El Prezente

Journal for Sephardic Studies

Jurnal de estudios sefaradis

El Prezente, Vol. 12-13

2018-2019

Ben-Gurion University Moshe David Gaon Center

of the Negev for Ladino Culture
 El Prezente - Journal for Sephardic Studies
A peer-reviewed scientific journal, published annually by the
Moshe David Gaon Center for Ladino Culture, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.
Direct all editorial correspondence to: gaon@bgu.ac.il

Editors
Eliezer Papo • Tamar Alexander • Jonatan Meir

Editorial Council: David M. Bunis, Center for Jewish Languages and Literatures, The
Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Paloma Díaz-Mas, CSIC, Madrid; Jelena Erdeljan, Center
for the Study of Jewish Art and Culture, University of Belgrade; Mladenka Ivanković,
Institute for Recent History of Serbia, Belgrade; Nenad Makuljević, Department of History
of Art, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade; Alisa Meyuhas Ginio, Department
of History, Tel Aviv University; Devin Naar, Stroum Center for Jewish Studies, University
of Washington, Seattle; Aldina Quintana Rodriguez, Department of Spanish and Latin
American Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Shmuel Rafael, Department
of Literature of the Jewish People, Bar-Ilan University; Aron Rodrigue, Department of
History, Stanford University; Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald, Department of Hebrew and
Semitic Languages, Bar-Ilan University; Edwin Seroussi, Musicology Department, The
Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Cengiz Sisman, Department of History, University of
Houston-Clear Lake; Katja Šmid, CSIC, Madrid; Michael Studemund-Halévy, Institute
for History of the German Jews, University of Hamburg; Jagoda Večerina Tomaić,
Department of Judaic Studies, University of Zagreb.

Editorial Coordinator: Avishag Ben-Shalom

Language Editors: Dina Hurvitz (Hebrew), Shaul Vardi (English)
Graphic Design: Studio Sefi Designs
Print: BGU Print Unit
Cover photos
Hebrew side: “A picture of the awaited new Jewish king SABETHA SEBI…”
English side: “… with his accompanying Prophet”.
A Dutch broadside published in the spring of 1666. Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana, Amsterdam.

Published with the support of

Autoridad Nasionala del Ladino
Center for Sabbatean Sephardic Culture
Mr. Jim Blum, Baltimore USA
Mr. Mishael Ben-Melech - in memory of his parents, Yitzhak & Menora Ben-Melech

ISSN 2518-9883
© All rights reserved
Moshe David Gaon Center for Ladino Culture
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Israel 2019
 Photo: Tal Levin

Dr. Tali Latowicki

1976-2019
 Photo: Yoav Pichersky

Dr. Yael Levi-Hazan

1978-2017
 Table of Contents

Preface 9

Jacob Barnai
The Image of Nathan of Gaza in Jewish Consciousness and
Historiography 17

David M. Bunis
The Language and Personal Names of Judezmo Speakers
in Eres¸ Israel during the Time of Nathan of Gaza: Clues from
Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Rabbis 31

Noam Lev El
The Epistle of Nathan of Gaza to Raphael Joseph and the Issue
of the Lurianic Prayer Intentions 73

Elliot R. Wolfson
Hypernomian Piety and the Mystical Rationale of the
Commandments in Nathan of Gaza’s Sefer Haberiya 90

Noam Lefler
A Prophet of an Absent Messiah 154

Dor Saar-Man
The Attitudes of Samuel Primo and Abraham Cardoso towards
Nathan of Gaza 177

Avinoam J. Stillman
Nathan of Gaza, Yacaqov Koppel Lifshitz, and the Varieties
of Lurianic Kabbalah 198

Jonatan Meir
Sabbatian Hagiography and Jewish Polemical Literature 228

Gordana Todorić
Political Discourse as a Field of Deconstruction of the Figure 242
of a Prophet

Contributors 258

A Brief Guide to Preparing your Manuscript for Submission 259

Hebrew Section ‫א‬

 Noam Lev El | 73

The Epistle of Nathan of Gaza to Raphael Joseph

and the Issue of the Lurianic Prayer Intentions

Noam Lev El
Department of Jewish Thought, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

“The times they are a-changin”—Bob Dylan

One of the most important and famous documents in the study of the
Sabbatian movement is the letter which Nathan of Gaza sent to Raphael
Joseph the chelebi at the end of 1665.1 The letter is built on two parts,
a Kabbalistic part and a prophetic and messianic one. The first part
includes discussions of the messiah—Shabbetai S˝evi—and the effect of his

* This article originated as a seminar paper for a course on the Sabbatian movement
taught by Professor Yaacob Dweck at the Hebrew University. I would like to thank
him, and Professors Jonathan Garb and Jonatan Meir for their guidance and valuable
comments. Special thanks are due to my dear friend Avinoam Stillman for our joint
study and his aid with both form and substance.
1 Jacob Sasportas, Sefer S˝is¸at Novel S˝evi [in Hebrew], ed. Isaiah Tishbi, Bialik Institute,
Jerusalem 1954, pp. 7-12. On Nathan of Gaza, see Avraham Elqayam, “The Mystery
of Faith in the Writings of Nathan of Gaza” [in Hebrew], Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, 1993; Matt Goldish, The Sabbatean Prophets, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Mass, 2004; Yehuda Liebes, On Sabbateaism and its
Kabbalah: Collected Essays [in Hebrew], Bialik Institute, Jerusalem 2007, pp. 15-
17; Shinichi Yamamoto, “The Doctrine of World Cycles and Messianism in the
Writings of Nathan of Gaza” [in Hebrew], Kabbalah (38) 2017, pp. 299-320;
Gershom Scholem, Sabbatai S˝evi: The Mystical Messiah 1626-1676, trans. R. J. Zwi
Werblowsky, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. 2016 [reprint of the 1973
edition], pp. 199-232, 267-325, 705-748, 764-780, 802-813, 914-930.

| 73
74 | The Epistle of Nathan of Gaza to Raphael Joseph and the Issue of the Lurianic Prayer Intentions

appearance on Kabbalistic matters such as the Lurianic prayer intentions

and the status of the Šexina (the immanent feminine Divine presence) in
the higher realms; the second presents a prophetic vision of the coming
redemption.2 Due to its importance in explaining Nathan’s Sabbatian-
Kabbalistic teaching and its wide dissemination, this letter became a basic
Sabbatian text and fascinated both believers and opponents of the faith.
As is well known to scholars, Nathan argued in the first half of the
letter that the Lurianic prayer intentions should be abandoned. Gershom
Scholem, the greatest scholar of the Sabbatian movement, paid much
attention to this letter. However, regarding the Kabbalistic section he only
addressed the overall concept of the abolition of the prayer intentions and
did not analyse the details of Nathan’s Kabbalistic discourse.3 Avraham
Elqayam dedicated some discussion to the letter in his doctorate,
emphasising—as befits the focus of his work—the “Secret of Faith” of
Nathan and his depiction of God.4 This led him to focus on a central issue
in the letter: the question of prayer to cAtiqa Qadiša, the transcendent
and hidden pars¸uf, or “divine face”, which parallels the sefira of Keter (or
at times En Sof, the Infinite). This paper will discuss the central issues of
the Kabbalistic part of the epistle, focusing mainly on the impact of the
coming of the messiah on the divine realms. More specifically, the change
in the significance of the Lurianic theurgic prayer intentions caused by
the coming of the messiah Shabbetai S˝evi has many implications for our
understanding of Nathan’s relation to Lurianic Kabbalah. The second part
of the paper will examine the discourse about these questions among two
generations of prominent Italian Kabbalists: first R. Moses Zacut, who
initially believed in Shabbetai S˝evi but lost faith after Shabbetai’s apostasy,
and secondly R. Abraham Rovigo, who remained a fervent believer.

2 Scholem, Sabbatai S˝evi, p. 26.

3 Scholem, Sabbatai S˝evi, pp. 267-290. For a more updated, historical, and contextual
analysis of the epistle, see Goldish, Sabbatean Prophets, ch. 3.
4 Elqayam, “The Mystery”, pp. 71-77.
 Noam Lev El | 75

A
The basis of Nathan’s claims in the letter is the radical change that the
coming of the Messiah caused to the status of the higher worlds and the
Šexina. Nathan determined that the Messianic Age was a different category
of time, and that the relation of the eschaton to the previous era was
similar to the relation of the Sabbath eve to the days of the week.5 The way
in which Nathan constructs and conceptualises this new time is directly
connected to the moment he wrote these words, in the Sabbatical (šemit¸a)
year of 5425 (1665 CE). He also relies on the Lurianic discussion of the
šemit¸a year and its relation to the Sabbath found in Šacar Hamis¸wot Parašat
Behar. Nathan’s use of the Discourse of the Sabbatical Year from Šacar
Hamis¸wot will be illustrated below, although it is difficult to determine at
the moment how and in what recension he read it. Many of R. H˛ayyim
Vital’s Lurianic texts circulated in Nathan’s proximity, both during his
youth in Jerusalem, when he studied at the yešiva (academy) of R. Jacob
H˛agiz, and in adulthood in Gaza. Furthermore, Nathan was acquainted
with R. Samuel Vital, who may have also leaned towards Sabbatian circles
and even beliefs. Since, apart from some minor changes of wording, there
are no real differences between R. H˛ayyim and R. Samuel Vital’s editions
of the discourse, it is safe to assume that the text in discussion was available
to Nathan.6 Therefore, a short description of the Lurianic treatment of the
Sabbatical Year will provide fundamental context for our topic.

5 On time in Kabbalah, see, inter alia, Moshe Idel, “Sabbath: On Concepts of Time
in Jewish Mysticism”, in Gerald J. Blidstein (ed.), Sabbath: Idea, History, Reality, Ben
Gurion University of the Negev Press, Be’er Sheva 2004, pp. 57-93; Brian Ogren
(ed.), Time and Eternity in Jewish Mysticism: That Which is Before and That Which is
After, Brill, Leiden 2015; Elliot R. Wolfson, Alef, Mem, Tau: Kabbalistic Musings on
Time, Truth, and Death, University of California Press, Berkeley 2006.
6 The Discourse of the Sabbatical Year is found in Šacar Hamis¸wot [The Gate of
Commandments], Jerusalem 1905, 25a-28a. This book is one of the Eight Gates
edited by Samuel Vital (on the edition see Yosef Avivi, Kabbalah Luriana, Ben-Zvi
Institute, Jerusalem 2008, pp. 673-683, 796, 810). Now, after the completion of
printing H˛ayyim Vital’s original cEs¸ H˛ayyim [Tree of Life] by Ahavat Šalom (see
Avivi, Kabbalah Luriana, pp. 110-121; Vital, cEs¸ H˛ayyim, Šacar Hahaqdamot [The
76 | The Epistle of Nathan of Gaza to Raphael Joseph and the Issue of the Lurianic Prayer Intentions

This Lurianic discourse describes the relationship and the difference

between the processes that occur in the supernal worlds on the Sabbath
and those that occur in the Sabbatical year, and the role of human activities
in these processes. The flux and constant movement of the worlds and
the divine pars¸ufim (anthropomorphic configurations of the sefirot) are the
building blocks of Lurianic cosmology and praxis.7 In the framework of
the stages of the tiqqun, the rectification of the divine after the “breaking of
the vessels”, on the Sabbath the pars¸ufim of Zecir Anpin and Nuqba, which
represent the divine Masculine and His female partner, are unified in the
ideal manner, i.e. “face to face”.8 On the Sabbath this process happens
automatically, without needing human help in the form of the prayer
intentions or the performance of the commandments. Therefore, labour is
prohibited on the Sabbath. The purpose of the prayers and their intentions
on the Sabbath is to raise the pars¸ufim higher, to the world of As¸ilut (the
highest of the Kabbalistic four worlds), to their original place. In contrast,
in the Sabbatical year the masculine and feminine pars¸ufim are found in
a back-to-back union, which expresses their individual existence to some
degree but not their full union. The purpose of the prayer intentions is
thus to bring about a face-to-face union and only then to raise them.
However, in the Sabbatical year the worlds only ascend to malxut of the
world of As¸ilut, and not above it. Therefore, labour is permitted during

Gate of Introductions], Ahavat Šalom, Jerusalem 2017, pp. 21-26), I shall cite from
there. For the Discourse of the Sabbatical Year see Vital, cEs¸ H˛ayyim, Šacar Hamis¸wot
[The Gate of Commandments], Ahavat Šalom, Jerusalem 2015, pp. lxi-lxvii. On it
see Jacob Moshe Hillel, Wešavta Ha’ares¸ [The Land Shall Keep a Sabbath], Ahavat
Šalom, Jerusalem 2001, pp. 3-4. On R. Samuel Vital’s connection with Nathan and
Sabbatianism, see Scholem, Sabbatai S˝evi, pp. 144, 224, 227, 539.
7 For a recent summary of Lurianic theosophy, see Shaul Magid, From Metaphysics
to Midrash: Myth, History, and the Interpretation of Scripture in Lurianic Kabbala,
Indiana University Press, Bloomington 2008, pp. 18-33.
8 On the Face to Face Union, see Uri Safrai, “The Daily Prayer Intentions (Kavvanot)
According to R. Isaac Luria” [in Hebrew], Dacat 77 (2014), p. 152 n. 25, 155.
 Noam Lev El | 77

šemit¸a, except for agricultural labour in the land of Israel—as is well-

known, Šexina/Malxut is symbolised by “land” (eres¸).9
It emerges from this that the difference between Sabbath and the Sabbatical
year is whether the theosophical processes occur automatically, without
human assistance, and to which place in the divine hierarchy the pars¸ufim
ascend. These differences prepare the theoretical ground for far-reaching
practical implications for the practice of the Lurianic prayer intentions
during these times. It is interesting to note that R. Šalom Šarcabi (1720-
1780), one of the deepest interpreters of Lurianic kabbalah, did not interpret
this discourse literally, but rather argued that there was equivalence between
the Sabbatical year and the Sabbath. On the practical level, he argued that
kabbalists should continue to perform the regular kawwanot during the
šemit¸a year.10 Nevertheless, Šarcabi changed his mind in the Sabbatical
year 5537 (1777) and argued that most of the prayers should be prayed
without intentions at all. The only intentions that should be said are those
beginning from the word “be’ahava” in the camida prayer—the part of the
prayer whose goal is to bring the pars¸ufim to a face-to-face union and to
raise them. This accords with the descriptions in Šacar Hamis¸wot of the
processes which still need rectification in the Sabbatical year.11
Returning now to Nathan’s letter, I will analyse its Kabbalistic section;
the Lurianic discussion of the Sabbatical year stands in the background and
helps us understand Nathan’s position. As mentioned, Nathan believed
that the coming of the messiah had an important influence on the situation
of the divine worlds, much like the Sabbath or the Sabbatical year.12 The

9 For more on the Sabbath and the Sabbatical Year in Nathan’s early writings, see
Liebes, On Sabbateaism, p. 285.
10 Hillel, Wešavta Ha’ares¸, pp. 4-8.
11 Ibid, pp. 8-9. See also Shmuel Erenfeld, Yira’uxa cim Šemeš [in Hebrew], Yam
Hah˝oxma, Jerusalem 2012, pp. 209-211, 430, 442; Pinchas Giller, Shalom Shar’abi
and the Kabbalists of Beit El, Oxford University Press, New York 2008, pp. 71-73.
12 Beside the Discourse in The Gate of Commandments see also Šacar Hakawwanot
c
[The Gate of Intentions], Jerusalem 1873, pp. 59a-59b and Vital, Es¸ H˛ayyim, Šacar
Hatefila [The Gate of Prayer], Ahavat Šalom, Jerusalem 2008, pp. 185-186.
78 | The Epistle of Nathan of Gaza to Raphael Joseph and the Issue of the Lurianic Prayer Intentions

Kabbalistic determination that the arrival of the Messiah announces a new

age has far-reaching consequences:
[People] merit to the divine inheritance and that is the secret of the
Jubilee which will be revealed at that time, and the restfulness which
is the secret of the revelation of cAtiqa Qadiša which will be revealed
in Zecir Anpin [the “short/impatient” divine face] in the year 1670.13
The jubilee is the secret of the revelation which comes from the sefira of
Bina, while the revelation of cAtiqa Qadiša to Zecir Anpin, the shining of
the transcendent light, comes from the sefira of Keter to the body of the
lower seven sefirot, whose centre is the sefira of Tiferet.14 Nathan’s words
about the revelation of cAtiqa are elucidated by a passage in H˛ayyim Vital’s
Šacar Hakawwanot, which explains what happens in the divine realms at
the time of the recitation of the Šemac:
Regarding the matter of the change and discrepancy between the four
aspects of the recitation of Šemac […] Therefore these moh˝in which
now enter Zecir and Nuqba in the word “one” [eh˝ad] are from the

13 Sasportas, S˝is¸at Novel S˝evi, pp. 7-8. Nathan evokes the messianic meaning of the
settling of the Land of Israel with the phrase “to the rest and to the inheritance”
(Deuteronomy 12, 9). It is important to note that Nathan divides the messianic
process into two stages: the first happens “at that time” and is characterised by “the
secret of the Jubilee”, and the second will happen by the year 1670 and is characterised
by “the secret of the revelation of cAtiqa Qadiša”. See Moshe Idel, Saturn’s Jews: On
the Witches’ Sabbat and Sabbateanism, Continuum, London 2011, pp. 65-67. It is
possible that Nathan connected the messiah’s name, Shabbetai, with the redemption
as Sabbath, further increasing the importance of the Discourse of the Sabbatical Year.
14 See Sasportas, S˝is¸at Novel S˝evi, p. 7 n. 8, 8 n. 1; Scholem, Sabbatai S˝evi, pp. 275-
276. On the Zoharic background, see also Melila Hellner-Eshed, Seekers of the Face:
The Secrets of the Idra-Rabba (The Great Assembly) of the Zohar [in Hebrew], Yedioth
Ahronoth Books, Rishon Lezion 2017, pp. 67-78, 187-242. From the beginning
of the epistle, Nathan’s “doubled” Kabbalistic terminology combines the concepts
and phrases of medieval (mainly, Zoharic) and Lurianic Kabbalah. On the Jubilee in
Kabbalah, see Moshe Idel, “The Jubilee in Jewish Mysticism” [in Hebrew], in Y. Kaplan
(ed.), Fins de Siècle: End of Ages, Zalman Shazar Center, Jerusalem 2005, pp. 67-98.
 Noam Lev El | 79

union of Abba and Ima, who drew down those moh˝in from above from
the externality of cAtiq, for it is impossible to draw from the internality
of cAtiq until the time of the coming of the redeemer, quickly in our
days amen.15
Thus it emerges that the revelation of cAtiqa in the letter refers to the
revelation and descent of divine efflux and supernal lights from the
internality of cAtiq, the highest and most concealed divine pars¸uf. Nathan
interprets a Lurianic text in a straightforward manner: he interprets
the statement about “the coming of the redeemer” in the unknown
future as referring to the actual messiah (Shabbetai S˝evi), and uses the
Lurianic concepts to present a theoretical Kabbalistic understanding of
the redemptive reality of his days. Nathan adds that “The worlds are now
in the secret of the lamed of the word s¸elem, as they are on the Sabbath
eve”.16 The definition of messianic time as “Sabbath Eve” is revealed to be
especially significant in light of the Lurianic discourse about the Sabbatical
year. There may already be a hint here that Nathan did not interpret that
discourse literally, and rather tried to establish an identity between the
Sabbath and the Sabbatical year from a theurgic point of view.
Nathan writes as follows about the change in the status of the Šexina in
the higher worlds:
In our time, with God’s help, the matters will be clarified and the lights
will spread and Malxut will be in the secret of the crown of her husband
[…] and at that time17 you will know for certain that there is no spark

15 Šacar Hakawwanot, pp. 19c; Vital, cEs¸ H˛ayyim, Šacar Hatefila, p. 69.
16 Sasportas, S˝is¸at Novel S˝evi, p. 8. See Tishby’s note in ibid., n. 8; Safrai, “The Daily”,
p. 150 n. 20.
17 The phrase “at that time” (and its equivalents) appears in Nathan’s text no fewer than
ten times in the Kabbalistic part of the epistle alone. In the prophetic part the phrase
appears five more times, along with interesting expressions regarding the ingathering
of Israel from exile and the assertion that resurrection that will happen “on that
day”. The emphasis on time, and moreover, on the present’s supremacy over the past,
can be seen as a modern phenomenon. See Jonathan Garb, Modern Kabbalah as an
Autonomous Domain of Research: Lecture Delivered at the Ceremony for the Gershom
80 | The Epistle of Nathan of Gaza to Raphael Joseph and the Issue of the Lurianic Prayer Intentions

of the Šexina among the [evil] external forces […] and we do not seek
now to perform rectifications [tiqqunim] but rather to adorn the bride
in order to return her face to face [with her groom, Zecir Anpin]”18
From Nathan’s words it is not entirely clear what happens in the messianic
age from the point of view of the process of tiqqun. The process of “raising
the sparks” has not, apparently, been entirely completed, for Nathan
mentions the “spark of the Šexina”. In any event, in his opinion once the
Sabbatical year comes there will no longer be a need to fix the Šexina,
which was one of the main theurgic Kabbalistic practices across the
generations. All that remains is to adorn her and bring her to a face to
face and constant union—one of the central expressions of redemption
in the Lurianic Kabbalah.19 On the basis of the Lurianic discussion of the
Sabbatical year, it is clear that his words are based on the description of
the necessary actions during the šemit¸a, in which there is no need for the
process of raising the sparks, but only to bring Zecir Anpin and Nuqba to
a face-to-face union.
Nathan’s famous statements about the Lurianic prayer intentions are
necessary conclusions from the nature of messianic time: “I mean to say
that the kawwanot which were revealed by the great rabbi our teacher R.

Scholem Prize for Kabbalah Scholarship[…] [in Hebrew], Cherub Press, Los Angeles
2019, pp. 10-28. Nonetheless, one could qualify these assumptions and consider that
the phrase “that time” simply means the Sabbatical Year.
18 Sasportas, S˝is¸at Novel S˝evi, p. 8. On the Šexina and its worship see Tzahi Weiss,
Cutting the Shoots: The Worship of the Shekhinah in the World of Early Kabbalistic
Literature [in Hebrew], Magness Press, Jerusalem 2015. On the rectification of the
Šexina in modern Kabbalah see Jonathan Garb, Kabbalist in the Heart of the Storm:
R. Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto [in Hebrew], Tel Aviv University Press, Tel Aviv 2014, pp.
209-216.
19 In the times of the Temple there was an enduring union (see Safrai, “The Daily”,
p. 167), and it is possible that these concepts originated in Shabbetai’s self-perception,
as he saw himself as a representation of the Temple. See Maoz Kahana, “Shabbetai
Zevi: the Halakhic man” [in Hebrew], Zion 81, 3-4 (2016), pp. 415-420; idem,
“Cosmos and Nomos: Sacred Space and Legal Action, from Rabbi Yosef Qaro to
Shabbetai S˝evi”, El Prezente 10 (2016), pp. 143-154.
 Noam Lev El | 81

Isaac Luria, the saint and holy man of blessed memory, are not relevant in
our time at all, as the worlds are in a different situation and [performing
the kawwanot] would be like performing mundane work on the Sabbath”.20
One could say that the claim that the messianic processes of tiqqun have
changed the worlds so much that the Lurianic prayer intentions are
irrelevant—and are even akin to desecration of the Sabbath, like weekday
behaviour on the Sabbath —derives from Nathan’s paradoxical use of
the internal logic of Lurianic Kabbalah, which results in a negation of its
central practice.21 Still, this sort of “Scholemian” formulation should be
qualified based on the Lurianic sources of Nathan’s position, which enable
a wider and more precise perspective on the theoretical background of his
words.
The discourse on šemit¸a in the Šacar Hamis¸wot describes how, on the
Sabbath and in the Sabbatical (and Jubilee) year, the reality of the worlds
and the pars¸ufim are radically different than usual, explaining that central
stages in the process of tiqqun and the ascension of the worlds happen
automatically. However, it does not explicitly mention the practical
implications of this on the performance of the prayer intentions. Still, the
discourse prepares the ground for several possible interpretations. As we
saw, Šarcabi reached two such interpretations. According to the first, which
he followed for most of his life, there are no changes in the practice of
the kawwanot during the Sabbatical year. According to the second, in the
Sabbatical year the kabbalist should only perform prayer intentions in those
parts of the liturgy which are intended to bring the pars¸ufim to a face-to-face
union, following the descriptions in Šacar Hamis¸wot about which processes
still require rectification in the Sabbatical year. This important Lurianic
kabbalist’s methods for interpreting and determining how to practice
the Lurianic prayer intentions help us understand Nathan’s hermeneutic
decision, which is theoretically similar to Šarcabi’s later position. Of course,
Nathan’s practical instructions were far more radical; he claimed that the
Lurianic prayer intentions in toto were no longer relevant.

20 Sasportas, S˝is¸at Novel S˝evi, p. 9.

21 Elqayam, “The Mystery”, pp. 72-73.
82 | The Epistle of Nathan of Gaza to Raphael Joseph and the Issue of the Lurianic Prayer Intentions

Nevertheless, some few lines before he calls to nullify the kawwanot,

Nathan himself describes some prayer intentions for the recitation of the
Šemac; as mentioned above, these kawwanot are closely connected to the
messianic reality.22 Still, the very instruction to perform the intentions
during prayer shows clearly that Nathan was not interested in abolishing
the prayer intentions totally, but rather only the Lurianic kawwanot.23
Aside from the practical implications of Nathan’s position on the prayer
intentions, the epistle already reflects, at this early stage of his Kabbalistic-
prophetic career, a dynamic and multifaceted approach to Lurianic
kabbalah. This issue requires a much larger study, but it is important to
note that already in the short remarks adduced above, we saw two different
ways in which Nathan uses Lurianic knowledge. He understands the words
of Šacar Hakawwanot about the supernal lights which are revealed in the
time of redemption literally, and as entirely actual. As a reader facing a
text, all he does is say “yes, this is happening now”. In contrast, when faced
with the position of Šacar Hamis¸wot about the Sabbatical year, Nathan acts
independently and creatively; he not only freely interprets, but also derives
far-reaching practical decisions from his own interpretations. Nathan is in
dialogue with Lurianic kabbalah and is active within its theoretical field,
but is not beholden to the simple meaning of Lurianic texts. Lurianic
knowledge provides him a basis and background for his own innovations.

B
We have seen that Nathan claimed that, with the coming of the Messiah,
the situation of the worlds and the Šexina had changed so much that the
Lurianic prayer intentions were no longer relevant, and perhaps even
had negative effects. I turn now to address the responses to these claims

22 On Lurianic Kawwanot for the recitation of the Šemac, see Menachem Kallus, “The
Theurgy of Prayer in the Lurianic Kabbalah”, Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, 2002, pp. 188-197, 246-274; Safrai, “The Daily”, pp. 152 n. 23, 167-196.
23 As noted by Scholem: Sabbatai S˝evi, pp. 277-279.
 Noam Lev El | 83

presented by R. Moses Zacut (c.1625-1697), the greatest Italian kabbalist

of his generation, and R. Abraham Rovigo, one of Zacut’s students. As
representatives of the Kabbalistic elite of their day who expressed very
different responses (as shall be seen below), Zacut and Rovigo together
make an excellent case study for the immediate reception of Nathan’s
epistle. Rovigo’s and, to a lesser extent, Zacut’s intricate relations with
Sabbatianism are a broad and complicated issue that has yet to fully unfold
in scholarship. Therefore, I chose to keep my discussion concise, and limit
it to some candid representative statements which have been previously
discussed. However, the novel assessment of Nathan’s stand on the issue of
kawwanot presented in the earlier part of this article sheds new light not
just on Zacut and Rovigo’s remarks regarding kawwanot, but also on the
dynamic boundaries and interpretive freedoms of Lurianic Kabbalah and
its authoritative role in shaping Jewish religious life.
There is extant a letter from the beginning of 1666—already published
and discussed by Scholem—which Zacut sent to R. Shimshon Beck, a
kabbalist and an important disseminator of Safedian Kabbalah in Europe.24
Zacut sent the letter as an answer to Beck’s question, which displayed
disquiet and confusion about Nathan’s letter and its far-reaching claims. It
is, therefore, an internal discussion between two kabbalists who believed in
Shabbetai S˝evi as the Messiah and in Nathan as his prophet, who attempt
to deal with the contradiction between the words of the young prophet-
kabbalist from Gaza and the instruction of Luria. Zacut writes that he
studied Nathan’s latter intensely for two months,25 and decided not to stop
performing the Lurianic prayer rites—for several reasons. His claims can
be summed up in three points.
The first, and most central, is the question of authority. This has several
aspects. First, Zacut determined that Nathan did not have the authority to
abolish the Lurianic kawwanot. The greatness of the Ari (R. Isaac Luria) is

24 Gershom Scholem, “Rabbi Moses Zacuto’s Relationship with Sabbateanism” [in

Hebrew], in idem, Researches in Sabbateanism, ed. Yehuda Liebes, Am Oved, Tel Aviv
1991, pp. 510-517, and see Liebes’ important notes at p. 528.
25 Ibid., p. 513.
84 | The Epistle of Nathan of Gaza to Raphael Joseph and the Issue of the Lurianic Prayer Intentions

well known “in all of our diasporas”, whereas young Nathan’s knowledge “is
new and from nearby”, and “he is not yet established as a prophet among
most of the sages of Israel”. We should notice that renown and consensus
are the decisive factors in this regard.26 Afterward, Zacut cast doubts on
the trustworthiness of the letter and asked whether Nathan himself really
wrote it. This is an important point; at the time, many rumours and
legends about Nathan’s prophecies were being spread across Europe; it was
hard to tell fact from fiction. Later on, he adds another proof, namely the
existence of a textual contradiction in the letter. As I said earlier, Nathan
wrote in the letter not to study the Lurianic writings because they were
no longer relevant, but later in the same sentence he writes that they
should not be studied because they are too deep and complex and the only
one who understood them was H˛ayyim Vital, Luria’s great student. This
contradiction was also noted by Jacob Sasportas in his notes on the letter
in his book S˝is¸at Novel S˝evi.27 Zacut says that it is impossible that a prophet
with divine inspiration could make such a mistake. Lastly, he adds that no
similar statement about the abolition of the kawwanot was ever made in
the name of Shabbetai S˝evi. This is unsurprising, as Shabbetai S˝evi himself
did not study Lurianic Kabbalah intensively.
Zacut’s second claim is extra-textual; the letter contradicts a central
Lurianic principle: prayer cannot be separated from its intentions, for the
intentions are immanent to prayer. “For the prayers were established to
rectify the worlds, and this is simple. If so, if the intentions during prayer
are forbidden to us, how can we say them [the prayers] like before?”28
Likewise, another famous text of Nathan’s, the tiqqune tešuva, penitential

26 Zacut bestowed the Lurianic kawwanot with special Kabbalistic stature, and it
reasonable to deduce that in his view, only a prophet or a Kabbalist equal to Luria
himself could alter or abolish them. See Yosef Avivi, “‘Solet Neqiyya’: Rabbi Moses
Zacuto’s Sifter” [in Hebrew], Pecamim 96 (2003), pp. 81-88, 99-100. Zacut is hinting
at the Mišna cEduyot 1:5: “a court cannot annul the opinion of another court unless
it exceeds it both in wisdom and in number” (The Mishnah, tr. Herbert Danby,
Oxford University Press, London 1933, p. 422).
27 Sasportas, S˝is¸at Novel S˝evi, p. 9 n. xiv.
28 Scholem, “Moses Zacuto”, p. 514.
 Noam Lev El | 85

prayers (which Zacut may have appended to his letter to Beck), is based
on Lurianic Kabbalah and assumes the continued need for metaphysical
rectification. Nathan mentions “the sweetening of the judgments (dinim)
of the worlds, and if there are judgements there are husks (qelipot), and we
need to be as strong in nullifying them as we have been until now”.29 The
third claim is for Kabbalistic reasons. Zacut quotes the Lurianic writings
and Nathan’s penitential prayers and proves from them that even in the
Messianic age people should still perform the Lurianic prayer rites.30 It is
worth noting that the kawwanot which are mentioned in Nathan’s prayers,
like those mentioned in the letter, are only those for the recitation of the
Šemac.
Due to these claims, Zacut determines that Jews should continue to
perform the Lurianic prayer intentions as per usual. The only change is
in the tiqqun has¸ot,31 the midnight ritual which symbolises the kabbalist’s
identification with the exiled Šexina and his aspiration to rectify her. Zacut
writes that he stopped reciting the tiqqun while sitting on the earth, as was
customary, and stopped saying the lamentations, because “I consider [the
current time] to be days of grace without a doubt”.32 After the apostasy of
Shabbetai S˝evi, Zacut stopped this practice and returned to the original
practice of the tiqqun. Zacut’s response should be seen in light of his overall
relation to Lurianic Kabbalah. For him, the Lurianic writings edited by R.
H˛ayyim Vital had a binding (and somewhat “orthodox”) authority. He
privileged the Vitalian transmission of the Lurianic corpus and seems to
have discouraged the integration of extra-Vitalian texts, such as those of R.
Menah˝em Azariah of Fano. Moreover, Zacut emphasised the importance
of precision in the Lurianic prayer intentions and objected vehemently to

29 Ibid.
30 Zacuto references his Book of Kawwanot (see Avivi, “Solet Neqiyya”, p. 82; idem,
Kabbalah Luriana, pp. 731-733), and Scholem notes the equivalent discussed above
from Šacar Hakawwanot, p. 19c.
31 On tiqqun h˝as¸ot see Moshe Idel, Messianic Mystics, Yale University Press, New Haven,
Conn. 1998, pp. 308-320; Shaul Magid, “Conjugal Union, Mourning and ‘Talmud
Torah’ in R. Isaac Luria’s ‘Tikkun Hazot’”, Dacat 36 (1996), pp. xvii-xlv.
32 Scholem, “Moses Zacuto”, p. 515.
86 | The Epistle of Nathan of Gaza to Raphael Joseph and the Issue of the Lurianic Prayer Intentions

any innovation or change in the kawwanot, whether received via divine or

maggidic inspiration or deduced from “approved” Lurianic texts. Current
scholarship on Zacut is at its beginning stages, and most published evidence
originates from the 1670’s and on; further research will surely clarify the
(Sabbatian?) contexts of his Kabbalistic project.33
As opposed to Nathan, who based his claims for the abolition of the
kawwanot on the principles and internal logic of Lurianic Kabbalah,
Zacut does not do so. He calls the authority of Nathan and his letter into
question and contrasts them with the authority of Luria, but he does not
deal with Nathan’s central Kabbalistic claim regarding the dramatic change
in the status of the worlds due to the arrival of the Messiah. It is possible
that this is because, at least to some degree, he agreed with the statement
that, indeed, “the times they are a-changin’”. Indeed, he admits at the end
of his remarks that these times are “days of grace”. Scholem summarised
this intermediate position well: “by doubting the authenticity of the letter
and declaring it to be a forgery, he [Zacut] repudiated its authority without
rejecting the messianic message as such. He thus could ‘believe’ while
remaining indistinguishable in liturgical practice from the ‘infidels’”.34
Nathan’s remarks about the Lurianic prayer intentions were also an issue
for one of Zacut’s greatest students—R. Abraham Rovigo of Modena.35

33 Avivi, “Solet Neqiyya”; idem, Kabbalah Luriana, p. 800. It is reasonable to say that
Zacut viewed himself as the recipient of already edited and finished compositions,
“closed books” that he must not alter as regards content or order. Zacut in a sense
represents the last of the great editors of Lurianic Kabbalah in manuscript before
the changes brought about by the printing of the Lurianic corpus. The research
project currently underway on Zacut headed by Yuval Harari and Gerold Necker
will certainly nuance this assessment.
34 Scholem, Sabbatai S˝evi, p. 502, cf. idem, Shabbetai S˝evi and the Sabbatian Movement
during his Lifetime [in Hebrew], Am Oved, Tel Aviv 1988, p. 413.
35 On Rovigo and his circle, see inter alia Garb, Kabbalist, pp. 158-160; Matt Goldish,
“Rabbi Abraham Rovigo’s Home as a Center for Traveling Scholars”, in F. Bregoli et al
(eds.), Italian Jewish Networks from the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century: Bridging
Europe and the Mediterranean, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland 2018, pp.
25-38; Gershom Scholem, H˛alomotaw šel Hašabbeta’i R. Mordexay Aškenazi [in
 Noam Lev El | 87

He was one of the foremost Italian kabbalists at the end of the seventeenth
century, and a fervent believer in Shabbetai S˝evi and in Nathan. Following
Nathan’s claims, which he accepted without hesitation, some questions
about the Lurianic kawwanot arose in the circle of believers around Rovigo.
These can be summarised as follows:36 (a) Are the kawwanot no longer
relevant, due to the change in the worlds and the ascent of the Šexina? (b)
Is there anything left to rectify with a Kabbalistic tiqqun? (c) Will there be
new kawwanot? These questions—in different formulations, but always
regarding the kawwanot—bothered Rovigo and his friends throughout
the 1690s. There were questions about whether specific prayer intentions
were permitted, like the kawwana of the recitation of Šemac—which, as we
have seen, received special intentions from Nathan—as well as records of
Nathan’s practices, including specific kawwanot.37
Rovigo sent a letter to Zacut about the Lurianic kawwanot, and Zacut’s
response is extant. Presumably, this letter should be very similar to Zacut’s
letter to his friend Beck which we discussed earlier, but the year is now 1675,
nine years after Shabbetai S˝evi’s apostasy. Zacut answers, unsurprisingly,
that “there are proofs from the words of the Ari of blessed memory that
until the Messiah comes in a revealed way and Israel returns to its land with
the building of the Temple, which should be built quickly in our days, the
kawwanot are necessary for the maintenance of the worlds”.38 The matter
continued to bother Rovigo, and he also asked a question about it to his
friend and student, R. Mordechai Ashkenazi, who famously had a maggid,

Hebrew], Schocken, Leipzig 1938; Isaiah Tishby, “R. Meir Rofe’s Letters of 1675-80
to R. Abraham Rovigo” [in Hebrew], in idem, Studies in Kabbalah and its Branches,
vol. 2, Magness Press, Jerusalem 1993, pp. 273-332; idem, “The First Sabbatean
‘Magid’ in the Study Hall of R. Abraham Rovigo” [in Hebrew], in idem, Netive
Emuna Uminut [in Hebrew], Masada, Ramat Gan 1964, pp. 81-107.
36 Scholem, H˛alomotaw, pp. 46-47.
37 Meir Benayahu, The Shabbatean Movement in Greece: Jubilee Volume Presented to
Gershom Scholem [in Hebrew], (Sefunot 14: The Book of Greek Jewry, IV), Ben-Zvi
Institute, Jerusalem 1971-1978, pp. 277-278.
38 Avivi, “Solet Neqiyya”, p. 100, as in Benayahu, The Shabbatean Movement, p. 122.
88 | The Epistle of Nathan of Gaza to Raphael Joseph and the Issue of the Lurianic Prayer Intentions

or angelic oracle. Rovigo, who was an enthusiast of maggidic revelations,

truly believed in the authenticity of his friend’s heavenly revelations and
repeatedly asked him when he would be allowed to perform the kawwanot,
or alternatively, when new kawwanot would be revealed.
In this context, they discussed the status of the Šexina, and whether there
remained a “spark of holiness among the external [evil forces]”,39 or in the
terms of Nathan’s letter—a “spark of the Šexina”. The Maggid argues that
“If there was no spark there, the redeemer would have already come”,40 and
Rovigo understood from this that the Maggid was contradicting Nathan’s
words in his letter. Since it appeared that Nathan’s words were referring to the
future (from the point of view of the letter) in 1670, it seemed possible that
the Maggid was actually contradicting the letter. Rovigo notes on the margin
of the book of dreams—the record of the revelations of the Maggid—that
“what is written by Rabbi Nathan that there is now no holy spark under the
external forces, is not the case”.41 One wonders whether Rovigo understood
Nathan to be speaking about his own time, or the future; that is, does the
word “now” refer to the end of 1665 or to 1670? If Nathan was talking
about 1665, then the Šexina was already rectified, and it was forbidden to
perform the prayer intentions. If he was talking about 1670, and had in mind
that the full redemption would arrive by then, then since it had not arrived at
that point, there remained sparks to raise and the intentions were permitted.
In any event, the Maggid refused to give a straight answer and answered
Rovigo’s repeated questions with the excuse that the time had not yet come to
reveal such secrets—the implication being that Rovigo and Mordechai were
not yet worthy for such a high revelation. If the Maggid had an answer to this
question, and this is not at all clear, he did not reveal it.

39 Scholem, H˛alomotaw, p. 47.

40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
 Noam Lev El | 89

C
The analysis of the Kabbalistic parts of Nathan’s epistle to Raphael Joseph
and their Lurianic background opens a large issue which still awaits
systematic research: the dynamic relationship between Nathan and the
Lurianic kabbalah, and his use of Lurianic knowledge in weaving his own
Kabbalistic creations. From the short discussion above, it is obvious that
Lurianic kabbalah played an important role in his Kabbalistic world even
at the beginning of his messianic activities. That said, Lurianic knowledge
served Nathan as a textual and theoretical tool—as a foundation which
helped him to build his own constructions. These came to fruition in the
writing of Sefer Haberiya.42 Furthermore, I have presented evidence for the
quick dissemination and great influence of the letter, which reverberated
amongst the Kabbalistic elites in Italy. Assessing their methods of response
and their attempts (or lack thereof ) to grapple with Nathan’s innovative
claims about the prayer intentions, allows a glance into the Kabbalistic
circles of northern Italy, whether at the beginning of the Sabbatian
movement, in the case of Zacut, or at its height and in its aftermath, as
with Rovigo. The central place given to the issue of the prayer intentions
also teaches us about its centrality in the world of Lurianic kabbalists
in general, in contrast with various theoretical questions, for Lurianic
Sabbatians in particular. Another issue is the element of change in the
concept of time in the messianic age. If Shabbetai’s appearance really
created a radical change in the fabric of time, there can be no return to
the old and customary Lurianic prayer rites. This point, at which theory
and praxis combine, at which man shapes time in his image, is revealed
in Nathan’s lofty declaration in his letter. His actualization of Lurianic
messianic theory transforms it into a concrete description of reality, and
announces a new age which requires new religious, Kabbalistic, and indeed
political norms.

42 See Elliot R. Wolfson’s contribution to this volume, which addresses Nathan’s

writings. See also Elliot R. Wolfson, Venturing Beyond: Law and Morality in Kabbalistic
Mysticism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York 2008, pp. 71-73, 176-179,
277-284, 304-305.