Oxford's Autograph of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah: Does G-d sleep?

Friday, 22 July, 2016 - 7:03 am

Rambam & Signature.png

One of the rare autographs of Maimonides at the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford is a brief text with Maimonides’ signature, authenticating an early copy of the first two books of the Mishneh Torah[1]: Book of Knowledge (Mada) and Book of Adoration (Ahava)[2]. The manuscript is known in the Bodleian Library as MS Huntington 80 or in rabbinic writings as the Book of the Signature (Sefer Hachasum). The Bodleian Library bought this text in 1693 from Dr. Robert Huntington, who acquired it while serving as chaplain to the English merchants in Aleppo. The autograph states[3]: “corrected against my own book, I Moses, son of Rabbi Maimon of blessed memory”. This manuscript is supremely important as it attests to the accuracy of the text after Maimonides had compared it against the original text. For this reason Jewish scholars[4] have sought out this manuscript as a reference to verify the authenticity of the Mishneh Torah text of the first two books of Mada and Ahava[5].


In this series of essays, we will examine the Oxford Huntington manuscript of the Mishneh Torah and highlight some of the significant differences in the text compared to other versions of the Mishneh Torah. As the text is seen as the most authentic version of the first two books of the Mishneh Torah, we will explore some of the significances of these differences and offer insight into the rationale behind them.


Three versions of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah


Hakatzah MS.jpgThe manuscripts of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah that exist in various collections originate from three regions: Yemenite, Ashkenazic (German) and Sefardic (Spanish). These three versions were used in their respective communities and are of various degrees of precision. The Yemenite version is viewed as closest to the original copy of Maimonides, as the Yemenites received handwritten copies from Maimonides and were known to be most meticulous in preserving the original text of Maimonides without any emendations of style or language. The Yemenite version however may not include later corrections by Maimonides after various laws were questioned and subsequently corrected. The Ashkenazic manuscript includes the later corrections by Maimonides, but contains many inaccuracies, as the Germanic rabbis made subtle changes, which they thought appropriate due to style, language or paragraph structure, as long as the content of the law remained unchanged. The third manuscript is the Sefardic one used by Spanish communities. This version is considered the most accurate, as it reflects the final draft by Maimonides but without the changes in style and language. According to scholars of Maimonides’[6], the Huntington manuscript of the Bodleian Library with Maimonides own signature is closest to some of the older Yemenite editions and serves as the most accurate version of the two books of Mada and Ahava.


In this series we will look at seven variations in the Huntington manuscript compared to other versions of Mishneh Torah and aim to explain their significance. The topics that will be presented in this series are: 1. Maimonides on Divine sleep. 2. Astronomy. 3. Apostasy. 4. Sanctity of G-d’s name. 5. Prophets and prophecy. 6. Credit. 7. A minor’s obligation to study Torah




An 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[7] to this principle and articulates this also in his legal work Mishneh Torah[8]. Although the Torah describes G-d in numerous places in corporeal terms, as it states: ‘G-d hears the cries of the Israelites[9]’, and ‘G-d smelled the pleasant aroma[10]’, Maimonides applies the Talmudic dictum that the Torah is speaking in the language of man[11], 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 reference to G-d. We will first present the view of Maimonides that there is no sleep in G-d, despite the references in Scripture to the contrary. We will then present the further development of Divine sleep in Jewish thought, 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 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. Finally, we will aim to understand a difference in the version of Maimonides regarding the concept of sleep and awakening in the Divine comparing how it is written in the published edition with how it is written in the Huntington manuscript.


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


In the Mishneh Torah Maimonides clarifies that one cannot describe G-d as either asleep or waking[12]:


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 nor waking (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.

Mishneh Torah, Yesodei Hatorah 1:11


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[13]: ‘Arouse (ha’ira) Yourself and awaken (hakitzah) to my judgment, my G-d and my Lord, to my cause’. Also, in Psalms it says[14]: ‘Awaken (urah)! Why should You sleep, O Lord? Arouse (hakitzah) Yourself, forsake not forever.’ Likewise, in Psalms, it states[15]: ‘Without iniquity, they run and prepare themselves; awaken (urah) towards me and see. And You, O Lord, 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[16]: ‘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[17]: ‘On that night the sleep of the king was disturbed’. The Talmud comments[18]: ‘Rabbi Tanhum 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[19]:


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.’                       

 Babylonian Talmud Sotah 48a


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 behavior 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[20]. 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[21].


Similarly, the Talmud[22] 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[23]. 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 behavior 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 ‘Lord’ and ‘awoke’ in Psalms[24]: ‘And the Lord awoke (vayikatz) as one asleep’, is to indicate that in fact there is ‘no awake (yekitzah) nor sleep in G-d’[25].


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 we sleep. 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.


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[26]: ‘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[27], all the aspects of the Temple have a corresponding function in the Divine[28]. Based on this premise, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi in 1805[29] 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[30] 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.


In 1799[31], Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi presents this process to explain the spiritual dimension of what occurs prior to the sounding of the Shofar on Rosh Hashana (Jewish New Year). 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[32]: “Even though the sounding of the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah is a decree, it contains an allusion. It is as if [the Shofar's call] 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.”


The idea of sleep is likewise represented in the Zohar based on an interpretation of the passage in Song of Songs[33]: 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[34]: “If G-d is profoundly hidden after the destruction of the Temple, how do we know G-d’s presence?”[35]


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[36]. This is reflected in the Talmudic commentary on Esther[37]: “On that night the sleep of the king was disturbed”. The Talmud comments that due to the spiritual awakening of the Jewish people at that time the sleep of the King of the Universe was stirred[38].


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? Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel[39] (1907-1972) writes that the Holocaust is when G-d was in hiding. Isaiah states[40]: “Indeed You are a G-d who conceals Himself, O G-d of Israel, the Saviour”. Similarly, in Deuteronomy it says[41]: 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, Heschel explains, 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. Although Heschel does not refer to G-d as asleep, the state of withdrawal and unresponsiveness is in effect the concept of G-d’s sleep during the exile, allowing calamity to occur.


Professor Pinchas Peli (1930-1898), disciple of Rabbi Joseph B Soloveitchik and PhD student of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, also talks of the hidden face of G-d during the Holocaust, though he questions whether it is a sufficient response[42]. Peli points out however 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 their juxtaposition in Psalms[43]: “Awaken, why do You sleep, O Lord? Arouse Yourself, forsake not forever! Why do You conceal Your face, do you forget our affliction and oppression?”


Rabbi Joseph I Schneersohn, the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe, known by his acronym the Rayatz, issued four proclamations during the war period in 1941, published in his journal Hakeriah Vehakedushah[44]. 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, entitledFerter 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[45]. In these proclamations there is the absolute and urgent call for the Jewish people to repent in order to bring about the redemption sooner and thus prevent further 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 may be understood in the context of the theological response to the Holocaust of the hiddenness of G-d. By the urgent call for the awakening the Jewish people to repent there will be an inevitable awakening of G-d, resulting in revelation and redemption[46].


Sleep but awake


The theological concept of G-d being asleep or awaking is however problematic from Maimonides’ point of view, as stated above. It would appear to be also in contradiction to the verse in Psalms[47]: ‘Behold the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps’.


Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi makes a distinction between the essence of G-d that always remains awake and the manifestation of G-d that may be in a state of sleep. In 1807[48] he explains an enigmatic liturgy of the Shabbat morning prayers through this dichotomy: “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 idea, as Heschel says, that G-d may hide but is not hidden. He may withdraw from the world, as one who acts asleep, but is not asleep. In the words of Heschel: He is not in essence withdrawn. In the words of Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi: he is not in essence asleep. In the words of Malachi[49]: “For I, the Lord, have not changed”.




According to the above dichotomy, the view of Maimonides and Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi may be reconciled. They would both agree that neither sleep norwaking (hakitzah) is applicable to G-d. In His essence, G-d is not hidden, and, similarly, in His essence, G-d neither sleeps nor slumbers.


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[50] is hakitzah (with the Hebrew letter ‘yud’). In the Oxford Huntington 80 manuscript of the Mishneh Torah[51], some Yemenite manuscripts[52], 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?


Although the variations of the various versions of manuscripts and early printed editions of the Mishneh Torah are numerous, in most cases the differences are insignificant and tend to reflect a lack of care when copying, as long as the meaning of what is being taught is not fundamentally changed. As the subject of our discussion however relates to the nature of the Divine, one may ask, is there any significance to this minute variation between the word hakitzah and hakatzah when negating sleep or waking in G-d?




We will first look closely as to how the word is commonly used in Scripture when talking about awake or waking up in relation to G-d. The word that is most commonly used is hakitzah. In fact it is found at least seven times in the book of Psalms and other books of Scripture. In Psalms[53] it states: ‘I will see Your face[54] with righteousness; I will be satisfied with Your image upon the awakening (b’hakitz).’ Similarly in Psalms, it states[55]: ‘Arouse (ha’ira) Yourself and awaken (hakitzah) to my judgment, my G-d and my Lord, to my cause’. Also in Psalms it says[56]: ‘Awaken (urah)! Why should You sleep, O Lord? Arouse (hakitzah) Yourself, forsake not forever.’ Likewise in Psalms it states[57]: ‘Without iniquity, they run and prepare themselves; awaken (urah) towards me and see. And You, O Lord, God of Hosts, God 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[58]: ‘As a dream without awakening (m’hakitz); O Lord, in the city You will despise their form’, and elsewhere in Psalms[59]: ‘And the Lord awoke (vayikatz) as one asleep, as a mighty man, shouting from wine’. Similarly, in Habakkuk it states[60]: ‘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 it says[61]: ‘May Your dead live, 'My corpses shall rise; awaken (hokitzu)[62] 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, it says[63]: ‘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[64] 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, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, known as Rashi (1040-1105), and Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra (1089-1167). According to Rashi, when the verse states:[65] ‘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[66]: ‘I will be satisfied with the vision of Your image when the dead awaken from their sleep (hakotzas hameisim).’ According 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. Rabbi Dovid Kimchi (1160-1235) seems to indicate this in his commentary on Psalms[67]: ‘Arouse (ha-ira) Yourself and awaken (hakitzah) to my judgment’, Rabbi Kimchi 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[68]: ‘Arouse! Why should You sleep, O Lord? Awaken (hakitzah) Yourself, forsake not forever’. Rabbi Kimchi 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.




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 hakatzas hameisim – the awaking of the dead. In addition, the Talmud[69] 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, I would like to argue that the difference between to the two versions in the Mishneh Torah hakitzah and hakatzah has to do with the following consideration: it is more appropriate to say that ‘neither sleep nor awaking (hakatzah) are applicable to G-d’ than to say ‘neither sleep nor awake (hakitzah) are applicable to G-d’, since if one were to negate G-d being awake it would imply imperfection[70], whereas to negate the idea of G-d waking up implies, on the contrary, G-d’s perfection. For these reasons, the Oxford Huntington manuscript, authenticated by Maimonides, would have chosen to write hakatzah (waking) is not applicable to G-d, as opposed to writing that hakitzah (awake) is not applicable to G-d, which would have required the further 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.




A more obvious consideration, however, is that hakitzah is always used in Psalms in the imperative, similar to the similar sounding words ha-irah(shine your countenance)[71], ha-azinah (hearken to my cries)[72],hoshiah (deliver Your people)[73] and ha’ira (arouse)[74]. It would not make sense for Maimonides to have written the negation of sleep of the Divine in the imperative. The word hakatza would be more grammatically correct.




[1] MS Hunt. 80

[2] The book of Mada includes laws of belief in G-d, ethics, Torah study and repentance. The book of Ahava includes laws of recitation of the Shema, Prayer, Tefilin, Torah Scroll, Mezuzot, blessings and laws of circumcision.

[3] Fol. 165r

[4] It serves as the basis for the Frankel edition of the two books of the Mishneh Torah published btween 1973 and 2007.

[5] A second autograph is Maimonides’ Commentary to the Mishnah, containing the tractates of Nezikin (damages) and Kodshim (consecrations). This was among the 420 manuscripts bought from the Regius Professor of Hebrew Edward Pococke. A third autograph is a draft copy of a section of the Mishneh Torah, containing Laws of Hiring (Sechirut) and Laws of Borrowing and Deposits (Sheilah U’fikadon), which was acquired as part of the Cairo Genizah.

[6] Rabbi Shabsai Frankel in his introduction to the Shinuei Nuscho’ot, Mishneh Torah Sefer Hamada.

[7] 1:26

[8] Yesodei HaTorah 1:8-12

[9] Exodus 6:5

[10] Genesis 8:21

[11] 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.

[12] Yesodei Hatorah 1:11

[13] 35:23

[14] 44:24

[15] 59:5-6

[16] 78:65

[17] 6:1

[18] Megillah 15b

[19] Sotah 48a

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

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

[22] Sotah 47a

[23] Chazon Yechezkel Biurim 13:9

[24] 78:65

[25] 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”.

[26] 28:19

[27] Shlach Lecha

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

[29] 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.

[30] Modern research has discovered that during the stage of sleep that is called rapid eye movement (REM) the level of brain is the same as when awake.

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

[32] Laws of Repentance 3:4

[33] 5:2

[34] Yoma 69b

[35] 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).

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

[37] 6:1

[38] Megillah 15b

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

[40] 45:15

[41] 31:18

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

[43] 44:24-25

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

[45] Sanhedrin 98a

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

[47] 121:4

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

[49] 3:6

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

[51] MS Hunt. 80 fol. 35a

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

[53] 17:15

[54] See Guide for the Perplexed 1:3

[55] 35:23

[56] 44:24

[57] 59:5-6

[58] 73:20

[59] 78:65

[60] 2:19

[61] 26:19

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

[63] 12:2

[64] Psalms 17:15

[65] 17:15

[66] Midrash Tehilim 17:15

[67] 35:23

[68] 44:24

[69] Sanhedrin 65; Sefer HaAruch Kuf

[70] Guide for the Perplexed 1:26

[71] Psalms 31:17

[72] Psalms 39:13

[73] Psalms 28:9

[74] Psalms 35:23


Comments on: Oxford's Autograph of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah: Does G-d sleep?
There are no comments.