The meaning of Un’Taneh Tokef
I. Introduction
A. One should understand the prayers they are reciting
Shimon the Righteous (Shimon Hatzadik) has said: “The world stands on three things: on Torah, on worship, and on acts of loving kindness.” Certainly, these tenants should be followed. However, a significant problem has always been that people misinterpret what they understand about each of these pillars of the world. Unless interpretations are correct, or at least consistent, then the wisdom of this guidance is, if not totally undermined, then at least weakened.
For example, as discussed by Dr. Joel M. Hoffman in the Fall 2010 issue of Reform Judaism, page 26, passages in the Bible do not always means what we think they mean. Dr. Hoffman carefully explains the meanings of several well-known passages as being quite different from what we think they mean. Dr. Hoffman concludes his discussion with a warning that mistranslations of the Bible have misled modern readers about some of the most significant messages and meanings in the Bible.
This conclusion applies equally to the second pillar cited by Shimon the Righteous: worship, which includes prayer. If we truly think about the prayers, some of them may, at first appear to be puzzling, inconsistent and even wrong or may even be asking God to do things that we really do not want or which God will not deliver. However, upon deeper understanding of the prayer[1], the prayer may be exactly what we need. On the other hand, if we accept superficial and perhaps erroneous interpretations of prayers, the prayers, at best will be essentially worthless, and at worst, misleading. Accordingly, beyond merely reciting the prayer, we must stop and think about the meanings and implications before, during and after reciting the prayer[2].
B. One must understand the meaning of the prayer being recited
The thesis of this essay is that congregants should try to find the meanings of the prayers that they are reciting and not simply recite a prayer, perhaps by rote, but think about the prayer and its meaning[3]. The prayer U-netaneh Tokef is the perfect vehicle to demonstrate this thesis. If read by rote without thought, the words of the prayer seem to soar and have great importance. However, upon a slightly closer inspection, this prayer has to be one of the most puzzling, and perhaps troubling, prayers in the liturgy. Yet it remains one of the most popular prayers in the liturgy, especially the High Holy Day liturgy. Therefore, this prayer seems to need an even closer examination. As such, the prayer will be analyzed and suggestions for possible interpretations will be made which make the prayer deeply meaning and relevant to today’s congregation. The reader may find other meanings. This exploration is intended to illustrate the point that one must understand the meaning of the prayer being recited to obtain the fullest benefit of the prayer.
II. A short history of the prayer Un’Taneh Tokef
A. The prayer
The prayer U-netaneh Tokef[4]
And You will reign from it in truth.
Truly You are judge
And prosecutor and litigant and
witness
And author and sealer, and recorder
and recounter.
And you will remember everything
that has been forgotten
And you will open the book of
memories
And it will be read from:
Everyone’s signature is in it.
And a great shofar will be sounded
And a thin whisper of a sound will
be heard.
And the angels will recoil
And be gripped by shaking and
trembling
And they will say, “This is the day of judgment,”
For reviewing the hosts on high in
judgment.
.
.
.
So too will You record and recount
And review all living beings as you
have them pass by.
And You will decide the end of all creatures
And write down the sentence.
On Rosh Hashanah it is written,
on Yom Kippur it is sealed;
How many shall pass on, how many shall come to be;
who shall live and who shall die;
who shall see ripe age and who shall not;
who shall perish by fire and who by water;
who by sword and who by beast;
who by hunger and who by thirst;
who by earthquake and who by plague;
who by strangling and who by stoning;
who shall be secure and who shall be driven;
who shall be tranquil and who shall be troubled;
who shall be poor and who shall be rich;
who shall be humbled and who exalted.
But REPENTANCE, PRAYER and CHARITY
temper judgment’s severe decree.
For Your glory is like Your name,
Slow to anger, quick to forgive.
For You do not want the dead to die,
But for them to turn from their path
and live.
You wait until the day they die,
Accepting them immediately if they
return.
Truly You are their creator
And You know their nature
For they are flesh and blood.
Their origin is from dust
And their end is to dust:
At their peril gathering food,
They are like shattered pottery,
Like withered grass and like a faded
blossom.
Like a passing shadow and like a
vanishing cloud,
And like blowing wind and like
sprouting dust
And like a dream that will fly away.
.
.
.
U-netaneh Tokef is recited before the Kedushah of the Musaf Amidah on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. According to tradition, it was composed by Rabbi Ammon and recited by him as he died[5].
B. The prayer has troubled many
At first reading, this prayer is extremely troubling on many levels. The prayer seems to be saying that God is the Judge, prosecutor, advocate, and jury. The entire proceeding is controlled and decided by God, and God alone. The prayer seems to say that all creatures pass before God Who decrees their fate. These points are troubling because this is not how partners operate, nor does it fit our view of God as being a loving, benevolent partner who wants the best of and from us and wants us to progress and improve. But they are not the most troubling statements in the prayer. Two of the most troubling aspects of the prayer seem to be: (1) the prayer seems to indicate predestination; and (2) the prayer seems to indicate that we have the ability to influence God’s judgments using a formula and indicia of our own definition. These aspects will be discussed below.
This prayer has deeply troubled many. It has been described as blasphemous and even loathsome[6] for its apparent acceptance of predestination, its statements that seem to say we, as humans, can change God’s mind through acts which place great emphasis on form which uses our indicia, and which seem to take place only over a very short period of time, a time period which we determine. It has been described as an affront to all innocent children who perish needlessly in famine, to all gracious and generous men and women who died far too young[7]. Its message has been denigrated as being “good people live and bad people die”. It has also been interpreted to mean that the only path to long life is repentance, and even though God waits until the very last minute, hoping for our return from sinful ways, the people who die deserve their death, and those who live merit their continued existence[8].
However, this prayer is one of the most famous parts of the High Holy Day liturgy as well as one of the most popular. If it is so troubling, then why has it become so prominent? There must be some meaning that is buried in the prayer that people recognize, or at least feel, that touches a nerve, even if that connection is subconscious. As such, it is well worth examining the prayer.
As mentioned above, the problems with this prayer seem to center on two main aspects: (1) God predetermines what will happen to you (predestination obviates free will); (2) God’s mind can be changed by our actions if those actions occur in a prescribed time and follow a prescribed formula, both of which are set by us (can God be so capricious as this? Doesn’t such a formula invite chaos as God might change His mind with regard to one person which may result in changing outcomes for another person?). The prayer seems to indicate that Yom Kippur is the Day of Judgment and the Creator decides the destiny of every human being for the year to come but that if the proper formula is followed during the days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the judgment may be changed and God will accept this change. As mentioned in the essay on Jonah, in discussing Jonah’s rebellion at Nineveh, Simon in the JPS Commentary on vv. 4:1-5, attributes the following question to Jonah: “What remains of the rule of law when iniquity that merits annihilation can be wiped away by a few days penance?”
When the prayer is viewed in the just-discussed manner, Jonah’s question can be posed with respect to this prayer as well.
The prayer raises many specific questions associated with these aspects, not the least of which include: if one is destined for death anyway, why worry about living, morality, laws etc?; what happens to the person who is participating in the services and fully participates in the acts instructed by the rabbi and the liturgy during the ten days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, but has undiagnosed cancer that will take him during the next year, has he missed something in his application of the formula (this elevates form over substance)? What about Job (a truly good man, who God acknowledges as good, yet is still punished)? Can we make ourselves immortal by simply finding the formula that works and repeating that formula each year[9]? The questions go on. From a practical aspect then, the prayer may fall short through no fault of the person.
The prayer seems to touch on the meaning of free will and predestination; it seems to touch on our view of God and even our relationship with God and God’s relationship with us. Read in this manner, the prayer seems to touch on these subjects in a way which is incompatible with the way the God of Genesis created humans and the human/God relationship. Perhaps a deeper reading is required.
C. Some past attempts to explain the prayer
These problems have been “solved” in the past through many interpretations of the prayer. The list is long, and includes (but is not limited to): that we are in the hand of a merciful god who recognizes our faults, is slow to anger and waits patiently for us to return from our evil ways; as a meditation on the uncertainties of life; as a vehicle to cause us to face our mortality; as a metaphor for the Jews during the Crusades; as a metaphor for the afterlife; as a metaphor for the Yom Kippur War; as well as many other interpretations. The problems with the prayer have been “solved” by redacting to omit certain passages, by amending the prayer, and the prayer has even been deliberately mistranslated. Such interpretations and approaches are not satisfying because the basic wording of the prayer remains and the wording still looks like predestination which can be changed if a certain formula is followed at a prescribed time. No matter how you cut it, this reading of the prayer remains troubling. The efforts at interpreting, viewing and the like might even be considered disrespectful of a prayer that has been a mainstay for so long.
D. Free Will/Predestination and the prayer
The phrase “On Rosh Hashanah it is written, on Yom Kippur it is sealed” raises questions. Does this prayer not seem to imply some sort of predestination? If there is predestination, what about our free will? There have been many discussions which attempt to rationalize free will with predestination.
Either the prayer as commonly interpreted means that we are subject to predestination (“How many shall pass on…..) and hence our free will is meaningless (even if we influence God’s decision on our fate, once God makes His decision and the book is closed on Yom Kippur, we are then subject to the predestination dictated by that decision), or we have free will and thus are able to exert some control over our fate beyond what we do during the days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. What about influencing our fate before we make a mistake? If God can predetermine our fate for the following year based on what we do during these days, why can’t He influence our actions after that whereby we do not make the mistake for which we will be punished? This is especially true if for some practical reason we cannot complete the formula during these days, but do so afterwards? Why is God so limited by our actions during the time which we defined (how dare we dictate to God when and where and how actions which we define will influence Him)?
As discussed in other essays, God cannot directly influence events as that would make our free will a fraud[10]. However, without consequences, we cannot progress as we will not learn from our mistakes. How can we learn from our mistakes if the consequences of such mistakes can be obviated by following a formula during a set time period?
As is also discussed in prior essays, such as “In God’s Image,” God gave man an imagination as God’s special gift in order to have a characteristic similar to God which no other entity identified in Genesis has. This special characteristic allows men to establish dominion over the entities named in Genesis. As also discussed in that essay as well as other essays, such as “God’s Ground Rules,” imagination without free will is a fraud, and if God interferes in even one occurrence, then there is no free will. Still further, as discussed in the essay “Free Will and Predestination,” if results of any sort are predetermined or even pre-known by God, then God has predetermined the result and man’s free will is a chimera. Still further, as discussed in the essay “Free Will and Predestination,” in order to allow men to have free will but still allow for God’s control over the universe, the concept of probability is used to connect outcomes to actions in a manner which avoids total chaos (no connection between actions and consequences which prevents men from using their imagination and predicting possible results of an action) without having results predetermined (there will be predictability for actions and consequences, but God will not be setting the consequences, only the range of consequences as determined by probability).
Therefore, as thus read, the basic premise of this prayer that God seals the future year on Yom Kippur seems to be contrary to the concept of free will. Still further, as discussed in other essays, such as “Job,” the concept of man dictating to God as to what God should do is an anathema to the basic belief propounded in the Bible. As discussed in the essay “Forgiveness,” God changing His mind to forgive is directly contrary to the concept of God. Therefore, this prayer suggesting that our actions between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur can somehow influence the decision made by God on Yom Kippur and that God will forgive the transgressions of the past year (and thus change His mind) if proper actions are taken during the days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur seems to be directly contrary to our concept of God.
Perhaps the prayer was written and initially entered the liturgy at a time when the belief in predestination was acceptable, and even popular, and/or when the belief that the Torah was God’s word and if men would (or could, given the inconsistencies within the Torah) follow all the precepts of the Torah, God would forgive and protect them. Perhaps this was a time of trial for the Jewish people, perhaps disease seemed to be heaven sent, wars may have been a normal way of life and sin and punishment were viewed much differently than they are today[11]. While the prayer does sound appropriate for the High Holy Days and the words do sound soaring and moving, the basic meaning of the prayer still appears to be contrary to basic beliefs of Judaism, especially Judaism of the 21st Century in America. If so, why is the prayer still part of the liturgy? It does not seem likely that the prayer remains a part of the liturgy and survives redactions, such as occurs in preparing a new prayer books, or that continually goes on, simply because it is popular and the congregants seem to like, its poetry, or the story of Rabbi Amnon who is alleged to have first recited the story before disappearing after being martyred. There must be a deeper meaning to the prayer that while not patently evident still, on a deeper level, moves people.
This essay will suggest meanings which seem to be consistent with beliefs held in the late 20th – early 21st Century.
E. Is God subject to our interpretations and can we force them on God?
Beyond the predestination/free will aspect, the prayer sounds suspiciously like our attempt to influence God’s judgment by our actions and force God’s hand in taking actions with regard to us, which we should not be able to do. Yet further, does this prayer not seem to imply that God is subject to our interpretations of what is “good” and what is “bad”, that is, if we do what we deem to be “good” then God is obligated to grant us continued life and even prosperity; whereas, if we do what we deem to be “evil” then God can punish us? This seems to place ourselves above God which is blasphemy. Even if “good” is interpreted as carrying out all 613 Mitzvot, what about the intent behind the acts? Further, even if the Bible is used to determine what is “good,” the question becomes one of interpretation by the writer, the translator and the reader or audience, all of whom are human.
Even if it is assumed that the Torah was authored by God, the transcribing and interpretation are still by humans. Job had this discussion with his friends, he contended that he had done nothing wrong, yet he was being punished; whereas, his friends insisted that he review his life to find something wrong. Job did not find anything wrong. It can be concluded from this story that it is not up to us to determine what God deems to be punishable or not, God is not subject to our definitions and certainly is not obligated to act in any particular manner because we carry out practices which we, unilaterally, deem to be worthy of reward. Thus, as presently interpreted, this prayer seems to be at odds with the God/human relationship understood by Judaism.
III. Another interpretation is required
A. Introduction
As was done by Dr. Hoffman, if one looks closely at such prayers, many deep meanings appear. U-netaneh Tokef is no different, it has meanings that appear to be inconsistent with each other and with other teachings and beliefs, and it is only through a careful and close analysis of the prayer can it be fit into the overall activity and objective of the day and of the total Jewish mythos.
The prayer is prominent in the High Holy Day Service and its call to repentance and teshuvah makes it an important aspect of the High Holy Day message. However, unless one is comfortable with the prayer, it will not be meaningful. Therefore, given all of the above-mentioned problems, it seems that the prayer must be approached from an entirely new and different path.
B. Repentance leads to a clean slate
Since the prayer is so popular and has become a significant part of the High Holy Day liturgy, there must be yet another interpretation which accounts for this. The meaning of the High Holy Days seems to be captured in this prayer under this interpretation.
As discussed in several other essays, God does not pardon or forgive or overlook our transgressions against Him[12], He warns and provides the transgressor with an opportunity to go through the process repentance or teshuvah[13] then, if all of these steps are followed, God accepts that the transgressor has either corrected the mistake, or has become a different person and does not punish. On the other hand, if these steps are not completed, God will administer His own punishment. Once the punishment has been administered, either by God or by the transgressor himself, the episode is over as far as God is concerned and the slate is clean. Granting a clean slate under these conditions is not forgiveness.
The steps taken on the High Holy Days of Rosh Hashanah, Days of Atonement and Yom Kippur, follow this process: the people identify and admit their transgressions; during the ten days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the people atone, repent, self punish and change their ways; then on Yom Kippur, the people present themselves to God either as having repented or as changed people and ask God for a clean slate for next year. They pray that God will grant the clean slate even though they have failed in the past year to live up to the ideals and goals they set in the previous High Holy Day process and hope if they truly repent, God will continue to grant clean slates year after year. The people hope that God’s patience is infinite and that He will continue to grant clean slates even to serial transgressors if they properly repent each time.
This prayer captures this process:
“On Rosh Hashanah it is written” – the people’s transgressions are identified and acknowledged (Confession of Sin)
“on Yom Kippur it is sealed” – God either accepts that we have successfully repented or completed teshuvah and, if appropriate, administered self punishment and our promise to learn from our past errors and to do better in the future and does not punish, or
“How many shall pass on, how many shall come to be;
who shall live and who shall die;
who shall see ripe age and who shall not;
who shall perish by fire and who by water;
who by sword and who by beast…..” – God will administer His own punishment
“But REPENTANCE, PRAYER and CHARITY
temper judgment’s severe decree” – the way people can atone, repent, self punish and change their ways (but see below for a more detailed discussion of this step).
However, to be effective, these steps must be taken and completed with full thought, understanding, sincerity and humbleness. Without this, the steps are merely formula and will not be effective. Thus, there may be times when repentance and teshuvah do not appear to be effective – these are the times when it is our fault.
As we learned in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, even if God decrees or agrees to something, repentance is stronger than God’s word and can even overrule that decree.
God agreed to spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah if ten innocent men could be found. Yet, the Bible reports that only one, Lot, was found. Therefore, according to His agreement with Abraham, God should have destroyed all – including Lot. Yet Lot was saved thereby apparently violating the agreement. The saving of one man appeared to violate the terms of the agreement and thereby show that God would violate His agreement in this case. As discussed in the essay “Sodom and Gomorrah,” the destruction of the cities was punishment for the transgressions of the citizens which occurred after the citizens had been warned. The continued transgressions showed that the citizens had not repented. Transgression without repentance is punished. As such, the cities were destroyed and Lot, who apparently had either never transgressed or had repented in such a way as to satisfy God, was saved in spite of God’s word to Abraham. As was discussed in that essay, the concept of repentance was more important to God than keeping His vow of destroying all, including Lot, which He had vowed to do. God saved the innocent in spite of His promise to Abraham to destroy all if ten innocent men could not be found. This story seems to prove that the concept of repentance is more important to God than even fulfilling His promises. Repentance can overrule God’s agreements and hence is stronger than God’s word.
The savings clause in the prayer “Repentance, prayer and charity temper judgement’s severe decree” thus, applies to everyday living. Even if God decrees on Yom Kippur that one should die, repentance is stronger than that decree and, if properly completed, will nullify even God’s decree.
The story of Jonah is generally read on the High Holy Days and it perfectly captures the concept of repentance and self-punishment as the way to avoid God’s punishment because the city of Nineveh was warned and then self punished and thus avoided God’s punishment[14]. This can be compared to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in which the cities were warned yet did not change their ways and thus God administered His own punishment[15].
C. An interpretation for the 21st Century
While the just-discussed interpretation of the prayer (that repentance, prayer and charity can temper judgement’s severe decree) is valid based on the interpretation of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and seems to avoid the problems associated with predestination, it still falls short because it bases God’s actions on actions which we take and which we deem to be sufficient, and hence falls back into the trap discussed above which has us dictating to God what He should do. As such, even taking the view espoused above will fall short of a satisfying explanation and interpretation because it still seems as though we are dictating terms and conditions to God and dictating what actions will overcome His decisions.
Yet another explanation is required – one in which our actions affect only ourselves and leaves God to take the actions He deems necessary entirely up to Him.
Such an interpretation of this prayer must also be consistent with beliefs held in the late 20th – early 21st Century. Such an explanation is presented here as a starting point for the reader to find his or her own meanings in this, and other, prayers.
We are all subject to and influenced by heredity, our environment, our genetics, our upbringing, and the like. All of these elements will influence our choices as well as our memories of the outcomes and consequences of previous choices as well as our assessment of the probabilities associated with each choice. We really do not have control over these factors, they are predetermined and these factors will influence the choices we make. As stated by William Faulkner in Requiem for a Nun:
The past is never dead. It’s not even past. All of us labor in webs spun long before we were born, webs of heredity and environment, of desire and consequence, of history and eternity. Haunted by wrong turns and roads not taken, we pursue images perceived as new but, whose provenance dates to the dim dramas of childhood, which are themselves but ripples of consequences echoing down the generations.
However, we do have control over how we handle and react to the influences of these factors. We will need an effort to change factors such as habits[16], or how we accommodate the predetermined factors that might be the result of heredity, environment, upbringing, or the like. We can change this portion of our free will and thus change the outcomes that would follow from other choices that would be made if we remained on our present path which is controlled by habits, etc. Certain choice-influencing factors, such as genetics, may not be changed, and over which we have no control, and these factors can only be accounted for. These are the choices that we have and this is the predetermination that is implied by the prayer: we are subject to certain influences that cannot be changed and will influence our decisions and we cannot alter the outcome determined by probability theory; but we can change certain choice-influencing behavior, such as habit, and we can change how we account for the non-changeable factors in our decision making process which will alter the factors associated with probability theory.
Thus, our fate is “decreed” by the influence on our choices that results from factors that we cannot change, such as genetics, and our fate is “sealed” by the laws of probability which dictate the consequences associated with each choice. In the beginning, God created probability to bring order out of chaos, that is the meaning of “On Rosh Hashanah, it is written” and when God created man, God endowed men with certain attributes, genetics, and the like, and thus God “wrote” the final decree as to the factors over which we have no control, which is the meaning of “On Yom Kippur it is sealed”. However, our fate can be changed by modifying our behavior with respect to the factors that can be changed and with respect to how we account for the factors that cannot be changed, and hence factors, such as habits, which can be changed in our own free will. Thus, our fates will be “decreed” and “sealed” without compromising our free will, and we can change without expecting God to reward us for behavior which we define as “good” and hence telling God what to do with regard to our fate. The prayer outlines the basic broad areas where we can change: repentance, prayer and charity; and these broad areas might be interpreted as encompassing the way we live. For example, repentance might be interpreted as reviewing one’s life and actions, which should pick up the wrong choices made so they can be corrected; prayer generally involves introspection and not asking God for favors, which, again should pick up errors in judgment that can be corrected in the future; and certainly charity will pick up how we interact with our fellow men and women. These will temper the severe decrees by allowing us to change the things that we can change and change the way we accommodate the things we cannot change. Read in this way, “tempering the severe decree” is not the same thing as trying to influence or instruct God in making that decree.
This interpretation appears to agree with Maimonides’s discussion of teshuvah in Guide for the Perplexed. Maimonides believed that our character is our most important trait and we have an inclination toward certain kinds of actions – habits – we can train ourselves to incline toward actions which fulfill mitzvoth. One who aspires to ethical perfection must train himself to do so. Maimonides cites following the mitzvoth as such training (see, for example, Guide, 3:54). However, if one views such suggestion in the context of the prayer Un’Taneh Tokef where our inclinations (habits) are what is written and the mitzvoth (as characterized by the terms “repentance, prayer and charity”) are the means by which we temper the severe decree.
If
the prayer is viewed from this perspective, it can be read in a manner which
gives us power over what we can control and leaves God in control of what He
does control while still reminding us to improve our lives and the way we live
them whereby we, humans, can progress.
The meaning of Un’Taneh Tokef
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
- The essay suggests that this prayer has many controversial meanings, and only accepts it after finding a hidden meaning. The essay suggests that the prayer may have hit a subconscious cord with people. How could a prayer that has so many distasteful meanings which are evident remain so popular and remain a mainstay in High Holy Day liturgy?
- Are you troubled with the implications in this prayer?
- Do you agree with the analysis of this prayer presented in the essay? If not, do you have another?
- Why do you think people needed to make up the story of Rabbi Ammon about the history of this prayer?
- The story of Jonah is also told on the High Holy Days. In that story, God told Jonah that He would not punish those who did not know their right hand from their left. Does the prayer Un’Taneh Tokef apply to those who do not know their right hand from their left? How could those people be required to change?
- This prayer says that God will open the book of memories. Doesn’t this demean God by implying that He needs to write things down? Doesn’t this depict God anthropomorphically?
- How do you feel about being characterized as passing before God like a sheep? How does this image compare with an image of Abraham arguing with God? Or Jacob wrestling with an angel?
[1] However, there is a line of authority, such as from Abraham ibn Ezra and reported in “Who By Fire, Who By Water,” which contends that congregants should be careful, forbidden in fact, about injecting basic meaning into prayers, especially piyyutim, since true meaning may be elusive.
[2] An example of the absolute necessity for understanding what we are praying for, and to, and how, is demonstrated as follows. Some have interpreted Yahweh as an abbreviation of the full name Yahweh asher yihweh, which means “He cause to be what is” (see Exodus 3:14), in personal names this has been further shortened to Yeho (e.g., Yehonathan, or Jonathan) or Yo (e.g., Yonathan or Jonathan); or Yahu (e.g., Yirm’yahu or Jeremiah); or Yah (e.g., Ahiyah). The titles and attributes of many Near Eastern dieties were attributed to Yahweh Elohim. For instance, in the Ugaritic poems, a standing epithet of the God Baal, son of Dragon, is “Rider of Clouds” and Psalm LXV.5 awards this title to the Hebrew God, who also, like Baal “the God of Saphon” has a palace in the farthest north, imagined as a lofty mountain (Isaiah XIV.13; Psalm XLVIII.3). Moreover, many acts attributed in Ugaritic mythology to the bloodthirsty Goddess Anath are attributed in the Bible to Yahweh Elohim (e.g., there is a Ugaritic description of how Anath massacres her enemies which is nearly parallel to Isiah’s vision of God’s vengeance upon Israel’s enemies in Second Isaiah).
Prophets and psalmists were as careless about the pagan origins of the religious imagery they borrowed, as priests were about the adaption of heathen sacrificial rites to God’s service. The crucial question is: in whose honor these prophecies and hymns should now be sung, or these rites enacted. If in honor of Yahweh Elohim, not Anath, Baal or Tammuz, all is proper and pious. However, we must know the origins and meanings of these rites so we can be sure to honor the correct honoree.
[3] “Words without thoughts never to heaven go.” Claudius in Hamlet, Act 3, Scene III.
[4] These excerpts from the prayer are taken from Who By Fire, Who By Water edited by Rabbi Lawrence A. Hoffman (Woodstock VT Jewish Lights Publishing2010 hardback) as well as from the Gates of Repentance prayer book.
[5] However, there are some who dispute the accuracy of this attribution. See, for example, “Universalism versus Martyrdom – Un’taneh Tokef and its frame narrative” by Rabbi Marc Saperstein and included in Who By Fire, Who By Water edited by Rabbi Lawrence A. Hoffman (Woodstock VT Jewish Lights Publishing 2010 hardback).
[6] The Exodus and the Elephant” by Rabbi Tony Bayfield, DD, published in Who By Fire, Who By Water Edited by Rabbi Lawrence A. Hoffman (Woodstock VT Jewish Lights 2010 hardback).
[7] Theology or Anthropology? by Rabbi Sandy Eisenberg Sasso, in “Who By Fire, Who By Water?”
[8] God is the Ultimate Writer by Dr. Erica Brown and included in the book “Who By Fire, Who By Water”.
[9] Either we know the formula or we don’t, there is no middle ground. If we do not know the formula, what is the meaning of the phrase “But repentance, prayer and charity temper judgment’ severe decree”? If we do not know the formula, then the process is useless. On the other hand, if we can “temper judgment’s severe decree” using the formula, then we do know the formula and could use it each year to prevent “judgment’s severe decree” and hold off dying.
[10] See, for example, the essay “God’s Ground Rules.”
[11] Nobody can say for sure when this prayer originated. As discussed by Rabbi Lawrence A. Hoffman in Who By Fire, Who By Water” edited by Hoffman (Woodstock VT Jewish Lights 2010 hardback), this prayer is a piyyut, and piyyutim probably arose between the fourth and seventh centuries. According to Rabbi Hoffman, this poem is Ashkenazi in origin, and the fame and staying power of the prayer is tied to the tale of Rabbi Amnon who allegedly recited the prayer for the first time after being martyred and then disappeared. There is a significant problem with finding a Rabbi Amnon so that the date of the prayer could be fixed. Some stories place him in Italy, some stories date him in the Crusades. However, there is no credible evidence of a real Rabbi Amnon. Some attribute the prayer to Yanni, whose dates cannot be accurately determined. Accordingly, the true date of origin of this prayer simply cannot be accurately determined.
[12] See, in particular the essay on Forgiveness.
[13] As discussed in the essay on forgiveness, the process of teshuvah allows a transgressor (and perhaps others) to learn from his mistakes and take action so the mistakes will not be repeated. Thus, as discussed in that essay, the process includes identifying the transgression; accepting our responsibility in the transgression; identifying the consequences associated with the transgression; understanding how our acts are connected with and caused the consequences; correcting the consequences; understanding what has to be done so we do not repeat the act. As also discussed, the process sometimes, when appropriate, includes punishment.
[14]See the essay on Jonah.
[15] See the essay on Sodom and Gomorrah.
[16] See “The Neuroscience of Habits” by Ana M. Graybiel and Kyle S. Smith, Scientific American, June 2014, Volume 310, Number 6, pages 38-43.