This High Holidays:
Are we Praying to be Raised or Praying to be Lowered?

Yaakov Jaffe

The high note of the Yamim Noraim service, both literally and figuratively, growing up, was the two-word phrase “mi yarum,” “who will be raised,” halfway through the U-Netaneh Tokef piyyut. These two words proceed the congregation’s cry of the now-anthem of the day “Repentance, prayer, charity can remove[1] the evil of[2] the decree,” and the two-word phrase carries a special intensity.[3] “Who will be raised” ought to carry a special message for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, [4] although what that message might be requires special consideration.

For the first two paragraphs of this piyyut, the tension builds, leading up to the two words “who will be raised.” The speaker considers the frailty of humanity, and the gravity of the judgment that takes place on the High Holidays. Said tension reaches its climax through a long list of potential passings ending with “mi yarum,” ready to be released with the congregation’s reply. Using word-painting, many Shliach Tzibbur will ominously lower his voice at the words “mi yishafel,” “who will be lowered,” and then raise it both in pitch and in amplification triumphantly asserting “mi yarum,” “who will be raised,” the preferred outcome which ends the paragraph.

Yet, one can ask whether being raised is really the preferred outcome. Do we really pray to be raised and achieve a position of more prominence, power, or dominance instead of being lowered? Inspecting the prayer at length will help us understand the meaning of these words, and whether being raised or lowered is the better result. The question can be answered on two different levels – both investigating what the original author intended, and also what the individual reciting the prayer in synagogue ought to feel today.

Key to answering this question is the unusual order of four words in the center of U-Netaneh Tokef, “who shall become poor and who shall become wealthy; who will be lowered and who will be raised.”  Not all versions of the piyyut feature this order, and understanding the thinking behind the order is crucial to understanding which of those four outcomes we aspire towards and which we prefer to avoid.  Inspection of the piyyut as a whole is vital to understand how the individual at prayer arrives at these key words, and so a brief introduction to U-Netaneh Tokef follows below.

A Piyyut of Human Mortality and Divine Magnificence

U-Netaneh Tokef is of uncertain origin, found in the standard liturgy of today and also as far back as the Cairo Geniza.[5] Serving as an introduction to Kedushah,[6] it consists of four paragraphs, and each of the four find a different way to contrast human mortality and Divine magnificence. For example, the third paragraph contrasts the ephemerality of humanity with God (“And you are, He, King, Living and Everlasting).[7] The fourth paragraph lists many great praises of the name of Hashem who has no limit and no end. Thus, the piyyut is more a praise or description of God, than it is a prayer to God; we ask little from Hashem in these words, mostly describing him, as is fitting for a Siluk piyyut and the start of kedusha.

A dramatic first paragraph describes the day of judgement,[8] comparing humanity to soldiers or sheep, where God determines the decree of each creature, to life or to death.[9] God is judge, arguer, knower, witness, scribe, sealer, counter – without any assistant or rival. Both the shepherd and general determine which of their flock and troop would die, without taking appeals from specific soldiers or sheep. The general and shepherd sometimes might not even have any deep, thoughtful criteria who lives and who dies.[10] In contrast, the profound, novel idea of the high holidays, according to this piyyut, is that Hashem is different in giving the Jew on the high holidays the capacity to change the decree from the negative side of the ledger to the positive side through a direct appeal for a change. The power of the piyyut is how it builds to create the concept of an awesome God, with scurrying fearful angels beside Him,[11] who has full, unchallenged, unappealable control over judgement, only to then later break the model and show that reprentance and prayer provides an alternative option where humanity can change the decree.

The first paragraph is replete with allusions to Biblical verses and to Midrashim that make this core point,[12] using meter and rhythm to build tension. The paragraph consists of 26 phrases, many of which operate as pairs. Some are rhyming pairs (hayom-ayom, malchutekha-kisekha, nishkahot-zichronot, yitaka-yishama, yeichafeizun-yocheizun, edro-shivto), while other pairs use using Biblical Parallelism, and share the same content twice in different words (checking his flock-passing under the rod, cut the endpoint for every creature-inscribe the decree of their judgment, the day of judgment has come-to count all the legions of Heaven in judgment). Everyone’s signature appears in the book of recollections, attesting to the truth of what has happened (Sifri to Devarim 32:4 based on Job 37:7). The book miraculously is even read on its own (recalling Megilah 15b’s interpretation of Esther 6:1). The paragraph ends with three verbs describing God meeting out judgment: counting and measuring each creature, cutting the end for every creation, and then inscribing or writing their decree.

A Dozen Pairs of Life and Death Outcomes

The second paragraph reviews a series of life outcomes in pairs, culminating in the question of who will be raised and who will be lowered.  It is important to recognize that in general, the more negative outcome appears second. This pattern suggests that being raised, second in its pair, might be the more negative of the two outcomes.

The second paragraph begins with three lines that set the stage for this somber section: how many will be die or be born,[13] who will live or die, and whether it will be in the proper time.[14] The second and third of these three lines contain each a pair of outcomes beginning with “mi.” Recalling the paradigm of troops and sheep, the commander or shepherd decides which of the group lives and which dies – not exactly judging each individual on his or her own, just deciding how many will live and how many will die. This introduction is followed by five pairs of types of deaths, with the more negative listed second:

“Who by water and who by fire” [water=strangulation; fire is worse, Sanhedrin 37b][15]
“Who by sword and by wild animal.” [Animal=stoning is worse, Sanhedrin 37b, Eicha 4:9]
“Who by famine and who by thirst (dehydration).” [Thirst is worse, Rashi Bamidbar 20:3]
“Who by earthquake and who by plague” [Protracted, painful death of plague is worse]
“Who by strangulation and who by stoning” [Stoning is worse, Sanhedrin 49b)

The paragraph ends with five pairs of outcomes, with a more positive outcome juxtaposed with a negative outcome. Here, again, the inferior outcome typically comes second – at least in older versions of the piyyut. Below is a translation of the five pairs, using the verbiage of most Mahzorim but with the negative outcome appearing last, which is how they appear in some Mahzorim.¹⁶

Who shall rest and who will move around[17]
Who shall be quieted and who will be torn[18]
Who shall be made serene and who will be rebuked[19]
Who shall be made rich and who shall be made poor[20]
Who shall be raised and who shall be lowered[21]

The second paragraph, in sum, is a litany of a dozen possible outcomes, many of them negative. The listener feels the tension build, waiting for it to be released through the cathartic chant “repentance, prayer, and charity.” One of the numerous bad outcomes seems to be being lowered, and thus we hope instead to be raised; the negative outcome, being lowered, appears last.

Reversing the Last Pair of Outcomes

It is common practice today to reverse the final two outcomes, “raised” and “lowered” to result in a new line “who shall be lowered and who shall be raised.” Some also reverse the penultimate pair, rich and poor.[22] Why reverse the pair and end with what appears to be the positive conclusion and not the negative one? Two answers present themselves, a conventional answer, presented in the paragraphs that follow, and a more speculative answer which will be presented in the following sections. The conventional answer maintains that being “raised” is indeed the preferred outcome, while the more speculative suggestion wonders if being “lowered” is the better outcome.

It is ancient Jewish practice to end units of liturgy with a positive conclusion. Many of the most sad or pessimistic liturgical prayers, including the Kinot and Slichot, often end with a final line that is positive. By rule, the first six Aliyot of Torah reading must end with something positive and readings of the Haftarah, Megilot, and the recitation some chapters of Tehillim (such as Chapter 94 on Wednesdays) are often tweaked to ensure the endings are positive.

It is therefore unsurprising to find that in most congregations the final pair or two pairs in the second paragraph, are each reversed, ostensibly so the paragraph ends positively, at a high note with a positive outcome. Consequently, there are ten pairs where the worst outcome is second, and then in the final one or two pairs, the order is reversed, and the worst outcome is first. Musically, ending positively also allows the prayer leader to end this central moment of the prayers with a dramatic, musical flourish, often not at the cadence point but an octave or two higher than it, thereby readying the congregation to respond.

Yet, in the next section, we speculate whether there is an an alternative reason for reversing the order of the final line prayer, which preserves the pattern of the rest of the paragraph, with the negative outcome appearing second. In this alternative, later publishers argue that the Jew actually prefers the outcome of being lowered before God instead of being raised as a pseudo-rival to Him, so the reversal places the negative choice last as it has been across the entire piyyut: “Who shall be lowered” – a good outcome – instead of “and who shall be raised,” a surely negative result.

This question can be asked on multiple levels:

1. What the original author think when he composed the pair raised/lowered?
2. What was the thinking of the publishers or editors who reversed the order and put being lowered first and raised second?
3. And beyond the history, what should the individual at prayer think when reading these words on the high holidays?

Biblical and Mishnaic Ethical Teachings about being Raised or Lowered

The book of Yeshayahu features a three-chapter prophecy about the greatness of God and the misplaced arrogance of humanity.  Many themes of this chapter are apropos of the high holidays, and indeed Isaiah 5:16 is used to end the blessing of God’s holiness on the high holidays, moments after the conclusion of U-Netaneh Tokef: “And Hashem, Master of Legions, became high through judgment, and the holy God become holy through Tzedakah.”  The section of Yeshayahu commands humanity to change their haughty attitude and lower themselves in the presence of the Almighty.  Indeed, the prior verse (5:15) reads “and a human being is let down and a person is lowered (vayishpal), and the eyes of the high ones shall be lowered (tishpalnah).”  Twice in the verse, the prophet teaches that humanity should conduct itself in a posture of being lowered, ceding the high, exalted space for their Creator.

The root to be lowered, sh-p-l appears fifty-three times in the Tanach in verb and adjective form, in both Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic; two of the fifty-three appear in the above cited verse. It also can be used as a noun, although with slightly different meaning. The word is often contrasted with height, to be “gavoha,” but at times is also contrasted with being raised, and the root r-v-m.

The plurality of the fifty-three times appears in the Book of Isaiah. A lengthy prophecy at the start of the book is focuses specifically on the idea of lowering the raised, making the “rum” into “shafel” (Isaiah 2:9, 11, 12, 17).[23] The thrust of this prophecy is that a human being should strive to be lowly, not to be haughty and raised, and that any person who is not yet lowly should strive to become so. The chapter makes no mention of any other individuals, righteous or not, who should be raised, because that position is reserved for God. No human should be raised, and being raised is synonymous with sin. This prophecy doesn’t read as a typical description of sin and punishment, where the wicked are lowered for their sins, it reads as amoral argument that all of humanity should be willing to be lowered.

The Haftarah for the morning of Yom Kippur (57:15) is one of two prophecies (also 32:19) where God looks favorably towards those who have already acquired the characteristic of being lowly. Again, being lowly is not a negative social or economic condition to be ameliorated, but a moral condition to be pursued. Some books of the Bible seem to focus on the lowering of the haughty (Isaiah 25:11-12) or the undeservedly raised “ramim” (Isaiah 10:33, 26:5), which leaves open the unstated possibility that certain meritorious individuals do deserve to be raised.  God will occasionally lower something as a punishment (13:11, 29:4, 57:5) or for pragmatic reasons (40:4), but the citations in the Book of Yeshayahu and in the parts of the book that find echoes in the high holiday prayer service, focus exclusively on God lowering humanity to the proper register, without raising anyone in response. 

The ethical books of the Bible convey the same sense. Proverbs 16:19 and 29:23 both recommend that an individual be of lowly spirit, “shafal ru`ach,” rejecting being of a high spirit. Psalms 75:6-8 explains that a human being should not strive to be raised, because God determines the lowly and raised. Psalms 138:6 says that God is raised and looks positively at the lowly. This idea is also echoed in Avot in at least three occasions (4:4, 4:10, 5:19). It would be odd to have intention on Yom Kippur to become something that the ethical teachings recommend against![24] The role models of Judaism are known for their humility and how they lower themselves (see Bamidbar 12:3, Rashi Devarim 32:44 “hishpil atzmo”), and we should act in the same way.

Most people at prayer argue for the reverse, that the author intended “raised” as the positive outcome and “lowered” as the negative outcome. The pair of wealthy/poor and raised/lowered appear in the exact same order in Chanah’s prayer, the Haftarah of Rosh Hashanah (2:7) “Hashem brings poverty and makes wealthy, lowers even raises;” in this context wealth and being raised are both positive outcomes. And there are a minority of Biblical passages which value raising the lowly and set lowliness as a situation to be avoided (Jeremiah 13:18, Ezekiel 17:6, 14, 24; Ezekiel 29:14-15, Malachi 2:9, Psalms 147:6, Job 5:11, Daniel 7:24). With evidence on both sides, we cannot know for certain what the original author intended, or what the editor who swapped the order intended. Still, a majority of Biblical verses, those cited above along with numerous other ones (Shmuel 2:6:22, 2:22:28=Psalms 18:28 [lower the raised], Ezekiel 21:31, Job 22:29, 40:11, Daniel 4:34, 5:19-22,), convey the idea that it is better to be lowly, not to be raised.[25]

Hints in the Piyyut: Supporting Being Lowered

The general sense of the piyyut gives multiple clues that the correct disposition for a human being is lowliness. The entire third paragraph contrasts between God’s greatness and man’s insignificant lowness: flesh and blood which will end as dust (Genesis 3:19), compared to broken pottery (Bereishit Rabbi Loc. Cit. [14:7]), dry grass & wilting sprout (Yeshauahu 40:7), passing shade (Psalms 144:4), ceasing cloud (Job 7:9), blowing breeze (Yeshayahu 40:7), flying dust (Isaiah 5:24), and a dream that flies away (Job 20:8). Human beings shouldn’t be raised, they should recognize how small they are compared to God!

Even the majestic and grand first paragraph still hints that even God’s own true nature is also defined not through His loftiness, but through His modesty. When describing the commotion among the angels on the day of judgment, God’s essence is not captured through thunder, lighting or earthquake, but through the thin, soft voice that Elijah heard (Kings 1:19:11-12). This concept of God’s greatness is implicit in the piyyut’s focus less on the power of God, and more on God’s unwavering truth. The word truth appears three times in the piyyut (twice dramatically beginning sentences); power and exaltedness are less critical than softness, honesty, consistency, and truth.[26]

Though the end of piyyut does mention briefly the unlimitedness[27] of God’s years and our inability to estimate the greatness of God’s chariots, the ecstatic praises that end the poem are also focused more on God’s honesty, kindness, and forbearance than on His power. Thus, though at the start of the piyyut, God is contrasted with humanity in such his way that His all-powerful being leads to fear, at the end, God is contrasted with humanity in a way that leads to optimism; Hashem is unique through a kindness and calmness that makes repentance possible. God’s nature, name, or “Sheim” doesn’t change – in contrast to temporary human beings, and therefore one has a guarantee that God is “slow to anger and easy to be appeased” (Avot 5:11), never wishing for the sinner to die but instead waiting each day for him to repent (Ezekiel 18:22, 32).[28]

Being raised and exalted is of limited value in the logic of this piyyut, but being soft, humble, and truthful is of a significant value. If that is what we expect from God, should we expect any less from people?

Kavanah and Tefilah

On the high holidays, the Jew will recite pages and hours of prayers, inspired and motivated by specific lines, tunes, or moments, but the prayer experience often deprives us of considering the larger outlook or theology of particular prayers. One reciting any piyyut ideally must contend with the original intent of the original author, along with any possible editors that may have exchanged the order of any of the phrases. Yet, even if the original editor had intended one reading, the individual reciting the prayer must select their own an interpretation for the prayers we recite. In this case, do we hope hoping for a year where we are raised, becoming “a head and not a tail” (Rosh Hashanah meal liturgy, based on Devarim 28:13), or a year where we are lucky to develop a lowly affect and personality and to avoid haughty self-concept.

U-Netaneh Tokef ends with the words “our names, you called with Your name” conveying that we have a close relationship with God, representing Him in such a way.[29] In a song that praises God for his patient choice to delay punishment and allow for repentance, eschewing the role of indifferent general and shepherd and instead enwrapping in the cloak of justice and sitting on the throne of truth – should we not try to be the same way? And in that vein, perhaps we should pray this year to have the honor to be inspired to successfully lower ourselves, and to avoid self-aggrandizement and self-raising.

Yaakov Mark and Two Episodes from Vilna’s Great Synagogue Related to Yom Kippur

David Livni was born in Vilna in 1870. He was educated in traditional Orthodox schools and joined the proto-Zionist Hovevi Tzion movement. In 1906, he and his wife and five children moved to Israel. The children were among the first students of Herzliya Gymnasium, and David was one of the founders of Tel Aviv and its Great Synagogue. He served on its board until he fell out with its leadership regarding financial matters. Construction of the synagogue began in 1920. Delays, design challenges, and a lack of funding caused the construction to proceed at a snail’s pace, well behind schedule. According to Livni, a significant issue was the board’s leadership. In a pamphlet he self-published in early 1927, Binyan bet-ha-keneset ha-gadol be-Tel-Aviv: ṿe-taʻalule ha-gabaʼim, he accused the chairman and his son-in-law (who was also on the board), of gross mismanagement and even misappropriation of construction funds. Additionally, Livni alleges that the chairman filled the board with “yes men” and could rule unchecked. Construction was finally completed in 1930, although with all the changes, the resulting building is a hodgepodge of architectural styles.

Courtesy of the Hebraica Section of the Library of Congress’ African and Middle Eastern Division

In 1928, he began publishing a series in Ha’aretz newspaper describing the Vilna that he remembered. These were eventually collected and published in book format, Yerushalayim de-Lita, in 1930, in two volumes (available here and here). On September 23, 1928, the day before Yom Kippur, his article, “Yom ha-Kippur in Vilna Over Forty Years Ago,” appeared in Ha’aretz. He describes a unique custom of the Great Synagogue of Vilna. The Magid Mesharim would give a sermon the night before Erev Yom Kippur. Livni relates one of those occasions when “R. Yankel Charif (the Gaon R. Yaakov Yosef),” delivered the sermon. R. Yaakov Yosef is best known for his later sojourn to the United States to take up the position of the “Chief Rabbi of New York,” he initially served as rabbi in three Lithuanian towns and, in 1883, was selected as Vilna’s official Maggid, preacher. The moniker “charif” referred to his quick mind and was bestowed upon him during his time in Volozhin Yeshiva.

Title Page of Yerushalim de-Lita from the copy Livni gifted to Dr. Moshe Glickson, the founder and editor of Haaretz, where the articles originally appeared.

Jacob Mark, in his collection of biographies from 1927, originally in Yiddish, Gedoylim fun unzer tsayt: monografyes, karakter-shtrikhen un zikhroynes, and partially translated into Hebrew in 1957, Bi-meḥitsatam shel gedole ha-dor : biografiyot, sipurim, imrot ve-sihot holin shel gedole Yisraʼel ba-dor ha-kodem, devotes a chapter to R. Yosef. According to Mark, by the time R. Yosef arrived in the United States, he was well into his decline, and when he arrived, he had “lost his harifus, the power of his sermons, and his power of Torah.” Mark, therefore, limits his discussion to R. Yosef’s European years.

Mark knew R. Yosef personally. They met when R. Yosef moved to Zhagory and assumed the position of the town’s rabbi where Mark lived. R. Yosef was a student of R. Yisrael Salanter and “among the first young rabbis to spread R. Yisrael’s approach – that a rabbi’s purpose is not to decided legal issues and engage in intellectual debates with scholars – rather to relate to the people and improve their character and bring them closer to Judaism; in fact, this might be [the rabbi’s] fundamental purpose.” Consequently, R. Yosef devoted considerable time honing his sermonic skills and deliberately sought out the commoner. Mark suggests that R. Yosef was particularly suited for this role because he did not come from a rabbinic lineage. Instead, his family was poor and seeing his father struggle to make a living and yet spend freely on R. Yosef’s education impressed upon him that simple Jews have a special love of the Torah and sacrifice even more than middle-class Jews. R. Yosef incorporated these themes in his sermons.

R. Yosef published some of his sermons in 1888 in Vilna. But they are of the more traditional rabbinic type and do not necessarily display the unique nature of his speaking style. However, the Erev Yom Kippur sermon Livni recounts preserves an example of R. Yosef’s oratory emphasis on the people and expresses his love and appreciation of them.

Rabbi Yaakov Yosef’s Sermon on the Eve of Yom Kippur

Livni begins by describing R. Yosef’s humility and that he conveys that despite his lofty position, he is uncertain of his worth,

and is not sure of his life, like our brothers. The Israelites in Romania and Morocco (he means Russia) are not sure of their lives; they make a living like a dog picking up bones under the table of strangers, rolling in the garbage, being deported, and being beaten like dogs.

At that moment, it was as if the spirit of God was hovering in the space above the synagogue, over the crowd of three thousand heads, all turned and lifted their eyes toward the speaker. They were crowded and glued side by side, standing on their feet and swallowing every word from Rabbi Yankili’s mouth. And Rabbi Yankili is standing next to the Aron Ha-Kodesh, his palms outstretched towards the people, his eyes closed, his mouth producing pearls, … his sharpness dripping from his mouth like pure gold, worshiping the heart, going down the stomach chambers, coming out of the heart and entering the heart sometimes like hot coals, sometimes like life-giving dew. At that time, he appears like Ish Elokhim – his face is holy. Rabbi Yankili does not provoke the people to revenge, and he does not sow hatred toward the nations of the world, who shed the blood of Israel like water. He neither absolves them from sin for money nor pecuniary reward….

Yom Kippur itself is the most reliable bill of forgiveness and atonement for transgressions between a person and a guarantor – Erev Yom Kippur is the surest deed for transgressions between a person and his friend. All the fasts, ha-chagim, ha-mo’adim, whether of Shabbat or Shabbat Shabbaton – Yom Ha-Kippurim – [pale in comparison to Erev Yom Kippur]. No nation or language can imitate one day a year – the eve of Yom Kippur.

Morai ve-Rabbosai! The world’s nations reconcile with each other and ask for forgiveness through fire and blood, through the war between themselves. And us? – Through asking for forgiveness between a man and his friend on the eve of Yom Kippur. The world’s nations accepted the statement: “By your sword, you will live!” And we: “ve-chai bahem,” “and live by them,” and you shall not die by them. Morai ve-Rabbosai! It is written: ‘ve-amcha kulum tzadikim‘ ‘and among you all are righteous,’ and who is called righteous? The one who annuls the decrees of the Almighty! The Almighty decrees on the human beings: that they will starve for bread, that they will get sick, that they will die of hunger [], that their children will roll in the streets without the Torah, that their babies and their sucklings will wallow in the open air, that their sons and daughters will be subject to another people, to an immoral culture. The Almighty decrees, and the righteous person comes and cancels: he distributes his bread for hunger, builds a hospital, a nursing home, Talmud Torah, yeshivot, children’s homes, and evening classes for craftsmen. The man who sits within the four cubits of the Halacha, wrapped in a Talis crowned with tefillin, is not called a righteous person but a hasid. Tzadki HaShem be-kol derakhav ve-hasid. He starts as a tzaddik and eventually a Hasid. Every Jew is considered a Tzadik. Who is the Jew who has not given and will not give charity to people experiencing poverty tomorrow? Who is the nation, and what is it, that distributes charity in one day, in a quarter of a day, like the Jewish nation on Erev Yom Kippur, with a generous hand and pure heart?

Rabbi Yankili stands and pleads and calls the people to repent of regret for the past and to accept the future; he does not demand asceticism, does not impose fines, does not decree haramos, does not step on the head of the people with arrogance or ego. He stands and beseeches for the good of the people of Israel before our Father in Heaven, like the Kohen Gadol in his time, in the holiest of holies. He asks for mercy on behalf of the people of Israel – a life in which there is no shame and a dignified livelihood, neither by smuggling the border customs nor by despicable and dangerous businesses, which blacken the face of the Israeli nation like the rim of a cauldron, a year of salvation and comfort without the pain of raising children.

Morai ve-Rabbosai! Hear our voice, God and God… the voice of the drowning son in a sea of ​​troubles, troubles from the outside: persecutions, evil decrees, riots in Romania and Morocco (that is, Russia), and internal troubles: the pains of raising children, hatred for nothing, seeking honor, whistleblowers.”

Morai ve-Rabbosai! Rather than asking our holy Torah to advocate on our behalf, we will ask for forgiveness from her for hurting her honor. Morai ve-Rabbosai! We will bow our heads before our Torah, our Mother, the Mother of all religions and teachings. We will appease our Mother with our Torah, have mercy on the only son, on the people of Israel, and grant that we may fulfill all the Torah’s commandments, including those that depend on the land. And we will be able to return to our country and renew our days as before, as before, as before”!!!

Lately, I must ask for forgiveness from you, teachers, and gentlemen: I woke up and woke you up from your deep slumber like the sun with its hammer that makes the summer sleepy and awakens the sleepers. How bitter, how many vain words I poured over your heads, like vomit. As Kohelet repeats: “This too is vanity, and this too is striving after nothing,” saying and repeating and saying: “vanity vanity vanity vanity.” Why does he have to repeat several times vanity, vanity, all vanity? Wasn’t it enough for him at the end of the book: “Vanity, vanity said Ecclesiastes everything is vain!” Because the sum of zeros, whether one or many, is still zero. But there is a big difference between one zero and many if you add one number before them – all of the meaningless things, the zero, can be elevated and become significant when you add “the One” before them. Ultimately, everything is heard (all of the zeros) – fear God!

Livni finishes by saying, “When Rabbi Yankili Harif opened the Ark of the Covenant, a loud howl erupted in the audience, and the entire building was filled with courage and trembling.”

Cholera and Yom Kippur: 1848

Some forty years earlier, another dramatic event occurred in Vilna’s Great Synagogue, this one on Yom Kippur itself. Like the one above, we are indebted to Yaakov Mark and his book. In this instance, it provides the only eyewitness account of an episode that, in its various retellings, underwent unverifiable and imprecise metamorphoses.

There were at least four major cholera outbreaks during the nineteenth century in the Russian Empire. One of the most severe began in 1847, and by the time it subsided in 1851, it killed over one million in the Empire. By 1848, it had reached Vilna, and the question arose of whether one should fast on Yom Kippur. The structure of the first two major surveys of Vilna Jewish history are biographies of significant personalities interlaced with historical research and expositions. The first, Shmuel Yosef Fuenn’s Kiryat Ne’amanah, published in 1860, with an introduction and extensive endnotes by R. Mattityahu Strashun, and the second, Hillel Noach Steinschneider’s Ir Vilna, published in 1900. Steinschneider’s begins where Fuenn’s ends. Fuenn’s second wife was among those who perished of cholera in 1848.

Imaging of the podium at the Great Synagogue of Vilnius, İmage: UAB Inlusion Netforms.

An archeological team recently uncovered the floor of the Bimah.  See here for a description of their find as well as earlier findings. Loïc Salfati produced a full-length documentary on the history of the Great Synagogue and the excavations.

The 1848 episode first appears in Steinschneider, and he provides that before Yom Kippur, broadsides were posted throughout Vilna proclaiming that one can eat on Yom Kippur, the piyyutim should be shortened and that people should spend time outdoors to get fresh air. According to Steinschneider, on Yom Kippur, after Shachris, in the Great Synagogue, where there were some three thousand congregants, R. Yisrael Salanter ascended the Bimah with a piece of cake and made the boreh mineh mezonos blessing and ate it. In a footnote, he records that one of the congregation’s leaders objected to R. Yisrael’s unilateral decision to publicly violate Yom Kippur without the consent of the leading Rabbis. Despite Steinschneider’s general reliability, this is one instance where the details are apparently incorrect. Steinschneider does not cite anyone or any source for his retelling of this episode. Indeed, the description is internally inconsistent. If the widely distributed broadsides before the holiday explicitly declared that “one should not fast on Yom Kippur,” what was the objection to R. Yisrael’s behavior and the rationale that the Rabbis did not otherwise agree? Moreover, even one permitted to eat on Yom Kippur generally can only less than a shiur, pachos pachos, and Reb Yisrael allegedly ate “a cake” without regard to size.

Mark, unlike Steinschneider, presents the episode differently, which is more consistent with the legal details and, most critically, from an eyewitness. Mark acknowledges other versions — including Steinschneider’s — and argues that these “are not factually accurate,.” They are only “legends.” Mark’s source was R. Shimon Strashun, a prominent member of Vilna’s Jewish community (and a distant relative of R. Shmuel Strashun), “who was an eyewitness in the shul.” Strashun told Mark that “prior to Yom Kippur, Reb Yisrael, with the agreement of the Moreh Tzedek, placed broadsides in all the shuls, that because of the cholera epidemic, they would not say the additional piyutim and, instead sit outside in the fresh air. In the foyers of the shuls, they should put out small amounts of cake, less than a shiur, to use when necessary. On Yom Kippur, after Shachris, R. Yisrael ascended the Bimah of the Great Synagogue and announced to the congregation that anyone who feels weak does not need to ask a doctor and may go to the foyers to eat, but to only eat with breaks [i.e. pachos pachos] and avoid violating the Biblical prohibition. Immediately after R. Yisrael descended from the Bimah, the chief Moreh Horaah, Reb Betzalel, went up to the Bimah and protested, in the name of the Moreh Horaah, [Reb Yisrael’s position] that one is not required to first consult a Rabbi before eating. But the truth is that Reb Yisrael never ate anything.”

Mark’s retelling is consistent with the general legal principles governing a person who is ill, albeit with a controversy regarding consulting a rabbi before breaking someone’s fast during a communal plague. There is no explicit contradiction between the broadsides and Reb Yisrael’s or Reb Betzalel HaKohen’s positions. Instead, it appears that the broadsides, whether due to oversight or that it was unnecessary, did not specifically address whether one must consult a rabbi.

Notes: I am grateful for Sharon Horowitz of the Hebraica section at the Library of Congress for providing the scans of Livni’s pamphlet.

The Hebrew translation of Mark’s work is a substantially abridged version that omits the second portion devoted to “masklim,” with the exception of R. Mattityahu Strashun. Additionally, even the translated portion is shortened, and, in some instances sections and words are omitted that censor potentially controversial materials. But there are no significant changes in the Hebrew version for both episodes discussed here.

The various versions of the Reb Yisrael Salanter episode are collected by Nathan Kamenetsky, in Making of a Godol, vol. I, (2002), 1104-1121. Nonetheless, his attempts to reconcile the discrepancies and harmonize the various versions is unconvincing. Dr. Leiman discusses this at length in his speech that is available here.

For a general discussion regarding plagues and the Jewish responses see Jermey Brown, The Eleventh Plague: Jews and Pandemics from the Bible to COVID-19 (Oxford University Press, New York: 2023) (see pp. 151-53, for his discussion of the Reb Yisrael Salanter episode); see also Eliezer Brodt, “Towards a Bibliography of Coronavirus Related Articles & Seforim Written in the Past Month (Updated): Black Wedding and Other Segulot,” Seforim Blog, May 4, 2020.

Maimonides on Free Will, Divine Omniscience and Repentance

Ben Zion Katz

The problem of reconciling the notions of man’s free will and Divine omniscience is an ancient one. As early as Mishna Avot 3:15 Rabbi Akiva states that “everything is known [by God] but permission (i.e. free will) is given [to people]”. Maimonides begins to tackle this question in his Laws of Repentance (הלכות תשובה) from Book One (The Book of Science סּפּר המדע) of the Mishnah Torah. In chapter 5 paragraph 5 Maimonides brings up the conundrum of Divine Omniscience vs human free will: How can people have free will if God knows the future? Maimonides insists that one who claims that God does not know people’s (future) actions is a heretic (Chapter 3 paragraph 8). He also claims that there is no doubt that people have free will (מעשה האדם ביד האדם) and that there are clear philosophical proofs (ראיות ברורות מדברי החכמה) for this. So how can these two competing concepts be explained? Maimonides insists that there is an answer, but that it is quite complicated/long (תשובת שאלה זו ארוכה). In the Mishnah Torah itself Maimonides only hints at a possible solution, stating that God’s knowledge is different (כי לא מחשבותי מחשבותיכם; Isaiah 55:8).

To pursue this matter further, one must turn to the Rambam’s philosophical masterpiece, The Guide of the Perplexed, where in Book Three, Chapter 20 Maimonides explains this idea further: that God’s knowledge is different from human knowledge because ”His knowledge is His essence and His essence is his knowledge” (Shlomo Pines, Moses Maimonides The Guide of the Perplexed, University of Chicago Press, 1963, hereafter “Pines”, p. 481). The reason for this is that “His knowledge is not a thing … outside of His essence” (Pines, p. 482). In simpler terms, for people, knowledge is separate from their being, but this is not true for God. A consequence of this idea, according to Maimonides is that “His knowledge concerning what will happen does not make this possible thing quit its nature” (Pines, p. 482). In other words, if human nature includes free will, the fact that God knows what will happen does not in any way abrogate that free will. Stated differently, if an event has two possible outcomes, “God’s knowledge…does not bring about the actualization of one of the two possibilities” (Pines, p. 483).

Several examples are often given to explain this difficult concept. The first is that if one is atop a mountain and sees two trains at right angles hurtling towards each other, foreknowledge of the impending collision does not in any way effect the outcome. The second, more philosophical approach is that for God who does not change, time is meaningless; future and past are equivalent. Therefore, just as one’s knowledge of the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo does not affect its outcome, so too God’s knowledge of future events does not affect their outcome. Thus God can be omniscient in a way we cannot fully comprehend, man can have free will, people have the capacity to repent and God can still punish evildoers.

This question of free will vs God’s omniscience comes up again in a different way in chapter 6 of the Laws of Repentance, paragraph 3, where Maimonides discusses the difficult question of the stiffening of Pharoah’s heart, a common trope in the story of the Exodus (see Exodus 4:21 and the discussion therein in Nahum Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary Exodus, Jewish Publication Society, 1991, p. 23). Here again, the question is: if God stiffens Pharoah’s resolve, why was Pharoah deserving of God’s punishment? It seems as if Pharoah had no free will in the matter. Maimonides also discusses the fact that God prophesied to Abraham that Abraham’s descendants (the Israelites) will be oppressed by the Egyptians (Genesis 15:13). If this oppression was pre-ordained, how could God then exact punishment upon the Egyptians (Genesis 15:14) since seemingly God’s omniscience rules out free will on the part of the Egyptians? Maimonides answers the latter question in paragraph 5 of chapter 6 of the Laws of Repentance by explaining that God’s prophecy concerned the Egyptians as a nation but not individual Egyptians. Thus, presumably only those Egyptians who chose to torment the Israelites would be punished. Maimonides answers the first question regarding the stiffening or hardening of Pharoah’s heart by explaining that after Pharoah repeatedly sinned, part of his punishment was God’s withholding from Pharoah the latter’s ability to repent.

Thus, as has been pointed out by many others, Maimonides had a single philosophical program running through all of his major works (see e.g., Herbert Davidson, Moses Maimonides: The Man and His Works, Oxford University Press 2005, pp. 303-4). By reading about similar themes both in the Mishnah Torah and the Guide of the Perplexed, one can obtain a better idea of Maimonides’ contributions to Jewish thought. Using this approach we have shown that Maimonides was able to retain expansive concepts of Divine omniscience and man’s free will, and demonstrate the importance of repentance even if God “knows” whether or not you are actually going to repent.

מנהג ה‘תשליך‘ מאת ר‘ איתם הנקין הי“ד

[הותקן לפרסום מתוך רשימה מכת“י]

.מנהג התשליך מוזכר באופן ברור לראשונה בסוף המאה ה-14, בספר המנהגים לרבי יצחק אייזיק טירנא (סוף מנהגי ראש השנה, ד“ה “ושליח צבור“): “ורגילין לילך על הנהר ולומר תשוב תרחמינו וגו‘, ורואים דגים חיים“

בסמוך לו לפניו מוזכר המנהג במהרי“ל (מנהגים, הלכות ראש השנה אות ט‘): “מה שנוהגין לילך בר“ה אחר סעודה אצל ימים ונהרות להשליך במצולות ים כל חטאותינו, משום דאיתא במדרש זכר לעקדה… ומהר“י סג“ל נהג ג“כ להלוך אצל הנהרות. ואמר, כשהולכין אל הנהרות ביום טוב אל יוליכו עמהם שום מזון כדי לזרוק אל הדגים שבנהרות להראות להם לשמוח בהן, דאית ביה חילול יו“ט…”. במקור זה לא נאמר שהיו אומרים אמירה כלשהי, ומתוך דבריו אנו שומעים שהיו מן העם שנהגו לזרוק בהזדמנות זו אוכל לדגים כדי “להראות להם [ו]לשמוח בהן” (בדומה לדברי מהר“י טירנא על כך ש“רואים דגים חיים“).

גם ב‘לקט יושר‘ לרבי יוסף ב“ר משה, בן המאה ה-15, מוזכר מנהג זה כבדרך אגב, שרבו הר“י איסרלין בעל ‘תרומת הדשן‘ לא הקפיד כל כך ללכת לתשליך: “ואינו מקפיד כ“כ אם אינו הולך לתשליך, אבל לפעמים הולך” (ח“א, או“ח עמ‘ 131, עניין ד; מהד‘ מכון שלמה אומן, עמ‘ רצד עניין נב). במקור זה אנו כבר מוצאים שהמנהג מכונה “תשליך“, על שם הפסוק המרכזי הנאמר בו (מיכה ז יט).

הרמ“א מזכיר מנהג זה גם בספרו ההגותי – תורת העולה ח“ג פרק נו: “מנהג ישראל תורה הוא, במה שהולכים על המים ואומרים תשליך במצולות ים כל חטאתם. להיות כי מן מצולות ים ניכר ענין בריאת העולם, כי מצולות ים הוא התהום, והוא המקום היותר עמוק בים, וכשאנו הולכים שם אנו רואים גבורתו של יוצר בראשית. ולכן אנו הולכים על המים בראש השנה שהוא יום הדין, לשים כל אחד על נפשו ענין בריאת העולם, ושה‘ יתעלה מלך הארץ. ועל זה נאמר תשליך במצולות ים כל חטאתם, כי באמת המתבונן בענין מצולות ים ומכיר שהעולם מחודש, על ידי זה עומד על מציאות ה‘ יתעלה, ומתחרט על ידי זה על כל עוונותיו וחטאיו נמחלים, ועל דרך זה נשלכים החטאים במצולות הים“.

קיימת במחקר סברה שהועלתה לראשונה ע“י יעקב צ. לאוטרבך (H.U.C.A כרך י“א – 1936) שמקור המנהג בתיאור מתקופת הגאונים, המוזכר גם ברש“י שבת פא ע“ב: “בתשובת הגאונים מצאתי שעושין חותלות מכפות תמרים וממלאין אותם עפר וזבל בהמה, וכ“ב או ט“ו יום לפני ר“ה עושין כל אחד ואחד לשם כל קטן וקטנה שבבית, וזורעים לתוכן פול המצרי או קיטנית וקורין לו פורפיסא וצומח. ובערב ר“ה נוטל כל אחד שלו ומחזירו סביבות ראשו שבעה פעמים ואומר זה תחת זה וזה חליפתי וזה תמורתי ומשליכו לנהר“.

אולם מדובר בספקולציה בעלמא, שכן הקשר היחיד בין המתואר שם לבין מנהג התשליך הוא המילים “ומשליכו לנהר“; כל השאר אינו קשור כלל, וגם מן הבחינה הגיאוגרפית והכרונולוגית אין כל דבר המחבר בין שני המנהגים. גם עצם הראיה מההשלכה לנהר הינה מפוקפקת, שכן רק במהרי“ל מוזכר נוהג לזרוק למים דברים כלשהם בשעת ה‘תשליך‘, ואילו בספר המנהגים ובלקט יושר אין לכך זכר. ואף אם נניח שהמוזכר במהרי“ל הוא המשקף את המנהג הרווח ביהודי אשכנז, עדיין מדובר במנהג בעל טעם אחר מוגדר – לזרוק אוכל לדגים כדי לראות אותם ולשמוח בהם – ושונה לחלוטין מטעם ההשלכה למים במנהג הגאונים.

מקור קדום וסביר יותר כהשראה למנהג זה, נדפס באוצר המדרשים של אייזנשטיין, עמ‘ 406: “…וכשם שהשלג מיד נעשה ממנו מים והולכים לים, כך עונותיו של אדם: מיד כשיעשה תשובה ימסו לְמים, שנאמר ‘[ו]תשליך במצולות ים כל חטאתם‘” (מדרש כמעט זהה מובא בפירושי סדור התפילה לרוקח, מהד‘ אייזנבך, הוצ‘ מכון סודי רזיא ירושלים תשס“ד, עמ‘ תקה). מוזכר כאן הן הפסוק המרכזי שנאמר ב‘תשליך‘ ושעל שמו קרוי המנהג, והן הרעיון הסמלי שהעוונות כָּלים במים – סמליות שמתבטאת באמירת הפסוק על הנהר.

מדרש דומה מובא בפסיקתא רבתי (מהד‘ איש שלום, סוף פיסקא מד), על הפסוק “שובה ישראל” הלקוח מן הפטרת השבת שבין ראש השנה ליום כיפור: “אמרו: רבונו של עולם, ומה את עושה לכל עונותינו? אמר להם: עשו תשובה והם נבלעים מן העולם… אמרו לו: ולהיכן אתה משליכם? אמר להם: לים – שנאמר ‘ישוב ירחמנו יכבוש עונותינו, ותשליך במצולות ים כל חטאתינו‘ (במקור: “כל חטאתם“)”. למעשה, פסוק זה כשלעצמו כבר מכיל את הרעיון הסמלי שבבסיס המנהג – השלכת החטאים לים – וייתכן אפוא שבזמן מסוים החלו באופן ספונטני לקיים את מנהג זה על בסיס הפסוק לבדו.

הקשר בין פסוק זה לימים הנוראים מוזכר כבר בסדר רב עמרם גאון, שם מובא הפסוק בתוך “סדר אשמורות” – סדר הסליחות לעשרת ימי תשובה. מאוחר יותר, בספר “מנהג מרשלייאה” לרבי משה ב“ר שמואל אחיינו של רבי יצחק בעל ‘העיטור‘, מובאת התפילה “יהי רצון מלפניך ה‘ אלוקינו שתשליך [במצולות ים כל חטאותינו]” (מנהג מרשלייאה, סדר תפילת יום הכיפורים. בתוך: קובץ על יד, ספר כד, הוצ‘ חברת מקיצי נרדמים, ירושלים תשנ“ח, עמ‘ 132).

ההתנגדות הראשונה לעצם מנהג התשליך הועלתה בזמן האחרונים, ע“י המטה אפרים (אלף המגן, על סי‘ תקצח ס“ק ז) והתוספות חיים (על בינת אדם, כלל קלט אות כז), ונבעה מסיבה צדדית: התקהלויות התשליך גרמו לתערובת גברים ונשים, ולכן הפוסקים הללו קראו לבטל את המנהג. גישה זו רמוזה כבר בהקדמה לספר “צבי לצדיק“, שם מובא שהחכם צבי מנע מבנותיו ללכת לתשליך.

לנושא זה התייחס הערוך השלחן וקבע שיש למנוע מהנשים ללכת לתשליך, ואם יש תערובת גברים ונשים אזי אין ללכת כלל; והוסיף הערוה“ש שבלאו הכי יש “בזמננו” הנמנעים ללכת לתשליך מטעמים הידועים להם, “ונכון הוא“. במה מדובר? הערוה“ש סתם את דבריו, אך ניתן אולי לשער שהכוונה לתופעה שהיתה ידועה לאורך הדורות, והוא שהגויים האשימו את היהודים שהם מרעילים את המים, ואולי נתלו במנהג התשליך הנעשה על הנהר ומצאו בו “הוכחה” לטענתם. הרב שפרבר, מנהגי ישראל, ח“ג, עמ‘ קכא, הערה 23, מביא כמה מקורות לעלילה הנוצרית הרווחת בשלהי ימי הביניים של הרעלת הבארות ע“י היהודים.

[הערת העורך: התנגדות הגר“א, מתועדת בספר מעשה רב (אות רט), כי הגר“א “לא היה הולך לנהר או לבאר לומר תשליך“.]

כעין זה, אם כי בצורה שונה מעט, מובא בספר “עמק ברכה” לר‘ אברהם הורוויץ אבי השל“ה (מהד‘ ירושלים תשל“ז, עמ‘ קע), שאין לנער את הכיסים בתשליך ולחשוב שבכך העבירות מנוערות מן האדם, שכן הדבר מביא לחילול ה‘ מצד הגויים המלעיגים על כך. וכך נאמר שם: “הגה“ה. ראוי לבטל מן האנשים שדעתן קלות כנשים, שאומרים בזה הלשון: איך וויל גיין מיין עבירות שיטלן [אני רוצה ללכת להשליך את העבירות שלי] ואוחזין בכנף בגדיהם ונוערין בהם, וסוברין בדעתן שע“י זה יכול האדם לנער כל העבירות שעשה כל השנה. וח“ו לחשוב כן. וכן הוא באמת חילול שם גדול בפני האומות שיודעים מזה, ואם רואים היהודים שהולכים את הנהר אומרים דרך שחוק: היהודים הולכים שיטלן אירי זינד אין וואשר [להשליך את חטאיהם במים]. אלא אם רוצה לקיים המנהג יאמר בזה הלשון: איך וויל גיין תשליך מאכן [אני רוצה לקיים “תשליך“]”.

[הערת העורך: בדיקה בדפוס הראשון של “עמק ברכה“, קראקא שנ“ז, העלתה כי פיסקה זו חסרה שם והיא תוספת ברכה של המו“ל, נכד המחבר, ר‘ אברהם דיין מפוזנא ב“ר ישעיהו סג“ל, במהדורה השנייה של הספר, שנדפסה באמשטרדם תפ“ט.]

Musings on the Piyut היום הרת עולם

By Joseph Wertzberger

The following post is based in part on a lecture by Rabbi Ben Greenfield, newly installed Rabbi of the Greenpoint Shul, and several of its key ideas are his.

*  *  *

The poem היום הרת עולם is a very early piyut by an unknown author, appearing in writing as early as Siddur Rav Amram Ga’on, and is very widely recited after each of the sets of Tekiyot during the Shemonei Esrei of Mussaf on Rosh Hashana.  The poem is an elegy eloquently expressing the sense of fear, awe and dread in the uncertainty of judgement that the world experiences each year on the birthday of its creation.

היום הרת עולם

היום יעמיד במשפט

 כל יצורי עולמים

אם כבנים

אם כעבדים

אם כבנים רחמנו

כרחם אב על בנים

ואם כעבדים

 עינינו לך תלויות

 עד שתחננו

 ותוציא כאור משפטנו

איום קדוש

I’d like to help shed light on some of the wide-ranging, poetic meanings and allusions of the piyut, by examining the meanings of the words, phrases and concepts that appear, as well as their sources in Tanach and Chazal.  As we examine more closely the sources of these very short, alliterative phrases and ideas; alternate and variant layers of meaning present themselves to be revealed.

היום הרת עולם

The word הרת is commonly translated as birth, conception or (probably more accurately) gestation – from the root הָרָה, as in האנכי הריתי את כל העם הזה in במדבר יא.  The first line of the poem, in its simplest reading, announces very plainly: “Today is the birth of the world”.

The source of the phrase הרת עולם is in ירמיהו כ, where Jeremiah says “Cursed is the day in which I was born, the day in which my mother birthed me; let it not be blessed. Cursed is the man… who did not kill me from the womb. If only my mother were my tomb – ורחמה הרת עולם – and her womb an everlasting pregnancy.” (ארור היום אשר ילדתי בו יום אשר ילדתני אמי אל יהי ברוך.  ארור האיש אשר בשר את אבי לאמר ילד לך בן זכר שמח שמחהו.  והיה האיש ההוא כערים אשר הפך ה’ ולא נחם ושמע זעקה בבקר ותרועה בעת צהרים.  אשר לא מותתני מרחם ותהי לי אמי קברי ורחמה הרת עולם. למה זה מרחם יצאתי לראות עמל ויגון ויכלו בבשת ימי.)

Disconcertingly, the passuk is harshly negative, with a tone and meaning very different from the piyut.  Not only that, but the word עולם is used with a completely different meaning (world/forever).

Curiously, however, if we reread the piyut translating עולם as ever, the phrase הרת עולם suddenly switches to mean an everlasting birth, like it does in the passuk.  The piyut is refocused into pronouncing, “Today is an everlasting birth.”  In other words, the birth of the world that began the first Rosh Hashana is everlasting through history on this day. And the reason for that is because:

היום יעמיד במשפט

The source of the phrase is in משלי כט ,מלך במשפט יעמיד ארץ. “A king with justice raises up (alternatively: sets right) the world.”  G-d, as king and judge of the world is מעמיד the world, so to speak, through the power of Mishpat.  רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, על שלשה דברים העולם קיים, על הדין… שנאמר אמת ומשפט שלום שפטו בשעריכם. אבות א יח

Which means that while we can initially read the first two lines of the poem as, “Today is the birth of the universe, all the world’s creatures are presented to judgement”, we can also read it at a second level as, “Today is an everlasting birth; today G-d raises, through Justice, all creatures of the universe”.  Rosh Hashana is the continual rebirth of the world, because the world is repeatedly raised up through Justice on this day – the original purpose of the world’s creation repeated each year as Justice is manifest into the world.  (Thank you again to Rabbi Ben Greenfield for this most wonderful and key idea.)

Even more deeply, the two readings mirror and are extensions of each other.  An abstract truth and idea such as Justice, that we perceive in G-d, becomes real – that is it is expressed, instantiated and concretized, and its realization occurs – by its enactment in the universe, much as a king’s rule is only realized through the existence of his subjects (a common concept in Chabad Chassidic writings, אין מלך בלא עם, based initially on Tanya ch. 7, with its earliest source appearing in כד הקמח, ראש השנה ב, and elsewhere in the writings of Rabbeinu Bachya ben Asher, student of the Rashba).  G-d’s משפט isn’t manifest until he expresses it in something, and by judging us he expresses Justice; we might even say he ‘creates’ it.

A third reading of the poem’s introductory lines is that היום הרת עולם, today, Rosh Hashana, is an everlasting, recurring gestation, because each year is pregnant and gestates on its Rosh Hashana when יעמיד במשפט כל יצורי עולמים, Judgement is implanted into the world, for it to become realized, expressed and carried out later on, during and throughout the year.

אם כבנים אם כעבדים

The simplest reading of our dual presentation as sons and slaves in the poem, and its initially apparent meaning on a first pass through the poem, is that while our relationship with G-d is in one sense as a son to his father, and in another as a slave to his master – either way, we beseech you G-d, judge us favorably today.

A second layer of meaning, though, sits just beneath the surface, waiting to be revealed as we reread the poem more closely.  And that is that whether we’ll be judged as children or as slaves is also hanging in the balance:  אתם קרוים בנים וקרוין עבדים. בזמן שאתם עושין רצונו של מקום אתם קרוין בנים, ובזמן שאין אתם עושין רצונו של מקום אתם קרוין עבדים (Bava Basra 10A, and see also Kidushin 36A).  We are also judged on whether to be judged as a son or as a slave.  The poem alludes to this again later on: ואם כעבדים – whether or not we are as slaves, עינינו לך תלויות – this too hangs in the balance.

A third reading of אם כבנים אם כעבדים and its dichotomy is based on the passuk in Malachi 1, בן יכבד אב ועבד אדניו. ואם אב אני איה כבודי, ואם אדונים אני איה מוראי – whether we are children and whether we are slaves – in either case we may be judged for transgressing G-d’s will.  Either way, we should have respected or feared G-d, and we now tremble to be judged for not having done so.

But nevertheless:

רחום וחנון

The interplay of כרחם אב for בנים on the one hand, and עד שתחננו for עבדים, on the other, is an obvious parallel to רחום and חנון, two primary attributes that G-d exhibits in judgement (שמות לד).  In the beautiful words of the Rambam in Chapter 54 of the Guide:

הנה נתבאר כי הדרכים אשר ביקש משה רבנו ידיעתן… הם הפעולות הבאות מאתו יתעלה, וחכמים קוראים אותם מידות ואומרים שלוש עשרה מידות. ואין העניין כאן שהוא בעל מידות, אלא עושה פעולות הדומות לפעולות הנעשות על ידינו כתוצאה ממידות… כל פעולה שנשיג מפעולותיו, נתארו יתעלה בתואר שאותה הפעולה יוצאת ממנו, ונקראהו בשם הנגזר מאותה הפעולה.  המשל בכך, כאשר הושגה עדינות ניהולו בהתהוות עוברי בעלי החיים, והמצאת כוחות בו ובמגדליו לאחר לידתו המונעים ממנו את המוות והאובדן, ושומרים עליו מן הנזקים, ועוזרים לו בצרכיו החיוניים, וכעין פעולה זו לא תיעשה מצדנו כי אם לאחר התפעלות והתרגשותו והוא עניין הרחמנות, לכך נאמר עליו יתעלה רחום כדרך שנאמר כרחם אב על בנים… לא שהוא יתעלה מתפעל ומתרגש, אלא כאותה הפעולה הבאה מצד האב כלפי הבן שהיא תוצאה של רגישות וחמלה והתפעלות בהחלט, תבוא מצדו יתעלה כלפי חסידיו. וכשם שכאשר אנו נותנים דבר למי שאין לו עלינו חובה נקרא זה בלשוננו חנינה… והוא יתעלה ממציא ומנהל את מי שאין לו עליו חוב בהמצאתו והנהלתו ולפיכך

 נקרא חנון

G-d can be said to act as a רחום in situations similar to where a human would behave as a רחום, for example as a human to its child, where the nature of the familial relationship emotively drives, and filially obligates, a behavior of רחמים.  G-d also acts as a חנון, providing bounty completely undeserved, in situations where nothing is deserved at all.

The dynamic is two-fold, and bi-directional.  Just as in our world favor is shown by the parent to the child both because it’s in the nature of the parent to provide (parents simply well up with רחמים for their children), and because the child also deserves, and has a right and a claim to, the parent’s favor by virtue of being their child (האנכי הריתי את כל העם הזה אם אנכי ילדתיהו כי תאמר אלי שאהו בחיקך, in במדבר יא); similarly, G-d acts as a רחום relative to creations with which he exhibits a father-son relationship, that is he exhibits mercy and compassion as an expression of the relationship – that’s simply what fathers do; but it’s also true that if we are his children we have a claim to his mercy –  he owes it to us – as a child has a claim to their parent’s effort and favor, and we have a right to ask for it.

A slave on the other hand is owed nothing, and can’t ask for mercy by right.  A slave can only hope for grace, מתנת חינם.

Thus, as G-d’s children, conceived in הרת עולם and created for the purpose of receiving his bounteous good (אמונות ודעות סוף מאמר א וריש מאמר ג, מורה ג כה, דרך השם ב, ועוד הרבה), we ask for G-d’s mercy.  As your children, you must have mercy on us like a father.  And G-d accedes to our request, he is רחם אב על בנים, as the passuk tells us in Tehilim 103, the phrase’s original source: לא כחטאינו עשה לנו ולא כעונתינו גמל עלינו… כרחם אב על בנים רחם ה’ על יראיו.

But we are also G-d’s slaves, in a manner יצורי עולמים, existing simply as of the universe he created למענו יתברך, at his whim and for his sake alone, because he willed it so and for purposes unfathomable (אמונות ודעות סוף מאמר א, מורה א יג, ועוד).  As slaves we don’t get to say ואם כעבדים חננו (the parallel of אם כבנים רחמנו) because we have no right to ask or expect it.  Notice also how the son’s רחמנו is immediate while the slave’s עד שתחננו is delayed and future oriented (until you will grace us).  In our presentation as slaves, we can ask for nothing, because nothing is deserved and we have nothing coming to us.  Our embarrassed gaze simply hangs towards G-d, in shame and with no claim, until he provides us his undeserved grace. אליך נשאתי את עיני… הנה, כעיני עבדים אל יד אדוניהם, כעיני שפחה אל יד גברתה, כן עינינו אל ה’ אלהינו עד שיחננו (Tehilim 123).

We are both your child and your creation.  The case of the child is hopeful, looking towards his father’s mercy, while the case of the slave is hopeless, with nothing to confidently depend upon, except to beseech the master.

אם כבנים רחמנו כרחם אב על בנים, ואם כעבדים עינינו לך תלויות… עד שתחננו

ותוציא כאור משפטנו

In its simplest reading (and particularly in נוסח ספרד, which reads ותוציא לאור משפטנו), the phrase means, “Present for us a positive judgement”, or “judge us favorably”.  The wording has its source in Tehilim 37 והוציא כאור צדקך ומשפטך כצהרים – “He will express as light your righteousness, and your [good] judgement as the mid-day”.  The sentence is Tehilim, when read in the context of its surrounding verses, says that, firstly, when you follow G-d’s ways, that path will enable your positive behavior and attributes to be expressed to the world, and secondly, they will express themselves through G-d in a way that will benefit you positively. (The surrounding verses, for full context, read, אל תתחר במרעים אל תקנא בעשי עולה. כי כחציר מהרה ימלו וכירק דשא יבולון. בטח בה ועשה טוב שכן ארץ ורעה אמונה. והתענג על ה’ ויתן לך משאלות לבך. גול על ה’ דרכך ובטח עליו והוא יעשה. והוציא כאור צדקך ומשפטך כצהרים.  דום לה’ והתחולל לו.)

Turning that back around to the piyut we find ourselves asking G-d, not only to simply judge us positively, but more deeply to express and reveal the good that is within us, the righteous משפט that we ourselves express all year – let G-d reveal it and express it back to us on Rosh Hashana, and bring our righteousness and justice to light, and see and express the good that is within us.

A third reading of ותוציא כאור משפטנו, based on the same set of verses in Tehilim 37, is that since as slaves we have no right or claim to G-d’s good judgement, and all we can do is simply hang our eyes and look to G-d and hope – when we do that, that is sufficient to have G-d bring to light our righteous judgement, גול על ה’ דרכך ובטח עליו והוא יעשה. והוציא כאור צדקך ומשפטך כצהרים – by the act of hanging onto G-d and throwing our lot and entrusting our judgement to him, we bring about his good judgement onto us – עינינו לך תלויות עד שתחננו ותוציא כאור משפטנו – we look to you as a servant to their master – and for that alone, תחננו ותוציא כאור משפטנו, bring to light our judgement.

איום קדוש

How awesome, great and holy!

עלי שיר: Poetic Allusions, Alliterations and Constructs

Some additional points relating to the poetic aspects and expressions of the piyut:

1. It immediately brings into focus, on the very first two lines, the two main themes of the day – creation and judgement.
2. The word הרת also brings to mind the words רתת ,הרס and הס – the latter as in וה’ בהיכל קדשו הס מפניו כל הארץ in חבקוק ב – all of which serve alliteratively to impress upon our mind the awe and dread of the day.
3. The repetition of the word אִם, אִם, אִם brings to mind cries of אֵם, אֵם, אֵם – mother, mother; and together with רחמנו and כרחם (in addition of course to the lead-in הרת) representing רֶחֶם, give voice to maternal instincts of רחמים.
4. Most wonderfully, if you read the poem with the pronunciation and meter of ancient Hebrew, the way it would have likely been chanted by early congregations, you’ll notice that the meter of the verse lilts and lulls quite rhythmically and evenly until hitting the word תלויות , at which point the meter is chopped off, sounding at an uneven kilter and creating a break in the meter flow, almost as if hitting a cliff – and then the original meter returns for the rest of the poem through the ending. Now, once you notice this, read and listen again even more closely, and you’ll hear a similar, but smaller and less prominent break, at the words אם כבנים אם כעבדים.
5. Lovers of ancient piyut will no doubt know that many piyutim (and even parts of Tanach) were written with geometric configurations, with parts of the poem setting off or mirroring other parts in structural patterns. היום הרת is no exception, and is entirely marvelous:

היום הרת עולם                                                                                                               איום קדוש

היום יעמיד במשפט                                                                              ותוציא לאור משפטנו

כל יצורי עולמים                                                                     עד שתחננו

אם כבנים אם כעבדים                                       עינינו לך תלויות

אם כבנים                       ואם כעבדים

רחמנו כרחם אב על בנים

The top line at both ends represents the awesome day.  (Notice the juxtaposition of the very similar words היום and איום – there are also old versions of the piyut that read היום קדוש – see המנהיג and שבלי הלקט).  We descend and enter into the poem with the awareness of the day’s awesome moment, and then the poem itself impresses upon us G-d’s and day’s awesome holiness, and we leave with that impression imprinted upon us.

The second line on both sides is the concept of justice, descending into and standing facing justice, and then emerging with justice.

The third line represents G-d’s free-flowing grace, in creation and in granting us today his goodness.

The fourth line presents the tension and uncertainty of אם כבנים אם כעבדים on the one hand, and עינינו לך תלויות on the other (Note also above the second explanation above of אם כבנים אם כעבדים, עינינו לך תלויות – we are also תלוי as to whether a בן or an עבד).

The fifth line is the juxtaposition of sons and slaves, a central theme of the entire poem.

And finally, the sixth line fills with the central role of G-d’s mercy.

6. An alternative configuration of the middle section into a precise mirror image is:

אם כעבדים                                      ואם כעבדים

אם כבנים                    אב על בנים

רחמנו        כרחם

Using this arrangement for the middle requires us to arrange the rest of the piyut differently, potentially as follows:

קדוש

היום                              היום

            הרת עולם                      ותוציא לאור משפטנו

היום יעמיד במשפט         עד שתחננו

כל יצורי עולמים              תלויות

אם כבנים                      עינינו לך

I excluded קדוש from this arrangement because it’s the lead-out from the piyut and also because it refers to G-d in this reading (“and bring to favorable light our judgement today, Holy G-d”), and I utilized early versions of the piyut where היום is referenced at the end instead of איום (see for example שבלי הלקט).  The middle portions on either side are not mirror images now, but complement each other with respect to meaning.

7. Lastly, עינינו לך תלויות, ותוציא לאור משפטנו: At the time of creation, just prior to יצירת עולם, creation is hanging (תולה ארץ על בלימה), and G-d exists alone, and then G-d brings forth אור.  This parallels “our eyes are תולה to You, until You bring forth like אור our judgement…” (I admit this one is a stretch!)

So many ideas and layers of meaning, and so much beauty – all in only 32 words!