Jewish Liturgy in the Fourth Century
Jewish Liturgy after the Ninth Century
Editor's Note: Stefan C. Reif, Director of the Genizah Research Unit of the University of Cambridge, England, compares what is known of the worship practices of early Judaism with the liturgical evidence of ninth/tenth-century geonic Babylonia, contrasting the fluidity of the early period with the liturgical fixity of the latter. The evidence suggests a radical reconsideration of early rabbinic liturgy, according to which we must imagine a great deal more flexibility and creativity than has traditionally been assumed. He sums up what we know of the many strands of Jewish liturgy from their inception in the first few centuries of rabbinic culture and takes us briefly to the period in which liturgical traditions were consolidated into prayer books and rites that have proved lasting ever since. Of particular significance, he shows how the discoveries from the Cairo Genizah can illuminate our understanding of the process by which prayer books and rites evolved out of liturgical traditions.
The function of this contribution to our discussion of the liturgical traditions of Christianity and Judaism is to explain how a formal, authoritative liturgy emerged in the history of rabbinic Judaism; when and where this process took place; and what factors dictated the adoption of such an office among the religious commitments of the Jewish community at large. In order to achieve an adequate explanation of such developments it will obviously be necessary to take as our starting point that period of Jewish religious history when a recognizable form of rabbinic liturgy may be identified and to describe in general terms the various characteristics of that form as contemporary research has identified them.
A leap of some centuries will then be made to bring us to a situation when a Jewish liturgical codex was given a position of some respect among the literary sources of the religious tradition and therefore to a time when it may no longer be doubted that there existed a written guide for regular communal worship sanctioned by a leading figure, or a number of such guides emanating from various such authorities.
A comparison, or rather a contrast, will then be drawn between the primitive form and the subtle shape that it later acquired, and it will be possible to pinpoint the differences that had emerged in the intervening centuries. Reference will be made to the attempts of various generations of Jewish liturgical scholars to account for any differences that may be detected between the earlier and later sources and to demonstrate, by and large, that these were differences of degree rather than of essence. By way of contrast and as a result of recent research in the fragmentary manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah, it will be suggested that what may be traced here are pivotal developments in the history of Jewish liturgy that have only recently gained the attention of scholars and that indeed characterize a period of Jewish history that has yet to give up all its secrets to the researcher. It will then be possible to set such developments in a larger context and thereby to achieve the aims set for this essay.
BACK TO TOP
By the fourth century of the common era it is fairly certain that there existed (1) an authoritative body of tannaitic traditions relating to biblical interpretation and the application of Jewish law, and (2) at least the early, dialectic responses, both supportive and disputatious, of the amoraim to these traditions. The process of developing these responses, or Talmud, as it came to be called, was under way in both Jewish Palestine and the major Diaspora community of Babylon; and the Jewish religious reaction to the loss of its temple, its holy city, and its independent state had had time to mature over a period of three centuries.
What is more, whatever the length of the period during which the Jews and the early Christians, or Jewish Christians, enjoyed close religious and social contact, they had by that time gone their separate ways. The situation had been much more fluid in the first Christian century than is often claimed. At that early age, neither the founders of Christianity nor the precursors of talmudic tradition had a definitive theory or practice with regard to worship outside the Jerusalem Temple, and various competing forces had been seeking to dominate the liturgical scene. Whatever mutual influences were at work on the earliest, recognizable forms of rabbinic and Christian liturgy, these are more likely to date from the second and third Centuries, when the two communities were still operating in the same, or closely connected contexts.
Be that as it may, the schism was completed by the fourth century, and later effects, positive and negative, whether the result of emulation or reaction, were those of one religion on another and not of a single religion's internal affairs. For all these reasons, it may be assumed that by the fourth century the foundations had been laid of what ultimately became talmudic Judaism and that the liturgical customs in vogue by then may fairly be identified as the early form of what later evolved into the rabbinic prayer book. 
It is beyond dispute that the wide variety of prayers and blessings that are attested in the talmudic literature were recited from memory and transmitted orally, and that there was a distinct disapproval of committing them to an authoritative, written text. While there is no doubt in the talmudic sources about the existence of such pieces of liturgy, there are no unanimous views recorded there about its degree of importance in Jewish practice, its essential character, and its detailed application. Not without controversy was it sometimes given a theological centrality equal to that accorded to Torah study and charitable behavior and directly linked with the cultic obligations that had once been met in the Jerusalem Temple.
Where, when, towards which site, how often, in which language, with whom, and for how long observant Jews certainly men, but possibly women as well should conduct their prayers, were questions that elicited a host of responses from the Babylonian and Palestinian rabbis. By the same token, the formalization of the reading and interpretation of the Hebrew Bible was already a feature of synagogal activity, but the precise content and structure of the lectionary was clearly open to debate and variant usage. 
As far as the synagogue itself was concerned, it was only gradually being transformed from a center of social and intellectual activity, particularly in the Diaspora, to the successor of the Temple as a central but not the central, focus of Jewish liturgical activity. The Synagogue was attracting to itself more and more of the disparate elements of earlier Jewish expressions of worship and their symbols, but arguments could still be made for alternative sites, such as the home and the academy, perhaps even for alternative cultic sites in the form of Jewish temples, and a distinction could still be drawn between prayer as the expression of individual piety and supplication and liturgy as the religious commitment of the community, whatever form that might have to take now that there was no Jerusalem Temple.
The architecture and function of the synagogue were by no means standard, but the trend was moving away from the simple towards the complex and from the functional to the symbolic. Although there were honorific titles and functions for leading members of the synagogue, the service could be led by any male congregant, no special mediator, professional or theological, being required. 
In the matter of prayer, as in so many other detailed elements of their daily religious activities, the rabbis of the Talmud, perhaps even more than those of the Mishnah, adopted a fairly pluralistic approach. This, of course, assumes that what they have to say is to be regarded as a reflection of reality rather than a collection of theoretical reflections of relevance only to their intellectual system of argumentation. Some stressed the mystical and the poetic while others opted for a more prosaic order and guidance. The student of liturgical issues in the oldest talmudic sources soon becomes aware of what I have, in a different context, called "the tensions, controversies, stresses and strains that accompanied early rabbinic Judaism's attempt to define the place of prayer in the framework of its religious ideology."
This is not to say that there were no halakhic requirements and that it was left entirely to individuals to treat prayer as they pleased. Some traditions had existed long enough among the ordinary folk to have acquired a popular status, others were clearly attached to special occasions of one sort or another, and there were, no doubt, those that were treated as authoritative because of their origin in the Jerusalem Temple. In the detailed recitation, however, as well as in the degree of standardization of all the customs and the theological assessment of their importance, there lay the substantial pluralism just noted. Although many specific items of prayer and prayer custom are referred to, they often appear only as a title or as a few initial words, disembodied liturgy as it were, or they are offered in a variety of different forms. Types of prayer are mentioned, and numbers of words are sometimes specified; but to the critical observer it is not obvious where the theory ends and the practice begins.
Before an attempt is made to summarize what constituted the corpus of Jewish prayer in about the fourth century, two further points need to be stressed. It should not be taken for granted at any stage of Jewish religious history that what the rabbis said and legislated was already the communal norm. There were certainly periods and areas in which rabbinic authority and centralization were dominant, but these were at least as often the exception as they were the rule. Talmudic statements may consequently reflect a rabbinic struggle to impose certain ideas and practices and need not necessarily record the contemporary, communal reality. Conversely, it is possible that what the rabbis record as accepted custom may to an extensive degree include items that had their origin among the common folk rather than the intelligentsia. But until we have fuller liturgical texts dating from that period, if we ever do, we can only speculate on the relative proportions of liturgical theory and practical applications.
The second point to be made is that two major Jewish communities existed during the talmudic period, one in the Holy Land and the other in Babylon. There was considerable intercourse between the two, and influence was exercised in both directions. Some evidence suggests that in Eretz Yisrael, to put it in Heinemann's words, "a certain amount of freedom and variety remained," and it may therefore be the case that the pluralism of the talmudic sources with regard to prayer will ultimately turn out to be a division between the popular, aesthetic, and liberal trends of one community against the elitist, standardized, and authoritative preferences of the other. 
A further complication is the existence of Jewish communities in the Greek-speaking Diaspora who might have been more open to external influences than those in Babylon and Eretz Yisrael. Some inscriptions point in such a direction, but the major sources are still the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim. Again, the necessary analysis remains to be undertaken, and it is not certain that such research can successfully be completed on the basis of the literary sources alone, as these have obviously passed through the hands of various editors and redactors since they were first compiled.
Which Jewish prayers, then, were already in existence and use by the middle of the talmudic period? It seems clear that at least two paragraphs of the Shema were recited, morning and evening, and that a formal invitation to communal prayer, as well as benedictions concerning the natural order of the day and the unique role of Israel, preceded it. The Tefillah (or Amidah) was also to be recited in the morning and afternoon, but some doubts were voiced about its obligatory nature in the evening. Efforts were being made to ensure a continuity between the Shema and the Tefillah by the adoption of passages, with suitable benedictions, expressing faith in God's special relationship with Israel, as demonstrated in the past, and confidence in God's response to its more immediate needs. The daily Tefillah recorded these needs, but it is doubtful whether each of its benedictions had yet obtained a definite structure. Perhaps the first three and last two or three were less fluid than the remainder.
These were also recited on Sabbaths, festivals, and fasts together with one or more appropriate central benedictions relating in some way, also yet to be categorically defined, to the particular nature of the occasion. Elements of what had originally been individual prayer and benediction were becoming absorbed into communal or synagogal worship, and remnants of the public ritual once carried out on Mount Zion were being adopted and adapted for more personal use. It was not, however, universally assumed that the formal patterns suitable for the liturgy of the community were necessarily applicable to private devotions. Such devotions, generally pietistic or penitential, were associated with the names of individual rabbis and couched in the first person, although there were also poetic supplications that may have originated in the Jerusalem Temple.
The other function of the synagogue perhaps indeed its major and earlier function was as a center of Bible reading and instruction. Pentateuchal scrolls were publicly read and expounded on Sabbaths, festivals, fasts, and on the market days of Monday and Thursday, and, while it was becoming customary to associate particular passages with related occasions, it is still anachronistic to refer to a fixed lectionary at this time. There was controversy about the place of the Decalogue and a tendency to make a theological point by abandoning its daily recitation in spite of its long and respectable pedigree. Translations from the Hebrew into Aramaic and interpretations of the text were a central part of what amounted to this system of regular religious education for the community.
Parts of the prophetic and hagiographical books also played a part in such public readings, but the process had yet to be liturgically formalized. The earliest manifestation of a custom to include a formal recitation of a set of psalms in the communal liturgy was the use of Psalms 113-118 as the hallel, but the wider liturgical use in a communal context of what has often been viewed as the hymn book of the second Jerusalem Temple was still a development of the future.
As previously implied, liturgy for the talmudic Jew was not restricted to prayer but was expressed in the observance of mitzvot, the study of Torah, and in domestic customs. It there fore occasions no surprise to find the academy and the home as the normal settings for the remainder of talmudic prayer. Declarations of God's sanctity, with the use of the trishagion, and pious aspirations for the establishment of God's ultimate dominion were components of the praises that came to be associated with sessions of Torah study. At home, the commencement and conclusion of Sabbaths and festivals were marked by formulas that declared the sanctity of God and of the special day and that distinguished between various examples of the holy and the profane. Some prayers were couched in Aramaic, others in Hebrew, and there was even no objection in principle to the use of Greek in certain contexts.
Among the oldest Jewish liturgical forms are the Passover Haggadah and the Grace after Meals, and it should not be forgotten that benedictions were used to acknowledge God's bounty in providing for human sustenance. Even the contract of marriage had, by talmudic times, developed its own set of benedictions on the themes of the creation of humankind, marital joy, and the return to Zion; the setting here, however, was not the synagogue but the independent entity of wedding ceremony and feast. The benediction, like the oath and the vow, had evolved from its popular origins into a more formal structure and, as has been argued by Heinemann, was gradually being applied as such to various liturgical contexts. 
BACK TO TOP
Since the earliest forerunners of what became the standard rabbinic prayer book can be traced back to the period of the ninth to the twelfth centuries, it will now be necessary to move on to that era of Jewish history and describe the liturgical situation that then obtained. It is a useful point of reference for other reasons, too. During these years the once dominant Jewish community of Babylon began to see its power drift away to new centers, and the Palestinian Jewish community, which for all its vicissitudes and crises had always made its influence felt in the far-flung Diaspora, was virtually destroyed by the Crusaders. Furthermore, the primary sources available to the researcher multiply significantly, and the relative silence of a number of centuries is broken. 
Also during these years the Jewish prayer book made its first appearance. Leading scholars, among them the Babylonian leaders from the eighth to the eleventh centuries, known as geonim, issued guidelines on what should constitute the regular blessings and prayers and answered questions about the validity of particular customs. They systematically applied the various principles that occur from time to time in the Talmud to various parts of the liturgy and offered definitions of what qualified to be included under the headings of each of the different, liturgical categories.
They and their successors in a much wider geographical area, ultimately including countries as far apart as England in the west and Persia in the east, laid down detailed regulations for prayer and attempted to explain its theoretical basis and its historical evolution. Some types of accretion to the basic talmudic framework were firmly rejected while others were welcomed and sanctioned. In those cases where what they regarded as an unsatisfactory custom had established itself too stubbornly to be dislodged, a new interpretation was given to it that could justify its retention even in the light of the strictest categorizations. 
Two new types of liturgical composition had made their way into the regular practice and were now given specific places in the standard prayers. The piyyutim, or liturgical poems, the earliest forms of which had first made their appearance in the Holy Land towards the end of the Talmudic age, were incorporated into those sections of the liturgy with which they could incontrovertibly be linked. Their structure, content, and language were, however, brought under control in the process and their degree of creativity thereby reduced, with the result that their composers had to find other outlets for their originality and aesthetic expression.  A similar limitation was imposed upon prayers of the more mystical bent. Certain compositions were allowed to enter, or remain, in such contexts as the recitation of the trishagion, but there was a clear policy of restricting any unfettered development and adoption in the synagogue. 
At this stage, too, individual communities, or sets of communities, merged what they had inherited as their established liturgical custom with what they were told by their authorities was acceptable and produced an identifiable nusach or rite of their own. These rites, generally referred to by the geographical areas where they were practiced (e.g., French, German, Italian, North African, Spanish, Yemenite, and Romanian), differed from each other in detail but were all substantially based on the format and content earlier dictated by the Babylonian authorities. Minor and vestigial elements of non-Babylonian provenance occasionally appeared, but a great deal more of the nonstandard was lost than was retained. 
As far as the text of the major prayers is concerned, there was a reluctance to approve any subtractions or additions. Clear rules were laid down for the benedictions that were to accompany particular prayers: how many they should be, of what form and content, and how much variation from the norm was to be permitted to take account of special occasions such as Sabbaths, festivals, and fasts, some allowances always being made for variety between rites.  Where a ceremony was regarded as important, such as the lighting of Sabbath lamps, a benediction was even introduced and justified.  A concern for precise language, grammar, vocalization, and punctuation soon began to be expressed and was a factor in the liturgical editions from then until the modern period. Liturgical Hebrew was the chosen medium of prayer and, at least in the major communities influenced by the authority of the Babylonian Talmud and the codification of its halakhah, Aramaic was used only when it had already been associated with a particular prayer for so long that it appeared to be an act of revolution to alter it. Once a siddur existed as a Jewish literary entity, commentaries on its contents soon became a feature of rabbinic scholarship. 
Even more interesting is the transfer of what had originally been domestic or academic liturgy into the synagogue and its incorporation into the standard prayer book. Benedictions relating to morning activities such as rising, washing, and dressing ultimately entered the communal liturgy, as did the recitation of psalms by way of preparation for prayer proper. The Kaddish, the Alenu, the praises associated with the academy, even the Kiddush and Havdalah, which were still recited at home, became integral parts of the synagogal liturgy, and reasons were advanced to justify their retention there, or sometimes, indeed, to challenge it.
The synagogue itself became a more elaborate entity and a degree of ceremonial was introduced of which there is little mention in the talmudic sources. A regular cantor and choir, special seats for dignitaries, processions, use of the Torah scroll, tallit and tefillin as integral parts of the ritual, all now became familiar elements of communal worship in the synagogue.  Formal ceremonies associated with rites de passage were not yet working their way into the synagogue, but the process of evolution had begun that would in the long term lead to such a development.
In the matter of the reading of the Pentateuch and the Prophets, a more definite lectionary was now in existence, and the annual cycle of the Babylonian Jews had virtually replaced all the others, particularly the triennial cycle of Palestinian Jewry, which some refugees from the Crusades apparently brought with them to Cairo and succeeded in preserving for at least a few decades. During his visit to Cairo in about 1170 the famous Jewish traveler, Benjamin of Tudela, noted that the Palestinian emigrï¿½s had no completion of the annual cycle to celebrate at the end of Sukkot each year and therefore joined their Babylonian coreligionists for the occasion. When read, the scroll was taken from the ark and returned to it with some accompanying verses, and its presence among the worshipers was made the occasion for the recitation of special prayers.
It may also have been at this time that the lectionary ceased to be distributed among various participants who read and expounded it, and that it came to be performed by a competent and knowledgeable individual while the required number of participants made formal benedictions to begin and end each section. A set of benedictions had also by this time been attached to the reading from the Prophets at the outset and the conclusion. 
This article is reproduced, in two parts, by permission of the author
and the publisher, from The Making of Jewish and Christian Worship, University of Notre Dame Press. This book
is available in our liturgical web store (click here). Professor
Reif's further treatment of the broad field of Jewish liturgy in his volume Judaism and Hebrew Prayer published by Cambridge University Press in 1993 is and still available in paperback.
BACK TO TOP
 Schmuel Safrai, ed., The Literature of the Sages. Part One: Oral Tora, Halakha, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates (Assen/Maastricht and Philadelphia, 1987); D. Weiss-Halivni, Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara (Cambridge, MA, 1986); Jacob Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia, 5 vols. (Leiden, 1965-1970); G. Alon, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age 70-650 C.E. (Jerusalem, 1980-1984).
 Stefan C. Reif, "The Early Liturgy of the Synagogue," in W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein, eds., The Cambridge History of Judaism III (forthcoming); M. Meyers and J. F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity (London, 1981); Paul F. Bradshaw, Daily Prayer in the Early Church (London, 1981/New York, 1982).
 B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript (Uppsala, 1961); Stefan C. Reif, "Some Liturgical Issues in the Talmudic Sources," SL 15 (1982-1983): 188-206; Joseph Heinemann and Jakob J. Petuchowski, Literature of the Synagogue (New York, 1975); Jakob J. Petuchowski, ed., Contributions to the Scientific Study of Jewish Liturgy (New York, 1970), pp. xvii-xxi.
 Joseph Gutmann, ed., Ancient Synagogues: The State of Research, Brown Judaic Studies (Decatur, GA, 1981); Lee 1. Levine, ed., Ancient Synagogues Revealed (Jerusalem, 1981); idem, ed., The Synagogue in Late Antiquity (Jerusalem, 1987); Baruch M. Bokser, The Origins of the Seder (Berkeley, 1984); J. Schwartz, "Jubilees, Bethel, and the Temple of Jacob," HUCA 56 (1985): 63-85; Joseph Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud (Berlin, 1976); Bernadette J. Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues, Brown Judaic Studies (Decatur, GA, 1982); B. Meg. 10a, A. Z. 52b, Men. 109b.
 Reif, "Some Liturgical Issues," especially p. 191. Ezra Fleischer (Eretz-lsrael Prayer and Prayer Rituals as Portrayed in the Genizah Documents [Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1988]) takes a less skeptical view than Heinemann (Prayer in the Talmud) about the degree of formality already in existence in talmudic prayer. See also Joseph Heinemann, Studies in Jewish Liturgy, ed. A. Shinan (Jerusalem, 1981); Ismar Elbogen, Der jï¿½dische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwickluhg (Frankfort, 1931; updated Hebrew edition, Tel-Aviv, 1972).
 Robert Goldenberg neatly sums up the problem of using talmudic sources for historical reconstruction in his essay in Barry W. Holtz, ed., Back to the Sources: Reading the Classic Jewish Texts (New York, 1984), pp. 129-75.
 Salo W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews B (New York, 1952); Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud, pp. 285-87.
 Brooten, Women Leaders; L. Roth-Gerson, The Greek Inscriptions from the Synagogues in Eretz-lsrael (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1987).
 E. g., M. Ber. I-5, Taan. 2:2-3, Yoma 7.1, Tamid 5.1; T. Ber. 1-3; B. Ber. 4b, 27b-29b. See L. Ginzberg, A Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud (Hebrew; New York, 1941), 1, pp. 215-16, HI, p. 359. See also Stefan C. Reif, "Liturgical Difficulties and Geniza Manuscripts," in S. Morag, 1. Ben-Ami, N. A. Stillman, eds., Studies in Judaism and Islam Presented to S. D. Goitein (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 99-122; Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud, pp. 137-92, 218-50, and the various relevant essays in the collection edited by Shinan, Studies in Jewish Liturgy; Tzvee Zahavy, The Mishnaic Law of Blessings and Prayers: Tractate Berakhot, Brown Judaic Studies (Decatur, GA, 1988).
 Philo, B Som. XV 3.127 and De Opificio Mundi 43.128; Josephus, Contra Apionem 2.17.175; Luke 4:16-21, Acts 13:15, 15:21; M. Meg. 3-4; B. Meg. 2la-32a; Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst, pp. 155-84 (Hebrew edition, pp. 117-38); Petuchowski, Jewish Liturgy; Heinemann, Studies in Jewish Liturgy; G. Vennes, "The Decalogue and the Minim," Beiheft zur Zeitschrift fï¿½r die Aittestamentliche Wissenschaft 103 (1968): 232-40 = idem, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden, 1975), pp. 169-77; Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica, 4th ed. (London, 1980), pp. 75-79; B. Fles. 117b, Arakhin 10b, Ber. 56a.
 Heinemann, Prayer in the Talmud, pp. 27-29, 218, 256-75; M. Ber. 7, 8.1, 5, Pes. 10; B. Ber. 20b, Pes. 53a-54a, 106b, Keth. 7a-8b; R. Posner, U. Kaploun, and S. Cohen, Jewish Liturgy: Prayer and Synagogue Service through the Ages (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 35-38; Reif, "Early Liturgy," paragraph on liturgical language.
 Baron, Social and Religious History, VI (1958), pp. 152- 313; M. Gil, Palestine during the First Muslim Period (Hebrew; Tel-Aviv, 1983); M. Ben-Sasson, The Jewish Community of Medieval North Africa (doctoral dissertation, in Hebrew, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1983); M. Beit-Arid, Hebrew Codicology (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 9-11.
 For the works of Natronai, Amram, Saadiah, Hai, Maimonides, Rashi, and Simchah of Vitry, see L. Ginzberg, Geonica B (New York, 1909), pp. 109-10, 114-17; E. D. Goldschmidt, Seder Rav Amram Gaon (Jerusalem, 197 1); T. Kronholm, Seder Rav Amram Gaon (Lund, 1974); Israel Davidson, Simchah Assaf, and B. 1. Joel, Siddur Rav Saadja Gaon (Jerusalem, 1963); Tsvi Groner, "A List of Rav Hai Gaon's Responsa," in Alei Sefer 13 (1986); E. D. Goldschmidt, "Seder Hatefillah shel Harambam," Studies of the Research Institute for Hebrew Poetry 7 (1958): 183-213 = idem, On Jewish Liturgy (Jerusalem, 1978), pp. 187-216; Solomon Buber and J. Freimann, Siddur Raschi (Berlin, 1911); S. Hurwitz, ed., Machzor Vitry (Nuremburg, 1923); Baron, Social and Religious History, VII (1958), pp. 62-134. For the earliest known Persian and English rites, see S. Tal, The Persian Jewish Prayer Book (Jerusalem, 1980); 1. Brodie, The Etz Hayyim (Jerusalem, 1962-1967).
 E. Fleischer, Hebrew Liturgical Poetry in the Middle Ages (Hebrew; Jerusalem, 1975); T. Carmi, ed., The Penguin Book of Hebrew Verse (New York, 1981), pp. 13-31. In addition to the standard works of G. G. Scholem, J. Dan, and 1. Gruenwald, reference may also be made to the recent survey of M' Bar-Ilan (n. 28 below).
 Baron, Social and Religious History VII (1958), pp. 73-79.
 Posner, Kaploun, and Cohen, Jewish Liturgy, pp. 249-53; Abraham Z. Idelsohn, Jewish Liturgy and Its Development (New York, 1960), pp. 56-63; Lawrence A. Hoffman, Beyond the Text: A Holistic Approach to Liturgy, Jewish Literature and Culture (Bloomington, IN, 1987), pp. 40-49.
 The clearest and most concise and consistent example is the prayer book of Maimonides as cited in Goldschmidt, "Seder Harefillah shel Harambam."
 B. M. Lewin, "Letoledot Ner Shel Shabbat," in I. Davison, ed., Essays and Studies in Memory of Linda R. Miller (New York, 1938), Hebrew part, pp. 55-68; J. Z. Lauterbach, "The Sabbath in Jewish Ritual and Folkore," Rabbinic Essays (Cincinnati, 1951), pp. 454-70; B. S. Jacobson, Netiv Binah II (Tel-Aviv, 1968), pp. 25-29; Lawrence A. Hoffman, The Canonization of the Synagogue Service (Notre Dame, 1979), pp. 86-89.
 Stefan C. Reif, Shabbethai Sofer and His Prayer-book (Cambridge, 1979); Posner, Kaploun, and Cohen, Jewish Liturgy; C. Rabin, "The Linguistic Investigation of the Language of Jewish Prayer" (Hebrew) in Jakob J. Petuchowski and E. Fleischer, eds., Studies in Aggadah, Targum, and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 163-71; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Tefillah 1.4; ldelsohn, Jewish Liturgy, pp. 56-70.
 Posner, Kaploun, and Cohen, Jewish Liturgy, pp. 109-23, 224-26; Idelsohn, Jewish Liturgy, pp. 73-89, 148-49; Jacobson, Netiv Binah I, pp. 100-103, 127-28, 145-73, 190-92, 276-77, 313, 360-76; II, pp. 388-92; Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst, paragraph 53.6; A. Neubauer, Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles and Chronological Notes (Oxford, 1887), pp. 83-85; Massekhet Soferim 10- 14, ed. M. Higger (New York, 1937), pp. 208-73.
 Elbogen, Der jiidische Gottesdienst; Jacobson, Netiv Binah,, U, pp. 207 - 20; M. N. Adler, The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela (London, 1907), Hebrew section, pp. 62-63, English section, pp. 69-70; Massekhet Soferim, ed. M. Higger.
BACK TO TOP
This Sacred Sample is currently unavailable.