ZUTOT:

Perspectives on
Jewish Culture
brill.com/zuto

Zutot 8 (2011) 15-29

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 fit the genre of tefillot siyyum, to be read by
the reader of the text upon completion of certain chapters of Book of the Metaphysics.
These prayers are thematically related to the content of 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 influence of Aristotles Metaphysics on medieval Jewish thought,

especially on medieval conceptions of the divine, is well known. Yet
there is no evidence that any of the great medieval Jewish 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 fit the genre of tefillot siyyum,1 to be read by the
reader of the text upon completion of certain chapters of Book of
the Metaphysics. The insertion of short, one or two line tefillot siyyum at
the end of works or even chapters was common practice among

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

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013

DOI: 10.1163/18750214-12341242

16

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

medieval Hebrew authors, scribes and even annotators2 and presumably

the recitation of such tefillot functioned to make the reading of such
works a ritual experience. The existence of these prayers at the end of
chapters of 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 specific 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 tefillot 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 Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the
National Library of Israel for providing access to microfilm copies of the MS.
4
On the original translation and its later revision, see Y. Halper, Revision and
Standardization of Hebrew Philosophical Terminology in the Fourteenth Century: the
Example of Averroes Long Commentary on Aristotles Metaphysics and the Development
of Hebrew Scientific Terms. Aleph: Historical Studies in Science and Judaism 13 (2013)
95138.

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

17

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

of medieval manuscripts. Much of the text of these prayers is unique
and, as we shall see, uses Hebrew terms that take their meaning from
the text to which the prayers are an accompaniment, i.e., the Hebrew
translation of 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 first books of the
Metaphysics in another way: the title of the work is not given by its usual
Hebrew title, Sefer Mah she-ahar ha-teva (literally The Book of that which
is Beyond Nature), but by Sefer ha-Middot, a title usually reserved for
Aristotles Ethics. In fact, the term has a number of meanings,
including both measurements and attributes, in addition to its 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 find the short prayers appended to chapter 6, one
(), chapter 7, being (), chapter 8, substance (), chapter
11, prior and posterior () , and chapter 12, power ().8
After chapter 12, a prayer upon the completion of the entire
is found as well, indicating that the author of the prayers considered
this to be the end of the book. It is most likely that the author of the
prayers had an incomplete text of the Metaphysics with Averroes Long
Commentary that ended after .12,9 but it is also possible that what this
author considered to be included in The Book of Attributes was only
the Metaphysics up to those attributes that could be considered divine;
the chapters after .12, beginning with quantity and quality are all
less directly connected with the Divine.10
The following is the text of these prayers accompanied by an English
translation:

7
Many modern scholars, following Werner Jaeger (Aristoteles Grundlegung einer 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., first, 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

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.

.
.

Chapter 11, Prior and Posterior,

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.

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

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

Final Prayer
This book, more precious than
gold, even fine 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 tefillot siyyum praise God in terms derived from the
subject of the work in which they are found are as follows. (1) At the end of a 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 first day. According to
Nahmanides, on the first day the heavens and the earth were created
ex nihilo, while the rest of creation reformed the matter created on the
first day to create the rest.
Supposing, then, that the author of these prayers had in mind a kind
of creation that is not ex nihilo, let us ask why this formulation is included
here at the end of .6. That is, what is the relationship of this prayer
to the text it accompanies? The Hebrew word expressing divine creation,
, does not appear at all in the text 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 signification of one: One is also said of the things whose
articulation signifying what it is for them to be is indivisible into [any]
other thing signifying what the thing is.17 One difficulty in understanding what Aristotle means here is his use of the expression that which
signifies 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 reflect 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 signifies 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 definition whenever it indicates what a thing is in its boundary.19

This explanation associates the term statement ( )with the terms

articulation ( )and definition (), both of which have their roots
in the Aristotelian .
There is no way to know whether the author of the prayers 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 definition of things. Thus asserting that God created everything with speech could, in this context, be another way of
saying that God created everything through definition, that is through
Aristotelian definition that differentiates things within their boundaries.
Given the authors likely familiarity with Nahmanides created with
speech as creation that is not ex nihilo, the author may be saying here
that God created by taking existing things and differentiated them
through Aristotelian definitions, i.e., through marking the genera and
differentia.
.7
Chapter 7, which discusses the term being, is the only chapter described
by the author of the prayers as glorious (). This characterization
usually expresses connection to divine things and may thus indicate the

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 fills the
Temple or Tent of Meeting.21 At the end of this prayer, however, we
are told that His dominion rules over all, an expression that I have
not found in other tefillot siyyum, but one that appears in Psalms 103:19
in close connection with the divine throne. If the author of the prayers
asserts both that the discussion of being is accompanied by a 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 definition, 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 tefillot 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 tefillot 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 first 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 firmament ( )may also refer
to something like aether.
24
Cf. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, I:4. But cf. also I:5, where Maimonides
asserts that the seeing mentioned in this passage was, in fact, coloured by 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 first five significations
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 first and one.28 While Aristotles
example treats choral dancers arranged with reference to a lead dancer,
to some extent Averroes Long Commentary emphasizes prior that is in
relation to one. In the context of the prayer, the one must be the One
God.
The final words of the prayer, Who is at one [with Himself ], which
do not appear in other tefillot siyyum as far as I know, are taken from
Job 23:13: He is at one [with Himself ]; who can make Him return?
He does what His soul desires. Maimonides mentions this verse in the
Guide as one that can be misunderstood if read too hastily. At first
glance, Maimonides says, it could appear to support the mutakallim
position that Gods creation is devoid of natural necessity. In fact,
though, it shows the opposite: the things willed by God are 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 tefillot siyyum to my knowledge, occurs only once
in the Bible in Deuteronomy 33:27: The eternal God is a dwelling
place, and underneath are the arms of the world . . . This verse 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 first motion, which can
result in all the other motions; it is this motion that sets in place all
other possibilities of motion. Thus, the God who bears the arms of
the world with power can be said to establish potentiality, in its
Aristotelian sense, in the world.
The description of God as He by Whose power the sea is stirred up,
a statement taken from Job 26:12,34 is probably a further description
of the movement of the heavenly spheres that causes the elements of
the sphere below the moon to become stirred up and to mix with one
another. According to Maimonides at least, it is through this mixing of
the elements that the world as we know it is formed.35
The author of the prayers begins the final stanza of this unique
prayer with a line from Psalms that originally expressed Gods 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 first half of
the prayer to refer to the creation of potentiality through setting the
heavenly spheres in motion will understand this line of the prayer
accordingly. Further, we may add that this declaration of Gods power
is recognized here after Aristotles discussion of power, perhaps 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 sefirot. 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 final 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 fine gold. This statement, which is unique among tefillot siyyum so far as I can tell, is a take on Psalm 19:1011, which reads:
The ordinances of God are true; they are altogether righteous; they
are more desirable than gold, even much fine gold.38 In Psalm 19, it
is not Aristotles Metaphysics which is so desirable, but the ordinances
of God. It is impossible to ignore the significance of this: the expression, more precious than gold, even fine gold, which is clearly intended
in the Book of Psalms to indicate something of the highest possible
value is used by the author of the prayers to indicate Aristotles
Metaphysics with Averroes Long Commentary. The author of the prayers
implies that the science of metaphysics, even as understood by a 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 tefillot siyyum for books with a ritual function, they include
Averroes Long Commentary, along with Aristotles Metaphysics among
such works. Further, by quoting and referring to well-known canonical
works, they present a philosophical interpretation of Judaism, God and
the creation of the world that has as its centre-point metaphysics, as
understood by Aristotle and his most important commentator,
Averroes.

40
The very common concluding formula, strong be the author and bold the reader,
also appears, e.g., at the end of a Hebrew translation of Averroes Middle 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).