avakesh

Chagall's Solittude

Who wrote the NaCh?

"Who wrote (these books)? Moshe wrote his book and the section of Bilaam and Job. Joshua wrote his book and eight (last) verses on the Torah. Samuel wrote his book, Judges and Ruth. David wrote Psalms together with ten elders (Adam, Malchi Tsedek, Abraham, Moshe, Heiman, Yedutun, Asaf, three sons of Korach). Yirmia wrote his book and Kings and Lamentations. Chezekia and his group wrote Isaiah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes.

The Men of the Great Assembly wrote Ezekiel and 12 prophets, Daniel and Esther. Ezra wrote his book and the genealogies of Chronicles” (Bava Bathra 14b-15a).

It is quite apparent from even a superficial reading of this beraita that  “wrote" cannot mean wrote down or authored, at least not in every case. Whereas for the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Kings, Lamentations and Ezra “wrote” can be reasonably taken as authorship for the others this word must mean something other than sole authorship. It is quite apparent to any reader of the books of Ecclesiastes, Proverbs or Song of Songs, Ezekiel, Isaiah or the 12 prophets that they are a record of these prophets’ words as they were delivered or recorded for posterity. How can one possibly maintain that these books were written de-novo by the Men of Great Assembly. Clearly this word refers to some process of arrangement and editing rather than de novo composition. Perhaps, a better way of translating the word “wrote” would be “transcribed", which is exactly how the widely accepted ArtScroll Talmus translates it.

This is an important point for it implies that there was a process of final transcribing or possibly even redaction for many of the books of the NaCh. In fact, that is exactly what we find in much of traditional writing on this topic. There is internal evidence for this position within the book of Psalms and Chronicles[1]. Similarly, Rashi ibid  brings evidence from the book of Proverbs itself (24,1) regarding the role of Chezekia and scholars in the generations subsequent to him.

It is important to realize that this second transcription was under the influence of Ruach Hakodesh, not mere work of men, G-d forbid, and that we are discussing Nach and not Chumash.   Since Ruach hakodesh is involved, the process is not, G-d forbid, arbitrary or capricious but follows revealed standards and sanctified forever.

It follows then that at some point of prior to closing of the canon of the Bible, three kinds of books could have existed: those written and already canonized in their final form, such as Judges and Ruth; those written or orally passed on from generation to generation, such as Isaiah, Daniel, or Esther and those not written under the influence of Ruach Hakodesh or containing a mixture of inspired and non-inspired writing. In the case of the latter, it would fall to the Men of the Great Assembly to transcribe or edit them under the influence of Ruach Hakodesh so that they may also join the canon in their final form. Alternatively, they may choose to completely or partially exclude such writings from the canon. They can also be sifted carefully to be retained as part of Oral Law; in the latter they may be kept as sanctified but without all characteristics of full membership[2].We will return to this point when we discuss Apocrypha and the book of Ben Sira and when we take up the phenomenon of quotations of canonical and non-canonical works in Nach.

---

[1] See extensive discussion of this point and the sources for it in M. Eiseman’s introduction to his commentary to ArtScroll Chronicles.

[2] See Megila 7a and Tos s.v. Ne’emra likrot vlo lhikateiv.

Thirty Mitsvos of B'nei Noach

Noahides are commanded with seven mitsvos. On the level of peshat, there would appear to be two:
* Food: "Also, flesh with the life -the blood- in it do not eat." ( Gen. 9:4)
* Murder: "I will also inquire about your blood, your life, from all animals, and from each human I will inquire about his brother's blood. Who sheds the blood of man, by man his blood will be shed, because in the image of God was man made."

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 56) states that only the instruction to not eat "flesh with the life" was given to Noah, and that Adam and Eve had already received six other commandments. The remaining six are exegetically derived from Genesis 2:16

These seven laws (commonly rendered as Sheva Mitzvot Shel Bnei Noach) are:
# Avodah zarah - Do not worship false gods.
# Shefichat damim - Do not murder.
# Gezel - Do not steal (or kidnap).
# Gilui arayot - Do not be sexually immoral (forbidden sexual acts are traditionally interpreted to include incest, bestiality, male homosexual sex acts, i.e. sodomy, and adultery.)
# Birkat Hashem - Do not "bless God" euphemistically referring to blasphemy.
# Ever min ha-chai - Do not eat any flesh that was torn from the body of a living animal (given to Noah and traditionally interpreted as a prohibition of cruelty towards animals)
# Dinim - Set up a system of honest, effective courts, police and laws.

Maimonides (Melakhim 10:6) lists one additional Noahide commandment forbidding the coupling of different kinds of animals and the mixing of trees. Maimonides commentator Radbaz expressed surprise that he left out castration and sorcery which were listed in the Talmud as views of individual Sages(Sanhedrin 56b).

However, there are more than seven commadments. The number thirty derives from the statement of the Talmudic sage Ulla in tractate Hullin 92a, though he lists only three other rules in addition to the original seven, consisting of the prohibitions against homosexuality and cannibalism, as well as the imperative to honor the Torah. What is stated is "... the mitsvos that they accepted on themselves".

It would seem that just as Gentiles can withdraw from the covenant of the seven commandments (Bava Kamma 38), so they can accept on themselves additonal commandments at will. There may, however, exist an important difference. When they withdraw from a mitsva, its observance becomes fully optional and they derive reward not lke one who is commanded and performs, which is greater, but as one who is not commanded and performs, which is less(ibid)). The new commandments which they voluntarily accept , however, can carry the full power of a mitsva, to the extent of rendering something bone-fide teruma (Pirush Hamihnayos of the Rambam, Terumos 9).

An alternative approach is to look for the thirty as branches of previously established seven. I found this quoted in the name of Gaon Pinchas ben Chofni in a Wikkipedia article. A similar list is found in Asara Ma'amoros of Rama MiPano, Chikkur Din, 3:21.

Prohibition against idolatry

* No idolatry
* To pray only to God
* To offer ritual sacrifices only to God

Prohibition against blasphemy

* To believe in the singularity of God, see, Monotheism
* No blasphemy
* No witchcraft
* No divination
* No conjurers
* No sorcerers
* No mediums
* No demonology
* No wizardry
* No necromancy
* To honor father & mother

Prohibition against murder

* No murder
* No suicide
* No Moloch worship (infant sacrifice)

Prohibition against Theft

* No stealing
* No kidnapping persons

Prohibition against sexual immorality

* No adultery
* Formal legal marriages
* No incest with close relatives
* No sodomy (i.e. male to male ########)
* No bestiality
* Not to crossbreed animals
* No castration

Prohibition against Eating the limb of a living animal

* Not to eat a limb of a living creature (whilst it is still alive)
* Not to eat or drink blood
* Not to eat carrion (for those recognised by a Beth Din)

Establish Courts of Justice

* To establish courts and a system of justice
* No false oaths

The contemporary Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein (not A. Lichtenstein of Gush Etsion) counts 66 instructions. (http://www.amazon.com/seven-laws-Noah-Aaron-Lichtenstein/dp/B00071QH6S)

It seems that these two approaches make two very different assumptions. The former considers the Noahide covenant to be dynamic, dependent on time and place and residing fully in choice. The latter sees it as something once and forever delivered but given to ramifications and branches, through reasoning and interpetation.

The tenth century Rabbi Saadia Gaon added tithes and levirate marriage. The eleventh century Rav Nissim Gaon (Sefer Haman'ol) included "listening to God's Voice", "knowing God" and "serving God" besides going on to say that all religious acts which can be understood through human reasoning are obligatory upon Jew and Gentile alike. Rokeach (366) writes: "Everything that the Non-Jews are commanded about, like robbery, stealing, charity, respecting the elders, making a fence, having correct measurements and weights, we do not make a blessing on when we perform them, for the blessing is, 'which HE commanded us, and not the Gentiles". It is evident that Rokeach holds the second view. Precisely because Noahide laws are rationally estblished, they are not subject to the blessing that the same acts warrant for Jews.

A third approach is found in Kol Hidushei Maharitz Chayess I, end Ch. 10. He suggests these thirty are not related to the first seven, nor based on Scripture, but were passed down by oral tradition.

How you understand the thirty laws, matters. If they are examples of societal consensus, they can be voided, or even changed to their complete opposite.  Boundaries of morality may be more felxible for Gentiles than we may think, provided there is a societal consensus to this effect. According to the other understanding, morality does not change.

This may answer a question.

Gilyon Hashas (of GRI Berlin) to Yoma 67b queries the statement found there that appears to classify immoral relationships as something that "if it was not written, it should have been written". At the same time, Jews say a blessing, "..who has commanded us regarding immorality (arayos)". Vis. the Rokeach, and as generally accepted, no blessing is said upon performance of 'rational' commandments. If so, why does there exist a blessing on "Arayos".

The answer might be that Hashem commanded the prohibiton of immorality finally and immutably - to the Jews; hence, the blessing. For most of humankind's history they were equally binding on Gentiles, as a rational law. As such, a time may come, and it has in fact come, when the comamndments of Jews and Gentiles diverge - a time in which we have the unfortunate distinctions of living now.

(For a different answer to this question, see Makor Habrocha, R. Reuven Margolios, p. 31)

A scholar of religion... and of Truth

The three years that passed have brought but few changes to the quiet family. The was is over, and Mr. March safely at home, busy with his books and the small parish which found in him a minister by nature as by grace, - a quiet, studious man, rich in the wisdom that is better than learning, the charity which calls all mankind "brothers", the piety that blossoms into character, making it august and lovely.

These attributes, in spite of poverty and the strict integrity which shut him out from the more worldly successes, attracted to him many  admirable persons, as naturally as sweet herbs draw bees, and as naturally he gave them honey into which fifty years of hard experiences has distilled no bitter drop. Earnest young men found in the grey headed scholar as young at heart as they; thoughful or troubled women instinctively brought their sorrows to him, sure of finding the gentlest sympathy, the wisest counsel; sinners told their sins to the pure-hearted old man, and were both rebuked and saved; gifted men cought glimpses of nobler ambition than their own;and even the worldlings confessed that his beliefs were beautiful and true, although "they wouldn't pay".

Little Women by L.A.Alcott, Ch.24

Chassidim and Misnagdim

"Both the hasidim and the mitnaggedim are in error - the former because they think they have a rebbe, and the latter because they think they do not need one.

R. Israel Salanter

Comment: What I think R. Salanter is sying is that no matter how great a Rebbe, he cannot teach one who does not know how to learn. Neither is it possible to learn and grow for him who is too proud to humble himself before another.

The Great Void of Unbelief

The song of the Tzaddik

God created the world out of love – in order to reveal His love – for without the creation, to whom would He show His love? Accordingly He brought about the entire creation from the beginning of the highest spiritual world of Atzilut down to the end of the center point of the material world, all in order to manifest His love.

When God wanted to create the world, there was no place to create it because everything was infinite. He therefore “contracted” the infinite light to the sides. As a result of this contraction, an empty void was formed within which time and space – the finite world – were created, as explained at the beginning of the Eitz Chaim of the ARI.

The empty void

This empty void was essential for the creation of the world, because without it there would have been no place to create the world. However, it is impossible to grasp or understand the “contraction” that brought about the empty void. This will only be possible in the future. For we have to postulate two opposites: existence and nothingness.

This is because the empty void came about through the contraction of His Godliness from there, with the result that Godliness is not present there, as it were. For if this were not the case, the void would not be empty; everything would have been infinite and there would have been no room to create the finite world at all. Yet the real truth is that even so, Godliness is most certainly present there because nothing at all exists without His vitality. Due to this contradiction it is impossible to grasp the concept of the empty void. This will be possible only in time to come.

And know that there are two kinds of atheism. There is the kind of unbelief that arises out of alien systems of wisdom, of which it says, “Know what to answer the non-believer” ( Avot 2:14 ) . For there is an answer to this kind of unbelief since it derives from alien wisdoms that arose out of the superfluities caused by the breaking of the vessels. A person who has fallen to this kind of unbelief should certainly flee and make every effort to escape, and indeed if he does seek out God he will find a way to be saved. For since these wisdoms derive from the breaking of the vessels, various holy sparks and letters broke and fell there, and he may therefore find Godly intelligence there in order to resolve the challenges posed by the kind of unbelief that derives from alien wisdoms.

However there is another kind of atheism based on wisdoms that are not wisdoms at all. It is only because they are so deep and hard to grasp that they have the appearance of deep wisdom. For example, a person might posit a false Talmudic argument which he imagines is exceptionally deep but, lacking the necessary scholarship, he fails to realize that his line of argument is untenable. Similarly, the philosophers pose various problems and questions that are in truth devoid of all wisdom. The problems are intrinsically non-existent, but because it is not within the bounds of the human mind to unravel them, they appear genuine.

The truth is that it is impossible to resolve these problems because the questions posed by this brand of atheism derive from the empty void, where Godliness is not present, as it were. This is why the questions that derive from the empty void cannot be answered in any way, because it is impossible to find God there. For if one could find God there it would not be empty and all would be infinite. For this reason it is said of this atheism, “None who go to her return” (Proverbs 2:19 ) .

Why Israel are called the Hebrews

Israel alone transcends all wisdoms including even the atheism that derives from the empty void, because we believe in God without speculation or sophistry but only with complete faith. For God fills all the worlds and encompasses all the worlds. Thus He is present within all the worlds and at the same time He encompasses all the worlds... Therefore even the empty void came about through His wisdom. The ultimate truth is that His Godliness must be present there , but it is impossible to grasp this or find God there.

Thus the people of Israel transcend all the philosophical problems and atheistic ideas that derive from the empty void, because they know that it is impossible to solve them. This is why the people of Israel are called the Hebrews, from the Hebrew root OVeiR , to pass over and transcend.

But know that certain outstanding Tzaddikim who are in the category of Moses have been obliged to investigate these philosophies in order to extricate and elevate the fallen souls that have become sunk in them. Through their great sanctity these Tzaddikim had the power to release these trapped souls.

The melody of faith

And know that it is through his melody that the Tzaddik who is in the category of Moses elevates the souls which have fallen into the atheism that derives from the empty void. Every wisdom in the world has its own unique melody and song; even atheism has its own special song. And faith too has its own unique melody and song. The faith in the light of the Infinite is supreme above all other wisdoms and beliefs in the world, and the song of this faith is beyond all other melodies and songs in the world.

And in time to come, when God “will turn to all the nations a pure language so that all will call on the name of HaShem” (Zephaniah 3:9) and all will believe in God, the verse, “Come, sing from the summit of Amana” (Song of Songs 4:8) will be fulfilled . The “summit of Amana” is the supreme faith ( Emunah ) in the Infinite One, which is the summit of all faith. Only the Tzaddik of the generation – Moses – attains this supreme faith and its melody. Thus it is through the melody of the Tzaddik who is in the category of Moses that all the souls that have fallen into the atheism deriving from the empty void are able to ascend and emerge, for his melody is the “summit of faith”, which is supreme.

Likutey Moharan I, 64

from  http://www.azamra.org/essential.shtml

Denying science

"He very much denigrated philosophers and scientists and he said that there is not in it any intelligence like in any saying of Maharsho or Maharam Shif...Happy he is who knows naught of their books but walks in simplicity...(Sichos Haran,5)

R. Nachman prescribed to his folowers nothing but simple faith. He believed that reading books of inquiry strengthens the powers of denial within oneself. "For we do not find that anyone became a  decent person by reading the books of speculation, even though one can find in them something about good behavior and the like. Still they are nonsense for they confuse the mind...and look elsewhere about how great is the sin to study these books, God Forbid" (ibid)

Denying science is of course not popular for it invites contradictions. How can one derive benefits from the developments in medicine, technology and engineering and at the same time claim that they are impure and heretical. R. Nachman was too much of a sophisticated thinker to propose that. Instead, R. Nachman evolved an interesting justification for rejecting philosophy and science. In brief, he posited two types of scientific questions, both bad, but one that can be redeemed and the other beyond Redemption.

In Likkutei Moharan 64 he writes that after God's self-withrawal,(tsimtsum) there remained an empty space (chalal). Inside this empty space some Godliness remained so as to enable farther unfolding of the world. In effect, there remained in existence two entities; there was emptiness and there was Godliness that filled it.

Two types of heresy corrrespond to these two factors. One comes from the kelipos, shells that came into being from the breaking of the vessels (at the subsequent word of Nekudim). This kind of heresy has real substance because it ultimately springs from Godliness, albeit concealed and captive to the 'outside' forces. It is therefore included in the Sages admonistion, "know what to answer to a heretic", for these questions are capable of being answered, or should we say reconciled? Technological advances ("such as amazing war machines and other wondrous inventions... that come from Above") fall into this category. "Even though one must escape and run away from these, one who falls into them is able to go out from them, for he can find Hashem there and let him seek and search for Him there...therefore he can find there Godliness and knowledge with which to answer heresies". In other words, delving into these sciencies is not recommended but one can theoretically find God in them and resolve contradictions between these sciences and religion.

So far it is standard Hassidic teaching found in many other primary works, for example in Chapter 8 of Tanya, where it says: "

מה שאין כן בחכמת האומות הוא מלביש ומטמא בחינות חב״ד שבנפשו האלקית, בטומאת קליפת נוגה שבחכמות אלו

Not so in the case of the science of the nations; thereby one clothes and defiles his divine soul’s faculties of ChaBaD (intellect) with the impurity of the kelipat nogah contained in those sciences,

שנפלו שמה בשבירת הכלים מבחינת אחוריים של חכמה דקדושה, כידוע ליודעי ח״ן

whither they (the sciences) have fallen, through the “shattering of the vessels,” out of the “hinder-part” of Chochmah of holiness, as is known to those familiar with the Esoteric Wisdom.

Thus the study of these sciences contaminates the intellectual faculties of the G‑dly soul, and it is therefore much worse than idle speech, which contaminates only the emotional faculties,

אלא אם כן עושה אותן קרדום לחתוך בה, דהיינו כדי להתפרנס מהן בריוח לעבוד ה׳

unless one employs them (these sciences) as a useful instrument, viz., as a means of earning a more affluent livelihood with which to be able to serve G‑d,

או שיודע להשתמש בהן לעבודת ה׳ או לתורתו

or unless he knows how to apply them (the sciences) in the service of G‑d or to his better understanding of His Torah; e.g., he utilizes mathematics to better understand the laws of the Sanctification of the New Moon.

וזהו טעמו של הרמב״ם ורמב״ן ז״ל וסיעתן שעסקו בהן

This is the reason why Maimonides and Nachmanides, of blessed memory, and their peers, engaged in them (in the sciences — since they were able to utilize this knowledge in the service of G‑d and Torah).

This is how R. Nachman expresses this thought.

And this is as brought in the Yerushalmi Talmud (Ta'anit chapter 1): "If someone asks you, 'Where is your God?,' you shall say to him, 'In a great book in Rome,' as it is written, 'My God calls out from Se'ir.'"  We see that this person who asked 'Where is your God?' must obviously be immersed in the realm of the "shells" (kelipot), for he has removed himself completely from the community, as he says: 'Where is your God?' - it appears to him that in the place where he is, there is no God.  And so you should tell him: 'Even in the place where you are, immersed in the realm of the kelipot - even there you may find Divinity.  For He gives life to everything, as it is written, "And You give life to all."  And from that place you can bring yourself closer to the blessed God, and return to him in complete repentance.  For it [repentance] is not far removed from you; only in your place its [concealing] garments are many.  And as man climbs from one level to the next, he approaches nearer and nearer to the blessed God, and may come to know Hashem with a great understanding.  For the higher his level, the fewer the garments, and the less the constriction, and then he may approach nearer to Hashem and may bring himself to love Hashem with a great love. (Likutei Moharan Kama 33:2).

The second kind of science, however, is beyond redemption, for it comes from the void. In Likutei Moharan 64 R. Nachman posits a type of heresy, which he identifies with questions which ontologically cannot be answered. Here is a quote from R. Nachman about how to deal with this kind of question.

"And I have found nothing better for the physical welfare of man than silence," because there, in the empty space, there is nothing better than silence, as stated above, for entry is permitted there only for one who is the aspect of silence, the aspect of Moshe (note: a messianic figure as found in the Zohar), as stated above. And that which he said: "All my days I have grown up between the Sages and have found nothing, etc," for by grabbing hold of this level, the aspect of silence, as he said that there is nothing better than silence, he therefore caused his days and middot to grow there in the empty space, for entry is permitted there only to one who has the aspect of silence, as stated above."

As best as I can understand it, such questions and inquiries are based on basic deficiencies in reasoning, whereby there is really no question to begin with. There is an inapparent internal flaw or contradiction within the logical chain of reasoning that produces a question that has no reasonable answer. This kind of question or heresy is by definition unanswerable because it derives from the Empty Space, where God is absent. The Empty Space is in itself a logical inpossibility for it posits the existence of something that is empty of Divinity and that is  impossible. Yet, it exists; so also certain irresolvable scientific questions that deny God paradoxically exist. If the question comes from this empty space, it possesses no Godliness within and it cannot be anwered. Only when the Messiah arrives and the Empty Space is flooded with Divine Light, will  such questons become resolved. For us, for now, there is no response but silence. In his other writings it is apparent that by this he means a retreat into emunah, or belief, despite and in spite of questions.

The next big thing - Kabbala for everybody

The Bnei Baruch phenomena has been picking steam lately. Is it a good thing? I do not know. Please tell me what you think.

See,

Always with Me

Produced by: ARI Films

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7847788758352260320&q=Rav

A personal, emotion-filled biographic film about great Rabbi Baruch Shalom HaLevi Ashlag (the RABASH), the last great Kabbalist told by his disciple, R. Michael Laitman, PhD.

R. Laitman shares stories of his spiritual mentor while revealing their special connection and the complex nature of a Kabbalist’s teacher disciple relationship.

On R. Michal Laitman, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ashpaa/Michael_Laitman

However, R. laitman is taking Kabbala far mainstream. Is this a good thing? A very revealing (and troubling) video can be found at: http://www.kabbalah.info/~newyork/convention/

Prayer

	The degree of enthusiasm in prayer reveals the level of one's mussar. The Alter of Novardhok

The fast of the ninth of Teves and Yeshu Hanotsri

Coming as it does a week after the last day of Hanukah, the fast on 10th of the month of Tevet (Asarah b'Tevet) might easily be overlooked. It occupies, however, an important niche in the story of Israel and the history of our people.

The text in II Kings (25:1-4) tells us that on the 10th day of the 10th month, in the ninth year of his reign, (588 BCE), Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king, began the siege of Jerusalem. Three years later, on the 17th of Tammuz, he broke through the city walls. The siege ended with the destruction of the Temple three weeks later, on the 9th of Av, the end of the first Kingdoms and the exile of the Jewish people to Babylon. It can thus be considered part of the cycle of fasts connected with these events: Tzom Gedaliah (3rd of Tishrei); Shivah Asar B'Tammuz (17th of Tammuz) and Tisha B'Av (9th of Av)

The first mention of this fast appears in Zechariah (8:19) where it is called the "fast of the tenth month..." (counting from the month of Nisan, which was the first month in Biblical times). Other references to the fast and the affliction can be found in Ezekiel 24:1-2 (the siege); Jeremiah 52:4-6.

However, the tenth is not the only fast in Teves. The 8th and 9th were also at one time (but not any longer) observed as fast days. Of all the fast days mentioned in Megillas Taanit, the reason for the ninth of Teves is most obscure.

Ramo in Orach Chaim 580 where he lists various fast days, says the following about the 9th of Teves: " ...on the 9th of Tteves", it is not known what trouble occurred on it". To this Taz responds: "This is very surprising for it states the Selichos that Ezra the Scribe died on that day". His surprise stem from the fact that the Ramo appears to not heve been aware of this source in the Selichos. However, it may very be that the Ramo knew the source but did not think that it speaks of Ezra, but rather that it uses Ezra as a stand in for another historical personality. This was an individual of whom it was dangerous for Jews to write explicitly.

Hagahos of R. Boruch Frankel to the Shulchan Aruch writes: " I found it writen that Shimon Kalfus, wo saved Israel from a great calamity died on that day. In the Halachos Gedolos it says the following:
'Regarding the 9th of Teves, our rabbis did not write for what it is and on that day Ezra and Nechemiah died. In the Book fo Traditon of Raavad it says that on the 9th of Teves R. Yosef Halevi Hanagid, the son of R. Shmuel in Grenada and all those who came from far away lands to see his Torah and greatness were murdered... and we don't know what this day is for... this tells us that already from the days of our Rabbis they predicted this by Divine Inspiration (and set up a fast day for the events yet to come).."

Who was this Shimon Kalaphon? The commentary Tikun Tefila printed in the Siddur Otros Hatefillos quotes from the Machzor Vitri (Seder Leil Pesach l'Rashi):

... some say that (the prayer Nishmas) is about Shimon Peter who wrote it when he was sitting on a rock, and G-d forbid, such a thing should not be in Israel. Anyone who says this will need to bring a fat sin-offering when the Temple is rebuilt."

Who was Shimon Peter? It was the apostle Peter, who accoring to some versions of Toldos Yeshu was sent by the Sages to infiltrate the new Christian sect so as to bring about its separation from Judaism.  According to to other versions, Peter was a believing Jew who was inadevertently drawn into the Christian heresy. He repented on his deathbed and composed Nishmas as a hymn of confession of Divine Unity.

The curious invokation of 'sitting on the rock" can be understood as an attempt to explain the name Peter, which means 'rock' in Latin. The root has survived in English in words such as petrous or petrified (becoming like a rock). This is also why in some sources he is caled Shimon Keifa, a rock being Keifa in Arameic. It also served as the background of the following New Testament verse that has traditionally been interpreted by Catholicism as supporting the instituion of Papacy: "...you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church... (Matthew 16:18).

There are versions of Toldos Yeshu who identify Shimon Keifa with Paul rather than Peter. One source for Toldos Yeshu can be found in Eisentstein's Otzar Hamidrashim, another version can be found at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/JewishJesus/toledoth.html. I cite the latter version.

"The Sages desired to separate from Israel those who continued to claim Yeshu as the Messiah, and they called upon a greatly learned man, Simeon Kepha, for help. Simeon went to Antioch, main city of the Nazarenes and proclaimed to them: "I am the disciple of Yeshu. He has sent me to show you the way. I will give you a sign as Yeshu has done."

Simeon, having gained the secret of the Ineffable Name, healed a leper and a lame man by means of it and thus found acceptance as a true disciple. He told them that Yeshu was in heaven, at the right hand of his Father, in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1. He added that Yeshu desired that they separate themselves from the Jews and no longer follow their practices, as Isaiah had said, "Your new moons and your feasts my soul abhorreth." They were now to observe the first day of the week instead of the seventh, the Resurrection instead of the Passover, the Ascension into Heaven instead of the Feast of Weeks, the finding of the Cross instead of the New Year, the Feast of the Circumcision instead of the Day of Atonement, the New Year instead of Chanukah; they were to be indifferent with regard to circumcision and the dietary laws. Also they were to follow the teaching of turning the right if smitten on the left and the meek acceptance of suffering. All these new ordinances which Simeon Kepha (or Paul, as he was known to the Nazarenes) taught them were really meant to separate these Nazarenes from the people of Israel and to bring the internal strife".

The attribution to Shimon Peter took an interesting turn in the commentray to the siddur Kol Bo, which writes: "some say that Shimon Ben Shetach wrote Nishmas and therein he alluded to his name backwards from SHoken Ad, Mi idme, A(ain)d anachnu,V'ilu pinu.., Nishmas..."

Of course, if you calculate the ninth of Teves on what was considered year 1 in the Middle Ages, you come to December 25th. How this relates to the custom of not studying Torah on 'Nittal' night is, however, another story.