If you are Jewish or familiar with Judaism, can you explain "kavanah" to me?

Question

Your interpretation is fine with or without references. I already have a book called "To Pray As A Jew" by Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin.

Answer 1

The concept of kavvanah (literally "direction") generally deals with one's state of mind, including one's intention to perform a mitzvah (commandment) or one's intention (or lack of it) in causing damage or injury. In liturgical terms, kavvanah refers to concentration on the meaning of the words recited, the act performed, or the theological goal (such as the acceptance of the sovereignty of God). Jacobs' description focuses on these aspects, as well as the efforts by some Jews to create additional "preparatory" liturgies in order to achieve a state of intention for the primary liturgical texts and acts. Although Jacobs does identify the role of kavvanah in demonstrating that an "act is not… mechanical," he does not identify the primary conflict between kavvanah and the fact that Jewish liturgy is largely defined by fixed texts (keva). Thinkers like Rabbi Judah Loew of Prague (the "Maharal"), have expressed this conflict more explicitly. The Maharal recognizes the subtle role that the fixed text of the siddur (Jewish prayer book) plays in potentially preventing a state of real sincerity while allowing for a basic level of focus during prayer. Reprinted with permission from Louis Jacobs' The Jewish Religion: A Companion, published by Oxford Univ. Press.



The Rabbinic concept of kavvanah refers to one's intention, concentration, directing the mind to the meaning of words uttered or acts performed. The question of kavvanah is also discussed with regard to prayer and with regard to the performance of mitzvoth. In connection with the mitzvot, the Talmud, in a number of places, records a debate among the teachers about whether kavvanah is essential. All agree that the ideal is to have the intention of carrying out a mitzvah when one is about to carry it out to demonstrate that the act is not a mechanical one but is carried out in order to do God's will. The debate is with regard to the de facto situation where the mitzvah has been carried out unwittingly.


TOOLS
Font Type:
VerdanaArialCourierLucida GrandeTimes

Font Size: 9101112131415161718192021222324


Print this article
Email this article
Save article to MyLearning
Find similar articles






RELATED RESOURCES
TOPICS
Rabbi Judah Loew asks: Can one be sincere if one uses a prayer book?

DISCUSSIONS
Texts

NEWSLETTERS
Sign up for a newsletter

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Recommended books
about liturgy





An example, referred to in the Mishnah (the first work of Jewish law and legal theory) tractate Rosh Hashanah 3, is where a man passing by outside the synagogue on Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish new year) at a time when the shofar (the ram's horn) was being sounded, heard the shofar sounds but did not listen to them with the intention of carrying out the mitzvah. Is he obliged to hear the shofar sounds again with full intention to carry out the mitzvah or does it suffice that he has heard the shofar sounds after all, albeit without intention? In other words, is a mitzvah carried out without the intention to carry it out, no mitzvah at all or, de facto at least, is the act counted as a mitzvah since it is the act in itself which ultimately counts? The Codes (written by medieval authorities) are divided on the question and the usual advice given is that the mitzvah should be carried out again but without the prior berakhah (blessing), "Who has commanded us to . . . ." It would seem, indeed, that the main purpose of the blessings recited before the performance of the mitzvot is to direct the mind to the act by stating beforehand that it is done in obedience to the divine command.



Kavvanah in prayer involves chiefly proper concentration on the meaning of the words uttered. A saying of Bahya Ibn Pakudah (an 11th century moral philosopher) has often been quoted, "Prayer without kavvanah is like a body without a soul." But here too, the ideal is one thing, its realization in practice quite another. The medieval thinkers were fully aware of how difficult it is, especially since the prayers are in Hebrew, to concentrate ad­equately all or even most of the time. Although, strictly speaking, where kavvanah was absent, the prayers have to be recited again with kavvanah, this stringency was relaxed so as to apply only to the first verse of the Shema (the primary biblical reading of a Jewish service) and the first paragraph of the Amidah (the primary prayer of a Jewish service ). A passage from the Zohar (i. 243b-244a) states that when a man is in trouble and unable to concentrate on his prayer, he should not refrain from prayer on that account. Even Maimonides, who is very insistent on the need for kavvanah in prayer, can still acknowledge the need for long and arduous training. Maimonides writes {Guide of the Perplexed (3.51):



The first thing you must do is this: Turn your thoughts away from everything while you read the Shema or during the Prayer [the Amidah], and do not content yourself with being devout when you read the first verse of the Shema or the first paragraph of the Prayer. When you have successfully practiced this for many years, try in reading the Torah or listen­ing to it, to have all your heart and all your thought occupied with understanding what you read or hear. After some time when you have mastered this, accustom yourself to have your mind free from all other thoughts when you read any portion of the other books of the prophets, or when you say any blessing, and to have your attention directed exclusively to the perception and the understanding of what you utter."



Later religious teachers continued to grapple with the problem of kavvanah in prayer. Hasidism in particular is much concerned with the techniques of kavvanah in prayer and with how to cope with distracting thoughts. A main reason that early Reform Judaism pre­ferred that many of the prayers should be recited in the vernacular, rather than in the traditional Hebrew, was because of the convic­tion that proper concentration is only possible when prayers are recited in a language with which one is familiar from birth.



Among the Kabbalists (Jewish mystics), especially in the Lurianic system, the whole ideal of kavvanah in prayer is given a new turn. The Lurianic Kabbalists use the plural kavvanot, by which they mean not concentration on the plain meaning of the words, but on the map of the Sefirot (the Kabbalistic concept of the various manifestations of God) and the numerous combinations of these. Every word of the prayers hints at one or another of the details in the unfolding of the worlds on high, and the mystic adept is expected to have these kavvanot in mind as each stage of the prayers leads him from higher to ever higher world.



A somewhat different type of mystical "intentions" is found in the very popular manual of devotion called Yesod Ve-Shoresh Ha-Avodah (The Foun­dation and Root of Divine Worship) by Alexan­der Süsskind of Grodno (d. 1793). Alexander's "intentions" are directed to the deeper meaning of the prayers in which the liturgy is used, in Alexander's words, "to enflame the heart in the service of God." For instance, in his comment on the quotation in the Prayer Book of Psalm 30:3, Alexander gives this intention:



For example, when a man has suffered some pain or has been sick. God save us, or when, God forbid, such has happened to a member of his family and, with God's help he has been healed, then when he recites the verse: "I cried unto Thee, and Thou didst heal me," he should give thanks and offer praise, with full concentration, to the Creator, blessed be He, who has sent him or his family healing from that pain or illness. God save us.

Answer 2

It's a special ritual where rich 31337 Jews go on savanah and hunt tigers with poison-tipped Jew knives.

Answer 3

Jesuit Edmund Fortman says: "there is not any information that any sacred author even suspected the life of a Trinity in the Godhead . New testomony writers provide us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity." Former Anglican Priest, Tom Harpur admits: "you in basic terms can not discover the doctrine of the Trinity set out everywhere in the Bible." for this reason, there is obtrusive disagreement and disunity among Trinitarians themselves. some could push aside Harpur's reasoning indicating that he contradicts classic ideals with regard to the Christ, yet we are to not negate the incontrovertible fact that what he sees into believing in such an imprecise dogma is what it is, a lie. some others will argue in prefer of the dogma on the pretext that "our finite minds at the instant cannot appreciate" this thought. They declare that it is inferred to in the "previous testomony". Such declare is unwarranted. As to Jesuit Edmund Fortman's finished quote: (comments in brackets [ ] are mine). "If we take the hot testomony writers jointly they let us know there is in basic terms one God, the author and lord of the universe, who's the father of Jesus. They call Jesus the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Saviour, observe, awareness. They assign Him the divine purposes of introduction [Jesus isn't a author, in basic terms his father Jehovah], salvation, judgement. from time to time they call Him God explicitly [from time to time? the place?]. they don't talk as totally and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, yet at cases they coordinate Him with the father and the Son and positioned Him on a point with them so a techniques as divinity and character are worried [there is not any point of equality; holy spirit not a man or woman]. They [NT writers] provide us of their writings a triadic floor plan and triadic formulation [the place? Matt. 28:19, 20? this does not point out they're one and the same]. they don't talk in precis words of nature, substance, man or woman, relation, circumincession, challenge yet they latest of their very own way the techniques that are at the back of those words [How so?]. they provide us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity [astounding], no specific coaching that throughout one God there are 3 co-equivalent persons [astounding]. yet they do provide us an elemental [Elemental?] Trinitarianism, the information from which certainly one of those perfect doctrine of the Triune God could be formulated [How can "certainly one of those perfect doctrine [...] could be formulated" no remember if it is already formal? does not he contradict himself?] No scriptural foundation for this Trinitarianism dogma.

Answer 4

"Kavanah" means "intent". As far as prayer is concerned, at the very least it means "know what you are saying and being aware of it at the time when you are saying it".

Answer 5

It means to concentrate on what the prayers mean; one shouldn't just say things by habit.

i hear its a good book, but i haven't read it.

UPDATE: cookie, as you are not jewish (from what I can tell), why are you interested to know?