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: [email protected]

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

 Dor Saar-Man | 177

The Attitudes of Samuel Primo and Abraham Cardoso

towards Nathan of Gaza

Dor Saar-Man
School of Jewish Studies and Archaeology, Tel Aviv University

The rise of the idea of Shabbetai S˝evi as the messiah led not only to an
exceptional theological outburst in the annals of the Jewish people, but also
to the rise of new spiritual leaders. The two most famous persons were, of
course, Shabbetai S˝evi himself and his prophet, Nathan of Gaza. This paper
will discuss two additional important figures—Samuel Primo and Abraham
Cardoso, and will examine their personal and theological relationship with
Nathan. I will seek to argue that by examining the figure of Nathan, we can
redraw the figures of Cardoso and Primo. Outlining these relationships will not
only enable us to understand the motivations and teachings of these three men
through the similarities and differences between them, but will also enhance our
understanding of the development of the Sabbatian idea (or to be more precise—
the Sabbatian ideas) among the first generation of Sabbatianism. Research into
Sabbatian history and theology has focused on Cardoso’s work, and less on that
of Primo, but I would like to re-examine some of the assumptions about the
two figures and their status in the Sabbatian movement and the motivations
that led them to act as they did. Their attitude toward Nathan and his teachings
is a test case for the reassessment of these personalities.

Historical Background
The disparate backgrounds of Cardoso and Primo might seem to suggest
that it would impossible to find two people more different from each other.

| 177
178 | The Attitudes of Samuel Primo and Abraham Cardoso towards Nathan of Gaza

However, both men played a key role in the development of Sabbatianism,

and this would seem to be the only feature they have in common. For a better
understanding of the role of Sabbatianism in their lives, and particularly
their relationship with Nathan, we must first understand at least a little of
their intellectual and social biographies. Samuel Primo was born in 1635,
probably in Egypt, but by an early age he had already moved to the Land
of Israel, where he served as a rabbi. At a very early stage of his career, in
1662, he formed a bond with Shabbetai S˝evi and acknowledged him as a
true messiah.1 Among others, he was in contact with Raphael Chelebi, who
was one of the first supporters of Shabbetai S˝evi, and studied at the school
of Rabbi Judah Šaraf, who was also connected to Sabbatianism later on.2
By the time of the great Sabbatian outbreak, Primo was already living in
Izmir and serving as Shabbetai S˝evi’s scribe, maintaining this position until
several months after Shabbetai’s conversion in 1666. Later, in the 1670s,
Primo lived in the Balkans, wandering between communities, sometimes
accompanying Nathan of Gaza and sometimes without him.3 Primo
arrived in Edirne in 1680, was appointed as the city’s rabbi, and lived
there until his death in 1708.4 During the period in which the Sabbatian
movement became a worldwide Jewish movement, prior to the conversion
of Shabbetai S˝evi, Primo was universally acknowledged as one of the leaders
of the movement, and he is mentioned in Sasportas’s text S˝is¸at Novel S˝evi as
Shabbetai S˝evi’s scribe and as one who propagandized for him. However,
as a sitting rabbi, he did not engage in open Sabbatian propaganda, and
current Orthodox Jewish tradition maintains that he recanted his faith in
Shabbetai S˝evi. However, Gershom Scholem has shown, based on a wide

1 Jacob Barnai, Sabbateanism-Social Perspectives [in Hebrew], Zalman Shazar Center,

Jerusalem 2000, p. 72.
2 Zalman Shazar, Sofero šel Mašiyah˝, Letoldotaw šel Šemuel Primo Mazkiro šel Šabbetai
S˝evi [in Hebrew], Bialik Institute, Jerusalem 1970; Gershom Scholem, Sabbatai S˝evi
and the Sabbatian Movement during his Life [in Hebrew], Am Oved, Tel Aviv 1987,
pp. 155-156.
3 Zalman Shazar, Sofero šel Mašiyah˝, pp. 9-10.
4 Refael Halperin, Encyclopedia levet Yisrael, Keter Yosef Institute, Jerusalem, 2001,
p. 205.
 Dor Saar-Man | 179

selection of Cardoso’s writings, as well as testimonies by other Sabbatians,

that Primo retained his faith in Shabbetai S˝evi until his death.5
Cardoso’s biographical background is very different than that of Primo.
Firstly, as mentioned above, and unlike Primo, he has been the subject
of some major works in modern research, and his unique theology
has gained the attention of scholars such as Nissim Yosha and David
Halperin.6 Cardoso was born to a family of conversos in Portugal in 1627
and spent his early adulthood in Spain, where he acquired most of his
academic education and his training as a physician. During these years
he also acquired an important knowledge of Christian theology, which
served him well decades later in intra-Sabbatian disputes. In 1648 Cardoso
moved with his older brother Isaac to Venice, and that year both brothers
publicly resumed their Jewish identity. In the two years he spent in Italy,
Cardoso became immensely erudite in Judaism, including the Talmud,
as well as the Zohar and other Kabbalistic writings by Rabbi Isaac Luria.
In 1650 Cardoso moved to Tripoli, where he was residing when the
messianic fever surrounding Shabbetai erupted in 1666. Shortly thereafter,
Cardoso moved to Tunis, and in 1674 he was expelled for the first time
over his views on Sabbatianism, messianism, and the secret of Godhood.
According to Cardoso, even before word of Shabbetai S˝evi began to spread,
he received a prophecy in 1665 which foretold Shabbetai’s coming.7 After
that, Cardoso wandered extensively, staying in Istanbul, Tekirdağ, Izmir,
Gallipoli, and even Edirne, Primo’s own city. During most of this period,
however, Cardoso resided in Tekirdağ and was expelled from other places,
usually due to his conflict with Primo and his followers surrounding the
theological question of whether Shabbetai S˝evi had a divine nature or, as
Cardoso believed, was solely human. After 1696 Cardoso resided mostly

5 Gershom Scholem, “H˛adašot Lidicat Cardoso”, in Avigdor Aptowitzer and Zekharia

Shwartz (eds.), Ma’amarim Lezixron R. S˝evi Peres¸ H˛ayut, The Alexander Kohut
Memorial Foundation, Vienna 1932, p. 330.
6 See note 8 below.
7 Jacob Sasportas, Sefer S˝is¸at Novel S˝evi [in Hebrew], ed. Isaiah Tishbi, Bialik Institute,
Jerusalem 1954, p. 289; Isaac R. Molho and Abraham Amarilio, “Autobiographical
letters of Abraham Cardozo” [in Hebrew], Sefunot 3-4 (1959-1960), p. 199.
180 | The Attitudes of Samuel Primo and Abraham Cardoso towards Nathan of Gaza

in the Dardanelles, from where he moved to Egypt. In 1703, Cardoso was

murdered by his nephew.8

Nathan and Primo – The Leader and the Successor

“I was sorry to hear that the great Rabbi has left his residence… how I
wish he were here with us right now”—in these words Primo described
his thoughts and feelings for Nathan, in a missive from 1675 addressed to
Isaac Albalag.9 Reading this missive and some other writings can help us
to understand the important impact the relationship between Nathan and
Primo had on the first and second generations of Sabbatian believers. As
mentioned above, Primo was one of the earliest supporters of Shabbetai S˝evi,
and was exposed to Nathan back in the days of overt Sabbatian propaganda
in 1666. Records from the 1670’s reveal a lively correspondence between
the two men, and a social network of mutual support between them and
others connected to them. We also know that the two men met each other,
perhaps for the last time in their lives, in 1676, during the events that led to
Shabbetai S˝evi’s wedding with the daughter of Josef Philosoph.10 In one of
the documents written by Nathan to Primo, he encourages him and makes
clear his conviction that without Shabbetai S˝evi, the People of Israel have
no redeemer, and that Shabbetai’s conversion is part of God’s hidden plan.11

8 Nissim Yosha, Captivated by Messianic Agonies: Theology, Philosophy, and Messianism

in the Thought of Abraham Miguel Cardozo [in Hebrew], Ben-Zvi Institute, Jerusalem
2015, pp. 39-47; Abraham Miguel Cardozo, Selected Writings, tr. David J. Halperin,
Paulist Press, New York 2001, pp. 5-17.
9 Abraham Amarillo, “Sabbatian Documents from the Saul Amarillo Collection” [in
Hebrew], Sefunot 5 (1961), p. 272.
10 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, p. 28.
11 See Amarillo, “Sabbatian Documents”, p. 270. Nathan writes:
‫מכאן מודעא רבא ויקירק לכל שלומי אמוני ישראל העומדים ומצפים ומחלי עת הגלות נגלות אור‬
‫ אחת נשבעתי בקדש ובגדלות ורוממות עלת‬,‫השמש ה"י שי"ן מ”ם שי"ן העליון אשר כסו ענני הודו‬
 Dor Saar-Man | 181

Nathan writes to Primo about some opposition group whose nature and
identity are unclear, but the message arising from the words is one of support
for Primo and his men.12 Another missive from the same period was written
by Primo to an unknown recipient. In this missive, Primo attacks people
opposed to Nathan’s teachings who he claims expound incorrectly about
Shabbetai and claim that Nathan is not a true prophet.13 Here, again, it is
unclear exactly what group Primo was attacking. Yehuda Liebes has raised
the possibility that Primo was referring to Cardoso’s followers,14 but while
Cardoso attacked Primo vehemently, he never dared to write directly against
Nathan. The reference may be to another Sabbatian group that refused to
accept Nathan as the movement’s main prophet. Either way, these missives
reveal a clear picture of a close relationship between Nathan and Primo during
a period in which Sabbatianism endured more than a few crises, due among
other things to Shabbetai S˝evi’s arrest and his death soon after, in 1676.
Against the backdrop of their personal connection, it is no surprise
to learn of an ideological and theological closeness regarding the divine

‫ כי בלתו אין‬,‫כל העלות אשר מאורו הגדול האציל כח כתר עליון שעולה כמנין שבת הגדול והקדוש‬
‫ ואי מלתא מכבשי דרחמנא היא ה‬,‫גואל לישראל ולא מפני שלבש הצניף הטהור נתחללה קדושתו‬
‫ וזה‬.‫בכלל הדברים הנוראים אשר עשה לפניך אשר נודע קצת שער להם כאשר גלוי וצפוי לפניו‬
‫העניין בודאי נגלה לרשב"י שאמר בס' התיקונים בסוף תקון ס טב מלגאו ולבוש ביש דא איהו עני‬
‫ורוכב על חמור אשר עונותינו הטו אלה כמו שאמרו רז"ל זכו עם ענני שמיא לא זכו אני ורוכב על‬
‫ ואין לשון עני אלא למי שהוא עני מן התורה ומן המצוות מסיבת המלבוש אשר הוא כעת רע‬.‫חמור‬
‫ הוא הצניף הטהור האמור שאין לפרש על הגופא דיליה כי לצדיקים גוף שלם אינו נקרא‬,‫בעיני אדם‬
...‫מלבוש אלא תורה ומצוות כמו שמפרש ברעייא מאימנא בפקודא דאחר רבים להטות‬
Nathan emphasizes here that although Shabbetai S˝evi has converted to Islam, he
remains the true messiah, and his unfortunate condition was anticipated in the
Zohar, which describes the messiah as a poor person. The turban that Shabbetai S˝evi
was wearing as a Muslim man is described by Nathan as “Has¸enif Haqadoš”—the
holy turban—in order to depict Shabbetai as a holy Jewish man.
12 Ibid., p. 271.
13 Ibid., p. 271-272.
14 Yehuda Liebes, “Mixael Cardoso—Mexabbero šel Sefer ‘Raza Demehemanuta’
Hameyuh˝as LeŠabbetai S˝evi, Wehat¸acut Beyih˝usah šel ‘Iggeret Magen Avraham’
LeCardoso” [in Hebrew], idem, On Sabbateanism and its Kabbalah: Collected Essays,
Bialik Institute, Jerusalem 1995, Commentary 22.
182 | The Attitudes of Samuel Primo and Abraham Cardoso towards Nathan of Gaza

nature of Shabbetai S˝evi. In his later writings, Nathan dealt with the
possibility that Shabbetai S˝evi had a certain divine nature which would
be revealed at the end of the Messianic process and the advent of the end
times, or that he would become a “complete divinity”—which is to say,
will ascend to the station of God. However, Nathan stressed that this is
a matter that would take place only in the future. The background to
this development in Nathan’s thought apparently stems from a meeting
between him and Shabbetai S˝evi in 1675. 15 Primo may have been present
at this meeting, since Cardoso reports that Primo claimed to have received
the secret of the Godhood from Shabbetai S˝evi himself, and it is known
that he continued to correspond with Shabbetai during the latter’s years
in prison.16 Primo indeed had a close relationship with Shabbetai S˝evi,
leading to his subsequent position as Shabbetai’s scribe after 1665, but it
should be noted that their relationship began before Nathan had his visions
concerning Shabbetai’s messianic status. Thus unlike other Sabbatians
who were dependent on Nathan’s teachings as the messiah’s prophet of the
messiah, Primo could go directly to the source and meet Shabbetai himself.
In a group of believers with a high level of variance and a tendency to
occasional splits due to arguments about the true secret of the messiah, the
fact that Primo collaborated with Nathan and accepted his guidance and
leadership is critical to our understanding of the Sabbatian phenomenon,
since it was not obvious that Primo would accept Nathan’s superiority.

15 Avraham Elqayam, “The Mystery of Faith in the Writings of Nathan of Gaza” [in
Hebrew], Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1994, pp. 132, 155-156.
Elqayam’s analysis presents a complex picture about Nathan’s ideas regarding about
Shabbetai S˝evi’s divine nature. According to Elqayam, Nathan wrote at a later stage
in his life that when Shabbetai S˝evi experienced his moments of enlightenment he
was in a status of divinity, but not a “complete divinity”. Be this as it may, it seems
that in Nathan’s thought Shabbetai S˝evi had a certain divine nature, since without
this he could not have regarded him as the messiah.
16 Yosef Yinon (Paul) Fenton, “A Document from the Internal Circle of Sabbatians
in Adrianople”, Pecamim 44 (1990), pp. 31-39; Gershom Scholem, “Iggeret Natan
HacAzati cal Šabbetai S˝evi Wehamarato” [in Hebrew], in idem, Studies and Texts
Concerning the History of Sabbetianism and its Metamorphoses, Bialik Institute,
Jerusalem 1982, pp. 272.
 Dor Saar-Man | 183

However, at the same time that we hear about their close relationship
that might lead us to believe that Primo accepted all of Nathan ideas in
complete submission, another development alters this idyllic picture and
suggests that Primo dared to go one step further than Nathan regarding
Shabbetai S˝evi’s Godhood. In a missive written by the Sabbatian H˛ayyim
Malax in 1696, brought to print by Gershom Scholem, Malax describes
that his mentor Primo heard the true secret of the Godhood from Shabbetai
S˝evi, and that God gave two creeds: The creed of Israel and the creed of the
Messiah. According to Malax, Nathan adhered to the creed of Israel until
his death, but Primo was the one who understood the creed of the Messiah
unlike Nathan, and even unlike Rabbi Simeon bar Yoh˝ay and the prophet
Elijah, and this was the reason that Nathan ordered that his own writings
be buried.17 This change in Nathan’s position in his own eyes and among
his followers after his meeting with Shabbetai S˝evi led to a development in
terms of conversions, and some of Nathan’s confidants who formed part
of the inner circle along with Primo, such as Salamon Florentine, Salamon
Ayllon, and Joseph Philosoph later converted to Islam.18 Primo himself,
however, who was the carrier of the new secret of the Godhood, chose
the same path Nathan had always followed and declined to convert. Thus
Primo presents a mixture of positions: on one hand, an independent player
with a direct connection to the messiah; on the other, a loyal follower of
Nathan—more so even than others generally identified with Nathan, such
as the three above-mentioned members of the circle who converted.
The second development is tied to the change in the secret of the
Godhood, of which Primo became the principal carrier, with Nathan’s
knowledge. Cardoso, who vehemently opposed the notion that Shabbetai
S˝evi had a divine nature, attacked Primo and his positions many times,
but never attacked Nathan for this. However, one must not ignore the fact

17 Gershom Scholem, “Iggeret me’et R. H˛ayyim Malax” [in Hebrew], in idem Researches
in Sabbateanism, ed. Yehuda Liebes, Am Oved, Tel Aviv 1991, pp. 586-587.
18 Yehuda Liebes, “Hameših˝iyut Hašabbeta’it” [in Hebrew], in idem, On Sabbateanism
and its Kabbalah: Collected Essays, Bialik Institute, Jerusalem 1995, pp. 15-16; Meir
Benayahu, “The Shabbatean Movement in Greece”, pp. 35-53.
184 | The Attitudes of Samuel Primo and Abraham Cardoso towards Nathan of Gaza

that in Edirne, where Primo served as the city’s rabbi from 1680, there
had been a Sabbatian-Nathanian circle which Cardoso had confronted in
late 17th century, in his attempts to attack Primo’s position.19 This which
strengthens the connection between the ideas developed by Nathan and
Primo, both inspired by Shabbetai S˝evi.
However, despite the warm relations between Primo and Nathan,
it is evident that Primo was a more independent figure who was not
necessarily part of Nathan’s school but rather enjoyed an equivalent status
in the Sabbatian movement. While some of his ideas and thought were
similar to those of Nathan, others were different. In the aforementioned
missive by H˛ayyim Malax, Primo attacked various figures, including the
above-mentioned disciple of Nathan Salomon Florentine, for continuing
to adhere to Nathan’s teaching rather than Primo’s, and for refusing to
believe that Nathan ordered his earlier writings interred.20 Another
member of Nathan’s school was Salomon Ayllon, who in the early 1700s
defended Cardoso’s writings in Europe, although Cardoso was supposedly

19 The failure of Cardoso in Edirne is described in Eliyahu Hacohen, “Sefer Merivat

Qadeš” in Aharon Freiman (ed.), Injane Sabbatai Zewi [in Hebrew], Verein Makize
Nirdamim, Berlin 1912, p. 22. Cardoso himself described Edirne as the place
where Primo was living, and he cursed the city many times: see Isaac R. Molho and
Abraham Amarilio, “Autobiographical Letters of Abraham Cardozo”, pp. 191, 203-
204, 237. Regarding Edirne as an central city for Shabbetai S˝evi and Nathan of Gaza,
see Gershom Scholem, Sabbatai S˝evi, p. 597; Jacob Barnai, Sabbateanism – Social
Perspectives, pp. 75-76, 88; idem, “On the History of the Sabbatian Movement and Its
Place in the Life of the Jews in the Ottoman Empire” [in Hebrew], Pecamim 3 (1979),
p. 61.
20 Gershom Scholem, “Iggeret me’et R. H˛ayyim Malax”, pp. 586-587, Malax writes:
‫ומה הרב המופלא שהיה בו השגת רוח הקדש ממש והמגידים שלו היה כלב ויהושע בן נון ולא‬
'‫ אבל מורי ורבי הרב ר‬,‫ מכל שכן האנשים האחרים והרבה ששמעו ולא הבינו‬,‫הבין בפעם הראשון‬
‫שמואל פיר פרימו שהוא ממש היה העיקר אצל אמיר”ה והוא הבין הדברים על בוריין כי לא שמע‬
‫ וגם יש במדרש ילקוט‬,‫פעם אחת כי אם הרבה פעמים ושאל לו הרבה פעמים מה שהיה קשה לו‬
.‫שתי אמונות נתן הב”ה לישראל אחת לישראל ואחת למלך המשיח‬
Nathan here is described as “the great Rabbi” (“Harav Hamufla”), imbued with great
spiritual merits, but it is Primo who is credited with understanding the true essence
of Shabbetai S˝evi’s ideas.
 Dor Saar-Man | 185

affiliated to the group opposed to Primo’s ideas, which was associated with
Nathan.21 Malax’s letter and the different social connections between the
Sabbatians show that despite the social and ideological connection between
Primo and Nathan, there was no complete symbiosis. Sabbatianism as a
messianic idea did not necessarily create clear rules regarding the proper
beliefs to which its faithful should adhere. This was particularly true after
Shabbetai’s death, followed a few years later by that of Nathan, which
created an even greater opening for alliances and rifts among the major
figures of the movement. The complex relationship between Nathan and
Primo, including their close personal bond and some similar methods and
ideas, but also Primo’s independent and important role in the movement,
serves only to highlight the fact that we cannot speak of a single Sabbatian
movement, but rather of Sabbatian movements, streams, and ideas.

The deaths of those two men is connected to a suggestion that it was

the passing of the messiah and his prophet that led Primo to resume his
office as a rabbi and adopt a model of hidden or crypto-Sabbatianism.
Outwardly, and according to Orthodox historiography to this day, Primo
recanted his faith in Shabbetai S˝evi, and returned to Edirne to serve as
the community’s rabbi.22 Thanks to Cardoso’s writings, it is clear that
Primo actually continued to covertly disseminate Sabbatian propaganda
and to spread the belief in Shabbetai’s divine nature.23 But why did Primo

21 Meir Benayahu, “The Sabbatian Movement in Greece”, pp. 157-160.

22 See note 4 above. Another source from the eighteenth century that describes Primo
as a righteous rabbi is the book “Sefer Merivat Qadeš”, written by Elijah Hacohen,
which was written in opposition to Cardoso and his circle. Although Hacohen was
not a Sabbatian and wrote his book as an opposer of the Sabbatian idea in general,
his support for Primo reflects the inter-Sabbatian dispute. See David J. Halperin,
Abraham Miguel Cardozo, p. 91-92; Meir Benayahu, “A Document Containing
a Polemical Controversy with a Sabbatian Sect on the Meaning of Godship” [in
Hebrew], Sefunot 10 (1957), pp. 117-127.
23 Isaac R. Molho and Abraham Amarilio, “Autobiographical Letters of Abraham
Cardozo”, pp. 183-241; Carlo Bernheimer, “Some New Contributions to Abraham
Cardoso’s Biography”, Jewish Quarterly Review, 18, 2 (1927), pp. 97-129; Gershom
186 | The Attitudes of Samuel Primo and Abraham Cardoso towards Nathan of Gaza

choose this route? According to Scholem, Primo’s crypto-Sabbatianism,

together with the idea of the divine nature of Shabbetai S˝evi, prove that
Primo was closer to the radical ideology of the Dönme.24 I would like to
suggest another possibility against the background of Primo’s relationship
with Nathan and Shabbetai S˝evi. The path of Primo’s life, from his earliest
introduction to Shabbetai S˝evi and Nathan until Nathan’s death in 1680,
caused him to formulate a doctrine of “Sabbatian” Sabbatianism—
Sabbatianism concerned with the personal figure of Shabbetai S˝evi and his
various actions in the corporeal world. As Elqayam showed in his research,
this was also the Sabbatianism to which Nathan adhered.25 As mentioned
above, Primo was close to Nathan and obviously supported his approach,
and it is important to focus on the idea of conversion—an idea related to
the Dönme,26 to which some of Nathan’s students were drawn to after his
death, Primo not only rejected this idea, however, but also chose to serve
as a rabbi. Primo’s Sabbatianism was deeply connected to his personal
biography and his closeness to the two central Sabbatian figures. We may
conclude that once Nathan passed away, Primo no longer saw any value
in engaging in overt Sabbatian propaganda in his surroundings. The fact
that he resumed service as an esteemed rabbi and had the authority to
attack Cardoso proves that to the eyes of the Jewish society of the time, his
Sabbatian past was no obstacle. After Nathan’s passing, Primo continued to
secretly disseminate his teachings, and allowed some of his pupils, such as
H˛ayyim Malax and H˛ayyim Alfandari,27 to do so openly. Primo’s biography

Scholem, “H˛adašot Lidicat Cardoso”, pp. 323-350; Gershom Scholem, “Lidicat

Hašabbeta’ut Mitox Kitve Cardoso” [in Hebrew], in idem, Studies and Texts, pp. 274-297.
24 Gershom Scholem, “H˛adašot Lidicat Cardoso”, p. 330.
25 Avraham Elqayam, “The Mystery of Faith”, pp. 62-70.
26 Regarding the Dönme and their ideas and connections to Sabbatian people and ideas,
including some aspects of Cardoso’s theology, see in Cengiz Sisman, The Burden of
Silence: Sabbatai Sevi and the Evolution of the Ottoman-Turkish Dönmes, New York,
NY: Oxford University Press 2015, pp. 120-131.
27 The connection between Primo and Alfandari was described in Cardoso’s writing:
Gershom Scholem, “H˛adašot Lidicat Cardoso”, p. 345; Isaac R. Molho and Abraham
Amarilio, “Autobiographical Letters of Abraham Cardozo”, pp. 201. It seems that
 Dor Saar-Man | 187

and his attraction to Sabbatianism through his personal connections with

Shabbetai S˝evi and Nathan explains the profound difference between
his actions and those of Cardoso, who had very different reasons for
participating in Sabbatian ideology. This approach also encourages us
to pay more attention to Nathan’s special role in the inner circles of his
group. Nathan could function as a prophet, mentor, friend, and leader.
His death shocked his followers and friends, and for Primo the conclusion
was that the days of open Sabbatian propaganda had come to an end. I
would like to suggest that the path of crypto-Sabbatianism did not reflect
a radical development in his thought, but was rather the only path he felt
he could choose following the death of his two friends—the messiah and
his prophet.

Cardoso and Nathan

While Primo’s personal biography and theological ideas were rather similar
to those of Nathan, Cardoso’s background is very different. Nonetheless,
the figure of Nathan and his theology help shed light on Cardoso’s social
circles and theology. It should be noted that the theological showdown
between Cardoso and Nathan has been presented very well by the scholar
Nissim Yosha, who examined the ways both men taught the issues of
world creation and the concept of time.28 However, Cardoso’s opposition
to Nathan was very complex and cautious, and can provide us with
important insights regarding the first Sabbatians. Unlike Primo, whose
affiliation with Sabbatianism was based on his personal acquaintance
with Nathan and Shabbetai S˝evi, Cardoso had never met either of them

Alfandari was a pupil of Cardoso, and after 1682 became a pupil of Primo. Cardoso
explained that this happened because evil spirits (qelippot) influenced Alfandari.
28 Nissim Yosha, “Time and Space—A Theological-Philosophical Controversy between
Miguel Cardoso and Nathan of Gaza” [in Hebrew], Jerusalem Studies in Jewish
Thought 12 (1996), pp. 259-284. See also in Avraham Elqayam, “The Mystery of
Faith”, pp. 24-27, 61-62, 75-76, 130-131, 155-158.
188 | The Attitudes of Samuel Primo and Abraham Cardoso towards Nathan of Gaza

in person (although both appeared to him in visions after their death).29

This posed a significant difficulty for Cardoso, who struggled to secure
legitimacy for his ideas and was constantly at a disadvantage— compared
to Primo, but also to other Sabbatians. The conflicts between Cardoso and
various Sabbatian groups will form the focus of the second part of this
article, and the relationship between Cardoso and Nathan enables us to
analyse these conflicts more accurately.
Like Nathan, Cardoso saw himself as a prophet of the Sabbatian idea.
Unlike Nathan, however, he also saw himself as the figure of the Messiah,
son of Joseph (or son of Ephraim), who along with the Messiah, son of
David (i.e. Shabbetai S˝evi) would reveal the true secret of the Godhood
and bring about redemption.30 Like Nathan, Cardoso’s teachings devote
considerable attention to the figure of the messiah, his various acts, and his
role in delivering salvation.31 But unlike Nathan, Cardoso used Sabbatianism
not to meditate on Shabbetai’s figure and actions, but rather to develop
an independent teaching regarding the true image of God through the
revelation of the messiah, and also to amplify with clear hints his own figure
as a messiah who served as a mirror image to Shabbetai S˝evi: one born as a
Christian and turned Jew, the other born as a Jew and turned Muslim.32 It is

29 Isaac R. Molho and Abraham Amarilio, “Autobiographical Letters of Abraham

Cardozo”, pp. 209, 229. Halperin claimed that this vision, in which Cardoso saw not
only Shabbetai S˝evi and Nathan but also a woman, reflects his Christian background,
and suggests that the woman was Mary the mother of Jesus. See David J. Halperin,
“Abraham Cardozo and the Woman on The Moon”, Kabbalah 8 (2003), pp. 51-64.
30 Gershom Scholem, “Abraham Miguel Cardoso: Deruš Qodeš Yisrael LeHašem”, in
idem, Researches in Sabbateanism, pp. 423-433.
31 Isaac R. Molho and Abraham Amarilio, “Autobiographical Letters of Abraham
Cardozo”, pp. 201; Jacob Sasportas, S˝is¸at Novel S˝evi, pp. 359-360.
32 See note 22 above. See also in Gershom Scholem, “Lidicat Hašabbeta’ut”, pp. 293-
295 where Cardoso wrote:
‫ומשיח בן דוד דקדושה לא יולד בתוך הערלים עובדי עבודה זרה כמשיח בן אפרים אלא בתוך‬
‫ לסיבה השניה מלובשת‬,‫ישמעאל והוא יתחיל בדסוד להודיע לתלמידיו למי אנחנו עובדים‬
‫ לא אל הסיבה הראשונה כאמונת הישמעאלי כי לא שייך עבודה השתחויה ברכה ושבח‬,‫בתפארת‬
‫ והוא עתיד למות ולא יהרג ומשיח בן אפרים יפיל ארצה אמונת השילוש והאלהות‬,‫בסיבה ראשונה‬
 Dor Saar-Man | 189

no surprise to learn that Cardoso claimed that the revelations by the Messiah,
Son of David would be confused, and that the Messiah, Son of Joseph would
be the one to organize them.33 Nathan’s teachings regarding the Messiah deal
with a real difficulty: Shabbetai S˝evi’s various actions and changing claims
that contradicted Nathan’s own formative conceptions.34 Cardoso did not
face this difficulty, however, for in his Sabbatian world Shabbetai S˝evi played
only a supporting role. One of the Cardoso’s most remarkable declarations
is that at some point in his life, apparently in the 1696, he stopped believing
that Shabbetai S˝evi was the Messiah; only the revelation of the book Raza
Demehemanuta written by Shabbetai S˝evi restored his faith.35 This book was
in fact a pseudepigraphical work by Cardoso himself, as Liebes has shown,36
written as part of Cardoso’s attempt to spread his views while struggling for
his position within Sabbatianism. Given this, Cardoso’s comment about
losing his faith in Shabbetai S˝evi is deeply important; Cardoso did not
relinquish other aspects of Sabbateanism, such as the understanding of the
secret of the Godhood or the true essence of the soul of the messiah. If
Primo, and in some respects Nathan, adhered to a “Sabbatian” Sabbatianism,
Cardoso held the opposite view: Shabbetai played only a minor role in his
thought, and Cardoso was perhaps the most “non-Sabbatian” member of
the Sabbatian circles.

‫של יש”ו לא [בסתר] כי אם בפרסום ויהיה מודיע בפרסום בטעמים חוזרים ובטענות אמיתיות מי‬
‫ ולמד‬,‫ כי בהיות שהוא עתיד להולד בתוך הערלים יעבוד עבודה זרה באונס‬.‫הוא אלהי ישראל‬
‫ ולמען זה לא יסתר ממנו דבר מכל שבושי‬,‫חכמה וגם החכמה האלוהית שלהם הנקראת תיאולוגיאה‬
.‫אמונתם של הערלים‬
Here Cardoso mentions Shabbetai S˝evi as the Messiah son of David who will pray
to the right part of the Godhood, although he will be considered a Muslim. The
Messiah son of Ephraim, on the other hand, will expose the lies of Christianity, and
he will be able to do so because he was born by force as a Christian.
33 Gershom Scholem, “Abraham Miguel Cardoso: Deruš Qodeš Yisrael Lehašem”, pp.
432-433.
34 Avraham Elqayam, “The Mystery of Faith”, p. 76
35 R. Molho and Abraham Amarilio, “Autobiographical letters of Abraham Cardozo”,
p. 200.
36 Yehuda Liebes, “Michael Cardoso…”, pp. 35-48.
190 | The Attitudes of Samuel Primo and Abraham Cardoso towards Nathan of Gaza

This unique stand can be understood in the context of the difficulty

Cardoso faced, as explained above: his lack of personal acquaintance with
the movement’s prophet and messiah, especially compared to his main rival
Primo. Cardoso harshly attacked Primo and all those who followed him,
cursing them and even claiming that their actions were influenced by the
Qelippot—the evil force in the world.37 However, Cardoso never attacked
Nathan directly, never cursed him, and never viewed him as an enemy.
This was not because Cardoso was unaware of the ties between Primo
and Nathan, nor because Cardoso respected all of Nathan’s opinions. As
mentioned above, Cardoso disagreed with Nathan on many matters and
did not hesitate to write against him, albeit in cautious terms. In general,
Cardoso appears to have been the most argumentative Sabbatian of the
seventeenth century, engaging in disputes with rabbis who opposed
Sabbatianism, with all or most of the broader Jewish community, and
most fiercely of all—with other Sabbatians.38
What, then, was the attitude of this stubborn Sabbatian towards Nathan?
It was a mixture of appreciation and rejection: In a missive he wrote to the
elders of Izmir in 1669, in which he seeks to defend the Sabbatian idea,
he argues that it is not necessary for the messiah to be discovered by a
“Beheld Prophet”, that is to say, one whose prophecy has been proven
true in the past. All that is needed, he argues, is a true prophet, which is
Nathan’s status. Cardoso admits that in the past he thought Nathan was a
true prophet, until it was revealed that he never made a true prophecy. But
it is the “problematic” status of Nathan that makes Shabbetai S˝evi a true
Messiah; Cardoso based his argument on Isaiah 53: “Who has believed
our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” For
Cardoso, this provides proof that people will not acknowledge the true
Messiah, and because of this, the prophet of the messiah cannot be a true

37 See note 21 above. See also Isaac R. Molho and Abraham Amarilio, “Autobiographical
Letters of Abraham Cardozo”, pp. 203, 205, 208.
38 See idem, pp. 235-274. Cardoso’s autobiographical letters are filled with descriptions
of his arguments with such figures as Primo, H˛ayyim Malax, Yehuda HaH˛asid,
Joseph Kirilyo, H˛ayyim Alfandari, and Jacob Kerido, all of whom were Sabbatians.
 ‫‪Dor Saar-Man | 191‬‬

‫‪one, as this requires that the people believe his prophecy.39 By this position‬‬
‫‪Cardoso manages on one hand to uphold Nathan as one prophesizing‬‬
‫‪the truth – but still greatly limits his role. For Cardoso, it is mainly the‬‬
‫‪actions of the Messiah and his poor situation after the conversion that‬‬
‫‪proves he is a true Messiah. The role of the prophet is smaller, and it is‬‬
‫‪even not important of he has done mistakes in the past, or even if he died‬‬
‫‪because of his sins.40 In the Letter to the Elders, Cardoso admitted he‬‬
‫‪once believed Nathan was a true prophet, and indeed in a letter he wrote‬‬
‫‪to his brother Isaac, Cardoso defended Nathan and his prophecy.41 In his‬‬
‫‪autobiographical missives written towards the end of his life, Cardoso‬‬
‫‪attacks Primo vehemently, but Nathan is granted a softer wording which‬‬

‫‪39 Gershom Scholem, “Iggeret Avraham Mixael Cardoso Ledayyane Izmir” [in Hebrew],‬‬
‫‪in idem, Studies and Texts, pp. 300, 311-313, 317-318, 327, 330. Cardoso wrote:‬‬
‫ועוד למה צועק מי האמין לשמועתינו וזרוע ה' על מי נגלתה כי כאשר יבא נביא מוחזק לגלות‬
‫המשיח הרבה יוכלו לומר אני האמנתי‪ ,‬וגם שזרוע ה' שהוא המשיח הוא נבואה עליונה על פי נגלה‪,‬‬
‫אלא שידע ישעיה שמעולם לא יתגלה המשיח על ידי נביא מוחזק‪ .‬על כן האריך בפרטים רבים כדי‬
‫שנוכל להכיר מי הוא המשיח בשבילם‪ ...‬כי כל הרחוקים סברנו כי הרב נתן היה נביא במלאכות ה'‬
‫באותות ובמופתים כפי התורה‪ .‬וכאשר ראו שאין הדבר כן אלא שלעצמו ראה ולעצמו שמע‪ :‬כה‬
‫אמר ה' הנה מושיעכם בא שבתי צבי שמו‪ ,‬גזרו שכפי התורה אין בדבריו ממשות‪ .‬כי נביא לישראל‬
‫לא יקרא אלא מי ששלחו ה' באמת והביא בידו חותמו שהם האותות והמופתים המוכרחות לתת‬
‫הרבה פעמים‪ .‬כל איש ראוי לנבואה שירצה להתחזק בישראל לנביא‪ .‬גם מעלת כבוד תורתם וחכמי‬
‫אנדרנופלה על הדרך הזה מעידים‪ .‬שבדקו קנקנו ולא מצאו בו ממשות‪ .‬שהנביא חייב לתת אות‪,‬‬
‫ואות אין לו‪ .‬ובזה אני מאמין אמונה שלמה כי הוא אינו נביא שליח‪.‬‬
‫‪40 Ibid, p. 330. Cardoso wrote:‬‬
‫‪ ...‬ועל מה שכתבו שנתן בינימין או נשבה או מת‪ .‬אין מיתתו וחייו מעלים או מורידים בענין אמיתות‬
‫המשיח‪ .‬וגם אם יאמרו שבשביל חטאתו הומת‪ .‬אין מכאן ראיה להכריח ששקר דבר במה שכתב‬
‫והכריז שראה במראה ושמע ששבתי צבי הוא המשיח‪ .‬כי גם שאול בחיר ה' היה משיח וצדיק אשר‬
‫אין כמוהו בישראל ואחר כך חטא ומאס אותו האל יתברך ומאס אותו והרגו‪ ...‬ואם נתן בנימין אירע‬
‫לו כן‪ ,‬בשביל ששגג במה שגילה המשיח בלי רשות ובלי שליחות ונשבה או מת‪ .‬לא בשביל זה אם‬
‫ראה בחזיון נתבטל אמיתותו ולא בשביל שמת נוכל להביא ראייה ששקר דבר ונשאר הדבר בספק‪.‬‬
‫והספר עצמו מופת על זה שזה הוא המשיח כי לא באות ולא בראייה גמורה יתגלה אלא בספק כמו‬
‫שהוראיתי מדברי ישעיה ומדברי רבנו ז"ל‪.‬‬
‫‪ Here, by compering Nathan to King Saul, Cardoso implied that while Nathan might‬‬
‫‪have the potential to do bad acts, this would not negate his prophecy.‬‬
‫‪41 Jacob Sasportas, Sefer S˝is¸at Novel S˝evi, p. 296.‬‬
192 | The Attitudes of Samuel Primo and Abraham Cardoso towards Nathan of Gaza

claims that Nathan failed to comprehend the secret of the Godhood as

well as Cardoso himself.42
Cardoso’s writing about the secret of godhood is important not only
for understanding his biography, but also helps to clarify his perspective
concerning Nathan and Primo. For Cardoso, the key to comprehending
the secrets of the Godhood and the messiah did not lie in receiving this
knowledge from Shabbetai S˝evi, as Nathan and Primo had done. Cardoso
formulated an alternative structure that could free him of the requirement
to know the messiah (or his prophet), claiming that to understand the
secrets man must rely on the “traditional” scriptures: The Mišna, Gemara,
and Zohar, and also be well-versed in various wisdoms.43 This was not due
to his “moderation”, as suggested in Gershom Scholem’s research,44 nor

42 Isaac R. Molho and Abraham Amarilio, “Autobiographical Letters of Abraham

Cardozo”, p. 212
43 Gershom Scholem, “H˛adašot Lidicat Cardoso”, p. 384:
‫ופשטה הנגע הזה ברוב המקומות ומחזיקים באמונה הרעה הזאת כי הח' שמואל פרימו מגיד ומעיד‬
...‫ שכן אמר לו בסוד וחבר חיים אנג'ל הביא לחכמי אשכנז העבודה הזרה הזאת‬,]‫מרבו [שבתי צבי‬
‫ובסוף הגלות שהיה עליהם לטרוח ולהשכיל ולדעת להקב”ה ושמו ושכינה עוזו ולקיים מצוותיו‬
‫ הם הוציאו וקבלו אמונה מעוברת מעובדי עבודה זרה והקשו‬.‫ומשפטיו וחוקותיו להיות נגאלים‬
‫ערפן ומאנו לדעת את ה' ולא לעזוב האמונות כוזבות שבתוכם והגיע הרעה הגדולה בשביליהם כי‬
‫אם אנחנו מביאים ראיות להרחיקם מעובדי עבודה זרה שלהם מן הזוהר ומן הגמרא ומן המדרשים‬
‫הם אומרים שהתנאים והאמוראים לא ידעו בדיוק סוד האלהות כי כבר נתקיימה בהם ואבדה חכמת‬
‫חכמיו ובינת נבוניו תסתתר חכמיו הם התנאים ונבוניו האמוראים ומוכרחים אנחנו להפיל אמונתם‬
.‫ארצה להביא ראיות מאנשי כנסת הגדולה‬
According to Cardoso, the knowledge about the secret of the Godhood that Primo
claimed to have received for Shabbetai S˝evi and delivered to Malax was actually
idolatry. Primo and Malax are described as sinners who adhered to a teaching that
was against the Zohar, Mišna, and Gemara. According to Cardoso, both Primo and
Malax denied the secret of the Godhood as described by the Tannaim and Amoraim.
In Deruš Hakinnuyim, Cardoso gave a similar example for the heresy of Primo and
Malax, who denied the writing of Rabbi Simeon bar Yoh˝ai and Rabbi Isaac Luria. See
in Gershom Scholem, “Lidicat Hašabbeta’ut”, p. 245.
44 Gershom Scholem, “H˛adašot Lidicat Cardoso”, p. 330. In Scholem’s opinion, Cardoso
is considered to be a moderate Sabbatian, due to his opposition to conversion, his
instance that the Commandments must still be observed, and his reliance on the
traditional Jewish texts.
 Dor Saar-Man | 193

solely because of his scholastic aspirations, as Yosha mentioned.45 Unlike

Primo, Cardoso was never publicly acknowledged by either Sabbatians or
the general Jewish public. He was forced to wander from place to place,
and according to his own testimony and those of people around him, he
was indicate a hot-tempered individual, with an independent messianic
ambition and ideas perceived as dangerous by society.46 Cardoso’s loyalty
to Jewish textual sources was due to his remote social position from Nathan
and the other focal points of Sabbatianism. He could not base his doctrine
on the claim that he got his ideas from Shabbetai S˝evi, as Nathan and
Primo did,47 and he did not want to rely solely on revelations of Maggidim,
since other people also had those revelations,48 while it was his personal

45 Nissim Yosha, “Hayesodot Hafilosofim Betorat Ha’Elohut šel Avraham Mixael Cardoso”,
MA disertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem 1985, pp. 15, 90.
46 Eliyahu Hacohen, “Sefer Merivat Qadeš”, pp. 10, 22, 26-27; Isaac R. Molho and
Abraham Amarilio, “Autobiographical letters of Abraham Cardozo”, pp. 200-205,
205, 228. A comparison of these two sources naturally reflects the differing agendas
of Cardoso and Hacohen. Cardoso stated that he was expelled from place to place as
a part of a great fight between him and Primo. He writes that people were afraid of
him, and he cursed cities and communities. According to Hacohen, Cardoso was not
a frightening threat, but a foolish old heretic. Cardoso was described as “not Jewish,
not Christian, not a Ger”, implying that his opinions isolated him from any religious
group. Although those are two different viewpoints, they reflect the same situation:
Cardoso as a man standing alone against the Jewish public.
47 Cardoso did try to connect himself to Shabbetai S˝evi, claiming that Shabbetai had
sought to meet with him just before his (Shabbetai’s) death . See in Isaac R. Molho
and Abraham Amarilio, “Autobiographical letters of Abraham Cardozo”, p. 217.
Cardoso also wrote “Raza Demehemanuta”, a pseudepigraphical book related to
Shabbetai S˝evi. See in Yehuda Liebes, “Michael Cardoso”, pp. 35-48.
48 Cardoso had revelations of Maggidim several times, and he also chose Maggidim
for his followers. After his death, Nathan also become a Maggid of Cardoso. See
in: Isaac R. Molho and Abraham Amarilio, “Autobiographical letters of Abraham
Cardozo”, pp. 207, 213, 216-217; Gershom Scholem, “Lidicat Hašabbeta’ut”, p.
285. Eliyahu Hacohen, “Sefer Merivat Qadeš”, p. 15. But Cardoso emphasizes that
a man should not rely only on Maggidim, since some of them are actually Qelippot
who can disguise themselves. See in Gershom Scholem, “H˛adašot Lidicat Cardoso”,
pp. 345-346. Cardoso even claimed that in his days Maggidim were being revealed
194 | The Attitudes of Samuel Primo and Abraham Cardoso towards Nathan of Gaza

ambition to lead the Sabbatians. To this end he chose to emphasize his

own knowledge. But if Cardoso wanted to be the leader of the movement,
why did he choose not to attack Nathan as harshly as he attacked Primo?
One reason for this is that while Nathan was alive, Cardoso’s conflict
with other Sabbatian figures, including Primo, barely existed. In the
1670s Cardoso had admittedly written a few derušim, but the writings in
which the conflict with Primo appears are from at least a decade later.49
While Nathan was alive, Cardoso allowed himself to disagree with him
and to partially minimize his importance, but not to degrade him. This
leads to the conclusion that while it is difficult to speak of a Sabbatian
movement during the seventeenth century and more appropriate to speak
of Sabbatian ideas,50 there was nonetheless consensus regarding Nathan’s
unique position, and that anyone who believed Shabbetai S˝evi to be
the messiah could not fully deny the prophet who had announced that
saviour. For Cardoso, Nathan was not just another ordinary believer with
whom he could fight. Although Cardoso was the most strident opposing
voice to the ideas emanating from Nathan’s circle, he tried not to protest
against Nathan’s position, and certainly refrained from claiming that he
was influenced by the Qelippot, as he said of Primo and his followers.51 It

to everyone, so that it was not a unique phenomenon: Isaac R. Molho and Abraham
Amarilio, “Autobiographical letters of Abraham Cardozo”, p. 207.
49 The main derušim and letters which Cardoso wrote against Primo were from his later
years, including “Ani Hamexune”, “Deruš Hakinnuyim”, and his autobiographical
letters.
50 As Barnai mentioned, in the case of Sabbatianism it would be more accurate to classify
the Sabbatians as one group of strong believers in Shabbetai S˝evi, and another group
of people who were interested in the different ideas and options of Sabbatianism, but
wondered why the messiah converted to Islam. See in Jacob Barnai, Sabbateanism –
Social Perspectives, p. 99. In addition to Barnai, it should be mentioned that even
inside the group of the strong believers, there were many disputes, as evidenced by
the dispute between Cardoso and Primo.
51 Cardoso never claimed that there was a connection between Nathan and the
Qelippot. He did allege that many of Primo’s followers were under the influence of
the Qelippot, but he did not usually make this claim concerning Primo himself. In
one instance he mentioned that Primo thought he heard the secret of Godhood from
 Dor Saar-Man | 195

should be emphasised that outside Sabbatian circles, Cardoso was regarded

as an important Sabbatian leader who could not be ignored. Sasportas wrote
that in 1670 Cardoso was even more important than Nathan himself.52
As mentioned above, most of Cardoso’s fights against Primo’s circle
and those close to it that were connected to Nathan, took place following
Nathan’s death but without any attempt from Cardoso to damage Nathan’s
image. It seems that Nathan presented a significant obstacle to Cardoso in
spreading his teachings. Shortly after Nathan’s passing, Cardoso embarked
on a remarkable propaganda campaign in Turkey and the Balkans and
began attacking the positions held by Primo and his followers. He also
began corresponding with various figures, whether outright Sabbatians
or those interested in Sabbatianism, attempting to clarify his positions
regarding the Godhood and the messiah.53 However, even after Nathan’s
passing, Cardoso did not use the opportunity to defame him, but on the
contrary. Although he continued to criticise Nathan in his writings, Nathan
had now become, alongside Shabbetai S˝evi, a figure who might appear

Shabbetai S˝evi, but this was actually Samael who had disguised himself as Shabbetai.
One reason why Cardoso usually associates the Qelippot with Primo’s followers, and
not Primo himself, may be that as a rabbi after 1680, Primo never engaged in overt
propaganda, unlike his followers such as Malax and Alfandari, whose public actions
Cardoso explained as the intervention of the Qelippot. See in Isaac R. Molho and
Abraham Amarilio, “Autobiographical Letters of Abraham Cardozo”, p. 195.
52 Jacob Sasportas, Sefer S˝is¸at Novel S˝evi, p. 359.
53 Most of this events after 1680 were recorded in Cardoso’s autobiographical letters,
published by Isaac R. Molho and Abraham Amarilio. It should be noted that some
of the conflicts in which Cardoso was involved occurred before Nathan’s death.
The main conflict was between Cardoso and Moses Pinyero, who was one of the
earliest followers of Shabbetai S˝evi and studied Zohar and Talmud with him. It is
very possible that Pinyero and Primo knew each other, since Pinyero was associated
with Primo’s teacher Rabbi Judah Šaraf. In 1675 Cardoso tried to settle in Livorno,
but Pinyero and Sharaf expelled him. For this event, see Meir Benayahu, “The
Shabbatean Movement in Greece”, pp. 483-434; Gershom Scholem, Sabbatai S˝evi,
p. 88; Abraham Cardoso, “Deruš Haketav” [in Hebrew], N. Brill (ed.), Bet Hamidraš:
Ma’amarim Šonim Becinyane Tora Weh˝oxma Wesippur Bizman Hacavar Wehahove,
Vienna 1865, pp. 63-71.
196 | The Attitudes of Samuel Primo and Abraham Cardoso towards Nathan of Gaza

to Cardoso, reveal secrets to him, and support his positions. An example

various figures were revealed to him on the moon, including Rabbi Isaac
Lurie, Shabbetai S˝evi, and Nathan.54 Although it later emerged that these
figures were Qelippot posing as positive figures, the important thing here
is that following his death, Nathan’s figure served as a positive symbol for
Cardoso of a man he could trust and who could reveal true secrets. Cardoso
even emphasised that the Qelippa disguised itself as Nathan because it
knew that Nathan loved Cardoso. This was not necessarily merely a ploy by
Cardoso to accumulate power among Sabbatians following Nathan’s death:
it would seem that Cardoso was unable to ignore Nathan and his ideas,
even if he often disagreed with them. In fact, precisely because he never
knew the real character of Nathan, Cardoso was one of the first people in
the Sabbatianism who created Nathan as a mythical figure. So it happened
that the man who helped to shape the mythical figure of the prophet was
not a close friend who was influenced by his ideas, such as Primo. Instead it
was an independent prophet who had never met Nathan, and who regarded
himself as a more important messiah than Shabbetai S˝evi.

Conclusion
In conclusion, it is important to recognise that in order to understand the
figure of Nathan, we cannot ignore the figures of his supporter and his rival.

54 Isaac R. Molho and Abraham Amarilio, “Autobiographical letters of Abraham

Cardozo”, pp. 209, 229:
‫ירדתי מן העלייה אל הגן שהיה לי שעה אחת קודם הלילה ואשא עיני ואראה הלבנה ואומר לאנשי‬
‫ הרב‬,‫ משיח בן דוד‬:‫הבית אני רואה בלבנה כדמיון צורות והם הסתכלו ויאמרו ארבעה צורות הם‬
‫ וכשהיה כחצי שעה מהלילה התחילו לדבר עמנו בקול‬...‫ והרב אר"י והד' נראה כצורת נקבה‬,‫נתן‬
‫ ולמורת באו אצלי‬...‫ והיינו שומעים דבריהם כאילו היו מדברים עמנו בגן‬,‫רם כבני אדם מן הלבנה‬
‫ כי חשבתי שהם ממש המשיח והרב‬,‫אל העלייה והיו מדברים עמדי כמנהגם ולא הייתי מכיר בהם‬
,‫ כן באו אלי ג' ימים ואני הייתי תמיד משתומם ומהרהר על אשר נגלו בגוף הלבנה‬,‫אר"י והרב נתן‬
‫ והרב אר"י‬.‫ סוף דבר אותו היום הודו שאינם המשיח‬...‫ועושים הפלא הזה לדבר עמנו מן השמים‬
‫והרב נתן אומנם בהיותם אוהבים אוי באו בצורתם כדי להצילני מכל אמונה שאינה אמיתית כי‬
...‫בוודאי אשמע בקולם‬
 Dor Saar-Man | 197

One writes to Nathan and the other writes of him. Both Primo and Cardoso
serve as reflections of the actions and ideas in which Nathan took part.
When we analyse this trio of people, we see that the one who appears to be
closest was actually more independent, while the ostensibly independent
figure was more dependent than it at first appears. Primo was indeed a
close friend of Nathan and took part in his school, but he also held an
independent position and even transmitted his own ideas to his supporters.
Cardoso appeared to be one of the greatest opponents of Nathan and his
company, but he desperately needed Nathan’s approval in his struggles; if
he could not use the real Nathan, he created a mythical one.
The story of the relationship between these three men highlights the
unique character of the Sabbatian affair, which was not truly Sabbatian
in a singular sense. The announcement of Shabbetai S˝evi as the messiah
opened countless interpretations and variations, some mutual exclusive
and others close but not identical. Thoughts about the true essence of the
messiah and whether his nature was divine or human; the revelations of
Maggidim and Qelippot; the role of Shabbetai S˝evi in the messianic area;
the place of the Messiah son of Joseph; the question of conversion; the
response to the death of the messiah and his prophet—all those questions
and issues were critical for disparate groups that acknowledged the status
of Shabbetai S˝evi and Nathan, but were divided on every other subject.
In order understand them, we must begin not only from the Sabbatian
theologies, but also from the relationships between the aforementioned
key figures.