Letter to Netanel Trabotto: On Prayer

Introductory Note by A. J. S. Graziano

A copy of the letter from the perfect sage R. Samuel Norzi, of blessed memory, in which he seeks to permit, as per his opinion, the singers [in the synagogue] to repeat the word crown [they will give You] several times and also the word God, and that they may sing the priestly blessing. With his pen he asks the gaon, his honor R. Trabotto of blessed memory, to issue the same decision on this matter as ruled by other rabbis of other cities.

The Text of Norzi

Everlasting father, minister of peace (Isaiah 9:5), the marvelous gaon . . . the head of the yeshiva and the city mayor, my relative, his honor the rabbi, may the Merciful One preserve him, greetings to the master and his Torah. I was happy and I made others happy upon reading the letter sent from the court of justice to your faithful servant. We called it graciousness [see Zechariah 11:7], and behold now, I have taken it upon me to speak unto the lord [see Genesis 18:27] . . . since the difficulty over a matter has not been quickly resolved and established, in my clouded and coarse opinion, and I still have an objection. . . . Please align me with the essential law regarding the repetition of the word crown and the Name, which his excellency Corcos, may the Merciful One preserve him (his honor, R. Samuel, son of Abraham of blessed memory) wished to forbid, arguing that it alludes to the Lofty Crown. But he is comparing apples to oranges, as the Lofty Crown is not mentioned in the Kedushah of Musaf. The meaning there is that “they will give You praise,” as stated by the author of Pirke hekhalot [Chapters of the Temples, attributed to R. Ishmael ben Elisha Kohen Gadol] the divine kabbalist, in his interpretation of “they will give You a crown.” . . . A great man wrote about this, the author of Kimḥa de-avishona [Flour of Parched Grain; R. Yoḥanan Trivis, commentary on the Holiday Prayer Book according to the Roman rite, Bologna 1540], that the praises that one gives to God are called a “crown.” Accordingly, where is there a hint here that this is the Lofty, Hidden Crown? . . . as all the rabbis of Venice, Verona, Mantua, Ferrara, Lugo, and Rome wrote—for all of them prophesy in the same style, and with different words they allowed the repetition—that it is permitted to repeat “they will give You a crown,” for it means “they will give You praise.” It is even permissible to repeat this several times a day, and there is no fear of heresy or apostasy, perish the thought, except for one who has scruples.

Praise the Lord, we are all the sons of one man (Genesis 42:11), and just as his excellent Corcos has but one intention in his heart, so, too, we have only one intent in our heart. However, every day he raises doubts to destroy every good portion and good part of the song and the singing. On one occasion he issued a prohibition regarding the word crown and the repetition of the Name; on another occasion concerning the prayer “Our Lord, bless us with the blessing,” he proclaimed that it was not to be recited except by the prayer leader. He stands over the singers like a lurking lion, as noted, “as if we were cutters of reeds in a marsh” [i.e., idlers; see b. Sanhedrin 33a], or, perish the thought, evildoers. That has been like a burning fire in my heart [see Jeremiah 20:9], as even the fine singer Materazzi [apparently a local singer] was placated and reconciled and persuaded by him to swallow the song and the singing, as he wrote to your excellency in the name of the of the congregations in general, something that did not occur to them at all . . . for of his own accord he wrote and signed it, and the proof is that the writings were not shown, neither when they were sent nor when they were returned.

. . . I have never come to innovate anything superfluous against the established custom . . . and if this great kabbalist wishes to innovate a custom through his hints and numbers, to forbid what others have permitted by saying that this is a puzzling custom, why we would not have the power to respond to his dreams and his statements [see Genesis 37:8], especially as he wrote in the name of the parnas [synagogue officer] that they repeated the singing of “Hear [Shema‘], hear,” and he brought witnesses to this, but they were false witnesses. . . . We have only repeated the word crown in the Kedushah rabbah, which has been done for three years in this city, just as they have said it in the city of Pisarro for several years. I have found support for this custom from a statement of Rashbi [R. Simeon bar Yoḥai]. . . .

And for the verse, These are the appointed seasons (Leviticus 23:4), the wise man who arranged the music ordered and wrote the Name once for each of the four singers, so that each of them mentions it for himself, and therefore I do not know why this should be prohibited. . . .

Your excellency wrote well that the local rabbis should be careful not to make the Torah ridiculous . . . although now his excellency Corcos denies that he instructed to permit it, but this is a public matter that does not require evidence. And my lord, with the light of your wisdom you will uproot mountains and blast boulders to understand matters so that you can state which of the two of us has hit upon on the truth. My words will be shown to be true, for I know that one who speaks falsehood shall not be established before his eyes [see Psalms 101:7].

If the question came before a court of justice, in a way that was far from the truth, by the sect of my opponents in the name of the holy congregation, they did this because they heard that I had written the question to many courts, as I am writing to your honor. In their fear of the adjudicators’ power to permit, they gathered up seven men from the council who were in the city at the time—but they did not call Samuel, your ancient servant della Rocca [see 1 Kings 1:26]—and they sought to prohibit through a regulation three things that they wished to forbid, which had been permitted for several years. They were not successful in any of these, for they could not agree unanimously, and they were left with nothing more than worthless earthenware in their hands [see b. Bava Kamma 91a].

When the elder [Samuel] della Rocca heard about this evil matter, he chose to keep them within the tradition of the covenant and to present their complaints before Jewish judges. He requested, with the agreement of the king, and the command of his excellency the vicar, that they should not make any innovation on their own, including the rabbi and parnas, in opposition to the singers, until their claim was presented to Jewish judges, whose ruling would be accepted and followed. The parnas, in an effort to rescind the aforementioned order, said before the judge that nobody was permitted to sing in the synagogue while the prayer leader was praying because the song prevents him from concentrating on the prayer.

His argument was successful, and the judge nullified the order, until the matter came before his excellency the bishop Paconiti, may his glory be exalted. He, who is truly one of the kings of mercy, ruled that no new prohibition should be instituted in the matter on the basis of their own opinion, but rather the custom of singing should continue according to the established practice until the question was written down and the various factions had signed it and it had been sent to their excellences the rabbis . . . whose ruling, in accordance with the law not as a compromise, would be accepted and followed.

Come, behold the works of the Lord (Psalms 46:9), how the matter transpired, for it was God’s will that his excellency the bishop ruled that the words of our rabbis and their judgment should be obeyed, but not through compromise, for thus the royal commandment was issued from before him [see Esther 1:19]. Therefore, may your excellency be good enough to write the main point of the law on these two issues, namely whether song and singing negate and confuse one’s intention in prayer, or whether they do not interfere with it. Likewise, whether a rabbi has the power to cancel a custom and forbid what others have permitted for several years, in accordance with their elders. May the lord write the reasons for leniency on these two matters, as written by their excellences the rabbis of Venice, Florence, Lugo, Mantua, Verona, Padua, and Rome. May he do what is good and right in the eyes of God and man, vindicate the entire world, and prevent the song and the fine, praiseworthy singing from being annulled. May the Name of Heaven be sanctified by you in the eyes of the princes and the nations, circumcised and uncircumcised alike, and may the voices of contention cease. If, heaven forfend, according to the Torah this matter should be prohibited, his word has already been spoken and a decree has been issued by his excellency the bishop, may he be exalted, to forbid the singing of music in synagogues. This would cause a desecration of God’s name, perish the thought, but singing should not be entirely banned due to a slight concern such as this, which arose in the heart of a single man, for there is absolutely no reason for this concern at all, to say this singing is suitable and that form of singing is unsuitable. For if we are worried about one particular word, the concern will spread from one tune to another, and from one song to another. Thus, controversies will be abundant, and there is no end to the matter, and there will be no more song, heaven forfend. . . .

As a pupil who debates before his teacher . . . and therefore . . . because from my youth you raised me like a merciful father and I was like a son to you . . . and I will make my ears like a funnel [see, e.g., b. Ḥagigah 3b] to hear the words that come a wise man’s mouth . . . and may the singers be justified.