
gether in your carriage. How can you now turn against me with
sour grapes?"'9
At the very end of SY (numbered separately, pp. 1-23) is a copy
of da Silva's last letter to Sasportas, the arguments of which were
systematically refuted in the main body of the book. With this the
communal prayer controversy seems to have ended. The fact that
at least four copies of SY were made and circulated shows the im-
portance attached by contemporaries to the episode.
II. HALAKHAH AND KABBALAH
Jewish scholarship has recently turned its attention to the impor-

tant interrelationship of halakhah and kabbalah as both a religious
and a social phenomenon.20 The da Silva case is in some ways
18 jy, pp. 25r-26v. Sasportas adds that da Silva declined an offer of mediation
for a compromise, offered by David de Pinto (ibid., p. 28v), and that da Silva had
"gone outside the bounds of Political Man [Ha-Adam ha-Medini]," the meaning of
which escapes me.
19 SY, p. 31v.
20 See Meir Benayahu, "The Controversy between Halakhah and Kabbalah" [He-
brew], Da'at 5 (1981): 61-115; Robert Bonfil, "Halachah, Kabbalah, and Society:
Some Insights into Rabbi Menachem Azariah Da Fano's Inner World," I. Twersky
and B. Septimus, Jewish Thought in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, MA,
1987), pp. 39-61; Rachel Elior, "The Conflict over the Status of the Kabbalah in the
Sixteenth Century" [Hebrew], Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 1 (1981): 177-
190; Moshe Hallamish, "Kabbalah in the Legal Decisions of Joseph Karo" [Hebrew],
similar to such famous halakhah-kabbalah disputes as whether one

must put on tefillin (phylacteries) during the intermediate festival
days,21 but strikingly different in others. It is similar in that it in-
volves a conflict between accepted halakhic traditions and a new
practice associated with the Zohar, the essential work of kabbalah.
It is different in that the practice da Silva recommends as based on
the Zohar is not found in that work at all. Whereas the donning of
tefillin on the intermediate festival days is prohibited quite explic-
itly in the Zohar, the requirement to read the introductory psalms in
order even at the cost of missing the communal 'Amidah can only
be derived from that work by a rather tendentious and contrived
reading.
Da Silva's position was based on the following statement of the
Zohar at the end of Parshat Be-midbar:
Man, in entering the synagogue, first cleanses himself by the

[recital of the regulations concerning the] sacrifices; then he ac-
cepts upon himself the heavenly yoke by the recital of the hymns
of King David. Then comes the prayer said sitting, which corre-
sponds to the arm-phylactery, followed by the prayer said stand-
ing, which corresponds to the head-phylactery. So prayer is made
up of both action and speech, and when the action is faulty speech
does not find a spot to rest in; such a prayer is not prayer, and the
man offering it is defective in the upper world and the lower.22
The Zohar, however, like all the halakhic authorities, is adamant

that the 'Amidah (which is here called "the prayer said standing")
must be recited jointly with the congregation.
Da'at, 21 (1988): 85-102; Jacob Katz, "Post-Zoharic Relations between Halakhah

and Kabbalah," Bernard D. Cooperman (ed.), Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Cen-
tury (Cambridge, MA, 1983), pp. 283-307; idem, Halakhah and Kabbalah: Studies
in the History of Jewish Religion, its Various Faces and Social Relevance [Hebrew]
(Jerusalem, 1986), pp. 9-124; Israel M. Ta-Shma, "Rabbi Joseph Caro and His Bet
Yosef: Between Spain and Germany," H. Beinart (ed.), Moreshet Sepharad: The Se-
phardi Legacy (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1992), pp. 524-534.
21 See Jacob Katz, "Tefillin on the Intermediate Festival Days: Differing Opin-
ions and Communal Conflict Under the Impact of Kabbalah" [Hebrew], Proceedings
of the Seventh World Congress of Jewish Studies. Section: Talmud, Halakhah, and
Midrash (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 191-213; reprinted in J. Katz, Halakhah and Kab-
balah, pp. 102-124.
22 Zohar (Mantua, 1558-60), p. 120v; I have followed the English translation by
Harry Sperling and Maurice Simon, 2nd ed. (London/New York, 1984), 5:175-176.
Sasportas' reply to da Silva's claim in his SY is carried on at two

levels, corresponding to the arguments of the latter in his letters.
First, Sasportas seeks to show that no person before da Silva, in-
cluding the great kabbalists, ever understood the Zohar to mean that
one should miss the communal 'Amidah so that he might recite the
psalms in order. Second, he tries to show that the major halakhic au-
thorities do not decide law according to the dictates of kabbalah un-
less the Talmud and the preceding halakhists are either undecided
or silent on an issue. These arguments are surrounded by a great
deal of ad hominem rhetoric.23 Concerning the first point, Sasportas
is unquestionably correct: da Silva's practice was unknown in ha-
lakhic literature before he raised the issue. His second claim, how-
ever, for the primacy of the Talmud and traditional halakhah over
halakhic pronouncements derived from kabbalistic sources, is by no
means universally accepted.
From the middle of the fifteenth century, when the role of kab-
balah in halakhah first became a debated issue, various opinions
were voiced on how to proceed when the Zohar or other kabbalistic
works demand a practice different from that established by the
tradition of conventional halakhah. Many authorities denied the
reality of such conflicts and attempted to force both sides into
agreement, even at the cost of a factitious reading of the sources.
There were, however, cases in which agreement was not achiev-
able. The Spanish Jewish communities appear to have reached a
compromise between those who insisted on the supremacy of the
Zohar in all situations and those who believed that it should not
play a role in halakhah. According to Abraham Zacuto, and later
David ibn Zimra (both from the generation of the expulsion from
Spain), the Spanish rabbis had established the following rule: the
Zohar is to be followed on matters about which the Talmud and the
23 The main body of SYis divided roughly as follows: Pp. 25v-51r is mainly a dis-
section of da Silva's letter, criticizing his person, his scholarship, his Hebrew gram-
mar, and other matters. Pp. 51r-ca. lOOr contain arguments for the primacy of
conventional talmudic and halakhic studies and legal decisions over those of the kab-
balah when there is a conflict. Included are citations from Elijah Mizrahi, Moses Cor-
dovero, Isaac bar Sheshet, Elijah ha-Levi, Tam ibn Yahya, David ibn Zimra, and
Solomon Luria dealing with the role of kabbalah in halakhic discourse, as well as
more complicated arguments using various sources to prove the point. Pp. lOOr-1 13r
deal more specifically with the issue of completing prayers when one is late for morn-
ing services, and 113r-120r resume the tone of a personal argument with da Silva.
halakhic authorities are silent or undecided.24 Yet there remained

those who continued to see the halakhic rulings of the Zohar as
universally authoritative,25 so that da Silva had a precedent for his
statement that "Anywhere the posqim differ with R. Shimon bar
Yohai [i.e., the Zohar], and no compromise can be made between
them, we follow R. Shimon bar Yohai."26
Much of the discussion in SY in fact centers on the question of
Joseph Qaro's attitude toward the place of kabbalah in halakhah.
Rabbi Qaro (1488-1575), author of the Bet Yosef commentary on
Jacob ben Asher's 'Arba'ah Turim and of the Shulhan 'Arukh, was
the most influential halakhist of his and all subsequent generations.
Sasportas states that Qaro follows the Spanish rule mentioned
above, citing many examples to prove it: that he only follows the
Zohar in cases where its view is more stringent than that of others
and not more lenient; and that he extensively quotes and uses the
kabbalists' works only because of his great love for them.27 Da
Silva, as we have noted, claims that the Zohar is always preferred
over the posqim, and cites as a prooftext the famous passage from
Qaro's Bet Yosef ('Orah 1layim 141) that" ... we do not abandon
the words of the Zohar for the words of the posqim."28 As Sas-
portas notes, da Silva has neglected to quote the beginning of the
text, which reads, "Since this law is not stated explicitly in the Tal-
mud, we do not abandon," etc.29
Sasportas is undoubtedly correct in saying that Qaro essentially
follows the Spanish rule. On the other hand, it is equally true that
Qaro went further than any previous halakhic decisor in integrating
zoharic rulings into his legal code, sometimes preferring it over the
posqim."30 The psalms versus 'Amidah question is not raised in the
24 See Benayahu, "The Controversy between Halakhah and Kabbalah," pp. 62-
69; Katz, "Post-Zoharic Relations," pp. 289-291. For the various possible responses
to the problem of the role of kabbalah in halakhah, see Bonfil, "Halachah, Kabbalah,
and Society," pp. 39-44.
25 See Benayahu, "The Conflict Between Halachah and Kabbalah," pp. 62, 69, 74,
89, 91 etpassim.
26 Da Silva's letter at the end of SY, p. 5v.
27 Ibid., pp. 19v-21r, 88v-lOOr.
28 Ibid., p. 4r.
29 Ibid., p. 20r.
30 On the attitude of Joseph Qaro to kabbalistic legal rulings, see Hallamish, "Kab-
balah in the Legal Decisions," passim; Katz, "Post-Zoharic Relations," pp. 301-304;
Ta-Shma, "Rabbi Joseph Caro," pp. 197-206.
Talmud. It first appears during the period of the gaonim, in the

early Middle Ages. That means that Qaro might have ruled in favor
of da Silva's position, but for the one standing argument of Sas-
portas: the Zohar never actually says to recite the psalms and miss
CAmidah.
Even against such an objection, though, there are precedents.
There are cases in the works of the halakhic authorities where laws
allegedly found in the Zohar are implemented, although they are
not explicit in that work at all. Jacob Katz discusses the disorga-
nized manner in which halakhah absorbed zoharic law, and states:
How haphazardly this process of scrutinization proceeded can

be gathered also from the examples to which Abraham Zacuto
resorted in order to illustrate the [Spanish] rule of compromise
he transmitted. There were four such examples, but only two of
these represented cases in which the Zohar had taken a clear
stand on a controversial halakhic issue. In the two others, how-
ever, the alleged Zoharic opinion was not substantiated; in one
of them the halakhic issue itself may have never existed.3"
Furthermore, "At times the religious precept, rite, or custom in-

terpreted by the kabbalist seems to have been his own creation, as
no obvious source of a halakhic nature is in evidence to support
it."32 This would certainly appear to be the case with da Silva's
practice.
Da Silva, however, had no standing as either a respected kabbalist
or a halakhic authority. He therefore had to explain why this obscure
and allegedly zoharic halakhah had never been cited by anyone
before. Even the kabbalistically minded Rabbi Qaro rules that one
must omit the psalms in order to pray with the congregation. Da
Silva's argument is that Qaro either never saw the section of the
Zohar in question, or that he saw it and forgot it!33 Had he seen it
and remembered it, he would certainly have concluded the law as
da Silva did. Tefillah ba-sibbur, then, is merely a good idea, but not
an halakhic priority.34
As bizarre as these claims might sound, they too are not unprece-
dented. It is well known that the poseq Asher b. Yehiel (ca. 1250-
31 Katz, "Post-Zoharic Relations," p. 295; see also the discussion on pp. 294-295.
32 Ibid., p. 286.
3 SY, p. 5r; da Silva's letter, p. 16r-v.
34 SY, p. 108v; da Silva's letter, pp. 14v, 18v.
1327), who had not seen the Zohar (it appeared only during his
lifetime and was then still little known), required the wearing of
tefillin on intermediate festival days, a practice the Zohar would
strongly censure. The Italian Rabbi Moses Bassola (fl. 16th cen-
tury) later wrote that "If Rabbenu Asher had only seen the words of
R. Shimon bar Yohai [i.e., the Zohar], he would never have con-
cluded the law according to Rabbi Akiva."35 Similarly, the opinion
of another sixteenth-century Italian rabbi, Moses Provencali, was
affected because he lacked the Zohar on Song of Songs, where the
wearing of tefillin on intermediate festival days is discussed.36
Provencali was a contemporary of Joseph Qaro, so theoretically da
Silva's claim might hold water-there were posqim at that time
who did not have the entire Zohar before them. Here, however,
Sasportas produces irrefragable proofs that Qaro had this section of
the Zohar and forgot nothing.37
The arguments of Sasportas and Ashkenazi notwithstanding, the
practice of reading the morning psalms when arriving late at the
synagogue has gained popularity since da Silva's time and is widely
practiced today. Here, for example, is Israel Meir Ha-Kohen's Mish-
nah Berurah, published in 1892-98 (Chap. 52): "Many righteous
men have the practice of praying in order for this reason [fear of
damaging the upper and lower worlds] even when they arrive late
to synagogue."38 Although he cites Askhenazi's and others' objec-
tions, it is clear that the practice was widespread then as now.
35 Benayahu, "The Conflict of Kabbalah with Halachah," p. 90. R. Akiva's view in

the Talmud (b'Eruv 96a) that one does not don tefillin on Sabbath or festivals led to
doubts about whether he meant to include intermediate festival days in the dispensation.
36 Ibid., p. 102. In fact, G. Scholem and M. Hallamish have actually suggested
that Qaro did not have the entire Zohar before him. See Hallamish, "Kabbalah in the
Legal Decisions," pp. 94-95.
37 SY, pp. 13v, lOOv-lOlr.
38 Cohen uses almost the precise wording found in Judah Ashkenazi's Be'er Hetiv
ad loc. The latter also cites the Siddur ha-Ari, which quotes Qaro's Maggid Mesha-
rim: "The maggid [heavenly teacher] warned the Bet Yosef [i.e., Qaro] to come to the
synagogue very early, so that he would be able to pray in order and without omitting,
because the one who does so confounds the conduits [of heavenly influence]." Amaz-
ingly, Sasportas never cites the warning of the maggid, which would seem to support
his position strongly, for it implies that if one arrives late he must omit the psalms
even though the conduits will be confounded. Both the writings of the Ari and the
Maggid Mesharim (the book of Qaro's revelations from his maggid) were known in
Amsterdam at the time. Maggid Mesharim had been printed in two parts during the
seventeenth century, but was printed complete for the first time in Amsterdam, 1708.
III. HERESY AND THE WESTERN SEPHARADI DIASPORA
There are statements in both SY and in Ashkenazi's responsum

that indicate there was more to the disagreement with da Silva than
a halakhah-kabbalah debate. They seemed to fear that rebellion
against the rabbinic tradition, or even heresy, might come of it.
Ashkenazi writes:
We see that if there was no argument between the posqim, the

words of the kabbalah could not determine a ruling opposed to
them [as in our case]. This is an essential rule of our holy Torah;
because if it was not so, every person would be empowered to
follow his own understanding of the Zohar, whether it be correct
or incorrect. In our multitude of sins this has been the cause of
tremendous errors which I have seen with my own eyes. How
many people have transgressed the laws and violated the stat-
utes39 by following the words of the Zohar or RaDaya Mehemna
[another work in the zoharic corpus] according to their own con-
taminated understanding of those works! Perish the thought that
the authors of the Zohar and the Ra'aya Mehemna ever intended
these things! It would not have been necessary to state this mat-
ter in writing but for the need to remove from the hearts of these
self-styled wise men [omD.nnn] the teaching of doctrines op-
posed to the opinions of our teachers, the posqim of blessed
memory. They lean on a staff of reed,40 viz., the wisdom of the
holy Zohar, whose words are hidden and sealed with a thousand
rings. They all think they have in them the great spirit required
to claim that they have delved to its ultimate meaning, when
they have not really forced any secrets from it at all. May the
good Lord forgive them.41
Though the emphases seem to be a little different in SY, there are

many indications that Sasportas was similarly concerned with the
dangerous potential of da Silva's position:
39 Following Isa 24:5.

40 Following Ezek 29:6.
41 Responsa .Hakham Sevi (Lemberg ed.), #36, p. 17r. Ashkenazi's position on
the role of kabbalah in halakhah should not, however, be concluded from our case
alone. He uses kabbalistic texts in halakhic discussions on several occasions. See,
e.g., MS Amsterdam-Rosenthaliana #576 (=Jerusalem Institute #42439), pp. 4, 45,
and elsewhere.
[I write this response] also to teach others who m

to sin because of him [da Silva] by saying, "If there is some-
thing better than those royal delicacies and sweeter than that
honey and honeycomb's flow found in the Shulhan 'Arukh and
the Tur, bring them out to us so that we may known them;42
why should you withhold the good from its rightful owners?"43
You must realize that if one of the nation44 hears that [the pos-
qim's] words do not accord with truth and righteousness in even
a single matter, heaven forfend, unscrupulous people will find an
opportunity thereby to destroy the pillars of Torah and its roots,
and "This will be an offense and a stumbling block to you."45
"Unclean, unclean" he should cry,46 to warn the great ones [the

Jews] about the ones of little faith [da Silva and his cohorts],
that they should stay away from them so as not to become con-
taminated with their impurity or become disabused of their [cor-
rect] opinions as he has today. He seeks to mislead the nation of
God from following the holy ones in the land [the rabbis] by ex-
plaining strange interpretations of the words of the holy Zohar.47
In this connection Sasportas makes an especially interesting

comment: "If he [da Silva] found a pomegranate, he discarded the
42 Sasportas plays here on Gen 19:5, where the men of Sodom speak these words,
asking Lot to bring out the guests whom he shelters, so that (according to Rashi on
the passage) they might sodomize them (whence, of course, the term). This is Sas-
portas' subtle way of saying that the type of people who would willingly abandon the
traditional halakhic norm in favor of kabbalistic innovations are such as would use it
incorrectly and inappropriately. The "Tur" is Jacob ben Asher's Arba'ah Turim.
4 SY, p. 9r.
44 I think Sasportas intends added meaning by use of the phrase from Gen 26:10,
where Avimelech tells Abraham that he was wrong to say Sarah was his sister, be-
cause "one of the nation" might have committed adultery with her. The implication
is that da Silva, by advertising his false conceptions, may be the cause of others' er-
ror. The fact that the words are marked with diacritical indicators (o"-w t"nx) hints
at an underlying meaning. I do not think that the interpretation of Rashi and the
midrashim, that owoi tnN means the king, figured in Sasportas' use of the verse. An
additional implication of "the nation" might be to indicate the Spanish and Portu-
guese "nation" (Nagao), as the former conversos called themselves. These were the
people who made up the Amsterdam community.
45 SY, p. 22v, the last line is from 1 Sam 25:3 1. For another reference to the con-
cern with "unscrupulous ones" (oini nn)z), see SY, p. 32v.
46 Lev 13:45.
47 SY, p. 30v.
inside and ate the shell."48 The reference is to a well known talmu-
dic passage: "Rabbi Meir found a pomegranate. He ate the inside
and discarded the shell."49 The Talmud refers to the fact that Rabbi
Meir studied under the famous heretic Elisha ben Avuya, accept-
ing the Torah he learned from Elisha but discarding his heretical
ways. Sasportas is saying, in effect, that da Silva has chosen a dan-
gerous teacher, the kabbalah, but instead of accepting the useful
teachings and avoiding what is dangerous, he has done the oppo-
site. The comparison is especially significant in that the worst of
Elisha's sins was causing others to err,50 which is clearly one of
Sasportas' greatest apprehensions about da Silva.51 Again, Sas-
portas accuses da Silva of "revealing facets of the Torah which are
not according to the law (n:)nz 2v.' D nx5v)," a reference to the
talmudic statement which lists this offense as one indicative of the
Dapikoros, that is, a heretic.52
Among the authorities cited by Sasportas to prove that kabbalah
must never interfere in any halakhic decisions he includes R. Tam
ibn Yahya, quoting from a responsum concerning one who teaches
such matters publicly:
Disaster will result from this, which will destroy the walls of To-
rah and its roots; it will lead to heresy and will cause a distanc-
ing from the abode of God's desire, that is, drawing near to God.
It would be better for the offender that he had never been born.
All the more certainly is this true for changing a rabbinic teach-
ing [wv-rn] or for nullifying a halakhah-perish the thought!53
Sasportas cites Hillel's dictum, "Do not separate yourself from the
community,"54 clearly alluding to da Silva's threat to tefillah ba-
sibbur (communal recitation of 'Amidah), and states that it really
means, "Don't cast aspersions on our true laws, received orally from
Moses."55 He explicitly states his concern that da Silva will cause
the masses to be lax in synagogue attendance and punctuality.56
48 Ibid., p. 50v.
49 b.Hag 15b.
50 See Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages (Cambridge, MA, 1987), pp. 465-466.
51 jy, pp. lOr, llr-v, 15r, 18v, 30v, 37v, 40v, 117r, 118r.
52 Ibid., p. lOv; bSanh 99b.
53 Ibid., p. 63r.
54 'Avot 2.5. See also the comment of R. Yonah b. Abraham Gerondi ad loc.
55 IY, p. 22v.
56Ibid., p. 117r-v.
Two offhand comments in SY hint at further threats to rabbinic

authority, caused in these cases by da Silva's actions rather than by
his doctrine:
You thought to wrap yourself in a tallit which was not yours

and to act arrogantly before the common people, as if an amaz-
ing secret were hidden under your tongue, until the point where
you convinced even yourself and scorned the honor of our rab-
bis of blessed memory.57
The tallit refers to the special garb of the rabbinate, which da Silva,
Sasportas implies, was not fit to wear. Again, Sasportas childes da
Silva for dishonoring his teachers. He claims that R. Abraham
Franco Mendes asked da Silva why he no longer goes to study with
his rabbi, and that da Silva replied insolently that there was nothing
for him to learn from the master.58 The intention of both these com-
ments by Sasportas was to show his adversary's impertinence to-
ward the rabbis, the bearers of traditional authority-an attitude
considered by the Talmud to be like fighting against God.59
These implications of heresy and rebellion against tradition must
be understood against the background of early eighteenth-century
Jewish thought in general, and that of the western Sephardi diaspora
(the "marrano diaspora") in particular. This was a period that man-
ifested an unprecedented number of challenges to rabbinic author-
ity, posing a serious threat to the continuation of traditional Jewish
life. These included a rationalist challenge, a converso challenge,
and several varieties of mystical/messianic challenges.
The rationalist and converso challenges to traditional Jewish au-
thority were most acute in the marrano diaspora, that network of
Jewish communities in early modern Western Europe made up of
former Iberian Christians of Jewish ancestry (conversos), who es-
caped from Spain and Portugal and returned to the Jewish faith.
57 Ibid., p. 37v. Reference to kabbalistic dilettantes in this period showing off as

if they had great secrets are made by Abraham ben Joseph Klemenkes of Lublin,
Ma'ayan Hokhmah (Amsterdam, 1652), p. lv (cited in Moshe Idel, "'Ehad me-'Ir
u-Shenayim mi-Mishpahah: 'Iyun me-Hadash bi-Va'ayat Tefusatah shel Kabbalat
ha-'Ari weha-Shabta'ut," Pe'amim 44 (1990): 15 and Jacob Sasportas, Sisat Novel
Sevi, p. 271 (where the reference is to Shabbetai Raphael).
58 SY, p. 41r-v. The initials of da Silva's teacher are given as N-YW, which Prof.
Yosef Kaplan has suggested might be either Solomon Oliveira or Solomon Aailion,
both important Amsterdam rabbis in this period.
59 bSanh lIOr.
These included communities in London, Hamburg, Livorno, Bay-

onne, and especially Amsterdam, the largest.60 The former conver-
sos often failed to conform completely to a traditional Jewish
lifestyle and practice, tending particularly to balk at the prospect of
obeying rabbinic authority, both past and present.61 This noncon-
formity expressed itself many times in an unconscious, or some-
times even a conscious, re-creation of the Karaite heresy, which
denied the authority of the Oral Law.62 It was in these converso
circles, for example, that the work Qol Sakhal was composed, with
its systematic critique of Qaro's Shulhan 'Arukh.63
It is not surprising then that Sasportas should criticize da Silva for
disagreeing with a decision of the Shulhan 'Arukh publicly in Am-
sterdam, where a host of "unscrupulous persons" were attempting to
challenge the accepted tradition of Jewish law represented by Qaro's
code. "If there is something better than those royal delicacies and
sweeter than that honey and honeycomb's flow found in the Shulhan
'Arukh and the Tur, bring them out to us that we may know them,"
says Sasportas' imaginary community members.64 He is especially
concerned about the common people, who will be easily convinced
by da Silva. It was a particular problem among the former conver-
sos, who often came to Judaism later in life, that they were ignorant
of basic Jewish tenets or even antipathetic toward them. A contem-
porary rabbi challenging the authority of the traditional posqim in
those regions might have helped open the way to the undermining
of their status altogether. This is no doubt Isaac Sasportas' intention
60 On the Portuguese congregation of Amsterdam in this period, see Yosef Kap-

lan, From Christianity to Judaism: The Life and Times of Isaac Orobio de Castro
(London, 1989); idem, "The Portuguese Community of Amsterdam in the 17th Cen-
tury Between Tradition and Change," Abraham Haim (ed.), Society and Community
(Jerusalem, 1991), pp. 141-171.
61 On the doctrinal deviations of the period, particularly in Amsterdam and Italy,
see Shalom Rosenberg, "Emunat Hakhamim," I. Twersky and B. Septimus (eds.),
Jewish Thought in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 285-341, and bibliography cited
there. See now also Jose Faur, In the Shadow of History: Jews and Conversos at the
Dawn of Modernity (New York, 1991).
62 On converso Karaism, see Yosef Kaplan, "'Karaites' in Early Eighteenth-
Century Amsterdam," D. S. Katz and J. I. Israel (eds.), Skeptics, Millenarians, and
Jews (Leiden, 1990), pp. 196-236.
63 On this work, see Talya Fishman, Kol Sachal's Critique of Rabbinic Tradition:
A Solution to the Problem of Galut (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1986).
64 See n. 43 above.
when he tells da Silva that "this is not the way and this is not the
city" for his innovations.65
The fact that da Silva's practice concerned synagogue activities,
and especially the question of communal prayer, also had a special
significance in the world of the former conversos. In Amsterdam and
the rest of the marrano diaspora outstanding reverence was paid to
the synagogue and its rites. The former conversos, who grew up un-
der Catholicism, had become accustomed to a dichotomy whereby
religion had minimal impact on daily business activities, but de-
manded strict honor and discipline inside the place of worship. The
Amsterdam Portuguese synagogue and service were the focus of all
congregational religious fervor, as we see reflected in the communal
rulebooks. Seating in the synagogue was strictly regulated, being
carefully ordered according to status and wealth. The honor of being
called to the Torah was a matter for more rules, and often a source
of disputes. Talking during services and Torah reading was strictly
forbidden, as was leaving while the Torah was out of the Ark. One
was permitted to sit or stand only at specific stages of the service.
Nobody was allowed to raise his voice on the synagogue grounds,
and one who struck a fellow Jew there, or even entered with a
weapon, was subject to excommunication. These are only a few of
the laws meant to preserve the sanctity of the synagogue and the
service.66
This excessive attention given to synagogue ritual, which was not
the norm in most Jewish communities,67 goes far to explain why our
case hit a sensitive nerve. All matters of ritual and prayer gained an
65 Y, p. 23v.
66 Arnold Wiznitzer, "The Merger Agreement and Regulations of Congregation
Talmud Torah of Amsterdam (1638-39)," Historia Judaica 20 (1958): 120-124.
67 Yosef Kaplan ("The Portuguese Community of Amsterdam," pp. 168-
states:
The more the influence of tradition diminished in different spheres of life in

this community, the more exclusively sacral values became restricted within
the narrow confines of the religious institutions proper. Most regulations of the
Amsterdam Portuguese community concerned synagogue procedures. The
synagogue, in fact, became the major stronghold of tradition.... Although
these [many synagogue] regulations per se do not deviate from the original
halakhah, they do indicate a tendency for its very stringent implementation as
compared to the practices prevalent in other typical traditional congregations
of the time.
inflated importance in a context where worship was such a major and

carefully regulated concern. In particular, synagogue attendance in
Amsterdam was the most important link both between a Jew and his
religion and between him and his community. Sasportas contended
that da Silva's practice would encourage people to miss communal
prayer and to be lax in synagogue attendance. "This manner of act-
ing will be an obstacle and stumbling-block of sin for you," he tells
him, "because the common people will observe you and imitate your
actions, scorning the value of praying with the community."68 For
a converso returning to Judaism, whose Jewish identity might still
not be very strong, any suggestion that communal prayer is not of
the utmost importance might lead to a weakening of ties with the
synagogue, and thus with the community and even with Judaism.
Spinoza, the famous rationalist philosopher and Jewish heretic from
Amsterdam, was seldom seen at the synagogue before his separation
from the community, which was recognized by the rabbis as a sign
of his impending dissociation.69
Even more compelling in these responsa than the concern with
converso and rationalist challenges to rabbinic tradition are the re-
peated warnings about the dangerous potential of kabbalah when
misused. From the time of the Mishnah and Talmud it was realized
that the unsupervised study of metaphysics could lead to disastrous
results, including heresy.70 This point was mentioned often in me-
dieval discussions about kabbalah study, especially during the de-
bate over printing the Zohar in the mid-sixteenth century. The
publication of this central mystical work would obviously put it in
the hands of many persons unsuited for its study; even the author of
the preface to the first edition (Mantua, 1558-60) acknowledged the
heresy problem:
We have regarded it as almost a reward, and the streams of loss

are running dry [cf. Isa 19:6], for there is no basis for this false-
hood [i.e., that there is heresy in the Zohar]. But there is a spirit
in man, and if he belongs to the unclean side, he will in any
case tend towards evil conduct.... Desist now, we beg of you,
for it is not good to spread slander concerning the perfect Torah
68 Sy, p. 117r-v.
69 So according to Colerus' biography of Spinoza, quoted in Jacob R. Marcus,
The Jew in the Medieval World (Cincinnati, 1938), p. 336.
70 See the second chapter of tractate Hagigah in the Mishnah and Talmud, espe-
cially mHag 2.1 and the story of the four who entered Pardes (bHag 14b).
of the Lord by saying that destruction can come of it.... And

even if we admit that some individuals might be misled by it
and their hearts be affected by impurity, this has no bearing on
the matter.71
In the seventeenth century a major reaction against widespread

and public kabbalah study took place, quite aside from the surge in
actual anti-kabbalistic literature. The authors often mentioned po-
tential heresy in their complaint.72 For the most part, from the Tal-
mud down to the seventeenth century, the specific nature of this
heresy was seldom discussed.
There is no doubt that the concern of both Sasportas and Ash-
kenazi about people being misled by da Silva is connected with the
apprehension of their age about kabbalistic pursuits by unqualified
Jews. Both study of the kabbalah and performance of its esoteric
practices was perceived as inappropriate for anyone but the most
highly learned. But what in particular caused them to stress the
problem of potential kabbalistic heresy so strongly in this case?
Was it merely the same general anxiety that amateur mystics would
be led astray? I would suggest that there were several historical fac-
tors in the early eighteenth century which led to these rabbis' seem-
ingly exaggerated fear of heresy in this episode, and gave a name to
the dreaded heterodox phenomena connected with kabbalah.
When Ashkenazi speaks of "great errors which I have seen with
my own eyes," and laments about "how many people have trans-
gressed the laws and violated the statutes by following the words of
the Zohar or RaDaya Mehemna according to their own contaminated
71 Quoted in F. Lachower and I. Tishby (eds.), The Wisdom of the Zohar (trans.
D. Goldstein; Oxford, 1989), 1:34.
72 Examples include Ya'ir Haim Bacharach, Hawwot Ya'ir, #210; The Franc
brothers (see Penina Naveh's preface to her Kol Shire Yacaqov Frances [Jerusalem,
1969), pp. 91-100); and Leon Modena, Ziqne Yehudah, #55 (that Modena's opposi-
tion was more to the dissemination of kabbalah, especially Sarug's, than to kabbalah
in general, is the contention of Howard E. Adelman, Success and Failure in the Sev-
enteenth Century Ghetto of Venice: The Life and Thought of Leon Modena, 1571-
1648 [Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 1985], Chap. 16, pp. 461-484, especially
pp. 462-465).
It is relevant here to note that publicizing kabbalah, actually trying to spread
its study more widely, was one goal of many Lurianic kabbalists. This was for two
reasons-one eschatological (the spread of kabbalah would bring the messiah); and
the other didactic (kabbalah as ethical teaching). See, e.g., The Wisdom of the Zohar,
1:39; Rabbi Jacob Semah, introduction to Qol be-Ramah, quoted in Elisheva Car-
lebach, The Pursuit of Heresy: Moses Hagiz and the Sabbatian Controversies (New
understanding of those works,"73 he is almost certainly thinking

about the followers of Shabbetai Sevi, and their use of kabbalah to
support their "heretical" messianic theology.74 In the early eigh-
teenth century the Sabbateans were still active, and their opponents
searched them out and denounced them wherever possible.75 They
were often recognizable only by certain highly subtle heretical
overtones in their kabbalistic writings, so that any nonconformist
interpretation of the Zohar would immediately raise suspicion. It
was, in fact, exactly during the period between 1706 and 1720 that
Amsterdam became the center of a Sabbatean controversy, involv-
ing no less a personage than the president of the rabbinical court,
Solomon Aailion. In 1713 the Sabbatean kabbalist Nehemiah Hiya
HIayon appeared in Amsterdam and caused an uproar which sharply
split the Sephardi and Ashkenazi communities. Aailion, a Sab-
batean throughout his life as far as we can gather from extant
sources, supported Hayon. Hakham Sevi, a strong anti-Sabbatean,
was then the Ashkenazi rabbi of the city, and Aailion had him run
out of town. In our case, it was not suspicion of Sabbateanism in da
Silva's practice which raised the hackles of Sasportas and Ash-
kenazi, but the general atmosphere of discomfort with any unusual
interpretation of the Zohar, which was the hallmark of Sabbatean
kabbalism.76
York, 1990), p. 13; Scholem, Kabbalah, p. 81; Mordecai Pachter, "Re'shit Semiha-
tah shel Safrut ha-Musar ha-Kabbalit bi-Sefat ba-Me'ah ha-16," J. Dan (ed.), Tarbut
we-Historiah (Jerusalem, 1987), p. 77.
On attitudes toward kabbalah study and heterodoxy in the seventeenth century
in general, see Jacob Katz, "Halakhah we-Kabbalah ke-Noge' Limud Mitharim,"
Da'at 7 (1981): 37-68; reprinted in his Halakhah and Kabbalah, pp. 70-101; The
Wisdom of the Zohar, vol. I, "General Introduction," chap. 3, "The History of Zohar
Scholarship," pp. 33-55, and Chap. 4, "Zohar Criticism," pp. 55-87; Moshe Idel,
"Differing Conceptions of Kabbalah in the Early 17th Century," in Jewish Thought
in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 137-200.
73 See n. 41, above.
74 See Gershom Scholem, Sabbatai Sevi: The Mystical Messiah (Princeton,
1973), especially chap. 1; idem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York,
1961), pp. 287-324; idem, Studies and Texts concerning the History of Sabbatean-
ism and its Metamorphoses (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1974); idem, Researches in Sab-
bateanism [Hebrew], ed. Yehuda Liebes (Jerusalem, 1991).
75 Among their most staunch opponents was Jacob Emden; see Schacter, Rabbi
Jacob Emden and Carlebach, The Pursuit of Heresy.
76 Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews (Philadelphia, 1895), pp. 214-231; Na-
dav, "Rabbi Shlomo Aailon," pp. 307-309; I. S. Emmanuel, "Pulmus Nehemiah
I mentioned above the extreme sensitivity to prayer and the syna-

gogue in the marrano diaspora. In the early eighteenth century the
kabbalah was beginning to have strong effects in these areas as well,
which might have added to the negative reaction against da Silva's
innovation. Kabbalah in general, and the writings of Isaac Luria's
circle in particular, contain modifications of traditional prayer, based
on a kabbalistic philosophy of prayer as a theurgic and/or ecstatic ex-
ercise.77 While it has recently been demonstrated that the Lurianic
system did not have a wide impact up to the mid-seventeenth cen-
tury,78 by the early eighteenth century both the older works and the
newer Lurianic system had demonstrably spread across Europe and
affected large numbers of Jewish readers, especially in matters of
prayer.
The Amsterdam community may have been particularly sensitive
to this impact for several reasons. One is that though Amsterdam
boasted no outstanding kabbalist in residence at the time of our
events, kabbalah was widely read there, partially because the city
was a center of Jewish printing. The increasing number of kabbalistic
works printed in Amsterdam from the 1650's onward certainly found
their first audience locally. Ironically, an early example of this phe-
nomenon is the printing of Hekhal ha-Qodesh, a mystical commen-
tary on the prayers which was published in 1653 by Jacob Sasportas,
Isaac Sasportas' father. The Zohar was published in Amsterdam in
1715. An especially significant event was the publication of Joseph
Qaro's Maggid Mesharim in its first complete edition (Amsterdam,
1708). This book, containing the mystical revelations granted Qaro
by his heavenly mentor, the spirit of the Mishnah, epitomizes the fu-
sion which had been increasingly seen since the late sixteenth cen-
tury between Jewish mystical interests and halakhah.79 There is little
doubt that it had wide circulation even before this printing, both in
manuscript and in the two previous printed editions, each containing
Hiya Hayun be-Amsterdam," Sefunot, 9 (1964): 209-246; M. Friedman, DArba'

DIgrot Hadashot 'al Hayun," Erez Yisrael 10 (1971): 234-236; Carlebach, The Pur-
suit of Heresy, pp. 75-159 et passim.
77 See Moshe Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives (New Haven, 1988), index,
"Prayer"; Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah (Jerusalem, 1988), index, "Prayer"; idem,
Major Trends, pp. 100-103.
78 Moshe Idel, "'Ehad me-'Ir" (n. 57, above), pp. 5-30.
7 See R. J. Z. Werblowsky, Joseph Karo, Lawyer and Mystic (Philadelphia,
1980), especially chap. 8, "The Halakhah of the Maggid," pp. 169-188. But see also
the criticism of his view by Ta-Shma (n. 20, above).
half of the entire work (Lublin, 1646; Venice, 1649). Such works
surely served to heighten sensitivity toward the impact of kabbalah
on everyday activities, such as prayer.
Another possible factor in Amsterdam sensitivity to kabbalistic
impact on prayer is the fact that Moses Zacuto (ca. 1610-1697),
the most prominent promoter of Lurianic prayer modifications, had
been born and raised in that community. A brief glance at Zacuto's
published letters and responsa is sufficient to demonstrate that he
was a clearinghouse of information and advice on the implementa-
tion of Lurianic ritual techniques, and his unpublished works show
this even more clearly. It seems almost certain that such a person-
ality would have a circle of followers in his hometown who would
seek to spread Lurianic practices among their friends, perhaps cre-
ating some tension with those less mystically inclined.80
Some examples of other controversies concerning kabbalah-
oriented prayer innovations in the marrano diaspora during this
period will further define the background upon which da Silva ap-
peared with his new custom. In 1665-66 the Amsterdam Sephardi
community implemented the recital of the priestly blessing every
week rather than on holidays only, as a mystical innovation asso-
ciated with the movement of Shabbetai Sevi. After the apostasy of
the messiah some Amsterdam Jews, apparently supported by the
lay leadership, wished to return to the original practice, whereas
others, allegedly led by Isaac Aboab, said that the practice was
good in any case, and should continue. The question was referred
to Jacob Sasportas, who supported the party wishing to abolish the
modification; but his decision was not accepted by many Amster-
dam community members, and the matter remained a sore point
80 See, e.g., Bet Tefillah (Amsterdam, 1712); Hen Qol Hadash (Amsterdam,
1712); Qol ha-ReMeZ (Berditchev, 1900); 'Iggerot ReMeZ (Livorno, 1780); Re-
sponsa ha-ReMeZ (Venice, 1761). Note the dates of the first two items; these and
several of Zacuto's commentaries on various prayers were printed and circulated in
Amsterdam in the early eighteenth century.
See also Shlomo Simonsohn, History of the Jews in the Duchy of Mantua
(Jerusalem, 1977), pp. 738-741 (includes a partial list of Zacuto's manuscripts);
Scholem, Kabbalah, pp. 449-451 (includes bibliography); Abba Appelbaum,
Mosheh Zakut (Lvov, 1926), especially pp. 29-30, and his comparison of Zacuto
with Joseph Qaro, pp. 35-36; Jozef Melkman, "Re'shit Hayyaw shel Rabbi Moshe
Zakut," Sefunot 9 (1965): 129-132; Meir Benayahu, "Rabbi Mosheh Zakut beyn
Se'to me-Hamburg le-Shivto be-Venesiah," Asufot 5 (1991): 309-326.
for some time. In fact, this was only one of the ritual innovations
adopted in Amsterdam as part of the movement. Special prayers
were composed by the rabbis and said on additional occasions in
honor of Shabbetai Sevi, and the cantors, in their messianic fervor,
added their own flourishes to the service.8"
In the 1690's Solomon Aailion, then rabbi in the Sephardi com-
munity of London, was attacked by one Jacob Fidanque for his prac-
tice of sitting during the Yishtabah prayer, for which Fidanque had
the tradition of standing. A local scholar, Joseph ibn Danon, at-
tempted to defend Aailion and wrote about the episode to Jacob Sas-
portas, Isaac's father, then rabbi in Amsterdam.82 Ibn Danon says:
I asked him [Fidanque] whether he knew the reason why one must
put on the phylactery of the arm while sitting and that of the head
while standing, and why we say the Shema' prayer, which is our
acceptance of the yoke of heavenly rule, with its accompanying
Yoser blessing, while seated; and The Prayer [CAmidah] standing;
and all such similar cases, as there is a single reason behind all
of them. Furthermore, R. Isaac Luria, of blessed memory, holds
this opinion. And who is greater than R. Shimon bar Yohai [i.e.,
the Zohar]? These practices appear correct according to him as
well. Rabbi Fidanque answered that he did not know the reason.83
Persons present at the time from the Sephardi congregations of

Bayonne and Amsterdam reported that the practice in those places
was like that of Aailion, while Fidanque claimed that in Hamburg
it was done his way. In this case, unlike ours, the kabbalists had the
upper hand and it was Fidanque and his friends who were per-
ceived as rebels and a danger to the masses.84 Nevertheless, this
81 Jacob Sasportas, Sisat Novel Sevi, ed. I. Tishby (Jerusalem, 1954), pp. 21 1ff.;
idem, Responsa 'Ohel Yacaqov, #68, pp. 72v-74v; Scholem, Shabbetai Sevi, pp.
533-535; letters published by Meir Benayahu in Erez Yisrael 4 (1956): 202-205.
82 Sasportas, Responsa 'Ohel Yacaqov, #74, pp. 79v-80r.
83 Ibid.
84 Ibid., p. 80r. Another episode concerning Hamburg prayer innovation may also
have involved use of the kabbalah. In 1678 Moses ben Gideon Abudiente of Ham-
burg, known mainly for his Sabbatean tract Fin de los Dias (see Scholem, Shabbetai
Sevi, pp. 583-588), wrote a letter and poem to his friend Isaac Saruco about certain
reforms enacted by the new rabbinical court in the community. Most of these re-
forms involved changes in the prayer service, particularly on the Day of Atonement.
He complains of the judges that "their reasoning and actions are done in secret ways
was another kabbalah-based prayer innovation which raised op-

position from traditionalists. These examples show that da Silva's
actions occurred in a setting where kabbalistic liturgical modifica-
tions were regularly the subject of controversy.
Here, then, we have a combination which would be considered
most dangerous to establishment rabbis like Sasportas and Ash-
kenazi: kabbalah, which had always been viewed as a possible source
of heresy, being applied in an innovative and contrived manner to
prayer, the most sensitive area of religious life in the marrano di-
aspora, by a scholar whose credentials as both an halakhist and a kab-
balist were (at least according to his detractors) most suspect. While
a scholar of the caliber of Moses Zacuto, basing himself on known
traditions of the Zohar and Isaac Luria, might be able to implement
slight changes in ritual without causing serious opposition, a minor
local rabbi like da Silva, promoting a highly innovative practice with
no antecedents whatsoever, would be immediately censured. And in
Amsterdam, where fealty to traditional Judaism was already weak
among many community members, the potential of such audacity to
damage rabbinic authority would be keenly recognized. Whether or
not da Silva's intentions were "for the sake of heaven," his doctrine
was perceived as opening the way to ritual laxity and heresy.
To sum up, the da Silva episode caused a great stir in the Am-
sterdam Portuguese Jewish community of the early eighteenth cen-
tury partially because of historical conditions pertaining to that
setting. Siah Yishaq and the responsum of Hakham Sevi Ashkenazi
fit into the framework of an ongoing dialectic concerning the place
of kabbalah in halakhic decision-making. Da Silva's practice was
considered dangerous and of heretical potential because it impinged
on the highly sensitive issues of that time and place, including syna-
gogue practices and unprecedented kabbalistic innovation. Despite
the factitiousness of da Silva's interpretation and the clearcut con-
demnations of his view, the practice of reading the psalms in order
and forgoing the communal 'Amidah when late for services has per-
severed and become very widespread.
[,inmn Ir 5y] and with the wisdom of kabbalah" (MS Amsterdam-Ets Hayyim #47
B 26, p. 121; also in MS Columbia X893 Ab. 9/2-3). I am not sure how to interpret
the diacritical indicators over the word "kabbalah" (ntnp), but the whole reference
may simply be to a closed-door policy of the leaders, since no further mention is
made in either the letter or the poem about kabbalah.

Controversy over Prayer Practices in Early 18th C. Amsterdam

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Controversy over Prayer Practices in Early 18th C. Amsterdam

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Halakhah, Kabbalah, and Heresy: A Controversy in Early Eighteenth-Century Amsterdam

Author(s): Matt Goldish

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

HALAKHAH, KABBALAH, AND HERESY:

In 1706 a controversy arose in the Portuguese Jewish community of

One day in the winter of 1706 a Portuguese Jew in Amsterdam

recitation. Curiel approached da Silva and questioned him concern-

1 Isaac Sasportas, Sefer Siah Yishaq, MS Rosenthaliana #213, pp. Ir-2r.

London, Asher Meyer #5 (=Jerusalem Institute #5416). The title-page of this MS

Amsterdam, Rosenthaliana #213 (=Jerusalem Institute #3832).

Columbia University X893 Sa7 (in Spanish; no title page).

known controversialist Jacob Sasportas, a member of the Portu-

to here by his initials (o"m; elsewhere, vt o"lx),7 sent a reply

The following question appears in She'elot u-Teshuvot IHakham

To Holland; lyar [Spring] 5466 of the Creation [1706]: Two

There can be no doubt that this responsum refers to our case,

3 SY, pp. 75v-77v.

The second phase of the controversy came unexpectedly in 1720.

II. HALAKHAH AND KABBALAH

Jewish scholarship has recently turned its attention to the impor-

similar to such famous halakhah-kabbalah disputes as whether one

Man, in entering the synagogue, first cleanses himself by the

The Zohar, however, like all the halakhic authorities, is adamant

Da'at, 21 (1988): 85-102; Jacob Katz, "Post-Zoharic Relations between Halakhah

Sasportas' reply to da Silva's claim in his SY is carried on at two

halakhic authorities are silent or undecided.24 Yet there remained

Talmud. It first appears during the period of the gaonim, in the

How haphazardly this process of scrutinization proceeded can

Furthermore, "At times the religious precept, rite, or custom in-

35 Benayahu, "The Conflict of Kabbalah with Halachah," p. 90. R. Akiva's view in

III. HERESY AND THE WESTERN SEPHARADI DIASPORA

There are statements in both SY and in Ashkenazi's responsum

We see that if there was no argument between the posqim, the

Though the emphases seem to be a little different in SY, there are

39 Following Isa 24:5.

[I write this response] also to teach others who m

"Unclean, unclean" he should cry,46 to warn the great ones [the

In this connection Sasportas makes an especially interesting

Two offhand comments in SY hint at further threats to rabbinic

You thought to wrap yourself in a tallit which was not yours

57 Ibid., p. 37v. Reference to kabbalistic dilettantes in this period showing off as

These included communities in London, Hamburg, Livorno, Bay-

60 On the Portuguese congregation of Amsterdam in this period, see Yosef Kap-

The more the influence of tradition diminished in different spheres of life in

inflated importance in a context where worship was such a major and

We have regarded it as almost a reward, and the streams of loss

of the Lord by saying that destruction can come of it.... And

In the seventeenth century a major reaction against widespread

understanding of those works,"73 he is almost certainly thinking

I mentioned above the extreme sensitivity to prayer and the syna-

Hiya Hayun be-Amsterdam," Sefunot, 9 (1964): 209-246; M. Friedman, DArba'

Persons present at the time from the Sephardi congregations of

was another kabbalah-based prayer innovation which raised op-

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi