Printed fromOxfordChabad.org
ב"ה

Maimonides on the sounding of the Shofar through the manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah at the Bodleian Library

Thursday, 14 September, 2023 - 7:46 pm

IMG_5246 Marsh 509 Uru uru.jpg

Maimonides on the sounding of the Shofar through the manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah at the Bodleian Library

 

The central tradition on the festival of Rosh Hashana is to hear the sounding of the Shofar, as it states in Leviticus 23:24: ‘Speak to the Israelite people thus: In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe complete rest, a sacred occasion commemorated with loud blasts.’ Similarly, it states in Numbers 29:1: ‘In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe a sacred occasion: you shall not work at your occupations. You shall observe it as a day when the horn is sounded.’ While the Torah does not give any reason for this mitzvah, numerous reasons are given through the centries. In the 5th century midrashic work, Pesikta derav Kahanna (24:1), it gives a reason, based on Amos 3:6: ‘When a ram’s horn is sounded in a town, do the people not take alarm. The ‘ram’s horn’ refers to Rosh Hashana and ‘the people’ refers to Israel.

 

Saadia Gaon

 

Saadia Gaon, cited by 14th century R. David Abudarham (Rosh Hashana, Tekiat Shofar 15), offers ten reasons. 1. This day is the beginning of creation when G-d created the world and ruled over it. At the beginning of a king's reign, they sounds the trumpets and shofars, to promulgate in all locations that the new reign has begun; likewise, we accept upon ourselves G-d's reign on this day by sounding the shofar. 2. Rosh Hashana is the first of the Ten Days of Teshuva, and we blow the shofar in order to announce that all those who wish to do teshuva, should do so. 3. The shofar reminds us of the shofar at Mt. Sinai, when we accepted the Torah. 4. The shofar reminds us of the Prophets, whose voice exhorts us to improve our ways. 5. The Shofar reminds us of the destruction of the Holy Temple and the cries of war. When we hear this sound, we will beseech G-d to rebuild the Temple. 6. The shofar (ram's horn) reminds us of the Binding of Isaac, who was ready to surrender his life for the sake of Heaven; likewise, we should also dedicate ourselves to sanctifying His name, and He will surely recall us for the good. 7. When we hear the sound of the shofar, we will tremble. This is the nature of the sound of the shofar, it causes one to tremble with trepidation. 8. The shofar reminds us of the Day of Judgment. 9. The shofar reminds us of the ingathering of the exiles when the shofar will be sounded, and this causes us to yearn for that time. 10. The shofar reminds us to believe in the resurrection of the dead.

 

Maimonides

 

Maimonides also gives a reason, similar to Pessikta deRav Kahanna: to awaken the person to repentance. In this essay, we would like to explore the reason given by Maimonides in detail as found in the printed edition and manuscripts of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah in the Bodleian Library. In particular, we will do this surveying a number of some minor, some significant variants of this text between the printed edition and the manuscripts and among the manuscripts. Finally, we try to explain the significance of these variants, how they impact the teaching that Maimonides is conveying regarding this all-important mitzvah on Rosh Hashana. In Mishneh Torah, Laws of repentance 3:4, it states:

 

Even though the sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShanah is a decree (gezeirat ha-katuv), it contains an allusion (remez yesh bo). It is as if [the shofar's call] is saying: Wake up you sleepy ones from your sleep and you who slumber, arise. Inspect your deeds, repent, remember your Creator. Those who forget the truth in the vanities of time and throughout the entire year, devote their energies to vanity and emptiness which will not benefit or save: Look to your souls. Improve your ways and your deeds and let every one of you abandon his evil path and thoughts.

Accordingly, throughout the entire year, a person should always look at himself as equally balanced between merit and sin and the world as equally balanced between merit and sin. If he performs one sin, he tips his balance and that of the entire world to the side of guilt and brings destruction upon himself. On the other hand, if he performs one mitzvah, he tips his balance and that of the entire world to the side of merit and brings deliverance and salvation to himself and others. This is implied by [Proverbs 10:25] "A righteous man is the foundation of the world," i.e., he who acted righteously, tipped the balance of the entire world to merit and saved it. For these reasons, it is customary for all of Israel to give profusely to charity, perform many good deeds, and be occupied with mitzvot from Rosh HaShanah until Yom Kippur to a greater extent than during the remainder of the year. During these ten days, the custom is for everyone to rise [while it is still] night and pray in the synagogues with heart-rending words of supplication until daybreak.

 

Screenshot 2023-09-15 at 08.08.07.pngSource of Maimonides

 

As R. Shem Tov ben Abraham ibn Gaon (1283 – c. 1330) in his commentary on the Mishneh Torah, Migdal Oz, and R. Menahem Krakovski (1869-1929), in Avodat ha-melech, point out, the source for Maimonides’ connection between the Shofar and call for repentance is from the midrash (Leviticus rabba 29:6):

 

On this month, rejuvenate your deeds with the shofar; on this month, improve (shapru) your deeds. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, "If you have improved your deeds, I will surely do like this shofar for you: Just like this shofar takes in [air] on this [side] and releases [it] on that [side], so too will I stand up from the throne of justice and sit on the throne of mercy and reverse the trait of justice for you into the trait of mercy." When? In the seventh month.

 

While the origin for the idea of repentance found in the shofar predates Maimonides, and some of the wording appears to arise from the midrash, the precise wording that Maimonides uses appears original.

 

Unstable text

 

We would like to begin by presenting this text of Maimonides with its many variants in the manuscripts, as found in the Bodleian Library, before the work was printed in the 15th century, demonstrating that this is not a stable text. The Mishneh Torah was first printed circa 1473-1475 in Italy (probably Rome), then in other cities in Italy, the Iberian Peninsula, and Turkey. David and Samuel Ibn Nahmias printed a Mishneh Torah in Constantinople in 1509. In 1524, the master Venetian printer Daniel Bomberg produced a beautiful, well-edited Mishneh torah in two large volumes. In 1550, the new printing firm established by Alvise Bragadini came out with a Mishneh torah with notes by R. Meir Katzenellenbogen of Padua. Marco Antonio Giustiniani’s printing house published its edition in 1550-1. Bragadini continued to print until 1575, his last work being Mishneh Torah, published in 1574-75. In the middle of the seventeenth century, Joseph Athias established a combined Hebrew-Dutch printing house in Amsterdam, which turned into a success. His son, Immanuel Athias took over the management of the Hebrew printing in 1685. In 1702, he published Maimonides' Mishneh Torah in four volumes. The most common printed version today is the Warsaw-Vilna edition, circa 1900. Prior to the printing, however, many manuscripts existed, many of which may be found at Oxford’s Bodleian library. We will present the differences of the versions of the text regarding the reason for the sounding of the shofar on Rosh Hashana as found in the mansucripts.

 

Variant 1: ‘Gezerat ha-katuv’ (Scriptural decree)

 

In the opening of the text, it states: ‘Even though the sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShanah is a decree (gezeirat ha-katuv).’ In some of the manuscripts the suffix: ‘hi’ (it is) is added: ‘gezeirat ha-katuv hi.’ In MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, it is added in the margin, as a correction and in Ashkenaz MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400, Ashkenaz), it is added in the main text. In the other manuscripts it is omitted. This includes: MS Huntington 80 (Egypt), MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), MS. Pococke 307 (1301-1400, Spain), MS Marsh 97, MS Marsh 509 (1376–1425, Orient), MS Marsh 116 (1301–1325, North Africa?), MS Opp. 156, Etz Chaim (Leipzig).

 

The inclusion of the suffix: ‘hi’ (it is), when stating that a law is a Scriptural decree (gezeirat ha-katuv hi), is typical for this sentence. This precise phrase – the mitzva is a Scriptural decree but contains an allusion - can be found in Maimonides’ Mishne Torah, in the laws of Mikvaot (11:12):

 

It is a clear and apparent matter that the concepts of purity and impurity are Scriptural decrees (gezeirat ha-katuv hen) and they are not matters determined by a person's understanding and they are included in the category of chukim. Similarly, immersion in a mikveh to ascend from impurity is included in the category of chukim, because impurity is not mud or filth that can be washed away with water. Instead, the immersion is a Scriptural decree (gezeirat ha-katuv hi) and requires focusing the intent of one's heart. Therefore, our Sages said: "When one immersed, but did not intend to purify himself," it is as if he did not immerse. Nevertheless, there is an allusion (remez) involved: One who focuses his heart on purifying himself becomes purified once he immerses, even though there was no change in his body. Similarly, one who focuses his heart on purifying his soul from the impurities of the soul, which are wicked thoughts and bad character traits, becomes purified when he resolves within his heart to distance himself from such counsel and immerse his soul in the waters of knowledge. And Ezekiel 36:25 states: "I will pour over you pure water and you will be purified from all your impurities and from all your false deities, I will purify you."

 

 

A possible reason for the omission of the word 'hi' (it is), after: ‘the sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShanah is a decree (gezeirat ha-katuv),’ is to make a distinction between the actual sounding of the shofar that has a reason - a call to repent - and its ultimate purpose: to precipitate, through repentance, a desire within G-d to be sovereign over the universe (Saadia Gaon’s first reason). Since it is not the actual sounding of the shofar that is beyond rationale, it omits the emphatic word: ‘hi’ (it is). 

 

Variant 2: ‘Remez’ (Allusion)

 

In all the versions of Mishneh Torah, it states that despite shofar being a Scriptural decree, there it contains an allusion (remez), i.e. repentance. In English medieval compendium of Jewish law Etz Chaim, produced in 1279, in Laws of repentance (ch. 1), citing Maimonides’ text, it however omits the word ‘remez’ (allusion) and, instead paraphrases the continued words found in the text: ‘rotzeh lomar’ (intending to say), suggesting the concept of repentance reflected in the sounding of the shofar may have a closer relationship with the Scripture than a hint by allagory.

 

Variant 3: ‘remez yesh bo’ (it contains an allusion)

 

In most of the versions, after the words: ‘an allusion’ (remez yesh), it states in the masculine: ‘bo’ (in it). In MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, it has, however, the feminine: ‘bah’ (in it). This variant is highlighted also by R. Menachem M. Schneerson in Likkutei Sichot (14:124, f.12), commenting that Taimanite editions have the feminine: ‘bah’ (in it). MS Huntington 80, with Maimonides’ signature, authenticating the version, has the masculine: ‘bo’ (in it). The use of the masculine: ‘bo’ is gender-consistent with the (masculine) word: ‘hakatuv’ (Scriptural). In this manner, the text is being consistent: ‘although it is a scriptural decree, it – the scripture (masculine) - has an allusion ‘in it’ - ‘bo’ (masculine).

 

Thus, in MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, where the feminine word: ‘hi’ (it is) is added in the margin after: ‘Scriptural decree’ (gezeirat ha-katuv), it makes sense there would also be the change to the feminine ‘bah (in it), after ‘remez yesh’ (there is an allusion). There is an inconsistency, however, in MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400), where the feminine suffix: ‘hi’ is added in the main text after ‘gezeirat hakatuv’ (Scriptural decree), but retains the masculine ‘bo’ (contains) in the sentence (remez yesh bo). In the Laws of Mikvaot, Maimonides avoids the gender issue, by stating: ‘there is an allusion involved in the matter (b’davar).

 

Screenshot 2023-09-15 at 08.20.47.pngVariant 4: ‘Uru, uru’ (wake up, wake up)

 

The idea that the sounding of the shofar alludes to is to wake up and repent. The Mishneh Torah writes in the standard edition: ‘Wake up (uru) you sleepy ones (ye-sheinim) from your sleep (mi-she-natchem) and you who slumber (ve-n ir-da-mim), arise (ha-ki-tzu) from your slumber (mi-tar-de-ma-tei-chem). Inspect your deeds (ve-chap-su be’ma-a-se-chem), repent (ve-chiz-ru bi-teshuva), remember your Creator (ve-zi-chru bo-ra-a-chem).’

 

The standard text has in the opening of this sentence once the word: ‘wake up’ (uru). This is how it can be found in MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), MS. Pococke 307 (1301-1400, Spain), MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, and MS Marsh 116 (1301–1325, North Africa?). In many of the manuscripts, however, it has twice: ‘wake up, wake up’ (uru uru). This can be found in MS Huntington 80 (Egypt), MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400, Ashkenaz), MS Marsh 97, MS Marsh 509 (1376–1425, Orient), MS Opp. 156, and Etz Chaim (Leipzig). Aware of how carefully Maimonides was when writing each word of his text, as testified by the corrections made in MS Huntington 80, what would be the reason to have the phrase ‘wake up’ (uru) repeated?

 

The overall idea of calling man to wake up and repent can be found in Selichot Edot HaMizrach (4), where it states: ‘O man, why are you sleeping? Arise, call out with supplications! Pour out speech, seek forgiveness from the Master of masters.’ This text is taken from Jonah 1:6: ‘The captain went over to him and cried out, “How can you be sleeping so soundly! Arise, call upon your god! Perhaps the god will be kind to us and we will not perish.”’

 

The midrash Tanchumah (Vayikra 8:1) explains that the reason Jonah refused to travel to Ninveh was because he knew they would immediately repent and this would be used by G-d as a criticism against Israel who sins and does not repent immediately. Jonah said, "I am fleeing from in front of Him to a place where His glory is not [found]. What shall I do? If I ascend to the heavens, His glory is there, as it is stated (Psalms 113:4), 'upon the heavens is His glory.' And if upon the earth, His glory is there [too], as it is stated (Isaiah 6:3), 'the whole earth is full of His glory.' Behold, I will flee to the sea, as His glory is not stated there." [So] he went down to Jaffa…He said to [the boatsmen], "I will come with you." And the way of all ships is that when a man exits from them, he gives his payment. But in the joy of Jonah's heart, He preceded and gave his wage [right away], as it is stated (Jonah 1:3), "And Jonah arose to flee to Tarshish from in front of the Lord [... and he gave its pay]."Jonah dozed off and was sleeping in the distress of his soul; and the captain came to him. He said to him, "Behold, we are standing between death and life, and you are dozing off? From which people are you?" He said to them, "I am a Hebrew." They said to him, "And have we not heard that the G-d of the Hebrews is great? 'Cry out to your G-d' (Jonah 1:6). Maybe He will do for us like all of His wonders at the Red Sea." He said to them, "This distress has come upon you because of me, as I am fleeing from in front of Him, as I thought that His glory was not in the sea, and now I see that His glory is on the dry land and in the sea." He said to them, "Because of me; 'Lift me and put me in the sea, and the sea will be quiet upon you' (Jonah 1:12)."

 

The phrase from Jonah 1:6: ‘How can you be sleeping so soundly! Arise, call upon your G-d,’ is expounded in the midrash: ‘Behold, we are standing between death and life, and you are dozing off’ and its use in the Selichot may be an aspect of the inspiration for this passage - ‘wake up’ - in Maimonides relating to the call of the shofar.  This may also explain the double phrase: ‘wake up, wake up,’ as it states in Jonah, both ‘How can you be sleeping’ and ‘arise.’ I would like to propose, however, a further, more explicit source for the double: ‘wake up,’ as found in Psalms and Isaiah. 

 

In Psalms 57:9, it states: ‘Awake, O my soul (lit. honour)! Awake, O harp and lyre! I will wake the dawn.’ There are two interpretations for the double ‘Awake:’ Rashi comments the first is to negate the sleeping practice of other kings: ‘Awaken, my honour and let me not sleep until three hours of the day have passed, as other kings do.’ The second, ‘Awaken’ is being addressed to the lyre and harp: Awaken me, you lyre and harp hanging on my bed, open to the north side. And as soon as midnight arrived, the north wind would blow on it, and David would get up and engage in Torah (see also Rashi on Berachot 3b and 4a).

 

R’ David Kimchi, known as Redak, offers a further interpretation: when G-d saves David from the hands of his enemy, he will sing to G-d with his mouth and also play music with instruments. Thus, he will say to his soul (ke’vo-di): ‘Awaken to compose words of song and thanksgiving, and a second ‘Awaken’ to the lyre and harp, when ‘I awaken at dawn.’ In both these commentaries, the double ‘awaken’ are used as a transitive verb with different focuses. Maimonides, in laws of repentance, however uses the double phrase as an intransitive verb and the second appears redundant. There are a number of approaches to this problem.

 

Screenshot 2023-09-15 at 08.26.40.pngOmission

 

As mentioned, many of the manuscripts omits the second ‘wake up.’ This may also be the case in MS. Marsh 509, where a slight erasure appears on the second ‘uru’ (wake up). This resolves the issue.

 

Interpretation

 

A second approach is to interpret the double phrase, similar to the way it is understood in Psalms 57:9. This can be found in manuscript MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), where it breaks up the two phrases: it first states: ‘wake up, sleepy ones’ (uru ye-sheinim), and then ‘wake up from your sleep’ (uru mi-she-nat-chem). As Rashi on Psalms explains, the first implies the negative: ‘do not sleep’ and the second, the positive: ‘wake up.’ The intention of this manuscript is not to change the original text, but rather interpret and validate the double phrase. This is similar to the approach of Abrabanel on Isaiah 51:9, where he expounds that the three times the verse states: ‘Awake’ refers to different aspects of the words of comfort that the verse is conveying: ‘the days of old,’ refers to the promise given to Abraham, to increase his progeny, ‘former ages,’ referring to receiving the Torah, and ‘hacked Rahab,’ referring to punishment for the wicked. In a similar vein, the first ‘wake up’ may refer to awaken from being asleep, while the second one is not to be lazy, as in Proverbs 6:9: ‘How long will you lie there, lazybones; When will you wake from your sleep?’

 

Using a biblical verse

 

A third approach is to embrace the redundancy of the text, and understand it in the context of its scriptural source. This may be understood in light of the verse in Isaiah 51:9: ‘Awake, awake, clothe yourself with splendor. O arm of the Eternal One! Awake as in days of old, as in former ages! It was you that hacked Rahab in pieces, that pierced the Dragon.’ This passage serves as the basis for the Shabbat piyyut: ‘Arouse yourself, arouse yourself, for your light has come; arise, shine. Awake, awake, utter a song; the glory of the L-rd is revealed upon you.’ Leviticus Rabba (10:2) reflects on the double words found frequently in Isaiah as not needing any explanation:

 

As you live, whereas all prophets prophesied single words of comfort, you shall double words of cheer; for instance, ‘Awake, awake’ (Isaiah 51:9); ‘Awaken yourself, awaken yourself’ (Isaiah 51:17); ‘Rejoice, yes, I will rejoice’ (Isaiah 61:10); ‘I, even I, He that comforts you’ (Isaiah 51:12); ‘Comfort you, comfort you, my people’ (Isaiah 40:1).

 

Other obvious instances of double words in Isaiah include: ‘Turn, turn away (suru suru), touch naught impure, as you depart from there; Keep pure, as you go forth from there, You who bear the vessels of G-d’ (Isaiah 52:11), and ‘says: Build up, build up a highway (solu solu)! Clear a road! Remove all obstacles from the road of My people! (Isaiah 57:14). Thus, we may conclude that Maimonides is borrowing from the text of Isaiah, where the doubling ‘awaken, awaken’ is found, with no need for any explanation.

 

Source for precise wording - 'uru' (wake up)

 

Despite all the above, the only place where the exact double phrase: ‘uru uru’ (wake up, wake up), in the plural, can be found is in Josippon - a chronicle of Jewish history from Adam to the age of Titus, named after its supposed author, Josephus Flavius, though composed in the 10th century in Southern Italy. It was written in Hebrew and translated into Arabic. It states (6:60):

 

And now his sins have ensnared him, and he has arrived in the eye of the punishment of death and he wishes to be saved from it with words that are abhorrent, containing falseness and deceit: wake up, wake up (uru uru), and arrange your bones before the king. And now, who will the king find righteous and who wicked.

 

Variant 5: ‘Mi-tnu-mat-chem’ (from your slumber)

 

The text continues: ‘and you who slumber (ve-n ir-da-mim), arise (ha-ki-tzu) from your slumber (mi-tar-dei-mat-chem).’ This word: ‘mi-tar-dei-mat-chem’ is how it can be found in MS Huntington 80 (Egypt), MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), MS. Pococke 307 (1301-1400, Spain), MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400, Ashkenaz), MS Marsh 97, MS Marsh 116 (1301–1325, North Africa?), MS Opp. 156, and Etz Chaim (Leipzig). In other versions it states: ‘mi-tnu-mat-chem’ (your slumber).This can be found inMS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, MS Marsh 509 (1376–1425, Orient).

 

There is a difference in meaning between ‘tenumah’ and ‘tardemah.’ In Proverbs 6:4, it states: ‘Give your eyes no sleep, Your pupils no slumber (tenumah), and Proverbs 6:9-10, it states: How long will you lie there, lazybones; When will you wake from your sleep? A bit more sleep, a bit more slumber (tenumah).’

 

In Genesis 2:21, it states: ‘So G-d cast a deep sleep (tardemah) upon the Human; and, while he slept, [G-d] took one of his sides and closed up the flesh at that site.’ Similarly, in Genesis 15:12, it states: ‘As the sun was about to set, a deep sleep (tardemah) fell upon Abram, and a great dark dread descended upon him.’ Ibn Ezra explains on Genesis 2:21: ‘Tardemah is a deeper sleep than shenah, and shenah is a deeper sleep than tenumah.’ Abrabanel points out that the sleep of Adam was so deep that he lost all sense of pain, unaware that one of his sides was being taken to form Eve. This allowed for her sudden appearance, when he awoke, and thus joy when discovering her. The Malbim on Proverbs 6:4, also translates ‘tenumah’ as a light sleep (shenah kalah), citing Isaiah 5:27: ‘In its ranks, none is weary or stumbles, they never sleep (yanum) or slumber (yishan).’ Ibn Ezra comments: ‘nom’ signifies a sleep of a less profound kind than ‘yashen.’ He will not slumber (yanum), much less will he sleep (yishan).’ Similarly, in Psalms 121: ‘See, the guardian of Israel, neither slumbers (yanum) nor (certainly not) sleeps (yishan)!’

 

In a spiritual sense, R. Joseph I. Schneerson explains in a discourse on the 1st day of Rosh Hashana 1950 (Sefer ha-mamorim 5710, p. 9), the distinction between ‘shenah’ and ‘tardemah’ is: sleep is one knows that truth exists, but one confuses it with falseness and is distant from it. Slumber is one forgets there is something called truth. Based on the above, ‘tenumah’ is a light sleep, ‘shenah’ is a deep sleep, and ‘tardemah’ is a very deep sleep, accompanied by the loss of all one’s senses.

 

Similarly, the midrash (Genesis Rabbah 17:5) counts three types of sleep in a descending order: sleep (tardemat shenah), unconsciousness sleep (tardemat marmitah), and sleep of folly (tardemah shel shtut), as it states (Isaiah 29:11): ‘For G-d has spread over you a spirit of deep sleep.’ R. Joseph I. Schneersohn interprets these three categories as: one who does not study Torah, nor serve G-d, one who forgets about the service of G-d, becoming spiritually unconscious, and one from whom the truth of G-d is concealed. This all begins with lethargy, as it states (Proverbs 19:15): ‘Laziness induces sleep, and a negligent person will go hungry.’

 

Descending

 

Based on these distinctions, there are two ways to understand the text of Maimonides in relation to the sounding of the shofar as a wake up call for repentance: in descending order - going from a person that is in a bad spiritual state to one who is in an even worse spiritual state. This would be the version that reads: ‘mi-tar-dei-mat-chem’ (awaken from your slumber). It begins with ‘wake up’ from your sleep (shenah) and then progresses with one who is in a worse spiritual state: a state of slumber (mi-tar-dei-mat-chem). In this context, Maimonides continues with a text that defines a person in this lowly state: ‘remember your Creator, those who forget the truth in the vanities of time and throughout the entire year, devote their energies to vanity and emptiness which will not benefit or save.’

 

Ascending

 

The version that uses the weaker term: ‘mi-tnu-mat-chem,’ reflects an ascending order, from worse to not so bad: first, it talks about the shofar waking one up from a deep sleep (shenah) and then from a lesser form of sleep (tenumah). According to this reading, the continuation: ‘remember your Creator’ refers to a person who is even on a higher spiritual level but still needs awakening: not to repent for bad deeds, but one who needs reminding to contemplate about G-d, rather than one’s own satisfaction, when studying Torah, as interpreted by R. Tzadok HaKohen of Lublin (Likutei Maamarim, Compositions on the Festivals 13). Alternatively, the desire of the soul to ascend, as opposed to fulfil the will of G-d to focus on observance of mitzvot in the physical realm, as argued by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Menachem M. Schneerson (Likkutei Sichot 2:649). This ascending order is similar to the verse in Proverbs (6:9-10): ‘When will you wake from your sleep? A bit more sleep (deep sleep), a bit more slumber (light sleep), a bit more hugging yourself in bed (laziness).’

 

Uru, uru (wake up, wake up)

 

These various levels of ‘sleep’ that exists in Jewish thought, including laziness, sleep, unconsciousness, and sleep of folly, explains the version that includes a deeper level of sleep (tardemah). In addition, it explains the earlier variant: the double term ‘uru, uru’ (wake up, wake up), as the first may refer to ‘wake up’ from the ‘laziness,’ that precipitates ‘sleep,’ while the second in descending order refers to waking up from ‘sleep’ itself. As mentioned, this may be the understanding of MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), where it breaks up the two phrases: it first states: ‘wake up, sleepy ones’ (uru ye-sheinim), and then ‘wake up from your sleep’ (uru mi-she-nat-chem).

 

Variant 6: ‘Be-ma-a-sechem’ (your deeds)

 

The text continues: ‘inspect your deeds’ (ve-chap-su be’ma-a-se-chem). In most of the versions it states: ‘be’ma-a-se-chem’ (in your deeds). This (be’ma-a-se-chem) is how it can be found in MS Huntington 80 (Egypt), MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), MS. Pococke 307 (1301-1400, Spain), MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, MS Marsh 97, MS Marsh 509 (1376–1425, Orient), MS Marsh 116 (1301–1325, North Africa?), MS Opp. 156, and Etz Chaim (Leipzig). In one version, it omits the prefix ‘bet’ and just states: ‘ma-a-se-chem’ (your deeds). This can be found in MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400, Ashkenaz).

 

Screenshot 2023-09-15 at 08.30.27.pngVariant 7: ‘Vechizru b’Teshuva’ (repent)

 

The text continues: ‘repent’ (ve-chaz-ru bi-teshuva). The literal translation is ‘return in repentance.’ This (ve-chaz-ru) is how it can be found in MS Huntington 80 (Egypt), MS. Pococke 307 (1301-1400, Spain), MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400, Ashkenaz), MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, MS Marsh 97, MS Marsh 509 (1376–1425, Orient), MS Opp. 156, and Etz Chaim (Leipzig).

 

In MS Marsh 116 (1301–1325, North Africa?), it states: ‘ve-hiz-ha-ru’ (be careful in repentance). In MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), it first had ‘ve-hiz-ha-ru’ (be careful in repentance), and was corrected by rewriting the first letter ‘he’ into a ‘chet,’ and typographical removal dots placed on the second ‘he,’ so to allow the correct word to be read: ‘ve-chaz-ru’ (return). In Etz Chaim (Leipzig), there appears to have been also some correction to this word. It is unclear the reason for this variant: the two words may have become confused due to their similarity. A possibility is since the word ‘teshuva’ literallymeans ‘return,’ it may be redundant to state: return in ‘teshuvah.’

 

Variant 8: 've-zi-chru bo-ra-a-chem' (And remember your Creator, those who forget the truth)

 

The text continues: ‘and remember your Creator’ (ve-zi-chru bo-ra-a-chem), those who forget the truth.’ There are three variants in this sentence. The words: ‘and remember your Creator’ (ve-zi-chru bo-ra-a-chem), with the conjunctive ‘vav’ (and) before ‘remember:’ ‘Ve-zi-chru’ (and remember) is how it is found in MS Huntington 80 (Egypt), MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), MS. Pococke 307 (1301-1400, Spain), MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400, Ashkenaz), MS Marsh 97, MS Marsh 509 (1376–1425, Orient), MS Marsh 116 (1301–1325, North Africa?), MS Opp. 156, and Etz Chaim (Leipzig). In MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, it has a space before ‘zichru’ (remember) and omits the ‘vav’ (and).

 

Variant 9: ‘Bora-achem’ (your Creator)

 

A further variant in this sentence: the word: ‘Bora-achem’ (your Creator). This is how it is found in MS Huntington 80 (Egypt), MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400, Ashkenaz), MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, MS Marsh 97, MS Marsh 509 (1376–1425, Orient), MS Opp. 156. InMS Marsh 116 (1301–1325, North Africa?), it spells ‘Bora-achem’ (your Creator) without the vowel: ‘vav, ’after the ‘bet.’ In MS. Pococke 307 (1301-1400, Spain), it states with an additional ‘yud’ inserted: ‘Borei-chem.’ In Etz Chaim (Leipzig), it first has the word ‘Bore’ (Creator), but corrected by a later hand with the suffix: ‘chem’ (your).

 

Variant 10: ‘Eilu’ (those)

 

Finally, after the words: ‘remember your Creator;’ it continues: ‘those (eilu) who forget the truth in the vanities of time and throughout the entire year, devote their energies to vanity and emptiness which will not benefit or save: Look to your souls. Improve your ways and your deeds and let every one of you abandon his evil path and thoughts.’ The inclusion of the word: ‘eilu’ (those), before ‘who forget the truth,’ after ‘remember your Creator,’ is intended to serve as an indicator that it is now presenting an interpretation to the statement ‘remember your Creator,’ namely: it refers to ‘those (eilu) who forget the truth in the vanities of time and throughout the entire year, devote their energies to vanity and emptiness which will not benefit or save.’ This phrase (eilu) is found in MS Huntington 80 (Egypt), MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400, Ashkenaz), MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, MS Marsh 97, MS Marsh 509 (1376–1425, Orient), and MS Marsh 116 (1301–1325, North Africa?).

 

In MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), however, the word: ‘eilu’ (those) was first omitted, and then added between the lines. In MS. Pococke 307 (1301-1400, Spain), after ‘remember your Creator,’ it states: ‘and do not be from those who forget the truth in the vanity of time.’ In the margin, after ‘do not be’ (ve-al tih-yu), it adds: ‘like those’ (kemo eilu): ‘remember your Creator and do not be like those (kemo eilu) who forget the truth in the vanity of time.’ In MS Opp. 156, there seems to be a correction, forming the word: ‘atem’ (you). In Etz Chaim, it states: ‘and remember your Creator,’ omitting the rest of the paragraph.

 

Reason for the last three variants

 

Screenshot 2023-09-15 at 08.16.18.pngA reason for these last three variants appears to be due to a question that arises in Maimonides’ text: why does ‘remember your Creator’ not come at the beginning of the paragraph; surely, remembering G-d is the primary inspiration to repent and forgetfulness cause for one’s spiritual decline? There are a number of answers to this question, reflected in the variants in the manuscripts.

 

1. MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30 responds to this question by arguing that the statement is in fact not a continuation from the previous imperatives but a new sentence. This manuscript therefore leaves a break before ‘remember your Creator’ and omits the conjunctive prefix ‘vav’ (and). It is engaging in a general commentary on the verse in Ecclesiastes 12:1: ‘Remember your Creator (zechor et bor-a-chah) in the days of your youth,’ unrelated directly to the previous statements.

 

2. A difference in the spelling of the word ‘bor-a-chem’ may allude to a different meaning all together. The phrase ‘zichru bo-ra-a-chem,’ as mentioned, is citing a verse from Ecclesiastes 12:1: ‘Remember your Creator (zechor et bor-a-chah) in the days of your youth.’ In Ethics of the Fathers (3:1), there are two additional ways to understand the word ‘bor-a-chah:’ 1. remember ‘your pit (bor-e-chah), your grave’, and 2. remember ‘your well’ (be-e-re-chah), that flows from its source, that is, the putrid drop of semen and whitenes. Both these contemplations – one’s humble origin and death - should cause a person to repent. In this light, it is in theme with the previous words concerning repentance.

 

3. In 1906, Rabbi Shalom Dovber Schneersohn (1860-1920), known as the Rashab, explained that Maimonides structures the text on the Talmudic statement (Rosh Hashana 34b):

 

Rabba said that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Recite before Me on Rosh HaShana Kingship, Remembrances, and Shofarot. Kingship, so that you will crown Me as King over you; Remembrances, so that your remembrance will rise before Me for good. And with what? With the shofar.

 

‘Wake up’ and ‘repent’ refers to ‘kingship,’ ‘remember your Creator’ refers to ‘remembrance,’ and ‘improve your ways’ refers to ‘shofar.’ In this manner, it is in fact a single coherent text, presenting three themes, and the conjunctive ‘vav’ (and) is correct.[1]

 

4. A further explanation may be found based on the above-mentioned talk given by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Menachem Schneerson on Simchat Torah, 1957, published in Likkutei Sichot (2:649): The phrase: ‘remember your creator - those who forget the truth in the vanities of time and throughout the entire year, devote their energies to vanity and emptiness which will not benefit or save (asher lo 'lo ya-il ve-lo yatzil),’[2] refers not to one who is spiritually asleep, unable to serve G-d, but on the contrary, a lofty concept of sleep, as the midrash states (Genesis rabba 14): ‘at the time a person sleeps, the soul ascends, and draws to the person life from Above.’ This is also an understanding given to the concern in the Mishnah (Yoma 1:5) of the High Priest falling asleep on the night of Yom Kipppur in the Temple. In this context, the whole text concerning the reason for the sounding of the shofar is addressing a single concern: one who aspires for the spiritual (sleep) and forgetting that the true will of G-d (remember your Creator) is to perform the mitzvot in this physical world and make the world a dwelling for the Divine (Tanchuma Naso).

 

Conclusion

 

Maimonides understands the sounding of the shofar as a decree but nevertheless alludes to the call to repent. We presented numerous variants in this text and argued that they all reflect different ways in which a person may need waking up from a spiritual sleep on Rosh Hashana. This may be a person who is such a deep sleep – sleep of folly - that one is in a state of unconsciousness in relation to the service of G-d, due to being immersed in the material world. On the other end of the spectrum, one may read the text of Maimonides addressing one who only aspires to unite with G-d, negating all connection with the physical world. Indeed, it is possible that Maimonides is being deliberately ambiguous in this text, allowing for the flexibility of it being read by the individual according the spiritual state one finds oneself and thus the call to repent that is facilitated by the sounding of the shofar.

 

PART II

 

The concept of Divine sleep through the work of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah at the Bodleian Library

  

Screenshot 2023-09-15 at 08.55.26.pngAn important subject in medieval Jewish philosophy is the negation of the incorporeality of G-d. Maimonides dedicates much of the first volume of his Guide for the Perplexed[3] to this principle and articulates this also in his legal work Mishneh Torah.[4] Although the Torah describes G-d in numerous places in corporeal terms, as it states: ‘G-d hears the cries of the Israelites,’[5] and ‘G-d smelled the pleasant aroma,’[6] Maimonides applies the Talmudic dictum that the Torah is speaking in the language of man,[7] interpreted to mean that the Torah does not in any way intend to suggest that G-d has a human body or corporeal form – a proposition that to most medieval Jewish philosophers is heresy. In this essay, we will focus on a particular concept of apparent corporeality of the Divine: the subject of sleep in relation to G-d. We will first present the view of Maimonides that there is no sleep for G-d, despite the references in Scripture to the contrary. We will then present a further development in Jewish thought regarding Divine sleep, suggesting that there are in fact four scenarios of sleep in the Divine. We will proceed to define the concept of sleep in the Divine and further present the different stages of sleep. We will finally explain that, despite these descriptions of Divine sleep and awakening, the later development of Divine sleep in Jewish thought is in fact compatible with Maimonides’ view that G-d does not sleep. In conclusion, we will be able to understand a difference in the version of Maimonides regarding the concept of ‘sleep’ and ‘awake’ in the Divine, comparing how it is written in the published edition of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah and the version found in Oxford’s Huntington 80 manuscript of the Mishneh Torah, which contains and is validated by Maimonides’ own signature.

 

G-d does not sleep, as G-d is not corporeal

 

In the Mishneh Torah (Yesodei Hatorah 1:11), Maimonides clarifies that one cannot describe G-d as either asleep or waking:[8]

 

Since it has been clarified that G-d does not have a body or corporeal form, it is also clear that none of the functions of the body are appropriate to Him; neither connection nor separation, neither place nor measure, neither ascent nor descent, neither right nor left, neither front nor back, neither standing nor sitting. He is not found within time, so that He would possess a beginning, an end or age. He does not change, for there is nothing that can cause Him to change. The concept of death is not applicable to Him, nor is that of life, within the context of physical life. The concept of foolishness is not applicable to Him, not is that of wisdom in terms of human wisdom. Neither sleep norwaking (hakitzah), neither anger nor laughter, neither joy nor sadness, neither silence nor speech in the human understanding of speech are appropriate terms with which to describe Him. Our sages declared: Above, there is no sitting or standing, separation or connection.

 

G-d does sleep

 

In Scripture however there are no less than five verses that imply the notion that G-d is sometimes in a state of sleep. This includes the verse in Psalms:[9] ‘Arouse (ha’ira) Yourself and awaken (hakitzah) to my judgment, my G-d and my Lord, to my cause.’ Also, in Psalms it says:[10] ‘Awaken (urah)! Why should You sleep, O Lord? Arouse (hakitzah) Yourself, forsake not forever.’ Likewise, in Psalms, it states:[11] ‘Without iniquity, they run and prepare themselves; awaken (urah) towards me and see. And You, O L-rd, G-d of Hosts, G-d of Israel, arise (hakitzah) to visit upon all the nations; be not gracious to any treacherous workers of iniquity forever.’ Similarly, in Psalms, it states:[12] ‘And the Lord awoke (vayikatz) as one asleep, as a mighty man, shouting from wine.’

 

The concept of sleep is also implied in the Talmudic teaching on Esther:[13] ‘On that night the sleep of the king was disturbed’. The Talmud comments:[14] ‘Rabbi Tanchum explains, the sleep of the King of the Universe was disturbed’. This verse is considered the beginning of the miracle, leading to Haman’s downfall. The idea of sleep and awaking in reference to G-d is further expressed in the following teaching of the Talmud (Sotah 14a):

 

Yochanan the High Priest abolished the tradition of the wakers (meorerim). Rehabah said: The Levites used daily to stand upon the dais of the Temple in Jerusalem and exclaim: Awaken, why do You sleep, O Lord? He said to them, Does, then, the Al-Mighty sleep? Has it not been stated (Psalms 121): Behold, He that guards Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep! But so long as Israel abides in suffering and idolaters in peace and prosperity, the words ‘Awake, why do You sleep, O Lord?’ should be uttered.’                       

()

 

Not literal

 

According to traditional commentaries on the Torah, as well as Maimonides, the notion that G-d is sometimes asleep should not be understood literally. The concept of sleep refers to a situation when one may expect a reaction from G-d due to the behaviour of man but no reaction is forthcoming, similar to the question: why do the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper? Lack of reaction is perceived ‘as if’ G-d is asleep, similar to a person who does not react to provocation when asleep. This is the case when, for example, the Philistines captured the Holy Ark and there was no immediate response from G-d to this provocation. When G-d later reacted to the Philistines it is referred to as if G-d had awoken.[15] Similarly, the period when G-d allows for the sins of Israel to accumulate without punishment is perceived as if G-d is asleep followed by an awakening when Israel is punished.[16]

 

Similarly, the Talmud (Sotah 47a & 48a) records that Yochanan the High Priest abolished the tradition of the awakers in the Temple when the Jews lived in prosperity, since the metaphor of sleep is only applicable when the Jews suffer but not when they flourish. If one would call G-d to awaken when the Jews flourish it would suggest the call for G-d to awaken is literal and not just a metaphor.[17] The common understanding then is that one cannot attribute any concept of sleep at all to G-d; it is merely our perception of G-d’s behaviour that causes us to attribute sleep to G-d but there is in fact no such change of state of consciousness in G-d. It follows therefore that one can equally not apply the term awaking (hakatzah) to G-d. This is consistent with the view of Maimonides that one can apply to G-d neither sleep nor waking.

 

This view is later articulated in the 16th-17th century by Rabbi Yedidyah Norzi (1560-1626) in his commentary Minhat Shai where he suggests that the Masoretic vertical line between ‘L-rd’ and ‘awoke’ in Psalms 78:65: ‘And the L-rd awoke (vayikatz) as one asleep,’ is to indicate that in fact there is ‘no awake (yekitzah) nor sleep in G-d.’[18]

 

G-d’s withdrawal

 

While Maimonides insists there is no sleep or waking in G-d, subsequently, however, Jewish thought develops the notion that the idea of sleep in G-d, as represented in Psalms and the Talmud, does exist in some form. It is not merely a metaphor to define our perception of G-d, but a concept of sleep in G-d that reflects a change in consciousness similar to that which occurs when asleep. This idea is presented in the context of four cases: 1. The Jerusalem Temple at night when the gates of the Temple courtyard close; 2. Evening of Rosh Hashana; 3. Exile; 4. A person’s personal distance from G-d.

 

Jerusalem Temple

 

The Jerusalem Temple had seven gates around the courtyard, which would be closed during the night and opened during the day. The premise is that the design and functions of the Temple were Divinely inspired, as it states in I Chronicles (28:19): ‘All was in writing, from the hand of the Lord, which He gave me to understand, all the works of the pattern’. Furthermore, according to the Zohar (Shlach Lecha), all the aspects of the Temple have a corresponding function in the Divine.[19] Based on this premise, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi in 1805[20] explains that the opening of the gates of the Temple reflects revelation of Divine wisdom and the closing of the gates represents concealment of the Divine wisdom. Concealment of the Divine is described as being similar to the Divine being asleep by two characteristics: decrease in brain activity represented by the concealment of the Divine intellect from the emotions, and the slower blood circulation represented by a diminishing of life flow from the Divine into existence.

 

Evening of Rosh Hashana

 

In 1799,[21] Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi presents this process to explain the spiritual dimension of what occurs prior to the sounding of the Shofar on Rosh Hashana. The Tikkunei Zohar explains the Divine enters into a state of sleep on the eve of Rosh Hashana, only to be awoken by the sounding of the Shofar when the Divine intellect and desire for existence is restored to the world. The idea of Divine awakening through the Shofar may be seen in the context of the parallel spiritual awakening of man by the sound of the Shofar, as Maimonides writes:[22] ‘Even though the sounding of the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah is a decree, it contains an allusion. It is as if is saying: Awake, you sleepers from your sleep. Arouse you slumberers from your slumber and ponder your deeds; remember your Creator and return to G-d in repentance. Do not be like those who miss the truth in pursuit of shadows and waste their years seeking vanity. Look well to your souls and consider your deeds; turn away from your wrong ways and improper thoughts.’

 

Song of Songs - exile

 

The idea of sleep is likewise represented in the Zohar based on an interpretation of the passage in Song of Songs:[23] I am asleep but my heart is awake.” This is understood as to be referring to the experience of exile, when revelation is absent. This is illustrated also in the Talmud (Yoma 69b): “If G-d is profoundly hidden after the destruction of the Temple, how do we know G-d’s presence?”[24]

 

Distance

 

Finally, Divine sleep is a reaction to the state of sleep of the human being. When a person falls spiritually asleep by choosing to distance him or herself from G-d, in pursuit of the material, there is a corresponding sleeping of the Divine.[25] This is reflected in the Talmudic commentary on Esther (6:1): ‘On that night the sleep of the king was disturbed.’ The Talmud comments (Megillah 15b) that due to the spiritual awakening of the Jewish people at that time the sleep of the King of the Universe was stirred.

 

Religious response to the Holocaust

 

An extensive literature has developed on the question of G-d in the Holocaust. The fundamental question is: if G-d exists, how can He have allowed such suffering to occur? R Abraham Joshua Heschel[26] (1907-1972) writes the Holocaust occurred when G-d was in hiding. Isaiah states (45:15): ‘Indeed You are a G-d who conceals Himself, O G-d of Israel, the Saviour.’ Similarly, in Deuteronomy (31:18), it says:’ But I will have concealed My face on that day because of all the evil that they perpetrated, for they have turned to other gods.’ Heschel explains that when the people forsake Him, breaking the covenant that He has made with them, He forsakes them and hides his face from them. Although Heschel talks about a hiding G-d, not a permanently hidden G-d, by man hiding from G-d, G-d withdraws, leaving man alone, and does not interfere with their actions, nor intervene in their consciousness. This is what happened when Adam ate from the forbidden fruit. He hid from G-d, provoking G-d to ask man, where are you? This original sin caused a withdrawal of G-d, similar to the concept of G-d’s sleep during exile, allowing calamity to occur.

 

Professor Pinchas Peli (1930-1898) also talks of the hidden face of G-d during the Holocaust, though he questions whether it is a sufficient response.[27] He points out the parallel between the hiddenness of G-d in Deuteronomy and Isaiah, and G-d being described as asleep in Psalms. This is also evident in the juxtaposition in Psalms (44:24-25): ‘Awaken, why do You sleep, O L-rd? Arouse Yourself, forsake not forever! Why do You conceal Your face, do you forget our affliction and oppression?’

 

R. Joseph I Schneersohn, the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe, known as the Rayatz, issued four proclamations during the war period in 1941, published in his journal Hakeriah Vehakedushah.[28] The first one was entitled Kol Kore fun’m Lubavitcher Rabin on 26 May 1941, published in June 1941; the second was written on 11 June 1941, entitled Tsvayter Kol Kore fun’m Lubavitcher Rabin, published in July, 1941; a third was written on 8 July, 1941, entitled Dritter Kol Kore fun’m Lubavitcher Rabin, published August 1941; and a fourth on 11 September 1941, entitled Ferter Kol Kore fun’m Lubavitcher Rabin Shlita, published October 1942.

 

A central theme in these proclamations is that the painful events in Europe are signs of the impending and imminent arrival of the Messianic era, that will be preceded by profound suffering, described in the Talmud as the birth pangs of the Messianic era.[29] In these proclamations there is an urgent call for the Jewish people to repent in order to bring about the redemption sooner and thus prevent greater tragedy. The Rayatz lamented the destruction of the soul of the Jewish people through assimilation in the West, while the destruction of the body of the Jewish people was taking place in the East. This call by the Rayatz for the Jewish people to repent and avoid tragedy is understood in the context of G-d’s hiddenness and sleep: the idea is that by the urgent call for the awakening of the Jewish people to repent, there will be an inevitable awakening of G-d, resulting in revelation and redemption.[30]

 

Sleep but awake

 

The concept of G-d being asleep or awake is however problematic from Maimonides’ point of view, as stated above. It would appear to be also in contradiction to the verse in Psalms (121:4): ‘Behold the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.’ Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi reconciles this by making a distinction between the essence of G-d that always remains awake and His emanation that may be in a state of sleep. In a commentary on the Shabbat prayers, from 1807,[31] he raises a difficulty in the statement: ‘He neither slumbers nor sleeps. He Who rouses the sleepers and awakens the slumberers.’ The juxtaposition of G-d not sleeping and G-d awaking refers to the notion: in essence he does not asleep, as in Malachi (3:6): ‘For I, the Lord, have not changed.’ Accordingly, Maimonides would also agree that ‘neither sleep norwaking (hakitzah)’ is applicable to G-d only on the level of G-d’s true essence, as on this level, He also does not hide.

 

Hakitzah or Hakatzah?

 

It is interesting that the Hebrew word for ‘waking’ in most published editions of the Mishneh Torah and some of the Yemenite manuscripts[32] is hakitzah (with the Hebrew letter ‘yud’). In the Oxford Huntington 80 manuscript of the Mishneh Torah[33], some Yemenite manuscripts,[34] as well as Sefardic and Ashkenazic manuscripts, the word is hakatzah (without the Hebrew letter ‘yud’). In the early printed Mishneh Torah in Venice 1550-51, the word hakatzah is also used. Is there any significance to this difference?

 

Hakitza

 

The word that is most commonly used is hakitzah. In fact, it is found seven times in the book of Psalms and other books of the Torah. In Psalms (17:15), it states: ‘I will see Your face[35] with righteousness; I will be satisfied with Your image upon the awakening (b’hakitz).’ Similarly in Psalms (35:23), it states: ‘Arouse (ha’ira) Yourself and awaken (hakitzah) to my judgment, my G-d and my Lord, to my cause.’ Also, in Psalms (44:24), it says: ‘Awaken (urah)! Why should You sleep, O Lord? Arouse (hakitzah) Yourself, forsake not forever.’ Likewise in Psalms (59:5-6) it states: ‘Without iniquity, they run and prepare themselves; awaken (urah) towards me and see. And You, O L-rd, G-d of Hosts, G-d of Israel, arise (hakitzah) to visit upon all the nations; be not gracious to any treacherous workers of iniquity forever.’ Similarly in Psalms (73:20), it states: ‘As a dream without awakening (m’hakitz); O Lord, in the city You will despise their form,’ and elsewhere in Psalms (78:65): ‘And the Lord awoke (vayikatz) as one asleep, as a mighty man, shouting from wine.’ Similarly, in Habakkuk (2:19), it states: ‘Woe to him who says to the wood, "Awaken (Hakitzah)!"; to the dumb stone, "Arise!" Shall it teach? Behold it is overlaid with gold and silver, and no spirit is within it.’  Finally, in Isaiah (26:19), it says: ‘May Your dead live, 'My corpses shall rise; awaken (hokitzu)[36] and sing, you who dwell in the dust, for a dew of lights is your dew, and [to the] earth You shall cast the slackers,’ and in Daniel (12:2), it says: ‘And many who sleep in the dust of the earth will awaken (yokitzu) these for eternal life, and those for disgrace, for eternal abhorrence.’

 

Awake or awaken

 

While ‘hakitzah’ implies the imperative, the word ‘b’hakitz’[37] refers to the state of awaking. The actual meaning of the word ‘b’hakitz’ is a subject of dispute between the two foremost Biblical commentators, R. Shlomo Yitzchaki, known as Rashi (1040-1105), and R. Abraham ibn Ezra (1089-1167). According to Rashi, when the verse states (Psalms 17:15): ‘I will see Your face with righteousness; I will be satisfied with Your image upon the awakening (b’hakitz)’ – this means ‘upon the awakening of the dead, referring to the Jewish concept of the resurrection of the dead in the Messianic era. This translation follows the Midrashic interpretation (Midrash Tehilim 17:15): ‘I will be satisfied with the vision of Your image when the dead awaken from their sleep (ha-kotzat ha-meisim).’ According to Rashi and the Midrash, ‘b’hakitz’ and ‘hakotzas’ means waking up from being asleep.

 

Ibn Ezra in his commentary translates the verse differently: ‘I am satisfied from the delight of G-d (not in a dream but) when awake (b’hakitz).’  Thus, ibn Ezra interprets the word ‘b’hakitz’ - while awake, not waking up. The same may be argued regarding the word ‘hakitzah.’ In most of the cases, the word ‘hakitzah’ follows the word ‘urah or ha’irah’ – arouse. The word ‘hakitzah’ then would mean to be awake, as opposed to wake up. R. David Kimchi (1160-1235), known as Redak, seems to indicate this in his commentary on Psalms (35:23): ‘Arouse (ha-ira) Yourself and awaken (hakitzah) to my judgment.’ Redak explains the second term ‘awaken’ (hakitzah) after ‘arouse’ (ha-ira) as saying that G-d should no longer be as if asleep, but rather be awake. The same interpretation is given for the verse (Psalms 44:24): ‘Arouse! Why should You sleep, O L-rd? Awaken (hakitzah) Yourself, forsake not forever.’ Redak explains that the first ‘Arouse’ (urah) is the request that G-d should awaken from being (as) asleep in the face of suffering; the second ‘Awaken’ (hakitzah) is interpreted to mean that G-d should be awake from today onwards. Thus, we have two possible meanings to the word ‘hakitzah:’ ‘awaken’ and ‘be awake.’

 

Hakatzah

 

The word hakatzah however appears much less in Scripture if at all. The word seems to only be found in the context of the Midrashic teaching, mentioned above, on Psalms where it says in the construct form: ‘hakatzat hameisim’ (the awaking of the dead). In addition, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 65, Sefer ha-Aruch kuf) describes blasphemy as a sin related to the movement of the lips (hakotzas sfosov). It would appear then that while ‘hakitzah’ may be translated either as ‘awaken’ or ‘awake,’ ‘hakatzah’ has only one meaning: ‘awaken.’ Accordingly, we may argue that the difference between to the two versions in the Mishneh Torah: ‘hakitzah’ and ‘hakatzah’ has to do with the following consideration: to negate G-d being awake would imply imperfection,[38] because surely G-d is awake, whereas to negate the idea of G-d waking-up, implies, on the contrary, G-d’s perfection, as He does not sleep and does not need to ‘wake-up.’ For this reason, the Oxford Huntington 80 manuscript, authenticated by Maimonides, writes: ‘hakatzah’ (waking-up), which is not appropriate concerning G-d, as opposed to ‘hakitzah’ (awake). Had it written ‘hakitzah’ (awake), it would have required the qualification that it does not refer to awake ‘in the same way that human beings are awake,’ as Maimonides clarifies regarding the applicability of the words: ‘life’ and wisdom’ to G-d.

 

Imperative

 

A further consideration is: ‘hakitzah’ is used in Psalms in the imperative, similar to the words ‘ha-irah’ (shine your countenance),[39]ha-azinah’ (hearken to my cries),[40]hoshiah’ (deliver Your people)[41] and ‘ha’ira’ (arouse).[42] As it would not make sense for Maimonides to have written the negation of ‘awake’ of the Divine in the imperative, the word ‘hakatza’ (the passive form of waking up) is more appropriate.

 

Conclusion

 

We presented the subject of sleep concerning G-d. There seems to be a contradiction between various verse, whereby some suggest G-d does not sleep and others talks about G-d waking up. This question became especially relevant in the discussions about the presence of G-d in the Holocaust. We reconciled that on the highest level of G-d’s true being, G-d indeed does not sleep and is never hidden. On the lower level of G-d emanation there may be hiddenness and sleep. Maimonides may also agree with this distinction, and the statement in Yesodei Ha-Torah that one cannot say G-d awakens or is awake is in this context. We concluded by presenting an in-depth analysis of the text of the Mishneh Torah, according to the Oxford Huntington 80 version that uses the term ‘hakatzah’ (wake-up), since it is part of G-d’s perfection to say that G-d is ‘awake’ (hakitzah) while it undermines G-d’s perfection to say that G-d ‘wakes-up’ (hakatzah).

 

 

 

 


 

[1] Other variants relate to the words: ‘Veshogim/n,’ ‘kol sh'neham’ and ‘Kol adam.’

[2] In MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, it omits: 'lo ya-il' (will not benefit), and only says: ‘lo ya-tzil’ (will not save). MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400 Ashkenaz) states: ‘lo ya-il ve-yatzil.’ In MS Marsh 97, it omits ‘asher,’ and then corrected and added between the lines.

[3] 1:26.

[4] Yesodei HaTorah 1:8-12.

[5] Exodus 6:5.

[6] Genesis 8:21.

[7] Talmud Berachot 31b; Ketubot 67a. The Talmud refers to the style of the text of the Scripture but Maimonides expands this to negate the simple meaning of the text when it seems to indicate Divine corporeality.

[8] Yesodei Hatorah 1:11.

[9] 35:23.

[10] 44:24.

[11] 59:5-6.

[12] 78:65.

[13] 6:1.

[14] Megillah 15b.

[15] Rabbi Dovid Kimchi and ibn Ezra to Psalms 78:65-66.

[16] Commentary of 18th century David Altschuler Metzudat Dovid on Psalms 78:65-66.

[17] Chazon Yechezkel Biurim 13:9.

[18] In I Kings 18:26-27, the idea of a deity sleeping or awaking is applied to Baal: “They took the bull that he gave them and prepared [it]. And they called in the name of the Baal from the morning until noon, saying, "O Baal, answer us!" But there was no voice and no answer, and they hopped on the altar that they had made. And it was at noon that Elijah scoffed at them, and he said, "Call with a loud voice, for he is a god. [Perhaps] he is talking or he is pursuing [enemies] or he is on a journey; perhaps he is sleeping and will awaken”.

[19] The Zohar writes when the gates of the Temple are closed at night the gates to Paradise are closed.

[20] Siddur Rabeinu Hazoken, Sha’ar Hamilah p. 147 (Hebrew page numbers); The discourse was delivered on Thursday, 21 November, 1805 at a circumcision ceremony meal.

[21] Siddur Rabeinu Hazoken, Sha’ar HaTekios p. 492. The discourse was delivered on the second night of Rosh Hashanah 1799.

[22] Laws of Repentance 3:4.

[23] 5:2.

[24] Another metaphor for the distance between G-d and the Jewish people during a period of exile and sin is divorce (Jeremiah 3:8). This divorce is however never complete and no bill of divorce is ever given (Isaiah 50:1; Sanhedrin 105a), allowing always for the possibility of the resumption of the relationship. According to Rabbi Menachem M. Schneersohn, known as the Rebbe, the correct metaphor is of a temporary separation when a spouse may have travelled overseas and has yet to return but no divorce has taken place (Lamentations Rabbah 1:3).

[25] Likkutei Sichot 9:193; Torah Ohr, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, p. 35.

[26] Katz S., Biderman S., Greenberg G. (eds) (2007). Wrestling with G-d: Jewish Theological Responses during and after the Holocaust. OUP, 378.

[27] Katz S., Biderman S., Greenberg G. (eds) (2007), 259.

[28] Katz S., Biderman S., Greenberg G. (eds) (2007), 171-190.

[29] Sanhedrin 98a.

[30] The call of the Rayatz during the war and subsequent years was: l’alter l’Teshuva, l’alter l’Geulah (immediate repentance, immediate redemption).

[31] Siddur Rabeinu Hazoken, Shacharit l”Shabbat, p. 389.

[32] Shabsai Frankel edition of Mishneh Torah, Sefer Hamada, p.514.

[33] MS Hunt. 80 fol. 35a.

[34] The Shechter manuscript (viewed as closest to the Huntington 80) and Sasson manuscripts of Mishneh Torah – both Yemenite copies.

[35] See Guide for the Perplexed 1:3.

[36] See Rashi: All this the Holy One, blessed be He, shall say to them. “Awaken and sing,” is an imperative form.

[37] Psalms 17:15.

[38] Guide for the Perplexed 1:26.

[39] Psalms 31:17.

[40] Psalms 39:13.

[41] Psalms 28:9.

[42] Psalms 35:23.

 

Comments on: Maimonides on the sounding of the Shofar through the manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah at the Bodleian Library
There are no comments.