The Sanctity of Place in Naḥmanides's Commentary on the Torah and Philosophical Works

Naḥmanides wrote most of his works during his lengthy period of activity in Spain. Although he devotes much attention to ’Ereẓ Yisra'el and its distinctive properties and virtues in his writings, he barely relates to Jerusalem at all. His perception of the sanctity of place must thus be understood from his discussion of the Land of Israel.Footnote ² Throughout his commentary on the Torah, he takes every opportunity to explain, analyze, ground, and polish his view of the land—a firm belief that it lies at the heart of biblical narrative and law alike, holding the key to the people's political history. But an extensive examination of the way in which Naḥmanides constructs the religious status of ’Ereẓ Yisra'el in his various writings reveals that he rarely ascribes any mystical-ecstatic attributes to it.

Scholars have tended to argue that Naḥmanides's attitude to ’Ereẓ Yisra'el closely resembles that of other Jewish thinkers who extolled it, praised its virtues, and encouraged Jews to settle there—Judah Halevi and the Maharal (Yehudah Loew of Prague), for example.Footnote ³ Because Naḥmanides was a kabbalist and ’Ereẓ Yisra'el was central to his thought, some have claimed that he believed any serious offences committed within the land directly impinge on the upper realm—the Shekhinah—severing the land from its spiritual source of life.Footnote ⁴ Although this notion occurs in other medieval kabbalistic writings, primarily among the generation after Naḥmanides and Zoharic circles, there is virtually no evidence for it in Naḥmanides's own works.

Naḥmanides's most important discussion of the significance of the Land of Israel is in his commentary on Leviticus 18:25. He repeats this statement almost verbatim in two of his sermons—that on Ecclesiastes, apparently delivered while he was still in Gerona, and his Rosh Ha-shanah sermon, given a number of years later in Acre—illustrating how meaningful it was for him.Footnote ⁵ Although the repetition speaks for itself, it is no less notable that these three texts all occur in different contexts—written and oral, and in a commentary and a time-bound sermon. Thus it is evident that this statement was not just composed in relation to the specific biblical text he was interpreting and was not purely rhetorical and homiletic in nature; rather it represents his personal belief on the topic.

The first section of the homiletic-exegetical treatise focuses primarily on the religious principle embedded in the commandment in Leviticus 18:24–28:

Naḥmanides adduces a number of proofs from biblical and rabbinic literature to explicate how the land cannot abide those who are unworthy of living in it. Or as Sifra observes: “The land of Israel is unlike other lands; it is unable to contain sinners” (Kedoshim 12:14 to Leviticus 18:28). This notion is linked to the fact that the land is God's portion:

Thus, Naḥmanides believes ’Ereẓ Yisra'el has a unique status in that it is God's inheritance, the place where He dwells. Rather than imbuing its inhabitants with any supernatural qualities, however, its purity can only be preserved if those who inhabit it abide by the highest possible religious and ethical standards. Residence in the land is therefore reserved for those who meet the religious and ethical demands its Master imposes.Footnote ⁷ In Naḥmanides's view, this explains why its earlier inhabitants—the seven nations of the world—were dispossessed from it despite the fact that the Egyptians, whose abominations were no fewer, did not meet the same fate. In this context, Naḥmanides cites the bitter end of the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah (commentary on Genesis 19:5) and the Cutheans brought to the land when the ten tribes were exiled, who were severely punished because “they knew not the manner of the God of the land” (commentary on Leviticus 18:25; cf. 2 Kings 17:25–26).

This idea, derived from the biblical text, becomes a cornerstone of Naḥmanides's commentary and philosophical thought, appearing frequently in both exegesis and homiletic passages.Footnote ⁸ Naḥmanides also cites it in explaining some of the pentateuchal commandments and ordinances.Footnote ⁹

As I have discussed elsewhere, this view of ’Ereẓ Yisra'el, whose origins are rooted in the biblical ethos of preserving its purity, diverges in all aspects from the view prevalent in Spain both prior and subsequent to Naḥmanides. In the Kuzari, Judah Halevi (ca. 1075–1141) emphasizes ’Ereẓ Yisra'el’s special qualities, in particular that it alone is the land of prophecy. The “holy land” is thus the place in which the “divine matter” will be established.Footnote ¹⁰ Several Jewish Neoplatonists, influenced by Ibn Ezra's (1089–ca. 1167) astrological views, and later Ḥasdai Crescas (ca. 1340–1410), also similarly stressed that ’Ereẓ Yisra'el is a wellspring of prophecy.Footnote ¹¹

Naḥmanides, however, completely ignores this notion, despite its entrenchment in rabbinic literature and treatises.Footnote ¹² Judah Halevi's emphasis on prophecy as the exclusive asset of ’Ereẓ Yisra'el, an idea rooted in an early talmudic and midrashic tradition, is conspicuously absent in Naḥmanides's thought.Footnote ¹³ Nor, as I have also shown elsewhere contra scholarly opinion, does he understand ’Ereẓ Yisra'el to symbolize the sefirah of malkhut as does the Zohar and kabbalistic thought of the Zoharic circle.Footnote ¹⁴ Although he frequently alludes in the commentary to the “heavenly land,” often associating it with ’Ereẓ Yisra'el, a close analysis of these passages indicates that the site he actually refers to in all these places is “the earth” in its cosmic sense rather than the geographic Land of Israel.Footnote ¹⁵

Both of these conceptions of ’Ereẓ Yisra'el include on the one hand, a sense of the special qualities it imparts to its inhabitants, primarily the capacity for ecstatic prophecy and a state of purity, and on the other hand, a belief that it is governed by the “laws of the God of the land.” The first approach—Halevi's—ascribes unique qualities to the land that flow to its inhabitants, bestowing on them a higher spiritual status. The second—Naḥmanides's—focuses on the land's purity, which requires that those who live there meet exacting ethical standards.

Naḥmanides very rarely relates directly to the status of Jerusalem, which suggests that he usually regarded ’Ereẓ Yisra'el as a whole as the principal symbol of the sanctity of place rather than the city itself. This deafening silence gives the impression that Naḥmanides had little, if any, interest in Jerusalem's unique position within the land. As we shall see below, the earlier version of the Jerusalem Prayer he composed while still in Spain supports this hypothesis. In at least one passage in the commentary, however, written during his later years in Spain, he attributes special qualities specifically to the city. In his exegesis of Genesis 14:18, he addresses the name given to it there—Shalem—and that of Melchizedek:

According to Naḥmanides, the name by which Jerusalem is known among the nations of the world indicates that they were aware of the city's special status. He adduces two reasons for the city's distinctiveness. The first alludes to the “climatology” theory prevalent during the medieval period, particularly in Arab lands, according to which the “center of the world” (whose geographical identification varies in the different versions of the theory) is “choicest of all places, is in the center of the inhabited region” and thus favored with virtues found nowhere else.Footnote ¹⁶ The most prominent Jewish version of this concept occurs in the Kuzari, where Judah Halevi unsurprisingly identifies the “center of the world” with ’Ereẓ Yisra'el (1.95, 2.10–22, 4.17).Footnote ¹⁷ In contemporaneous Jewish literature, however, as well as medieval maps, Jerusalem is more frequently identified as the “center of the climates.”Footnote ¹⁸

The second reason Naḥmanides offers for Jerusalem's distinctive status is a kabbalistic explanation: “that it is exactly opposite the heavenly sanctuary.” The notion of the “heavenly Jerusalem” or “heavenly temple” has ancient roots in Christian apocalyptic writings.Footnote ¹⁹ Traces of it can also be found in the early Geronese kabbalists.Footnote ²⁰ The context in which this idea occurs elsewhere in Naḥmanides's commentary indicates that, as in the writings of his fellow Geronese kabbalists R. Ezra and R. Azriel, Naḥmanides regards Jerusalem and the heavenly temple as symbols of malkhut.Footnote ²¹ The kabbalistic meaning of the link between the earthly and heavenly Jerusalems is rather obscure. Haviva Pedaya may be correct in attributing to the early kabbalists the view that the “earthly temple” is an instrument for correcting the heavenly one—that is, the Shekhinah.Footnote ²²

Even if Naḥmanides did hold that Jerusalem possesses special attributes, in line with either of these views, when he composed the commentary in the 1250s or 1260s, he gave no intimation of the belief that the city was the source of prophetic inspiration. This notion first appears in the “Prayer over the Ruins of Jerusalem” that he recited towards the end of his life in ’Ereẓ Yisra'el.

The Final Edition of the Jerusalem Prayer

Numerous textual witnesses of the Jerusalem Prayer exist in manuscripts, some as an addendum to Naḥmanides's commentary on the Torah, others a part of other medieval—primarily kabbalistic—works.Footnote ²³ It was printed as an addendum to the first editions of his commentary on the Torah—the pre-1480 Rome and 1489 Lisbon editions. These two printed versions (in particular the former) inspired the prayer's publication in 1920 by Moses Lunz, followed by Abraham Yaari's 1946 edition.Footnote ²⁴ In 1963, Charles Chavel included a version based primarily on the Rome text in his edition of Naḥmanides's writings.Footnote ²⁵ The errors and omissions Chavel's version contains were inherited by all the subsequent editions derived from it. The most accurate version at present appears to be Jacob Schwartz's, which does not claim any critical-scientific status, but takes careful account of the corrected Lisbon edition and other manuscripts. As the most revised edition to date, it forms the basis of my discussion (see its English version in appendix B, right column).Footnote ²⁶

The heart of the prayer, composed in rhyming poetic language, is a lament over the ruins and abject state of Jerusalem, the temple, and the city's Jewish community. On the one hand, Naḥmanides recalls the former glory and majesty of the city and temple in phrases taken from biblical and aggadic/talmudic descriptions, interwoven with numerous kabbalistic ideas. On the other, he delineates its miserable and pitiable state in the late 1260s. The contrast is highlighted throughout the prayer in various ways, culminating in Naḥmanides's call for the city to step forward and lay her plea before God. He also cites the people's merit in having devoted themselves to keeping His word throughout their tormented and afflicted history, in order to entreat Him to keep His oath and the visions He gave to the prophets and raise the temple from its ruins.

Into this prayer-lament Naḥmanides introduces two relatively lengthy sections of autobiographical material written in the first person singular.Footnote ²⁷ The first (appendix B, ll. 215–340) describes his pain over the shame and abjection of the present state of the Jewish community. He then proceeds to express his grief and anguish over being separated from his family and his longing for children left behind in Spain—a sacrifice demanded by his deep religious yearning for Jerusalem and the temple. With rare candor, he makes us privy to the conflict and agony he felt in making the decision to ascend to Zion. This passage ends with his confession of the two rents he made in his garments on seeing Jerusalem's ruins, in accordance with Jewish law. The second autobiographical section, inserted at the conclusion (appendix B, ll. 507–34), gives thanks to God for having enabled him to see the ruined city and temple and petitions for His favor in seeing them rebuilt.

Naḥmanides's signature at the end of the prayer clearly demonstrates that it was penned by his hand. The prayer also exhibits striking historical-biographical and conceptual-kabbalistic affinities with other works he composed.Footnote ²⁸ The circumstances in which it was written are also clearly indicated by the autobiographical details it contains. These evince that Naḥmanides visited Jerusalem in 1267 or 1268, following which he wrote the prayer.Footnote ²⁹ The precise point at which the prayer was composed nevertheless remains unclear. Naḥmanides possibly edited it into its final shape at a later date—perhaps after he had settled in Acre.

The number of early manuscripts of the prayer indicate that it began to circulate widely soon after its composition.Footnote ³⁰ Its frequent attachment to Naḥmanides's commentary on the Torah despite its divergent content and style also suggests that from a very early stage the prayer was copied together with Naḥmanides's addenda to the commentary and his remarks on the shekel, both—sent from Acre—constituting fitting addenda to the commentary.Footnote ³¹ If this supposition is correct, Naḥmanides may have sent the prayer from ’Ereẓ Yisra'el, interweaving autobiographical material in order to allow his disciples and relatives to share the sights of the ruins and the emotions they inspired in him, rather than for liturgical purposes. The prayer was nonetheless incorporated into various prayer services (without the autobiographical passages) under the title “A Prayer by the Western Wall” or “A Prayer for the Presence of the Shekhinah” from the eighteenth century onwards.Footnote ³²

The First Edition

An earlier and shorter version of the prayer exists in isolated manuscripts. As we shall see below, this reveals that the full version Naḥmanides composed in ’Ereẓ Yisra'el grew out of a text he previously penned in Spain. Taking this earlier text as his basis, he reworked it into a prayer, fashioning it to suit his mood following his ascent to Zion. Found in MS Parma 3004, it forms part of a prayer service entitled Maḥzor according to the Roman Rite for All the Year, copied in 1419. It also appears in MS London, Montefiore 485, in a collection of diverse medieval rabbinic texts. While this latter manuscript is a much later document, it reflects an earlier copy that fills in the gaps in MS Parma—primarily in passages affected by the censor's hand. In these two manuscripts, the prayer is entitled “An Essay by R. Moses b. Naḥman,” and the circumstances in which it was composed are not clarified. In printed prayer books, it was inserted into several services—first, so it appears, in R. Aharon Berakhiah of Modena's eighteenth-century Watches of the Morning, where it is not attributed to Naḥmanides.Footnote ³³ The editor's preface to this text indicates that he regarded it as a “prayer suitable for recitation [… every day] apart from Sabbaths and holidays, and for lamentation over the destruction of the temple and the exile.”Footnote ³⁴

The affinities between this version (the “essay”) and the prayer Naḥmanides composed in ’Ereẓ Yisra'el are striking.Footnote ³⁵ A close examination of the relationship between the two texts reveals that virtually every paragraph in the essay finds its parallel in the Jerusalem Prayer.Footnote ³⁶ The disparities are equally clear, however. While the prayer reflects direct impressions of the city, the essay is written from a greater remove. Thus, for example, while the prayer states: “I behold your ruins and wastes” (l. 180), the essay contains a secondhand report: “we have been told of your ruins and wastes.” While the prayer opens on a personal note with the rousing call: “Our feet were standing within your gates” (l. 3), the essay merely pleads with God on His throne in heaven to remember Jerusalem, “Remember the city of which You said …” (l. 1).

All the autobiographical passages in the prayer depicting the experience of standing within the city are also notably absent from the essay.Footnote ³⁷ In addition to these divergences—which clearly demonstrate a change in the time and place of their authorship—there are many other significant differences in the first section, which extols Jerusalem (“the praises of the city,” ll. 97–98). As a whole, virtually all the disparities involve lines in the prayer that are missing from the essay.Footnote ³⁸ Since both texts manifest the polished work of an editorial hand, including rhyme and meter, there can be no question here of unwitting deletion or additions by copyists.

The two compositions also conclude differently. Like other prayers, the Jerusalem Prayer rounds off with a type of benediction, almost with two endings. One occurs at the conclusion of the prayer for redemption: “Blessed are You, O Eternal One, who has redeemed Israel” (l. 505). The other follows an additional request of a personal nature to which Naḥmanides signs his name: “Blessed are You, O Eternal One, who hears prayer” (l. 533).Footnote ³⁹ The essay, in contrast, appears to end abruptly, lacking a conclusion. This suggests that its original ending may have been deliberately deleted by copyists in order to add another prayer.

Was the essay penned by Naḥmanides? Although false attributions of compositions to Naḥmanides are commonplace, in this case there is no reason to doubt the evidence given in its two manuscripts: “An essay by R. Moses b. Naḥman.” The close affinities between the two texts evince that both were composed by the same hand, each exhibiting clear signs of Naḥmanides's style and thought.Footnote ⁴⁰ The argument that the essay is a late, abbreviated version of the prayer is similarly untenable, because the deletions exhibit no literary or liturgical logic, in particular in the “praises of the city” section.Footnote ⁴¹ It would make no sense for Naḥmanides's poetic language to be excised from the prayer, because of the consequent effect on his descriptions of Jerusalem's magnificence and majesty, especially since in a number of places the essay engages in technical or stylistic expansions.Footnote ⁴²

In its extant form, the essay thus appears to be an early version penned by Naḥmanides himself, apparently while still in Spain. When his feet finally stood within Jerusalem's gates and he sought to express his emotions, he drew on this original description of her beauty, reworking and reshaping it by enriching and elaborating the “praises of the city” in accord with his mood and current religious ideas. This editing explains the dual conclusion, the first a remnant of the ending of the earlier version, the second prompted by the new additions of a more personal nature. Seeking, as his wont, to avoid damaging the first version by deleting the original conclusion, he ended up with a rather inelegant double ending.Footnote ⁴³

The premise that Naḥmanides copied, reworked, and revised an earlier text of the prayer is consistent with his modus operandi in numerous other places, where he makes use of earlier ideas and material, copying whole passages from one composition to another, incorporating them into a new context, and bringing them up to date with his current beliefs and outlook.Footnote ⁴⁴

The Early and Late Versions of the “Praises of the City”

The divergences between the two versions are not confined to issues of space and time; the reworkings and in particular the additions he made to the first section—the “praises of the city”—reflect a different view to that found in the first draft. It seems Naḥmanides took pains to “deconstruct” the tight form of the earlier text in order to make room for this new idea, suggesting that his perception of Jerusalem—and its place in his religious world—had undergone a transformation.

In the early version, in the essay, Jerusalem is portrayed as the “city of God” as in the conclusion of this section of the prayer (l. 101). Her majesty and magnificence derive from the fact that God's presence resides in her. She is “the mountain which God hath desired for His abode and built thereon the house of His resting-place” (ll. 19–20), the tribes that ascended to her are “tribes of the Eternal” (l. 12), the ark of the covenant and tablets of the law also are housed in her, and “law and wisdom” (l. 18) go forth from her. The cherubim represent God's chariot and various countenances—”the face of justice and the face of conciliation” (ll. 38–39), God turns towards Jerusalem to hear “the cry and the prayer” (ll. 46–47), and its gates are opened “for those who tearfully descend there” (ll. 48–49).

God's association with the city is also highlighted in the song of praise the Levites raise to “the God of the Heavens” (ll. 72–74) and the judicial system whose structure reflects the heavenly court and thus God Himself: “God stands in the congregation of the mighty” (l. 88).Footnote ⁴⁵ This emphasis is clearly intended to serve the appeal Naḥmanides made from his exile in Spain: “O God, remember the city of which you said: ‘My eyes and my heart will always be there’” (ll. 1–2). The entreaty for the redemption of Jerusalem and the temple rests on the fact that they are God's abode. In the early version of the prayer, Jerusalem's status as the divine dwelling does not differ in any essential sense, from the status Naḥmanides attributes to ’Ereẓ Yisra'el as a whole as the “palace of the King” (palterin shel melekh). Even if Jerusalem and the temple necessarily play a more central role in the “King's palace,” this explains why Naḥmanides cites the biblical promise that relates to the land as a whole in a prayer over Jerusalem: “the land the Lord your God cares for” (ll. 6–7).Footnote ⁴⁶ In more general terms, in his earlier portrayal of Jerusalem Naḥmanides quotes biblical verses, rabbinic literature, and limited material from the newly burgeoning kabbalistic field. The description of God residing in Zion is thus traditional, exhibiting very few new elements.

In the additions Naḥmanides made to the second, elaborated version,Footnote ⁴⁷ he portrays Jerusalem as a cosmic center, the point “from which the world was founded and from which extended the bases of the world and their boundaries” (ll. 14–16).Footnote ⁴⁸ It also forms the foundation of the heavenly city: “a city compact together with the One on high” (ll. 10–11)—just as the temple itself also constitutes the cornerstone from which it will be “magnified and sanctified” as a “place for the House and a temple for the Temple” (l. 67).Footnote ⁴⁹ These two mythic motifs of Jerusalem as the cosmic center of the world on the one hand and corresponding to and held within the heavenly Jerusalem on the other are not completely new in Naḥmanides's thought. They occur alongside one another in his commentary on Genesis 14:18 (see above), which was composed a little earlier. As noted above, however, they are absent from the first draft of the prayer.

What prompted the new description of Jerusalem Naḥmanides inserts into the old draft of his prayer on Jerusalem? His tendency towards cosmic/metaphysical ideas can be discerned elsewhere in the later version, primarily in the additions relating to the holy of holies within the temple (the early draft is cited here in square brackets): “[There is the ark of the covenant], the Lord of all the earth [and therein are the tablets written] with the finger of God. From there prophecy goes out and spreads to the soul that yearns for it” (ll. 24–27). The elucidations inserted here regarding the ark of the covenant and written tablets stress the intensity of the divine presence, the ark representing the “Lord of the all the earth,” the tablets exhibiting the imprint of God's own hand.Footnote ⁵⁰ The accentuation of the divine presence concretized in the temple—rather than merely linked to it “legally”—is also exemplified in the nearby additions pertaining to the cherubim: “The spirit of God was in their wings and the glory of the God of Israel above them. And this was the workmanship of the bases, the residence of the divine glory” (ll. 40–44). The cosmic, metaphysical description of Jerusalem and the temple thus appears to serve here to emphasize God's presence, imbuing the holy place with its sanctity.

The purpose of these interpolations is reinforced and revealed in the final stanza in relation to the ark of the covenant: “From there prophecy goes out and spreads to the soul that yearns for it” (ll. 28–29). Prophecy thus proceeds from the ark and the tablets, to the soul of the prophet who longs for it.Footnote ⁵¹ In no text predating this prayer does Naḥmanides adduce this form of prophetic activity. The notion of prophecy “proceeding” from the holy of holies appears to reflect the influence of the thirteenth-century kabbalist R. Isaac Sagi Nahor's idea of ecstatic, contemplative prophecy, promoted by his disciples R. Ezra and R. Azriel. Both these thinkers spoke of the early pietists and prophets as

While these kabbalists may display affinities with contemporaneous Sufi thought, as Haviva Pedaya has pointed out,Footnote ⁵³ they nowhere regard the sacred place as that from which prophecy proceeds to the prophets. Although Naḥmanides may have drawn this idea from the Kuzari, Judah Halevi makes no reference to the technique of directing oneself towards the place. Moreover, he attributes prophecy to ’Ereẓ Yisra'el as a whole rather than the temple alone.Footnote ⁵⁴ The notion that the holy of holies is the place from which prophecy originates and proceeds to the prophets thus does not occur in any other contemporary writings or Naḥmanides's own writings.Footnote ⁵⁵ The novelty of the idea therefore situates it as the very heart of the description of the inspiration of the Shekhinah he added to the final version of the prayer. The idea of Jerusalem and the temple as the center of time and space, together with the emphasis on their paradigmatic association with the upper realms, in both the prayer and the prior commentary, consequently appears to form the context in which Naḥmanides sought to establish his new view of the temple as the source of prophetic inspiration.

In contrast to the first draft in the essay, the more elaborate version of the prayer thus outlines a sacred space within a concrete structure at the heart of the holy of holies that forms the fount of prophetic intention and inspiration. The polished nature of this text demonstrates that this reworking was conscious and calculated. This raises the question: What prompted Naḥmanides to update the prayer and make such significant changes to his description of Jerusalem?

The History of the Jerusalem Prayer: Biographical and Theological Features

The divergences between the two versions must be understood first and foremost in light of the changes in Naḥmanides's circumstances. If the early draft focused on Jerusalem and the temple as God's destroyed dwelling in order to arouse His compassion for His residence, when faced directly with the ruins of the city Naḥmanides sought to accentuate the sharp contrast between its present abject state and the memory of its glorious past. This prompted him to add, elaborate, and magnify its other qualities. But how did he choose the specific motifs? The fact that his feet were inside the city's gates was irrelevant, because the temple no longer existed. Since the issue was thus merely of historical memory, the selection appears to reflect the role he ascribed to the city and temple at the time.

Beyond the updated portrait of Jerusalem, the additions reveal Naḥmanides's attitude towards prophecy and its origins. Although he discusses prophecy extensively in his various exegetical and philosophical writings, he generally addresses the nature of the prophetic vision and the phenomenology of prophecy and its various levels, as well on occasion the source of inspiration of prophecy in the sefiric realm.Footnote ⁵⁶ Very rarely does he relate to the practical aspects of prophecy. Needless to say, the role of the sacred place within this framework as the focus and source of prophecy does not appear in any of these works—with the exception of his remarks on Exodus 25:22 and his treatment of Moses in the tabernacle, which historically hasn't had any continuation in the later temples.Footnote ⁵⁷

The appearance of this new notion suggests that his religious thought on this subject underwent a change towards the end of his life. As the additions he made to his commentary on the Torah indicate, his exegetical and theological views were subject to constant revision. This is demonstrated by the lists of additions he made to the commentary he sent from ’Ereẓ Yisra'el. The prayer he composed in Spain may have received precisely the same treatment, and the new version was quite possibly sent back to Spain along with these addenda.

The idea of the Shekhinah's concrete presence in the city and temple, and the notion of the holy of holies as a type of fountain of prophecy also appear to have been so essential to his thought at this time in his life that he felt the need to revise and expand the original version of the prayer in order to align it with his new belief. Additional evidence of the importance he attributed to this issue in his twilight years can be found in his Rosh Ha-shanah sermon, delivered in Acre one or two years prior to his death—most likely the last extant composition he wrote. In the conclusion of this text, which deals with the attributes of ’Ereẓ Yisra'el, Naḥmanides outlines the concentric structure of its sacred space:

These words, which conclude not only the sermon itself but also his (extant) work as a whole, constitute Naḥmanides's “swan song”—his final vision. Here, precisely as in the prayer, he depicts the place of the cherubim in the holy of holies within the temple in Jerusalem as the Shekhinah's dwelling place—as well as the site of revelation and the prophetic craft. The fact that he addresses the temple in the sermon rather than Moses's tabernacle indicates that he regards the association between the sacred place and the appearance of prophecy in broad, general terms—in its historical manifestation through the generations. This account thus corresponds to the belief expressed in the prayer, reflecting Naḥmanides's personal interest in the sanctity of the land.

The question of why Naḥmanides left his homeland, family, and friends to settle in ’Ereẓ Yisra'el has been examined at length and depth.Footnote ⁵⁹ On the one hand, written records suggest that prior to the move he had been increasingly persecuted in the wake of the publication of The Book of Disputation—the protocol of the Barcelona Disputation he recorded—which his opponents claimed misrepresented the polemic and blemished the image of Christianity. This chain of events has led some scholars to attribute his departure from Spain to his political troubles.Footnote ⁶⁰ Others have given greater weight to his personal testimony, both in the prayer and in the Rosh Ha-shanah sermon written in Acre, which attests to his love of the land and yearning for its metaphysical attributes.Footnote ⁶¹ As other scholars have clearly demonstrated, the two motives are not necessarily self-exclusive, since Naḥmanides possibly left Spain for the Holy Land for religious reasons, but the timing was dictated by historical-political circumstances.Footnote ⁶²

What precisely were the “religious motives” that led Naḥmanides to choose ’Ereẓ Yisra'el as his desired destination? According to Joshua Prawer, the move represented the practical realization of the virtue of settling in the land that Naḥmanides had preached throughout his life.Footnote ⁶³ He was, in fact, the first to identify settlement in the land as an actual commandment on par with all the biblical ordinances. This halakhic stance finds expression in two passages in his writings—briefly in his commentary on Numbers 33:53 and at greater length in his critique of Maimonides's Sefer ha-miẓvot, where he objects that Maimonides ignores the commandments pertaining to settlement in the land:

This view is not self-evident, and even some of Naḥmanides's kabbalistic peers in his environs held a different opinion. R. Ezra of Gerona, for example, observes: “In our day, Israel are already exempt from the obligation of ’Ereẓ Yisra'el, which is the altar of atonement for them when they are suffering for their devotion to God in exile and the affliction of bondage.”Footnote ⁶⁵ Among the northern French tosafists, with whom Naḥmanides conducted a talmudic dialogue, fear and anxiety regarding the religious demands made by the Land of Israel frequently overrode the ancient attachment to it, which prompted them to find halakhic grounds for not moving there.Footnote ⁶⁶ In stressing the practical obligation of making aliyah in such concrete and operative terms, Naḥmanides may betray the influence of Judah Halevi on his thought.Footnote ⁶⁷

Other scholars adduce kabbalistic motives behind Naḥmanides's position on this issue. Moshe Idel, for example, suggests that Naḥmanides believed that only in the land was it possible to fully observe the commandments—i.e., kabbalistically—and the Kabbalah itself.Footnote ⁶⁸ Haviva Pedaya regards his immigration as an expression of his mystical yearning to ascend from the “land below” to the “land above”—in effect a desire to die as “a way of attaining the peak of mystical cleaving.”Footnote ⁶⁹

Despite the fact that—for practical reasons to which he alludes in several places—Naḥmanides ultimately settled in Acre rather than Jerusalem, his departure for Jerusalem may also have been prompted by a desire to become closer to the source of prophetic inspiration, perhaps even becoming a recipient of its “proceeding” from the holy of holies. Although well aware that he would not find the ark of the covenant, the written tablets, or the “cherubim spreading their wings” (l. 30) in Jerusalem, he appears to have believed that when the temple was destroyed, Jerusalem's cosmic status continued to preserve something of its “prophetic” character. This conviction finds expression in an aside in Torat ha-’adam): “… when you will say of the one who stands in Jerusalem that his soul is garbed with divine inspiration and prophetic craftsmanship at the will of the Sovereign, whether in dreams or visions, more than all those who stand in an impure land.”Footnote ⁷⁰

As we have noted, prophecy plays a central role in Naḥmanides's thought. Not having left us an autobiographical diary, it is difficult to ascertain the extent to which notions about prophecy formed a central pillar of his religious world. My findings suggest that towards the end of his life Naḥmanides sought to move from speech to action. His yearning to realize the prophetic ideal in his life may thus have been one of major forces behind his decision to settle in ’Ereẓ Yisra'el when forced to leave his homeland in the Iberian Peninsula.

* * * * *

Although Naḥmanides's Jerusalem Prayer, composed in the city to which it is dedicated, has long been known and cherished, a comparison of its early and later versions demonstrates some of the spiritual views Naḥmanides developed towards the end of his life. He was faithful to his custom of making use of earlier material and accommodating it to new forms in line with his changing beliefs. This habit thus provides us with a rare tool for tracing his intellectual and religious development. Recent studies based on comparisons of his earlier and later writings indicate the scholarly significance of this approach for understanding the maturation of his theology.Footnote ⁷¹ The magnum opus of the second half of his life—the commentary on the Torah—was also clearly corrected and revised. Many of the changes to the first edition following its initial dissemination reflect the new religious and exegetical views he had adopted since the writing of the original text. They thus constitute a treasure trove for outlining his intellectual biography—a task yet to be undertaken.

Since the second version of the Jerusalem Prayer was written in ’Ereẓ Yisra'el and includes autobiographical material, the divergences between the two texts can be presumed to indicate changes in Naḥmanides's spiritual outlook and tenor—or at the very least the tendencies towards which he gravitated at the end of his life. A close and detailed examination of the alterations, primarily in the first section of the prayer—the “praises of the city”—in light of the various notations relating to this theme interspersed in other late documents suggests that late in life Naḥmanides came to regard Jerusalem and the temple as the source of prophetic inspiration. Finally, this finding is significant for better understanding the religious motives that lay behind his decision to settle in ’Ereẓ Yisra'el.