Download - Halper - Metaphysical Prayers - Zutot

7/28/2019 Halper - Metaphysical Prayers - Zutot

1/16

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/18750214-12341242

Zutot 8 (2011) 15-29

ZUTOT:Perspectives on

Jewish Culture

brill.com/zuto

PRAYERS TO THE GOD OF ARISTOTLES METAPHYSICS:

TEFILLOT SIYYUMFOR CHAPTERS OF BOOK OF

ARISTOTLES METAPHYSICS

Yehuda HalperTulane University

Abstract

In one incomplete manuscript of Aristotles Metaphysics with Averroes Long Commentary, a

scribe has inserted short prayers, which seem to fit the genre of tefillot siyyum, to be read by

the reader of the text upon completion of certain chapters of Book of the Metaphysics.

These prayers are thematically related to the content of AristotlesMetaphysics and Averroes

commentary and accordingly suggest a philosophical interpretation of Judaism, God and

the creation of the world that has as its centre-point metaphysics, as understood by Aristotle

and his most important commentator, Averroes.

Keywords

medieval Jewish thought, Aristotles Metaphysics

The influence of Aristotles Metaphysics on medieval Jewish thought,

especially on medieval conceptions of the divine, is well known. Yet

there is no evidence that any of the great medieval Jewish philosophi-

cal thinkers treated the text of AristotlesMetaphysics as a divine or holy

book with a ritual function akin to the numerous books in the Jewish

holy canon. However, in one incomplete manuscript of AristotlesMetaphysics with Averroes Long Commentary, a scribe has inserted short

prayers, which seem to fit the genre of tefillot siyyum,1 to be read by the

reader of the text upon completion of certain chapters of Book of

the Metaphysics. The insertion of short, one or two line tefillot siyyum at

the end of works or even chapters was common practice among

1 I.e., not liturgical prayers that are part of a regular service.


2/16

16 Y. Halper / Zutot 8 (2011) 15-29

medieval Hebrew authors, scribes and even annotators2 and presumably

the recitation of such tefillot functioned to make the reading of such

works a ritual experience. The existence of these prayers at the end of

chapters of theMetaphysics indicates that in fact theMetaphysics did have

a ritual role for at least some Jewish thinkers during the late Middle

Ages (that is, at some point between the fourteenth and sixteenth cen-

turies CE). The fact that these prayers are included only in Book of

theMetaphysics, the chapter that forms Aristotles explanation of meta-

physical terminology, may further indicate the association of meta-

physical and theological terms in philosophical thought of the period

as well as the attempt to associate specific Aristotelian terms withHebrew terms found in the Jewish canon. In general, prayers such as

these are important because they are an indication of successful inte-

gration of Jewish religious thought with philosophy; put differently, if

there were no such prayers, and if, further, there could be no such

prayers, then there could be no true integration of Jewish religious

thought with philosophy.

These prayers are found only in a unique manuscript found in

Munich MS Hebrew 65 in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek,3 a manu-

script which contains the revised Hebrew translation4 of AverroesLong

Commentary on AristotlesMetaphysics, which includes the text of the

Metaphysics, from the beginning through much of Book, chapter 12

of Aristotles text. The prayers are only present in Book and are not

found in any other manuscript copy of the Hebrew translation of the

Long Commentary. These prayers are further distinctive in that only a

relatively small percentage of their text is made up of the standard

2 Cf. M. Beit-Ari, Colophon, in Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, eds,Encyclopaedia Judaica (Macmillan Reference USA, Detroit, MI, in association with KeterPub. House 2007) Vol. 5, pp. 6567, esp. Felicitations and Concluding Formulas,p. 66. See n. 15 below for some other examples where tefillot siyyum are appended tophilosophical texts.

3 Folios 253r421v. I thank the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek for permission to viewthe original manuscript and the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at theNational Library of Israel for providing access to microfilm copies of the MS.

4 On the original translation and its later revision, see Y. Halper, Revision andStandardization of Hebrew Philosophical Terminology in the Fourteenth Century: theExample of AverroesLong Commentary on AristotlesMetaphysics and the Developmentof Hebrew Scientific Terms. Aleph: Historical Studies in Science and Judaism 13 (2013)95138.


3/16

Y. Halper / Zutot 8 (2011) 15-29 17

phrases of tefillot siyyum that can be found in the colophons of hundreds

of medieval manuscripts. Much of the text of these prayers is unique

and, as we shall see, uses Hebrew terms that take their meaning from

the text to which the prayers are an accompaniment, i.e., the Hebrew

translation of AverroesLong Commentary on AristotlesMetaphysics.

The Hebrew manuscript mentions neither the name of the transla-

tor (or reviser) of the text nor the name of the author of the short

prayers, written in a different script, possibly even a different hand, at

the conclusion of certain chapters of Book. While this text is written

in Italian scripts probably of the sixteenth century, the remaining texts

bound together in Munich MS Hebrew 65 have all been transcribedin a German script of the sixteenth century.5 Consequently we can

learn nothing about the text from the other texts bound with it in the

same volume; most importantly for our purposes here, we can know

nothing about the author of the prayers. As the translation of Averroes

Long Commentary into Hebrew was made in the fourteenth century, we

can give no better date to the prayers than the expanse of time between

the beginning of the fourteenth century and the end of the sixteenth.

In addition to the existence of these prayers, the text in Munich MS

Hebrew 65 is distinguished from the seven other Hebrew manuscripts

of Averroes Long Commentary that include the first books of the

Metaphysics in another way: the title of the work is not given by its usual

Hebrew title, Sefer Mah she-ahar ha-teva (literally The Book of that which

is Beyond Nature), but by Sefer ha-Middot, a title usually reserved for

Aristotles Ethics. In fact, the term has a number of meanings,

including both measurements and attributes, in addition to its pos-

sible meaning of ethics. So Sefer ha-Middotcould mean The Book of

Measurements, i.e., The Book of Geometry6 or The Book ofAttributes. That prayers are appended to the text only in certain

chapters of Book (the book of theMetaphysics dedicated to discussing

terminology) and that the manuscript indeed ends in the middle of

Book with a prayer upon completion of the entire text, suggests that

5 See the internet records of the National Library of Israel.6 Abraham ibn Ezra uses to refer to a Book of Geometry in numerous

places, e.g., in his Long Commentary to Exodus 28:8. It is even possible that he wrote abook on geometry with the title . Cf. T. Lvy and C. Burnett, Sefer ha-Middot: A Mid-Twelfth-Century Text on Arithmetic and Geometry Attributed toAbraham ibn Ezra, Aleph 6 (2006) 57238.


4/16

18 Y. Halper / Zutot 8 (2011) 15-29

the book to which the prayers are appended (i.e., Averroes Long

Commentary onMetaphysics A through part of ) may be intended to be

called The Book of Attributes. In this case, the prior books of the

Metaphysics (A-) may be seen as leading up to and preparing for theculmination of the discussion of attributes in Book.7

Further, the chapters of Book to which the prayers are appended

are those that discuss terms which in their Hebrew translation are also

terms that can describe either divine attributes or things derived from

them. Thus we find the short prayers appended to chapter 6, one

( ), chapter 7, being ( ), chapter 8, substance ( ), chapter

11, prior and posterior ( ), and chapter 12, power ( ).8

After chapter 12, a prayer upon the completion of the entire

is found as well, indicating that the author of the prayers considered

this to be the end of the book. It is most likely that the author of the

prayers had an incomplete text of the Metaphysics with Averroes Long

Commentary that ended after .12,9 but it is also possible that what this

author considered to be included in The Book of Attributes was only

the Metaphysics up to those attributes that could be considered divine;

the chapters after .12, beginning with quantity and quality are all

less directly connected with the Divine.10

The following is the text of these prayers accompanied by an English

translation:

7 Many modern scholars, following Werner Jaeger (Aristoteles Grundlegung einer Geschichteseiner Entwicklung [ Berlin 1923]), consider Book of the Metaphysics to be a separatebook of terminology. Perhaps the editor of this manuscript held a similar view. In anycase, he seemed to have considered Book, and the books leading up to it, as sepa-

rable from the rest of theMetaphysics.8 Note that the ends of chapter 1, principle ( ), and chapter 5, necessary

( ), are marked with , the treatise has been perfected. These are notprayers. Nevertheless, principle, i.e., first, and necessary, especially necessary exis-tent, are sometimes used to describe God.

9 Note that MS Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Or. 2074, the most complete ofthe two extant Arabic MSS of Averroes Long Commentary, ends after .12, only toresume again in Book E of theMetaphysics. Much of the remainder of Book, thoughnot all, is preserved in the second Arabic MS, Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Or. 2054,which, however, includes nothing from any of the other books of theMetaphysics. Cf.M. Bouyges, Averroes, Tafsir ma bad at-tabiat(Beirut 19381942) Vol. ii, p. xiv. See alsoHalper, Revision and Standardization, 101, note 10.

10 Cf. Y. Halper, Averroes on Metaphysical Terminology: An Analysis and CriticalEdition of the Long Commentary on Aristotles Metaphysics (Ph.D. diss., Bar-IlanUniversity, 2010) 110155.


5/16

Y. Halper / Zutot 8 (2011) 15-29 19

1 1 1 2

Chapter 6, One,

This treatise has beencompleted and perfected,praise to God on High Whocreated everything with speech.

..

Chapter 7, Being,

This glorious treatise has beencompleted and perfected.Extolment and praise to GodWho is worshipped in the heart

of every creature. His dominionrules over all.

.

.

Chapter 8, Substance,

The treatise on substance hasbeen completed. Praise to theCreator of the purity of theheavens and substance.

.

.

Chapter 11, Prior and Posterior,

This treatise on prior to one hasbeen completed. Praise to theOne God Who is at one [withHimself ].11

.

.

Chapter 12, Potential,

The treatise on power has beencompleted and perfected. Praiseto the God of the World. Praise

to Him who bears the arms ofthe world with power. And byHis power He stirs up12 the sea.

. .

He declares the power of Hisactions to His people. His isthe greatness, the might, thesplendour, the triumph, and themajesty.

.

11 The language here comes from Job 23:13. The reading at one with Himself issuggested by the JPS (1917) translation of the Bible.

12 Or, less likely: calms. See below n. 36.


6/16

20 Y. Halper / Zutot 8 (2011) 15-29

Final Prayer

This book, more precious thangold, even fine gold, calledThe Book of AttributesbyAristotle the great philosopheris complete, and here he hascompleted his words with

judgment.

.

Blessed is the Merciful One Whogrants succor, from the beginning until

now.

13

Strong be the author and boldthe reader.

Blessed is He Who gives powerto the weary and increases thestrength of those who have nomight.14

" "

Strength. "

1314

These prayers are a mixture of standard formulae found at the end of

chapters of canonical works and interpretive remarks and descriptions

of God in terms derived from the Hebrew translation of Aristotles

Metaphysics and AverroesLong Commentary.15 In what follows I shall give

an interpretation of these prayers, focusing particularly on how they

incorporate metaphysical elements into a context of holy writings.

13

(Isaiah 40:29). This line is in Aramaic.14 All translations of the Bible are my own.15 Some other examples where tefillot siyyum praise God in terms derived from the

subject of the work in which they are found are as follows. (1) At the end of a medievalHebrew translation of Alfarabis Epistle on the Intellect, Heb. , the transla-tor or a scribe states, , The Treatise on the Intellecthas been completed. Praise to God Who bestows Intellect, where the expression Whobestows Intellect is taken from the amidah prayer. Cf. the Hebrew edition of this textin Gad Freudenthal, Ketav ha-daat or Sefer ha-Sekhel we-ha-muskalot: The MedievalHebrew Translations of al-FarabisRisalah f l-aql. A Study in Text History and in theEvolution of Medieval Hebrew Philosophical Terminology, The Jewish Quarterly Review93 (2002) 102. (2) In a colophon written in 1322 to a Hebrew translation of Avicennasmedieval Canon, the copyist includes prayers for the health of the reader and remindsthat God is the healer, quoting Exodus 15:26 (see Vatican ebr. 565, fol. 322v). Suchprayers are found fairly frequently in medical treatises.


7/16

Y. Halper / Zutot 8 (2011) 15-29 21

.6

In the prayer at the completion of Chapter 6, the expression that this

treatise has been completed and perfected is formulaic and found

at the end of numerous treatises in medieval Jewish literature. Similarly,

the expression, praise to God on High is not at all uncommon. Yet

the expression, Who created everything with speech is unusual and

has few known parallels in medieval Hebrew literature.

What does the author of the prayers intend by this expression? One

use of this expression with which the author was probably familiar was

in the commentary on Genesis 1:26 of Rabbi Moses ben NahmanGirondi (Nahmanides). Nahmanides uses the expression created with

speech to refer to all creation that is not ex nihilo. Thus he associates

it with the creation of everything after the first day. According to

Nahmanides, on the first day the heavens and the earth were created

ex nihilo, while the rest of creation reformed the matter created on the

first day to create the rest.

Supposing, then, that the author of these prayers had in mind a kind

of creation that is not ex nihilo, let us ask why this formulation is included

here at the end of .6. That is, what is the relationship of this prayer

to the text it accompanies? The Hebrew word expressing divine creation,

, does not appear at all in the text ofMetaphysics or in Averroes

commentary, but the expression with speech does play an important

role in .6. At 6.14816 (corresponding to 1016a33), Aristotle lists the

following signification of one: One is also said of the things whose

articulation signifying what it is for them to be is indivisible into [any]

other thing signifying what the thing is.17 One difficulty in understand-

ing what Aristotle means here is his use of the expression that whichsignifies what it is for a thing to be, an expression which modern

16 References to the medieval Hebrew translation of Aristotle with Averroes LongCommentary are to chapter and line numbers of Book as they appear in the Hebrewedition of the work in Averroes on Metaphysical Terminology, Chapter VII. Quotationsof the Hebrew have been adjusted here to reflect the reading in Munich MS Hebrew65, while the Hebrew edition mostly follows Paris, Bibliothque Nationale de FranceMS heb. 886.

17. In this instance, the Hebrew translation corresponds to the Greek fairly

well. Cf. the apparatus to the text here in Halper, Averroes on MetaphysicalTerminology, 233.


8/16

22 Y. Halper / Zutot 8 (2011) 15-29

translators of Aristotle typically translate as essence. As I have shown

elsewhere, the Aristotelian concept of essence (Greek: )was not transmitted to Arabic and Hebrew and consequently is not

understood consistently when it appears in the text.18 Averroes com-

mentary here explains how he understood it:

That which signifies what it is for a thing to be is the condition for anarticulation since an articulationi.e., a compound statementis thecomposition of a delineation. A condition, indeed, is a definition when-ever it indicates what a thing is in its boundary.19

This explanation associates the term statement ( ) with the terms

articulation ( ) and definition ( ), both of which have their roots

in the Aristotelian .

There is no way to know whether the author of the prayers under-

stood the relation of the term to the Greek, but it is not

unreasonable to assume, on the basis of these passages, that he associ-

ated with the definition of things. Thus asserting that God cre-

ated everything with speech could, in this context, be another way of

saying that God created everything through definition, that is through

Aristotelian definition that differentiates things within their boundaries.Given the authors likely familiarity with Nahmanides created with

speech as creation that is not ex nihilo, the author may be saying here

that God created by taking existing things and differentiated them

through Aristotelian definitions, i.e., through marking the genera and

differentia.

.7

Chapter 7, which discusses the term being, is the only chapter described

by the author of the prayers as glorious ( ). This characterization

usually expresses connection to divine things and may thus indicate the

18 See Halper, Revision and Standardization, 121124.19

(6.168169).


9/16

Y. Halper / Zutot 8 (2011) 15-29 23

connection of the chapter on being to the divine.20 In biblical Hebrew,

glory describes what often seems to be a bodily manifestation of divin-

ity on Earth, frequently a kind of presence that inhabits or fills the

Temple or Tent of Meeting.21 At the end of this prayer, however, we

are told that His dominion rules over all, an expression that I have

not found in other tefillot siyyum, but one that appears in Psalms 103:19

in close connection with the divine throne. If the author of the prayers

asserts both that the discussion of being is accompanied by a manifes-

tation of the divine and that the divine dominion is immanent through-

out, it is likely that the author of the prayers intended to say that Gods

dominion in all things is expressed through the immanence of being.Being in all things, according to the author of these prayers, would

then be that which makes up divine rule.

The reference in the prayer to the worship in the heart of every

creature recalls the prayer at the end of.6, where God is said to have

created everything. Gods creation is made through speech and defini-

tion, and Gods dominion is made up of being.

.8

The treatise on substance has been completed, but not, it seems,

perfected.22 Indeed the prayer mentions that God not only created

substance, but also the purity of the heavens. The expression, purity

of the heavens, also unique amongtefillot siyyum to my knowledge, is

clearly taken from Exodus 24:10: And they saw the God of Israel, and

there was under His feet, as it were, a work of the whiteness of sap-

phire stone and like the substance of the heavens in purity. Accordingto Maimonides, whom the author of the prayer was certain to have

20 Indeed, the term glorious is more frequently applied to God or people, e.g.,authors or readers, that are mentioned in tefillot siyyum, though it does appear withreference to the works themselves. See, e.g., the opening of an anonymous philo-sophical commentary on Genesis and Exodus in Vatican ebr. 274, fol. 123v.

21 Cf. Exodus 16:10, 24:1617; Leviticus 9:6; Numbers14:21, 16:19, 17:7; 1 Samuel2:8; 1 Kings 8:11; Ezekiel 1:28, 3:12 and 23, 8:4, 10:4, 11:23, 43:2, 44:4; Psalms 85:10;2 Chronicles 5:14, 7:2.

22 See note 8 above for two other chapters that are said to be perfected, , butnot completed, .


10/16

24 Y. Halper / Zutot 8 (2011) 15-29

read, the whiteness of sapphire stone and like the substance of the

heavens in purity refers to heavenly matter, often called aether.23 Such

heavenly aether is not seen with the body, but rather metaphorically

seen or apprehended with the intellect.24

Just as the act of seeing is to be understood metaphorically, feet,

too, must be metaphoric. Following Onqelos who interprets feet in this

passage to refer to the Throne of Glory ( ), Maimonides

interprets the passage using the Hebrew equivalent .25 If glory

( ) was associated in the previous prayer with being,26 then the place-

ment of substance and the purity of the heaven under the Throne of

Glory may imply that they form subsets of being, or perhaps even gen-era of being. Indeed Averroes begins his treatise on substance in theLong

Commentary by stating that Aristotle distinguished the number of ways

in which being is said, one of which was of substance (8.1516).

By enumerating both substance and the purity of the heaven, the

author of the prayers seems to distinguish between a material substan-

tial being and an aetherial being. Although this distinction has some

basis in Maimonides,27 it does not follow from Aristotles text and, in

fact, seems to contradict it. It could, however, be read into the text of

Averroes Long Commentary, where Averroes enumerates four kinds of

substance, all of which rely on the individual substance or first sub-

stance of the Categories (8.2324), which itself relies heavily on material.

While Averroes does not distinguish here between material and aether,

and indeed Averroes would almost certainly not make such a distinction

here, the author of the prayers apparently was interested in differentiating

23 Nahmanides association of the term with the firmament ( ) may also refer

to something like aether.24 Cf. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, I:4. But cf. also I:5, where Maimonides

asserts that the seeing mentioned in this passage was, in fact, coloured by corporealityand thus not completely intellectual.

25 Cf. Onqelos ad loc., Maimonides, Guide, I:28 and II:26.26 Note, however, that for Maimonides the Throne of Glory refers to the Indwelling,

or created light (Guide, I:28).27 See Guide, II:26: The whiteness, which is under the throne, is terrestrial matter.

Thus Rabbi Eliezerrepeated the very same thing and made it clear [in Pirqe dRabbiEliezer]I mean the fact that there are two matters a high and an inferior one . . . thematter of everything that is on earthI mean to say, of everything that is beneath thesphere of the moonis one common matter, and . . . the matter of all the heavens andof what is in them is another matter and not the same as the one just mentioned(trans. S. Pines [Chicago 1963] 331332).


11/16

Y. Halper / Zutot 8 (2011) 15-29 25

aether from material substance. Nevertheless, it seems that the author

of the prayers thought both to be subsets of being and both to point

toward the Creator.

.11

The prayer appended to the chapter on prior and posterior emphasizes

the term one, even over prior, and does not mention posterior at

all. Its opening reference to the chapter as the treatise on prior to one,

followed by its mention of the One God, seem to imply that priormost properly refers to the Creator. Indeed, the first five significations

of prior that Aristotle gives in .11 concern prior in relation to a prin-

ciple. The last of these, prior in an ordering, according to Averroes

following Aristotle, always refers to prior and posterior with reference

to a thing that is placed among them first and one.28 While Aristotles

example treats choral dancers arranged with reference to a lead dancer,

to some extent Averroes Long Commentary emphasizes prior that is in

relation to one. In the context of the prayer, the one must be the One

God.

The final words of the prayer, Who is at one [with Himself ], which

do not appear in other tefillot siyyum as far as I know, are taken from

Job 23:13: He is at one [with Himself ]; who can make Him return?

He does what His soul desires. Maimonides mentions this verse in the

Guide as one that can be misunderstood if read too hastily. At first

glance, Maimonides says, it could appear to support the mutakallim

position that Gods creation is devoid of natural necessity. In fact,

though, it shows the opposite: the things willed by God are necessarilyaccomplished. . . . He wills only what is possible. That is, Gods creation

accords with natural necessity and possibility. Maimonides continues:

this is the opinion of all those that adhere to the Law and also the

opinion of the philosophers, and it is also our own opinion.29 The

author of the prayers may have quoted Job 23:13 to imply that Gods

priority to the natural world as creator is consistent with the account

28. (11.7677).

29 Guide, III:25, trans. Pines, 504505.


12/16

26 Y. Halper / Zutot 8 (2011) 15-29

of natural necessity inMetaphysics.5 and possibility in .12. Following

Maimonides, he may have considered this verse to epitomize a kind of

harmonization of Judaism and philosophy.

.12

The prayer upon completion of the chapter on potential opens with

the formulaic statement that the chapter has been completed and per-

fected and continues with the not uncommon statement, praise to the

God of the world.30

Although it is by no means unique here, theexpression God of the world was a favourite of Maimonides and

he invokes the God of the World at the beginning of each part of the

Guide.31 It is possible, even likely, that if the author of the prayers was

familiar with Maimonides Guide, he would use this expression with

reference to Maimonides usage. The expression originates from Genesis

21:33, where it is invoked by Abraham after planting a tree. Perhaps

because of its association with planting and growth, Maimonides fre-

quently invokes the expression, probably with reference to the connec-

tion between God and nature, particularly an Aristotelian conception

of nature. The use made by the author of the prayers here appears to

connect power and potential to nature, particularly an Aristotelian

conception of nature, and also to God.

Indeed, the prayer goes on to tell us that God bears the arms of

the world with power. The expression, the arms of the world, which

does not occur in other tefillot siyyum to my knowledge, occurs only once

in the Bible in Deuteronomy 33:27: The eternal God is a dwelling

place, and underneath are the arms of the world . . . This verse isinterpreted by various medieval commentators, including Maimonides32

and Bahya ben Asher,33 to refer to Gods setting the heavenly spheres

30 It is used, e.g., in a number of places by Nahmanides. However, the similar expres-sion , Praise to God, Creator of the World, is more common.

31 See also his more detailed discussion of this invocation at Guide, III: 29. Note alsothat in a commentary on Guide II: 12, Kaspi says that in order to understand theexpression God of the world, one should examine AristotlesMetaphysics. Cf. Kaspi,Maskiot Kesef, ed. Salomo Werbluner (Frankfurt, 1848), p. 101.

32 Guide,I:70, trans. Pines, 172173.33 Commentary on the Pentateuch, ad loc.


13/16

Y. Halper / Zutot 8 (2011) 15-29 27

in motion and thereby creating the world. The act of setting the heav-

enly spheres in motion is the act of making the first motion, which can

result in all the other motions; it is this motion that sets in place all

other possibilities of motion. Thus, the God who bears the arms of

the world with power can be said to establish potentiality, in its

Aristotelian sense, in the world.

The description of God as He by Whose power the sea is stirred up,

a statement taken from Job 26:12,34 is probably a further description

of the movement of the heavenly spheres that causes the elements of

the sphere below the moon to become stirred up and to mix with one

another. According to Maimonides at least, it is through this mixing ofthe elements that the world as we know it is formed.35

The author of the prayers begins the final stanza of this unique

prayer with a line from Psalms that originally expressed Gods com-

mitment to keeping His covenant with the Israelites.36 In this context,

however, it is clear that the statement has a very different meaning.

Here the statement, He declares the power of His actions to His

people, must mean that God makes known to His people the potential-

itycreated by his actions. The reader who has understood the first half of

the prayer to refer to the creation of potentiality through setting the

heavenly spheres in motion will understand this line of the prayer

accordingly. Further, we may add that this declaration of Gods power

is recognized here after Aristotles discussion of power, perhaps imply-

ing that God declares the power of His actions through the Aristotelian

science of metaphysics.

The last line of the prayer, His is the greatness, the might, the

splendour, the triumph, and the majesty, is taken from I Chronicles

29:11 and apparently refers to the attributes of praise associated withGod Who has power. Indeed, the attributes enumerated here are often

34 Among the meanings of the verb are both to stir up and to be calm. Sometranslations of the Bible have understood at Job 26:12 to mean to make calm,although in most cases forms of are used for make calm. Similar statementsinvolving , albeit with a participle of the Qal form, are usually understood tomean stirs up the sea at Isaiah 51:15 and Jeremiah 31:35. Nevertheless, even if theauthor of the prayers understands this to refer to Gods making the sea calm with hispower, it is not unreasonable to assume that he believes God to accomplish this throughthe motion of the heavenly spheres.

35 Cf. Maimonides, Guide, I:72, trans. Pines, 186.36 Psalm111:6.


14/16

28 Y. Halper / Zutot 8 (2011) 15-29

given as the basis for the kabbalistic sefirot. Yet the entire verse is not

quoted here; the remainder of the verse, which would have been famil-

iar to any educated medieval Hebrew reader,37 has: for all that is in

the heavens and on the earth is Yours; Yours is the kingship. The

unstated reference to kingship brings to mind the earlier prayer to

chapter 7, associating all of being with a Kingdom of God.

Final Prayer

Although the final prayer appears after the incomplete twelfth chapterofMetaphysics, it is clear that it refers to the entire book as it appears

in this manuscript. Indeed, the entire book is called more precious

than gold, even fine gold. This statement, which is unique amongtefil-

lot siyyum so far as I can tell, is a take on Psalm 19:1011, which reads:

The ordinances of God are true; they are altogether righteous; they

are more desirable than gold, even much fine gold.38 In Psalm 19, it

is not Aristotles Metaphysics which is so desirable, but the ordinances

of God. It is impossible to ignore the significance of this: the expres-

sion, more precious than gold, even fine gold, which is clearly intended

in the Book of Psalms to indicate something of the highest possible

value is used by the author of the prayers to indicate Aristotles

Metaphysics with Averroes Long Commentary. The author of the prayers

implies that the science of metaphysics, even as understood by a non-

Jew, has at least as high a value as the ordinances of the Law, or per-

haps that the science of metaphysics is among the ordinances of the

Law.39

The unique expression at the end of the prayer, and here he hascompleted his words with judgment, seems to imply the latter. The

37 This verse was included in the daily prayer service.38 This psalm is included in the Sabbath prayer services and would consequently

be familiar to the medieval Hebrew readership.39 In his commentary to Psalm 19:11 Ibn Ezra states that the ordinances mentioned

here are really the twelve astrological signs and thus that these signs are the most valu-able things around. The statement here, however, is stronger; by replacing the wordordinances with this book the author of the prayers dismisses the value of the ordi-nances of the Law, and leaves room only for AristotlesMetaphysics with AverroesLongCommentary to be the most valuable thing.


15/16

Y. Halper / Zutot 8 (2011) 15-29 29

Hebrew word for judgment here is and I have translated it

judgment in accordance with its use in the text from which it is taken,

Psalm112:5: Good will come to him who is gracious and lends, who

orders his affairs with judgment. The author of the prayers is appar-

ently including Aristotle among the generous men, perhaps because he

shared his metaphysical knowledge in his writings. However, the word

also means ordinance and is the same word used in Psalm 19

to describe the ordinances of God. Thus the prayer could also mean

that Aristotle completed his words by ordinance or through ordinance.

Aristotles Metaphysics may be of the same value as the ordinances of

God described in Psalm 19 because it is somehow made through ordi-nances, or that the subject of the book, i.e., the science of metaphysics,

that through which the book is made, is an ordinance of God.

In the remainder of the prayer, the author of the prayers uses for-

mulaic sentences commonly placed at the end of works to pray that

God grant strength and boldness to those who study the work.40

These unique, short, though somewhat inconspicuous prayers that

appear after chapters of AristotlesMetaphysics signify a radically novel

interpretation of the Jewish tradition. By using common formulae that

appear in tefillot siyyum for books with a ritual function, they include

Averroes Long Commentary, along with Aristotles Metaphysics among

such works. Further, by quoting and referring to well-known canonical

works, they present a philosophical interpretation of Judaism, God and

the creation of the world that has as its centre-point metaphysics, as

understood by Aristotle and his most important commentator,

Averroes.

40 The very common concluding formula, strong be the author and bold the reader,also appears, e.g., at the end of a Hebrew translation of Averroes Middle Commentaryon Aristotles Categories, copied in 1336 (cf. Vatican ebr. 337, fol. 25v) and a manuscriptof Maimonides commentary on the Mishnah (orders Zeraim to Nezikin) (Vat. ebr.465, fol. 274v).


16/16

Download - Halper - Metaphysical Prayers - Zutot

Top Related