On Sunday, 20 November 2016 the Kotzk Blog posted the following https://www.kotzkblog.com/2016/11/102-did-st-peter-compose-nishmat-prayer.html

R. Gavin Michal provided us with an useful essay concerning St. Peter and his alleged composition of the beloved Nishmat kol chai prayer. R. Gavin Michal gives a very good description on the usae of the prayer which he tells us is recited every Shabbat morning and every Pesach Seder night and according to R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi it is replete with very deep mystical references. He point out that the Nishmat and Yistabach are technically one long prayer which on weekdays it is abridged to just Yishtabach for purposes of brevity according to Essays on Pesach and the Haggadah by R. Joseph Dov Soloveitchick. He ppoints out that it was supposedly instituted during the early Amoraic era (200 – 500 CE) because the earliest reference to it is by R. Yochanan bar Nafcha (180-279) who suggests that it should be recited during the Pesach Seder after Hallel.(Pesachim 118a) He states that an early to reference to Nishmat occurring within the Shabbat morning service is in Seder Rav Amram Gaon (810-875) nd that by the time of Rav Saadia Gaon (882-942) Nishmat had become a standard component of the liturgy although neglecting to give a source. He also mentions that Rambam (1135-1204) wrots that the Sefardic practice was to include Nishmat in the Shabbat morning service ( - but this was not a unanimous Askenazic practice).

That is the best part of the essay showing his abilities. However what follows exposes weaknesses in his understanding of Judaism.

He notices that the author has identified himself by an acrostic Sochen ad, Mi yidmeh, Ad hena, Veilu pinu, Nishmat (in reverse order). However, R. Gavin Michal says that "Others suggest the writer was a Shimon -ben Shetach (or Shimom ben Yona, or Shimon Kipah)?" and tells us to "see later on in article" where he blames the Machzor Vitry without understanding that Vitry means to imply that the author was part of Shetach's academy as stated in the Teliya which R. Gavin Michal has obviously not read.

He mentions that Simon's Mission was to help any Notzrim who should be Jews while Paul's mission was to help the other Notzrim who should be Noahites. But he also misses completely that the reference to Yitzchak and Rivka as the ancestors of both Israel and Edom which is found in a very prominent acrostic within the prayer is very relevant to Simon's mission to the Notzrim apostates who operate in the spirit of Esav. He does note however that there is an overriding universal theme appealing to the oneness of humankind that pervades throughout this prayer which includes passages that refer to ‘every living being’, ‘spirit of all flesh’, ‘every knee shall bend’ and ‘G-d of all creatures’.

R. Gavin Michal says that Simon Peter was "subversively sent by the rabbis" which is an attack on the integrity of the Sages of Judaism. He also completely misunderstands Matthre 16:22 and Mark 8:32 for which he gives the wrong references anyway. The correct view is that this was an act of Tikkun Olam with no subversive nor devious intention. A strategic Trojan horse tactic to save Erev Rav from complete damnation by getting them on the good side of the destroyer. To correct his comment, the work was actually meant to be appealing for Notzrim to look towards a Christian faith as a viable alternative having become outcasts. That is why the rabbis devised a plan to send Shimon Kipah (שמעון כיפה) to infiltrate the new movement. The plan was that he rise to an influential position in the church so that he could make some radical changes which would draw a Christian faith out of Judaism with an identity of its own. Shimon was successful in his mission and managed, in harmony with exchanging kabbalat shabbat for Havdalah also drew different holidays for Christians out of the original Jewish ones.

R. Gavin Michal accurately points out that Simon, to maintain his connection with Judaism, composed the Nishmat prayer, the Etan Tehillah prayer we recite on the High Holidays as well as Ahava Rabbah.(See Otzar HaMidrashim, Eisenstein, p. 557 for more details.)

He points out that in the Nishmat there is a reference to; ‘You redeemed us from Egypt’, which may or may not have relevance to this point (as the redemption from Egypt is recognized by Christianity - and additionally - many early Christians were Jews).

He contrasts this with the point that Ahavah Rabah has continuous references to the uniqueness of Israel and appears to be a rallying cry in solidarity with the specific mission on the Jewish nation without any hint of universalism.

He suggests that these two prayers might represent the alleged two sides of the mission.

He also accurately points out that Peter’s Yartzeit (anniversary of his death) is the 9th of Tevet bringing references from the Tur and Shulchan Aruch wich both mention this date in their list of fast days.(Orach Chaim 580 : בו לא כתבו רבותינו על מה הוא) He points out that it is only in a commentary on the Shulchan Aruch that it states:

“I found in a manuscript that Shimon HaKalphus (Kipah) who saved Israel from distress at the time of the pritzim (violators of the Torah), died on the ninth of Teves, and the day of his death was established as a fast day in Jerusalem.”

(See Baruch Ta’am ibid. R. Baruch Frankel-Teomim (1760-1828) was the father-in-law of the Sanzer Rebbe (The Divrei Chaim) and great grandson of the great kabbalist R. Noson Nota Shapira (The Megaleh Amukot). Many regarded him as the Gadol HaDor of his time.)

He brings this obscure reference in a commentary to an unnamed manuscript that escaped the Nazi book-burnings to corroborate the story.

He points out that the doctrine is supported by the Tosafist Rabbeinu Tam as quoted in Machzor Vitry:

“(Peter) was a devout and learned Jew who dedicated his life to guiding gentiles along the proper path (by incorporating Noachite Laws into Christianity).”

He says that Rabbeinu Tam similarly concurred that Peter authored the Nishmat prayer stating that it appears this view was widely held by many of the Rishonim but he fails to quote the sources he is referring to.

Perhaps his best reference concerns an old Yemenite prayer book that similarly purports that St. Peter was the author of the prayer. This source, dated at around the 1500’s, is a handwritten note in Yehiya Bashiri’s Baladi-Rite Siddur. (See Microfilm # 1219 Ben Tzvi Institute.)

Sadly he misunderstands the point made buy R. Yehudah HaChasid (1150-1217) in his Sefer Chasidim siman 191 concerning the necessity of changing the name of a Tzadik like Shimon Kipah only because he is venerated him as one of the Christian saints and therefore must be given the nickname where in this case שִׁמְעוֹן הֶחָבֵר has been turned into ‘Peter Chamor’ in reference to Shemot 13:13.

One embarasingly notable mistake is his misreading of a comment from the Machzor Vitry as if it were modern Hebrew but which states:

רבינו שמחה, תלמידו של רש"י, מביא את דבריו בחיבורו – "מחזור ויטרי"(מחזור ויטרי, שם, עמ' 282, והערה ה.), ובלשונו: "ויש שאומרים על אותו נבל שמעון פטר חמור שהיא טעות של רומה יסדו אותה תפילה [נשמת]. ושאר תפילות כשהיה על הסלע. וחס ושלום שלא תהיה זאת בישראל. וכל האומר דבר זה, כשיבנה בית המקדש יביא חטאת שמנה".

This is correctly translated thus:

"And some say about that, Shimon Peter Hamor is Nabal -which is a mistake of Rome- who established that prayer [Neshmat] and other prayers when he was on the rock. But peace and blessings that such will not be (said) in Israel. And whoever says this, when the Temple is built, he will bring a fat offering."

Very unfortunately R. Gavin Michal misunderstands the point as in contrast with rather than in agreement with the position of the family of Rashi who taught R. Simcha of Vitry (d. 1105). R. Gavin Michal's mistranslation reads:

“There are those who say concerning...Peter...that he established this prayer...along with other prayers...But G-d forbid, no such thing should occur in Israel. And anyone who says this thing, when the Temple is built, he shall bring a sin offering.”

He goes in contumacy to speculate erroneously that this is the view of his teacher Rashi although obviously the correct reading of Vitry must concurr with Rashi's family.

But by far his worst mistake was bringing in the opinion of the enemy of Judaism called Shmuel David Luzzatto, who is well known for his hate-filled opinion against belief in the validity of Judaism as preserving the oracles of HaShem.

At least he accepts that indeed there was widespread acceptance of the notion that St. Peter had composed the Nishmat, Etan Tehillah and Ahavah Rabbah prayers before our community was decimated by WW2as supported by the Tosafists and other Rishonim.

But his failure in being able to reconcile the Vitry with the rest of the Tosafists led him into promoting a great error and slander against Rashi.

It is also a pity that he did not explore his idea of more than one Simon being referred to as Petter Chamor in which case he would have discovered that not only Shimon Kipah but also Simon Clopas were both together regarded as righteous men who acted as the agents for the Chazal in constructing the New Testament.

Sadly he dismisses his brilliant intuition as "just speculation".

Tragically in the end he sides with Shmuel David Luzzatto the enemy of Judaism with whose words he closes his essay.