One of the perplexing ideas in Jewish theology is the fact that G-d does not just exist but has names by which He is referred to. Furthermore, we find that He is described by not just a single name but by different names throughout Scripture. In Genesis during the creation of the world, G-d is referred to by the name Elo-him[1]; Abraham referred to G-d with the name E-l and Sha-dday; Moses referred to G-d with the explicit name of G-d (Tetragrammaton), which is written Yud-Hey-Vav-Hey. Hannah and many of the prophets called G-d the Lord of the Hosts - Tz'va-ot. The concept of the names of G-d is prevalent throughout the scripture and the Hebrew prayer book. In total there are at least seven, according to some opinions ten[2], names of G-d that, if written, may not be erased due to their sanctity[3]. According to Jewish law, they need to be buried[4].
The subject of this essay is a discrepancy between the sacred names of G-d as found in the Talmud, various editions of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah and the Oxford Huntington edition of Mishneh Torah. I will aim to outline this discrepancy and explain the significance of what appears to be a difference in a fundamental area of Jewish theology.
I am that I am – Divine name?
The first place we are introduced to a dialogue about the names of G-d in the Torah is in the Book of Exodus between Moses and G-d, whereby G-d gives Moses a mission to inform the Jews of His intention to take the Jews out of Egypt. In response, Moses said to G-d[5]: "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The G-d of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" G-d said to Moses, "I am that I am (Eh-yeh asher eh-yeh)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, I am (Eh-yeh) has sent me to you.' The subject this essay will address is pertaining to the rare name of G-d implied in this text: "I am that I am (Eh-yeh asher eh-yeh)”. There are two principle meanings to this narrative in Biblical interpretation: one is that the answer given by G-d is a diversion to the question. G-d in fact did not reveal His name to Moses in this conversation. A second interpretation is that “I am that I am” or, according to some opinions, just the name “I am”, or indeed both, separately or together, is one of the names of G-d that is being instructed to Moses to convey to the Jewish people. We will outline the opinions for and against these views.
Talmud # 1: not one of G-d’s names
The Talmud explains that the answer given by G-d to Moses is a diversion rather than a direct response to Moses’ question. The Talmud[6] states that G-d is saying to Moses: “Go say to Israel that I will[7] be with you in this servitude and I will be with you in other servitudes”. This interpretation is also brought in the work of the Midrash[8], and quoted in the commentary of Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, known by his acronym Rashi (1040-1105). Rabbi Moses ben Nachman, known as Nachmanides (1195-1270), in his commentary on the Biblical verse[9], elaborates further on the above Talmudic teaching and suggests that G-d is asking Moses why do you ask My name? It is not necessary to know My name, as I will be with you in any event in all circumstances, whether my name at that time is reflecting a time of judgment or compassion[10]. Rabbi Yehudah Halevi[11] compares this dialogue to the request by the father of Samson to the Angel who foretold that they would have a son called Samson and asked the Angel for his name, upon which the Angel responded: Why do you ask me my name, it is beyond comprehension[12]. Similarly, according to Nachmanides’ interpretation of the Talmud, G-d responded to Moses that he cannot truly understand the name G-d. Nevertheless, G-d promises, He will be there for Israel whenever they seek Him.
A second classic explanation of this dialogue is found in the Midrash and similarly implies a diversion to the question by Moses to know G-d’s name as proof for the Exodus. According to the Midrash, G-d responded to Moses with a question: “Do you seek to know My name? I am called according to My deeds: when I am in judgment I am called Elokim, when I express compassion to My world, I am called Yud-Hey-Vav-Hey. The classic commentaries to the Midrash point out[13] that the Midrash is articulating the view that G-d in fact did not directly answer Moses’ question to know His name. This view is consistent with the fact that there is no other mention in the Scripture of the name “I am that I am” being used in reference to G-d[14].
Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed: not a name of G-d
The view that “I am that I am” is not a name of G-d is also the view of Maimonides in the Guide for the Perplexed[15]. Maimonides explains that Moses’ question was not to know G-d’s name to convey to Israel, as there is no reason to believe this would have made a difference to Israel to make them believe in the Exodus at a time when very few knew of the existence of the monotheistic G-d of Israel in the first place. The question of Moses was rather to seek a rational argument for the existence of a monotheistic G-d that he can convey to the sages of Israel in Egypt. Maimonides writes:
We have thus shown that the question, “What is his name” means Who is that Being, which according to your belief has sent you?” The sentence, “What is his name” (instead of Who is He), has here been used as a tribute of praise and homage as though it had been said, Nobody can be ignorant of Your essence and of Your real existence; if, nevertheless, I ask what is Your name, I mean, What idea is expressed by the name?
Guide for the Perplexed 1:63
Accordingly, the answer “I am that I am” does not refer to one of the sacred names of G-d but a rational description of G-d which Moses can use to convey to Israel G-d’s existence[16]. Maimonides describes this response “I am that I am” as follows:
He is the existing Being which is the existing Being, that is to say, the Being whose existence is absolute, that has never been and never will be without existence.
Ibd.
It would appear that the view of Maimonides in the Guide for the Perplexed is that “I am that I am” is not in fact a name of G-d but rather a concept about the existence of G-d, conveying that G-d’s existence is not contingent or subject to change but rather eternal and absolute. G-d exists but not in the form of the existence that we exist. Whereas our existence is contingent, G-d’s existence is a true existence. This concept is similar to Maimonides’ writing in his opening of the Mishneh Torah: His true existence is non-existent (as far as our existence is concerned). This interpretation of “I am that I am” – G-d’s absolute and true Being - is also the interpretation given by Gersonides, Rabbi Joseph Albo[17] and Rabbi Isaac Abravanel.
Maimonides’ printed editions: not a name of G-d
In the standard printed edition of Mishneh Torah commonly used today, Maimonides[18] codifies the names of G-d that may not be erased, but, similar to the interpretation of the Guide for the Perplexed, does not include the name ‘I am that I am’ as one of G-d’s names. Maimonides writes:
There are seven names for G-d: 1) The explicit name of G-d, which is written Yud-Hey-Vav-Hey. This is also written Alef-Daled-Nun-Yud. 2) El. 3) Elo'ah. 4) Elohim. 5) Elohai. 6) Shaddai. 7) Tz'vaot. Whoever erases even one letter from any of these seven names is liable for lashes.
Mishneh Torah, Yesodei HaTorah 1:6
In addition it was similarly omitted in the Constantinople printed edition of the Mishneh Torah in 1509.
Talmud # 2: one of G-d’s names
Despite all the above, the standard version of the Babylonian Talmud[19] and the Jerusalemite Talmud[20], as well as the ethical work of Avot d’Rabbi Nathan[21], does present the response of G-d to Moses “I am that I am” as one of G-d’s sacred names[22]. The Talmud states[23]:
These are the Names that may not be erased, such as the name 1) E-l. 2) Elo-ha. 3) Elo-him. 4) Elo-hecha (your G-d). 5) I am that I am (Eh-yeh asher Eh-yeh). 6) Alef Daleth. 7) Yod He. 8) Sha-ddai. 9) Tz’vaot. However, descriptions as Great, the Mighty, the Revered, the Majestic, the Strong, the Powerful, the Potent, the Merciful and Gracious, the Long Suffering, the One Abounding in Kindness may be erased.
Shavuot 35a
Rabbi Joseph Karo suggests[24] that the reason the Constantinople printed edition and other editions, including the copy he personally used, of the Mishneh Torah does not mention ‘I am’ as a Divine name is because Maimonides had a manuscript edition of the Talmud that did not include ‘I am’ as one of G-d’s names[25]. The fact, then, that the Babylonian (and Jerusalemite) Talmud[26] that is in use today includes the name “I am” as one of G-d’s names can not be used as a proof that the view of the Talmud is that “I am that I am” is in fact one of G-d’s names.
The debate about the interpretation of the Biblical words “I am that I am” and the question whether it is one of G-d’s names or not appears to be settled in the 16th century in the Code of Jewish Law by Rabbi Joseph Karo, who omits the name “I am” when listing the sacred names of G-d that may not be erased[27]. He merely mentions as an additional opinion that some view it as one of G-d’s names - but it’s not his primary opinion[28] in his Code of Jewish Law. This would seem to have concluded the longstanding deliberation whether “I am” is a name of G-d in favour of the view that it is in fact not one of G-d’s names.
Maimonides’ Oxford edition: one of G-d’s names?
The question I would like to pose in this essay is that all the above seems to be evidently contradicted by the Oxford Huntington manuscript of the Mishneh Torah[29], authenticated by Maimonides’ own signature. In the Oxford Huntington manuscript it clearly includes ‘I am’ as the fifth sacred name of G-d that may not be erased[30]. Following the Oxford manuscript[31], the Venice printed edition of Mishneh Torah in 1524 and 1550 also includes the name ‘I am’ as one of the seven names of G-d[32]. The question I would like to pose it, how do we reconcile the contradiction between the mention of “I am” as one of G-d’s names in Maimonides’ legal code Mishneh Torah, as found in the Oxford edition, and Maimonides’ philosophical work Guide for the Perplexed, where he follows the view that “I am” is not one of G-d’s names?
Rabbi Joseph Karo: “I am” is correct version
This question is compounded by the view of Rabbi Joseph Karo on this matter. Interestingly, despite the omission of “I am” as one of G-d’s names by Rabbi Joseph Karo in his Code of Jewish Law, in his commentary to Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah[33], Rabbi Joseph Karo states that the version of the Venice printed edition of Mishneh Torah that includes the name ‘I am’ as one of the seven names of G-d is indeed the correct version. This view – “I am” is one of G-d’s names - is also the opinion of 11th century R. Sa’adia Gaon and R. Hai Gaon[34], as well as 13th century Biblical commentators Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra and Rabbi Chizkuni, who all maintain the view that “I am that I am” is one of G-d’s sacred names that may not be erased!
Contradiction in Joseph Karo: unaware of the Oxford manuscript
As mentioned earlier, in his code of Jewish law, Rabbi Joseph Karo ignores his validation of the Oxford version and omits the name “I am” when listing the sacred names of G-d that may not be erased[35]. He merely mentions it as additional opinion but not a primary opinion. A reason for this equivocation might be due to the fact that when weighing the two printed versions of the Mishneh Torah - the Constantinople version of 1509 and Venice version of 1524 and 1550 – that were around in his time, both with different views whether “I am” is a name of G-d - there’s no overriding reason by which one may adjudicate which one is correct. He therefore follows the edition before him to determine his legal view and concludes for the purpose of his code of Jewish Law that “I am” is not one of G-d’s names. This would be supported by his reading of the Guide for the Perplexed, as mentioned above, that seems to suggest that “I am” is in fact not one of G-d’s names.
Reconciliation
This contradiction in Rabbi Joseph Karo would have likely been preempted had he known of the Oxford edition of the Mishneh Torah authenticated by Maimonides, that clearly lists “I am” as one of G-d’s names. Had Rabbi Joseph Karo seen this edition authenticated with Maimonides’ own signature, he would have likely remained consistent in his code of Jewish Law with his commentary to the Mishneh Torah legislating that “I am” is one of G-d’s names.
Contradiction in Maimonides
While one may argue that had Rabbi Jospeh Karo’s had knowledge of the Oxford edition it would have had influence on his view in the legal code, the Oxford edition compounds the contradiction in Maimonides, between the Oxford edition that includes “I am” as one G-d’s names, and the Guide for the Perplexed that does not view “I am” as one of G-d’s names.
I would like to argue that this may be reconciled by an alternative reading of the Guide for the Perplexed on the discussion of G-d’s names. The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn[36] puts forward an alternative reading in the Guide for the Perplexed suggesting the view that “I am” is in fact one of G-d’s names, as presented by the Oxford version of the Mishneh Torah and validated by Rabbi Joseph Karo in his commentary to the Mishneh Torah. The premise is that in the view of the Guide for the Perplexed a name is not limited to the Midrashic view of G-d’s names “according to My deeds, I am called’ but is expanded to also a description that reflects not just G-d’s deeds but also G-d’s very existence.
Maimonides appears to indicate this in the Guide for the Perplexed by the following statement[37]:
The G-d taught Moses how to teach them, and how to establish amongst them the belief in the existence of Himself, namely, by saying E-hyeh asher E-hyeh, a name derived from the verb hayah in the sense of “existing,” for the verb hayah denotes “to be,” and in Hebrew no difference is made between the verbs “to be” and “to exist.” This is, therefore, the expression of the idea that G-d exists, but not in the ordinary sense of the term; or in other words, He is “the existing Being which is the existing Being” that is to say the Being whose existence is absolute. The proof which he was to give consisted in demonstrating that there is a Being of absolute existence, that has never been and never will be without existence.
Guide for Perplexed 1:63
In the explanation of G-d’s absolute existence, as the interpretation of the words E-hyeh asher E-hyeh, Maimonidesproceeds this by stating that this “name” is derived from the verb hayah “to be”. While Maimonides then continues to argue that the question about the name of G-d is not the usual way that G-d’s name is referred to, as in this case it is about G-d’s very Being, not His deeds, Maimonides does not refrain from using the description “name” in this context, implying there are two types of names of G-d: a name of G-d that refers to G-d’s deeds, and a name that refers to G-d’s true existence that is beyond His relation with the world.
Three types of names of G-d
According to this interpretation one may read in the Guide for the Perplexed three categories of G-d’s names:
1. Descriptions of G-d that are not sacred names of G-d. When compassionate, He is called compassionate (rachum). When G-d punishes, He is called judge (dayan). These are descriptive names that may be similarly applied to human beings and are not sacred. Maimonides nevertheless applies the description of ‘name’ to them.
2. Descriptions of G-d as expressed through His deeds, which are sacred names of G-d. This is similar to the Midrashic view that “He is called by His deeds”. Maimonides presents[38] in this context the name Adon-ai, which means He who is Lord over all creatures[39]; Elo-him, which meansHe who is all-powerful[40]; Sha-dday, which meansHe who is sufficient in His power to create and sustain[41]. All the above refers to G-d in a capacity of relation with the world.
3. The name of G-d that reflects G-d’s absolute and eternal existence. According to the proposed alternative reading in Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed, this is the meaning of the name “I am that I am”: “He is the existing Being which is the existing Being, that is to say, the Being whose existence is absolute, that has never been and never will be without existence.”
This reading of Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed that views the third category of G-d’s name also a name of G-d is consistent with the Oxford version of the Mishneh Torah that mentions ‘I am’ as one of G-d’s names that cannot be erased, thus reconciling the above contradiction between Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed and the Oxford version of his legal code Mishneh Torah.
Sanctity and Jewish Law
Based on the alternative reading of the Guide for the Perplexed, we may be able to validate and offer insight into the conflicting texts of Rabbi Joseph Karo, who writes in his Code of Jewish Law that ‘I am’ is not one of G-d’s names, while stating the opposite in his commentary to Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah. It’s possible to argue that in his commentary to Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, he accepts the view of Maimonides according to the alternative reading of the Guide for the Perplexed that views the names of G-d in the broadest sense: a. reflections of His deeds b. His absolute existence. In the Code of Jewish Law, however, he relates to the names of G-d in the first category above – based on the Midrashic perspective that G-d’s names are reflections of His deeds. In this context, “I am” is not one of G-d’s names, as it is a reflection of G-d’s very existence, unrelated to the world.
A reason why Rabbi Joseph Karo would choose not to regard the second category of G-d’s name “ I am” as one of G-d’s names in his Code of Jewish Law is due to the reason Jewish law does not allow one to erase G-d’s name: the concept of sanctity inherent in G-d’s name. According to the alternative view in Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed one may distinguish in the concept of sanctity between the two categories of G-d’s names[42]. While both reflections of G-d – G-d’s deeds and G-d’s true existence – may both be referred to as names of G-d, the concept of sanctity in regard to Jewish law is only in the context of G-d in relation to the world. Since sanctity is about separation between the holy and the mundane one may only make such a distinction in a relative context – G-d in relation to the world. The idea of holiness in relation to law (man) is not relevant when discussing G-d’s true Being and existence that is unrelated to our existence. Therefore, while technically, as presented in the alternative reading of the Guide for the Perplexed, “I am” is called a name of G-d, it would, however, not be listed in the same category of names as the other names of G-d that may not be erased, due to the absence of the same concept of sanctity in the second category of names. For this reason, Rabbi Joseph Karo would choose to omit the name “I am” in this context. The mention of the name “I am” in the Oxford edition of the Mishneh Torah is however consistent with the Maimonides’ view in his Guide for the Perplexed, according to the above alternative reading, that both concepts of Divine names are indeed considered names of G-d. Rabbi Joseph Karo would certainly agree that it makes sense that Maimonides should be consistent in both of his works, rather than contradict himself between his philosophical and legal work. In regard to his own Code of Jewish Law, it makes sense that he would choose to make the above distinction.
___
Footnotes
[1] The spelling of G-d’s names with a hyphen is permitted according to the Arizal (Teshuvos Vehanhogos, Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch, Yoreh Deah 638)
[2] Avot d’Rabbi Nosson 33:2
[3] The subject of the meaning of G-d’s names is explained at length in Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed 1:62
[4] Shavuot 35a-b; Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 276:9. This is the basis for the Cairo Genizah - a collection of some 300,000 Jewish manuscript fragments containing G-d's name that were found in the genizah or storeroom of the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Fustat or Old Cairo, Egypt.
[5] Exodus 3:13-14
[6] Brachot 9b
[7] In the Talmud it is in the past tense “I was”; in the Midrash and Rashi’s version of this interpretation it is in the future tense “I will be”.
[8] Exodus Rabba 3:6
[9] 3:13
[10] Rabbi Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) in his commentary brings this interpretation.
[11] Cuzari 4:3
[12] Judges 13:18
[13] Rabbi Zev Wolf Einhorn of Horodna, Poland (d. 1862), known as Maharzu.
[14] Ibn Ezra Exodus 3:15
[15] 1:63
[16] See Guide for the Perplexed beginning of ch. 61 where it refers to G-d as a judge (dayan), righteous (tzaddik), gracious (chanun), compassionate (rachum) also as names, though they are not, according to any opinion one of G-d’s sacred names.
[17] Ikrim 2:27
[18] Yesodei HaTorah 6:2
[19] Shavuot 35a; Sofrim Ch. 4
[20] Megillah 1:9
[21] 33:2
[22] The precise name is subject to dispute: The Talmud (Shavuot 35a) and Avot d’Rabbi Nosson brings the whole sentence “I am that I am (Eh-yeh asher Eh-yeh)” as G-d’s name, as does the Talmudic commentaries Rabeinu Chananiel (Shavuot 35a) and Rabeinu Asher (Shavuot 22). The Oxford Huntington manuscript of Maimonides that includes this sentence as one of G-d’s names only mentions the words “I am” as G-d’s name, as does Rabeinu Alfasi (Rif) commentary to the Talmud (Shavuot 35a) and Rabbi Menachem Meiri’s commentary, known as Meiri (Sanhedrin 56a). Some say both names – together and just the latter – are sacred names, as the verse concludes, “Eh-yeh will send you” (Beor Shemos Kodesh Vechol l’Rambam - see Torah Shleimah (Exodus, Shemot 179).
[23] Shavuot 35a
[24] Kesef Mishneh, Yesodei Hatorah 6:2
[25] See Likutei Sichot 26:10 footnote 8 that there are manuscripts of the Talmud that does not include “I am” as one of the names of G-d.
[26] Classic Vilna edition of the Talmud
[27] Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 276:9
[28] He writes “And some have the version.. (v’yesh gorsin)
[29] Huntington 80, fol. 41b
[30] Instead of Elo-hai that is listed in the printed versions that omits “I am”
[31] It is found also in other manuscripts of Mishneh Torah – see Shu”t Radbaz vol. 5:1 407:34. Brought in Likutei Sichot 26:10 footnote 11
[32] The name is also brought in the commentaries to the Mishneh Torah including Lechem Mishneh and Kiryas Sefer l’Rambam (Yesodei HaTorah 6:2), indicating they were using a Venice or other edition of Maimonides that had the name “I am” included (?)
[33] Kesef Mishneh, Yesodei HaTorah 6:2
[34] Sefer Hoeshkol, Hilchot Sefer Torah 17
[35] Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 276:9
[36] Likutei Sichot vol. 26 p. 11
[37] 1:63
[38] Guide for the Perplexed ch. 61 & 63
[39] Bereishit Rabba 17:4
[40] Shulchan Oruch Orach Chaim 5
[41] See different interpretations in Chagigah 12a - G-d instructed the world to stop (dai) expanding - and Pardes 19:1 – He who shatters (Shoded) the laws of nature.
[42] Likutei Sichot vol. 26 p. 15-16