Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

The Right Way to Pray

One Talmudic rabbi’s prayers work, while others’ fall on deaf ears. Is humility more pleasing to God than pomp?

Print Email
(Photoillustration Tablet Magazine; original photo Mario Tama/Getty Images.)
Related Content

Talmudic Rebbe-llion

A coup at the rabbinic academy deposes Gamliel and unleashes a torrent of questions

Literary critic Adam Kirsch is reading a page of Talmud a day, along with Jews around the world. His next column will publish September 25, after a week off for Rosh Hashanah.

Reading tractate Berachot over the last six weeks, I have been introduced to dozens of requirements for the right way to pray, some of them so subtle that I keep wondering how they could possibly have worked in practice. Did the average Jew of the fifth century CE know the Talmud’s intricate rules about what to do when he made a mistake in the beginning, or the middle, or the end of the Amidah? Did non-Talmud scholars—who must, then as now, have made up the majority of the Jewish population—know just at what point during prayer to bow and how deeply, or count the hours when it was permitted to say the evening prayer? These are just some of the questions that Daf Yomi has raised for me.

This week, however, the Talmud touched on a question that to me, perhaps to most modern Jews, is the first one that comes to mind regarding prayer, a question that you cannot pray without asking yourself: How do you know if God will hear your prayer?

The way the Talmud approaches this question is not directly theological but rather oblique and anecdotal. It comes up in Berachot 34b, in a story about Rabbi Chanina, a sage whose prayers were uniquely effective. Once, when Rabban Gamliel’s son fell ill, he sent two of his students to Rabbi Chanina, asking him to pray for the sick man. “As soon as [Chanina] saw them,” the Gemara relates, “he went up to his attic and sought mercy for him. On coming down he said to them: Go back to Rabban Gamliel, for the fever has left him.”

Clearly the students wondered how Chanina could be so sure about the immediate power of his prayer: “They asked him, are you then a prophet?” But while Chanina admitted, “I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet,” he was nonetheless certain: “I have a tradition that if my prayer is fluent in my mouth then I know that it has been well received. But if not, then I know that my prayer has been rejected.” When the students returned to Rabban Gamliel, they found that his sick son had recovered just at the moment when Chanina said his prayer.

This story raises some serious questions about the nature of prayer and about the seeming favoritism or even fickleness of a God who chooses to heed one man’s prayer and disregard another’s. Whenever a hurricane or earthquake destroys a city, the newspapers are sure to quote a survivor who credits God for saving him—without reflecting that, by this logic, God must have chosen everyone else for destruction. So too with Chanina: Why is his prayer so powerful, when we must assume that Gamliel had prayed for his own son with no results? And why should the “fluency” with which a prayer is said have anything to do with its effectiveness? We have seen from the Talmud itself that it was predictable, even common, for people to make mistakes in prayer and have to start over; were these flawed prayers then less acceptable to God than Chanina’s eloquent one?

The Talmud is silent on these questions, which are perhaps modern questions, not rabbinical ones. The conception of prayer that dominates in Berachot does not see it as a personal petition to God but as the carrying out of a ritual duty. Concentration and reverence are required to pray correctly, but the heartfeltness of a prayer does not free the Jew from the obligation to pray the right words in the right order. That is one reason why the Chanina episode is so striking: It is the rare moment when the Talmud speaks not of the duty to pray but of the results of prayer.

Clearly, however, the cosmic unfairness of Chanina’s gift must have troubled some of the rabbis, as the next story about him makes clear. Just like Rabban Gamliel, Yochanan ben Zakkai once had a son who fell ill, and he too asked Chanina to intercede with prayer; Chanina “lay his head between his knees and sought mercy for him and he lived.” Whereupon Yochanan ben Zakkai said, perhaps a little resentfully: “Had ben Zakkai stuck his head between his knees all day long, they would not have paid any attention to him in the heavenly court.” “Is Chanina then greater than you,” asked his wife? Her question made sense: After all, ben Zakkai was the Torah leader of his generation, credited with saving Jewish practice from oblivion after the destruction of the Temple by the Romans.

“No,” he replied, “rather, Chanina is like a servant before the King, while I am like an officer before the King.” That is, Chanina had the right to enter into God’s intimate presence and gain favors from Him, while ben Zakkai was God’s representative and spokesman, who had to maintain a certain dignity and distance. If there is a moral lesson to be drawn from this, it may be that humility is more pleasing to God than pomp—a moral that can be found throughout rabbinic history, for instance in the elevation of the proselyte’s son Akiva, or in the story discussed last week of the deposition of the haughty Gamliel. Perhaps one can deduce from these warnings against pride that pride was a constant temptation to the rabbis of the Talmud, who after all were the intellectual elite of their time.

***

There were many other fascinating moments in this week’s Talmud reading, including culinary ones. In the course of a discussion of which benediction to say over which food, the rabbis give a remarkably detailed list of the kinds of things Jews in Babylonia ate, and I wonder if anyone has ever tried to prepare a meal, or a cookbook, based on the dishes in Berachot 35 and 36: anigaron, a beet soup made with olive oil that was used to soothe sore throats; bread and porridge made from orez, rice, and dochan, millet; dates, palm shoots, radishes, and pumpkin.

The most striking passage, however, came almost offhandedly in Berachot 34b, which is as momentous as the food-related discussions are mundane. The status of the messiah is one of the most complex issues in Jewish history and theology, with millennia of thought and debate devoted to it—from Isaiah to Maimonides to the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Ordinarily, when we talk about the messianic age, we think of it as being the end of the world as we know it, a time when the earth will be transformed into an unimaginable paradise. But Rabbi Shmuel is quoted in very different terms: “There is no difference between this world and the messianic era,” he insists, “except for Jewish independence from the dominion of foreign kingdoms.” This unenchanted and emphatically political definition suggests the heretical thought that perhaps the messiah has already come, and his name was Theodor Herzl.

***

Like this article? Sign up for our Daily Digest to get Tablet Magazine’s new content in your inbox each morning.

Print Email

The point of Chanina’s fluency was not that the fluency influenced God, but that when God was “listening” the Rabbi was fluent; when God turned away, the fluency was lost.

    Eli Reich says:

    ‘What would Jesus do?’ See the parallels to the story about the timing: Matthew
    8:5-13; John 4:51-53.
    S. Naeh of Hebrew U has argued (Tarbiz 63:2) that
    ‘fluency’ should be construed as ‘flowing, streaming’ prayer.

Lauren Deutsch says:

The quality of prayer is my most fundamental question. Thank you for the article.

Being a-spiritual/supernatural beliefs myself, I must say this series is wonder-filled.

Old texts seem a window in to our, almost, per-literate brains which was the bulk of human development and still rule behavior, it appears.

Fairy tales and folk stories do the same but this text seems older. What strikes me:
– The hyper-precision of behavior modeled, demanding hyper-self consciousness, very internally driven
– The wonderful idea of a feckless supernatural being, similar to other cultures earlier gods myths

An additional trope seem the military frame of hierarchy. Didn’t military matters greatly concern the authors and their cultures?

What we have is a unearthing of some of the most popular and long-lasting magical thinking ideas and themes of western civilization. The general promise is “mind over matter”, of course. Wish it (prayer), right actions — and it will come true.

    Kevin, Kirsch is not reporting on archaeological digs nor magical pre-history. The whole point of the passages in question is religious, not magical. It is precisely that God responds personally to direct and whole-hearted prayer, prayer, one might say, that “flows” straight from the heart to HaShem. Not everyone is capable of that, and leaders, even intellectual and religious leaders, are often the last persons who can do so, since they tend to be big-headed or unspontaneous, or filled with a diversity of thought, some of it self-regarding, just as Kirsch’s last article on Berachot discussed, and in any case to attain their status they generally have had to focus on their own selves and their own opinions more than a truly simple-hearted person might. The Talmud tells us in many places, including in Berachot in these very passages, that God attends most to the prayers of the “simple-hearted,” which is to say, the whole-hearted. That after all is one of the chief meanings of the Shema itself.

    But, another deeply religious point, not magical at all: God’s standards are not our own. In fact, elsewhere in Berachot we find that sometimes God’s seeming non-answer of our prayer is also for the best, or serves ends that we cannot know of. God must consider the whole current of history and all living things, which may require non-fulfilment of particular prayers even from the truly whole-hearted supplicant. In fact, this seeming non-answer may even be in the category of “chastisements of love.”

    Neither is it a matter of being exact in following prayer formulas. Berachot is clear on this. “R. Eliezer said: If a man makes his prayer a fixed task, his prayer is no supplication. So the Mishnah. The Gemara asks: What does “fixed task” (keba’). R. Jacob b. Idi said in the name of R. Oshaya: Anyone whose pryaer seems to him a burden. The Sages says: Anyone who does not recite it in the language of [genuine] supplication. Rabbah and Rab Joseph both said: Anyone who is not able to add something new thereto.”

Moshe Gelberman says:

Oh, sure. Because all Jews are completely safe now.

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Be a Mensch. Support Tablet.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

The Right Way to Pray

One Talmudic rabbi’s prayers work, while others’ fall on deaf ears. Is humility more pleasing to God than pomp?

More on Tablet:

Manhattan’s Biggest Menorah Mystery, Solved

By Stephanie Butnick — The story behind the massive Hanukkiah atop a Fifth Avenue building