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

 Jacob Barnai | 17

The Image of Nathan of Gaza in Jewish Consciousness

and Historiography

Jacob Barnai
Department of Jewish History and Department of Israel Studies,
University of Haifa

During the years 1666-1667, when Shabbetai S˝evi appeared as the Messiah
and eventually converted to Islam, both a Jewish rabbi and a Christian
minister described the figure of S˝evi’s prophet, known as Nathan of Gaza.
Rabbi Jacob Sasportas was a Morocco-born rabbi who emigrated to
Europe and served as rabbi of some of the most important communities
of Portuguese Conversos who returned to Judaism. In his book S˝is¸at Novel
S˝evi [The Fading Flower of S˝evi], which contains many authentic sources
about Nathan, Sasportas states:
In the year 1665 […] rumours were heard from Eastern Egypt and
its environs that in Gaza, near Jerusalem, a prophet rose up with
good tidings, declaring salvation and telling about a scholar, named
Shabbetai S˝evi… and all of Israel…throughout the world woke up to
repent… and took upon themselves the words of Nathan the Prophet,
as a prophet of truth.1
In almost identical language Thomas Coenen, the Calvinist minister of the
community of Dutch traders in Smyrna (Izmir) wrote:
After Sabbetai S˝evi disclosed what he felt… they went to Salonica… he
wandered throughout Moreah… was exiled to Alexandria… travelling in

1 Jacob Sasportas, S˝is¸at Novel S˝evi [in Hebrew], ed. Isaiah Tishbi, Bialik Institute,
Jerusalem 1954, p. 1.

| 17
18 | The Image of Nathan of Gaza in Jewish Consciousness and Historiography

the district called by everyone the Holy Land, passing on his last journey
through Gaza… two or three years ago, in which place he established a
friendship with many Jews and especially one Jew named Nathan.2
In the history of many movements and religions, two central figures stand
out: on the one hand, the true or official leader; and on the other the
ideologue, or, in our case, the prophet. Sometimes the image and memory
of the leader or the ostensible leader is eradicated, but generally he is the
one remembered in the historical consciousness. Sometimes, the leader is
actually led by the ideologue, but nevertheless he is the one remembered.
There are many examples of this. In these days, we may be witnessing a
process whereby ideologues almost disappear. As we shall see later, this is
the case with regards to the image of Nathan vis-à-vis Shabbetai S˝evi.
The image of Nathan is complicated in some aspects. In Sabbatianism
he was secondary from the beginning, and this changed significantly only
after Gershom Scholem, and researchers into Kabbalah following him,
developed an interest in Nathan.3 As I noted, Nathan is mentioned in the
early chronicles and in drawings and etchings from the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, but surprisingly later on he is regarded favourably, as
opposed to Shabbetai S˝evi, who converted. In scholarly literature and in
modern literary and artistic depictions of the Sabbatian movement, he is a
classic “number two” figure: important, and a driving force in explaining
and promoting Shabbetai S˝evi. In this article I shall outline Nathan’s
biography and the manner in which he was perceived by his contemporaries
in the seventeenth century and thereafter through the generations down to
modern Jewish historiography.
Nathan of Gaza is believed to have been born in Jerusalem in 1643,
the son of Rabbi Elisha H˛ayyim Ashkenazi the son of Jacob, who moved
from Central Europe to Safed and then on to Jerusalem, where he served
as one of the leaders of the small Ashkenazi community in the city and was

2 Thomas Coenen, S˝ippiyot Šaw šel Hayehudim, ed. Yosef Kaplan, Ydele verwachtinge
der Joden, Amsterdam 1669, Shazar Center, 1998, p. 41.
3 See in particular Gershom Scholem, Sabbatai S˝evi – The Mystical Messiah 1626-1676,
trans. R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, Princeton University Press, Princeton N.J. 1973.
 Jacob Barnai | 19

also sent out as an emissary on its behalf (šadar). Aškenazi was responsible
for the publication of part of the book “Maggid Mešarim” by R. Joseph
Karo. Nathan also had a brother, R. Azarya H˛ayyim.4 Recently documents
from the Sijil (Islamic court records) in Jerusalem were discovered describing
Nathan’s father as the owner of property in Jerusalem.5 Nathan studied in the
rabbinical academy (yeshiva) of Rabbi Jacob H˛agiz, one of the leading rabbis
of Jerusalem and the father of the famous opponent of Sabbatianism Rabbi
Moses H˛agiz, to whom I shall return below. After marrying the daughter of
Rabbi Samuel Lisbona, Nathan moved to Gaza, where he met with Shabbetai
S˝evi, and the great epic of Shabbetai and Sabbatianism began.6
Meir Benayahu made a contribution to a very important chapter in
the biography of Nathan after his departure from Gaza in 1666 in his
book on the Sabbatian Movement in Greece, regarding both the history
of his writings and his activity in the Balkan communities.7 Even though
much remains to be learned about this episode, and many of Benayahu’s
assumptions require further study, this work indeed has a “stake” (to use
one of Benayahu’s favourite words—‫ )יתד‬in understanding the enormous
influence that Nathan exerted over not only over Sabbatianism after
the Messiah’s conversion, but over the Ottoman communities and both
Western and Eastern European Jewry. For example, R. Salomon Ayllon
came to London and Amsterdam from Salonica, while Jacob Frank, as is
well known, also brought his teachings from Salonica.8 Nathan left many
writings, some still in manuscript, but the footprints of his teachings may

4 Abraham Yacari, The Emissaries of Palestine [in Hebrew], Mossad Harav Kook,
Jerusalem 1951, pp. 121, 155, 157-158, 281-282, 331; Matt Goldish, The Sabbatean
Prophets, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass, 2004, pp. 67, 68.
5 Amnon Cohen, Elisheva Ben Shimon-Pikali, Jews in the Moslem Religious Court: Society,
Economy and Communal Organization in the XVII century: Documents from Ottoman
Jerusalem [in Hebrew], Vol. 1, Yad Ben Zvi, Jerusalem 2010, pp. 444, 675, 684.
6 Scholem, Sabbatai S˝evi, pp. 199-223.
7 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. 23-27, 32-49.
8 Ibid., pp. 147-160.
20 | The Image of Nathan of Gaza in Jewish Consciousness and Historiography

be found in dozens of books written by eighteenth-century rabbis. His

works include prayers, sermons, practices, halaxot, and more.
Nathan’s presence in the Balkan communities, mainly in Salonica and
Castoria, during which time he wrote many of his works and founded a
Sabbatian yeshiva that included many of the great scholars of Salonica, had
a decisive influence on the mass conversion there of the Dönme in 1683.9
Actually the Dönme was not the only group which converted to Islam at
that time: many Christians across the Balkans also converted during the
same period.10
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the influence of Nathan
and his practices (hanhagot, tiqqunim) among the Sabbatians who did
not convert was very great, as it also was among Kabbalists and sages in
the Ottoman Empire and in Europe. Consider for example, the affairs of
Abraham Michael Cardoso,11 Nehemiah H˛ayyon,12 Rabbi Moses H˛ayyim
Luzzatto,13 and the circle of the book H˛emdat Yamim (“Delight of Days”).

9 Ibid., pp. 259-305.

10 Anton Minkov, Conversion to Islam in the Balkans: Kisve Bahasi Petitions and Ottoman
Social Life, 1670-1730, Brill, Leiden, Netherlands 2004, pp. 166-192; Eyal Ginio,
“Childhood, Mental Capacity and Conversion to Islam in the Ottoman State”,
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 25 (2001), pp. 90-119.
11 See the last study by Nissim Yosha, Captivated by Messianic Agonies: Theology,
Philosophy and Messianism in the Thought of Abraham Miguel Cardozo [in Hebrew],
Ben Zvi Institute, Jerusalem 2015.
12 Yehuda Liebes, On Sabbateaism and its Kabbalah: Collected Essays [in Hebrew],
Bialik Institute, Jerusalem 1995, pp. 49-52; Itzhak S. Emmanuel, “The Nehemia
Hiya Hayon Controversy in Amsterdam: Documents from the Archives of the
Local Portuguese Kehila” [in Hebrew], Sefunot 9 (1964), pp. 209-246; Menachem
Friedman, “Letters Relating to the Nehemia Hiya Hayon Controversy” [in Hebrew],
Sefunot 10 (1966), pp. 483-659; Elisheva Carlebach, The Pursuit of Heresy: Rabbi
Moses Hagiz and the Sabbatian Controversies, Columbia University Press, New York
1990, pp. 75-159.
13 See Jonathan Garb, Kabbalist in the Heart of the Storm: R. Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto [in
Hebrew], Tel Aviv University Press, Tel Aviv 2014.
 Jacob Barnai | 21

Especially noteworthy in this context is R. Jacob Israel Algazi, and of

course the book itself.14
Rabbi Jonathan Eibeschutz15 and Rabbi H˛ayyim Falachi, the rabbi of
Smyrna in the nineteenth century (!) and his remarks about going to the
tomb of Nathan and its “acceptability”, as opposed to the rejection of
Shabbetai S˝evi, testify to this clearly. The comparison that Rabbi H˛ayyim
Falachi made between Shabbetai S˝evi and Ben Kuziba [Bar Koxva], on the
one hand, and Nathan and Rabbi Akiba, on the other, is astonishing.16
Nathan’s involvement in the conversion to Islam of hundreds of Dönme,
which had a strong impact on modern Turkish history, demonstrates
the directions Nathan’s influence took. A future biographer will have to
consider this carefully.
Although Shabbetai S˝evi left hardly any writings, he became the central
figure in the movement that carries his name, and earned a comprehensive
and thorough biography by Gershom Scholem the likes of which few
figures receive. By contrast, Nathan of Gaza, whose works and letters
are extensive, and many of which have been published and studied, has
not yet spawned a comprehensive biography. He deserves a biography
focusing not only on his theology (which has been discussed in important
studies by Scholem, Tishby, Elqayam, and others), but also on many other
aspects. Such a biography would also address his childhood and family, his

14 Isaiah Tishby, Netive Emuna Uminut [in Hebrew], Masada Press, Ramat Gan 1964,
pp. 108-168; idem, Studies in Kabbalah and its Branches, Vol. 2, Magnes Press,
Jerusalem 1993, pp. 339-416; Jacob Barnai, The Jews in Palestine in the Eighteenth
Century, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Ala 1992, pp. 35, 41-42, 128,
148-150; idem, Sabbateanism—Social Perspectives [in Hebrew], Shazar Center,
Jerusalem 2000, pp. 80, 89; idem, Smyrna—The Microcosmos of Europe [in Hebrew],
Carmel Press, Jerusalem 2014, pp. 262, 272-286. See also Benayahu, The Shabbatean
Movement, pp. 181, 259, 269-275, 349; Avraham Elqayam, “Studies in a Liturgical
Hymn for the Passover Seder by the Sabbatean Prophet Rabbi Avraham Nathan
Binyamin Ashkenazi”, Dacat 84 (2017), pp. 183-255.
15 Liebes, On Sabbateaism, pp. 103-197; Gershom Scholem, Researches in Sabbateanism
[in Hebrew], ed. Yehuda Liebes, Am Oved, Tel Aviv 1991, pp. 653-733.
16 H˛ayim Falachi, Kol Hah˝ayim [in Hebrew], Izmir 1874, p. 18/a.
22 | The Image of Nathan of Gaza in Jewish Consciousness and Historiography

extensive travels, and the many disciples and communities who were deeply
influenced by his teachings. In this context, the monographs by Meir
Benayahu are noteworthy and add much information and many sources.
Important issues include the relations between Nathan and the book
H˛emdat Yamim and Nathan’s tomb in Skopje, which was a pilgrimage
site until the twentieth century. Likewise it is interesting to examine how
Nathan was described in different ways in the chronicles of the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries and later on in research and in both artistic and
popular literature about Sabbatianism. In my opinion, such a biography
will shed light not only on Nathan of Gaza, but also on Jewish society
and creativity in many communities and the impact of Sabbatianism
on them—aspects that go beyond the purely theological themes of the
movement. Nathan deserves to be presented anew, stressing his role in
early modern Jewish history. Research of Kabbalah and Sabbatianism is
generally lacking due to the separation between Kabbalah scholars and
historians, as Yosef Dan noted: “Most of the scholars of Sabbatianism in
former generations belonged to the ‘Latifundia of Kabbalah scholars’, an
area which historians have barely addressed”.17 I believe there has been
some change in this respect in recent years.
I would now like to describe briefly the figure of Nathan as reflected
from his own time through to contemporary research and modern literary
works, providing a few examples:
In the book by Rabbi Moses H˛agiz, the son of Nathan’s teacher
mentioned above, Šever Pošecim [“The Crisis of the Criminals”],18 which
is entirely an anti-Sabbatian polemic, H˛agiz describes the history of the
Sabbatian movement in a totally negative way, using harsh expressions to

17 Joseph Dan, “Rabbi Israel of Ruzhin: Between Z˛addiq of the Generation and the
True Z˛addiq—The Way of Kingdom by David Assaf ” [in Hebrew], Jewish Studies 37
(1997), p. 301. For an important new study on Nathan and one of his main books,
see: Avraham Binyamin Nathan ben Elisha Chaim Halevi Ashkenazy (also known
as Nathan Ghazzati), Sefer Haberi’a [in Hebrew], ed. Leor Holzer, Holzer Books,
Jerusalem 2019.
18 Moses H˛agiz, Šever Pošecim [in Hebrew], London 1714, Introduction. On Mosses
H˛agiz and his father R. Jacob H˛agiz, see: Carlebach, The Pursuit of Heresy, pp. 19-44.
 Jacob Barnai | 23

depict important Sabbatians, starting with Shabbetai S˝evi himself, Jacob

Kerido, R. Salomon Florentin and R. Joseph Philosof, the Dönme leaders,
Abraham Michael Cardoso, Nehemiah H˛iyya H˛ayyon, and R. Salomon
Ayllon. Yet H˛agiz makes no mention at all of Nathan of Gaza! This is
a perplexing fact that implies that even in the early eighteenth century,
opponents of Sabbatianism regarded Nathan differently not only from
other converted Sabbatians, but also from those Sabbatians who remained
in the Jewish fold. In the case of Moses H˛agiz, this may also be related to
the fact that Nathan was his father’s student.
It is very interesting to compare this approach from the early eighteenth
century with the words of Rabbi Jacob Emden, the leading opponent of
Sabbatianism in the middle of the eighteenth century, in his book Torat
Haqana’ut [“The Law of Jealousy”]:
Some say that when he [Sh. S˝.] went to Jerusalem he remained in the
Land of Israel, and came to a place… Gaza. And there was a Jew…
Nathan Benjamin Ashkenazi. And Shabbetai S˝evi was in his home…
and suddenly this Nathan became a prophet, and a bad spirit moved
him, and truly he declared some true prophecies, both about things
that happened in the past, and about what would happen in the future,
and his words were found to be truthful.19
Rabbi Jacob Emden, who never refrained from the harshest condemnations
in the Hebrew lexicon of the eighteenth century with regards to the
Sabbatians, seems very mild regarding Nathan.
And how is Nathan treated in modern historical research? Let us start
with Heinrich Graetz. Throughout his historical writings, Graetz expressed
harsh hostility towards mysticism, Kabbalah, and irrational trends in
Judaism. In his book Geschichte der Juden, Graetz devoted nearly an entire
volume to the Sabbatian affair.20 Graetz, who was a product of the German
enlightenment of the nineteenth century, detested the Kabbalah and the
non-rational movements in Judaism, but he provided an important basis for

19 Jacob Emden, Torat Haqana’ut [in Hebrew], Lvov 1879, pp. 4-5.
20 Heinrich Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, Vol. 10, Leipzig 1868, pp. 155-236.
24 | The Image of Nathan of Gaza in Jewish Consciousness and Historiography

Sabbatian research. His description of Nathan of Gaza is totally negative:

“He developed, in the school of Jacob H˛agiz, into a youth with superficial
knowledge of the Talmud, acquired Kabbalistic scraps, and obtained
facility in the high-sounding, but hollow, nonsensical, rabbinical style of
the period, which concealed poverty of thought beneath verbiage”. The
thrust of these words by this great and important historian is self-evident.
Let us turn to Simon Dubnow from Russia, the second-most important
Jewish historian after Graetz in modern times, who lived from the end of
the nineteenth century to the first half of the twentieth and was murdered
by Nazis in Riga in 1941.
Dubnow’s approach to Jewish history was secular and sociological,
as opposed to Graetz, who stressed intellectual life, and Sabbatianism
occupies only a marginal place in his great work The History of the Jews.
Nathan of Gaza is described in only a few short sentences, as a sidekick of
Shabbetai S˝evi, obedient to his master and no more.21
The historian Salomon Rozanes, who made important contributions to
Sabbatian research, also belonged to the intellectual school of thought,
and like Graetz negated the Kabbalah and Sabbatianism, which he saw
as a reflection of the atrophy of Ottoman Judaism. He called Nathan
“a cheating boy and deceitful man, who was to play the greater part in
Sabbatian messianism”.22
And now we turn to Gershom Scholem, his early lectures on
Sabbatianism, given at the Hebrew University in 1939-1940, were only
recently discovered. Edited by our colleagues Jonatan Meir and Shinichi
Yamamoto, they were published by Schocken.23 The importance of
Scholem’s recently published lectures is due to the early stage in which

21 Simon Dubnow, Weltgeschichte des judischen Volkes: von seinen Uranfängen bis zur
Gegenwart, Vol. 7, Jüdischer Verlag, Berlin 1928, pp. 48-58.
22 Salomon A. Rosanes, Histoire des Israelites de Turquie et de l’Orient [in Hebrew], Vol.
4, Impriméri Amichpat, Sofia 1934-1935, p. 56.
23 Gershom Scholem, History of the Sabbatian Movement: Lectures given at the Hebrew
Universityof Jerusalem, 1939-1940 [in Hebrew], eds. Jonatan Meir & Shinichi
Yamamoto, Schocken Institute for Jewish Research and Schocken Books, Jerusalem
and Tel Aviv 2018.
 Jacob Barnai | 25

they were given, when Scholem first lay down in general his assumptions
regarding Shabbetai S˝evi’s biography and Sabbatianism in his time. These
assumptions, along with his basic article “Redemption through Sin”,
published two years earlier (in 1937),24 in which he expounded his basic
teaching on Sabbatian dialectics, underlie his approach to Sabbatianism
and its place in modern Jewish history, by means of synthesis.
Let us see what Scholem knew and thought about Nathan in these
lectures, in comparison with his later lectures and the editions of his great
book on Shabbetai S˝evi.
Regarding Nathan’s biography, Scholem said in 1939 that nearly nothing
is known. However he already revealed then his view of Nathan’s role in
history, which did not change throughout his future research. In 1939 he
said: “He was a very sensitive young man, with a tumultuous heart and a
brilliant mind” (we might speculate that Scholem’s own personality was
reflected in this description). Scholem did not believe that Nathan met
Shabbetai S˝evi in Jerusalem, but rather that he heard about him while they
were both in that city. Unlike Shabbetai S˝evi:
Nathan of Gaza, whom we shall get to know, is a naturally active
person, a great writer, a man with new and deep thought {unlike
Graetz!}, a productive man [!]… and there is no doubt that before
1665, we would never have heard of Sabbatai S˝vi if had he not met
that Nathan.25
Here we can already sense the basic view of Scholem, who went on later
to write a comprehensive biography of Shabbetai S˝evi and the movement
that carries his name, but who always thought of Nathan as the central,
most important, and decisive figure in the movement. Perhaps this, too,
is a sign of historical “paradox”, the motto Scholem gave to his great work
on Shabbetai S˝evi.26

24 Gershom Scholem,The Messianic Idea in Judaism and other Essays on Jewish Spirituality,
Schocken Book, New York 1971, pp. 78-141.
25 Scholem, History of the Sabbatian Movement, pp. 114-116.
26 Scholem, Sabbatai S˝evi, front page (of the English and Hebrew editions).
26 | The Image of Nathan of Gaza in Jewish Consciousness and Historiography

In the Hebrew edition of his book on Shabbetai S˝evi, Scholem already

expanded his knowledge about Nathan, relying on various sources and
studies.27 And in the expanded English edition, Scholem added details
about Nathan thanks to Avraham Yacari and others, including information
about Nathan’s father and brother, his education and marriage, his move
to Gaza, and especially about Nathan as a Kabbalist.28
In the English edition of his book, Scholem provided additional
biographical information about Nathan and his father, which he learned
from the research of Meir Benayahu.29
Ms. Adler 074, now in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of
America in New York (Mic. 3541), includes the writings of the sixteenth-
century Safed Kabbalist R. Elazar Azikri. It reveals a chapter in the history
of Nathan’s father (and Nathan), who probably had this manuscript in his
possession when he moved from Safed to Jerusalem. In my opinion, this
manuscript is very significant for the sources of Kabbalistic learning of
both the father and his son Nathan.30
From the documents of the Muslim court in Jerusalem that I mentioned
before, it emerges that Nathan’s father Elisha had a sound financial standing
in Jerusalem.31
Scholem, with his sharp sensitivity for research, noticed Nathan’s
importance already early on in his study. Scholem’s notable student Isaiah
Tishby criticized him severely for this, declaring:
He saw the Messiah as subservient to the Prophet… in this
transformation Scholem was guilty of exaggeration, both by minimizing
the image of Shabbetai S˝evi, and by magnifying the power of Nathan

27 Scholem, The Messianic Idea, pp. 162-181.

28 Ibid., pp. 199-223.
29 Ibid., p. 203, note 13.
30 Elazar Azikri, Milei De-Shemaya [in Hebrew], ed. Mordechai Pachter, Tel Aviv
University Press, Tel Aviv 1991, p. 11; Scholem, Sabbatai S˝evi, p. 203, note 13;
Joseph Hacker, “New Chronicles on the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain, Its Causes
and Results” [in Hebrew], Zion 84 (1980), p. 206.
 Jacob Barnai | 27

of Gaza…. The evaluation of the influence of both individuals should

be revised from both the theological and ideological points of view.32
And indeed Tishby did so in his studies. Between the publication of the
Hebrew edition of Scholem’s Sabbatai S˝vi (1957) and the English edition
(1973), in the 1960-1961 academic year Scholem taught a course at the
Hebrew University on Sabbatianism after the death of Shabbetai S˝evi. His
lectures were written down by Zalman Shazar, later the third president
of the state of Israel, who took part in the course, and it was recently my
privilege to edit these for publication.33 In those lectures Nathan plays a
central role, and it seems to me that Scholem was alert to Tishby’s criticism
of the central and favourable role that he attributed to Nathan in his book.
He maintained his opinion regarding Nathan’s remarkable personality and
central role in Sabbatianism, but modified his position to a degree in a
note, saying: “Nathan, perhaps genius, perhaps impudent, appears like a
prophet…”.34
Yehuda Liebes in a sharp, but slightly different way said: “Let us turn
now to the figure of second importance in Sabbatianism, without whom
the movement would not have existed—Nathan of Gaza”.35
In his Ph.D. dissertation on Nathan, Avraham Elqayam36 expressed a
different view on the “Mystery of God” (Sod Ha’emuna Ha’Elohit) from
that of Scholem. Scholem changed his mind on it following Tishby and
Wirszubski and believed that Nathan’s theology on this issue was stable.
Elqayam’s thesis is that it developed, not only during Shabbetai S˝evi’s
Messianic period (1665-1666), but also later.

31 Cohen & Shimon-Pikali, Jews in the Muslim Religious Court.

32 Tishby, Netive Emuna, pp. 246-247.
33 Jacob Barnai, “Sabbateanism after the Death of Sabbatai S˝evi—Gershom Scholem’s
lectures at the Hebrew University, 1960-1961 from the Notebooks of Zalman
Shazar” [in Hebrew], Kabbalah 35 (2016), pp. 205-227.
34 Ibid., p. 210.
35 Liebes, On Sabbateaism and its Kabbalah, p. 15.
36 Abraham Elqayam, “The Mystery of Faith in the Writing of Nathan of Gaza” [in
Hebrew], Ph.D. Dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1993, pp. 28-29.
28 | The Image of Nathan of Gaza in Jewish Consciousness and Historiography

It is hard to conclude this preliminary discussion without mentioning

the great critic of Hebrew literature and of Scholem, Baruch Kurtzweil, who
wrote: “Scholem’s opinion in his preface on what is a ‘Jewish’ phenomenon
is not so different from that of Nathan the prophet of Gaza”.37 In my view,
a reading of Scholem’s description of Nathan may indeed sometimes give
the impression that Scholem’s own personality is reflected in it.
The most detailed area of historiography is the study of Nathan’s
Kabbalistic teachings. Major scholars have contributed to it, first and
foremost Scholem, Wirszubski, Tishby, Liebes, and Elqayam.38 Scholem
laid the foundations for an understanding of Nathan’s Kabbalistic views
that stem from the school of Rabbi Isaac Luria (Ha’Ari). Liebes deepened
the discussion of Kabbalistic texts by Nathan, for example in his study
of Sefer Haberiya (“The Book of Creation”). Elqayam, as I mentioned
before, devoted his expanded Ph.D. thesis, “The Mystery of Faith in
the Writing of Nathan of Gaza”, to Nathan’s Kabbalistic thought, while
omitting biographical information. Since then he has published additional
important articles on Nathan’s writings in general, such as the recent
article in Dacat, no. 84, containing an in-depth study of Nathan’s liturgical
poetry.39 Noam Lefler published recently an important text by R. Israel
H˛azan pertaining to Nathan’s teaching;40 H˛azan was very close to Nathan
in his last years.

37 Baruch Kurtzweil, Bama’avaq cal cErke Hayahadut [in Hebrew], Schocken, Tel Aviv
1969, p. 104.
38 Chaim Wirszubski, Between the Lines: Kabbalah and Sabbatianism [in Hebrew],
Magnes Press, Jerusalem 1990, pp. 152-188; Scholem, Sabbatai S˝evi, pp. 199-
222, 267-325; idem, Studies and Texts Concerning the History of Sabbetianism and
its Metamorphoses [in Hebrew], Bialik Press, Jerusalem 1974, pp. 233-273; idem,
Researches in Sabbateanism [in Hebrew], ed. Yehuda Liebes, Am Oved, Tel Aviv 1991,
pp. 17-25, 54-72; Tishby, Netive Emuna, pp. 30-80; Liebes, On Sabbateaism and its
Kabbalah, pp. 15-17; Elqayam, “The Mystery of Faith”.
39 Avi Elqayam, “Studies in a Liturgical Hymn”.
40 Israel H˛azan, Commentary on Psalms [in Hebrew], ed. Noam Lefler, Cherub Press,
Los Angeles 2016.
 Jacob Barnai | 29

Although there are certain differences of interpretation between

Scholem and the researchers on Nathan mentioned above, most of the
scholars of his generation, and particularly his students, agree that Nathan
played a central part in the dissemination of Sabbatianism through his
interpretation of Lurianic Kabbalah. As is well known, Scholem’s central
thesis regarding the Sabbatian messianic outburst in the middle of the
seventeenth century was that it derived from the dissemination of Lurianic
Kabbalah (which stemmed from the second half of the sixteenth century),
which in turn resulted from the Expulsion of Spain (1492). Only after
Scholem’s death (1982), was Scholem’s central historical thesis questioned
both in the study of Kabbalah and in historical research.41
In all of the varied artistic and literary works about Sabbatianism with
which I am familiar, Shabbetai S˝evi is the central figure; Nathan sometimes
stands out more than his other close supporters, but not always.42 Consider,
for example, the play about Shabbetai S˝evi by Nathan Bistritzki, printed in
two different editions in 1931 and 1936 (but only produced on stage from
the 1936 edition in that year). In the Dramatis Personae, Nathan appears
only in fourth place. After Shabbetai S˝evi himself, his close associates
are listed as Rabbi Moses Piniero and Rabbi Samuel Primo (important
historical figures in Sabbatianism and in the communities of Smyrna and
Livorno). This play was arranged as an opera in France.43
To add a short note on Shabbetai S˝evi and Nathan in painting: We
have dozens of paintings of both, from the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, all created by European Christians. I could not find any modern

41 Moshe Idel, “‘One from a Town, Two from a Clan’: The Diffusion of Lurianic
Kabbala and Sabbateanism: A Re-examination”, Jewish History 7 (1993), pp. 79-104;
Barnai, Sabbateanism—Social Perspectives, pp. 15-68.
42 Jacob Barnai, “The Impact of Sabbatianism on Society and Culture in the Yishuv and
in Israel”, in: Miriam Zadoff, Noam Zadoff (eds.), Scholar and Kabbalist: The Life
and Work of Gershom Scholem, Brill, Leiden/Boston 2019, pp. 153-170.
43 Jacob Barnai, “Shabbetai Sevi on the Jewish and Israeli Stage and Screen” [in Hebrew],
in: Hard den Boer, Anna Merry, Carsten L. Wilke (eds.), Caminos de leche y miel,
Jubilee Volume in Honor of Michael Studemund-Halévy, Vol. 1, Tirocinio, Barcelona
2018, pp. 391-403.
30 | The Image of Nathan of Gaza in Jewish Consciousness and Historiography

portrait [from the nineteenth or twentieth centuries] of both, except for

two portraits of Shabbetai S˝evi on book covers.44 Not being a painter, I
have tried to sketch some milestones on Nathan, and his influence on
Jewish history and historiography.
In summary: In this article I have tried to point out some central
features in the image of Nathan as these existed and developed over the
years, from the time of Shabbetai S˝evi’s ascent, when Nathan crowned
him officially and made his appearance known, until our own time, in
both historical and literary writing. Already in his lifetime his own
contemporaries appreciated Nathan’s importance in the Sabbatian story,
but after Shabbetai S˝evi’s conversion, when Nathan remained steadfast
in his Judaism, the emphasis in Jewish collective memory moved to the
converted messiah, whose image became negative and detested. The public
image of Nathan was dimmed, but the many Sabbatian and Kabbalistic
writings he left nevertheless penetrated and influenced many Jewish works
in the eighteenth century. In modern academic research, and especially in
the wake of Gershom Scholem’s studies and his major book on Shabbetai
S˝evi, Nathan was restored to his central role in the history of Sabbatianism,
and many studies about him have appeared in recent years.

44 Ibid., p. 158.