ZUTOT: Zutot 8 (2011) 15-29

Perspectives on Jewish Culture brill.com/zuto

PRAYERS TO THE GOD OF ARISTOTLES METAPHYSICS: TEFILLOT SIYYUM FOR CHAPTERS OF BOOK OF ARISTOTLES METAPHYSICS Yehuda Halper
Tulane University

Abstract In one incomplete manuscript of Aristotles Metaphysics with Averroes Long Commentary, a scribe has inserted short prayers, which seem to t the genre of tellot siyyum, to be read by the reader of the text upon completion of certain chapters of Book of the Metaphysics. These prayers are thematically related to the content of Aristotles Metaphysics and Averroes commentary and accordingly suggest a philosophical interpretation of Judaism, God and the creation of the world that has as its centre-point metaphysics, as understood by Aristotle and his most important commentator, Averroes. Keywords medieval Jewish thought, Aristotles Metaphysics

The inuence of Aristotles Metaphysics on medieval Jewish thought, especially on medieval conceptions of the divine, is well known. Yet there is no evidence that any of the great medieval Jewish philosophical thinkers treated the text of Aristotles Metaphysics as a divine or holy book with a ritual function akin to the numerous books in the Jewish holy canon. However, in one incomplete manuscript of Aristotles Metaphysics with Averroes Long Commentary, a scribe has inserted short prayers, which seem to t the genre of tellot siyyum,1 to be read by the reader of the text upon completion of certain chapters of Book of the Metaphysics. The insertion of short, one or two line tellot siyyum at the end of works or even chapters was common practice among

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

DOI: 10.1163/18750214-12341242

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013

16

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

medieval Hebrew authors, scribes and even annotators2 and presumably the recitation of such tellot functioned to make the reading of such works a ritual experience. The existence of these prayers at the end of chapters of the Metaphysics indicates that in fact the Metaphysics did have a ritual role for at least some Jewish thinkers during the late Middle Ages (that is, at some point between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries CE). The fact that these prayers are included only in Book of the Metaphysics, the chapter that forms Aristotles explanation of metaphysical terminology, may further indicate the association of metaphysical and theological terms in philosophical thought of the period as well as the attempt to associate specic Aristotelian terms with Hebrew terms found in the Jewish canon. In general, prayers such as these are important because they are an indication of successful integration of Jewish religious thought with philosophy; put differently, if there were no such prayers, and if, further, there could be no such prayers, then there could be no true integration of Jewish religious thought with philosophy. These prayers are found only in a unique manuscript found in Munich MS Hebrew 65 in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek,3 a manuscript which contains the revised Hebrew translation4 of Averroes Long Commentary on Aristotles Metaphysics, which includes the text of the Metaphysics, from the beginning through much of Book , chapter 12 of Aristotles text. The prayers are only present in Book and are not found in any other manuscript copy of the Hebrew translation of the Long Commentary. These prayers are further distinctive in that only a relatively small percentage of their text is made up of the standard
2 Cf. M. Beit-Ari, Colophon, in Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik, eds, Encyclopaedia Judaica (Macmillan Reference USA, Detroit, MI, in association with Keter Pub. House 2007) Vol. 5, pp. 6567, esp. Felicitations and Concluding Formulas, p. 66. See n. 15 below for some other examples where tellot siyyum are appended to philosophical texts. 3 Folios 253r421v. I thank the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek for permission to view the original manuscript and the Institute of Microlmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the National Library of Israel for providing access to microlm copies of the MS. 4 On the original translation and its later revision, see Y. Halper, Revision and Standardization of Hebrew Philosophical Terminology in the Fourteenth Century: the Example of Averroes Long Commentary on Aristotles Metaphysics and the Development of Hebrew Scientic Terms. Aleph: Historical Studies in Science and Judaism 13 (2013) 95138.

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

17

phrases of tellot siyyum that can be found in the colophons of hundreds of medieval manuscripts. Much of the text of these prayers is unique and, as we shall see, uses Hebrew terms that take their meaning from the text to which the prayers are an accompaniment, i.e., the Hebrew translation of Averroes Long Commentary on Aristotles Metaphysics. The Hebrew manuscript mentions neither the name of the translator (or reviser) of the text nor the name of the author of the short prayers, written in a different script, possibly even a different hand, at the conclusion of certain chapters of Book . While this text is written in Italian scripts probably of the sixteenth century, the remaining texts bound together in Munich MS Hebrew 65 have all been transcribed in a German script of the sixteenth century.5 Consequently we can learn nothing about the text from the other texts bound with it in the same volume; most importantly for our purposes here, we can know nothing about the author of the prayers. As the translation of Averroes Long Commentary into Hebrew was made in the fourteenth century, we can give no better date to the prayers than the expanse of time between the beginning of the fourteenth century and the end of the sixteenth. In addition to the existence of these prayers, the text in Munich MS Hebrew 65 is distinguished from the seven other Hebrew manuscripts of Averroes Long Commentary that include the rst books of the Metaphysics in another way: the title of the work is not given by its usual Hebrew title, Sefer Mah she-ahar ha-teva (literally The Book of that which is Beyond Nature), but by Sefer ha-Middot, a title usually reserved for Aristotles Ethics. In fact, the term has a number of meanings, including both measurements and attributes, in addition to its possible meaning of ethics. So Sefer ha-Middot could mean The Book of Measurements, i.e., The Book of Geometry6 or The Book of Attributes. That prayers are appended to the text only in certain chapters of Book (the book of the Metaphysics dedicated to discussing terminology) and that the manuscript indeed ends in the middle of Book with a prayer upon completion of the entire text, suggests that
See the internet records of the National Library of Israel. Abraham ibn Ezra uses to refer to a Book of Geometry in numerous places, e.g., in his Long Commentary to Exodus 28:8. It is even possible that he wrote a book on geometry with the title . Cf. T. Lvy and C. Burnett, Sefer haMiddot: A Mid-Twelfth-Century Text on Arithmetic and Geometry Attributed to Abraham ibn Ezra, Aleph 6 (2006) 57238.
5 6

18

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

the book to which the prayers are appended (i.e., Averroes Long Commentary on Metaphysics A through part of ) may be intended to be called The Book of Attributes. In this case, the prior books of the Metaphysics (A-) may be seen as leading up to and preparing for the culmination of the discussion of attributes in Book .7 Further, the chapters of Book to which the prayers are appended are those that discuss terms which in their Hebrew translation are also terms that can describe either divine attributes or things derived from them. Thus we nd the short prayers appended to chapter 6, one (), chapter 7, being (), chapter 8, substance (), chapter 11, prior and posterior () , and chapter 12, power ().8 After chapter 12, a prayer upon the completion of the entire is found as well, indicating that the author of the prayers considered this to be the end of the book. It is most likely that the author of the prayers had an incomplete text of the Metaphysics with Averroes Long Commentary that ended after .12,9 but it is also possible that what this author considered to be included in The Book of Attributes was only the Metaphysics up to those attributes that could be considered divine; the chapters after .12, beginning with quantity and quality are all less directly connected with the Divine.10 The following is the text of these prayers accompanied by an English translation:

7 Many modern scholars, following Werner Jaeger (Aristoteles Grundlegung einer Geschichte seiner Entwicklung [ Berlin 1923]), consider Book of the Metaphysics to be a separate book of terminology. Perhaps the editor of this manuscript held a similar view. In any case, he seemed to have considered Book , and the books leading up to it, as separable from the rest of the Metaphysics. 8 Note that the ends of chapter 1, principle (), and chapter 5, necessary (), are marked with , the treatise has been perfected. These are not prayers. Nevertheless, principle, i.e., rst, and necessary, especially necessary existent, are sometimes used to describe God. 9 Note that MS Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Or. 2074, the most complete of the two extant Arabic MSS of Averroes Long Commentary, ends after .12, only to resume again in Book E of the Metaphysics. Much of the remainder of Book , though not all, is preserved in the second Arabic MS, Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Or. 2054, which, however, includes nothing from any of the other books of the Metaphysics. Cf. M. Bouyges, Averroes, Tafsir ma bad at-tabiat (Beirut 19381942) Vol. ii, p. xiv. See also Halper, Revision and Standardization, 101, note 10. 10 Cf. Y. Halper, Averroes on Metaphysical Terminology: An Analysis and Critical Edition of the Long Commentary on Aristotles Metaphysics (Ph.D. diss., Bar-Ilan University, 2010) 110155.

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

1 1 1

19
2

Chapter 6, One, This treatise has been . completed and perfected, . praise to God on High Who created everything with speech. Chapter 7, Being, This glorious treatise has been completed and perfected. Extolment and praise to God Who is worshipped in the heart of every creature. His dominion rules over all. Chapter 8, Substance, The treatise on substance has been completed. Praise to the Creator of the purity of the heavens and substance. This treatise on prior to one has been completed. Praise to the One God Who is at one [with Himself ].11 Chapter 12, Potential, The treatise on power has been completed and perfected. Praise to the God of the World. Praise . . to Him who bears the arms of the world with power. And by His power He stirs up12 the sea. He declares the power of His actions to His people. His is . the greatness, the might, the splendour, the triumph, and the majesty. . . . .

Chapter 11, Prior and Posterior, . .

11 The language here comes from Job 23:13. The reading at one with Himself is suggested by the JPS (1917) translation of the Bible. 12 Or, less likely: calms. See below n. 36.

20 Final Prayer

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

This book, more precious than gold, even ne gold, called The Book of Attributes by Aristotle the great philosopher is complete, and here he has completed his words with judgment. Blessed is the Merciful One Who grants succor, from the beginning until now.13 Strong be the author and bold the reader. Blessed is He Who gives power to the weary and increases the strength of those who have no might.14 Strength.
1314

" "

"

These prayers are a mixture of standard formulae found at the end of chapters of canonical works and interpretive remarks and descriptions of God in terms derived from the Hebrew translation of Aristotles Metaphysics and Averroes Long Commentary.15 In what follows I shall give an interpretation of these prayers, focusing particularly on how they incorporate metaphysical elements into a context of holy writings.
(Isaiah 40:29). This line is in Aramaic. All translations of the Bible are my own. 15 Some other examples where tellot siyyum praise God in terms derived from the subject of the work in which they are found are as follows. (1) At the end of a medieval Hebrew translation of Alfarabis Epistle on the Intellect, Heb. , the translator or a scribe states, , The Treatise on the Intellect has been completed. Praise to God Who bestows Intellect, where the expression Who bestows Intellect is taken from the amidah prayer. Cf. the Hebrew edition of this text in Gad Freudenthal, Ketav ha-daat or Sefer ha-Sekhel we-ha-muskalot: The Medieval Hebrew Translations of al-Farabis Risalah f l-aql. A Study in Text History and in the Evolution of Medieval Hebrew Philosophical Terminology, The Jewish Quarterly Review 93 (2002) 102. (2) In a colophon written in 1322 to a Hebrew translation of Avicennas medieval Canon, the copyist includes prayers for the health of the reader and reminds that God is the healer, quoting Exodus 15:26 (see Vatican ebr. 565, fol. 322v). Such prayers are found fairly frequently in medical treatises.
13 14

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

21

.6 In the prayer at the completion of Chapter 6, the expression that this treatise has been completed and perfected is formulaic and found at the end of numerous treatises in medieval Jewish literature. Similarly, the expression, praise to God on High is not at all uncommon. Yet the expression, Who created everything with speech is unusual and has few known parallels in medieval Hebrew literature. What does the author of the prayers intend by this expression? One use of this expression with which the author was probably familiar was in the commentary on Genesis 1:26 of Rabbi Moses ben Nahman Girondi (Nahmanides). Nahmanides uses the expression created with speech to refer to all creation that is not ex nihilo. Thus he associates it with the creation of everything after the rst day. According to Nahmanides, on the rst day the heavens and the earth were created ex nihilo, while the rest of creation reformed the matter created on the rst day to create the rest. Supposing, then, that the author of these prayers had in mind a kind of creation that is not ex nihilo, let us ask why this formulation is included here at the end of .6. That is, what is the relationship of this prayer to the text it accompanies? The Hebrew word expressing divine creation, , does not appear at all in the text of Metaphysics or in Averroes commentary, but the expression with speech does play an important role in .6. At 6.14816 (corresponding to 1016a33), Aristotle lists the following signication of one: One is also said of the things whose articulation signifying what it is for them to be is indivisible into [any] other thing signifying what the thing is.17 One difculty in understanding what Aristotle means here is his use of the expression that which signies what it is for a thing to be, an expression which modern
16 References to the medieval Hebrew translation of Aristotle with Averroes Long Commentary are to chapter and line numbers of Book as they appear in the Hebrew edition of the work in Averroes on Metaphysical Terminology, Chapter VII. Quotations of the Hebrew have been adjusted here to reect the reading in Munich MS Hebrew 65, while the Hebrew edition mostly follows Paris, Bibliothque Nationale de France MS heb. 886. 17 . In this instance, the Hebrew translation corresponds to the Greek fairly well. Cf. the apparatus to the text here in Halper, Averroes on Metaphysical Terminology, 233.

22

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

translators of Aristotle typically translate as essence. As I have shown elsewhere, the Aristotelian concept of essence (Greek: ) was not transmitted to Arabic and Hebrew and consequently is not understood consistently when it appears in the text.18 Averroes commentary here explains how he understood it:
That which signies what it is for a thing to be is the condition for an articulation since an articulationi.e., a compound statementis the composition of a delineation. A condition, indeed, is a denition whenever it indicates what a thing is in its boundary.19

This explanation associates the term statement ( )with the terms articulation ( )and denition (), both of which have their roots in the Aristotelian . There is no way to know whether the author of the prayers understood the relation of the term to the Greek , but it is not unreasonable to assume, on the basis of these passages, that he associated with the denition of things. Thus asserting that God created everything with speech could, in this context, be another way of saying that God created everything through denition, that is through Aristotelian denition that differentiates things within their boundaries. Given the authors likely familiarity with Nahmanides created with speech as creation that is not ex nihilo, the author may be saying here that God created by taking existing things and differentiated them through Aristotelian denitions, i.e., through marking the genera and differentia. .7 Chapter 7, which discusses the term being, is the only chapter described by the author of the prayers as glorious (). This characterization usually expresses connection to divine things and may thus indicate the

See Halper, Revision and Standardization, 121124. ( 6.168 169).

18 19

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

23

connection of the chapter on being to the divine.20 In biblical Hebrew, glory describes what often seems to be a bodily manifestation of divinity on Earth, frequently a kind of presence that inhabits or lls the Temple or Tent of Meeting.21 At the end of this prayer, however, we are told that His dominion rules over all, an expression that I have not found in other tellot siyyum, but one that appears in Psalms 103:19 in close connection with the divine throne. If the author of the prayers asserts both that the discussion of being is accompanied by a manifestation of the divine and that the divine dominion is immanent throughout, it is likely that the author of the prayers intended to say that Gods dominion in all things is expressed through the immanence of being. Being in all things, according to the author of these prayers, would then be that which makes up divine rule. The reference in the prayer to the worship in the heart of every creature recalls the prayer at the end of .6, where God is said to have created everything. Gods creation is made through speech and denition, and Gods dominion is made up of being. .8 The treatise on substance has been completed, but not, it seems, perfected.22 Indeed the prayer mentions that God not only created substance, but also the purity of the heavens. The expression, purity of the heavens, also unique among tellot siyyum to my knowledge, is clearly taken from Exodus 24:10: And they saw the God of Israel, and there was under His feet, as it were, a work of the whiteness of sapphire stone and like the substance of the heavens in purity. According to Maimonides, whom the author of the prayer was certain to have
20 Indeed, the term glorious is more frequently applied to God or people, e.g., authors or readers, that are mentioned in tellot siyyum, though it does appear with reference to the works themselves. See, e.g., the opening of an anonymous philosophical commentary on Genesis and Exodus in Vatican ebr. 274, fol. 123v. 21 Cf. Exodus 16:10, 24:1617; Leviticus 9:6; Numbers 14:21, 16:19, 17:7; 1 Samuel 2:8; 1 Kings 8:11; Ezekiel 1:28, 3:12 and 23, 8:4, 10:4, 11:23, 43:2, 44:4; Psalms 85:10; 2 Chronicles 5:14, 7:2. 22 See note 8 above for two other chapters that are said to be perfected, , but not completed, .

24

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

read, the whiteness of sapphire stone and like the substance of the heavens in purity refers to heavenly matter, often called aether.23 Such heavenly aether is not seen with the body, but rather metaphorically seen or apprehended with the intellect.24 Just as the act of seeing is to be understood metaphorically, feet, too, must be metaphoric. Following Onqelos who interprets feet in this passage to refer to the Throne of Glory () , Maimonides interprets the passage using the Hebrew equivalent .25 If glory ( )was associated in the previous prayer with being,26 then the placement of substance and the purity of the heaven under the Throne of Glory may imply that they form subsets of being, or perhaps even genera of being. Indeed Averroes begins his treatise on substance in the Long Commentary by stating that Aristotle distinguished the number of ways in which being is said, one of which was of substance (8.1516). By enumerating both substance and the purity of the heaven, the author of the prayers seems to distinguish between a material substantial being and an aetherial being. Although this distinction has some basis in Maimonides,27 it does not follow from Aristotles text and, in fact, seems to contradict it. It could, however, be read into the text of Averroes Long Commentary, where Averroes enumerates four kinds of substance, all of which rely on the individual substance or rst substance of the Categories (8.2324), which itself relies heavily on material. While Averroes does not distinguish here between material and aether, and indeed Averroes would almost certainly not make such a distinction here, the author of the prayers apparently was interested in differentiating
23 Nahmanides association of the term with the rmament ( )may also refer to something like aether. 24 Cf. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, I:4. But cf. also I:5, where Maimonides asserts that the seeing mentioned in this passage was, in fact, coloured by corporeality and thus not completely intellectual. 25 Cf. Onqelos ad loc., Maimonides, Guide, I:28 and II:26. 26 Note, however, that for Maimonides the Throne of Glory refers to the Indwelling, or created light (Guide, I:28). 27 See Guide, II:26: The whiteness, which is under the throne, is terrestrial matter. Thus Rabbi Eliezer repeated the very same thing and made it clear [in Pirqe dRabbi Eliezer]I mean the fact that there are two matters a high and an inferior one . . . the matter of everything that is on earthI mean to say, of everything that is beneath the sphere of the moonis one common matter, and . . . the matter of all the heavens and of what is in them is another matter and not the same as the one just mentioned (trans. S. Pines [Chicago 1963] 331332).

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

25

aether from material substance. Nevertheless, it seems that the author of the prayers thought both to be subsets of being and both to point toward the Creator. .11 The prayer appended to the chapter on prior and posterior emphasizes the term one, even over prior, and does not mention posterior at all. Its opening reference to the chapter as the treatise on prior to one, followed by its mention of the One God, seem to imply that prior most properly refers to the Creator. Indeed, the rst ve signications of prior that Aristotle gives in .11 concern prior in relation to a principle. The last of these, prior in an ordering, according to Averroes following Aristotle, always refers to prior and posterior with reference to a thing that is placed among them rst and one.28 While Aristotles example treats choral dancers arranged with reference to a lead dancer, to some extent Averroes Long Commentary emphasizes prior that is in relation to one. In the context of the prayer, the one must be the One God. The nal words of the prayer, Who is at one [with Himself ], which do not appear in other tellot siyyum as far as I know, are taken from Job 23:13: He is at one [with Himself ]; who can make Him return? He does what His soul desires. Maimonides mentions this verse in the Guide as one that can be misunderstood if read too hastily. At rst glance, Maimonides says, it could appear to support the mutakallim position that Gods creation is devoid of natural necessity. In fact, though, it shows the opposite: the things willed by God are necessarily accomplished. . . . He wills only what is possible. That is, Gods creation accords with natural necessity and possibility. Maimonides continues: this is the opinion of all those that adhere to the Law and also the opinion of the philosophers, and it is also our own opinion.29 The author of the prayers may have quoted Job 23:13 to imply that Gods priority to the natural world as creator is consistent with the account
28 .( 11.7677). 29 Guide, III:25, trans. Pines, 504505.

26

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

of natural necessity in Metaphysics .5 and possibility in .12. Following Maimonides, he may have considered this verse to epitomize a kind of harmonization of Judaism and philosophy. .12 The prayer upon completion of the chapter on potential opens with the formulaic statement that the chapter has been completed and perfected and continues with the not uncommon statement, praise to the God of the world.30 Although it is by no means unique here, the expression God of the world was a favourite of Maimonides and he invokes the God of the World at the beginning of each part of the Guide.31 It is possible, even likely, that if the author of the prayers was familiar with Maimonides Guide, he would use this expression with reference to Maimonides usage. The expression originates from Genesis 21:33, where it is invoked by Abraham after planting a tree. Perhaps because of its association with planting and growth, Maimonides frequently invokes the expression, probably with reference to the connection between God and nature, particularly an Aristotelian conception of nature. The use made by the author of the prayers here appears to connect power and potential to nature, particularly an Aristotelian conception of nature, and also to God. Indeed, the prayer goes on to tell us that God bears the arms of the world with power. The expression, the arms of the world, which does not occur in other tellot siyyum to my knowledge, occurs only once in the Bible in Deuteronomy 33:27: The eternal God is a dwelling place, and underneath are the arms of the world . . . This verse is interpreted by various medieval commentators, including Maimonides32 and Bahya ben Asher,33 to refer to Gods setting the heavenly spheres
It is used, e.g., in a number of places by Nahmanides. However, the similar expression , Praise to God, Creator of the World, is more common. 31 See also his more detailed discussion of this invocation at Guide, III: 29. Note also that in a commentary on Guide II: 12, Kaspi says that in order to understand the expression God of the world, one should examine Aristotles Metaphysics . Cf. Kaspi, Maskiot Kesef, ed. Salomo Werbluner (Frankfurt, 1848), p. 101. 32 Guide, I:70, trans. Pines, 172173. 33 Commentary on the Pentateuch, ad loc.
30

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

27

in motion and thereby creating the world. The act of setting the heavenly spheres in motion is the act of making the rst motion, which can result in all the other motions; it is this motion that sets in place all other possibilities of motion. Thus, the God who bears the arms of the world with power can be said to establish potentiality, in its Aristotelian sense, in the world. The description of God as He by Whose power the sea is stirred up, a statement taken from Job 26:12,34 is probably a further description of the movement of the heavenly spheres that causes the elements of the sphere below the moon to become stirred up and to mix with one another. According to Maimonides at least, it is through this mixing of the elements that the world as we know it is formed.35 The author of the prayers begins the nal stanza of this unique prayer with a line from Psalms that originally expressed Gods commitment to keeping His covenant with the Israelites.36 In this context, however, it is clear that the statement has a very different meaning. Here the statement, He declares the power of His actions to His people, must mean that God makes known to His people the potentiality created by his actions. The reader who has understood the rst half of the prayer to refer to the creation of potentiality through setting the heavenly spheres in motion will understand this line of the prayer accordingly. Further, we may add that this declaration of Gods power is recognized here after Aristotles discussion of power, perhaps implying that God declares the power of His actions through the Aristotelian science of metaphysics. The last line of the prayer, His is the greatness, the might, the splendour, the triumph, and the majesty, is taken from I Chronicles 29:11 and apparently refers to the attributes of praise associated with God Who has power. Indeed, the attributes enumerated here are often
34 Among the meanings of the verb are both to stir up and to be calm. Some translations of the Bible have understood at Job 26:12 to mean to make calm, although in most cases forms of are used for make calm. Similar statements involving , albeit with a participle of the Qal form, are usually understood to mean stirs up the sea at Isaiah 51:15 and Jeremiah 31:35. Nevertheless, even if the author of the prayers understands this to refer to Gods making the sea calm with his power, it is not unreasonable to assume that he believes God to accomplish this through the motion of the heavenly spheres. 35 Cf. Maimonides, Guide, I:72, trans. Pines, 186. 36 Psalm 111:6.

28

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

given as the basis for the kabbalistic serot. Yet the entire verse is not quoted here; the remainder of the verse, which would have been familiar to any educated medieval Hebrew reader,37 has: for all that is in the heavens and on the earth is Yours; Yours is the kingship. The unstated reference to kingship brings to mind the earlier prayer to chapter 7, associating all of being with a Kingdom of God. Final Prayer Although the nal prayer appears after the incomplete twelfth chapter of Metaphysics , it is clear that it refers to the entire book as it appears in this manuscript. Indeed, the entire book is called more precious than gold, even ne gold. This statement, which is unique among tellot siyyum so far as I can tell, is a take on Psalm 19:1011, which reads: The ordinances of God are true; they are altogether righteous; they are more desirable than gold, even much ne gold.38 In Psalm 19, it is not Aristotles Metaphysics which is so desirable, but the ordinances of God. It is impossible to ignore the signicance of this: the expression, more precious than gold, even ne gold, which is clearly intended in the Book of Psalms to indicate something of the highest possible value is used by the author of the prayers to indicate Aristotles Metaphysics with Averroes Long Commentary. The author of the prayers implies that the science of metaphysics, even as understood by a nonJew, has at least as high a value as the ordinances of the Law, or perhaps that the science of metaphysics is among the ordinances of the Law.39 The unique expression at the end of the prayer, and here he has completed his words with judgment, seems to imply the latter. The
This verse was included in the daily prayer service. This psalm is included in the Sabbath prayer services and would consequently be familiar to the medieval Hebrew readership. 39 In his commentary to Psalm 19:11 Ibn Ezra states that the ordinances mentioned here are really the twelve astrological signs and thus that these signs are the most valuable things around. The statement here, however, is stronger; by replacing the word ordinances with this book the author of the prayers dismisses the value of the ordinances of the Law, and leaves room only for Aristotles Metaphysics with Averroes Long Commentary to be the most valuable thing.
37 38

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

29

Hebrew word for judgment here is and I have translated it judgment in accordance with its use in the text from which it is taken, Psalm 112:5: Good will come to him who is gracious and lends, who orders his affairs with judgment. The author of the prayers is apparently including Aristotle among the generous men, perhaps because he shared his metaphysical knowledge in his writings. However, the word also means ordinance and is the same word used in Psalm 19 to describe the ordinances of God. Thus the prayer could also mean that Aristotle completed his words by ordinance or through ordinance. Aristotles Metaphysics may be of the same value as the ordinances of God described in Psalm 19 because it is somehow made through ordinances, or that the subject of the book, i.e., the science of metaphysics, that through which the book is made, is an ordinance of God. In the remainder of the prayer, the author of the prayers uses formulaic sentences commonly placed at the end of works to pray that God grant strength and boldness to those who study the work.40 These unique, short, though somewhat inconspicuous prayers that appear after chapters of Aristotles Metaphysics signify a radically novel interpretation of the Jewish tradition. By using common formulae that appear in tellot siyyum for books with a ritual function, they include Averroes Long Commentary, along with Aristotles Metaphysics among such works. Further, by quoting and referring to well-known canonical works, they present a philosophical interpretation of Judaism, God and the creation of the world that has as its centre-point metaphysics, as understood by Aristotle and his most important commentator, Averroes.

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