【剑桥哲学指南】中世纪犹太哲学 484页

\n\nthecambridgecompaniontoMEDIEVALJEWISHPHILOSOPHYFromtheninthtothefifteenthcenturiesJewishthinkerslivinginIslamicandChristianlandsphilosophizedaboutJudaism.InfluencedfirstbyIslamictheologicalspeculationandthegreatphilosophersofclassicalantiquity,andtheninthelatemedievalperiodbyChristianScholasticism,Jewishphilosophersandscientistsreflectedonthenatureoflan-guageaboutGod,thescopeandlimitsofhumanunderstand-ing,theeternityorcreatednessoftheworld,prophecyanddivineprovidence,thepossibilityofhumanfreedom,andtherelationshipbetweendivineandhumanlaw.Thoughmanyviewedphilosophyasadangerousthreat,othersincorporateditintotheirunderstandingofwhatitistobeaJew.ThisCompanionpresentsallthemajorJewishthinkersoftheperiod,thephilosophicalandnon-philosophicalcontextsoftheirthought,andtheinteractionsbetweenJewishandnon-Jewishphilosophers.ItisacomprehensiveintroductiontoavitalperiodofJewishintellectualhistory.DanielH.FrankisProfessorofPhilosophyandDirectoroftheJudaicStudiesProgramattheUniversityofKentucky.AmongrecentpublicationsareHistoryofJewishPhilosophy(editedwithOliverLeaman,1997),TheJewishPhilosophyReader(editedwithOliverLeamanandCharlesManekin,2000),andrevisededitionsoftwoJewishphilosophicalclas-sics,Maimonides’GuideofthePerplexed(1995)andSaadyaGaon’sBookofDoctrinesandBeliefs(2002).OliverLeamanisProfessorofPhilosophyandZantkerProfes-sorofJudaicStudiesattheUniversityofKentucky.HeistheauthorofAnIntroductiontoClassicalIslamicPhilosophy(2002),EvilandSufferinginJewishPhilosophy(1995),andiseditorofEncyclopediaofAsianPhilosophy(2001)andCom-panionEncyclopediaofMiddleEasternandNorthAfricanFilm(2001).Heisco-editor,withGlennysHowarth,ofEn-cyclopediaofDeathandDying(2001).\nvolumesintheseriesofcambridgecompanionsAQUINASEditedbynormankretzmannandeleonorestumpHANNAHARENDTEditedbydanavillaARISTOTLEEditedbyjonathanbarnesAUGUSTINEEditedbyeleonorestumpandnormankretzmannBACONEditedbymarkkupeltonenSIMONEDEBEAUVOIREditedbyclaudiacardDARWINEditedbyjonathanhodgeandgregoryradickDESCARTESEditedbyjohncottinghamDUNSSCOTUSEditedbythomaswilliamsEARLYGREEKPHILOSOPHYEditedbya.a.longFEMINISMINPHILOSOPHYEditedbymirandafrickerandjenniferhornsbyFOUCAULTEditedbygaryguttingFREUDEditedbyjeromeneuGADAMEREditedbyrobertj.dostalGALILEOEditedbypetermachamerGERMANIDEALISMEditedbykarlameriksHABERMASEditedbystephenk.whiteHEGELEditedbyfrederickbeiserHEIDEGGEREditedbycharlesguignonHOBBESEditedbytomsorellHUMEEditedbydavidfatenortonHUSSERLEditedbybarrysmithanddavidwoodruffsmithWILLIAMJAMESEditedbyruthannaputnamKANTEditedbypaulguyerKIERKEGAARDEditedbyalastairhannayandgordonmarino\nLEIBNIZEditedbynicholasjolleyLEVINASEditedbysimoncritchleyandrobertbernasconiLOCKEEditedbyverechappellMALEBRANCHEEditedbystephennadlerMARXEditedbyterrellcarverMEDIEVALJEWISHPHILOSOPHYEditedbydanielh.frankandoliverleamanMEDIEVALPHILOSOPHYEditedbya.s.mcgradeMILLEditedbyjohnskorupskiNEWTONEditedbyi.bernardcohenandgeorgee.smithNIETZSCHEEditedbyberndmagnusandkathleenhigginsOCKHAMEditedbypaulvincentspadePASCALEditedbynicholashammondPLATOEditedbyrichardkrautPLOTINUSEditedbylloydp.gersonROUSSEAUEditedbypatrickrileySARTREEditedbychristinahowellsSCHOPENHAUEREditedbychristopherjanawayTHESCOTTISHENLIGHTENMENTEditedbyalexanderi.broadieSPINOZAEditedbydongarrettWITTGENSTEINEditedbyhansslugaanddavidstern\nTheCambridgeCompaniontoMEDIEVALJEWISHPHILOSOPHYEditedbyDanielH.FrankandOliverLeamanUniversityofKentucky\nCAMBRIDGEUNIVERSITYPRESSCambridge,NewYork,Melbourne,Madrid,CapeTown,Singapore,SãoPauloCambridgeUniversityPressTheEdinburghBuilding,CambridgeCB22RU,UKPublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyCambridgeUniversityPress,NewYorkwww.cambridge.orgInformationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9780521652070©CambridgeUniversityPress2003Thisbookisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexceptionandtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.Firstpublished2003AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibraryLibraryofCongressCataloguinginPublicationdataTheCambridgecompaniontomedievalJewishphilosophy/editedbyDanielH.FrankandOliverLeaman.p.cm.–(Cambridgecompanionstophilosophy)Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.ISBN0521652073–ISBN0521655749(paperback)1.Philosophy,Jewish.2.Philosophy,Medieval.3.Judaism–History–Medievalandearlymodernperiod,425–1789.I.Frank,DanielH.,1950–II.Leaman,Oliver,1950–III.Series.B755.C362003181´.06–dc212003041200ISBN-13978-0-521-65207-0hardbackISBN-100-521-65207-3hardbackISBN-13978-0-521-65574-3paperbackISBN-100-521-65574-9paperbackTransferredtodigitalprinting2005\ncontentsListofcontributorspagexPrefacexvChronologyxviiNoteontransliterationxxiGlossaryxxiiPARTIBACKGROUNDANDCONTEXT1IntroductiontothestudyofmedievalJewishphilosophy3oliverleaman2ThebiblicalandrabbinicbackgroundtomedievalJewishphilosophy16davidshatz3TheIslamiccontextofmedievalJewishphilosophy38joell.kraemerPARTIIIDEAS,WORKS,ANDWRITERS4SaadyaandJewishkalam71sarahstroumsa5JewishNeoplatonism:BeingaboveBeinganddivineemanationinSolomonibnGabirolandIsaacIsraeli91sarahpessinvii\nviiiContents6JudahHaleviandhisuseofphilosophyintheKuzari111barrys.kogan7MaimonidesandmedievalJewishAristotelianism136danielh.frank8Maimonidesandthesciences157tzvilangermann9MedievalJewishpoliticalthought176menachemlorberbaum10JudaismandSufism201paulb.fenton11Philosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600218havatirosh-samuelson12ArabicintoHebrew:TheHebrewtranslationmovementandtheinfluenceofAverroesuponmedievalJewishthought258stevenharvey13PhilosophyinsouthernFrance:ControversyoverphilosophicstudyandtheinfluenceofAverroesuponJewishthought281greggstern14ConservativetendenciesinGersonides’religiousphilosophy304charlesh.manekinPARTIIITHELATERYEARS15TheimpactofScholasticismuponJewishphilosophyinthefourteenthandfifteenthcenturies345t.m.rudavsky16JewishphilosophyandtheJewish–Christianphilosophicaldialogueinfifteenth-centurySpain371ariackerman\nContentsix17HasdaiCrescasandanti-Aristotelianism391jamest.robinson18TheendandaftereffectsofmedievalJewishphilosophy414seymourfeldmanGuidetofurtherreadinginEnglish446Index464\ncontributorsariackermanisLecturerinJewishThoughtandPhilosophyofEducationattheSchechterInstituteinJerusalem.Inadditiontohisdoctoraldissertation,“ThePhilosophicSermonsofZerahiabenIsaacHaleviSaladin:JewishPhilosophicandSermonicActivityinLate14thandEarly15thCenturyAragon”(HebrewUniversityofJerusalem,2000),hehaspublishedarticlesonotheraspectsoflatemedievalJewishphilosophy,including“TheCompositionoftheSectiononDivineProvidencein[Crescas’]OrHashem,”Da‘at32–3(1994),37–45.seymourfeldmanisProfessorofPhilosophyEmeritusatRutgersUniversity.AmonghispublicationsareacompletetranslationofandcommentaryonGersonides’WarsoftheLord(3vols.1984–99),articlesonseveralmedievalJewishphilosophersandonSpinoza,andPhilosophyinaTimeofCrisis:DonIsaacAbravanel,DefenderoftheFaith(2003).paulb.fentonisProfessorofHebrewLanguageandLiteratureattheSorbonne.HehaspublishedextensivelyonJewishcivilizationintheIslamicworld,especiallyonthemysticaltradition.AmongrecentpublicationsisPhilosophieetexeg´esedanslejardindela`metaphore´(1997),dealingwiththeGoldenAgeinSpain.danielh.frankisProfessorofPhilosophyattheUniversityofKentucky.AmongrecentpublicationsareHistoryofJewishPhi-losophy(editedwithOliverLeaman,1997),TheJewishPhiloso-phyReader(editedwithOliverLeamanandCharlesH.Manekin,2000),andrevisededitionsoftwoJewishphilosophicalclassics,x\nContributorsxiMaimonides’GuideofthePerplexed(1995)andSaadyaGaon’sBookofDoctrinesandBeliefs(2002).stevenharveyisProfessorofPhilosophyatBar-IlanUniversity.HehaspublishedextensivelyonthemedievalJewishandIslamicphilosophers,withspecialfocusonAverroes’commentariesonAristotleandontheinfluenceoftheIslamicphilosophersonJewishthought.HeistheauthorofFalaquera’s“EpistleoftheDebate”:AnIntroductiontoJewishPhilosophy(1987)andeditorofTheMedievalHebrewEncyclopediasofScienceandPhilosophy(2000).barrys.koganisClarenceandRobertEfroymsonProfessorofPhilosophyandJewishReligiousThoughtatHebrewUnionCollege–JewishInstituteofReligion,Cincinnati.TheauthorofAver-roesandtheMetaphysicsofCausation(1985)andofarticlesonme-dievalJewishandIslamicphilosophy,heiscurrentlypreparingfortheYaleJudaicaSeriesanewEnglishtranslationofJudahHalevi’sKuzari.joell.kraemerisJohnHenryBarrowsProfessorintheDivin-itySchoolandtheCommitteeonSocialThoughtattheUniversityofChicago.HehaswrittenonthetransmissionoftheintellectualheritageofGreekantiquitytoIslamiccivilization.AmonghismajorpublicationsareHumanismintheRenaissanceofIslam:TheCul-turalRevivalduringtheBuyidAge(2ndrev.ed.1992)andPhilosophyintheRenaissanceofIslam:Al-SijistaniandhisCircle(1986).HismorerecentinterestsconcerntheinterplayofculturalandreligiousthemeswithinIslamandJudaism.tzvilangermannisAssociateProfessorofArabicatBar-IlanUniversity.HisrecentbooksincludeYemeniteMidrash:Philosophi-calCommentariesontheTorah(1997)andTheJewsandtheSciencesintheMiddleAges(1999).oliverleamanisProfessorofPhilosophyandZantkerProfessorofJudaicStudiesattheUniversityofKentucky.HehaspublishedextensivelyonIslamicandJewishphilosophy.HeistheauthorofAnIntroductiontoClassicalIslamicPhilosophy(2002)andEvilandSufferinginJewishPhilosophy(1995),andeditorofEncyclopediaof\nxiiContributorsAsianPhilosophy(2001)andCompanionEncyclopediaofMiddleEasternandNorthAfricanFilm(2001).menachemlorberbaumisSeniorLecturerinJewishPhiloso-phyatTelAvivUniversityandaresearchassociateattheShalomHartmanInstitute,Jerusalem.HeistheauthorofPoliticsandtheLimitsofLaw:SecularizingthePoliticalinMedievalJewishThought(2001)andco-editor,withMichaelWalzerandNoamZohar,ofthemulti-volumeTheJewishPoliticalTradition(2000–).charlesh.manekinisAssociateProfessorofPhilosophyattheUniversityofMarylandatCollegePark.HeistheauthorofOnMai-monides(2003),andaco-editorofTheJewishPhilosophyReader(2000)andFreedomandResponsibility:GeneralandJewishPerspec-tives(1997).sarahpessinisAssistantProfessorofPhilosophyatCaliforniaStateUniversity,Fresno.HerresearchinterestsfocusonmedievalJewishandIslamicNeoplatonism,andsheiscurrentlycompletingabookonSolomonibnGabirol.Amongherrecentpublicationsare“Hebdomads:BoethiusMeetsthePythagoreans,”JournaloftheHis-toryofPhilosophy37(1999)and“Matter,Metaphor,andPrivatePointing:MaimonidesontheComplexityofHumanBeing,”Amer-icanCatholicPhilosophicalQuarterly,specialMaimonidesissue,ed.D.H.Frank(2002).jamest.robinsonisAssistantProfessoroftheHistoryofJudaismintheDivinitySchoolattheUniversityofChicago.HeistheauthorofPhilosophyandExegesisinSamuelibnTibbon’sCommentaryonEcclesiastes(forthcoming).Recentarticlesinclude“TheFirstReferencesinHebrewtoal-Bitruji’sOnthePrinciplesofAstronomy,”Aleph3(2003).t.m.rudavskyisProfessorofPhilosophyatOhioStateUniver-sity.SheistheauthorofTimeMatters:Time,Creation,andCos-mologyinMedievalJewishPhilosophy(2000),andeditorofGenderandJudaism:TraditionandTransformation(1995)andDivineOmniscienceandOmnipotenceinMedievalPhilosophy(1985).\nContributorsxiiidavidshatzisProfessorofPhilosophyatYeshivaUniversity.HehaspublishedextensivelyonbothJewishandgeneralphilosophy.Hisworkingeneralphilosophyfocusesonepistemology,freewill,andphilosophyofreligion,whilehisworkinJewishphilosophyfocusesonMaimonidesandontwentieth-centuryfigures.HehasrecentlyeditedPhilosophyandFaith:APhilosophyofReligionReader(2002)andco-edited,withStevenM.Cahn,QuestionsaboutGod:Today’sPhilosophersPondertheDivine(2002).greggsternisLecturerintheStudyofReligionsattheSchoolofOrientalandAfricanStudies,UniversityofLondon,andSamandVivienneCohenFellowattheLondonSchoolofJewishStudies.Amonghisrecentpublicationsis“PhilosophicAllegoryinJewishCulture:TheCrisisinLanguedoc(1304–6),”inInterpretationandAllegory:AntiquitytotheModernPeriod,ed.J.Whitman(2000).sarahstroumsaisProfessorofArabicLanguageandLiteratureandJewishThoughtattheHebrewUniversityofJerusalem.HerrecentpublicationsincludeTheBeginningsoftheMaimonideanControversyintheEast:YosefibnShim‘on’sSilencingEpistlecon-cerningtheResurrectionoftheDead(1999)andFreethinkersofMedievalIslam:Ibnal-Rawandi,AbuBakral-Razi,andtheirImpactonIslamicThought(1999).havatirosh-samuelsonisAssociateProfessorofHistoryatArizonaStateUniversity.TheauthorofBetweenWorlds:TheLifeandThoughtofRabbiDavidbenJudahMesserLeon(1991)andHappinessinPremodernJudaism:Virtue,Knowledge,andWell-being(2003),shehaseditedJudaismandEcology:CreatedWorldandRevealedWord(2002).Amongrecentarticlesare“NatureintheSourcesofJudaism,”Daedelus130(2001)and“TheologyofNatureinSixteenth-CenturyItalianJewishPhilosophy,”ScienceinContext10(1997).\nprefaceFromtheninththroughthefifteenthcenturies,somesixhundredyears,JewishphilosopherslivinginbothIslamicandChristianlandsphilosophizedaboutJudaism,hopingtherebytoputtheirreligiononasoundintellectualfooting.InfluencedfirstbyIslamictheologicalspeculationandbythegreatGreekphilosophersandtheirIslamicsuccessors,andtheninthelatemedievalperiodbyChristianScholas-ticism,JewishphilosophersreflectedonthenatureoflanguageaboutGod,thescopeandlimitsofhumanunderstanding,theeternityorcreatednessoftheworld,prophecyanddivineprovidence,thepos-sibilityofhumanfreedom,andtherelationshipbetweendivineandhumanlaw.Duringthemedievalperiodphilosophywasoftenviewedasdangerous,butforthoseintentonsuchspeculationtheopportu-nitypresenteditselftoprovethatJudaismandhumanwisdomarecompatiblewithoneanother.TheessaysinthisvolumepresentallthemajorJewishthinkersofthemedievalperiod,thephilosophicalandnon-philosophicalcontextsoftheirthought,andtheinteractionsbetweenJewishandnon-Jewishphilosophy.ThiscompaniontomedievalJewishphilosophyisabitofananomalyintheCambridgeseriesofcompanionstothemajorphiloso-phers.First,whilevolumesintheseriesareinthemaindevotedtosingleauthors,oursisdevotedtoahostofthinkersfromtheJewishmiddleages.Second,andinourviewmostimportant,thisCompan-ionextendstonon-Europeanlocales(BaghdadandCairo)andSemitictongues(ArabicandHebrew).WecommendthePressforseeingtheneedtoincludewithintheambitofaseriesdevotedto“Western”philosophy,thephilosophersofmedievalJewry.BeforethethirteenthcenturythebestworkwasdoneinArabicandinArabiclands,in-cludingofcourseMuslimSpain.But,asisincreasinglyrecognized,xv\nxviPrefacetheworkofsuchphilosophicallymindedJews,indeedJewishandIslamicphilosophygenerally,ispartandparcelof“Western”phi-losophy,thetraditionthatcommencedwiththeancientGreeks.JewsandArabssawinPlato,Aristotle,AlexanderofAphrodisias,Themistius,Galen,JohnPhiloponus,andPlotinusmuchthatwasofvalueforbetterunderstandingandinterpretingtheirownmonothe-istictraditions.AndinsousingandrevivifyingtheancientsfortheirownpurposestheybequeathedtofuturegenerationsofphilosophersinmedievalChristendomarichsupplyofargumentsand,asimpor-tantly,anon-parochialoutlook,anopenness,whichsawAquinaslookrespectfullytoAverroesastheCommentator(onAristotle)andtoMaimonidesasRabbiMoyses.OnerunstheriskoflookingattheJewishphilosophersandtheiruseofthepastforpresentconcernsasquiteunoriginal,asmerelymiddlemeninthetransportofideasfromancientGreecetome-dievalChristendom.SuchaviewbearsitsChristiantriumphalismclearly,andshouldbestoutlyresisted.JudaismdidnotendwithJesus,andoneshouldlikewiserealizethatJewishphilosophycon-tinuedunabatedlongafterAquinas,oftenseeminglyuninfluencedbyChristianphilosophicaltrends.ItwouldbeverywronginfacttoreadmedievalJewishphilosophyinisolationfromthehostculturesinwhichitinvariablyfounditself,butitwouldbeequallymisguidedtolosesightofitasarichsourceofphilosophicalargumentationjustbecauseitlookedtoextra-Jewishsourcesasameansbywhichtoex-plicateitsownmonotheistictraditions.Itisourhopethatthereaderwillcomeawaywithanappreciationofadiversesetofthinkers,oftenatoddswitheachother,whoseoriginalityconsistspreciselyinitscreativeuseandconstantadaptationoftraditionaltextsandnorms.Productionofthisvolumehasbeenapleasinglyinternationalproject,bringingtogetherscholarsfromAmerica,Europe,andIsrael.WehavebeenaidedinoureditorialtaskbythetimelinessofourcontributorsandbythehelpfulteamatCambridgeUniversityPress(UK),especiallyKevinTaylor.Ourthankstoall.danielh.frankoliverleaman7July20037Tammuz5763\nchronologyofpersonsandeventsThefollowingchronologyattemptstotakeintoaccountinfluenceswithincertaintimespans,evenifastrictchronologyisoccasion-allyforsaken.Alldatesarece;acronymsandimportanttextsareinparentheses.c.500BabylonianTalmudcomplete622TheHijra:Muhammad’smigrationfromMeccatoMedina632DeathofMuhammad711–715MuslimconquestofSpain762–767Karaitemovement(seeGlossary)begins813–833Reignofcaliphal-Ma
muninBaghdadandvigoroustranslationmovementofGreekphilosophicalandscientifictextsintoArabicd.c.866Al-Kindi820–890Daudal-Muqammis850–c.932IsaacIsraelic.870–950Al-Farabi882–942SaadyaGaon(BookofDoctrinesandBeliefs)980–1037IbnSina(Avicenna)1021–c.1058SolomonibnGabirol(FonsVitae)fl.1080BahyaibnPaquda(DutiesoftheHeart)1040–1105Rashi(preeminentmedievalbiblicalcommentator)1058–1111Al-Ghazali1085CaptureofToledoinMuslimSpainbyChristians1095FirstCrusadec.1075–1141JudahHalevi(TheKuzari)xvii\nxviiiChronologyd.c.1136AbrahambarHiyya1089–1164AbrahamibnEzrad.1138IbnBajja(Avempace)1147–1149SecondCrusade1148AlmohadsconquerCordova1110–1180AbrahamibnDaud(TheExaltedFaith)d.1185IbnTufaylc.1120–1190JudahibnTibbon(translatorofSaadya’sBookofDoctrinesandBeliefs,Bahya’sDutiesoftheHeart,andHalevi’sKuzarifromArabicintoHebrew)1126–1198IbnRushd(Averroes)1135/8–1204Maimonides(Rambam)(TheGuideofthePerplexed)1189–1192ThirdCrusade1186–1237AbrahamibnMaimonides(sonofRambam)c.1160–1230SamuelibnTibbon(translatorofMaimonides’GuidefromJudeo-ArabicintoHebrewin1204)c.1160–1235DavidKimhi(Radak)1194–1270Nahmanides(Ramban)1232Maimonides’GuideandBookofKnowledgefromhisMishnehTorah(seeGlossary)arecondemnedbytherabbisofNorthernFranceandburnedbytheDominicans1240DisputationofParis1242TalmudburnedbyChurchauthoritiesinParisfl.1230JacobAnatolifl.1250MosesibnTibbon1263DisputationofBarcelona1221–1274Bonaventurec.1214–1292RogerBacon1224/5–1274ThomasAquinasc.1240–1284SigerofBrabant1277Condemnationof219philosophicalpropositionsbyBishopStephenTempierinParisc.1225–1295ShemTovibnFalaquerafl.1250IsaacAlbalag1240–c.1291AbrahamAbulafia\nChronologyxixc.1240–1305MosesdeLeon(Zohar[seeGlossary])1235–1310SolomonibnAdret(Rashba)fl.1300AbbaMariofMontpellier1249–1316MenahemMeiri1305Greco-ArabicworksofphysicsandmetaphysicscondemnedbyRashbainBarcelona1265–1308DunsScotus1265–1321DanteAlighierifl.1275HillelofVeronac.1280–1325JudahRomanoc.1270–1340YedayahBedersiha-Peninic.1275–1342MarsiliusofPaduac.1280–1349WilliamofOckhamc.1270–1340AbnerofBurgosfl.1300IsaacPollegar1279–1340JosephibnKaspi1288–1344Gersonides(Ralbag)(TheWarsoftheLord)d.c.1362MosesNarboni1332–1406IbnKhaldunc.1310–1375NissimGerondi(Ran)c.1320–1382NicholasOresme1391Anti-JewishriotsandmassacresinCastileandAragonc.1340–1410/11HasdaiCrescas(LightoftheLord)1413–1414DisputationofTortosa1361–1444SimeonbenZemahDurand.1444JosephAlbo(BookofPrinciples)1401–1464NicholasofCusa1400–1460JosephbenShemTovibnShemTovd.c.1489AbrahamBibago(TheWayofBelief)c.1420–1494IsaacAramad.1492AbrahamShalom1437–1509IsaacAbravanel(PrinciplesofFaith)1492ExpulsionoftheJewsfromSpain1497ExpulsionofJewsfromPortugal1433–1499MarsilioFicino1434–1504YohananAlemannoc.1460–1493ElijahdelMedigo(TheExaminationofReligion)1462–1525PietroPomponazzi\nxxChronology1463–1494PicodellaMirandola1469–1527Machiavellic.1460–1530DavidbenJudahMesserLeonc.1460–1523JudahAbravanel(LeoneEbreo)(DialoguesofLove)1466–1536Erasmus1483–1546MartinLuther1488–1575JosephKaro(ShulhanArukh[seeGlossary])1522–1570MosesCordovero1534–1572IsaacLuriac.1530–1593JudahMoscato1548–1600GiordanoBruno1561–1626FrancisBacon1564–1642Galileo1591–1655JosephdelMedigo(Yashar)1588–1679Hobbes1596–1650Descartes1626–1676ShabbetaiZevi1632–1677Spinoza(TractatusTheologico-Politicus)\nnoteontransliterationWehavenotsoughttoimposeacommonsystemoftransliterationonthewholetext,buthaveusedthoseversionsoftermsandnameswhicharemostgenerallyrecognizable.Wehaveomittedallmacronsanddiacritics.Ingeneral,forArabicwehavedistinguishedbetweenayn()andhamza(
).LikewiseforHebrew,wehavedistinguishedbetweenayin()andaleph(
).xxi\nglossaryofsomesignificanttermsandtextsinjewishcultureAggadahRabbiniccollectionofnarrativesstemmingfromtheSecondTempleperiodtoc.500ce,notlegallybindingbutstillsignificantinissuesofinterpretation.AqedahThebindingofIsaac,preparatorytohissacrifice.AshariyyaIslamictheologicalschool,emphasizingtheoverwhelmingpowerofGodandthesubjectivityofethics.DevequtCleavingtoGod,particularlydiscussedinthekabbalistictradition,andresultingfromprayerandmeditation.DhikrSuficonceptofremembrance,ofteninstilledviamysticalpracticesandexercises.Falsafa/falasifaPeripateticphilosophyintheIslamicworld.Gaon(pl.geonim)HeadoftheBabylonianacademies,whichprevailedbetweenthesixthandeleventhcenturiesceinIraq,andwhowerethemostsignificantreligiousauthoritiesintheexilecommunity.HalakhahRabbiniclaw,asdistinctfromAggadah,coveringallaspectsofJewishlife,religiousandcivil,publicandpersonal.Judeo-ArabicArabicwritteninHebrewcharacters,themethodofwritingofmanyJewsintheIslamicworld.xxii\nGlossaryxxiiiKabbalahSeriesofmysticaltextsandtheschoolassociatedwithit.Typicallytheapproachistoseektheesotericmeaningofbiblicaltexts.KalamLiterally“speech”inArabic,becamesynonymouswiththeology.KaraitesSchoolofinterpretationstartingintheeighthcenturyceandarguinginfavorofthewrittenasopposedtotheorallaw.MidrashInterpretationofbiblicalandlegaltexts,oftenwithanemphasisonethicalideas.MishnahCompilationoforallawstemmingfromsecondcenturyceandattributedtoJudahha-Nasi.MishnehTorahMaimonides’codificationofJewishlaw.Mutakallimun,Theologians.seekalamMutazilaIslamicschooloftheology,emphasizingtheobjectivityofethicsandtheubiquityofjustice.RabbanitesThosewhoaccepttheauthorityoftheorallaw,inoppositiontotheKaraites.Seferha-BahirKabbalisticworkdescribingtheorganizationofthesefirot(celestialspheres),probablywritteninthelatetwelfthcenturyce.SeferYetzirahBookofCreation,animportantandveryearlymysticaltext,commentedonbySaadya,amongstothers.ShekhinahGod’spresenceintheworld.ShulhanArukhAuthoritativeJewishlegalcode,compiledbyJosephKaroandfirstprintedinVenicein1565.Sifra(pl.sifrei)AramaicmidrashonpartsoftheFiveBooksofMoses(Torah).SufismIslamicformofmysticism,emphasizingthesignificanceofreligiousexperience.TalmudExtensivediscussionoftheMishnah,andaprimesourceofideasandconceptsin\nxxivGlossaryJudaism.ThereisasmallerPalestinianandalargerBabylonianversion.TargumTranslationoftheBibleintoAramaic.(pl.Targumim)ZoharKabbalisticwork,literally“Splendor,”commentingontheBibleesoterically,probablycomposedinthe1280sbyMosesdeLeonofCastile.\noliverleaman1IntroductiontothestudyofmedievalJewishphilosophyPhilosopherssometimesarguethatthereareparticularexpressionsthataresofrequentlyfoughtoverthattheyarebestcharacterizedas“essentiallycontestedconcepts.”TheconceptofJewishphilosophyisjustsuchaconcept.Therehasalwaysbeenalotofcontroversyaboutwhatitis,andwhetheritisanythingatall.Thisisnotaprob-lemforJewishphilosophyalone,ofcourse,butaffectsallphiloso-phiesthataredescribedinreligiousandethnicterms,andfamiliarissuesofdefinitionthenenterthediscussion.IsJewishphilosophyphilosophybyJews?Thatisnotsuchasimplequestioneither,sincethewholeissueofwhoisaJewiscomplex,andalthoughatthetimeoftheThirdReichtheNazisthoughttheyhadaneatdefinitionoftheJewishrace,wewouldprobablyhesitatetocallCatholicpriestsJewishthinkersmerelyonthebasisofthefactthattheyhadoneJewishgrandparent.Ontheotherhand,itwouldbewrongtodefineasaJewishphilosopheronlythoseJewswhohadacommitmenttoJudaismitself,sinceweknowthatmanypeoplefeelthemselvestobeJewishandareethnicallyJewishwithoutsharinganyreligiousbeliefsatallwiththeirmoreobservantcoreligionists.YettheymayhaveinterestingviewsonreligionandphilosophyanditseemswrongtodisqualifytheirworkaspotentiallybeingJewishphilosophy.Ontheotherhand,perfectlyobservantJewsmaywriteontopicsinphilos-ophythathavenothingtodowithJudaism,anditwouldbestrangetoclassifywhattheydoasJewishphilosophy.WeseemtobegettingbacktotheideaofJewishscience,adoctrinepopularwithracistsbutwithoutmuchtobesaidforitotherwise.ThereisalsoagooddealofJewishthoughtthatisclosetophilosophy(theology,law,dis-cussionsofritual)whichisnotphilosophy,althoughitiscapableofphilosophicalinterest.Onewouldnotwanttodrawtheboundaries3CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n4MedievalJewishphilosophyofJewishphilosophytoorestrictively,yetawidedefinitionthatal-lowedinallsortsoflinkedbutdistinctdisciplinesisnotlikelytobeproductive.Infact,whenwelookatthedifferenttraditionsofphilosophi-calactivitythathavebeencalledJewishphilosophy,weseemuchdebateoverthenatureofJewishphilosophy,butnotmuchdisagree-mentaboutwhotheJewishphilosopherswere.ThemaincharactersformadistinctgrouprangingfromPhilorightuptocontemporaryfiguressuchasLevinas.WhatmakesthemallJewishphilosophers?Oneexplanationisthenatureoftheissuestheyconsidered,issuesthatarebothphilosophicalandthattreatseriouslytheviewoftheworldthatcanbeextractedfromtheJewishtexts.(Actually,onsuchanaccountwecanjustifycallingtheearlyworkofLevinasphilos-ophy,andhislaterworkJewishphilosophy.)Thisisreasonableasastartingposition,andavoidsthesuggestionthatJewishphilosophyhastoacceptwhatmightbetakentobetheprinciplesofJudaismitself.Whatiswrongwiththispresupposition?Thereareatleasttwoproblemswithit.Oneistheissueastowhetherthereareprinci-plesofJudaismatall,somethingthathasbeenverycontroversialinJewishhistory.Somethinkersdoargueforasetofbasicprinci-ples,althoughthereisthenmuchdiscussionaboutwhatthissetactuallycontains,butothersarguethatthereisnosuchsetatall,thatJudaismisquiteopenwhenitcomestobasicprinciples.Thisisnotthemoreimportantproblem,though.Thatisthedifficultyofcombiningtheuniversalityofphilosophywiththeparticularityofareligiousfaith.Ifitisthecasethataphilosopherwasrestrictedinherworkduetotheimpositionofareligiousstraitjacket,asitwere,thenweshouldhardlycallwhatshedidphilosophy.Muchoftheschol-arshipthathastakenplaceinthefieldsuggeststhatthisisinfacttheprecisemodelweshouldacceptofJewishphilosophy.Individualthinkersarecommittedbothtogeneralphilosophicalprinciplesofonekindoranother(dependingonwheretheylive,whatisinfash-ionatthetime)andalsotoJudaism,andthentheyhavetoreconcilewhatmightseemtobeinconsistenciesbetweenthesetwosortsofcommitment.Themedievalperiodisoneinwhichthedebatebetweenphilos-ophyandreligionisregardedashavingdominatedtheculturalat-mosphereofthetimes.ThemainarenaofintellectuallifewastheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nIntroduction5Iberianpeninsula,andespeciallyal-Andalus,theIslamicterritoriesonthepeninsula,withitslargeandwell-integratedJewishcom-munity.ThisisoftenreferredtoasaGoldenPeriodinwhichthethreereligionsofChristianity,Islam,andJudaismflourishedandregardedeachotherwithmutualtoleration,butthisisawideexag-gerationofthereality.InfacttheMiddleAgesintheIberianpenin-sulaweremarkedbyconstantstrifeandinterreligiousconflict,withoccasionalperiodsofrelativepeace,andintellectuallifewasdiffi-cultevenwithineachreligiouscommunity,letalonebetweenthedifferentcommunities.Forexample,oneofthemainproblemsforJewswastheinternecineconflictswithintheIslamicworld,andthechangesofregimeinal-Andalushadanimpactonthelivesoftheothercommunities,eventhekitabi(monotheistic)ones.Thecon-flictbetweentheChristiansandtheMuslimsledtotheJewssome-timesbeingcourtedasusefulallies,butsometimesbeingpersecutedbybothsidesasdubiouselementsinthestate.OnealsoassumesthatthenasnowlargenumbersofJewswereconvertedtootherreli-gions,andassimilatedthoroughlyintothelargerandmorepowerfulcommunitiesthatsurroundedthem,andinfactitisthedebatebe-tweenthereligionsthatwasmuchmoreimportantforJewsinthemedievalperiodratherthanthedebatewithinJewishphilosophy.Afterall,Jewishphilosophywasonlyavailabletoarelativelysmallpartofthecommunity,thosewhowerebothsufficientlyeducatedtoparticipateinintellectualdebatesandwhowereinterestedintheparticularsortofissuesthatariseinphilosophyascomparedwiththeothertheoreticalpursuitsofJews,suchastheBible,Talmud,andsoon.Ontheotherhand,fromthefactthatsomanytransla-tionsweremadeintoHebrewfromArabicandJudeo-Arabicduringthemedievalperiod,andwellafterintotheRenaissance,wehavetoconcludethattherewasafairlywideinterestinphilosophywithinaJewishcontext,andmanyindividualswithinthewiderJewishcom-munitymusthavefelttheneedtobeawareofthesortsofdebatesthatwentoninthephilosophicalworld.OnedangerweshouldnotfallintoisthatoftreatingmedievalJewishphilosophyasthoughitwasregardedatthetimeasjustlikeasubdivisionofphilosophyitself.Itwasnot,becauseatthetimetheconceptofphilosophyasadiscreteacademicdisciplinedidnotexist.InArabicthewordhikmawasusedfarmoreforphilosophythanthespecifictermfalsafa,andsimilarlyinJewishphilosophyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n6MedievalJewishphilosophythesubjectwasmoreidentifiedwith“wisdom”initswidestsensethanwithsomethingmorespecialized.Whiletheeducatedindivid-ualmighthavewishedtoknowsomethingaboutphilosophy,hewouldalsohavewantedtoknowaboutscience(thefirstbookofAristotletobetranslatedintoHebrewishisMeteorology)andaboutarangeofotherseculartypesofknowledge.Hewouldhavebeeninterestedinideas,thesortofideashedidnotfindexplicitlymen-tionedinJewishworksliketheBibleandTalmud,andhewouldhavewishedtoshowhissophisticationbydisplayingthisinterestandadegreeofcompetenceatoperatingwiththeseideas.ItiswithinthisculturalcontextthatJewishphilosophyfeaturesinthemedievalperiod.WhatarethechiefcontributionsofmedievalJewishphilosophytophilosophyitself?Historicallytherearetwoimportantcontribu-tionsthatshouldbementionedhere.OneisthatJewishphilosophyplayedtheroleofintermediarybetweenIslamicphilosophy,andtheGreekphilosophyitincorporated,andtheChristianworld.TheJewsweretheintellectualintermediaries,andoftenthetranslators,whomadetheculturaltransmissionthatplayedsuchanimportantroleinthecreationoftheRenaissanceandeventuallytheEnlightenmentpossible.Ethnicgroupsthatareinternationaloftenplaythisrole,sincetheyhavethelinguisticskillsandthetransnationallinksthatmakeitfeasible.Theothercontributionisnottophilosophyasawhole,buttoJewishthought.DuetotheinfluenceofMaimonides(d.1204)phi-losophyreallydidentertheJewishintellectualworldinafirmman-ner,andalthoughmanyJewsdeterminedlyturnedtheirbackonthiscuckoointhenest,thestatusofMaimonidesasalegalthinkerimportedphilosophicalideasintoJudaism,albeitrathersurrepti-tiously,throughtheformofhislegalideas.AndalthoughtheJewishcommunitythroughouttheworldhasneverbeenlarge,ithashadalargeeffectonthedevelopmentofcultureingeneral,throughtheoverrepresentation(inrelationtoabsolutepopulationnumbers)ofJewsinpublicandintellectuallife,somedievalJewishphilosophyhasbeensignificantinthehistoryofideas.FromaphilosophicalpointofviewmedievalJewishphilosophyisbasedontwomainprinciples.Neitherprincipleisoriginaltoit,butbecamedefinitive.ThefirstprincipleisthatoneshouldpayalotofattentiontothedifferentwaysofspeakingandofexpressingCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nIntroduction7truth.Thatis,therulesoftheologyaredifferentfromtherulesofpoliticalspeech,andtherulesofprophecyaredifferentfromtherulesofphilosophy.Theimplicationofthisthesisisthattheideaoftruthisfarmorecomplexthanmightappearsuperficially.ThisisnotanoriginaldiscoveryofJewishphilosophybutcomesfromal-Farabi,andhedevelopedthisthesisafterthinkingaboutAristotle.YetitisanideathatwasturnedintoamajorthemebyMaimonidesandbymanyotherJewishthinkers.TheothermainpointsharedbymostmedievalJewishphiloso-phersistheissueoftheologicalrealism,anissuetheyfelthadtobeaddressed,andinthecaseofMaimonidesquitedecisivelyso.Maimonidesarguedagainstrealism,interpreting(somewouldsayreinterpreting)Scripturesothatitwouldfitinwithhisnaturalis-ticunderstandingofthecharacteroftheuniverseanditscreator.ItisoftensaidthatweshoulddistinguishbetweenMaimonidesthephilosopherandMaimonidestheJewishthinker,butnothingcouldbefurtherfromthetruth.Hisphilosophicalattentionisdirectedal-mostexclusivelyonthetextsofJudaism,andhisreligiousworksarerepletewithhisphilosophicalviews.ThechallengeofmedievalJewishphilosophyiswhetherarolecanbefoundforGodthatmakesarealdifferenceorwhetherthename“God”ismerelyawayofre-ferringtoarangeofnaturaleventsandtheirorganizationthathasnoplacefortheautonomyofaparticularindividual.Linkedtothisissue,andoftenlessdirectlyaddressed,isthesig-nificanceofbeingamemberofaparticularreligion,inthiscasetheJewishreligion.DoesbeingJewishmakearealdifference,orisitasChristiansandMuslimsclaimstubbornlyresistinglaterrevelationsthatincorporateJudaismandmakeJudaismredundant?Thisisare-latedtopicsinceitmightbearguedthatiftherewerenorealdiffer-encebetweentheJewishunderstandingofthefactsthatunderliere-alityandtheinterpretationofotherfaiths,sincerealismintheologyisruledout,thenthepointofadheringtoaparticularfaithisdifficulttograsp.Afterall,itisnotasthoughthatfaithrepresentsthefactsaccurately,ascomparedwithothercompetingfaiths.Onthecon-trary,wearetoldthatthefactsthemselvesarenotimportant,whatisimportantiswhatismadeofthem.Thiswastakenupenthusiasti-callybyMaimonides’opponents,whosuggestedthat,ifMaimonideswererightinhisinterpretationoftheBible,thenonemightaswellchangefrombeingJewishwhenthisbecameinconvenient.Afterall,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n8MedievalJewishphilosophybeingJewishisjustseeingtheworldfromaparticularpointofview,andifthatpointofviewisnotsolidlybasedonfact,moresolidlybasedthanotherpointsofview,thenonemightaswellabandonJudaismifbeingJewishisnolongerpropitious.Asweknow,manyJewsthenandindeedtodayfollowthelogicofthistoabandontheirreligion,althoughtheyfinditmuchhardertochangetheirethnicity.ThisargumentforconversioniscertainlynotoneMaimonideshim-selfadopted;onthecontraryhearguedforthepreservationofone’sfaithregardlessofthepoliticalandpersonalconsequences.Butitisanimplicationofmuchofhismetaphysicalsystemthatthisisattheveryleastaquestionthatdemandstobeasked.WhatdistinguishesbeingJewishfromadheringtoadifferentreligionisthecharacterofJudaism,itsmanyexcellences,anditsimportantroleinthehistoryoftheworld,butnotforMaimonidesaparticularlycloseconnectionwiththetruth.Thisrathersubtleargumentforafaith,basedonitsinternalratherthanexternalfeatures,didnotfinduniversalfavorintheJewishintellectualcommunity,butagainitsetanagenda,andthequestionofthegroundsoffaithhadtobediscussedanddefendedinonewayoranother.PerhapsamoreminoroffshootofthisthemewasthediscussionastowhetherthereareprinciplesofJudaism,somethingthatcametobeenergeticallyarguedsincetheMiddleAges.Givenhisorien-tationtowardsthecoherenceofJudaismitishardlysurprisingthatMaimonidesstressedthesignificanceofwhathetooktobethecen-tralprinciplesofthefaith(andindeedthesehaveenteredtheliturgyofthesynagoguethroughthehymn“Yigdalelohimhai”).Althoughthisissueiscertainlymentionedinearlierrabbinicliterature,itwaspossiblythefreneticmarketplaceinconversionsthatledtotheneedtodefinethebasesofJudaism,sothatpotentialwavererswouldknowwhattheprinciplesoftheirfaithwereandthushowtheycoulddefendthefaithmoreefficiently.Thisbringsoutafeatureofphilosophyofwhichweshouldre-mainconstantlyaware,andthatishowdifferentitspursuitwasintheMiddleAgesthanisthecasetoday.Philosophywasnotanaca-demicdisciplinealongsideotherdisciplinestobechosenornotbyavarietyofstudents.Itwasasetofdoctrines,andmostimportantlytechniques,thatwereintimatelytiedinwithnaturalscience,theol-ogy,law,medicine,andintellectuallifeingeneral.Thinkerscouldrejectphilosophy,buttorejectittheyhadtouseittoshowwhyitCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nIntroduction9shouldbesetaside,somethingwithwhichwearefamiliarinIslamicphilosophyinthecasesofal-GhazaliandIbnTaymiyya.PhilosophywaspartandparceloftheincreasinglydesperateattemptsofIslamandChristianitytooverwhelmandincorporatetheJewishremnantintotheirranks,andbecameapartoftheresistancealso.Afterall,philosophyrepresentsatitspuresttherulesofargument,andthesewerevitalintheconversionprocess.(Onemightbecynicalandsug-gestthatmostconversionshadnothingtodowithargument,butwereeitherduetocompulsionortotheperceivedself-interestofthetargetgroupitself.Ontheotherhand,fromhistoricalreportsitseemsthatgreatattentionwaspaidtoproducingstrongargumentsforonefaithandagainstothers,soonemustassumethatargumentplayedmorethanjustacosmeticpartintheprocess.)Argumentremainssignificantforanyindividualwhoisawareofavarietyofpossibleinterpretationsofthefactsandthetextsthatrepresentthosefacts,andtheincreasingsophisticationoftheJewishcommunityledtoitsinevitableinvolvementinthestudyoftheprinciplesofinterpreta-tionthemselves.Thereisalotofevidencethat,evenintherabbinicliteratureoftheTalmudandMishnah,Greekphilosophyplaysarole.ItishardlysurprisingintheMiddleAges,whenphilosophycametotakeonsuchalargeroleinintellectuallifeasawhole,thatGreek-inspiredthoughtshouldcometohaveanimportantplaceagainintheJewishcommunity.Letusnowconsidersomeofthestrategiesthatwereemployedindealingwiththesekeyissues,andtheimplicationsofthosestrategies.thesignificanceoftechniqueWhenphilosophyfirstenteredtheIslamicworldintheninthcen-tury,adebatearoseabouttherespectivemeritsofGreek-inspiredthoughtversusthelocalArabicdisciplinesofgrammar,law,theol-ogy,andtheotherIslamicsciences.ThisdebatewouldhavebeenfamiliartoPlato,whosawhimselfaspartofastruggleagainstthesophistsintheGreekworld.Thesophistsalsothoughtthattheyhadavailabletothemselvesarangeoftechniquesthatwereappro-priateforsettlinganytheoreticalandindeedpracticalissuesthatmightarise.Andtheadvantageofthesetechniques,ofcourse,isthattheywerelocal,theywerepartandparcelofthelocalcultureCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n10MedievalJewishphilosophyandsoembodiedtheviewofthatcultureonanyproblemsthatarose.Now,thereisagreattemptationwithinanyculturetocometosuchaview,andthetemptationcertainlyarosewithinJewishculture,whichalsohadanextensiveandrichtraditionofreligioussciencesandtechniquestoresolveanyandeveryproblemasitarose.Infact,whenonelooksattheTalmudoneseesdiscussionsofproblemsthatreflectissuesofrelevancewhentheTemplewasoperating!Sotheideathatthelocaltheologicalsourcesofunderstandinghowtobe-haveandact,andgenerallyhowtounderstandtheworldaroundus,areinsufficientforthetasksathandseemedwrongtomanyJews,asithadtomanyMuslims,andnodoubttomanyGreeksalso.Tonaturalizephilosophyanumberofapproachesmaybeadopted.Oneistoclaimthatphilosophyisinfactthedescendantofreligion,andtherewerestoriestothateffect,althoughitisdifficulttoknowhowseriouslytheywereexpectedtobetaken.Themoreplausibleapproachistoshowhowvaluablephilosophyiswhenappliedtoreli-giousandotherissues,sincephilosophyiscapableofdistinguishingclearlybetweendifferentwaysoflookingatanissueandadjudicat-ingbetweenthoseways.Now,whenonelooksatreligioustextsthisisfarfromthecase.WhenonelooksattheTalmud,forinstance,itisoftenverydifficulttotellwhatviewistheviewoneshouldac-ceptorthathasthegreaterplausibility.ThatisoneofthedelightsofTalmud,thatonemayconstructawildlyunlikelyargumentoutofthesourcesavailableinthetext,andothersourcesonemayar-guearelinkedtothetext,andconstructathesisthatatthesametimelooksasthoughitshouldbeacceptedwhileobviouslybeingunacceptable.Itisjustthissortofapproachthatphilosophywillattack,sinceitwilllinktextstoeachothernotintermsofweakconnectorssuchasallusion,analogy,andpropinquitybetweenpas-sages,butbetweenthelogicalrelationshipsbetweenterms.Itwasthisconceptualstrengthofphilosophythatmadeitsosignificantinvariousculturesdespiteitsapparentforeignnessandthepotentialdangerofallowingrationalitytopeerintoareasthatmightbebet-terleftinthedark,intheviewofmany.LikePandora’sbox,oncetheideasareoutintheopen,itisdifficultifnotimpossibletoputthembackagain,andthishappenedwithphilosophy.Oncetheideasareout,theonlywayofgettingthembackistouseotherideastocarryouttheoperation,whichdefeatsthewholepurposeoftheexercise.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nIntroduction11Therealizationthattherearemanydifferentkindsofwriting,andsodifferenttechniquesneedtobeappliedtoassessthem,isofmajorimportance.Itimpliesthatthereisarangeofwaysofexpressingthetruth,andthatitisonlyifoneunderstandstherangethatonewillgraspthenatureofthedifferentformsofexpression.ThispointwasemphasizedbyAristotle,andtakenupwithalacrityinIslamicphilosophybyal-Farabi,whoseworksweremuchadmiredbyJewishphilosophers,andespeciallybyMaimonides.WhenthelattergoesthroughthetermsintheTorahthathefindsproblematicandthenanalyzestheminaccordancewithhistheoryofnaturalism,hehastoexplainwhytheTorahuseswordsthatimplythatGodisapersonandthatheisliterallyanagent.Hesuggeststhatthesedifferentformsofexpressionaretheretorepresenttruthsvividlytoanaudiencethatonthewholeisnotabletorecognizethosetruthsunlesstheyarerepresentedimaginativelyandfiguratively.Thereisnothingwrongwithpresentingthetruthsinthisway;onthecontrary,thisistherightwaytopresentthemtoageneralaudience.Itfollowsthatthelanguageintheprayerbook,andbycommentatorsintherabbinicliterature,replicatesthissortoflanguage,althoughoftenwithgreatersophistication,andthemoreonestudiesitthemoreoneappreciatesthevarietyonefindswithinit.Thisenablestheintelligentreadertoaskquestionsaboutwhatisnotsaidaswellasaboutwhatissaid.Forexample,MaimonidesthinksitissignificantthatinthebookofJob,Jobhimselfisnevercalled“wise,”whichMaimonidesarguesisasignaltoreadersthatheisnottakentobewise,andsohisearlycomplaintsaretobeseenasareflectionofhislackofwisdom.Thequestionthenarises:IfJobistobeseenasnotwise,whydidnotthetextmakethisclear?Perhapsbecausehiswordsarenottobeseenassoobviouslyfoolishthattheyarenotworthconsidering.Indeed,theyareworththinkingaboutlikeeverythingelseintheBible,butthemorealertreaderwillunderstandthattheintelligenceofJob’scritiqueofdivinejusticemaskstheunderlyingshallownessofhispresupposition,thatGod’sjusticemustreplicateournotionofjustice.Thisapproachtothetext,whateveronethinksaboutitscredibilityinthisparticularinstance,hasradicalimplicationsforhowtolookattextsasawhole.ItwasnotpresentinanydefinitewaybeforeMaimonides,butitbecameafirmpartoftheagendaofJewishphilosophyeversincehisworksbecamewellknownandinfluential.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n12MedievalJewishphilosophythescopeoftheologicalrealismMaimonidesalsoplayedadecisiveroleinplacingthetopicoftheo-logicalrealismfirmlyonthephilosophicalandrabbinicagenda.ThisisbecausehewasthefirstJewishphilosophertograspcompletelytheimplicationofphilosophyaspartofanunderstandingofreli-gion.Theideathatreligionistruebecauseitrepresentsthetruthisnotacceptableinthatformonceitisanalyzedphilosophically,althoughofcourseitmaybeacceptedonceitisexaminedbytheappropriatephilosophicalconceptualmachinery.Thepointisthattheappropriateunderstandingofsuchclaimsisnotonethatcanbeignoredorregardedasunproblematic,butasonethatmustbein-vestigatedandresolvedinsomeway.YettheTorahitselfdoesnotdisplaymuchdoubtaboutthetruthoftheclaimofrealism.Onthecontrary,itconstantlyreiteratestheliteraltruthofwhatitdescribes.Itisfirstofalltherabbiniccommentariesandthenthephilosopherswhostarttoinvestigatewhattheseclaimsactuallymean,whopointtoapparentinconsistenciesandwhoaskforexplanationsofthepre-ciseformulationofthereligioustexts.Thisisobviouslylinkedtothefirstitemonthephilosophicalagenda,thediscussionofdiffer-entkindsofliteraryexpressionintheTorah,buttherealismissuewasmuchdiscussedevenbeforeMaimonidestooksuchcontrolofthediscipline.OnetendstolinktheissuewithhimbecauseitwasonlyhisGuideandotherrelatedworksthatprovidedJewishphilos-ophywiththetechnicalresourcestodealwiththeissueinadecisivesortofway.Maimonidesdidsetoffthedebateinanewandfarmorenuancedmanner,andithasremainedeversincefirmlypartoftheJewishintellectualcurriculum.(Onemightevensaythatitisnotmerechancethatsuchalargeproportionoftheprotagonistsofpost-modernismanddeconstructionismareJewish!)the“whybejewish?”debateThiswastheissuethatreallyresonatedwiththelivesofallJewsdur-ingtheMiddleAges.Theywereundersustainedpressuretoconvert,bybothMuslimsandChristians,andeveninSpainthiswashardlyaGoldenAge.EvenafterconversiontheirloyaltytotheirnewfaithremainedsuspectforsometimeinChristianEurope.MostJewsprob-ablymadetheirdecisiononwhattodoonpurelyprudentialreasonsCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nIntroduction13(iftheyconverted)orinordertoremainwithinthefaithwithwhichtheywerefamiliar(iftheydidnot).Argumentplayedlittlepartinthedecision,butargumentwasundoubtedlyimportantfortheintellectualeliteinthecommunitywhoweretroublednotonlybythestrengthofcompetingfaiths,butalsobytheapparentconcep-tualdifficultiesoftraditionalreligionwhenitcomesintoapparentconflictwithmodernity,withscience,andphilosophy.(ThiswasapressurethatofcoursewasalsofeltbyChristiansandMuslims,butinmostcaseswithouttheadditionalpressuretoconvert.)TheattackonrealismbyMaimonidesmakestheconversionquestionhardertoresist,insomeways,giventhattheonlythingstobesaidinfavorofonereligionareinternalfeatures,whichmightbethoughttobearatherunrobustresponsetotheenemiesofone’sfaith.hownottoargueforthedistinctivenessofmedievaljewishphilosophyAgoodexampleofthesortofargumentinsupportofthedistinc-tivenessofmedievalJewishphilosophyisthediscussionofthepop-ularityinJewishphilosophyofPlato’sRepublic,ascomparedwithAristotle’sPolitics.Despitethe(late)encroachmentofScholasticphilosophyintotheJewishworld,thereseemstohavebeenlittleenthusiasmforworksonpoliticalphilosophythatmadeasharpde-marcationbetweenthetheologicalandthepolitical,ascharacterizedintheChristiantraditionbytheenthusiasmforAristotle’sPoliticsandbyworkssuchasDante’sOnMonarchy,Hobbes’Leviathan,andMachiavelli’sPrince.ItissometimesarguedthatthedifferencebetweenChristianity,ontheonehand,andJudaismandIslamontheother,isthattheformermadeaseparationbetweenlawandreligion,betweenthestateandGod,whiletheotherreligionsdidnot.However,Christianityalsoseesthestateasanappropriatesiteforreligiousinfluence,andinthatsenseisnotlessholisticthanJudaismandIslam.Itiscertainlytrue,though,thattheconceptofpoliticalrevelation,soimportantinthelatterpair,islargelyabsentinChristianity,whichaccordinglydevelopedarathersecularnotionofthestate.Christianthinkerswentontopresentaccountsofthestatethatarediscussionsanddescriptionsofactualstatesdivorcedfromanyparticulartheologicalbackground,whileJudaismandIslamsawpoliticalphilosophyasverymuchpartofjurisprudence,aspartandCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n14MedievalJewishphilosophyparceloftheexplanationofwhyandhowreligiouslawstructurestheeverydaylivesofitsparticipants.OneeffectofthisdistinctionisthattheChristianworldgotonverywellwithouttheRepublicuntiltheearlyRenaissance,whiletheJewishandIslamicworldignoredAristotle’sPolitics.Bycontrast,theNicomacheanEthicsfoundareadyhomeintheJewishandIslamicworld,whichoftensawitasthepreludetotheRepublic,standinginasitdidforthemissingPolitics.Christianity,itisargued,sawthetemporalstateasmerelyapreludetothenextlife,andsothearrangementsinthisworldareofnogreatsalvificsignificance.ForJudaismandIslam,though,theactualstateisthesiteofGod’sinfluenceintheworld,anditisincumbentonthebelievertoworkwithinthatstateandtrytobringitclosetodivinelaw.Astherearenopriestsin(post-Temple)Judaismtoembodyspiritualpurity,suchpuritybecomespartofthecommunityandpartofthetaskofthecommunity.Inthiswaypo-liticalandreligiouslifeformaseamlessweb,andthereisnothinginprincipletopreventthespiritualleaderfrombeingthepoliticalleader,andinfactitishighlydesirablethatheis!TheemphasisonpracticeinJudaismmeantthatGodcouldnotbeworshipedmerelyasanideaorconceptabstractedfromeverydaylife.Therehastobesomeroutetounderstandinghimifwearetoimitatehim,andthatroutecomesthroughpoliticallife.OneimpactoftheRepublicinearlyJewishphilosophycouldbetheconstructionofthepersonaofthe“king”asboththeintellectualandpoliticalheadofthestate,aconceptwefindinbothSaadyaGaon(d.942)andHalevi(d.1141).ThelatterarguesthatsuchakingwouldchooseJudaismasthebestreligionsinceitcombinesmostaccept-ablythetheoreticalandthepolitical,andcontrastsmarkedlywithotherreligionssuchasChristianitythatonlyaddressthemselvestoalimitedpartofourlivesashumanbeings.ThisisverymuchtakenupbyMaimonideshimselfwhocomparednomos(custom)andSharia/Torah(religiouslaw)byclaimingthattheformerisdi-rectedexclusivelytoourphysicalbeing,whilethelatterisdirectedbothatthisandatourspiritualbeing.Onemightcontrastthiswiththeoriesthatwouldregardthespiritualastheonlyimportantpartofus.Oneofthereasonswhythislawcandobothisbecauseofthewayithasbeendevised,namely,toappealbothtooureverydayinterestsandtoguideandextendthemuntilwearewellontheroutetoself-perfection.Therulerhasavitalroleaseducatorhere,somethingthatCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nIntroduction15ofcourseispartoftheRepublic,andoneoftheleadingreasonsfortheruler’sabilitytomovepeopleemotionallyandphysicallyishiscapacitytounderstandhowtotalktothem,howtoinspirethem,andmakethemfeelthat,althoughtheyonlyunderstandpartofthewhole,thereisawholethattheiractionsareworkingtoestablishandthatisultimatelyintheirbestinterests,eventhoughtheymaynotunderstandwhyorhow.Yetweshouldobservethattheargu-mentsforJudaismhereaselsewherearenotbasedonitstruth,butonitsinternalcharacteristics,anditcouldbearguedthatthisori-entationofmedievalJewishphilosophycametocharacterizemuchJewishphilosophythatfollowed,andindeedhadawiderinfluenceinphilosophyandtheologyalso.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\ndavidshatz2ThebiblicalandrabbinicbackgroundtomedievalJewishphilosophy∗MedievalJewishphilosophyisinlargemeasureaninterpretationinphilosophicaltermsofbeliefs,concepts,andtextsbequeathedtomedievalJewsbytheBibleandbyrabbinicliterature.Thus,muchoftheagendaofmedievalJewishphilosophyissetbyideasfeaturedintheBible,Talmud,andmidrash:God,creation,prophecy,providence,miracles,commandments,andmore.Forthisreason,althoughthereisaneedheretopresentthebiblicalandrabbinicbackgroundtomedievalJewishphilosophy,thediscussionwilllargelybeanexpo-sitionofoneaspectofmedievalJewishphilosophyitself:namely,itsambitiontoprovideanexegesisofbiblicalandrabbinictexts,alongwithexplicationsoftheirconcepts,thatwoulddemonstratethevalueofphilosophyinearlierJudaismandwouldunearthrigor-ousphilosophicalpropositionscontainedintheancientworks.Examplesabound.SaadyaGaon(882–942),headoftheacademyinBabyloniaandthefatherofmedievalJewishphilosophy,andLevibenGershom(Gersonides)(1288–1344),aneminentphilosopher,logician,andscientist,authoredbiblicalcommentaries–Gersonides’coveraverysubstantialpartoftheBible–thatarecontrolledbyaviewofthebookasshotthroughwithphilosophicaltruthandasstandinginagreementwiththeconclusionsofhumanreason.WhilethelessillustriousrationalistJosephibnKaspi(1279–1340)authoredacommentaryontheBiblethatiscontrollednotbytheassumptionofanunderlyingphilosophicaltruth,butinsteadbyahistoricistview,heisanexceptionamongmedievalrationalists.1Exegesis,furthermore,isfoundnotonlyinformalcommentaries∗IthankDavidBerger,ShalomCarmy,andWarrenZevHarveyforcommentingonanearlierdraftofthischapter.16CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThebiblicalandrabbinicbackground17butalsoinworksthataimtodevelopphilosophicalpositions.MosesMaimonides(1138–1204),thegreatestofthemedievalJewishthinkers,describestheaimofhisGuideofthePerplexedastheinterpretationofproblematicbiblicaltermsandparables,andhesuppliesinthebook’sfirstpartaphilosophicallexiconofbiblicalterms.Healsoinformsusinthework’sintroductionthatheconsid-eredauthoringacommentaryonproblematicrabbinictexts.Like-wise,worksbytheNeoplatonistSolomonibnGabirol,AbrahamibnDaud,AbrahambarHiyya,BahyaibnPaquda,andJosephAlboweavetogetherexegesisandphilosophy;andcommentatorslikeDavidKimhi,MosesNahmanides,andIsaacAbravanelincorporateelementsofphilosophy(reflectinginparticularknowledgeoftheMaimonideanmatrix),evenwhilerefusingtoaccorditsupremacyasamethodforacquiringtrueknowledge.MedievalJewishphiloso-phersalsoadduceandinterpretasubstantialnumberofrabbinictexts.Inbrief,hadtherebeennoBibleandrabbinicliteraturetosupplycoreconceptsandtoserveasafocusforexegeticalactivity,medievalJewishphilosophywouldeithernothaveexistedatallorwouldhavebeendramaticallydifferentincharacterfromwhatitactuallywas.Notwithstandingthisdependency,afrequentlynotedfeatureofmedievalJewishphilosophyisitsprimafacielackofcontinuitywithbiblicalandrabbinicJudaism;itsclosestanalogues,itseems,areworksproducedbyJewsinHellenisticculturesofthefirstandsecondcenturies.Themedievalphilosophers,asmentioned,under-stoodboththeBibleandtherabbiniccorpusasarepositoryofphilo-sophicalandscientifictruths.ButthephilosophicalviewsadvocatedbythemedievalphilosophersenteredJudaismviacontactbetweenJewsandothercultures:fromtheearlytenththroughlatetwelfthcenturies,contactwithIslamiccivilizationinSpain;fromthelatetwelfththroughearlysixteenthcenturies,contactwithChristianculturebyJewsinChristianSpain,Provence,andItaly.Aftertheirex-tendedconquestsbeginningwiththeseventhcentury,theMuslimstranslatedworksofGreekphilosophy,composedcommentariesonthem,anddevelopedtheirownphilosophical-theologicalsystemswithcategoriesandprinciplesthatoriginatedwiththeGreeks.(SomeworksofPlotinusweremistakenlyattributedtoAristotle,leadingtoahybridknownasNeoplatonizedAristotelianism.)JewsfamiliarwithIslamicthoughtadmiredandappropriatedmanyoftheseCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n18MedievalJewishphilosophycategoriesandprinciples.Theresultantviews,however,donotseemtobecharacteristicofeitherbiblicalorrabbinicthought.Firstandforemostamongtheostensibledifferencesisthepresenceofanthropomorphicandanthropopathiclanguageinbiblicalandrab-binictexts.Thetextsascribebodilycharacteristics,emotions,andpersonalitytoGod;hehasphysicalform,affect,andpersonality.2YetphilosophersheldthatGodcannothaveabodyandthathavingemo-tionswouldbeinconsistentwithhischangelessandself-sufficientnature.Next,traditionalJudaismtaughtthattheworldwascreatedexnihilo;theGreeksdeniedthat:Aristotleheldtheworldwaseter-nal,Platothatitwasmadebythedemiurgefrompreexistentmatter.Again,intheBibleandrabbinicliteraturedivineinterventionintheworldisfrequent,butphilosophersbelievedinamostlyortotallynaturalisticsystem.ProphecyintheBiblewouldseemtobeadirectcommunicationfromGodtoahumanbeing;philosophersthoughtthatprophecyisanaturalresultofperfectingtheintellectandimag-ination.Thehumanidealinthetraditionaltextswouldseemtobealifeofrightaction,asinJeremiah9:22–23;forthephilosophers,thesummumbonumisintellectualcontemplationofscientificandmetaphysicaltruths,andJeremiah9:22–23isinvokedtosupportthisclaim.3RabbinicJudaismputsforthadoctrineofbodilyresurrection;philosophers,owingtotheirdevaluationofthebodyandtheirreluc-tancetopositmiracles,endorsetheimmortalityofthesoul,whileoftenremainingambiguousatbestaboutresurrectionofthebody.Thephilosopher’semphasisoncriticalrationalinquiry,finally,re-flectsamethodofacquiringtruththatisquitedifferentfromanappealtorevelationandauthority.Giventheseconflicts,medievalattemptsatharmonyseemstrained.Notwithstandingthisostensibleabsenceofcontinuity,medievalJewishphilosophersvigorouslyaffirmeditsexistence.Theyex-plainedthattheoriginalphilosophicalcontentofTorahwaslostthroughcenturiesofpersecution.Maimonidesmaintainsthatthetradition’shavingbeenpasseddownonlyorallymadeitvulnerabletosuchloss,andthisseemstopropelhimtowritethetruthdown–justastheTalmudrelatesthatRabbiJudahthePrince(in200ce)compiledthebodyofteachingknownastheMishnahbecauseinhistimetheorallegaltraditionwasindangerofbeingforgotten(Guide1:71,2:11).SomeJews,suchasShemTovibnFalaquera(BookofDegrees,introduction),wentsofarastosaythatthenon-JewishCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThebiblicalandrabbinicbackground19worldlearnedorevenstolephilosophyfromtheJews,necessitat-ingnowJewishrelianceuponnon-Jewishphilosophers.4Invokinganancienttraditionwasameansoflegitimatingphilosophicalstudy.EvenJudahHalevi(d.1141),whoseKuzariisanextendedpolemicagainstgroundingaJewishreligiousoutlookinGreekphilosophyratherthantradition,statesthattheGreeksreceivedphilosophyfromthePersians,whotookitfromtheChaldeans(Kuzari1:63).ViewingthemasauthenticcomponentsofJewishbelief,heendorsesnumerousoftheclaimsandassumptionsofthephilosophers’meta-physicalschemes.Inshort,themedievalJewishphilosopherspresentthemselvesaschampions,continuators,oronemightevensayres-urrectersofthetruebiblicalandrabbinictraditions.Suchclaimsofcontinuityhaveseemedimplausibletomodernscholars,somuchsothat,incontrasttomedievalinterpreters,someevendoubtMaimonides’sincerityinputtingthemforth.5ArguablythesemodernscholarshaveunderestimatedthedegreetowhichMaimonidesand,evenmoreevidently,SaadyaandGersonidespur-suedtheirprojectsoutofaconvictionofTorah’struth.Scholarshavenotdoubtedthesincerityofthelattertwo,whichimpliesthatitwaspossibleforaninterpreternottobeconsciousofagap.Medievalphilosopherscouldnothelpappreciatingthegeneralrich-nessofIslamicculture,andbecausetheyregardedthephilosophers’systemsastrue,theyunderstandablywantedtoseetheirreligionembracethesetruths.6ItispreciselytheirfidelitytothetruthofTorah,nottheirdisloyalty,thatpropelledthemedievals’project,inducingthemtointerpretTorahinawaythatwouldmakeitsclaimsalwaysemergeastrue,anextremeillustrationofwhatan-alyticphilosopherssuchasW.V.O.QuineandDonaldDavidsonto-daycallthePrincipleofInterpretiveCharity.7ModernwriterstendtoshareSpinoza’sviewintheTheologico-PoliticalTreatise(ch.2)thattheprophetswereneitherscientistsnorphilosophers,andtheyim-putethatviewanachronisticallytoSpinoza’spredecessors.Wecanappreciatethegapwhoseexistencepropelsthechargeofinsincer-ity,butultimatelytheassumptionsofearlierinterpreterscannotbejudgedbythepremisesofreadersamillenniumlater.Infact,oursisanagethatismoreconsciousandmoreapprovingthananyotheroftherolethatbackgroundbeliefsplayinthehermeneuticalenterprise,andtothatextentthecitedcriticismitselfisoutoftenorwithtoday’stimes.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n20MedievalJewishphilosophyPerhapsmorecritically,thenotionofsitreiTorah(hiddenaspectsofTorahthatshouldnotbepublicized)waspromulgatedbytherab-bisthemselves(MishnahHagigah2:1);andtheycommentonthevalueofriddlesandparables(forexample,“Greatisthepoweroftheprophetsbecausetheycompareacreatedthingtoitscreator,”i.e.theydescribeGodinanthropomorphicterms[GenesisRabbah26,citedbyMaimonides,Guide,1:46]).Finally,itshouldbenotedthataphilosophicallyladenreadingofatextmaywellhaveitsrootsinrabbinicmidrashim,andMaimonidesnotinfrequentlycitessuchasource.8InwhatfollowsIshallelaborateonthegeneralapproachtobiblicalandrabbinicliteratureonthepartofthemedievals,notesomeattitudestowardthecontinuityproblem,andgiveasampling,hopefullynotrandom,ofhowtheyinterpretedkeytextsofthetra-dition.DuetolimitationsofspaceIshalldealexclusivelywithme-dievalrationalism,leavingaside,saveforbriefreferences,exegeticalapproachesofNeoplatonistslikeGabirolaswellasofkabbalistslikeNahmanideswho,forexample,interpretthecreationnarrativeinGenesis1inaccordancewiththeirownmetaphysicalopinions.InsofarasMaimonidesbestridesthemedievalworldlikeacolossus,hisapproachtointerpretationistheonetowhichIwillrefermostoften.philosophicexegesisofthebibleThekeytothemedievalphilosophicalapproachtobiblicalandrab-binictextsisthenotionofatwo-layeredtext:oneouter,exoteric,gearedtothemultitude;theotherinner,hidden,esoteric,aimedatthephilosopher.Thetaskofthephilosophicalexegeteistopiercethroughtheexotericlayer,whosetruthiseitherunacceptableorinferior,andgetattherichesoterictruth.So,whileresistingtotalallegorizationofthestoriesandlawsintheBible,medievalJewishphilosophersunderstandthevisionofthewheels,angels,andchari-otsinEzekiel1and10topresentanAristotelian-cum-Neoplatoniccosmology.Similarly,MaimonidesandGersonidesfindthecharac-tersinJobtobeespousingpositionsheldbythegreatphilosophicalschoolslikethoseofEpicurusandAristotle.ThelovebetweenamanandawomandepictedinSongofSongs,construedbythesagesand,inmoresystematicfashion,RashiandIbnEzra,asamashal(parable)forthemutuallovebetweenGod(anthropopathicallydepicted)andCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThebiblicalandrabbinicbackground21Israel,becomesforMaimonidesamodelfortheindividual’sintel-lectualloveofGod(MishnehTorah,LawsofRepentance10:6),andforGersonidesadialoguebetweenthepassiveandactiveintellects.“GodcreatedmaninHisimage[tzelem]”(Genesis1:27)becomesawayofsayingthattheformoressenceofthehumanbeingis,likeGod’sessence,intellect;theelementsdescribedinGenesis1:2arenoneotherthanthefourelementsofGreekcosmology;KingSolomon’sproverbsaboutaseductressbecomeadepictionoftheharmmatterwreaksupontheintellect,whileProverbs31istakentoexpresshowrareitisforapersontofindthe“womanofvalor”–matterthatwillnotcorrupthim.Adam’ssinningatEve’ssuggestionrepresentsform’sbeingbroughtdownbytheseductiveattractionsofmatter;Jacob’sdreamofangelsascendinganddescendingaladderandGodspeakingtohimrepresentstheprophetsandtheseparateintellects(Guide1:15).GersonidesreadintotheAqedah(thebind-ingofIsaac,Genesis22)hiscontroversialdenialthatGodknowsfuturecontingents.FigureslikeAbrahamandMosesarerepresentedbymedievalphilosophicalexegetesasphilosopher-scientists.“YoushalllovetheLordyourGod”(Deuteronomy6:5)and“YoushouldknowthisdayandcommittoyourheartthattheLordisGod...”(Deuteronomy4:39)areconstruedascallstostudyphilosophyandscience.Thesimplicityoftheideaofatwo-layeredtextisseductiveandmaskssignificantambiguities.Doestheexotericlayerhavevalue,andifso,inwhatdoesthatvalueconsist?Whydoestheexotericlayerexistatall?Ourformulationalsoconcealsthefactthatalmostsidebysidewiththenotionofatwo-layeredtextwefindthethesisthatinsomecasesthereisbutonelayer,whoseonlytruemeaninginthecontextisphilosophical.Iproceedtoelaborateontheseissues,beginningwiththequestionofwhytheexotericlayerexistsatall–whytheBibledoesnotstatephilosophictruthdirectlyandexplicitly.“TheTorahSpeaksintheLanguageofHumans”Beginningwiththegeonim,Babylonianauthoritiesofeighth–tenth-centuryBabylonia,medievalJewishphilosophersarewonttocitethetalmudicdictum,“theTorahspeaksinthelanguageofbeneiadam,humanbeings”(Sifre,Numbers112;BabylonianTalmud,Yevamot71a).TheymaintainthatanthropomorphicandanthropopathicCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n22MedievalJewishphilosophyversesareusedbecausethemassesneedconcrete,visualimagestothinkabouttheology(Guide1:26,48).Picturesquelanguagemakesforgoodpedagogy.Further,thestoriesofGod’sprovidenceandtheas-criptiontohimofemotionslikeangerandlovearepoliticallyuseful:theywillinducethesimplemindedmassestobeobedientandwillpromotesocialorder(Guide3:28).Finally,werethemassestaughtthetruththeywouldthinkitunderminesScriptureandmightre-jectScriptureasasourceoftruth(Maimonides,CommentarytotheMishnah,Hagigah2:1).Maimonidesadoptsamorepreciseunder-standingof“theTorahspeaksinthelanguageofman”whenhede-claresthattheterm“adam”(manorhuman),inoneofitsmeanings,referstothemultitude,thephilosophicallyignorant(Guide1:14).TheTorah,thegreatteacher,isaddressedtothecommunityandmustserveevenitslowestintellectualrung.9Interestingly,therationalists’useofthephrase“theTorahspeaksinthelanguageofhumanbeings”toguidephilosophicreinterpre-tationofScripture,isitselfanexampleoftheirhighlycreativede-ploymentoftexts.Intheoriginaltalmudiccontextof“theTorahspeaksinthelanguageofhumanbeings,”RabbiAkivaandRabbiIshmael(secondcenturyce)aredebatingapointaboutlegalcontextsintheBible.AtissueiswhetherinsuchcontextstheBible’srepeti-tionofaterm–adoublingofaverb,forexample–shouldbeusedtoderiveanewlegalconclusionthatisnotexplicitinthebiblicaltext.WhereasRabbiAkivaregularlyderiveslawsinthisway,RabbiIshmael,followinghisteacherRabbiElazarbenAzaryah,states,“theTorahspeaksinthelanguageofhumanbeings”–meaning(roughly),donotmakesuchinferences,fortheTorahmerelyusesthedeviceofrepetitionforstylisticemphasisorornamentation.WhenmedievalrationalistsapplyRabbiIshmael’sphrasetotheologicalexpressionsratherthanlegalones,orperhapsmoreaccurately,inadditiontothem,andtofeaturesofversesotherthanrepetition,theyareex-tendingitbeyonditsoriginalscope.Notice,moreover,thatRabbiIshmaelisprescribingaconservativeapproachtoexegesis,limit-ingourrighttoderiveideasthatarenotexplicitinthetext;inthehandsofSaadyaGaonorMaimonidesthephrasebecomestheoppo-site(albeitwithoutanimplicationthiswastheoriginalmeaning):alicenseforcreatingnewinterpretationsoftheBible’santhropomor-phicandanthropopathicdescriptions.10InterpretationsthatdeviatefromtheplainmeaningsofversesarecommonamongtherabbisofCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThebiblicalandrabbinicbackground23theTalmud,anditisinterestingthatmedievalJewishphilosopherssawtheirownmethodofreinterpretationasduplicatingthesages’,evenasthelatter’suseoffigurativelanguageemulatestheBible’s.Notably,somephilosophersregardedatleastsomeofthesages’midresheihalakhah,interpretationsthatcarrylegalconsequences,asornamentalpropsorsupportsratherthanactualmeanings,buttheirphilosophicalreadingsoftheBiblewerenotqualifiedinthisway.TheBible’scommunicativestrategyasseenbytherationalistsshouldbeunderstoodintermsofatheoryofprophecyformulatedbytheIslamicphilosopheral-Farabi(d.950),animportantinfluenceonMaimonides.11Al-Farabimaintainedthatphilosophyprecedesreli-giontemporally.Theprophetissomeonewhohaspassedthroughthestageofphilosophyandnowexerciseshisfacultyofimagination–thefacultythatreceivesvisualimagesandcreatesmentalpicturesandsymbols–inordertotranslatethesetruthsfromabstracttocon-creteterms,fromphilosophicalpropositionstometaphorsandpara-bles.Prophecyisthustheapprehensionandimaginativetranslationofphilosophicaltruth,andtheformulationsoftheprophetsintheBibleexpressthescientificandphilosophictruthsthelatterhaveat-tained.Maimonidesappropriatedal-Farabi’sviewsonprophecy,anditisthisconceptofprophecythatguideshisunderstandingofbib-licaltexts.(Someinterpretersbelievethatthesymbolsareneedednotonlyforcommunicationtothemassesbutfortheprophet’sownapprehension.)Byappraisingtheexotericlayerasasoptothemasses,the“languageofhumans”modelgiveslittlecredittothatexotericlayerasasourceoftruth,excepttotheextentthatitimpliesgeneralideasliketheexistenceofGodandtheoperationofprovidence.Thereis,however,anothermodelofthemultiplelayerstoconsider,onefea-turedinMaimonides’introductiontoTheGuideofthePerplexed:“applesofgoldinfiligreesofsilverisawordfitlyspoken”(Proverbs25:11).Maimonideshasinmindparables,ofthekindKingSolomonpresentsinthebiblicalbookofProverbs.Asayingutteredwithtwomeanings–anexotericandanesoteric–islikeanappleofgoldoverlaidwithsmallholes,asinfiligreework,throughwhichonecanglimpsetheinnerdeepermeaning.Inthisimagerytheexternalmeaningofafigureofspeechorparableisvaluablelikesilver,andisnotamereconcessiontothemultitude,devoidofintrinsicmerit.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n24MedievalJewishphilosophyStill,thisisnottosaythattheouterlayerconveystruth.Rather,Maimonidesimpliesthattheoutermeaningcontainswisdomthatispoliticallyuseful,conducingtoanorderedsociety;theinnermean-ing,incontrast,contains“wisdomthatisusefulforbeliefsconcernedwiththetruthasitis.”12Besidesthe“languageofhumans”and“filigreesofsilver”assess-mentsoftheexotericlayer,thereisyetathirdapproachtothetext,onethatatleastimplicitlydeniesthatwealwayshavetwolayersintextsthattroublethephilosopher.IntheearlychaptersoftheGuide,thelexicographicchapters,Maimonidesshowsthatspecifictermswhichpeopletendtoconstrueasanthropomorphicoranthro-popathicintruthhavemultiplemeaningsthatvaryaccordingtocontext.Andhereistherub:thecorrect,literalmeaningofsuchsup-posedlyanthropomorphicandanthropopathicexpressionsisintheircontext,thatis,giventhesubjectofwhichthosetermsarepredi-cated,non-anthropomorphicandnon-anthropopathic.Thetermap-pliedtoGodis“borrowed”fromanothercontext,inthiscasethehumanone,butitsmeaningisadjustedinaccordancewiththedif-ferenceinthesubjectofpredication.Forexample,whenpredicatedofGod,“standing”means“permanent”andenduring,“sitting”meanschangeless(whenGodissaidto“sitforalleternity”).(ThismethodisknowninHebrewashash
alah,borrowingaterm,incontrasttomashalorparable.13)Maimonidesusesthistypeofinterpreta-tionwhenhedepictstheactivityoftheTargumim,tobediscussedshortly:hehintsthattheir(allegedly)anti-anthropomorphicrendi-tionsaresimplytheresultofagoodunderstandingofHebrew.Inmostcasesofmashal,accordingtoMaimonides,themashalisnotfullyallegorical,thatis,noteverywordistobeassignedeitherafigurativeora“borrowed”meaning.Rather,inmostcases,manyofthetermsintheparableserveonlytoembellishthemashal.WhenSolomondescribesatlengthamarriedharlotwhoissupposedtorep-resentmatter(Proverbs7),mostofthespecificssuppliedaresimplydescriptionsofaharlotratherthanfigurativeallusionstospecificfeaturesofmatter.AndinthebookofJobmanydetailsareneededjusttofleshouttheplotline.Departingfromtheusualinterpreta-tionofSongofSongs,Maimonidesdidnotthinkthatthedetailshadtobeinterpretedfiguratively;itwasenoughforthebooktodepictamanandwomaninloveinthewayscharacteristicofwooing.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThebiblicalandrabbinicbackground25Allegorizationcarriesdangers.Ifnotheldincheck,itcanleadtoradicalassertions,evenheresies.Forthisreasonmedievalphiloso-phersusuallycautionedthatfigurativeinterpretationsofScripturearenottobeadoptedunlessaspecificreasonexiststodepartfromtheliteralmeaningofaverse.SaadyaGaonidentifiesfoursuchcases:theliteralreadingyieldsathesiscontrarytoreason,whichmeansitsfalsehoodissubjecttodemonstration;itcontradictshumanex-perience;itcontravenesacceptedtradition;oritcontradictsotherverses(BookofDoctrinesandBeliefs,7:2).MaimonidesfurnishesanuancedexampleofhowconflictbetweenScriptureandreasonshouldbeapproached.Hepresentsthreepossibleviewsoftheoriginoftheworld:creationexnihilo(theTorahview);madefrompreex-istenteternalmatter(Plato);eternal(Aristotle).Thescripturaltext,hesays,couldbereadeitherliterallyascreationexnihiloorfigura-tivelytoaccordwithaPlatonicorAristotelianview–the“gatesoffigurativeinterpretation”arenot“shutinourfaces.”But,unlikethecaseofanthropomorphiclanguage,thereisnoadequatephilosoph-icalreasontodepartfromliteralism,nodemonstrationofadiffer-entside;iftherewere,afigurativeinterpretationcouldbeaccepted.Maimonidesimposesafurtherrestriction:anyinterpretationthatwoulddenythepossibilityofmiraclesmustberejected–andthatmeansthatAristotle’sviewcouldneversupplytheproperinterpre-tation.NotwithstandingMaimonides’insistenceontheunacceptabilityofAristotle’sview,medievalphilosophersarguablydidnottreatsat-isfactorilythequestionofjustwherethelineshouldbedrawnbe-tweenadmissibleandinadmissibleinterpretations.InterpretersofMaimonideshavelongsuspectedhesecretlyendorsedAristotle’sview,or,alternatively,thatsecretlyhefeltAristotle’sviewwascom-patiblewithTorah;thesesecretbeliefswouldbeproofforsomethatthefigurativemethodistooliberal.Thereisaradicalstrainofbiblicalinterpretationinmedievalphilosophy.GersonidesclaimedthatthePlatonicviewcouldbedemonstrated,andthatGenesis1wasbestreadinlinewiththisview,evenontheliterallevel.OtherradicalreadersincludeSamuelibnTibbon,RabbiNissimofMarseillesandJosephibnKaspi.AgainstphilosophicalreadingsofScripture,YitzhakAramaraisedthecriticismthattherationalistsdonotlearnanythingfromthebiblicaltextitself.TheyacceptonlyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n26MedievalJewishphilosophythosepropositionsthataccordwithphilosophyandinterpretfig-urativelythosethatdonot,sowhattheyknewaftertherevela-tionisidenticalwithwhattheyknewbefore,andrevelationteachesnothing.Worthyofmentionaswellisthequestion:IftheTorahisalle-gorical,whyshouldJewsnotallegorizethelawsaswellasthenar-ratives?ThisantinomianargumentwasfrequentlybroughtupinJewish–Christianpolemics.TheQuestionofPrecedentThenotionofatwo-layeredtextandtheuseofallegoricalinterpre-tationisfoundabundantlyinChristianthought,mostnotablyinAugustine,andtheideaofatwo-layeredtextwaschampionedbyMuslimthinkersaswell,notablyAverroes.ButisthereprecedentinpremedievalJudaismforinterpretingbiblicaltextsasmetaphorsorparables?Variousmidrashimarefairlycategorizedasallegoricalandthusaf-fordaprecedent,aswhen“theearthwastohuva-vohu[unformed]”inGenesis1:2isexplainedbythemidrashasreferringtoforeignpowersandthedeedsofthewicked.Inaddition,AristobulusinthesecondcenturybceinterpretedreferencestoGod’sbodyasre-ferringtononcorporealthings(hand–power;standing–permanence;descending–revelation;speech–establishingofthings).Nevertheless,thefoundingofasystematicJewishfigurativeinterpretationofScrip-turebasedonphilosophyisusuallycreditedtoPhiloofAlexandria(c.20bce–50ce).PhilounderstoodtheBible,particularlyGenesis,asGreekphilosopherstroubledbyHomer’sgodsunderstoodHomer:asanallegorytobeconstruedviatheprinciplesofHellenisticthought,inhiscasemiddlePlatonicthoughtinparticular.So,forex-ample,Philo’sreadingofGenesisadaptsPlato’saccountofcreationintheTimaeusandstatesthatGod’sfirstcreationwastheIdeas(Forms).Differentbiblicalcharactersrepresentdifferentpersonalcharacteristicsorfaculties:Adam,spirituality;Eve,feeling;Noah,righteousness.Places,animals,andplantslikewisearesymbols.Philostressestheneedforhumanbeingstobreakfrommate-rialityandapprehendtheintelligibleworld.Moses,forPhilo,isagreatphilosopher.PhiloinfluencedChristianityfarmorethanJudaismandwasnotknowntomedievalthinkers;yetmedievalCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThebiblicalandrabbinicbackground27JewishphilosophersacceptGreekwisdom,holdingmanyofthesameviewsaboutGodandthevalueofreasonasdoesPhilo,owingperhapstohisindirectinfluence.Philobelievedinthehistoricaltruthofsomeofthebiblicalstories,butviewedothersaspurelyallegoricalandnon-historical.Jewishphilosophersdidnotgenerallyquestionthehistoricityofthebiblicalnarratives.Still,rationalistswereaccusedofunderstand-ing“AbrahamandSarahasmatterandform,thetwelvetribesasthetwelveconstellations,theallianceoffourandfivekingsinGenesis14asthefourelementsandfivesenses,andAmalekastheevilinclination.”14SomestatementsofMaimonidesstruckhisinter-pretersasdenyinghistoricityandthususingallegoryobjectionably.Specifically,onesonofAdam,Cain,issaidbyMaimonidestorepre-senttheacquisitiveinstinct,theother,Seth,intellectualattainment(Guide2:30);and,asinPhilo,whodrawsfromPlato’sidentificationofreason(form)withmanandmatterwithwoman,Adamseemstorepresentform(intellect),whileEverepresentsmatter,whichdis-tractsAdamandleadstohissinning(Guide1:17).TurningnowfromPhilo,twoimportantfiguresinourcontextareOnkelos“theproselyte”andYonatanbenUziel,whomJewishtradi-tionviewsasauthorsoftheAramaictranslationsoftheBibleknownasTargumim.AnAmoraicstatementreads:“Onkelostheproselytesaidthe[Aramaic]translationoftheTorah[Pentateuch][comes]fromthemouthofR.EliezerandR.Joshua;YonatanbenUzielsaidthetranslationofthebooksoftheprophets[comes]fromthemouthof[theprophets]Haggai,Zechariah,andMalakhi”(Megillah3a).(ModernscholarsdisputethistraditionalviewoftheTargumim’sauthorship.)NowaccordingtoMaimonides,OnkelostheproselytewasveryperfectintheHebrewandSyrianlanguagesanddirectedhisefforttowardtheabolitionofthebeliefinGod’scorpore-ality.HenceheinterpretsinaccordancewithitsmeaningeveryattributethatScripturepredicatesofGodandthatmightleadtowardthebeliefincorporeality.“TheLordwilldescend”isrenderedas“theLordwillmanifesthim-self”;“theLordheard”as“itwasheardbeforeGodandreceived”(Guide1:47).Whenmotionisattributedtothedeity,Onkelos–accordingtoMaimonides–attributesittoacreatedentity,theShekhinah(lit.indwelling)whichmedievalrationalistsviewnotasCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n28MedievalJewishphilosophyanameofGodbutasatermdenotingacreatedthing,eitheraform(Saadya,DoctrinesandBeliefs2)oracreatedlightwhosepresenceinaplaceisamarkofthatplace’sdistinction(Maimonides,Guide1:21).15TheTargumimareimportantfortherationalistsforseveralrea-sons.First,asthequotationfromMegillah3asuggests,theauthorsoftheTargumimstudiedwithsagesorevenprophets.Thisimpliesthattheirworkrepresentstheviewsofthesagesorprophets,andsotherationalists’modesofinterpretationarenotradicalbreakswiththepastbutonthecontraryboastanancientandauthorita-tivepedigree.Second,theavailabilityoftheTargumimmeansthattheaveragepersonfromamongthemassescannotjustifyorexcusebeingananthropomorphist.ConsiderinparticulartheargumentofAbrahambenDavid(Rabad)protestingMaimonides’categorizationofananthropomorphistasahereticinMishnehTorah,LawsofRepentance3:7:“Peoplegreaterandbetterthanhehavefollowedthisopinion,basedonwhattheysawinscripturaltextsandinthewordsoftheAggadah,whichcorruptopinions.”ContrarytoRabad’sgloss,MaimonidesintheGuideclaimsthatthisexcuseisnotvalidbecause,interalia,theTargumimexisttodispelfalsenotions(1:36).Finally,itisinterestingthatMaimonidespraisesOnkelos’knowledgeoflanguagesbutnothisknowledgeofphilosophy.ThissuggeststhatwhenOnkelostranslatesphrasesinanon-anthropomorphicway,heisrejectinganalternativeapproachthatwouldtranslatetermsanthropomorphicallybutunderstandthemnon-anthropomorphically.Inthisformulation,eventhe“literal”meaningoftherelevanttermsisnon-anthropomorphic.Maimonides’portraitofOnkelosisenergeticallydisputedbyMosesNahmanides(1194–1270),amajorkabbalist,legalscholar,andbiblicalcommentator.InhiscommentariestoGenesis46:1andExodus20:16,Nahmanidesarguesthat,whileOnkelosmayremovetheanthropomorphicflavorofwordsdenotingmotionandhear-ing,hetranslatestermsconnotingdivinespeechwiththeirliteralAramaicequivalents(“Godsaid,”“Godspoke,”“Godcalled”).Like-wiseOnkelostranslatesverbsconnotingsightinawaythatdoesnotremovetheanthropomorphism.ElsewhereOnkelospreservesinhistranslationbiblicalreferencestotheLord’shandandfinger.Nahmanides’alternativeaccountofOnkelos’methodisobscurein-sofarasitissteepedinkabbalah,buthiscritiqueofMaimonides’CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThebiblicalandrabbinicbackground29readingofOnkelosispowerful.InadditiontobeingdeniedbyNahmanides,thenotionthatShekhinahreferstoacreatedthinghasbeendisputedbymodernscholarssuchasEphraimUrbach,whoarguethatthetermdoesdenotethepresenceornearnessofGod.talmudicandmidrashicliteratureWhenweturntodictaofthesagesofthetalmudic-midrashicera,andmorespecificallytothenon-legalsectionsoftheTalmudandmidrashknowncollectivelyastheAggadah,wefindontheonehandnumerouselements–oratleastfragments–ofatheology,enoughtohavegeneratedseverallengthyscholarlystudiesofthesages’theology.16Theimpactofphilosophicalschools,specificallyStoicism,onrabbinicthoughtisevidentinteachingsthatthesoulfillsandvitalizesthebodyasGodfillstheworld,thatallhumanshaveisborrowedfromGod,thatGodbuildsanddestroysworlds,andthatthesoulisestrangedinthisworld.ParallelstoPlatonicthoughtincludethesuggestionthatthereisknowledgepriortobirth(albeitthisisknowledgeoftheTorah,nottheForms)andthenotionthatGodcreatedtheworldbylookingintotheTorah.17Butontheotherhandwefindnoevidenceofextensiveinvolvementwithphi-losophy(theborrowingsarefrompopularversionsofStoicismandPlatonism),andweevenencounterstatementsthatcouldbecon-struedasopposedto“Greekwisdom,”“thewisdomofthenations,”and“logic.”18Unlikethecasewithlegalidioms,therearenobor-rowingsofphilosophicalvocabulary.Oddly,therabbisrecorddebateswithnon-Jewsandhereticsoverissueslikecreationwithoutadduc-ingphilosophicalargumentsthatwereusedbytheirside.19Aswell,accordingtoaneminentscholaroftheperiod,“noneof[therabbinicsources]providessystematictreatmentofthesubjectofbeliefsandconceptions,andtherearealmostnocontinuousdiscoursesdealingwithasingletheme.”20Weretherabbisnotliterateinphilosophy?Notinterestedinphi-losophy?Weretheyfearfulofit?Didtheyengageinphilosophi-caldiscussionatall?WarrenZevHarveyhasarguedthatinalllikelihoodwhentherabbisengagedindisputeswithnon-Jewsandheretics,someofwhichwearetoldwerequiteprotracted,theyuti-lizedphilosophicalarguments.Nevertheless,insummarizingthosedebatesinashortspace,theyeschewedphilosophicalvocabularyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n30MedievalJewishphilosophyandargumentation.Harveymaintainsfurtherthatparticularviewsofthesages,forinstance,thatGodbuildsanddestroysworlds,reflectknowledgeofStoicandEpicureanviewsofcosmogony,evenwhile(1)breakingfrombothStoicdeterminismandEpicureanchanceandinaddition(2)asserting,unlikeeitherofthoseschools,thatthisworldwillnotbedestroyed.SuchawarenessofphilosophicalschoolswasfoundinthelandofIsrael,whereHellenismflourished,butnotinBabylon.Harveysuggeststhattherabbis“consideredphilosophytobeforeigntotheirconcernsnotbecausetheydidnotknowwhatitwas,butratherbecausetheydidknow.”21Bethatasitmay,wemustreturntothechallengeconfrontingthemedievalphilosophers.ForalltheconvergenceinideasaboutatranscendentdeitywhoexercisesprovidenceandgavetheTorah,rab-binicviewsanddictawerenotinfrequentlycontrarytophilosophicalwisdom.IntheAggadah,Godwearsphylacteriesanddonsaprayershawl,roarslikealionyetalsoshedstears,studiesTorah,andsuffersoverthetribulationsofIsraelthathebroughton,sharingintheirexile(seeAvodahZarah3b,Berakhot9b,Sifrebe-Midbar84).Attimesaseem-inglyanthropomorphictheologyeveninfluenceslaw,oratleasttherabbis’understandingofit.Apersonblindinoneeyeneednotmakethefestivalpilgrimage,becausejustasthemanwhocomestotheholyplacemustbeseenbyGodwithtwoeyes,somustheseeGodwithtwoeyes(Hagigah2a).Again,whentheBibleprescribesthatthebodyofacriminalexecutedbyhangingmustbeburiedbeforesun-set(Deuteronomy22:21),therabbisexplainthatthelaw’spurposeistopreventpeoplefromthinkingthatthekinghimselfishanginginsteadofhistwin(Sanhedrin46b).Philosophyseemsnottobeavaluableobjective:thestatement“theholyonehasnothinginhisworldbutthefourellsofhalakhah[Jewishlaw]”(Berakhot8a)primafaciecutsagainsttherationalistclaimthatnon-legaldisciplinessuchasscienceandphilosophyrepresent,asperAristotle,thehighesthumanachievement.Asacorollary,themotifsofIsrael’selectionandtheneedformitzvot,salientinbiblicalandrabbinicthought,areproblematicforthephilosopherwhostressesscien-tificandphilosophicalpursuitsthatcutacrossethnicandreligiousdivisions.CriticsofrabbinicJudaism–fromKaraites,toChristiansandMoslempolemicists,toskepticalthinkersfromwithin–assailedrabbinicthoughtasabsurdand,asinthecaseofanthropomorphism,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThebiblicalandrabbinicbackground31evenblasphemous.22ThephilosophicalproblemsintheAggadahledthegeonimtopioneertwodistinctapproachesvis-a-vistherabbinic`statements:rejectionandreinterpretation.ThefirstwasusedbyHaiGaonandSheriraGaononalimitedbasis,23andmuchlaterwasemployedbyNahmanideswhenheneededtorebutallegationsofaChristianinterlocutorinapublicdisputation.Citinghisfather,AbrahamMaimonidesendorsesoccasionalrejectionofAggadot.Rabbinicdictaarenottheproductofprophecyasbiblicalteachingsare,andrejectionisthereforemoreofanoption.24Thatsaid,thesecondapproach–reinterpretingproblematicstate-mentstoprotecttheviewofthesagesaswisemen–seemedmoredesirable.LiketheBible,therabbisweresaid(AbrahambarHiyyabeingperhapsthefirsttoclaimthis)tospeakinthelanguageofhumanbeings.Theyusedsymbolsandstoriesinfigurativefashion,andattimesanthropomorphicdepictionsofGodweremeredescrip-tionsofscenesandobjectsbeheldinavision.Inhisintroductiontohiscommentarytoch.10ofMishnahSanhedrin,Maimonidesal-legesthatscientificallyknowledgeablepeoplewhotakethesages’problematicstatementsliterally,andonthatbasisrejectthosestate-ments,lackanunderstandingofpedagogy.Teachingdifficultmattersmustproceedthroughparablesandotherfigurativetechniques.Al-thoughMaimonides,asnotedearlier,gaveuponanearlierplantoprovideadecodingofrabbinictexts,hisrereadingsofrabbinictexts,likehisinterpretationsofbiblicalverses,constituteanexception-allyrichachievement.Notonlydidheengageoffendingstatements,butheconstruedrelativelybenignonesinphilosophicalcategories.WhileonoccasionMaimonidesignoredorevenrejectedproblem-aticrabbinicstatements,thecumulativeeffectofhishermeneuticachievementswasanimpressionthattheveryprojectoftherabbiswasthesameashis–togiveexpressiontothemetaphysicalandethicalassertionsofAristotelianphilosophy.Whatfollowsisavarietyofexamplesofrabbinictextstowhichrationalists,especiallyMaimonides,gaveaphilosophicalspin:1.InthetractateHagigah2:1,theMishnahplacesrestrictionsonthestudyof“theworkofcreation”and“theworkofthechariot.”Probablythesetermsoriginallyreferredtocertainmysticalteach-ings.Maimonidesholdstheyconveyalimitationonteachingtheesotericsubjectsofnaturalscienceandmetaphysics,andheusestheMishnah’srestrictionsonhowesotericmaterialshouldbetaughtCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n32MedievalJewishphilosophyasaguidelineforhisownmethodofcomposition(introductiontoGuideofthePerplexed).2.AngelsmentionedintheTalmudaresaidtorefertothetenseparateintellectsofmedievalcosmology.3.R.Haninah(Berakhot33b)rebukedaprayerreaderforaug-mentingestablishedadjectivesforGodintheliturgywithadditionallaudatoryones.Thisisnot,Maimonidestellsus,becausethemandidnotuseenoughadjectives.Rather,itisbecausenoaffirmativeat-tributespertaintoGodatall.ThispositionMaimonidesholdsonthebasisofvariousphilosophicalconsiderationssuchastheunityofthedivinebeing.Thepivotalanti-AristotelianHasdaiCrescas(authorofLightoftheLord)objectedtothisreading,andthoughtthattheprob-lemisthatthelistofpositivelaudatoryattributeswastoolong.4.TheMishnahinAvot(5:6)statesthatGodcreatedcertainmir-aclesonthetwilightofthefirstSabbathevebeforethecreationofAdamandEve.Maimonidesconstruesthisandothertextsassayingthatmiraclesarepartoftheoriginalcreation.Alleventsarelocatedinthenaturalorder,reflectingthedominanceofdivinewisdomasopposedtodivinewill(CommentarytoAvot;Guide2:29).5.“Mosesdiedwithakiss”(BavaBatra17a).TheMaimonideanreadingisthat,withhissensoryandimaginativefacultiesenfeebledwithage,Mosescouldfocusonintellectualmattersexclusively,andhediedwiththepleasureofintellectualapprehension(Guide3:51).6.Hagigah15arelates:“FourenteredPardes...”ForMaimonides,“Pardes”referstowisdom–specifically,naturalscienceplusmeta-physics(=workofthecreationplusworkofthechariot).ThepointofthepassageisthatonlyR.Akivaemergedinpeacebecauseonlyhehadgraspedthefactthatthehumanintellectislimitedandnotalltruthscanbedemonstrated(Guide1:32).7.“Serviceoftheheart,”abiblicalidiomconstruedbythesagestodenoteprayer(Taanit2a)comestorefer,inMaimonides’thought,toanonverbalintellectualcontemplation,thehighestformofprayer.(Theheartsignifiesmindinmedievalwriting.)8.Therabbisattimesdenigrate“thisworld”andaffirmtheimpor-tanceandvalueof“theworldtocome.”Inrabbinicparlance,thesetermsrefertostagesinhistory;Maimonidesusedthetermstode-notethecontrastbetweenexistenceinthephysicalworld–inwhichmattercanwreakhavocuponhumanintellectualapprehensionanduponconcentrationonscientificandmetaphysicalsubjects–andCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThebiblicalandrabbinicbackground33ahigherdisembodiedexistenceintheafterlife.NowthesageRavdeclared(Berakhot17a):“Intheworldtocomethereisnoeating,drinking,orintercourse.Rather,therighteoussitwithcrownsontheirheads.”Thesecondsentenceofthequotationsuggeststhattheafterlifeintherabbinicconceptioniscorporeal,contrarytothephilosophers’devaluationofembodiedexistence.Maimonidesun-derstandsthe“righteoussittingwithcrownsontheirheads”figura-tively,asconnotingastateofknowledgethatbringspeace.Thefirstquotedstatement,whichdeniestheoccurrenceofcorporealactivi-tiesintheafterlife,isusedbyMaimonidestoarguethatthefutureexistencewillbebodiless.Criticspointedoutthatexistencecouldbeembodiedwhilethebodiescouldhaveneedsdifferentfromthoseinthisworld.Inanyevent,asaresultofhisportraitoftheafterlifeasdisembodied,Maimonideswasaccusedofdenyingresurrectionofthebodyaltogether,achargehelaterdeniedinhisTreatiseonResurrection.9.WehavealreadynotedthesignificanceforMaimonidesoftheAramaictranslationsoftheBible.10.R.Haninahstates(Hullin7a):“Apersondoesnotbruisehisfingerbelowunlessithasbeendecreedfromabove.”MaimonidesholdsthatwhentheprophetsspeakofGoddoingx,whatthismeansisthatxoccursaccordingtothelawsofnaturethatGodwilled.Extendingthistotherabbis,thestatementnowmeansthatallbruisesaretheresultofnaturallaw.(Onthisreading,itisunclearwhatviewtheHullinstatementwasdesignedtocounter.)Amedievalcriticconsideredsuchexegesestobe“likeonewhomakesforagreatkingacrownofclay,”andnonliteralinterpre-tationsofAggadahwereamajorflashpointintheMaimonideancontroversy.25Butforrationalists,rabbinictextswouldhavebeenanembarrassmenttoJewsifunderstoodliterally.Readfiguratively,theyrepresent“applesofgoldinfiligreesofsilver”(Proverbs25:11).InGuide3:43,Maimonidessuggeststhatsuchmidrashimarepoeti-calconceitsthatdonotneedalltheirdetailsinterpreted.asampleissue:divineprovidenceNotwithstandingthedifficultiesinMaimonides’andotherrational-ists’interpretationsofrabbinictexts,rabbinicthoughtisreactivetophilosophicalideasandinsomerespectsdisplaysasurprisingdegreeCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n34MedievalJewishphilosophyofconvergencewithmedievalphilosophy.Bywayofillustrationletusconsiderthesubjectofdivineprovidence.MedievalJewishphilosophersconsideredprophecyandprovi-dencetobenaturalphenomenadependentonthelevelofaperson’sintellectualdevelopment.Incontrasttophilosophicalnaturalism,theworldofthesagesseemspunctuatedbyfrequentdivineinter-ventions.Thisisclearbothfromstoriestoldandstatementsissued:forinstance,thealreadycited“apersondoesnotbruisehisfingerbelowunlessithasbeendecreedfromabove...”and“allisinthehandsofheaven,saveforthefearofheaven”(Berakhot33b).Closeexaminationreveals,however,thattherabbiswerefarfromobliviousofnaturalcausation.Inonetalmudicstory,apoorwid-ower,unabletoaffordawet-nurse,miraculouslygrowsbreaststonurturehischild;whileonesagetakesthistosignaltheman’sgreat-ness,anotherdeclares“onthecontrary,howinferioristhisman,thatthenaturalorderwaschangedforhim”(Shabbat53b).26Morestrikingly,theAmoraRavdeclaresthatchildren,longevity,andsus-tenancedependuponmazzal,orastrologicalflow,ratherthanontheindividual’smerits.EventheviewintheTalmudthat“Israelisim-munefrommazzal”meansnotthatastrologydoesnotaffectJewsatall,butratherthatexceptionalJewslikeAbrahamandR.Akivacancounteractthemazzalotthroughtheirgooddeeds(Shabbat156a–b).WhenAbrahamfretsthattheconstellationsaugurthathewillnothaveanheir,Godtellshimthathecanalterthepositionoftheplan-ets.Thuseventheresultthatiscontrarytothemazzalisachievedbyexploitingastrologicallaws,notcancelingthem.Ironically,therabbinicstatement“theworldfollowsitsnaturalcourse”(AvodahZarah54a),quotedbymedievalphilosopherstocorroboratetheex-istenceofanaturalorder,actuallysuggests,incontext,thatGoddirectlyshapesthehumanembryo.Thusstatementsthatsoundnat-uralisticareembeddedinanon-naturalisticframework,andstate-mentsthatsoundnon-naturalisticreflectanaturalism.Theideathatnaturebyitselfiswondrousoccursfrequently.Acommonmisconceptionaboutrabbinicthoughtisthatitsub-scribestoasimpledoctrinethatsufferinganddeath(oratleastthetimingofadeath)arealwayspunishmentforsin.YetintheoneplaceintheTalmudwhereasage(R.Ami)assertsthisexplicitly,hisviewisrejected(forreasons,moreover,thatarelessthanpowerful),suggestingthattheTalmudisfarfromsatisfiedwithsuchatheodicy(Shabbat55a).YaakovElmanarguesthatBabylonianandCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThebiblicalandrabbinicbackground35Israel-basedsourcesevincedifferingapproachestotheodicy.Incon-trasttosagesoftheJerusalemTalmud,thoseinBabylonheldthat“divineprovidenceintheprivatelivesofeventherighteousistheexceptionratherthantherule.”TheBabylonianTalmudinvokesarangeofexplanationsofunmeritedsuffering:“atimeofanger,”“sufferingsoflove,”“vicariousatonement,”andothers.Inpost-talmudictimessuchexplanationswereoftenignoredorminimized,andotheraccountsdeveloped.27Forexample,toexplaincertainanomalies,Gersonidesdevelopedanintriguingdoctrineofinheritedprovidence.28notes1.SeeI.Twersky,“JosephibnKaspi:PortraitofaMedievalJewishIn-tellectual,”inStudiesinMedievalJewishHistoryandLiterature,ed.I.Twersky(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1979),231–57,esp.238–42.2.SeeY.Muffs,“OfImageandImaginationintheBible,”inBiblicalPaint-ings,ed.J.Tisso(NewYork:TheJewishMuseum,1982),8–10.3.SeeA.Melamed,“PhilosophicalCommentariestoJeremiah9:22–23inMedievalandRenaissanceJewishThought”[Hebrew],JerusalemStud-iesinJewishThought4(1985),31–82.4.SeeN.Roth,“The‘TheftofPhilosophy’bytheGreeksfromtheJews,”ClassicalFolia22(1978),53–67.MosesNahmanidesheldthesamehis-toricalthesis,butdidnotinfertherefromthelegitimacyofstudyingphilosophy;seeD.Berger,“JudaismandGeneralCultureinMedievalandEarlyModernTimes,”inG.Blidstein,D.Berger,S.Z.Leiman,andA.Lichtenstein,Judaism’sEncounterwithOtherCultures:RejectionorIntegration(NorthvaleN.J.:JasonAronson,1997),79.5.NotedbyA.Ravitzky,“TheSecretsoftheGuideofthePerplexed:BetweentheThirteenthandtheTwentiethCenturies,”inStudiesinMaimonides,ed.I.Twersky(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1990),177–82;see,forexample,S.Pines,“Translator’sIntroduc-tion”toGuideofthePerplexed(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1963),cxx;cf.,however,S.Rosenberg,“OnBiblicalInterpretationintheGuideofthePerplexed”[Hebrew],JerusalemStudiesinJewishThought1(1981),88–94.6.SeeBerger,“JudaismandGeneralCulture,”61–84.7.SeeM.Halbertal,InterpretativeRevolutionsintheMaking[Hebrew](Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1997),ch.8;M.Halbertal,PeopleoftheBook:Canon,Meaning,andAuthority(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1997),27–32.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n36MedievalJewishphilosophy8.SeeJ.Cohen,“PhilosophicalExegesisinHistoricalPerspective:TheCaseoftheBindingofIsaac,”inDivineOmniscienceandOmnipo-tenceinMedievalPhilosophy,ed.T.Rudavsky(Dordrecht:Reidel,1985),135–42,esp.136;W.Harvey,“OnMaimonides’AllegoricalRead-ingsofScripture,”inInterpretationandAllegory:AntiquitytotheModernPeriod,ed.J.Whitman(Leiden:Brill,2000),181–88;S.Klein-Braslavy,Maimonides’InterpretationoftheStoryofCreation[Hebrew](Jerusalem:ReubenMaas,1987),chs.1–2.9.ForIbnKaspi’sdistinctivereading,seeTwersky,“JosephibnKaspi,”38–42.10.J.Stern,“Language,”inContemporaryJewishReligiousThought,ed.A.CohenandP.Mendes-Flohr(NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons,1987),549–50.11.See,interalia,L.Berman,“Maimonides,TheDiscipleofAlfarabi,”IsraelOrientalStudies4(1974),154–78.12.Guide,trans.Pines,introduction,12;seealso2:47.SeeJ.Stern,Prob-lemsandParablesofLaw:MaimonidesandNahmanidesonReasonsfortheCommandments(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1998),7–13;cf.Klein-Braslavy,Maimonides’Interpretation,47–59.13.SeeM.Cohen,“Radak’sContributiontotheTraditionofFigurativeBiblicalExegesis,”Ph.D.dissertation,YeshivaUniversity,1994.14.Berger,“JudaismandGeneralCulture,”102.15.SeeG.F.Moore,“IntermediariesinJewishTheology,”HarvardTheologicalReview(1922),41–8;E.Urbach,TheSages:TheirConceptsandBeliefs,trans.I.Abrahams(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1987),40–5.16.Forexample:S.Schechter,AspectsofRabbinicTheology(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1961);G.Moore,JudaismintheFirstCenturiesoftheChristianEra,3vols.(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1927–30);Urbach,TheSages.17.SeeJ.Guttmann,PhilosophiesofJudaism,trans.D.W.Silverman(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1964),45–6.18.AnalyzedbyG.Blidstein,“RabbinicJudaismandGeneralCulture:NormativeDiscussionandAttitudes,”inBlidstein,Berger,Leiman,andLichtenstein,Judaism’sEncounter,9–26.19.SeeS.Lieberman,“HowMuchGreekinJewishPalestine?,”inBiblicalandOtherStudies,ed.A.Altmann(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniver-sityPress,1962);W.Harvey,“RabbinicAttitudestowardPhilosophy,”in“OpenThouMineEyes”:EssaysonAggadahandJudaicaPresentedtoWilliamG.BraudeonhisEightiethBirthdayandDedicatedtohisMemory,ed.H.Blumberg(Hoboken:Ktav,1992),83–101.20.Urbach,TheSages,4.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nThebiblicalandrabbinicbackground3721.Harvey,“RabbinicAttitudes,”101.22.SeeM.Saperstein,DecodingtheRabbis:AThirteenth-CenturyCom-mentaryontheAggadah(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1980),ch.1,whichaidedmeincompilingtheexamplesthatfollow.23.R.SheriraGaon,Seferha-Eshkol2:47andR.HaiGaon,inOtzarha-Geonim:YomTov,Hagigahu-Mashkin2:59.24.SeeRosenberg,“OnBiblicalInterpretation,”143–51,onthepossibilityofprophetsmakingerrors.25.SeeB.Septimus,Hispano-JewishCultureinTransition:TheCareerandControversiesofRamah(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1982),39–103.26.ButseeUrbach,TheSages,110.27.SeeY.Elman,“TheContributionofRabbinicThoughttoaTheologyofMisfortune,”inJewishPerspectivesontheExperienceofSuffering,ed.S.Carmy(Northvale,N.J.:JasonAronson,1999),155–212,andElman’sotherarticlescitedthere;cf.R.Goldenberg,“EarlyRabbinicExplanationsoftheDestructionofJerusalem,”JournalofJewishStud-ies33(1982),517–26;D.Kraemer,ResponsestoSufferinginClassicalRabbinicLiterature(NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1995).28.SeeR.Eisen,GersonidesonProvidence,Covenant,andtheChosenPeople:AStudyinMedievalJewishPhilosophyandBiblicalCommen-tary(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1995).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\njoell.kraemer3TheIslamiccontextofmedievalJewishphilosophyInmemoryofFranzRosenthalintroductionMedievalJewishthoughtflourishedundertheaegisofIslamicciv-ilizationfromtheninththroughthethirteenthcenturieswhenthevenueshiftedtotheChristianWest.ItslanguagewasArabic,itscon-cernsdeterminedbyissuesraisedinthecontextofIslamicthought.Thesameissues(e.g.thenatureofthedivine,creation,prophecy,providence,humanperfection,andimmortality)werelaterponderedbyJewishthinkersintheChristianmilieu,andHebrewscientificterminologywasmodeledonArabic.ForIslam,asforJudaism,thereligiouslawisparamount,acom-prehensiveguidetolifeinallitsaspects.StudyofQur
an,tradi-tion(hadith),theology(kalam)andjurisprudence(fiqh)dominatedMuslimintellectuallife.Theulama
(clerics)regarded“theancientsciences”asalienanduseless,asaninsidiousthreattoreligiousfaith.1IbnRushd(Averroes)(d.1198),aphilosopherandjurist,justifiedphilosophyasareligiousobligation,buthisopinionhadnoeffectonthecareerofphilosophyinIslam,whichwasemphaticallyrejectedbyreligiousauthorities.EventheTunisianhistorianIbnKhaldun(d.1406)felttheneedtorefutephilosophy.ThemedievalIslamicworldhadnouniversitiesasdidEurope,wherephilosophywastaughtalongsidetheology.Muslimrulerssponsoredscientificresearch,whichwasinstitutionalizedinlibra-ries,hospitals,andobservatories.Philosopherstaughtprivatelyortocirclesthatmetintheirhomesorinothervenuessuchasbookstores.38CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheIslamiccontext39PhilosophyandsciencewerecultivatedfromtheninththroughthetwelfthcenturiesintheheartlandsofIslam,aswellasinAndalusiaandtheMaghreb.Bythethirteenthcentury,however,anintellectualdeclinehadsetinastheresultofsocio-economicandmilitarydisasters(theCrusades,a“feudal”economy,theMongolinvasionofIraq,plaguesandfamineinEgypt).ThisdeclinedeepenedinthelaterMiddleAgesjustasEuropeanintellectualswereawak-eningtothenewspiritoftheRenaissance,thescientificrevolution,andtheEnlightenment.2ContrarytoorthodoxIslam,Christianityadoptedphilosophyatanearlystage,makingitahandmaidentotheology.Philosophywasavitalcomponentoftheofficiallysanctionedandrequiredtrainingofthestudentofsacradoctrina.ThomasAquinasjustifiesthestudyoftheologybeforethebarofphilosophy.Itisnecessary,hesays,thatbe-sidesthephilosophicalsciencesinvestigatedbyreasonthereshouldbeasacreddoctrinebasedondivinerevelation(SummaTheologica,FirstPart,1:1).TheprecariousstatusofphilosophyintheIslamicmilieuguar-anteeditsprivate,reclusivecharacteranditsfreedomfromstateorclericalcontrol.Whenphilosophyreceivesofficialsanction,asinChristendom,itmayserveulteriorpurposes.PhilosophyfortheChristianAristotelianismofAlberttheGreatandThomasAquinaswasanancillatheologiae.ThereceptionofphilosophyintheChristianworldmeantitssubserviencetoecclesiasticalsupervision.3ThissupervisionwasgraduallybrokenwithGalileoandtheriseofmodernscienceintheseventeenthcentury.fromgreekintoarabicClassicalculture,belongingtotheKulturkreisoftheMediterranean,wasnotconsideredalienwisdombyIslamicphilosophers,whofeltthemselvesaffiliatedwith“thesciencesoftheancients”–inthewidestsense,theGreeks,Indians,andPersians.TheybelievedthattheGreeksderivedtheirwisdomfromtheEast(exorientelux),sothatthestudyofancientthoughtwasarenovationratherthananinnovation.Al-Farabi(Alfarabi)(d.950)locatedthebirthplaceofphilosophyinIraq,whenceitwastransmittedtoEgypt,thentoGreece,andfinallyrenderedintoSyriacandArabic.HeenvisionedCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n40MedievalJewishphilosophyarebirthofphilosophyinitsoriginalhome,ancientwisdomthuscomingfullcircle.TheIslamicphilosophers(falasifa),reflectingancientandHellenisticlore,believedthatthePresocraticphilosophersacquiredtheirwisdomfromtheOrient.Thales,theyclaimed,receivedin-structioninEgypt,andEmpedoclesstudiedwithLuqmanthesageatthetimeoftheprophetDavid.Pythagorasstudiedphysicsandmeta-physicswithSolomon’sdisciplesinEgypt.HelearnedgeometryfromtheEgyptians,receivingthesciencesfromthe“nicheofprophecy”(mishkatal-nubuwwa).4SolomontransferredthesciencestoGreece.Scientificknowledgewasthuslegitimizedasanindigenousgrowth,asHellenisticandmedievalJewishthinkersalsoportrayedAbraham,Solomon,andMosesasphilosophersfromwhomGreekwisdomwasderived.TheIslamicphilosopherswereheirstoalateHellenisticsyl-labusofGreeklearning.5TheyintegratedAristotelianlogic,physics,andethics,Neoplatonicmetaphysics,Platonicpoliticalphilosophy,Ptolemaicastronomy,Euclidiangeometry,andGalenicmedicineintoacohesivestructure,therebytransformingtheeclecticdiver-sityoflateHellenisticthoughtintoacoherentsystemofcumu-lativeknowledgewithinthebroadframeworkofaNeoplatonicAristotelianism.Truedoctrinewasassociatedwithantiquity,andphilosophywaspursuedmainlybyexegesisofancienttexts,byquestioningthemandbyprogressingtoknowledgebeyondthem.TheculturaladaptationoftheGreekheritagewasnotapassivereceptionofaforeignlegacybutanactofcreativeappropriation.6Theprominenceofcriticalworks(e.g.AbuAliibnal-Haytham’s[d.1039]DoubtsonPtolemyandAbuBakral-Razi’s[d.925]DoubtsonGalen)underscorestheingenuityofIslamicscience.EvenAristotle,atoweringauthority,wasstudiedcriticallybyreadersattentivetoobscuritiesandpuzzlesinhisworks.Islamiclearning–withoriginalcontributionsinastronomy,mathematics,medicine,andoptics–wasnotmerelyatransitionallinkbetweenGreekan-tiquityandmedievalEuropebutadramaticchapterintheprogressofhumanknowledge.ThetransmissionoflearningfromGreekintoArabic,andthenfromArabicintoHebrew,Latin,andotherEuropeanlanguages,wasamomentousachievementofhumancivilization,anditwasCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheIslamiccontext41formativeofthe“Western”consciousness.MedievalEuropeanin-tellectuals,ChristianandJewish,studiedMuslimthinkerssuchasal-Kindi(d.c.866),al-Farabi,IbnSina(Avicenna)(d.1037),al-Ghazali(Alghazali)(d.1111),andIbnRushd(Averroes),andearly(ninth-andtenth-century)scientistssuchasMasha
allah,AbuMasharal-BalkhiandAbuAbdallahal-Battani.TranslatorsinSicilyandToledoren-deredArabicworksintoLatin,French,Spanish,andHebrewwithoutasubstantiallossofmeaning,therebycreatingatrueinternational-ityofsciences.Medievalthinkers–Christian,Jewish,andMuslim–confrontedidenticalphilosophicalissues,refractedthroughdiffer-entlinguisticprisms,theirmethodsandbasicpostulatesbeingsim-ilar.WithouttheintenseGreco–ArabictranslationactivityintheIslamicworldandtransmissionofthesetextsintoHebrewandLatin,medievalJewishthoughtandLatinScholasticismareinconceivable.TheextentoftextstranslatedfromGreekintoArabicisbreathtakinginscope:thePresocratics,Plato,Aristotle,Euclid,Ptolemy,Galen,Plotinus,Porphyry,Proclus,Alexander,Themistius,NicomachusofGerasa,andothers.7TheGreco–Arabictranslationmovementbeganinfullvigorun-derthecaliphal-Ma
mun(813–33),andwascenteredattheBaytal-Hikma(HouseofWisdom)inBaghdad.Thiswasalibrarycon-tainingwritingsonphilosophyandscience,includingmanuscriptsbroughtfromtheByzantineempire.Itservedasaplaceforschol-arstoconvene,andhadanastronomicalobservatory.HeretheNestorianHunaynb.IshaqandhiscolleaguestranslatedGreekphilosophyandscience,particularlymedicine,intoSyriacandArabic,usingsoundphilologicalmethod,huntingdownandcol-latingGreekmanuscripts.ThephilosopherAbuYusufYaqubal-Kindihelpedfosterthisenterprise.TheNestorianmedicalschoolinPersianGondeshapurproducedphysiciansandtranslatorswhocon-tributedtotheriseofscientificandintellectualpursuitsinIslamiccivilization.Asecondwaveoftranslationactivity,mainlyfromSyriacver-sions,tookplaceinthetenthcentury,withtheNestorianMattab.YunusandtheJacobiteYahyab.Adiintheforefront.Thesescholars,alongwithotherChristianandMuslimphilosophersinBaghdad,wrotecommentariesonAristotelianworks.TheAlexandriantra-ditionofAristotlestudieswastransferredbySyriac-speakingChristianstointellectualcentersinAntiochandBaghdad.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n42MedievalJewishphilosophyTheaccommodationtoChristianbeliefsintheNeoplatonicschoolofAlexandriaservedasamodelforIslamicphilosophers.Christianphilosophers(suchasthesixth-centuryJohnPhiloponus)presentedAristotleinalightfavorabletoChristianity.Philoponus’rejectionofAristoteliancosmologyprovidedIslamictheologianswitheffectivearguments.GreekandSyriacChristiantheologicalinquiryisconsideredtohavebeenamainsourceofIslamickalam.Theschooltraditionofthe(pagan)PlatonicAcademyinAthens(Plutarch,Syrianus,Iamblichus,Proclus,Damascius,Simplicius)wasalsotransmittedtotheIslamicmilieu.TheAthenianschoolhadbeenhostiletoChristianityandrejectedAlexandrianconces-sionstoit.ThephilosophicalinterpretationofpaganmythologybyIamblichusandProclus,likethephilosophicalhermeneuticsofPlotinusandPorphyry,servedasamodelformonotheisticdemythol-ogizingofsacredtexts.TheAthenianschoolwasmoredisposedthanitsAlexandriancounterparttoadmitrevealedknowledgeandsuper-naturalinsight.Alongtheselines,theMuslimphilosopheral-Kindibelievedthatpropheticrevelationissuperiortohumanknowledge.ArabictranslatorsrenderedGreektermsbyfunctionallyequiva-lentidioms,recontextualizingthemandmakingthemrhetoricallyeffectiveintheirnewsocio-culturalcontext.Translationisnotameretransferenceoflexicalitemsfromsourcetotargetlanguagebutacommunicativeprocessofadaptation,aculturaltransferfromsourcetotargetculture,atransmissionfromonelanguageandcul-turalcontexttoanother.ThetranslatorsaccommodatedGreeklocutionstoanIslamicset-tingbyusingArabicexpressionswithareligiousnuanceandacon-genialsemanticload.TheyrenderedGreeknomos(“[civil]law,”“custom”)bytheIslamictermsSharia(“religiouslaw”)andsunna(“custom,”“tradition”),althoughthewordnamuswasalsoused.Greeknomothetes(“lawgiver,”“legislator”)wasregularlytranslatedbywadial-Shariaoral-Sunna–“onewhopositsthereligiouslaw.”8Thetranslatorspurgedpaganvestigesfromancienttextsbysubstituting“God”or“angels”for“gods.”TheAristotelianFirstMoverwasexpedientlyequatedwith“Allah.”Greekenthousiasmoswastranslatedbyreligioustermsforinspirationandprophecylikeilham,wahy,andnubuwwa,referringtotheultimatehumanknowl-edge.ThePlatonicphilosopher-kingbecame“Imam”(theheadoftheIslamiccommunity).ThestruggletoconverttheworldtotheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheIslamiccontext43ruleofphilosophyandthesovereigntyofreasoniscalledjihad.ThiscommunicationofGreekphilosophicalconceptsinIslamictermscomportswiththeviewofthefalasifathatreligioussymbolsareamimesisofphilosophicaltruths.platoarabusAsthePlatonicdialogueswerenottranslatedintact,thedialogueformanddramaticsettingwerelost.Plato’sRepublic,Timaeus,andLawswereaccessible,andselectpassagesfromtheCrito,Phaedo,andSymposiumsurviveinArabic.Socrateswasviewedasamodelofthephilosophicalwayoflife,hisdeathcitedasparadigmaticoftheconflictbetweenphilosophyandthecity.Passagesfromcommen-tariesonPlato(e.g.Olympiodorus,Proclus)wereavailable,aswereGalen’ssynopsesoftheTimaeus,Republic,andLaws.Plato’sRepublicwasthebasictextfortheorizingaboutpolitics.Itinducedanunderstandingoftheprophetasaguideofsocietyalongthelinesofaphilosopher-king.TheIslamicphilosophersunderstoodpoliticalsciencetobeanexaminationofthebestpolity,idealrule,typesofregime,justice,andhumanhappiness.Thestudyofprophecyandthelawwassubsumedunderthisscience.Plato’sRepublicisamodelforal-Farabi’sOpinionsoftheInhabi-tantsoftheVirtuousCityandisdecisiveforallhispoliticalwritings.HewroteacommentaryontheRepublic,knownfromAverroes’cita-tionsinhisowncommentary.9AverroesappealedtotheRepublicforthinkingaboutpoliticsbecause,hesays,hecouldnotfindanArabicversionofAristotle’sPolitics,whichheheardwasavailableintheMuslimEast.Inhiscommentary,Averroesenvisionsthetransfor-mationoftheMuslimstateintoPlato’sidealregimethroughaseriesofenlightenedrulerswhowouldgraduallyreformtheirsocieties.Al-Farabi’ssummaryofPlato’sphilosophypresentedthedialoguesinthematicsequence,stressingtheirpoliticalaspectandexcludingNeoplatonicdoctrines.ItwasthecenterpieceofatrilogybeginningwiththeAttainmentofHappinessandendingwiththePhilosophyofAristotle.10IntheAttainmental-Farabigiveshis(andancient)viewsonphilosophyandreligion.Philosophyispriortoreligionintime,andreligionisamimesisofphilosophy.Theperfectphilosopher,likethesupremeruler,teachesthepopulaceandformstheircharactersotheymayreachthehappinesstheyarecapableofattaining.IntheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n44MedievalJewishphilosophynexttwopartsheexpoundstheideasofPlatoandAristotle,onlyrarelytryingtoharmonizethem,whichhedoeselsewhere.LeoStraussviewedthePhilosophyofPlatoasthekeyforunlock-ingal-Farabi’sthought,ontheassumptionthathetaughthisownmostpersonalviewschieflyunderthecamouflageofinterpreter.ByomittingdistinctivePlatonicthemes(theoryofideas,immortality)inasummaryofPlato’sentirephilosophy,Straussargued,hewasintimatingaveiledteaching.TheeditorsofthePhilosophyofPlatorathertracedthispoliticallyorientedportraitofPlatotoapresumedMiddlePlatonicsource.11Inanotherinterpretivework,thesummaryofPlato’sLaws,al-FarabishowshowtheGreeknotionofdivinelawhelpsoneunderstanddivinelawsingeneral.Plato’sLawsrepresentstheauthoritativephilosophicteachingonprophecyandtherevealedlaws.12Al-Farabisubsumedthestudyofreligion,jurisprudence(fiqh),andtheology(kalam)undertheheadingofpoliticalscience.13Avicennafollowedsuitbymakingpracticalphilosophy,includingPlato’sLaws,thestartingpointforthestudyofprophecyandthereligiouslaw.14ThefalasifaalsoreadPlatothroughtheprismofaNeoplatonictradition,thatis,asinterpretedbyPlotinus,Porphyry,andProclus.Shihabal-Dinal-SuhrawardiandtheIslamicIlluminationistphiloso-phers(Ishraqiyyun)stressedthemysticalaspectsofNeoplatonismandreveredPlato(“thedivine”)asthegreatestofancientsages,theimamandra
is(chief)ofwisdom.Revivinganancientphilo-sophicaltradition,asheclaimed,al-Suhrawardiestablishedanintel-lectualaffiliationwithHermes(whoprecededPlato)andwiththegreatsages,“thepillarsofwisdom,”likePythagoras,Empedocles,Socrates,Plato,andAristotle,alongwithsagesofancientPersiaandIndia,andanumberofSufisinthesamesilsila(chainofspiritualdescent).neoplatonismTheLegacyPlotinuswastransmittedtotheIslamicmilieuintheguiseoftheTheologyofAristotle,aparaphraseofpartsofBooks4–6oftheEnneads,aswellasintextsascribedto“theGreekSage,”andinCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheIslamiccontext45aworkentitledtheDivineScience.15TheTheologyofAristotleex-istsinashortrecensionascribedtoal-Kindiandinalongversion,evidentlyanexpansionofit.Theaimoftheal-Kindicircle,inwhichthePlotinianaArabicaemerged,wastodisseminateanaturaltheologytranscendingsec-tariandoctrinebyusingIslamicconceptstoconveyaphilosophicalmonotheismappealingtointellectuals.16ThelongversionoftheTheologywastranslatedintoHebrewandItalianbyMosesArovas,aCypriotJewishphysician,whowasalsoinfluentialinhavingitrenderedintoLatin.Thisversionisintrigu-ing,asitintroducesalogosdoctrine–“theword,”alsocalledGod’s“power”and“will”–betweenthePlotinianOneandtheFirstIntel-ligence.Italsodepictsonewhocreatestheworldexnihilo(laminshay’).17ThesupersensiblesubstancesintheArabicPlotinus,asintheEnneads,aretheOne,Intelligence(Mind),Soul,andNature.Ploti-nusregardedtheOneas“beyondbeing,”asPlato’sGoodisbeyondbeing(Republic6:509b).TheArabicPlotinus,likePorphyry,portraystheOneaspurebeing,beingitself,orabsolutebeing,notalimited,determinatebeing.Proclus’ElementsofTheologywasreworkedinArabicwithmonotheisticmodificationsasKitabal-Idah(Kalam)fimahdal-khayr(DiscourseonthePureGood),knownintheWestasLiberdeCausis,andgenerallytakentobebyAristotle.18Itcomesfromthesameal-KindimilieuastheTheologyofAristotle.Neoplatonicem-anationispresentedasanactoforigination(ibda).TheFirstCauseisthePureGoodandtheOriginatorofIntelligenceandofallotherthingsintheworldthroughitsmediation.ThePureGoodcausesgoodthingstopermeatethroughouttheworld,eachexistententityreceivinginaccordancewithitspotentiality.Since“everythingisineverythingbutinamannerappropriatetoeach,”19theobservablehorizonsintheworldreflectinvisiblelevelsofbeing.Proclus’systemsubstitutesforPlotinus’IntelligenceatriadofBeing–Life–Intelligence.HebridgesthegapbetweentheOneandBe-ingwithaseriesofprinciplesofindividualitycalledhenads(“ones”).Thesearederivativeunities,identifiedbyProcluswiththeHellenicgods.TheymediatebetweentheOneandlowerrealitiesandexer-ciseprovidenceintheworld.TheArabicversiondisplacesthemanydivinehenadswiththeFirstGood.Itispurebeing(anniyyafaqat),CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n46MedievalJewishphilosophytheOne,theReal,20anditisaboveeternity,withoutqualification,name,orform.NeoplatonismiscombinedwithmonotheisticcreationismintextsascribedtoPresocraticphilosophersinArabicdoxographicandgnomologicalcollections.Thalesissaidtohaveheldadoctrineofcreatioexnihilo.Thatis,originallyonlythecreator(mubdi)existed,andhecreatedwithoutthepresenceofaformalongwithhim.Be-forecreationhealoneexisted,andallattributeswerecontainedinhisuniqueself-identity,“heishe”(huwahuwa).21Pseudo-Ammonius’Ara
al-falasifadefinescreation,ororigination(ibda),asmakingsomethingexistthathadnotexistedbefore(ta
yyisshay
mimmalamyakun).22EmpedoclesissaidtohaveheldthatonlyGod’sbeinghasalwaysexistedaseternallyhisownessence(huwiyyatuhu).Heispureknowledge,purewill,bounty,power,justice,goodness,andtruth,allthesepowersbelongingtohisessence.ThisEmpedocleandoctrineofdivineattributesinfluencedtheearlyMutazilitheolo-gian,Abul-Hudhaylal-Allaf.Thefirstsimpleintelligibleentitypro-ducedbytheCreator(al-mubdi)istheprimordialelementorfirstmatter(al-unsural-awwal).23Empedoclesstatesthatworldlybeingshaveonlypossibleexistence(al-wujudal-imkani)insofarastheyareproduced,whereasGod’sessenceisuniqueinhavingnecessaryex-istence(wajibal-wujud)independentofproduction.24TheancientsciencesthatcametotheIslamicmilieuinNeopla-tonicguisewereboundupwiththereligiousandpseudo-scientificheritageoflateantiquity–alchemy,astrology,magic,andtheurgy.Theurgicpraxis,asfollowedbyProclusandIamblichus,blendedwithEgyptianandHermeticthemes.TheSabiansofHarran,intheIslamicperiod,heirsofthePlatonicschoolofAthens,manyofthemoutstandingastronomersandmathematicians,wereastrolatorswhoaspiredtoreachthespiritualbeings(ruhaniyyat)bymeansoftheplanets,thecelestialtemples.AstrologywaswidelyacceptedbyintellectualsintheIslamicen-vironment.Itrequiredsoundknowledgeofastronomyformakingcalculationsofthepositionsofthevariousplanetsinthetwelveconstellationsofthezodiac.Judicialastrology,whichassessestheastralinfluencesonhumandestiny,includesconjectureondynas-ticfatesandtheadventoftheMahdi.ThesepredictionswerebasedonconjunctionsoftheplanetsSaturnandJupiterincyclesof20,240or260,and960years.TheforecastsgaverisetomalahimCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheIslamiccontext47(orhidthan)works–booksoforaclesofaneschatologicalnature.Thesewerepopularamongsectariangroups,suchasShiiMuslimsandJews,whoenvisionedtheendofSunniMuslimdomination,astheywerealsoamongSunnis.Alchemywasoftentreatedallegoricallyinmysticalspeculation,wheretransmutationofbasetopreciousmetalswasinterpretedasasymbolofhumantransformationintoadivinenature.ResponsestoNeoplatonismNeoplatonismisareligiousmovementandadoctrineofsalvationaswellasaphilosophicalsystem.Assuch,itsbasicpostulatesconflictwiththemonotheisticfaiths:animpersonalOneandnecessaryema-nationratherthanvoluntarycreation,mysticalilluminationinsteadofrevelation,asoteriology(includingmetempsychosis)submergingtheindividualsoulintheuniversalsoul.Thesebarrierswerenot,however,insurmountable.Themethodoffigurativeinterpretation,cultivatedbyancientNeoplatonists(asbyPythagoreansandStoics)toidentifypaganmythswithrationalconcepts(asProclusidentifiedthehenadswiththegodsofmythol-ogy),wasusedbythefalasifatoapplyaphilosophicalhermeneuticstoScripture.Wehaveseenhowcreationbecameametaphorforeter-nalprocession.ProphecyandsupernaturalknowledgearepresentedintermsakintoilluminationandvisioninEnneads5:3.17and5:5.8.ThecelebratedpassageonecstasyintheTheologyofAristotle,basedonEnneads4:8.1,isfrequentlycited:“OftenhaveIbeenalonewithmysoulandhavedoffedmybodyandlaiditasideandbecomeasifIwerenakedsubstancewithoutbody,soastobeinsidemyself,outsideallotherthings.”25Neoplatonismwascongenialtoreligioussentiment.Assimilationtothedivine(homoiosistheoi)wasagoalofphilosophyintheNeo-platonicintroductionstoAristotle(“assimilationtoGodasfarasat-tainableforman”),traceabletoafamouspassageinPlato’sTheaete-tus(176a).TheintensespiritualityofNeoplatonisminspiredthekindofsynthesiswithreligiousfeelingthatwefindintheintellectualmysticismofAvicenna,IbnTufayl,andal-Suhrawardi.Thinkersin-fluencedbyNeoplatonismandSufismregardedhumanreasonaslimitedandviewedmysticalexperienceasawaytoahigheraware-ness.ExperienceratherthanreasonisthepathtothemysteriousCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n48MedievalJewishphilosophyOnebeyondbeingandintelligibility.Unlikethesemysticallyin-clinedsages,falasifalikeal-FarabiandAverroesregardedprophecyascontactbetweenthesupremehumanintelligenceandacosmic,divineintelligencebeyondit,theAgentIntellect(al-aqlal-faal/nouspoietikos).Neoplatonismhasadualaspect:adownwardwayofemanationfromtheOneandanupwardwaybythesoul’sascenttoIntelligenceandthroughlovetoultimateunionwiththeOne.Thesoul’sreturntoablissfulunionwiththedivineisrealizedconsummatelyintheafterlife.NoneoftheMuslimfalasifa,exceptperhapsal-Kindi,acceptedthedoctrineofcreationfromnothing.Mostpresentedemanation-istdoctrineincreationistlanguage.ThePlatonicideaofademiurgebringingthevisibleworldfromdisordertoorder(minlanizamilanizam/eistaxinektesataxias)(Timaeus30a)–aformatiomundi–wasappealingtothefalasifaandagreeabletoreligioussentimentasadivinetransformationofchaosintotheorderofcreation.26TheArabicversionofGalen’scompendiumoftheTimaeususesthelanguageofcreation,withPlato’sdemiurgebecoming“Allah”andal-khaliq(thecreator).ThePlatonicmodel,havingthedemiurgeasefficientcause,wasfusedwithNeoplatonicemanation,givingrisetoatheoryofeternalcreation.ThisideaconformedwithQur
anicversesdepictingAllahastheCreatorwhodoesnotceasetocreate(al-khallaq)(10:4,34;30:11;36:81).Whenthephilosophersspokeofcreation,theyusuallymeantsomemodeofdependenceoftheworldonGod,itseternalsus-tainer.Spokenfigurativelyitwastemporalcreation,butintherealsenseitwasaneternalprocess.Thetermibda(creation,in-novation,origination),introducedintothephilosophicallexiconbyPseudo-AmmoniusinAra
al-falasifa,meansbringingintoex-istenceofthesupernalsimplesubstances,orthefirstinnovated(al-mubdaal-awwal),by“aneternal,timelessexistentiation.”27IbdaisconvenientlyreminiscentofQur
anicbadi,“creator”(2:117;6:101).ForIbnArabiandothermysticalthinkersinfluencedbyNeo-platonism,creationisamanifestation(tajalli)ofGod,asexistententitiesmirrorthedivineessence.ThemetaphoroflightinNeopla-tonistandSufitextswasevocativeofQur
anicreferencestoGodas“LightuponLight”(24:35).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheIslamiccontext49Islamicphilosophersspokeofcreationanihilo,whereby“noth-ing”theymeanttheOnebeyondbeingandattributes.Godiscalled“nothing”/“nothing”becauseofhisincomprehensibilityandinef-fability.TheworldiscreatedfromtheessenceofGod(creatioexessentiaDei)asforDionysiustheAreopagiteandJohnScotusEriugena.PorphyryhadexpressedthisbysayingthatGodgener-atesthingsfromhimself,andPlotinusspokeofbeingcomingfromtheOne.By“nothing”(al-adam)thefalasifaoccasionallyintendedmatter,whichforPlotinusisnon-being(meon).IslamicNeoplatonismwasmultifaceted,asNeoplatonismwasnotsimplyanamplificationofPlato.PlotinushadalreadyadoptedintohissystemaspectsofAristotelianism,Pythagoreanism,andStoicism.PorphyryreceivedAristotle’scorpuswithintheNeopla-toniccurriculum.TheschoolofAlexandriadevotedmuchefforttocommentariesonAristotle.AndwhileNeoplatonismcombinedphi-losophywithmysticism,itwasalsoconcernedwithlogicalandse-manticmethod,mathematics,epistemology,theoriesofspaceandtime,andethics.28TheNeoplatonicharmonization(byAmmoniusSaccas,Plotinus,Porphyry,andSimplicius)ofPlatoandAristotleinfluencedthecourseofNeoplatonismintheIslamicmilieu.Al-Farabi’sHarmo-nizationoftheOpinionsoftheTwoWiseMen:Plato,theDivineandAristotlesetsouttoprovethis.Inadeepersense,however,itisadefenseofphilosophyagainstcriticismthatphilosopherscon-tradictoneanotherandunderminephilosophy’svalidity.Al-Farabiassertsthatthetwosagesconcuronthemainissues,suchascreationandimmortality,andthattheirideasdonotconflictwithreligiousbeliefs.29IntheHarmonization,al-FarabipresentsAristotleasbelievingincreation.HearguesthatAristotledoesnotaffirmeternityintheDeCaeloasiscommonlybelieved.WhatAristotlemeanttherewasthattheuniversehasnotemporalbeginningbecausetimeresultsfromthemovementofthesphere.30Thecreatorcreatesthesphereinasingleinstantoftimewithouttemporalduration,andtimeresultsfromthesphere’smovement.Al-FarabiostensiblyacceptsAristotle’sauthorshipoftheTheologyofAristotleasprovingtheexistenceofanartisanwhocreatestheworldbyhiswill.Accordingly,Godistheefficientcause,theOne,theReal,creatorofeverything.This,saysal-Farabi,accordswithPlato’steachingintheTimaeusandRepublic.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n50MedievalJewishphilosophyAl-Farabishows,followingalateHellenisticmotif,thatthediver-gentliterarystylesofPlatoandAristotlehavethesameaim.31Platorefrainedfrominscribingthesciencesinbooks,favoringpureheartsandcongenialminds(seePhaedrus275ff.).Whenhewasoldandafraidofforgetting(SeventhLetter344e),hewrotethingsdown,butusedparables(rumuz)andenigmas(alghaz)sothatonlythedeservingwouldunderstand.32Aristotle,however,communicatedinwritingbyelucidationandexhaustivediscussion,therebymakingphiloso-phyaccessible,towhichPlatoallegedlyobjected.ItisexplainedthatAristotle’sstylewasneverthelessabstruse,obscure,andcomplicateddespiteitsapparentclarity.33AlexandrianintroductionstoAristotle,whichwereknownintheIslamicenvironment,elucidatedthattheaimofAristotle’sobscuritywastoexcludetheunworthy,likecurtainsintemples.Thewrit-ingsofthe“pillarsofwisdom”(Empedocles,Pythagoras,Socrates,Plato)arefilledwithsymbolsandenigmas.Theyemployedthisstylebecause(1)theywereaversetohavingtheunworthydelveintothesecretsofwisdomandcometoharm;(2)sothattheloverofwisdomsparenoefforttoacquireit,howeverdifficult,andsothatthelazyshunitbecauseofitsabstruseness;(3)todisciplinenaturebytaxingthemind,sothatthestudentnotbelaxandcom-placent,andsothathestrivestounderstandwhatiscomplexandintricate.34aristotelesarabusTheLegacyAristotleiscalledinArabicphilosophicaltexts“thephilosopher,”“thefirstteacher”(al-Farabibeingthesecond),andisconsideredtheultimateinhumanperfection.35TheArabicAristotleisnotadog-maticauthority,asheisoftenportrayedlaterintheWest,butaseekeroftruth,tentativelypromulgatingplausibletheories.Aristotleheldthatphilosophybeginswithproblemsandpuzzles,andthrivesbyunravelingdifficulties.Followingthisline,themastersofartsinthirteenth-centuryParisfoundinAristotleamodelscientistandresearcherwhoposesquestionsquahunter(PriorAnalytics1:30,46a11),discoverer(NicomacheanEthics3:3,1112b19),andinvesti-gator(Metaphysics1:2,983a23).36CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheIslamiccontext51TheArabtranslatorsrenderedintoArabicthebulkoftheAris-toteliancorpus,exceptforthePolitics,theEudemianEthics,MagnaMoralia,andthedialogues.TheytranslatedtheentireOrganonandPorphyry’sIsagoge,whichwasusedasanintroductiontoit.TheRhetoricandPoeticswereincludedinthelogicalworks,sothatrhetoricalandpoeticalstatementsweretreatedalongsidedemonstra-tiveanddialecticalpropositions.37TheArabicPhysicswastransmit-tedintactwithcitationsfromclassicalcommentatorsandglossesbymembersofthetenth-centuryBaghdadschoolofAristotlestudies.TheIslamicphilosophersalsohadaccesstotheDeCaelo,DeGen-erationeetCorruptione,Meteorology,DePartibusAnimalium,DeAnima,DeSensu,Metaphysics,andNicomacheanEthics.Aristotlewasstudiedalongwithhiscommentators,inparticularAlexanderofAphrodisias,Porphyry,JohnPhiloponus,andThemistius.SomeoftheirwritingsnotextantinGreekarepreservedinArabic.AverroeswrotemanycommentariesonAristotle,includingamid-dlecommentaryontheNicomacheanEthicsandlongcommen-tariesontheMetaphysicsandtheDeAnima(thelastextantonlyinLatin).Averroes
commentariesweredoneinthreepossiblerecen-sions,knownasshort,middle,andgreat,servingasagradualini-tiationintoPeripateticthought.Inthegreatcommentaries(calledtafsir),hecommentsonthetextbyparagraphandbycitinglemmatainextenso,andusingcommentariesbypredecessorslikeAlexander.ResponsestoAristotelianismAristotle’ssystemcontradictsthemonotheisticrevealedreligionsontheissuesofcreation,divineprovidence,andthehereafter.GodisforAristotleintelligenceknowingintellectionitself,noesisnoseos.Heissimultaneouslythought(aql),thinking(aqil)andobjectofthought(maqul).Aristotle’sGodisthefinalcauseoftheuniverse,nottheefficientcauseofitsexistence(althoughcommentatorsdis-agreedonthislastpoint).TheAristotelianideaofaneternaluniverseandpermanentworldorder–hisbeliefthattheuniverseisstatic,withnobeginningorend–conflictswiththeIslamicdoctrineofGodasCreatoroftheworldbyafreeactofwill(Qur
an2:117,3:47,16:40,etc.).38Averroes,adevotedAristotelian,affirmedtheexistenceofaneter-nalworldorder,andwasconvincedthatcreatioexnihilounderminesCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n52MedievalJewishphilosophynaturalcausationandtherebyprecludesnaturalscience.Yethetoousedthelanguageofcreationorinnovation.TheworldiscoeternalwithGodaseternallymovedbyGod(anon-temporallypriorcause)inaprocessofeternalinnovation.Existentbeingsareinnovatedasbroughtfrompotentialitytoactuality.AverroescandescribethiseternalprocessinthelanguageofcreationbecauseGodisthecauseofthecontinuousmotionoftheheavenlyspheresandtherebythecauseoftheexistenceofallotherbeings.Godisanintelligent,cre-ativeagentwhicheternallybringstheworldfromthenon-beingofpotentialitytothebeingofactualexistence.39ThisrealizationofbeingAverroescalls“creation.”Averroes
Tahafutal-Tahafut,directedagainstal-Ghazali’scritiqueoftheAristoteliantradition(Tahafutal-falasifa),wasatthesametimeaimedagainstAvicenna’sNeoplatonicemanationism.AverroescarefullyprunedNeoplatonicbranchesfromhisAristoteliantree,discardingemanationismascrypto-creationism,andpropoundingamorenaturalisticAristotelianism.40IbnTufayl’sHayyibnYaqzanregardsargumentsforcreationandeternityasequivalenttruthclaims.Boththeassumptionoftheuniverse’seternityanditsinnovationentailanomaliesofreason.However,itisargued,theimplicationsofbothargumentsarethesame,foracreatedworldmusthaveanagent,andaneternalworldhavingeternalmotionimpliesaFirstMover.Asproofsforcreationandeternityareequivalent,one’scommitmenttooneovertheotherresultsfromadecisionofthewill.Averroesbelievedthatargumentsfortheeternityoftheuniversearedialectical,andthatAristotlehimselfregardedthemasnomorethanplausible.WhenAristotlesaysthatthequestionwhethertheuniverseiseternalornotistoovastforustosolvewithconvincingarguments(Topics1:11,104b1–105a9),al-Farabiunderstandsthistomeanthattheissuewhethertheworldiseternalornotisdialec-tical,andthatnosolutionbaseduponademonstrativesyllogismexists.ThephysicianGalen,al-Farabiobserves,couldnotfindhiswaytodemonstratingeternity,forallthedemonstrationsareofequalvalue.41ThefalasifadidnotresttheirproofsforGod’sexistenceonthepremiseofcreationasdidthemutakallimun.InAvicenna’sclas-sicformulation–whichreverberatedthroughthecenturies,andappealedtoDescartes,Leibniz,andSpinoza–GodistheNecessaryCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheIslamiccontext53Beingwhoseessenceimpliesexistence.ForGod,essenceandexis-tenceareidentical,whereasforallotherbeings,essenceandexis-tencearedistinct,suchthatexistenceisanaccidentthatmayormaynotaccruetoessence.42Godisself-caused,whereasexistentbeingsalwayshavethepossibilityofnotbeing.43Avicenna’scosmologicalproofforGod’sexistencestartswithourcertaintythatsomethingexists.44Thismajorpremise,“somethingexists,”isasimplepostulateacceptabletoeveryone.Nowthisentitydoesnotexistbynecessitybutiscontingent,thatis,thereisnocontradictioninitsnon-existence.Itmustthereforehaveacausethatactualizesitsbeing.Thiscausemaybenecessaryorcontingent.Ifcontingent,wemustseekapriorcauseandfollowaseriesofcausesuntilwecometoaNecessaryBeing,fortherecannotbeaninfiniteseriesofcausesbringingaboutaneffect.TheremustthereforeexistaNecessaryBeing(cf.Metaphysics12:7,1072b10–13).TheexistenceoftheNecessaryBeingislogicallynecessarysuchthatitsdenialwouldinvolveacontradiction.AvicennagoesontoassertthatthisNecessaryBeingisequivalenttoGod.45TheNecessaryBeingproducesasingleIntelligence(followingtheNeoplatonicprinciplethat“fromtheOnecancomeonlyone”),whichisthefirstinnovatedbeing.FromIntelligence,byaprocessofemanation,aseriesofintelligences,celestialsouls,andceles-tialspheresproceeduntilthetenthintelligence,theagentintellect,whichpresidesovertheterrestrialworld.46InhisdescriptionofGod,Avicennaespousedthedoctrineofnegativeattributes,thatessentialattributesascribedtoGod(existing,one,wise,powerful)donothaveapositivesensebutmustbeunderstoodasdenialsoftheiropposites.AvicennarejectedtheAristotelianprooffrommotionbecauseitdoesnotestablishtheOne,theReal,theultimateprincipleofallexistence,butonlytheprincipleofthemotionofthecelestialsphere,nottheprincipleofitsexistence.47AverroesfavoredtheprooffrommotionandopposedAvicenna’sargumentforaNecessaryBeinganditspresumptionthatexistenceisanattributesuperaddedtoessence.AverroesregardedtheAristotelianproofforaFirstMoverastheonlyconvincingargument.TheFirstMovercanbeproventoexistonlybyreferencetophysics,itsstartingpointbeingphysicaldatalikemotion.TheargumentsofAvicennaandAverroeshaveincommonthattheyarecosmologicalargumentsandpostulatetheimpossibilityofaninfiniteregressofcauses.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n54MedievalJewishphilosophyForAvicenna,theNecessaryBeingisproventoexistinthemetaphysicalrealm,beyondnature.Avicenna’sNecessaryBeingistranscendent,outsidethecosmosanddistinctfromtheintellectoftheoutersphere.Averroes
deityisproventoexistinnature,andisidenticalwiththeintellectoftheoutersphere,enmeshedintheworkingsofnature.Theworld,forIslamicAristotelians,isgovernedproximatelybytheAgentIntellect,thetenthintelligence,ofthelowestcelestialsphere(ofthemoon),whichgivesparticularformstosublunarphys-icalobjectsanduniversalformstothehumansoul.ThefalasifaidentifytheAgentIntellectwiththeangelofrevelation,orGabriel,malakut,“thespiritofholiness,”and“thetrustworthyspirit.”Essences,orforms,existasparadigmsintheAgentIntellect,ab-stractlyinthehumanmindandconcretelyinobjects.Thetruthisthereforedefinedbyacorrespondencetheory,theintelligibleformsinthemindconformingtoformsinsensibleobjects.Thecorrespon-dencebetweenmindandtheworldorderisthusbothnoeticandontological.Theuniverseisrationalandcanbeunderstoodbythehumanmind.Thereisacommensurabilityandreciprocallinkagebetweenhumanbeingsandtheuniverse.TheAgentIntellectisbaseduponanobscurepassageinDeAnima3:5,430a13–15,whereAristotlereferstoanousthatbecomesallthingsandanousthatmakesallthings,aslightmakespoten-tialcolorsintoactualcolors.ThecommentatorsAlexander(andpseudo-Alexander),Themistius,and(pseudo-)Philoponus,withsomevariationofdetails,accountforhumancognitionbydistinguishingdifferentstages.Onitsownthemindattainssensationandimagina-tion.Understandingtheintelligible,however,involvesthefollowingdynamism:(1)Thereisapotentialintellect,calledalso“materialintellect”,apurepotentialityforintellection.Thepotentialintel-lectcomprehendsallforms,receivesallideasand,likeAristotle’sprimematter,isauniversalpotentialitythatcanbecomeallthings.(2)ThereisanAgentIntellect,whichmakesallthingsbygivingformstoobjectsandtothehumanintellect.Itentersthesoulfromoutside,actualizes,orillumines,thepotentialintellect,andab-stractsformsfromtheirmatter,makingthemknownandproducingthought.(3)WhentheAgentIntellectentersthehumanmindandcreatesahabitus(hexis)ofintelligiblethinking,itbecomestheacquiredintellect(al-aqlal-mustafad/nousepiktetos),capableofCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheIslamiccontext55apprehendingintelligiblesevenwhencorrespondingsensiblesareabsent.(4)Whentheacquiredintellectperformsitscompetencetointelligizeitissaidtobeinactu(bil-fil/kat
energeian).48Wehumansthinkbymeansofthesame(Agent)Intellect,asthoughourmindswereourpersonalcomputerstappingintoamain-framecomputer,thecosmicmind,orAgentIntellect.Howelsecouldwecomprehendrealityifwedidnotaccessthemindoftheuniverse?Theuniversehasamindandwethinkwithit.Theuniverseisratio-nalandknowablebecausethesamecosmicmindthatdeterminesitsorder(thelawsofnature)illumineshumanintelligence.Thecosmosismind-like,andsohumanbeingscanunderstanditandfindinitasourceofdelight.Humansfindmeaningandorderinlifeandnaturebecauseintheclosedworldofmedievalastronomyeverythinghaditsnaturalplaceandpurpose.Theuniverseisnotonlyintelligiblebutintelligent.TheAgentIntellectisseparate,pure,andimpassive,anditthinksincessantly(DeAnima3:5,430a22).AlexanderofAphrodisiasidentifieditwiththedivineintelligenceitself,theFirstCauseofMetaphysics12.Others(ThemistiusandPhiloponus)didnotequatetheAgentIntellectwithGod.TheAgentIntellectisakintotheNeoplatonicIntelligence,whichemanatesfromtheOne,andtheyhavesimilarnoeticfunctionsasactualizingthought.TheNeopla-tonicnous,however,ishypercosmic,whereastheAgentIntellectisencosmicasbelongingtothelowestcelestialsphere.Averroesheldthatthefacultyofintellection–thepassive,orma-terial,intellect–isuniversalandthesameforallhumankind,par-ticipatedinbytheindividualperson.Thisfacultyispermanentlyactualizedinthetotalityofhumankind,sothathumansareneverwithoutit.Thehumanspeciesiseternal,andimmortalityiscol-lectiveandrelatestothisonehumanintellect.49Theunityoftheintellect(whatLeibnizlatercalls“monopsychism”)impliesadenialofindividualimmortality.ThisthesisandothersofAverroesandAristotlewerecondemnedinParisin1270andin1277.50Immortalityforthefalasifaisthesurvivaloftherationalpartofahumanbeing,aboonforthehappyfew.Intellectwheniso-latedasitstrueselfisimmortalandeternal(DeAnima430a23;cf.DeGenerationeAnimalium736b27).Itisthepointofcontactbetweenthehumananddivine.ThefalasifaregardedthereligiousideaofpersonalimmortalityandthebeliefinphysicalresurrectionasCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n56MedievalJewishphilosophysociallybeneficialmyths.Forphilosophersandmysticsimmortal-ityisaspiritualascensionandreturntoGodratherthanacontinuedexistenceinaquasi-physicalparadiseasdepictedintheQur
an.Con-tact,or“conjunction”(ittisal),betweentheindividualintellectandthedivineintellectisablissfulenlightenmentleadingtoimmor-tality.ItisthephilosophicalcounterpartoftheSufiuniomystica(ittihad)wheretheunioniswithGod.51TheIslamicphilosophers,followingAristotle,sawthesummumbonumasconsistingintheoreticalcontemplation.Theydepictedsupremeperfectionastheconjoiningofthehumanintellectwiththecosmicintellect,ortherealmofspiritualforms.Aristotlesug-gestsakinshipbetweenthedivineandthehumanintellectbysayingthatduringintellectionthesubjectbecomesonewithitsob-ject,intellectbecomingitsintelligible,liketheUnmovedMover(Metaphysics12:9,1074b34),whichisself-intelligizedintelligence.IbnBajja(Avempace)andIbnTufaylpresenttheidealphilosoph-icallifeaswithdrawal(emigration)fromimperfectcitiesandiso-lationfromhumankindinpurecontemplationoftheintelligible.Thisindividualisticethosdiffersfromtheethicalsystemsofotherfalasifa(al-Farabi,Miskawayh,Averroes)whichstressedthehumanneedforsocietyandpoliticalorderandtheimportanceofloveandfriendship.Aristotle’swell-knowndictum,oftencitedbythefalasifa,“Manisbynatureapoliticalanimal”(NicomacheanEthics1:7,1097b12andPolitics1:2,1253a2),definedhumannatureforthem.Islamicethicaltheory,likeitsclassicalforbear,isvirtuebased,asitwasconcernedwithmoraleducation,character,goodness,andno-bility,thewholeoflifeanditspurpose.52Thefalasifasawsupremehappiness,followingAristotle,asbeingactivityinaccordancewithreason.Theoreticalreasonisthedivineelementinhumankind,anditaboveallelseiswhatweashumansare(NicomacheanEthics10:7,1177a12–28,1178a6–7).Supremehappinessdoesnotresideintheexerciseofethicalvirtue,justice,courage,liberality,ortemper-ance;forthemostfelicitoushumanactivityandthatmostakintothedivineiscontemplation(NicomacheanEthics10:8,1178b7–23).Theobjectofthedeity’scontemplationisnecessarilyhimself,themostprefectbeing(Metaphysics12:9,1074b33–35).ThelifeofthisFirstMoveristhebestweenjoy,butforabrieftime(Metaphysics12:7,1072b14–15).ThiselitistandintellectualistformulationoftheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheIslamiccontext57finisultimusasalifeofpurecontemplationcontrastswithanotherAristotelianformulationthatdefinestheaimofhumanexistenceastheorganizationofthebroadrangeofhumanactivityinawell-orderedandcomprehensivelyplannedlifeinaccordancewithethicalvirtueandpracticalwisdom(phronesis).Bothformulationsarerep-resentedinIslamicethicalthought.philosophyandtheologyPhilosophyhaditsstartingpointinresearchandtheory,whereastheology(kalam)beganwithprinciplesofreligiousbelief.Itsaimwasdefensive,itsenergiesdirectedagainstnon-believers,heretics,andfree-thinkerssuchastheMazdeans,Manicheans,andDahriyya.Thetheologianswantedtoprovecreationandinfertherefromtheexistenceofacreator,whilstthephilosophersdeniedthataproofcouldbeadducedforcreation.53Thefalasifarejectedthetheologians
attempttodefendreligiousbeliefwithrationalarguments.Thephilosophersclaimedthatthetheologianswereultimatelyapologists,disputatiousanderistic,andtheycondemnedtheattemptbythetheologianstoenlightenthemany,topubliclydebatefundamentalarticlesoffaith,likecreationandtheexistenceofGodandhisattributes.Thephilosophersfavoredthecertaintyofscienceovertheuncertaintyoftheology.Thetheologians,fortheirpart,regardedphilosophyasthreaten-ingtoreligiousbelief.Theyconsideredthephilosophersheretics,therebyobliteratingthedistinctionbetweenphilosopherswhosus-tainedreligiousfaithandrealheretics.Theheretics,orfreespirits,suchasAbuBakral-RaziandIbnal-Rawandi,advocatedarationalenlightenmentdevoidofrevealedreligion.54Al-RaziacceptedtheStoicprinciplethatallhumanbeingsarecapableofreasoning,notjustaselectfew.Theycandis-pensewithreligion,whichisbasedonblindadherencetoauthor-ityandblightedbyinternalcontradiction,ignorance,andfalsehood.Religionincitesfanatichatred,divisionsamonghumankind,andwarfare.TheprophetsMoses,Jesus,andMuhammadare“thethreegreatimposters”(tresimpostoribus).Al-Razi’sdirectEpicureande-fianceofreligionwasapaththatfewofhisfellowintellectualswerereadytotake,however,andmostshunnedthisbrandofcandidex-pression.Butal-Raziwasnotalone.FreethinkerscalledDahriyyaCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n58MedievalJewishphilosophy(eternalistsormaterialists)weresaidtobelieveintheeternityoftheworld,andtodenycreation,resurrection,andafuturelife.Kalam–especiallytheMutazilischool–wasrationalistinitsapproach.TheMutazilisbelievedthathumanbeingshavetheca-pacitytoapprehendGod,hisnature,andjusticethroughreasonindependentlyofrevelation.Theyaffirmedapristinemonotheism(tawhid)anddivinetranscendence,negatingbytanzih(viaremotio-nis)God’slikenesstocreatedentitities(cf.Qur
an23:91,42:11).TheyascribedtoGodonlyattributesofaction,andconsideredattributessuchasknowledge,power,andspeechasidenticalwiththedivineessence.Theyconsequentlyusedsymbolicinterpretation(ta
wil)toexplainmetaphoricallyQur
anicanthropomorphisms(face,eyes,hands,movement,sittingonathrone).AsecondprinciplewasGod’sjustice(adl).TheMutazilisheldtheobjectivistviewthatgoodandevil(hasan,qabih)inhereinthenatureofreality,arediscernedbyreason,andarerevealedinthereligiouslaw.Godwillsthegoodandwantstorealizewhatisforthebetter.Thismeansthathumanshavefreewillandareresponsiblefortheiractions.TheAsharischoolofkalamrefusedtoimposeseparaterationalcriteriauponGod’sactions.Hiswillisinscrutable,andwhateverGoddeterminesisgoodandjust.Thistheisticsubjectivisminethicswentalongwithatheoryofatomismandoccasionalisminphysics.God’ssovereignwillisthetruecauseofalloccurrences.Theparticularnaturalcausesweseearemerelyoccasionalorincidental.Thereexistsnopermanentworldorder,nolawsofnature,nolimitationofdivinefreedom.TheAshariyyarejectedMutazilitanzihasemptyingthenotionofGodofmeaning(tatil)andthusbeingtantamounttoatheism.TheyclaimedthatanthropomorphismscouldbeascribedtoGod“withoutaskinghowandwithoutcomparison”(bi-lakayfawa-latashbih).Induecourse,however,evenAsharitheologiansrelaxedtheirhermeneuticfundamentalismandinterpretedQur
anicanthropo-morphismsmetaphorically.TheAsharitheoryultimatelyprevailedintheIslamicenvironment.Withal-GhazalitheAsharitesdelvedmoreintotheteachingsofthephilosophers,thoughatacriticaldistance.Al-Ghazali’sMaqasidal-falasifa(IntentionsofthePhilosophers),ananalyticalexpositionofthesystemsofal-FarabiandAvicenna,waswidelyread(inArabic,Hebrew,andLatin)asanintroductiontophilosophy.Al-Ghazali’sCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheIslamiccontext59writingshadthe(unintended)effectofinitiatingphilosophyintoaSunnimilieu.InhisTahafutal-falasifaal-Ghazalidwellsonthein-consistenciesofthefalasifaandarguesthattheydonotsucceedinsupplyingdemonstrativeargumentsfortheirmetaphysicalclaims.55Heaccusesthemofunbeliefforupholdingtheworld’seternity,fordenyingGod’somniscience(hisknowledgeofparticulars),andforrejectingresurrection.reasonandrevelationInaremarkableconspectusofhumankind’sintellectualhistory,al-Farabitracesthehistoricalevolutionofmodesofdiscourse,showinghowhumansocietieshaveprogressedfromaprimitivelevelofpoetryandrhetoric,mythandfable(Homer?),toastageofdialectic(Plato?)andsophisticalreasoning(Sophists?).Finallyhumansadvancetothestageofscienceandphilosophy,thepeakofhumandevelopment(Aristotle?).Notallhumans,however,canevolvetothispinnacle.Hence,thefoundersofnationalreligionsportraythetruthsofphilos-ophyinparabolicform.Intheperfectreligiontheinstrumentalismofrhetoric,poetry,sophistry,anddialecticwillbelaidbare.Insofarasproponentsofjurisprudenceandtheologyreasonfromreligiouspremisesthatimitatephilosophicalverities,theyaretherebytwiceremovedfromthetruth.If,asinthecaseofIslam,anationalreligioncomestoanationalcommunity(umma),liketheArabnation,beforetheappearanceofphilosophy,itmayoccurthatthereligion,thoughaparabolicversionofphilosophy,willdiscardthephilosophyfromwhichitevolves.Realizingthatthisreligionisaparabolicversionofphilosophy,thephilosopherswillnotopposeit.But,alas,thetheologiansandotherreligionistswillresistthephilosophersandtrytoexcludethemfromtheirgoverningandeducatingrole.Religionwillthennotre-ceivemuchsupportfromphilosophy,whilegreatharmmayaccruetophilosophyandphilosophersfromthereligionanditsfollowers.Inthefaceofthisthreatphilosophersmaybeforcedtocombattheolo-giansandreligionists,thoughnotthereligionitself.Fromal-Farabi’sperspective,religionwasagreatachievementofthehumanspirit.56Al-Farabiandhissuccessorsidentifythesupremephilosopherwiththesupremelawgiver,Imam,andruler,therebymakingPlato’sphilosopher-kingtheheadoftheMuslimcommunity.ThebestCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n60MedievalJewishphilosophypolis,orpoliticalcommunity(al-madinaal-fadila)(seeRepublic462d;Laws710d)isruledbyasupremerulerwhomGodinspiresthroughthemediumoftheAgentIntellect.Whenthesupremeruler’sintellectisactivatedbytheAgentIntellect,hebecomesaphiloso-pher.Iftheemanationreacheshisimagination,hebecomesinad-dition“aprophetandwarner.”Inal-Farabi’stheoryofprophecy,theprophetsreceivetheoreticaltruthsfromtheemanationoftheAgentIntellectupontheirrationalfaculty.57Thisemanation,ac-tuatingtheirfacultyofimagination,givesrisetoparables(rumuz),enigmas(alghaz),substitutions(ibdalat),andsimiles(tashbihat)–symbolicrepresentationsofthetruth.58Thesymbolsconveytheidenticalknowledgedisplayedindemonstrativeordiscursivelan-guageusedbyphilosophers.Theancientquarrelbetweenpoetryandphilosophyisthusresolvedinfavorofphilosophybutnotbyban-ishingpoetry.Logosisimpartedbymythos.AsAristotlesaid,“eventheloverofmythisinasensealoverofWisdom”(Metaphysics1,982b18).Elsewhere,Aristotlespeaks(Metaphysics12:8,1074b1–5)ofatraditionconveyedinmythicform“withaviewtothepersuasionofthemultitudeandtoitslegalandutilitarianexpediency.”59Whentheemanationreachestheimaginationsolely,thispersonbecomesapoliticiancapableofaddressingthepeoplewithrhetoricaleffectiveness.Heisincapableofdirectingthemtotruehumanper-fection,forhehimselfhasnotattainedthisperfection,norwasthiseverhisaim.Thephilosopher-kingiscapableofleadinghumanstoaknowledgeoftruehappinessandthewayofattainingit.Thefalasifawantedapeacefulcoexistencebetweenphilosophyandreligion.Theyurgedthefreedomtophilosophizebyportrayingreligionitselfashavingsummonedhumanbeingstocontemplatetheuniverse.AverroescontendsinhisDecisiveTreatisethatthereligiouslawcommandsustophilosophize,citingQur
anicverses(e.g.59:2and7:184)invitinghumankindtoreflectoncreation,invok-ingAbrahamasaphilosopherwhoprobedtheheavens.Philosophyandreligionarenotatcross-purposesinthisrespectbutidenticalintheirintent.Thereisnoneedtoenlightenthemasses.Theyareabandonedtotheplainmeaningofthescripturaltext.Philosophers,however,mustbefreetogobeyondthesurfacemeaningofScriptureandexplainitinatropicsense(ta
wil).60Thephilosophersdistinguishedbetweenzahirandbatin,theex-ternalandtheinternal(deepstructure)senseoftextsandtheinnerCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheIslamiccontext61truthandouteraspectofthereligiouslaw.Thiszahir–batindi-chotomywasprominentinthemilieuofShiismandSufism.Itwasnotsimplyahermeneuticmodebutatotalmentalite´,awayofobservingtheworldandofconstructingit.IbnArabiandfellowSufisvisualizedtheentirecosmosasanarrayofsymbols,similartotheverbalsymbolsofrevelation,requiringhermeneuticexposition.Somehumanscancomprehendthedeepmeaningofthesecosmicsymbolsbyunveilingmysteries(kashf,mukashafa),whileothersperceiveonlysurfacemeaning.Thecosmoscascadeswithsignsandmeanings,withnumericalandverbalsymbolsanddivinenames.Everythingintheworldisafigureandasignofaninnerreality.TheworldisaspeculumofGod.IntellectualsintheIslamicmilieuhada“symbolistmentality.”61Theywereconvincedthatnaturalandhistoricalrealitysignifiedsomethingbeyondplainactuality,andthatasymbolicdimensionofthatrealitywasdiscerniblebythehumanmind.Themeaningofhistoricaleventsisrevealedinprophecy.Sacredtextshaveahid-den,figurative,mysterioussenseliftingthemfromtheirhistoricalparameterstoaneternalsignificance.Themodernconceptionofauniverseblindandindifferenttohumanlife,history,ideals,andstrivings–avastnessofdarknessandterror–wasremotefromtheirconsciousness.notes1.Taqial-DinibnTaymiyya(d.1328),exemplifyingthisattitude,saysthatonlyscienceinheritedfromtheprophet[Muhammad]deservestobecalledscience;therestiseitheruselessornotscienceatall;seeMajmuatal-rasa
ilal-kubra(Cairo,1324/1908),i:238,citedbyI.Goldziher,StellungderaltenislamischenOrthodoxiezudenantikenWissenschaften(Berlin:VerlagderAkademie,1916),6.2.ThisisnottooverlooktheschoolofIsfahanandimportantfiguressuchasMir-iDamad(d.1630),MullaSadraShirazi(d.1640),orIbnKhaldunintheMaghrebandEgypt(d.1406).Thestudyofthescienceswasinsteadydeclinefromthethirteenthtothefifteenthcenturies.3.L.Strauss,PersecutionandtheArtofWriting(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1988),21(originallypublishedGlencoe:TheFreePress,1952);and“HowtoBegintoStudyMedievalPhilosophy,”inhisTheRe-birthofClassicalPoliticalRationalism(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1989),221–4.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n62MedievalJewishphilosophy4.Abul-Hasanal-Amiri,Kitabal-Amadalal-abad,ed.E.K.Rowson,AMuslimPhilosopherontheSoulanditsFate(NewHaven:AmericanOrientalSociety,1988),70,205–9;AbuSulaymanal-Sijistani,MuntakhabSiwanal-Hikmah,ed.D.M.Dunlop(TheHague:Mouton,1979),3–6.5.Al-Shahrastani’sexpression“Islamicphilosophers”(falasifatal-islami)includesnon-MuslimphilosophersinanIslamicmilieu;seeal-Milalwal-nihal,ed.M.Badran,2nded.(Cairo:n.p.,1956),ii:168.Thewordfalasifaisthepluraloffaylasuf(Gr.philosophos).By“Islamic”Imeantheoverarchingcivilizationthatharboredamosaicofethnicandre-ligiousgroups,includingChristianandJewishcommunities,thewayM.G.S.Hodgsonintends“Islamicate”inTheVentureofIslam,3vols.(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1974).6.SeeA.I.Sabra,“TheAppropriationandSubsequentNaturalizationofGreekScienceinMedievalIslam:APreliminaryStatement,”HistoryofScience25(1987),223–43.7.R.Walzer,GreekintoArabic:EssaysonIslamicPhilosophy(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1962);F.Rosenthal(ed.),TheClas-sicalHeritageinIslam,translatedfromtheGerman(DasFortlebenderAntikeimIslam)byE.andJ.Marmorstein(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1975);D.Gutas,GreekThought,ArabicCulture:TheGraeco–ArabicTranslationMovementinBaghdadandEarlyAbbasidSociety(2nd–4th/8th–10thCenturies)(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1998).8.MedievalHebrewtranslatorsgenerallyrenderedshariaastorahevenwhenitrepresentedsecularlaw(nomos),andmoderntranslatorsandcommentatorsintheirwakeinvariablytaketorahtobethereligiouslaw(Torah),therebydistortingthetext’soriginalintent.9.Averroes’CommentaryonPlato’sRepublic,ed.andtrans.E.I.J.Rosenthal(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1969);AverroesonPlato’sRepublic,translated,withanintroductionandnotes,byR.Lerner(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1974).10.KitabfalsafatAflatun,ed.F.RosenthalandR.Walzer(London:WarburgInstitute,1943);KitabfalsafatAristutalis,ed.M.Mahdi(Beirut:DarMajallatShir,1961);OnthePhilosophyofPlatoandAristotle,trans.M.Mahdi(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1969).11.L.Strauss,“Farabi’sPlato,”inLouisGinzbergJubileeVolume(NewYork:AmericanAcademyforJewishResearch,1945),357–93.Sim-ilarly,inthephilosophyofAristotle,al-Farabiavoideddiscussingmetaphysicssaveforbrief,crypticremarkssuchas:“Wedonotpos-sessametaphysicalscience.”SeeT.-A.Druart,“Al-Farabi,Emana-tionandMetaphysics,”inNeoplatonismandIslamicThought,ed.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheIslamiccontext63P.Morewedge(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1992),127–48,at131.12.SeeL.Strauss,PhilosophyandLaw:ContributionstotheUnderstand-ingofMaimonidesandhisPredecessors,trans.E.Adler(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1995),76,125,and152,n.65;“HowFarabiReadPlato’sLaws,”inhisWhatisPoliticalPhilosophy?(NewYork:TheFreePress,1959),134–54;andseeJ.Parens,MetaphysicsasRhetoric:Alfarabi’sSummaryofPlato’s“Laws”(Albany:StateUniver-sityofNewYorkPress,1995).13.SeeIhsa’sal-‘ulum,ed.U.Amin(Cairo:n.p.,1948),102–13;trans.F.M.Najjar,EnumerationoftheSciences,inMedievalPoliticalPhiloso-phy:ASourcebook(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1993),24–8;seeM.Mahdi,“Science,Philosophy,andReligioninAlfarabi’sEnumera-tionoftheSciences,”inTheCulturalContextofMedievalLearning,ed.J.E.MurdochandE.D.Sylla(Dordrecht:Reidel,1975),113–47,esp.140ff.14.Avicenna,Aqsamal-ulum,inMajmuatal-rasa
il(Cairo:n.p.,1908),107–8;trans.M.Mahdi,inMedievalPoliticalPhilosophy,96–7;trans.J.W.Morris,“ThePhilosopher-ProphetinAvicenna’sPoliticalPhiloso-phy,”inThePoliticalAspectsofIslamicPhilosophy:EssaysinHonorofMuhsinMahdi,ed.C.E.Butterworth(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1992),152–98,at168–70;G.C.Anawati,“Lesdivi-sionsdessciencesintellectuellesd’sAvicenne,”Melangesdel’sInstitut´Dominicaind’EtudesOrientales13(1977),323–6.15.Pseudo-AristotleintheMiddleAges:TheTheologyandOtherTexts,ed.J.Kraye,W.F.Ryan,andC.B.Schmitt(London:TheWarburgInstitute,1986);seeespeciallythearticlesbyF.W.Zimmermann,“TheOriginsoftheSo-calledTheologyofAristotle,”110–240,andP.B.Fenton,“TheArabicandHebrewVersionsoftheTheologyofAristotle,”241–64.16.Zimmermann,“Origins,”117–19,143;andsee148foranexplanationofhowPlotinusbecame“Aristotle.”17.SeeZimmermann,“Origins,”177.18.TheLiberdeCausiswastranslatedbyGerardofCremonaasLiberdeExpositioneBonitatisPurae.Aquinascommenteduponit;seeCom-mentaryontheBookofCauses[SuperLibrumDeCausisExpositio],trans.V.A.Guargliardo,C.R.Hess,andR.C.Taylor(Washington,D.C.:TheCatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,1996).AquinasdidnotbelieveitwasaworkofAristotle,notingitsdependenceonProclus’ElementsanditsresemblancetotheviewsofDionysiustheAre-opagite.SeeR.C.Taylor,“Kalamfimahdal-khair(Liberdecausis)intheIslamicPhilosophicalMilieu,”inKraye,Ryan,andSchmitt(eds.),Pseudo-AristotleintheMiddleAges,37–52;andseeC.d’AnconaCosta,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n64MedievalJewishphilosophyRecherchessurleLiberdecausis(Paris:J.Vrin,1995).AnumberofpropositionsfromtheElementsofTheologyhavebeenrecoveredinArabic;seeG.Endress(ed.),ProclusArabus(BeirutandWiesbaden:FranzSteinerVerlag,1973).19.Proclus,TheElementsofTheology,ed.andtrans.E.R.Dodds(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1963),Prop.103,92–3.20.Or“theTrueOne,”al-wahidal-haqq.Theepithetsarebothphilosoph-icalandQur
anic(see37:4,wahid)andsee18:44and20:114forGodastheReal,ortheTruth(al-haqq).21.U.Rudolph,DieDoxographiedesPseudo-Ammonius(Stuttgart:FranzSteinerVerlag,1989),34(trans.80).ForsimilarideasinArabicPlotinustextsandintheal-Kindimilieu,see120;andseeA.AltmannandS.M.Stern(ed.andtrans.),IsaacIsraeli:ANeoplatonicPhilosopheroftheEarlyTenthCentury(London:OxfordUniversityPress,1958),70–71.22.Rudolph,Pseudo-Ammonius(Ara
al-falasifa),34(trans.80);seeKom-mentar,121,ontheTextgruppe(TheologyofAristotle,LiberdeCausis)towhichthisnotionbelongsandtheaffiliationwithal-Kindi;andseeAltmannandStern,IsaacIsraeli,70–4.23.SeePseudo-Ammonius,Ara
al-falasifa,37–8.TheEmpedoclestextsarecitedbyal-Amiri,al-Sijistani,Saidal-Andalusi,al-Shahrastani,andal-Shahrazuri.24.ThisforeshadowsAvicenna’streatmentofpossibleandnecessaryexis-tence.Avicennausedthelibrarywhereal-AmiriprobablywroteanddepositedhisAmad;seeRowson(ed.),AMuslimPhilosopher,textandtranslationon78–9,170–1;andsee5,37,232–4;D.Gutas,AvicennaandtheAristotelianTradition(Leiden:Brill,1988),250.25.Theologia1:21ff.(trans.G.Lewis,inPlotiniOpera,ed.P.HenryandH.-R.Schwyzer,2vols.[Paris:DescleedeBrouwer,´1959],ii:225).SeeFenton,“TheArabicandHebrewTheology,”260n.2.26.J.Pelikan,WhatHasAthenstoDowithJerusalem?(AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress,1997),13.27.P.Walker,“TheIsmailiVocabularyofCreation,”StudiaIslamica40(1974),74–85.28.A.C.Lloyd,TheAnatomyofNeoplatonism(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1990).29.Kitabal-jambaynra
yayal-hakimaynAflatunal-ilahiwa-Aristutalis,ed.A.N.Nader(Beirut:ImprimerieCatholique,1959);D.Mallet(trans.),Deuxtraitesphilosophiques:L’harmonieentrelesopinionsdesdeux´sages,ledivinPlatonetAristote(Damascus:InstitutFranc¸aisdeDamas,1989),64–5.Somedoubtitsascriptiontoal-Farabi.30.Kitabal-jambaynra
yayal-hakimayn,100–4;trans.Mallet,84–9.31.Kitabal-jambaynra
yayal-hakimayn,84–5;trans.Mallet,64–5.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheIslamiccontext6532.ForPlato,see,e.g.,Phaedrus276a–277a.Seealsoal-Farabi’sintroductiontohisCompendiumofPlato’sLaws,ed.Fr.Gabrieli,AlfarabiusCom-pendiumLegumPlatonis(TalkhisNawamisAflatun)(London:WarburgInstitute,1952),3–4.33.ThedifferencebetweenPlatoandAristotleonstyleissetforthinadialoguebetweentheminthebiographyofAristotlebyal-Mubashshirb.Fatik,Mukhtaral-hikam,ed.A.Badawi(Madrid:InstitutoEgipciodeEstudiosIslamicos,´1958),184;trans.I.During,¨AristotleintheAn-cientBiographicalTradition(Goteborg:Almqvist&Wiksell,¨1957),201(andseehiscomment,432–3).Seealsothereferencetothesamecorre-spondencebyAvicenna,Fiithbatal-nubuwwa,inTisrasa
ilfil-hikmawal-tabiyyat(Istanbul,1880),85;trans.M.E.Marmura,inMedievalPoliticalPhilosophy,116.SeealsoGalen,CompendiumTimaeiPlatonis,ed.P.KrausandR.Walzer(London:WarburgInstitute,1951),3,onAristotle’sterse,obscurestyle.Ontheterse,compressedstyleofAristotle’sacroamaticworks,asopposedtothemorepopularstyleofhisdialogues,seeW.D.Ross,TheWorksofAristotle.xii.SelectFragments(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1952),5.34.Al-Sijistani,MuntakhabSiwanal-Hikmah,10.35.F.E.Peters,AristotelesArabus(Leiden:Brill,1968);F.E.Peters,AristotleandtheArabs(NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,1968).36.SeeC.H.Lohr,“TheMedievalInterpretationofAristotle,”inTheCambridgeHistoryofLaterMedievalPhilosophy,ed.N.Kretzmann,A.Kenny,andJ.Pinborg(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1982),91.37.ThematteristreatedexhaustivelybyD.L.BlackinLogicinAristotle’sRhetoricandPoeticsinMedievalArabicPhilosophy(Leiden:Brill,1990).ThetranslationofthePoeticswasamajortourdeforce,asfunda-mentalconceptslikecomedyandtragedywereforeigntoArabicculture.JorgeLuisBorgesreferstothisin“Averroes’Search,”inLabyrinths,ed.D.A.YatesandJ.E.Irby(NewYork:NewDirections,1964),148–55.38.TheQur
anisnotexplicitaboutcreatioexnihilo,whichbecamedoc-trinalforMuslimtheologians.39.B.S.Kogan,AverroesandtheMetaphysicsofCausation(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1985),209–22.40.Averroes’Tahafutal-Tahafut(TheIncoherenceoftheIncoherence),trans.S.vandenBergh,2vols.(London:OxfordUniversityPress,1954).41.Seeal-Farabi,Kitabal-jadal,ed.R.al-Ajam,inal-Mantiqindaal-Farabi(Beirut:DarEl-Machreq,1986),iii:80–2.SeeG.Vajda,“Apro-posd’unecitationnonidentifieed’Alfarabidansle´Guidedesegar´es’,”´Journalasiatique258(1965),43–50.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n66MedievalJewishphilosophy42.A.-M.Goichon,Ladistinctiondel’essenceetdel’existenced’apresIbn`Sina(Paris:DescleedeBrouwer,´1937).43.Theideathattheuniversemaybeotherthanitisorthatitmaynotbeatallopensthewayformiraclesanddivineinterventions.Theno-tionoftheontologicalcontingencyoftheworldonGodisexpressedintheQur
anicverse:“AllthingsshallperishsaveHiscountenance”(28:88).Thebeliefthatthecreatedworldisoneoffleetingimperma-nenceevokestheSufiideaofself-annihilation(fana’)intheBeingthatperdures(baqa
).44.SeeL.Goodman,Avicenna(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1992),63–5.45.TheNecessaryBeingandAllaharenotinthestrictsenseequivalent,asthemeaningofGodforIslamgoesbeyondthesenseofnecessityofbeing.46.Al-GhazalicriticizestheAvicennanaccountofprocessionofsucces-siveintellectsandspheres.Thephilosophersjudgeonthebasisofsupposition(zann)andsurmise(takhmin),withoutverificationandcertainty;Tahafutal-falasifa,trans.M.E.Marmura,TheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers(Provo,Ut.:BrighamYoungUniversityPress,1997),4and65–7.Maimonides,inachapterthathasotherearmarksofal-Ghazali(Guide2:22),alsocriticizesAvicennanprocessionasnomorethanguess(hads)andconjecture(takhmin).47.SeehisLettertoal-Kiya,ed.A.Badawi,Aristuindal-arab,2nded.(Kuwait:Wikalatal-Matbuat,1978),120–2.AvicennaiscommentingthereonMetaphysics12:61071b5–31.48.SeeH.A.Davidson,Alfarabi,Avicenna,andAverroes,onIntellect:TheirCosmologies,TheoriesofActiveIntellect,andTheoriesofHumanIntellect(NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1992).49.Averroes,CommentariumMagnuminAristotelisdeAnimaLibros,ed.F.S.Crawford(Cambridge,Mass.:TheMedievalAcademyofAmerica,1953),406;andseeAverroesl’intelligenceetlapens`ee,´grandcommentaireduDeanima,Livreiii,trans.A.deLibera(Paris:GF-Flammarion,1998),111ff.SeealsoO.Leaman,AverroesandhisPhilosophy,2nded.(Richmond:Curzon,1997),84–103.50.Thomasd’Aquin,L’unitedel’intellectcontrelesAverro´ıstes¨,trans.A.deLibera(Paris:GF-Flammarion,1994);R.McInerny,AquinasagainsttheAverroists:OnthereBeingonlyOneIntellect(WestLafayette:PurdueUniversityPress,1993).51.P.Merlanusestheterm“rationalisticmysticism”tosignifythatthedivinesourcewithwhichtheindividualisunitedisnottheGodbeyondthinkingandbeingbutthoughtthinkingitself;seehisMonopsychism,Mysticism,Metaconsciousness:ProblemsoftheSoulCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheIslamiccontext67intheNeoaristotelianandNeoplatonicTradition(TheHague:MartinusNijhoff,1963),20.52.Foranintroduction,seeG.F.Hourani,ReasonandTraditioninIslamicEthics(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1985).53.Forkalam,seeH.A.Wolfson,ThePhilosophyoftheKalam(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1976);J.vanEss,TheologieundGesellschaftim2.und3.JahrhundertHidschra,4vols.(BerlinandNewYork:WalterdeGruyter,1991).54.S.Stroumsa,FreethinkersofMedievalIslam:Ibnal-Rawandi,AbuBakral-RaziandtheirImpactonIslamicThought(Leiden:Brill,1999).Foral-Razi,seeespeciallyL.E.Goodman,s.v.,EncyclopaediaofIslam(Leiden:Brill,1960–).55.Seeal-Ghazali,TheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers.56.F.W.Zimmermann,Alfarabi’sCommentaryandShortTreatiseonAristotle’sDeInterpretatione(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1981),cxivn.1,fromal-Farabi’sBookofLetters(Kitabal-huruf),ed.M.Mahdi(Beirut:DarEl-Machreq,1969),paras.108–13,129,140–53;andseeL.V.Berman,“Maimonides,theDiscipleofAlfarabi,”IsraelOrientalStudies4(1974),154–78,at156.57.Seeal-Farabi’sMabadi
ara
ahlal-madinaal-fadila,ed.andtrans.R.Walzer,Al-FarabionthePerfectState(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1985),chs.14–15,211–57;seealsoR.Walzer,“Alfarabi’sTheoryofProphecyandDivination,”inGreekintoArabic,206–19.58.Rumuzoftenrendersparabolaiormythoiintranslationliterature.InKitabal-alfazal-mustamalafil-mantiq(UtterancesEmployedinLogic),ed.M.Mahdi(Beirut:DarEl-Machreq,1968),90–1,al-Farabiab-solveshimselffromtheneedtoinvestigatestatementsresemblinglies(or“fables”),lit.“adornments,”“embellishments”(zakharif)insuchaphilosophicwork.Headds,however,thatwhilesuchfablesmayberepugnantinthevariouskindsofphilosophicaldisciplines,theyareperhapsindispensableinrhetoricandinthestatementsemployedinpoliticalaffairs.59.Thepassageis:“Ourforefathersinthemostremoteageshavehandeddowntoustheirposterityatradition,intheformofamyth,thatthesesubstances[theheavens]aregodsandthatthedivineenclosesthewholeofnature.Therestofthetraditionhasbeenaddedlaterinmythicalformwithaviewtothepersuasionofthemultitudeandtoitslegalandutilitarianexpediency”(trans.W.D.Ross).SeeAverroes,TafsirMabadat-tabiat,ed.M.Bouyges,S.J.(Beirut:ImprimerieCatholique,1948),vii:1686.60.SeeKitabfaslal-maqal,ed.G.F.Hourani(Leiden:Brill,1959),1–2;trans.G.F.Hourani,AverroesontheHarmonyofPhilosophyandReligionCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n68MedievalJewishphilosophy(London:Luzac,1967),44–5(withpaginationofthetextinthemargin).AndseetheexcellentbilingualeditionofM.Geoffroy,withintroductionbyA.deLibera,Averroesdiscoursd`ecisif´(Paris:GF-Flammarion,1996),104–5.61.M.-D.Chenu,Nature,Man,andSocietyintheTwelfthCentury,ed.andtrans.J.TaylorandL.K.Little(Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,1997),119–21.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nsarahstroumsa4SaadyaandJewishkalamInanoft-quoteddictumthetwelfth-centurySpanishpolymathAbrahamibnEzradescribesSaadyaas“firstandforemostamongspeakerseverywhere.”ThisseeminglysimplesentencepraisesSaadyaonmorethanonelevel,playingasitdoesonthemultiva-lenceoftheword“speakers”(medabberim).ThecontextofIbnEzra’sphrase(inhisbookonHebrewgrammar)suggeststhatthiswordrefershereprimarilytolinguists;yetitcanalsomean“spokesmen”inageneralway,anditisalsoaliteraltranslationoftheArabicmutakallimun,thatis,practitionersofdialectictheology.Inalllikelihood,IbnEzraintendedallthesemeaningstogether.Indeed,Saadya’stoweringfiguredominatestheemergenceofmedievalJew-ishscholarshipinallfields:linguisticsandpoetics,philosophyandexegesis,polemicsandlaw,andheisalsogenerallyconsideredtobethemostprominentrepresentativeofJewishkalam.AninquiryintoSaadya’sthought,hisbackground,andhisinfluencecanthusserveasaconvenientintroductiontoJewishkalam.Kalam(literally“speech”)isagenericnameforIslamicdialecti-caltheology.CommontoallkalamschoolsistheformulationofasystembasedonthedualbasisofrationalityandScripture,andontheassumptionthatthetwocomplement,ratherthancontra-dict,eachother.Alsotypicalofallkalamschoolsisthespecificdiscoursethatusesdialecticaltechniquesfortheanalysisofreligiousandphilosophicproblems.Whetheritispresentedasastrictlythe-ologicalcompendiumorinadifferentkindofliterarycomposition(exegetical,polemical,oramonographonaspecifictheologicalques-tion),akalamworkisoftenrecognizableassuchevenbeforeathor-oughacquaintancewithitscontent.Structureandstylecharacterizekalamworksnolessthancontents.Intermsofthegeneralstructure,71CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n72MedievalJewishphilosophycomprehensivekalamworks(theologicalsummae)followasetpat-ternofdiscussion,whichstartsfromuniversalissues(epistemology,thecreationoftheworld,God’sunityandjustice),andmovesontoissuesthataremorenarrowlytiedtothespecificreligionoftheau-thor(prophetology,eschatology,andtheafterlife).Intermsofstyle,thepolemicalnatureofkalamisreflectedinargumentsadhominem(ilzam),anditsdialecticalthoughtisexpressedinconventionalfor-mulasofdialogue(“Ifhesays:...,heshouldbetold:...”;or:“Hesaid:...;Ianswered:...”).Thesestylistictraitsconstitutetheback-boneofkalamtexts.Theyarecommontoallschoolsofkalam,andtheydistinguishkalamfromotherphilosophical,rationalistictrends.Someconcernfortheologicalquestions(suchasfreewillandpre-destination)canalreadybediscernedinearly,pre-kalamMuslimworks,butthedevelopmentofasystematicMuslimtheologycameonlylater.AlthoughthetheologicaldrivecouldbesaidtohavecomefromwithinIslam,itssystematicformulationandtheformittooksuggestanexternalinfluence.Thisinfluencewasnotanchoredinthetransmissionofaspecificbodyoftexts(asinthecaseofthetransmissionofGreekphilosophyandscience).Nevertheless,wemayassumethatthefirstMuslimtheologiansweresomehowex-posedtoHellenisticphilosophy,perhapsthroughtheencounterwiththeChristianacademiesinSyriaandPersia.Thefirststructuredschoolofkalam,theMutazila,wasestablishedinthemid-eighth(thirdIslamic)century.TheMutazilites,knownas“theproponentsofGod’sunityandjustice,”developedacomprehensivetheology,revolvingaroundfivebasicprinciples:God’sunity;hisjustice;theintermediatepositionofaMuslimsinner,asneitherabelievernoraninfidel;rewardandpunishmentintheafterlife;andtheobligationtoenjoinvirtueandforbidsin.Alongsidetheirtheologicalwritings,theMutazilitesalsodevelopedanextensivecomplementaryexeget-ical,scientific,andlinguisticliteraturebasedonthesameprinciples.DuringtheninthandtenthcenturiestheMutazilathrived,anditssub-schoolsdevelopedintwomajorcenters,inBaghdadandinBasra.Aristotelianphilosophersberatedthemutakallimunasmerereligiouspropagandists,butmanyMuslimsregardedtheposi-tionsheldbytheMutazilaasunrelentingrationalismthatcompro-misesreligiousdoctrines.Otherschoolsofkalamattemptedtostrikeadifferentbalancebetweenthetwobasicsourcesofknowledge,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaadyaandJewishkalam73rationalityandScripture.Fromthetenthcenturyontheseschools,andparticularlytheAshariyya,gaineddominanceinMuslimtheology.ThedevelopmentofJewishsystematictheologytakesplaceun-derIslamandmostlyinArabic.PriortotheIslamicconquests,withtheexceptionofPhilo’sthought,nosystematicrationalisticthe-ologywasdevelopedbyJews.PhilohadnodirectcontinuationinJewishthought,andJewsinlateantiquityusedotherliterarygenrestoexpresstheirtheologicalconcerns.Jewishsystematicrationalisticthoughtdevelopedonlylater,aspartofthewholesaleJewishimmer-sionintoArabicculture.AsArabiccametoreplacebothHebrewandAramaicasthemainculturallanguageoftheJews,theintellectualactivityofeasternJewsbecameanintegralpartoftheintellectualIslamicscene.Onthewhole,worksofJewishkalamareconstructedalongthesamelinesasworksofMuslimkalam.Theyemploythesamedi-alecticaltechniquesandformulasandexplorethesameconventionaltopics.TheepistemologyoftheJewishmutakallimunisbuiltuponafirmbeliefinhumanrationalityasatoolforobtainingatruepictureoftheworldandasoundinterpretationofScripture.Theintellectualendeavorisperceivedasbothanaturalhumandriveandareligiousduty.Thebasicsourcesofknowledgeforeachindividualaresenseperceptionandrationalthought.Theknowledgeaccumulatedovertheyearsbygenerationsofscholarsisaddedtothese,intheformoftransmittedinterpretiveinformation(“theveridicaltradition”).ItisonthebasisoftheseepistemologicalassumptionsthattheJewishmutakallimunbuildtheirtheologicalsystem.Theyarguethatcontemplationoftheworldrevealsitscreatednature,andhencetheexistenceofacreator.Italsoshowsthattheworldmusthavebeencreatedexnihilo(ratherthanfromapreexistentmatter).Thecreatormustbeofanintrinsicallydifferentnaturethanitscre-ation.Andastheworldcontainsplurality,thecreatormustbeaperfectunity.TheproofofGod’sunityisusuallycombinedwiththediscussionofhisattributes.TheJewishmutakallimunusuallyrejecttheexistenceofseparatedivineattributes,andadoptkalamformulasthatinsistontheperfectunityofGodwithhisknowledge,wisdom,life,andsoon.Thecreatormustalsobebenevolent,andJewishmutakallimuninsistontheapplicabilityofhumanmoralcri-teriatoGod.AlthoughsomeofGod’sactionsmaynotbeunderstoodCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n74MedievalJewishphilosophybyhumanbeings,thebasicassumptionmustremainthatheisgoodinthesamesensethatwearegood.FromGod’sgoodnessfollowstheprincipleofdivinerevelation.Godendowedhumanbeingswithreasontoguidethemtosalvation.Becauseofhisbenevolence,Godcomplementedthisgiftbysendingprophetstospelloutthebestwaysofservinghim.Theprophet,whoisanormal,accomplishedhumanbeing,canberecognizedbythemiraclesheperforms,byhismoralandintellectualperfection,andbytheconcordofhismessagewiththecontentoftherevelationreceivedbypreviousprophets.InworksofJewishkalamthetrueprophetisprimarilyMoses.Obedienceordisobediencetothepre-ceptsbroughtbyhimwillberequitedbyGodinthehereafteraswellasintheMessianicage.ThisgeneralschemeissocloselyakintoMuslimkalamthat,atfirstsight,onlytheprooftextsappeartobedifferent.ButJewishkalamdevelopedalsosomespecificconcerns,whicharenotfoundinthesamewayinMuslimworks.Insomecases,thedifferenceswithMuslimkalamhavenothingtodowithreligiousdifferences.WhereassomeJewishmutakallimunadoptedtheatomisticphysicsofthekalam,othersdidnot.Theirrejectionofatomismmaybeexplainedbytheirexposuretothein-fluenceofChristianphilosophy,toAristotelianteachings,ortonon-atomistickalam.Atanyrate,itdoesnotstemfromapreconceivedreligiousdoctrine,nordoesitreflectabasicreligiousdisagreementwithIslam.Inothercases,however,thedifferenceswithMuslimkalamarerelatedtothespecialreligiousdoctrinesofbothreligions.CertainquestionsthatbecamecentraltoMuslimtheologyremainedofrathermarginalinterestinJewishkalam.BywayofanexamplewecanmentionthequestionofthecreatedoruncreatedspeechofGod,whichbecameacausecel´ebreinthedebatebetweentraditionalists`andrationalistsduringtheheydayoftheMutazila.Althoughthedis-cussionsofJewishmutakallimun,andeventhesolutionstheyoffer,reflecttheirawarenessofthecentralityofthequestioninMuslimkalam,itisevidentthattheydonotparticipateintheheatedde-bate.Jewishtheologiansagreethatthevariouspropheticrevelationswerealltemporal,andtheyattempttoreconcilethetemporalrev-elationwithGod’seternal,unchangingnature.Anotherexampleisthequestionofthestatusofthesinnerwhoisformallyabeliever.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaadyaandJewishkalam75InJewishkalam,thediscussionsoftherelativeweightofhumanactsingeneralandsinsinparticularareoftencouchedintheJewishlegaltradition,andarenotpartofthehistoricaldisagreementwithinMuslimtheologicalcircles.TheIslamicnotionoftheabrogationofthelaw,ontheotherhand,receivedmuchattention,duetoitsimportanceininterreli-giouspolemics.Intheattempttorebuttheiropponents’claimsthatMosaiclawhadbeenreplacedbyChristianityorbyIslam,Jewishthe-ologiansinsistedontheimmutabilityofGod’srevelation,entailedbyhisownimmutability.AsinMuslimkalam,Jewishmutakallimundevotedmuchtimeandenergytopolemics.Theywereengagedinpublicdebatesonre-ligious,scientific,andphilosophicalissues,andpolemicsisapre-dominantfeatureoftheirwritings.Theypolemicizedwithotherreligions,withvariousphilosophicalschools(bothhistoricalandfictitious),andwitheachother.Theirpolemicaldriveresultedinthedevelopmentofheresiographicalinterest:Jewishtheologians(e.g.al-Muqammas,Saadya,Qirqisani,JudahHadassi)attemptedtomapandclassifycontemporaryopinionsandtotracetheirorigintoan-cientschoolsandsects.AbriefoutlineoftheemergenceofJewishkalamisgivenbyMosesMaimonides(d.1204)inhisGuideofthePerplexed1:71.AccordingtoMaimonides,themeetingoftheearlyChristianswiththepaganphilosophershadforcedtheChurchFatherstodevelopphilosophicaltoolsforthedefenceoftheirreligion.Inthesameway,centurieslater,theencounteroftheearlyMuslimswithChristianphilosophershadforcedtheMuslimstodevelopIslamictheology.Maimonides(whosehistoricalaccountandevaluationofthekalamwasinfluencedbythetenth-centuryMuslimphilosopheral-Farabi)presentedthekalamasanaberrationoftruth.Inhisview,themutakallimunwerenottruephilosophers,butratherpeoplewhoharnessedphilosophicaltechniquesandelementstothedefenceoftheirreligion.QuotingThemistius,Maimonideshintsthat,insteadofformingtheirbeliefsonthebasisofascientificexaminationofreality,asphilosophersshould,themutakallimuntriedtobendthefactstofittheirconvic-tions.HealsoimpliesthattheJewishmutakallimunfollowthesamedeplorablepractice.AccordingtoMaimonides,whentheJewscameundertheaegisofIslam,theychanceduponthefirstschoolofkalam,theMutazila,andweredeeplyinfluencedbyit.AsrepresentativesCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n76MedievalJewishphilosophyofJewishkalam,Maimonidesmentionsthegeonim(theheadsofthetalmudicacademiesinIraq)andtheKaraites(Jewishsectarianswhorejectedtheauthorityofrabbinicorallaw).MostmodernscholarsagreewithMaimonidesthatSaadyaGaon,likeothergeonim,wasamutakallim,andthathismainsourceofinfluencewastheMutazila.Thequestionarises,however,howtoreconcileMaimonides’devastatingevaluationofthekalamwiththestatureofSaadyaandthemagnitudeofhiscontributiontoJewishthought.Otherdifficultiescontributetoacertainuneaseconcern-ingSaadya’sclassificationasamutakallim.Therearesomesignif-icantdifferencesbetweenhisthoughtandstandardMuslimkalam,andhiswritingscontainsomeelementsthatseemAristotelianorNeoplatonicratherthankalamic.OnepossiblesolutiontothesedifficultieswassuggestedbyMichaelSchwarz,whoseanalysisofMaimonides’sourcesofferssomeexplanationforthedifferencesbe-tweenMaimonides’mutakallimunandthosecontemporarywithSaadya.AnothersolutionendeavorstoputsomedistancebetweenSaadyaandthekalam.LennGoodmanthusarguesthat“ifSaadyawasamutakallim,hewasofquiteadifferentsortfromtheoldtypecataloguedbyhismutakallimcontemporaryal-Ashari.”1Saadya’saffinitieswiththekalammustthereforebeexaminedwithcare,andthenatureofhiskalamdefinedmoreprecisely.Intermsofthediscipline,Saadyacertainlyregardedhimselfasaphilosopherinthesensethathewasearnestlyseekingtruth.Hiscommitmenttothesearchforscientifictruthcanbefullyappre-ciatedwhenwecompareMaimonides’above-mentionedsarcasticquotationfromThemistiusaboutthetruemethodofthephilosopherwithSaadya’sdescriptionofthecorrectscientificmethod.Saadya,justlikethephilosopherMaimonides,believesthat“thepraisewor-thywisepersonishewhomakesrealityhisguidingprincipleandbaseshisbeliefthereon”andthat“thereprehensiblefool...ishewhosetsuphispersonalconvictionashisguidingprinciple,assum-ingthatrealityispatternedafterhisbeliefs.”2Intermsofbelongingtoaschool,however,Saadyadidnotbe-longtofalsafa.Occasionallyhedoesrefertothephilosophers,3butheclearlyintendsbyitthegenericnameofthediscipline,nottheschool.Ontheotherhand,heneveridentifieshimselfasamutakallim,nordoeshequotemutakallimunbyname(butthen,Saadyahardlyeverquotesanyonebyname).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaadyaandJewishkalam77MostmodernscholarsrefertoSaadyaas“thefirstJewishme-dievalphilosopher,”thusoverlookingthefactthatbothIsaacIsraeli(d.c.932)andtheninth-centuryal-Muqammashadventuredintothisfieldbeforehim.MedievalstudentsofJewishthoughtof-tenappreciatedthisfactcorrectly:DanielibnMashita,forex-ample,inhisTaqwimal-adyan(composedin1223),beginshisaccountofJewishphilosophywithal-Muqammas.4Themodernmis-presentationstemsfromacombinationofthepaucityofourknowl-edgeofpre-SaadyanicthoughtontheonehandandfromthewishtoinsistonSaadya’simportanceontheother.Butinordertoevalu-ateSaadya’srolecorrectly,thefactthathewasnotthefirstJewishphilosophershouldinnowaybeoverlooked.Indeed,moreoftenthannot,tobe“first”entailsacertainlackofsophistication,whereasSaadya,asarepresentativeofasecondgenerationofJewishphiloso-phers,presentsarelativelymatureJewishkalam.AtextthatisoftenmentionedasanexampleofearlyJewishkalamisananonymousepistleattributedbyitsfirstpublisher,JacobMann,totheninth-centuryKaraitethinkerDanielal-Qumisi.5Al-thoughthePseudo-Qumisiisstronglyopposedtotheuseof“foreignwisdom,”itreflectstheinfluenceofpreciselythiswisdom.Theepis-tle,writteninHebrew,containssomeArabickalamconcepts,suchas“indicatorysign”(dalil),thekalamtermforaproof.Itattemptsatheologicalformulationofreligiousdoctrines,suchasdivineunityandjusticeandthereligiousobligationtousereason,anditsupportsthesedoctrineswithbiblicalprooftexts.Nevertheless,thePseudo-Qumisiisnotakalamtextinthesensethatitdoesnotpartakeinthekalamdiscourse.Itdoesnotattempttoofferasystematicanalysisoftheologicalquestions,anditdoesnotadoptthetypicalkalamicana-lyticaldiscourse.TheimportanceofthePseudo-Qumisiliesperhapspreciselyinthefactthatitallowsusaglimpseintoatransitionalpe-riod,inwhichJewishthinkerswerenotyetengulfedintheArabicintellectualworld,butitsgrowinginfluencewasalreadyencroach-ingonJewishthought.AlthoughJewishthinkerswerestillresistingtheinfluenceofArabictheology,theywerealreadyspeakingthelan-guageofkalam,andunderitspressuretheywerealreadydevelopingatheology.InbothJewishandIslamictheology,mostoftheearlytextsarenotextant.Weare,however,fortunatetopossessaboutthreequartersofwhatisprobablythefirstJudeo-Arabictheologicalsumma,whichCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n78MedievalJewishphilosophyhappenstobealsothefirstextantArabicsumma,earlierthanex-tantMuslimspecimensofthesamegenre.Thetext,al-Muqammas’TwentyChapters,offersathorough,systematicexpositionofJewishtheology.Al-MuqammashadconvertedtoChristianityandhadstud-iedwithateachernamedNana(probablytheJacobiteNonnusofNisibis).AswecanlearnfromanArabicLifeofSt.Stephen,al-Muqammas’verynameseemstostemfromChristian-Arabvocab-ulary,wheretheword“Muqammas”designatesanArab,perhapsapersondressedinatunic(qamis)likeanArab.Thesobriquetthusreflectsal-Muqammas’positionasanArabic-speakingJewbetweentwocultures,theSyriacChristianandtheArabicMuslim.HeknewSyriacandhetranslatedfromSyriactwocommentaries,onEcclesi-astesandonGenesis.6Healsowrotesomepolemicalworks,andaworkonAristotelianlogic.HisliteraryactivitythusreflectsaconsciousintellectualefforttoestablishacomprehensiverationalJewishtheology.Butthesomewhatroughintegrationofthevar-iouselementsinhisworkreflectsthedifficultiestypicaltothetrailblazer.Al-Muqammas’bookswerewrittenafterhereturnedtoJudaism,butinhisattempttopresentuniversaltruthsheusuallyavoidsdis-closingspecificJewishdoctrinesorusingJewishsources.Moreover,hisextantwrittenworkbearsclearmarksofhisChristianschooling.Thisisevidentnotonlyinthecaseofhisanti-Christianpolemics,whichplaysanimportantpartinthediscussion,butinhiswholethe-ology.Histheologicalworkcloselyresembles,inbothpresentationandcontent,worksofMuslimkalam.Butonseveralplansthecontentofhisworkdeviatesconsiderablyfromthefamiliarkalampattern.Hiswritingscontainssomematerial,mostlyinlogic,thatisderivedexplicitlyfromAristotelianphilosophy.UnlikemostMuslimmutakallimun,al-Muqammas’physicsisnotatomistic.AndalthoughheisawareofdebatesandpositionscurrentamongcontemporaryMuslimmutakallimun,hisfinalpositionsometimesdiffersfromtheirs(asinthecaseofthedivineattributes,wherethenegativetheologyheadoptsseemsclosertothepositionweusuallyidentifywithIslamicNeoplatonists).Al-Muqammas’discussionofallthesepointsreflects(andsometimesfollows)thecommonprac-ticeintheChristianschools,andsomeofthedeviationsfromkalaminhissystemarethesamedeviationsfromMuslimkalamthatwefindlaterinSaadya’swork.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaadyaandJewishkalam79Saadya’spredecessors,al-MuqammasandIsaacIsraeli,delineatethespectrumofinfluencestowhichaneducatedJewwouldbeexposed:ChristianityandIslam,Christiankalam(whichincludessomeAristotelianphilosophy),Muslimkalam,andNeoplatonicthought.Theroleofpioneerbelongstothesepredecessors,wholegitimizetheseinfluencesandshowthewayfortheirintegrationintoJudaism.ItwasthenSaadyawho,creativelyandsystematically,shaped,smoothedtheroughends,andconsolidatedthefoundationslaidbyhispredecessors,andpresentedtheoutcomeas“Jewishphi-losophy,”withanauthoritythathispredecessorslacked.Preciselybecausehewasnotthefirst,Saadyawasfreefromthechoreofpath-breaking,andhecouldthususetherawmaterialsinaricherandmorematureway.Thetwelfth-centuryJudahbenBarzillaiofBarcelonareportsaru-morthatSaadyahadstudiedwithal-Muqammas.Wehavenoproofofthat.Saadya,asishiswont,doesnotidentifyhissources,andheoftenthoroughlyreworksthematerialhedrewfromthem.ThereareneverthelesssomeparagraphsinSaadya’sworkthatcloselyresembleal-Muqammas’TwentyChapters,andsinceal-Muqammas’summawaswellknowninSaadya’stime,ourassumptionshouldbethat,amongthemanythingsSaadyaread,heprobablyreadal-Muqammastoo.Saadya,however,goesatleastonestepfurther:ontheonehand,heseemsmorefamiliarwiththefruitsofMuslimkalamthanal-Muqammas.Ontheotherhand,hisworkisthoroughlyandovertlyJewish.AllofSaadya’sliteraryoutputisdirectedtowardthees-tablishmentofasystemthatdemonstratestheagreementbetweenrationallybasedknowledgeandbiblicalrevelationasinterpretedbytalmudictradition.Saadyawasbornin882inEgypt,whichheleftin915.Therea-sonsforhisdepartureareunknowntous,buthissubsequenttumul-tuouscareer,strewnwithheatedconfrontationalepisodesinvolvingleadingauthoritiesoftheJewishcommunity,suggeststhatasimilarconfrontationmayhaveforcedhimtoleaveEgypt.HespentthenextdecadeinPalestine,withexcursionstoIraqandtoSyria.In928hemovedtoIraq,wherehewasappointedheadoftheacademyinSura,apositionheheld,withinterruptions,untilhisdeathin942.TheintellectualclimateattheendoftheninthcenturyinEgypt,whereSaadyapassedhisformativeyears,isnotverycleartous.WhilebothCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n80MedievalJewishphilosophytheChristianintellectualtraditionandthememoryoftheproudphilosophicalpastoflateantiquitymusthavebeenpresent,thereislittleevidenceofthat,stilllessofanysignificantMuslimthe-ologicalcircles.Saadya’sliteraryactivitybeganalreadyinEgypt:therehewrotehisfirstbookagainsttheKaraites,andhiscorre-spondencewithIsaacIsraelisuggeststhathewasexposedtosomekindofNeoplatonicinfluence.AccordingtotheMuslimhistorianal-Masudi(d.957),duringSaadya’sPalestinianperiodhestudiedwithacertainAbuKathirYahyaal-Tabarani,whomayormaynothavebeenaKaraite.WehavenoinformationconcerningSaadya’sintel-lectualcontactswithnon-Jews,butthecommonlanguage(Arabic)wouldhavefacilitatedsuchcontacts.InSyriatheChristianshadastrongintellectualpresence,andtheaffinityofJewishAramaictoSyriacsuggeststhepossibilitythatChristianwritingscouldhavebeenaccessibletoSaadya.InSyriaSaadyacouldalsohaveencoun-teredrepresentativesofthevariousschoolsofIslamicthought:Sufism,kalam,andfalsafa.Saadya’simmersioninthisIslamiccul-turemusthavebecomeastillmoredominantfactorafterhismovetoBaghdad.Thus,althoughwehavenodefinitelandmarksofSaadya’seducation,wecanbequitecertainthat,bythetimehewrotehisthe-ologicalsumma,hemusthavehadaccesstopracticallyeverythingontheintellectualmarket.ThereisnoquestionthatMuslimthoughtingeneralandMuslimkalaminparticulargrewduringSaadya’slifetimetobecomeamajorintellectualforce.Butasanon-Muslim,Saadyawasnotobligedtochooseaschoolwithwhichtoalignhimself,norwashecommittedtofollowMuslimratherthanChristianpatternsoftheologicalac-tivity.Likeal-Muqammasbeforehim,Saadyawasnotcommittedtoanyparticularphilosophicalschool.Existingphilosophicalschoolsweretheheritageofanon-Jewishculture,therichinfluenceofwhichSaadyadidnottrytoreject.ButbeingaJew,hefeltfreetocollectmaterialgleanedfromvarioussources:fromMutazilitekalam,fromChristiankalam,fromfalsafa,orNeoplatonism,andtocombineitassuitedhispurpose.HenryMalter,whonotedtheeclecticnatureofSaadya’sthought,attributedittohispolemicalgoals.AccordingtoMalter,sinceSaadyaneededtoofferaJewishresponsetoAristotelianandNeoplatonicthoughts,herefutedthesethoughtsusingvariouselementsfromthem.7Thisexplanation,however,doesnotaccountforthefactthattheeclecticmethodisnotusedonasimilarscalebyMuslimpolemicists,forinstance.Saadya’sflexibilityandoriginalityCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaadyaandJewishkalam81mustbeattributedprimarilytohisdaringpersonality.Butbeyondthat,itseemsthathispositionasaJewishthinkeralsoallowedhimacertainfreedomofchoice.ThisfreedomresultsfromhisbeinganoutsidertoMuslimkalam.AsinthecaseoftheMuslimMutazila,theliteraryoutputofthefirstgenerationsofJewishmedievalthinkersextendedbeyondphilosophicalactivity.Alreadyal-Muqammashadappliedhimselftobiblicalexegesis,logic,andpolemics.WithSaadya,theexpan-sionofJewishinterestsbecameafull-fledgedintellectualproject,imprintedbytheversatilityofSaadya’spersonality.ThroughhisvisionherewrotethemapofJewishinterests:poeticsandliturgy,exegesisandgrammar,historyandlaw,polemicsandappliedsci-ence.Heappliedhissystematizingdrivetoallthesenewfields.Andallhisliteraryactivitywasinformedbythekalamprincipleoftheconformityofreligiousrevelationwiththedecreesoftheintellect.Initsdetails,thisnewmapoftenfollowsthemapofMuslimliter-aryactivity.ThusfromthefactthattheBibleiswritteninHebrewfollowedthedemandtoestablisharationallybasedtheoryoflan-guage,andthislinguistictheorycloselyresemblestheonedevel-opedbyMuslimgrammarians.Buttheapproachasawhole,withits“Scripture-centeredness,”alsocloselyfollowstheChristianapolo-getictradition.saadya’sphilosophyanditsphilosophicalcontextAlthoughallofSaadya’soeuvreisinspiredbyhisphilosophicalcon-victions,twoofhisbooksareproperlyphilosophical:thecommen-taryontheBookofCreation(SeferYetzira),writtenin931,andhistheologicalsumma,TheBookofBeliefsandOpinions,composedin933.Whiletherearesomecrucialdifferencesbetweenhisapproachinthesetwoworks,theevaluationofSaadya’sphilosophymustin-cludethemboth,aswellashisotherworks.Intermsofstructureandofstyle,thereisnodifficultyiniden-tifyingSaadyaasamutakallim.Thetenchaptersofhistheologicalsummaarearrangedaccordingtotheclassicalkalamorderofdiscus-sion:anintroductorychapteronepistemology;thecreatednatureoftheworld,whichprovestheexistenceofacreator(chapterone);theunityandincorporealityofGodandthecorrectunderstandingofhisattributes(chaptertwo);prophecyandrevelation(chapterthree);CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n82MedievalJewishphilosophycommandandprohibitionandthequestionoffreewill(chapterfour).Theremainingsixchaptersdealwithvariousaspectsofrewardandpunishment,theafterlife,andeschatology.Thisclearlytiltsthebal-anceofthiscompendiuminfavorofthemorespecificallyJewishsubjects,thechaptersdiscussinguniversalissuesservingmoreasanintroduction.Characteristiccomponentsofkalamthatconcernthesmallerlit-eraryunits,suchasthedialogueformulas,areubiquitousinallSaadya’sworks.Thekalampolemicaltendencyandlogical(argu-mentative)methodologyaredevelopedbySaadyatoanartthatisunparalleledeveninMuslimkalamworks.Aclassicalkalamproofisbasedonananalyticalmappingofthevariouspossiblearguments,preparingthegroundforasystematicexaminationandeliminationofthewrongones.Saadyaperfectedthetechniquesoastomakethelogicalstructurepatentlyclear,bypresentingnumberedlistsofthepossibilitiesandsub-possibilities.Indeed,hisobsessivefondnessfornumberedlistshasbecomehistrademark.Hedevelopsandrefinesitintwodirections:modularconstructionandlinearaccumulation.Saadya’smethodbeginswithananalysisthatresolveseveryques-tionintoitssmallestcomponents.Hecomparestheidealprocessoflearningtotheextractionofcreamfrommilk,ortopurifyingsil-verfromdross.Afterreducingeachproblemsystematicallytoitssmallestcomponents,thenextstageistooutlinealltheirpossiblecombinations.AsSaadyahimselftellsus,onemustgraduallyandpatientlyeliminatethewrongsolutions,siftingandreducingthepossibilitiesfromtentonine,fromninetoeight,andthentoseven.Healsocomparestheestablishmentofknowledgetotheconstruc-tionofmeaningfulstatementsfirstfromsounds,thenfromsyllablesandwords.8Inhisanalysisoftheprocessoflearning,Saadyaassignsthedelineationofthevariouspossibleargumentstoaspecificmen-talfaculty.Acompleteandcorrectanalysisofallthepossibilitiesisanessentialpreconditionfortheprocessofelimination.Afaultyanalysisisattheoriginofmostincorrectopinions.9Thepossibilitiesarethenbuiltintohislists.Whenrefutingthefirstopiniononthelist,hecountsseveralargumentsagainstit.Therefutationofthenextfalseopinionwillincludetheseargumentsandaddothers,andsoon,totheendofthelist.Everysysteminthelistcontainsthecharacteristicsoftheprevioussystemandaddstoitanewdistinctivetrait.Fromthesmallest,modularunitsSaadyaCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaadyaandJewishkalam83graduallyconstructsvarioussystems,accumulatingargumentsagainstthem.Thus,forexample,hisrefutationofdualismincludestwenty-eightarguments,thirteenofwhichareaccumulatedfrompreviousdiscussions,andthefifteenothersaregraduallyaddedon,followingdiscussionsofepistemologyandontology.AnotherexampleofSaadya’s“modular”constructionofhislistscanbeseeninthesixthchapterofTheBookofBeliefsandOpin-ions,whereSaadyamentionsseventheoriesconcerningthesoul.10AshorterlistappearsalreadyinAristotle,buttheultimateoriginofSaadya’slistisintheArabictranslationofthedoxographyknownasPseudo-Plutarch.11Theseseventheories,however,areprecededbyfourothers,which,althoughconcernedmostlywiththequestionofthecreationoftheworld,alsohaveimplicationsconcerningthesoul.Inthesecondchapterthesefourtheorieswerediscussedandrefutedinthecontextofcreation,whereSaadyaconstructedthemaspartofagradual,accumulativerefutationofwrongcreationalsystems.12Theargumentsagainstthesefourtheories,whichSaadyahadaccu-mulatedinthesecondchapter,areharnessedinthesixthchaptertothediscussionofthesoul.The“modular”unitishereintegratedinadifferentcontext,whereitservesasthebasisfortheconstructionofanewdiscussion.AsimilaranalyticaldeconstructionandrecompositionwasusedbySaadyainhislegalwork.IntheBookofTestimonyandLegalDocumentshepresentsfirstthestandardclausesthatarecommontoalltypesoflegaldocument.Hethenproceedstoconstructthein-dividualtypesofdocuments,recallingbrieflythenecessarystandardformulasandaddingtothemtherequiredadditionalformulas.13ThetheologicalopinionsareconstructedbySaadyainthesamemodularway,mutatismutandis,asthelegaldocumentsareconstructedfromstandardandspecificclauses.AcorrectunderstandingoftheroleofthismethodforSaadyaallowsusafullerappreciationofthenatureofhispolemicalactivity.Quiteoften,scholarshavefounditdifficulttoidentifythevarioussystemshechosetorefute.Saadya’sdescriptionsofthesesystemsdifferslightlyfromtheonesgivenbyMuslimheresiographers,andashedescribesthem,theydonotseemtoagreecompletelywithanyknownsystemofthought.Thisisthecasewithsomeofthesys-temsinhislistofopinionsregardingthecreationoftheworld,theopinionsregardingtheessenceofthesoul,andevenhistaxonomyofCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n84MedievalJewishphilosophyChristianity.ButSaadya’sintentionisnottodocumentandrefuteexistingopinionshemayhaveencountered,nortopreservetherefu-tationoffalseopinionshefoundrecordedinbooks.Saadya’slistsdonotreflectonlyhisheresiographicalinterest.Afterdissectingaprob-lemtoitsbasiccomponents,hereconstructsthepossibleanswersbyaddingupthecomponents,themodularunits,eliminatingfalseanswersashegoes.Theopinionsheattacksmaysometimescorre-spondtoexistingbeliefs,butessentiallytheyaremappingsofthelogicalterrain.Saadyathusbuildshisphilosophyonakalamtechniqueofanaly-sisof(possible)arguments.Hecombinesitwiththekalamfascina-tionwithheresiography,andincorporatesitwithinaconventionalkalamstructureoftheologicaldiscussion.Hisinnovationisinthecalculatedupgradingofthetechniqueintoacomprehensivemethod-ology,whichdictatestheframeworkofthediscussionandinformsitwithanalmostobsessivelycontrolledsearchfortheone,perfectlyconstructedtruth.Occasionally,Saadyademonstratesfamiliaritywithbasiccon-ceptsofAristotelianlogicandAristotelianpsychology.14Histhe-oryoflanguagereflectstheAristotelianviewthathumanlanguageisconventional.FollowingAristotle,Saadyadistinguishesbetweentheabstractuniversalnotionsandtheirspecificexpressionsinvari-ouslanguages.15Saadyacouldhavefoundthisideainal-Muqammas,whointroducesasimilaranalysisintoJewishthought.Saadya,how-ever,integratestheanalysisintoacompletelinguisticproject,thefirstattempttobuildalinguistictheoryoftheHebrewlanguage.NeoplatonicinfluenceisapparentinSaadya’sCommentaryontheBookofCreation.BasicconceptsofArabicNeoplatonism,suchasthedivinewill,appearinthiscommentaryinawaythatisusuallyidentifiedwiththelongerversionoftheTheologyofAristotle.Infact,ShlomoPineshassuggestedthatthisconcept,whichissotyp-icalofthesystemofGabirol(d.1054/8),mayhavereachedhimthroughSaadya’scommentaryontheBookofCreation.16Whenread-ingthechaptersoncreationintheBookofBeliefsandOpinionsandcomparingittothecommentaryontheBookofCreation,onegetstheimpressionthatthesetwobooksreflectdifferentphilosophicalschools.Itmaybethatthetwobookswerewrittenwithadifferentpublicinmind,andfordifferentpedagogicalpurposes.Neverthe-less,togethertheyfaithfullyreflectthewidespectrumofSaadya’sCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaadyaandJewishkalam85philosophicalactivity.Saadya’sphilosophythusincludeselementsdrawnfromvarioussourcesandvariousphilosophicalsystems.Hishandlingoftheseelementsisexemplifiedintwokeytopics:physicsandpsychology.SaadyarejectstheTimaeusaccountofprimematteraswellastheAristoteliantheoryoftheworld’spreexistence.Forhim,theworldiscreatedintimebythecreatorandaccordingtohiswill.Saadya’sproofsthattheworldiscreatedarethetypicalkalamproofs,includ-ingaclassicalone,thatinfersthecreatednatureoftheworldfromthefactthatitisneverfreeofconstantlychangingphenomena.AsHerbertDavidsonhasshown,theoriginofthisproof(andofthewholebodyofSaadya’sproofs)istheworkofJohnPhiloponus,anditisinSaadya’swritingthatthePhiloponanoriginoftheseproofsisbestexemplified.ButinSaadya’sformulationtheAristoteliancon-ceptsofmatterandformarereplacedbytheterms“substance”and“accident.”Theselattertermswereusedbythemutakallimunwithinanatomisticsystem.Intheirsystemtheaccidentsresideinthesubstance,butneitheronehasanindependentcontinuousex-istence.Substancesandaccidentsexistforafractionoftimeandarecreatedeachmomentanew.Saadya,however,isnotanatomist.Forhim,substanceisself-subsistent,andhasadurable,continuousexistence.Theaccidents,ontheotherhand,haveonlyacontingentexistence,andtheycontinuouslychange.Theverysameuseofthesetermsisfoundinal-Muqammas,anditisthisusethatMuslimhere-siographersidentifyascharacteristicofChristiantheology.SaadyarejectsthePlatonictheoryofthepreexistentsoul.Accord-ingtohim,thesoul,likeeverythingelseintheworld,iscreatedintime.Butwhereasallotherthingsaredestinedtoperdition,thesoul,oncecreated,iseternal.Thesoulisa“puresubstance,”anditsmat-terisbrighterthanthespheres,sinceitisendowedwithintellect.ForSaadya,intellectisanessentialattributeofthesoul.Hesometimesusestheword“intellect”todenotecommonsense.HethusemploysthewordinawaythatMaimonidesandal-Farabicondemnedasatypicalkalamusage.Saadyadoesnotregardthecelestialspheresasendowedwithintellect,nordoesheseetheintellectashavinganexistenceseparatefromthesoul.Inhisdiscussionoftheafterlife,Saadyaassertsthatrewardandpunishmentaregiventobothsoulandbody.Allhumansoulssuf-ferfromthedestructionofthebody,butthesinner’ssoul,whichCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n86MedievalJewishphilosophywanderseternally,suffersmorethanthesouloftherighteous,whichreachesheaven.MalterhaspointedoutthatSaadya’sdiscussionofdeathisnotphilosophical,andthatherepeatsopinionscurrentamongJewsandMuslims.17Saadya’sattitudetodeath,however,isanintegralpartofhisunderstandingofthesoul,andthisunderstand-ingisnotjust“notphilosophical,”butinfactstrikinglydistinguish-ablefromthatofthefalasifa.Inthefalasifa’ssystemtheintellectisofprimeimportance.Separateintellectscontrolthemovementofthespheres,andthenotionsofredemption,reward,andpunish-mentarecenteredontheroleofthehumanintellect.TheIntellectisofparamountimportancealsoinNeoplatonictheories,whereitisidentifiedasthefirsthypostasisaftertheOne,andredemptionisdescribedasthereturntoit.NoneofthesenotionsisapparentinSaadya’spsychologyoreschatology.Itisnotlikelythathisignoringthemstemsfromeitherignoranceorsimpleoversight.Thenegli-gibilityoftheIntellectinSaadya’sthoughtdemonstratesthatheisneitherNeoplatonistnorAristotelian.OnemaysaythatSaadya’stheoryofthesoulandtheintellectidentifieshimasamutakallim.Saadya’sbitteropponentsweretheKaraites.TheKaraitemove-mentcrystallizedinPalestineduringtheninthandthetenthcen-turies,anditsoongainedprominenceinJewishcommunities.AsScripturalists,forwhomtheBibleisthesolereligiousauthority,theKaraitesputtheBibleatthecenteroftheirwholeintellectualac-tivity.ThegoaloffollowingsolelythedictaoftheBibleconfrontsthedailyexperienceofhavingtodecideonmattersnotspecifiedinScripture.AstheKaraitestriedtominimizetheplaceoftraditionintheinterpretationoftheBible,independentrationalreasoning(qiyas,ijtihad)becameofparamountimportanceintheirthought.ItisthusnotsurprisingthatfromthetenthcenturyontheKaraiteswholeheartedlyadoptedtherationaltheologyofthekalaminitsMutaziliteversion.ThisdevelopmentinvolvedaconstructionofasystematicMutaziliteKaraitetheology,exemplifiedinthesummaofthetenth-centuryYusufal-Basir,TheBookofRationalDiscern-ment(Kitabal-Tamyiz).Al-BasiradoptedtheMutazilitetheologyopenly,andhequiteoftenquotesmastersoftheBasrianschoolofMuslimkalam.TheKaraiteadoptionofthekalaminvolvedamajorexegeticaleffort,inwhichtheBiblewasinterpretedaccordingtotheprinciplesoftheMutazila.ForemostamongtheKaraitecommen-tatorswasSaadya’scontemporaryYaqubal-Qirqisani,whoseBibleCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaadyaandJewishkalam87commentaryincludeslengthydiscussionsofkalamproblems,andwhosharesthekalamfondnessforheresiography.Thevoluminouscommentariesofthetenth-centuryYefetbenEliandoftheeleventh-centuryYeshuabenYehudaostensiblyrestricttheirdiscussionstothetextoftheBible,buttheirapproachisdecidedlythatofthekalam,andtheiranalysisofthebiblicaltextisthoroughlyimbuedwiththetheologyofthekalam.TheinternalconflictwithintheJewishcommunitybetweenRabbanitesandKaraitescontributedtoaheighteningoftheimpor-tanceofcertaintheologicalissues.RabbaniteandKaraiteauthorsusedthesamedialecticalargumentstoprovetheirrespectiveposi-tions.Bothpartiesagreedontheepistemologicalvalueofthetruetradition.ButtheKaraitesrejectedthevalidityofthetalmudictra-dition,whichtheRabbanitesregardedas“theoralLaw,”theonlyauthoritativeinterpretationofScripture.Consequently,thediscus-sionoftraditioninJewishkalamhasaspecialedge.ItnolongerseekssimplytoprovetheauthenticityoftheprophetortovindicatetheScripturehebrought,butalsoseekstoestablishtheauthorityofthecorrect,unadulteratedinterpretationofthesewritings.IthasbeensuggestedthattheKaraiteswerethelinkthatallowedSaadyatointroducenewgenresintotheJewishliteraryvocabulary.AccordingtoRinaDrory,theKaraites,assectarianswhobrokeawayfromrabbinictradition,werenotconstrainedbyloyaltytoprevioustraditionalgenres.Theliteraryvacuumfromwhichtheysufferedallowedthemthenecessaryflexibilitytobereceptivetonewgen-res,suchassystematicexegeticalliteratureandtheology.Accordingtothissuggestion,itwastheconfrontationwiththeKaraitesthatforcedtheRabbanitestoventureintonewfields.Saadya,himselfanoutsidertotheworldofthegeonate,wasflexibleenoughtoshoulderthistask.18Thereis,however,noevidencefortheexistenceofthiscompre-hensiveKaraiteliteraryactivitypriortotheendoftheninthcentury.ThereisthusnoreasontoassumethattheKaraiteswerethebridgebetweenIslamickalamandSaadya.Itismorelikelythattheex-posureofJewsto“externalwisdom”happenedgraduallythroughthespreadoftheArabiclanguageandculture,whichfacilitatedcon-tactsbetweenJewsandtheirgentileneighbors.ItseemsthatbothKaraiteandRabbaniteintellectualswereexposedtoChristianandMusliminfluencesmoreorlessatthesametime.ThepredominanceCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n88MedievalJewishphilosophyofMutazilitekalaminthisformativeperiod,aswellasthestillcentralroleplayedbyChristianintellectuals,dictatedthetenorofJewishthought.InthedebatebetweenMuslimorthodoxyandMuslimrational-isttheologians,thelatterwereonthedefensive.Apartfromrela-tivelyshortperiodswhenitgainedtheupperhand(asduringthereignofal-Ma
mun),rationaltheologywasstronglycurbedbytheprevalenttraditionalistorthodoxtendencies.IntermsofIslamicre-ligiousthought,theMutazilaisperceivedasextremistandthereforeliminal.ThesettingofmedievalJewishthoughtisquitedifferent.BothSaadyaandQirqisanihintatsomeargumentwithpeoplewhorejectrationalisticreadingsofScripture.Buttheaccountsofthisargumentarequitecursory,andnowritingofthesupposedtraditionalistsisextant.Theirveryexistenceasasignificantphenomenonisques-tionable.TheirmentionmaybeonlyarelicfromIslamicliterature.Evenifweassumethatsuchpeopledidexist,bythetenthcenturytherationalistshadtheupperhand.AmongRabbanites,theadop-tionofkalambySaadyawasprobablyofdecisiveimportanceinthisrespect.Unlikeal-Muqammas,whowasamarginalfigureintheJewishcommunity,Saadyawas,fromanearlyage,adominantone.Hischarismaticpersonalitycontributedtohisreputationasareli-giousandintellectualauthority,andalthoughhedidnotbelongtooneofthearistocraticBabylonianfamilies,hesoonpenetratedtheirstrongholdintheacademies.Saadyaintroducedkalamintotheworldoftalmudicscholarship,andendoweditwithhisauthority.AfterSaadya,hardlyanyonequestionedthelegitimacyoftherationalisticapproach,andforawhilekalamisidentifiedwiththetheologyofmainstreamJudaism.ThisispatentlyclearwhenweexaminetheliteraryoutputofthegeonimafterSaadya,andinparticularSamuelbenHofni(d.1013),whofollowedcloselytheBasraschoolofMutazilitekalam,andadheredtoSaadya’sapproachtothebiblicaltext.Moreover,somekalamdoctrineslefttheirmarkonJewishtheologyevenbeyondthecirclesofthemutakallimun.IntheIberianPeninsulakalamingen-eralandMutazilitekalaminparticular,werenotabletogainafirmfoothold.Nevertheless,SpanishJewishauthors,likeJudahHalevi(d.1141)andJosephibnZaddiq(d.1149)incorporatemuchkalamicmaterialintheirdiscussions.AnothercaseinpointisMaimonides,who,notwithstandinghisscathingcriticismofthekalam,readCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nSaadyaandJewishkalam89Saadya’sworkandwasinfluencedbyit.Likethemutakallimun,Maimonidesnavigatedbetweenwhatheperceivedtobethecontentoftherevealedtextandhisindependentphilosophicaloutlook.InthisrespectonecanjustifyLeoStrauss’scathingremarkthat,de-spiteMaimonides’aversiontothekalam,heinfactpracticed“anintelligent,orenlightenedkalam.”19WiththeshiftofthecenteroftheJewishworldtotheWest(and,tosomeextent,perhapsalsoasaresultofMaimonides’influence),theinterestofRabbaniteJewsinkalamwaned.Thisdeclineofinterestisreflectedinthechoiceoftextsfortranslation:Saadya’stheologicalsummawastranslatedintoHebrew,buthisBiblecommentaries,aswellasthecommentariesofSamuelbenHofniandofothermutakallimun,werenot.TheythusremainedoutsidethereachofEuropeanJews.TheoneexceptiontothisruleamongRabbaniteJewswastheJewishcommunityofYemen,whereMaimonides’authoritydidnoteclipseSaadya,andtheworksofthesetwogreatrationalistscontinuedtobewidelystudieddowntomoderntimes.IntheJewishKaraitecommunity,ontheotherhand,kalamneverlostitsauthority.Itstheseswereheraldedasthetruedoctrineoftheprophets,andevenwhenArabicwasnolongerthevernacular,kalamcontinuedtoexertitsinfluencethroughtranslationsandoriginalworksinHebrew,composedinByzantiumaswellasinEurope.notes1.L.E.Goodman,“Maimonides’ResponsestoSaadyaGaon’sTheodicyandtheirIslamicBackgrounds,”inStudiesinIslamicandJudaicTradi-tionsII,ed.W.M.BrinnerandS.D.Ricks(Atlanta:ScholarsPress,1989),4–7.2.Saadya,Kitabal-Amanatwa
l-Itiqadat,ed.J.Qafih(Jerusalem:Sura,1960),12;SaadyaGaon,TheBookofBeliefsandOpinions,trans.S.Rosenblatt(NewHavenandLondon:YaleUniversityPress,1948),15.3.AsintheintroductiontohisCommentaryontheBookofCreation;SeferYetzira(Kitabal-mabadi),ed.J.Qafih(Jerusalem:n.p.,1972),17–18.4.P.B.Fenton,“DanielIbnal-Mashita’sTaqwimal-Adyan:NewLightontheOrientalPhaseoftheMaimonideanControversy,”inGenizahResearchafterNinetyYears:TheCaseofJudaeo-Arabic,ed.J.BlauandS.C.Reif(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1992),74–81.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n90MedievalJewishphilosophy5.L.Nemoy(trans.),“ThePseudo-QumisianSermontotheKaraites,”ProceedingsoftheAmericanAcademyforJewishResearch43(1976),49–105.6.Cf.S.Stroumsa,“FromtheEarliestKnownJudaeo-ArabicCommentaryonGenesis,”JerusalemStudiesinArabicandIslam27(2002),375–95.7.H.Malter,SaadiaGaon,hisLifeandWorks(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,1921),119,198.8.Saadya,Amanat,4–10;Saadya,BeliefsandOpinions,5–12.9.Saadya,Amanat,10;Saadya,BeliefsandOpinions,13;Saadya,Com-mentaryonEcclesiastes,ed.J.Qafih(Jerusalem:Sura,1976),17–18.10.Saadya,Amanat,193–4;Saadya,BeliefsandOpinions,236–9.11.H.Davidson,“Saadia’sListofTheoriesoftheSoul,”inJewishMedievalandRenaissanceStudies,ed.A.Altmann(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1967),75–94.12.Saadya,Amanat,44–58;Saadya,BeliefsandOpinions,50–66.13.R.Brody,TheGeonimofBabyloniaandtheShapingofMedievalJewishCulture(NewHavenandLondon:YaleUniversityPress,1998),257–814.Forinstance,Saadya,Amanat,97–110;Saadya,BeliefsandOpinions,112–16.15.A.Dotan,TheDawnofHebrewLinguistics:TheBookofEleganceoftheLanguageoftheHebrewsbySaadiaGaon[Hebrew](Jerusalem:WorldUnionofJewishStudies,1997),i:96–104.16.S.Pines,“PointsofSimilaritybetweentheExpositionoftheDoctrineoftheSefirotintheSeferYetziraandaTextofthePseudo-ClementineHomilies:TheImplicationsofthisResemblance;AppendixII:Quota-tionsfromSaadya’sCommentaryontheSeferYetzirainaPoembyIbnGabirolandintheFonsVitae,”ProceedingsoftheIsraelAcademyofSciencesandHumanities7.3(1989),122–6;reprintedinW.Z.HarveyandM.Idel(eds.),TheCollectedWorksofShlomoPines.v.StudiesintheHistoryofJewishThought(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1997),153–7.17.Malter,Saadia,228.18.R.Drory,TheEmergenceofJewish–ArabicLiteraryContactsattheBeginningoftheTenthCentury[Hebrew],Literature,Meaning,Culture17(TelAviv,1988);Drory,ModelsandContacts–ArabicLiteratureanditsImpactonMedievalJewishCulture(Leiden:Brill,2000),ch.5.19.L.Strauss,“TheLiteraryCharacteroftheGuideofthePerplexed,”inhisPersecutionandtheArtofWriting(Glencoe:TheFreePress,1952;reprinted,Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1988),41.ButseeW.Z.Harvey,“WhyMaimonideswasnotaMutakallim,”inPerspectivesonMaimonides,ed.J.L.Kraemer(Oxford:LittmanLibrary,1991),105–14.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nsarahpessin5JewishNeoplatonism:BeingaboveBeinganddivineemanationinSolomonibnGabirolandIsaacIsraeli∗introductionandmethodologicaloverviewDefiningJewishNeoplatonismisnoeasytask,dueinnosmallparttothedifficultyofdefining“Neoplatonism.”Inanefforttobestun-derstandthesecategories,Iwillisolatetwoconceptualissues–thenatureoftheGodhead,anditsrelationtothecosmos–inPlotinus(thepaganthird-centuryfounderofNeoplatonism),andthen,withre-coursetoSolomonibnGabirolinthefirstcaseandIsaacIsraeliinthesecond,Iwillexaminetheextenttowhichtheseissuescanbeseentoexist–unmodified–withinthecorpusofJewishNeoplatonism.Bysuggesting,first,waysinwhicheachofthesePlotinianissuesseems,primafacie,atoddswiththeparallelJewishNeoplatonicviews,butthenbyemphasizinghowinfacttheyarereconcilablewiththeJewishversions,Iwillchallengeoversimplifiedestima-tionsnotonlyofthenatureofPlotinus’ownphilosophy,butofwhatrealdifferencesexistbetweenitandJewishNeoplatonism.InthiswayIwillhaveindirectlybeenexaminingwhatexactlycountsas“Neoplatonism,”Jewishorotherwise.Byproceedinginthisway,∗IwouldliketothankStephenGershforinstructionandinspirationinmystudiesofNeoplatonism,aswellasTamarRudavsky,PeterKing,andtheMeltonCenterforJewishStudiesatTheOhioStateUniversityforgivingmetheopportunitytocon-ductresearchonJewishNeoplatonism.IamespeciallyindebtedtoTzviLangermannandGeorgePappasfortheircommentsonanearlierdraftofthispaper,andIwouldalsoliketoexpressgratitudetotheAmericanAcademyforJewishResearchforthepost-doctoralfellowshipduring2000–2002thatallowedmetofurthermyre-search,andtoJoelKraemerinparticularforgivingmesomuchofhistime.Finally,IamgratefultothedeansatTheDivinitySchoolatTheUniversityofChicagoformakinganumberofresearchopportunitiesavailabletomeduringthetenureofmyfellowship.91CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n92MedievalJewishphilosophyIhopetodojusticetotheelusiveconnectionsthatexistbetweenvariousNeoplatonictextualtraditions.ByfocusingontheworksoftwoearlyJewishNeoplatonists,thischapter,ratherthanattempt-ingtobecomprehensive,suggestsconceptualstartingpointsfromwhichonemightaddressandevaluatethedegree,implications,anddevelopmentofNeoplatonisminanynumberofotherJewishtexts.Beforeproceeding,afurtherclarificationofmymethodologyisinorder.Inwhatfollows,IaimtoanalyzeGabirolandIsraelialongPlotinianlines.Ofcourse,neitherGabirolnorIsraeliwasdirectlyinfluencedbyGreektextsofNeoplatonism,andtheArabicversionsofPlotinianandProcleanmaterialsbywhichtheywereinfluencedcontainmanychangesfromPlotinus’Enneads.Whilemindfulofthisfact,IamhereinterestedinquestioningtheextenttowhichtextualchangesbetweenArabicandGreekNeoplatonictextsneedbetakenasrepresentingdeepphilosophicaldifferencesbetweenthetwotraditions.Isuggestthattheyneednotbeseenasrepresent-ingsuchdifferences.Whileitiscertainlypossiblethat,forexample,thereplacementofPlotinus’notionofaOne“aboveBeing”withaGodidenticaltoBeing,andasimilartextualreplacementof“emanation”with“creationexnihilo”mightrepresentmajorde-parturesfromPlotinus’worldview,inwhatfollowsIaimtoexam-inetheextenttowhichsuchchangesmightnonethelessbeseeningenuinelyPlotinianterms.AslongasIcanreconcileterminologicalchangesintheArabicNeoplatonictraditions(andintheJewishtextsthatarerootedinthosetraditions)withPlotinus’ownviews,thereisnoprimafaciereasontotakethosechangesasreflectingdeepconceptualupheavalsofPlotinus’ownviews.InpresentingbelowwhatIdenominateasthe“NeoplatonicNamingPrinciple”andthe“NeoplatonicCausalPrinciple,”aswellasinaddressingthedifferentsensesof“nihil”in“creationexnihilo,”Iattempttoprovidesomemeansbywhichthereadermightmorereadilyentertainconcep-tualreconciliationsbetweenArabic(andJewish)textsandPlotinianNeoplatonism.jewishneoplatonismincontextAmongtheearliestNeoplatonicJewishthinkersareIsaacIsraeli(850–c.932/55)andSolomonibnGabirol(1021–1054/8).BecauseoftherootednessofearlyJewishNeoplatonistswithinahostofArabictextualtraditions(IslamicSpainandNorthAfricabeingthehomeofCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJewishNeoplatonism93theJewishNeoplatonists),wemightmeaningfullycategorizethemunderthebroaderheading“ArabicNeoplatonists.”Infact,JewishNeoplatonismrevealstracesofahugemixofoftentimesconceptu-allydisparatephilosophicalandtheologicalArabicmaterials,includ-ingthevulgateand“longer”versionsoftheTheologyofAristotle,theLiberdeCausis(or,Kalamfimahdal-khayr),thepseudo-EmpedocleanBookofFiveSubstances,IbnHasday’sNeoplatonist,theencyclopedicworksoftheIkhwanal-Safa
(theBrethrenofPurity),andthewritingsofal-Kindi,al-Farabi,andIbnSina.Addition-allywefindreverberationsofmoreesotericJewishandIslamicma-terialssuchastheSeferYetzira(anditscommentaries),theGhayatal-Hakim,1andGnosticIsmailimaterials.2AddtothismixArabictranslationsofworksofPlato,Aristotle,andNeopythagoreantrea-tisesanditbecomesclearjusthowmanyconceptualpossibilitiesmustbeweighedbeforeinterpretingevenasingleclaimwithinatextofJewishNeoplatonism.Apartfromthespecificbackgroundphilosophicalsources,Imightalsonotethataninvestigationintoanumberofliteraryforms,philo-sophicalaswellasnon-philosophical,isoftenhelpful,evennecessaryonoccasion,3towardthegoalofretrievingascompleteapictureaspossibleofagivenJewishNeoplatonist’sphilosophicaldoctrine.Inadditiontophilosophicaltreatises,manyofourauthorsalsocom-posedBibleand/orSeferYetzira(BookofCreation)commentaries,aswellasdevotionalandsecularpoems,manyofwhicharerepletewithphilosophicallyrevealingdetails.Thecomplicatedphilosoph-icalsystemofGabirol,forexample,ispresentednotonlyinhisfamousMekorHayyim(Lat.FonsVitae),butalsoinacommentaryonGenesisattributedtohimbyAbrahamibnEzra,andiscertainlyevidencedinmanyofhispoems.Finally,manyJewishNeoplatonicideasmightadditionallybefoundamidsttherichtapestryofkabbalisticmaterials,thoughonemustcautionagainstanachronisticallyreadingbacklaterideasintotheearliestJewishNeoplatonicthinkers.4inthefootstepsofplotinus:towardsasubtlerappreciationofjewishneoplatonismTurningtoananalysisofJewishNeoplatonism,Iwillproceedasfollows:IcommencewithPlotinus’viewson(1)thenatureoftheGodhead,and(2)thenatureoftheGodhead’srelationshiptotheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n94MedievalJewishphilosophycosmos,alongwithparallelJewishNeoplatonicdiscussionsoftheseissues.Ineachcase,IfirstexaminethewaysinwhichtheJewishNeoplatonicthesisseemstobearejection–oratleastasignificantmodification–ofPlotinus.Ithenshow,ineachcase,thattheJewishNeoplatonicthesisinquestionneednotbeseeninfactasrepresent-inganyphilosophicaldeparturefromPlotinus’own.OntheNatureoftheGodhead:TheGodheadasBeing,theGodheadas“AboveBeing”gabirolandplotinusinconflict?Neoplatonictextsrevealingeneralaninterestinvariousgradesofreality,agreat“chainofbe-ing,”withonelevelnestedinthenext,leading,throughagradualseriesofascendinglayers,totheGodheaditself,thehighestlevelinthehierarchy.Inthisregard,considersomeofthesystemizationsshowninFigure1:PlotinusLiberdeCausis1.One(=aboveBeing)1.PureBeing(Anniyyamahda);2.UniversalIntellect(=Being)BeingOnly(Anniyyafaqat)3.WorldSoul2.Intellect(FirstCreatedBeing)4.Nature3.Soul4.NatureProclus1.One(=aboveBeing)Gabirol2.Henads1.FirstEssence,Creator,3.LimitandUnlimitedBeingOnly(EsseTantum)4.One-Being2.Will55.Life3.UniversalMatter,Universal6.IntellectForm7.Soul4.UniversalIntellect(First8.NatureCreatedBeing)5.[World]RationalSoul6.[World]Animal/SensitiveSoul7.[World]NutritiveSoul8.Sphere/NatureFigure1.NeoplatonicHierarchiesofBeingTurningforourpurposestoonemaindifferencebetweenthesetwopaganandtwomonotheisticcosmologies,onefindsthatwhereasPlotinusandProclusarecommittedtoaGodheadthatisaOneaboveBeing,ourtwomonotheisticNeoplatonicsystemshaveincommonCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJewishNeoplatonism95theapparentrejectionofanysuchdescriptionoftheGodhead.In-steadofplacingGod“aboveBeing,”thesesystemsidentifyGodwithBeing(Arabic,anniyya6),BeingOnly(EsseTantum).(Inaddition,inthecaseofGabirolhimself,oneshouldnotehisdescriptionsofGodasthe“PrimumEsse”7and“EsseVerum,”8aswellashisdemarcat-inganinfiniteprincipleofActiveBeing[EsseAgens].9)FortheJewishNeoplatonicidentificationofGodwithBeingOnly,considerthefollowing:AtapointintheFonsVitae(FV)whereGabiroladdressestherelevancetoGodofthefourquestionsthatcanprimafaciebeaskedofanybeing,“whether?”“what?”“how?”and“why?”,hesuggeststhatonlytheexistential“whether?”question(“anest?”,i.e.“whether[somethingexists]”)canbeproperlyaskedofGod.ThislatterquestionisbasedonAristotle’sclassificationatPosteriorAnalytics2:1,anditisinGabirol’sgrantingtoGodonlyanexistential“thatness”thathemaybeseenasidentifyingGodwithBeingOnly.Incontext,Gabirol’sidentificationofthisexistentialquestionispresentedinthefollowingexchangeintheFV:Master:...Isaythatexistence(esse)fromthehighesttothelowestextremesisdistinguishedbyfourorders,viz.,a.“whetheritis”(anest),b.“whatitis”(quidest),c.“howitis”(qualeest)[i.e.whatsortofqualitiesXhas],d.“whyitis”(quareest).Moreover,ofthese,themostworthyistheoneconcerningwhichitisaskedonly“whetheritis,”not“whatitis”or“howitis”andnot“whyitis,”asinthecaseof[sicut]theExaltedandBlessedUnity;andafterthisistheoneconcerningwhichitisasked“whatitis,”not“howitis”or“whyitis,”asinthecaseofIntellect;afterthisistheoneconcerningwhichitisasked“whatitis”and“howitis,”not“whyitis,”asinthecaseofSoul;afterthisistheoneconcerningwhichitisasked“whatitis”and“howitis”and“whyitis,”justasinthecaseofNatureandthethingsgeneratedfromit;andeachoneoftheseisorderedaccordingtotheorderofnumber.Disciple:Inwhatsense?Master:Sincethequestion“whetheritis”ispositedaccordingtotheorderof“one,”sinceitisbeingonly[quiaestessetantum]...10FromthefactthatShemTovibnFalaquera,inhisHebrewtrans-lationofthispassage,employsthetermmetziutforesse,MunksuggestedthattheArabictermusedbyGabirolherewouldhavebeenanniyya.11Imightaddthatthelanguageof“BeingOnly”intheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n96MedievalJewishphilosophyabovepassagequiteclearlyrecallsanniyyafaqat(lit.“BeingOnly”)whichwefindinboththeLiberdeCausisandtheArabicPlotinianmaterialstodescribetheGodhead.ThisnotionofGodasapureBeingdevoidofanycomplexityorlimitationmaybelinkedtotheMutazilitedoctrineoftheabsoluteunityofGod(himselfseen,asisthecaseforGabirol,asapureessence),anditmightalsobere-latedtotheidentificationofGodwithpureandsimpleBeinginSufitheosophy.12IntheaboveremarksinFV,then,wefindthatonecanonlyas-certainthatGodexists(andnotwhathisessenceis).Fromthissug-gestion,togetherwithGabirol’scleardescriptionofthisBeingastheFirstEssence(al-dhatal-ula,asevidencedinsomeoftheextantArabicfragmentsoftheFonsVitae),13GodemergesastheessencewhichisonewithpureBeing.14Inthisway,Godisessentiallyunlikeanyotherexistent.GodthusconstruedasBeingOnly,then,wouldcertainlyseemtodifferfromthePlotinianOnethatis,onthecontrary,“aboveBeing.”gabirolandplotinusreconciled.Inwhatfollows,however,IofferconsiderationsthatwouldleadustoquestionwhethertheJewishNeoplatonic“GodwhoisBeing”mustinfactbetakenasconceptuallydistinctfromthePlotinianOne“aboveBeing.”OnemustfirstnotethatinboththeArabic(incl.Jewish)Neopla-tonictextualmilieu,aswellasinPlotinus’corpus,Godiscertainly“abovelimited(finite)Being.”Onthis,allofourthinkersagree.Thus,onefindswithintheArabicNeoplatonictraditionabifurca-tionofanniyyaintoanniyyafaqat(“BeingOnly”)oranniyyamahda(“PureBeing”)15ontheonehand,and“createdbeing”ontheother,withtheclaimthattheformerisabovethelatter.InthisregardGabiroltreatsIntellect,thefirstoccurrenceof“forminmatter,”16asthefirstcreated,orlimited,being.17But,thisbeing(Intellect)isadditionallysaidtobethecauseof“esse”inalllowerthings,18andassuchadditionallyemergesasabrandofgenericBeingperseinwhichallothercompositeentitiessubsist.ItisclearthatGodis“aboveBeing”inatleastthesenseoftranscendingthelimitedgradeofBeingassociatedwithIntellect,aswellastranscending,byextension,alllowercompositeentitiesthatpartakeoftheBeingofIntellect.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJewishNeoplatonism97Anysuggestion,then,thatthisGodisnonethelessnotidenticalwithPlotinus’Godhead“aboveBeing”seemstorestontheassump-tionthat,infact,Plotinus’descriptionismeantassomethingmoreextremethanmerely“abovelimitedBeing.”However,considertheextenttowhichonemighttakePlotinus’owndescriptionassimplymeaning“abovelimitedBeing.”AtEnneads5:5.6,remarkingontheaccesswehavetoknowingtheOne,Plotinussays:“theonewantingtocontemplatethatwhichisabovetheintelligiblewillcontemplatethewholeoftheintelligiblehavingbeenremoved,sinceonelearns‘thatitis’inthisway,withthe‘whatitis’havingbeenremoved.”19FollowingAltmannandStern,20onemightseePlotinus’claimhereassuggestingthattheOneissubjectonlytotheexistential“whether”question,andnottothe“what”question.But,ifso,thisisnodifferentfromGabirol’sabovetreat-mentofGod’s“thatness.”Sointhisregard,Plotinus’treatmentoftheGodheadisidenticaltothemonotheisticNeoplatonist’saccountof“Godas[identicalwith]Being.”ConsiderthesenseinwhichPlotinusplaceshisOne“aboveBeing”:Sincethesubstancewhichisgenerated[fromtheOne]isform–onecouldnotsaythatwhatisgeneratedfromthatsourceisanythingelse–andnottheformofsomeonethingbutofeverything,sothatnootherformisleftoutsideit,theOnemustbewithoutform.Butifitiswithoutformitisnotasubstance;forasubstancemustbesomeoneparticularthing,something,thatis,definedandlimited;butitisimpossibletoapprehendtheOneasaparticularthing:forthenitwouldnotbetheprinciple,butonlythatpar-ticularthingwhichyousaiditwas.Butifallthingsareinthatwhichisgenerated[fromtheOne],whichofthethingsinitareyougoingtosaythattheOneis?Sinceitisnoneofthem,itcanonlybesaidtobebeyondthem.Butthesethingsarebeings,andbeing:soitis“beyondbeing.”21TheOneemergesinPlotinusastheprinciple,origin,andcauseofallBeingandbeings,butisitselfdevoidofanylimitation,andhenceisitself“aboveBeing”(epekeinaontos,lit.“beyondbeing”).ButgiventhisglossonthePlotiniandescriptionoftheGodheadas“aboveBeing,”thereseemstobenoreasontodenytheequationofPlotinus’OnewiththeArabictradition’sanniyyafaqat/mahda,andhence,withGabirol’sGodasBeingOnly.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n98MedievalJewishphilosophySofar,then,wehaveseenthatPlotinusidentifiestheGodheadasthecauseofallBeing,andalsoas“aboveBeing.”YetthereisNeoplatonicsupportforaffixingthename“Being”tosomethingwhichis“thecauseof”aswellasitselfaboveBeing.InbothPlotinusandProcluswefindwhatwemightcallthe“NeoplatonicNamingPrinciple”(NNP)atplay.22Thisprinciplesaysthatthecauseofsomeformalreality,whileitselflackingthatreality,isnonethelessnamedbythatreality.NNPgivesusgroundsonwhichtoseePlotinus’Godheadunderthename“Being,”inspiteofhisnotinfacthav-ingthusnamedtheOne.Ifsuchaprincipleisoperative,thenonecanreadilyseethatPlotinus’Oneandthe“GodthatisBeing”ofGabirol’sFonsVitae(andofArabictextsmoregenerally)arenotconceptuallydistinct.Tothisend,considerGabirol’sidentificationofGodwithBeing,inlightofthefollowingNeoplatonicnotion,whichwemightcallthe“NeoplatonicCausalPrinciple”(NCP).Thisprinciplestatesthatthecauseofsomeformalrealityitselflacks–or,is“above”–thatformalreality.23TorootthisprincipleinGabirol,onemightnotehisclaimthatalleffectsareintheircauses(FV3.30,151,3),butthattheyareintheircausesonlyaspotencies(FV3.18,118,24).Assuch,causeslackinactualitytheformalrealitiesoftheireffects.ApplyingNCPtoGabirol’sclaimthatGodisthecauseofBeing,24wemighteasilyconcludethatGodis,indeed,aboveBeing;wemightsayheisthe“potencytoBe,”oraprincipleofpreexistence.ThemerefactofGabirol’sidentifyingGodas“Being”(esse,anniyya),then,doesnotonitsownruleout–andGabirol’sgeneralcommitmenttoNCPinfactsupports–aclearsenseinwhichGodis“aboveBeing.”Inadditiontotheabovesenseof“Being”denotingthecompos-iteentityofIntellect,thereisanadditionaluseof“being”intheFonsVitaetodenotethe“actofbeing”that–togetherwitha“potencytoBe”–compriseseachcompositeentity.The“actofbeing”isassociatedbyGabirolwithform,25andthe“potencytobe”withmatter,andhencewehavehereatleastonepossiblesenseofhis“universalhylomorphic”claimthatallsubstances–evenIntellectandintellects–possessbothformandmatter.26AsIsuggestatlengthelsewhere,27thestatusofthis“actofbeing”(form)isunclearintheFonsVitae,sinceitsometimesemergesassuperiortothe“pre-esse”matter,butsometimesasinferior.ToCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJewishNeoplatonism99renderplausiblethepossibilityofprivilegingthe“pre-esse”stateofmatteroverthatofformalbeing,onemayherenoteGabirol’sassoci-ationofformalbeingwithlimitation,finitude,28anddifference,29withmatter(orpre-esse)onthecontraryemergingasapure,unlimited(formless),andinfinitepotencyassociatedwithunityandsameness.30Itisthissortofstructure(togetherwithanumberofde-tailedclaimsaboutmatterwhichItreatofelsewhere)31thatenablesustoseeinmatterasuperiorityoverthe“actofbeing”associatedwiththeformal.Wemightsummarizethisunexpectedvictoryofmatteroverformastheemergenceofpotencyoveract,of“pre-esse”over“esse.”ConsidertheimplicationsoftheseresultsforourdescriptionoftheGodheadinlightofGabirol’sownanalogicalmethodologyinwhichtheorderofthingsinthemicrocosmisusedtorevealtheor-derofheavenlythings(itselfrootedinhisNeoplatonicbeliefthattheorderofthingsinthemicrocosmreflectstheorderofheav-enlythings).32Inlightofthe“microcosmic”priorityof“pre-esse”to“esse”thatwehavejustnoted,ananalogybetweenpre-esseandGodseemstosuggestitselfquitereadily,inthatbothareinfinite,predeterminedpotenciesthatprecedeanyformallimitation.Mate-rialpre-esse–asinfinite,pre-limitedpotency–istotheformalactofesse,justasGodasinfinite,pre-limitedpotencyistoBeing(totheformalactofesse).WhileGodisnotthesameasmatter,onthisanalogyhecertainlyseemstohavemoreincommonwiththematterofcompositeexistentsthanwiththeirformalactofbeing.33Gabirol’sownprincipleofanalogyseemstosuggest,then,thatGodismoreakinto“pre-esse”thantoesse,orthathecanbeaccuratelyconstruedas“aboveBeing.”AthirdapproachtoreconcilingGabirol’sdescriptionofGodas[only]BeingwithPlotinus’descriptionofaGodwhois“aboveBeing”isnotsomuchareconciliationasitisanacknowledgmentofthecentralityofparadoxwithinNeoplatonictexts.Gabirol’sdescriptionofGodas“Being”neednotruleoutattributingtohimadescriptionofGodas“aboveBeing,”evenifwetake“Being”inbothcasesasreferringtoasinglereality,unlimitedBeingonly.Infact,thatGodisactuallybothidenticalwithand“above”somerealityisnotonlyapossibilityforGabirol,butonethatwouldfollowcloselyinthespiritofNeoplatonicapophasis,inwhichtheuttertranscendenceofthedivinitydemandsthatonespeaksofhiminparadoxicalterms.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n100MedievalJewishphilosophyImightnotethatthisspiritofparadoxleadsingeneraltoafluidontologyofthedivinerealminGabirol’sFonsVitae,inwhichGod,Will,FirstMatter,andFirstFormeachseemtobetreatedunderprimafacieconflictingdescriptions.Whiletheseconflictingdescriptionsneednotbeseenasparadoxes,thegeneralpointseemstorevealaheightenedappreciationoftherelativelyintractablenatureoftheobjectinquestion.ConsiderjustsomeofthedescriptionsthatariseintheFonsVitae(Figure2):GodTranscendentImmanent,CreatorAboveBeingPureBeing,TrueBeing,FirstBeing;AboveSubstance[i.e.BeingOnly]FirstSubstanceWillinfinite,unlimited34finiteandlimited(inrelationtoForm;35or,withrespecttoIntellect)36Matterinfinite,unlimitedfiniteanddifferentiated(heresymbolically(hereinthesenseofacomposite,linkedwiththe“Matter+Formsubstance”)37“DivineThrone”image,38andperhapswiththe“ayin”or,“Nothingness”ofKeterMalkhut39)Formesseandsourceofunityesseandsourceofdiversity(hereasSecondUnity,(hereinoppositiontounityofmanifestationofWill,matter,inassociationwithLimit)impressionoftheTrueFirstUnity[God])Figure2.DescriptionsofRealityinGabirolWhendescribingarealmthatisbeyondknowingordefinition,onemustemployafluiddiscourse,bywhoseopposingaffirmationsandnegationsonecomesclosesttouncoveringthatwhichcannotbeuncovered.40Ihavesofaraddressedtheextenttowhichtherelationshipbe-tweentheJewishNeoplatonicconceptionofGodasBeingcancon-sistentlyandmeaningfullybedescribedinPlotinus’owntermsasaOne“aboveBeing.”IturnnowtoconsideringthereconcilabilityofPlotinianemanationwithIsraeli’sprimafaciedoctrineofcreationexnihilo.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJewishNeoplatonism101OntheNatureofGod’sRelationtotheCosmos:EmanationandCreationisraeliandplotinusinconflict?ItmaywellseemthatIsaacIsraeli’sinvocationof“creation”todescribetheoriginativerelationbetweenGodandthecosmosputshimdirectlyinoppositiontoPlotinus.Further,itseemsthatanymonotheistthinkerwouldhavenochoicebuttorejectPlotinus’descriptionofan“emanating”divin-ity,onthegroundsthatsuchadescriptionoftheGodhead(1)seemstorobGodofafreelywilledcreativerelationshiptothecosmos,problematicallysubmittinghiminsteadtoforcesofinsurmountablenecessity,wherebyhisrelationshiptothecosmosisentirelybeyondhiscontrol;and(2)blursthelinebetweencreatorandcreation,byde-scribingthecosmosasflowingforthfromtheessenceofthedivinityhimself.Inwhatfollows,Iwillrespondto(1)byshowingwhyPlotinus’Godisnotinfactrobbedoffreedomandwill,andiscertainlynotsubjecttonecessityinaproblematicway.Andinrespondingto(2),Iwillemphasizetheextenttowhichtheblurringoflinesbetweencreatorandcreationhasnotgenerallybeenseenasproblematicfromthemonotheistic(religious)perspective.Afterremovingthecriticalforcefromtheabovetwoanti-emanationobservations,IconcludethatbehindthelanguageofcreationinIsraeliemergesnoneotherthanPlotinus’emanatingGodhead.israeliandplotinusreconciled.Torespondtothetheist’schargethataPlotinianGodheadisnotfree,butratherisproblemat-icallyboundbynecessity,Iofferthefollowingconsiderationsaboutnecessityandfreedom:AslongasitisGod’sownessentialgoodnessthataccountsforhisemanating,theNeoplatonistneednotadmittoany“necessita-tion,”ortothepresenceintheGodheadofthesortofnecessitationthatbringswithitnegativeovertones,thoseordinarycasesofneces-sitationwherethereiscompulsionbysomeforcefromwithout,acompulsionrelatedtothenegativityofthematerialandirrationalinthecosmos.Onthecontrary,whenPlotinusspeaksoftheGodhead’sactivityasarising“outofnecessity,”thisdoesnotfallunderordinarynecessitation(compulsionfromwithout),thekindofnecessitythatthemonotheistcriticwishestoidentifyPlotiniannecessitywith.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n102MedievalJewishphilosophyIneffect,IsuggestthatthecritichasunjustifiablyattachedtotheuniquenecessitationoftheGodhead’soverflowasetofnegativeassociationsinappropriatelydrawnfromconsiderationsofordinarycasesofnecessitation.Assuch,thecritic’sattackonPlotinus’world-viewherefailstostrikehome.AsforthedenialofbonafidefreedominPlotinus,ifoneturnstoPlotinus’discussionatEnneads6:8,onefindsanexplicitdescriptionoftheOne’shavingwilleditselffreely.41Moreimportantly,though,arethereasonswearegivenbyPlotinusforwhytheOneisneitherfreenorwilling,noneofwhichseemstorobtheGodheadofanythingsuchassuggestedbythemonotheistcriticofPlotinus.InlightoftheNeoplatonicCausalPrinciple(NCPabove)–that,asthecauseoffreedominallthings,42Godishimselfabovefreedom–andbyapplyingtheNeoplatonicNamingPrinciple(NNPabove),wecouldwellsaythatGodisfreedomitself!Ineffect,hisbeingsaidtobenot“free”isnot,astheabovemonotheistcriticismseemstosuggest,anattributiontoGodofsomelack;ratheritisasanac-knowledgmentofGod’sroleasthecauseofallfreedomandasfree-domitself.UnderstandingthematterinthiswaylendsplausibilitytoseeingPlotinus’worldviewasamenabletomonotheisticvalues(andviceversa).Primafacie,onehasnoreasontoinsistthatArabicandJewishNeoplatonictextsreflectadeepoppositiontoPlotinusandhisviews.FreedomandnecessityareinvariablyintertwinedintheNeopla-tonictraditionconcerningcreation,andInowturntocosmologywithaviewtoascertainingthepossibilityofreconciling,ofbridgingthegapbetween,IsraeliwithPlotinus,ifpossible.CreationexnihiloisstandardlyrootedinGenesis1:1(“Inthebe-ginning,Godcreated[bara]...”)andintheQur
anicdescriptionofGodastheBadi(absolutecreator).Straightaway,weshouldnotethatthebiblicalnotionofcreationexnihilocanbetakeninatleasttwodifferentways,an“orthodox”wayandanemanationistway.Accordingtotheformer(“orthodox”)wayoftakingcreationexnihilo,onestipulatesatleasttwothings:(1)TheworldiscreatedbyGod“fromnothing,”inthesenseof“notfromsomething/anything”;and(2)thecreativeactisnotaflowingforthofthingsfromtheessenceofGod.Onthisview,takingcreationexnihiloas“creationnotfromsomething”notonlyblocksanysuggestionofemanation,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJewishNeoplatonism103butadditionallyensuresnomistakenidentificationofnihilwiththe“something”whichismatter(the“something”whichisa“no-thing”).(Thissensitivityisreflectedintheuseinmanycon-textsoftheArabicexpressionlaminshay’[“notfromathing”]asopposedtotheexpressionminlashay’[“fromnothing”]).43However,asecondaccountofcreationexnihilo,onethatpointsinthedirectionofaPlotinianemanationistview,maybefoundaswell.Onthisaccount,thenihilofcreationexnihiloisidentifiedwithGodhimself.ThisidentificationofGodwithnihilisbasedeitherontreating“nothing”asanameforGod44or,moregenerally,onseeingGodas“hewhoisbeyondallpredication,”andhence,asessentially“no-thing”asfarashumancognizingisconcerned.Takenthisway,creationexnihilorevealsnothingdifferentfromPlotinus’ownemanationistaccountofthedivinity’srelationtothecosmos.TurningtoIsraeli,thereisdebateoverwhichoftheabovetwocreationexnihiloaccountsbestdescribeshisowntalkofikhtira(“invention,”“origination,”or“makinganew”)andibda(“abso-lutecreation,”or“innovation”)45insuchclaimsas“thefirstcre-atedthings(mukhtara‘at)aretwosimplesubstances...”46WhileAltmanndefendsareadingaccordingtowhichthis“absolutecreation”istakenbyIsraeliinthe“orthodox”sense,47Wolfsonsuggeststhepossibilityoftakingthiscreationinanemanationistsense.48ThatIsraeliiscommittedtoPlotinianemanationasitcon-cernsthosethingsarisingfromIntellect(includingtheemergenceofthenaturalrealm)isbeyonddoubt(wefindhislikeningthatprocesstothesun’snaturalradiationinsuchclaimsas“thelightwhichem-anatesfromintellectisessential[dhatijawhari],likethelightandshiningofthesun,whichemanatesfromitsessenceandsubstantial-ity[dhatihawa-jawhariyyatiha]”49).Thequestionisonlywhetheritissimplythissortofemanationoragenuinely“orthodox”senseofcreationexnihilothatIsraelimeanstodenoteinhistalkofthe“absolutecreation”ofthefirsttwosubstances.Intheremainderofthischapter,IturntoconsiderationsforandagainstseeinginIsraeliagenuinelyorthodoxsenseofcreationexnihilo.IninitialsupportofseeinginIsraeliacommitmenttoorthodoxcreationexnihilo,recallhisdescriptionofthefirstcreationsintermsof“innovation”and“makinganew”(al-ibdawa
l-ikhtira),termsthathedefinesas“makingexistentexistencesfromtheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n104MedievalJewishphilosophynon-existent”(ta’yisal-aysatminlays).50However,aswehaveseenintheaboveaccount,creation“fromnothing”(or,fromthenon-existent)mightindeedbetakeninanemanationistsense.SoweneedmoreinformationtosupportagenuinelyorthodoxcreationexnihiloreadinginIsraeli.Tothisend,wemayturntoAltmann,whodrawsourattentiontoIsraeli’sdemarcation(inTheBookofSubstances)oftwocausalmechanisms:(1)causalitybyaction,whichiscreationbythepowerandbythewill(minal-qudrawa-l-irada)bywayofinfluenceandaction(alasabilal-ta
thirwa-l-fil);and(2)essentialcausality,whichisan“essentialandsubstantial”(dhatijawhari)emanation,onewhich,aswehaveseen,is“likethelightandshiningofthesun,whichemanatesfromitsessenceandsubstantiality.”Since(accordingtoAltmann)thesecondoftheseclearlycorre-spondstoemanation,itfollowsthatthefirstdenotessomethingdifferent,viz.,orthodoxcreationexnihilo.However,doesthisreallyfollow?AsWolfsonhasargued,onemightjustasreadilyconcludethatthesetwocausalmechanismspickouttwovarietiesofemana-tion:onekindofemanationthatisnotentirely“unconscious,”andthatdescribestherelationshipbetweenGodandthefirstcreation(s),andoneregularPlotinianvarietyofemanationthatdescribestherelationbetweenalllowercosmicstages.WhileWolfson’sremarkssuggestthatthekindofemanationthatIsraelipredicatesofGodisnotstraightforwardlyPlotinian,onemightgoevenfurthertosuggestthatthereisherenoneedtoseeanyrealdeparturefromPlotinusatall.EvenPlotinuscanbereadasdistinguishingtherelevanceandna-tureofthefirstemanationfromallotheremanations(anemanationthat,givenhisdescriptionoftheOne’shaving“willeditselffreely,”mightevenbedescribedasthesortof“notentirelyunconsciousemanation”towhichWolfsonadverts).TurningbacktoAltmann,onefindsasecondargumentforsee-ingIsraeli’screationexnihiloasnon-emanative,asecondargumentthathehimselfdescribesas“themostpotentargumentagainstanyattemptofinterpretinghis[Israeli’s]useofthetermcreationexni-hiloinanemanationistsense.”51Altmannherereasonsasfollows:WeknowthatIsraeliiscommittedtothepresenceofnotone,buttwo“firstcreations”(viz.,FirstMatterandFirstForm).52Butassuch,IsraelicannothaveheldanemanativeaccountofGod’scre-ativeactwithoutviolatingtheNeoplatonicrulethat,inthearenaofCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJewishNeoplatonism105emanation,“fromonecomesonlyone.”Tosuccessfullyavoidbreachingthe“fromonecomesonlyone”ruleofemanation,Israeliclearlymustnothavetakenthesefirsttwocreationsasproductsemanatedfrom(theone)God,butastheeffectsofanorthodoxcre-ationexnihilo.AltmannthussuggeststhatWolfson’semanationistreadingofIsraelionlyseemsappealingbecauseWolfsonignoresthetwofirstsubstances,53FirstFormandFirstMatter.Imustnote,though,that,evenifAltmannwerecorrectinhissuggestionthatonlyorthodoxcreationexnihilocouldsaveIsraelifromviolatingNeoplatonicdoctrine,onecannotruleoutthepossi-bilitythatIsraeliwasindeedguiltyofjustsuchaviolation.Assuch,onecannotsimplyconcludethatIsraeli’sunderstandingofGod’screativeactwasnon-emanationist.Moreimportantly,onemightun-dercutAltmann’sabovestrategybyquestioninghisownassumptionthatIsraeli’stwosimultaneousfirstcreations,FirstFormandFirstMatter,would,ifemanated,standingenuineconflictwiththe“fromonecomesonlyone”rule.For,whatifthetwowerereally,insomeimportantsense,one?Thentherewouldbenoprobleminreconcil-ingtheiremanationfromGodwiththe“fromonecomesonlyone”dictum.TurningtoIsraeli,wefindthathedoesindeeddescribethetwofirstcreationsascomprisingthesingleIntellect.SincethereisarealsenseinwhichforIsraelithetwoinquestionarealsoasingleone(viz.,Intellect),asuggestiononIsraeli’spartthatthese“two”emanatefromtheGodheadwouldnotamounttoaviolationoftheNeoplatonic“fromonecomesonlyone”rule.Onceagain,Altmann’sargumentthatonlyorthodoxcreationexnihiloisamenabletoIsraeli’sNeoplatoniccosmologyisundermined,andoneisleftwiththegenuinepossibilityofseeinginevenIsraeli’stalkof“absolutecreation,”thePlotiniandoctrineofemanation.conclusionIhavesuggestedwaysofblurringthelinesbetween“Being”and“aboveBeing,”aswellasbetweencreationexnihiloanddivineem-anation.Ihavedonethisinordertoencourageagreatersensitivitytothepossibilityofdiscoveringsameness(betweenseeminglydis-paratetraditions),eveninapparentdifference.IhopeinthiswaytohaveprovidedbothasenseofthesortsofissuesatplayinJewishNeoplatonism,aswellasausefullensthroughwhichonemightCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n106MedievalJewishphilosophybegintoreconceptualizetherelationshipbetweenmonotheistandpagantraditions.notes1.SeediscussionsinA.AltmannandS.Stern(eds.),IsaacIsraeli:ANeo-platonicPhilosopheroftheEarlyTenthCentury(London:OxfordUni-versityPress,1958);seealsoD.Pingree,“SomeoftheSourcesoftheGhayatal-Hakim,”JournaloftheWarburgandCourtauldInstitutes43(1980),1–15.2.SeeS.Pines,“PointsofSimilaritybetweentheExpositionoftheDoctrineoftheSefirotintheSeferYetziraandaTextofthePseudo-ClementineHomilies:TheImplicationsofthisResemblance,”Proceed-ingsoftheIsraelAcademyofSciencesandHumanities7/3(1989),63–141.3.Forexample,GabirolprivilegesWilloverWisdominhisFonsVitae,butWisdomoverWillinhispoeticcorpus;seen.5below.4.ForatreatmentandoverviewofJewishNeoplatonicthemesinkabbal-isticwritings,seeG.Scholem,“IqvatavshelGevirolba-Qabbalah,”inMeasefSofreiEretzYisroel,ed.E.SteimanandA.A.Kovak(TelAviv:n.p.,1939),160–78.SeealsoM.Idel,“JewishKabbalahandPlatonismintheMiddleAgesandRenaissance,”inNeoplatonismandJewishThought,ed.L.E.Goodman(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1992),319–51.5.Though,inhispoeticcorpus,WisdomprecedesWill;fordiscussion,seeScholem,“IqvatavshelGevirol,”andY.Liebes,“SeferYezirahezelR.ShlomoibnGevirolu-perushha-shirAhavtikha,”inTheBeginningsofJewishMysticisminMedievalEurope,ed.J.Dan(JerusalemStudiesinJewishThought6[1987],73–123).ItmightadditionallybenotedthatsometimesWillappearsinthetexttobeaself-standinghypostasis,butsometimesitseemstobeonewiththeGodhead.6.Muchscholarshiphasbeendevotedtoparsingapartthevariousmean-ingsofsuchphilosophicaltermsasanniyya,mahiyya,andhuwiyya.SeeS.vandenBergh,s.v.anniyya,inTheEncyclopaediaofIslam,newed.,ed.H.A.R.Gibbetal.(Leiden:Brill,1960),i:33–4;andM.-T.d’Alverny,“Anniyya–Anitas,”inMelangesofferts´aEtienneGilson`(Toronto:PontificalInstituteofMediaevalStudies,1959),59–91.7.FV5.32,316,23&26;317,21&25.AsGabirol’soriginalArabictextisnon-extant,referencesaretothetwelfth-centuryLatintranslationoftheFonsVitae(FV),whichisearlierandmorecompletethanFalaquera’sHebrewtranslation;cf.Baeumker’sedition,Avencebrolis[IbnGabirol]CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJewishNeoplatonism107FonsVitae,exArabicoinLatinumTranslatusabJohanneHispanoetDomenicoGundissalino,inBeitragezurGeschichtederPhilosophie¨desMittelalters,ed.C.Baeumker(Munster:Aschendorf,¨1892).Thetranslationandemphasesaremyown.8.FV5.42,335,15.9.Infiniteesseagensisdemarcatedfromfiniteessepatiens.See,e.g.,FV5.25,303,25ff.10.FV5.24,301,16ff.11.S.Munk,Melangesdephilosophiejuiveetarabe´(Paris:Ch.Franck,1859),111n.1.12.F.Rahman,“Dhat”,inEncyclopaediaofIslam,newed.(Leiden:Brill,1965),ii:220.13.ForArabicfragmentscorrespondingtoFV1.7,9and1.7,10,seeS.Pines,“SeferArugatha-Bosem:haqetaimmi-tokhSeferMeqorHayyim,”Tarbiz27(1957–58),218–33;reprintedinS.Pines,BeynmahshevetYisraelli-mahshevetha-amim(Jerusalem:MosadBialik,1977),44–60;cf.52.Thatessentiaingeneral(andnotjustinthecaseofthepropername“FirstEssence”)correspondstotheArabical-dhatcanbeseeninanumberofthePinesfragments(seePines,“SeferArugat”),aswellasinadditionalfragmentsinP.Fenton,“GleaningsfromMoshehibnEzra’s‘Maqalatal-Hadiqa’,”Sefarad36–7,fasc.2(1976),294–6.14.ThisideathatGod,inhisessence,isexistenceis,ofcourse,awell-rehearsedthemeinthehistoryofphilosophy.Foritsextensivedevelop-mentinAvicenna,seeA.-M.Goichon,Ladistinctiondel’essenceetdel’existenced’apresIbnSina`(Paris:DescleedeBrouwer,´1937).15.See,e.g.,LiberdeCausis:O.Bardenhewer,DiePseudo-AristotelischeSchrift,uberdasreineGute¨(FreiburgimBreisgau:HerderscheVer-lagshandlung,1882),79,line1foranniyyafaqatand65,line7foranniyyamahda.16.FV5.10,274,19;5.11,277,4.17.ThatGodcreatesesseinthiscompositewaymaybeseenatFV5.40,329,4.18.FV5.15,286,10–17.Idiscussthisthemeingreaterdetailinmy“SolomonibnGabirol:UniversalHylomorphismandthePsychicImag-ination,”Ph.D.dissertation,TheOhioStateUniversity,2000.19.MytranslationishereinformedbyAltmannandStern’srendering,butstickstotheGreekabitmoreclosely(AltmannandStern,IsaacIsraeli,21).Armstrong’stranslationisabitmoreconfusing,anditislessclearwithrespecttothepointIamtryingtoemphasizehere(cf.Enneads,Loebedition[Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1966],v:173–5).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n108MedievalJewishphilosophy20.AltmannandStern,IsaacIsraeli,21.21.Plotinus,Enneads5:5.6,lines2–11,trans.Armstrong,inLoebClassicalLibrary,v:173.22.Whilenotstatedasa“namingprinciple”perse,Proclus’remarksat,e.g.,ElementsofTheology,Proposition101clearlyevidencethisphe-nomenon.ForthisprincipleinPlotinus,seeEnneads6.8onGodas“freedom”becauseheisthecauseoffreedom;seemytreatmentofthisbelow.23.ForacircumscribedapplicationofthisprinciplewithineventheLiberdeCausis,seeProposition2,andtheclaimthattheFirstCauseisaboveeternitybecauseeternityiscausedbyit.24.See,e.g.,FV5.42,335,16.25.InsupportoftheassociationofBeingandForm,cf.FV1.13,16,andFV4.10,237;5–7.26.Gabirol’spointtakeninthiswaywouldnotbeconceptuallydis-similarfromAvicenna’sanalysisofcompositesinto“essence”and“existence.”ForpossibleinfluenceofthisAvicennianideaonGabirol,seeS.Pines,“Ve-qaraelha-ayinve-nivqa,lahqorKeterMalkhutle-ShlomoibnGevirol,”Tarbiz50(1980–81),339–47.27.Pessin,“SolomonibnGabirol.”28.See,e.g.,FV5.28,308,7–12,whereFormisdistinguishedfromWillintermsoftheformer’sbeingfinite.29.FV4.9,231,13–15.30.FV4.1,212,2–3,and4.1,212,7–8.31.Pessin,“SolomonibnGabirol”.32.ForageneralintroductiontothismethodologyinGabirol(includinganenumerationoffourdifferentapplicationsofthismethodintheFonsVitae),seeJ.Schlanger,LaphilosophiedeSalomonIbnGabirol(Leiden:Brill,1968),141–57,andonthe“macrocosm/microcosm”ingeneral,313–16.33.ThisthemeinGabirolwouldadditionallyseemtosuggestthatmaterialityistheclearestmarkofthedivinity,athemethat,whilenotconsistentlyreflectedthroughouttheFonsVitae,nonethelessfindssupportintheclaimthat“MatteriscreatedfromEssence,andFormisfromthepropertyofthatEssence,i.e.,fromWisdomandUnity”(FV5.42,333,4–5).WhiletheprincipleofmaterialityfollowsimmediatelyfromtheFirstEssence,theprincipleofformemergesfromWisdom,amodificationofthatFirstEssence.34.AsIhavealreadynoted(seen.5),Gabirol’snotionofWill–takenunderthisexalteddescription–issometimesseenasidenticaltothedivinityhimself.35.FV5.28,308,7–12.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJewishNeoplatonism10936.Willinitsfiniteandlimitedactualityisalsodescribedas“Word;”seePines,“PointsofSimilarity”ontherelationofthisideatoSaadya.37.Gabirolsometimesuses“Matter”and“Substance”interchangeably;seehisclaimtothiseffect,e.g.,atFV1.12.38.ForthedepictionofMatterastheDivineThroneinGabirol,cf.FV5.42.GabirolalsotalksoftheThroneinhiscelebratedpoemKeterMalkhut(TheRoyalCrown)(forHebrewtext,seeShireiShlomobenYehudahIbnGevirol,II[Shireiqodesh],ed.C.BialikandY.Ravnitsky[TelAvivandBerlin:Dwir-Verlags-Gesellschaft,1925],poemnumber62,62–78;foranEnglishtranslation,seeB.Lewis,SolomonibnGabirol,TheKinglyCrown[London:Vallentine,Mitchell,1961]).Inthispoem,theThrone,whilenotspecificallycalled“Matter,”isdescribedas“higherthanallheight”(Lewis,KinglyCrown,28).39.SeeLewis,KinglyCrown,33(“ThatWillcalledtothevoidanditwascleftasunder”).Forrelatedanalysisofthisline(thoughwiththesug-gestionthatthis“void”–or“nothingness”–referstoAvicennianpre-existentessence),seePines,“Ve-qaraelha-ayin.”40.Onthefluidityoflanguageanditsinstrumentalityinapophaticdiscourse,seeM.Sells,MysticalLanguagesofUnsaying(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1994).Foradetailedanalysisofthisphe-nomenoninJewishesoterictexts,seeE.Wolfson,ThroughaSpecu-lumthatShines:VisionandImaginationinMedievalJewishMysticism(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1994).41.SeeEnneads6:8.12,13,21.42.SeeEnneads6:8.15,wherehumanfreedomispresentedintermsofstriv-ingtowardstheGoodnessoftheGodhead.43.SeeH.A.Wolfson,“TheMeaningofExNihilointheChurchFathers,ArabicandHebrewPhilosophy,andSt.Thomas,”inhisStudiesintheHistoryofPhilosophyandReligion,2vols.,ed.I.TwerskyandG.Williams(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1973),i:207–21,esp.212ff.44.Insupportofseeing“nihil”asliterallynamingGod,noteArmstrong’stranslationofEnneads6:9.5,whichhasPlotinusnamingtheOne“nothing”(ouden).AltmannandStern,however,pointoutthatArmstrong’srenderingofPlotinusishereincorrect(AltmannandStern,IsaacIsraeli,156,withn.2).45.This“creation”/“innovation”terminologyinIsraelimaybetracedtoal-Kindi,himselfprecededinthisregardbypseudo-Ammonius,“OntheOpinionsofthePhilosophers.”ItmightalsobenotedthatitisundertheinfluenceofthisnotioninIsraelithatJosephibnZaddiqdrawsthedistinctionbetweenkhalq(creationexaliquo,orgeneration)andibdaCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n110MedievalJewishphilosophy(creationexnihilo,orinnovation);seeAltmannandStern,IsaacIsraeli,68ff.46.TheBookofSubstances(Kitabal-Jawahir),fr.iii,inAltmannandStern,IsaacIsraeli,83.FortheJudeo-Arabictext,see“TheFragmentsofIsaacIsraeli’s‘BookofSubstances’,”inS.M.Stern,MedievalArabicandHebrewThought,ed.F.Zimmermann(London:Variorum,1983),24(line4).47.A.Altmann,“CreationandEmanationinIsaacIsraeli,aReappraisal,”inEssaysinJewishIntellectualHistory,ed.A.Altmann(Hanover:UniversityPressofNewEngland,1981),1–15.48.H.A.Wolfson,“TheMeaningofExNihiloinIsaacIsraeli,”inhisStudiesintheHistoryofPhilosophyandReligion,i:222–33.49.BookofSubstances,84;S.M.Stern,“IsaacIsraeli’sBookofSubstances,”inhisMedievalArabicandHebrewThought,139(followedbytheJudeo-Arabictext).50.BookofDefinitions,inAltmannandStern,IsaacIsraeli,66(sec.42).51.Altmann,“Creation,”4.52.Foraproposalregardingtherootsofthistradition,aswellasitsreverber-ationsintheLongerTheologyofAristotleandinIbnHasday’scorpus,seeS.M.Stern,“IbnHasday’sNeoplatonist,”inhisMedievalArabicandHebrewThought,58–120.53.Altmann,“Creation,”5.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nbarrys.kogan6JudahHaleviandhisuseofphilosophyintheKuzariTheBookofRefutationandProofonBehalfoftheDespisedReligion,1betterknownasTheKuzari,isoneofthelastandmostpopularworksofmedievalJudaism’spremierpoet,JudahHalevi(c.1075–1141).WhileoriginallyundertakentorespondtothequeriesofaKaraitescholar,2itwasreworkedandexpandedovernearlytwodecadesintotheartfulandmultifaceteddialoguewenowpossess.Halevicraftedittoaddressabroadarrayofreligious,philosophical,andculturalissuesthatconcernedhimandhiscontemporariesinthewakeofbloodyconflictsgeneratedbytheReconquistaandtheFirstCrusade.Thesereflectedongoingquarrelsbetweenbeliefandunbe-liefandbetweenbeliefandbelief,bothwithinandamongthecul-turesandcommunitiesofAndalusia,whichcontinueinimportantwaystothisday.Whiletheworkisgenerallyregardedasapologeticincharacter,3itisnomerepolemic.Rather,itstheologicaldefenseofJudaismisdeeplyinformedbyphilosophyandrespectfulofbothitsintegrityandmethods.4Inwhatfollows,mygoalistoanalyzeandexplainanumberofHalevi’skeyideasandarguments,toshowhowheusesthemandalsorevisesthem,toraiseanumberofsalientques-tionsaboutthem,andtoidentifythetrajectoryoftheirreappearancelaterinthedialogue.TheKuzaribeginswithanunnamednarratormentioninghowhewasaskedaboutanyargumentationhehadagainstthosewhodif-ferwiththeJews,suchasthephilosophers,theadherentsofotherreligions,andsectariandissenters.Thisremindedhimoftheargu-mentsoftheJewishsagewhohadpersuadedthekingoftheKhazarstoconvertcenturiesbefore.5Asiswellknown,thestorybehindthenarrator’srecollectiontellsofaKhazarkingwhohadarecurrentdream,“asthoughanangelwereaddressinghim.”Itsmessagewas111CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n112MedievalJewishphilosophythathisintentionswerepleasingtoGod,buthisactionswerenot.Hisinitialresponsewastomakeamorezealousefforttoobservetheritesofhispaganreligionthanbefore,buttonoavail;foreachtimehedidso,“theangelcametohimatnight”withthesamemessage.Eventuallyherealizedwhileasleepwhathedidnotrealizewhileawake,thatGodwascommandinghimtoseekoutthoseactionsthatwouldbepleasing.Withthishebeginstoinvitethevariousinterlocutorswhoparticipateinthedialogue,althoughnotalwayswiththesamerequest.Butbeforehereceivesthefirstreply,thenarratortellsusthatsomeoftheJewishsage’sargumentsseemedpersuasivebecausetheyaccordedwithhisownbelief.Afterdecid-ingtorecordit“justasittookplace,”hecitesDaniel12:10:“Theintelligentwillunderstand.”Thisunusualanddramaticintroductionnotonlycapturesthereader’sattention,butalsoprovidesusefulcluesaboutthekingandwhyherespondsashedoestohisinterlocutors.Indeed,itcanalsohelpusunderstandwhatkindofreaderislikelytodolikewiseordifferently.Butthekingisnotmerelyatype,certainlynotasim-pleone.Hisbehaviorandthatofothersmayalsoraiseimportantquestionsthatareansweredbylaterdevelopmentsinthedialogue.6Thus,forexample,akingisamanofactionconcernedwithprovid-ingforhispeople’slong-termsurvivalandprosperity.WhethertheKhazar’sactionsarepleasingtoGodornotwilllikelymattertohim.So,too,withothersconcernedwithsimilartasksandquestions.Thatheisapaganmaymakehimasimpartialajudgeaspossible,butitmayalsomakehimdeeplyskepticalaboutanyone’sclaimtopossessadivinerevelation.Doeshisofficiatingatthesacrificesattesttohispietyortohiszealinexercisingindependentjudgment?Whenthenarratorinitiallysaysitwas“asthough”theangelwereaddressingtheking,butlatersaysunqualifiedlythat“theangelcametohimatnight,”whatisthesignificanceofthisdisparity?Onwhatbasisistheshiftjustified?Doesanyotherspeakerdolikewise?Insum,wewillwanttostudywithequalinterestthecharacters,arguments,actions,andambiguitiesweencounter.Strictlyspeaking,thedialoguebeginswiththewordsof“thephilosopher,”anunnamedthinkerwho,itwouldappear,ismeanttorepresenttheviewsandcommitmentsofphilosophyassuch.Hespeakstwice(K1:1and3)andineachcasenegateskeyelementsim-plicitintheking’sthinking.Inhisopeningremarks,heemphaticallyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudahHaleviandhisuseofphilosophyintheKuzari113deniesthepresuppositionsunderlyingboththeking’sdreamandhisquest,andthenidentifiesotherstoreplacethem.Hispurposeistodepictthehighesttypeoflife,onethatmightbecalledpleasinginitselforpleasingbynature.Thus,wearetoldthatGodissimplynotthekindofbeingwhocan“bepleasedwith”or“feelhatredtowards”others,orevenknowaboutparticularpersonsandactions,fortheseareallexamplesofdeficiencyandmutability,whereasGod–aper-fectbeing–isbeyondboth.Similarly,Godisnota“creator”whoactsinordertorealizeaimsandintentions.“Creator”ismerelyametaphorforGodastheeternalcauseofcauses.Thesecausespourforthfromhimeternallyasahierarchyofbeings,whichcomprisestheworldasweknowit,namely,aneternalsystemofnecessarilyconnectedcausesandeffects.Withinthiseternalbutmutableworld,humanbeingsareinflu-encedandperfectedbymanyfactors,butmostdecisivelybytheirgeneticinheritance,geographicenvironment,7andeducation.Theperfecthumanbeingisoneinwhomthebestpossiblecombinationofthesefactorsarises,enablinghimtorealizehiscapacitiestothefullest.Becauseofhissuperiorknowledgeofthecausalsystem,itisallegedlythephilosopherwhohasthebestclaimtoreachingthislevel.Indeed,hisintellectwillbeilluminedbytheActiveIntellect,thelastinthehierarchyofcelestialIntelligences,whichisboththeintelligibleformofthesublunarworldandthesourceofallintel-lectualknowledgeaboutit,sothathewillthinkhehasbecomeonewithit.Thepracticalresultsofthisunionarethathislimbswillhence-forthbehaveinthemostperfectandrationalway.Also,hewillnotexperiencethefearofextinction–ever;andhewillenterintothecompanyofthegreatsavants,likeSocrates,Plato,Aristotle,HermesTrismegistus,andAesculapius,andbecomeonewiththeminknowingthetruth.Accordingly,thephilosopherurgestheking,ingeneralterms,topurifyhissoulofdoubtsandpursueknowledgeofthetruerealities,whilekeepingtothepathofjusticeandcultivatingtheothervirtues,sothathemaybecomeliketheActiveIntellect.Inthatcase,hewillnotbeconcernedaboutwhatlawhefollowsorpreciselywhatactionsheperforms;andifhestillwishes,hemayeithercreateareligionforhimselforfollowoneoftheintellectualnomoiofthephilosophers.8Onlyhisgoalmustalwaysbeattach-menttotheActiveIntellect,forifanythingcanbecharacterizedCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n114MedievalJewishphilosophysymbolicallyas“God’sbeingpleased,”itisunionwiththatIntel-lect.Onceachieved,itmightevenprovidehimwithknowledgeofhiddenthingsandcommandsbywayofveridicaldreamsandappo-siteimages.9Theking’sreplyisbothrevealingandunexpected.Hecallsthephilosopher’sstatementpersuasive,butnotinkeepingwithhisre-quest.Whatisrevealingabouthisresponseisthatitshowsthekingtobeinwardlydivided.Intellectually,heisdrawntomuch,ifnotmost,ofwhatthephilosophersaysandespeciallytopursuingthetruththroughhisownefforts.Butthiscannotbeatthepriceofdis-missinghisownexperience,whetherprivateorpublic,religiousorsecular.Hisreservationbecomesclearfromthetworeasonsheofferstoexplainwhythephilosopher’sstatementisinadequate.Inthefirstplace,healreadyknowsthathissoulispureandhisintentionspleas-ing,buttherecurringdreamhastoldhimthatthisisnotenough–hisactionsarenotpleasing.Beyondthis,thehistoryofconflictbetweenChristiansandMuslimsreinforcesthepoint.EachhaspureintentinseekingtopleaseGod,andeachisreadytostakehislifeandtakethelivesofothersonthebeliefthatintentionsarenotsufficient,thatwhatultimatelypleasesGodisperformanceofthespecificac-tionshecommands.Obviously,whentheydifferaboutwhatthoseactionsare,bothcannotberight.Asforwhatisunexpectedabouthisreply,surelyitisthatanon-philosopherclaimingtobepersuadedbythephilosopher’sremarkscanstillconfidentlyquestiontheirad-equacybothhereandinwhatfollows.Clearly,heisnotthekindofpersonwhocouldbedescribedasinferior,unintelligent,excitable,ormentallyvacant,andthuspassivelycarriedalongbywhatevermoveshim.TothatextentheisquiteunlikethetypicalrecipientofveridicaldreamsdescribedbyAristotleandmayevenhavebeensodepictedwithAristotle’saccountinmind.10Havingalreadydiscussedthedreamanditsclaims,thephiloso-phersaysnothingmoreaboutthem.Instead,hefocusesonwhatthekingregardsasevidenceofpureintentioninhisreferencetothehistoryofreligiousconflict.“Inthereligionofthephilosophers,”hesays,“thereisnokillingofevenoneofthesepeople,sincetheyfollowtheintellect”(K1:3).Thepracticalimportofthistersebutemphaticnegationcouldhardlybelostonanyonefamiliarwiththeeffectsofreligiousfanaticism,buttheking,alreadypreoccupiedwiththedifficultiesraisedbythephilosopher,nowidentifiesanimportantCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudahHaleviandhisuseofphilosophyintheKuzari115difficultyforthephilosopher.Onhisaccount,thephilosophers’su-periorqualificationsshouldhavemadeprophecyandeventheper-formanceofmiraclesacommonoccurrenceamongthem,butinfactwefindthatphilosopherslackthesegifts,whilenon-philosopherssometimesdisplaythem.ThisprovestotheKhazarthatthe“divineorder”(whichthephilosopherwouldhaveunderstoodasthehierar-chyofseparateIntelligences)andatleastcertainsoulshaveasecretcharacterthatdiffersfromwhatthephilosopherclaims.Italsosug-geststhat,howeverpersuasivethephilosophermayhavebeen,histheorieshavenotbeenconsistentwithactualexperience.Whentheyconflict,experiencetrumpstheory,whichmusteitherberejectedorrevised.Whatisclearfromthisintroductoryinterchangeisthatforthephilosopherintellectualunderstandingofthewholeofreality,prefer-ablythroughsomekindofcausalanalysis,isofparamountimpor-tance.Therealmofpraxisislargelyamatterofindifference,oratmostendowedwithinstrumentalvalueinhelpingtoattainthepri-marygoal.Whatisuncleariswhetherthephilosopher’sclaimsrep-resentgenuineknowledgeoronlyreasonedopinionoramelangeofboth.Resolvingthisquestionwouldrequireacarefulexaminationoftheargumentshehastosupporthisclaims,buthisspeechislongonpronouncementandshortonargumentation.Italsospeaksingen-eralitiesratherthanspecifics.AndevenatthispreliminarystagewecanseethatthephilosophermovesalltooeasilyfromdescribingahypotheticalperfectmanwhothinksheisonewiththeActiveIn-tellect,tosomeonewhohasactuallyattainedunionwithit.Howisthistransitionanymorejustifiedthantheonealreadynotedre-gardingtheking’sdream,whenwearetoldfirstthatitcametohimrepeatedlyasthoughanangelwereaddressinghimandlaterthattheangelcametohimatnight?Accordingly,wewoulddowelltoinquireintotheprobablesourcesonwhichtheexpositionisbased.IsthephilosophermorelikelyacompositeNeoplatonicAristotelianoraparticularthinkerinthattradition,discerniblethroughcertaincharacteristicpositionsorformulations?Inwhatsensecanhespeakforphilosophyassuch,ifheisrootedinonlyonetraditionofphi-losophy?Thisproblembecomesparticularlyacutewhenwetrytomakesenseoftheclaimthat,uponachievingunionwiththeActiveIntellect,thephilosopherentersintothecompanyofSocrates,Plato,Aristotle,HermesTrismegistus,andAesculapiusandbecomesoneCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n116MedievalJewishphilosophywiththem.Doallofthesedisparatethinkersreallyhaveacommonidentity?Dotheyteachthesamethingsoragreeonwhatthetruthis?Dotheyallendorsethesamevirtuesandbehaveinthesameway,whenfacedwithsimilarcircumstances.Givenwhatweknowofthem,itwouldseemunlikely.What,then,isthephilosophertry-ingtosay?Afterconcludingthatthephilosopherknowslessaboutthedivineorderofthingsthanhesupposes,thekingturnstoaChristianandthentoaMuslimscholarforinformationabouteachone’sknowl-edgeandpractice.TheirrespectiveexpositionsaddresshispracticalconcernsandevenalludetoIsrael’sprophetictraditionstosupportparticularclaims,buttheyprovefaultyoneitherlogicalorempiri-calgrounds.Nevertheless,theseexchangeshelpthekingtoclarifywhatheislookingforinordertoprovethataspecificwayofact-ingpleasesGod.Hewantsthekindofincontrovertibleempiricalevidencethatwouldpromptevenskepticstorevisetheiropinionsanddevelopnewandingeniouswaystoshowhowwhatseemedimprobableisprobable,asnaturalscientistsdowhenfacedwithstartlingnewfindingsthatcannotberejected.11Wesoonlearnthatthekinghimselfisaskepticofthiskind,sincehetrulydoubtsthatGodentersintodirectcontactwithfleshandblood.Hence,headdsthattherequiredevidencewouldhavetobe:(1)witnessedpublicly;(2)apprehendedbytheexternalsenses,especiallysight;(3)conveyedthroughmiraculoustransformationsoftheessencesofthingsthatonlythecreatorcouldproduce;and(4)scrutinizedrepeatedly,lestanyonethinkimaginingandmagicareinvolved.Andevenifallthiswerefurnished,peoplewouldstillfindithardtoaccept(K1:4–8).Iftheydidsoanyway,itwouldpresumablybebecausesuchevidencebecameutterlydecisiveforthem.Itwouldalsodelineatethediffer-encebetweenskepticismandinvincibleignorance.Noexplanationisprovidedaboutwhyjusttheserequirementsarechosenorexactlyhowtheymightbeprobative,althoughapartoftheansweremergesintheensuingexchanges.Whatisclearisthatsuchcriteriaarenoteasilysatisfied,andnoneofhisthreeinterlocutorsthusfarhavesat-isfiedthem.Butsensing,ironically,thattheonethingtheChristianandtheMuslimagreeonistherealityofGod’sinteractionswithbib-licalIsrael,thekingeventuallyasksaJewishsageabouthisbelief.Thesagerespondsnotwithastatementofhisbelief(itiqad),butofhisfaith(iman),adistinctioncorrespondingtothedifferenceCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudahHaleviandhisuseofphilosophyintheKuzari117betweenarticulatinganddefendingbeliefsintheologicaldisputationandadheringtothelawbynaturalinclinationinordertodrawclosetoGod(K5:16).Moreover,thefaithheexpressesisnotinthecreatoroftheuniverse,buttheGodofthePatriarchs,whomiraculouslyre-deemedIsraelfromEgyptianbondage,partedthesea,sustainedtheminthewilderness,sentMoseswiththelaw,gavethemSyro-PalestineafterpartingtheJordan,andsentthousandsofprophetstosupportthelaw(K1:11).Suchastatementishardlytheexpressionofrea-sonedconvictionthatthekinghadexpected,butratheranappealtolivedexperienceandtheuniquerelationshipsthatinspiretrustandloyalty.However,itdoespointtocertaineventsanddevelopmentsaspublic,empirical,andmiraculousevidenceofGod’sinteractionswithhumanbeings,inkeepingwiththeking’srequirements,exceptforthestudyandtestinghementionedlast.Theneedforskepticalscrutinythereforeremains.Moreover,itdirectlyaddressestheking’spracticalconcernwithactionandgovernancebyitsreferencetothelawand,morebroadly,tothingsaspoliticalastheyarereligiouswhenhespeaksoftheliberationofslaves,theestablishmentofalegalsystem,andtheoverthrowofatyranny.12Unimpressedbythisintroductorystatement,thekingaskswhythereisnoreferencetothecreator,whoorders,governs,andprovidesfortheworldanditsinhabitants;fordescriptionsofthiskindarerec-ognizedbyallreligiouspeopleasproofofGod’swisdomandjusticeandarebeneficialinencouragingthepursuitoftruthandjusticethroughimitationofthesesamedivineattributes.Theking’sunex-pecteddisappointmentherereflectshisinnerdivision.Insofarasherespondstothedream,heispreparedtotakeseriouslythenotionofaGodwhocreatesliterally,intentionally,andexnihilo;toacceptasdivinethejudgmentthathisparticularactionsaredispleasing;toembarkuponagenuinequestforwhatpleasesGod;andtomaketheradicaltransformationoffamiliarthingsinnatureacriterionforbelievingthatGodentersintodirectcontactwithhumanbeings.Butinsofarasheispersuadedbythephilosopher,heisprimarilyinterestedinthepursuitoftruthandjustice,inwhatisprobativetothegreatestnumberofpeople,andintheinstrumentalvalueofametaphoricalcreator/rulerwhocanberationallyimitatedbyrulerandruledalike.Becausetheterm“creator”iscommontobothper-spectives,itseemslikelythatatthisearlystagethekingassumesthetwoperspectiveshavemoreincommonthantheyactuallydo,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n118MedievalJewishphilosophyandisnotyetfullyawareoftheramificationsassociatedwitheachone.Thatiswhythesage,seizingupontheking’sjustificationforhisquery,movesquicklytoclarifyjustwhattheking’srejoinderassumes(K1:12–18).Heindicatesthatthekindofreligionthekingpresupposesisa“syllogistic,governmentalreligiontowhichspeculationleads”–“syllogistic”inthesenseofbeingbasedonreasoningandargumentand“governmental”inthesenseofbeingdesignedtoaidingovern-ingthepassionsofbothindividualsandthecommunity.Butappar-entlybecauseitisrootedinhumanreflectionaboutdivinethings,itcontainsmanydoubtfulpoints,asthephilosophersthemselvesacknowledge,andgeneratesunendingdisagreementsaboutbothbe-liefandpractice.Withsomanyconflictingclaims,itcomesasnosurprisethattheycandemonstrateonlysomeofthem,whileothersaremerelypersuasive,notconclusive;andstillothersdonotreacheventhatlevel.Exceptforthereferencetodemonstration,nospe-cifictypologyofargumentsornomenclatureisprovided,probablytodissuadethekingfromreturningtophilosophy.Butthephilosophi-calreaderwillsurelyrecognizethatbehindtheexplicitreferencetoconclusive,demonstrativeclaimsliesthewell-knownclassificationschemeofdialectical,rhetorical,poetic,andsophisticalpremisesandarguments,indescendingorderofplausibility,discussedbyAristotleandeagerlystudiedinthemedievalIslamicworld.13Byindicatingthattheargumentsofthephilosophersfallvariouslyintoallofthesecategories,thesageimpliesthatthekingoughtnottobeundulydef-erentialtotheirclaimsortheirself-confidence.Butthisalsomeansthathisownargumentscanandshouldbeappraisedbythesamestandards.Findinghimselffarmoreopentothesecriticalobservationsthantothesage’sopeningremarks,thekingasksforadditionalproof.Yethisrenewedinterestprovestobemisguidedwhenthesagenotesthathisopeningremarkswere,infact,thedesireddemonstration.Whilehedoesnottellthekingthatthedemonstrationlayinhisappealtodirectexperience,whichisalwaysmoreevidentthaneventhebestlogicalargument,hedoeshelphimtoseethisforhimselfbyposingtwohypotheticalcasesthatelicitcontrastingandhighlyilluminatingresponses(K1:19–22).Inthefirst,heaskswhetherthekingwouldbeobligatedtoacknowledgeandrecountthevirtuesofIndia’srulerandevenreverehim,werehetolearnoftheexcellentcharacterandjustconductoftheIndianpeople.ThekingrepliesCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudahHaleviandhisuseofphilosophyintheKuzari119withreserve,askinghowthisinformationcouldobligatehim,whenitisunclearwhethertheIndianpeoplebehavejustlyontheirownaccountandhavenoruler,oronaccountoftheirruler,orbecauseofbothtogether.Withoutcommentoranalysisthesagepresentsthesecondhypothetical.HeaskswhetherthekingwouldbeobligatedtoobeytherulerofIndia,ifthelatter’senvoycametohimwithgiftsthatwereundoubtedlyfromtheroyalpalace,asignedletteridenti-fyingwhosentthem,medicinestocurehisillnessesandpreservehishealth,andpoisonswithwhichtoovercomehisenemies.Now,thekingrespondsunhesitatinglyintheaffirmative,forhispreviousdoubtswouldhavevanished,andhewouldbelievethatthedominionanddecree(amr)ofIndia’srulerwouldextendtohim.Whilethekingtakeseachhypotheticalatfacevalueandrespondsinkind,itisclearthateachoneisultimatelyparabolical.Inthefirst,theIndianrulerrepresentsGod;India,God’sdominion;andthejus-ticeofthepeople,thegoodorderthatprevailsthere.Whatisuncleariswhetherthisdominionreallyhasaking,whatitstrueextentis,and,ifithasaruler,whetherhisruleisexclusiveorsharedwithothers.Ifthedominionsignifiestheentirecosmos,thenthereareindeedmanydoubtsaboutwhetherornotitshouldbeexplainedbyreferencetoacreator,ruler,orfirstcauseandmanyconflictingopinionsaboutthemeritsoftheexplanationsoffered.Evenwith-outphilosophicerudition,thekingseesthisforhimselfandthere-forecomestoappreciatethebasicsoundnessofthesage’sremarksaboutsyllogistic,governmentalreligions.Philosophicalreaderswillrecognizethatthekeyissueinsuchdisagreementsiswhetherthecosmosisbestexplainedbyitsowninternalfeaturesorbyrecoursetoatranscendentexternalcauseorcauses.TheywouldnaturallywishtodeterminewhichthinkersknowntoHalevi(e.g.material-ists,Socrates,Plato,Aristotle,Stoics,Epicureans,Neoplatonists,andIslamicAristotelians)wouldhavesupportedtheparticularalterna-tivesnamedbythekingandevenevaluatewhichthinkerortradi-tion,ifany,presentedthemostconvincingcaseandwhy.Butinthelikelyeventthatdifferentreaderswillendupsupportingdifferentpositions,theytoowouldhavereasontotakeseriouslynotonlythesage’sprecedingcommentsbutalsothesecondhypotheticalanditsimplications.Inthisalteredframework,Indiaanditsrulerretaintheirpreviousmeanings;butnowtherulerinitiatescontactwiththekingbysend-ingamessengerfromhisdominioninaccordancewithrecognizedCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n120MedievalJewishphilosophydiplomaticprocedures.ItseemslikelythatthemessengerrepresentsMoses;thesignedletter,theTorah;andtheefficaciousmedicines,thecommandmentsprescribedbytheLaw.Itishardertoidentifyanaloguesfortheuniquegiftsprocuredfromthepalaceandtheun-usuallypotentpoisons,exceptforthefactthattheyareveryspecialandbetokenaspecialrelationship.ThenewscenariolargelydisposesofpreviousdoubtsaboutwhetherIndiahasarulerandwhetherheknowsaboutparticularpeople,liketheKhazar.Italsohelpstoex-plaintheking’sresponsetothenewquery.Foracceptingandben-efitingfromgiftscreatesanobligationfortherecipienttorespondpositivelytothegiver.Usually,thisentailsanacknowledgmentofindebtedness,anexpressionofappreciation,andatacitorexplicitpromisetousethemforthepurposeintended.Butwhensuchgiftscontributesubstantiallytoone’sfundamentalgoals,suchaslifeandwellbeing,acknowledgmentofachangedrelationshipandpledgesofenduringloyaltyoftenfollow,aswefindwithvassalsandsuzerains,orclientsandpatrons.Intheparable,themessenger’sarrivalwiththeletter,medicines,andothergiftsclearlyimpliesthattheyallcrossedthegreatmetaphysicaldistancebetweenthedivineandhu-manrealms.Butiftheyalsocrossedagreattemporaldistance,suchthatthekingisthebeneficiaryofgiftsgivenlongago,thenhisac-ceptanceofthemcreatesanobligationofloyaltyandproperusethatishighlyreminiscentoftheoneSocratessayshehastothecityanditslawsin“thespeechofthelaws”inPlato’sCrito.14Whenaskedhowhewoulddescribehisroyalbenefactor,thekinganswersintermsofattributesbasedondirectobservation,supple-mentedbyothersthataregenerallyaccepted,butimpliedbytheformer.Thisaccordswellwiththeking’searlierreferencetohownaturalscientistsrespondtostrangephenomena,thatisbyaccordingprimacytoincontrovertibleevidenceinshapingtheirbroaderexpla-nationsanddescriptions(K1:5).Byunderscoringtheimportanceofdirectexperience,healsoenablesthesagetoclarifywhyheaddressedtheking’squestionsashedidandwhyothersbeforehimdidlikewise.ForMosesaddressedPharaohonbehalfoftheGodoftheHebrews,basedonhisownexperienceandwhatwaswellknownfromthetimeofthePatriarchs;andevenGodaddressedtheIsraelitesatSinaiastheGodtheyalreadyworshiped,highlightingboththepeople’spriorandrecentexperience.BythuslinkingpresentexperiencewithpriorexperienceaspreservedinandmadeintelligiblebyreceivedCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudahHaleviandhisuseofphilosophyintheKuzari121tradition,thesageisabletoclaimpreciselywhatphilosophersareinclinedtodeny,namely,thattraditionistrustworthybecauseitislikeorequivalenttoexperience.Whatmakesthisplausible,ifindeeditis,isthattraditionsignifiesacollectiveachievementinpreserv-ingexperience,notjustamelangeofindividualclaimshaphazardlyreportedthroughtime.Still,thesagerecognizesthatexperience,howevercompellingitmightbe,isperson-specificandlimitedbyparticularcircumstances.Itisnotequallyapplicableinallitsentailments.Thus,whileallpeopleareequalinbeingcreatedbyGod,itdoesnotfollowthatallpeopleareequalinbeingobligatedtofulfillthelawGodgavetoIsrael.Thelaw,rather,isalegacyforIsrael,becauseitwastheywhocollectivelyexperiencedliberationfrombondageandGod’sattach-menttothem.Thatattachment,inturn,isnowattributedtotheJewsbeingthechoicest(safwah)ofAdam’sdescendants.Whilecon-vertsmayjointhemandevenshareintheirgoodfortune,theywillnotbeequaltothenative-born,apparentlybecauseoftheirdifferentlineageandpossiblyexperienceaswell.Notingtheking’sdismayatthisresponse,however,thesageasksforthechancetoexplainhim-selffurther,implyingthatfirstappearancescanbedeceivingandthatexperience,especiallylimitedexperience,doesnotalwaysspeakforitself.Notwithstandingtheprimacyofexperience,explanationandinterpretationmustalsobegiventheirdue,ifthereliabletraditionofthepastistobeunderstoodinitsfullness.Oncethekinginviteshimtoproceed,theframestoryandintroductoryexchangesarecon-cluded.Butweareleftwithakeyinterpretivequestion.WhatexactlywasthepurposeofthehypotheticalsconcerningthekingofIndia?TocontrastandevaluatedifferentwaysofprovingGod’sexistence?TolaythegroundworkforshowingthatGodentersintocontactwithfleshandblood?Toshowthatarevealedreligionwithadivinelawissuperiortosyllogistic,governmentalreligionsbasedonman-madelaw?Finally,ifmorethanonealternativeseemsplausibleintheimmediatecontext,whichismostimportantforthedialogueasawhole?Tocountertheking’sskepticismaboutbothdivine–humancon-tactandtheallegedpreeminenceoftheJews,thesagecallshisattentiontothefamiliarhierarchicalstructureofreality,withitsas-cendingordersofplants,animals,andhumanbeingsendowedwithintelligence.WhilethekingacceptstherealityofeachorderandtheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n122MedievalJewishphilosophypracticalactivitiesthatdistinguishit,hedeniesthatthereisanyorderofsensuouslyperceivablebeingsbeyondtheintellectualorder.Becauseitsactivitiesarealsopractical,necessitatingtheimprove-mentofindividualcharacter,thehousehold,andthecitybymeansofpoliticalregimesandman-madelaws,reason’stheoreticalcapacitytounderstandtheultimatecausesofthingsseemstohavenospecialstatus.Thisraisesthepossibilitythatintellectual,thatis,theoreti-cal,speculationiseithernotpractical,notknowledge,ornotwhatdistinguisheshumanbeingsassuch.Bycontrast,thekingallowsthatifamanwithtrulyamazingpowersofendurance,self-mastery,andknowledgeofthepastandthefuturewerefound,hewouldbelongtoahigherlevel,essentiallydifferentfromtheintellectualorder,namely,God’sunseenspiritualkingdom.Theaforementionedchar-acteristicsturnouttobethedistinguishingmarksofatrueprophet,suchasMoses,whoteachesthepeopleofGod’sattachmenttothemandexplainsthenatureofdivinegovernanceintermsofGod’swillandthepeople’sdeserts.Here,thesageenliststheking’sskepticismaboutGod’sspeak-ingwithordinaryhumanbeingstopersuadehimthatsuchcommu-nicationmightbepossiblewithsuperhumanbeings,15whowouldnotonlyqualifyforsuchcontactbutalsoenjoymembershipwithinthedivineorderitself(al-amral-ilahi).Suchmembership,inturn,reducesthemetaphysicaldistancetobecrossedinrevela-tionandatteststolineagesohighandsonoblethatthosewiththestrongestclaimtohavingreceivedrevelationoccupyanessentiallydifferentlevel(rutbah)onthehierarchy(cf.K1:1,21).ThiswouldexplainIsrael’spreeminence,whicheventhekingdimlyandgrudg-inglyrecognizedbysummoningthesage.Still,theplausibilityoftheaccountdependslargelyonwhatHalevimeansbyal-amral-ilahi.ThetermhasbeenusedvariouslyinQur
anic,Shiite,andIsmailisources,andhasalsogeneratedawidevarietyofinterpretationswhenitappearsintheKuzari.Ingeneral,itsignifiestheexperiencedas-pectsofdivinityinnatureandhistory.ButifwearetoclarifythemultiplemeaningsithasforHaleviinanorganizedway,itishelpfultodistinguishbetweenthreedistinctyetrelatedsensesof“divineorder”originallysuggestedbyShlomoPines.Thefirstsignifiesadispensation,arrangement,ororderingofthingswhichgovernstheaffairsofallwhoparticipateinit,suchasangels,prophets,andCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudahHaleviandhisuseofphilosophyintheKuzari123piousfriendsofGod.Thiscorrespondstothesupremelevelofrealitydiscussedabove,whichGod,itssuprememember,haswilledtobeasitis.Today,philosophersandsocialscientistsmightidentifyitwiththesphereofthesacredorsacredorder,ascontrastedwiththerealmoftheordinary.Thesecondsenseof“divineorder”isderivedfromthefirstandsignifiesthegiftorinfluxofprophecy,eitherasanexperienceofthedivineorasthepower,faculty,orinternalprin-ciplethatmakessuchexperiencepossible.Itistypicallybestowedonthosebelongingtothedivinedispensationasasignoffavorandnoblerankinaspecialaudiencethatconfersaccess,information,andspecialpowerstoactonthesovereign’sbehalf,muchasapatronmightawardan“orderofmerit”tohisclientortheBritishmonarchpresenttheOrderoftheBritishEmpiretoadistinguishedsubject.Thethirdandfinalsenseof“divineorder”signifiesordersintheliteralsenseofcommandsorinstructionsaboutwhatpleasesordis-pleasesGod,and,morebroadly,thepowerorauthoritythatsupportssuchcommands.16Withregardtoknowledgeofthepast,thekingshowsconsistentinterestinthequestionofcreationandespeciallyinGod’sstatusascreator(K1:4,8,12,44ff.,60–2).Itcomesasnosurprise,then,thatheeventuallyaskshowthesagewouldrespondtothephiloso-phers’claimthattheworldispreeternal,giventheirreputationforcarefulinvestigationandaccuracy.Thesagenotonlydismissestheirclaim,butalsoexcusesthemfortheirerrorinmakingit.Alas,theywerepoorlyequippedtograspthetruth,aseventheirowncriteriaforknowledgeofthewholetruthattests.Theirlineagewasdeficientbe-causetheGreeksweredescendedfromNoah’sson,Yafet,ratherthanShem,thechoicestone.Climateandgeographywereunfavorablebe-causetheylivedinthenorth,outsidethetemperatezone.Finally,meteorologicalandothernaturalcatastrophesinterferedwiththetransmissionoftheirtraditions,sothat,inadditiontolackingdi-vineknowledge,theireducationandtraininginscienceandreligionwerefurtherimpaired.Indeed,theirdisadvantagedconditionreflectswhatanagedEgyptianpriest,addressingSoloninPlato’sTimaeus,saysabouttheGreeks:Theyarealwayschildren,younginsoul,be-causetheirsouls,lackinganyancientlearning,aredevoidofbeliefsaboutantiquitytransmittedbyancienttradition.Inessence,theyareforeverbeginninganewbecausetheyhavelittleconnectiontoorregardforwhatisold.17CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n124MedievalJewishphilosophyAccordingly,thekinglearnsthatwhatAristotleimpartedasknowledgeonthisquestionneednotbeacceptedastrue.Forinlackingreliableinformationtransmittedbytradition,hereliedonhimselfalonetoresolvetheproblem,preferringargumentssupport-ingtheworld’spreeternity,basedonabstractthinking,toanyalter-native.Bydoingso,heovertaxedhimselfandfailedtobeentirelyobjective,muchlessexhaustive,inhisinvestigation.ForhowevermuchAristotlemayhavetriedtobescientific,hismethodswereof-tenarbitraryandhisconclusionsculture-specific.Thesagemayevenbesuggestingthattheseconsiderationsapplytoallthinkerswhoat-tempttoresolvedifficultquestions;theycannotavoidfallingbackupontheassumptionsandperspectivestheytakefromthecities,peoples,andculturestowhichtheybelong.Bycontrast,thesageholdsthatifAristotlehadlivedinanationwithwidelyheld,inheritedbeliefsthatcouldnotberejected,hewouldhavetriedtoestablishthepossibilityofcreation,notwith-standingitsdifficulties,justashehaddoneregardingpasteternity,whichishardertoaccept(K1:65;cf.1:5,23–5).Here,wemightaskiftheresultwouldbeanylessculture-specificandnon-objective.Apparentlynot,asthesageseemstosaywithhisreferenceto“justas.”Still,optingforcreationwouldhaveprovidedmoredetailedin-formationthanotherwiseavailable.Itwouldalsohavewithheldthephilosopherfromdirectlychallengingwidelyheldbeliefsandtradi-tionsofhissocietythatarelinkedtothesphereofthesacredanddivine.Forphilosopherslivingwithinnationsthatmatchthesage’sdescription,andperhapsallphilosophers,wouldpresumablynotwishtounderminetheopinionsorlawsthathavebenefitedthemfrombirth.Norneedthiscompromisethephilosopher’sintegrity,absentadecisivedemonstration.Tounderscorethepoint,thesageinvokesGodinaninformaloath,affirmingthatthelawteachesnoth-ingthatrepudiatesdirectsenseexperienceorademonstration.Ifso,thenitisnotinconflictwiththeultimatesourcesofknowledge.Thisimpliesthatbothsourcesmustbeaccepted,whenbotharepresent,andoneonly,whentheotherisnot.Still,welackdirectempiricalevidenceofcreation,justaswelackademonstrationforit,whiletheavailableargumentsproandconcounterbalanceeachother.18WhatwedohaveisthetraditionderivingfromAdam,Noah,andMoses,preservedinthelaw.BecauseitteachesboththedisruptionofthecustomarycourseofeventsandthecreationofnewrealitiesbasedCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudahHaleviandhisuseofphilosophyintheKuzari125onpropheticrevelation,whichismoretrustworthythanreasoning,ittipsthescalesinfavorofcreation.Assuchitatteststothepowerandfreedomofthecreatortodowhateverhewishes,wheneverhewishes,fromworkingmiraclestoenforcingoaths,whichundergirdallsocialrelations.IfweaskwhyHalevideemsprophecymoretrustworthythanreasoning,threereasonssuggestthemselves.Prophecyistheself-disclosureofGod’swisdomandwill,andGodaloneisinthebestpositiontoknowthetruthaboutallreconditematters.Furthermore,reliabletradition,whichconveysthecontentsofprophecywithgreatcare,isfarmoredetailedandspecificthanthetenuousandtypicallygeneralizedconclusionsofphilosophicalargument.Finally,tradi-tiondoesnotspeculateabouttheevidenceittransmitsoritscauses,butphilosophyinevitablydoesboth,usuallywithdisputedresults.Therefore,withoutbetterevidenceorconclusiveargumentation,thetraditionalteachingshouldbeacceptedonpracticalgrounds.How-ever,ifnewandcompellinggroundsemerge,requiringanadherentofthelawtoacknowledgetheexistenceofeternalmatterandmanyworldsbeforethisone,hisbeliefthatthisworldhadabeginningandthatAdamandEvewereitsfirsthumaninhabitantswouldremainintact(K1:67).Thisopennesstonewdevelopmentsandreadinesstoconsideranacceptable“fallback”positionindicatesbothgenuinerespectforwhatscienceandphilosophymightaccomplishandanawarenessoftheinterimanddialecticalstatusofthesage’sposition.Italsopointstowhat,forhim,isthesinequanonofadherencetothelaw–beliefintheveracityoftraditionstransmittedfromearliestantiquity.Ifthiswereundermined,thecredibilityofmorerecenttraditions,includingthedivineoriginofthewrittenandorallaw,wouldlikewisebeindoubt.Whilethekingultimatelycharacterizesthesage’sargumentsforcreationas“persuasive,”thatis,dialectically,andthusonaparwiththephilosopher’scaseforpreeternity,itisclearthatmorewillhavetobesaidforthetrustworthinessofprophecyandtherevealedlawthanhasbeensaidthusfar.Theanticipateddiscussionfollowsabriefinquiryintowhatcanbeknownaboutnature,causality,anddivineagency,whichpromptsthekingtoaskabouttheoriginofJudaism(K1:68–80).Hisprelim-inaryassumptionsonthesubjectarethoroughlynaturalisticandsuggestthatheisstillpreoccupiedwithsyllogistic,governmentalCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n126MedievalJewishphilosophyreligion.Thesage,however,maintainsthatJudaismarosesuddenly,inresponsetobeingcommandedtoexist,likethecreationoftheworld.Thisdulyimpressestheking,althoughitisunclearwhetherthemiraculoussuddennessofitsemergenceortheemphasisonobedienceimpresseshimmost.Whatisentirelyclearandperhapsmoreimpressiveistheextraordinaryloyalty,cohesiveness,anden-duranceoftheIsraelites,who,despitethemiseryoftheirbondageinEgypt,willinglyfollowedthe“twodivinesheikhs,”MosesandAaron,throughallthedangersanddeliverancesassociatedwiththeirliberationandtrekthroughthewilderness.Indeed,thekingexclaimsthatallthisrepresentsthedivineorderatwork(K1:84;cf.1:10).ButwhiletheseexperiencesconfirmedtheirbeliefinaGodwhodoeswhateverhewishes,wheneverhewishesit,itdidnotremovetheirdoubt–ortheking’s–thatGodentersintocontactwithfleshandblood.ThetheophanyatSinaiwasintendedtoremovethisdoubtonceandforall.19Whilethestoryisadmittedlyfamiliar,thephilosophicalreaderwillwanttoreadHalevi’spresentationofitwithconsiderablecare,foritisnomeresummary,butratheranunusuallyartfulfusion,displayingbothphilosophicalclarityandrhetoricalskill.Itunfoldsinthreephases.Thefirstphase(K1:87)showsthattheIsraelites’difficultyarosefromtheincongruitybetweenspeechbeingacorpo-realphenomenon,producedbycorporealorgans,andthebeliefthatGodisbeyondboth.Ifleftunresolved,thepeoplewouldhavetocon-cludethatanyallegedlydivinelawwasactuallyaproductofhumanthoughtandopinion.Hence,thetheophany.Thesagedescribesfirstwhattheywitnessed:(1)lightning,thun-der,earthquakes,andfiresenvelopingthemountain;(2)Mosesen-teringandlaterleavingtheflamesalive;(3)theclearandaudiblepresentationoftheTenCommandments;and(4)twostonetabletswithdivinewritingasatokenoftheevent.Hedescribesnexthowthemultitudereportedtheseevents.TheyheldthatGodspokedi-rectlytothem,nottoaprophet.Subsequently,onceMoseshadbeendesignatedasintermediary,theybelievedthattheyweread-dressedthroughspeechthat“haditsorigininGod,”yetwithoutpriorthoughtonMoses’part.Thisqualificationandthesage’sdenialthatwhattheprophetscall“theHolySpirit”ortheangel“Gabriel”isreallytheActiveIntellectaremeanttodismissthephilosophers’ac-countofprophecyasthenatural,imaginativemimesisofintellectualCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudahHaleviandhisuseofphilosophyintheKuzari127perfection.Theonlyattentiongiventotheimagination’sroleinprophecyisabriefconsiderationoftheviewthatMosesonlyimag-ined,inadreamoratrance,thatsomeonewasaddressinghim.Allthisisdismissedasamereconjecturing,becauseitignoresthemulti-tude’scollective,wakefulapprehensionoftheTenCommandments,which“theyheardasdivinespeech,”andtheevidenceofthewrit-tentablets,which“theysawasdivinewriting.”Moreover,theseremainedwiththepeoplethroughouttheninehundred-year-longdispensationofprophecy.Bythispointitisclearthatthesagehastoldthestoryinsuchawaythatallfouroftheking’sevidentiaryrequirementsaresatis-fied.Hehasalsohighlightedthepeople’stransitionfromdisbelieftoacceptanceofrevelationinordertohelpthekingmakethesametransition.Finally,byrepeatedlynotingthepeople’sunanimityaboutwhattheyexperiencedandaboutacceptingthelawasdivine,here-spondsfullytotheking’squestfortheGod-pleasingwayoflifeandtoanyruler’sdesireforconsensus,cohesiveness,andconformitytolawasabasisforpoliticalstability,asreadersofPlato’sLawswillsurelyrecognize.20Phasetwoofthediscussion(K1:88–90)presentsacommonmis-understandingaboutwhatrevelationpresupposesandidentifiestwowaysofresolvingit.Theking’sresponsetotheexpositionistwofold:hesaysfirstthatonemightbeexcusedforsupposingthatJewsbe-lieveGodiscorporeal(whichreasonrejects)butaddsthattheJewsmightbeexcusedforrejectingreasonbecausewhattheywitnessedwasundeniable.Ineffect,byacceptingthesameevidence,aturn-ingpointfortheking,heallowsexperiencetotrumpreasonwithavengeance.Butthesagerefusestodolikewise.Instead,heappealstoGodinanoathoncemoretoforbidhisacceptinganythingtheintel-lectdeemsabsurdorimpossible.Whilenotademonstration,thisismorethanmererhetoric.Forasaperformativeutterance,itplainlyacknowledgesthedivineorder,probablyinallofitsaforementionedsenses,andremindsusthatoathsaretaken,inpart,toestablishtruthinaninquiry,whichinturnnecessitatesrejectingabsurdityandim-possibility.Accordingly,thepurposeofthisoathwouldbetogroundallinquiriesintotruthintheauthorityofthelawandrespectforitsmandates.Notsurprisingly,wesoonlearnthatcorporealizingGodisforbiddenbythesecondoftheTenCommandments.Onlyafterresolvingtheprobleminreason’sfavoronareligio-legalbasisdoesCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n128MedievalJewishphilosophyheofferaspeculativeargumenttosupportit.Thus,ifweclaimthatmanyofGod’screationsarebeyondcorporeality,“liketherationalsoul,whichiswhatmanisinreality,”howshallwenotdeclareGodtobeabovecorporeality?BuildinguponthisclearlyPlatonicconcep-tionofthesoulandusingMosesasanexample,heshowshowMosesmustbeidenticalwiththepracticalactivitiesofhisdiscerningratio-nalsoulratherthanhisbodilyorgans,whichleadsustodescribeitindivine,spiritualterms.Headds,tellingly,thatnoplaceistoonarrowforthesoultoenter,norisittoonarrowfortheformsofallcreatedthingstoenterit.Bothobservationsappeartoqualifytheharddis-tinctionbetweentheintellectualanddivineordersdiscussedearlierandillustratedbytheprophet.Theyalsooffermuchwiderscopeforintellectualunderstanding,boththeoreticalandpractical,thanpre-viouslysuggested.Finally,thesageexhortshimnottorejectwhattraditionhasreportedaboutthetheophany,citingspecificexamplesmeanttorefutethephilosopher’sinitialremarks,whilelistingwhatwe,nevertheless,donotknowaboutit.Thus,reasonisdefended,butdiscouragedfromconstructingcomprehensiveexplanationsonthebasisoflimitedevidence,lestitmislead.Significantly,thekingpro-nouncesallofthistobe“persuasive,”thatisdialecticallysufficient,whichrepresentsanotherturningpointinhisthinking.Phasethree(K1:91)offersacodatothesage’sexposition.Hedoesnotclaimcategoricallythatthematteroccurredexactlyashedescribed.Itmayhaveoccurredinamoreprofoundwaythanhe“imagined.”Still,whoeverwitnessedthoseeventsbecamecon-vincedthattheycamedirectlyfromthecreator,likethefirstcre-ationitself.Theirdoubtswerethusdispelled.Thefirststatementrepresentsaqualified“fallback”fromhisoriginaldescriptionandgivestheimaginationaroleinitthatisaltogetherunexpected.Italsoraisesseveralimportantquestions:Whatdoesthisdevelopmentimplyforthereliabilityoftradition?Iftellingandretellingbeginswiththewitnessesthemselves,whatistheroleofimaginationintheirexperienceandreportingofit?Doesskepticismfollowordoestheimaginationperhapshaveimportantmimeticfunctionsnotyetdiscussed?Halevidoesnottellusoutright.Themosthesayshereisthatthenovelandunprecedentedcharacteroftheeventstheywit-nessedultimatelyovercamethepeople’sskepticismandledthemtoassociatethetheophanywithGod’sdirectandmiraculousroleincreation,ateachingtheycouldhaveknownonlyfromtradition.ForCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudahHaleviandhisuseofphilosophyintheKuzari129nowwecanonlyobservethatifthecreationwasbelievedtobesuigeneris,yetunseenbyanyhumanwitnesses,itwouldbedifficultin-deedtounderstandanydescriptionofit,whetherdivineorhuman,withoutrecoursetofamiliarimages,metaphors,andanalogiesofhu-manmakingthattheimaginationgeneratesorhelpstointegrate.Withallfouroftheking’scriteriafordivine–humancontactlargelysatisfiedandhisdeepestskepticismovercome,thesage’sfocusshiftstoestablishingthenobilityofhispeople,thepreeminenceofthelandofIsrael,andthesuperiorityofthelawineducatingthepiousandultimatelytheprophets.Inbroadoutline,thisagendaparallelsandissurelymeanttosupersedethephilosopher’sdescriptionofwhatgoesintotheformationoftheperfectmanwhoattainsunionwiththeActiveIntellect.Here,wecandolittlemorethansketchthetrajectoryoftheindividualdiscussions,recognizingthateachonecallsforcarefulanalysisinitsownright,initsimmediatecontext,andinthelargercontextofthedialogue.ToanswerthechargethatIsrael’srebelliousnessiswellknown,thesagearguesfortheirinherentnobility(K1:95).InsofarasGodtookthemfromamongallotherreligiouscommunities,andtheyreachedthelevelofbeingaddressedbyGod,evenGodrecognizestheiruniqueworth.Whatismore,theyaloneretainedcollectivelythegiftsthatmadeAdamthenoblestcreatureonearth:aperfectphysicalconstitution,soul,charactertraits,andintellect,andalsoa“divinecapacity,”beyondintellect,identifiedas“thelevelatwhichonemayhavecontactwithGodandthespiritualbeingsandalsoknowtruthswithouttheirbeingtaught.”Becauseofthis,Adamandhischoicestoffspring,culminatinginIsrael,cametobecalled“sonsofGod.”Thus,despitebeingtreatedasthelowestofthelow,Jewscantracetheirlineagetothehighestofthehigh.Littlemoreissaidaboutthis“divinecapacity”hereexceptforthefactthat,whileitispartoftheir“innatecharacter”and“theirnatures,”itmayskipagenerationintransmission.Subsequentlyandinadifferentcontext(K1:103),welearnthattheydifferfromotherhumanbeingsbyvirtueof“aspecialdivinedistinctiveness,whichmadethemasthoughtheywereadifferentspeciesandadifferent,evenangelicsubstance.”Thisverymuchre-semblesthesage’searliercharacterizationofthedivineorder,exceptthattheessentialdifferencebetweentheintellectualanddivineor-dersisnowpresentedintermsof“asthough”andnotintermsofCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n130MedievalJewishphilosophy“is.”Isthisadistinctionwithoutadifferenceorashiftawayfromamuchstronger,apparently,biologicalviewofthedistinctivenessoftheJews?Howeverimportantitmaybetodeterminethis,itmaystillbetooearlytotry,forthepassagegoesontosaythatsomeonewhomeetsaprophet“separateshimselffromhiskindthroughthepurityofhissoulanditslongingforthose[prophetic]levels.”Beyondthis,“whatisdesiredfrom[thehereafter]isonlythataman’ssoulmightbecomedivinebydisengagingitselffromitssenses,wit-nessingthehighestworldforitself,delightinginseeingthelightofthedivinekingdom,andinhearingthedivinespeech.”Herethesagespeaksofauniversalhumandesireforthehereafter;butisonenotbornintothedivineorderorbornoutsideit?Canthosebornoutsideitbecomedivine,andthoseborninsideityetnotbedivine?Thesepassagesarecertainlyrelevanttothesage’sgoalofestablishinghispeople’snobilityanddistinctiveness,butisheestablishingthesamekindofnobilityanddistinctivenesslaterthatheclaimedatthebeginning?Thispuzzlingdivinecapacityiseventuallydescribedas“theeyeofprophecy”(K2:24).Laterstill,longaftertheking’sconversion,thesageofferswhatappearstobeadefinitionof“theinnereye”incon-nectionwithawell-knownpassageaboutanear-sightedmanwhosuccessfullylocatesthemissingcamelofaclear-sightedman(K4:3).Afterproposingthatitisthemeansbywhichagenuineprophetap-prehendsthetruenatureofthings,hesaysthatwhoeverpossessesthiseyeistrulyclearsighted,whileallothersareliketheblind.Butheadds,“Onemightalmost[say]thatthateyeistheimaginativefac-ultyaslongasitservestheintellectualfaculty.”Thisstatementgoesfarbeyondthesage’spreviouscommentsinexplainingprophecy,butitalsoraisesnewdifficulties.CanprophecybeuniquetotheJews,whenallhumanbeingspossessbothimaginationandintel-lect?Doesthesagenowsupportthephilosophers’viewofprophecyastheimaginativerenderingofconceptualtruthsalreadydiscovered?Whythenthequalification“almost”?Oristheimaginationitselfthefacultyofprophecyandtheintellectatmostasalutaryrestraint?Isthereadifferencebetweenbeing“clearsighted”and“trulyclearsighted”?Whilethesagemakesnoconcessionsaboutthenobilityofhispeople,itseemsthathedoescomeveryclosetonaturalizingprophecy.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudahHaleviandhisuseofphilosophyintheKuzari131TurningtothetrajectoryofdiscussionsonSyro-Palestine’spre-eminence,werecalltheland’snaturaladvantagesforpreservingandtransmittingknowledgeandreliabletraditionfromtheexchangesoncreationandeternity(K1:63).Thesagemakesthisevenmoreex-plicitlaterwhenhenotesthatSheminheritedthetemperateclimes,ofwhichSyro-Palestineisthecentralandmostdistinguishedpart.Indeed,itwasspecificallysetasideforthedivineorder.Therefore,oncethechoicestcametodwellthere,thedivineorderbegantodwellwithinanentirecommunity(K1:95).Foraslandsaredistin-guishedbytheminerals,plants,andanimalstheyproduce,sotoothislandisdistinguishedbytheformsandcharactertraitsofthepeopleitproducesasrevealedintheirtemperament(K2:10).ThisiswhyAbrahamwasbroughttoSyro-Palestine;hewaslikeachoicevineorroot,meanttobecultivatedinthemostperfectsoilandsurroundingstoproducethebestpossiblefruit(K1:95;2:12,14).Subsequentargumentsretainthisquasi-ecologicalfoundation,butfocusonreligiousandhistoricalconsiderations.Thus,Adamwasfashionedfromitsdustandwasalsoburiedthere.TherivalriesbetweenCainandAbel,IsaacandIshmael,JacobandEsauallcenterontherightofsuccessionandinheritingtheland.Accordingly,Jacobdidnotascribehispropheticdreamtothepurityofhissoul,orhisreligiosity,orsuperiorcertainty,buttotheland,becausethegatesofheavenwerelocatedthere(K2:14).WealsolearnthatitrestsonthedividinglinebetweenEastandWest,suchthatbothnatureandthelawmakeitthestartingpointforreckoningtheonsetoftheSabbath,thefestivals,andthedaysoftheweekfortheentireinhabitedworld(K2:20).Consequently,ifthechoicestgroup,“thepeopleofyhvh,”thespecialland,or“inheritanceofyhvh,”thespecialoccasionsap-pointedbyGod,knownas“thefixedtimesofyhvh,”andtheactions,rites,anddeclamationsherequires,called“theserviceofyhvh,”allconjoininonesystem,then“thegloryofyhvh”oughttoappear(K2:16,cf.4:3,17).Intheend,boththelanguageandmandatesofthelawshowthatthelandofIsraelisspecialtotheLord,andac-tionsbecomecompleteonlywithinit.Intentionsaresincere,andtheheartispureonlyinplacesthatonebelievesarespecialtoGod,evenifthiswereaphantasyandametaphor;butallthemoreso,whenitistrue(K5:23).Thus,wefindthatgeneralgeographicandeco-logicalargumentsfortheland’spreeminencemakewayforspecificCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n132MedievalJewishphilosophyreligio-historicalonesthatultimatelystresstheutilityofthelandforthelifeofthelaw.Presumably,thesuperiorityofthedivinelawwouldlieinitsclaimtodivineorigin.Butbecausethisisquestionedfromtheoutset,Haleviintroducesadifferentandunanticipatedconsideration.TheJews,astheenduringremnantofthechildrenofIsrael,arethem-selvestheproofthatGodhasalawonearth.Howthisisso,how-ever,remainstobeseen(K1:10).Tobesure,boththeMuslimandtheChristianattesttothedivineoriginofthelaw,butnottoitscon-tinuedvalidity.Hence,itisthesagewhofirstendorsesbothclaimswithoutreservation(K1:11).Heswearsthatitteachesnothingthatrepudiatessenseexperienceordemonstrativeproof,orcountenancesanythingimpossibleorabsurd(K1:67,89).WhileheusuallyreferstoitbythetermSharia,signifyingitsdivinestatus,hesometimesem-ploysthemoregenerictermforlaw,namus,humanandnon-human,butspecifiesthatithasitsorigininGod,oristhe“truenomos”(K1:81;2:20;4:17).Wehavealreadynotedhowtheassembledmul-titudeatSinaiheardthepresentationoftheTenCommandmentsasdivinespeechandsawthewrittenwordsasdivinewriting(K1:87).Thisopensthewayforfaithinandacceptanceoftheeternallybind-inglawandtheprovidenceitoffers,whichincludestheimmortalityofsoulsafterthedestructionofbodies(K1:91,103,109).Approximatelymidwaythroughthedialogueweencounterthreesuccessivediscussionsofthelaw(K2:48;3:7,11),whichbothcom-pareandcontrastitwiththeintellectuallawsmentionedearlier(K1:1,81)andalsoofferseveralclassificationsofitsownlaws.21Inthefirstofthese,whichtakesplaceaftertheking’sconversion,thesageacknowledgestheindispensabilityoftheintellectualandgovernmentallawsasamoralminimumforanygrouptoendure,eventhelowest.Thedivinelaws,essentiallyceremonialinnature,distinguishIsraelandconstituteanadditiontotheformer.Still,ifthemoralminimumisnotmet,theceremonialmaximumhardlyavails(K2:48).What,then,canplausiblyassurethattheminimumwillbemet?Notreason,whichrecognizesthatwhatisfittingvariesfromsituationtosituation.Characteristically,itsrulesofgovernancearenotlegallybindingandalwaysallowforexceptionswithaviewtoprudence.Notsurprisingly,itreveresadeitywhoneitherknowsorcaresabouthumanbehavior(K4:19).Rather,theassuranceliesindivinelaws,mysteriouslyrevealedingreatdetailtothereligiousCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudahHaleviandhisuseofphilosophyintheKuzari133communityofalivingGod,whogovernsit.Insofarastheyareen-tirelyoutsidethescopeofourintellects,theywillbeadheredto,justasthesickfollowthephysician’sprescriptions(K3:7).AfterthekingnotesthatGodhasasecretinpreservingtheJewsthroughobservanceofSabbathsandfestivals,thesageclassifiesthelawsinaccordancewiththethreehighestordersinthehierarchyofbeing–thedivine,thegovernmental,andthepsychic–andshowshoweachclassperfectsthecorrespondinglevelofthepersonality,elevatingthewhole.Itwouldappear,then,thatonlytheGodofAbraham,Isaac,andJacobcouldplausiblybethoughttoprovideunconditionalrulesthatalwaysapply,butinsuchcopiousdetailthattheyaddressallsituations.Incomparisonwithsuchalaw,humanlegislationisalwaysdefectiveandinneedofcorrection.Neartheendofthedia-logue,inarecapitulationofthehierarchy,wefindthatwhatismostimportantaboutthelawisitseffects.Itimpartstoitsadherents“adivinewayoflife”thatennoblesthembyraisingthemtotheleveloftheangelsandevenrevelation,“thehumanlevelclosesttothedivine”(K5:20,pr.4).Thefinalencounterwithphilosophy,however,takestheformofabroadexpositionandcritique(K5:2–14),whichattemptstoshowthekingthatheoughtnottobepersuadedbymanyofitsprincipalclaimsbecausetheyareuntenable.Apparentlyinfluencedbyal-Ghazali’sTheIncoherenceofthePhilosophers,thesagenowmaintainsthatwhatthephilosophershavegenuinelydemonstratedisconfinedmainlytomathematicsandlogic.Inphysics,however,theiraccountofthefourelementsisempiricallyunsubstantiated.Inpsychology,theirtheoryoftheActiveIntellectentailsnumerousabsurditiesandlacunae,andinmetaphysicstheirviewsondivinecausationareriddledwithinconsistency(K5:14).ThemostwecanknowhereisthatGodgovernsmaterialthingsbydeterminingtheirnaturalforms(K5:21;cf.1:77;3:11).Evenso,letthembeexcusedfortheirerrorsandthankedfortheirachievements.22Still,becausephilosophyofferslittlewisdomaboutmattersofgreatimportanceinliving,areturntothedivinewisdomembodiedinIsrael’san-cestraltraditioniscalledfor.But,asthesagerecognizes,awhole-heartedturntowardtheancestraltraditioncanbecompletedonlybyawholeheartedreturntotheancestralland.Accordingly,asthedialogueconcludes,heactsonthelogicofhisposition,asdidHalevihimself,anddepartsfortheHolyLand.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n134MedievalJewishphilosophynotes1.AllreferencestotheKuzari(abbreviatedby“K”followedbythetreatisenumber,acolon,andthesectionnumber)arebasedonthecriticaledi-tionoftheJudeo-Arabictext:JudahHalevi,Kitabal-Raddwa-
l-Dalilfi
l-Dinal-Dhalil,ed.D.Z.Baneth,preparedforpublicationbyH.Ben-Shammai(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1977).Thetranslationsaremyown.2.S.D.Goitein,“Judeo-ArabicLettersfromSpain(EarlyTwelfthCentury),”OrientaliaHispanica1(1974),337–9.3.Y.Baer,AHistoryoftheJewsinChristianSpain,i(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,1978),74ff.;M.R.Cohen,UnderCrescentandCross:TheJewsintheMiddleAges(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1994),157,160.4.SeeinthisconnectionJ.Kraemer,“Maimonides’Useof(Aristotelian)Dialectic,”inMaimonidesandtheSciences,ed.R.S.CohenandH.Levine(Dordrecht:Kluwer,2000),111–30.5.Cf.D.M.Dunlop,TheHistoryoftheJewishKhazars(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1954),89–170;K.Brook,TheJewsofKhazaria(North-vale,N.J.:JasonAronson,1999),113–56.6.SeeE.Schweid,“TheArtistryoftheDialogueintheKuzarianditsTheoreticalMeaning”[Hebrew],inTaamV
Haqqashah(RamatGan:Masada,1970),37–79;L.Strauss,“TheLawofReasonintheKuzari,”inhisPersecutionandtheArtofWriting(Glencoe:TheFreePress,1952;reprintedChicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1988),98–112;A.Ivry,“PhilosophicandReligiousArgumentsinR.JudahHalevi’sThought”[Hebrew],inThoughtandAction:EssaysinMemoryofSimonRawidowicz,ed.A.GreenbergandA.Ivry(TelAviv:TscherikoverPublishers,1983),23–33;M.S.Berger,“TowardaNewUnderstand-ingofJudahHalevi’sKuzari,”JournalofReligion72(1992),210–28;Y.Silman,“TheLiteraryAspectoftheKuzari”[Hebrew],Daat32–3(1994),53–65.7.Hippocrates,“Airs,Waters,Places,”inHippocraticWritings,ed.G.E.R.Lloyd(NewYork:PenguinBooks,1983),148–69;A.Altmann,“TheClimatologicalFactorinJudahHalevi’sTheoryofProphecy”[Hebrew],Melilah1(1944),1–17.8.Strauss,“LawofReason,”101n.17.9.H.Davidson,“TheActiveIntellectintheCuzariandHallevi’sTheoryofCausality,”RevuedesEtudesJuives131(1973),351–96,andH.David-son,Alfarabi,Avicenna,andAverroes,onIntellect:TheirCosmologies,TheoriesoftheActiveIntellect,andTheoriesofHumanIntellect(NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1992),181–95,207,218–19.10.Aristotle,OnProphesyingbyDreams1,462b21–23;2,463b15–23,464a19–27.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudahHaleviandhisuseofphilosophyintheKuzari13511.D.Schwartz,“R.YehudahHalevionChristianityandEmpiricalScience”[Hebrew],AJSReview19(1994),1–24;T.Langermann,“ScienceandtheKuzari,”ScienceinContext10.3(1997),495–522.12.Onthecontinuingpoliticalsignificanceofthisnarrative,seeM.Walzer,ExodusandRevolution(NewYork:BasicBooks,1984).13.SeeAristotle,Topics1:1,100a25–101a16;1:14,105b19–31;Sophis-ticalRefutations11,171b25–34;Rhetoric1:1,1354a1ff.;I.Madkour,L’Organond’AristotedanslemondeArabe,2nded.(Paris:Vrin,1969),221–39;Kraemer,“Maimonides’Use,”115–17.14.Plato,Crito50a–54c.15.S.Pines,“ShiiteTermsandConceptionsinJudahHalevi’sKuzari,”JerusalemStudiesinArabicandIslam2(1980),165–251,especially178–92;W.Z.Harvey,“HowtoTeachJudahHa-LeviasaJamesean,aNietzschean,orasaRosenzweigian,”inParadigmsinJewishPhiloso-phy,ed.R.Jospe(Madison,N.J.:FarleighDickensonUniversityPress,1997),129–35.16.Pines,“ShiiteTerms,”172–8.17.Plato,Timaeus22b–c;Schweid,“ArtistryoftheDialogue,”48–50.18.J.L.Kraemer,HumanismintheRenaissanceofIslam:TheCulturalRevivalduringtheBuyidAge(Leiden:Brill,1986),15,24,73,181,187;cf.L.Goodman,IbnTufayl’sHayyibnYaqzan(NewYork:TwaynePub-lishers,1972),130–1;andMosesMaimonides,TheGuideofthePer-plexed,trans.S.Pines(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1963),2:22–3(319–22),2:25(327–30).19.OnthetheophanyatSinaiandprophecygenerally,seeD.Lobel,BetweenMysticismandPhilosophy:SufiLanguageofReligiousExperienceinJudahHa-Levi’sKuzari(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2000),92–5,139–44;H.Kreisel,Prophecy:TheHistoryofanIdeainMedievalJewishPhilosophy(Dordrecht:Kluwer,2001),94–147,especially100–1,111–12.20.Plato,Laws3,691c–692c,especially692b–c.21.Strauss,“LawofReason,”112–41;cf.A.SagiandD.Statman,ReligionandMorality(Amsterdam:Rodopi,1995).22.B.Kogan,“Al-GhazaliandHalevionPhilosophyandthePhilosophers,”inMedievalPhilosophyandtheClassicTraditioninIslam,JudaismandChristianity,ed.J.Inglis(Richmond,UK:Curzon,2002),77–8.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\ndanielh.frank7MaimonidesandmedievalJewishAristotelianismMoshebenMaimon,betterknownintheWestasMaimonides,fallstemporallyatthemidpointofthesix-hundred-yearhistoryofmedievalJewishphilosophy.Butfromthevantagepointofthepresentheisacentralfigureinamuchmoresignificantway.MaimonidesisaJanus-facedfigure,lookingbothforwardandback-ward.HeistheculminationoftheJudeo-Arabicphilosophicaltradi-tion,whichincludesSaadya,SolomonibnGabirol,andJudahHalevi.ButMaimonidesalsoestablishestheJewishphilosophicalagendainChristianlandsfromthethirteenthcenturyonwiththe(posthu-mous)translationofhiscontroversialGuideofthePerplexedintoHebrew.HisinfluenceinfactextendsbeyondJewishphilosophy,forhiseffectuponChristianthinkerssuchasAquinasandMeisterEckhartispalpable.EvenbeyondthemedievalperiodMaimonidesisapivotalfigure,whoprovidesastartingpointforphilosophi-calspeculation.SpinozahasMaimonidesinmindthroughouthisTractatusTheologico-Politicus,publishedanonymouslyin1670.AnditisMaimonidestowhomHermannCoheninthetwenti-ethcenturyturnedindevelopinghisownconceptionofJudaismasethicalmonotheism.MorethananyotherJewishthinkerbeforeorafter,Maimonides,knownamonghisownpeoplebytheacronymRambam,canreasonablylayclaimtoaplaceonanyshortlistofgreatphilosophers.Thischapterwillattempttogroundthisbaldclaim.lifeandtimesMaimonideswasbornin1135(orperhaps1138,accordingtosomerecentscholarship)inCordova,thecourtcityfirstoftheUmayyad136CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandmedievalJewishAristotelianism137andthenoftheAlmoravidcaliphate,inMuslimSpain(Andalusia).HisfatherMaimon,afterwhomheisnamed,madehislivingasarab-binicjudge.Likefather,likeson.Wereitnotforthecircumstancesofhistory,towhichweshallbrieflyturn,therecanbelittledoubtthatMaimonideswouldhavefollowedinhisfather’sfootsteps.Andinasensehedidinspiteofhistoricalcircumstances,insofarasthegreatestpartofhisoeuvrehastodowithinterpretingandcodifyingthelaw.Weshouldnotethatthefather’sinterestsextendedbeyondthelaw,toincludemathematicsandastronomy.SecularstudiesandscientificinvestigationwereapparentlynotviewedasantitheticaltofullmembershipintheJewishcommunity.Indeed,thefather’sinterestsareindicativeoftherichculturallifeofMuslimSpain,inwhichJewsplayedaroleforcenturies.Thisistheculturethatpro-ducedthephilosophyandpoetryofGabirolandHalevi,aswellasthephilosophicalwritingsofIbnBajja(Avempace),IbnTufayl,andMaimonides’nearcontemporary,whomheneverknewpersonally,IbnRushd(Averroes).MuslimandJudeo-ArabicAndalusiawereliv-ingreligiouscultures,provingbyvirtueoftheirliterary,artistic,andarchitecturalactivitiesthatsecularwisdomiscommensuratewithrevelationandarevealedlegislation.Asweshallsee,Maimonides’entireoeuvre,inrabbiniclegislation,medicine,andphilosophy,isexplicableonlyifcontextualizedagainstthis“enlightened”back-ground.Perhapshisgreatnesswillbeseentolienotsomuchinpar-ticularturnsofargument,butratherinthepowerofhisconvictionthathisownreligioustraditioncouldwellparticipateinthewider,generalculture.ThisgeneralculturaloutlookwasshatteredjustwhenMai-monideswasenteringhisteenageyearsin1148withthefiercear-rivaloftheAlmohads,BerbertribesmenfromNorthAfrica.TheyconqueredCordova,forcingallnon-Muslimstoconvertonpainofdeath.Maimonandhisfamilyfled,andafteraperiodofwanderingthroughoutSpainsettledinFezinMorocco.TheirstaytherewasshortlivedsinceNorthAfricawasalsounderAlmohadrule,andtheircontinuingexiledrovethemeastwards,firsttoPalestineandfinallytoEgypt,wherethefamilysettledin1165inal-Fustat,asub-urbofCairo.InEgyptMaimonideswastoremainfortherestofhislife,andfrom1185servedascourtphysiciantothevizierofSaladin.Maimonidesdiedon13December1204.HeisburiedinTiberias,neartheSeaofGalilee,wherehistombmaystillbeseen.UponitisCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n138MedievalJewishphilosophyinscribed:“FromMoses[theprophet]toMoses[Maimonides]therehadarisennoonelikehim.”SuchinbriefisthelifeofMaimonides,alifecharacterizedbyinsecurityandflight,andtheconsequentneedforstabilityandorder.LetterswritteninresponsetoqueriesfromfellowJewsandJewishcommunitiesthroughouttheworldfromMoroccotoYemenattesttohissensitivitytotheirowncalamitiesandthefeltneedtorespondinacalmandsympatheticway.ThroughouthislifeMaimonidesneverseemstohaveforgottenthefrailtyandthelimitsofthehumanconditionandthecontingenciesinherentinhumanlife.IntimehewasappointedheadoftheEgyptianJewishcommunityashisfameasarabbinicandlegalauthorityspread.HewasconsultedonissuesthataroseoutoftheforcedconversionofJewsunderIslamandonissuesofproselytization.1worksandinterpretivestrategiesTheMaimonideancorpusisvoluminous.Therearenumeroustrea-tisesdevotedtomedicalpracticeandthetreatmentofvariousail-ments,asarebefittingapracticingphysician.MuchlegalcounselandsageadviceistobefoundinthemanyepistlesthatMaimonideswrotetohisco-religionists.Hemayhavewrittenatayoungageatreatiseonlogic,althoughrecentscholarshiphascalledthisintoquestion.Forpresentpurposes,however,wemaysingleoutthreeworks:acommentaryontheMishnah(1168),theJewishlegalcode;theMishnehTorah(1180),acodificationoftheaforementionedMishnah;andtheGuideofthePerplexed(1190),thegreatestofallJewishphilosophicalworks.Withrespecttohislegalandphilosoph-icalwritings,scholarshavedividedovertheyears,indeedoverthecenturies,astowhetherMaimonides’writingscanbeunderstoodinaunifiedway,ifnotcommittedtoasinglesetofdoctrines,thenatleastgroundedin,andgivingfullplayto,bothTorahandphilosophy,orwhethertheymustbebifurcatedintotheologicalworks,ontheonehand,andphilosophicalworks,ontheother.OneMaimonidesortwo?Putanotherway,towhatextentdidMaimonidesbelieveinadialoguebetweenAthensandJerusalem,philosophyandrevealedlaw?Forthedualistinterpreter,denyingthecommensurabilityofphilosophyandrevealedlaw,thecommentaryontheMishnahandtheMishnehTorahareregardedas(simply)theological,betterlegal,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandmedievalJewishAristotelianism139treatises,writtenforthebenefitoftheJewishcommunityasawholeand,therefore,lackinginconclusionsresultantuponsuchphilosoph-icalspeculationthatonlyasmallminoritycouldcomprehend.Bycontrast,theGuideofthePerplexedis,accordingtothedualistpo-sition,astrictlyphilosophicaltreatise,writtenforthebenefitofaneophyteinphilosophy(andthoselikehim),presentingconclusions,indeedMaimonides’realviews,derivedfromphilosophicalpremises.Historically,thisdualistpositionregardingMaimonides’legalandphilosophicalwritingshasbeenthemostprominent,eversincethetranslationoftheGuidefromitsoriginalJudeo-ArabicintoHebrewin1204(theveryyearofMaimonides’death)bySamuelibnTibbon.Withinthreedecadesofitstranslation,theGuidewasembroiledincontroversyonaccountofitspresumedcommitmenttoahostofseeminglyanti-biblicalpositionsabout,interalia,creationoftheworld,immortality,andthenatureofprophecy.WhetherornotMaimonides’realviewsareatoddswithaliteralinterpreta-tionofScripture,somethingtowhichweshallreturn,thecontro-versythattheworkengenderedisindicativeofthedualistpositionnoted.Again,thatverypositionpresupposesasharpdichotomybe-tweenAthensandJerusalem,betweenphilosophyandrevelation,andonthebasisofthisdichotomybrandstheGuideasphilosophi-calandhencecontrarytobiblicalteaching.Amongrecentscholars,LeoStraussmaybesingledoutasthespokesmanforthedualistposition.2OntheothersideofthedebatearethosewhotendtoseeMai-monides’legalandphilosophicalworksasofapiece,formingaco-herentwhole.Partoftheargumentforthislatter,“coherentist,”viewcomesfromtheexistencewithinthecommentaryontheMishnahandtheMishnehTorahthemselvesofphilosophicallyrichdiscus-sionsofthenatureofthehumansoul,thegenesisandstructureofhumancharacter,andthefundamentalprinciplesofJewishbe-liefandthefoundationsoftheTorah.Giventheappearanceofsuchphilosophicaldiscussionswithin,exhypothesi,non-philosophicalworks,thecoherentistargumentgoes,thedualistpositioncannotbesustained.Thispointresonateshistoricallyaswell,foratthesametimeastheGuidewascondemnedbythereligiousauthoritiesinthe1230s,sotoowashisBookofKnowledge(Seferha-Madda),theveryfirsttreatiseoftheMishnehTorah,thecodificationthelaw.Thislatterworkseemeddangerousenoughtorequireincineration,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n140MedievalJewishphilosophyandsucharesponseseemstothecoherentisttodissipatethedualistbifurcationoftheMaimonideancorpus.Further,eventhoughtheGuideisexplicitlyaddressedtoaneo-phyteinphilosophicalspeculation,itisnottherebyunderstoodbythecoherentistasexpressiveofbutonesideofthereason/revelationdichotomy,butratherascommittedtodemonstratingtheharmonyorcompatibilityofthetwo,toovercomingthepresumeddualism.EveniftheGuideproceedsatahigherlevelofphilosophicalsophisti-cationthanhisotherworks,anunarguablepoint,theissuefortheco-herentististhatMaimonidesisintentupondisplayingintheGuidethedeepphilosophicalnatureandstructureofJudaism.Fortheco-herentist,then,thepresumeddichotomyofreasonandrevelationisundercutbothbytheappearanceofphilosophyinthelegalworksandbytheprimafacieendeavoroftheGuideitself,toexplicateJudaismphilosophically.Amongrecentscholars,JuliusGuttmannmaybesingledoutasapreeminentcoherentist.Fortheinterestedreader,theGuttmann–Straussdebateinthe1930sand1940scon-cerningthenatureoftheGuideinparticularandJewishphilosophyingeneralrepaysclosestudy.3BeforeturningtoMaimonides’philosophicalviewsintheGuide,onemustfirsttrytoadjudicatethedualist–coherentistdebateout-linedabove.TheverypresentationandnatureofMaimonides’philo-sophicalviewsisatissue,dependinguponwhetheroneadoptsadualistoracoherentistposition.Iftheformer,Maimonides’philo-sophicalviewsmuststandquiteopposedtocanonicalbiblicalposi-tions,whateverthosemightbe,aswellasthosepresentedinhisownnon-philosophicalworkssuchasthecommentaryontheMishnahandtheMishnehTorah.Inthiscase,Maimonidesmaywellbeunder-stoodtohold,forexample,anAristotelian(non-biblical)beliefintheeternityoftheworld.If,however,oneholdsacoherentistposition,inwhichMaimonides’philosophicalviewsarenotipsofactoatoddswithcanonicalbiblicalones,whateverthosemightbe,thenonewillexpectMaimonidestobelessdismissiveoftraditionalviewsandrathermoreconcernedwithteasingouttheinherent“philosophi-cality”ofthem,ifpossible.Forthecoherentist,unlikethedualist,therewouldbenoprimafaciereasontowithholdsupportforthebiblicalbeliefinthecreatednessoftheworld,howeverthislatteristobeconstrued.Alas,thiscosmologicalissuehashistoricallynotbeeneasytoresolve,forMaimonides’explicitcommitmenttotheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandmedievalJewishAristotelianism141creatednessoftheworldintheGuide(2:25)isheldbythedualistinterpreterofMaimonidestobedisingenuous,hidinghisrealbeliefintheeternityoftheworld.Thisapparentesoteric–exotericdistinctioncannoteasilybedis-missed.Maimonidesisquiteexplicitabouttheneedtohidethetruthfromthoseincapableofreceivingit(Guide,introduction).Thispoint,asoldasPlato,istakengloballybythedualistnotmerelyasapeda-gogicalandrhetoricalpointaboutmatchingthemodeofpresentationtotheintendedaudience,butratherasapoliticallychargeddirectivetoobscurethetruthfromnon-philosophers.Torevealthetruth,torevealabeliefin,say,theeternityoftheworld,wouldbetoconfusetheunwaryreaderandtocourtantinomianism,toundercutbeliefinthelawanddrivethenon-philosopherfromthecommunityofbelievers.Themajorproblembesettingthedualistpositionanditscommit-menttoanesoteric–exotericdistinctionisitsseemingarbitrariness.WithoutdenyingthePlatonicallyinspiredcautionagainsttheun-adornedpresentationoftruthtothosenotreadytoreceiveit,onemaybetroubledbythedualistpositionthattakessuchacautionaslicensetounderstandMaimonides’variousphilosophicalpositionsinwaysdiametricallyopposedtotheirexplicitpresentations.So,forinstance,thedualistholdsthatMaimonides’realviewconcerningtheeternityorcreatednessoftheworldis,asnoted,theAristotelianbeliefintheeternityoftheworld,eventhoughMaimonidesinsiststhatthiscannotbeproved.Givensucharbitrariness,seriousconsiderationshouldbegiventothecoherentistposition,butwiththiscaution:Thecoherentistposition,whichseesMaimonides’projectasoneofharmonizingrea-sonandrevelation,ofilluminatingtheinherent“philosophicality”ofthereligioustradition,isanachronistically(mis-)conceivedifin-terpretedfromthevantagepointofthemodern(Enlightenment)projectofshowing,proving,therationalityofrevelation(religion).Thislatterproject,KantianandMendelssohnian,presupposestheverydichotomybetweenAthensandJerusalem,betweenreasonandrevelation,thatMaimonides(and,forthatmatter,hiscontempo-raryAverroes)denied.Forthem,reasonandrevelationarenotsounrelatedtoeachotherthatanargumenthadtobeproducedtobringthem,likeHumptyDumpty,backtogetheragain.Rather,thepre-sumptionisinfavorofthephilosophicalintelligibilityofScripture,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n142MedievalJewishphilosophyandgiventhis,theprojectisoneofinterpretingthelatterinlightofsuchaphilosophicalpresumption.Ifyouwill,Maimonidesisengagedinbiblicalexegesismorephilosophico,notintheKantianprojectofdelimitingthenatureandscopeofhumanunderstandingtomakeroomforfaith.Asweshallsee,Maimonidesissecondtonooneinpointingoutthelimitsofhumanunderstandingrelativetodivinewisdom,buthisproject,unlikeKant’s,presupposesthephilosophicalintelligibilityofrevealedtruth.maimonides’aristotelianismInthehistoryofmedievalJewishphilosophyoneusuallyseesMaimonidesdescribedasanAristotelian,andJuliusGuttmannspeaksforthetraditionalhistoriographyofJewishphilosophywhenhewrites,“InthemiddleofthetwelfthcenturyAristotelianismdisplacedNeoplatonismasthedominatinginfluenceinJewishphilosophyofreligion.”4AquicklookattheContentstothisvol-umewouldcertainlyseemtosupportthisclaim,butoflateAlfredIvryhassuggestedthat“ItisnottheleastoftheparadoxesoftheGuidethatMaimonides’underlyingphilosophicalbaseisonehewasloathtoacknowledge.”5The“philosophicalbase”towhichIvryisre-ferringisNeoplatonism.Weshouldimmediatelynotetheratherrigiddichotomizationpresupposedbybothpositions–Aristotelianismvs.Neoplatonism.Butsuchdichotomizationismanifestlyunhis-torical,asbothGuttmannandIvryareaware.MuchNeoplatonicdoctrinewentunderAristotle’snameinthelateantiqueattempttoharmonizePlatoandAristotle;further,asPorphyrytellsusstraight-forwardlyinhisVitaPlotini(ch.14),histeacher’swritingsincludebothStoicandPeripateticdoctrines,andthatinparticularAristotle’sMetaphysicsaretobefoundcondensed(somehow)inthem.Finally,wemightnotethatthebrilliant(andgenerallyrespectful)com-mentatorsonAristotleoftheearlycenturiesoftheCommonErawerealmostallNeoplatonists,developingtheirownposi-tionswithinmanifestlyAristoteliancategories,evenastheysome-timesfoistedtheirownviewsuponAristotle.AndwithinIslamicandJewishphilosophicalcircles,asGuttmannnotes,“IslamicandJewishNeoplatonismhadabsorbedmanyAristotelianelementsinadditiontothosealreadypresentintheoriginalNeoplatonicsystem;conversely,AristotelianismhadundergoneaNeoplatonicCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandmedievalJewishAristotelianism143transformationinthehandsofitsIslamicadherents.”6Indeed,itisnoeasytasktodisentangleAristotelianfromNeoplatonicstrandsinMaimonides,orinothermedievalthinkers.Toooftenweglossas“un-Aristotelian,”alternativelyas“Neoplatonic,”Maimonides’anti-materialistremarksintheGuide,butacloseinspectionofsomeofthosepassages,particularlyonesdealingwithprophecy(Guide2:36,40),revealsthatMaimonidesisgroundinghisremarkswithexplicitreferencetopassagesinAristotle’sEthicsdenigratingthesenseoftouch(NicomacheanEthics3:10).InthefinalanalysisIbelieveitmakesgoodsensetoconsiderMai-monidesanAristotelian,andIshallgroundthisclaimmomentarily.Butprimafacieaproblemimmediatelyarises,ifoneadopts,asIaminclinedto,theaforementionedcoherentistposition.Thatposition,itwillberecalled,understandsMaimonides’philosophicalprogramasoneofphilosophicallyexplicating,andinthissensejustifying,tra-ditionalscripturalbeliefsoncreation,miracles,prophecy,andsoon.Suchbeliefsaremanifestlyun-Aristotelian,andsoarealquestionarisesastotheapplicabilityof“Aristotelianism”toMaimonides.Twooptionsareavailableforonewishingtoretaintheattribution:(1)dropthecommitmenttocoherentism,andinitsplaceadoptthedualistposition,whichseesanesotericAristotelianismatplay.Al-ternatively,(2)ifonewishestoretainacommitmenttothecoheren-tistposition,onemustreinterpretMaimonides’Aristotelianisminsuchawaythatitiscompatiblewithacorrelativecommitmenttosuchun-Aristotelianviewsasthecreationoftheworld,miracles,andthelike.Thelatterseemsatallorder,foritrequiresonetodefendtheAristotelianismofonewhoholdsmanifestlyun-Aristotelianviews.Cansuchapositionasthisbemaintained?Ibelieveitcan.ConsiderthefollowingclaimbyRalphMcInernyaboutAquinasandthelatter’srelationshiptoAristotle:[W]efindmanyreferencestoAristotleinThomas,wefindtheinvocationofdoctrines,thequotingofphrases.Confrontedwiththese,weshouldnotconsultAristotleforguidanceonwhatThomasissaying.FarbettertoseewhatThomasmeans,howheisusingthedoctrinesorlanguageofAristotleforhisownpurposes.ItisalmostasifAristotlewerealanguageThomasusedtomakeindependentpointsofhisown.7IcanfindnobetterwaythanMcInerny’stodefendmyclaimaboutMaimonides’Aristotelianism.Contrathe(Straussian)dualist,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n144MedievalJewishphilosophyMaimonidesisnotaclosetAristotelian,whoforpoliticalreasonshideshisreal(Aristotelian)viewsontheeternityoftheworld,theim-possibilityofmiracles,andsoon.Rather,asAquinasiswithrespecttoAristotle,soMaimonidesmaybestbeunderstoodphilosophicallyasengagedinacriticaldialoguewithAristotle,almostinvariably,asweshallsee,disagreeingwithhim,butindebtedtoAristotleforhismodeofdiscourse,argumentforms,andphilosophicalvocabulary.IsuggestthatitisinpreciselytheselattersensesthatMaimonidesmaywellbeaccountedanAristotelian.AsAquinasusesAristotle“forhisownpurposes,”sotoodoesMaimonides.ItisthusnotonaccountofanyofthespecificconclusionsMaimonidesreachesthatweshouldconsiderhimanAristotelian.ContraAristotle,Maimonidesdoesnotthinktheworldisbegin-ningless,thoughhemaythinkithasnoend(Guide2:27),nordoeshethinkthatthesummumbonumresidesincontemplativeactivity(alone)(Guide3:54),orthatthemeanisnormativeinmoralmattersinquiteasgeneralawayasdoesAristotle(MishnehTorah:HilkhotDe‘ot,chs.1–2).Further,althoughMaimonidesacceptsthedistinc-tionthatAristotlemakesbetweenthemoralandtheintellectualvirtues(commentaryontheMishnah:ShemonahPeraqim[EightChapters],ch.2;Guide1:1–2;3:54),unlikeAristotle,Maimonidesisclearthattheformerarenecessary,evenifnotsufficient,condi-tionsforattainmentofthemostexaltedofthelatter(Guide2:32;3:54).AtonestageofhiscareerMaimonides’viewofthehumanpsycheisopposedtoAristotle’sinunderstandingitasconstitutedofpartsutterlyidiosyncratictothehumanspecies(ShemonahPeraqim,ch.1).ItisclearthatMaimonideshasaconsiderablymorelibertarianviewofhumanfreedomthandoesAristotle,whobelievesthatafteracertainpointinhumandevelopmentcharacterisfate(ShemonahPeraqim,ch.8).Maimonidesbelievesthattheprophet,paradigmaticinbothcharacterandintellectualattainment,isinsu-latedfromcontingency,aviewseeminglyopposedtotheinelimi-nabilityofluckintheAristotelianmoralscheme(Guide3:22–3).Perhaps,moststartlingly,Maimonides,anempiricistlikeAristotle,believesthathumanknowledgeisseverelylimitedonaccountofourfinitenature.Themostimportant(metaphysical)mattersarebeyondourkenandlinguisticcapacities,andayawningchasmseparateshumanfromdivinewisdom(Guide1:52,54,58).IdonotthinkitcanbereasonablymaintainedthatAristotlewasanepistemologicalCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandmedievalJewishAristotelianism145finitist.NorishumilityanAristotelianvirtue,asitcertainlyisforMaimonides(HilkhotDeot,chs.1–2).Givenalltheseprimafacieun-AristotelianismsinMaimonides’thought,wehavebeforeusachoiceregardingMaimonides’purportedAristotelianism:eitherwecanaccepthisexplicitviewsatfacevalueandreinterpretMaimonides’Aristotelianismaccordingly,orwemayconcludethatMaimonidesisbeingprettyconsistentlydisingenuous,evenduplicitous,withaviewtohidinghisdoctrinaireAristotelian-ism.Ihopemypreferenceisclear.MaimonidesisnotanAristotelianonaccountofanyagreementwithAristotleonsubstantiveis-sues,butratheronaccountofhiscreativeuse,andadaptation,ofAristoteliancategoriesandargumentforms“forhisownpurposes,”themainpurposebeingofcoursetheexplicationofhisownreligioustradition.OnecanbeanAristoteliansimplybytakingthequestionofwhethertheworldiseternalornotseriously,somethingMaimonidescertainlydoesinthesecondpartoftheGuide,ashearguesagainstAristotle.Maimonides’philosophicalstartingpointisAristotle,anditisfromAristotlethathedevelopshisownphilosophicalpositions.theguideoftheperplexedTheGuideofthePerplexed,writteninJudeo-Arabicandcom-pletedby1190,hashadanunparalleledinfluencewithintheJewishworld,whilealsoinfluencingChristianscholasticssuchasAquinas,WilliamofAuvergne,andGilesofRome.Aswehavenoted,withinJewishcirclesitisMaimonidesagainstwhomSpinoza,thefirstmod-ernJewishthinker,isprimarilyreactinginhiscritiqueofrevealedreligion,theTractatusTheologico-Politicus(1670).AnditisMai-monidestowhomHermannCoheninthetwentiethcenturyturnsindevelopinghisownconceptionofJudaismasethicalmonotheism.WhatisitaboutMaimonidesthataccountsforhisinfluence?Whereinlieshisgreatnessasathinker?Itistoosimpletosupposethatthephilosophicalrigorhedisplaysortheargumentsheproducesinhisworkareunsurpassed.AgoodargumentcanbemadethatGersonidesandCrescas,twoofMaimonides’successorsinJewishphilosophy,presentintheirmajorphilosophicalworkspositionsasrigorouslyarguedforandasingeniousasMaimonides’.Further,thefactthattheselatterthinkersdisagreewithMaimonidesoncrucialissuessuchascreationanddivineprovidenceshouldcautiononeCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n146MedievalJewishphilosophyagainstsupposingthatMaimonides’positionsarenormativeandde-cisiveintheseareas.Theyarenot.So,again,whereinlieshisgreat-nessasathinker?Perhapsitisinthefactthathebestdefined,gaveshapeto,avarietyofclassicalproblems,problemsthatsubsequenttohispresentationbecamesubjectsofdispute,bothwithinandoutsideofJewishphilosophicalcircles.Withinthecontextofmonotheisticreligion,issuesconcerningthelimitsofhumanunderstanding,di-vinelanguage,thecreatednessoreternityoftheworldorder,thena-tureofprophecy,divineprovidence,theintelligibilityofdivinelaw,andthenatureofthesummumbonum(thehighesthumangood)hadbeendiscussedforcenturies,withavarietyofpositionscanvassed.InJewishphilosophicalcirclesPhilocommencedthetraditioninAlexandria,andthenfromthetenthcenturythetraditionofphilo-sophicalspeculationinJudaismmovedtoArabic-speakinglands.SoMaimonideshadhispredecessors,butnonehadthewittosovivifyandinterrelatetheaforementionedsubjectsofdiscussionbymeansofemploymentoftheregnantphilosophicalcategories.IntheprevioussectionwehaveseenthatinthemainMaimonidesusesAristoteliancategoriesandargumentsforhisownpurposes.NoonebeforeMaimonidessoclearlyunderstoodandinterpretedJudaism,thebiblicalandrabbinictradition,asatrootexpressiveofphilosophicaltruth.NoonebeforeMaimonidesgaveasetofcanon-icalproblemsbesettingJudaismsuchadefinitephilosophicalshape.Afterhim,andbecauseofhim,Jewishphilosopherswouldargueinterminablyaboutthenatureofdivinelanguageanddivineprovi-dence,andaboutthenatureandscopeofprophecyandthehumangood.Insum,perhapsMaimonides’truegreatnessasaphilosopherliesnotintheanswershegavetospecificproblems,butratherintheforminwhichhesetthequestionsandtheinterrelationsherevealedbetweenseeminglydisparatesubjects.Maimonides’specificanswerstothehostofphilosophicalques-tionsandproblemshesetshimselfintheGuideareascontroversialastheyareinfluential.Ihavenotedthatscholarsaredividedastowhathisrealbeliefsare,andIcanonlypresentmyconsideredviews,basedupontheinterpretivestrategyoutlinedpreviously.Beforeweturntohisparticularviewsitisimportanttounderstandtheoverar-chingpracticalthrustoftheGuide.8ItisaddressedtoanerstwhilestudentperplexedabouttheintelligibilityofScripture.Asaresultofhisperplexity,bornofayouthfulimpetuosity,hisverylife,alifeCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandmedievalJewishAristotelianism147livedaccordingtohalakhic(traditional)norms,isrenderedproblem-atic.Maimonidesthusiscalleduponnotmerelytoprovideanswerstospecific“theoretical”worries,butalso,indeedwithgreaterur-gency,toprovideaperspicuousjustificationforthelifeinquestion.Onemustneveroverlookthispractical-pedagogicaldimensionoftheGuide,andtheway(s)inwhichtheorysubservespractice.Indeed,thispractical-pedagogicalmotivationrevealsitselfintheGuideintheveryorderinwhichphilosophicaltopicsarepresentedoverthecourseofitstripartitedivision.Asweshallsee,Maimonidesmovesfromlogicandlanguagetophysics(andcosmology)tometaphysicsandphilosophicalpsychologyto,finally,legal,moral,andpoliticalphilosophy.Thisprogression,whichmapsontotheancientorderingoftheAristoteliancorpus,istobeseenasculminatinginthepracti-calsciences.And,assuggested,thetelosofMaimonides’philosoph-icalmasterpiece(likeSpinoza’sEthics)isthegoodlife.TheGuidemovesasmartyounginterlocutor,perplexedbytheprimafaciephilo-sophicalunintelligibilityofhisreligioustraditionandwayoflife,fromastateofaporiatooneinwhichtheintelligibilityofthetra-ditionisrevealedandapotentialalienationfromthecommunityisovercome.TheGuideisanenormouswork,oversixhundredpagesinthestandardEnglishtranslationbyShlomoPines,9andthispracticalimpetusisoftenoverlookedwhenonefocusespiecemealononeoranother“theoretical”issue.ForMaimonides,negativetheology,afinitistepistemology,thedifficultyofmetaphysics,andevenanun-derstandingofthecreatednessoftheworldorderareissuesdeeplyintertwinedwithaxiologicalones.Togivebutoneexampleofapracticaldimensionembeddedina“theoretical”discussion:Mai-monides’semantictheory,presentedinhiscelebrateddiscussionofdivineattributes(Guide1:50–60),isoffered,inlargepartIwouldsug-gest,todeflatetheyounginterlocutor’simpetuosityconcerningthe(unlimited)scopeandpowersofhumanknowledge,theverycauseofhisinitialperplexityandestrangement.Inteaching,viathe(“theoretical”)discussionofdivineattributes,thathumanknowl-edgeisperforcelimited,Maimonideshopesparipassutocurbtheyoungman’simpetuosity,hisnaiveepistemologicaloptimism.Andthislatterdesideratumisapracticalpoint,requiringachangeincharacter.Insum,forMaimonidesthedoctrineofdivineattributesentailshumilityasitsdesiredoutcome.AsMenachemKellnerhasCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n148MedievalJewishphilosophysuggested,“Maimonides’book[theGuide]istransformativeandnotsimplyexpository,subsumingthroughoutapracticalaim.”10IturnnowtoabriefoverviewofsomeofthemainthemesoftheGuide,followingtheorderinwhichtheyarepresentedoverthethreepartsofthetext.ItrustthatreadersnewtoMaimonidesandtheGuidewillturntotherelevantportionsofthetextitselftomakeuptheirownmindsaboutthepositionsattributedtohim.Maimonidesisanepistemologicalfinitist,butcontrarytosomere-centscholarship,notaskeptic(Guide1:31–4).Hebelievesthatthescopeofhumanunderstandingaboutdivine,includingcelestial,mat-tersisseverelycircumscribed.Heisadamantaboutthechasmthatseparateshumanfromdivineknowledge.Divinewisdomandhumanwisdomhavenothingincommon,savethename.CorrelativetothisepistemologicalfinitismisMaimonides’so-callednegativetheology,hismostfamous(andnotorious)philosophicaldoctrine,whichwascriticizedinJewishphilosophicalcirclesbyGersonidesandoutsidethosecirclesbyAquinas(Guide1:50–60).GiventhatGodisutterlytranscendent,irreducibletoanythingmaterialonpainofidolatrousanthropomorphism,Maimonidesoffersacritiqueofdivinelanguage,thatishumandiscourseaboutGod.SuchdiscoursecannotdescribeGodinanystraightforwardanddirectmanner,andhenceavari-etyofperiphrasesarerequiredtorenderdivinelanguagelogicallyperspicuous.AllpurportedessentialpredicationsaboutGod,thatItisone,eternal,etc.,mustbeunderstood,andhencereparsed,asdenialsofimperfectionsofIt.God’sunitymustbeunderstoodasdenyingmultiplicityandmultiformityofIt;andinsounderstand-ingGod’sunityasadenialofmultiplicityandmultiformityweipsofactopointtoGod’stranscendentnatureasbeingutterlyotherthan,andirreducibleto,humanformandthecorporealityofthematerialrealm.Further,allpurportednon-essentialpredicationsofGod,thatItisangry,merciful,andsoon,mustbeunderstoodasattributesofdivineaction,analogoustohumanactionsspringingfromtherel-evantdispositions.So,inassertingthat“Godisangry,”whatwereallyintendisthatGodactsinamanneranalogoustosuchactionsthatareexpressiveofthehumanfeelingofanger.But,ofcourse,insoattributingangertoGod,wedonottherebyattributetoItanyfeelingswhatsoever.Insoreconceptualizingandreparsingalldivineattributes,MaimonidesisaboveallconcernedtosafeguardGod’ssimplenaturefromanytinctureofdivisibilityandcorporeality.InCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandmedievalJewishAristotelianism149thisregardheisconcernedtoguardagainstthetoo-humanneedforunderstandingthedivineinhumanterms.Indeed,onagenerallevelMaimonideswishestounderstandmonotheisticreligionasaboveallcommittedtoweaninghumankindfromidolatry.Theoverarch-ingpurposeofthecommandmentsistoexpungeidolatry,andtheMaimonideanteachingconcerningdivineattributesmustbeunder-stoodinthelightofthisultimategoal.Maimonides’positiononthecreationoreternityoftheworldhas,aspreviouslynoted,arousedconsiderablecontroversy.Hepresentsthreeviews,creationexnihilo(thebiblicalview),creationfrompre-existingmatter(thePlatonicview),andtheAristotelianviewthatiscommittedtotheeternityoftheworld(Guide2:13).HisdiscussiononthisissueisthebestexampleintheMaimonideancorpusofacreativemindworkingwithinandbetweentwotraditions,thereli-giousandthephilosophical,usingtheregnantphilosophicalnormstoexplicatethereligioustradition,whateverthelattermaybe.Maimonidesisclearthatnoneoftheviewspresented,noteventheAristotelianone,istoberuledoutonthebasisofwhatScripturesays.MaimonidesmaybeguiltyofthechargethatSpinozabringsagainsthimofreadingphilosophyintoScripture–though,forhispart,Maimonideswoulddescribehisprojectasoneofeliciting(“teasingout”)fromthetextitsdeepesttruth–buthecannotbeconvictedofthechargeofdefending,inkalamfashion,aparticularviewontheissueathand.Maimonides’wishis(simply)todefendtheuseofphi-losophyinexplicatingScripture,wherevertheargumentmaylead.SocommittedishetothephilosophicalfoundationsofScripturethateventheAristotelianpositionconcerningtheeternityoftheworldmustbeevaluateddispassionatelyandphilosophically.AndwereittoturnoutthattheAristotelianbeliefintheeternityoftheworldisphilosophicallydemonstrable,thenMaimonidesisquiteclearthathewouldperforcebelieveit.Maimonidesisnotbeingdisingenuoushere.Heisfirmlycommittedtoevaluatingallargumentsontheirphilosophicalmeritsalone,andthencorroboratingthetruth,what-everitmaybe,byreferencetoScripture.11MaimonidesfindsboththeAristotelianandthePlatonicposi-tionsinconclusive,thoughhesuggeststhatthelatterview,creationfrompreexistentmatter,isconsistentwithdivineomnipotenceovernature(Guide2:25).NeithertheAristoteliannorthePlatonicpo-sitionbeingworthyofacceptance,MaimonidespresentsakindofCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n150MedievalJewishphilosophytranscendentalargumentonbehalfofthebiblicalaccount,creationexnihilo.Giventheexistenceofrevelation,revealedlaw,onemustpresupposetheexistenceofaGodwhoisfreetodoasItpleases,whenItpleases.Thisentailsanabsolutelackofconstraintonthecreator,thuspavingthewayforbeliefincreationexnihilo,thoughitshouldbenotedthatthePlatonicview,creationfrompreexistentmatter,islikewiseconsistentwithrevelationanddivinefreedom.Indevelop-inghisownpositionhereMaimonidesisnotbeggingthequestiononbehalfofthebiblicalaccountofcreation.Heisnotpresuminginadvancethelatter’sveracity.Whatheistakingasagivenisthehis-toricityofrevelationandthendeducingfromthisthenatureofGodandtheappropriateaccountofcreation.ItisuponthispresumptionthatSpinoza(andothers)foundtheircritiqueofMaimonidesandrevealedreligion.Maimonides’viewofprophecyintheGuidefollowshardonhisac-countofcreation(Guide2:32–48).Prophecyisunderstoodastheepit-omeofintellectualexcellence.Further,thereisapoliticalaspecttoprophecy,namelytheprophetaslawgiver,aviewMaimonidestookoverfromhisgreatMuslimpredecessor,al-Farabi(tenthcentury).InthepersonofMoses,theparadigmaticprophetandlawgiver,theprophetemergesastheMaimonideananaloguetothePlatonicphilosopher-king.ForMaimonides,prophecyisbothanaturalaswellasasupernaturalphenomenon.Theprophetcomestobethroughone’sowneffortsaswellasonaccountofdivineimprimatur.Maimonidesdeniesthenaturalistic(Aristotelian?)viewofprophecythatmakesitawhollyhumanintellectualachievement.ButhealsodeniesthepossibilitythatjustanyonecanbecomeaprophetthroughGod’swillaloneandthroughnoeffortofone’sown.ForMaimonides,effortandmeritarerewardedandGodmakesprophetsof(virtuallyall)thosewhobythemselveshaveachievedthemoralandintellec-tualcapacityforit.ThatGodcannotmakeanyoneaprophetshouldnotbeunderstoodasalimitingconditionuponthedivine.Giventhatprophecyrequiresintellectualexcellenceasanecessaryconditionforitsexistence,anignoramuscannot,bydefinition,beaprophet.Godisnot,andcannotbe,constrainedbywhatisanimpossibility.ForMaimonides,divineprovidentialknowledgeandcareextendstothelevelofparticulars,but,importantly,onlytoparticularhu-manbeings,andnotinawaythatprecludeshumanfreedom(Guide3:8–24).Inhisdiscussion,MaimonidesisespeciallyconcernedtoCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandmedievalJewishAristotelianism151countertheAristotelianviewthatholdsthat,sinceknowledgeisoftheuniversal,divineprovidence(andcare)doesnotextendtotherealmofparticularhumanbeings.HeisalsoconcernedtocountertheAsharite(voluntaristic)viewthatsees,contraAristotle,thedi-vinehandeverywhereandineverything,withtheresultthatallispredeterminedor,atleast,overdetermined.Incounteringtheseviews,Maimonideswishestosafeguardbothhumanfreedomandresponsibilityandanotionofdivineprovidentialcare,rewardandpunishment.Acanonicalproblemthroughoutthemedievalperiodwastheapparentincompatibilityofdivineknowledgeandhumanfreedom.12IfGodknowsall,whatwas,is,andshallbe,thenwhatbecomesofhumanfreedom,whichpresupposesanopen,indetermi-natefuture?Maimonides’responseisthathumanbeingsarefreeandhenceresponsiblefortheiractionsonaccountoftheirveryhuman-ity,astateofbeingandcognizingutterlydistinctfromthatofthedivine.13ReminiscentofhisearlierdiscussionintheGuideconcerningdi-vineattributesandthehumanincapacitytocomprehendandhencedescribethedivine,Maimonidesinthepresentcontextsafeguardshumanfreedombyvirtueoftheabsoluteequivocitythatobtainsbe-tweenhumananddivinewisdom(andbeing).Ashumans,weare(really)freetochoosegoodorevil.AndforMaimonides,weshallreapwhatwesow.But,surprisingly,bychoosinggoodnessandbeingmorallyuprightwearenottherebyguaranteedprovidentialcareandinsulationfromsuffering.Maimonides’brilliantglossonthebookofJobclarifieshispositionondivinejustice(Guide3:22–3).AshememorablyputsitofJob’srighteousnessandconcomitantsuffering:Themostmarvelousandextraordinarythingabout[Job]isthefactthatknowledgeisnotattributedtohim.Heisnotsaidtobea“wise”ora“com-prehending”oran“intelligent”man.Onlymoralvirtueandrighteousnessinactionareascribedtohim.Forifhehadbeenwise,hissituationwouldnothavebeenobscuretohim...(Guide3:22;Pines’translation).Job’s(undeniable)righteousnessisnosafeguardfromthecontingen-ciesandreversalsoffortunethatliterallydefinetheworldorder.Indeed,Job’s“innocence”(lack)ofintellectualinsightintothetruenatureoftheworldistheverycauseofhissuffering.Hesufferspre-ciselyonaccountofhis“innocence”(ignorance),andhisincompre-hensionandconsequentindignationareindicativeofhistraditionalCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n152MedievalJewishphilosophy(andcommonsensical)beliefthatthegoodprosperandtheevilsuffer.ForMaimonides,Job’ssufferingforcesustoreconceptualizethiscommonsensicalbeliefabouttheapparentconnectionbetweenrighteousnessandhumanwellbeingandtobecomeawarethatthedivineintentionsforthecreatedorderarebeyondourcapacitytounderstand,oratleastconsiderablydifferentthanwetooread-ilyassume(Guide3:13).ProvidentialcareandinsulationfromthevagariesoffortuneareforMaimonidesafunctionofintellectualin-sightandknowledgeofGod,notofwealth,health,orevenmoralvirtue.Shortofsuch(prophetic)insight,eventherighteousperson,likeJobhimself,maysuffermisfortune.ForMaimonides,Goddoesnotlovethesinner,northefool.ThefinalpartoftheGuideisgivenoverinlargemeasuretolegal,moral,andpoliticalphilosophy(Guide3:25–54).Thisisasitshouldbe,ifonerecallstheoverarchingpracticalthrustoftheworkasawhole.ThoughGod’sinfinitewisdomisbeyondhumanken,Itgavehumansalawbywhichtheycouldperfectthemselves.Withaviewtoelaboratingtruehumanfelicity,Maimonidesoffersanextendeddiscussionconcerningthemeaningandpurposeofdivinelaw(Guide3:25–49).Itspurposeistwofold:perfectionofthebodyandperfec-tionofthesoul.Thelawhasbothasocialandaspiritualfunction,anduponthesetwinbasesMaimonidesexplicatesthereasonsforthecommandments(taameiha-mitzvot).Whatstandsoutinthediscussionisitspsychohistoricalsensitivity,forMaimonidesunder-standsthenatureandstructureofthelaw,indeeditsveryexistence,inthelightofthepsychohistoricalcircumstancesofthoseinitiallyboundbyit(Guide3:32).Maimonidesofcourseisnotsuggestingthatascircumstanceschange,sodoesthelaw.Thelawisforeverbinding,butitsparticularform,especiallyasmanifestintherit-uallaws(huqqim),isduetothepsychohistoricalcircumstancesinwhichitwaspromulgated.So,forexample,thelawspertainingtosacrifice(qorbanot),nowindisuse,wereoriginallyinstitutedforthepurposeofweaningidolworshipersfrombeliefinthedivinityofma-terialobjects.Maimonides’pointisthatsacrifice,themodewherebytheancientidolworshiperspaidhomagetotheirgods,hadtoberetainedifevertheobjectoftheirworshipwastobealtered.Mai-monides,unlikemodernscholarsandtheologians,doesnotworryovermuchaboutthebindingnatureofthelaw,itseternity.ButitsmanifesthistoricityshouldnotbereadasanysortofcommitmenttoareductionisthistoricismonMaimonides’part.Lawhas,asnoted,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandmedievalJewishAristotelianism153adualfunction,socialandspiritual,and,giventhis,thecommand-mentsmustbeunderstoodbothhistoricallyandwithreferencetotheultimategoalsofhumanlife.ThelastchaptersofMaimonides’masterworkpresenthisfinalthoughtsaboutthesummumbonum,thegoalofhumanexistence(Guide3:51–4).Oneshouldnotbesurprisedthatthetelosisanintel-lectualistone,knowledgeofGod(andItscreation)andanimitatioDeiconsequentuponsuchknowledge.Correlativetothedegreesofdivineprovidentialcareconsequentuponintellectualinsightisagradedhierarchyofhumanperfectionandhappiness.Humanhap-pinessisafunctionofknowledgeofGodandimitationofItsways.InthisintellectualistandelitistvisionMaimonidesseemstojoinhandswithAristotle,wholikewisepresentsanintellectualistpor-traitofthehumangoodandconsequentlyholdsthebeliefthattruehumanfelicityisattainableonlybyaveryfew.ButwhileonecannotgainsayMaimonides’elitism,hedoestemperorreconceptualizetheintellectualistvisionofthehumangood,fortheimitatioDeicon-sequentuponknowledgeofGodentailsmoralandpoliticalactionforthebenefitofhumankind.14ContrarytoAristotelianimitatioDei,whichisapolitical,evincingdivineunconcernforthematerialworld,MaimonideanimitatioDei,paradigmaticallyillustratedbyMosaicprophecy,mirrorsGod’sprovidentialcareforItscreation.ForMaimonides,humanbeingsachievetheirtrueendandbestexpresstheirknowledgeandloveofGodbyennoblingthecreatedorder.influenceOfAquinas,McInernysays,Thereisanoldmaxim,passedonbyPicodellaMirandola:SineThoma,Aristotelesmutusesset:withoutThomas,Aristotlewouldbesilent.Thephraseisasignaltributetothe[Thomistic]commentaries[onAristotle].Butthereverseoftheclaimisalsotrue,andtruethroughoutThomas’scareer:SineAristotele,Thomasnonesset[withoutAristotle,Thomaswouldnotbe].15ThislatterclaimisasapplicabletoMaimonidesasitistoAquinas,andwehaveseenpreviouslytheimmenseindebted-nessofMaimonidestoAristotle.ItisquiteimpossibletoimagineMaimonideswithoutAristotle.Itisequallyimpossibletoimag-ineJewishphilosophywithoutMaimonides.WithoutMaimonides,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n154MedievalJewishphilosophyJewishphilosophywouldnotbe.Thisisaverygrandclaim,butasyoucontinue(Ihope)toreadthroughthishistoryofJewishphilos-ophy,itisimpossibletooverlooktheimpactthatthetranslationofMaimonides’philosophicalworkintoHebrewhadontheintellec-tualpublic.FromtheearlythirteenthcenturyonMaimonides’viewsbecamethestartingpointforalltherelevanttheoreticaldiscussionsoncreation,divinelanguage,prophecy,divineprovidence,andsoon.Hispositionswereagreedupon,disagreedupon,interpreted,andmisinterpreted.Forsome,hewasthefinalword;forothers,asin-gularlydangerousinfluence.Maimonides’influenceisubiquitous.Perhapsthisisbestexplainedbyauniquecombinationofadeepreligioussensibilityandanunwaveringloyaltytothegeneralphilo-sophicalandscientificcultureofhistime.ThetwoarenotunrelatedforMaimonides.Forhim,loveofGodisafunctionofintellectualactivity(only).Asageneralreligiousclaim,thisoneishardlyun-controversial,butIbelieveitbestencapsulatesthetrajectoryofhisreligiousphilosophy.Evenhisgreatestcritic,Spinoza,fellunderitssway.16notes1.A.Halkin(trans.)andD.Hartman,CrisisandLeadership:EpistlesofMaimonides(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,1985).2.L.Strauss,“HowtoBegintoStudyTheGuideofthePerplexed,”inTheGuideofthePerplexed,trans.S.Pines(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1963),xi–lvi;L.Strauss,“TheLiteraryCharacterofTheGuideofthePerplexed,”inEssaysonMaimonides:AnOctocentennialVolume,ed.S.W.Baron(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1941),37–91.3.J.Guttmann,PhilosophiesofJudaism,trans.D.Silverman(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1973[1933]),172–207,503–4n.125;L.Strauss,Philos-ophyandtheLaw:ContributionstotheUnderstandingofMaimonidesandhisPredecessors,trans.E.Adler(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1994[1935]);J.Guttmann,“PhilosophiederReligionoderPhilosophiedesGesetzes?,”ProceedingsoftheIsraelAcademyofSci-encesandHumanities5(1974),148–73(written1940–45);seealsoE.Schweid,“ReligionandPhilosophy:TheScholarly-TheologicalDe-batebetweenJuliusGuttmannandLeoStrauss,”MaimonideanStudies1(1990),163–95;K.H.Green,JewandPhilosopher:TheReturntoMai-monidesintheJewishThoughtofLeoStrauss(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1993).4.Guttmann,PhilosophiesofJudaism,152.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandmedievalJewishAristotelianism1555.A.Ivry,“NeoplatonicCurrentsinMaimonides’Thought,”inPerspec-tivesonMaimonides:PhilosophicalandHistoricalStudies,ed.J.L.Kraemer(Oxford:LittmanLibrary,1991),138.6.Guttmann,PhilosophiesofJudaism,152.7.R.McInerny(ed.andtrans.),ThomasAquinas:SelectedWritings(Harmondsworth:Penguin,1998),xxxi;myemphasis.8.D.H.Frank,“ReasoninAction:The‘Practicality’ofMaimonides’Guide,”inCommandmentandCommunity:NewEssaysinJewishLe-galandPoliticalPhilosophy,ed.D.H.Frank(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1995),69–84;J.Stern,“Maimonides’Demonstra-tions:PrinciplesandPractice,”MedievalPhilosophyandTheology10(2001),47–84.9.S.Pines(trans.),TheGuideofthePerplexed,2vols.(Chicago:Univer-sityofChicagoPress,1963).ArevisededitionofaclassicabridgmentinEnglishoftheGuidewaspublishedbyHackettin1995:C.Rabin(trans.),TheGuideofthePerplexed,withintroductionandcommentarybyJ.GuttmannandnewintroductionbyD.H.Frank(Indianapolis:Hackett,1995).10.M.Kellner,MaimonidesonHumanPerfection(Atlanta:ScholarsPress,1990),64.11.FromthebeginningofhisintellectualcareertotheendMaimonidesiscommittedtosuchphilosophicalopenness.IntheforwardtotheearlyShemonahPeraqim(EightChapters),theintroductiontohiscommen-taryonPirqeiAvot,Maimonideswrites,“Know...thattheideaspre-sentedinthesechaptersandinthefollowingcommentaryarenotofmyowninvention;neitherdidIthinkouttheexplanationscontainedtherein,butIhavegleanedthemfromthewordsofthewiseoccurringinthemidrashim,intheTalmud,andinotheroftheirworks,aswellasfromthewordsofthephilosophers,ancientandrecent,andalsofromtheworksofvariousauthors,asoneshouldacceptthetruthfromwhat-eversourceitproceeds”(trans.J.Gorfinkle;myemphasis).Maimonidesisasgoodashisword,fortheemphasizedlastsentimentisitselfderivedfromanArabsource,al-Kindi!(OnFirstPhilosophy,103[=58,inA.Ivry[ed.],Al-Kindi’sMetaphysics[Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1974]).12.T.M.Rudavsky(ed.),DivineOmniscienceandOmnipotenceinMedievalPhilosophy(Dordrecht:Reidel,1984).13.TheclassicMaimonideandefenseofhumanfreewillisfoundinShemonahPeraqim,ch.8.Fortheequivocityofhumananddivineknowledge,seeGuide3:20.14.Guide3:54.MaimonidesdevelopshisviewshereaboutimitatioDeiwithreferencetoJeremiah9:22–3:“Letnotthewisemangloryinhiswisdom;letnotthestrongmangloryinhisstrength;letnottherichCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n156MedievalJewishphilosophymangloryinhisriches.Butonlyinthisshouldoneglory:inhisearnestdevotiontoMe.ForItheLordactwithkindness,justice,andequityintheworld;forintheseIdelight.”Ofthisverse,Maimonidescomments:“Thustheendthathe[Jeremiah]setsforthinthisversemaybestatedasfollows:Itisclearthattheperfectionofmanthatmaytrulybegloriedinistheoneacquiredbyhimwhohasachieved,inameasurecorrespondingtohiscapacity,apprehensionofHim,mayHebeexalted,andwhoknowsHisprovidenceextendingoverHiscreaturesasmanifestedintheactofbringingthemintobeingandintheirgovernanceasitis.Thewayoflifeofsuchanindividual,afterhehasachievedthisapprehension,willalwayshaveinviewloving-kindness,righteousness,andjudgment,throughassimilationtoHisactions,mayHebeexalted,justaswehaveexplainedseveraltimesinthistreatise.”15.McInerny(ed.andtrans.),ThomasAquinas,xxxiv.16.EthicsV,Props.32–3,42(cf.Guide3:51);andseeW.Z.Harvey,“APortraitofSpinozaasaMaimonidean,”JournaloftheHistoryofPhilosophy19(1981),151–72.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\ntzvilangermann8MaimonidesandthesciencesNosinglepersonhadasgreatanimpactonJewishthoughtasdidMosesMaimonides(1138–1204).Inadditiontohistremendousac-complishmentsinthefieldsofphilosophyandlaw,Maimonideswasthoroughlyversedinthesciencesofhisday,andthescienceswerefullyintegratedintohisviewofJudaism;indeed,Maimonides’out-lookwasguidedinlargepartbythescientificopinionofhisday.1Hisphilosophyassertstheunityofalltruth,thatthedeity,inkeep-ingwithArabicusage,isinfactTheTruth(al-haqq),andthatthereligiousimperativetoknowGodisessentiallythesameasthephilo-sophicalimperativetodeterminethetruth.Manystatementsissuingfromthedifferentbranchesofknowledgeclaimtobetrue.However,Maimonidesaffirms,thestrongestandsecurestclaimstotrutharemadebythesciences,mostespeciallythemathematicalsciences,whosestatementsaredemonstratedwithlogicalrigor.Moreover,ofallthecomponentsofthecosmos,itistheheavenlybodies,withtheirregularmotionandsubtlephysics,thatdisclosesomethingap-proachingthenatureofthedivine.Furthermore,thehumanbodyismarvelouslyconstructed,anditsstudyisalsousefulforthereligiousquest.Thescienceofmedicine,whichconductsthisinvestigation,isalsoimportantasaguidefortheconductofahealthylife–alifeasfreeaspossiblefromthephysicalandemotionaldisturbancesthatinterferewiththereligiousquest.Thesethreepoints–science’sabilitytoformulatetruestatements,andthespecialrolesassignedtoastronomyandmedicine–arethemosttellingcausesforMaimonides’decisiontoassignaverypromi-nentroletothesciencesinhisreligiousphilosophy.InthischapterIshallattempttocoverthemostimportantareaswherethisdeci-sioncameintoplay.AfterbrieflydescribingMaimonides’education157CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n158MedievalJewishphilosophyandcontributionstothescientificliterature,Ishalldiscussacom-plexofissuesrelatedtoastronomy,arguablythemostimportantsci-enceforMaimonides.NextIshallturntomedicine,discussing,inturn,medical,philosophical,andreligiousregimensforhealth;tele-ology;andthedefinitionsofhumanityandthefixityofthespecies.InthethirdsectionIshalldiscussmathematics,numerology,andPythagoreanism.Finally,inthefourthsection,IshalldescribeMaimonides’evolvingviewsonthequestionofmiracles.scientificeducationandcareerMaimonides’formativeyearswerespentinSpainandNorthAfrica.Withtheexceptionofsomeveryrevealingremarksconcerninghisextremegriefatthelossofhisbrother,Maimonidesneverdiscusseshispersonalbiography.However,therearesomescatteredreferencesintheGuidetohiseducationinastronomy,andonefindssomere-marksinhismedicalwritingsonhistraininginthatfield.AlloftherecordedepisodestookplacebeforeMaimonides’emigrationtotheEast,andallofthescholarsnamed–IbnBajja,JabiribnAflah,AbuMarwanibnZuhr–withwhomMaimonideshaddirectorindirectcontact(viastudentsorrelations)wereAndalusiansaswell.Accord-ingtotheArabicbibliographers,Maimonideseditedtextsintheex-actsciencesbyIbnAflahandIbnHud,bothofthemAndalusians.Theproblemofepicyclesandeccenters,asourceofmuchconster-nationforMaimonides,vexedAndalusianastronomersinparticular,thoughtheproblemwasraisedintheEastaswell.Finally,themajor-ityofmedicalauthoritieswhomMaimonidesciteshailedfromtheMuslimWest.MaimonideswasaMaghrebianworkinginEgypt.AlmostallofMaimonides’extantscientificwritingsareinthefieldofmedicine.Theseincludetwolargecompendia,FusulMusa(PirqeiMoshe)andhisepitomesoftheworksofGalen,whichhewroteforhisownuse,andabouthalfadozenmonographsonavarietyofmedicalissues(hygieneandregimen,asthma,hemorrhoids,toxi-cology,sexualmedicine)thatwerewrittenatthebehestofpatrons.Inaddition,hewroteacommentaryonHippocrates’Aphorisms,aworkthat,asMaimonideshimselftellsus,waswidelystudied,andnotjustbyphysicians.Asfarastheexactsciencesareconcerned,MaimonideshasleftusamethodforsolvingtherathercomplicatedproblemoftheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandthesciences159possibilityofsightingthelunarcrescent.Unlikehisotherscien-tificwritings,thisworkisinHebrew,integratedintoMaimonides’comprehensivelegalencyclopaedia,MishnehTorah.Heisreportedtohavewrittenanumberoftreatisesinmathematics.Allthatre-mains,however,aresomenotestotheConicsofApollonius.astronomyMaimonides’mosttellingpronouncementsonthescientificenter-priseanditsplaceinhisthoughtarerelatedtoastronomy.Issuesconnectedwiththescienceoftheheavensareraisedatseveraljunc-turesintheGuide,andseveralchaptersaredevotedtothesubject.Maimonidesclearlyisoftheopinionthatathoroughmasteryofas-tronomyisaprerequisiteforthereligiousquestandthatknowledgeoftheheavensmustnecessarilyprecedeanyknowledgeofGod.JusthowmuchonecanknowofGod,orhowmuchsecureknowledgeoftheheavensisavailable,remaindifficultproblemsforMaimonidesandhisinterpreters.BeforeexaminingsomeoftheastronomicalpassagesfromtheGuide,however,letusfirstlookatthediscussioninMaimonides’legalcode,MishnehTorah.ThelatterisalegalcodedirectedtowardthewidestpossibleJewishaudience.Bycontrast,theGuide–ifwemaytakethededicatoryepistleatfacevalue–containsinfor-mationthatMaimonideschosetorevealtohisprizestudentonlyafterthelatterhadcompletedhisstudiesinastronomy,mathemat-ics,andlogic.Moreover,sometwentydifficultyearsseparatethetwoworks,andMaimonidessurelyunderwentsomechangesofheart,ofgreaterorlessersignificance.Thefirstfourchaptersofthefirstsec-tionofMishnehTorah,TheBasicPrinciplesoftheTorah,containastraightforwardandconciseaccountofmetaphysicsandnaturalsci-ence.Maimonideshimselftellsus(4:10)thatthesubjectofthefirsttwois“MaasehMerkavah”–theologyandmetaphysics–andthatofthesecondtwo“MaasehBereshit”–physics.Chapter1concernsthedeity.Thebeginningofchapter2outlineshumanity’squestforthedeity,toknow,fear,andultimatelytoloveGod;therestofthechap-terdescribesthe“creaturesthatareformwithoutmatteratall,thatistosay,theangels.”Thefirstparagraphsaremeanttoindicatethatthebridgebetweenthelowerworldanditsmostnoblecreature,thehumanbeing,isknowledgeofGod,whichcanonlybeobtainedbyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n160MedievalJewishphilosophymeansofathoroughstudyofthecreatedworld:thisnotionisakeyelementinMaimonides’philosophyandonetowardwhichhiscommitmentisconstant,whateverdeliberations,doubts,andshiftsinattitudehemayhaveundergoneovertheyears.Maimonidesendorsesthestandardmedievalcosmology:anearth-centered,finite,andsphericalcosmos,withinwhichthereisasharpdistinctionbetweenthecelestialandterrestrialrealms.Theformerreachesfromtheoutermostorbtotheorbofthemoon;thelattercomprisestheremainingspace,whichisoccupiedbytheearthanditsatmosphere.2Bothrealmscontainbodiesthataremadeupofmatterandformandareinunceasingmotion;butherethesimilarityends.Thecompositionoftheheavenlybodiesisfixedandunchanging,andtheircircularmotionsareunending.Bycontrast,bodiesintheterrestrialrealmareinconstantflux;theyundergogrowth,diminu-tion,generation,corruption,andotherformsofmotion,constantlyexchangingoneformforanother.Terrestrialprocessesareallulti-matelydrivenbythemotionoftheheavenlysphere;thisdynamic,unidirectionalconnectiongivesaunityofsortstothecosmos.Moreover,theheavenlybeingsarelivingandintelligent.Onearth,however,onlyindividualsbelongingtoonespecies–thehumanspecies–havethepotentialtobecomeintelligent.Letuslookatthispictureinsomewhatmoredetail.Chapter3describes“creaturesthatarecompoundedofformandmatter,butwhichdonotchangefrombodytobodyorfromformtoform...butrathertheirformisforeverfixedwithintheirmatter”;thesearethecelestialbodies.Theheavensaremadeupofcolorlessorbs,superimposeduponeachother“likethelayersofanonion.”Thereareeighteenorbsthatencompasstheearthandanothereightthatdonot;thelatteraretheepicycles.Nogeometricalmodelsaredescribed,andveryfewquantitiesaredisplayed.The“slowmotion”ofthefixedstars,thatisprecession,issaidtoapproximateinseventyyearsthemotionofthesuninoneday.Thevolumeoftheearthis40timesthatofthemoon,andthatofthesun170timesthatoftheearth,sothatthesunissome6,800timesaslargeasthemoon.Mostastronomicaltextsdealatgreatlengthwiththemotionsofthestarsinlongitudeandlatitude;discussionsoftheirsizes,whenincludedatall,areusuallyquitebrief.Maimonides’relativeallot-mentofspacetothesetopicsinMishnehTorahthusseemstore-flectthepurposesofhisexposition,whichinthiscasearetoenthralCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandthesciences161amathematicallyuneducatedaudiencewithsomehintsaboutthecosmicdimensions.Thedataashepresentsthemarecorrectbythestandardsofmedievalastronomy.Maimonideshasnotdistortedany-thing;hehasratherselectedcertainfactsoutofmanyandpresentedtheminawaythatsuitshispurpose.Doesthisobservationholdtrueforotherfeaturesofhisaccount?Asweshallsee,Maimonideswasawareofseriousdoubtsthatbesetsomefeaturesofthepicturehepresents,forexampleepicycles;andhecertainlyknewoftheseprob-lemsatthetimehewroteMishnehTorah.Whydoesheincludeepicy-clesinhisaccount?IshedeliberatelymisleadingtheaudienceoftheMishnehTorah,thegreatmajorityofwhomwouldnotwishtoentertainanydoubtsatallconcerningsublimematters?OrisitratherthereadersoftheGuidewhomheismisdirectingbyexag-geratingtheimplicationsofhisdoubtsonthismatter?Weshalltakeupthesecriticalquestionsabitlater.LetusfirstlookatanimportantpointthatisstressedbothintheMishnehTorahandintheGuide.Intheformer(BasicPrinciples3:1)Maimonidesstates:“Theninthorbistheonewhichcompletesacycleeachdayfromeasttowest.Itisthatwhichencompassesevery-thing,anditisthatwhichsetseverythingin[circular]motion.”3Theoutermostorbisidentifiedasthecauseofallmotioninthecosmos.Theimmediatecontextofthepassagemaysuggestthattheouter-mostorbisthecauseonlyofthecircularmotionofalltheothercelestialorbs.However,inthenextchapter(BasicPrinciples4:6),therevolutionoftheorbisnamedasthecauseofallphysicalalter-ationintheterrestrialsphere.ThisisakeyaxiominMaimonides’cosmology,suggestingthatallchangeormotioncanbetracedulti-matelytoasinglesource,namely,theoutermostorb,whosemotion(onecircuiteverytwenty-fourhours)isswiftandpowerful;itisanimportantunifyingprincipleforthecosmoswithtellingtheologicalimplications.Hisvacillationswithregardtoseveralimportantissuesnotwith-standing,Maimonidesiscertainaboutwhathesaysabouttheout-ermostorb.ItstruthisneverquestionedintheGuide;quitethecontrary,thespecialroleoftheoutermostorbistreatedthereasoneofthebedrocksofbelief.OnekeyexpositionofthisthemeisfoundinGuide2:30,whereMaimonidesindicatessomehintsaboutthespe-cialstatusoftheoutermostorbinbiblicalandaggadictextsrelatingtothe“makingofthefirmament”describedinGenesis1:6–8.4CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n162MedievalJewishphilosophyInterpretationsofthispassagehavedifferedgreatly.5Thismuch,however,isclear:Maimonidestakesthebiblical“water”torefertosomeundifferentiatedprimevalstuff.Onthesecondday,partsofthis“water”weregivendifferentforms,resultinginafundamentaldivisioninthematerialcomponentsoftheuniverse.Butwhatwasdifferentiatedintowhat?And,presumingthatthebiblicalstorywill,inMaimonides’interpretation,refertosomebasicnaturalprocesses,whichprocessesarehintedatinthebiblicalnarrative?ShemTovibnFalaqueraisrepresentativeoftheconsensusofcommentatorsontheGuideinfindinginMaimonidesareferencetothethreefolddivisionoftheearth’satmosphere:the“upperwaters”areAristotle’shotex-halation,the“firmament”(raqia)isthelowerstratumoccupiedbythecoldexhalation,andthe“oceans”refertotheelementalwatersfoundonearth.IbnFalaquerareferstoanothercommentator,MosesNarboni,whoaddsthatthenaturalprocessinvolvedhereisthatofrainfall,onceagainaccordingtoAristotle’stheory.Tobesure,someJewishrationalists,mostnotablyAbrahamibnEzra(twelfthcentury),hadinterpretedthebiblical“firmament”astheatmosphere.ThereisastrongtendencyamongJewishthinkers,whichpeakedinthefourteenthcentury,toconflatetheviewsofMaimonidesandIbnEzra;anditispossiblethatmanyreadersoftheGuideexpectedMaimonidestointerpretthebiblicalstoryjustasIbnEzrahaddone.Indeed,Maimonidesreferstojustthisinterpre-tationwhenheobserves,“Forifthematterisconsideredaccordingtoitsexternalmeaningandwitharecourseonlytosuperficialspec-ulation,it[thefirmamentandthethingaboveit]doesnotexistatall.Forbetweenusandthelowestheaven,thereexistsnobodyex-cepttheelements...”6However,MaimonidesimmediatelydrawsasharpdistinctionbetweenthisapproachandtheBible’s“innermean-ingand...whatwastrulyintended”–andMaimonidesiseagertofindtheinnermeaningandtrueintentionofthebiblicalverse.ItseemstomethatMaimonides’discussionwasmisconstruedbythemedievaltranslatorsandmostofthecommentators,who,mis-ledbyaseeminglyambiguousArabicword,thoughtMaimonidestobedescribingprocesseswithintheearth’satmosphere,inaman-nersimilartothatdescribedbyAristotelianmeteorology.Infact,Maimonidesistalkingaboutsomethingelseentirely.Heisreturn-ingtoanimportantthemetowhichhehadearlierdevotedanentirechapter(Guide2:26),namelythatthematerialcomponentoftheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandthesciences163heavensisutterlydifferentfromthatoftheearth;this,hestresses,isoneofthefundamentalprinciplesofcosmology.Inthepassageun-derscrutinyMaimonidessuggeststhatthefurtherdifferentiation,withinthecelestialrealm,betweentheall-encompassinghighestsphereandtherestoftheheavensissosignificantastowarrantinclusioninthebiblicalcreationstory;indeed,itistheseconddif-ferentiationtohaveoccurred,precededonlybythedifferentiationbetweendarknessandlight.Henceitistruetosaythatthebiblical“water,”whichsignifiestheprimordialstuffoftheuniverse,wasdividednotintotwo,butintothreebasiccomponents:thehighestorb,therestoftheheavens,andtheterrestrialrealm.Thedistinc-tionbetweenthehighestorbandtheheavenshadbeenadumbratedbefore,atthebeginningofGuide2:9.InthepassagefromGuide2:30,itappearsthatMaimonideswishestogoonestepfurther,implyingthatthedistinctionbetweenthetwoiseverybitassignificantasthatbetweentheheavensandtheearth.IncontrasttotheexpositionofGuide2:30,thespecialstatusoftheoutermostorbisspelledoutratherplainlyinGuide1:70,whereMaimonidesdisclosesthebasicfeaturesofhisworldview,discussingboththephysicalworkingsofthecosmosandthemannerinwhichGodisthecauseofitall.ThisschemewasheldbyMaimonidestobecorrect,whateverdoubtsorunsolvedproblemsbesetthedetailsofitsoperation.ThekeytenetsofMaimonides’cosmologyarethat“thedeity...isthemoverofthehighestheaven,bywhosemotioneverythingthatisinmotionwithinthisheavenismoved;atthesametime,he,mayhebeexalted,isseparatefromthis[thatis,thehighest]heavenandnotaforcesubsistingwithinit.”(Guide1:70).Insum,then,accordingtoourinterpretation,Maimonidesassertsthatthecosmoshasthreemaincomponents:theoutermostorb,setinmotiondirectlybyGod;theheavens,whichtransmitdownwardthemotionimpartedtothembytheoutermostorb;andtheterres-trialsphere,whosecomplexmotionsandprocessesareultimatelycausedbytheheavenlymotions.Thisfundamentaldifferentiationofthematerialworldisconveyedbythebiblicalaccountofthesec-onddayofthecreation.However,thegreatmajorityofreadersoftheGuideunderstoodMaimonidestobereferringinhisexplicationofthetextfromGenesistoadifferentprocessofdifferentiation,namelythestratificationoftheatmosphere,inlinewiththedoctrinesofAristotle’sMeteorology.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n164MedievalJewishphilosophyByeitheraccount,theBiblenarratesthedifferentiationinmythicfashion,soastohideagreatsecretfromthemasses.Maimonidesremainsfirminwishingnottouncovermattersthatarebestlefthidden;indeed,hisexpositioniscrypticenoughtoallowthewidelydivergentinterpretationsmentionedintheprecedingparagraph.Yetbothofthese“secrets”arerevealedintheMishnehTorah.Ihavealreadycitedthepassagethatclarifiesthespecialfunctionofthehighestorb.Theatmosphericevents,whichbelongtothegeneralclassofprocessesofchangeandalteration,arementionedseveraltimes,forexampleinBasicPrinciples4:5:Thesefourelementschangeintooneanotherconstantly,everydayandeveryhour;butonlypartofthem,nottheirentirebody.How[doesithappen]?Thepartoftheearththatisadjacenttowaterchanges,disintegrates,andbecomeswater.Similarly,thepartofthewaterthatisadjacenttotheairchanges,evaporates,andbecomesair...andsoalsothepartoftheairthatisadjacenttowaterchanges,precipitates,andbecomeswater...Howarewetoexplainthis?HowcanMaimonidesfreelydisclosescientificinformationthat,byhisownaccount,wasoccludedbytheBible,andlaterbytherabbis?IntheyearsthatintervenebetweenthewritingoftheMishnehTorahandtheGuideMaimonides’thoughtcertainlydidevolve,butnotinsucharadicalformthathewouldtrytocoverupinformationhehimselfhadfreelysharedearlieron.Isuggestacombinationofexplanationsthatwillfleshoutnotonlythedifferencesbetweenthetwotexts,butsomeimportantfacetsofMaimonides’attitudetowardthescientificenterpriseaswell.7WemustfirstbringintothepictureMaimonides’viewsonthehistoryofscience.Maimonidesadherestoarathersimplepictureofthesteadyprogressofscienceovertime.Latergenerationspos-sessmoreandbetterknowledgethandidearliergenerations.TheIsraelitestowhomthecreationstory,alongwiththerestoftheTorah,wasrevealedconstitutedacommunityofemancipatedslaves,who,perhaps,hadnotfullyshakenofftheirspiritualbondage.Moreover,atthatmomentinhistory–wellbeforethetimeofAristotle–thelevelofscientificknowledgethatwasavailablewasnotveryhigh.TheBible,therefore,hadgoodreasontonarratethecreationasastory.Bythetimeoftherabbis,sciencehadprogressedconsiderably.Nevertheless,theintellectuallevelofthemassesremainedlow,andmanydetails,especiallyinthefieldofastronomy,remainedobscureCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandthesciences165eventothebestofscholars.Thustherabbistoohadtospeakinpara-bles.ByMaimonides’owntime,however,thesituationhadchangedradically.AstronomyhadadvancedwellbeyondwhatevenAristotlehadknown.Moreover,aplethoraofrichtexts,writtenforthemostpartinArabic,madescientificknowledgewidelyavailable.TherewasthusnoreasonwhyMaimonides,inhisMishnehTorah,couldnotofferthesametypeofsummaryaccountthatcouldbefoundinalargenumberofworksthatwereincirculationatthetime.TheGuide,however,hasaspecialpurpose:toinformtheintelli-gentandperplexedJewthattheverytruthsthathecouldnowfreelyaccessarefoundinthetraditionalsources.Forthereasonsjustout-lined,theseancientsourcescouldrelaytheirmessageonlyfigura-tively.Maimonidestookituponhimselftoshowhow,whenreadproperly,thetraditionaltextscontainatrueaccount.Butthisisstillnotafullanswertoourquestions:WhyisMaimonides’interpreta-tionnolesscrypticthanthetextheisexplicating?Ifscienceisnolongerasecret,whymustMaimonidesbesocautiousandelusiveinsuggestingthecorrectinterpretation?TheanswertothesequestionsliesinthefactthatMaimonideshadtodealnotonlywiththetextsbutwithaconsiderablebodyofinterpretationthathadbuiltuparoundthem.MaimonidesknowsfullwellthatmanyJewswhohaveassimilatedotherapproacheswillnotbesympathetictohisreading.Althoughheisgenerallycarefulnottoengageearlierexegetesinpolemics,hisfeelingscomeoutclearlyinthispassagefromtheintroductiontotheGuide:Butthosewhoareconfusedandwhosebrainshavebeenpollutedbyfalseopinionsandmisleadingwaysdeemedbythemtobetruesciences,andwhoholdthemselvestobemenofspeculationwithouthavinganyknowledgeofanythingthatcantrulybecalledscience,thosewillfleefrommanyofits[theGuide’s]chapters(Guide1:introduction).S.MunkwascertainthatMaimonideswasheretargetingthemu-takallimun,theMuslimthinkerswhoadvocatedanatomisticocca-sionalismandwhoseviewsfoundconsiderableappealamongsomeJewishthinkers.8However,inviewofthewiderangeofapproachesthatarecriticizedeversoobliquelyintheGuide,itismorelikelythatMaimonidesisherelumpingtogetherthevarietyofinterpretationsofJewishdoctrineknowntohim,andwhich,inhisestimation,hadCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n166MedievalJewishphilosophymadesignificantenoughinroadsamongJewishliteratithatitwouldbebestforhimonlytohintathisowninterpretation.Havingsaidallofthis,wemustacknowledgetheexistenceofsomedifferencesinthefactsastheyarepresentedinthetwoworks,particularlyinmattersofastronomy.Torecapitulate:accordingtotheMishnehTorah,thereareeighteengeocentricorbsandanothereightepicycles;andtheninthorbisthehighest,all-encompassingsphere.IsthisaccountacceptabletotheMaimonidesoftheGuide?Thecorrectreply,inmyview,isyes,butnotprecisely.Letusfirstlookatthecountofthespheres.Concerningthegeo-centricorbs,MaimonideswritesinGuide1:72,“Itisnotpossible...thatthenumberofthespheresencompassingtheworldshouldbelessthaneighteen.Itis,however,possiblethattheirnumbershouldbegreaterthaneighteen.”Thenumberofspherespresentedstraight-forwardlyintheMishnehTorahis,intruth,onlytheminimumnumberofspheresrequiredtoaccountfortheobservedmotions.Therabbiscountedthehighestsphere,aravot,astheseventh.InthisconnectionMaimonidescomments,“Donotthinkitblame-worthythataccordingtotheirreckoningthereweresevenheav-ens,whereastherearemorethanthat.Forsometimes...asphereiscountedasonethoughtherebeseveralheavenscontainedinit”(Guide1:70).Takeninconjunctionwiththeprecedingcitation,wemayaddthatMaimonidesisnottobeheldaccountableforcountingthehighestsphereastheninth,eventhoughthattoomaynotbeprecise.Itappearstobethecase,then,thattheinformationprovidedintheMishnehTorahisnotfalseormisleading.Itis,however,lessprecisethantheplainstyleofitsexpositionmayimply.Itisimportanttohavethispointinmindwhenturningtothethirdandmostdifficultissue,namelytheexistenceofepicycles,and,moregenerally,thetruthofPtolemaicastronomy.AnumberofIslamicastronomershadraisedseriousdoubtsaboutsomeofPtolemy’sdevices,especiallyepicyclesandeccenters.Andalusianscholarsevincedaparticularsensitivitytotheseproblems,and,asheinformsusintheGuide,MaimonidesinhisyouthhadinquiredaboutthemdirectlyfromsomeleadingAndalusianscholars.AnentirechapteroftheGuide(2:24)isdevotedtotheseissues.Maimonidesreviewssomesolutionsthathadcometohisattention–heisinfactouronlysourceforsomeofthismaterial–noneofwhichhefindstobesatisfying.HeendsCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandthesciences167thechapterwithtwoseeminglycontradictorypronouncements,firstdeclaringittobewrong“tofatiguethemindswithnotionsthatcannotbegraspedbythem”butthen,inhisfinalmusing,allowingforthepossibilitythatsomeoneelsemayfindasolution.TheprecisenatureofMaimonides’positiononthisquestion,andtheimplicationsforhisideasonthetaskofastronomyandthelimitsofhumanknowledge,haveexercisedscholarsforseveraldecades.9Maimonidesrealizedthatgeocentricspheresalonecouldnotsuf-ficetoaccountfortheobservedphenomena.HeoveremphasizedthedepthsofthedilemmainordertoscoreanimportantpointagainstAristotle’sdoctrineoftheeternityoftheuniverse,whichrestsprin-cipallyontheunending,regular,andcircularmotionsoftheheavens.HewasconfidentenoughaboutthenecessityoftheepicyclesthathecouldpresentthemintheMishnehTorahaspartofthetruecos-mography.However,thepreciseconfigurationthatwouldaccountforthetransmissionoftheswift,dailymotionoftheencompassingorbdownwardwasunknowntohim.ThedifferencesbetweentheMishnehTorahandtheGuidearethosethatonefindsbetweenanelementaryandanadvancedcourseinthesciences.Informationthat,attheintroductorylevel,isdrylypresentedas“thesimplefacts,”turnsouttobelesssimpleandlesscertainthemoreoneadvancesinone’sstudies.TheGuidewaswrit-tenforanadvancedstudent,onewhocouldandshouldknowhowtohandlethedoubtsthatinevitablyariseinanyseriousinquiry.Maimonides(Guide1:32)warnshisreaders:Whenpointsappearingasdubiousappeartohim[theseriousstudent]orthethingdoesnotseemtohimtobedemonstrated,heshouldnotdenyorrejectit,hasteningtopronounceitfalse,butrathershouldpersevereandtherebyhaveregardforthehonourofhisCreator.Heshouldrefrainandholdback.medicineandthelifesciencesMaimonidesachievedgreatfameforhisexpertiseinmedicine.De-spitetheinterestthathasbeenshowninhismedicalcareer,lit-tlecanbesaidatpresentconcerningMaimonides’achievementsinmedicine,beyondsummarizingthecontentsofhistreatises.More-over,hisinterestinthelifesciencesconnectsstronglytosomekeyissuesofhisphilosophy,andtheseconnectionsremainforthemostCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n168MedievalJewishphilosophypartunexplored.InthefollowingIshallpointtosomekeyissuesandattempttoindicatetheirsignificance.10PerhapsthemostcriticalproblemfromthepointofviewofMaimonides’religiousphilosophyconcernsthedefinitionof“species,”specifically,doeshumanityconstituteaspecies?11ThoughMaimonidesdoesspeakofthehumanspecies,heintimatesthatinthecaseofhumanstheconceptisnotexact.Instead,heap-pearstoholdthatthosepeoplewhosucceedinactualizingtheirhu-manityformacollectionofindividualssodifferentfromtheotherthattheterm“species”mustbestretchedconsiderablyinordertoapplytoall.AllusionstothispositionarefoundinthechapteroftheGuide(2:40)whereMaimonidesspeaksofmanasapoliticalanimal:[T]herearemanydifferencesbetweentheindividualsbelongingtoit[thehumanspecies],sothatyoucanhardlyfindtwoindividualswhoareinaccordwithrespecttooneofthespeciesofmoralhabits...Nothinglikethisgreatdifferencebetweenthevariousindividualsisfoundamongtheotherspeciesofanimals,inwhichthedifferencebetweentheindividualsbelongingtothesamespeciesissmall,manbeinginthisrespectanexception.Thatchapterisconcernedwithpolitics,andMaimonidespointstothewidedivergencebetweenindividualsinordertomakethepointthathumansocietiesrequirewisegovernance.Here,aselsewhereintheGuide,however,apointthatisraisedostensiblyasapream-bletoaparticularargumentis,infact,ofimportanceinitsownright.ThereaderoftheGuideisinformedaboutthefullimplicationsoftheseremarksonlyafterMaimonideshasspokenaboutprophecyandprovidence.ThecentraltextisthebeginningofGuide3:18,whereMaimonideswrites:Isaythatitisknownthatnospeciesexistsoutsidethemind...andthateveryexistentoutsidethemindisanindividualoragroupofindividuals.Thisbeingknown,itisalsoknownthatthedivineoverflowthatexistsunitedtothehumanspecies,Imeanthehumanintellect,ismerelywhatexistsasindividualintellects...Speciesisamentalconcept,usefulfororganizingknowledge,andmedicinewouldbehardpressedtodowithoutit.However,accord-ingtoMaimonides,specieshavenoindependentexistencedetachedCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandthesciences169fromtheobjectstheyclassify.Therefore,wearefreetoclassifyindividualsbearingalltheoutward,physicalformsofhumansaseitherhumanorbeast,withallthatthisclassificationimplies.In-dividualswhohaveachievedsomemeasureof(intellectual)perfec-tion,soastowarrantdivinegovernance,havetherebyachievedthekeydistinguishingtraitofhumans:linkageoftheirintellectwiththedivine.The“ignorantanddisobedient,”bycontrast,“havebeenrelegatedtotherankoftheindividualsofalltheotherspeciesofanimal”(Guide3:18).ThisapproachjibeswellwithsomeremarksfoundinMaimonides’medicalwritings,wheretheindividual’sbodyiscalledan“animal,”whichmustbetrainedanddisciplined,justasonetrainsabeastofburden.Forexample,apersonshouldnotbecomedependentonlaxatives,sincethiswillcausehispersonal“beast”tobelazywithregardtodigestionandexcretion.Beyondsituationsrelatingtospe-cificmedicalproblems,however,thenotionofdisciplineorregimenisacentralconceptofthemedicineoftheperiod,andoneinwhichthetasksofmedicine,philosophy,andreligionoverlapand,occasion-ally,comeintoconflict.Maimonidesemphasizesthepreventiveroleofamedicalregimeninpreservinghealth.Heconsideredthetopicimportantenoughtobeincludedinhislawcode,MishnehTorah,whereseveralchaptersaredevotedtoadviceonproperdiet,sleep,bathing,andsexualactivity,culminatinginapromisethatwhoeverfollowstheseguidelinesrigorouslywill,barringanymajornaturalcatastrophe,enjoyafullandhealthylife(LawsofEthics[HilkhotDeot]chs.3–4).Inprinciple,thereshouldbenoconflictbetweenthevariousregimes.Rulesgoverningpersonalhygiene(medicine),regulationsconcerningsocietalandfamilyrelationships(politics),andinjunc-tionsandprohibitionsthatservetolimitinvolvementinworldlypursuits,therebyfreeingenergyforintellectualandspiritualattain-ments(religionandphilosophy),shouldandmostoftendocomple-menteachother.Occasionally,however,therulesconflict,forex-ampleinthecaseofwine.Forcertainafflictionsmedicalopinionrecommendedwine.Maimonides,however,knowsthatthatbever-ageisforbiddentoMuslims.Hence,afterofferinghisprofessionaladvicethatwineisappropriate,heleavesthedecisionwhetherornottofollowittothepatient’sconscience.Itmustbeadded,how-ever,thatinhiswritingsdirectedatJews,MaimonidesbetrayssomeCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n170MedievalJewishphilosophysympathyforthatparticularIslamicprohibition.Thus,attheendofGuide3:48,hepointsoutthattheNaziriteiscalledholysolelyonaccountofhisabstentionfromdrink.SomeimportantfacetsofMaimonides’biographyandscientificactivitiesareconnectedtohismedicalcareer.DuringhisformativeyearsinSpainandNorthAfrica,Maimonidesactivelysoughtoutteachersandsavantsinavarietyoffields.However,duringhislongresidenceatFustat–thepinnacleofhiscareer,aswemightviewit–heseemstohavedeliberatelyavoidedmeetinganyone,whetherJewornon-Jew.Theonefacetofhisactivitythatforcedhimtocomeintocontactwithotherscholarswashispositionasphysicianatthecourtofthevizier.HismedicalmonographswereallwrittenasaresultofhisconnectionswiththeupperechelonsofEgyptiansociety.Unliketheexactsciences,whereitsufficestohaveatone’scom-mandsomegeneralrulesandbasicskills,medicinedemandsofitspractitionersalargestorehouseofempiricaldata.Tobesure,medicinehasalogicofitsown;Maimonideswritesinoneofhislet-tersthathedemandsofhimselftobeabletoreproducethe“mannerofreasoning”(wajhal-qiyas)underlyinganymedicalopinionthathemayoffer.Nonetheless,therulesofinferenceareobviouslynotasstringentastheyareinthemathematicalsciences;inparticular,repeatedobservationsoftheefficacyofacertaintreatment,evenifthereis(asyet)notheoreticalexplanationastowhyitshouldwork,aresufficient.Allofthisarguesinfavoroftheinstitutionofacommitteeofdoctors,whosecombinedexpertiseshouldover-comeanydifficulties.Maimonidesendorsestheinstitutioninprin-ciplebutiswaryofitinpractice,giventhefactthatprideandothernon-professionalconsiderationsmayintervene.Moreover,herecordssuchafailedjointeffortofthebestdoctorsatMarrakeshasoneoftheformativeexperiencesofhiseducation.mathematicsArabichistoriesreportthatMaimonideswroteandeditedanumberofworksonmathematics.However,theonlysuchwritingtobeuncoveredsofararesomenotestoApollonius’Conics,whichcoveraswellIbnal-Haytham’sreconstructionofBook8ofthatwork.12Furtherevidenceforhisaptitudeinmathematicsisfoundinhismethodforcomputingthevisibilityofthelunarcrescent,whichCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandthesciences171includes,byhisownadmission,someapproximationsthatcanceleachotherout,thusnotaffectingtheoverallaccuracyofthemethod;somescatteredremarksintheGuide,includingareferencetothepropertyoftheasymptotestothehyperbola;andthenote,attheverybeginningoftheGuide,thathehadstudiedmathematicswithhisprizepupil,YosefbenYehudah.Aswehavealreadyseen,Maimonidesvaluesastronomy–math-ematicalastronomy–highly.Moreover,throughouttheGuideherepeatedlystudiestherelationorproportion(nisba)betweenthings,aclearindicationofhismathematicalleanings.13Ontheotherhand,hedoesnotseemtoidentifywiththe(mystical)typeofreligiousphilosophywhichseesinnumberthedeepestsecretsofcreation.HestudiouslyignoresSeferYetzira,whosePythagoreanismhadastrongimpactonJewishthought.Indeed,Maimonidesopenlyde-clares(Guide2:8)thatsomecosmologicaldoctrinesendorsedbytherabbis–thetheorythatthestarsmovefreelythroughtheheavens,orthenotionthattheheavenlybodiesemitsounds–arethoseofPythagorasandhisschool,andthattheyhavebeenrepudiatedbyAristotle.Maimonidesrejectsthemaswell.Nonetheless,therearesomehintsthatMaimonidesmaynothavebeenasunsympathetictoPythagoreanismashewouldlikeustobelieve.14InGuide1:34,heplainlystates,“HowverymanyarethepremisesthustakenfromthenatureofnumbersandthepropertiesofgeometricalfiguresfromwhichwedrawinferencesconcerningthingsthatweshoulddenywithrespecttoGod,mayhebeexalted.”Ostensibly,whenhereferstothenatureofnumbers(tabiatal-adad),Maimonideshasinmindnothingotherthancorrectnotionsconcerningone(unityanduniformity)andothernumbers,whichareindispensablefordenyinganymultiplicitytoGod.YetMaimonides’numerousreferencestotetradsand,toalesserextent,hispreferenceforthenumberfourteen,betrayadeeperin-terestinthe“natureofnumbers.”15Tetradsareinvokedinavari-etyofcontexts,someofthemoftellingimportance.Maimonidestakessometroubletoprovethatthebiblical“chariot”(merkavah),whosecosmicsymbolismisofsuchimportancefortherabbis,isdrawnbyfourhorses.AccordingtoMaimonides,anarrayofas-tronomical,psychic,andotherforcesgroupthemselvesintofour-somes.ThesearediscussedinGuide2:10,whereMaimonidesstates:“Thisnumberfouriswondrous(ajib)andanobjectofreflectionCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n172MedievalJewishphilosophy(mawdita
ammul).”ElsewhereintheGuide(1:72)fourtypesofastralforcesarematchedtofourclassesofterrestrialbeings.More-over,MaimonidesconcludestheGuidewithremarksonthefourclassesofwatchmenrecognizedbyJewishlaw,thefourspeciesthataretakenontheSukkothfestival,andhumanity’sfourperfections(Guide3:54).ThenumberfourteenfiguresintheplanofsomeofMaimonides’writings:helistsfourteenrulesatthebeginningofhisBookofCommandments,andhedividestheMishnehTorahintofourteensections.miraclesandthenaturalorderMiraclespresentthemostvexingissueforthereligiousthinkerwhoiscommittedtothescientificenterprise.Bytheirverynature,mir-aclesseemtobeadenialofthelawsofnaturewhoseclarificationisthechieftaskofthescientist.Ontheotherhand,adenialofanyformofmiracleleadstotheexclusionofanyreligiouslymeaningfulroleforGodinthehappeningsofthecosmosand,especially,inhumanaffairs.Maimonides’viewofmiracles,morethanhisstanceonanyotherissuerelatedtothesciences,appearstohaveundergoneaclearshiftovertheyears.Broadlyspeaking–andthegeneralizationsthatIamabouttomakecertainlyneedtobequalified–itismyviewthattheyouthfulMaimonides,impressedbythesuccessofthescientificen-terprise,favorednaturalisticexplanationsoftheeventsconsideredtobemiraculousbyJewishtradition.Accordingtothattradition,mir-acleswere,sotospeak,programmedintotheuniverseattheverystart,andthusdonotinanyseriouswaychallengethescientificap-proach.InthelastchapterofhisprefatoryessaytotheMishnaictrac-tateAvot(knownastheEightChapters),Maimonideswritesthatthedivinewillhad,duringtheprocessofcreation,“placedinthenaturesofthose[natural]thingswhatevernewthingwouldhappen.Whenthatnewthingdidhappen,attherequiredtime,peoplemistakenlythoughtthatithadjusthappenedtoberightnow,butthatisnotthecase.”16Inhisusualmanner,Maimonidesshowsthathisowninter-pretation–namely,thatnaturalphenomenawhichthecommonfolktaketobemiraclesonlyappeartobemiraculousonaccountoftheirsynchronicitywithothereventsofhistoricalimport–isidenticalwiththeviewsoftherabbis,thoughthelatterareusuallycouchedinmidrashicallusion.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandthesciences173Ashematured,however,Maimonidesbecamemorereceptivetotheneedformiraclesaswellastheirpossibility.Doubtsandun-certainties,someofwhichhavebeenmentionedabove,dampenedhisenthusiasmfortheunlimitedexplanatorypowerofnaturalphi-losophy.Inaddition,asherefinedhisownreligiousphilosophy,hebecameincreasinglyawareofthenecessityformiracles,thatis,forsomeexpressionsoftheomnipotenceofthedivinewill.Nochap-terintheGuideissetasidespecificallyforthetopicofmiracles–adecisionnoteworthyinitsownright–andthediscussionsthatthereaderencountersatvariousjuncturesinthebookareneithercompletenorconsistent.Maimonides’finalpositionisthatmiraclesconsistofeventsthatinthemselvesareentirely“possible”withinthenaturalorder;itisthepersistenceofevents,eachofwhichisbyitselfnatural,overaperiodoftimeandinaparticularcontextthatmakesthem(eacheventindividuallyandthesetasawhole)miraculous.ThispointisstatedinGuide3:50wherehewrites:“Nowoneofthemiraclesofthelaw,andoneofthegreatestamongthem,isthesojournofIsraelforfortyyearsinthedesertandthefindingofthemannathereeveryday.”However,thefullesttreatmentistobefoundinoneofMaimonides’lastcompositions,theLetteronResurrection.Maimonidesappendstothattreatise,whichisinthemainadefenseagainsttheaccusationthathedeniesbodilyresurrection,adisquisi-tiononmiracles.WefindthesamegeneralruleasthatintheGuide,buttheexampleisdifferent:Now,asthemiracleinthingsthatarepossibleisconcerned:thelongeritenduresandpersists,themorelikelyitistobeamiracle.Therefore,weareconvincedabouttheenduranceofblessingsattimesofobedience,andcursesattimesofdisobedience,throughoutthebygoneages(fighabiral-dahr),inconnectionwiththisnation[Israel].Inthatwaytheybecome“asignandamiracle,”aswehaveexplained.17Insum,then,Maimonidesneverabandonedhisbeliefinanorderlyuniverse,whoseregularandcomplexworkings–describedquiteac-curatelybyAristotle,despitesomeshortcomings–offerthesurestevidencefortheexistenceofthedeity.However,therearesomede-viationsfromthefixedruleswhichcanbediscernedonlyoveralongperiodoftime.Whenthesedeviationsaresynchronizedwithhuman(especiallyJewish)history,theyarerecordedasmiracles;otherdeviations,forexampletheunevendistributionofstarsintheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n174MedievalJewishphilosophyheavenlyvault,arepermanentfeaturesofthecosmos.Takento-gether,thesefactscallintoquestiontheclaimthatthedeitydoesnotintervene;theyattesttocreation,indicatingthatthenaturalorderasdescribedbyAristotleistheproductofdivinewill,notmerenecessity.notes1.TwovolumesofstudiesdevotedtoMaimonides’interestinthesci-encesare:R.CohenandH.Levine(eds.),MaimonidesandtheSciences(Dordrecht:Kluwer,2000);andT.LevyandR.Rashed(eds.),´Maımonide¨etlestraditionsscientifiquesetphilosophiquesmedi´evales(arabe,´hebreu,latin)´(ParisandLouvain:Peeters,forthcoming).2.Iusetheterm“atmosphere”anachronisticallyandimpreciselytorefertotheorbsofairandfire,which,accordingtothemedievalconception,reachtothelowerlimitofthemoon’sorbit.3.ThereisanicedoubleentendreintheHebrew,whichcanbevocalizedeithermesobeb(setincircularmotion)ormesabeb(cause).4.SeethetranslationofS.Pines,TheGuideofthePerplexed(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1963),2:352–4(hereafter:Guide).5.Y.T.Langermann,“‘TheMakingoftheFirmament’:R.HayyimIsraeli,R.IsaacIsraeliandMaimonides”[Hebrew],inShlomoPinesJubileeVolume,ed.M.Idel,W.Z.Harvey,andE.Schweid(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1988),i:461–76.6.Guide2:353.NotethatIbnEzragenerallypresentstheplaininterpreta-tion(peshat).7.Thefollowingexpandsuponsomeearlierpublicationsofmine,withsomerevision:“The‘TruePerplexity’:TheGuideofthePerplexed,PartII,Chapter24,”inPerspectivesonMaimonides:PhilosophicalandHistoricalStudies,ed.J.L.Kraemer(Oxford:LittmanLibrary,1991),159–74;“MaimonidesandAstronomy:SomeFurtherReflections,”inY.T.Langermann,TheJewsandtheSciencesintheMiddleAges(Aldershot:Variorum,1999),studyiv.8.S.Munk,Leguidedesegar´es´(Paris,1856;reprintedLagrasse:Verdier,1979),i:25n.1.9.ThesurgeofinterestcanbetracedtothelandmarkarticleofS.Pines,“TheLimitationsofHumanKnowledgeaccordingtoal-Farabi,ibnBajja,andMaimonides,”inStudiesinMedievalJewishHistoryandLitera-ture,ed.I.Twersky(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1979),82–109;reprinted,W.Z.HarveyandM.Idel(eds.),TheCollectedWorksofShlomoPines.v.StudiesintheHistoryofJewishThought(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1997).SomerecentcontributionsincludeH.Davidson,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMaimonidesandthesciences175“MaimonidesonMetaphysicalKnowledge,”MaimonideanStudies3(1995),49–103;J.Stern,“MaimonidesontheGrowthofKnowledgeandtheLimitationsoftheIntellect,”inLevyandRashed(eds.),´Maımonide¨etlestraditionsscientifiques.10.Thediscussionhereisbasedinlargemeasureuponmystudy,“L’oeuvremedicaledeMa´ımonide:Unaperc¨¸ugen´eral,”inL´evyandRashed(eds.),´Maımonideetlestraditionsscientifiques¨,towhichthereaderisreferredforfullcitationsandbibliography.11.MyremarksonthissubjectseemtobepertinentfortheformulationofaJewishresponsetoDarwinism.12.Y.T.Langermann,“TheMathematicalWritingsofMaimonides,”JewishQuarterlyReview75(1984),57–65.13.Clearlymuchofthisstemsfromtheimportanceof“proportion”intheHellenisticphilosophicaltradition;stillIbelievethatMai-monidesevincesadeepermathematicalapproach;cf.thecontributionofR.Rashed,“MathematiquesetphilosophieselonMa´ımonide,”inL¨evy´andRashed(eds.),Maımonideetlestraditionsscientifiques¨.14.ItisappropriateheretorecalltheverystrongremarksofD.Kaufmann(“DieSpurenal-BataljusiinderjudischenReligions-Philosophie,”in¨JahresberichtderLandes-RabbinerschuleinBudapest[Budapest,1880],36–40)concerningMaimonides’debttoIbnal-Sayyidal-Batalyawsi,inwhosethinkingthePythagoreanstrainisprominent.AsfarasIknow,Kaufmann’ssuggestions,thoughtheyarewelldocumented,havebeentotallyignored.15.Y.T.Langermann,“Maimonides’RepudiationofAstrology,”Mai-monideanStudies2(1992),123–58,esp.145–6;cf.G.Freudenthal,“Maimonides’StanceonAstrologyinContext:Cosmology,Physics,Medicine,andProvidence,”inMosesMaimonides:Physician,Scien-tist,andPhilosopher,ed.F.RosnerandS.Kottek(Northvale,N.J.:JasonAronson,1993),77–90.16.MytranslationfromtheArabictextpublishedbyY.Qafih,Maimonides’CommentaryontheMishnah,SederNezikim(Jerusalem:n.p.,1967),399.17.MytranslationfromtheArabictextpublishedbyY.Qafih,IggerotMoshebenMaimon(Jerusalem:n.p.,1984),99–100.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nmenachemlorberbaum9MedievalJewishpoliticalthoughtPoliticsistheart(techne)ofhumangovernment.Politicalscience,initsclassicalsense,isthebodyofknowledgeinformingthepracticeofthisart.AccordingtoMaimonides,inhisTreatiseontheArtofLogic,politicalscience“fallsintofourparts:first,theindividual’sgover-nanceofhimself;second,thegovernanceofthehousehold;third,thegovernanceofthecity;andfourth,thegovernanceofthelargenationorofthenations.”1Governanceofthecityhastraditionallybeentheaxialpoliticalactivity.Itisfromthecity,thepolis,thattheartre-ceivesitsname:politics.Indeed,“governanceofthecityisasciencethatimpartstoitscitizensknowledgeoftruehappinessandimpartstothemthe[wayof]strivingtoachieveit.”Thescienceofthegov-ernanceofthecityfurthermoreprescribesforthecitizens“therulesofjusticethatordertheirassociationsproperly.”Thecomprehen-sivequalityofthecitydeterminesthespecificshapeofindividualethicsandhouseholdmanagement.Thegovernmentofanempireisanamplificationofthebasiccomprehensiveunit,thecity.Maimonides’definitionofpoliticalscienceraisesimportantques-tions.MedievalJewsdidnothaveacity(orstate)oftheirown,andalthoughtheJewsareanation,theyweredispersedamongmanyna-tions;theylackedsovereigntyandaspecificterritoryoftheirown.Isthereanysignificancetoadiscussionofpoliticsforapeopleinexile?Provisionallywemightsaythatexileisapoliticalcondition.Iden-tifyingpoliticswithsovereigntyisaprejudicederivingfromaworlddominatedbynation-states.Onthisview,sovereigntyisthemarkofpoliticalindividuation.Itdeterminesboththelegalandterritorialboundariesofthepolity,andisthelegitimatepoliticalexpressionofanation.Medievalempireswerestructureddifferently,however.176CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMedievalJewishpoliticalthought177Theywerelesscohesiveintheirinternalstructure,toleratingaplu-ralityoflegalsystemsandautonomousmodesofpoliticalorganiza-tionwithinthem.ThemedievalJewishcommunities,whetherintheworldofIslamorinChristendom,enjoyedawiderangeofautonomyofgovernanceandlaw.2Goingbeyondinstitutionalarrangements,exileintheJewishself-perceptionisbutachapterinalongerreligio-politicalhistory.Itisatemporaryhiatusbetweenagloriouspastofland,kingdom,andTempleandaredemptivemessianicfuture.Exilehowever,isnotasuspensionofthepolitical.ThetypicalJewishpo-liticalstructureoftheexileisthekehillahorkahal,theJewishcom-munity.ExilicpoliticsisthegovernanceofJewishcommunallifeinitsinternaldomesticaspect.Italsoextendstotheforgingofanexter-nalpolicyofsurvivalinadarkchapterofahistoricaldramawhosetheological-politicalsignificanceresonatesthroughouttheculturesofIslamandofChristendom.3Reconsideringtheconceptsofpoliticsandofexileleadshowevertoasecondquestion.Doestheancientscienceofpoliticshaveanysignificanceforanationguidedbyrevealeddivinelaw?Hasn’tpolit-icalsciencebeensupersededbyrevealedlaw?Maimonidesiswellawareofthequestion.Thewisemenofancient“religiouscommunities”andthephilosophersofancienttimes,hesays,hadformulatedregimensandrulesfortheircommu-nities,andwrittenbooksexpoundingthesesubjects.Yetheendshisdiscussionofpoliticalsciencebystatingthat“Inthesetimes...theregimesandthenomoihavebeendispensedwith,andmenarebeinggovernedbydivinecommands.”4EvenacursoryglanceatMaimonides’worksrevealsthathebe-lievedthereismuchguidancetobeculledfromthewisdomoftheancientphilosophers.Theconceptsandterminologyofpoliticalsci-enceechothroughoutMaimonides’writings.HisCommentaryontheMishnah,includesanintroductoryessaytotractateAvot,TheEightChapters,ashorttreatiseonethicsandpoliticalleadershipmodeledonal-Farabi’sAphorismsoftheStatesman.5AndinTheGuideofthePerplexed,MaimonidesbeginshisaccountofdivinelawbycitingtheAristotelianconceptionofhumanpoliticalnature:“Ithasbeenexplainedwithutmostclaritythatmanispoliticalbynatureandthatitisinhisnaturetoliveinasociety.”6ConsideringMaimonides’expositionofAristotle’sstatementinfurtherdetailprovidesthekeytohisappropriationofclassicpoliticalCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n178MedievalJewishphilosophyscience.Thehumanpoliticalsituationischaracterizedbyapluralityofindividualtraitsandinclinationsononehand,andbyanaturalpropensityforsocietytofulfillbasichumanneeds,ontheother.Therefore,itisbynomeanspossiblethathissocietyshouldbeperfectedexcept–andthisisnecessarilyso–througharulerwhogaugestheactionsofindividu-als,perfectingthatwhichisdeficientandreducingthatwhichisexcessive,andwhoprescribesactionsandmoralhabitsthatallofthemmustalwayspracticeinthesameway,sothatthenaturaldiversityishiddenthroughthemultiplepointsofconventionalaccordandsothatthecommunitybecomeswellordered.ThereforeIsaythatthelaw,althoughitisnotnatural,entersintowhatisnatural(Guide2:40,382).Althoughdivinelawisnotnatural,itisneverthelesspolitical;itissituatedinman’snaturalpoliticalcondition.Itsdivinecharacterisexpressedinthefactthatitnotonlyordersthehumanpolitybutattends“alsotothesoundnessofbelief,”takingpains“toinculcatecorrectopinionswithregardtoGod”(Guide2:40,384).Divinelaw,althoughpoliticallysituated,ultimatelyaimstocultivatehumanrationalexcellence.IfMaimonides’code,theMishnehTorah,istobeviewedastherecastingofthepositivetraditionofrabbiniclawaccordingtothisidealofdivinelawconceivedintermsoftraditionalpoliticalscience,thenwemayconcludethattheMishnehTorahitselfisnothingshortofaconstitutionfortheJewishpolis.Theparticularlawsofancientrulers,andtheirregimes,weresupersededbythepositivelawofrevelation,buttheteleologyofthedivinelawisarticulatedthroughthetheoryanddiscourseofclassicalpoliticalscience.7Maimonides’politicalphilosophyofdivinelawhasimportantramificationsforhisconceptionoftheJewishcollective,hisun-derstandingoftheconstitutionalstructureofaJewishpolity,andforhisvisionofmessianicredemption.ButbeforepresentingtheMaimonideanparadigm,itisimportanttoconsiderthesinglemostimportantcounterexampletoit.Maimonides’projectofrestructur-ingthetraditionalrabbiniclegalcode,infusingitwiththespiritofphilosophicalpoliticalscience,canbeunderstoodasacarryingoutinaJewishcontextaprogrampreviouslyoutlinedbyMuslimphiloso-phersinanIslamiccontext.Theinterpretivepotentialofthisap-proachforJudaismhadalreadybeencritiquedagenerationbeforeMaimonides,byJudahHaleviinhisKuzari.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMedievalJewishpoliticalthought179TheKuzari’scritiqueofphilosophybreaksnewgroundinme-dievalJewishthought.Saadya’sprogrammaticquestionatthebegin-ningofTheBookofBeliefsandOpinionsisurbane,almostsubdued:Whatistherelationbetweenrevealedknowledgeandrationalknowledge?8Halevi’spointofdepartureintheKuzariisofgreaterurgency:Whatisthetruereligion?Judaismisheremeasuredagainstitscompetition,ChristianityandIslam,bothofwhichclaimtohaveinheritedthepropheticword,supersedingJudaism,andwhichnowdividetheworldbetweenthem.LivinginToledo,ontheborderbe-tweenChristianityandIslam,whohadturnedSpainintoawesternfrontieroftheirwarforreligiousdomination,Haleviacutelyexperi-encedthisbattleandJudaism’sindignityinitsmidst.9TestimonyofhissentimentistheKuzari’ssubtitle,“TheBookofRefutationandProofonBehalfoftheDespisedReligion.”10ThequestionofthetruereligionshapesHalevi’streatmentofphi-losophy,anddetermineshisattitudetowardit.Philosophyinhisviewisnotaneutralscience.Itisnolesscompellingaspiritualad-versarythanChristianityorIslam.Infactitisamoreseriousandtenaciousone.Philosophyidentifieshumanexcellencewiththecul-tivationofsubstantiverationality,locatinghumanperfectionwithinacomprehensivecosmology.Theproblemfacedbyreligionisnot(theSaadyanic)oneofrevelationandrationalityassourcesofknowledge;therealissueisthenatureofhumanexcellence.Halevi’sarticulationofthechallengefacedbyJudaismlendsdepthtohisdiscussion.JewishphilosophymustbeginbyattendingtoJewishexistence,tothemeaningofJudaismasareligionconfrontinghistory.AndinhischallengetoAristotelianism,Haleviisthefirsttoraisethequestionofwhetherreligionmakesuniquemetaphys-icalandepistemologicalclaimsthatwouldrenderAristotelianisminadequateinaccountingatleastforreligious,ifnotforhuman,experience.11Thetwoopposingideal-typephilosophiesofJudaism12developedbyHaleviandthenMaimonides,intheearlyandlaterdecadesofthetwelfthcenturyrespectively,markamaturationofJewishphilo-sophicaldiscourse.ItislessnaiveinitsunderstandingofAristotelianrationalism,moresophisticatedinitsself-reflection,andyetatthesametimemoreambitiousinscopethanitspredecessors.Regardingtheirrespectiveattitudestopoliticalphilosophy,thebasiccontroversymaybeformulatedwithregardtocollectiveiden-tity.AcommunityinexileischaracterizedbythefactthatitisCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n180MedievalJewishphilosophynotterritorybutidentitythatmarkstheboundariesofitsjurisdic-tion.AccordingtoHalevi’shaver,thecharismaticidentityofthecollectiveprecedesitspoliticalinstitutionalization.13Incontradis-tinction,forMaimonides,thecollectiveisconceivedinpolitical-legalterms,andthisinstitutionalizationisconstitutiveofit.TherespectivearticulationsofHaleviandMaimonidescontinuetores-onateinallsubsequentdiscussionsofpoliticalphilosophyin(andbeyond)Hispano-Jewishculture.theanti-politicsofthekuzariThememorableinitialexchangebetweentheKhazarkingandthehaversuccinctlypresentstheprinciplesofthelatter’spoliticalthe-ology.Alreadyinthisopeningencounter,andagainstthebackdropofhisearnestsearchforreligioustruth,thekingoftheKhazarscomesupagainstthebruteforceofthefactof(divine)election.Thehaver’sparticularisticcastingoftheSinaiticrevelationelicitstheking’sex-asperatedconclusionthat“yourreligiouslawisalegacyforyour-selvesonly!”(1:26).Thisexclamationreceivesaswiftrejoinderbythehaverwhostatesthatthisisindeedthecase“becausewearethechoicestofthedescendentsofAdam”(1:27).Insultisthusaddedtofrustrateddesire.Theking,whohasseenthesolutiontohisquestforreligiouscertaintydangledbeforehimwithinarm’sreach(1:13),nowhasitsnatchedawaybyexclusion(1:26).(Infact,thetenorofmetaphysicaldesireandnearfulfillmentremaincentraltothedra-matictensionofthebook.Ultimatelyboththekingandthehaverliveinexile.Inanunredeemedworldourdeepestdesirescannotbefulfilled.Neitherthekingnorthehavercanachieveprophecy.Butbothmakethegesturetowardattainment,thekingbyconvertingtoJudaismandthehaverbyundertakingtheconversion-likejourneytoEretzYisrael.)14Thehaverassuagestheking’sdismaybyexpoundinghistheoryofthefiveontologicalordersoftheuniverse.Thedistinctiondrawnbetweenrationalperfectionandreligiousperfectioniscrucialtothepresentdiscussion:Thesagesaid:[itis]by[virtueof]intellectualorder[that]therational[animal]isdistinguishedfromall[other]animals.Moreover,theimprovementof[people’s]charactertraits,andthentheimprovementofthehousehold,andthen[finally]theimprovementofthecitynecessarilyfollowsfromit.There-fore,politicalregimeandpoliticalnomoi[i.e.laws]comeintobeing(1:35).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMedievalJewishpoliticalthought181ThehaverhereattributestopoliticsthecomprehensivequalitywenotedaboveinMaimonides’definition.Politicsencompassesallhu-manactivityfromtheindividualtothehouseholdandontothecity.Ontologicallyspeaking,itislocatedinthe“intellectualorder”characterizedbyhumanrationality.Thehaver,however,proceedstoleadtheKhazartotherealizationthatahigherorderofbeing,theprophetic,exists,asexemplifiedbyMoses:Ifweshouldfindamanwhoentersfirewithoutharminghim,whogoeswithoutfoodforalongperiod...whosefacehasaradiance...whodoesnotfallillorbecomesenileorwornout,sothatwhenhereacheshis[allotted]lifespan,hediesadeathfreelychosen...inadditiontoknowingthingsaboutwhathasbeenandwhatwillbe...(1:41)Thekingagreesthat“thislevelwouldbetrulydivine[and]heav-enly,ifitexists;andthis[kindofindividual]wouldbelongtothedominionofthedivineorderandnot[tothat]oftheintellectual,thepsychic,orthephysical[order]”(1:42).Thehavertriumphantlycon-cludesthediscussionbydeclaringthattheseareindeedtheattributesofMoseswhoisconsideredagenuineprophetbyChristianityandIslamtoo.Itisthroughhisuniquecallingthat“themultitudebecameawareofthedivinity’sattachmenttothem,aswellas[thefact]thattheyhaveaLordwhogovernsthemashewishes”(1:43).Thehaver’stheoryofordersconstructsahierarchyinwhichthehumanordermarkedbyrationalityandpoliticsisoutrankedbyadivineordermarkedbyprophecyandprovidence.Theformerarelowerandlimited,thelatterarecertainandwithoutconstraints.Thereligioustranscendsthepolitical,hereidentifiedwiththerational.ThismodelallowsforaracialinterpretationofJewishpeoplehood.ThehistoricalnarrativeofthebiblicalbookofGenesisisrecon-structedasarecountingofthegeneticlineageofthe“divineorder,”thehumanpotentialforprophecy:Itsdetailscanbeexplainedby[takingintoaccount]thelifespanofAdam,Seth,andEnoshuptoNoah,then[from]ShemandEbertoAbraham,then[from]IsaacandJacobtoMoses,peacebeuponthem.Byvirtueoftheirattach-ment[tothedivineorder],thesemenweretheverybestpartandchoicest[offspring]ofAdam,[although]eachofthemhadchildrenlike[worthless]husks,whodidnotresembletheirfatherssothat[the]divineorderdidnotCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n182MedievalJewishphilosophyattachitselftothem.Thechronology,then,wasdeterminedbythosewho[were]divine.Nowtheywere[only]individuals,notgroups,untilJacobbegotthe[ancestorsof]thetwelvetribes,whowereallwell-suitedforthedivineorder.Thus,divinitycametoexistwithina[whole]group...(1:47)Theseeminglydespisedanddeprived“Jews”15arediscoveredtobeinrealitytheauthenticcarriersofthe“divineorder”inhumanexis-tence.Infact,thechildrenofIsraelmarkaqualitativestepinhumanreligiousdevelopment,foritisinthemthat“divinitycametoexistwithina[whole]group.”Asocietyasawhole,acollective,isthebearerofapropheticpotential,andintheSinaiticrevelationitwasmomentarilyrealized.Jewishpeoplehoodisunderstoodingenetictermsasthepropen-sityforcarryingpropheticpotential.16Theidentityofthecollectiveprecedesinitssignificanceanyinstitutionalexpressionitmaytakeoninthecourseofordinaryexistence.ItthusprecedesthegivingofthelawatSinai.Revelationdoesnotcreatepeoplehood;itisratheritsmostsublimeexpression.Thisgeneticqualityalsodeterminestheimpermeabilityofthegroupboundaries.Therefore,arguesthehaver,“thepersonwhoentersthereligionofIsrael[fromtheoutside]isnotequaltothepersonwhoispure,sincethosewhoarepurearespecificallyqualifiedforprophecy”(1:115).ConversiontoJudaismcannoteffectanontologicaltransformation.Ruth’sclassicdeclara-tion“yourpeopleshallbemypeople,andyourGodmyGod”(Ruth1:16)canonlyattainpartialrealization.AconversiontoJudaismcannoteffectaconversiontoJewishness.“Theaimofothers[shouldbe]tolearnfromthemandtobecomelearnedsaints,notprophets”(1:115).Biblicalhistory,asthehaverinterpretsit,reflectsaconceptionofdivinitythatoverridestherationalandpolitical:Wehavebeenpromisedthatwearetobeattachedtothedivineorderthroughprophecy...andthatthedivineorderwillbeattachedtousthroughactsofprovidence,marvels,andmiracles.[GodthereforepromisesIsrael:]Myangelswillalsomoveaboutfreelyinwhatevertakesplaceamongyouonearth...protectingyouandfightingforyou...Theworldwillconductitsaffairsaccordingtothenaturalcourseexceptforyou...Youwillconqueryourenemieswithoutpreparation,bywhichyouwillunderstandthatyouraffairsdonotproceedaccordingtoanaturalnorm,butrather[accordingto]onethatiswilled(1:109).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMedievalJewishpoliticalthought183God’ssovereignwillisvindicatedwhenbreakingthroughthestric-turesofnature,therebycreatingrealhistory.Centraltothehaver’saccountofbiblicalhistoryisthecontrastbetweennatureandnaturalconstraint,ontheonehand,anddi-vinewill,ontheother.Notice,however,thatthecontrastitselfisnotbiblical,butratheraninterpretationofthesignificanceofbibli-calhistorycastinphilosophicalterms.Biblicalhistoricalnarrativeisnon-philosophicalincharacter.Paradoxically,itispreciselythehaver’sinternalizationofphilosophicaldiscoursethatleadstohisnovelformulationofreligioushistory.Moreover,themorerigidlyscientifictheconceptualizationofnature,thebetteritservesasafoiltoGod’ssovereignwill.Onthisconstruction,rationalphiloso-phyandpoliticalhistory(thefourthorder)servetoarticulateaback-dropwhosemiraculousnegationcreatesreligioushistory(thefifthandhighestorder).SoalthoughtheKuzariembarksonathoroughcritiqueofphilos-ophy,thedialogueparadoxicallyturnsouttobedeeplyimbuedbyaphilosophicalworldpicture.Thefundamentalconcernsofthebook,suchasthetruereligionandthemajorthemesofthehaver’stheol-ogy,arearticulatedbymeansofaninternalizationofphilosophicaldiscoursethatleadstoareconstructionofbiblicaltheology.Thiscomesoutinthetheoryofpoliticalobligation.Althoughthetheoryofordersestablishestheontologicalfounda-tionofcollectiveidentityanddeterminesitsprecedenceoverlegal-politicalinstitutionalization,thehaverprovidesaseparatemoralargumenttoestablishpoliticalobligation.Theontologicaltheoryservestoexplainwhythispeopleisworthyofrevelation,butisapparentlyinsufficienttojustifytheirobligationtoitsnorms.TheargumentofobligationisexplicatedbythehaverintheformofaparableofthekingofIndia:Ifhismessengercametoyouwith[typically]Indiangifts...accompaniedbymedicinesthatcureyouofyourillnessesandpreserveyourhealth,aswellaspoisonsforyourenemiesandthosewhowagewaragainstyou,withwhichyoumayconfrontthemandkillthemwithout[either]preparationor[superior]numbers,wouldyoubeobligatedtoobeyhim?(1:21)Obligationisafunctionofindebtedness.Thekingalsosubscribestothispremiseandconcludes:“Yes,ofcourse...Iwouldbelievethathisdominionandcommandextendtome”(1:22).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n184MedievalJewishphilosophyTwoantecedentformulationsshouldbementioned,thatoftherabbisandthatofSaadya.Hereisonesuchrabbinicformulation:“ItheLordamyourGod”(Exod.20:2).WhyweretheTenCommandmentsnotproclaimedatthebeginningoftheTorah?Aparable:whatisthislike?Likeahumankingwhoenteredaprovince[medina]andsaidtothepeople:ShallIreignoveryou?Theyreplied:Haveyouconferreduponusanybenefitthatyoushouldreignoverus?Whatdidhedo[then]?Hebuiltthecitywallforthem,hebroughtinthewatersupplyforthem,andhefoughttheirbattles.[Then]hesaidtothem:ShallIreignoveryou?Theyreplied:Yes,yes.17Whilethisrabbinicformulationrecognizesthepowerofindebted-ness,itviewsconsentasanimportantcomponentofpoliticallegit-imacy.Thistypeofrabbinicinterpretationseekstoretainafidelitytothebiblicalformofthecovenant.Incontrast,medievalJewishphilosophersbyandlargeneglectthecovenantasalegitimatingin-strument.Halevi’sformulationismoreimperativeintheobligatoryentailmentitexpectsofindebtednessandisthusclosertothefol-lowingargumentsbySaadya.Thedutytoadheretothisreligion,arguesSaadya,isadictateofreason:Logic[al-aql]demandsthatwhoeverdoessomethinggoodbecompensatedeitherbymeansofafavorshowntohim,ifheisinneedofit,orbymeansofthanks,ifhedoesnotrequireanyreward.Since,therefore,thisisoneofthegeneraldemandsofreason,itwouldnothavebeenseemlyforthecreator,exaltedandmagnifiedbehe,toneglectitinhisowncase.Itwasonthecontrarynecessaryforhimtocommandhiscreaturestoservehimandthankhimforhavingcreatedthem.18Theobligatoryentailmentsofindebtednessarethefirstimperativesofreason.Obligationisaformofgratitudeconceivedofasarationalimperative,notasasentiment.ButwhereasthescopeofSaadya’sargumentisuniversal–humanbeingsincuradebtofgratitudebytheirverycreatureliness–Halevi’sparablecapturestheparticularindebtednessincurredbythepeopleofIsraeltoGodbyhisuniqueprovidentialgrace.Theindebtednessmodelofpoliticalobligationassumesthein-dependenceofrationalmoralityfromrevelationandthepriorityoftheformerinestablishingtheobligatorycharacterofthelatter.ThisassumptionfitswellSaadya’sconceptionofrevelationasafunc-tionalcomplementtoreason.Itfitslesswellthehaver’soverallCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMedievalJewishpoliticalthought185efforttoestablishthereligiousinadequacyofreason.Thehaverdoubtlessinsistsonmoralrectitudeasanecessarypreambletoreli-giousexcellence:Theintellectualnomoi...arethepreparationandpreambletothedivinereligiouslawandprecedeit[both]innatureandintime.Theyareindispens-ableforgoverninganygroupofhumanbeings,nomatterwhat[itmaybe],sothatevenabandofrobberscannotavoidadheringtojusticeinwhatis[simply]betweenthem.Otherwise,theirassociationwouldnotlast(2:48).Thebindingnessofthebasicrulesofjusticeistakenforgranted:“theyareindispensiblefor...anygroup.”Uponcloserscrutiny,how-ever,thisveryqualityallowsthehavertodenytotheserulesacon-stitutiveroleinunderstandingthenatureofthecollective.Moralityisasindispensableaseatinganddrinking,andisnotdefinatoryofJewishuniqueness:Now,whenIsrael’srebelliousnessgottothepointthattheydisregarded[even]theintellectual[and]governmentallaws–whichare[as]indispens-ablefor[theexistenceof]everygroupascertainnaturalthingsareindispens-ableforeveryindividual,likeeatinganddrinking,movingandresting,andsleepingandbeingawake–butneverthelessheldfasttothe[various]actsofworshippertainingtothesacrificesandotherdivinecommandments,whicharebasedonhearing[i.e.,revelationalone],he[God]becamesatisfiedwithlessfromthem(2:48).Theforceofthemoralargumentisfurtherdilutedwhenweconsiderthehaver’scritiqueoftheadequacyofhumanmoraljudgment:Thegovernmentalactionsandtheintellectualnomoiarethethingsthatareknown.Butthedivine[ones],whichareaddedtotheseinordertoberealizedwithin[the]religiouscommunityof[the]livingGodwhogovernsit,arenotknownuntiltheycomefromhiminaclear[and]detailedmanner.Indeed,eveniftheessentialcharacteristicsofthosegovernmentalandintellectualoneswereknown,theirprecisedeterminationisnotknown...However,defining[all]thatanddeterminingit[indetail]sothatitisappropriateforeveryonebelongsonlytoGod,exaltedbehe(3:7).19AlthoughSaadyaprovidesasimilarargument,20itsforceistodisplaytheutilityoftheshortcutaffordedbyrevelationtohumanreason.ThehaverishoweverbolsteringtheArchimedeanroleofrevelationforhisentiretheology:CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n186MedievalJewishphilosophyAsforthedivineactions,theyareoutsidethescopeofourintellects;buttheyarealsonotrejectedbytheintellect.Rather,theintellectwillfollowthemunquestioningly,justasapersonwhoissickwillfollowthephysicianunquestioninglywithregardtohismedicinesandprescriptions.Don’tyouseehowfarcircumcisionisfromsyllogisticreasoningand[how]ithasnoconnectionwithgovernance?(3:7)Thehaverconcedesthatmoralityandjusticeareindispensableforthecontinuedexistenceofthecollective,buttheforceofhisargu-mentistodenytheirencroachmentupontheceremoniallawsthatinhisviewarethekeytorealizingtheuniquereligiouspotentialoftheJewishcollective.Ifpoliticalscienceisexpectedtosupplyatheoryofgovernance,thenHalevidoesnotprovidesuchatheory.Yet,althoughnotex-plicit,aparticularconceptionofpolitics,orratheranti-politics,doesarisefromthebook.TheguidingthemesofthephilosophyofJudaismexpoundedbythehaverbeardirectlyuponkeypoliticalconcerns.Thehaverdefinesthecollectiveasprepolitical,andhisnotionofprovidencetranscendshumanpoliticalagency.Thereisnoinde-pendentsphereofpoliticsleftbetweenpeoplehoodandprovidence.Implicittheninthecritiqueofrationalismisarejectionofpoliticstoo.maimonides’politicalphilosophyoflawMaimonidescounterstherejectionofpoliticsbystressingthecen-tralityoflawtoJudaism.Lawishistoolforcarvingoutthespaceofthepolitical.ViewedfromtheMaimonideanperspective,theTorahpresumesthepoliticalnatureofhumanbeings.Thisispreciselywhyrevelationtakestheformoflaw.Maimonidessubordinatespeople-hoodtothelawontheonehand,andredefinesbiblicaltheologytobringitintolinewithhisrationalismontheother.TheGodofnatureandtheGodoflawmustbeone,withtheresultthatthenegationofnaturecannotbetheguidingprincipleofhistory.21Historyisnotatheologicalcategorybutapoliticallybasedreligiousone.Saadya’sdeclarationthat“ournation[ummatna]ofthechildrenofIsraelisanation[umma]onlybyvirtueofitslaws”22cohereswellwithMaimonides.TheJewishcollectiveisguidedbydivinelawandallofMaimonides’worksaredevotedtoitsexplication.TheCommentaryontheMishnahfocusesonJudahthePrince’sCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMedievalJewishpoliticalthought187modelcodification.TheBookofCommandmentsisatreatiseonthejurisprudenceofHalakhah,whiletheMishnehTorahisitsgrandcodification.FinallyTheGuideofthePerplexedisdescribedbyMaimonidesasatreatisein“thescienceoflawinitstruesense”(Guide1Intro.5).“Thelawasawhole”arguesMaimonides,“aimsattwothings:thewelfareofthesoul[rationalperfection]andthewelfareofthebody[socialstabilityandmoralvirtue]”(Guide3:27,510).Divinelaw,aswehavealreadyseen,ispoliticallysituated.TheprojectoftheTorahistoformahumansocietyaimedatrationalperfection,thenoblestachievementofwhichisknowledgeofGod.Inthe“LawsconcerningIdolatry”(MishnehTorah),MaimonidesconstructsahistoricalnarrativeoftheformationoftheJewishcol-lective.MaimonidesdescribesthecreationofareligiousmovementbyAbrahamwho“wentfromcitytocityandfromkingdomtoking-dom,callingandgatheringtogethertheinhabitantstillhearrivedinthelandofCanaan”(1:3).23OneshouldnotethatHalevi’sreconstruc-tionoftheGenesisnarrativeattributesnospecialroletoAbraham.ForMaimonides,incontradistinction,Abrahamplaysafoundationalroleasateachercreatinganinternationalreligiousmovementbyspreadinghisphilosophicalmonotheism:“Whenthepeopleflockedtohimandquestionedhimregardinghisassertions,hewouldin-structeachoneaccordingtohiscapacitytillhehadbroughthimtothewayoftruth,andthusthousandsandtensofthousandsjoinedhim.”Abraham“implantedintheirheartsthisgreatdoctrine”ofmonotheismand“composedbooksonit,andtaughtandmorallystrengthenedallwhojoinedhim.”Hissonscontinuedhischarge,anditisthismulti-ethnicreligiousmovementthatformsthekernelofwhatwaslatertobecometheJewishnation:ThepatriarchJacobinstructedallhissons,setapartLevi,appointedhimhead(teacher),andplacedhiminacollegetoteachthewayofGodandkeepthechargeofAbraham.HechargedhissonstoappointfromthetribeofLevioneinstructorafteranother,inuninterruptedsuccession,sothatthedoctrinemightneverbeforgotten.AndsoitwentonwitheverincreasingvigoramongJacob’schildrenandtheiradherentstilltheybecameapeople[umma]thatknewGod.IncontrasttotheAbrahamicmovement,theMosaicprojectisthatofgivinglegalandpoliticalformtotheidealofcreatingapeoplethatCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n188MedievalJewishphilosophyknowsGod.24MaimonidesreiteratesthiscommitmentintheGuidewherehedescribesthecriterioninformingthecommandmentsofthelaw,namely“themanwhoisperfectamongthepeople.Foritistheaimofthislawthateveryoneshouldbesuchaman.Onlythatlawiscalledbyusdivinelaw.”Andsuchalawiscontrastedto“otherpoliticalregimens,suchasthenomoioftheGreeks”(Guide2:39,381).WhereasHalevi’sreconstructionoftheGenesisnarrativeiscastintheformoftracingthelineageofanethnicallygrounded“divineorder,”Maimonidesinterpretsthisnarrativeintermsofadramaticstruggletoovercomeidolatry.CentraltothestruggleistheefforttoeducateanentiresocietytoappreciateknowledgeoftheonetrueGodasthehighesthumangood.InitiatedasamovementbyAbraham,itreachesfruitionasatransformativepoliticalagendaintheMosaiclaw.MaimonidesproceedstorecasttheHalakhahofrabbinicJu-daismtofitthisinterpretationoftheMosaicenterprise.Oneofthemostimportanthalakhicramificationsofthisagendaishisrevolu-tionaryprojectoflayingoutdogmasofbelief.Maimonidesdevisedasystematicdoctrineofrequiredbeliefs,thethirteenprinciplesoffaith.Thisprojectservestocreateareligiouseducationalagendaex-pressiveofreligiousvaluessuchasknowledgeandfearandloveofGod.Anchoredinthelegalcategoriesofapostasyandheresy,itfur-thermoreservestodelineatetheboundariesoftheJewishcollectiveasacommunityoffaith.25Onthisconception,convertsarewarmlyembracedasthosewhorelivetheAbrahamicjourneytotheonetrueGodintheirpersonalspiritualquest.Maimonides’accountoflawisascommittedtoitspoliticalfoun-dationsastoitsrationalaspirations.Hethereforepostulatesthefollowingrelationbetweenthetwo:Knowthatasbetweenthesetwoaims,oneisindubitablygreaterinnobility,namelythewelfareofthesoul–Imeantheprocuringofcorrectopinions–whilethesecondaim–Imeanthewelfareofthebody–ispriorinnatureandtime.Thelatteraimconsistsinthegovernanceofthecityandthewell-beingofthestatesofallitspeopleaccordingtotheircapacity.Thissecondaimisthemorecertainone,anditistheoneregardingwhicheveryefforthasbeenmadepreciselytoexpounditandallitsparticulars.Forthefirstaimcanonlybeachievedafterachievingthissecondone(Guide3:27,510).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMedievalJewishpoliticalthought189AlthoughHalevitoospokeofaprecedenceoflawsofjusticeneces-saryforthemaintenanceofanyhumanassociation,hispointwasamoraloneaboutprioritiesofvalues.ForMaimonides,however,theprincipleofprecedencehasimportantinstitutionalimplications,anditguideshisinterpretationofthelaw.OnereasonforthisdifferenceisMaimonides’rejectionofthetheoryofindebtednessasatheoryofpoliticalobligation.Thattheoryassumesthepriorexistenceofratio-nalmoralimperativesthatMaimonidesrejectsforepistemologicalreasonscoupledwithpoliticalones.26Maimonidestakesmoralinjunctionstobeconventional.Thisex-plainstheproto-Hobbesianflavorofhisdepictionofthehumanpo-liticalconditionthatwenotedabove,andtheroleoftherulerinit.“Itisbynomeanspossible,”arguesMaimonides,thathuman“societyshouldbeperfectedexcept–andthisisnecessarilyso–througharulerwhogaugestheactionsofindividuals”(Guide2:40,382).Itisthisrulerwho“prescribesactionsandmoralhabitsthatallofthemmustalwayspracticeinthesameway,sothatthenaturaldiversityishiddenthroughthemultiplepointsofconventionalaccordandsothatthecommunitybecomeswellordered.”Therulerdefinesthenormsof“conventionalaccord.”27EvenafterIsraelreceivesthedivinelawtheprecedenceofthepoliticalremainsaguidingprincipleofitsconstitutionaltheoryofmonarchy.Thediscussionofa“ruler”intheGuidegiveswaytoadiscussionofthekingintheMishnehTorah.Asacommittedmonar-chist,Maimonidesviewsthekingastheindispensablecohesiveforceofthebody-politic.Theking’sroleiswellanchoredinhisbroadrangeofextra-legalprerogatives:Thekingisempoweredtoputtodeathanyonewhorebelsagainsthim.Evenifanyofhissubjectsisorderedbyhimtogotoacertainplaceandhedoesnotgo,orisorderedtostayhomeandfailstodoso,heisculpable,andthekingmay,ifhesodecides,puthimtodeath...Ifapersonkillsanotherandthereisnoclearevidence,orifnowarninghasbeengivenhim,orthereisonlyonewitness,orifonekillsaccidentallyapersonwhomhehated,thekingmay,iftheexigencyofthehourdemandsit,puthimtodeathinordertoinsurethestabilityofthesocialorder[le-takkenha-olam].Hemayputtodeathmanyoffendersinoneday,hangthem,andsufferthemtobehangingforalongtimesoastoputfearintheheartsofothersandbreakthepowerofthewicked.28CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n190MedievalJewishphilosophyThepoliticallypivotalroleofthekingisestablishedbyhispowertocommandonpainofdeath.Inthepassageprecedingtheonejustcited,MaimonidesmakesclearthatsuchpowerisallottedtoIsraelitekingswhoarenotGodfearingtoo,althoughtheycannotbeheldaccountablefortheiractions:WehavealreadystatedthatthekingsoftheHouseofDavidmaybejudgedandtestifiedagainst.ButwithrespecttothekingsofIsrael,theRabbisen-actedthattheyneitherjudgenorbejudged,neithertestifynorbetestifiedagainst,becausetheyarearrogant,and(iftheybetreatedascommoners)thecauseofreligionwouldsuffer.29Echoingtheargumentsofthebiblicalmonarchictraditionasex-poundedinthebooksofJudgesandSamuel,andinthetalmudictractateSanhedrin,Maimonidesviewspoliticalstabilitytobeen-suredbythepresenceofaking.Anarchyisjudgedtobeagreaterevilthantyranny.Thus,ifwetakeMaimonides’principleofthepriorityofthepolit-icalandinterpretitinstitutionally,theresultwouldbethefollowinggradingofkingsintermsoftheirlegitimacy,fromlowesttohighest:1.AnIsraelitekingwhodoesnotadheretoHalakhah.302.Davidickingswhoarepiousandaccepthalakhicguidance.3.ADavidickingwhoisnotonlypious,butaphilosophertoo.Maimonides’discussionofmessianismattheendofthe“LawsofKings”(MishnehTorah)isconcernedmostlywiththemessianicsta-tusofoption2.“KingMessiahwillariseandrestorethekingdomofDavidtoitsformerstateandoriginalsovereignty.HewillrebuildthesanctuaryandgatherthedispersedofIsrael.Alltheancientlawswillbereinstitutedinhisdays.”31Thereconciliationofmonarchicpoli-ticsanddivinelawinthepersonofthekingisamajorachievementofthisera.Ifthereforetherearisessuchaking,whomeditatesontheTorah,occupieshimselfwiththecommandments,asdidhisancestorDavid,observesthepreceptsprescribedinthewrittenandtheoralLaw,prevailsuponIsraeltowalkinthewaysoftheTorahandtorepairitsbreaches,andfightsthebattlesoftheLord,itmaybeassumedthatheistheMessiah.32Theultimatetestisthedegreeoftheking’sactualsuccessinhisen-deavors:“Ifhedoesthesethingsandsucceeds,rebuildsthesanctuaryCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMedievalJewishpoliticalthought191onitssite,andgathersthedispersedofIsrael,heisbeyondalldoubttheMessiah.”Ifhedoes“notmeetwithfullsuccess,or[is]slain,itisobviousthatheisnottheMessiahpromisedintheTorah.”33Maimonides’hopesreachevenhigher,forakingwhowouldre-semblenotonlyDavid,theoriginalking,inhispoliticalachieve-ments,butMoses,theoriginallawgiver,inhispropheticstatus:“ThekingwhowillarisefromtheseedofDavidwillpossessmorewisdomthanSolomonandwillbeagreatprophet,approachingMosesourteacher.”HispedagogicalcapacitiesarereminiscentofAbraham’s:“HewillteachthewholeoftheJewishpeopleandinstructtheminthewayofGod;andallnationswillcometohearhim.”34Whetherorhowsuchakingwouldexercisehislivingwisdomremainsamatterofspeculation.35AtleastintheMishnehTorah,Maimonidesconsistentlystressesthecontinuingconstraintsofthepoliticalandthelegal:Thegeneralprincipleis:thislawofourswithitsstatutesandordinances...isforeverandalleternity;itisnottobeaddedtoortobetakenawayfrom...SaidtheRabbis:Thesoledifferencebetweenthepresent[thisworld]andthemessianicdaysisdeliveryfromservitudetoforeignpowers.36beyondmedievalphilosophyThebasicparadigmsofHaleviandMaimonidesareelaborated,andtheirdisparateelementssynthesized,bythemanywritersofthethreecenturiesfollowingtheiroriginalformulations.Whilearadi-calphilosopherlikeSamuelibnTibbon,translatorofMaimonides’Guide,focusedontheesotericteachingsimpartedbyJudaism,fig-ureslikeMenahemMeiriattemptedtocontinuetheMaimonideanprojectofsynthesizingHalakhahandphilosophy.Meiriespousedoneofthemoreradicallytolerantconceptionsofothermonothe-isticreligions.TheCatalonianschoolofhalakhistswhofollowedNahmanides,suchasSolomonibnAdret(Rashba)andNissimGerondi(Ran),combinedHaleviannotionsoftheinalienabilityofJewishidentitywithMaimonidean-likeconstitutionalpolitics.Re-countingthehistoryofmedievalJewishphilosophyfromthepointofviewofpoliticalthoughtisaprojectyettobeundertaken.IwillendthepresentdiscussionbypointingtothepostmedievalCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n192MedievalJewishphilosophyamplificationsofthebasicparadigmsbythetwomostimportantheirstotheHispano-Jewishtradition,IsaacAbravanelandBaruchSpinoza.Boththinkerscanbereadasmodelresponsestothepro-foundcrisisemergingfromthedemiseofJewishcultureinSpainanditsfinaldestructionwiththeexpulsionoftheJewsin1492.Thecatastropheoftheexpulsioncalledfornewtheological-politicalmodelsforJewishself-understanding.ThesenseofcrisiswasdramaticallyarticulatedintheworksofIsaacAbravanel,leaderoftheHispano-Jewishcommunity,andmemberofQueenIsabella’scourt,whochoseexpulsionratherthanconversiontoCatholicism.InhiscommentarytothecovenantatMoab(Deuteronomy29),Abravaneladdressestheproblemsoftheongoingvalidityofthecovenantingreatdetail:Thefirstandgreatestofthemall,whichhasoccasionedanintensestruggleamongcontemporaryscholarsintheKingdomofAragon,concernstheissueofthecovenant...WhogaveauthoritytothedesertgenerationwhosefeetstoodatSinaitoobligatethosesucceedingthem...causingthemtobeliableforpunishment?37Mypresentinterestisnotintheimportantissueoftheobligationoffuturegenerations,butinAbravanel’svividdepictionofthereign-ingmoodofcrisisintheKingdomofAragon.Theresponsibilityforupholdingofthecovenant,andenduringthepricethereof,isnolongerself-evidenttomanyJews.Theimportanceoftheircollec-tiveidentityandoftheobligatorynatureoftheirlawisnolongercleartoasufficientnumberofthemandoccasions“anintensestruggle.”AbravanelultimatelyadoptsaHalevi-likeanti-politicsinhisef-forttoprovidehopeandmeaningtohisstrickencommunity.Hedevelopsatheocraticandmessianicpoliticaldoctrineastheonlysolutiontothepoliticalandhistoricalcul-de-sacofJewishhistory.Deliveringthemthroughwar,layingdownlawsandcommandments,anddeterminingoccasionalpunishmentoutsidethelaw–areallperformedbyGodforhispeople.Therefore,Godistheirking,andtheyhavenoneedfora[human]kingforanything.38AndalthoughhewasawareofrepublicanismasabuddingalternativetothemonarchicpoliticsreigninginEurope,hecouldnotdiscerninitanalternativetobettertheJewishlotinexile.39CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMedievalJewishpoliticalthought193Spinoza’sTheological-PoliticalTreatiseisheirtotheHispano-Jewishphilosophicaltraditionandatthesametimeoneofitssever-estcritiques.Thetheological-politicalproblemassumedbyitsverytitleencapsulatesSpinoza’sconflictingapproachestothistradition.Spinozadeliversabittercritiqueofallthecentralthemesofme-dievalJewishpoliticaltheology,rejectingthemajortenetsofitsvar-iousparadigms.Hearguesthatthe(divine)electionisnomorethanapromiseofmaterialgoodfortune,thelawisnolongerbindingafterthedestructionoftheJudeanstate,andbiblicalprophecyhaslittletodowithphilosophicalexcellence.40Atthesametime,anddespitethiscritique,Spinozarecognizesthatnosovereigncanaffordtore-mainindifferenttoreligionandthatthereforenosovereigncandowithoutatheologytobuttressthelegitimacyofhisreign.Andsohisbooknotonlydestroys,butitattemptstosalvagesometheologicalconstructions,inordertorebuildapoliticaltheologytoprovidelegitimacyforhissovereign,themodernrepublic.Spinozaembracesmodernrepublicanismastheregimebestsuitedtoaccepthimasanindividualandbestsuitedforthecultivationofthephilosophiclife.41InterpretersofMaimonideshavebeentroubledbySpinoza’sinti-mateentanglementwithMaimonidesinthecourseofhisproject.42LikeMaimonides,SpinozaviewstheknowledgeofGod,andtheloveofGod,asthehighesthumangood.LikeMaimonides,heseeksapolitythatwouldbecongenialtothephilosopher,anddevel-opsapoliticaltheology,includingprinciplesoffaith,forhispolity.TowhatdegreeisSpinozaprovidinganauthenticinterpretationofMaimonides?SpinozamakesanefforttodistancehimselffromMaimonides,whomheviewsasadogmatist,butheneverthelessadoptsmanyofhisinterpretivestrategies.43Indeed,LeoStrausshasarguedthatabasiccontinuityofpurposeexistsinMaimonides’andSpinoza’sattemptstosafeguardthephilosopherfrompersecu-tionbythereigningclergy.44ThequestionforcestheissueofthecredibilityoftheMaimonideanprojectinamanneranalogoustoitsmedievalcritiqueatthehandsoftherejectersofphilosophi-calrationalism.Thistheological-politicalagendawasinitiatedbyPlatointheRepublicandintheLaws:IstheMaimonideanadop-tionofPlatonicpoliticalphilosophyathinlyveiledharbingeroftheSpinozisticattackonreligion,orisMaimonidesprovidinganau-thenticphilosophicalexpositionofthefoundationsofHalakhah?CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n194MedievalJewishphilosophyThelatteristhecase:MaimonidesendorsestheMosaiclawastheframeworkforhisenterprise,whileSpinozaunequivocallyrejectsit.TheMaimonideanprojectsofrecastingthelegaltraditionofrab-binicJudaismandofreinterpretingthebasicreligiousvaluesoftheMosaiclawareundertakenwiththepurposeofrevolutioniz-ingtheroleofphilosophyinattainingreligiousexcellence.Itisnodoubtarevolutionaryundertaking,butonethatisundertakenfromwithin,withabasicfidelitytotheinstitutionalstructuresofJudaism.MaimonidesandHalevibothengagedinreligiousandsocialcriticism.Maimonideslashesoutagainsttheidolatrousten-denciesofpopularreligion,whereasHaleviengagedinsocialcriti-cismthatissurprisinglycandidinitstreatmentofinstancesofJewishhypocrisy.45Both,however,aimtostrengthenreligiouscommit-ment.Incontrast,thetheological-politicalprojectofSpinoza,likethatofHobbesbeforehim,includesacritiqueofreligionthataimstoeradicateitsinstitutionalstructure.Ultimately,Maimonidesac-ceptedtheresponsibilityofJewishcommunalleadership,whileSpinozalefttheJewishcommunity.Althoughtheypointtothelimitsofmedievalphilosophy,Abravanel’sandSpinoza’sactiveengagementswithitsbasicparadigmsservetolinkHaleviandMaimonidestomodernity.InthiswaytheworksofHaleviandMaimonideshavecontinuedtoinfluencetheshapingofJewishself-understandinglongaftertheirinitialappearance.notes1.R.LernerandM.Mahdi(eds.),MedievalPoliticalPhilosophy:ASource-book(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1972),189.Forananalysis,seeL.Strauss,“Maimonides’StatementonPoliticalScience,”inhisWhatisPoliticalPhilosophy?(Westport,Conn.:GreenwoodPress,1973),155–69,andL.V.Berman,“AReexaminationofMaimonides’‘State-mentonPoliticalScience’,”JournaloftheAmericanOrientalSociety89(1969),106–11.2.Onmedievallegalpluralism,seeH.Berman,LawandRevolution(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1983).OnJewishlegalautonomy,seeM.Elon,JewishLaw:History,SourcesandPrinciples,trans.B.AuerbachandM.Sykes(PhiladelphiaandJerusalem:JewishPublicationSociety,1994),ii:678–779.SeetoothedescriptionofJewishCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMedievalJewishpoliticalthought195communallifeandorganizationinS.D.Goitein,AMediterraneanSociety:TheJewishCommunitiesoftheArabWorldasPortrayedintheDocumentsoftheCairoGeniza.ii.TheCommunity(Berkeley:Uni-versityofCaliforniaPress,1971).3.SeeI.Schorsch,“OntheHistoryofthePoliticalJudgmentoftheJew,”inhisFromTexttoContext:TheTurntoHistoryinModernJudaism(Hanover,N.H.andLondon:BrandeisUniversityPress,1994),118–32;A.Funkenstein,“ThePassivityofDiasporaJewry:MythandReality”[Hebrew],inhisPerceptionsofJewishHistoryfromtheAntiquitytothePresent(TelAviv:AmOved,1991),232–42;D.Biale,PowerandPowerlessnessinJewishHistory(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1986),5–9,34–86.4.LernerandMahdi(eds.),MedievalPoliticalPhilosophy,190.5.Al-Farabi,Fusulal-Madani(AphorismsoftheStatesman),ed.D.M.Dunlop(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1961).SeeJ.Macy,“TheTheological-PoliticalTeachingofShemonahPeraqim:AReap-praisaloftheTextandofitsArabicSources,”inProceedingsoftheEighthWorldCongressofJewishStudies,1981(Jerusalem:WorldUnionofJewishStudies,1982),DivisionC:31–40,and,moregenerally,L.V.Berman,“Maimonides,theDiscipleofAlfarabi,”inMaimonides:ACol-lectionofCriticalEssays,ed.J.Buijs(NotreDame:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1988),195–214.6.MosesMaimonides,TheGuideofthePerplexed,trans.withanintro-ductionbyS.Pines(Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,1963),2:40,381.ForAristotle,seeR.G.Mulgan,“Aristotle’sDoctrinethatManisaPoliticalAnimal,”Hermes102(1974),438–45.7.“TheidealstateisunderstoodaccordingtoPlato’sguidance:theprophetisthefounderofthePlatonicstate”(L.Strauss,PhilosophyandLaw:ContributionstotheUnderstandingofMaimonidesandhisPredeces-sors,trans.E.Adler[Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1995(1935)],127).8.“Inasmuchasallmattersofreligiousbelief,asimpartedbyourmaster,canbeattainedbymeansofresearchandcorrectspeculation,whatwasthereasonthatprompted[divine]wisdomtotransmitthemtousbywayofprophecyandsupportthembymeansofvisibleproofsandmiraclesratherthanintellectualdemonstrations?”(SaadyaGaon,TheBookofBeliefsandOpinions,trans.S.Rosenblatt[NewHavenandLondon:YaleUniversityPress,1976],Introduction:6,31);seetooB.Septimus,Hispano-JewishCultureinTransition:TheCareerandControversiesofRamah(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1982),61–3.ConsiderinthisrespectSaadya’scritiqueofabstinenceinbook10,incontrasttoBahyaibnPaquda’sradicalembracingofSufismCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n196MedievalJewishphilosophyacenturylaterinthefinaltwochaptersofhisDutiesoftheHeart,orincontrasttoGabirol’sNeoplatonism.9.SeeY.Baer,“Ha-Matzavha-PolitishelYehudeiSefardbe-DoroshelR.YehudahHalevi,”Zion1(1936),6–23,reprintedinhisStudiesintheHistoryoftheJewishPeople(Jerusalem:TheHistoricalSocietyofIsrael,1985),251–68.10.JudahHalevi,TheKuzari,trans.L.V.BermanandB.S.Kogan,YaleJudaicaSeries(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,forthcoming);usedwiththepermissionofB.S.Kogan.11.TheirreduciblecharacterofreligiousexperienceisacentralthemeofJuliusGuttmann’sinterpretationofHalevi,“Ha-Yahasbeinha-Datuveinha-FilosofyahlefiYehudahHalevi,”inReligionandKnowledge,trans.S.Eshanded.S.H.BergmanandN.Rotenstreich(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1979),66–85.Noticethatitisthekingwhofirstin-troducesthekeynotionofamral-ilahi,divineorder,inKuzari1:4,whilerejectingthephilosopher’saccountofhumanexcellence.ThispointisintentionallyobscuredbyJudahibnTibbon,whoinhisHebrewtranslationhastranslatedthisasdavarelohi,ratherthanhisusualinyanelohiwhenitisemployedbythehaver.IinterpretIbnTibbon’stranslationasaharmonizingoneaimedatcreditingthehaverwiththetheologyfocusedontheirreducibilityofthedivineorder.FortheJudeo-Arabictext,seeTheBookofRefutationandProofoftheDespisedFaith(theBookoftheKhazars)knownastheKuzari,ed.D.H.Baneth(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1977),6;fortheHebrewtranslation,seeSeferha-Kuzari,be-ha’AtakatoshelRabbiYehudahibnTibbon,ed.A.Zifroni(JerusalemandTelAviv:SchockenBooks,1971),12.12.SeeD.Hartman,IsraelisandtheJewishTradition:AnAncientPeopleDebatingitsFuture(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2000).Theterm“ideal-type”conveysthefactthateventhoughtheyaspiretoprovidesystematicpresentationsofaJudaismloyaltotherabbinicnormativetradition,theverysuccessofthepresentationcomesatthepriceofdistortionofdetail.Theirparadigmsareplaguedbyconstantgaps,re-constructions,andevendistortionswhencomparedtotheinnerdynam-icsofhalakhicdevelopment.(SeeM.Lorberbaum,“Maimonides’LettertoOvadyah,”S’vara3[1993],57–64.)WhetherMaimonidesactuallyreadtheKuzariisunclear;seeH.Kreisel,“JudahHalevi’sInfluenceonMaimonides:APreliminaryAppraisal,”MaimonideanStudies2(1992),95–121.EvenifitwereestablishedthatMaimonidesneverreadthebook(somethingIbelieve,alongwithKreisel,tobeunlikely),thevalueofde-scribingHaleviandMaimonidesasalternativeparadigmswouldnotbediminished.13.Haverisnormallytranslated“rabbi”or“sage.”Thesetranslationsob-scuretheuniqueconnectiontotherabbinicdevelopmentofthepriestlyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMedievalJewishpoliticalthought197holinesstraditionimpliedbythetermhaverasapossiblesourceofin-spirationoftheKuzari’stheoryofritual.InMishnah,Demai2:3,haverisamemberinitiatedintoPhariseepuritynorms.Furthermore,itisbynomeansself-evidentthatHalevishouldbeidentifiedwiththehaver.Thedialogicalcharacteroftheworkistoosubtleforacursorytreatment.SeeL.Strauss,“TheLawofReasonintheKuzari,”inhisPersecutionandtheArtofWriting(Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress,1988),95–141,andA.Motzkin,“OnYehudaHalevi’sKuzariasaPlatonicDialogue”[Hebrew],Iyyun28(1978),209–19.Y.Silman,PhilosopherandProphet:JudahHalevi,theKuzari,andtheEvolutionofhisThought(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1995),isthemostthoroughrecon-structionofHalevi’scourseofphilosophicaldevelopment.However,likealldocumentary-hypothesisanalyses,heretootheredactor’sinten-tionsremainelusive(seethecriticalreviewofSilmanbyD.H.FrankinAJSReview22[1997]).14.OnHalevi’sownpropheticexperiences,seeA.Komem,“BeinShirahli-Nevuah,”Molad25(1969),676–97.15.Cf.theKhazar’scharacterizationin1:4.16.ForadifferentaccountofthecourseofHalevi’sargument,seeSilman,PhilosopherandProphet,285–8.17.Mekhiltade’RabbiIshmael,Bahodesh5,inTheJewishPoliticalTradition.I.Authority,ed.M.Walzer,M.Lorberbaum,andN.Zohar,andco-ed.Y.Lorberbaum(NewHavenandLondon:YaleUniversityPress,2000),27–8.ThereisalsoapowerfulcountertraditioninrabbinicJudaismdenyinganyroletoconsent;seeJewishPoliticalTradition,28–34.Thepointofthecitationbelowistodisplaytheinterpretivechoiceinvolvedinthemedievaltradition.18.Saadya,BeliefsandOpinionsiii:1,139.FortheJudeo-Arabic,seeSeferha-Nivharbe-Emunotuva-Deotle-RabbeinuSaadiahbenJosephFayyumi,ed.andHebrewtrans.J.Kafih(Jerusalem:Sura,1970).19.Halevigivesthefollowingexamples:“forweknowthatgivingcharityandsharing[whatwehave]areobligatory,andthattrainingthesoulbymeansoffastingandobedienceisobligatory.[Wealsoknowthat]deceitisdisgraceful,andpromiscuousbehaviorwithwomenisdisgracefultoo;asishavingintercoursewithsome[ofone’s]relatives,whereashonoring[one’s]parentsisobligatoryandwhatever[else]resemblesthat”(3:7);seetooGuttmann,“Ha-Yahasbeinha-Dat,”69.20.BeliefsandOpinionsiii:3,145–7.21.Maimonides’discussionofhistoryinthecontextoftheodicyintheGuideshowshowintricateaproblemheviewedittobe;seeGuide3:10–13,32.22.BeliefsandOpinionsiii:7,158(Hebrew,132).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n198MedievalJewishphilosophy23.TheCodeofMaimonides:BookofKnowledge,trans.B.Septimus,YaleJudaicaSeries(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,forthcoming);usedwiththepermissionofB.Septimus;seetooM.Kellner,MaimonidesonJudaismandtheJewishPeople(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1991),andhis“Chosenness,notChauvinism:MaimonidesontheChosenPeople,”inAPeopleApart:ChosennessandRitualinJewishPhilosophicalThought,ed.D.H.Frank(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1993),51–75.24.SeeI.Twersky,IntroductiontotheCodeofMaimonides(MishnehTorah)(NewHavenandLondon:YaleUniversityPress,1980),485–6;D.Hartman,“PhilosophyandHalakhahasTwoWaysofChallengingIdolatryinMaimonides’Thought”[Hebrew],JerusalemStudiesinJew-ishThought7(1988),319–33;andD.H.Frank,“IdolatryandtheLoveofAppearances:MaimonidesandPlatoonFalseWisdom,”inProceedingsoftheAcademyforJewishPhilosophy,ed.D.NovakandN.Samuelson(Lanham,London,andNewYork:UniversityPressofAmerica,1992),iii:162–4.25.“Ifamandoubtsanyofthesefoundations,heleavesthecommunity[ofIsrael],deniesthefundamental,andiscalledasectarian,epikoros,andonewho‘cutsamongtheplantings’,”CommentarytotheMishnah,Sanhedrin10:1,inM.Kellner,DogmainMedievalJewishThought:FromMaimonidestoAbravanel(Oxford:LittmanLibrary,1986),16.26.Thisthemehasbeenmuchdiscussedintheliterature,andIrefertoafewrepresentativeworks:S.Pines,“TruthandFalsehoodversusGoodandEvil,”inStudiesinMaimonides,ed.I.Twersky(Cambridge,Mass.:Har-vardUniversityPress,1991),95–157;M.Fox,InterpretingMaimonides:StudiesinMethodology,Metaphysics,andMoralPhilosophy(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1990),124–226;H.Kreisel,Maimonides’PoliticalThought:StudiesinEthics,Law,andtheHumanIdeal(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1999),93–188.27.HencetheimportanceMaimonidesattributestotheethicsofleadership;seeL.V.Berman,“MaimonidesonPoliticalLeadership,”inKinshipandConsent,ed.D.J.Elazar(RamatGan:Turtledove,1987),113–25;A.Funkenstein,“TheImageoftheRulerinJewishSources,”inhisPerceptionsofJewishHistory(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1993),155–68.28.TheCodeofMaimonides,BookFourteen:TheBookofJudges,trans.A.M.Hershman(NewHavenandLondon:YaleUniversityPress,1963),“LawsConcerningKingsandWars,”1:8,10,213–14.SeeM.Lorberbaum,PoliticsandtheLimitsofLaw:SecularizingthePoliticalinMedievalJewishThought(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,2001),43–69.29.“LawsofKings,”3:7,213.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nMedievalJewishpoliticalthought19930.Incases,however,wheretheking’s“coinsdonotcirculateinthelo-calities”underhisrulethekingshouldbe“regardedasarobberwhousesforce,andasatroopofarmedbandits,whoselawsarenotbinding.”“Suchakingandallhisservants,”heargues,“aredeemedrobbersineveryrespect.”(TheCodeofMaimonides,BookEleven:TheBookofTorts,trans.H.Klein[NewHavenandLondon:YaleUniversityPress,1954],“LawsofRobberyandLostProperty,”5:18,110.)31.“LawsofKings,”11:1,238.32.“LawsofKings,”11:4,240.33.AMaimonidesReader,ed.I.Twersky(WestOrange,N.J.:BehrmanHouse,1972),“LawsofKings,”11:4,226.34.Twersky,MaimonidesReader,“LawsofRepentance,”9:2,83.35.SeeJ.Macy,“TheRuleofLawandtheRuleofWisdominPlato,al-Farabi,andMaimonides,”inStudiesinIslamicandJudaicTraditions,ed.W.M.BrinnerandS.D.Ricks(Atlanta:ScholarsPress,1986),205–32.36.“LawsofKings,”11:3,12:2,239–41.Maimonides’messianicvisionanditsattendantantinomianundertonesarethesubjectofgreatscholarlydebate.SeeG.Scholem,TheMessianicIdeainJudaismandOtherEssaysonJewishSpirituality(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1971)1–36;A.Funkenstein,“Maimonides:PoliticalTheoryandRealisticMessian-ism,”inPerceptions,131–51;A.Ravitzky,“‘TotheUtmostofHumanCapacity’:MaimonidesontheDaysoftheMessiah,”inPerspectivesonMaimonides:PhilosophicalandHistoricalStudies,ed.J.L.Kraemer(Oxford:LittmanLibrary,1991),221–56;Lorberbaum,Politics,77–89.37.IsaacAbravanel,“CommentarytothePentateuch,Deuteronomy29,”inWalzer,Lorberbaum,andZohar(eds.),TheJewishPoliticalTradition,37.38.IsaacAbravanel,“CommentarytothePentateuch,Deuteronomy17,”inWalzer,Lorberbaum,andZohar(eds.),TheJewishPoliticalTradition,153.39.SeeL.Strauss,“OnAbravanel’sPhilosophicalTendencyandPoliti-calTeachings,”inIsaacAbravanel:SixLectures,ed.J.B.TrendandH.Loewe(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1937),95–129;B.Netanyahu,DonIsaacAbravanel:StatesmanandPhilosopher(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,1982),150ff.SeealsoG.Weiler,JewishTheocracy(Leiden:Brill,1988),69–85.40.SeeSpinoza,PoliticalTreatiseandTheologico-PoliticalTreatise,inTheChiefWorksofSpinoza,trans.R.H.M.Elwes(NewYork:Dover1955),ii:chs.1–5.41.SeetherecentdiscussioninS.B.Smith,Spinoza,Liberalism,andtheQuestionofJewishIdentity(NewHavenandLondon:YaleUniversityPress,1997).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n200MedievalJewishphilosophy42.SeeH.Cohen,“CharakteristikderEthikMaimunis,”inMosesbenMaimon,ed.W.Bacheretal.(Leipzig:G.Fock,1908),i:63–134.43.SeeS.Pines,“Spinoza’sTractatusTheologico-Politicus,Maimonides,andKant,”inTheCollectedWorksofShlomoPines.v.StudiesintheHistoryofJewishThought,ed.W.HarveyandM.Idel(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1997),687–711.44.Cf.Strauss,Persecution,7–21.45.Cf.Guide1:35–6;Kuzari1:112–15,2:23–4.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\npaulb.fenton10JudaismandSufismintroductionUponcatchingsighttodayinthesynagoguesofSafedorJerusalemofthewhite-clad,beardedkabbalists,engrossedintheirmeditations,oneisunavoidablystruckbythesimilarityinappearancewiththeswaying,white-cappedSufisperformingthedhikrritual.Inpointoffact,thesimilarityisnotonlyexternal;ofallformsofmysticism,per-hapsanunsuspectedandyetremarkableparallelismexistsbetweenIslamicandJewishmysticism.Thoughthetwotendenciesappeartohavedevelopedquiteindependently,therehavebeensignificantpointsofintersectionbetweenthem.WithinthewiderframeworkoftheinfluenceofIslamicthoughtandspirituality,thestudyoftheinteractionbetweenIsraelandIshmaelinthedomainofmysticismisoneofthemostfascinatingchaptersofcomparativereligion.Eveninthebroadlinesoftheirrespectivehistoricalevolutions,JewishandIslamicesotericismbetrayaremarkableresemblance.Bothwentthroughformativeperiodscharacterizedbyecstaticexperiencesandfollowedbyperiodsofconsolidationinwhichmysticaltendenciesweretemperedbylegalismandphilosophy.Bothunderwentpro-foundtransformationsandwereentirelyrenewedinthelateMiddleAgesbynovelcosmologicalandspeculativesystems,sometimesim-buedwith“prophetic”aspirations,andbothfinallydevelopedintoinstitutionalizedbrotherhoods.TheProvenc¸alkabbalistsandeventheAshkenazipietistssawastheirspiritualforbearsthesagesofthegeonicperiodinBaghdad,whosemysticalspeculationsformtheancientsourcesofkabbalis-ticliterature.Theirearlywritings,suchasthecontemplationoftheheavenlychariot(sofeiha-merkavah)bearastrikingresemblanceto201CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n202MedievalJewishphilosophytheSufiaccountsofspiritualascensionsuchasthatofal-Bistami.ThemysticsofIslamtooseeBaghdadastheirspiritualcradleanditistherethatSufism’sformativeperiodevolvedintheshadowofthethrivingEasternwell-springsofJewishspirituality.Thesubse-quenteffortsofSufismtosheditselfofthesuspicionofheresybyespousingstrictlyorthodoxnorms,asexemplifiedintheworksofal-Ghazali(d.1111),alsobearparallelsintheundertakingsofR.Abra-hamMaimonides(d.1237).JustasSufismintegratedphilosophicalelementsfromtheNeoplatonicandAristoteliansystems,sotoothethirteenth-andfourteenth-centurySpanishkabbalistsinparticularundertooktoreconcilethedoctrinesofkabbalahandphilosophy.The“scienceofletters”playsacentralroleinthespeculativeandcontemplativemethodsofmanySufis,suchasal-TustariandIbnArabi(d.1240),justasitsHebrewequivalentpermeatedtheworksofkabbalists,suchasR.AbrahamAbu
l-Afiyah/Abulafia(d.after1291).Indeed,thelatter’smeditativetechnique,calledhazkarah,re-callsbothbyitsnameandmethodtheSufidhikrritual.Thespecula-tiveandcosmologicalsystemembodiedinMuhyial-DinibnArabi’s“MeccanRevelations”(al-Futuhat–theHebrewmysticalequiva-lentpetah,asforexampleinthetitleofR.MosesLuzzatto’sPitheiHokmah–hasasimilarmeaning)completelyrevolutionizedIslamicmysticism,asdidtheteachingsofR.IsaacLuria(d.1572),whichreachedmaturityintheMuslimEast.JustasallpreviousSufithe-orywasreinterpretedthroughtheprismofIbnArabi’ssystem,sotooinJudaismtheSpanishkabbalahandevenitscrowningwork,theZohar,wasreconstruedinthelightofLurianism.Itisnotewor-thythatevenintheliterarydomainthereareremarkableanalogies.AnecessarypartofthewritingsofIbnArabi’sschoolwasdevotedtothelistingandclarificationofistilahatorthetechnicaltermsin-volvedinhisteachings.Similarly,thekabbalistsengagedinthecom-positionoftechnicallexicons(kinnuyim)intheexpoundingoftheirdoctrine.ThefloweringofSufibrotherhoodsaroundtheirshaykh(master)affordsyetagainaninstructiveanalogytothevariousHasidicgroupscenteredaroundthecharismaticzaddiq.Finally,thepoliticizationinthemoderneraofSufifraternitiesandtheinvolve-mentoftheirspiritualleadersinsecularareas,suchaspoliticsandacademia(suchastheKhalwatiinEgypt),paralleltheactivitiesinprewarPolandandcontemporaryIsraelofHasidicdynasties,whoserankshavefurnishednotafewpublicfiguresandacademicscholars.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudaismandSufism203beginningsintheeastFromastrictlychronologicalpointofview,itwasJudaismthatini-tiallyinfluencedSufisminitsformativeperiodinBaghdad.Surpris-ingly,whilescholarshaverecognizedtheinfluenceofNeoplatonismandChristianpietismontheevolutionofMuslimasceticismatthistime,theyhavefailedtopointouttheprofoundmarkimprintedonSufismbytheambientJewishmilieu.Indeed,Mesopotamia,cradleoftheBabylonianTalmud,wasatthefocalcenteroftheworldofJewishlearning,which,moreover,readilyunderwenttheprocessofArabizationaftertheMuslimconquest.Amongthegreatperson-alitiesattachedtothetalmudicacademiesofBaghdadweretobefoundcertaincharismaticfigureswhoembodiedtheancientrab-binicpietisticidealsofsimplicityandsaintliness,virtuescherishedbynascentSufism.Moreover,Sufihagiographyhaspreservedanum-berofedifyingtalesof“thepiousmenfromamongthechildrenofIsrael,”knownasisra
iliyyat.ManyofthesetalesaretraceabletorabbinicsourcessuchasthePirkeiAvot(ChaptersoftheFathers),oneofthefoundationsofJewishpietism.Oneparticularlyimportantconceptundoubtedlyoriginatingintalmudicliterature,whichwasassimilatedatthistimeandwhichwastoplayafundamentalroleinIslamicmysticism,wasthebeliefinahiddenhierarchyofsaints,whoseblessingssustainedtheworld.Supposedlytheseelementshadbeentransmittedthroughinterreli-giouscontactsorJewishconvertstoIslam.However,onceSufismhadasserteditselfasaspiritualforce,itbegantoexertacompellingattractionforJews.Acertainnumberofconversionstookplacepre-ciselyinSuficirclesinBaghdad,wherewefindJewsattendingthelecturesofthefirstmysticalmasters.Indeed,SufihistoriographersliketorelateaccountsofthemiraculousconversionofJewstoIslamthroughtheactionofMuslimmystics,suchasIbrahimal-Khawwas.ThesekindsofcontactwerenodoubtfacilitatedbytherelativeopennessofcertainSufimasterstowardmembersofotherreligiouspersuasions.ThoughtracesofSufibeliefsconcerningtheasceticidealandthevanityofthelowerworldmaybedetectedintheworksoftenth-centuryJewishauthorsinBaghdad,suchasSaadyaGaon(d.942),itis,however,onlyduringtheJudeo-Arabicculturalsym-biosisinSpaininthefollowingcenturythatdefiniteevidenceofliteraryinfluencecanbepinpointed.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n204MedievalJewishphilosophythegoldenageofspainItiswellknownthattheIberianpeninsulawasafertileterrainofinterculturalexchangebetweenJew,Christian,andMuslim.Fromamuchlaterperiodwehaveevidenceoftheologicaldiscussionsbe-tweenthegreatMuslimmysticMuhyial-DinibnArabi(d.1240)andaJewishrabbionthenatureofthelettersoftheHolyScriptures.Itcanbeassumedthatsuchcontactsalsotookplaceinprevioustimes.TherehadbeenanearlyfloweringofSufisminAndalusia,mainlyowingtotheteachingsoftheMuslimmysticalmasterIbnMasarrah(886–931).Whileoverestimatingthelatter’sinfluenceonMuslimandJewishNeoplatonisminAndalusia,scholarshaveover-lookedthesignificantfactthatIbnMasarrah,aswellashisspiritualheir,Sahlal-Tustari,laidsignificantemphasisonthemysticalroleoftheArabicalphabet.ThisdisciplineisalsoafundamentalaspectofthetheosophicalsystemofIbnArabi,andasubjectthat,asjustpointedout,hewoulddiscusswithJews.Fromtalmudictimes(thirdtofourthcenturiesce),andlaterinthekabbalah,thesenumericalspeculations,knownasgematria,wereacentralpartofJewishexe-gesisandesotericism.Thestrikingsimilaritiesbetweenthedevelop-mentofthesemysticalconceptionsinbothreligionsleavesnodoubtastoaninitialJewishinfluenceontheMuslim“scienceofletters”andtheirlaterinteraction.AlthoughdefiniteliterarytracesofIslamicmysticismarealreadypresentinthereligiouspoetryoftheprominentAndalusianHebrewpoetssuchasSolomonibnGabirol(d.1054/8)andJudahHalevi(1075–1141),thefirstJewishmedievalproseworktoexhibitapro-foundappreciationofSufidoctrinewastheFara
idal-qulub(DutiesoftheHeart),atreatiseonascetictheologycomposedinArabicbyR.BahyaibnPaquda(c.1080).Inanefforttoremedytheritualfor-malismandreligiousdesiccationofhisfellowJews,Bahyadevisedanindividualistic,inwarditinerary,guidingthesoulthroughcon-templationandlovetounionwiththe“supernallight,”basedontheprogressivespiritualstagesofthepathassetoutinSufipietisticman-uals.Bahya’suseofSufisourceswasnotaltogetherindiscriminate;henotablyrejectsformsofextremeasceticismandself-mortificationpreachedbycertaincontemplativeSufisandheadoptsareservedlineonthequestionofunionwithGod.Despitethepainshetakestocam-ouflagematerialofatooostensiblyIslamiccharacterbyreplacingCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudaismandSufism205theQur
anicquotationsofhissourceswithbiblicalones,hiswordsintheintroductiontothebookbetrayhisapprehensionatintroduc-inganovelkindofdevotionintotheJewishfold.Hepreemptsthedisapprovalofhiscoreligionistsbyjustifyinghimselfwiththetal-mudicadage“Whosopronouncesawordofwisdom,evenaGentile,istobecalledawiseman.”TheDutiesoftheHeartwasoneofthefirstclassicsofJudeo-Arabicliteraturetobetranslatedintotheholytongue.TheHebrewversion,whichgreatlyattenuateditsIs-lamicstamp,wastowieldanabidinginfluenceonJewishspiritualityrightdowntopresenttimes,infusinggenerationsofJewishreaderswithSufinotions.AfterhavinginfluencedtheSpanishandthere-afterthePalestiniankabbalists,whowereparticularlyinterestedinBahya’sreflectionsonsolitarymeditation,theDutiesoftheHeartwasavidlyreadintheeighteenthcenturybythePolishHasidim,whoborrowedfromitsomeoftheirbasicethicalconcepts,suchasquietism,thedistinctionbetweenexternalandinternalsolitude,andthatbetweenphysicalandspiritualwarfare.Thuswefindinthewrit-ingsofoneofthefirstHasidicproponents,JacobJosephofPolonnoy,thefamousquotation:“Youhavereturnedfromthelesserwar,nowprepareforthegreaterwar[withone’snature].”Bahyacitesthissay-inginthenameofthe“Sage,”butinrealitytheMuslimsourcesuponwhichhedrewattributeittotheProphetMuhammad!TheworksofsomelaterAndalusianauthorslikewisebetrayfamiliar-itywithMuslimmysticalwritings.TheallegoricalcommentaryontheSongofSongscomposedinArabicbyJosephibnAqnin(twelfthcentury)takesonthecharacterofaSufitreatiseondivinelove.Evenmoreremarkableisthefactthatinthisbooktheau-thorprovidesdefinitionsoflovethatareculledfromal-Qushayri’sRisalah(“Epistle”),oneofSufism’sbasictextbooks.FurthermoreinhisTibbal-nufus(HygieneoftheSouls),IbnAqnindoesnothes-itatetoquotetheSufimysticssuchasal-Junayd(d.910)andIbnAdham,referringtothembytheirSufiepithets:shaykhat-ta
ifah,“theelderofthecommunity,”andal-ruhanial-akmal,“theperfectspirit.”Theseexamples,ofgreatinterestforthehistorianofAndalusianSufism,remained,however,isolatedandsporadic,nodoubtonac-countofthewaninginfluenceofSufismitself,relentlesslyperse-cutedonSpanishsoilbyMalikiteintolerance.ThereisnoevidencethatevenBahya’sbook,notwithstandingitspopularity,gaverisetoCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n206MedievalJewishphilosophyasizeablemovementofaSufibrandofJewishpietists.However,elsewhere,thefollowingcenturiesweretowitnessthegrowthandspreadofSufisminotherlandsanditssustainedinfluenceonJewishspirituality.thejewishpietistmovementinegyptEgypthadlongbeenahotbedofmysticism.LongaftertheTher-apeutsandtheChristiananchorites,thecountryproducedsomeoftheforemostMuslimmystics,suchasDhual-Nunal-Misri(796–861)andtheforemostSufipoet,Umaribnal-Farid(d.1235).Hereflour-ishedthegreatcharismaticfiguressuchasAbu
l-Hasanal-Shadhili(d.1258),Muhammadal-Badawi(d.1276),Abu
l-Abbasal-Mursi(d.1287),andIbnAta
Allah(d.1309),whoseinfluencecertainlyextendedbeyondtheIslamiccommunity.UndertheirswaySufismbecameprogressivelyinstitutionalized,givingrisetotheestablish-mentofflourishingbrotherhoodsintheurbancenters.NodoubttheirinfectiousspiritualfervorhadrepercussionsonthelocalJewishpopulations.Moreover,EgypthadbecomeahavenforJewishrefugeesfleeingAlmohadpersecutionintheWestandCrusaderwarsintheEast.Suchsocialupheavalsprobablyencouragedmysticalyearnings,heightenedbymessianicexpectations.Dissatisfiedwiththeexces-siverationalismofPeripateticphilosophy,certainindividualJewsinsearchofdeeperreligiousexpressionlookedtowardtheirimmediatespiritualmodel,theSufis.Thoughtheexactperiodandthepersonalitiesinvolvedintheemergenceofthistendencyremainuncertain,itseemsthatatthetimeoftheeminentscholarandleaderMosesMaimonides(1138–1204)anumberofJewshadalreadybeguntoadopttheSufiwayoflife.Indeedseveraldocumentshavesurvivedfromthisperiodbear-ingpersonalnamesqualifiedbytheepithethe-hasid,“thepious.”Thiswasnomerehonorifictitle,butdesignatedanindividualwhofollowedaspiritualregimeakintothatoftheSufis.TheinterestSufiliteratureheldforJewsduringthisperiodiswellattestedbythemultipledocumentsbroughttolightintheCairoGeniza.Thelatter,alumber-roomattachedtoanancientsynagogue,haspreservedthou-sandsofsacredwritingsdatingfromthemedievalperiod,whichwerediscoveredattheendofthenineteenthcentury.TheyincludednumeroustextsofaSuficharacter,testifyingtothepopularityofthisCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudaismandSufism207kindofliteratureamongJewishreaders.Thesemanuscriptsareba-sicallyoftwosorts:ontheonehand,MuslimSufiwritingseitherinArabiccharactersorcopiedintoHebrewlettersfortheconvenienceofJewishreaders,or,ontheother,pietistwritingsofSufiinspirationwrittenbyJewishauthors.AmongthefirstcategoryallthetendenciesofSufiliteraturearerepresented,fromtheearlymastersofBaghdadrightdowntotheIllu-minationistIshraqischoolfoundedbySuhrawardiinthetwelfthcen-tury.Therearetextsbyal-Junayd,pagesfromal-Qushayri’sRisalah,poemsbyal-Hallaj,theMahasinal-majalisbytheAndalusianmys-ticIbnal-Arif,theMunqidhminal-dalal(al-Ghazali’sspiritualau-tobiography),al-Shaydhalah’sTreatiseonDivineLove,Suhrawardi’sKalimatal-tasawwufandhisHayakilal-nur,tonamejustafew.Inadditiontothesearetobefoundvarioustextscontainingquotations,tales,anecdotes,andevensongsbySufimasters.ThesecondcategoryismadeupoftheJewishpietists’owncom-positions.Theseincludeethicalmanualsandtheologicaltreatises,descriptionsofmysticalstatesaswellasexegeticalworks.Thoughthesewritingsarebasedontraditionalrabbinicthemes,theyshowanattempttoreinterpretthescripturalnarrativeinharmonywithSufidoctrine,oftenportrayingbiblicalfiguresasmastersoftheSufipath.Theyarenot,however,simpleJudaizedadaptationsofMuslimtexts,butoriginalcompositions,dexterouslytransposedinthebiblicalandrabbinictexture.ThemostoutstandingauthoraboutwhomanythingsubstantialisknownwasnoneotherthanR.Abraham(1186–1237),sonofthegreatrationalistJewishphilosopherMosesMaimonides.Atthedeathofhisfather(1204)AbrahambecamethespiritualleaderofEgyp-tianJewryandlateraccededtoapositionofpoliticaleminenceasnagid,“headoftheJews.”Notonlywashevirtuallythesupremereligiousandpoliticalfigureofhistime,buthewasalsoanardentprotagonistoftheSufiformofJewishpietismhenceforthknownashasidut.Itisunknownwhenheembracedthistendencybutitisthoughtthathewasalreadydedicatedtothepietistwayoflifewhenhesucceededhisillustriousfatherin1205.AbrahamMaimonidescomposedacommentaryonthePentateuchwhereinheoftende-pictstheancientbiblicalcharactersaspietistsinthesamewayasSufiliteratureadornstheProphetandhiscompanionsinthegarboftheearlySufis.HoweverAbraham’smagnumopuswastheKifayatCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n208MedievalJewishphilosophyal-Abidin(CompendiumfortheServantsofGod),amonumentallegalandethicaltreatise,which,thoughinmanyrespectssimilartohisfather’sMishnehTorah,isdistinctiveinthestrongpropensityhedisplaysthereinformysticismofamanifestlyMuslimtype.Indeed,farfromsharingBahya’smisgivingsaboutusingMuslimsources,AbrahamMaimonidesovertlyexpresseshisadmirationfortheSufisinwhomheseestheheirsofancientIsraelitetraditions.Atonepoint,afterhavingclaimedthatthetruedressoftheancientprophetsofIsraelwassimilartotheraggedgarments(muraqqaat)wornbytheSufis,hedeclares:“Donotregardasunseemlyourcomparisonofthat[thetruedressoftheprophets]totheconductoftheSufis,forthelatterimitatetheprophets[ofIsrael]andwalkintheirfootsteps,nottheprophetsintheirs.”1Similarly,theSufiinitiationritual,consistingintheinvestitureofthemaster’scloak(khirqah),wasoriginallypracticedbytheprophetsofIsrael,accordingtotheauthoroftheKifayah:Bycastinghiscloakover[Elisha],Elijahhintedtohim,asifinjoyfulan-nunciation,thathisgarmentsanddressaswellastherestofhisconductwouldbelikehis.ThusheannouncedtohimthefactthatElijah’sspiritualperfectionwouldbetransferredtohimandthathe[Elisha]wouldattainthedegreewhichhehimselfhadattained.Thouartawareofthewaysoftheancientsaints[awliya
]ofIsrael,whicharenotorbutlittlepractisedamongourcontemporaries,thathavenowbecomethepracticeoftheSufisofIslam,“onaccountoftheiniquitiesofIsrael,”namelythatthemasterinveststhenovice[murid]withacloak[khirqah]asthelatterisabouttoenteruponthemysticalpath[tariq].“Theyhavetakenupthineownwords”(Deuteronomy33:3).Thisiswhywemoreovertakeoverfromthemandemulatetheminthewearingofsleevelesstunicsandthelike.2TheideathatSufipracticesareofJewishoriginisrepeatedbyAbrahamelsewherewhenhedealswiththeSufiasceticdiscipline:WeseealsotheSufisofIslampracticeself-mortificationbycombatingsleepandperhapsthatpracticeisderivedfromthewordsof[king]David...Ob-servethenthesewonderfultraditionsandsighwithregretoverhowtheyhavebeentransferredfromusandappearedamongstanationotherthanourswhereastheyhavedisappearedinourmidst.Mysoulshallweepinse-cret...becauseoftheprideofIsraelthatwastakenfromthemandbestoweduponthenationsoftheworld.3CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudaismandSufism209Unlikehisfatherwhohadwrittenapurelylegalcode,AbrahamMaimonidesemphasizedthespiritualsignificanceofthepreceptsanddiscussedthe“mysteries”theyconceal,inamannersimilartotheMuslimmystics,suchasal-GhazaliinhisIhya
ulumal-din.TheauthoroftheKifayahbelievedthathehadrediscoveredsomeofthesemysteriesinthetraditionspreservedbytheSufis,whichhadbeenforgottenbytheJewsonaccountofthemultipletribulationsoftheExile.ThisbeliefprovidesakeyastothereasonwhythepietistsadoptedmanifestlyMuslimcustoms.Furthermore,itseemsthatthepietists,whocalledthemselves“thedisciplesoftheprophets,”wereprofoundlyconvincedoftheimminentrenewalofprophecyinIsrael.TheybelievedthattheSufipracticeswerenotonlyoriginallyancientJewishtraditions,butalsoanintegralpartofa“propheticdiscipline.”ThustheirrestorationtotheJewishfoldwasmeanttoacceleratethepropheticprocess.These“reforms”includedanumberofdevotionalpractices,clearlyinspiredbyMuslimmodels,whosepurposewastoenhancethedecorumandpurportofsynagogueworship.Asapreliminarytoprayer,thenagidinsistedontheritualablutionofhandsandfeet,thoughnotstrictlyrequiredbyJewishlaw.Ontheotherhand,thisritewasobligatoryinMuslimcustomandconsideredespeciallymer-itoriousbySufiauthors.Abrahaminstitutedthearrangementofwor-shipersinrows,asinmosques,facingJerusalematalltimesduringthesynagogueservices.Heprescribedvariousposturesduringcertainprayers,suchasstanding,kneeling,andfrequentbowing,aswellasthespreadingofthehandsandweepinginsupplication.Inadditiontocanonicalprayers,nightlyvigilsanddailyfastswererecommended.However,themosttellingritualadoptedbythepietistswasthatofsolitarymeditation,acharacteristicSufipracticeknownaskhalwah.Herethedevoteewouldretirefromsocietyforprotractedperiodsinanisolatedanddarkplaceinordertodevotehimselftoworshipandmeditation.AbrahamMaimonidesalsoconsideredthispracticeofJewishorigin:AlsodotheSufisofIslampracticesolitudeindarkplacesandisolatethem-selvesinthemuntilthesensitivepartofthesoulbecomesatrophiedsothatitisnotevenabletoseethelight.ThishoweverrequiresstronginnerilluminationwherewiththesoulwillbepreoccupiedsoasnottobepainedCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n210MedievalJewishphilosophyovertheexternaldarkness.NowRabbiAbrahamhe-HasidusedtobeoftheopinionthatsolitudeindarknesswasthethingalludedtointhestatementofIsaiah:“WhoisamongyouthatfeareththeLordthatobeyeththevoiceofHisservant,whowalkethindarknessandhathnolight?LethimtrustinthenameoftheLord,andstayuponhisGod”(Isaiah50:10).4Asisknown,oneofthemosttypicalaspectsoftheSufipathisthenecessityofspiritualdevelopmentundertheguidanceofamaster.AbrahamMaimonidesseestheoriginofthisprincipleinthedisciplineoftheancientprophets:KnowthatgenerallyinorderfortheWaytoattainsuccessfullyitstruegoal[wusul],itmustbepursuedundertheguidance[taslik]ofapersonwhohasal-readyattainedthisgoal,asitissaidinthetradition:“Acquireamaster”[Avot1:6].Thebiblicalaccountsconcerningmastersandtheirdisciplesarewellknown:JoshuatheservantofMoseswasoneofhisdisciples,who,havingattainedthegoal,succeededhim.Theprophetsadoptedthesameconduct.Samuel’sguide[musallik]wasEli,ElijahwasthatofElisha,andJeremiahthatofBarukhsonofNeriah.Moreoverthe“disciplesoftheprophets”werethuscalledbecausetheprophetsweretheirspiritualguides.Thispracticewasadoptedbyothernations[theSufis],whoinstitutedinimitationofJew-ishcustomtherelationbetweenshaykhandservant,masteranddisciple...Ifthewayfareriscapableandremainsfaithfultoinstructions,hewillattainhisgoalthroughtheguidanceofanaccomplishedmaster.5CertainJewishpietisttextsalsomentionthetypicalSufipracticeofdhikr,or“spiritualrecollection,”butsofarnodetailshavebeendiscoveredonhowthisspecificritualwascarriedoutinJewishcir-cles,asitmostprobablywas.Becauseoftheirprotracteddevotions,thepietistsestablishedspecialprayer-halls;itisknown,forinstance,thatAbrahamMaimonidespossessedhisownprivatesynagogue.Inadditiontotheforegoingpractices,otheraspectsofthepietistdis-ciplineofanasceticnaturearetobefoundinthewritingsofothermembersofthepietistcircle.Notably,contrarytotraditionalJewishethics,theJewishpietists,likecertainSufis,advocatedcelibacyandconsideredmarriageandfamilyresponsibilitiesanimpedimenttospiritualfulfillment.ObadyahMaimonides,Abraham’sson,saysthefollowingaboutmarriage:“KnowthatthetruemysticsofthispathstrivedtoperfecttheirsoulsbeforemarriageintheknowledgethatafterbegettingspouseandoffspringtherewouldbelittleopportunityCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudaismandSufism211forspiritualachievement.”6Thesameauthoralsoshunnedallma-terialsuperfluitiesandtaughtaregimeofextremeausterity:Coverthyhead,letfallthytears,andletpurityfollowinthywake,spendthydaysinfastingthroughouttheday.Delightnotinthejoysofthevulgarandbenotdismayedatthatwhichgrievesthem.Inawordbenotsadwiththeirsadnessandrejoicenotwiththeirmerriment.Despisefrivolityandlaughter,ratherobservesilenceandspeaknotexceptoutofnecessity.Eatnotexceptoutofcompulsionandsleepnotunlessovercome,andallthewhilethyheartshouldcontemplatethispursuitandthythoughtsbeengagedtherein.7ThefigureofAbrahamMaimonidesinauguratesalongassocia-tionofthecelebratedMaimonidesfamilywithpietismofaSufitype,lasting,nodoubtwithsomeinterruptions,fornearlytwocenturies.Indeed,Abraham’sownson,justmentioned,ObadyahMaimonides(1228–1265),hadstrongleaningstowardsSufism,ascanbegatheredfromhiscompositional-Maqalaal-Hawdiyyah(TheTreatiseofthePool).ThelatterisanethicalvademecumandamysticalmanualforthespiritualwayfareruponthepathleadingtoGodthroughunionwiththeintelligiblerealm.ItisbasedonthetypicallySuficompari-sonofthehearttoapoolthatmustbecleansedbeforeitcanbefilledwiththevivifyingwatersofgnosis.Couchedinanallusivestyle,thetreatiseisrepletewithSufitechnicalterms.AlsoworthyofnoteisObadyah’stendencytoprojectSufistereotypesintothepatriarchalpast.ThusAbraham,Isaac,andJacobbecomewanderinghermitspracticingsolitarymeditationinthewilderness.DavidbenJoshua(c.1335–1415),thelastoftheMaimonideansrecordedbyhistory,wasalsointerestedinSufism.Hisworkal-Murshidilat-tafarrud(TheGuidetoDetachment),oneofthelastcreationsofneoclassicalJudeo-Arabicliterature,representsthemostfar-reachingsynthesisbetweentraditionalrabbinicalethicsandthespiritualstatesoftheSufipath.FollowingthetraditionofSufimanu-als,whichbeginwithadefinitionofSufism,theauthorfirstproposesadefinitionofhasidut.Thebodyoftheworkisbasedonanethicalformulataughtbytherabbis,whichDaviddevelopsasthecentralmotifofaspiritualprogramlargelyconstruedinthelightofthemysticalstationsoftheSufipathandtheIlluminationistphilosophyofSuhrawardi.Thushederivestheinitialvirtue,zehirut,normallysignifying“precaution,”fromtherootzhr“toshine,”associatingCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n212MedievalJewishphilosophyitwiththeIlluminationistnotionofishraq,sincethefirststeponthepathtoperfectionismotivatedbythequestforlight.ThecentralityoftheMaimonideanfamilyisfurtherindicatedbythefactthatacertainnumberofpersonalitiesassociatedwiththepietistcirclewerealsorelatedtothisprestigiousdynasty.AbrahamAbuRabiahe-HasidwasoneoftheleadersoftheJewishSufisinEgypt.HewastheauthorofamysticalcommentaryontheSongofSongs,whichisconceivedofasanallegoricaldialoguebetweenthemysticintoxicatedwithdivineloveandtheobjectofhisdesire,thebeatificvision.AnothernoteworthyadeptofthepietistcirclewasR.Hanan
elbenSamuelal-Amshati,whowasnotonlyamemberofAbrahamMaimonides’rabbinicalcourtbutalsohisfather-in-law.SeveralGenizadocumentsrefertohimas“he-Hasid,”the“pietist.”Heisnowknowntohavebeentheauthorofaconsiderableexegeti-calworkthatreflectshisstaturenotonlyasaphilosopher,butalsoasamysticinsofarashisexplanationsresoundwithSufitechnicalterms.Moreover,R.Hanan
elwasacommittedpietistactivist,foracertaindocumentportrayshimalongsidehisson-in-lawdefendingthemovement.Indeedtheintroductionoftheirnovelpracticesdidnotgounchallenged,andthepietists,likemanyrevivalistmove-mentsinreligioushistory,metwithvirulentopposition.DespiteAbrahamMaimonides’politicalandreligiousprestige,whichim-menselycontributedtothefurtheranceofthepietistmovement,hehadtofacefierceopponents,whoevenwentsofarastodenouncehimtotheMuslimauthorities,accusingthepietistsofintroducing“falseideas,”“unlawfulchanges,”and“gentile(Sufi)customs”intothesynagogue.OppositioncontinuedduringtheofficeasnagidofAbraham’ssonDavidMaimonides(1222–1300),whosesynagoguewascloseddown,andwho,atonepoint,wascompelledtoleaveEgypt,seekingrefugeinAcre.Thisopposition,coupledwiththefactthataccesstothe“pietistway”wasreservedfromitsveryincep-tionfortheselectfew,mayexplainwhythemovementdidnotgainuniversalapprovalbut,withthegeneraldeclineofOrientalJewry,graduallydisappearedintototaloblivion.laterinfluencesSufismcontinuedsporadicallytobeasourceoffascinationforindi-vidualJewsinensuingcenturies.MentionhasalreadybeenmadeofCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudaismandSufism213thefactthatR.DavidIIMaimonides(c.1335–1415)showedinterestinSufism.AcomplaintaddressedtohimbyaJewishhousewifehasbeenpreservedintheGeniza,informinghimthatherhusband,in-fatuatedwithSufism,hadabandonedherinordertogoandliveinaSuficonventundertheguidanceofthefamousSufial-KuraniintheMuqattammountainsoutsideCairo.AccordingtoinformationprovidedbytheArabbiographeral-Kutubi,theJewsofDamascuswouldassembleinthehouseoftheSufial-HasanibnHud(thirteenthcentury)inordertostudyMaimonides’GuideofthePerplexedunderhissupervision.DidthismeanthattheysoughttointerprettheGuideinthelightofSufism?AslateasthesixteenthcenturythegreatEgyptianMuslimmystical-Shaaranirelatesinhisautobiog-raphythereputationheenjoyedamongsthisJewishadmirerswhowouldattendhislecturesandrequesthimtowriteamuletstopro-tecttheirchildren.JewsalsomaintainedcontactswithSufisinotherlocalities.KaraiteJewsshowedaninterestinSufiwritings,whichtheywerestillcopyingintheseventeenthcentury.PerhapstheyfeltakinshipbetweenSufiasceticismandtheirownratherausterebrandofethics.TracesofSufismarealsotobefoundinthewritingsoffifteenth-centuryYemeniteJewswhofreelyuseSuficonceptsandquoteversesfromthemysticalpoetryoftheSufimartyral-Hallaj.InSpainandProvence,duringthegreatmovementoftranslationinthethir-teenthcentury,manySuficonceptspercolatedintoJewishliteraturethroughtheintermediaryofHebrewtranslations,especiallythoseoftheworksofal-Ghazali.Similarly,butinacompletelydifferentpartoftheIslamicworld,thecopyingintoHebrewcharactersofPersianSufipoetry,suchasthatofRumiandSadi,nodoubtcontributedtothediffusionofSufiideasamongPersianJews.Itisworthwhilerecallinginthiscontexttheexquisiterub
ayyatofSarmad(d.1661),aremarkablePersianJewwhobecameawanderingSufidervishinIndia.theearlykabbalistsYetanotherareawherecontactstookplacebetweenJewsandSu-fiswastheHolyLand,wherethrivingcentersofMuslimculturesuchasJerusalemandevenSafedfloweredinthethirteenthcen-tury.ContemporaryPalestiniankabbalistsclosetothecircleofCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n214MedievalJewishphilosophyR.AbrahamAbu
l-Afiyah/Abulafia(d.after1291)notonlybetrayacertainnumberofSufipracticesintheiresotericdisciplinebutalsotestifytotheirhavingdirectlyobservedtheSufidhikrritual.Abu
l-AfiyahmayhimselfhaveencounteredSufisduringhisbriefvisittoAcrearound1260orelsewhereinthecourseofhiswidetravels.Thefocalpointofhisecstaticmethodisthepracticeofhazkarah,atermitselfstrikinglyreminiscentoftheArabicdhikr.Independentlyofcanonicalprayer,thepurposeofthisactivitywastopreparethedevoteeforpropheticinspiration.Themeditativeritual,practicedinanisolatedanddarkplace,assetoutinAbu
l-Afiyah’swritings,obviouslyinvolvesSufitechniques.Afterpreliminarypreparations,thedevotee,arrayedinwhite,adoptsaspecialpostureandproceedstopronouncethedivinenameaccompaniedwithrespiratorycontrolandmovementsofthehead.Abu
l-Afiyah’sdoctrineswerepropagatedintheEast.Thekab-balistsoftheHolyLand,suchasIsaacofAcco,ShemTovibnGaon,andtheanonymousauthorofShaareyZedeq,adoptedthemedi-tativemethodofhisprophetickabbalah,furtherenrichingitwithelementsofSufiprovenance.IsaacofAcco(c.1270–1340)inpar-ticularseemedtohavehaddirectknowledgeofSufitechniques,includingsolitarymeditation(khalwahinArabic,hitbodedutinHebrew)andthevisualizationofletters.IsaacisalsoanimportantlinkinthetransmissionofthesemethodstothelaterkabbalistsofSafed.HehimselfmayhavehadpersonalcontactswithSufis,forhehadagoodknowledgeofArabic.Alternatively,hemayhavemadetheacquaintanceofDavidMaimonidesandhispietistcompanionsduringthelatter’sexileinAcco(Acre)whichlasteduntil1289.thekabbalistsofsafedThehistoriansoftheextraordinarykabbalisticschoolofSafedhaveinsufficientlytakenintoaccounttheinfluenceoftheIslamicen-vironmentwhendealingwiththenovelpracticesintroducedbythedisciplesofR.IsaacLuria(1534–1572),himselfanativeofEgypt.TheTurkishtravelerEvliyaChelebitestifiesthatinthesixteenthcen-tury,thatisduringtheveryheydayofLurianickabbalah,SafedwasavibrantSuficenterwhichpossesseditstekkiye,orSuficonvent,andspiritualretreats.ItisnotunreasonablethereforetosupposethatbehindsomeofthemysticalritualsinitiatedbythekabbalistslieCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudaismandSufism215Sufimodels.Amongthemostsignificant,mentioncanbemadeofsaintworshipandvisitationofthetombsofsaintsandtheirinvo-cation,whicharesimilartoMuslimpracticesconnectedwiththeziyarahrite,thegatheringofspiritualbrotherhoods(havurot)aroundthepersonofthesaint,andspiritualconcerts(baqashshot),vigilsconsistinginthesingingofdevotionalpoems,similartotheSufisamaceremony.However,themostimportantritualwasthatofhitbodedut,“solitarymeditation.”Afterahiatusofmorethanacentury,con-templativeelementsofaSuficharacterresurgeinthewritingsofthesixteenth-centurySpanishexilesestablishedintheHolyLand.ThoughthisphenomenoncanbeseenasacontinuationofAbu
l-Afiyah’sschool,thepossibilitycannotbeexcludedthatitisasurvivalfromthedoctrineoftheJewishSufis.AmongthefirstauthorstoevokeanewthisdisciplinewereJudahal-Butini(d.1519)inhisSullamha-aliyah(LadderofAscension,atitleinit-selfredolentofSufism)andMosesCordovero(d.1570)inhisPardesrimmonim(OrchardofPomegranates).Meditationandbreathcon-trolcontinuedtobepracticedindarkplacesinordertobringaboutaninternalilluminationofthesoul.Othertechniquesobserveddur-ingtheperiodicretreatsalsobetraySufiinfluence:ritualpurity,completesilence,fasting,restrictionofsleepandfood,confidenceinGod,and,aboveall,therepetitionofdivinenamesasapathtoecstasy.theshabbatiansThelastsignificantcontactbetweenJewishandMuslimmysticstookplaceduringthereligiousturmoilbroughtaboutbythemysticalmessiahShabbetaiZevi(d.1676),whosetragicdestinyledhimtoconversiontoIslam.DuringhisconfinementinAdrianople,whilestillinwardlypracticingJudaism,ShabbetaiZeviwouldattenddhikrseancesintheBektashiconventatHizirlikand,itseems,establishedcontactswiththefamouskhalwatimystic,Muhammadal-Niyazi(d.1694).Hisapostatefollowers,knownastheDonmeh,continued¨tomaintaincloserelationswiththemysticalbrotherhoodsinTurkeyandinparticularwiththesyncretisticBektashis,fromwhomtheyborrowedacertainnumberofritualsandTurkishliturgicalpoemsandmelodieswhichwereincludedintheirceremonies.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n216MedievalJewishphilosophyItiswellknownthattheeighteenth-centuryEastEuropeanHasidicmovementtookrootandfirstgrewinthesouthernPolishprovinceofPodolia,whichhadoncebeenunderOttomancontrolandwasahotbedofShabbatianactivism.ThesectariansinthisareacontinuedtomaintainclosetieswiththeirbrethrenunderMuslimruleinSalonika.ItisinterestingtospeculatetowhatextentSufiideaspercolatedintoPodoliaandinfluencedthenascentHasidicmovement.Thevenerationofthezaddiq(Hasidicsaint),visitingthetombsofsaints,theimportanceofmusicanddanceasformsofworshipprovideverystrikingandthought-provokinganalogiestoSufimodels.Finally,thephenomenonofhitbodedut,sometimesalsoaccompaniedwiththevisualizationofletterscomposingthedivinename,alsooccupiedanimportantplaceincertainHasidiccourts,suchasthatofBraslav.Although,aswehaveseen,thispracticewasprobablyofIslamicorigin,itspresenceinHasidismcanbetracedbackthroughJewishchannelstokabbalisticcircles,whichhadintheirtimebeeninfluencedbySufipractices.conclusionThebilateralinfluenceofJewishandMuslimmysticismentailsoneofthemoststrikingchaptersoftheintimateinteractionbetweenJudaismandIslam.Assuchitprovidesaprecioustestimonyoftheirreciprocalreceptivityintheesotericdomain,eventhoughintheexo-tericonetheyremainedmutuallyexclusive.Furthermore,withwhatconcernstheJewishpietistmovementinEgyptandthekabbalisticschoolintheHolyLand,itisnoteworthythatthiscross-fertilizationcameaboutduringoneofthemostfecundandintenseperiodsintheformationofJewishspirituality.Thesecrossroads,ofsingularsig-nificanceforthehistoryofreligion,undoubtedlyopenupnewandfar-reachingperspectivesofinterfaithexchange,whosecontoursareyettobeexplored.notes1.S.Rosenblatt(ed.),TheHighWaystoPerfectionofAbrahamMai-monides(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1927),ii:320.2.Rosenblatt(ed.),TheHighWays,i:153.3.Rosenblatt(ed.),TheHighWays,ii:266.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJudaismandSufism2174.Rosenblatt(ed.),TheHighWays,ii:418.5.Rosenblatt(ed.),TheHighWays,ii:422.6.P.Fenton,TheTreatiseofthePool,al-Maqalaal-HawdiyyabyObadyahMaimonides(London:Octagon,1995[reviseded.]),94.7.Fenton,TheTreatiseofthePool,116.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nhavatirosh-samuelson11Philosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600PhilosophyandkabbalahwerehighlyvariegatedprogramsfortheinterpretationofrabbinicJudaism.Althoughkabbalahwasrootedintheesoterictraditionsoflateantiquity,itbecameaself-consciousprogramfortheinterpretationofJudaismattheendofthetwelfthcentury,tocounterMaimonideanintellectualism.Nonetheless,kab-balistsaddressedthetheoreticalissuesofconcerntotherational-istphilosophersandtheorizedwithintheconceptualframeworkofcontemporaryphilosophy.Inthesecondhalfofthethirteenthcen-tury,twotypesofkabbalahwereconsolidated:theosophickabbalahmythologizedphilosophicalcategorieswhilearticulatingacompre-hensivealternativetorationalistphilosophy.Prophetic(orecstatic)kabbalah,bycontrast,developedafull-fledgedintellectualmysti-cismonthebasisofMaimonides’theoryofknowledgeandgavekabbalisticdoctrinesaphilosophicalreading.DuringthefourteenthcenturyafewJewishphilosophers,especiallythosewhocultivatedthestudyofastrologyandastralmagic,viewedkabbalahandphi-losophyascompatibleschemasthatgivedifferentnamestothesameentities.Inthefifteenthandsixteenthcenturies,thephilo-sophicreadingofkabbalahwasprevalentinItalywherekabbalahwasviewedbyJews,andevenbysomeChristianhumanists,asan-cientspeculativelorenecessaryforintellectualperfection.InSpainandintheSpanishdiasporathemythicalaspectsofkabbalahweremoreprominent.Whilesomekabbalistshadaverynegativeviewofphilosophy,thedominantattitudetowardkabbalahamongIberianphilosopherswasquitepositive.Theyconsideredthatkabbalahre-vealedknowledgethatcompletesandperfectshumanreasonandwentontorecastmedievalAristotelianisminaccordwiththeteachingsofkabbalah.Theabsorptionofkabbalahintophilosophy,218CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600219ontheonehand,andthedissolutionofmedievalAristotelianism,ontheotherhand,ledtotheriseofkabbalahasthedominantJewishtheologyintheseventeenthcentury.InJewishintellectualhistory,kabbalahandphilosophywerecloselyintertwined.theriseandspreadofkabbalahMedievalJewishrationalismemergedintheearlytenthcenturyasareinterpretationofrabbinictheism.Thepersonal,highlyanthropo-morphicandanthropopathicdepictionsofGodinrabbinicmidrashandintheesoteric,ecstaticliteratureofthehekhalotandmerkavahliteraturewereproblematizedbyIslamicrationalismandbyKaraitesectarianism.Inparticular,thedetaileddescriptionsofGod’sbodyintheShiurQomah(Measureofthe[Divine]Body)corpus,inwhicheachlimbofGodwasgivenfantasticmeasurementsandlinkedtotheprimordialTorah,wereregardedasanintellectualembarrassment.IfrabbinicJudaismistrue,asJewsclaimedintheirdebateswithMuslimandChristiantheologians,thenJewishphilosophersmustexplainawaywhattheyconsideredtobeintellectuallyunacceptable.SaadyaGaondefendedtherationalityofJudaismbysubjectingthemainbeliefsofrabbinicJudaismtoathoroughphilosophicalanalysisandbyshowinghowtheyarecompatiblewithphilosophicknowl-edge.InthecaseofShiurQomah,forexample,SaadyaclaimedthatthetextwasnotrabbinicandthatthefiguredescribedisnotGodbuta“CreatedGlory,”namely,anentitycreatedbyGod.FollowingSaadyaGaon,JewishphilosophersduringtheeleventhcenturycontinuedtointellectualizeJudaism,believingthattheyinfactprovidedadeeper,moresophisticatedjustificationforallegiancetotherevealedtradition.Reason,themarkofbeinghuman,pro-videdphilosopherswithaclearknowledgeoftruth,therebyenablingthemtocomeclosertoGod.ThephilosophersconceptualizedGodinimpersonal,abstractterms,privilegedtheintellectasthevehi-cleforinteractionwithGod,andequatedtheworshipofGodwiththeknowledgeofGod.Forthephilosophers,theattainmentofin-tellectualperfectionthroughthestudyofphilosophywasareligiousobligation.TheintellectualizationofrabbinicJudaismreacheditszenithinMosesMaimonides.Yet,forMaimonides,philosophictruthswerenotidenticalwithNeoplatonicmetaphysicsandcosmology,butwithCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n220MedievalJewishphilosophytheteachingsofAristotle,whichMaimonideshadabsorbedprimar-ilyfromthewritingsofal-Farabi.Maimonides’intellectualizationofJudaismwasproblematicnotmerelybecauseoncrucialissues,suchastheoriginoftheuniverse,Aristotle’sphilosophyconflictedwithrabbinicbeliefs,butbecauseMaimonidespositedAristotelianphilosophyastheinner,hiddenmeaningofdivinelyrevealedScrip-ture.Moreover,inhisMishnehTorah,Maimonidesmadehisphilo-sophicrenderingofrabbinicJudaismobligatoryforallJews.TherapidacceptanceofMaimonides’codeofJewishlawinMediterraneancommunitiesentailedthedisseminationofMaimonides’negativetheology,hisintellectualistconceptionofGod,andhishistoricalandanthropologicalrationalizationofthecommandments(taameiha-mitzvot).KabbalahemergedinthelatetwelfthcenturyinProvenceinordertocurbthespreadofMaimonides’intellectualistrenderingofrabbinicJudaism.ThatkabbalahemergedinProvenceatthattimewasnoacci-dent.Duringtheeleventhandtwelfthcenturies,theJewishcommu-nityinProvencewitnessedunusualcreativityinHalakhah,midrash,andAggadah,butafterthedestructionofAndalusianJewryin1148,Provenc¸alJewrywasalsoexposedtoJudeo-Arabicphilosophy.RefugeesfromAndalusia,suchastheIbnTibbonandIbnKimhifamilies,settledinProvence,translatedphilosophicaltextsintoHebrew,andpromotedthephilosophiccurriculum.Thefirstcri-tiqueofMaimonides’MishnehTorahcamefromR.AbrahambenDavidofPosquieres(knownasRabad),whospokeasadefenderof`thereceivedtradition,fromwhichMaimonidesallegedlydeviated.R.AbrahambenDavidandmembersofhiscirclewereJewishmys-ticswhoregardedthemselvesaspreserversofthereceivedtradition(i.e.theliteralmeaningofkabbalah).TheyclaimedtohavereceivedcommunicationsfromtheprophetElijah–thesymboloftheJewishtradition–aboutthemysteriesofGod,prayers,andthemeaningofScripture.1Theseesotericteachingswerereceivedandtransmit-tedorallyfrommastertodisciple(allegedlygoingbacktoSinai)andweretobedivulgedonlytothosewhoarereligiouslyandintellec-tuallyfittoreceivethem.Thehistoriancanreconstructthisorallytransmittedtraditiononlyfromreferencestoitinlaterkabbalistictexts.Provenc¸alkabbalahhadtwomainsources:thetheologicalspec-ulationsofHasideiAshkenaz(GermanPietists),whichelaboratedCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600221theteachingsofhekhalotandmerkavahtexts,2andSeferha-Bahir(BookofBrightness),amidrashascribedtoasecond-centuryrabbi,R.Nehunyabenha-Qanah,oneoftheheroesofrab-binicesotericism.3Despitethedifferencesbetweenthesetwotraditions,theybothpresentedaviewofGodthatdifferedmarkedlyfromMaimonides’God,oratleasttherevealedaspectofGod,wasnolongerasimpleunity,butaunitywithinapluralityofforces.Thisconceptionofamulti-layereddeity(i.e.theosophy)haddeepsex-ualovertones,elaboratingtheanthropomorphismofShiurQomahintoadynamicviewofabipolarsexualbeing.Theinterplaybe-tweenthemasculineandfeminineaspectsoftheGodheadwassaidtobeaffectedbyextra-deicalreality,especiallybythedeedsofIsrael(i.e.theurgy).TheirsinsactivateEvilwhereastheirobservanceofdivinecommandmentsempowerstheforcesofholiness.Bytheturnofthethirteenthcentury,then,whatMaimonidesrejectedasun-acceptableinterpretationofJudaismasserteditselfasthecorrect,esotericmeaningofthereceivedtradition.BothMaimonidesandthekabbalistsclaimedtohavefathomedtheinnermeaningofdivinerevelation,designatedinrabbinicJudaismasmaasehbereshit(accountofcreation)andmaasehmerkavah(accountofthechariot).Maimonidesperpetuatedrabbinicesoteri-cismwhenhecouchedhisGuideofthePerplexedinaformofaper-sonallettertohisbelovedstudent,JosephbenJudahibnShamun.ButMaimonidesalsodepartedfromtherabbinictraditionwhenheidentifiedmaasehbereshitandmaasehmerkavahwiththesci-encesofphysicsandmetaphysicsrespectively.Thatmeantthattheesotericmeaningofthereceivedtraditionisidenticalwiththetruthsofphilosophy,andthat,inprinciple,thehiddenmeaningofdivinerevelationwasaccessibletohumanreason.Anyphilosopher,Jewornon-Jew,couldknowitbyvirtueofnaturalhumanreason.Bycon-trast,thekabbalistsclaimedthattheesotericdimensionofrabbinicJudaismcannotbeknownexceptthroughdivinerevelationtothosechosenbyGod,andthatthephilosophyofAristotle,oranyothernon-Jew,hasnothingtosayaboutit.Moreover,themysteriesofGod,theuniverse,andtheholylifeembeddedintherevealedTorahwerealldisclosedthroughauniquemedium:theHebrewlanguage.Hebrew,thekabbalistsmaintainedcontrarytoMaimonides,wasnotaproductofhumanconvention,butratherauniquelanguagechosenbyGodtobetheverymediumofcreation.ThisviewwasCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n222MedievalJewishphilosophyarticulatedintheanonymousSeferYetzira(TheBookofCreation),acompositionfromtheearlyrabbinicperiod,although,ironically,ittoomanifestedtheimpactofHellenisticNeopythagoreanismandperhapsevenofIndianphilosophy.4OnthebasisofSeferYetziraandfurtherelaborationsbytheGermanpietists,kabbalistsdevelopedalinguistictheoryaccordingtowhichtheHebrewalphabetitselfhasamysticalimport:thegoalofreligiouslife–clingingtoGod(devequt)–istobeattainedthroughknowledgeoftheTetragrammaton,thedivinenamewhoseendlesspermutationsconstitutetherevealedTorah.SincetheTorahisalsotheblueprintofthecosmos,knowl-edgeofdivinenameswasbelievedtoempowertheknowertomasternaturalprocesses.Kabbalahwascloselyalignedwithmagic.FromProvence,kabbalahspreadtoSpainduringthethirteenthcentury,wherekabbalisticfraternitiesinvariousurbancentersinCatalonia(e.g.Gerona,Barcelona)andinCastile(e.g.Toledo,Burgos,Soria,andGuadalajara)claimedtopresent“thekabbalah.”Kabbal-isticspeculationsdifferedinaccordwiththepersonalorientationofagivenkabbalist,theexposuretophilosophy,andthegeo-culturalcontext.ThusthekabbalistsofGerona–R.EzrabenSolomon,R.Azriel,andR.JacobbenSheshet–revealedaNeoplatonicbentofmindanddelvedintothedialecticsofsingularityandmultiplic-itybyarticulatingthetheosophicmeaningofthereceivedtraditionanditstheurgicimplications.5ThekabbalistsactiveinBarcelona(suchasR.MosesbenNahmanandhisdisciplesR.MeiribnSahula,R.IsaacTodros,andR.SolomonibnAdret)augmentedtheosophi-calspeculationswiththetheoryaboutrecurrentcosmiccyclesanddevelopedthetheurgicmeaningofJewishrituals.6ThekabbalistsinToledoandBurgos–R.IsaacandR.Jacobha-Cohenandtheirdisciple,R.MosesofBurgos,andTodrosbenJosephAbulafia–weredeeplyinterestedintheproblemofevil,andtheirspecu-lationssuggestedaffinitywithGnosticdualismthatflourishedamongChristianhereticalmovementsintheearlythirteenthcen-tury.Anotherkabbalisticcircle–theanonymousauthorofSeferha-Iyyun(TheBookofContemplation)anditscognateliterature–wasprimarilyconcernedwiththemysticismoflight,mostlikelyundertheinfluenceofcertainIsmailiorSufitraditions.7Andfi-nallytherewerekabbalists,suchasJosephGikatilah,whoelabo-ratedmysticismoflanguageonthebasisofhekhalotandmerkavahliterature.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600223Allthesediversetheologicalinterestsweremanifestedindis-tinctliterarygenres.SpanishkabbalistscomposedcommentariesontheBible,commentariesontalmudichomilies,commentariesonancientmysticaltextsofthehekhalotandmerkavahcorpusandSeferYetzira,listsofsymboliccodes,systematicexpositionsofthecommandments,speculationsontheHebrewalphabetandTorahcantillation,andamanualfortheattainmentofecstaticandmysticalexperiences.Bymeansofexegeticalactivity,Spanishkabbalahcon-solidatedadistinctiveworldviewthatelaboratedandexpandedthemotifsandideasofrabbinicJudaism.Undoubtedly,thekabbalistichermeneuticalactivitywasmeanttorebutthephilosophicread-ingsofScriptureandAggadahthatproliferatedduringthethirteenthcenturyasMaimonides’hermeneuticalprincipleswereputintopractice.ThekabbalistsdevelopedtheirresponsetoMaimonideanrational-ismwhiletheJewishcommunityworldwide,especiallyinProvenceandSpain,wasengulfedinaheateddebateaboutthelegacyofMaimonides.Thekabbaliststendedtosidewiththeanti-Maimonistcamp,eventhoughallkabbalistshaddeeprespectforMaimonides,andsomewereintimatelyfamiliarwithhisGuideofthePerplexed.Inthe1280sand1290s,duringthethirdphaseoftheMaimonideancontroversy,twomaintypesofSpanishkabbalahwereconsolidated:thetheosophickabbalahofSeferha-Zohar(TheBookofSplendor),whosemainauthorwasMosesdeLeon,andtheprophetic(orec-static)kabbalahofAbrahamAbulafia.Modernscholarshiphastreatedthesetwostrandsofkabbalahastworeligiousorientations:8whereastheformerdelvedintothein-nerlifeofthedeity,thelatterfocusedonthepsychologicalprocesseswithinthehumansoulanditsstrivingforintellectualperfection;whereastheformerinsistedonthehumanabilitytoaffectGod,thelatterwasinterestedinthemysticalunionofthehumanintellectandGod;whereastheformerelaboratedthemythic,anthropomor-phic,andethnocentricdimensionsofJudaism,thelatterwasmoreopentoconversationwithnon-Jewishmodesofthought,andmadekabbalahamenabletophilosophicexposition.WhereastheZoharsawitselfasanalternativetoMaimonides’philosophy,Abulafiade-velopedhisprophetickabbalahonthebasisofMaimonides’philos-ophyandclaimedtohaveaccomplisheditsideal.Thedistinctionbetweentheosophicandprophetickabbalah,however,isusefulsoCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n224MedievalJewishphilosophylongasitisnottakentoorigidly,9anditwillstructuremyrecon-structionoftheinterfacebetweenphilosophyandkabbalahinthepost-Maimonideanperiod.theosophickabbalahasaresponsetomaimonidesSeferha-ZoharbegantocirculateinSpaininthelate1280sandthepersonmostresponsibleforitwasR.MosesdeLeon,theauthorofseveralHebrewkabbalisticworks.TheZohar,however,wasmostlikelytheproductofakabbalisticfraternityinCastile,10anditsorigi-nalityliesnotinthenoveltyofitsdoctrine(almostallofwhichcouldbetracedtopreviouskabbalistictexts),butinitsliterarystructure.TheZoharpresenteditselfasanancient,rabbinicmidrashonthePentateuch,authoredbyR.SimonbarYohai,arabbiofthesecondcentury,whoisthemainprotagonistoftheZohar.Imitatingthespokenspeechofancientrabbis,theZohariswritteninapeculiarAramaic,eventhoughitisstuddedwithmanyidiosyncraticwordsandphrasesthatbetrayitsmedievalprovenance.Althoughitisar-rangedinaccordancewiththesequenceoftheTorah’sweeklypor-tions,theZoharisnotalinearcommentaryonthePentateuch,butaseriesofelaborateandintricatehomiliesthatmerelytaketheirpointofdeparturefromtheversesofthegivenTorahportion.Withunpar-alleledspiritualenergy,creativeimagination,andsubtleartistry,theZoharinterwovebiblical,rabbinic,pietistic,philosophic,andkab-balisticmotifsintoacolorfulfabric,whichitpresentsasthetrue,hiddenmeaningofthedivinelyrevealed,authoritativetradition.Inotherwords,theZoharsawitselfastheauthentic,inner,esotericwisdomofJudaism(hokhmatha-nistar).AcomparisonoftheosophickabbalahwithMaimonides’philosophywillclarifyhowtheosophickabbalahrespondedtoMaimonides’philosophy.TheConcealedandRevealedGodMaimonidesinsistedontheunbridgeableontologicalgapbetweenGodandallotherexistentsand,therefore,ontheunknowabilityofGod.TheosophickabbalahstruggledwiththesametheoreticalproblemsbutitwasconvincedthatsomepositiveknowledgeofGodwaspossible.WithMaimonides,theosophickabbalistsheldthattheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600225essenceofGodisunknowable.ThisistheEynSof(literally,“withoutlimit”or“theinfinite”)thatcouldnotbedefined,characterized,orcomprehendedconceptually.TheEynSofisNothingness(ayin),orbetterstill,No-Thingness.TheEynSofisneitherathisnorathat,neitherathingnortheoppositeofanyparticularthing.TheEynSof,however,isnotastaticentitybutalivingrealitythatisthesourceofallexistents(oneofthemeaningsofayininHebrewis“spring,”or“source”;manykabbalisticconceptsdevelopedonthebasisofHebrewwordplays).WhateverexistsultimatelyemanatesfromtheEynSofbuttheprocessofemanation(inHebrewatzilut)beginsnotwithspiritualextra-deicalentities,suchastheSeparateIntellectsofmedievalAristotelianism,butwiththeemanationofGod’sownpowers,thetensefirot.ThetermsefirotoriginatedinSeferYetzirawhereitreferredtotenidealnumbersthatfunctioned,alongwiththetwenty-twolettersoftheHebrewalphabet,asthe“buildingblocks”oftheuniverse.JewishphilosopherspriortoMaimonides–ShabbtaiDonnolo,JudahBarzilaiofBarcelona,DunashibnTamim,SolomonibnGabirol,AbrahamibnEzra,andJudahHalevicommentedonSeferYetzira–understoodthetermsefirotmathematically,andtheircommentariesfocusedonthecosmologicalimplicationsoftheancienttext.11Intheosophickab-balah,however,thetermsefirotwasassociatedeitherwiththedivinelight(accordingly,thetermwaslinkedtothewordsappir,namely,“sapphire”),orwiththedisclosureofGod’spersonalcharactertraits(inwhichcasethetermsefirotwaslinkedtothewordle-sapper[meaning,“totell”]).ThetendynamicsefirotarethedeusrevelatusandtheEynSofisthedeusobsconditus.TheontologicalstatusofthesefirotandtheirrelationshiptotheEynSofwasahotlydebatedissueamongthekabbalists,analogoustothephilosophicdebatesabouttherelationshipbetweenGodandtheSeparateIntellects.Generallyspeakingthereweretwomainap-proachestotheontologicalstatusofthesefirot:oneviewedthesefirotastheessenceofGod(atzmut)andtheotherregardedthemasinstrumentsofGod’sactivity(kelim).12TheformeranddominantpositionoftheosophickabbalahwasrepresentedintheZoharanditmanifestedthemythicalandpantheistictendenciesofkabbalah.Thetensefirotwereviewedasadynamicreality,eachwithitsowndistinctivecharacteristics,whoseconstantinteractionwasaffectedbynon-divinereality,especiallybythedeedsofhumanbeings.TheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n226MedievalJewishphilosophydynamismofthesefiroticworldwasexpressedinorganicsymbol-ism,mainlythesymbolismoftheinvertedtreeandthesymbolismoftheprimordialhuman(adamqadmon).13KabbalistictheosophyismainlythehermeneuticaldevelopmentofsefiroticsymbolismonthebasisofScriptureandrabbinicAggadot.14Kabbalisticsymbolismprovidedtheinfrastructure,sotospeak,ofJewishrituallife.Eachpre-scribedactwaslinkedsymbolicallytoaparticularsefirah,sothattheperformanceoftheactwiththeproperintentionwasunderstoodtosanctifythereligiouspractitionerandfacilitateattachmentwithGod.15Kabbalisticsymbolichermeneuticswasintendedtocountertherationalizationofthemitzvotbythephilosophers.Bycontrast,theviewthatthesefirotaretheinstrumentsofdivineactivitywasarticulatedbykabbalistswhohadamorephilosophicframeofmind,andwho,therefore,weremorereticentaboutthepantheisticandmythicalimplicationsofkabbalistictheosophy.Thesefirotwereunderstoodeitherasdivineattributesofaction,asdidR.MenahemRencanati,16oridentifiedwiththeSeparateIntellects,asdidAbrahamAbulafia,towhomweshallreturnbelow.Thisap-proachwenthandinhandwiththedemythologizationofkabbalisticreadingsofrabbinicAggadotcarriedoutbytheanonymousSeferMa‘arekhetElohut(TheConstellationoftheGodhead),akabbalis-tictextfromthefourteenthcentury.Theinstrumentalistinterpre-tationmadepossibletheattemptstocoordinatethekabbalisticandphilosophicschemas.TheconfidenceofthetheosophickabbaliststhatsomepositiveknowledgeofGodwaspossiblewasrootedintheirunderstandingofTorah.Fortheosophickabbalists,theTorahisnotadivinelawsimplybecauseitcouldbedemonstratedthattheTorahsecuresthewellbeingofthebodyandsoulonaccountoftheintellectualper-fectionofitsrecipient,theprophetMoses.NoristheTorahdivinebecauseitisaperfectexpressionofphilosophic-scientifictruthsinhumanlanguage.Rather,theTorahisasymbolicrevelationofGod’sinnerlifewhosesurface,literalmeaningpertainstothemundaneworld(i.e.totheworldofnatureandofhumanhistory),butwhoseinner,esotericmeaningpertainstotheinfiniteprocesseswithintheGodhead.17Forthekabbalists,then,creationandrevelationweretwosidesofthesameprocess:God’sself-disclosure.WhiletheexotericaspectoftheTorahpertainstoeventsinthephysicalworldandinhumanhistory,theesotericmeaningoftheseeventspointstoeventsCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600227withintheGodhead.IfMaimonidesidentifiedthemysteriesoftheTorahwiththelawsthatgoverntheuniverse,theosophickabbalistsequatedthemwitheventswithintheGodhead,whichMaimonidesclaimedare,inprinciple,beyondthekenofhumanknowledge.Kab-balistictheosophy,then,vieweditselftobeepistemicallysuperiortorationalistphilosophybecauseitpertainedtoGodandnotjusttotheworldcreatedbyGod.FromtheOnetotheMany:TheGreatChainofBeingTheJewishtraditionaffirmsthebeliefthatGodcreatedtheworld,althoughtheprecisemeaningofthecreativeactremainsopentointerpretation.InthetwelfthcenturythinkerssuchasSolomonibnGabirolexplainedthecreativeactwithintheNeoplatonicdoc-trineofemanationinanattempttoclarifytherelationshipbetweenmatterandformandbetweendivinewisdomandwill.Thetheo-sophickabbalists,especiallythekabbalistsofGerona,struggledwiththesameproblemwhentheydelvedintotheprocessbywhichthesefirotcameintobeingoutofthesingularityoftheEynSofwith-outdisturbingitsunityandsimplicity.18Thekabbalistsdesignatedthesefirot’scomingintobeingas“emanation,”incontradistinctionwiththe“creation”ofeverythingelse.Thiswasnomorethanase-manticdifferencetodifferentiatebetweentheunityoftheGodheadandthemultiplicityofextra-deicalreality.OnthebasisofNeopla-tonicmetaphysics,thetheosophickabbalistsenvisionedallexistentsaspartofahierarchicalGreatChainofBeingthatemanatesfromthedivinesource.Alllevelsofrealityarelinkedtoeachother,butthelowerathingisontheontologicalladder,themoreremoteitisfromthedivinesource,and,therefore,themorecorporeal.ThecosmologyoftheosophickabbalahblendedmedievalNeopla-tonizedAristotelianismwiththelanguageandimageryofhekhalotandmerkavahliterature.Bythefourteenthcentury,kabbalistsspokeoffourdistinctcosmicrealms:therealmofthesefirot(atzilut),therealmoftheSeparateIntellects(beriah),therealmofthecelestialbodies(yetzira),andtheterrestrial,sublunarworld(asiyah).WithMaimonidesandhisfollowers,kabbalistsidentifiedthetenSepa-rateIntellects,thesoulsandmoversofthecelestialspheres,withtheangelsoftheJewishtradition.Butunlikethephilosophers,thekabbalistspersonifiedtheSeparateIntellectsinaccordwithJewishCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n228MedievalJewishphilosophyangelologyandgavethemadistinctidentity.Similarly,thekabbal-istsdepictedthecelestialspheresnotonlyinaccordwithmedievalastronomyandastrology,butalsoinlinewiththedescriptionsoftheheavensinancientrabbinicsources.Finally,kabbalistsgavethemainfocusofmedievalcosmologyandepistemology–theActiveIn-tellect–anewmeaningwhentheyincorporateditintothesefiroticdoctrine.Somekabbalists,suchasJacobbenSheshet,identifieditwiththesecondsefirah,hokhmah(wisdom),19therebyregardingtheintellectastheabstractparadigmofallexistence.OtherkabbalistsidentifiedtheActiveIntellecteitherwiththetenthsefirah,malkhutorwiththeangelicbeingMetatronofancientJewishesotericism.20HowagivenkabbalistinterpretedtheActiveIntellectdependedonthephilosophicsources(AristotelianorNeoplatonic)atthedisposalofthekabbalistandonhisgeneralorientation.Bethisasitmay,kabbalisticspeculationsaboutthestructureoftheuniversewereembeddedintheprevalentcosmologicaltheories.Theterrestrial,sublunarrealmtoowasarrangedhierarchically.Madeofvariousblendsoffourelements(air,water,earth,andfire),thevariousbeingsintheterrestrialworld(minerals,plants,andan-imals)alsoformedahierarchywhosezenithwasthehumanbeing.Forthetheosophickabbalists,naturecouldbeknownnotthroughempiricalobservation,butthroughtheproperdecodingofthese-firoticsymbolism,sincethesefirotconstitutetheparadigmofallthings.Inotherwords,naturemirrorstheessenceofGod.ThebestwaytofathomGodandnatureistounderstandthehumanbeing,themicrocosmicreflectionofthemacrocosm.Therefore,theosophickabbalahcouldbesaidtobesimultaneouslyanthropocentricandtheocentric.Humansareparticularlysusceptibletooneaspectofreality–theexistenceofevil.Here,too,theosophickabbalistsaddressedaphilosophicalquestionwhilegivingitamythicalanswer.WhereasMaimonidesdeniedthemetaphysicalrealityofevil,theosophickab-balah,especiallythekabbalistsofCastileandtheZohar,reifiedevilintoafull-fledgedrealm–thesitrahahrah(the“OtherSide”).Theywentontodescribeitspopulation,anassortmentofdemonsruledbySamaelandhisfemaleconsortLilith,anddetailtheirmischievousac-tivitiesinaccordancewithancientandmedievalJewishdemonologyandfolklore.21ThekabbalistswerefullyawarethatastarkdualismofgoodandevilchallengesJewishmonotheismandmadeeffortstoCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600229toneitdownbysayingthatthesitrahahrahlacksvitalityandde-pendsonthe“negativeenergy”ofexternalsources.ThisisprovidedbyhumansinsthatempowerEvil,ontheonehand,whilediminish-ingthepowersoftheGood,ontheotherhand.TheparadigmaticsinwasAdam’ssinintheGardenofEden.TheFallofAdamwasnotanepistemicchangefromtheoreticaltopracticalreasoning,asMaimonideshadexplained,buttheactiva-tionoftherootsofevilthatexistedpotentiallyinthedeityitself.Thefirstsinwasinterpretedeitherasisolationofthemasculineandfem-inineaspectsofthedivine,andhencetheintroductionoffragmenta-tionintothedivineunity,orasanunbalancedrelationshipbetweenlovingkindness(thefourthsefirah,hesed)andjudgment(thefifthsefirah,gevurah)withinthedeity.Theresultwasthereificationofthesitrahahrahintoaseparatedomain.Inthecorporealworld,humansarethemainbattlegroundbetweentheforcesofGoodandEvil,andtheresponsibilityforoverpoweringevillieswithhumans.Thetaskisenormousbutnotfutile,sinceforkabbaliststherevealedTorahitselfistheantidoteagainstevil.Inthedramabetweengoodandevil,Israelplayedtheleadingrole.IsraelandtheHolyLife:FromtheManytotheOneAsmuchaskabbalisticcosmologyreflectedthephilosophicassump-tionsoftheday,sokabbalisticanthropologyandpsychologywereinseparablefromprevalenttheories,eventhoughthekabbalistsde-velopedtheirviewsinresponsetoMaimonideanphilosophy.Likethephilosophers,thekabbalistsunderstoodthehumanmental-physicalcomplexasacompositionofacorporealbodyandanincorporealsoul.Intheosophickabbalahaswellasinmedievalphilosophytheterm“soul”isambiguous.Itisusedtoreferbothtothesoulincon-tradistinctiontothebody,aswellastothehighestfunctionsofthehumansoul,thecognitive/spiritualpowerbywhichhumanscanin-teractwithGod,asopposedtothelowerfunctionsofthesoulwhicharerelatedmorecloselytothecorporealbody.Thehighestfunctionofthesoulcaptureswhatismostdistinctiveabouthumans.ThemaindifferencebetweenMaimonidesandtheZoharonthisscoreisthatwhenthelatterspeaksofthehumansoulithasinmindthesoulofonegroupofpeople–Israel.Forkabbalists,thesoulsofnon-JewsoriginatefromtherealmoftheSeparateIntellects,whereasthesoulsCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n230MedievalJewishphilosophyofIsraelaredivineparticlesthatoriginatefromthesefiroticrealmasaresultofthereproductiveprocesseswithintheGodhead.TheZoharelaboratesthemythofthesoulinamannerthatresem-blesthenarrativeinPlato’sRepublic(614c–620d),eventhoughthedescriptionmoveswithinthemotifsofrabbinicmidrashandJewishesotericism.ContrarytoMaimonideswho,alongwithAristotle,de-finedthesoulastheformofthebody,intheosophickabbalahthesoulisanincorporeal,eternalsubstancethatpreexiststhebodyandthatis,inprinciple,capableofsurvivingthedeathofthebody,providedtheembodiedpersonmanageshisorheraffairscorrectlythrough-outlife.Ingreatdetailandwithconsiderablepsychologicalinsight,theZohardepictsthecomingtobeofthesoulintermsofconcep-tion,impregnation,andbirth,anditssaddeparturefromthesupernalworldasitdescendsintothehumanbody.Thevariousfunctionsofthesoul–thenutritive,appetitive,andrational–arereferredtoasnefesh,ruah,andneshamahrespectivelyandarecorrelatedwithspecificsefirot.Inthiswaythehumanbeingisindeedareflectionoftheprimordialman.Whilethesoulresidesinthebodyitisinfluencedbyitsowninnateproclivitytosin,andthereforethesoul’staskistocontrolthecorporealbody.Ifthebodyhastheupperhandovertheholysoul,thepersonisdoomedtofallpreytotheforcesofevil,butifthebodyisproperlymanagedbythesoul,throughtheperformanceofthemitzvot,thecommandments,thehumanbeingcannotonlysuppresstheproclivitiesofthebodybutalsoperfectthesoul.Thepurificationofthesoulthroughtheperformanceofthecommand-mentsistheprimary,andmostdifficult,taskofhumanlife.Humanlifeisthusviewedasanarduous,intentionalattempttoattainperfec-tion,verymuchasMaimonidesandhisfollowersmaintained.But,unlikethem,thevehicleforreligiousperfectionwastobefoundnotinintellectualcognition,throughthestudyofphilosophyanditsre-latedsciences,butintheveryperformanceoftheholysacramentsoftheTorah.Theholinessofthesoulcouldbeprotectedandenhancedthroughtheperformanceofthecommandments,theprescriptionsthatGodgavetoIsrael,thechosenpeople.ThedifferencebetweentheosophickabbalahandMaimonideanphilosophyismostevidentinregardtotherationaleofthecom-mandments(taameiha-mitzvot).Maimonidesbelievedthatthespe-cificreasonsforthecommandmentscouldbeknownrationallyinCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600231referencetotheparticularstateofintellectualdevelopmentofIsraelatagiventimeinhistory.Thetheosophickabbalists,bycontrast,viewedthecommandmentsasmysterieswhosemeaningcouldbere-ducedtoarationalexplanation.HowthemitzvotaretobeperformedandhowtheysanctifyIsraelbylinkingthereligiouspractitionertoGodcouldbeknownonlythroughreceivedtradition.Moreover,theprimarypurposeofthecommandmentsisnotthebettermentofhu-mansocialorder,asthephilosophersheld,buttherestorationoftheimbalancewithintheGodhead.ThismetaphysicalimbalanceismanifestedhistoricallyintheexileoftheJewishpeopleandtheirsubordinationtothegentiles.Therefore,whenIsraelperformsthecommandmentscorrectly,linkingeachonetothesefiroticworld,Israelcouldcorrecttheimbalanceinthelifeoftheindividual,thecommunity,thecosmos,andtheGodhead.Accordingtokabbalah,then,theobservanceofGod’sprescribedcommandmentsisare-demptiveactivity.KabbalisticeschatologymanifestssimilaritytoanddifferencesfromtheMaimonideanapproach.Maimonidesnaturalizedthemes-sianicageanddiminishedtheapocalypticelementsofrabbinicspec-ulationsabouttheendoftime.Maimonides,instead,focusedontheworld-to-comethatheinterpretedtomeanaperfectcognitivestatethatconsistsinimmortallifebytheperfectedintellect.Inprinci-ple,thosewholiveintheparametersofthedivinelawanddevotetheirlivestothecultivationofphilosophyhaveachanceofexperi-encingtheimmortalityoftheintellect.LikeMaimonides,thetheo-sophickabbalistswereinterestedinthesalvationoftheindividualsoulandbelievedthatitcouldbeachievedbythosewhopossesstheknowledgeofkabbalah.ButifMaimonides,inprinciple,couldnotprovideadescriptionoftheblissofimmortallife,theZoharwasrepletewithdescriptionsoftheblissful,postmortemworld,presum-ablyencounteredbytheauthor(orhisprotagonist)throughecstatic,mysticalexperiences.Likewise,whereasinmostoftheZoharthereislittleovertinterestinmessianism,inthemostobtusesectionsoftheZohar,asYehudaLiebeshasshown,22R.ShimonbarYohaiisdepictedasamysticwhosereligiousperfectionatthemomentofdeathheraldsthecomingofthemessianicage.ThemessianicimportoftheZoharwasfullyunderstoodbyananonymousauthorwhoimitatedthestyleoftheZoharintwocompositionsTiqquneyZohar(TheElaborationsoftheZohar)andtheRaayaMehmnaCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n232MedievalJewishphilosophy(TheFaithfulShepherd),eventhoughhisownviewsaboutthesefirotvariedmarkedlyfromtheZohar’s.TheimitationwassufficientlysuccessfulthatthesetextswereconsideredpartoftheZoharican-thologyandwereprintedtogether.Soonafteritscirculation,theZoharitselfquicklyattractedtherespectofotherkabbalists,whocomposeddictionariestoit,im-itateditsstyle,andattemptedtofathomitsmeaning.WhiletheZoharwasgainingacceptanceamongasmallgroupofkabbalists,thekabbalahofAbrahamAbulafia,bycontrast,wasrejectedasnon-authoritative.ThehalakhicleaderofAragoneseJewry,R.SolomonbenAdret(knownasRashba),whowashimselfatheosophickab-balistandastudentofR.MosesbenNahman,bannedthestudyofAbulafia’swork.Notcoincidentally,thisisthesamepersonwhoin1305imposedabanonthestudyofphilosophyforstudentsundertwenty-fiveyearsofage,andwhoopposedtheuseofastralmagicformedicalpurposes.TheoppositiontoAbulafiaandthereservationsaboutphilosophywerecloselyrelated,sinceAbulafiadevelopedhisowninterpretationofkabbalahonthebasisofMaimonides’philoso-phy,therebydeviatingfromwhatRashbaconsideredtheauthentic,esoterictradition.philosophicapproachestokabbalahAbrahamAbulafia’sPropheticKabbalahAbrahamAbulafia’s“prophetickabbalah”wasacreativeblendofan-cientJewishesotericism,GermanPietism,theosophickabbalah,andMaimonides’rationalistphilosophy.ForAbulafia,kabbalahmeantfirstandforemostanuninterruptedtransmissionoftheinnermosttruthsofJudaismfromancienttimes.23AlongwithMaimonideshebelievedthattheJewsonaccountoftheirexilehaveforgottentheseancienttruthsandthereforetheirredemptiontarries.There-fore,tobringaboutredemption,itwasnecessarytodisclosethehiddentruthsoftheTorahsoastoenlightentheJewishpeople,anurgencysharedbyrationalistphilosophersandtheosophickabbalistsaswell.AbulafiaunderstoodmysticalenlightenmentpreciselyasdidMaimonides:itisastateofcognitiveperfectioninwhichthehumanintellectuniteswiththeActiveIntellectandreceivesfromitdivineoverflow.Thiswasintellectualmysticismparexcellence,whichtheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600233prophetMoseshasattained,andapparentlyAbulafiabelievedthathetoohadreachedtheexaltedstate,thusgivinghisopponentsgoodreasontosuspecthim.Withinthereceivedtradition,Abulafiadistinguishedbetweentwosetsofteachings:thekabbalahofthesefirotandthekabbalahofdivinenames.InseveralworksAbulafiaspokequiteharshlyandcriticallyagainstthosewhobelievedthatthesefirotarehypostaticpotenciesthatdonotcompromisetheunityofGod.24Abulafiaad-heredtothephilosophicconceptionofdivinesimplicityandregardedthetheosophicpositionastantamounttoheresyandanalogoustotheChristiandoctrineoftheTrinity.Nonetheless,Abulafiastudiedtheworksofthetheosophickabbalists“andinsomecasesappropri-atedtheirsymbolismandmodeofdisclosure.”25ButifthesefirotarenottheessenceofGod,whatarethey?AbulafiaheldthatthesefirotareidenticalwiththeSeparateIntellectsandcontaintheideal,intelligibleforms.Thetensefirotarethe“conduitsthatchan-nelthedivineoverflowandthusactastheforcesthatunifyGod’senergyintheuniverse.”26InaccordwiththecosmologicaldoctrineofMaimonides,inwhichalowerintellectcontainstheknowledgeoftheintellectaboveit,AbulafiacouldreasonablyclaimthattheActiveIntellectcontainsalltensefirot(similarly,thetheosophickabbalistsheldthatmalkhut,thelast,tenthsefirah,containsallthesefirotaboveit).Accordingly,Abulafiafoundthewordkol(meaning“all”)themostappropriatesymboloftheActiveIntellect,theIntel-lectinchargeofallprocessesinthesublunarworldandthesourceofallknowledge.Thisidentificationwouldplayaroleintheat-temptstocoordinatephilosophyandkabbalahduringthefourteenthcentury.TheidentificationofthesefirotwiththeSeparateIntellects,allcontainedwithintheActiveIntellect,wasthekeytoAbulafia’san-thropocentricinterpretationofthedoctrine,ontheonehand,andtohisintellectualmysticism,ontheotherhand.FortheAristotelianphilosophers,theSeparateIntellectsweretherationalsoulsoftheliving,celestialbodies.Theypresumablyexplainedtheperfectcir-cularmotionofcelestialspheresaswellasmotionandchangeintheterrestrial,sublunarworld.Abulafiatookthiscosmologicaldoctrineandgaveitananthropologicalorpsychologicalinterpretation.27ForAbulafia,thesefirotareinternalstatesofhumanexperiences,theyarepartofthehumanpsyche,sincethehumanisamicrocosmofCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n234MedievalJewishphilosophythemacrocosm.Knowledgeofthesefirotisaformofself-knowledge,aprocessthatrequirestheacquisitionofmoralandintellec-tualvirtuesandthatculminatesintheconjunctionbetweenthehumanintellectandtheActiveIntellect.Thiscognitiveunionisprophecy,areceptionofdivineeffluxfromGodthroughtheActiveIntellect,preciselyasMaimonidesandhisMuslimsourcesexplained.Thekabbalahofthesefirot,anthropologicallyorpsycho-logicallyinterpreted,isthusthehighestexampleofthephilosophicmaxim“KnowThyself.”Themainobstacletoself-knowledgeisthecorporealbodyitself,especiallythepowerofimagination.However,theJewishtraditionitself,accordingtoAbulafia,alsorevealsthewaytobreakthroughhumanembodimentandtofreeoneselffromtheerrorsofhumanimagination.Thisisthehighestformofkabbalah,“thepathofthe[divine]names”(derekhha-shemot),whichisreligiouslysuperiortoknowledgeofthesefirot.BuildingonthelinguistictheoryofSeferYetziraandthemysticalpracticesoftheGermanPietists,Abulafiaarticulatedexegetical,meditativeandcontemplativetechniquesthatpurportedlyresultinamysticalunionwithGod.However,withthetheosophickabbalistsAbulafiarootedthemysticalpathintheHebrewlanguageitself,whichheregardedasthe“motherofalllan-guages”becauseitis“inaccordwithnature.”28GodchoseHebrewtobethelanguageforthecreationoftheuniversebecauseoftheunique,perfectpropertiesofHebrew.ToknowhowHebrewservesasthemediumofcreationthepractitionerofkabbalahhadtobreakdownthesacredlanguageintoitsatomiccomponents–theHebrewletters–andrecombinetheirnumericalvalueaccordingtoaparticularcode,acodethatAbulafiaderivedfromtheprinciplesofMaimonides’philosophy.Thiscontemplativehumanactivity,onecansurmise,wasproba-blyoneofthereasonswhyIbnAdretopposedAbulafia’skabbalah,becauseAbulafiagavethehumanexegeteanactivistroleintheex-egeticalprocess.ForAbulafia,however,therewasnocontradictionbetweenreceptionoftraditionandthecreative,intellectualactivity.Infact,thecontemplativeactivityoflettercombination(inHebrew,harkavah)wasthedeepestmeaningofmaasehmerkavah,asfarasAbulafiawasconcerned.AbulafiawasdeeplyconvincedthathislettercombinationaswellasthevisualizationofletterswasthepracticethatbrokethroughthelimitsofhumanembodimentandCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600235broughtabouttheliberationoftherationalsoulfromtheshacklesofthebody.Abulafiadefinedthiscognitivestateasprophecy.Abulafia’skabbalahwasnotmerelyatheoreticalendeavorbutafull-fledged,experientialprogramtoachieveparanormalpsychicstatesthatculminateinamysticalunionwiththeActiveIntel-lect.Asaresult,thehumanintellectattainsimmortality,preciselyasMaimonidestaught.Inadditiontotheperformanceofthecom-mandmentsandrigorouslearningofphilosophyanditssciences,Abulafia’sprogramincludedseclusion,breathing,physicalpostures,recitationofthedivinenames,visualizationofletters,andlettercombination.29Mostofthesetechniquesweredevelopedontheba-sisofexistingJewishpractices,butsomehaveanaloguesinothermysticalsystems,mainlySufism,andperhapswereinfluencedbythecontactAbulafiahadwithSufisduringhistravelsinPalestineandintheBalkans.FollowingMaimonides,Abulafiaunderstoodprophecyasamys-ticalunionbetweenthehumanintellectandtheActiveIntellect.Atthatmomentofuniontheintellectuallyperfecthumanreceivesthe“WordofGod”thatcontainsthetensefirot,whichare,inturn,con-tainedintheActiveIntellect.30KnowledgeoftheActiveIntellectthusamountstoknowledgeofthemysteriesoftheTorah,thepri-mordialparadigmthatGodconsultedinthecreationoftheworld.Itfollowsthattheprophet,whoistheintellectuallyperfectman,alsopossessestheknowledgeofthecreatedworld.ThoughAbulafiahimselfwasnotinterestedintheoperationofthenaturalworld,hisphilosophycouldleadonetoakeeninterestinnatureaswellastothedesiretomanipulatenature,thatistoengageinmagic.ThiswasmadeclearduringthefourteenthcenturyamongphilosopherswhoengagedinastrologyandinastralmagicandwhointerpretedtheTorahasascientific-astrologicaltext,eventhoughtheydevelopedtheirviewsindependentlyofAbulafia.SinceAbulafiabelievedthatheactuallyattainedultimatecog-nitiveperfectionandpossessedtheinnermeaningoftheTorah,itisnosurprisethatheviewedhimselfbothasaprophet(alongthelinesofMaimonides’theoryofprophecy)andasamessiah(alsoinaccordwithMaimonides’naturalistandintellectualistunderstand-ingofmessianism).InSicilyduringtheearly1290sAbulafiawasactivelyengagedinmessianicpropaganda.WithMaimonides,how-ever,heinterpretedredemptioninradicalspiritualterms:heshiftedCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n236MedievalJewishphilosophyredemptionfromthehistoricaltothepsychologicalrealm,mini-mizedthecatastrophicelementsofpopularJewisheschatology,anddidnotadvocatethedepartureoftheJewsfromthediaspora.Al-thoughhismessianismwashighlyindividual,hispoliticalactivismwasrebuffedbythepapalauthority.31WhileIbnAdret’soppositiontoAbulafialimitedthedisseminationofhisworksinSpain,Abulafia’sworkswerepreservedinSicilyandsouthernItalyandwouldbethemainsourceforknowledgeofkabbalahduringthefifteenthcentury.Moreover,Abulafia’snotionthatthesefirotareidenticalwiththeSeparateIntellectbecamethebasisofattemptstocoordinatephi-losophyandkabbalahinSpainandProvenceduringthefourteenthcentury.TheseattemptswerefusedwitharenewedinterestinthephilosophyofAbrahamibnEzraandthecultivationofastrologyandastralmagic.CoordinatingPhilosophyandKabbalahDuringthefourteenthcentury,JewishphilosophyinSpainandProvencewasdominatedbythelegacyofMaimonides;allJewishphilosopherssawthemselvesasinterpretersofMaimonides.How-ever,bythistimeAristotle’sphilosophywasbetterunderstood,becauseAristotlewasnowstudiedthroughthecommentariesofAverroes.Averroes’metaphysicsdifferedfromMaimonides’inthatAverroesexplicitlyidentifiedGodwiththeFirstIntellectandthussoftenedtheradicalOthernessofGod.IntheLongCommentaryonMetaphysicsandintheTahafutal-Tahafut(TheIncoherenceoftheIncoherence)AverroesexplainedthateachoftheSeparateIntellectscognizesGodandthatbythinkinghimselfGodthinksallexistentsinthemostperfectandnoblestway.Godcouldthusbeviewedastheprincipleandcauseofthehierarchyofexistentsandtheintelligibleorderoftheuniverse.TheAverroeanpositionbecamethestandardexpositionofAris-totleinthefourteenthcenturyanditfacilitatedtheattemptstocoordinatekabbalahandphilosophy.IftheActiveIntellectistheintelligibleorderoftheuniverse(siddurha-nimtza
ot),knowledgeoftheActiveIntellect,namely,scientificknowledge,consistedofknowledgeofthesublunarworld.HenceitwasappropriatetospeakabouttheActiveIntellectasthe“All,”theabstractparadigmofthesublunarworld.Thisunderstandingoftheword“All,”however,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600237couldbefoundalreadyinthetwelfthcenturyinthewritingsofAbrahamibnEzra,thebiblicalexegete,grammarian,Neoplatonicphilosopher,mathematician,astronomer,astrologer,andpoet.32HisterseandcrypticcommentariesontheTorahbecamethefocusofintensescrutinyduringthefourteenthcenturybyJewishphiloso-pherswhoconsideredhimasuperbmetaphysician.Thirtysuper-commentariesonIbnEzra’sbiblicalcommentarieswerecomposedinthefourteenthcentury,33illustratinghowIbnEzra’sreligiousnaturalismandinterestinastrologyiscompatiblewithAverroes’philosophy.34OnecrypticcommentinIbnEzra’sbiblicalcommentarybecamecrucialtotheattemptstoreadkabbalahintoAristotelianphilos-ophy.InhiscommentaryonNumbers20:8IbnEzrasaid:“Knowthatwhenthe‘part’knowstheAll[kol],itconjoinswiththeAll,andthroughtheAllitcreatessignsandwonders.”Thiscomment,citedasasupportofthenotionofconjunctionbetweenthehumanintellectandtheActiveIntellect,enablesthehumantoknowthenaturalorderandtomanipulateit.Ifhumanscanknowthepatternofthesublunarworld,asitisknowntotheActiveIntellect,humanscanknowhownatureworksandtheycaninterveneormanipulatenaturalprocessesbyvirtueofthespiritualpowertheypossess.ThisviewwenthandinhandwithIbnEzra’sclaimthattheintellectuallyperfectman,thatistheprophet,canperformmiraclesasmuchasitwasinaccordwithIbnEzra’skeeninterestinastrology.35UnlikeMaimonides,whorejectedthescientificvalidityofastrology,36IbnEzrasawitasavalidsciencethathaspracticalbenefitsifthespiritualeffluxthatoriginatesfromthecelestialspherecanbeharnessed.Onewaytoharnessthespiritualenergyofthestarswastocreateiconsthatpresumablycapturedtheenergyandappliedittohealingin-flictedpeople.ThispracticebecamedisputedinthelastphaseoftheMaimonideancontroversy,andAbbaMari,whoaskedIbnAdrettoplacephilosophyandscienceunderaban,agitatedprimarilyagainsttheuseofastralmagicinmedicine.37AmongtheJewishphilosopherswhocomposedsuper-commentariesonAbrahamibnEzratheattitudetowardkabbalahwasnotuniform.Someofthem–suchasSolomonal-Kostantini,SamuelibnZarza,andShemTovibnShaprut–wereeitherindif-ferenttokabbalahorevenopposedit.Al-Kostantini,forexample,regardedkabbalahasaformoffideismantitheticaltorationalCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n238MedievalJewishphilosophyinquiry.Likewise,IbnZarzararelymentionedkabbalistsanddefinitelydidnottaketheirteachingsseriously.38Butothers–suchasJosephibnWaqar,MosesNarboni,andSamuelibnMotot(oribnMatut),whowereinfluencedbyJudahbenNissimibnMalka,39weremuchmoreopentokabbalahandattemptedtoreconcilephilosophyandkabbalahwithinahierarchyofbeingandahierarchyofknowledge.Thus,accordingtoIbnWaqar,astrologypertainstotheeventsinthesublunarworld,philosophy(i.e.physicsandmetaphysics)providesinformationaboutthesupralunarworldoftheSeparateIntellects,andkabbalahconsistsofgnosisofthedivineworldthatcouldnotbeknownwithoutdivineassistance.40Atypicalexampleofsomeonewhoattemptstofitkabbalisticter-minologyintothephilosophicschemaisMosesbenJoshuaNarboni(d.1362).HeillustrateshowanAristotelianphilosopher,steepedinAverroes’commentariesonAristotle,couldcoordinatephiloso-phyandkabbalahonthebasisofthecrypticcommentsofAbrahamibnEzra.41NarboniwroteacommentaryonAverroes’EpistleonthePossibilityofConjunctionbetweentheHumanandtheDivineIntellect,inwhichhedetailedthetheorythatintellectualperfectionispossibleinthislife.ThisispreciselytheviewofAbulafia,exceptthatNarboniproceededtoproveitwithinthecontoursofAverroes’theoryofknowledge.42Narboni’soptimismaboutthecapacityofthehumanintellectisalsoevidentinhiscommentaryonIbnTufayl’sHayyibnYaqzan,aphilosophicalnovelthatillustratedhowintel-lectualperfectioncouldbeattainedevenbyapersonwhogrowsupintotalisolationfromhumansocietyorbyapersonwholivesinanimperfectpoliticalregime.InthatcommentaryNarbonicoordi-natedthetensefirotandthetenSeparateIntellects,followingIbnWaqar,eventhoughthedetailsofNarboniarequiteidiosyncratic.43Thesefirotarecorrelatedtothecelestialspheresasfollows:thefirstsefirah,keter,iscorrelatedtotheall-encompassing,starlesssphere;thesecondsefirah,hokhmah,iscorrelatedwiththesphereofthefixedstars;andthethirdsefirah,binah,iscorrelatedwithSaturn.ItisnotclearwhetherketerisidentifiedwithEynSofornot,butsinceatonepointNarbonidoesrefertoGodasketeritstandstoreasonthathewasaconsistentAverroeanandunderstoodGod(orEynSof)tobeidenticalwiththeFirstIntellect,andhencetheFirstMover.Thelowersevensefirotdonotcorrespondexactlytotheterminol-ogyoftheosophickabbalah,butitisobviousthattheyarebasedonCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600239someversionofit.Thefourthsefirah,hesed,isalsocalledtiferetandcorrespondstoJupiter;netzahcorrespondstoMars;hodtothesun;malkhuttoVenus;andmeonzedektoMercury.Yesodcorrespondstothemoon,andthetenthsefirahiscalledkallahorknessetIsrael,thecollectivesymbolofIsrael,whichNarboniidentifieswiththeActiveIntellect,theintelligibleorderofthesublunarworld.ThiscorrelationoftheSeparateIntellectwiththesefirotindicatesthatforNarboniphilosophyandkabbalahweretwosystemsthathaddifferentnamesforthesamespiritualentities.SimilarlyNarboniadvancedaphilosophicalreadingoftheShiurQomah,graftingAverroeanmetaphysicsontoIbnEzra’scommentaboutShiurQomahinExodus22:13andinYesodMora.AccordingtoNarboni,ShiurQomahisbutafigurativeexpressionforAverroes’ideathatGodisthe“FormoftheWorld,”inwhichallthingsexistinaperfectandnobleway.Inotherwords,whereasthetheosophickabbalistsunderstoodtheShiurQomahtorefertothesefiroticstruc-turewithintheGodhead,Narboniunderstoodittorefertothein-telligibleorderoftheworldthatincludesbothcorporealandspir-itualdimensions.Sincemostphilosophersagreedthatthehumanbeingisamicrocosmofthemacrocosm,theanthropomorphismoftheShiurQomahwasnotproblematictheologically.Thehumanbeingisbutaprisminwhichthestructureofrealityisreflected.ForNarboni,kabbalahandphilosophywereparallelspeculativesys-temsthatgavedifferentnamestothesamecosmicormetaphysicalentities.Thereturntopre-MaimonideanphilosophersinvolvednotonlyAbrahamibnEzrabutalsoJudahHalevi,whoseKuzariincludedalongdiscussionofSeferYetzira.InProvenceattheturnofthefif-teenthcenturyagroupofscholars–IsaacdeLates,PratMaimon(SolomonbenMenahem),andhisstudentsJacobFarisol,NethanelKaspi,andSolomonbenJudahofLunel–composedcommentariesonHalevi’sKuzariandadvancedanewJewishtheologythatwasdeeplysteepedinastrology.TheProvenc¸alscholarswerealladmir-ersofLevibenAbrahamofVillefranche,thecausecel´ebreofthefinal`phaseoftheMaimonideancontroversy.Thatscholaradvocatedthescientificvalidityofastrology,theeffectivenessofdrawingspiritualenergyforhumanneeds,andthepermissibilityofastralmagiconha-lakhicgrounds.Forhim,thestarsdoinfluencehumanphysicalwellbeingasmanifestedinhumanhealthandsickness,andtheyevenCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n240MedievalJewishphilosophydeterminetheformsforcorporealthings.Hencetheuseoftalis-mansandothericonsofthestarstodrawspiritualenergydownwardisbeneficialandhalakhicallypermissible.44FollowingLevibenAbraham,PratMaimon,forexample,regardedthespiritualenergyofthesuntobethesourceofreligiousandintel-lectualvirtues,includingtheattainmentofprophecy.Toabsorbthespiritualenergy,properpreparationisnecessary;aspecialplaceandaniconshouldbeusedforthepurposeofattainingpropheticover-flow.ThusthesacrificesofancientIsraelwereexplainedasmediumsthatenabledIsrael’sprieststofocustheirimaginationastheyen-gagedintheprognosticationofthefuture,intheirattemptstodrawspiritualenergyfromthesupernalworldforthebenefitofIsrael.ThisviewwassharedbyMosesNarboniandNissimofMarseillesaswellasbyPratMaimonandhisstudentNethanelKaspi.ThelattertwoscholarsregardedtheancientTempleasanelaboratetalismantodrawtheheavenlyenergytoearth,andtheybelievedthatcertainlo-cationsweremoreapttoreceivethesupernaloverflowthanothers.Thisnotion,however,wasnotendorsedbyLevibenAbraham,forwhomtheTemplewasnotatalisman,butstrictlyasymbolofeter-naltruthsabouttheheavenlyspheresthatshouldbecontemplatedratherthanusedforanybenefit.InterpretingthebiblicalpastinlightofastrologyandastrologicalmagicwasjustanotherexpressionoftherationalistassumptionthatScriptureisascientifictext,anassumptionthatwassharedbothbyfollowersofMaimonidesandbyAbulafia.SinceScriptureisneces-sarilytrueandastrologyisatruescience,theTorahmustbereadinlightofthescienceofastrology.Writingsuper-commentariesonAbrahamibnEzra’sbiblicalcommentarieswasthemosteffectivewaytoprovethatcongruence.OutofthisastrologicalreadingoftheTorahafull-fledgedastraltheologyemerged,whosemaintenetsarethefollowingthemes:theTorahwasgivenatSinaionthebasisofastrologicalcalculations;biblicaleventsreflecttheinfluencesofthestars,andbiblicalpersonalitiesandrabbinicsageswereexpertas-trologers;prophecyispredicatedonknowledgeofastrology;miraclesareunderstoodtobetheresultsoftheprophet’sintellectualperfec-tion.Further,MoseswasabletoovercometheEgyptianmagicians,becausehewasasuperiorastrologer.Hisintellectualperfectionin-cludedtheknowledgeofastrology,culminatingintheconjunctionbetweenhisintellectandtheActiveIntellect.HewasapracticingCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600241magicianwhocorrectlyunderstoodthecausallinkbetweenearthlyandcelestialpowers.Theknowledgeofastrologyenablestheintel-lectuallyperfecttoextricatethemselvesfromastralcausality.More-over,theuniquenessofthepeopleofIsraelisexplainedbyitsabilitytotranscendtheimpactofastralcausalitythroughmasteryoftheastrologicalsciences.Mostimportantly,thecommandmentsthem-selvesfunctionastoolsinthemanipulationofastralforces.Thecommandmentseithermanifesttheinfluenceofagivencelestialbodyoraregivenastechniquestodrawspiritualenergyfromthece-lestialspheresintothecorporealworld.Inthisregardthecommand-mentsmitigatethedestructiveforcesofthecorporealworldthatareregulatedbythecelestialbodies.Observanceofthecommandmentsthushasaninstrumentalvalue,forthemoreconsistentlyoneper-formsthem,themoreonecanextricateoneselffromtheimpactofthestars.Inshort,bytheturnofthefifteenthcenturyphilosopher-scientistsproposedastrictlynaturalisticinterpretationfortheTorahontheba-sisofastraldeterminism.Giventhistheology,itiseasytounderstandhowphilosopher-scientistscouldalsobeinterestedinkabbalahnotonlyasaspeculativesystem,butalsoasapraxisthatincludeduseoftalismans,amulets,incantations,anddivinations.ThebestexampleofsuchathinkerisYohananAlemannoinItaly.IntellectualPerfection,Kabbalah,andMagicThephilosophicapproachtokabbalahwasmostcharacteristicofJewishintellectualactivityinItalyduringthelatefifteenthcenturyandthroughoutthesixteenthcentury.ThebestexampleisYohananAlemanno,whofusedHalakhah,biblicalexegesis,philosophy,sci-ence,kabbalah,andmagicintoacoherentsystem,illustratingtheRenaissanceidealofcomprehensivelearning.Alemannowasastu-dentofJudahbenYehielMesserLeon,anoutstandingAristotelianJewishphilosopher,whosephilosophicandmedicalexpertisewasrecognizedbyChristiansociety.HewasawardedamedicaldegreebyEmperorFrederickIIIinthe1450s,alongwiththeunusualpriv-ilegetograntdegreestoJewishstudents.AlemannoreceivedthehonorarydegreefromhisJewishteacher,thoughAlemanno’sownsocialstandingderivednotfromitbutfromthepatronageofthewealthiestJewishbankerinFlorence,R.YehielNissimofPisa.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n242MedievalJewishphilosophyAlemannoalsodepartedfromhisreveredteacherinregardtothestudyofkabbalah.Inthe1470skabbalahwasbeginningtoattracttheinterestofChristianhumanists,whorevivedthePlatonictraditionintheirsearchfortheancientpriscatheologicathattheybelievedculmi-natedinthetruthsofChristianity.BecauseChristianhumanistsmaintainedthatkabbalahwaspartofthisknowledge,theytreatedkabbalahwithdeeprespect,regardeditastheonlytrueinsightofJudaism,andhadkabbalistictextstranslatedintoLatin.FlaviusMithridates,themostprolifictranslatorofkabbalistictextsintoLatin,alsoaddedhisownforgeriesofkabbalistictextsandfinallyconvertedtoChristianity.ThetranslatedtextsincludedprimarilytheworksofAbulafiaandoftheItaliankabbalistR.MenahemRencanati.45TheZohar,bycontrast,wasrelativelyunknowninItalyuntilthelastdecadeofthefifteenthcentury,whencopiesofitwerebroughttoItalywithrefugeesoftheexpulsion.46JudahMesserLeonwasveryconcernedabouttheinterestofnon-Jewsinkabbalahandtheirmissionizingsuccesses,andattemptedtobanthestudyofkab-balahinItaly,buttonoavail.JudahMesserLeon’sownson,David,andthefather’sbeststudents,YohananAlemannoandAbrahamdeBalmes,wereallinterestedinkabbalahandstudieditdespitetheirmaster’sdisapproval.InItaly,kabbalahwasviewedasatypeofspeculativelore.Itwasstudiedauto-didacticallyfromextanttextswithoutthesupervisionofauthoritativementors.Theabsenceofauthoritativetraditions,andthelimitedknowledgeoftheZohar,facilitatedadegreeofhermeneuticalfreedomthatwasnotcommoninSpain.Ascholarinterestedinkabbalahcouldrelyonhisownintellectualpowersintheinterpretationofkabbalistictextsandarticulatehisownpecu-liarreadingofkabbalahonthebasisofhisphilosophicknowledge,preciselyasAbrahamAbulafiahaddone.This,inturn,furtheren-hancedtheimageofkabbalahasanancient,theoreticalsciencewithauniversalappeal,ratherthanasasetofpracticesfortheproperobservanceofJewishlaw.ItisnosurprisethatinItalyChristianhu-manistscouldviewkabbalahasanintegralpartofuniversal,ancientwisdomandwoulddesiretolearnitfromJewishmasters.YohananAlemannoandDavidMesserLeonareexamplesofphilosophicap-proachestokabbalahcommonamongJewishintellectualsinItaly.Aboutthesefirot,however,therewasnoagreementamongthem.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600243WhereasAlemannoheldthatthesefirotweretheinstrumentsofdivineactivity,DavidMesserLeonviewedthemastheessenceofGodthatexistsinGodinthemostperfectmanner,asThomasAquinasunderstooddivineperfections.47Duringthesixteenthcen-turyAlemanno’sfusionofphilosophy,kabbalah,andmagicprevailedinItaly,whereasDavidMesserLeonfledItalytotheOttomanEmpirein1494.AlthoughhisviewofthesefirotastheessenceofGodwasinaccordwiththeprevalentZoharicposition,hisphilosophicexpositionofthedoctrinewasrejectedbyIberiankabbalists.AlemannomasteredtheentirescopeofJewishbiblical,halakhic,andphilosophiclearning.Inadditionhealsostudiedalchemy,as-trology,astralmedicine,physiognomy,dreaminterpretation,andtalismanicmagicfromavastarrayofsourcesincludingthere-centlypublishedHermeticcorpus,theworksofArabicNeoplatonicphilosophers(e.g.Batalyawsi),theJewishNeoplatonicphilosophers(e.g.IbnEzra,IbnZarza,IbnMotot),medievalmagicalandastrologi-calmanuals(e.g.theGhayatal-HakimandBookofthePalm-Date),andkabbalah.Fromthesehighlydiversesources,Alemannodevel-opedanorganicviewofnatureinwhichthereisnomeaningfuldis-tinctionbetweentheanimateandtheinanimate,andinwhichbodiesexertinfluencesoneachotherthroughsympathiesandantipathies.Projectingmindintonature,Alemannoendowedallexistingthingswithspirit,whichservedasthelocusandcarrierofactivelifeandperception.Inthisorganicallyordereduniversethespiritualcouldpenetratethephysicalor,moreprecisely,aspiritualenergyassumedmaterialforms.Alemanno’sinterestinthemanipulationofnaturewasrelatedtotheviewsofhisfourteenth-centuryphilosophicsourcesandAbulafia’smysticismoflanguage.ForAlemanno(whowasanar-dentstudentofAbulafia’swritings),themasteryofnatureandthemysticalunionwithGodwerepossiblethroughthemanipulationoftheHebrewletters,the“buildingblocks”oftheuniverse.Whoeverbreaksthelimitsofhumanembodimentthroughvariouscontem-plativeandmeditativetechniquesandproperexegesisoftheexo-tericTorahcan“tapinto”thespiritualenergyoftheGodheadandchannelthedivineeffluxintothecorporealworld,eitherintohisownbodyorintomaterialobjects.Throughself-spiritualization,themagician-philosophermaycontrolnaturalsubstances,prognosticatefutureevents,healthephysicallyandmentallyafflicted,attainaCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n244MedievalJewishphilosophytemporaryunionwithGodinthislife,andenjoytheblissofim-mortalityintheafterlife.TheprototypeoftheperfectmanwasKingSolomon.TohisCommentaryonSongofSongs,entitledHeshekShlomo(TheDesireofSolomon),whichAlemannohadcomposedin1488forhisstudentPicodellaMirandola,AlemannoappendedabiographyofKingSolomon,entitledShirha-Maalot(TheSongofSolomon’sVirtues).48KingSolomonwasthehighestexampleoftheRenaissancema-gus:apersonwhoacquiredallthevirtuesandapprehendedalltheartsandthesciencesthatAlemannopresentedinanarchitectonicorder.LikeAbulafia,Alemannocomposedhisbookasapracticalmanualforreligio-intellectualperfectiontobeattainedinthislife,culminatingintheconjunctionofthehumanintellectwithGod,or,moreprecisely,withtiferet,thesixthsefirahandcenteroftheserifoticrealm.PresumablytheonewhofollowsthedetailedrecipeforperfectionprovidedbyAlemannowouldexperienceperfectioninthislife,asdidSolomon.Theperfectman,asIdelhasputit,is“anaccomplishedphilosopher,amagicianandtheurgian,andfinallyamystic.”49Alemanno’sviewthattheperfectmanwasindeedanin-termediarybetweenthecorporealandthespirituallevelsofrealitybecameaprominentthemeofRenaissancephilosophywhenitwasadoptedbyhisdisciple,PicodellaMirandola.AndAlemanno’slin-guisticapproachtonaturewouldinfluencePico’snephew,AlbertoPio,aswellasYohannesReuchlin.WhereasChristianhumanistswereimpressedbyAlemanno,hisfusionofphilosophyandkabbalahraisedtheireofhisownJewishcontemporaries.Aristotelianphilosophers,suchasElijahdelMedigo,founditintellectuallyunacceptable,andtherecentrefugeesfromSpainwhoacceptedtheauthorityoftheZoharanditstheosophic-theurgicdoctrinesdidnotregardAlemanno’sfusionofphilosophyandkabbalahasauthoritative.Inthefirsthalfofthesix-teenthcentury,JewishintellectualssuchasJacobMantino,ObadiaSforno,MosesProvenzzalo,andAzariahFigocontinuedtoperpetuatetheAristoteliantraditioninItaly’suniversitiesandwereinstrumen-talintheprintingofAverroes’commentariesontheAristoteliancorpus.Yet,theinvolvementofJewishscholarswithRenaissanceAristotelianismwasovershadowedbythepopularityofPlatonism,whichalsofoundaresponsivechordamongJewishthinkers.Forex-ample,JudahMoscatocomposedacommentaryonYehudaHalevi’sCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600245Kuzari,entitledQolYehudah(TheVoiceofJudah)thattreatedthelongdiscourseonSeferYetzirainlightofthenon-Aristotelianphilosophiesofnatureprevalentinthesixteenthcentury.Display-inganimpressivecommandofAristotelianandNeoplatonicphilos-ophy,kabbalah,Renaissancehumanism,andHermeticism,Moscatoposedahierarchicalrelationshipbetweenhumanknowledgeanddi-vinelyrevealedknowledge.50Allbranchesofnaturalphilosophyarenowdeemedtobebutfinite,imperfectapproximationsofthein-finite,divinewisdomrevealedintheTorahandinterpretedbytheauthoritativetradition.ThesamemindsetisevidentalsoinAbrahamYagel,whofollowedinthefootstepsofAlemanno.GoingbeyondtheparametersofAristotle’snaturalphilosophy,hewasimmersedinthenewscientificdiscoveriesinastronomy,humanphysiology,botany,zoology,andmineralogy,whilealsowishingtocapturetheoccultpowersofnaturethroughthestudyofkabbalah,alchemy,astrology,andmagic.51kabbalahasauthoritativejewishtheologyWhereasinItalythefusionofphilosophyandkabbalahreflectedthedistinctiveintellectualclimateoftheRenaissance,inSpaintheinter-playofthetwoprogramswasshapedbythetragiceventsof1391.Theyear-longpersecutiondestroyedthousandsofJewishcommunitiesandbroughtabouttheunprecedentedeventofcollectiveapostasytoChristianity.TheseeventsledtheJewishintelligentsiatoathoroughself-examinationoftheirculturalorientation.SincephilosophywasthehallmarkofJudeo-Hispanicculture,philosophy,thephilosophicpaideia,andthephilosopherswereallplacedonthedefensiveasthecauseofthefailureofJewstoupholdtheancestralfaith.Theseac-cusationswereadvancedbymoralistssuchasSolomonAlami,whorailedagainstthemoralbreakdownofHispano-Jewishsocietyingen-eral,aswellasbyShemTovibnShemTov,atrainedphilosopherwhodespairedofJewishAristotelianismandwastoembracekabbalahasthecorrectinterpretationofrabbinicJudaism.HisSeferha-Emunot(BookofBeliefs)isasummaryofkabbalisticteachingsthatwereculledfromextanttextsratherthanfromalivingteacher.Thein-fluenceofkabbalahonphilosophywasalsoevidentinthecaseofHasdaiCrescas(d.1410/11),themostseverecriticofMaimonideanphilosophy.Crescas’ownanalysisofdivineattributesasessentialCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n246MedievalJewishphilosophyattributeswasdirectlyindebtedtothekabbalisticdoctrineofsefirotandthekabbalisticconceptionofinfinity.52Despitegrowingskepticismaboutphilosophy,educatedJewscon-tinuedtocultivatethestudyofphilosophyandregarditasnecessaryfortheattainmentofreligiousperfection.Furthermore,philosophyenteredthecurriculumofcertainyeshivotinCastileandhelpedtoshapehalakhicdiscourse.Aristotelianlogicwasemployedtounder-standGod’srevealedwordwithscientificprecision.Itisveryplausi-blethatthepenetrationofphilosophyintotheveryheartofrabbinictraininginacademiesofhigherJewishlearningpromptedthede-monizationofphilosophybyagroupofanonymouskabbalistsinCastilewhocomposedSeferha-Meshiv(TheBookoftheAnsweringAngel).53TheyregardedphilosophynotonlyasalientoJudaism,butalsoasinherentlyevil,amanifestationofthesitrahahrah.AccordingtoSeferha-Meshiv,themysteriesoftheinfiniteTorahcouldnotbeknownthroughtheinquiriesofthephilosophersandtheirastrolog-icalmanipulations,butfromdirectrevelationsbyanangelicbeing.Usingspecifictechniquesforconjuringangelsorthroughmethodsofdreaminterpretation,theseanonymouskabbalistsclaimedtohavedisclosedtheeschatologicalmeaningofScripture,promisingimmi-nentredemption.AmongtheintellectualeliteinIberianJewrytherewasnosharpdichotomybetweenphilosophyandkabbalah.ThesamescholarswhopreservedtheAristoteliantraditionalsohadapositiveattitudetowardkabbalahandregardedtheZoharasanauthentic,ancientmidrash.Kabbalahwasnowregardedanintegralpartoftheauthori-tative,revealedtraditionthattranscendsthelimitsofnaturalhumanreason.Infact,thephilosophersthemselvesaccentuatedtheinabil-ityofphilosophyalonetobringabouthumansalvation,aviewthatwasdevelopedinthecontextoftheintensepolemicswithChris-tianity.AsJewishphilosophersbecamemorefamiliarwithChristianScholasticism,theyrealizedthatChristianitycouldnolongerbedis-missedasintellectuallyinferiortoJudaism.UndertheinfluenceofScholasticism,Jewishthinkersadoptedtheformaldistinctionbe-tweenphilosophyandtheologyasarticulatedbyThomasAquinas.DuringthesecondhalfofthefifteenthcenturyJewishphiloso-phersdifferentiatedbetweenrationalist,empiricalphilosophy(derekhha-haqirah;derekhha-hipus)andtraditional,receivedfaith(derekhha-emunahve-ha-qabbalah),whichparallelsthedistinctionCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600247betweenphilosophy(ornaturaltheology)andtheology(orsacreddoc-trine)respectively.Philosophyandtheologydifferedfromeachotherintermsoforigin,scope,andaim.Whereasphilosophyconsistsoftruthsthatnaturalhumanreasoncandemonstratewithoutdivineassistance,theologycontainstruepropositionsthatexceedthekenofnaturalhumanreason.Whereasphilosophyproceedsfromknowl-edgeoftheeffecttoknowledgeofthecause,theologyproceedsfromknowledgeofthecausetoknowledgeoftheeffects.Whereasphiloso-phyencompassesknowledgeextractedfromsensible,createdthings,theologycontainsrevealedknowledgeaboutthesupernaturalrealmofdivinethings.Whereasphilosophyispronetoerrors,mistakes,anduncertainty,theologyiscertain,reliable,andcomplete.Whereasphilosophicalwisdomisacognitiveactivityoftheintellect,theol-ogyinvolvestheassentofthewillthroughfaith.Whereasphilos-ophyalonefallsshortofsecuringpersonalimmortalityandcanatbestguaranteeearthlyhappiness,thesacreddoctrinesoftheologyaresalvific,securingtranscendenthappinessintheworldtocome.Thedistinctionbetween“thepathofinvestigation”and“thepathoffaith”paralleledthedistinctionbetweenthenaturalandsupernat-uralordersofreality.AccordingtoIsaacAbravanel,AbrahamBibago,AbrahamShalom,andIsaacArama,Israel(bothcollectivelyandin-dividually)belongssimultaneouslytothenaturalandsupernaturalorders.Ascreatedhumanbeings,theaffairsofIsraelfallunderthelawsofnature,whoseregularityandstabilitymanifestGod’swis-domandgeneral,providentialcareforthecreateduniverse.Onthislevel,alleventscanbeknownscientifically,especiallybyemployingthescienceofastrology.YetIsraelalsobenefitsfromspecial,direct,andparticularprovidencethattranscendsnaturaldeterminismandisnottransparenttohumanreason.God’srevelationatSinaiwasamiraculousevent,expressingGod’sfreewillanddivineinterventioninnature.AssuchtherevelationfromGodwasnotpredicatedonperfectionofthenaturalhumanintellectandthereforeencompassedallofIsrael,regardlessofitsdegreeofintellectualperfection.WiththegivingoftheTorah,IsraelwasgoverneddirectlybythewillofGod.Israel’saffairsthereforemanifestedthebelievers’faithinGodandwillingnesstoobservetheTorah’scommandments.WithinthisschemaJewishphilosophersviewedthespecificdoc-trinesofkabbalahasanintegralpartofJewishsacreddoctrine,orthe-ology,eventhoughtheirknowledgeofkabbalahwasquitelimited.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n248MedievalJewishphilosophyThegradualacceptanceofkabbalahasauthoritativeinterpretationwenthandinhandwiththegradualvenerationoftheZoharamongSephardicintellectualsandtheportrayalofR.ShimonbarYohai,thepresumedauthoroftheZohar,asanexampleoftheperfecthumanbeing.TheantiquityoftheZoharwascitedasevidenceforthean-tiquityandauthorityofkabbalah,forexamplebyJudahAbravanel,himselfanAristotelianthinkerwhowasalsofullyimmersedinRenaissancehumanism.54TheexpulsionfromSpainandthehorrendoussufferingitinflictedonIberianJewsfurthercontributedtothegradualacceptanceofkab-balahastheauthoritativeinterpretationoftherevealedtradition.AftertheexpulsiontherewasbothgrowingoppositiontophilosophyandevenarenewalofthedebateaboutMaimonides,aswellastheconsolidationandsystematizationoffivecenturiesofphilosophicalactivity.CriticismofphilosophywasvoicedbyJosephYaabetz,oneoftheexiles,whofoundhiswaytoItaly.YaabetzwasschooledinAristotelianismandcontinuedtoreflectonJudaismintheframe-workofMaimonideanrationalism.ButYaabetzopposedacertain(possible)interpretationofMaimonidesaccordingtowhichphilos-ophyaloneissalvificandtheTorahisbutthesocio-politicalcon-textinwhichonecouldattainphilosophicalperfection.Instead,Yaabetzhighlightedthequalitativedifferencebetweenphilosophic,discursiveknowledgeandpropheticknowledge,anddemandedthesubordinationofphilosophytotherevealedtradition.Solongasphi-losophywasproperlyemployedtoarticulatethemeaningofdivinerevealedpropositions,itwaspermissibleforJewstoengageinphi-losophy.ThisviewwascommonevenamongSephardicexiles,whoexpresslyassertedthesuperiorityofkabbalahoverphilosophyandwhowerecreativekabbalists,suchasSolomonAlkabetzandMosesCordovero.WhetherornottheexpulsionfromSpainwasthedirectcauseoftheproliferationofkabbalahinthesixteenthcenturyisstilldebated.Idelhasarguedthattherewasnocausalconnectionbetweentheex-pulsionandtheriseofsixteenth-centurymessianismorthedissem-inationofkabbalah.Otherfactors,suchastheimpulsetopreservekabbalisticoraltraditionsandtheencounterbetweentheSephardickabbalistsandkabbalistsinItalyandinGreece,werenolessimpor-tant.However,itseemsthatexpulsionitselfdidinspiretheneedforconsolidationandsystematizationofkabbalistictraditions,givingCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600249risetosystematic“summakabbalistica,”sotospeak,byMeiribnGabbaiandbyMosesCordovero.Althoughbothpresentersofkab-balahweresteepedinphilosophy,theirconsolidationofkabbalahactuallyelaboratedthemythicaldimensionsofthereceivedtradi-tion.TheveryexposureofSephardickabbaliststootherformsofkabbalahitselfnecessitatedrethinkingandreformulatingkabbalah.OnefeatureofthepostexpulsionperiodwastheriseoftheZoharasacanonic,sacredtextincertainJewishcommunities.55Anim-portantimpetustothedisseminationofkabbalahinthesixteenthcenturywastheprintingoftheZoharinItalybytwoChristianpub-lishinghousesinMantuaandinCremona(1558and1559).Althoughthiseventwasaccompaniedbyaheatedpubliccontroversyabouttheproprietyofpublicizingsecret,oraltraditions,therewasnodoubtthattheinterestofChristianscholarsintheZoharanditspublica-tion,fiveyearsaftertheburningoftheTalmud,addedtoitsprestige.Insomecommunities,especiallyinNorthAfrica,theZoharwasalsoregardedasaholybookthathadtobetreatedasasacredobjectbe-causeitcontainsoccultpowersthatcanhealorbringotherconcretebenefits.AndinSafedthestudyoftheZoharwasthemainactivityofthekabbalisticfraternitythatmodeleditselfafterthekabbalisticfraternitydepictedintheZohar.UndertheleadershipofIsaacLuria,thekabbalistsofSafedelaboratedthemythicalandanthropomorphicaspectsofZoharictheosophyanditsconcomitantsacramentalun-derstandingofJewishrituals.InSafed,theZoharwasalsoregardedasanauthoritativesourceintermsofJewishlaw,andseveralritualsenteredJewishpracticesolelyontheauthorityoftheZoharwhenJosephKarocodifiedthemintohiscodeofJewishlaw,theShulhanArukh(PreparedTable).56TheacceptanceoftheZoharasacanonictextinfluencedJewishphilosophyintheOttomanEmpireduringthesixteenthcentury.TheSephardicexilesrecoveredfromtheirtraumabydevotingtheirener-giestoconsolidatingtheirJudeo-Hispanicculturallegacy,includingphilosophy.Theexilesandtheirdescendantscomposedphilosophi-calencyclopaediasanddigests,continuedtocommentonAristotle,andtreatedMaimonideswithutmostrespect.However,especiallyinSalonica,philosophicknowledgewasviewedasthehandmaidenofthehermeneuticsofsacredtexts.Creativelyweavingphilosophywithmidrashandkabbalah,thinkerssuchasMeirArama,JosephTaitatzak,MeirAderbi,IsaacArroyo,MosesAlmosnino,andMosesCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n250MedievalJewishphilosophyAlsheikhelaboratedtheirexegeticalandhomileticalactivitiesintheirpursuitofholiness.57Theimpactofkabbalahonphilosophyismostevidentinthecon-ceptionofTorah.PhilosophersidentifiedtheTorahwiththeessenceofGod,andaccordinglyviewedtherevealedTorahasthemanifes-tationofthetranscendent,supernal,primordialTorah,whichtheythenidentifiedwiththeinfinitewisdomofGod.Undertheinfluenceofkabbalah,thosewhocultivatedphilosophynowassertedthattheTorahcomprisedthenameofGod.StillloyaltoanAristotelianhier-archicalcosmology,thephilosopherslocatedthesupernalTorahabovetherealmofimmaterialbeingsthatarenotgovernedbythelawsofmotionandtemporalchange.IdentifiedwithGod’swis-dom,thesupernalTorahistheintelligibleorderoftheuniverse,theparadigmthatGodconsultedwhenhebroughttheuniverseintoexistence.BycleavingtotherevealedTorah(throughTorahstudyandtheperformanceofthecommandments),thereligiousdevoteecouldattainaspiritualperfection,overcomethelimitsofhumancorporealityandparticularity,andenjoythespiritualrewardoftheworldtocome,amysticalunionwithGod.Thisviewledtoparadoxicalresults.Ontheonehand,theau-tonomyofphilosophywascurtailedasthephilosopherbecamepri-marilyaninterpreterofsacredtexts,whoseinfinitemeaningwasneverfullyexhausted.Ontheotherhand,philosophicalvocabu-laryandreasoningbecamemorewidelyknownamongtheeducatedclasses,andphilosophicalesotericismreacheditsend.Philosophywasnowviewedasausefulmethodfortheexpositionoftheex-otericmeaningofthesacredtradition;theesotericdimensionwasreservedtokabbalah.Thefactthattheverypeoplewhostudiedphi-losophyalsorecognizedthelimitationsofphilosophyandsubordi-natedittokabbalahwenthandinhandwiththegradualdissolutionofAristotelianism.Withtheriseofnewobservationaldataandnewphysicaltheories,theNeoplatonizedAristotelianismthatcharacter-izedJewishrationalismreachedanendbytheturnoftheseventeenthcentury.Theinterfacebetweenphilosophyandkabbalahcontinuedintheearlyseventeenthcentury,especiallyamongformerconversos.ForAbrahamCohenHerrera,forexample,theelaboratemythsofLurianickabbalahweretotallycompatiblewithRenaissancePlatonism,eventhoughkabbalahwasnotreducibletoPlatonism.58CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600251ExposedtoLurianickabbalahthroughtheteachingsofIsraelSarug,HerreradiminishedthemessianicorientationofLuriaasheinter-pretsthestarkanthropomorphismofLurianickabbalahphilosophi-cally.Bythemid-seventeenthcentury,however,Spinoza,thechildofformerconversos,dealtthemostseriousblowtotheinterfacebe-tweenphilosophyandkabbalah,whenhedebunkedthefoundationalJewishbeliefthattheTorahteachesscientifictruthsinthelanguageofhumans.ViewingtheTorahonlyasapolitical-moraltext,SpinozaregardeditastheproductofpropheticimaginationratherthanasarevelationfromGod,thusunderminingtheentiremedievalexeget-icalendeavor,sharedbybothphilosophersandkabbalists.SpinozapavedthepathformodernJewishsecularism,forwhichscienceistheexclusivedomainoftruth.conclusionTheinterplayofphilosophyandkabbalahcharacterizedJewishthoughtinthepost-Maimonideanera.AlthoughkabbalahemergedtocurbMaimonideanism,rationalistphilosophyandkabbalahhadmuchincommon.BothweretheoreticalinquiriesaboutGod,theori-ginandstructureoftheuniverse,andtheplaceofhumansintheorderofthings.BothwrestledwiththesamequestionswithinthesameconceptualframeworkofmedievalNeoplatonizedAristotelianism.Asmetaphysicians,bothgroupsofthinkersdealtwiththeparadoxesofsingularityandmultiplicityandapproachedthemeitherontolog-icallyandcosmologicallyorpsychologicallyandepistemologically.Becausebothphilosophersandkabbalistspresupposedtheexistenceofnon-corporealreality,theyweredeeplyawareoftheinherentlim-itationsoftheembodiedhumanmindandmaintainedthathumansrequiredivineassistanceintheformofrevelationinordertoknowthatwhichisbeyondthekenofnaturalhumanreason.Thedis-putedquestionsbetweenphilosophersandkabbalists,andwithineachcamp,pertainedtotheboundaryofhumanknowledge,thena-tureofrevelatoryexperience,andtheprecisemeaningofthereceivedtradition.AsJewishtheologianswholivedwithinthestricturesofHalakhah,philosophersandkabbaliststookforgrantedthatScrip-turewasdivinelyrevealed,andtheirprimaryintellectualtaskwashermeneutical–topenetratethedeep,hiddenmeaningoftheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n252MedievalJewishphilosophysacredtext.Bothphilosophyandkabbalahwereesotericendeavorswhoseprivilegedknowledgewasaccessibleonlytotheselectfewwhowereintellectuallyandspirituallysuitable.Thedifferencebe-tweenthemconcernedtheprecisecontentoftheesotericmeaningoftherevealedtraditionandtheproperwayoftransmittingit.Aseso-tericandelitistprograms,bothphilosophyandkabbalahweredeter-minedtoprotecttheirprivilegedknowledgefrommisinterpretationormisapplication.Hencetheyemployedcomplexrhetoricaldevicestoconcealtheverysecretstheysetouttoreveal.Finally,bothpro-gramsregardedtheirprivilegedknowledgetobetheexclusivepathtowardreligiousperfection,culminatingintheblissofimmortalityintheafterlife.ThusbothphilosophyandkabbalahcontributedtotheinteriorizationofJewishreligiouslifebyshiftingthefocusofJewishmessianismfromcollective,politicalredemptiontopersonalsalvationoftheindividualsoul.notes1.SeeG.Scholem,OriginsoftheKabbalah,trans.A.Arkush,ed.R.J.Z.Werblowsky(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,1987),199–364.2.OntheesotericdoctrinesofGermanPietismandtheirimpactonProvenc¸alkabbalah,seeE.Wolfson,ThroughtheSpeculumthatShines:VisionandImaginationinMedievalJewishMysticism(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1994),188–269.3.OnSeferha-Bahir,seeScholem,Origins,35–198;E.Wolfson,“TheTreethatisAll:Jewish-ChristianRootsofaKabbalisticSymbolinSeferha-Bahir,”JewishThoughtandPhilosophy3(1993),31–76.4.OnSeferYetzira’sconceptionoflanguage,seeM.Idel,Golem:JewishMagicalandMysticalTraditionontheArtificialAnthropoid(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1990),9–26.OnthepossibleIndiansources,seeY.Liebes,ArsPoeticainSeferYetzira[Hebrew](TelAviv:SchockenBooks,2000).LiebesproposesNorthernMesopotamiaasthepossiblelocationforthecompositionofthistext,whichhedatestothefirstcenturybce,whiletheJerusalemTemplewasstillinexistence.Evenifsuchearlydatingisacceptedforthecompositionofthetext,theeditedversionofthetextisnoearlierthantheeighthcentury.5.SeeM.Idel,“JewishKabbalahandPlatonismintheMiddleAgesandtheRenaissance,”inNeoplatonismandJewishThought,ed.L.E.Goodman(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1992),319–51;Scholem,Origins,365–475.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–16002536.SeeM.Idel,“‘WehaveNoKabbalisticTraditiononThis’,”inRabbiMosesNahmanides(Ramban):ExplorationsinhisReligiousandLit-eraryVirtuosity,ed.I.Twersky(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1983),51–73.7.SeeM.Verman,TheBooksofContemplation:MedievalJewishMysticalSources(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1992).8.SeeG.Scholem,MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1941);M.Idel,Kabbalah:NewPerspectives(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1994);H.Tirosh-Rothschild,“ContinuityandRevisionintheStudyofKabbalah,”AJSReview16(1991),161–92.9.SeeE.Wolfson,AbrahamAbulafia–KabbalistandProphet:Hermeneu-tics,TheosophyandTheurgy(LosAngeles:CherubPress,2000);E.Wolfson,“LetterSymbolismandMerkavahImagery,”in‘AleiShe-fer:StudiesintheLiteratureofJewishThoughtPresentedtoRabbiDr.AlexanderSafran,ed.M.Hallamish(Ramat-Gan:Bar-IlanUniver-sityPress,1990),195–236.WolfsonhasshownthatAbulafia’slinguisticmysticismwassharedbytheZohar,and,conversely,thatAbulafiadidnotrejectthekabbalisticdoctrineofsefirotbutonlyacertaininter-pretationofit.Bythesametoken,Abulafia’skabbalahisnotdevoidofethnocentrism,asmuchastheZoharmanifestsstrongecstaticandmysticalimpulses.10.Y.Liebes,“HowwastheZoharWritten?,”inhisStudiesintheZohar,trans.A.Schwartz,S.Nakache,andP.Peli(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1992),85–138.11.SeeR.Jospe,“EarlyPhilosophicalCommentariesontheSeferYezirah:SomeComments,”RevuedesEtudesJuives149(1990),369–415;E.Wolfson,“TheTheosophyofShabbetaiDonnolo,withSpecialEm-phasisontheDoctrineofSefirotinSeferHakhmoni,”JewishHistory6(1992),281–316;Wolfson,AbrahamAbulafia,135.12.SeeM.Idel,“BetweentheViewsofSefirotasEssenceandInstrumentsintheRenaissancePeriod”[Hebrew],Italia3(1982),89–111.13.SeeG.Scholem,“TheMeaningofTorahinJewishMysticism,”inhisOntheKabbalahanditsSymbolism(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1965),32–86.14.ThemostdetailedexpositionofkabbalisticsymbolismisI.Tishby,TheWisdomoftheZohar:AnAnthologyofTexts,3vols.,trans.D.Goldstein(London:LittmanLibrary,1989).15.SeeD.Matt,“TheMysticandtheMizvot,”inJewishSpirituality:FromtheBiblethroughtheMiddleAges,ed.A.Green(NewYork:Crossroad,1986),367–404.16.SeeM.Idel,R.MenahemRencanatitheKabbalist[Hebrew](TelAviv:SchockenBooks,1998),175–231.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n254MedievalJewishphilosophy17.SeeM.Idel,“TheInfinitiesofTorah,”inMidrashandLiterature,ed.G.HartmanandS.Budik(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1986),141–57.18.IsaacibnLatifisanexampleofathirteenth-centurythinkerwhoat-temptedtocoordinatetheNeoplatonicmetaphysicsofGabirolwiththedoctrineofsefirotespousedbythekabbalistsofGerona.SeeS.O.HellerWilensky,“IsaacibnLatif:PhilosopherorKabbalist,”inJewishMedievalandRenaissanceStudies,ed.A.Altmann(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1967),185–223.19.SeeYaacovbenSheshet,SeferMeshivDevarimNekhohim,ed.G.VajdaandE.Gottlieb(Jerusalem:IsraelAcademyofSciencesandHumanities,1968),101.20.Wolfson,“LetterSymbolism,”196–7n.5.21.SeeTishby,WisdomoftheZohar,ii:447–546.22.SeeY.Liebes,“TheMessiahoftheZohar,”inhisStudiesintheZohar,1–84.23.Wolfson,AbrahamAbulafia,5324.Ibid.,102.25.Ibid.,116.26.Ibid.,139.27.SeeM.Idel,“AbrahamAbulafiaandUnioMystica,”inhisStudiesinEcstaticKabbalah(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1988),1–31.28.M.Idel,Language,Torah,andHermeneuticsinAbrahamAbulafia,trans.M.Kallus(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1989),15.29.SeeM.Idel,“HitbodedutasConcentrationinEcstaticKabbalah,”inJewishSpirituality,405–38.30.SeeWolfson,AbrahamAbulafia,141;Idel,Language,Torah,andHermeneutics,33–5.31.ForafulldiscussionofAbulafia’smessianicactivities,seeM.Idel,MessianicMystics(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1998),58–100.32.SeeE.Wolfson,“God,theDemiurgeandtheIntellect:OntheUsageoftheWordKolinAbrahamibnEzra,”RevuedesEtudesJuives149(1990),77–111.33.SeeD.Schwartz,“ConcerningthePhilosophicalSuper-CommentariesonR.AbrahamibnEzra’sCommentaries”[Hebrew]AleiSefer18(1995–96),71–114;U.Simon,“InterpretingtheInterpreter:Supercom-mentariesonIbnEzra’sCommentaries,”inRabbiAbrahamibnEzra:StudiesintheWritingsofaTwelfth-CenturyJewishPolymath,ed.I.TwerskyandJ.Harris(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1993),86–128.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–160025534.ForadetailedexpositionofIbnEzra’suseofastrology,seeS.Sela,As-trologyandBiblicalExegesisinAbrahamibnEzra’sJewishThought[Hebrew](Ramat-Gan:Bar-IlanUniversityPress,1999).Ontheapplica-tionofIbnEzra’sastrologicaldoctrinesduringthefourteenthcentury,seeD.Schwartz,AstralMagicinMedievalJewishThought[Hebrew](Ramat-Gan:Bar-IlanUniversityPress,1999).35.ThisviewisdiscussedindetailbyH.Kreisel,“MiraclesinMedievalJewishPhilosophy,”JewishQuarterlyReview75(2)(1984),99–133.36.SeeY.Langermann,“Maimonides’RepudiationofAstrology,”MaimonideanStudies2(1992),123–58.37.SeeD.Schwartz,“TheDebateonAstralMagicinProvenceintheFour-teenthCentury”[Hebrew],Zion58(2)(1993),141–74.38.SeeD.Schwartz,“AstrologyandAstralMagicinMegalehAmoqutbyR.Solomonal-Constantini”[Hebrew],JerusalemStudiesinJewishFolk-lore15(1993),40–41.39.SeeM.Idel,“TheBeginningsoftheKabbalahinNorthAfrica?TheForgottenDocumentofR.YehudabenNissimibnMalka”[Hebrew],Pe‘amim43(1990),8–12;C.Sirat,AHistoryofJewishPhilosophyintheMiddleAges(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1985),259–62.40.SeeG.Vajda,RecherchessurlaphilosophieetlakabbaledanslapenseejuiveduMoyen-Age´(ParisandLaHaye:Mouton,1962),115–297,385–91;G.Scholem,“JosephibnWaqar’sArabicWorkonKabbalahandPhilosophy,”KiryatSepher20(1943),153–62.41.SeeA.Altmann,“MosesNarboni’s‘EpistleonShiurQoma’,”inAltmann(ed.),JewishMedievalandRenaissanceStudies,180–209.ThisessaywasincorporatedintoAltmann,“MosesNarboni’s‘EpistleonShiurQoma’:ACriticalEditionoftheHebrewTextwithanIntro-ductionandanAnnotatedEnglishTranslation,”inhisStudiesinReli-giousPhilosophyandMysticism(Plainview,N.Y.:LibrariesPress,1975),225–88.Thecitationsarefromtheearlierpublication.42.SeeA.Ivry,“MosesofNarbonne‘TreatiseonthePerfectionoftheSoul’:AMethodologicalandConceptualAnalysis,”JewishQuarterlyReview57(1966),271–97;K.Bland(ed.andtrans.),TheEpistleonthePossibilityofConjunctionwiththeActiveIntellectbyIbnRushdwiththeCom-mentaryofMosesNarboni(NewYork:JewishTheologicalSeminary,1982),1–19.43.TherelevanttextwaspublishedbyM.Hayoun,“MoisedeNarbonne:Surlessefirot,lesspheres,etlesintellectss`epar´es.Editioncritiqued’un´passagedesoncommentairesurleHayyibnYaqzan,”JewishQuarterlyReview76(1985),97–147;Altmann,“MosesNarboni,”199–200.44.SeeSchwartz,AstralMagic,237–62.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n256MedievalJewishphilosophy45.OnthetranslationsbyFlaviusMithridates,seeC.Wirszubski,PicodellaMirandola’sEncounterwithJewishMysticism(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1989),69–76andpassim.46.SeeM.Idel,“MajorCurrentsinItalianKabbalahBetween1560–1660,”inEssentialPapersonJewishCultureinRenaissanceandBaroqueItaly,ed.D.B.Ruderman(NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,1992),345–72;M.Idel“EncountersbetweenSpanishandItalianKab-balistsintheGenerationoftheExpulsion,”inCrisisandCreativityintheSephardicWorld1391–1648,ed.B.Gampel(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1997),189–222.47.SeeH.Tirosh-Rothschild,“SefirotastheEssenceofGodintheWritingsofR.DavidMesserLeon,”AJSReview7–8(1982),409–25.48.SeeA.Lesley,“‘TheSongofSolomon’sAscents’byYohananAlemanno:LoveandHumanPerfectionaccordingtoaJewishColleagueofGiovanniPico,”Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,1976.49.SeeM.Idel,“TheAnthropologyofYohananAlemanno:SourcesandInfluences,”AnnalidiStoriadell’Esegesi7/1(1990),103.ForafullertreatmentofAlemanno’skabbalah,seeM.Idel,“TheMagicalandNeoplatonicInterpretationsofKabbalahintheRenaissance,”inJew-ishThoughtintheSixteenthCentury,ed.B.Cooperman(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1983),186–242.50.SeeH.Tirosh-Samuelson,“TheologyofNatureinSixteenth-CenturyItalianJewishPhilosophy,”ScienceinContext10(1997),529–70.51.SeeD.Ruderman,Kabbalah,Magic,andScience:TheCulturalUni-verseofaSixteenth-CenturyJewishPhysician(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1988).52.SeeW.Harvey,“KabbalisticElementsinOrAdonaibyR.HasdaiCrescas”[Hebrew],JerusalemStudiesinJewishThought2(1)(1982–83),75–109.53.SeeM.Idel,“InquiriesintheDoctrineofSeferHa-Meshiv”[Hebrew],Sefunot17(1983),185–266.54.SeeM.Idel,“KabbalahandPhilosophyinR.IsaacandJudahAbra-vanel”[Hebrew],inThePhilosophyofLeoneEbreo:FourLectures,ed.M.DormanandZ.Levy(Haifa:Ha-KibbutzHa-Meuchad,1985),73–112.55.OntheriseoftheZohartoacanonic,authoritative,andholytext,seeB.Huss,“Seferha-ZoharasaCanonical,SacredandHolyText:ChangingPerspectivesoftheBookofSplendorbetweentheThirteenthandEighteenthCentury,”JournalofJewishThoughtandPhilosophy7(1998),257–307.56.OntheZoharasasourceofJewishnormativerituals,seeJ.Katz,HalakhaandKabbalah:StudiesintheHistoryofJewishReligion,itsCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyandkabbalah:1200–1600257VariousFacesandSocialRelevance[Hebrew](Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1984),52–69,102–24.57.Forafullertreatmentofthesethinkers,seeH.Tirosh-Rothschild,“JewishPhilosophyontheEveofModernity,”inHistoryofJewishPhilosophy,ed.D.H.FrankandO.Leaman(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997),529–49.58.A.Altmann,“LurianicKabbalahinaPlatonicKey:AbrahamCohenHerrera’sPuertadelCielo,”HebrewUnionCollegeAnnual53(1982),326.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nstevenharvey12ArabicintoHebrew:TheHebrewtranslationmovementandtheinfluenceofAverroesuponmedievalJewishthoughtthefirsthebrewtranslationsofscientificworksThetranslationintoHebrewofArabicscientificandphilosophicworksinthethirteenthcenturyandthefirstthirdofthefour-teenthcenturymadepossiblethefloweringofscienceandphilos-ophyamongJewsinWesternEuropeinthelateMiddleAges.ThefirstscientificworktobetranslatedfromArabicintoHebrewwasanArabicversionofAristotle’sMeteorology.SamuelibnTibbon,thetranslatorofMaimonides’GuideofthePerplexed,translatedthisworkin1210.1ThistranslationwouldbeoneofonlythreeworksofAristotletobetranslatedintoHebrewdirectlyfromtheArabictranslations,butitdidnotgetthetranslationmovementofscientifictextsofftoarunningstart.2IbnTibbonhimself,whosesonMoseswouldbecomeoneofthemostprolificandproficientoftheArabic-to-Hebrewtranslatorsofscientifictexts,3showedsurprisinglylittleinterestinthetranslationofscientifictexts.4Infact,heclaimedthatheconsentedtotranslatetheMeteorologyonlyafterthepersistententreatiesofalearnedscholaranddearfriend,whohadoriginallyaskedhimtotranslateallAristotle’sphysicalworks,andwhenIbnTibbonrefused,beggedhimtotranslateatleasttheMeteorology.5Butthiswasapoorchoice.UnlikemanyoftheArabictranslationsofAristotle’sworksofthetime,whichcouldbefoundinfinecopiesofcompetentorevenimpressivetranslations,thistextwasavailableinseeminglycorruptcopiesofapoorArabicparaphrase.TomakesenseofitIbnTibbonhadtotranslatecreatively,constantlycompar-ingandrelyingontestimoniasuchasthecommentariesofAlexan-derofAphrodisiasandAverroes.Moreproblematicwasthefact,258CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nArabicintoHebrew259acknowledgedbyancientsandmedievalsalike,thatAristotle’sfourphysicalwritingsoughttobereadintheirproperorder,beginningwiththePhysicsandconcludingwiththeMeteorology.IbnTibbonhimselfacknowledgedthat“someonewhohasnotpreviouslyac-quiredknowledgeandlearningfrombooksthatprecedethisone(sc.theMeteorology)willunderstandverylittleofthisintroduc-tion”(i.e.Aristotle’sintroductoryremarksatthebeginningofthebook“thatareusefulforwhathewantstoexplaininit”).6ButhisreaderswhocouldnotreadArabichadnoaccesstothePhysicsandtheotherphysicalwritings,andunfortunatelyitwouldbesomefortyyearsbeforethoseworksorepitomesofthemwouldbetranslatedintoHebrew.OnecanimaginethefrustrationofthescientificallyinclinedJewsofWesternEuropeinthefirsthalfcenturyfollowingMaimonides’death.NotonlywerethebasictextsofAristoteliannaturalscienceinaccessibletothem,but–becausetheydidnotknowAristotelianscience–sovirtuallywasthegreatbookofJewishthoughtthatIbnTibbonhadtranslatedintoHebrew,Maimonides’GuideofthePer-plexed.MaimonideshadwrittenintheintroductiontotheGuidethatthatworkwaswrittenforthosewhohavestudiedthe“scienceofthephilosophers”andhave“knowledgeofthetruesciences.”LevibenAbrahamofVillefrancheexplainedthatMaimonides“didnotcomposehisenlighteningbookexceptforonewhohasstudiedallthebooksofthesciences.”Leviwrotehisrhymedencyclopedia,Batteiha-Nefeshve-ha-Lehashim,in1276inordertomakeavailablethescientificknowledgeneededforunderstandingtheGuide.Thesame,itseems,washismotivationforsubsequentlywritingLivyatHen,hislengthierproseencyclopedia.7TheneedforafamiliaritywithphysicsandmetaphysicsforunderstandingtheGuideisexpressedclearlybyLevi’scontemporary,thelearnedtalmudistMenahemha-Meiri:Iamawarethat[thescholarsofBarcelona]permitallbooks,whetherofJewishornon-Jewishauthorship,savethebooksofphysicsandmetaphysics...Howshallweunderstand...theGuideofthePerplexed...withoutthebooksofphysicsandmetaphysics?8ActuallybythetimeLeviwroteBatteiha-Nefesh,numerousworksonAristoteliansciencehadalreadybeentranslatedintoHebrew.ThesystematictranslationofAristotelianscienceandCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n260MedievalJewishphilosophyphilosophymaybetracedtoSamuelibnTibbon’sson-in-lawJacobAnatoli.AnatolirealizedthatAristoteliansciencebeginswithlogic,“whichservesthephilosopherasatoolservestheartisan.”Pressedbyhisfriendsandintimates,“thescholarlyandeducatedmenofNarbonneandBeziers,whowereeagertoapproachthissubject,”he´translatedAverroes’middlecommentariesonthefirstfourbooksofAristotle’sOrganonin1232inNaples.9KalonymusbenKalonymustranslatedthemiddlecommentariesonthefollowingtwobooksinProvencein1313;andTodrosTodrositranslatedtheconcludingtwobooksinTrinquetaillein1337.Anatolialsoopenedupthescien-tificstudyofastronomyforHebrewreadersthroughhistranslationsofPtolemy’sAlmagestandtheepitomesofitbyal-FarghaniandAverroes.ThefirsttranslationofaworkofAristotelianscience,apartfromAristotle’sMeteorology,wasmadebyMosesibnTibbon.In1244inProvencehetranslatedAverroes’EpitomeofOntheSoul.Around1250hetranslatedAverroes’epitomesofthePhysicsandoftheotherthreebooksofAristotelianphysicalscience,in1254Averroes’EpitomeofParvaNaturalia,andin1258theEpitomeoftheMeta-physics.TheseepitomesfinallyprovidedHebrewreaderswithatasteofAristotelianscienceandaknowledgeofitscontents,buttheydidnotprovidethemwiththerequisiteknowledgeofthesubjectmatter.ThiswasaccomplishedthroughAverroes’middlecommentaries.10ThefirstHebrewtranslationofamiddlecommentarywasofOntheSoul.MosesibnTibbontranslatedit,curiouslytheonlymiddlecom-mentaryhetranslated,in1261,butShemTovbenIsaacofTortosahadalreadytranslatedthesametextsomeyearsbefore.11SolomonibnAyyubtranslatedtheMiddleCommentaryonOntheHeavensinBeziersin´1259.IbnTibbonalsotranslatedseveralimportantworksonastronomy,aswellasEuclid’sElementsandseveralcommen-tariesonit.ThetranslationofAristoteliansciencecontinuedwithZerahyahbenIsaacHen’stranslationsofthetwoworksbyAristotlenotedabove,andhistranslationsofthemiddlecommentariesonthePhysicsandtheMetaphysicsinRomein1284.12TheprocessoftranslatingthescientificmiddlecommentariesofAverroesonAristotlewascompletedbytheprolifictranslatorKalonymusbenKalonymusin1316–17.Kalonymustranslatedthemiddlecommen-tariesonthePhysics,OnGenerationandCorruption,Meteorology,andMetaphysics.EarlierJacobbenMakhirhadfinishedtheHebrewCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nArabicintoHebrew261translationofAverroes’epitomesonAristotlewithatranslationoftheEpitomeoftheLogicin1289andtheEpitomeoftheBookofAnimalsin1302.KalonymusbegantranslatingAverroes’fivelongcommentaries,withhistranslationin1314oftheLongCom-mentaryonthePosteriorAnalytics,andseemstohaveundertakentranslationsofthelongcommentariesonthePhysicsandMeta-physicsatthattime.TheseHebrewtranslationsofthelongcom-mentariesdidnotachievegreatpopularity,anditisnotknowniftheothertwolongcommentarieswereevertranslateddirectlyfromtheArabic.ThenextstageinthetransmissionofAristoteliansciencetotheHebrewworldwastheseriesofsuper-commentariesonAverroes’commentariesundertakenbyGersonidesintheyears1321–4andbyhisstudentsandcolleaguesinsubsequentyears.13H.A.WolfsonhasinfactarguedthatAverroes’commentariescannotbeproperlystudiedwithoutthem.14Thesesuper-commentariesexplicatedthecommentariesofAverroesasAverroeshadexplicatedthetextsofAristotle.AsGersonidesexplainsinhisintroductiontotheepitomesonthephysicalwritings,“foreventhoughmostofwhatAverroessaysisveryclear,thereremainsomeprofoundthingsthathedoesnotsufficientlyexplain.”15Hisstatedaimismoreambitiousinhisin-troductiontothemiddlecommentariesonthephysicalwritings,andhereinliesthegreatestimportofthesesuper-commentaries:IntheplaceswhereouropiniondoesnotagreewiththatofAristotle,wewillmentionouropinionsandrefutethoseofAristotle.Thisiswhathasarousedustowritethesecommentaries.Thisisinadditiontothebenefitwhichfollowsfromsuchacommentaryforthestudentsinhelpingthemunderstandsomedifficultthings.16ThroughthesuccessoftheArabic-to-Hebrewtranslationmovementofscientificandphilosophictexts–bothintermsofthesheerquan-tityofmaterialtranslatedandtheimpressiveaccuracyofmostofthetranslations–andthroughthecommentariestheyengendered,itbecamepossibleforJewstomasterAristotelianscienceandtocontributetoscientificprogress.17IhavefocusedonthetranslationoftextsofAristoteliansciencebe-causeforsometimethiswasthescienceoftheHebrewscholarsandtheprimaryconcernoftheleadingtranslators.18Butthetranslationmovementofscientifictextswasfarmoreencompassingthanthis.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n262MedievalJewishphilosophyThebreadthanddepthoftheoutputofthismovementmaybegaugedfromMoritzSteinschneider’smonumentalwork,Diehebraischen¨UbersetzungendesMittelalters¨(Berlin,1893).19ErnestRenan’s(andAdolfNeubauer’s)Lesrabbinsfranc¸aisducommencementduXIVesiecle`(Paris,1877)andLesecrivainsjuifsfranc´¸aisduXIVesiecle`(Paris,1893)stillprovidevaluableinformationontheFrenchtrans-latorsandtheirliteraryactivity.Theextentofthetranslationmove-mentmayalsobeseeninrecentstudiessuchasMauroZonta’sLafilosofiaanticanelmedioevoebraicoandGadFreudenthal’s,“Lessciencesdanslescommunautesjuivesm´edi´evalesdeProvence:Leur´appropriation,leurrole.”ˆ20whatdeterminedwhichtextswouldbetranslated?Whatdeterminedwhichtextswouldbetranslatedandhowaccu-ratewerethesetranslations?AbouttenyearsagoIsuggestedthatMaimonides’recommendationinhiswell-knownlettertoSamuelibnTibbonofwhichphilosopherstostudyandwhichtoavoid“toaremarkableextentdeterminedthephilosophersandthephilosophictextsthatweretobetranslatedfromArabicintoHebrew.”21Thisstillseemstruetome,andisevidencedbythefollowingfivefea-turesofthetranslationactivity:1.Itseemsasifthetranslatorssoughttomakeavailablethecom-pleteworksofAristotelianscience,atleastastheywerepresentedbytheleadingcommentators.ThisqualificationissignificantandimmediatelydistinguishestheArabic-to-Hebrewtranslationactiv-ityfromtheGreek-to-ArabicandGreek-to-Latinones,for,unlikethelatterwheretranslationswerepreparedofvirtuallyalltheavail-ableAristoteliantexts,onlythreetextsofAristotleweretranslateddirectlyfromArabictoHebrew,whileallbutoneortwoofAverroes’commentariesonthemweresotranslated.2.ThereisanalmosttotalabsenceoftranslationsofancientphilosophersotherthanAristotle(orPseudo-Aristotle)andhiscom-mentatorsAlexanderofAphrodisiasandThemistius.EvenPlatoandtheArabicsummariesandtranslationsofepitomesofhisdialogueswereuntranslated,withthesoleexceptionofAverroes’CommentaryontheRepublic.3.ThereappearstohavebeenminimalinterestintranslatingthemanyNeoplatonicbookswrittenortranslatedintoArabic.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nArabicintoHebrew2634.Thereisamarkedandearlyinterestintranslatingthelogicalandpropaedeuticwritingsofal-Farabi.5.ThereisasurprisingdisinterestintranslatingthewritingsofAvicenna,especiallyal-Shifa
(TheCure),sopopularinlaterArabicandLatinthought.AllthesefeaturesfollowMaimonides’lettertoIbnTibbonwherein(1)Aristotle’swritingsaresingledoutasthe“foundationsofallworksonthesciences,”butasworksthatcanonlybeunderstoodfullywiththehelpofthecommentatorsAlexanderofAphrodisias,Themistius,andAverroes;(2)thereaderistoldthatAristotle’sworks“suffice”and“thereisnoneedtostudytheotherancientphilosophers,includingPlato”;(3)noNeoplatonicworkisrecom-mended;(4)al-Farabiisparticularlypraisedforhisworksonlogic;and(5)Avicenna’sworksaredescribedasnotasgoodasthoseofal-Farabi,butstilluseful.22Thisdoesnotmean,ofcourse,thatthetranslatorsdidnotpartfromMaimonides’advice,northathesomehowdeter-minedpreciselywhattitlesaparticulartranslatorwouldtranslate,foreachtranslatorhadhisownmotivationsandinterests.Itdoessuggest,however,thatMaimonides’letterhelpeddetermine,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,thephilosophersandthephilosophictextsthatwouldbetranslatedfromArabictoHebrewandhencestudiedbynon-ArabicreadingmedievalJewishthinkers.ApartfromtheireffortstotranslateAristotelianscienceandthelogicalwritingsofAristotleandhisIslamicfollowers,thetranslators–andagainspecialmentionmustbemadeofthemostproficientandprolificamongthem,MosesibnTibbonandKalonymusbenKalony-mus–soughttomakeavailabletheleadingworksofmathematics,astronomy,andtheartofmedicine.HereMaimonides’letterwasoflittlehelp,butahostofinformedtranslatorssucceededintranslatingfromArabicmanyoftheimportantbooksinthesefields,includingworksbyEuclid,Archimedes,Nicomachus,Ptolemy,Hippocrates,Galen,al-Hajjaj,al-Kindi,ThabitibnQurrah,al-Farghani,IbnJabiral-Battani,Ibnal-Haytham,JabiribnAflah,andal-Bitruji.23theaccuracyofthearabic-to-hebrewtranslatorsTheHebrewtranslatorsaimedatgreataccuracyintheirtranslationsandsucceededtoagreatextent.Ofcourse,whentheytranslatedArabictranslationsofGreektexts,theirtranslationsweredependentCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n264MedievalJewishphilosophyontheaccuracyofthosetranslations.Manyofthese,particularlythoseofHunaynibnIshaqandhisschool,wereremarkablyaccu-rate.ThemethodoftranslationofthisschoolwascontrastedwiththatofYahyaibnal-Bitriq–theauthoroftheunsatisfactoryArabictranslationofAristotle’sMeteorologymentionedabove–andothers.Thelattermethodseekstotranslateliterally,studyingeachGreekwordandchoosingasuitableArabicequivalent.ThismethoddidnotworksowellgiventhegreatsyntacticaldifferencesbetweenArabicandGreek,andthefactthattherewerenotalwayssuitableArabictermsfortheunderlyingGreekones.Theformermethodwasfarmoresuccessful.Ittranslatessentencebysentence,translatingthemeaningofthesentencewithoutconcernfortheorderofthewords.24Inprinciplemanyofthemedievalsheldthattheword-for-wordmethodoftranslationshouldbeavoidedinArabic-to-Hebrewtrans-lationsaswell.ThusMosesibnEzraadvisedinthetwelfthcentury,“IfyouwishtotranslateanythingfromArabicintoHebrew,adheretotheintendedmeaninganddonottranslatewordforword.”25Similarly,MaimonidescautionedSamuelibnTibbon:Whoeverwishestotranslatefromlanguagetolanguageandintendstotrans-lateonewordwithanotherandpreservealsotheorderofthewordsandsentenceswillrunintotroubleandhistranslationwillbedubiousandex-ceedinglyconfused...Itisnotpropertodoitthisway.Rathertheonewhotranslatesfromlanguagetolanguagemustfirstunderstandthesense,andthenexpresswhatisunderstoodofthesenseinthetargetlanguage.26ThisadvicewashardlynewforIbnTibbon.HisfatherJudah,oftencalledthefatherofthemedievalHebrewtranslationmovement,ex-plicitlyemphasizedtheproblemsandshortcomingsofliteraltransla-tions,whileacknowledgingonepossiblebenefit.JudahwroteinhisprefacetohistranslationofBahyaibnPaquda’sDutiesoftheHeart:Andifitwerepossibleforatranslatortotranslatewordforword,withoutaddingoromitting,thisdanger[ofpervertingthecontents]couldbeavoided,althoughadmittedlysuchaliteraltranslationwouldbehardtounderstand–exceptforthegreatscholarswhoknowthewaysoftheholytongue.Thelanguagewouldbeneitherpleasantnorconformtothegeneralusage,andwouldcompletelyobscurethesubject.27Samuelwascertainlyfamiliarwithhisfather’sviewsontheartoftranslationandinfactciteshisprefaceandrefersapprovinglytotheviewsontranslationstatedthereinhisownprefacetohistranslationCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nArabicintoHebrew265ofMaimonides’GuideofthePerplexed.28Yetthisdoesnotmeanthatheorhisfathereschewedtheliteralmethod.ThusIreneZwiep,whohastouchedupontheattitudestowardtranslationoftheme-dievalArabic-to-Hebrewtranslators,maybecorrectbutismislead-ingwhenshewritesthatthe“testimonies[oftheIbnTibbons]provethattheythemselvesdidnotaimatprovidingslavish,wordforwordtranslations.LikethemajorityoftheirMuslimcolleagues,theywereconcernedaboutthecontentsoftheworkundertranslationratherthanitslanguage.”29Theywerecertainlyconcernedaboveallwiththemeaningofthetexttheyweretranslating,buttheywerealsoconcernedwiththelanguage.IndeedthebestofthetranslatorstookspecialcaretotranslateArabictechnicaltermsalwayswiththesameHebrewtechnicalterm.Whileintheorytheymaynothaveaimedattheliteralmethodwithallitsshortcomings,inpracticetheirtrans-lationswereoftenslavishlywordforword.30Thisistruetosuchanextentthatitisoftenpossible–andnotparticularlydifficult–toreconstructwithsomeaccuracytheArabicsourcetextfromitsmedievalHebrewtranslation.ThesetranslationsarethusingeneralreliableandsoaccuratethattheyarevaluabletestimoniaforeditingtheArabicoriginals.paraphrasesandselectivetranslationsNotallthetranslators,however,aimedatfaithfulnessintheirtranslations.Unlikethegreatthirteenth-andfourteenth-centuryArabic-to-Hebrewtranslators,ShemTovibnJosephFalaquera(c.1225–1295)rarelysimplytranslatedbooks,butratherdevelopedhisownstyleofselectiveandparaphrastictranslation.IndicativeofthisstylearelargesectionsofhisReshitHokhmah(BeginningofWis-dom),thefirstbookofaphilosophictrilogy,promisedattheendofhisIggeretha-Vikkuah(EpistleoftheDebate).31FalaquerawroteReshitHokhmahinordertoprovidetheseekerofwisdomwiththosethingsthatheneedstograspatthebeginningofhisstudy.32Hedi-videdtheworkintothreeparts.Thefirstpartisonthemoralvirtuesthatthisseekerofwisdomwillneed.Thesecondpartisontheenu-merationofthesciences,andisessentiallyanabridgedtranslationofal-Farabi’sIhsa
al-ulum(EnumerationoftheSciences),incon-spicuouslyinterspersedwithtwolengthy,butverymuchabridged,passagesfromhisKitabal-huruf(BookofLetters),somepassagesCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n266MedievalJewishphilosophyfromAvicenna’sFiaqsamal-ulum(OntheDivisionoftheSci-ences),andaselection,asMauroZontahasrecentlyshown,fromAverroes’EpitomeoftheIsagoge.Thethirdpartpurportstoshowthatphilosophyisnecessaryfortheattainmentofhappiness,andisanabridgedtranslationoftheFarabiantrilogythatMuhsinMahdihastranslatedintoEnglishunderthetitleAlfarabi’sPhilosophyofPlatoandAristotle.DespiteFalaquera’sponderousrelianceonIslamicsources,notasingleIslamicauthorismentionedbynameinReshitHokhmah.InsteadFalaquerawritesthat“mostofmywords[inthisbook]concerningthesciencesarethoseoftheleadingphiloso-phersandtheexpertsamongthem.Ihavenotwrittenanythingnewofmyown,buthavecollected[thesewords]fromthebooksthataredispersed.”33Falaquera,whowasasfamiliarwiththeworksoftheIslamicfalasifaasanyJewintheMiddleAges,didnottranslateorparaphrasetheirwritingsinordertomakeknowntheiropinionsastheiropinions,butrathertoguideandteachtruescienceandphi-losophytotheseekerofwisdom.Hethussawnoneedtoattributethesewritingstotheirauthors.Moreover,hehadnocompunctionsinReshitHokhmahaboutadaptingsomeofal-Farabi’smostimportantphilosophicworkstohisownneedsandpurposesthroughjudiciousomissionofwordsorpassagesandcombinationofvarioustexts.34Falaquera’sabridged,attimesparaphrastic,renderingofAlfarabi’sPhilosophyofPlatoandAristotlewastheonlyHebrewversionofthethreebooksthatcomprisethistrilogy,andyetnoneoftheme-dievalswhostudiedFalaquera’stextwouldhaveknownthattheywerereadingal-Farabi.MoreimportantforthehistoryofthetransmissionofscienceandphilosophyisFalaquera’sDeotha-Filosofim(OpinionsofthePhilosophers),thethirdbookofhisphilosophictrilogy.IfReshitHokhmahwasintendedasanintroductorywork,Deotha-Filosofimcomestoteachthereadertruescienceandinstructhimintheopin-ionsofthetruephilosophersaboutwhatis.ThisisFalaquera’smajorworkandyethewritesinhisintroductionthat“thereisnotathinginthisentirecompositionthatIsayofmyown;ratherallthatIwritearethewordsofAristotleasexplainedinthecommentariesofthescholarAverroes,forhewasthelastofthecommentatorsandheincorporatedwhatwasbestfromthe[earlier]commentaries.”35WhileFalaqueradidborrowfromotherauthors,itistruethathismainsourceisAverroesandinparticularhismiddlecommentariesCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nArabicintoHebrew267andtoalesserextentepitomes.Thesetextsareoftentranslatedaccu-rately,butwithnohesitationonthepartofFalaqueratoabridgethetranslationandtoblenditinhisownstylewithothersources,usu-allyothercommentariesbyAverroes,forthesakeofclarificationorcomprehensiveness.ShortpassagesfromotherworksandotherauthorsareinsertedwhenitsuitsFalaquera’spurposes,attimesat-tributedtotheauthorandattimesnot.Falaquera’sDeotthusvariesfromcompleteandliteraltranslationofapassagetoabridgedpara-phrastictranslationtoselectivetranslationinterspersedwithothertexts.ThisapproachfitsinwithFalaquera’sstatedintentioninwritingtheDeot:Iendeavoredtotranslatetheseopinions[ofthephilosophers]fromArabictoHebrew,andtocompilethemfromthebooksthatarescatteredthere,sothatwhoeverwishestograspthese[opinions]willfindtheminonebook,andwillnotneedtowearyhimselfbyreadingallthebooks[onthesesubjects],foralltheopinions[ofthephilosophers],generalandparticular,onnaturalscienceanddivinescienceareincludedinthiscomposition.36Inotherwords,Falaquera’sgoalwastoofferinasinglevolumeacompletetextcurriculumforthestudyofnaturalscienceandmeta-physicsthroughtranslationofthebestavailabletexts,whichforhimmeantthecommentariesofAverroesonAristotle,sothatthestu-dentwhowishedtolearnnaturalscienceanddivinescience–thatis,physicsandmetaphysics–wouldneedtoconsultonlythisbook.Hisgoalexplicitlywasnottowritesomethingnewandoriginal,norwasitsimplytotranslateanimportanttext.Neitherwashisgoaltoteachussomethingaboutal-Farabi,Avicenna,Averroes,oranyotherthinker.Hisgoalwastoteachwisdomandscience,andthismeantforhim,aswehaveseen,AristotelianscienceasitwasexplainedbyAverroes.Thevalueofthisscientificwork,rootedinAverroes’mid-dlecommentaries,willbeappreciatedifitisrecalledthatatthetimeofitswritingtheonlymiddlecommentariestohavebeentranslatedwerethoseonOntheHeavensandOntheSoul.ThisworkofferedtheHebrewreaderforthefirsttimecomprehensiveaccesstothefullrangeofAristotelianscience.37WhiletheencyclopedicDeotha-FilosofimpresentedthefirstfulltreatmentofAristotelianscience,itwasnotthefirstsystematicattempttoputforwardAristotelianscienceinasinglevolume.ThisCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n268MedievalJewishphilosophyhonorgoestoJudahbenSolomonha-KohenofToledo’sMidrashha-Hokhmah,whichwascompiledinHebrewinItalyin1247.TheMidrashha-Hokhmahisconsideredthefirstofthegreatme-dievalencyclopediasofscienceandphilosophy;Falaquera’sDeotisthesecond.YetalthoughJudahbenSolomon,likeFalaquera,alsoreliedmostheavilyonAverroes’middlecommentaries,histreat-mentismuchbrieferandmoreconcise,contentinghimselfwiththemainpointsofthesciences.Theresultisaverydifficulttext.ResianneFontaine,whohaswrittenseveralimportantstudiesontheMidrashha-Hokhmah,hasconcludedthatit“remainsdoubt-fultowhatextenttheepitomizedpiecesofinformationcouldactu-allyhaveenabledareaderwithoutpreviousscientificknowledgetogetaclearpictureofAristotelianphilosophy...Itcannotbedeniedthatthefragmentarycharacterofthetextmusthavemadehighde-mandsontheinterestedlay-reader.”38Nonetheless,howeverterseandobscure,thisencyclopediaprovidedthefirstHebrewaccountofAristoteliannaturalscienceandmetaphysics,predatingMosesibnTibbon’stranslationsofAverroes’epitomesbyseveralyears.Onecanonlyimagine–andthereissurprisinglylittleevidenceofthis–theexcitementwithwhichthisencyclopediamusthavebeenreceivedbythescience-starvedHebrewreaderofthemid-thirteenthcentury.Inthislighttheimportanceofthethirteenth-centuryHebrewency-clopediasofscienceandphilosophybecomesclear.WhileinterestinthemlikelydiminishedoncetheactualandfulltranslationsofthescientifictextsofAristotleandAverroesbecameavailable,intheirdaytheyservedaspreciousvehiclesfortheacquisitionofscientificknowledge.39thecentralityofaverroesAswehaveseen,thehundredplusyearsoftranslationactivityfromArabictoHebrewinthefieldsofthescienceshadsucceededinmak-ingavailableaccurateversionsofawideandimpressiverangeofsci-entificworksofancientGreekandmedievalIslamicthinkers.Attheheartofthistranslationmovementwasnot,asonemighthaveex-pected,theworksofAristotle,thephilosopher,butratherthemanycommentariesofAverroesontheAristoteliancorpus.40Thesecom-mentaries,particularlythemiddlecommentaries,wereverypopularinthefourteenthandfifteenthcenturiesandbecameatthattimeCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nArabicintoHebrew269theauthoritativesourcesforlearningnaturalscienceinHebrew.Ihavealreadysuggested,followingErnestRenan,howitisthatJewscametolearnsciencefromAverroes,andhowhebecamethemostwidelytranslatedandwidelyreadphilosopherintheHebrewmiddleages.41RenanhaswrittenthattheJewswereAverroes’truephilo-sophicheirs,anditwasthankstothe“highrecommendationofMaimonides[thathis]namebecamealmostinstantaneouslythefore-mostphilosophicauthorityamongtheJews.”42WhileitisamistaketothinkthatAverroes’works“werepreservedandpromotedafterhisdeathonlybytheJews”orthatthe“philosophicalworksofAverroeswerenotreadintheIslamicworldafterAverroes’fallfromgracein1195,anduntiltheearlytwentiethcentury,”43itiscertainlytruethathehadastatureamongtheJewsthatovershadowedevenhispositionasthecommentatorintheLatinWest.AmongtheJews,Averroesnotonlysupplantedal-FarabiandAvicenna,healsosup-plantedAristotle.WhatismostsignificantforthehistoryofJewishphilosophyisthatAverroes’influenceupontheJewsextendedbe-yondhisdominantroleascommentatorandintotheprovinceofreligiousphilosophy.Moreover,asIsadoreTwerskyhasshown,hisinfluencewasnotlimitedtophilosophers,butextendedoverwrit-ersofallliterarygenres.Totheseauthors,asaresultofthe“trans-lating,paraphrasing,commentatorialandcriticalwork”ofdozensofthirteenth-andfourteenth-centuryscholars,Averroesbecamea“householdname.”44WhatwasthenatureofAverroes’influenceupontheJewsandhowdidhebecomesoinfluential?averroes’influenceuponthejewsAverroes’commentariesamongtheJews–atfirstviatheparaphras-tictranslationsandotheraccountsoftheminthethirteenth-centuryHebrewencyclopedias,andthenviatheaccuratetranslationsofthem–weretheauthoritativesourcesofscientificlearning.Lead-ingtranslatorssuchastheIbnTibbonfamilyandKalonymusbenKalonymusshowednointerestintranslatingintoHebrewthesci-enceofAvicennaoral-Ghazali’sreformulationofit.ThereasonforthismaybediscernedinKalonymus’openlettertoJosephibnKaspi,whereinhedistinguishesAvicennaandal-Ghazalifromthe“importantphilosophers”(hashuveiha-filosofim)AlexanderofAphrodisias,al-Farabi,IbnBajja,andAverroes.45TheseviewswereCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n270MedievalJewishphilosophysharedbylearnedAristotelianssuchasGersonidesandJosephibnKaspi,whoalsohadnouseforthescientificwritingsofAvicennaandal-Ghazali.IndeedwhenAristotelianphilosopherssuchasIsaacAl-balag,MosesNarboni,andMosesbenJudahdidturntoal-Ghazali’saccountofAvicennianscience,theydidsoasaspringboardforteach-ingessentiallyAverroeanscience.ThebestscienceintheireyeswassimplyAristotelianasexplicatedbyAverroes.Therewasnoreasonforseriousstudentsofnaturalsciencetolookelsewhere.YetitmustberememberedthatJewsturnedtoAverroestolearnandunderstandAristotle;theydidnotturntohim–atleastatfirst–asasourceoftheology.IndeedMaimonidesrecommendedhiminhislettertoSamuelibnTibbonasacommentatoronAristotle,andnotforhisreligiousphilosophyorforhistheology.Butitwasnotsoeasytoseparatethetwo,particularlyasAverroeshintedathisownhet-erodoxteachingsonparticularissuesinreligiousphilosophymostboldlyintherelativelysafeconfinesofalengthycommentary.Itmadesensethatthescholarwhounderstoodandcouldexplainsci-encethebestwouldalsobeofhelpinunderstandingthecomplexitiesofthosedifficultquestionsofreligiousphilosophysuchasthecre-ationoreternityoftheworld,God’sknowledgeofparticulars,andthepossibilityofindividualimmortality.PerhapsbeginningwithIbnTibbon,Averroesgraduallybegantohaveanimpactontheunder-standingofphilosophicallyinclinedJewsonpreciselytheseissues.Itwasinevitable,andwhileMaimonidesmayhaveunderestimatedthedangerstoorthodoxylurkinginthesecommentaries,otherswerewellattunedtothem.JudahbenSolomon,who,aswehaveseen,wasthefirsttospreadtheknowledgeofAverroeannaturalscienceinHebrewthroughhisencyclopediaMidrashha-Hokhmah,exhibitsacriticalattitudetobothAristotleandAverroes,particularlyregardingtheirteachings,suchasthoseoncreation/eternity,thatdirectlybearonreligion.46IthasbeensuggestedthatJudah’smanifestun-Tibbonidterminol-ogymayhavebeenmotivatedbyhiscriticalattitudetowardsAris-totelianphilosophy.47InparticularitseemsthathisterminologymayhavebeenanexpressionofhisdisapprovalofIbnTibbon’swholeheartedacceptanceofAristotelianteachings,includingthosethatcounterthoseoforthodoxy,andhisdesire“todirectthereaderawayfromIbnTibbon’sinterpretationofthatphilosophy.”48Judah’sconcernsabouttheinroadsofAristotelian/AverroeantheologyintoCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nArabicintoHebrew271Jewishthinking,sharedbyhisphilosophicallylearnedSpanishanti-rationalistcoreligionists,werewellfounded.BernardSeptimushasobservedthat,bythetimethegreatMaimonideancontroversyofthe1230seruptedinProvence,“radicaltendencieshadreceivedstillfur-therimpetusthroughtheinfluenceofAverroes.”¨49Totheextentthatthisinfluencewassignificantalreadyinthe1230s–atatimewhenfewwritingsofAverroeswereavailabletotheHebrewreader–itwasasaresultoftheemergingstatureandinfluenceofIbnTibbon–himselfdirectlyinfluencedbyAverroes–andhistheological-philosophicalwritings.50WiththetranslationofAverroes’commentariesintoHebrew,theimpactofhispersonaltheological-philosophicalviewsuponJewishthoughtgrewstrongerandstronger.ThisistruedespitethefactthathiscommentariesonAristotlewereforthemostpartexplicationsofthetexts,andinthoseplaceswherehedidwishtorevealtofellowphilosophershisownnotsoorthodoxviews,heusuallyintimatedthemviahintandallusion.JewishthinkerswhodefendedtheirstudyofAverroesreadilyadmittedthathesaidthingsthatwentcountertotheirreligion,butemphasizedthattheyacceptedonlythetruthandcertainlynotanythingthatcontradictstheTorah.51Inthisvein,JacobbenMakhirwrotein1304,inthemidstoftheconflictthatwasragingoverthestudyofphilosophyandthatwouldresultin1305inSolomonibnAdret’sbanagainstthestudyofGreekphilosophyandsciencebyanyoneundertwenty-fiveyearsold:Iadmitthattherearesomedetestableideasexpressedinthephilosophicalwritings,butthisdoesnotjustifyyourrefusaltomakeourselvesacquaintedwiththegoodideastheycontain...Theconvictionsofapeoplearebynomeansweakened,andtheirfaithisnowhereandneverundermined,atleastnotours,forthetruthofwhichwepossessthebestofproofs...ImyselfknowverywelltheborderlinewhichphilosophymustnotcrossinitscriticismoftheBible.52Whilethebanof1305forvariousreasonswouldhavelittleeffectonthefuturestudyofphilosophy,theworriesexpressedbyitssupporterswerelegitimate.JacobbenMakhir’sfaithandconvic-tionsmaynothavebeenweakenedbyhistranslationandstudyofAverroeanscience,butmanyotherswerenotasfirmintheirbeliefs.IthasthusbeenarguedthatthedominantinfluenceofAverroestoagreatextentexplainstheunprecedentedmassforcedconversionsCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n272MedievalJewishphilosophyoftheJewstoChristianityduringthemassacresof1391.53HowcouldJewishadherentstoAverroes’viewsthattheworldiseter-nal,thatGoddoesnotreallyknowparticulars,andthatthereisnopersonalimmortality(butthattheseandothersuchbeliefsareconcessionstotheignorantmasses)beexpectedtosacrificetheirlivesforthesanctificationofthenameofaGodwhodoesnotknowthemortheiractions?HasdaiCrescas,inhiseffortstorebuildandstrengthenthedecimatedJewishcommunitiesofSpain,thussoughttocounterAverroeanheterodoxyatitsrootbyquestioningandrefutingthebasesofAristotelian-Averroeanscience.54Whileheemergedas“oneoftheoutstandingmeninaphilosophicalcurrentwhichbroughtaboutthedisintegrationofmediaevalAristotelian-ismandpavedthewayforthenewphilosophyandphysics,”55hisowninterestinseekingotherwaysofunderstandingAristotleledhimtotakeseriouslythehithertomostlyignoredscientificwrit-ingsofotherIslamicthinkerssuchasAvicennaandal-Ghazali.Avicenna’sphysicsandmetaphysicshadbeendirectlyaccessibletoHebrewreaderssinceabout1340throughTodrosTodrosi’stransla-tionofal-Najah(TheSalvation).Atthattimetwoorthreetransla-tionsofal-Ghazali’sreworkingofAvicennianAristotelianscience,Maqasidal-falasifa(IntentionsofthePhilosophers),werealsoincirculation(thefirststemmingfromtheendofthethirteenthcen-tury).Nonetheless,priortoCrescas,Avicennaandal-GhazaliseemtohavehadlittleimpactonthoseHebrewreaderswhowishedtostudyandunderstandAristotelianscience.56Inthefifteenthcen-tury,followingCrescas,al-Ghazali’sMaqasidal-falasifaemergedasthesinglemostpopularworkofAristotelianscienceamongJews.ItwasalsointhiscenturythatonefindswhatMauroZontahascalleda“sortofhighlysophisticatedHebrewScholasticism.”MoreandmoreJewishphilosophers,particularlyinSpain,werebeinginfluencedbyChristianScholasticthought.57Inshort,asonemodernhistoriansumsup,“Averroeslosthisstatusasthemostauthoritativecom-mentatoronAristotleandinstead,Jewishphilosophersconsultedal-ternativereadingsofAristotlebyHellenistic,Muslim,andChristianphilosophers.”58Averroes’commentaries,ofcourse,continuedtobestudiedandvaluedthroughoutthemedievalperiod,buttherewaslessinterestamongJewsinhistheological-philosophicalviews.Bythemiddleofthesixteenthcentury,seriousstudyofAverroeswasagainundertakenonlybythefew.59CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nArabicintoHebrew273notes1.Onthenatureofthistranslation,seeR.Fontaine,Ototha-Shamayim:SamuelibnTibbon’sHebrewVersionofAristotle’s“Meteorology”(Leiden:Brill,1995),introduction,ix–lxxi.Hebrewtranslationsofcer-tainlogicalworksbyal-Farabipossiblydatefromtheendofthetwelfthcentury.2.Theothertwowerethelatethirteenth-centuryHebrewtranslationsbyZerahyahbenIsaacShealtielHenofOnGenerationandCorruptionandOntheSoul.FullHebrewtranslationsofAristotle’sPosteriorAna-lytics,Physics,andMetaphysicscouldbefoundintheHebrewtransla-tionsofAverroes’longcommentariesontheseworks.TheremayalsohavebeenaHebrewtranslationoftheLongCommentaryonOntheHeavens.3.HisfatherJudahhadtranslatedintoHebrewclassicworksofJewishthoughtsuchasSaadyaGaon’sBeliefsandOpinions,BahyaibnPaquda’sDutiesoftheHeart,andJudahHalevi’sKuzari.4.ThisisnottosaythatSamueldidnottranslatemanyworksthatwereofinteresttothephilosophicallyinclinedJewsofhistime.InadditiontohistranslationoftheGuide,SamueltranslatedseveralimportanttreatisesandlettersbyMaimonides.AmongotherworksattributedtohimaretranslationsofanArabiccommentaryonGalen’sArsParvaandthreetreatisesontheintellectbyAverroesandhisson.5.Fontaine,Ototha-Shamayim,2–3.OnIbnTibbon’sowninterestintheMeteorology,seeibid.,xi–xii.6.Fontaine,Ototha-Shamayim,26–9.Cf.Aristotle,Meteorology1:1338a20–339a9.7.OnLevi’smotivationsinwritinghisencyclopedias,seeW.Harvey,“LevibenAbrahamofVillefranche’sControversialEncyclopedia,”inTheMedievalHebrewEncyclopediasofScienceandPhilosophy,ed.S.Harvey(Dordrecht:Kluwer,2000),esp.172and179.See,similarly,thestatementofaimoftheauthoroftheanonymousmid-thirteenthcenturyRuahHen(Warsaw,1826),1a.8.CitedbyG.Stern,“WhatDividedtheModerateMaimonideanScholarsofSouthernFrancein1305,”inStudiesinJewishHistoryandThoughtinMemoryofIsadoreTwersky,ed.J.Harris(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,forthcoming).9.SeeAnatoli’sintroductiontohistranslations,Averroes’MiddleCom-mentariesonPorphyry’sIsagogeandonAristotle’sCategories,trans.H.Davidson(Cambridge,Mass.:TheMediaevalAcademyofAmerica,1969),3–5.Onthevariousmotivationsofthetranslators,seeJ.-P.Rothschild,“Motivationsetmethodesdestraductionsenh´ebreudu´CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n274MedievalJewishphilosophymilieuduXIIealafinduXV`esiecle,”in`Traductionettraducteursaumoyenageˆ,ed.G.Contamine(Paris:EditionsduCNRS,1989),279–302,andM.Zonta,Lafilosofiaanticanelmedioevoebraico(Brescia:Paideia,1996),65–88.10.ThatAverroeshimselfwouldhaveagreedwiththisassessmentissug-gestedbythefollowingwordsfromthecolophontohisMiddleCom-mentaryonthePhysics:“Ialreadyhaveamongthemultitudeacom-mentarythatImadeinmyyouth,anditisshort.Isawfitnowtodothismorecompletecommentary.”TranslatedfromtheHebrewtrans-lationoftheMiddleCommentaryonthePhysicsbyKalonymusbenKalonymus,Paris,BibliothequeNationale,MSh`eb.´938(Oratoire125),fol.156v.11.OnemaywonderwhyMosesibnTibbontranslatedtheEpitomeofOntheSoulbefore,andsomanyyearsbefore,hetranslatedtheotherepit-omes,andwhytheonlymiddlecommentaryhetranslatedwastheMiddleCommentaryonOntheSoul.TheanswerprobablyderivesfromAristotle’shighpraiseforpsychologyattheverybeginningofOntheSoul.OnAverroes’viewsonthesignificanceofOntheSoulfortheothersciences,seeA.L.Ivry,“Lalogiquedelasciencedel’ame:ˆEtudesurlamethodedansle´Commentaired’Averroes,”in`PenseravecAristote,ed.M.A.Sinaceur(Toulouse:Eres,`1991),697–8,andA.L.Ivry,“Averroes’ShortCommentaryonAristotle’sDeAnima,”Documentiestudisullatradizionefilosoficamedievale8(1997),520–3.Stillthisanswerisnotverysatisfactory.AverroeshimselfwrotetheMiddleCom-mentaryonOntheSoulaftertheothermiddlecommentariesonnaturalscience(hisothertwocommentariesonOntheSoularenotdated),andGersonideswrotehiscommentaryontheEpitomeofOntheSoulafterhehadcompletedhiscommentariesonAverroes’epitomesofthebooksofnaturalscience.Thisistheproperandexpectedorder.12.ZerahyahisagoodexampleofatranslatorwhosoughttotranslatethemostusefultextsofAristoteliansciencethathadnotyetbeentrans-lated.ThushewasthefirsttotranslateAverroes’middlecommentariesonthePhysicsandtheMetaphysics.Sincetherewerealreadytransla-tionsofthemiddlecommentariesonOntheHeavensandOntheSoul,hetranslatedThemistius’commentaryontheformerandAristotle’sowntextofthelatter.Noneofthesetranslationsappearstohavebeenparticularlypopular.ThetranslationsofthemiddlecommentarieswerevirtuallyunknowninProvenceandSpainandinanyeventwereover-shadowedbythosemadebyKalonymusbenKalonymussomethirtyyearslater.AmongZerahyah’sothertranslationsaresixmedicalworks,threebyMaimonides,twobyGalen,andpartofAvicenna’sCanon.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nArabicintoHebrew27513.SeeR.Glasner,“LevibenGershomandtheStudyofIbnRushdintheFourteenthCentury,”JewishQuarterlyReview86(1995),51–90.GlasnerhasshownthatGersonidesnotonlycomposedthefirstsuper-commentaryonAverroes,butthattheotherknownsupercommentariesfromthefourteenthcentury,notwrittenbyhim,werecomposedbyhisstudents,whostudiedAverroes’commentariesunderhisdirection.14.SeeH.A.Wolfson,“PlanforthePublicationofaCorpusCommentari-orumAverroisinAristotelem,”inhisStudiesintheHistoryofPhilos-ophyandReligion,ed.I.TwerskyandG.Williams(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1973),i:441.15.Gersonides,CommentaryonAverroes’EpitomeofthePhysics,London,Jews’CollegeMSBetHamidrash43,fol.126r.16.Gersonides,CommentaryonAverroes’MiddleCommentaryonthePhysics,Paris,BibliothequeNationale,MSh`eb.´964,fol.1v.TheextentofGersonides’critiqueofAristotelianscienceinhissupercommentariesisjustnowcomingtolight.Foraclearillustration,seeR.Glasner,“Gersonides’TheoryofNaturalMotion,”EarlyScienceandMedicine1(1996),151–203,andR.Glasner,“GersonidesonSimpleandCom-positeMovements,”StudiesinHistoryandPhilosophyofScience28(1997),545–84.17.Onthe“limitsoftheappropriationofscienceandphilosophybythemedievalJews,”seeG.Freudenthal,“ScienceintheMedievalJewishCultureofSouthernFrance,”HistoryofScience33(1995),23–58,andthearticlebyFreudenthalcitedbelow,n.20.Asforthestatementcon-cerningthemedievalJewishcontributionstoscientificprogress,thisrequiressomequalification.Freudenthalwrites(“ScienceinJewishCulture”,30)thatJewswritinginHebrew,withtheexceptionofGersonidesandCrescas,“scarcelywentbeyondwhattheyhadreceivedthroughtranslations;theydidnotventuretomakecontributionsoftheirown...Somescientificdisciplineswerenotatallappropriated,andtothosethatwereappropriated,astronomyexcepted,theHebrew-writingscholarsmadefeworiginalcontributions.”18.ForanimpressivelyfullinventoryofthemedievalHebrewtranslationsoftextsofAristotelianscience,includingcommentariesbyAlexanderofAphrodisias,Themistius,al-Farabi,Avicenna,IbnBajja,andLatinauthors,seeG.TamaniandM.Zonta,AristotelesHebraicus(Venice:Supernova,1997),31–49.19.C.Manekinhasbeguntoupdateandtranslatethisimmensetext;seehis“Steinschneider’sDiehebraischen¨UbersetzungendesMittelalters¨:FromReferenceWorktoDigitalizedDatabase,”JewishStudiesQuar-terly7(2000),141–59.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n276MedievalJewishphilosophy20.SeeZonta,Lafilosofiaantica,andG.Freudenthal,“Lessciencesdanslescommunautesjuivesm´edi´evalesdeProvence:Leurappropriation,´leurrole,”ˆRevuedesEtudesJuives152(1993),29–136.21.S.Harvey,“DidMaimonides’LettertoSamuelibnTibbonDetermineWhichPhilosophersWouldbeStudiedbyLaterJewishThinkers?,”JewishQuarterlyReview83(1992),51–70.22.Seeibid.23.Onthelimitsofthetranslationmovement,seeFreudenthal,“ScienceinJewishCulture”and“Lessciences.”IsayMaimonides’letterwasoflit-tlehelptothetranslatorsindeterminingwhatscientifictextstotrans-lateinthefieldsofmathematics,astronomy,andmedicine.FreudenthalgoesbeyondthisandattributestoMaimonidesthesubsequentlackofseriousinterestinmathematicsandothernon-Aristoteliansciences.HisclaimisthatMaimonides“setalowvalueonscienceperse,chan-nelingtalentandoriginalityelsewhere”(“ScienceinJewishCulture”,50;cf.ibid.,32–4,and“Lessciences,”104–6).WhileIhavebenefittedgreatlyfrombothstudiesbyFreudenthalandwhileitdoesseemthatMaimonidesdidnotinspireoriginalcontributionsinthesciences,Idonotagreethathe“setalowvalueonscienceperse.”24.OnthesetwomethodsoftranslationfromGreektoArabic,seeKhalilal-Safadi(d.1363),Al-Ghaythal-musajjam,trans.inF.Rosenthal,TheClassicalHeritageinIslam(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1975),17.Al-SafadiattributestheformermethodtoHunaynibnIshaq,al-Jawhari,andothers,andthelattermethodtoIbnal-Bitriq,IbnNaimahal-Himsi,andothers.SeesimilarlythepassagebyMaimonidescitedbelow,n.26,whereheattributestheformermethodtoHunaynibnIshaqandhissonIshaqibnHunayn,andthelattermethodtoIbnal-Bitriq.Foracriticalevaluational-Safadi’sremarks,seeD.Gutas,GreekThought,ArabicCulture:TheGraeco–ArabicTranslationMovementinBaghdadandEarlyAbbasidSociety(London:Routledge,1998),142–3.SeefurtherF.E.Peters,AristotleandtheArabs(NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,1968),57–67.25.Al-Muhadarahwa
l-mudhakarah,trans.inRosenthal,ClassicalHeritage,18.26.I.Shailat,Iggerotha-Rambam(Jerusalem:ShailatPublishing[Maaliyot],1988),532–3.27.ThispassageiscitedintranslationinI.Zwiep,MotherofReasonandRevelation:AShortHistoryofMedievalJewishLinguisticThought(Amsterdam:J.C.Gieben,1997),71.OnJudah’sviewsontranslation,seeibid.,69–75,andZonta,Lafilosofiaantica,99–104.ForviewsofothermedievalHebrewtranslatorsonthemethodsoftranslation,seeCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nArabicintoHebrew277thediscussionandanalysisinZontaLafilosofiaantica,96–116,andRothschild,“Motivationsetmethodes”,´297–301.28.Samuel’sprefaceisfoundinMaimonides,Morehha-Nevukhim,ed.Y.ibnShmuel(Jerusalem:MosadHaravKook,1981),cxvii–cxxii.ForthereferencetoJudah’spreface,seecxvii–cxviii.Samuelhere(cxix)isoneofthefirsttorefertohisfatherasthe“fatherofthetranslators”(aviha-matiqim).29.SeeZwiep,MotherofReason,71.IhavebenefittedfromZwiep’sdiscus-sion,supportedwithaptquotations,ofthemedievalviewsonArabic-to-Hebrewtranslation(63–76).Nonetheless,onemustjudgetheextentofliteralnessofthetranslationsonthebasisofthetranslationsthem-selves,andnotontheauthors’statedaims.ThusIwouldwanttoqualifyherclaim(73)thatthe“veryidealofchangingwordswith-outaffectingtheirmeaningwasutterlycontradictorytotheprevalentmonadicviewonsignification,whichhadbeenfosteredbytheno-tionofthe–conventional–incongruitybetweenlanguages.”Thelead-ingArabic-to-HebrewtranslatorsnodoubtendowedtechnicalHebrewtermstheycoinedorborrowedfromtheirpredecessorswiththesamerangeoftechnicalmeaningsthattheunderlyingArabictermhad.OftenthesetechnicaltermswereformedfromHebrewrootsidenticaltotheArabicrootsorwiththesamenon-technicalmeaningsastheArabicroots.30.A.Ivrycalls“literalism...thehallmarkof[theIbnTibbon]school[oftranslation]”;seehis“PhilosophicalTranslationsfromtheArabicinHebrewduringtheMiddleAges,”inRencontresdeculturesdanslaphilosophiemedi´evale´,ed.J.HamesseandM.Fattori(Louvain-la-NeuveandCassino:Publicationsdel’Institutd’EtudesMedi´evales,´1990),181.Zonta,Lafilosofiaantica,107,writesthat,formanyofthemedievaltranslators,onlytheliteraltranslationcan“bestowdoctrinalvalidityuponthewordsofanauthor.”31.SeethepassageintheIggeretha-Vikkuah,ed.andtrans.inS.Harvey,Falaquera’s“EpistleoftheDebate”:AnIntroductiontoJewishPhiloso-phy(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1987),79–80(English,51).Falaquerawasaprolificwriter.Foralistanddescriptionofeigh-teenofhisworks,seeR.Jospe,TorahandSophia:TheLifeandThoughtofShemTovibnFalaquera(Cincinnati:HebrewUnionCollegePress,1988),31–76.32.SeeReshitHokhmah,ed.M.David(Berlin,1902),9.33.Ibid.OnthesourcesofReshitHokhmah,seeJospe,TorahandSophia,39–42.OnAverroes’EpitomeoftheIsagogeasasourceofFalaquera’sinReshitHokhmah,seeM.Zonta,UndizionariofilosoficoebraicodelCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n278MedievalJewishphilosophyxiiisecolo:L’introduzioneal“SeferDeotha-Filosofim”diShemTobibnFalaquera(Turin:SilvioZamoraniEditore,1992),141–4.34.Forastrikingexampleofthisandanexplanationforit,seemy“ANoteontheParaphrasesofAlfarabi’sPoliticalWritinginReshitHokhmah”[Hebrew],Tarbiz65(1996),729–41.35.ThispassagefromtheintroductioniscitedfromS.Harvey,“Shem-TovFalaquera’sDeotha-Filosofim:ItsSourcesandUseofSources,”inHarvey(ed.),MedievalHebrewEncyclopedias,214.36.Citedfromibid.,216.37.OnthestructureandsourcesoftheDeot,seeibid.,211–37.38.SeeR.Fontaine,“JudahbenSolomonha-Cohen’sMidrashha-Hokhmah:ItsSourcesandUseofSources,”inHarvey(ed.),MedievalHebrewEncyclopedias,191–210.Thequotationisfrom201.39.Onthethirteenth-centuryHebrewencyclopediasofscienceandphilos-ophy,seeHarvey(ed.),MedievalHebrewEncyclopedias,esp.introduc-tionandchs.8–18.40.Aswehaveseen,duringthisperiod,incontrasttotheonlythreeinde-pendentArabic-to-HebrewtranslationsofAristotle’sworks(seeabove,n.2),atleastthirty-fourofAverroes’thirty-sixcommentariesonAris-totleweretranslatedfromArabicintoHebrew.SeethelistofHebrewtranslationsofbooksofAristotelianscience,referredtoabove,n.18.41.Seeabove,n.21.42.E.Renan,Averroesetl’averro`ısme¨,2nded.(Paris:MichelLevy,´1861),180.43.C.Burnettarguesagainsttheseviewsinhis“The‘SonsofAverroeswiththeEmperorFrederick’andthetransmissionofthephilosophicalworksbyIbnRushd,”inAverroesandtheAristotelianTradition,ed.G.EndressandJ.A.Aertsen(Leiden:Brill,1999),259–76;theformerviewiscitedon259,thelatteron275.BothviewsareuntenableandnotnearlyaswidespreadandpopularinrecentscholarshipasBurnettmakesthemouttobe.44.I.Twersky,“AspectsoftheSocialandCulturalHistoryofProvenc¸alJewry,”inJewishSocietythroughtheAges,ed.H.H.Ben-SassonandS.Ettinger(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1971),202.45.KalonymusbenKalonymus’SendschreibenanJosephKaspi,ed.J.Perles(Munich,1879),9.46.OnJudah’sattitudetowardhissources,seeFontaine,“JudahbenSolomonha-Cohen’sMidrashha-Hokhmah,”202–7.NoteJudah’sstate-mentaboutAverroes,citedon204.47.SeeZonta,Lafilosofiaantica,122–3,andR.Fontaine,“ArabicTermsinJudahbenSolomonha-Cohen’sMidrashha-Hokhmah,”DS-NELL1–2(1997),128–31.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nArabicintoHebrew27948.Fontaine,“ArabicTerms,”129.49.B.Septimus,Hispano-JewishCultureinTransition:TheCareerandControversiesofRamah(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1982),148,n.17;seefurther62–3.50.Despitetheimportantandeye-openingstudiesonIbnTibbon’sesoteri-cismofthepastfourdecades,particularlybyG.VajdaandA.Ravitzky,thefullextentofAverroes’influenceonIbnTibbonstillneedstobespelledout.ThisinfluencewasalreadysuggestedinVajda’spioneeringstudy,“AnAnalysisoftheMa
amarYiqqawuha-MayimbySamuelIbnTibbon,”JournalofJewishStudies10(1959),137–49.VajdawroteofthepossibleinfluenceofAverroes’apologeticDecisiveTreatiseuponhim,andofthe“clearindicationsoftheinfluence”ofAverroes’heterodoxteachingsuponhim,andalludedtohisradicalAverroism(seeesp.141n.11,147n.29,and149).LaterstudiesbyRavitzkyshowedIbnTibbontobeevenmoreradicalthanVajdasuspected.G.FreudenthalthussawradicalAverroism“exemplifiedinthethoughtofSamuelibnTibbon”;seehis“ScienceinJewishCulture,”43.51.Harvey,Falaquera’s“Epistle”,15n.4,18n.11,19n.13.See,further,thepassagefromFalaquera’sDeotha-Filosofim,quotedinJospe,TorahandSophia,52.Ironically,thisattitudeinpartderivesdirectlyfromAverroes.SeehisDecisiveTreatise,trans.G.Hourani(London:Luzac,1967),47–50.52.JacobbenMakhir’slettertoSolomonibnAdret,trans.inF.Kobler,LettersofJewsthroughtheAges,2vols.(London:EastandWestLibrary,1953),i:252–3.53.SeeW.Harvey,“HasdaiCrescas’sCritiqueoftheTheoryoftheAcquiredIntellect,”Ph.D.dissertation,ColumbiaUniversity,1973,esp.84–103;fordiscussionoftheviewpropoundedbyY.BaerinhisAHistoryoftheJewsinChristianSpain,2vols.(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSoci-ety,1978)that“Averroistphilosophywasamajorcauseofcommunaldisaster,”see85–7n.117.ForadifferentperspectivethatquestionssomeofBaer’sconclusionsandpointstothevalueofphilosophyinpreservingJewishidentity,seeM.Saperstein,“TheSocialandCulturalContext:ThirteenthtoFifteenthCenturies,”inHistoryofJewishPhilosophy,ed.D.H.FrankandO.Leaman(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997),294–330,esp.295–6and312–13andthenotesthereto.54.SeeHarvey,“Crescas’sCritique.”OnCrescas’critiqueofAristotelianscience,seeH.A.Wolfson,Crescas’CritiqueofAristotle(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1929).55.S.Pines,ScholasticismafterThomasAquinasandtheTeachingsofHasdaiCrescasandhisPredecessors(Jerusalem:IsraelAcademyofSciencesandHumanities,1967),22–3.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n280MedievalJewishphilosophy56.TheinfluenceofAvicennainHebrewtranslationinthefourteenthandfifteenthcenturieshasrecentlybeenstudiedbyM.Zonta;seehis“TheRelationshipofEuropeanJewishPhilosophytoIslamicandChristianPhilosophiesintheLateMiddleAges,”JewishStudiesQuarterly7(2000),127–40,andhistwostudiesreferredtoinhisn.2.Onal-Ghazali’sinfluenceduringthissameperiod,seemy“WhydidFourteenth-CenturyJewsTurntoAlghazali’sAccountofNaturalScience?”JewishQuarterlyReview91(2001),359–76.57.SeeZonta’sdiscussionof“Hebrew-LatinPhilosophy”inZonta,“Relationship,”andthestudiesnotedthere.Ontherelationofanti-ChristianpolemicstotheimpactofChristianScholasticphilosophyonJewishthoughtinSpain,seeD.Lasker,“TheImpactofChristianityonLateIberianJewishPhilosophy,”inInIberiaandBeyond:HispanicJewsbetweenCultures,ed.B.Cooperman(Newark:UniversityofDelawarePress,1998),175–90.58.H.Tirosh-Rothschild,“JewishPhilosophyontheEveofModernity,”inFrankandLeaman(eds.),HistoryofJewishPhilosophy,545.Iwoulddeletetheword“most.”AverroeswastheauthoritativecommentatoronAristotle,anditwasthisauthoritythathegraduallylostinthefif-teenthandsixteenthcenturies.59.OnthestudyofAverroesinthesixteenthcentury,seeibid.,499–563,andA.L.Ivry,“RemnantsofJewishAverroismintheRenaissance,”inJewishThoughtintheSixteenthCentury,ed.B.Cooperman(Cam-bridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1983),243–65.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\ngreggstern13PhilosophyinsouthernFrance:ControversyoverphilosophicstudyandtheinfluenceofAverroesuponJewishthought∗Inthesummerof1305,RabbiSolomonibnAdretandhiscourtinBarcelonaprohibitedthestudyofGreco-Arabicphilosophyandsci-encetoCatalonianJewsbelowtheageoftwenty-five.1Inordertoprotecttheircommunityfromanypotentialeffectsofthisdecree,agroupofprominentJewishscholarsinthecityofMontpellierpro-hibitedtheplacementofanyobstacleinthewayofsouthernFrenchJews,ofanyage,wishingtopursueGreco-Arabiclearning.Thetrans-gressionofeitherinjunctionbyJewswithinitsjurisdictioncarriedtheseverepenaltyofexcommunicationorcommunalbanishment.TheleaderofamoreconservativephilosophicgroupinMontpellier,frustratedbythebrazenactionofhissouthernFrenchadversaries,declaredtheirproclamationonbehalfofGreco-Arabiclearning“illegitimate”andexcommunicateditspromulgators.Atthetimeofthisflurryofconflictingexcommunications,philosophicperspec-tiveswerewellincorporatedintosouthernFrenchJewishculture;yetsomemoreconservativeJewishthinkersfeltthatthecharac-terofphilosophicinterpretationintheSouthofFrancehadbecomesoextremethatitendangeredthehistoricalandnormativefabricofJudaism.AbbaMariofMontpellier,thephilosophicallyorientedthinkerwhosoundedthealarm,citedtheinfluenceoftheMuslimphilosopherAverroesascriticaltothistreacherousexegeticalturnthathehopedtoreversebyencouragingthescholarsofneighboringCataloniatoprohibitaccesstoGreco-Arabiclearninguntilanageat∗ThefollowingessayisintendedprimarilyfortheEnglish-speakingreader.Endnotesaresimplydirectiveratherthanexhaustive.MoredetaileddocumentationwillbefoundinmyLikeaRoseamongThorns:SouthernFrenchJewryandthePhilosophicTradition(forthcoming).281CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n282MedievalJewishphilosophywhichaspiringphilosophersgenerallywouldhaveachievedatradi-tionalreligiouscommitment.AbbaMariultimatelyfailedtoachievehisgoalofsteeringJewishcultureintheSouthofFrancealongsaferpaths,buthiseffortsopenedthewindowwideuponawholeworldofJewishintellectualandspiritualferment.2ThischapterwilltellthestoryoftheintensecontroversyoverphilosophicstudyintheSouthofFranceatthebeginningofthefourteenthcentury,andlaybaretheissuesraisedbythepursuitofGreco-ArabiclearningforsouthernFrenchJewishculture.spanishphilosophicfertilizationAtthetimeoftheexcommunicationsinMontpellier,theSouthofFrancewasdividedbetweenthreekingdoms,Aragon,France,andBurgundy.Inspiteofthesepoliticaldivisions,commondescentandsharedculturalpatrimonygavetheJewsofsouthernFrancethesenseofbelongingtooneplace,whichtheyoftenreferredtosimplyas“thisland”(ha
aretzha-zot).By1300,theJewsofsouthernFrancecouldlookbackonmorethanacenturyandahalfofdiversifiedculturalachievement:inJewishlegalscholarship,inthestudyofHebrewlan-guageandbiblicalinterpretation,inpreaching,inpolemics,andinpoetry.Thegrowthofscientificandphilosophicstudyamongsouth-ernFrenchJewsduringthisperiodaffectedallofthesefields,andcontributedtothedistinctself-perceptionofthecommunity.3ThecatalystforthegrowthofJewishphilosophiccultureintheSouthofFrancecamefromAndalusia,insouthernSpain.In1147,theJewsofAndalusiawereforcedtoleavetheirhomesasBerbertribesthatwouldtoleratenootherfaithbutIslamtookpowerthere.Onac-countofthisBerberinvasionoutofNorthAfrica,theAndalusianJewishcommunity–themostsophisticatedintheworldintermsofitsrich,deep,andlengthyinteractionwithGreco-Arabiclearning–wasforcedbeyonditsoriginalborders.SomeoftheAndalusianJewsdecidedtomoveelsewhereintheIslamicworld,othersrelocatednorthwardtoChristianSpain.AsmallbutsignificantgroupreachedsouthernFrance.Thearrivalofthesescholarsinitiatedthetransfor-mationofsouthernFrenchJewishculture.UnliketheAndalusians,thesouthernFrenchscholarshadfocusedtheirlearningalmostex-clusivelyuponrabbinicscholarship.Ofcourse,southernFrenchJewshadnoknowledgeoftheArabiclanguageinwhichthelearningofCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyinsouthernFrance283Andalusiawascontained.Thequestions,categories,andmodesofdiscussionfoundinaphilosophicallyandscientificallyengagedcul-turelikethatofAndalusiawerethereforequiteforeigntosouthernFrenchJews.Nevertheless,theintellectualeliteofsouthernFrenchJewrywelcomedtheirnewlyarrivedcolleaguesandwasreceptivetotheirlearning.Followingaperiodoforaltransmission,curioussouthernFrenchscholarscommissionedthenewarrivalstobegintranslatingphilo-sophicandscientificworksfromArabicintoHebrew.AsaresultofthisfortuitousemigrationofscholarsfromSpaintoFrance,atranslationmovementdeveloped.Fromitsbeginning,onefamilywascentraltothetranslationmovement:thefamilyoftranslatorsandcommentatorsnamedTibbon.JudahibnTibbon,anemigr´efrom´Granada,establishedthefamilyintheSouthofFrance,andinhiswake,weknowofatleastfivegenerationsofTibbonidescholarlyactivitythere.Throughtheirmanytranslations,membersoftheTibbonfamily,includingJudah,hissonSamuel,andgrandsonMoses,amongothers,taughttheJewsofsouthernFranceaboutthelearn-ingoftheArabicworld.Inaddition,manyotherscholarsjoinedtheTibbonfamilybylearningArabicandcontributingHebrewtrans-lations–tothegreatenrichmentofsouthernFrenchJewishcul-ture.SouthernFrenchJewrysustainedthismovementoftranslationfromArabicintoHebrewforaperiodofover150years.Atfirst,thetranslationofmorebasicworksfromwithinJewishtraditionwasundertaken.Subsequently,thetranslatorsexpandedthescopeoftheirworktoproduceHebrewversionsofweightyandsophisti-catedworksbelongingtotheArabicphilosophictradition.Thecor-pusoftranslationsintoHebrewofGreek,Arabic,andJudeo-Arabiclearninginmathematics,astronomy,medicine,ethics,physics,andmetaphysicsisnothinglessthanstaggering.4thematurationofjewishphilosophiccultureinthesouthoffranceThisnewlytranslatedknowledgebroughtdeeptensionsandun-easinesstosouthernFrenchJewry.In1204,SamuelibnTibbontranslatedTheGuideofthePerplexedofMaimonides.InstudyingMaimonides’greatphilosophicwork,aswellashiscodeofJewishlawMishnehTorah,atleastafewlocalscholarsbegantoappreciateCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n284MedievalJewishphilosophyhowMaimonides’seriousengagementwithGreco-ArabiclearninghadledhimtointerpretJewishteachingsinwaysthatwerequiteforeigntotraditionalrabbinicunderstandings.Inthe1230s,agroupofsouthernFrenchscholarsbannedMaimonides’works.Anin-tensecontroversyensuedthatinvolvedtheentiresouthernFrenchJewishcommunityaswellastheJewishscholarsofnorthernFrance,Catalonia,andCastile.5ThisattempttoforcefullyexpelthenewJudeo-ArabicperspectivesfromtheSouthofFrancefailedand,inthefollowingdecades,theworksofMaimonidesinfluencedsouthernFrenchJewishcultureprofoundly.SouthernFrenchJewsembracedthenewlytranslatedJudeo-ArabictextsandcontinuedtosupporttranslationfromtheArabic.Inaddition,themerestudyofphilo-sophicandscientificwritingstranslatedfromtheArabicbegantoshifttotheproductionoforiginalworkinHebrewaswell.Overthecourseofthethirteenthcentury,theworksoftheesteemedtranslatorandbiblicalcommentatorSamuelibnTibbon–alongwiththoseofhisstudentsandfollowers–cametosymbolizethegrow-ingphilosophicsophisticationofsouthernFrenchJewishcultureandofthegrowthintheSouthofFranceofaJewishcommunitywhosethoughtandwritingincorporatedphilosophicandscientificlearning.YetIbnTibbonhimselfbelievedthatthemoderateunderstand-ingofMaimonidesprevalentintheSouthofFranceduringthefirsthalfofthecenturywasbaseduponamisreadingofTheGuideofthePerplexed.6DeeplyentrenchedintheGreco-Arabicphilosophiccor-pus,IbnTibbongavegreatweighttophilosophyinhisunderstandingofJewishtradition.InhisEcclesiastesCommentary,forexample,heseemslessconcernedtomediatebetweentheJewishtraditionandphilosophy,thantorevealtheinnerphilosophicmeaningofScripture.“Those[philosophic]truthswhichhadbeenconcealed[withinJewishtradition]eversincethetimeofourprophetsandsagesaretodayallknowntothenationsoftheworld.”7AssouthernFrenchJewishphilosophicculturematured,however,theviewsofIbnTibbonbecamemorepopular.Attheturnthefourteenthcen-tury,asignificantnumberofsouthernFrenchJewishscholarscouldappreciate,forexample,thesubtletiesofthephilosophicdebateastowhethertheworldhadbeencreatedoutofnothingbythewillofGodor,asseemedincreasinglylikely,hadcomeintobeingbyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyinsouthernFrance285morenaturalisticmeans.Frequently,trainedphilosopherswereoftheopinionthattheyhadencountereddecisiveargumentsagainstthecreationoftheworldexnihilo,andthereforefeltcompelledtolivewiththewelteroftheologicalandexegeticalproblemsthatthistypicallyentailed.Modelsforthesurvivalofthesoulafterdeaththatemphasizedtheroleoftheproperlydevelopedintellecttookgreaterholdandraiseddoubtsaboutthenatureoftherelationshipbetweentheobservanceofthecommandmentsandimmortality.Theuseofphilosophicallegoryinbiblicalinterpretationflourished,bothinor-dertosatisfytheneedtohaveScripturespeakphilosophically,aswellastoresolvephilosophicproblemsthatasimplereadingofScripturesometimesraised.aconservativemaimonideanresponseThewaysinwhichthestudentsofIbnTibbonsoughttowidenthescopeofallegoricalinterpretation,andmakeitmorepublic,seemedtoothermoretraditionalsouthernFrenchscholarstoendangerthehistoricityofbiblicalnarrativeand,attimes,eventhreatentheliteralmeaningofthecommandments.Forthisreason,theefflorescenceofphilosophicallegoryintheSouthofFrancedeeplytroubledthecon-servativeJewishrationalistsoftheregion.AbbaMaribenMosesofMontpellier,forexample,describesthesituationinthemosturgentterms:“TheyhavenearlystrippedtheTorahofitsliteralmeaningsandleftitnaked!”8Inresponsetosuchalarmingculturaldevelop-ments,AbbaMarihopestorestorephilosophicinterpretationtotheesotericstateimpliedbyMaimonides’prescriptionthatphilosophiceducationproceedgraduallyandinstagesfrombasictomoread-vancedsubjects.9InAbbaMari’svision,thestudyofscienceandphilosophyintheSouthofFrancewouldberestrictedtothecommu-nity’sseniormembers,whilethestreamofphilosophictranslationandinnovativecommentaryinspiredbytheTibbonswoulddryup.Overthecourseofhisstruggle,AbbaMariisforcedtochangehisstrategy.Initially,heattemptstoattackthewritingsofthesouthernFrenchphilosopher-translatorsthemselves,whileexpressinggreatesteemfortheGreco-Arabicphilosophicworksthattheyhadtrans-lated.Thetranslatedphilosophicworksofnon-Jews,heargues,posenodangertoJewsbecausetheycanbeidentifiedbyallasforeignandCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n286MedievalJewishphilosophystudiedwiththeappropriateskepticism.10AccordingtoAbbaMari,non-Jewsmightreasonphilosophicallythattheworldiseternal,astheyhadnorevelationtoobligatethemtobelieveinthecreation.TheyhadnotexperiencedthemiraclesoftheExodusnordidtheybenefitfromhearingGodatSinai.InAbbaMari’sinitialargument,MaimonideshadremovedanyintellectualthreattotheJewishcom-munityfromthenon-Jewishphilosophybydemonstratingthattheeternityoftheworldcannotbeproven.11Atthispointinhisstruggle,AbbaMaristillhopesforsuccessinattackingtheTibbonidestreaminsouthernFrenchJewishculturedirectly.Hearguesthatthedan-gertothecommunitylurksonlyinJewishphilosophicworks,asthesimplebelievermightreadthemwithuncriticalacceptance.12ThenewworksofJewishphilosophicinterpretation,AbbaMariargues,mightinfecttheinnocentandcredulousmindofthecasualreaderwhostoodopentoandunguardedagainsttheirheresy.Evenathickveilofesotericismwouldnotoffersufficientprotection.Thus,theverypresenceofsuchworkswithintheJewishcommunityisintol-erable.InAbbaMari’sview,southernFrenchJewishscholarswhoadoptthepositionsoftheArabicphilosophersandreinterprettheTorahintheirlightmaynotbeexcused,andtheirworksmustbedestroyed.13AbbaMarineverinformsuspreciselytowhichworksherefers,buthisaudience,ofcourse,wouldhaveunderstoodthewritingsofSamuelibnTibbonandhisfollowers.theturntobarcelonaTohisdismay,AbbaMarifindsinsufficientsupportforhisviewsintheSouthofFrance.14Therefore,heturnsoutsideofhisimmedi-ategeographicandculturalcontexttotheleaderoftheneighboringCataloniancommunity,SolomonbenAbrahamibnAdret(Rashba)ofBarcelona.Rashba’ssupportcouldbeinvaluable,ashewaswidelyre-gardedasthegreatestJewishlegalscholaroftheday.AndAbbaMarihadeveryreasontobelievethatRashbawouldsupporthiscause,asCatalonianJewry,andRashbahimself,didnotsharesouthernFrenchJewry’sdistinctiverelationshiptothephilosophictradition.Infact,RashbaangrilycondemnstheadoptionbysouthernFrenchschol-arsoftheMaimonideanidentificationofAristotelianphysicsandmetaphysicswiththeesotericteachingofTorahofIsrael,withthedisciplinesthattheMishnahcalls“theaccountofcreation”and“theCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyinsouthernFrance287accountofthechariot.”15Inresponsetothisfundamentalrationalistidentification,Rashbademurs:TomaintainthatAristotlelecturedpubliclyon“hiddenteaching,”whiletheancientJewishsagesandtheirstudentsremainedlargelyignorantispatentlyabsurd.16ThusAbbaMaricouldwritetoRashbatocensurethephilosophicalle-goristsofsouthernFrancewithconfidencethathisrequestwouldbewellreceived.17AccordingtoAbbaMari,thedevotionofacer-taingroupofsouthernFrenchscholarstoAverroes’Commentariesinspirestheirrecklessinterpretation.18IntheSouthofFrance,Aristotle’swritingswerenotavailableforstudydirectly,butonlyastheyarefoundembeddedinAverroes’Commentaries.19Translated,inlargepart,bySamuelibnTibbon’ssonMosesinthemid-thirteenthcentury,Averroes’CommentariesontheAristoteliancorpuswereamongthemostsophisticatedphilosophicworksincirculation.20AlthoughthepreciseidentityofthescholarswhomAbbaMaricon-demnsisunclear,enthusiasmfortheHebrewtranslationsofAver-roes’Commentariesplacesthiscondemnedgroupsquarelywithintheculturalorbitofthephilosopher-translatorsofsouthernFrance.AbbaMarifearsthattheir“Christian-like”readingofthecommand-mentsendangersreligiousobservanceandthattheirpublicdiscus-sionoftheTorah’sinnerphilosophicmeaningviolatestalmudiclaw.21Withagravityandformalityappropriatetothecircumstances,hepubliclycallsuponRashbatoexercisehisfar-reachingprestigeasalegalscholartoleadsouthernFrenchJewishauthoritiesinac-tionagainstthosewhosystematicallyreinterpretJewishtraditionwithfar-reachingphilosophicallegory.22Withthiscalltoarms,AbbaMariinitiatesanintensiveopencorrespondencebetweenhimselfandRashbaaswellasbetweenhimselfandscholarsfromallovertheSouthofFranceaboutthenatureofsouthernFrenchJewishcultureandtheproperplaceofallegoricalinterpretationandGreco-ArabicphilosophyinthecurriculumofsouthernFrenchJewry.AbbaMari’selectrifyingliteraryexchangescompelothersouthernFrenchschol-arstowriteopenletterstoRashbaontheseverysamematters,andRashbafeelsobligatedtorespondpubliclytothemaswell.Theproseofthisextensivecorrespondenceevincesconsiderableemotiveforceandliterarycraft.Thefelicitous,andoftenentertaining,reuseofphrasesfrombiblicalandrabbinictextsandthefrequentintroduc-tionofrhymedproseareamongtheliterarydevicesthatthesewritersareabletoexploitwithexpertiseandapparentease.InhisselectiveCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n288MedievalJewishphilosophyanthologyofthiscorrespondence,whichheentitlesAnOfferingofZeal,AbbaMaridoesindeedincludethecorrespondenceofhisadver-saries,althoughnotfully.AbbaMarimayhaveintendedtoincludeadditionalmaterialinacompanionvolumethathepromisedtoeditofthemorelengthysouthernFrenchletters.23Howeverthatmaybe,AbbaMari’sdecisiontoexclude(orsuppress)materialfromcir-culationthroughhisOfferingofZealgenerallyresultedinitslosstoposterity.Nevertheless,fragmentsofadditionalvaluablemate-rialsurviveduetoavarietyofcircumstances.Inoneextraordinarycase,SimeonbenJoseph,aproteg´eofAbbaMari,wrotealengthy´point-by-pointresponsetoanexceedinglyimportantletterbythegreatsouthernFrenchtalmudistMenahemha-MeiriofPerpignan.24AsMeiri’sletterdoesnotsurviveindependently,itwouldhavebeenlosttouswereitnotforSimeon’sextensivecitationofitinhisre-buttalHoshenMishpat,whichitselfonlysurvivesinauniquecopycontainedwithinthefoliosofonelatemanuscript.25rashbarefusestointerveneInhisreplytoAbbaMari,Rashbaimpliesthatthephilosophicalle-goryoftheaccusedsouthernFrenchinterpretersinvolvesahereticaldeparturefromareligioustraditionheldincommonwithChris-tiansandMuslims,26andthatJewsshouldnottoleratesuchheresyanymorethanwouldgentiles.UnderlyingRashba’scritiqueishisbeliefthatthesouthernFrenchinterpretersseektodestroythenor-mativecharacterofJudaismthroughallegory.27Despitetheseforce-fulcondemnations,RashbapubliclyrejectsAbbaMari’sinvitationtointervene.TheCatalonianscholarassertsthat,althoughAbbaMari’sintentionspleasehim,hecandonothingtohelp;hisinvolve-mentinsouthernFrenchaffairswouldbeperceivedasanunwar-rantedintrusion.28RashbainsteadencouragesAbbaMaritofindlike-mindedsouthernFrenchscholarswhowilltakehisconcernstoheart.Nevertheless,inanunsignedprivatenoteinsertedintothemanuscriptquireofhisresponsum,29Rashbarevealshisintensean-tipathytowardthemostpopularandesteemedTorahcommentaryinsouthernFrance,theMalmadha-Talmidimofthephilosophictrans-latorandson-in-lawofSamuelibnTibbon,JacobAnatoli.30Inthiswork,Anatoli–whomRashbaherederidesasthe“elderlyking”–makesplainhow“theTorahconcealsthatwhichExistencehasCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyinsouthernFrance289revealedtothephilosophers.”31Afterpubliclyrefusingtoacknowl-edgeanyjustificationforhisintervention,Rashbaconcludesunderthecoverofprivate,unofficialcommunication:WehereinCataloniatakethestrongestpossibleexceptiontosouthernFrenchphilosophicinterpretationasrepresentedbythe“elderlyking,”32butwecantakenoactionagainstyourleaderswhoexpoundit.33Wheneven-tuallyleaked,Rashba’sprivatemessagecreatesafurorintheSouthofFrance.WhileAbbaMarineverdeniesthatRashbapennedthisnote,heinsists,“Wedonotknowtoprecisely[whichscholarthenote]refers.”34ManyothersintheSouthofFrance,however,hadnodoubtthatRashbahaddenouncedJacobAnatoliandhisMalmadha-Talmidim,andpublicreadingsoftheAnatoli’sworkwereconvenedinprotest.35abanon“greekbooks”AfterthereceiptofRashba’sprivatenote,AbbaMariputasidehiseffortstoattackJewishphilosophicinterpretationdirectly;itssup-portinsouthernFrancewasoverwhelmingandRashbadidnotfeelempoweredtostandagainstit.Shortlyafterward,however,RashbawritestoCrescasVidal,aBarcelonanJewlivinginPerpignan,toinquireregardingthecharacterofphilosophicinterpretationinsouthernFrance.36Inresponse,CrescassuggeststhatRashbafor-mallyprohibitthestudyofGreco-Arabicscientificandphilosophicworks–withtheexceptionofthestudyofmedicine–beforetheageofthirtyonpainofexcommunication.CrescasarguesthatsuchaprohibitionwouldforcesouthernFrenchJewstodelvedeeplyintotheTalmudasyouths,andonlylater,aftertheyhavematuredandtheirreligiouscommitmentshavebeenestablished,toturntophi-losophy.Crescasconcludes,“Atthemomentthereisreasontofearthatthephilosophicallyinspiredyouths,whohavenotseenthelightofTorah,will–heavenforbid–turnthewholecountrytoheresy.”37DespiteCrescas’graveconcerns,Rashbaisunwillingtopromul-gateanexcommunicationforsouthernFranceonhisauthorityalone,andcontinuestoexhortPerpignanJewstoremedytheirownsituation.38AshisnewstrategytoredirectthecourseofJewishcultureintheSouthofFrance,AbbaMariadoptsthesuggestionofCrescasVidal.InapositionpaperinfavoroftheprohibitionofGreco-ArabicCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n290MedievalJewishphilosophyphilosophicworkstotheyoung,AbbaMari’sargumentturnsonapassagefromtheGuideofthePerplexedconcerningtheobsta-clesthatstandinthewayofintellectualperfection.Inthispassage,Maimonidesexpressestheviewthatitisnotpropertobeginphilo-sophicstudyuntilanageatwhichone’ssexualdriveisdiminished(Guide1:34).AbbaMariarguesthatifanagerestrictionappliestophilosophicworkswrittenbyJews,itappliesevenmoresotosim-ilarworks–fulloferroneousanddangerousteachings–writtenbygentiles.39Inthecontextofthisargument,heemphasizesthatthestudyofAverroes’Commentarieshasledtotheadoptionofhereticalviews,which,inturn,havebeenincorporatedintoJewishexegesis.40AbbaMarimakesnoattempttocritiqueAverroes’philosophicargu-mentthattheworldiseternal.Rather,heinsiststhatMaimonideswouldnothaveyoungJewsstudysuchadangerousworkwhoseargu-mentsweresodifficulttorefute.BasedonhisownstudyofAverroes,AbbaMariarguesthattheprerequisitesthattheMaimonideantradi-tionhadestablishedinregardtowhomaystudyJewishphilosophicworksshouldbeobservedevenmorescrupulouslyforGreco-Arabicworks,indeedunderpenaltyofexcommunication.AbbaMariac-knowledgesthatpreciousthingsmaybelearnedfromtheworksoftheArabicphilosophers;however,theriskandthepotentialcostofacquiringthemthroughstudyofsuchdangerousworksissimplytoogreatfortheaverageperson,andshouldbereservedforgreatsages.HavingfailedtoimpugnthesouthernFrenchphilosopher-translatorsdirectly,AbbaMariresolvedtoattackGreco-ArabiclearningasanalternatepathtoreininJewishphilosophiccultureintheSouthofFrance.DespitearathercoolearlyreceptioninPerpignan,41AbbaMariandRashbaresolvetocontinuetheirstruggletoimplementaprohibitionofGreco-ArabicscientificandphilosophicwritingintheSouthofFranceuntilanageatwhichindividualsgenerallyhaveachievedatraditionalreligiouscommitment.thesouthoffrancefailstoactOperatingdiscreetly,RashbaandAbbaMarisetouttostimulatethescholarsofsouthernFrancetoprohibitGreco-Arabicphilosophicworks.RashbatransmitstoAbbaMariandhiscolleagueTodrosofBeaucaireasealeddocument,signedbythescholarsofBarcelona,thatformallyasksthescholarsofMontpelliertoprohibitthestudyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyinsouthernFrance291ofGreco-Arabicworks,medicalworksexcepted,untiltheageofthirty.42Rashbainstructsthetwomentotesttheclimateofopin-ioninMontpellierbeforemakingtheletterpublic.Overaperiodofamonthortwo,TodrosandAbbaMarivetafewleadingscholarsandareconvincedthattheycanwinapprovalfortheexcommuni-cationfromtheeldersoftheJewishcommunity.Theyplan,there-fore,toreadtheBarcelonarequestpubliclyonaSabbathinElul,1304.OntheFridaybeforethatSabbath,thephysician,astronomer,andphilosophictranslatorJacobbenMakhiribnTibbonapproachesAbbaMari.43Heexpresseshisabsoluteobjectiontoabanonscien-tificstudyandasksAbbaMaritoterminatehiseffortstowardthisend.Adisputeensues,andneithermanisabletoconvincetheother.ForJacobbenMakhir,itispatentthattheBarcelonacommunitywasreachingintothejurisdictionofanothercommunityandviolatingitslocalautonomy.InareporttoRashba,AbbaMariquotesJacobbenMakhir:“Whatdothey[theCatalonianrabbis]havetodowithus?Godplacedaboundarybetweenthemandus.Weshallnotobeyorsubmittothem.”44AbbaMariclaimsthatJacobinitiallysup-portedhisefforts,untilJudahbenMosesibnTibbonpersuadedhimtoopposethem.45OnthefollowingSabbath,AbbaMarireadstheBarcelonalettertothecommunity,hopingthatitsauthoritymightleadtoaconsensusinfavorofaban.JacobbenMakhircomesforwardandraiseshisvoiceagainsttheexcommunicationthattheletterpro-poses.Thegatheringendsinconfusion,andnocommunityactionistaken.46Uponhearingthenews,Rashbatemporarilyretreats.TotheprotestsofthegroupinMontpellieragainstabanheresponds,“Greatonesofjudgmentandcouncil!Actasyourintellectseesfit.Wehavenomoreinvolvementinthismatter.”47AbbaMari,ontheotherhand,asksRashbatoincreasehisinvolvement.48InadditiontotheformalrequestalreadysenttotheeldersofMontpelliertoproclaimaban,AbbaMariasksRashbatoactuallypronounceabaninBarcelonatoserveasamodelforthecommunitiesofsouthernFrance.Inthisfashion,AbbaMarihopestoputfurtherpressureonhisowncommu-nitytoenactaban.Rashbadeclinestogranttheserequests,atleastforthetimebeing.However,heencouragesAbbaMaritocontinuethestruggletowardtheproclamationofabanintheMidiwithoutthehelpofanexcommunicationinBarcelona.49Ratherthanacceptdefeat,AbbaMariisspurredtoaction.HeurgestheleadersofseveralCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n292MedievalJewishphilosophycommunitiestowritetoRashba,toindicatetheirsupportforthebanthattheBarcelonaleadershadadvisedatMontpellier,andtorequestRashba’sleadershipinitspronouncement.50AbbaMari’scolleague,JacobofBeaucairetravelseastoftheRhone,throughoutProvenceˆandComtatVenaissin,toinformJewsofAbbaMari’sstruggleandtoenlisttheirsupport.51RashbaremainsunmovedandrespondstotherequestsoftheeldersofAix,52Argentiere,`53andLunel,54ashedidtoAbbaMari:TheinitiativeforanexcommunicationmustcomefromtheSouthofFrance.theexcommunicationatbarcelonaTheinvolvementofthenasi(leader)ofNarbonne,55KalonymusbenTodros,turnsouttobedecisive.AbbaMarisendshispositionpaperonthecontroversytoRashbawiththenasi’sapprobation.56Aftereightmonthsofsilence–inpartduetoillness–RashbawritestoAbbaMariandtoKalonymusha-NasithathehasreconsideredandiswillingtopromulgateamodelSpanishexcommunication.57Nev-ertheless,Rashbainsiststhattheinitiativeforthebanmustbegin,atleastformally,insouthernFrance.58Afternumerousexpressionsofreluctanceandirritation,AbbaMariandKalonymusbenTodrossendtheirformalrequesttoBarcelona,andpromisetofollowsuitwithasouthernFrenchbanaftertheCatalonianversionispromulgated.59OntheNinthofAv,1305,theeldersofBarcelonaproclaimaban–fortheircommunityandforafifty-yearperiod–onthestudyofGreco-Arabicworksonphysicsandmetaphysicsbeforetheageoftwenty-five.60IntwosectionsofRashba’spromulgation,heasksthescholarsofsouthernFrancetoenactaparalleldecreeinthemostforcefulandurgentterms.61However,southernFrenchdocumentsinsupportoftheCatalonianbanareneversent.Eventheexcom-municationofBarcelonafailstocreatethesupportnecessaryforasimilarproclamationintheSouthofFrance.thereactionfromperpignanThegreattalmudistMenahemha-MeiriofPerpignanviewsAbbaMari’scalltoBarcelonaascontributingnotonlytotheslanderofprominentsouthernFrenchJewishscholars,butalsotothedefamationoftheirgenerations-oldculturalidealofcommitmenttoCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyinsouthernFrance293traditionalJewishandGreco-Arabiclearning.62WhileMeirireveresRashbaasatalmudist,63hebelievesthatIbnAdret’shostilitytowardphilosophyandkabbalisticorientationrenderhisopinionregardingthecourseofJewishcultureintheSouthofFranceoflittlerelevance.64UnlikeAbbaMari,MeiritruststheTibbonideelite,asintegralmembersofalargerphilosophicallysophisticatedandGod-fearingcommunity,tohandletheCommentariesofAverroesinafashionthatisultimatelycompatiblewithJewishtradition.65InhisargumentagainsttheexamplesetbytheCatalonianban,MeiricountersthattheworksofAverroes,whilesocriticaltothesophis-ticationofJewishphilosophicdiscourseintheSouthofFrance,havehadlittletodowiththespreadofphilosophicallegorythere.Accord-ingtoMeiri,thosewhomisusephilosophicallegoryarethoroughlyunawareofAverroes’Commentaries,andtheproblematicpublicin-terpretationofScripturedoesnotdrawuponsuchhighlytechnicalworks.Tothecontrary,theinspirationforthedangerousinterpreta-tioncomes,asAbbaMarihimselfhadargued,fromJewishauthorswithinthephilosophictradition,includingMaimonidesandthees-teemedphilosopher-translatorsofsouthernFrance.66MeirisupportsAbbaMari’soriginalclaimthatlocallyveneratedJewishworksen-couragethedangerousproliferationofallegoricalinterpretationintheSouthofFrance,butheproposesaratherdifferentsolutiontothisproblem.HeadvisesthatallegoricalinterpretersbedirectedtowardthosesectionsofScripturethatareneitherlegalnorhistoricalinna-ture,andhencemaybesubjectedtophilosophicallegoresiswithoutilleffect.67theexcommunicationsatmontpellierUponhearingoftheBarcelonaexcommunications,AbbaMari’sad-versariesinMontpellierissueanangrycommuniquetoRashba´statingthattheCatalonianattempttoinfluenceJewishcultureinsouthernFranceconstitutesaviolationoflocalrabbinicalsovereignty.68“Onekingdomshouldnotinfringeuponitsneighborevensomuchasahair’sbreadth,”theyexclaim.69Rashbashouldneverhaveentertainedsuch“treachery,”intheirevaluation.70AbbaMari’sadversariesbrazenlyequateRashba’sprohibitionofthestudyofphysicsandmetaphysicswithaprohibitionoftheactivitythroughwhichimmortalityisachieved.Intheirview,itisnotonlytheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n294MedievalJewishphilosophyvalidityoftheMaimonideanlegacythatisatstake–asMeiriwouldhaveit–butalsoaccesstoimmortalityitself.71Accordingtothesescholars,onlytheintellect“acquired”asaresultofphilosophiccomprehensionsurvivesdeath.Hence,onemayunitewithGodinloveandattainimmortalityonlythroughthestudyofphysicsandmetaphysics;72andthepotentiallyinvaluablebenefitsofphilosophicstudymustdoubtlessremainaccessibletoall.Suchanunequivo-calpublicaffirmationoftheteachingthatimmortalityisdirectlydependentuponphilosophiccomprehension–andbyimplicationdependentonlyinstrumentallyupontheobservanceofthecom-mandments–indicateshowthoroughlythephilosophicinterpre-tationofJudaismhasenvelopedanimportantsegmentofsouthernFrenchJewry.Asbefitstheirunderstandingoftheimmeasurableimportanceofphilosophicstudy,AbbaMari’sadversariesactexpeditiouslytocounteranypotentialeffectoftheBarcelonabaninsouthernFrance.Soastoobtaintheroyalpermissionnecessaryinordertopromul-gateanexcommunicationinFrance,theydiscreetlybribethelocalseigneur;and,despiteAbbaMari’sbestefforts,theysuccessfullypro-nounceabanuponanyonewhowouldpreventanypupil,regardlessofage,fromthestudyofphilosophy.73“Quitetothecontrary!”AbbaMariretorts,excommunicatinghisadversariesbyformallyinvokingtherule,“Anyonewhoexcommunicatesunjustly,himselfstandsundertheban.”74AbbaMarihopestoensurethathisadversaries’excommunicationwouldbeconsideredinvalid,andthathiscoun-terexcommunicationwouldstand.TothatendhewritestoRashba,75scholarsthroughoutsouthernFrance,andeventoAsherbenYehielofToledo76fortheirlegalopinionsastowhichexcommunicationisinforce.Rashbarulesthepro-philosophicexcommunicationerroneousandwithoutprecedent,butasksAbbaMaritoputanendtothefightingbyrevokinghiscounterexcommunicationthatis,asare-sult,inforce.77Menahemha-Meiri,ontheotherhand,rulesboththebanofAbbaMariandthatofhisadversariesequallyvalidandequallyinappropriate.Inmatterstouchinguponculturalcommit-ments,Meiriargues,eachcoherentcommunitymustlegislateforitselfand,withoutangeroroffense,restrainitselffrominterferingintheaffairsofothers.78One’sattitudetowardphilosophicstudy,inCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyinsouthernFrance295Meiri’sview,isaresultofone’seducationandpersonalinclination.Thepermissibilityofsuchstudy,therefore,shouldnotbethesub-jectoflegislation,asitsinevitableviolationinvolvesthedisgraceofrabbinicauthority.79AbbaMari,nevertheless,refusestogiveuphisstruggleandcontinuestoseeksouthernFrenchsupportersforhisexcommunication.80Thecontroversyisdisruptedwhen,indistantParis,PhiliptheFair,thekingofFrance,decreesanexpulsionofalltheJewsofhisrealm–whichincludesmostofsouthernFrance–andseizestheirproperty.81Attheroyalcourt,thecircumstancesoftheexpulsionrelatetotheexpandingpoliticalandeconomicpowersoftheFrenchcrown.AbbaMari,however,attributestheexpulsiontodivineretributionforthesinsofhisadversaries.82AbouttenweeksafterthepromulgationinParis,theJewsofMontpellierareexiled.TheJewsofPerpignanarenotsubjecttothedecreesofthekingofFrance,asJamesIIofMajorcaholdstitletoRoussillonandPerpignanishiscapital.ManyMontpellierianJewsjourneytoPerpignan,butAbbaMariisexiledtoArlesinProvence.Fourmonthslater,heattemptstoresettleinPerpignan,buttheagentsoftheJamesII,atthebehestoflocalJews,refusehimentry.83AsthereisnoevidencethatAbbaMarirevokedtheexcommunicationofhisadversaries,perhapstheytooretainedtheirstanceagainsthim.conclusionThroughoutthecontroversyoverphilosophicstudy,AbbaMariandhiscircleevincegreatclarityofpurpose,persistentenergy,andsig-nificantskillinavarietyofways:intheireffortstopersuadetheircolleaguesthatphilosophicinterpretationintheSouthofFrancein-deedhadbrokenallbounds;inobtainingtheconsentofRashbaandhiscourttotakesignificantrisksontheirbehalf;andingathering,editing,andpublishingmuchofthecontroversy’scorrespondenceintheirOfferingofZeal.TheactivityoftheTibbonsandtheirfollowers,includingtheextensiveuseofphilosophicallegoryasaninterpretivelens,aswellastheirstrongcommitmenttotheHebrewtransla-tionofGreco-Arabiclearning,deeplydiscomfitedAbbaMari.Tohismind,MaimonideshadwrestledsuccessfullyandconclusivelywiththegreatphilosophicdilemmasaffectingJudaism,andtheGuideCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n296MedievalJewishphilosophyofthePerplexedwasthereforeamonumentalwork.Thecontin-uedinquiryintofundamentalquestionsbylessermindsaswellaswideningthescopeofphilosophicinterpretationcouldbreedonlyconfusionandheresyinhisview.Indeed,thoughtAbbaMari,hadMaimonideshimselfnotwarnedofthegravedangersinvolvedinthecarelesstransmissionofphilosophicteaching?Beyondhisconcernfortherequirementsofesotericism,AbbaMarialsoseemstohavesensedsomethingnewandextraordinarilypowerfulintheworksofAverroesthataddedgreatlytohisunease.UponreadingAverroes’CommentarytoAristotle’sDeCaelo,AbbaMarialmostwondersaloud:WereMaimonides’demonstrationsreconcilingJudaismwiththephilosophictradition,infact,allconclusive?Mightanyonere-turntotheseponderousandarcanematterstoadjudicatethem?Thewaysimplymustbeclosedoff.Whenlocalsupportwasnotforthcoming,AbbaMariwiselyfoundastrongallyinRashbaandthescholarsofBarcelonawho–unlikethesouthernFrench–weredeeplyambivalentaboutthereligiousvalueofthephilosophictradition.Withoutdoubt,theCatalonianscholarswouldhavebeenpleasedtoseeAbbaMarisucceedagainstthosesouthernFrenchscholarswhosoughtsuchanexpansiveroleforphilosophywithinJudaism.ToRashba,thesouthernFrenchno-tionsthattherewasareligiousimperativetostudyphysicsandmetaphysicsandthatimmortalitydependeddirectlyuponintellec-tualcomprehensionwerepatentlyabsurd.Overthecourseofthecontroversy,AbbaMariandhissupportersmanagedtoconvinceRashbatoprovideever-greaterbackingfortheircause,culminat-ingwithhispromulgationofamodelprohibitionofGreco-ArabiclearninginCatalonia.Wheneventhisdramaticactionfailedtopro-ducethedesiredresults,thepossibilitiesforRashba’sinvolvementclearlyhadbeenexhausted.Rashbamadeitpatentthat,despitehisintenseconcernforAbbaMari’sstruggle,hewouldnotattempttoimposehiswilldirectlyupontheleadersofsouthernFrenchJewry.Inanycase,suchanactionalmostcertainlywouldhavedonenogood.AbbaMari’spowerfuladversariesdeemedeventhepromulgationofRashba’smodeldecreeasahostileoverreachingofCatalonianjuris-diction,andtheymadeitquiteclearhowstronglytheydisapprovedofRashba’sconsortwithAbbaMari.ThecontroversyoverphilosophicstudydoesnotappeartohavechangedthecourseofJewishcultureintheSouthofFrance.InCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyinsouthernFrance297thewakeoftheexpulsion,southernFrenchJewishculturecontin-uedtodevelopwithgrowingphilosophicsophistication;nolonger,ofcourse,intheancientcentersofLanguedocwheretheFrenchkingwouldinviteJewstoreturnperiodicallythroughoutthefour-teenthcenturyonlytoexpelthemagainafewyearslater;norinPerpignananditscountyofRoussillon,whichcameincreasinglyundertheinfluenceofthecrownofAragonandbythesecondhalfofthefourteenthcenturylargelylostitssouthernFrenchcharac-ter;but,especially,inProvence,intheregionsofAvignon,Orange,andComtatVenaissin,whereJewswerethesubjectsofeitherthepopeorthekingofBurgundy.Inthisregion,onehaslittlesensethattheFrenchexpulsionsweredisruptivetoJewishlife.OnemightevenspeculatethattheLanguedocianimmigrationtoProvenceledtoanintensificationofJewishphilosophicculturethere,whereitflourishedtoanextentgreaterthanbeforeuntiltheturnofthefour-teenthcentury.Forexample,Gersonides(d.1344),oneofthegreatestphilosophers,mathematicians,andastronomersofthemedievalperiodlivedandworkedinOrange,almostcompletelywithinthecontextofJewishcultureandtheHebrewtranslationsofGreco-Arabiclearning.Yedayahha-Penini,whoinhistwentieshadsentaKetavha-HitnatzluttoRashbaindefenseofthelocalJewishcul-ture,wasGersonides’studentaswellasanauthorofimportantscientificworksinhisownright.AProvenc¸alcircledevotedtothestudyofArabicphilosophydiscussedandwrotecommentariesuponimportantGreco-Arabicphilosophicworks.84Itsseniormem-ber,SamuelbenJudahofMarseilles,translatedAverroes’commen-tariestoPlato’sRepublicandtoAristotle’sNicomacheanEthicsintoHebrewforthefirsttime.JosephibnKaspiofArgentierecomposed`significantphilosophiccommentariestomanybooksoftheBibleaswellastoMaimonides’GuideofthePerplexed.NissimbenMosesofMarseilleswroteaTorahCommentarywithaphilosophicallyinspiredpoliticalinterpretationofJudaism.AnothercontemporaryProvenc¸algroup,gatheredaroundSolomonPratMaimon,devoteditselftotheinterpretationoftheKuzariofJudahHaleviwithsubstan-tialphilosophiccreativityandsophistication.Allthisfourteenth-centurysouthernFrenchphilosophicstudyandwritingoccurredinthecountyofProvence,wherephilosophicactivityheretoforehadbeenlimited.Otherimportantexamplesmightbeadducedaswell.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n298MedievalJewishphilosophynotes1.Variousaspectsofthiscontroversyhavebeenaddressedbyhistoricalresearch;see,forexample,J.Sarachek,FaithandReason:TheCon-flictovertheRationalismofMaimonides(Williamsport:TheBayardPress,1935),73–127;Y.Baer,AHistoryoftheJewsinChristianSpain,2vols.(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSocietyofAmerica,1978),i:289–305;A.Halkin,“YedaiahBedershi’sApology,”inJewishMedievalandRenaissanceStudies,ed.A.Altmann(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1967),165–84;A.Halkin,“WhywasLevibenHayyimHounded?,”ProceedingsoftheAmericanAcademyforJewishResearch34(1966),65–76;J.Shatzmiller,“Rationalismeetorthodoxiereligieusechezlesjuifsprovenc¸auxaucommencementduXIVesiecle,”`Provencehistorique22(1972),261–86;J.Shatzmiller,“BenAbbaMarila-Rashba:ha-masau-matanshe-qadamle-herembe-Bartzelona,”Mehqarimbe-ToledotAmYisraelve-EretzYisrael3(1974),121–37;M.Saperstein,“TheConflictovertheRashba’sHeremonPhilosophicalStudy:APoliticalPerspective,”JewishHistory1(1986),27–38;D.Schwartz,“‘HokhmaYevanit’–BehinaMehudeshetbi-Tequfatha-PulmusalLimudha-Filosofia,”Sinai104(1989),148–53;D.Schwartz,“Chang-ingFrontsintheControversiesoverPhilosophyinMedievalSpainandProvence,”JournalofJewishThoughtandPhilosophy7(1997),61–82;D.Schwartz,“BirurimRayoniyimbe-Suggyatha-Pulmusimalha-Filosofiabi-Yemeha-Benayim,”KobetzalYad14(1998),299–348;andM.Halbertal,PeopleoftheBook:Canon,Meaning,andAuthority(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1997),109–19.2.Tomyknowledge,thedocumentsthatsurvivefromthisaffairarethefollowing:MinhatQena
ot,ed.AbbaMaribenMoses,inTeshu-votha-Rashba,ed.H.Dimitrovsky,2vols.(Jerusalem:Mosadha-RavKook,1990);afewoftheselettersarefoundalsoinShe’elotu-Teshuvotha-Rashbah,7vols.(Jerusalem:MekhonTiferetha-Torah,1988),iinos.414–17;SimeonbenJoseph,HoshenMishpat,inD.Kaufmann,“Simeonb.JosefsSendschreibenanMenachemb.Salomo,”inJubelschriftzumneunzigstenGeburtstagdesDr.L.Zunz(Berlin:L.Gershel,1884),Hebrewsection,142–74;D.Kaufmann,“DeuxlettresdeSimeonbenJoseph,”´RevuedesEtudesJuives29(1894),214–28;andYedayahha-Penini,Ketavha-Hitnatzlut,inShe’elotu-Teshuvotha-Rashbah,i,no.418.3.SeeI.Twersky,“AspectsoftheSocialandCulturalHistoryofProvenc¸alJewry,”JournalofWorldHistory11(1968),185–207;G.Freudenthal,“Lessciencesdanslescommunautesjuivesm´edi´evalesde´Provence:Leurappropriation,leurrole,”ˆRevuedesEtudesJuives152CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyinsouthernFrance299(1993),29–136;G.Freudenthal,“ScienceinMedievalJewishCulture,”HistoryofScience33(1995),23–58.4.ThebulkofthetranslationsdescribedinSteinschneider’sawesomeDiehebraischen¨UbersetzungendesMittelaltersunddieJudenals¨Dolmetscher(Berlin,1893)wasproducedbyandfortheJewsofsouthernFrance.5.SeeB.Septimus,Hispano-JewishCultureinTransition:TheCareerandControversiesofRamah(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1982).6.SamuelibnTibbon,CommentaryonEcclesiastes,MSParma2182,7v–8rascitedandtranslatedinA.Ravitzky,“SamuelibnTibbonandtheEsotericCharacteroftheGuideofthePerplexed,”AJSReview6(1981),89–90.7.SeeA.Ravitzky,“TheSecretsoftheGuidetothePerplexed:BetweentheThirteenthandTwentiethCenturies,”inStudiesinMaimonides,ed.I.Twersky(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1990),179.8.MinhatQena
ot,408.9.MinhatQena
ot,652;cf.Guide1:34,and3:51,54.10.MinhatQena
ot,317.11.MinhatQena
ot,257.12.MinhatQena
ot,317.13.MinhatQena
ot,258.14.HoshenMishpat,150.15.Maimonides,MishnahCommentary,Hagigah2:1,andGuide1:71.16.MinhatQena
ot,277–8.17.MinhatQena
ot,272.18.Thetwelfth-centuryAndalusianMuslimphilosopherAverroeshadsucceededinpeelingawayfromAristotlemuchoftheNeoplatonicinterpretiveaccretionthatwasoftenmuchmoreconducivetomanyreligiousthinkers.OntheimportanceofAverroesinthehistoryofphilosophy,seeJ.Jolivet(ed.),MultipleAverroes:ActesduColloqueinternationalorganise´al’occasiondu850eanniversairedelanais-`sanced’Averroes(Paris:BellesLettres,1978);andG.EndressandJ.Aertsen(eds.),AverroesandtheAristotelianTradition:Sources,Constitution,andReceptionofthePhilosophyofIbnRushd(1126–1198)(Leiden:Brill,1999).19.TheHebrewversionofAristotle’sMeteorologyisanexception,althoughsignificantlyindebtedtoAverroes’commentaries;seeA.Ravitzky,“Seferha-Metorologicale-Aristou-Darkeha-Parshanutha-Maimonitle-MaaseBereshit,”MehqereYerushalayimbe-MahshevetYisrael9(1990),225–50.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n300MedievalJewishphilosophy20.R.Glasner,“LevibenGershomandtheStudyofIbnRushdintheFour-teenthCentury,”JewishQuarterlyReview86(1995),51–90,hastakengreatcaretodemonstratethattheHebrewsuper-commentarialtraditiontoAverroes’worksdoesnotbeginbeforethe1320s.ThekeeninterestfortheworksofAverroesdescribedherebyAbbaMarithereforerepresentsanearlier,morepreliminarystageintheEuropeanJewishencounterwiththisimportantMuslimphilosopher.21.MinhatQena
ot,316.22.MinhatQena
ot,273;cf.MinhatQena
ot,316–18.23.MinhatQena
ot,824–5.24.OnMeiri,seeM.Halbertal,BenTorahle-Hokhmah:RabiMenahemha-Meiriu-Baalehe-Halakhahha-Maimonimbe-Provence(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,2000).25.Seen.2.26.MinhatQena
ot,412.27.MinhatQena
ot,345.28.MinhatQena
ot,280.29.SeeMinhatQena
ot,358.30.Anatoli’stranslationsofAverroes’MiddleCommentarytoPorphyry’sIsagogeandAristotle’sCategoriesandAnalytics,completedinNaplesin1232,arededicatedtoFrederickii.OnAnatoliatthecourtofFrederickii,seeE.H.Kantorowicz,FredericktheSecond(NewYork:F.Ungar,1957),343–6;G.Sermoneta,“Federicoiieilpensieroebraiconell
Italiadelsuotempo,”inFedericoiiel’artedelduecentoitaliano(Gulatina:Congedo,1980),183–97;D.Abulafia,AMedievalEmperor(London:PenguinPress,1988),244–8,255–8.OntheMalmadasasourceforChristian–JewishcontactsinsouthernFrance,seeM.Saperstein,“ChristiansandChristianityintheSermonsofJacobAnatoli,”JewishHistory6(1992),225–42.31.JacobAnatoli,Malmadha-Talmidim(Lyck:MeqitzeNirdamim,1866),32b.32.Cf.Ecclesiastes4:13.33.MinhatQena
ot,358–9.34.MinhatQena
ot,358.AbbaMariprotectsRashbaandrefusestoidentifythe“elderlyking”;seeMinhatQena
ot,692.SimeonbenJosephstatesthattheaccusationthatRashbadenouncedAnatoliisafabrication;seeKaufmann,“DeuxlettresdeSimeonbenJoseph,”´221.35.SeeSolomonbenIsaacofLunel’slettertoRashba,MinhatQena
ot,472,andAbbaMari’sreport,MinhatQena
ot,692.36.MinhatQena
ot,359.37.MinhatQena
ot,372.38.RashbawrotefourmoreletterstoPerpignan:MinhatQena
ot,374–85,385–90,390–5,395–9.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyinsouthernFrance30139.MinhatQena
ot,652–3.40.MinhatQena
ot,655,butcf.Maimonides’lettertoSamuelibnTibbon,
Iggrotha-Rambam,ed.Y.Shilat(Jerusalem:YeshivatMaalehAdumim,1989),ii:552.41.SeeMinhatQena
ot,399–404and407–8.42.SeeMinhatQena
ot,409–14.43.OnthescientificactivityofJacobbenMakhir,seeJ.Shatzmiller,“Con-tactsetechangesentresavantsjuifsetchr´etiens´aMontpelliervers`1300,”inJuifsetjudaısmedeLanguedoc¨(Toulouse:E.Privat,1977),337–44;J.Shatzmiller,“InSearchofthe‘BookofFigures’:MedicineandAstrologyinMontpellierattheTurnoftheFourteenthCentury,”AJSReview7–8(1982–83),383–407.44.MinhatQena
ot,418.45.MinhatQena
ot,416and445.46.MinhatQena
ot,414–19.47.MinhatQena
ot,452.48.MinhatQena
ot,442.49.MinhatQena
ot,461.50.MinhatQena
ot,489.51.MinhatQena
ot,599–616.JacobisthebrotherofTodrosofBeau-caire,anotherpartnerinAbbaMari’sstruggle;seeMinhatQena
ot,409–14.52.MinhatQena
ot,551–63.53.MinhatQena
ot,564–75.54.MinhatQena
ot,616–32.55.Theauthorityandinfluenceofthenasiduringthisperiodisuncertain.ForabriefhistoryoftheofficeofthenasiofNarbonne,anddocumen-tationofitsstatureinthetwelfthcentury,seeShatzmiller,“BenAbbaMarile-Rashba,”135–6.56.MinhatQena
ot,637–62(Seferha-Yareah).Forthenasi’sapprobation,seeMinhatQena
ot,662.57.MinhatQena
ot,665,667,and673.58.UponreceiptofRashba’sletter,AbbaMariwritestohimtorequestthattheCatalonianbanprohibitphilosophicstudyuntiltheageoftwenty-fiveonly,fiveyearslessthanoriginallyproposed.AbbaMarisuggeststhatthisreductionwillreducetheobjectionstoasimilarbaninsouth-ernFrance;seeMinhatQena
ot,674–6.59.MinhatQena
ot,696–7.60.MinhatQena
ot,ch.99.61.MinhatQena
ot,722and730.62.HoshenMishpat,163.ForanalternativeviewofthesouthernFrenchJewishcommunity,seethereportoftheGerman-bornanti-rationalisttalmudistAsherbenYehiel,MinhatQena
ot,596–7;andseeCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n302MedievalJewishphilosophyI.Ta-Shema,“ShiqqulimFilosofiyyimbe-Hakhraatha-Halakhahbi-Sefarad,”Tzefunot3(1985),99–110.63.See,e.g.,Betha-Behirah,Avot,Introduction,ed.S.Z.Havlin(Jerusalem:Ofeq,1991),142.64.HoshenMishpat,150–1.Meiri’sstatementaboutRashba’skabbalisticorientation,althoughperhapsgenerallyknown,astonishednumerouscontemporarieswithitsfrankness;seeSimeon’scommentatthispoint,HoshenMishpat,152.65.HoshenMishpat,157–8.66.HoshenMishpat,166.67.HoshenMishpat,167.68.MinhatQena
ot,845–53;cf.thelettersofSolomonofLunel,MinhatQena
ot,470–5,andofYedayahha-Penini,Ketavha-Hitnatzlut.TheletterofJacobbenMakhiribnTibbon,whodiedbeforetheexcommu-nications,alsosharesmuchwiththeselettersofprotest;seeMinhatQena
ot,506–13.69.MinhatQena
ot,849;cf.MinhatQena
ot,856.70.Yedayahha-PeniniismostdisturbedbythecorrespondencethatRashbahadsentthroughoutAragon,Castile,andNavarreforsupport(MinhatQena
ot,687–9),therebytarnishingthereputationofsouthernFrenchJewryinternationally;seeKetavha-Hitnatzlut,157b.71.MinhatQena
ot,852;cf.Maimonides,MishnehTorah,Yesodeha-Torah2:1;Teshuvah10:2–6.72.Meiri,however,separateshimselffromthosewhomakephilosophicstudyaprerequisiteforimmortality;seeHoshenMishpat,155.73.Concerningthistransaction,nodocumentsurvivesfromthepro-philosophicgroup(orfromChristianauthorities);seeJ.Shatzmiller,“L’excommunication,lacommunautejuiveetlesautorit´estem-´porellesauMoyen-Age,”inLesjuifsdansl
histoiredeFrance(Leiden:Brill,1980),61–9;J.Shatzmiller,Recherchessurlacom-munautejuivedeManosqueauMoyenAge´(Paris:Mouton,1973),52–3n.1.74.MinhatQena
ot,701–2.75.MinhatQena
ot,702–3.76.MinhatQena
ot,ch.119.AsherhadarrivedfromGermanyjustayearbefore.Forhisjourney,seeMinhatQena
ot,596.77.MinhatQena
ot,ch.104.ThisinstructionfulfillsYedayahha-Penini’scalltoRashbatoseekthereconciliationofconflictingfactionsinMont-pellier;seeKetavha-Hitnatzlut,174a.78.HoshenMishpat,171–2.79.HoshenMishpat,166.80.MinhatQena
ot,chs.111–19.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nPhilosophyinsouthernFrance30381.SeeW.C.Jordan,TheFrenchMonarchyandtheJews:FromPhilipAugustustotheLastoftheCapetians(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1989),214–15.AbbaMarigivesthe10thofAv,1306asthedateoftheking’sdecree.82.MinhatQena
ot,835.83.MinhatQena
ot,836–7.84.SeeL.V.Berman,“KetavYadha-Mekune‘ShoshanLimudim’ve-Yahsoli-‘Kehalha-Meayanim’ha-Provansali,”KiryatSefer53(1978),368–72;Glasner,“LevibenGershomandtheStudyofIbnRushd,”51–90.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\ncharlesh.manekin14ConservativetendenciesinGersonides’religiousphilosophyLevibenGershom(Gersonides,1288–1344),philosopher,scientist,andrabbinicalauthority,1hasoftenbeenportrayedintheschol-arlyliteratureasafaithfulfollowerofAristotleandanunorthodox,evenradical,theologian:“TheboldestofallJewishphilosophers”2Gersonides“maybethetruestdiscipleofAristotlewhomme-dievalJewishphilosophyproduced”andhenceis“essentiallyalientothosebiblicaldoctrineswhichinhisformulationheseemedtoapproach.”3InGersonides’system“mosaicdogma[gives]waytotherequirementsofAristotelianism”sincehisintellectualworldviewis“Islamicperipateticisminallitspurety.”4Onescholarconsidershistheoryoftheworld’screationtobe“almostinthespiritofmod-erndeism”becauseit“[limits]thedirectactivityofGodtotheactofthecreationoftheworld.”5Anotherdeemshistheoryofdivineknowledge“atheologicalmonstrosity”;6stillanotherclaimsthatit“radicallydestroysthewholeofhistoryastoldintheBible.”7TheconceptionofGersonidesasareligiouslyradicalthinker,whichhascoloredmuchmodernscholarship,hasitsoriginsamongcertainSpanishandItalianrabbisofthefifteenthcentury,despite(orperhapsbecauseof)thepopularityofhiswritingsduringthatperiod.TomyknowledgeitdoesnotappearamongtheJewishphilosopher-scientistsandrabbisoffourteenth-centuryProvence,Gersonides’nativeandintellectualenvironment.8Hewasindeedcensuredbyhiscontemporariesforhisdeviationsfromauthorities,buttheau-thoritiesinquestionwerethinkerslikeAristotleandAverroes.9HisconsistentlycriticalattitudetowardAverroes,whotrulywasafaithfulAristotelian,findsexpressioninmanyofhiswritings,espe-ciallyintheWarsoftheLord,whereAverroes’viewsarerepeatedlyrejected.304CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy305Ourtopichere,however,isnotGersonides’philosophicalandsci-entificunorthodoxy,butratherhisconservativereligioustendencies,althoughthetwoarerelated,asweshallsee.InthefirstpartofthechapterIshallconsiderbrieflyhisviewsonpersonalimmortality,divineprovidence(includingmiraclesandtheresurrectionofthedead),theallegorizationofScripture,andthecreationoftheworld.Ishallarguethat,ineachcase,GersonidesmovesawayfromtheregnantJewishphilosophicalpositionsofhisdayinthedirectionofmoretraditionalconceptions.10InthesecondpartIshallanalyzeatgreaterlengthhisviewsonGod’sknowledgeofhumanactionsandevents,whichhavebeenviewedastheologicallyboldevenbythefewscholarswhorecognizeGersonides’conservativetendencies.11Ishallpresentaninterpretationoftheseviewsthatbringstheminlinewiththeconservativethrustofhisotherdoctrines.Awordofcaution:althoughGersonides’viewsaremoreconser-vativethanthoseofhisphilosophicalcontemporaries,theyarestillsufficientlyphilosophicaltodisturbthetraditionalists.Gersonideswasquiteawarethathisinterpretationsofreligiousdoctrine,whichhestatedopenlyandexplicitly,wouldbeunacceptabletothephilo-sophicallyuninitiated,anaudienceforwhomheneverwroteasin-gleword.Forsuchpeople,heheld,itwassufficenttobelieveinthedogmasofreligionsratherthantounderstandthem.Ratherhead-dressedhissolutionstothosewhoare“deeplyperplexed”bythequestionsunderconsideration,whoarenotsatisfiedbymerelypro-fessingtruebeliefs,butwhowantclearconceptionsofthem.12InthishedidnotdifferfrommoreorthodoxJewishAristotelianslikeIsaacAlbalag,LevibenAbraham,IsaacPollegar,JosephibnKaspi,andMosesofNarbonne.Butunlikethesethinkers,whowereinfluencedinvaryingdegreesbytheAverroistpositionthatmadephilosophyindependentofScripture,GersonidesbelievedthatScriptureaidedinthephilosopher’squest.NotonlymustScripturebeinterpretedinaccordwithphilosophicaltruth,buttheformeroftenprovidesguid-ance(haysharah)forthelatter.13Asweshallsee,Gersonideswaswillingtousescripturalreportsas“empiricaldata”forhisphilo-sophicaltheories,andinthishediffersfromhiscontemporaries.Gersonidesdiffersfromtheminanotherrespectaswell:whereastheotherswereknownprimarilyasexpertsinphilosophy,onlyheamongthemwasknownasascholarofJewishlaw.14ThisnodoubtenhancedhisreputationamongsubsequentgenerationsofCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n306MedievalJewishphilosophyJewishthinkersandguaranteedthathisphilosophicalviewswouldbewidelyconsidered–andcriticized.Gersonides’biblicalcommen-tarieswereamongtheearliestJewishbooksprinted,andhiscom-mentariesonthepropheticwritingswereincludedinmanyeditionsofrabbinicBibles.Bycontrast,noneoftheaforementionedthinkersachievedaswidespreadareadership;indeed,thefewworksoftheirsthatwereprinteddidnotappearuntilmoderntimes.thesurvivalofthesoul15ThetraditionofphilosophytowhichGersonideswasheirwaspre-dominantlyIslamicandAristotelian;thedoctrinesoftheIslamicphilosophershadbeentransmittedbothdirectly,throughHebrewtranslationsoftherelevanttexts,orindirectly,throughHebrewtranslationsoftheJewishphilosophersinIslamiclands.IslamicAristotelianpsychology,whichconsistedinthemainofvariousin-terpretationsofAristotle’sdoctrineofthesoul,providedthecon-ceptualframeworkfordiscussionsofthesoul’ssurvivalafterdeath.SinceAristotleviewedthesoulas“theactualityofanaturalbodyhavinglifepotentiallywithinit,”16itfollowedforhimthatwhenabodyceasedtoexist,sodiditssoul.Buthealsosuggested,inanoto-riouslycrypticpassage,thatonefacultyorfunctionofthehumansoul,namely,intellectwhenitisactivelythinking,isboth“presentinthesoul”andseparate(orseparable)fromthebody,immortal,andeternal.17Soitbecamethetaskofhiscommentatorstoexplainthenatureofintellect,especiallythenatureofthe“activelythink-ingintellect”anditsrelationshiptothepassiveintellect,andtoseewhetherthistheoryprovidedthebasisforthebeliefintheimmor-talityofthesoul.TheIslamicAristotelians,followingsomeoftheirGreekprede-cessors,viewedtheActiveIntellectasaneternalincorporealintel-ligencethatplayedacausativeroleinhumanintellection,andinthegenerationanddestructionofsublunarentities.18AlthoughthisinterpretationoftheActiveIntellectseemedtocondemnthehumanintellecttooblivionupondeath(sincetheActiveIntellectalonewasdescribedaseternal),itactuallyprovidedawayforitssurvival.Forthequestionbecamehowcanthehumanintellectsomehowpar-ticipateintheActiveIntellect’seternality.Averroes’answer,inatleastsomeofhiswritings,wasthatthehumanintellectcanhaveCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy307theActiveIntellectastheobjectofitsthought,therebyconjoin-inginsomemannerwithit,19andsheddingthehumanintellect’spersonality.20TheinterpretationoftheimmortalityofthesoulasthegeneralimmortalityoftheintellectwaspopularamongGersonides’philosophicalpredecessorsandcontemporariesinProvenceandNorthernSpain.21EvenMaimonideswasinterpretedbysomeme-dievalcommentatorsasholdingthattheintellectsthatsurvivedeatharenumericallyone,22althoughhedidnotapparentlybelieveinthepossibilityofthehumanintellect’sconjoiningwiththeActiveIntellect.AsisthecasewithmostofMaimonides’doctrines,thereisconsiderabledisagreementofinterpretation,withatleastonescholarsuggestingthatMaimoinidesallowsforgradationsofsurvivingintel-lectsaccordingtotheirdegreeofattainingintellectualperfection.23SinceMaimonides’viewsdonotfigureinGersonides’discussionofthesubject,itisimpossibletodeterminehowhewasinterpretedbythelatter.TheoneviewdiscussedbyGersonidesthatclearlyallowsforadifferentiationandgradationofsoulsafterdeathisthatofAvicenna,whoarguesforthesubstantialityoftheintellectanditscontents.Gersonidesrejectsthisviewonphilosophicalgrounds.24Gersonides’ownpositionisasfollows:humanintellectssurvivedeath,andtheirimmortality(andconcomitantpleasureandhappi-ness)isdirectlyproportionatetothenumberandnatureoftheeter-nallytrueconceptsandpropositions–thetechnicalwordheusesforthemis“intelligibles”–thathavebeenacquiredduringtheirlife-time.Theintelligiblesareacquiredthroughexperienceoftheworldaroundus,buttheyultimatelyderivefromthesetofintelligiblesthatiscontainedwithin(i.e.constitutes)theActiveIntellect.Al-thoughthesetsbelongingtothe“acquiredintellect”andtheActiveIntellectareidenticalinacertainway,theyarealsodistinct,justas,say,yourknowledgeofEuclideangeometryandEuclid’sknowledgeisinonesensethesameandinanothersensedifferent.AccordingtoGersonides,theintelligiblesareacquiredinsuccessionduringone’slifetimeanddonotcoherewitheachother,butupondeaththeyformaunifiedconceptualentitythatthinkscontinuallyandexpe-riencesintellectualpleasure.25Sincethesensoryapparatusdecayswiththebody,nonewintelligiblesareaddedafterdeath.SotheacquiredintellectofReubenupondeathdiffersfromtheacquiredintellectofSimeonupondeath,andbothareimmortal.26Bymeansofthisdoctrineofdifferentiatedacquiredintellects,whichismuchCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n308MedievalJewishphilosophymoreexplicitthananythinginMaimonides,anddivergessharplyfromthephilosophersofProvenceandNorthernSpain,Gersonidesprovidesaphilosophicalinterpretationofthesoul’ssurvivalafterdeath,afundamentalreligiousconcept.DoesGersonides’positionontheintellect’ssurvivalimplyper-sonalimmortality?Thatdependsonthemeaningof“personalimmortality.”Ifitmeansthesurvivalofone’smemories,self-perception,phenomenalawareness,andsoon,thentheanswerisno.Allthesearelinkedtobodilyfunctionsandfaculties,sothatwhenthebodydies,theypassoutofexistence.Ifthephraseistakentomeanthesurvivalafterdeathoftheindividual,thentheanswerisstillno.For,strictlyspeaking,itisimpropertospeakofincor-porealacquiredintellectsasindividuals.MatteristheprincipleofindividuationaccordingtoGersonides,anddisembodiedintellectsareimmaterial.Nevertheless,theyaredifferentiatedfromeachotherbecauseeachsetofintelligiblescomprisingtheacquiredintellectsformsadifferent,unifiedconcept.Acquiredintellectsafterdeathappeartobelikethemoversofthecelestialspheres,differingfromeachothernotasindividualsofthesamespecies,butratherasdiffer-entspecieswithuniquemembers.SoonecansaythatbymodifyingtheAristotelianframeworkGersonidesisabletoprovideforamea-sureofpersonalimmortality,afeatthatevenMaimonidesdoesnot(explicitly)perform.Thephilosophicaldifficultyliesnotinthequestionoftheac-quiredintellect’ssurvival,butinitscontinuitywiththehumanin-tellect.Afterall,“personalimmortality”generallyimpliesthattheentitythatexistsbeforedeathisinsomesenseidenticalwiththeonethatsurvivesdeath,andthatthereissomesortofmentalcon-tinuity.Whatistherelationbetweentheacquiredintellectandtheintellectthatprecedesit?Crescasarguedthattherecanbenoiden-tity;theacquiredintellect,wereittoexist,wouldbeanentirelydifferentsubstancefromthehumansoul.27Ifheiscorrect,thenitisdifficulttounderstandGersonides’theoryasoneofpersonalsurvival.Theprospectthatupondeathmyintellectwillbereplacedbysomethingentirelydifferentandpermanentmaygivemejoyandcomfort,butIcanhardlyseeitasmyownsurvival,sinceoneiden-tityissheddedandanotheracquired.ButwecanpointtoatleasttwoelementswithinGersonides’theorythatmakeformentalcon-tinuityandthatenablehimtoarguethattheacquiredintellectsCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy309thatsurvivethedeathsofourbodiesareidenticalwithwhowearebeforehand.First,thesublunarintelligiblesthatareacquiredbyahumanintel-lectareacquiredwiththeaidofthesoul’ssensoryfacultiesthroughaprocessofabstraction.28Theyarenotreceivedasfull-blown,spir-itualemanationsfromtheActiveIntellect.True,theyderivefromtheorderofintelligiblesthatisinthemindoftheActiveIntellect,whichplaysacausalroleintheirgenerationwithinthehuman,ma-terialintellect,andinacertainsensethesublunarintelligiblesarethatorder.Buttheirnumberandconcatenationisafunctionofanindividual’sexperience,althoughtheyarenotontologicallydepen-dentuponmaterialobjects.Inclaimingthattheacquiredintellectisagenerated,eternal,spiritualsubstance,GersonidesknowinglydeviatesfromtheAristotelianprinciplesthatonlymaterialenti-tiesaregenerated,andthatwhateverisgeneratedisdestroyed.Butthesedeviationsallowhimtopositanoriginanddevelopmentoftheacquiredintellectbeforethedeathofthebodythatcontinuesuponthedeathofthebody.Theacquiredintellectisconstitutedin-crementallywhiletheembodiedsoulisalive.Withtheremovalofmaterialimpedimentsupondeath,theacquiredintellectisnotsub-stantiallyalteredbutratherunitedor,touseacomputermetaphor,“defragmented.”Second,Gersonidesclaimsthatwhenwediscoversomenewtruthweexperienceintellectualjoyorpleasurethatisaforetasteofthejoyorpleasurethatwillbeexperiencedafterdeath,onlythatthelatterwillbeimmeasurablygreaterandeternal.29Thisimpliesthatwhatever“consciousness”survivesthedeathofthebody,itincludestheactivityofthinkingandtheexperienceof“intellectualpleasure”ofwhichthehumanmindisconsciousduringone’slifetime.GersonidesdoesnotprovideintheWarsoftheLordadetailedphilosophicalinterpretationoftherabbinicdoctrinesoftheafter-lifeandsoon;hemerelycitesrabbinicsourcesthatcanbeinter-pretedtoconformwithhisdoctrine.Thisomissionlefthimopentolatercriticisms,especiallythoseofCrescas.ButtheissuehereisnotwhetherGersonides’intellectualistinterpretationoftraditionaldoctrinessuchas“AllIsraelhasaportionintheworld-to-come”isreligiouslyadequateorintellectuallysatisifying,butwhetheritrepresentsaradicalstancevis-a-vishisJewishphilosophicalprede-`cessorsandcontemporaries.Onthecontrary,hisdeviationsfromtheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n310MedievalJewishphilosophyprevailingJewishphilosophicalview,whichpositedonlythemostgeneralsortofimmortality,enabledhimtoofferaphilosophicalin-terpretationofpersonalimmortalitythatcanbemoreeasilysquaredwithtraditionalthemes.divineprovidence30ThemedievalJewishphilosophicaldiscussionofdivineprovidenceisoftenportrayedasanattempttosynthesizetwocompetingcon-ceptionsofdivineactivity:thebiblicalconceptionofapersonalGodwhosuperviseshiscreation,andtheGreekphilosophicalconcep-tionofaremote,impersonaldeitywhoseentireactivityconsistsofself-intellection.Yetthisdoesnotdojusticetoeithertheimplicitnaturalismofthebiblicalaccount(thebiblicalGodoftenletshistoryrunitscourse)ortothevariousinterpretationsofdivineprovidencewithinGreekphilosophyitself.Moreover,itconflatestheissueoftheextentofdivineprovidence,thatiswhatphenomenafallundertherangeofprovidentiaryactivities,anditsnature,thatishowprov-idenceworks.Thesetwoissuesareconceptuallydistinct.Onecouldclaimthateverysinglesublunarphenomenonisaresultofdivineprovidence(oranexpressionofdivinewill)andatthesametimebeathoroughgoingnaturalistwithrespecttodivineactivity–providedthatnaturalprocessesbecomethevehiclefordivineprovidence.TheJewishphilosophersofthetwelfththroughearlyfourteenthcenturiesallagreedthatGod’sactivityiseternalandhiswillim-mutable,andthathedoesnotbeginorceasetowillortoactatacer-taintimeinhistory.TheyalsoagreedthatGodsupervisestheworldviaintermediaries,forexamplethecelestialspheres,intellects,and,ingeneral,thenaturesofthings.AndtheyallagreedthatbiblicaldescriptionsthatcharacterizeGodasapersonaretobeinterpretedmetaphorically.ThesethreeassumptionsareenoughtoruleoutbothliteralbiblicalconceptionsofapersonalGodwhointervenesinhis-toryanddeistconceptionsofaGodwhoseactivityislimitedtothecreationofanautonomous,mechanisticsystemofnature.Wherethesephilosophersdifferedisovertheextentofdivineprov-idenceor,better,whatprovidentialsignificance,ifany,shouldbeaccordedtovariousphenomena.Tomakeeverythingtheresultofdi-rectdivinecausalactivity,ortooverlyrestrictitssphere,werebothunacceptableoptions.JewishphilosophersgenerallytriedtostakeCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy311outamiddlepositionthatwouldreflectthebiblicalconceptionofaGodwhoprovidesinsomewayforallofcreation,butwhoalsotakesspecialcareofsomeindividualsandpeoples.FortheformertheyadoptedtheAristotelianinterpretationofgeneralprovidenceasthepreservationofthespeciesthatresultedfromthecontinu-ousmovementofthecelestialspheres.Forthelattertheyadopted(andaltered)theAristoteliantheoryofintellect,whichmadeindi-vidualprovidenceconsistin,orconsequentupon,theacquisitionofknowledge.Sincetherearevaryingdegreesofintellectualachieve-ment,therewillbevaryingdegreesofindividualprovidence.Thismaymeansimplythatthewisemanwillgenerallyhavealonger,healthier,andmoreproductivelifethanafool;hisknowledge(whosesourceisdivine)protectshimfrommaterialevils.Oritmaymeanthatsinceaperson’sultimategoodconsistsoftheperfectionoftheintellectandwhatthatentails,thewisemanipsofactoachievesahigherrewardthanthefoolnomatterwhathismaterialfortunes.Ineithercase,themoreperfecttheintellect,thegreatertheindividualprovidence.Thusbothgeneralandindividualprovidencearegivennaturalisticinterpretationsofasort.AlloftheJewishphilosophersIhavementioned,includingMaimonides,acceptedsomeversionofthisnaturalisticpictureofprovidence.Butthereisaverylargegapleftbythisnaturalisticpicture.Nei-thergeneralprovidence(viathepreservationofthespecies)norindividualprovidence(viathetheoryofintellection)accordsprov-identialsignificancetothevastrangeofnon-essentialpropertiesthatdistinguishindividualsofeachspecies.Theseincludesuch“accidents”asphysicalcharacteristics,temperaments,psychicdis-positions,andeventheeventsthatbefallanindividual.Andwhentheseeventsarebadandthepeopletheybefallgood,thentheprob-lemofevilbecomesacute.ConsiderthecasebroughtbyMaimonidesofthe“excellentandsuperiormen”whodrownwhenahurricanesinkstheirship.31AccordingtoAristotle,Maimonidesinformsus,thesinkingoftheshipisachanceevent(andhencenotpertinenttothequestionofdivineprovidence).Yetevenifwegrantthatitisachanceevent,hecontinues,“thefactthatthepeopleintheshipwentonboard...isnotinouropinionduetochance,buttodivinewillinaccordancewiththedesertsofthosepeopleasdeterminedinHisjudgements,theruleofwhichcannotbeattainedbyourintellects.”32ThesimplereadingofthisisthatdivinewillmetesCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n312MedievalJewishphilosophyoutjusticeaccordingtounfathomablecriteria.ButitisalsopossibletoreadMaimonidesashintingthateventslikethedrowningofhu-mansatseaarenotbroughtaboutbyaspecificdivinevolition,butbynatural,voluntary,andaccidentalcausesofwhichweareignorant.33Thisreading,whichabolishesthedistinctionbetweenthepositionsofMaimonidesandAristotle,isfoundinsomeofthecommentariesontheGuidebyGersonides’moreAristoteliancontemporaries.34Yetwhethereventsfailtohaveprovidentialmeaning(Aristotle),orwhethertheirmeaningisinaccessibletohumansforwhateverreason(Maimonides),theyareinexplicable.Gersonidesclosestheexplanatorygapbyclaimingthatallnatu-ralsublunarphenomenapertainingtohumans,essentialandnon-essential,areorderedaccordingtoadivineplan(siddur,order)thatiscontainedintheActiveIntellect,andimplementedbyinfluencesoftheheavenlybodies.TheActiveIntellectproduces,withtheaidoftheheavenlybodies,the“generalnatures”ofthings,thatistheiressentialproperties,aswellasthe“particularnatures,”thatistheirnon-essentialproperties,suchasshape,size,temperament,andotheraccidents(includingevents)thatbefallthem.35Theroleoftheheav-enlybodiesistopreparethecompositionofthematerialsubstratumtoreceivetheinfluencefromtheActiveIntellect.HencetheyaretheinstrumentswherebytheActiveIntellect’scausalactivityinthematerialrealmisrealized.36Evenwhatweconsidertobechanceandfortuitouseventsoccuraccordingtothedivineplan:achanceeventhasdeterminatecauses,whichincludetheplanetaryinfluencesthatdeterminethefortunesofhumans.37Thisisastrikingclaim,andwhatimpelsGersonidestomakeitistheoverwhelming“empirical”evidencethatsuchchanceeventscanbepredicted.Thefactthatcertainindividualsreceiveinformationaboutfutureevents,evenchanceandfortuitousones,throughveridicaldreams,divination,andprophecyimpliesthatsucheventsareordered.38TheaforementioneddistinctionbetweengeneralandindividualprovidenceisinterpretedbyGersonidesasadistinctionbetweenastral-basedandintellect-basedprovidence,respectively.Theformerincludesnotonlythebasicproperties,instincts,physicalorgans,andsoonthatallowthespeciestosurviveandflourish,butalsothevariegatednaturaldispositionsandinclinationsfoundinhumans,whosematterismorerefinedincompositionandhencemoresus-ceptibletoastralinfluence.ThisvarietyenableshumanstoformCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy313largercooperativesandsocietiesfortheirmutualprotectionandwellbeing.True,becauseofthenatureofsublunarmatter,espe-ciallytheinstabilityofthesublunarelements,corruptionmustfollowgeneration,andonanindividualandsocietallevel,evils(e.g.illness,death,wars,naturaldisasters)willoccur.ButGodhasprovidedhumanswithanotherprovidentialinstrument,theintel-lect,bymeansofwhichtheycanescapetheevilsthataredestinedtobefallthembecauseoftheastralorder.Insofaraspeopleemploytheirintellectandacquireknowledge,theyareprotectedtoalargeextentfrommaterialevils.Inclaimingthathumansareabletochooseandactaccordingtointellectinoppositiontotheirastrallybasednativetemperament,Gersonidesinjectsintoanotherwisedeterministicsystemamodicumofcontingency,enoughforhimtoaffirmhumanaccountabilityandtojustifyobediencetothelaw,rewardandpun-ishment,andsoon.WeshallseetheimplicationsofthiscontingencyforGod’sknowledgeofhumanactionsbelow.BecauseGersonides,unlikeMaimonidesandtheotherJewishphilosophers,viewsnon-essentialpropertiesasordered,thatisasoccurringaspartofafathomabledivineplan,heisabletogiveamuchricheraccountofdivineprovidencethananyofthem,andamuchcloserreadingofGod’sprovidentialactivityasdescribedbytheBible.InmanycasesGodissaidto“bringabout”(le-sabev)eventsevenwhentheyarenotexplicitlyattributedtohiminthetext.Forexample,eachlinkinthechainofeventsthatresultsinthesuccess-fulrevoltofGeneralJehuagainstKingJoramdescribedin2Kings9–thewoundingofKingJorambytheArameansinRamotGilead,whichforcestheremovalofthekingtoanothertown,whichthenclearsthewayfortheprophetElishatoapproachJehu,whothenrevoltsagainstJoram–isinterpretedbyGersonidesasbroughtaboutbyGod.39Andyettheimportanceofhumaninitiativeandendeavorisconstantlyemphasized.Theprophetisabletounderstandthehis-toricaleventsthatareoccurringabouthimandtheirimplicationsforthefuture,and,armedwiththatknowledge,toseizetheoppor-tunity.GersonidespraisesrepeatedlythebiblicalpersonagesfornotrelyingpassivelyonGod’spromisedprotection,butendeavoringtoreceiveitinthemostappropriatemanner.40OftenwhenGersonidesclaimsthatGodcausesanevent“provi-dentially”hedoesnotspelloutwhatsortofprovidenceisatwork,andattimesheevenconfesseshisignorance.ThusthecommentatorCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n314MedievalJewishphilosophyponderswhetherSichon’sobstinacy(Deuteronomy2:31)wastheresultofadivinemiracle(individualprovidence)orhisastraldes-tiny(generalprovidence).41Sometimes,Scriptureitselfprovidestheanswer,aswhenitreportsthatGodhardenedPharaoh’sheartsothat“Imightshowthesesignsofminebeforehim:andthatyoumaytellintheearsofyourson,andyourson’sson,whatthingsIhavedoneinEgypt...thatyoumayknowthatIamtheLord”(Exodus10:1–2).ThehardeningofPharaoh’sheart,accordingtoGersonides,wasamiracleintendedtoteachtheIsraelitesalessonindivineom-nipotence,therebyraisingtheirintellectual/spirituallevelinprepa-rationforthereceivingofthelaw.42Gersonides’appealtothemirac-uloushereshouldbecontrastedwiththenaturalisticexegesisofhiscontemporaryJosephibnKaspi,whoclaimsthatGod“hardensPharaoh’sheart”onlyintheremotesensethathecreateshumanswiththepowerofchoice.KaspiappealstotheMaimonideanprin-ciplethatScriptureoftenattributesnaturaleventsandaccidentstodivinecausalagency.43Gersonidesacceptstheprinciple,butaddsthataccidentsmayalsooccurmiraculouslybecauseofdivineindi-vidualprovidence.Evenanunintendedhomicidemaybetheresultofaprovidentialmiracle.44Gersonides’frequentappealstomiraclestoexplainproviden-tialphenomenamayseeminconsistentwithhisnaturalism.Theyareindeedinconsistentwiththeclaimthatallphenomenaresultfrom,andareexplicablewithreferenceto,thestablenaturesofthings.Buttheyarenotinconsistentwiththeclaimthatthedivineplan,accordingtowhichallphenomena,evenmiracles,occur,isinstantiatedinaregular,“lawlike”fashion.Gersonidesdoesnotbe-lievethatmiraclesareproducedthroughtheagencyofapersonalGodwhorespondsintimetoaneed“downonearth.”Healsodismissestherabbinicviewthatspecificmiraculouseventsare“programmed”atcreationtooccurattheappropriatetime,partlyonthegroundsthatsuchavieweliminatescontingency.45Miraculouseventsarenot“programmed”buttheordersgoverningthemare,becausetheyarepartofthedivineplanthatgovernsthesublunaruniverse.Whentherighthistoricalconditionsobtain,themiraculouseventwilloccur.46AlthoughGersonidesismorewillingtoconsidercertaineventsasmiraclesthanhisphilosophicalcontemporaries,hesharestheirde-siretominimizetheirregularitiesanddeviationsofnature,oftencitingtheprinciplethatGodendeavorstobringthingsaboutwiththeleastamountofdivergencefromthenaturalorder.47CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy315Themostextraordinarymiraclehasyettooccur,namely,thebod-ilyresurrectionofthedead.FewifanyofGersonides’philosophicalcontemporariesadvocatedthedoctrineofbodilyresurrection,andnone,includingMaimonides,accordedtoitasignificanteschatolog-icalfunction.48AccordingtoGersonides’novelinterpretation,thismiraclewillbeperformedbyKingMessiahinordertoconvincethenationsoftheworldtorecognizeandtoworshipGodandtostrengthenIsrael’sfaithinhim.49Itwillalsoprovidetheopportunityfortheacquiredintellectstoreturntobodiesandtoacquiremorein-telligibles.Therighteouswillachieveahigherdegreeofperfectionandhenceagreaterimmortalityofthesoul.50TheimportanceofthedoctrineofbodilyresurrectioninGersonides’eschatologyindicates,onceagain,theconservativethrustofhisthinking.thetestimonyofscriptureGersonidesalsodiffersfromhisphilosophicalcontemporariesinhisalmosttotalacceptanceofthehistoricityofscripturalaccountsandhisdisinclinationtointerpretthemexclusivelyasallegories.Notonlydoeshecriticize“recentphilosophers”forallegorizingbiblicalfiguressuchasCain,Abel,andSeth,buthedisagreeswithMai-monidesoverallegorizingEve,andforconsideringthevisitationofthethreeangelstohavetakenplaceinAbraham’sdream.51HemaybeimplicitlycriticizingMaimonideswhenheemphasizesthatthegardenofEdenwasanactualplace,aroundwhichScripturewiselyconstructedaphilosophicalallegorysoastoconcealitsphilosophi-calimport.52Onlywhenthebiblicalstoryconflictswithestablishedphilosophicaltruthisoneforcedtointerpretitallegorically.Sinceitis“despicable”thatGodwouldcreatethesnakeasarationalcrea-tureandlaterreducehimtoaninferiorstate,itis“veryevident”thatthesnakeistobetakenasanallegoryandnotliterally.53Becauseofhisconfidenceinscripturaltestimony,Gersonidesismuchmorewillingthanhiscontemporariestoaffirmbiblicaldoc-trineswhosephilosophicalbasisissomewhattenuousorfar-fetched.Forexample,heemploystheintellectualisttheoryofindividualprov-idencenotonlytoexplainAbraham’swellbeing,buttoaccountfortheprosperityofAbraham’sfamilyandeventheindestructibilityoftheJewishpeople.ButifindividualprovidenceconsistsoftheknowledgecommunicatedtoAbraham,howcanthisextendbeyondhimtohisfamilyortohisdescendants?Gersonides’answeristhatCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n316MedievalJewishphilosophyAbraham’sownwellbeingrequireshisknowledgeofhisdescen-dants’survival,otherwisehewouldbepainedandtroubledbytheknowledgeoftheirextinction.ButthisfailstoexplainwhylongafterAbraham’sdeaththeJewishpeoplebenefitfromhisspecialprovidencetotheextentthattheirindestructibilityisguaranteed.54Similarly,Gersonidesacceptsatfacevaluethebiblicalviewthattheprophet’sprayeronbehalfofanotherpersoncanbeefficacious.Butitishardtoseehowthisworksonhismodelofpetitionalprayer,wherethepetitioner,throughtheexperienceofprayer,elevatesherselftoaspirituallevelatwhichshereceivestheprovidentialoverflow.Howcanthatoverflowextendtoanotherwhoisnotspirituallyworthy?55Here,aselsewhere,Gersonidesiscontenttoappealtothebiblicalnarrativeastestimonyforthetruthofcertaindoctrines.ThisfailuretoworkoutthedetailsisoftenfrustratingforreaderswhowouldliketobeabletounderstandGersonides’acceptanceofcertainbiblicaldoctrinesinlightofhisphilosophicalprinciples.Butitisofapiecewithhisgeneralempiricistmethodology:whenexpe-rience(orreliablereportsaboutit)presentuswithincontrovertibledata,wemustacceptthemasgenuineevenifourtheoriesseemun-abletoprovideadetailedoradequateexplanation;examplesgivenbyGersonidesarethesun’sabilitytoheatsublunarthings56andastralinfluenceonhumanaffairs.57Incontrovertibleexperienceconvinceshimthatthestarsinfluencethelivesofhumans,andthatthesunwarmsthingsonearth,eventhoughacceptedphysicaltheoriescan-notaccountforthesephenomenaadequately.Heappearslikewiseconvincedthattherearecertain“phenomena”thatarewellattestedbytheBibleandothersourcesthatmustbeacceptedastrue,andwhich,ifpossible,wecanexplain.Sincethemiracle-reportscon-tainedinScriptureareconfirmedbytheauthorityoftheprophetsandthemenoftheirday,theacceptanceofthesereportsisnolessfoundedthanAristotle’sandPtolemy’sacceptanceoftheobserva-tionsoftheirpredecessors.58creationoftheworld59Thethirteenth-andfourteenth-centuryJewishphilosophersinProvenceandnorthernSpainwerefamiliarwiththreepositionsontheworld’sorigin:temporalcreationoftheworldoutofnothing(Maimonides,al-Ghazali),eternalemanationoftheworldoutofGodCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy317(al-Farabi,Avicenna),andtheeternalproductionoftheworldbyGod(Averroes).FromMaimonidesandAverroestheylearnedoftheAris-toteliantheoryoftheeternityoftheuniverse,whichtheytendedtoidentifywiththetheoryofeternalproduction,aswellasthePlatonictheoryofcreationfrompreexistentmatter,whichtheyunderstoodastemporalcreation.Mostofthemacceptedsomeformofaneter-nitythesiswhichruledoutcreationataninstantoftime.60SowhenGersonidesmaintainsthatGodcreatedtheworldataninstant,hedeviatesonceagainfromtheregnantphilosophicalpositioninthedirectionoftradition,thistimeinthedirectionofMaimonides.Why,then,hasGersonidesoftenbeenportrayedasaheterodoxthinkeronthesubjectofcreation?AsidefromthegeneraltendencytoviewGersonidesasaradicaltheologian,thereseemtobetworea-sons:first,heexplicitlyrejectsthetheoryofcreationoutofabsolutenothing,which,becauseofMaimonides’influence,emergedastheorthodoxdoctrine;andsecond,heclaimedthathehadprovedhisthe-oryofcreationconclusively,whereasMaimonides,aswellassomeofGersonides’contemporaries,heldthedoctrineoftemporalcreationtobeunprovableconclusivelybutusefulforreligion.Iforthodoxyisasmuchasociologicalcategoryasadoctrinalone,thenGerson-ides’attemptto“demystify”temporalcreationbydemonstratingitrationallycouldindeedbeinterpretedasunorthodox.Ironically,Maimonidesismuchmoreimpressedbythephilosoph-icalcoherenceofAristotle’seternitythesisthanisGersonides.HerejectsitintheGuidebecauseitimpliesthattheworldisproducedthroughthenecessityofGod’snatureandnotvoluntarily,whereashebelievesthatthereisclear,albeitnotconclusive,evidencethattheworldisproducedvoluntarily.Moreover,theeternitythesis,heclaims,destroysthelawinitsentirety,drainsthebiblicalmiraclesoftheirmeaning,andmakesamockeryoutofdivinelypromisedrewardandpunishment.61Buthavingemphasizedtheimportanceofvolitionalcreation,andhavingadducedevidenceofdivinewilltobuttresshispositionphilosophically,MaimonidesiscontenttomaintainanAristotelianworldofnaturalnecessity,atleastwithre-specttothesublunarsphere–theveryspherewheremanyofthebiblicalmiraclestakeplace.Forallhisearnestnessinpleadingthecaseofvolitionalcreation,becauseoftheundesirabletheologicalandreligiousimplicationsoftheeternitythesis,MaimonidesistoomuchtheAristoteliantoembracewhole-heartedlydivinevoluntarism.HisCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n318MedievalJewishphilosophyambiguouspronouncementsonthesubjectofcreationledsomeofhisthirteenth-andfourteenth-centurycommentators,aswellassometwentieth-centuryscholars,toclaimthathesecretlyheldtheeternitythesis.Gersonidesarguesthatthethesisofvolitionalcreationatanin-stantisnotonlytruebutalsophilosophicallydemonstrable.Hisgeneralstrategyistoarguefromwhatheconsiderstobetheteleo-logicalfeaturesoftheheavens–theirgoal-directedness,possessionofnon-essentialproperties,andexistenceforthesakeofsomethingelse,thesublunarworld–totheirbeingtheproductofanintelli-gentagent.62This,initself,doesnotprovevolitionalcreationataninstant,becausetheAverroistsclaimedthatGodisalsoanefficientcauseandthereforeeternallyproducestheheavens,foritwouldbeabsurdforanefficientcausetobeidle.TothisGersonidesrespondsbydistinguishingbetweentwoaspectsofthedivineefficientcausalactivity,whatwemaycalltheproductionofformsandtheirbestowalinmatter.Godproducestheformseternallythroughhiseternalactofself-intellection;theseconstitutetheintelligibleorderoftheuni-verse.Buthebestowstheformsataninstant,andthisisthecreationoftheworld.Thisbestowaldoesnotarisenecessarily,butratherastheresultofdivinebeneficenceandgrace.Touseanimprecise,buthelpful,analogy,Godislikeanarchitectwhodesignsinhismindtheidealhouseforitsinhabitantsandthenactuallybringsthehouseintobeing.Theplaniseternal;itsinstantiationoccursataninstant.63Alltheorderswithinthedivineplanoftheworld,includingthoseor-dersthatgovernthemiraculousandrealmofspecialprovidence,areforthewellbeingandprotectionofcreatures,whethermaterialorspiritual.Oncetheworldiscreated,Godnolongerappearsasanefficientcauseinbestowingtheforms,butratherservesastheirfinalcauseinthefollowingmanner:inasmuchasthemoversofthespheredesireandloveGod,theydesirethatthevariousactivitiesemanatefromthemupontheworldinaccordancewithwhattheirapprehensionofthelawofthefirstcauserequired.Itisthispicturethathasbeenclaimedtoapproximatedeism,theviewthatGodcreatestheworldinaccordancewithrationallawsdiscoverablebyhumansandthatlaterGodwithdrawsandrefrainsfrominterferingintheprocessesofnatureandthewaysofman.Now,inasmuchasGersonidesin-terpretsmetaphoricallyGod’sinterferencesintheworldasrecordedCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy319byScripture,hesharessomeofthenaturalistictendenciesofthedeists(asdomanyothermedievalJewishphilosophers,includingMaimonides).ButhistheorynowhereimpliesthatGodceasestobeanagentaftercreation,onlythatheceasestobeacreator.Onthecontrary,heis“continuouslyactivewithrespecttoallcreatures,andallknowersdesire[toemulatehim];foreachoneofthemlongsforitsperfectiontoaccruetoit,andthisperfectionisnootherthanthelaw[allotted]toitinthesoulofthefirstcause.”64Hence,“Godismoreproperlydescribedas‘active’thananythingelse.”65Despitesomesuperficialsimilarities,moderndeismandGersonides’viewsarequitedifferent,whichrelateultimatelytothedifferencesintheirunderlyingscientificandphilosophicalworldviews.Aswenoted,GersonidesdisagreeswithMaimonidesoverwhethertheworldwascreatedfromabsolutenothing.Hisownview,thattheworldwascreatedoutofabodydevoidofform,issometimespresentedasamodificationofthePlatonictheoryofcreationfrompreexistentmatter.66Gersonideshimselfvieweditasacompletelynewposition,whichshareselementsofthePlatonicandtheMai-monideanones:“Theworldiscreatedfromsomethinginsofarasitisgeneratedfrom[somekind]ofbody;itiscreatedfromnothingin-sofarasthisbodyisdevoidofform.”67Asaphilosopherandasanempiricisthecannotmakesenseoftheworldbeingcreatedoutofabsolutenothing,butitshouldbepointedoutthathisowntheoryofvolitionalcreationataninstantappearstobecloseinspirittothatofMaimonides.MaimonidesandGersonidessharemuchmoreincommononthequestionofcreationoftheworldthanisgener-allythought,andcertainlymuchmoreincommonthanGersonidesshareswithhisphilosophicalcontemporaries,whobelievedineter-nalproductionoftheworld.Gersonides’task,itappears,istomakeMaimonides’theoryofvolitional,temporalcreationphilosophicallyrespectable.Inanyevent,hisviewoncreationisnomore,andper-hapsless,religiouslyproblematicthanthePlatonicview,whichMaimonideshimselfdidnotfindreligiouslyproblematic.Tosumupthediscussionuntilthispoint:wehaveseenthatinsomeofthekeydoctrinesofmedievalJewishphilosophy–thesur-vivalofthesoul,generalandindividualprovidence,miracles,theallegorizationofbiblicalhistories,theresurrectionofthedead,andthecreationoftheworld–Gersonidesadoptsmorereligiouslycon-servativepositionsthanthoseofhisphilosophicalcontemporaries,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n320MedievalJewishphilosophyand,inthecaseofthesoul’ssurvivalandprovidence,arguablythanthoseofMaimonides.Theseconservativetendenciesgohand-in-handwithhisphilosophicalboldnessinsofarastheynecessitatedde-viationsfromtheregnantAristotelian/Averroistpositions.InmanycasesitappearsthatAristotelianismgiveswaytotherequirementsof“mosaicdogma.”Inanyevent,hisintellectualworldviewishardly“Islamicperipateticisminallitspurety.”68ThereisstillthematterofGod’sknowledgeofparticulars,whichmanyscholars,eventhosewhorecognizeconservativetendenciesinGersonides,viewastheologicallyproblematic.HisdoctrinewastakenbyhismedievalcriticstoimplythatGodpossessesonlygen-eralknowledgeofmaterialparticularsandonlyprobableknowledgeoffuturecontingents.69Hewassaidtohavedenieddivineforeknowl-edgeinordertoaffirmhumanfreechoice,70andtohaveexcludedfromthescopeofdivineknowledgeallhumanactionsandeventsthatoriginateinchoice.71ThisispuzzlingbecauseGersonideshim-selfclaimsthatGodisomniscient,and,specifically,thatheknowsparticulars;thatthereisnophenomenon(particularthing,event,etc.)thatescapeshisknowledge,andthatnotonlydoeshisknowl-edgeprovidehumansforeveryeventuality,butalsothatthroughithecomesintodirectcontactwiththem.WeshallseethatthereisreallynodifferenceinTendenzbetweenGersonides’viewsondivineknowledgeof“sublunarthings”andhisviewsontheothersubjectsconsideredabove.Inthecontextofpost-MaimonideanphilosophyinProvencethroughthemid-fourteenthcentury,theyallrepresentmovesawayfromAristotleinthedirectionoftradition.god’sknowledgeof“possibleparticularthings”72ThequestionthatGersonidesdiscussesinWarsoftheLord3is“WhethertheLordknowsthepossibleparticularthingsinthesub-lunarrealmandwhetherhedoesnot;andifheknowsthem,inwhatmannerdoesheknowthem.”Heappearstounderstand“particularthings”or“particulars”asconcretesubstancesandaccidents,thatisinstantiationsintimeandspaceoftheintelligibleplanofsub-lunarreality.Particularthingspossess“generalnatures”(essences,essentialproperties)and“particularnatures”(non-essentialproper-ties,accidentalfeaturesthatderivefromtheirmaterialcomposition).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy321Reuben,forexample,isaparticularsubstancewhopossessesagen-eralnature(rationalanimality)andaparticularnature(short,indo-lent,withatasteforcornedbeef,etc.).Particulareventsandcharactertraitsareviewedasconcreteaccidents,thatiscasesofnon-essentialproperties.Whatare“possibleparticularthings”?HereGersonidesisam-biguous.InWarsoftheLord2hearguesthatsublunarpossibilityisconnectedtothe“accidentsthatbefallhumanindividuals”–notallaccidents,itappears,butthosethatrelatetohumanintellectandchoice.Sopossibleparticularthingswouldinclude,onthisreading,eventslikeReuben’seatingcornedbeef,orcharactertraitslikehisindolence.Allthingsbeingequal,Reubencanchoosetoeatornottoeatthecornedbeefandcanchoosetoridhimselfornottoridhimselfofthischaractertrait.Possibleparticularthingswouldnotinclude,onthisreading,eventslikeFido’sburyingaboneorphysicalcharacteristicslikeDinah’sruddycomplexion.Theseareparticularstobesure,buttheyarenotrelatedtointellectandchoice.73Letuscallthisthenarrowsenseof“possibleparticularthings.”ButwhenGersonideslistshispredecessors’viewsonGod’sknowl-edgeofparticulars,heusesformulationsthatdonotdependuponthisunderstandingofpossibility.FirsthecitesaninterpretationofAristotletotheeffectthatGoddoesnotknowanythinginthesublunarrealm.HethencitesanotherinterpretationtotheeffectthatGodknowssublunarthings“fromtheaspectofthegeneralna-turewhichtheypossess,whicharetheessentialthings,andnotbyvirtueofwhattheypossessquaparticulars,whicharethepossiblethings.”Andfinallyhebringstheopinionof“ourgreatTorahsageslikeMaimonides,”whichclaimsthatGodknowsthesepossiblepar-ticulars,allofthem,“fromtheaspectoftheirbeingparticular.”Thefirstinterpretation,laterattributedtoAverroes,rulesoutanysortofknowledgeofparticulars;accordingtothesecond,probablythatofThemistius,74Godknowsparticularsviatheiressentialproper-ties,butnotviatheirnon-essentialproperties;andMaimonidessaysthatGodknowsparticularsasindividuals.Nowhereintheopeningdiscussionistheproblemofknowingpossibleparticularslimitedtotheproblemofknowingmattersthatrelatetohumanintellectandchoice.ThesameistrueofmostoftheargumentsforandagainstGod’sknowledgeofparticulars,untilGersonidesoffershisownso-lutioninWarsoftheLord3:4.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n322MedievalJewishphilosophyItappears,then,thatGersonidesintendsby“possibleparticularthings”toincludeallnon-essentialpropertiesthatparticularizesub-lunarphenomena,thatispropertiesthatmayormaynotobtaininanindividualofagivenspecies.Letuscallthisthebroadsenseof“possibleparticularthings.”Theseincludenotonlyinstancesofac-cidentalpropertiessuchas“white”and“tall,”butofeventslike“eatingcornedbeef”andcharactertraitslike“indolent,”allofwhichareconstitutiveofthe“particularnature”ofasublunarthing.75Onthisreading,theinitialquestioncanberephrasedas:“WhethertheLordknowsthenon-essentialpropertiesthatparticularizethingsinthesublunarrealmorwhetherhedoesnot;andifheknowsthem,inwhatmannerdoesheknowthem?”Aristotle,accordingtoeitherthefirstorsecondinterpretation,answersthathedoesnot.Maimonidesanswersthathedoes,butwithauniquekindofknowledgethatknowsparticularsintheirparticularity.76Havingsetupthequestioninthismanner,GersonidescanclaimthatnoneofhisphilosophicalpredecessorsprovidesanadequateaccountofGod’sknowledgeof“possibleparticularthings.”Gersonides’projectinWarsoftheLord3istosupplythataccount.Asweshallseebelow,hismainstrategyistoenlargethescopeofknowledgetoincludeobjectsthatarenon-essential,particularizingproperties.ThathefeelsconfidentenoughtodeviatefromAristotleshouldcomeasnosurprise;wesawearlierthatGersonidesrejectscertainAristotelianprinciplesinhisdiscussiononcreation,andthatMaimonides,whoisphilosophicallyinclinedtoaccepttheseprinci-ples,canonlyprovideskepticalargumentstounderminetheforceofAristotle’sproofsfortheworld’seternity.Somethingsimilarhappenstothetwophilosophersinthecaseofdivineknowledge.MaimonidesarguesthatGodknowsparticulars,thatthereisnowayofexplainingthisusingthestandard,thatisAristotelian,accountofknowledge(whichMaimonidesapparentlyaccepts),andhencethatGodknowsparticularsinauniqueway.77Gersonides,bycontrast,arguesthatGodknowsparticulars,thatthestandardaccountofknowledgecanbemodifiedtoallowforknowledgeofparticulars,andhencethatthereisnoneedtopositanessentialdifferencebetweenthewayGodknowsandthewayhumansknow.ThesortofknowledgeGersonideshasinmindiswhatAristo-tlecallsepisteme,andwhathehimselfcallsyediahamitit(“trueknowledge”)–theknowledgeofwhysomethingiswhatitis,andwhyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy323itcannotbeotherwise.Epistemeistheknowledgeofaphenomenonthroughitscause/explanation;henceitissometimestranslatedas“understanding.”78EpistemeiscontrastedbyAristotlewithsense-knowledge,whichmayshowusthatsomethingis,butnotwhyitiswhatitisandwhyitcannotbeotherwise.79Forexample,wecanobservethatReubenspeaks,butwedonotknowit,thatis,un-derstandit,unlessweknowbyvirtueofwhatReubenspeaks,hisrationalanimality.Now,ifGod’sknowledgeisofthe“epistemic”variety(allagreethatitisnotofthesense–knowledgevariety),thenitseemsthathecannotunderstandparticularnatures,forparticularnaturesarecomposedofaccidents,andaccidents,accordingtoAris-totle,cannotfallwithinthescopeofepisteme.80Soitfollowsthat,ifGodcanunderstandanythingaboutsublunarthings,heunderstandsthemonlyfromtheaspectoftheirgeneralnatures.ThisispreciselyAristotle’sviewaccordingtothesecondinterpretationmentionedabove.AsGersonideswritesinhiscommentarytothePosteriorAnalytics,“Trueknowledge(yediahamitit)...althoughitappliestotheparticularthing,appliestoit...fromtheaspectofthegeneralnatureexistingwithinit”–fromtheaspectofthegeneralnature,andnotfromtheaspectoftheparticularnature,thenon-essential,particularizingproperties.81Toincludeparticularizingaccidentswithinthescopeofepisteme,GersonidesappealstohisviewinWarsoftheLord2:2,thattheaccidentsthatparticularizeasublunarthingareorderedbytheAc-tiveIntellect,throughtheinfluenceoftheheavenlybodiesonitsmaterialcomposition.Non-essentialproperties,aswellasessentialproperties,arethereforeorderedaccordingtotheplanoftheActiveIntellect,aplanthatultimatelyderivesfromtheplanwithinthemindofGod.ThataccidentsareorderedbytheActiveIntellectim-pliesthattheyareknowablewithepistemebyscientists,prophets,prognosticators–andbyGod.AsGersonidesputsit:“ItisclearthattheaspectfromwhichtheLordknowsthese‘possibleparticulars’istheaspectoftheirbeingorderedanddetermined‘bytheheav-enlybodies,’asisthecasewithactiveintellect,aswasexplained.Forfromthisaspecttheyareknowable...”82InWarsoftheLord2welearnthattheActiveIntellectknowssublunarphenomenabyknowingtheplanbywhichtheyaredetermined.InWarsoftheLord3welearnthatGodknowsallphenomena,includingtheparticularnaturesofsublunarthings,byknowingtrulytheplanofrealitybyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n324MedievalJewishphilosophywhichtheyaredetermined.Byexpandingthescopeof“trueknowl-edge”Gersonidesenablesparticularstobetrulyknown.So,unliketheAristotelians,heprovidesforGod’sknowledgeofparticulars.But,unlikeMaimonides,hedoesnothavetoabandonphilosophytodoso.Butisthisreallyknowledgeofparticulars?Somehaveobjectedthatknowingtheplanbywhichaparticularisorderedisnotthesameasknowingtheparticular.Forexample,Sarahmayknowtherulesofacomputeradventuregamebecausesheisthemasterpro-grammer,butthatdoesnotmean,orevenimply,thatsheknowsaparticulargamethatIshallplayonJanuary1,2001.ButoneshouldrecallthatGersonidesinterprets“knows”as“trulyknows”andto“trulyknow”athingistounderstandit.IfSarahisthecreatorofthegame,thenisthereanythingabouttheparticulargameIshallplayonJanuary1,2001thatshefailstounderstand?Letusassumethatallmymoveswillbemadeinaccordancewiththerules,andletusassumefurtherthatoneofthosemovesresultsinthe“death”ofmycomputeralterego.Isthatmoveinexplicabletotheinventorofthegame?Butiftherearenoinexplicablemoves,thenthereisnothingthatisnotunderstood.(WhetherGersonidesallowsfor“inexplicablemoves”willbetakenupbelow.)Letustakethecomputer-gameanalogyonestepfurther.Saythataparticularlystupidmoveofmineresultsinthe“death”ofmycomputeralterego.Icananthropomorphizeandsaythatthecom-puter,after“seeing”mystupidmove,“punishes”mebycausingmyalterego’sdeath.OrIcansaythatSarahdesignedthegameinsuchawaythatinthesituationinwhichIfoundmyself,wereany-bodytomakeamovesimilartotheoneIshallmake,thatpersonwould“die.”Thisishowtheinventorofthegame“punishes”meandanybodylikemeinthesamesituation.Similarly,bycreatingtheworldaccordingtothedivineplan,Godprovidesforindividualhumans,rewardsandpunishesthem,andeveninfluencestheirhis-tory,withoutapprehendingtheparticularsasmateriallyinstantiatedindividuals.AnotherobjectiontoGersonides’theoryisthatparticularsareon-tologicallydifferentfromtheplangoverningthem,andsoGerson-idescanclaimatbestthatbyunderstandingtheplan,Godhasgeneralknowledgeaboutparticulars,butnotthatheactuallyknowsparticu-lars.ThisargumentassumesacertaintypeofontologicaldistinctionCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy325betweentheplananditsparticularinstantiationsinordertojustifytheclaimthat,whenoneunderstandstheformer,onedoesnotun-derstandthelatter.Now,Gersonidesdoesholdthatsuchadistinc-tionexistsbetweenparticularsanduniversals,becausethelatterarementalconceptsthatexistpotentiallyinmaterialparticularsandactuallyinthemind.Buthealsoholdsthattheintelligiblesthatcomposetheplandonotsignifyuniversalsbutratherarbitraryindi-vidualsofacertaintype.SoinsteadofclaimingthatGodknowsuni-versals,Gersonidesclaimsthatheknowsparticularsfromtheaspectoftheiruniversal(andparticular)natures.Unlikeuniversals,thesenaturesarenotfoundintheparticularspotentially,butrathertheyaresaidtoactuallyexistasaspectsoftheparticular.83Ifonesubtractsfromparticularstheiruniversalandparticularnatures,thereissim-plynothinglefttounderstandaboutthem.Toknowtheintelligibleplanofsublunarrealitywith“trueknowledge”istounderstandtheparticularsbecausethelatterarenothingmorethaninstantiationsoftheformer.84Sofarwehavebeenunderstanding“possibleparticularthings”inthebroadsenseasreferringtothenon-essentialpropertiesthatcon-stitutetheparticularnatureofasublunarthing.ButwhenGerson-idesoffershisownsolutiontothequestionofwhetherGodknowspossibleparticularthingsinthesublunarrealm,hetakesthephraseinitsnarrowsenseasreferringtothosenon-essentialpropertiesthatrelatetoanindividual’sintellectandchoice.WerecallthatGodpro-videshumanswithintellectandchoicesothattheycanavoidtheevilsthataredestinedtobefallthembyvirtueoftheirastraldestiny.ThequestioniswhetherGodknowsparticularaccidentsthatarere-latedtointellectandchoice,andifhedoes,how?Forexample,canGodknowthechoicethatReubenmakes,andwhatfollowsfromthatchoice?Say,forexample,thatDinahoffersReubenasandwichofcornedbeefandSwisscheese,whichheisastrallypredisposedtoeat(becauseofhisnaturalpropensitytoeatwhatevercornedbeefisplacedbe-forehim).Asheisabouttotakeabite,herecallsthatheisfor-biddenbyJewishlawtoeatcheeseandmeattogether,andbecauseofhisadherencetoJewishlawherefrainsfromeatingthesand-wich.LetusassumethatReubenhasactedinoppositiontohisastrallydeterminedpredisposition.Now,canhischoiceandactionbe“trulyknown”?ThequestionhereisnotwhetherandhowhisCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n326MedievalJewishphilosophychoicecanbeknowninadvance,butratherwhetherandhowhischoicecanbeunderstoodatall?Forif“trueknowledge”ofpar-ticularactionsisviatheintelligibleplanthatgovernsthem,andifthatintelligibleplanwithrespecttohumanactionistobeidenti-fiedwiththeastralorder,theneventsthatarenotorderedbytheastralorder–suchasReuben’srefrainingfromeatinghissandwich–cannotbe“trulyknown”eitherbyGodor,forthatmatter,byanyknower.Atfirstglance,thisappearstobeGersonides’conclusionwhenhewrites(inthecontinuationofthepassagequotedabove):“Theaspectfromwhich[theLord]doesnotknowthemistheaspectoftheirbe-ingunordered‘bytheheavenlybodies,’whichistheaspectthroughwhichtheyarepossible,forfromthisaspectknowledgecannotap-plytothem.”Gersonides’pointisgenerallyunderstoodasfollows:becausecertaineventsinvolvechoicebetweenvariouscoursesofac-tions,andthesechoicesareundeterminedbyastralinfluence,thentheiroccurrenceisonlypossible,andhencetheycannotbeknowninadvancebyGod.Humansaregiventhepoweroffreechoice,whoseoutcomeevenGodcannotforeknow.Butthisinterpretationisun-tenablefortworeasons:First,itimpliesthattheobjectsofGod’sknowledgearepossibleindividualsthatcomeintoandpassoutofexistence,andthatsuchthingscannotbeknownuntiltheycometoexist.But,aswehaveseen,theobjectsofknowledgeforanyknowerarenotparticularsintheirparticularaspect(i.e.materiallyinstan-tiatedindividuals),whichcomeintoandpassoutofexistence,buttheuniversalandparticularnaturesofthings,whichareeternal.AndgiventheAristotelianviewofknowledgeasunderstanding,thismakessense.IdonotunderstandanythingfurtheraboutReuben’snaturalpropensitytoeatcornedbeefifIseehimtakeanotherbiteoutofhissandwich,justasIdonotunderstandanythingfurtheraboutastone’sdownwardmotionwhenreleasedifIseeitreleasedforthetenthtime.Moreover,theinterpretationassumesthathumansareendowedwithapowertochoosearbitrarily,thatisthroughno“ordering”principle,andhenceGodcannotknowchoicesofthissort.ButGersonidesnowheresaysthat;ratherhesaysthathumanscanuserationallymotivatedchoiceinordertoavoidastrallyfatedevils.Soourquestioniswhetherachoice,motivatedbyreason,andhenceopposedtotheastralorder,canbeunderstood?Andfromthepassageabove,itappearsthatitcannot.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy327ButcanthisinterpretationreallybewhatGersonidesintends?LetusreturntoReuben,whohasdecidednottoeatthecornedbeefandcheesesandwichbecauseofhisobediencetoJewishlaw.Hischoiceisnotarbitrary;itisorderedanddeterminedby(hisadherenceto)thelaw.85NowisJewishlawunknowable“epistemically”?Certainlynot–forGersonides,itistheparadigmoftherationallaw;allofitsrulesaredirectedforitsadherents’wellbeing.Theintelligibleorderofsublunarrealityincorporatesnotonlytheastralorderbutalsotherationalorderor,moreprecisely,theintelligibleorderisinstantiatedbothindirectly,throughtheinstrumentalityofthecelestialbodies,anddirectly,throughtheunmediatedagencyoftheActiveIntellecttothehumanintellect.InsofarasReubenchoosestorefrainfromeatinghissandwich,hischoiceandsubsequentactionareeternallyunderstoodbyGodorbyanyknower.SoGersonidesistechnicallycorrectwhenhewritesthat“possibleparticulars,”thatisthosesub-lunarthingsthatinvolveintellectandchoice,areunknowablefromtheaspectoftheirbeingunordered(bytheheavenlybodies).Whatheomitstosay,however,isthatchoicesandactionsaccordingtoreasonarealsoorderedbytheActiveIntellectandhencetheyare“epistemically”knowable,thatisunderstandable.Theonlythingthatisinexplicableiswhetherhumansactuallychooseaccordingtotheirastrallydisposeddispositionoraccordingtoreason.Humanchoiceismotivatedbytwoprinciplesthatoftenareinconflict:nativetemperamentandintellect;thereinliesitscontingency.Butwhat-everhumanschoose,theirchoiceis“trulyknowable.”Inthegameoflifetherearenoinexplicablemoves.Asevidenceforthisinterpretation,considerGersonides’claimthatprophetscanhaveforeknowledgeofnon-astrallyorderedevents.ItispartofhisgeneraltheoryofprophecyinWarsoftheLord2thattheprophetisabletopredictthefuturebecausetheActiveIntellectcommunicatestohimtheplanofsublunarreality,whichhethenap-pliestohisparticularsituation.NowmostofGersonides’examplesinvolvetheprophet’sknowledgeofeventsorderedbytheastralplan,buttherearecaseswhenhespeaksoftheprophet’sabilitytofore-knoweventsnotorderedbytheastralplan,suchasthemiraculouseventsthatfollowfromindividualprovidence.Infact,thisabilityisoneofthethingsthatdistinguishesprophetsfromotherprognosti-catorsaccordingtoGersonides’CommentaryontheNumbers22–5,Lesson8:CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n328MedievalJewishphilosophyDivinationandmagiclackthepowertocommunicatefuturemattersofsomeonetowhomprovidenceisattached.Forthosemattersareunorderedbytheastraloverflow...butprophecycommunicatesthisbecauseitisorderedandflowsfromthe[Active]Intellect...ThusyoufindthatGod(mayhebeblessed)informedAbrahamofthemiraclesandwondersthatwouldbecreatedviaparticularprovidenceduringtheperiodoftheexodusofEgyptinordertoattract[theIsraelites]tohisservice.86God“trulyknows”eventsthatbefallhumansthatarenotorderedbytheheavenlybodies.Inthiscasethereferenceistomiraclesratherthandecisionsmotivatedbyreason,buttheformerisasunorderedbytheheavenlybodiesasthelatter.MorepertinentisthenotionofGod’s“particularknowledge”whichonefindsinGersonides’scripturalcommentaries.WhentheBiblespeaksofGod’s“seeing”or“knowing”humans,Gersonidesinterpretssuchlanguageinlightofhistheoryofindividualprovi-dence.ThuswhenGodsaysofAbraham,“ForIknewhim”(Genesis18:19),Gersonideswritesthat“God(mayhebeblessed)willknowthatnationthatwillbranchoutfromAbraham,andhisprovidencewilljoinwithit,likethemeaningof[theverse],“ForGodknowsthewayoftherighteous.”87Similarly,theverse,“Foryou[Noah]haveIseenrighteousbeforemeinthisgeneration”(Genesis7:1)meansthat“therighteousiswatchedoverbyGod(mayhebeblessed)withamarvelousprovidencetosavehimfromtheevilsthatarepreparedtobefallhim,asisprovedfromthesalvationofNoah.”88ItdoesnotmeanthatGodhasadirectcognitiverelationwithNoahinallhisparticularityasamaterialindividual,butthathehasaprovi-dentialrelationshipwithNoah,andanybodyrighteouslikeNoah,fromtheaspectofhisbeingrighteous.Now“beingrighteous”isnotastatethatresultsfromtheastralorder,oratleasttheastralorderalone,andyetGodissaidto“know”Noah.Buthowdoes“particularknowledge”work?Gersonidesdoesnotgiveaphilosophicalaccountoftheprovi-dentialknowledgehefindsintheBible,butIofferthefollowingspeculationonhisbehalf:Godknowshimselfimmediatelyinaneternalactofself-intellection,andbecauseheistheintelligibleplanofexistence,theobjectofhisknowledgeistheintelligibleplan.Nowinsofarashumanschooseandactaccordingtotheirastrallyordereddisposition,theyareknown(with“trueknowledge”)viatheastrallyorderedplanthatisapartoftheintelligibleplan.InotherCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy329words,toexplainultimatelythehumanactionsandeventsthatcon-stitutepeople’sparticularnatures,oneultimatelyhasrecoursetothatplan.ThisistheclearmessageofWarsoftheLord3.Butin-sofarashumanschooseandactaccordingtorightreason,basedontheirknowledgeofthetrueandthegood,theyenterintoaproviden-tialrelationshipwithGod,whichGersonidescallsGod’s“particularknowledge,”ratherthanknowledgeofparticulars.Scripturedistin-guishesbetweenthesetwotypesofknowledgebyportrayingGod’sknowledgeofparticularsashearsayandhis“particularknowledge”asobservational.ThuswhentheBiblesaysthatGodhasheardre-portsoftheevilactionsoftheSodomites,thisalludestoknowledgeofparticularsviatheastralplan:“Forheknowspeople’sactionsac-cordingtowhathasbeenpreparedforthemfromthedateoftheirbeingcreatedbyheavenlybodiesassignedbyGodtowatchoverhu-manindividualswithageneralprovidence.”89ButiftheSodomitesdonotsinthenGodknowsthemdirectly(“Ifnot,Ishallknowit”)inthesensethathisprovidencewillbeattachedtothem.ThechoiceisuptotheSodomites,butnomatterwhattheychoose,theiractionsareexplicable.Godknows/understandsall.Allwellandgood,replyGersonides’critics,butthefactremainsthatGoddoesnotactuallyseetheindividualSodomitesandwhattheychoose,sohowcanhisprovidenceattachitselftothem?Letusreturntoourcomputer-gameanalogy.WhenIfirstbegintoplaythegame,Imakeallsortsofmistakes,forwhichIam“punished”bylosingpoints,andperhapsby“dying.”Theconsequencesofmymistakesfollowfromtherulesofthegameandthedesignofthepro-gram;theprogrammer/inventordoesnot“see”meatthecomputeranddecidetopunishme.Now,asIgainknowledgeofthegame,mygameimproves.Ilearnfrommymistakes;ifIamfortunate,Iamgivenabookaboutthegamewrittenbyamastergamester.ThemoreIplay,themoreIunderstandthemindofSarah,theprogrammer;infact,mymindbecomesalotlikehermind,and,inacertainsense,weareofthesamemind.Sheunderstandsmebecausesheunderstandsplayerslikeme,playerswithmymindset.Infact,shemayevenbesaidtounderstandplayerslikemebetterthanworseplayers,becausesheunderstandsherownmind,andminemorecloselyapproximateshersthandotheirs.True,Sarahdoesnotknowmeinallmyconcreteparticularity,asamaterialindividual.But–andhereisthequestionthatisrarelyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n330MedievalJewishphilosophyasked–ismy“concreteparticularity”reallywhoIam?Orisitac-cidentalinthesensethatitisneitherpartofmyuniversalnormyparticularnature?Suchquestionsreturnustotheproblemofself-identity,whichweexaminedwithreferencetothesurvivaloftheacquiredintellect;howcanIidentifymyselfwithasetofeternalveritiesthat“I”haveacquired?Whethersuchanidentificationisplausibleornot,Gersonidesacceptsitandusesittoexplainhisconceptofthesoul’ssurvival,andGod’s“particularknowledge”ofhumans.Indeed,thenotionoftheacquiredintellect’sconjunction“insomemanner”withGodistheflipsideofindividualprovidence;bothemphasizetheconnectionbetweenGodandhumanswhentheybecomeofasimilarmindset.TheemphasisontheconnectionbetweenGodandhumansisasignificantfeaturethatdistinguishesGersonides’theologyfromdeism.AdeistcanholdthatGodcreatesaworldinwhichrewardandpunishmentforhumanactionsarebuiltintothesystem,asitwere,butnotthatheentersintoarelationshipwithhumans.God,onthatview,maybelikenedtoaparentwhogoesawayonvacationleavingherchildrenwithadetailedseriesofinstructions,moneyforfood,baby-sitter,andsoon,butwithoutthephonenumberwhereshecanbereached.Evenifsheisabletoprovidefortotalsupervisionoftheiractivities,withtheappropriaterewardsandpunishments,thechildrenwilllackthecontactthat,somesay,isessentialfortheirwellbeing.Gersonides’theoryof“particular,”thatisprovidential,knowledgesuppliestheelementofcontactthatisessentialtothebiblicalconceptionofGodknowinghumans.Notonlyarerewardandpunishmentbuiltintotheworld,asitwere,butsoisadirectconnectionwithitsauthor.Gersonidesdoesnotdiscusshisdoctrineof“particularknowl-edge”asextensivelyashisdoctrineofdivineknowledgeofpar-ticulars.Butperhapsthisisbecausetheformerisnotasoriginalasthelatter.TheideathathumansenteredaprovidentialbondwiththedeitythroughintellectionisfoundintheIslamicphiloso-phers,Maimonides,andhisJewishsuccessorsinthethirteenthandfourteenthcenturies.ButtheexplanationofhowGodknows/understandsthenon-essentialcharacters,dispositions,actions,andeventsofordinaryhumans,allwithintherigorousdemandsofAristotelianscience,whilepreservingcontingency,couldjustifi-ablybedescribedbyGersonidesas“somethingwondrous...thatwasCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy331hiddenfromalltheearlierthinkerswhosewordshavereachedus.”90ThathefoundhistheorytaughtbyScriptureisnotsurprising;per-hapsthisisoneofthecaseswhereScriptureguidedhimtophilo-sophicaltruth.Tosumup:Gersonides’treatmentofGod’sknowledgeofpartic-ulars,farfromconstitutingadeparturefromhisinterpretationsofotherreligiousdoctrines,iscloselyrelatedinstyleandsubstancetothem.WhetherwritingaboutGod’sknowledge,divineprovidence,personalimmortality,thecreationoftheworld,andtheallegoriza-tionofScripture,heisreadyandwillingtodeviatefromthemorefaithfulAristotelianismofhisJewishcontemporaries,inthedirec-tionofamorebiblicalconceptionofGod.91LikeMaimonides,hearguesthatGodknowsparticulars,butheprovidesaphilosophicalanalysisofhowparticularsareknownwhichMaimonidesdoesnot.92Inclosing,wemayentertainfourbriefspeculationsastohowGersonides,despitetheseconservativetendencies,acquiredtherep-utationofatheologicallyunorthodoxthinker:First,Gersonides’reputationonthesematterswasdeterminedbyhisSpanishandItalianrabbinicalcritics,wholivedinamoreconservativephilosophicalandtheologicalatmospherethandidtheJewishphilosophersofthirteenth-andfourteenth-centuryProvence.Thisconservatismappearstohavedeepenedinsubsequentperiods,whenAristotelianismwentintodecline.Second,Gersonides’theoryofdivineknowledgeofparticularswasinterpretedbythesecriticsasclaimingthatGod’somniscienceislimitedinordertomakeroomforhumanfreedom.Ihavearguedelse-wherethatthisinterpretationdoesnotdojusticetothecomplexityofGersonides’accountofdivineknowledgeorhumanchoice.93Butifitwerecorrect,thentherewouldobviouslybegoodreasontoviewhistheoryasunorthodox.Third,onlyrecentlyhaveGersonides’commentaries,philosophi-calandscriptural,becometheobjectofscholarlyresearch.Thescrip-turalcommentariesarepertinenttoourinquiryforseveralreasons:theyprovideuswithmanyexamplesofhowGersonidesapplieshisphilosophicalprinciplestothebiblicalconceptionsanddoctrines;theyarethesourcesofdoctrineslikeGod’s“particularknowledge”thatdonotappearintheWarsoftheLord;andtheydemonstratehisexpertiseinJewishlawandhisconservativepositionontheallego-rizationofthehistoricalpassagesImentionedabove.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n332MedievalJewishphilosophyFourth,Gersonides’attemptstoprovideunambiguousphilosoph-icalsolutionstotheproblemsofreligiousphilosophywereboundtoannoythosetheologianswhothoughtthatsuchmatterswereinsol-uble,afactofwhichhewasaware.94HereMaimonideshadacertain“advantage,”forheclaimedthatthecreationoftheworldcannotbedemonstratedandthatGod’sknowledgeofparticularscannotbeexplained.ItisnotthatGersonideshadlessofacommitmenttothefundamentalprinciplesofreligionthanMaimonides.Onthecon-trary,hepositstherulethat,wherephilosophyclasheswithsuchprinciples,theformermustbeabandoned.Butonesearchesinvainforanexampleofthatruleinhiswritings!GersonidesisalwaysreadytoharmonizeScripturetoaccordwithphilosophyortodeviatefromstrictAristotelianismtoaccommodatereligiousdogma.95Thelikesofhisphilosophicaloptimism,bornofa“dogmaticrationalism,”96wouldnotbeseenagaininJewishphilosophy,atleastnotuntilMosesMendelssohn.bibliographicalnoteThelastthirtyyearshavewitnessedgrowinginterestinGersonides’multi-facetedoeuvre.Forrecentoverviewsofhislifeandthought,seeS.Feldman,“LevibenGershom(Gersonides),”inHistoryofJew-ishPhilosophy,ed.D.H.FrankandO.Leaman(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997),379–98,andG.Freudenthal,“Gersonides,”inHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,ed.S.NasrandO.Leaman(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1995),739–54.Thecompre-hensivemonographonhisphilosophyandtheologyisC.Touati,Lapenseephilosophiqueetth´eologiquedeGersonide´(Paris:Edi-tionsdeMinuit,1973).ThesepticentennialofGersonides’birthin1988producedtwocollectionsofscholarlyessays:G.Dahan(ed.),Gersonideensontemps(Louvain:Peeters,1991)andG.Freuden-thal(ed.),StudiesonGersonides:AFourteenth-CenturyJewishPhilosopher-Scientist(Leiden:Brill,1992).Thelattervolumein-cludesM.Kellner’s,“BibliographiaGersonideana:AnAnnotatedListofWritingsbyandaboutR.LevibenGershom,”367–414.Aperiodicallyupdatedversionofthisbibliographyisavailableonthewebat:http://research.haifa.ac.il/∼kellner/Gersonides’philosophicalmagnumopusistheSeferMil-hamotAdonai,anEnglishtranslationofwhichhasrecentlybeenCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy333completed:LevibenGershom(Gersonides):TheWarsoftheLord,trans.withnotes,S.Feldman,3vols.(PhiladelphiaandNewYork:JewishPublicationSocietyandJewishTheologicalSeminaryofAmerica,1984–99).ThereisnocriticaleditionoftheHebrewtext.ReferencesinthepresentessayaretotheeditionpublishedinLeipzig,1866andreprintedinBerlin,1923.SeveralongoingprojectsinvolvingthepublicationofGersonides’writingsshouldbenoted:TheHebrewtextofGersonides’Commen-taryontheTorahisappearinginthreeseparateeditions,thatofI.Levi(Jerusalem:MosadHaravKook,1992–2000),ofB.Braneretal.(MaalehEdumim:Maaliyot,1993–),andofM.Cohen(Ramat-Gan:Bar-IlanUniversityPress,1997–).CohenhasalreadypublishededitionsofGersonides’commentariesonJoshua,Judges,1and2Samuel,and1and2KingsaspartoftheMiqraotGedolotHa-Keter(Ramat-Gan:Bar-IlanUniversityPress,1992–).These,togetherwiththecommentariesonProverbsandJob,areavailableoncd-romaspartoftheBar-IlanResponsaProject.Thesamecommentaries,togetherwiththeLeipzigeditionoftheMilhamotAdonai,areavail-ableontheDBSSoftware’sJudaicaScholarcd-rom.Itistobehopedthatmoreeditionsandtranslationsofhisphilosophicalandscien-tificworkswillseethelightofdaysoon.notes1.Fordetails,seethebibliographicalnoteattheendofthischapter.2.S.Munk,Melangesdephilosophiejuiveetarabe´(Paris:A.Franck,1857),497.3.J.Guttmann,PhilosophiesofJudaism,trans.D.Silverman(NewYork:Holt,Rinehart&Winston,1964),224.4.E.Renan,Averroesetl’averro`ısme¨,4thed.(Paris:CalmannLevy,´1882),193–4.5.Guttmann,PhilosophiesofJudaism,215.6.I.Husik,AHistoryofMediaevalJewishPhilosophy(NewYork:Mac-millan,1916),346.7.C.Sirat,AHistoryofJewishPhilosophyintheMiddleAges(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1985),296.8.MoreworkneedstobedoneontheearlyreceptionofGersonides.FortheinfluenceofGersonidesonR.NissimbenReubenGerondi(Ran),seeS.Klein-Braslavy,“R.NissimbenReubendeG´eronedevantlaphiloso-´phiedesontemps,”ThesedeDoctoratde`3ecycle,EcolePratiquedesCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n334MedievalJewishphilosophyHautesEtudes,SectiondesSciencesReligieuses,Paris,1972.SeeC.Touati,Lapenseephilosophiqueetth´eologiquedeGersonide´(Paris:EditionsdeMinuit,1973),542.9.AmongtheearlycriticsofGersonideswefindSamuelb.JudahofMar-seilles,hisstudentJudahKohen,MosesofNarbonne,andYedayahha-Penini.Forthefirstthree,seeC.Manekin,“PreliminaryObserva-tionsonGersonides’LogicalWritings,”ProceedingsoftheAmericanAcademyforJewishResearch52(1985),85–113,esp.101–4.(Thecom-mentaryonAverroes’EpitomeoftheOrganonattributedtoMosesb.JoshuaofNarbonne[102]shouldbeattributed,inlightofsubsequentresearch,toMordecaiNathan.)ForYedayahha-Penini,seeR.Glasner,AFourteenthCenturyScientificPhilosophicalControversy:JedaiahHa-Penini’sTreatiseonOppositeMotionsandBookofConfutations[Hebrew](Jerusalem:WorldUnionofJewishStudies,1998),13–106.10.IdonotwishtoimplythatGersonides’conservativetendencies,orhisdeviationsfromAristotle,aremotivatedbyreligiousconcerns.Thequestionofmotivationisunanswerable.11.See,forexample,Touati,Lapensee´,562,andM.Nehorai,“MaimonidesandGersonides:TwoApproachestotheNatureofProvidence”[Hebrew]Da‘at20(1988),51–64.12.WarsoftheLordIntroduction,4.(ThisandsubsequentreferencestotheHebrewtextaretotheeditionpublishedinLeipzig,1866andreprintedinBerlin,1923.)Cf.S.Feldman(trans.),LevibenGershom(Gerson-ides):TheWarsoftheLord,3vols.(PhiladelphiaandNewYork:JewishPublicationSocietyandtheJewishTheologicalSeminaryofAmerica,1984–99),i:94.13.WarsoftheLordIntroduction,7;trans.Feldman,i:98.Cf.Touati,Lapensee´,94–7,forthecentralrolethathaysharah(direction,guidance)playsinGersonides’understandingofTorah,anditsrelationtophilo-sophicaltruth.14.Touati,Lapensee´,60–3,542–3.15.Inadditiontothestudiesmentionedinthenotesbelow,thereadermayconsult:S.Feldman,“GersonidesonthePossibilityofConjunc-tionwiththeAgentIntellect,”AJSReview3(1978),99–120,andA.Ivry,“GersonidesandAverroesontheIntellect:TheEvidenceoftheSupercommentaryontheDeAnima,”inGersonideensontemps:Scienceetphilosophiemedi´evales´,ed.G.Dahan(Louvain:Peeters,1991),235–51.16.DeAnima2:1,412a22.17.DeAnima3:5,430a18–23.18.WhetherAristotlehimselfviewedthisfacultyorfunctionasimmanenttothehumansoulorasatranscendentsubstancehasbeendebated.ForCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy335references,seeH.Davidson,“GersonidesontheMaterialandActiveIntellects,”inStudiesonGersonides:AFourteenth-CenturyJewishPhilosopher-Scientist,ed.G.Freudenthal(Leiden:Brill,1992),205–6,esp.n.30.19.Whetherthisconjunctionoccursatthebeginningofhumanintellec-tualdevelopmentorafterdeathwasdebatedinthemiddleages.SeeH.Davidson,Alfarabi,Avicenna,andAverroesonIntellect:TheirCosmologies,TheoriesoftheActiveIntellect,andTheoriesofHumanIntellect(NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1992),321–5,whichsummarizestheviewsofphilosophersbeforeAverroes,andana-lyzesthedevelopmentofAverroes’viewsonconjunction.20.Seeibid.,335–8,forAverroes’viewsontheimmortalityoftheintellect.21.SeeFalaquera,OpinionsofthePhilosophersVI:B:3,citedinR.Jospe,TorahandSophia:TheLifeandThoughtofShemTovibnFalaquera(Cincinnati:HebrewUnionCollegePress,1988),261,whichisacita-tionfromAverroes’MiddleCommentary;Pollegar,TheSupportofRe-ligion,ed.J.Levinger(TelAviv:TelAvivUniversityPress,1984),49–51,175–6;Kaspi,FiligreesofSilver(Commentaryonthe“GuideofthePer-plexed”),ed.S.Werbluner(FrankfurtamMain,1848),72,83(mythankstoHannahKasherforreferringmetotheseandsubsequentpassagesinKaspi);Narboni,CommentarytoHayyibnYaqzan,Paris-BNheb.´915,fol.11b,citedinM.Hayoun,LaphilosophieetlatheologiedeMo´ıse¨deNarbonne(1300–1362)(Tubingen:J.C.B.Mohr,¨1989),211;cf.refer-encescitedinnn.46and47.SeealsoG.Holzman,“TheTheoryoftheIntellectandSoulintheThoughtofRabbiMosheNarboniBasedonhisCommentariesontheWritingsofIbnRushd,IbnTufayl,IbnBajja,andal-Ghazali,”Ph.D.dissertation,HebrewUniversity,Jerusalem,1996.AccordingtoA.Ivry(“MosesofNarbonne’s‘TreatiseonthePerfectionoftheSoul’:AMethodologicalandConceptualAnalysis,”JewishQuar-terlyReview57[1966–67],271–97,esp.278and295),Narbonideniesthepersonalimmortalityoftheintellect(followingAverroes),butaffirmssomesortofimmortalityofthesoul.Interestingly,onthisissueIsaacAlbalagpartscompanywithAverroesandpreferstheAvicennanviewthatintellectsremaindifferentiatedaf-terseparationfromthebody.SeeAlbalag,EmendationoftheOpinions,21,22;G.Vajda,IsaacAlbalag:Averroıstejuif,traducteuretannota-¨teurd’al-Ghazali(Paris:J.Vrin,1960),249,findsthisdeviationdiffi-culttoreconcilewithAlbalag’scommentaryonthebiblicalcreationnarrative.22.OnthebasisofGuide1:74;trans.S.Pines,TheGuideofthePerplexed(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress),221.SeeEfodi’sCommentaryonthe“Guide”(Lemberg,1866),60b,61a;Kaspi,FiligreesofSilver,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n336MedievalJewishphilosophy132;andNarboni’sCommentaryonthe“Guide”,ed.J.Goldenthal(Vienna,1852),19b–20a.23.SeeA.Altmann,“MaimonidesontheIntellectandtheScopeofMeta-physics,”inhisVondermittelalterlichenzurmodernenAufklarung¨(Tubingen:J.C.B.Mohr,¨1987),89–90.24.WarsoftheLord1:10,80;trans.Feldman,ii:209–10.25.Foradifferentinterpretationofacquiredintellectspostmortem,seeM.Kellner,“GersonidesontheRoleoftheActiveIntellectinHumanCognition,”HebrewUnionCollegeAnnual65(1994),233–59,esp.258.26.WarsoftheLord1:13,89–91;trans.Feldman,i:223–5.27.SeeW.Z.Harvey,“HasdaiCrescas’CritiqueoftheTheoryoftheAcquiredIntellect,”Ph.D.dissertation,ColumbiaUniversity,1973,125–43.28.OnthisseeDavidson,“GersonidesontheMaterialandActiveIntel-lects,”195–265,esp.247–8;cf.Kellner,“GersonidesontheRoleoftheActiveIntellectinHumanCognition,”247.29.WarsoftheLord1:13,90;trans.Feldman,i:224–5.30.Inadditiontothestudiesmentionedinthenotesbelow,thereadermayconsult:D.Burrell,“Maimonides,Aquinas,andGersonidesonProvidenceandEvil,”ReligiousStudies20(1984),335–51;I.Dobbs-Weinstein,“TheExistentialDimensionofProvidenceintheThoughtofMaimonides,”inDahan(ed.),Gersonideensontemps,159–78;M.Kellner,“Gersonides,Providence,andtheRabbinicTradition,”JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion42(1974),673–85.31.Guide3:17;trans.Pines,465–6.TheexampleisespeciallypoignantwhenwerecallthatMaimonides’belovedbrotherDaviddrownedatsea.32.Guide3:17;trans.Pines,472.33.Cf.Guide2:48;trans.Pines,409–12.34.SeeNarbonionGuide3:17,54b.BothFalaquera(Morehha-Moreh[GuidetotheGuide],ed.Y.Shiffman[Jerusalem:WorldUnionofJewishStudies,2001],311–13)andKaspi(FiligreesofSilver,126–8)adloc.citeAverroes’Kitabal-Kashf3,whereinitisimpliedthatthedivinedecreeshouldbeinterpretedinanaturalistic,Aristotelianmanner.35.WarsoftheLord2:3,98–9;trans.Feldman,ii:39.36.WarsoftheLord1:7,50;trans.Feldman,i:38.37.Accidentsoccurringtootheranimalsbesidesmanarenotorderedbytheheavenlybodiesexceptinsofarastheyarerelatedtoman(WarsoftheLord2:2,97;trans.Feldman,ii:37).38.Gersonidesconceivesofaneventasanon-essentialpropertyofsub-stance;inthisheisaidedbytheambiguityoftheHebrewtermCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy337miqreh(lit.:“happening”),whichheusesforproperties(snub-nosed)andevents(winningthelotteryonTuesday).Bothhappentoanindi-vidualinsomesenseof“happen,”andbothareorderedbytheheavens.Actually,theword“event”isnotadequateforthissecondsenseofmiqreh.ForGersonidesdoesnotcallaneventthatoccursbyvirtueofreason(e.g.Reuben’sdecisionatt1torefrainfromeatingacornedbeefandSwisscheesesandwich)amiqreh,anditwouldbeoddtouseawordmeaning“accident”todesignateaneventorderedbyanon-accidentalfeatureofhumanity.Still,inwhatfollowsIshallusethelanguageof“events.”39.CommentarytoIIKings12:8,Lesson1,ed.M.Cohen(Ramat-Gan:Bar-IlanUniversityPress,1996),215b.40.ForAbraham,seeGersonides’CommentaryonGenesis12:10,Lesson1,ed.B.BranerandE.Freiman(MaalehEdumim:Maaliyot,1993),202.(SubsequentpagereferencestotheCommentaryonGenesisaretothisedition.)ForIsaac,seeon26:1,Lesson1:343;forJacob,seeon31:18,Lesson33:99;on31:19–21,Lesson34:400;andon43:11–14,Lesson16:505–6.(Notethatthislastpassageiscalleda“doctrinal”lessonratherthanan“ethical”one.)ForNoah,seeon6:14–22,Lesson4:169–70;forJosephseeon40:14,Lesson7:472.41.WarsoftheLord2:6,183–4;trans.Feldman,ii:202–3.SeeR.Eisen,Ger-sonidesonProvidence,Covenant,andtheChosenPeople:AStudyinMedievalJewishPhilosophyandBiblicalCommentary(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1995),25,wheretheauthorpointsoutthatthereisnoempiricalwayofdistinguishingsuchmiraclesfromnat-uralevents.42.Eisen,GersonidesonProvidence,25.Godonlybringsevilsuponpeoplewhodeservethem,butanysuchevilsmustbeforsomegood,sinceGodistheirauthor.43.SeeARefiningPotforSilver,ed.I.Last(Cracow:J.Fisher,1906),144(Exodus4:21),trans.C.ManekininTheJewishPhilosophyReader,ed.D.H.Frank,O.Leaman,andC.H.Manekin(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2000),251–2;cf.TheSilverisFinished,ed.I.Last(London,1913),19–23.44.SeeCommentaryonExodus21:13,ed.Y.Levy(Jerusalem,1994),208.Here,too,Gersonidesclaimsthattheremaybenowaytodiscernanaturaleventfromamiraculousone.45.WarsoftheLord6:2.10;trans.Feldman,iii:479–80.46.E.g.,hadPharaohnotpursuedtheIsraelites,thewatersoftheRedSeawouldnothavedivided.47.HedoesnotfollowMosesNarboni’sleadinviewingsomeofthebib-licalreportsofmiraclesasphilosophicalallegories;seeHayoun,Laphilosophie,72.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n338MedievalJewishphilosophy48.SeeTouati,Lapensee´,533andthereferencetootherphilosophersinn.27.49.SeeCommentaryontheTorah(Venice,1547),198b,213d,247a.50.SeeCommentaryonDaniel,inOtzarha-Perushim,ii(TelAviv:n.p.,1966),8c,9a.51.SeeTouati,Lapensee´,484;accordingtoTouati,thephrase“recentphilosophers”referstoLevibenAbrahamofVillefranche.52.SeeCommentaryonGenesis2:10–14,ExplanationoftheTerms,ed.B.BranerandE.Freiman(Jerusalem:MaaliyyotInstitute,1993),92,53.Ibid.,114–15.54.SeeEisen,GersonidesonProvidence,177.55.Inasmuchasindividualprovidenceissaidtoconsistofbeneficialknowledge(WarsoftheLord4:5,167;trans.Feldman,ii:178),certainlysuchknowledgecanbenefitotherswhoarenotworthyofreceivingitthemselves.Butthisdoesnotseemtogofarenough.56.WarsoftheLord5:1.43,citedinD.Schwartz,AstralMagicinMedievalJewishThought[Hebrew](Ramat-Gan:Bar-IlanUniversityPress,1999),49.MythankstoGadFreudenthal,whoisworkingonacriticaleditionofthischapter,forthisreference.57.SeeWarsoftheLord2:2,95;trans.Feldman,ii:33.Althoughastrol-ogersfrequentlymakesuccessfulpredictions,theyoftenfailbe-causeofthe“inadequateproceduresofverificationcharacteristicofthisdiscipline.”58.WarsoftheLord6:2.6,441–2;trans.Feldman,iii:470.59.Inadditiontothestudiesmentionedinthenotesbelow,thereadermayconsult:H.Davidson,ProofsforEternity,CreationandtheExistenceofGodinMedievalIslamicandJewishPhilosophy(NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1987);G.Freudenthal,“Cosmogo-nieetphysiquechezGersonides,”RevuedesEtudesJuives145(1986),294–314;M.Kellner,“GersonidesontheProblemofVolitionalCre-ation,”HebrewUnionCollegeAnnual51(1980),111–28;T.Rudavsky,“Creation,TimeandInfinityinGersonides,”JournaloftheHistoryofPhilosophy26(1988),25–44.60.IsaacAbravanelinTheWorksofGod2:1(ed.B.Genut-Dror[Jerusalem:ReubenMass,1988],32)listsKaspi,Falaquera,Abner(ofBurgos?),Narboni,andAlbalagasmembersofthe“accursedsect”thatbe-lievedineternity.SeeKaspi,FiligreesofSilver,100,wherecreationexnihiloisinterpretedaseternalproductionoftheworld.PassagesinFalaquerabearingonthequestionofcreationarecitedbyJospeinTorahandSophia,156–62;accordingtoJospe,itisnotclearthatFalaqueraheldaneternitythesis;Albalag,EmendationoftheOpin-ions30,30–1;Narboni,CommentarytoIbnTufayl’sHayyibnYaqzan,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy339fol.42b,citedinHayoun,Laphilosophie,147;cf.thepassagecitedon139.61.SeeGuide2:19–25;trans.Pines,302–30,esp.328.62.WarsoftheLord6:1.6–9,308–28;trans.Feldman,iii:239–69.63.WarsoftheLord6:1.18,377;trans.Feldman,iii:343.64.WarsoftheLord5:3.11,278;trans.Feldman,iii:170.65.WarsoftheLord5:3.12,283;trans.Feldman,iii:182.66.See,e.g.,Feldman’sremarksinhistranslationoftheWarsoftheLord,iii:220–1.67.WarsoftheLord6:1.17,367;trans.Feldman,iii:330.68.Cf.S.Feldman,“PlatonicThemesinGersonides’Cosmology,”inSaloW.BaronJubileeVolume,ed.S.LiebermanandA.Hyman(Jerusalem:AmericanAcademyforJewishResearch,1975),i:383–405,andS.Feldman,“PlatonicMotifsinGersonides’TheoryoftheAgentIntellect,”inNeoplatonismandJewishThought,ed.L.E.Goodman(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1992),240–61.InsomewaysGersonidesappearstobecloserphilosophicallyandtemperamen-tallytoAvicennathantoAverroes.69.HasdaiCrescas,TheLightoftheLord2:1.3,ed.S.Fisher(Jerusalem:SifreiRamot,1990),138;AbrahamShalom,DwellingofPeace3:3(Venice,1575),45a.IsaacArama,TheBindingofIsaac19(Pressburg:V.Kittseer,1849),136a;IsaacAbravanel,CommentaryontheTorah(Warsaw,1862),i:46c.70.TheBindingofIsaac,16,1:116a;cf.IsaacArama,Abshalom’sMemorial(Leipzig,1859),96.71.TheLightoftheLord2:1.3,138;DwellingofPeace12:1.2,199b–200a;TheBindingofIsaac19,1:136a.72.Inadditiontothestudiesmentionedinthenotesbelow,thereadermayconsult:S.Feldman,“TheBindingofIsaac:ATest-CaseofDivineForeknowledge,”inDivineOmniscienceandOmnipotenceinMedievalPhilosophy,ed.T.Rudavsky(Dordrecht:Reidel,1985),105–33;S.Klein-Braslavy,“GersonidesonDeterminism,Possibility,Choice,andForeknowledge”[Hebrew],Daat22(1989),5–53;T.Rudavsky,“DivineOmniscienceandFutureContingentsinGer-sonides,”JournaloftheHistoryofPhilosophy21(1983),513–36;N.Samuelson,“Gersonides’AccountofGod’sKnowledgeofParticu-lars,”JournaloftheHistoryofPhilosophy10(1972),399–416.SomeofthepointsmentionedcursorilyinthissectionareamplifiedinC.Manekin,“OntheLimited-OmniscienceInterpretationofGerson-ides’TheoryofDivineKnowledge,”inPerspectivesonJewishThoughtandMysticism,ed.A.Ivry,E.Wolfson,andA.Arkush(Reading:Har-woodAcademicPublishers,1998),135–70;andC.Manekin,“FreedomCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n340MedievalJewishphilosophyWithinReason?GersonidesonHumanChoice,”inFreedomandMoralResponsibility:GeneralandJewishPerspectives,ed.C.ManekinandM.Kellner(CollegePark:UniversityofMarylandPress,1997),165–204.73.AccordingtotheAristotelians,Fidodesirestoburythebone,buthedoesnotchooseto,becausechoicerequiresreason,whichdogslack.74.GersonidesreferstothediscussioninWarsoftheLord5:3.3,wherehementionstwointerpretationsofAristotleregardingthequestionofGod’sknowledgeoftheworldproposedbyAverroesandThemistius,respectively.Averroes’interpretationclearlymatchesthefirstinter-pretationhere,butwhatiscitedinthenameofThemistiusdoesnotmatchthesecondinterpretationhere.OtherstatementsofThemistius,however,intheCommentaryontheMetaphysics,andasreportedbyAverroesinthelatter’sLongCommentaryontheMetaphysics,bothofwhichwereknowntoGersonides,suggesttheidentification.Feld-manassociatesthesecondinterpretationwithAvicenna,whosetheoryismentioned(withoutattribution)intheLongCommentaryasade-velopmentofThemistius’position.Forthehistoryofthatposition,seeS.Pines,“SomeDistinctiveMetaphysicalConceptionsinThemistius’CommentaryonBookLambda,andtheirPlaceintheHistoryofPhi-losophy,”inAristotelesWerkundWirkung,ed.J.Wiesner(Berlin:deGruyter,1987),ii:177–204.75.ItisnotapparenttomethatGersonidesconsistentlydistinguishesbe-tweenevent-typesandevent-tokens,e.g.between“findingatreasure”and“findingatreasureatt1”.ForthepurposesofthischapterIshallconsiderthembothasaccidents.76.I.e.if“knowledge”ispredicatedofGodandhumanswithabsoluteequivocation,thenGoddoesnotknowparticularsaccordingtothestan-dardaccountofknowledge.This,atleast,followsfromthecommonlyheldinterpretationof“absoluteequivocation.”77.AtonepointinhisdiscussionofGod’sknowledgeofparticularsMai-monideswrites:“Asforknowledgeoftheinfinite,thereisadifficultyaboutit.Someofthepeopleofspeculationcametoprofesstheopinionthatknowledgehasforitsobjectthespecies,but,inacertainsense,extendstoalltheindividualsofthespecies.ThisistheopinionofallthosewhoadheretoaLawinviewofwhatisrequiredbytheneces-sitiesofspeculation.Thephilosophers,however,affirmdecidedlythatHisknowledgemaynothaveforitsobjectanon-existentthing,etc.”(Guide3:20;trans.Pines,481).ThefirstsentenceiscitedbyGerson-idesinWarsoftheLord3asevidencethathistheoryisinaccordwiththeTorah(law).ButMaimonidesimpliesthatthetheoryof“someofthepeopleofspeculation,”whilereligiouslysatisfactory,isnotsharedbythephilosophers.Onceagain,itappearsthat,asaphilosopher,heCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nGersonides’religiousphilosophy341preferstheAristotelianposition,withallitsattendantdifficulties,tothemorereligiouslypalatableoneofthe“menofspeculation.”Gersonidesdoesnotfollowsuit.78.Onthetranslationofepistemeas“understanding,”seeJ.Barnes,Aris-totle’sPosteriorAnalytics,2nded.,ClarendonAristotleSeries(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1994),82.Therehasbeensomedebateoverthemeritsof“understanding”initsordinaryEnglishusagetocaptureAris-totelianepisteme;seeC.C.W.Taylor,“Aristotle’sEpistemology,”inEpistemology:CompanionstoAncientThoughti,ed.S.Everson(Cam-bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1990),116–41.79.PosteriorAnalytics1:3180.Metaphysics1:1,6:2.81.Oxford,BodleianMich.Heb.Ms.486[Neubauer1362],fol.39b.82.WarsoftheLord3:4,138;trans.Feldman,ii:117(slightlyaltered).83.WarsoftheLord1:10,69;trans.Feldman,i:195.84.HenceGersonidesdoesnotholdthatGodknowsuniversalsratherthanparticulars,northatGodcanonlyknowparticularsuniversally,whereashumanscanknowthemuniversallyandparticularly.Theseopinionsareerroneouslyascribedtohiminsomeofthescholarlyliterature.85.ButdoesnotReubenfreelychoosetoadheretoJewishlaw?Onlyinsofarashisreasoncompelshimto;seeManekin,“FreedomWithinReason?,”193–4.86.Ed.I.Levy,vol.iv:139.87.CommentaryonGenesis18:19,ExplanationoftheTerms,ed.BranerandFreiman,252.ThereferenceistoPsalms1:6.88.CommentaryonGenesis7:1,Lesson1,ed.BranerandFreiman,168.89.CommentaryonGenesis18:21,Lesson16,ed.BranerandFreiman,272.90.Ibid.91.Cf.Touati,Lapensee´,563:“Aufond,riendeveritablementfondamen-´taldanslesdonneesdelaTraditionn’est´elimin´eparGersonide;mais´toutesttransposesurunplanphilosophique´”(italicshis).Thisisthethemeofthepresentchapter,butIalsobelieve,paceTouati,thatonecanfindinGersonides’thought“lapresenceimmanentedeDieudans´l’histoireindividuelle”–atleast“inacertainmanner.”92.InWarsoftheLord3:1GersonidesconsiderstheviewsofAristotleandMaimonidesastheonlyonesworthyofinvestigationontheissueofdivineknowledgeofsublunarthings.ButinWarsoftheLord6:1.29hewritesthatnoneofhispredecessorshadanythingpartiallyorwhollycorrecttosaysaveMaimonides,“andyetitisnotfittingthatGod’sknowledgeshouldbepositedinthismanner.”ItisentirelyappropriateCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n342MedievalJewishphilosophythatGersonidesshouldgivehighermarkstoMaimonidesthantoAristotlesinceheagreeswiththeformerthatGodknowsparticulars.93.Seethearticlescitedinn.72.94.SeeWarsoftheLord,Introduction,4;trans.Feldman,i:94.95.OnecanmentioninthisregardGersonides’affirmationofthechosen-nessofIsrael,itsspecialprovidence,itssuperiorityoverothernations,thepreeminenceofitslandasaplaceforprophecyandconjunctionwithGod,andotherparticularistdoctrines.96.SeeA.Funkenstein,“Gersonides’BiblicalCommentary:Science,His-toryandProvidence,”inFreudenthal(ed.),StudiesonGersonides,305–16,esp.314,wheretheauthorclaimsthat“ofallmedievalJewishphilosophersofthefirstrank,Gersonidescameclosesttobeingadog-maticrationalist.”Thesimilaritiesbetweenthephilosophicaltemper-amentsofGersonidesandLeibnizarestrikinginthisregard.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nt.m.rudavsky15TheimpactofScholasticismuponJewishphilosophyinthefourteenthandfifteenthcenturiesInaclassicarticle,ShlomoPinesarguedthatpost-ThomisticScholas-ticism,mostnotablyDunsScotusandtheschoolofParisianphysics(e.g.,JeanBuridan,NicoleOresme),hadastrongimpactuponfourteenth-andfifteenth-centuryJewishphilosophy.1Pinespointedinthisarticletothe“interestdisplayedbycontemporaryJewishthinkersinthenewproblemsunderdiscussion,orintheoldproblemsinanewformulationunfamiliartotheArabic-Jewishtradition.”2InwhatfollowsIshallexplorePines’thesisagainstthebackdropofspecificissuesinJewishphilosophy.Morespecif-ically,IshallclaimthatScholasticinfluencesuponfourteenth-andfifteenth-centuryJewishphilosophycanbeseenintheincreasedattentionpaidtoScholasticlogic,inincreasedanalysisofthelog-icalandtheologicalstatusoffuturecontingents,inmetaphysicalconcernshavingtodowithidentityandindividuation,andinthede-velopmentofnon-Aristotelianphysics.Beforeturningtotheissuesthemselves,however,IwouldliketosituatethisstudybybrieflyexaminingimportantdevelopmentswithintheworldofChristianScholasticism.introduction:faith,belief,andheresyinscholasticandjewishphilosophyInordertoappreciatethecontentofScholasticdiscussionsduringthisperiod,wemustsaymoreabouttheimportanceofthecon-demnationofphilosophyof1277.Thecondemnationof1277rep-resentstheculminationofaseriesofearliercondemnationsintheChristianuniversities,andraisedthethornyissueofheresy.Inthethirteenthcentury,academiccensureinvolveduniversity-trained345CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n346MedievalJewishphilosophyscholarswhowereaccusedofheresy.Theword“heresy”wasusedamongthirteenth-andfourteenth-centuryScholasticstorefertofalseteachingsanderroneousviews,aswellastoclear-cutheresies.ManyScholasticsusedthecriterionofwillfuladherencetodistin-guishahereticalfromanerroneousdoctrine:errorsbecomeheresieswhentheyare“defendedwithpertinacity.”3OnDecember10,1270,BishopStephenTempiercondemnedase-riesofthirteenpropositions,amongthemtheeternityoftheworld.Thiscondemnationappearstohavebeenlargelyignored,asevi-denced,forexample,bythefactthatatleastfourseparatetreatisesontheeternityoftheworldwerewrittenshortlyafter1270.4Thiswasfollowedwithacondemnationof219propositionsinphilosophyandtheologybyBishopTempieronMarch7,1277;thiscondemnationisoneofthemoststudiedeventsinthehistoryoftheUniversityofParis.5ManyhistorianshavepresentedthiscondemnationasareactiontotheradicalAristotelianteachingsbeingdisseminatedattheUniversityofParis.Doctrinessuchastheeternityoftheuni-versewereseentobeinconflictwithChristianbelief,anditwasforbiddentoholdordefendthemonpainofexcommunication.6MenachemKellnercomparestheproliferationofaccusationsofheresyandsubsequentcondemnationsintheScholasticworldwiththerelativeabsenceofschisms,sects,andchargesofheresyinthemedievalJewishtheologicalarena.7Despitethemanydifferingac-countsconcerningthebasicprinciplesofJudaisminMaimonides,Duran,Crescas,Albo,Arama,Bibago,Abravanel,andothers,wefindfewaccusationsofheresy.KellnersuggeststhatinpartthiscanbetracedtoatraditionalJewishnotionoffaithasa(non-cognitivist)“trustinGod,”ratherthanasapropositionalaffirmationordenial.Infact,itisMaimonideswhointroducedintoJudaismapropositionalorcognitivistnotionofbeliefbydefiningheresyasthequestioningofanyofthethirteenprinciplesoffaitharticulatedinhisintroduc-tiontothetenthchapterofTractateSanhedrin(PereqHeleq).InthisworkMaimonidesarguedthatanybodywhoquestions(disbe-lieves)anyoneofthesethirteenprinciplesexcludeshimselffromthecommunityofIsrael,andhenceforfeitshisshareintheworldtocome.8AccordingtoMaimonides,adherencetotheseprinciplesisanecessaryconditionforassuringimmortalityofthesoul.AsShalomRosenbergpointsout,thetopicofbelief(emunah)thusbecomesin-extricablylinkedtotheviewoneadoptsconcerningimmortalityofthesoul.9CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheimpactofScholasticism347Maimonides’cognitivistconceptionofbelief,tyingimmortal-itytointellectualattainment,definedpost-Maimonideanphiloso-phy.Beyondeventhis,manyJewishphilosophers,influencedbyAverroes,replacedMaimonides’cognitivistconceptionwithanevenmorestringentAristoteliandistinctionbetweenknowledgeandtrueopinion.Arguingthatonlyknowledgecanbetrulysalvific,philoso-pherssuchasGersonidesmaintainedthatnon-philosopherswhodonotattaintorationalknowledge(intherobustAristoteliansenseofdemonstratedscience)cannotachieveimmortality;thusrationalspeculation(notjustbelief)isasufficientconditionforattainingimmortality.10Thesubjectofdogmaandbeliefisrevisitedwithevengreaterur-gencyinthefifteenthcentury.InlargepartthisisduetotheintenseChristianpersecutionsexperiencedbyIberianJewsbetween1391and1418.JewishintellectualleadersweredrawnintothedebatenotonlytodefinewhoisaJew,andwhomeritsimmortality,butalsotoarticulatethedoctrinalcontentofJudaismincontradistinctiontoChristianity.JewswereforcedtorespondtoaChristianchallengerootedincredalconcerns,thusbringingtotheforequestionscon-cerningthenatureofbelief.11WhenScholasticisminfiltratesJewishcirclesinthelatefour-teenthcentury,emunah(belieforconviction)takesontheaddi-tionalmeaningof“faith”(fides).12WefindJewishandChristianphilosophersvacillatingbetweenavolitionalandanonvolitionalunderstandingofbelief.Somephilosopherscollapsedthedistinc-tionbetweentruebeliefandknowledge,andinsodoingarguedthatknowledgeisinferiortofaith(fides,emunah).Othertheoriesem-phasizedtheprimacyofwilloverthatofintellectintheacquisitionofbeliefs.Manyexamplesofthenonrationalstatusofbeliefaboundinfourteenth-andfifteenth-centuryJewishliterature.InhisworkDerekhEmunah(TheWayofBelief),AbrahamBibago(d.c.1489)acknowledgesthatknowledgecanbeachievedthroughrationalin-quiry,butarguesthatacceptingpropositionsonfaith(thewayofemunah)isoftensuperiortothefirstmode.ReflectingAquinas’char-acterizationoffides,Bibagoclaimsthatthesuperiorityofemunahliesinitsvolitionalcharacter.13HasdaiCrescas(c.1340–1410/11),however,rejectedthevolitionalviewofbelief.InhismajorphilosophicalworkLightoftheLord(OrAdonai),Crescasarguedthat,incontradistinctiontoMaimonides,Jewsarenotcommandedtobelieveanything,sinceassentordenialCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n348MedievalJewishphilosophyisnotsubjecttochoiceorwill.14Arguingthatthewillhasnopoweroverextra-mentalexistents,Crescasrejectsthenotionthatthewillmovestheintellect.InLight2:5Crescasarguesthathumanactionismotivatedbytheagent’sownwill,butthewillisdeterminedbypriorcauses,bothinternalandexternal.Beliefs,however,areim-poseduponourminds,leavingnoroomforwill.15Inthisdeterministschemethewillaffectstheemotionalresponsetakentobeliefs,thatisthe“joyandpleasure”weexperience,andthusiscausallycon-nectedtoourdivinerewardandpunishment.ManyscholarshavetriedtotracetheformativeinfluencesuponCrescas’doctrineofwill.InhisrecentstudyofCrescas’SermononthePassover,AviezerRavitzkyhasarguedthatCrescas’discussionofwillappearstore-flectaconnectiontoLatinScholasticisminitsacceptanceofScotistideasregardingthemoralandreligiousprimacyofthewill.16AfternotingimportantsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenAquinas’andCrescas’conceptionsofbelief,RavitzkyturnstoacomparisonofScotusandCrescas.Mostimportantly,bothphilosophersrejectAquinas’insistenceuponultimatefelicitybeingattainedthroughintellect,andreplaceitwithatheoryofultimatefelicity(beatitude)thatisachievedthroughwill.17theinfluenceofscholasticmethoduponjewishphilosophyTurningmorespecificallytotheScholasticinfluencesuponfourteenth-andfifteenth-centuryJewishphilosophy,wemustnoteseveralhistoriographicalissues.First,wemustbecarefultodistin-guishbygeographicalareaaswellasbytemporalperiod.CharlesManekinandothershavearguedthatthemajorfourteenth-centuryJewishphilosophersofnorthernSpainandProvence(e.g.,Gerson-ides,IsaacPollegar,IbnKaspi,andNarboni)showlittlesign,ifany,ofScholasticinfluence.18Ontheotherhand,weknowthattheSpan-ishJewishphilosophersofthelatefourteenthandfifteenthcenturies(ProfiatDuran,Crescas,Albo,Bibago,Arama,andAbravanel)wereinvolvedinChristianpolemics;thisinvolvementnecessitatesanengagementwithScholasticisminordertoaddressthechallengesposedbyChristianity.19Buthowwasthisengagementeffected?DidJewishphilosophers,forexample,knowLatin?DanielLaskerarguesthat,althoughtheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheimpactofScholasticism349anti-ChristianpolemicistscertainlywerefamiliarwithChristiansources,notallhadareadingknowledgeofLatin.Itisnotunrea-sonabletopostulate,however,thatJewsandChristianscommuni-catedwithoneanotherinthevernacular.AgoodexampleistheapparentinteractionbetweenGersonides(1288–1344)andtheChris-tianclericswhocommissionedfromhimworksinastronomy,music(DeNumerisHarmonicis),andastrology.20Furthermore,inasmuchasJewishphilosophersduringthisperiodrarelymentionChristianwritersbyname,itisoftendifficulttotraceindividualScholasticin-fluences.HillelofVerona,forexample,usedunattributedpassages(anotuncommonpractice)fromtheLatinAvicennaandAverroes,in-terwovenwithpassagesfromAquinas’TractatusdeUnitateIntellec-tuscontraAverroistasandDominicoGundisalvo,inhisownworkTagmuleiha-Nefesh(RetributionsoftheSoul),writtenin1291.21Eventranslationscanbeambiguous.AlthoughtheworksofAristo-tle,Boethius,AlbertusMagnus,Aquinas,Ockham,andMarsiliusofInghenweretranslatedintoHebrewbyElijahHabillo(latefifteenthcentury),AbrahamShalom(d.1492),MeirAlguades(d.1410),andAzariahbenJoseph(latefifteenthcentury),itisnotcleartowhatextenttheyactuallywereincorporatedintoJewishphilosophy.Bythefourteenthcentury,weseeScholasticmethodfirmlyen-trenchedamongtheSchoolmen.ThemostprominentmethodusedisthequaestiomethodadoptedbyAquinas,Scotus,andthelaterScholastics.22Bymid-century,thismethodappearsinJewishtextsaswell.MarcSapersteinhasdocumentedtheuseofsyllogisticformsofargument,aswellastheincorporationoftheScholasticmethodofdisputatio,intomedievalJewishsermons.Crescas’celebratedSermononthePassoverisanexcellentcasestudy.23ThatScholasticmethodinfluencedJewishphilosophicalwritingscanbeseenaswellintheworksofGersonides,Crescas,andIsaacAbravanel,amongoth-ers,whoorganizedtheirdiscoursesthematicallyasasetofdisputedquestionswiththesameorderofexpositionasfoundinScholastictexts:formulationofthequestion,citationofsupportingarguments,citationofantitheticalargument,andresolutionoftheoriginalques-tion,generallyinsupportoftheantitheticalarguments.InpartthisfacilitywithScholasticmethodcanbetracedtoanincreasedinterestinScholasticlogic.AsManekinandRosenberghavenoted,theinfluenceofScholasticlogicuponJewishthoughtwasextensive.24Alreadyinfourteenth-centuryProvencewefindCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n350MedievalJewishphilosophytreatisesthatdemonstratetheinfluenceofScholasticlogic.OnesuchworkisanextensiveglosscommentaryuponPeterofSpain’sTracta-tus,writtenin1320byHezekiahbarHalafta.25Bytheendofthefour-teenthandbeginningofthefifteenthcenturies,wefindtheTractatusbeingtranslatedintoHebrewandenjoyingincreasedpopularity.OnereasonforthepopularityofScholasticlogicundoubtedlyrestedontheperceptionamongJewsthatlogicaltrainingwouldpreparethemfortherigorsofdisputationwithChristians;withoutsuchtrain-ing,theJewssawthemselvesatadistincttheologicaldisadvantage.Anotherreasonmayhavehadtodowiththeperceivedimportanceoflogicforasoundmedicaleducation;inasmuchasJewishphysi-cianswerecertifiedbeforeamixedtribunalofJewsandChristians,knowledgeofScholasticlogicwaspresumedtobehelpfulintheirpreparation.26ScholasticthoughtisextremelyinfluentialuponHebrewlogicinItalyaswell.SermonetahasdocumentedtheThomistictrendamongItalianJews,whotranslatedAquinasintoHebrewandusedhislogicalanalysisfortheirownpurposes.27Forexample,JudahbenMosesRomanointhefourteenthcenturytranslatedselectedworksofAquinasandGilesofRomeintoHebrew.OnceJewswereadmit-tedtothefacultiesofmedicineandphilosophyinItalianuniversi-ties,theywereinapositiontoincorporateChristianteachingsandspecificallylogic.28AgoodexampleofthisuniversitystatusforJewsisJudahbenYehielMesserLeon,whostudiedattheuniversitiesofBolognaandPaduainthelatterpartofthefifteenthcentury,wasawardedadoctorateinphilosophyandmedicine,andincorporatedtheScholasticlogicasreflectedintheworksofWalterBurleyandPaulofVeniceintohiswritings.MesserLeonwroteatreatiseonHebrewrhetoric,ahistoryofHebrewgrammar,anintroductorytextbookonlogicentitledSeferMikhlalYofi(TheBookofthePer-fectionofBeauty),andcommentariesonAverroes’middlecommen-tariesonthefirstfivebooksofAristotle’sOrganon.29divineomniscienceandhumanfreedomInthethirteenthandfourteenthcenturiestheproblemofdivineom-nisciencecomprisesanumberofsubsidiaryproblems:theproblemof(logical)fatalismasintroducedbyAristotleinhisDeInterpre-tationeandfurtherdevelopedbytheStoics,theproblemofGod’sCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheimpactofScholasticism351foreknowledgeofhumaneventsandtherelationofthisknowledgetofreewill,andparticulartheologicaldifficultiescenteringaroundthenotionsofprophecy,providence,andretribution.30Medievalphiloso-phersingeneralareconcernedwiththeextentandlimitsofGod’sknowledgeofparticularsinthesublunaruniverse.Howtoaccountfordivineknowledgewhiledenying,ontheonehand,(divine)plu-ralityand,ontheotherhand,theeffectsofcausalactivityuponGodbecomesamajorconsiderationforJewishandScholasticthinkersalike.Twomainsolutionstotheproblemofdivineforeknowledgepre-sentedthemselves:compatibilismandincompatibilism.IwilltakecompatibilismtobetheviewthatGod’sknowledgeiscompatiblewithhumanfreedom.MostJewishphilosophers,alongwiththeirScholasticcontemporaries,adoptedaformofcompatibilism,claim-ingthatGod’sforeknowledgeoffuturecontingenteventsinnowayimpedeshumanfreedom.Thecompatibilist,therefore,hasnoprob-lemwithassertingboththatGodhasforeknowledgethatIwilldoaparticularactionandthatIdothatactionfreely.Butcompatibilismisnotimmunefromlogicaldifficulties,andincompatibilistsarequicktopointtodiscrepanciesbetweenupholdingbothforeknowledgeandhumanfreedom.Oneformofincompatibilism,whichIshalltermindeterminism,isthatGodsimplydoesnotknowfuturecontingentevents.Startingwithhumanfreedomandtheexistenceofcontin-gencyasagiven,theindeterministwilldenyGod’somniscienceonthegroundsthatifanactionistrulyindeterminatepriortoitsac-tualization,thenitcannotbeknownbyGod.Clearlythispositionsafeguardshumanfreedomattheexpenseofdivineomniscience.Anotherstrandofincompatibilism,determinism,claimsthatifGodknowsthecausalchainofeventsthatunfoldsfromhisknowledge,humanactionsareultimatelydeterminedbythisknowledge.BothindeterminismanddeterminismhadtheiradherentsinJewishphi-losophy,albeitinveryfewnumbers.31Jewishanalysesexhibitincreasingsophisticationinthefour-teenthandfifteenthcenturies.Beforethefourteenthcentury,thequestionof“freedomofwill”(behirahofshit)isnotdiscussedamongJewishphilosophers.Inthethirteenthcentury,thetermsbehira(choice)andefshar(contingency)ratherthanratzon(will)andhofshi(free)wereused.Maimonides,forexample,arguedthatGod’sknowl-edgeisuniqueandhencewecannotunderstandthecompatibilityCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n352MedievalJewishphilosophybetweendivineknowledgeandhumanfreewill.32Bythefifteenthcenturythetermbehirahofshitisutilized,presumablyasasignoftheinfluenceoftheScholasticconceptofliberumarbitrium.33AmongtheChristianScholasticsitwasespeciallyDunsScotus,andWilliamofOckhamafterhim,whoassertedthatwillinitsprimaryactisfreewithregardtooppositeacts.Consider,forexample,thereputed“voluntarism”ofDunsScotus,whichconsistspreciselyinhisinsistencethatthefreewilliscapableofchoosingotherthanitdoes.34IntimatedbutnotfullydevelopedbyhispredecessorAbrahamibnDaud,indeterminismfindsitsfullestexpressioninGersonides’workSeferMilhamotha-Shem(WarsoftheLord).Inthecontextofanelaboratediscussionofastrology,Gersonidesclaimsthathumanbeingscanovercomethedetermininginfluencesoftheirastrologicalsigns.Althoughthisabilityisrare,andrealinstancesoffreewillareuncommon,intellectandwillcanmovehumanstodosomethingotherthanwhathasbeendeterminedfromthestandpointoftheheavenlybodies.35Oneimplicationofthispositionisthatallfuturecontingentsaretrulyopen.Inasmuchasanimmutabledeitycannotbeomniscient,ifomniscienceentailsknowingobjectsthatundergochange,GersonidesarguesthatGoddoesnotknowfuturecontin-gents.AccordingtoGersonides,Godknowsthatcertainstatesofaf-fairsmayormaynotbeactualized.Butinsofarastheyarecontingentstates,Goddoesnotknowwhichofthetwoalternativeswillinfactbeactualized.God’sinabilitytoforeknowfuturecontingentsisnotadefectinhisknowledge.Withrespecttofuturecontingents,Godknowstheirorderednatureoressence,andheknowsthattheyarecontingent,butGoddoesnotknowwhichalternativewillbecomeactual.36ForGodhasplacedwithinhumanspurposivereason“soastomove(humans)towardsomethingotherthanthatwhichhasbeendeterminedfromtheaspectoftheheavenlybodies,insofarasthisispossibletomakestraightthatwhichchancehasconvoluted.”37ShlomoPineshasarguedthatGersonides’conceptionoffreeac-tionisnotfoundamongMuslimAristoteliansorJews,anditisthere-foreprobablethatGersonidesandotherJewishAristotelianshadabsorbeditfromChristianScholasticism.PinesthensuggeststhatGersonideswasfamiliarwiththeScholasticdebateoverthePelagiancontroversy.38Unfortunately,however,notextsexisttotiethetwodiscussions;asSeymourFeldmanand,morerecently,ManekinhaveCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheimpactofScholasticism353argued,thesimilaritiesbetweenGersonidesandmedievalScholas-ticsontheissueofprovidencecanbejustasconvincinglyexplainedbyparallelattemptstoreconcileastrologywithAristotelianism.39Infact,IbnKaspimayhavebeenmorefamiliarwiththePelagiande-bate,sinceheusestheLatintermcontingentiafuturainitsHebrewequivalent(he-atidha-efshari).40Themore“conservative”fifteenth-centuryphilosophersrejectedGersonides’indeterminismanddenialofdivineomniscience.AgainstGersonides’indeterminismwehaveCrescas’theologicalde-terminism.Manekinhassuggestedthatthesereactionarypositionsmaybeseenas“theresultoftheScholasticmilieu,inwhichthedoc-trineofdivineknowledgeofparticularsquaparticularswastakenforgrantedbythefourteenthcentury.”41AbnerofBurgosisthefirstJewishphilosophertopresentastrictdeterministtheory(althoughbythetimehewrotehistreatiseonfreewillinthe1320s,AbnerhadconvertedtoChristianity).InhisTreatiseonFreeWill,NarbonidescribesAbnerasfollows:“Therewasascholar,anoldercontemporaryofmine,oneofthesingularmenofhistime,whocomposedatreatiseonDeterminism,inwhichhestatedthat‘thepossible’doesnotexist,butonly‘theinevitable’sinceeverythingispredestined.”42Definingavoluntaryagentasonewhocanequallyperformoneoftwoalternatives,Abnerintroducesthenotionof“completewill”todescribethecausalchainthatcom-binesthemotivatingstimulusandtheimaginativefaculty.Humanactionsarecompletelydeterminedinsofarasthewillflowsneces-sarilyfromarigidcausalchain.43ThusAbnerupholdsstrictcelestialdeterminism,arguingthatGod’seternalknowledgecausallyneces-sitateshumanactions;ifhumanchoicewerefree,Godcouldnothaveforeknowledgeofhumanactions.Ultimatelywehavenocon-troloverwhatwedoorrefrainfromdoing.BaernotesthatAbner’stheoryofdeterminismisacuriousblendofPaulineandAugustiniandoctrinesofpredestination,interwovenwithMuslimfatalismandastrology.AccordingtoAbner,thehumanbeinghasnochoice,noteveninmattersoffaith.44AsColetteSiratpointsout,Abner’stheoryofwilljustifiesinadvanceforcedbaptismsandthetorturesoftheInquisition.InMinhatQena
ot,Abnerarguesthatanindividualwhowillssomethingundertortureactsvoluntarily.45OfthethreeopponentstoAbner–IsaacPollegar,MosesofNar-bonne,andIbnKaspi–PollegarwasthefirsttorespondanddidsoCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n354MedievalJewishphilosophyvociferouslyinhistreatiseEzerha-Dat(TheSupportoftheFaith).46OfPollegarhimselfweknowverylittle,exceptthathewasaclosefriendofAbner’sbeforethelatter’sconversiontoChristianity.WhileAbnerseeshimselfasadefenderofastraldeterminism,aswellasdivineknowledgeofparticulars,PollegarreiteratesMaimonides’ar-gumentsagainstastrology,arguingthatastrologyisbothfalseandharmfultoreligion.47Presentinghisargumentsasadialoguebe-tweenanastrologerandawiseman(haver),PollegartriestoretainbothGod’sforeknowledgeandhumanfreedom.Hearguesthatdeter-minismisincompatiblewithhumanagency,andinitssteadproposesatheoryof“pre-establishedharmony”accordingtowhichGod’swillandhumanwillareinsynchrony:“mywillislinkedtothewillofmycreatorandbothuniteatthesameinstantsothatmywillispartofhis,andthusIamdrawnbyhim;whenhewishesanddesirestoact,thenItoowishit.”48DeterminismissupportedmostforcefullybyCrescas.Itishisdiscussionthatmostclearlyreflectsdevelopmentsincontempo-raryLatinphilosophy,particularlythevoluntaristtheoriesadvancedbyDunsScotusandhisfollowers.ZevHarveyhasnotedthattheScotistphilosophersAnfredusGonteriandPeterThomae(d.1340)hadtaughtattheFransciscanstudiumgeneraleinBarcelonaintheearlyfourteenthcentury.ThestudiumgeneralewassituatedaboutfivehundredmetersfromtheJewishQuarter,whereCrescaslivedandtaughtuntilhemovedtoSaragossain1389.49IntheLightoftheLordwefindtwotreatmentsoftheproblemofdivineomniscience,thesecondofwhichislaterthanthefirst.WhilethefirstisbasedonCrescas’SermononthePassover,thesecond,complementaryposi-tionontheproblemofdeterminismandchoiceappearstohavebeenworkedoutwithintheframeworkoftheScotisttradition.50InLightCrescasliststhreeprinciplesthatarenecessitatedbytra-dition:thatGod’sknowledgeencompassestheinfinite,thatGod’sknowledgeextendsoverthatwhichdoesnot(now)exist,andthatGod’sknowledgeextendsoverthe(disjunctive)partsofthepossible,withoutchangingthenatureofthepossible.Crescas’statedgoalinthisworkistoexaminethoseargumentsofthephilosophers,andthatofGersonidesinparticular,whichthreatentheseprinciples.InstandardScholasticfashion,Crescaslistsargumentsbothforandagainstthethreeprinciples,withtheintentionofsupportingtheformer.Hefirstclaimsthatourknowledgeisderivative,whereasCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheimpactofScholasticism355God’sknowledgeisactiveandcausal.51Godknowsthingsnotbe-causeheknowshimself,buteoipso;itisthroughhisknowledgethattheyexist.ItisherethatCrescas’determinismisintroduced.DoesthistemporalchangefromfuturetopastaffectGod’sessence?Crescasrespondsthat,becauseGodknowsbeforetheoccurrenceofaneventthatitwillhappen,God’sessencedoesnotchangewhentheeventactuallyoccurs.ButhowcanwecallathingpossibleifGodknowsbeforeitsoccurrencehowitwillhappen?Crescasattemptstodistinguishtwosensesofcontingency,arguingthatathingmaybenecessaryinonewayandpossibleinanother.52EventsknownbyGod,although“possibleinthemselves,”neverthelessarenecessarywithrespecttotheircausalhistory.Inotherwords,ifGodknowsp,thenthetruthvalueofpisdeterminateand“isnecessaryintermsofitscauses.”53Onanalogywithanindividual’sknowledgethatdoesnotchangethenatureofthepossibilityofthethingknown,sotoodoesCrescasarguethattheknowledgeofGoddoesnotchangethenatureofthepossibilityinquestion.InLight2:5.1Crescasturnsmorespecificallytotheproblemoffreechoice(behira).Crescasisunequivocalthatfreechoicepre-supposespossibility,albeitinanarrowsenseofpossibility.Crescasarguesthatnaturalphenomenaare“possibleinthemselvesandnec-essarywithrespecttotheircauses.”54Whatthismeansisthatfromtheperspectiveofitscausalhistory,everyeventisnecessary.Onlyinlightofhumanepistemologicalweakness(viz.ourinabilitytoknowthiscausalhistory)cananeventbesaidtobepossible.Asnecessary,eventscanbeforeknown;aspossibleperse,theyare“quapossibile.”theoriesofindividuationMetaphysicalissuesconcerningtheidentityandindividuationofparticulars,atopicofmuchimportanceinChristianphilosophy,arefoundonlyderivativelyamongJewishphilosophers.Partofthedif-ferenceinscopebetweenJewishandScholasticdiscussionsisduetothefactthatuntilthefourteenthcenturyJewishwritershadlittleaccesstothelogicalwritingsofAristotle,andsothespecificlogi-calissuesrelatedtoindividuationthataroseoutoftheCategoriesandDeInterpretationewereoflittledirectconcerntothem.Further,inasmuchasJewishphilosopherswereobviouslynotconcernedwithCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n356MedievalJewishphilosophythoseontologicalissuesthataroseoutofatrinitarianconceptionofGod,theydidnotfeelasobligedasdidtheirScholasticcounterpartstoconstructelaboratetheoriesofidentityandindividuationtoac-countfortheunitywithindiversityoftheGodhead.Ingeneral,IagreewithJorgeGraciaandUdoThielthatwemustdistinguishanumberofissuespertainingtotheproblemoftheindividuationofpersons:55themetaphysicalquestionofwhatmakesanindividualtheindividualitisanddistinguishesitfromallotherindividualsofthesamekind,theepistemologicalquestionofhowweknowindivid-ualsandhowtheydifferfromoneanother,andthespecificproblemofidentitythroughtime–theconditionsofanindividualremainingthesameovertime.TheseissuesappearinmedievalJewishtextsbutprimarilywithinthecontextofproblemsassociatedwiththeimmortalityofthesoul.Whenweturntothefourteenthcentury,weseetheinfluenceofScholasticismreflectedintheworkofYedayahbenAbrahamBedersiha-Penini(c.1270–1340),wholivedprimarilyinsouth-ernFrance(PerpignanandMontpellier).Ofhispurelyphilosophi-calworks,hisshorttreatiseATreatiseuponPersonalorIndividualForms,whichappearsonlyinmanuscriptform,examinestheissueofindividualforms.56Inupholdingtheexistenceofpersonalandin-dividualforms,BedersiplaceshimselfdirectlyintheScotistcamp.HencehestandsincontradistinctiontoJudeo-ArabicthinkerswhofollowedtheAristoteliantraditionaccordingtowhichformsbydef-initionareuniversalandnotindividual.AccordingtoScotusandincontrasttoAristotle,individualdifferencesareexplainedintermsofathing’shaecceitas(“thisness”).AlthoughScotushimselfdidnotidentifythishaecceitaswith“personalforms,”hisdisciplestendedtoobscurethedistinction.57ItshouldbenotedthatnowhereinthistreatisedoesBedersiquoteScotusorotherScholasticsdirectly;nev-ertheless,bothPinesandSirathaveemphasizedtheobviousScotistelementinhisdiscussion.58WhatisnotcleariswhetherBedersitookhissourcesfromanunknownScholasticworkorwhetherhewasinfluencedbygeneralScholasticdiscussionsandthendevelopedthedetailsofhistheoryonhisown.59Inanyevent,evenabriefex-aminationofBedersi’streatiserevealsanewdimensioninJewishdiscussionsofindividuation.ThequestionposedbyBedersiisonethatwaspopularlydis-cussedinthirteenth-centuryScholasticcircles,namely,whetherCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheimpactofScholasticism357individualshavetheirownindividualformsinadditiontothosethataccruetothespecies.Bedersiallowsfortwopossibilities:inthefirstcase,eachindividualhasitsownpersonalformthatissuper-addedtotheformofthespeciesinquestion;inthesecond,individualsbelongingtothesamespeciesdifferonlywithrespecttonumericaldiversity.Epistemologically,Bedersisuggeststhatindividualmem-bersofspeciescanbedefinedonlyintermsofthespecies:“Individ-ualsarenotintellectedundertherubricofthespecies,thatis,theirindividualforms;forwhatisintellectedisalwaysgeneralandsepa-ratefromthematerialelement.Henceindividualsarenotdefinableexceptintermsofthespecies.”60Bedersi’smajormetaphysicalcontentionisthatthedifferencebe-tweenmembersofaspeciesderivesinlargepartfromtheformsthatinhereintheindividualspecies;onthisbasishepostulatestheexistenceofindividualforms.61ItisherethatBedersimostclearlyresemblesScotism.BothBedersiandScotusunderstandindividu-ationnotassomethingderivedprimarilyfrommatter,butratherasrootedinform.Thisdoesnotmeanthatindividuationeschewsmatterentirely.AccordingtoScotus,theindividualdiffersfromtheuniversalformallyaswellasvirtually.62Theprincipleofindividua-tioncontainsbothaformalandamaterialelement.AlthoughmatterplaysaroleforbothScotusandBedersi,inbothcasestheultimatedifferencewithregardtoindividualsisformal:itisindividualformsthatindividuateanentity.alternativestoaristotelianscience:time,void,andpluralityofworldsThroughoutthefourteenthandfifteenthcenturies,theproblemofcreationcontinuestooccupyphilosophersandtheologians,bothJewishandScholastic.Thethreemajorpositionsoncreationaretemporalcreationoftheworldexnihilo,eternalemanationoftheworldoutofGod,andeternalproductionoftheworldbyGod.Maimonideshadsettheparametersforthediscussion,disputing(inGuide2:13–25)thedemonstrabilityofAristotle’sargumentsfortheeternityoftheworldandarguing(atleastprimafacie)foritsexnihilocreation.63ButMaimonidesfoundhiscriticsinGersonides,Crescas,Albalag,andNarboni,amongothers,allofwhomsubjectedhisthe-oryoftimeandcreationtocriticalexamination.BothAlbalagandCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n358MedievalJewishphilosophyNarbonisidedwiththeAverroistthesisthattheworldiseternallyproducedbyGodasFirstCause.64However,amongtheScholastics,ThomasAquinascitedMaimonides’discussionofcreationwithap-proval,anduseditasabasisforarguingthatthecreationoftheworldcannotbeproveddemonstratively.65Bythe1270snumerousScholas-tictreatisesappearedinsupportoftheeternitythesis;asmentionedearlier,thisproliferationwasinpartresponsibleforthecondemna-tionof1277.Ofthe219propositionscondemnedbyBishopTempierin1277,aboutthirtyhavetodowiththeeternityofthesoul,oftheintelligences,oftheheavens,andofmatter,inadditiontotheeternityoftheworld.Oneofthemostpervasiveresultsofthecondemnationof1277wasthatitencouragedalternativestoAristoteliannaturalphilosophy.66Morespecifically,thecondemnedpropositionsdirectlyaffectedthe-oriesofplace,thevoid,andthepluralityofworlds,thusinauguratingapre-Copernicanrevolution.Thetwopropositionsmostimportanttothisnewwayofthinkingareproposition34“Quodprimacausanonpossetpluresmundosfacere,”andproposition49“QuodDeusnonpossitmoverecelummoturecto.Etratioest,quiatuncrelin-queretvacuum.”67AsJohnMurdochandothershaveargued,thesetwopropositionsrepresentedthefoundationofthewholeedificeofAristotelianphysics.Beingdeclaredanathemaimplicitlydemandedthecreationofanewphysicsthatwouldcircumventthecondemnedpropositions.Inexploringtheconsequencesofthesecondemnations,ScholasticphilosopherswereencouragedtodevelopconceptscontrarytoAris-totelianphysicsandcosmology.Asaresultofproposition49,forexample,therearoseanemphasisuponGod’sabsolutepower(potentiaDeiabsoluta)todoanythingshortofalogicalcontradic-tion.Proposition34ledtospeculationabouttheexistenceofmul-tipleuniverses.Priortothecondemnations,ScholasticphilosophersconsideredtheimpossibilityofmultipleworldsagainstthebackdropofAristotelianargumentsthatoutsidetheworldtherecannotbeanyplacebecausetherearenobodies;andtherecannotbeavoid,becauseavoidisaplacewheretherecouldbeabodywherethereispresentlynobody.68InasmuchastheseargumentswerelinkedtotheissueofGod’somnipotenceaswell,itbecameincreasinglycommontoarguethatGod’screativeomnipotenceallowedforthecreationofmultipleworlds.Forexample,Godwassaidtocreatemultipleworlds,eachCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheimpactofScholasticism359withitsowncenter.OnthesuppositionthatGoddidmakeotherworlds,itwasarguedthatemptyspacewouldintervenebetweenthem.SoifGodcouldcreateavacuumbetweenworlds,certainlyGodcouldcreatevacuawithintheworld.69AlreadyinGersonides,wefindechoesofthisconcern.InWarsoftheLord6:1.19,Gersonidesexaminesthepossibilityofapluralityofcoexistinguniverses.UnlikeAristotle,Gersonideshaspostulatedtheexistenceofaprimordialbody/matteroutsidetheuniverse,andsoforhimthequestioniswhetherthereexistsasufficientquantityofthisprimordialbodytogenerateotheruniverses.70Gersonidesar-guesthattheexistenceofamultiplicityofuniverseswouldrequirepostulatingavacuumbetweentheregionsofprimordialmatter,ahy-pothesisheconsiders“absurd.”ItisnotunreasonabletosupposethatGersonides’discussionisinfluencedbythe1277condemnation.71ThemostarticulateexponentwithinJewishphilosophyofthesenewinterestsisCrescas.DespiteTzviLangermann’spointthatCrescashadnointerestinscienceperse,noagendaforharmoniz-ingscienceandtheology,72itisclearthatCrescasisembroiledinpreciselythesamesetofscientificissuesthatoccupiedScholasticphilosophersafterthecondemnationof1277.ZevHarveysuggeststhatCrescas’workis“perhapsconnectedinsomewaywiththepioneeringworkinnaturalsciencebeingconductedattheUniver-sityofParis.”73Morespecifically,HarveyhascomparedtheworksofNicoleOresmeandCrescas,arguingthattheyarethetwomostimportantphilosophersrepresentingthenewphysics.Botharguefortheexistenceofmanyworlds;bothclaimthatmanyworldsdonotimplytheexistenceofmorethanoneGod;andbotharguethatgen-erationandcorruptioninthesublunaryworldisevidenceforsucces-siveworlds.Oresmewroteinthe1340sinParis,whichwasthenthecenterofthe“newphysics.”HecametoPamplonain1338–1342,andCrescasvisitedPamplonaduringthisperiod.CrescashimselfdescribeshisanalysisandcritiqueofAristotelianscienceashaving“nosmallbenefitforthisscience”(toeleteynomeatba-hokhmaha-zot).74InanattempttoupholdthebasicdogmasofJudaism,Crescassub-jectsAristotle’sphysicsandmetaphysicstoatrenchantcritique.HisrejectionofAristotle’stheoriesofplaceandtheinfiniteformspartofanextendedattempttoweakenAristotle’sholduponJewishphilos-ophy.InAristotle’sPhysics4:1,spaceisidentifiedwithplace(topos)CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n360MedievalJewishphilosophyandformsanintegralpartofAristotle’stheoryofmotion,whichisdefinedas“changeofplace.”75PlaceisthenproperlydefinedbyAristotleas“theboundaryofthecontainingbodyatwhichitisincontactwiththecontainedbody.”76Onthebasisofthischaracteri-zation,AristotleproceedsinPhysics4:6torejectthepossibilityofavacuum,forinatheorythatdoesnotallowforaplacenotcorrelatedtoanybody,therecanbeno“emptyspace”orvoid.OneimportantimplicationofCrescas’alternativeconceptionofplaceandinfinityhastodowithhispostulatingtheexistenceofthevacuum.AccordingtoCrescas,placeispriortobodies:incontradis-tinctiontoAristotle’sconceptionofplace,spaceforCrescasisnotamererelationshipofbodiesbutisthe“intervalbetweenthelimitsofthatwhichsurrounds.”77SpaceisseenbyCrescasasaninfinitecon-tinuumreadytoreceivematter.Becausethisplaceorextensionofbodiesisidentifiedwithspace,thereisnocontradictioninpostulat-ingtheexistenceofspacenotfilledwithbody,thatisthevacuum.78Crescas,infact,assumesthatplaceisidenticalwiththevoid,onthegroundsthat“placemustbeequaltothewholeofitsoccupantaswellasto[thesumof]itsparts.”79ThisconceptionofplaceandtimeallowsCrescastomaintainthattheinfiniteuniverse(ha-metziut)containsmanyworlds(olamotrabbim).AnextensivediscussionofmultipleworldsisfoundinLight4:2.Inthissection,headoptsthequaestiomethod,startingwiththeScholasticopener“whether”(ha
im=utrum),andthenpresentsar-gumentsforboththeaffirmativeandnegativeposition.Heexplorestheaffirmativepositionbyofferingtwoarguments:thefirstmain-tainsthatthereisnothingthatprecludescreationfromoccurringinanotherworldorworlds,whereasthesecondsuggeststhatinas-muchasthe“moreheincreasesworlds,themoreheincreasesgood-ness,”itislogicallypossiblefromthenatureofGodthatthereexistsmanyworlds.80AriAckermanhasnotedthesimilarityoftheseargu-mentstothosefoundinWilliamofAuvergne,JohnBuridan,AlbertofSaxony,NicoleOresme,andThomasAquinas.81Afterexaminingboththepositiveandnegativearguments,CrescasconcludesintrueScholasticfashionthat“whathasbeenprovedfromthemisonlythepossibilityofaplurality.”82Thatis,theargumentshaveshownthatmultipleworldsarepossible,incontradistinctiontoAristotle’sclaimthattheunicityofworldsisnecessary,buttheydonotshowthatapluralityofworldsactuallyexists.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheimpactofScholasticism361Thecondemnationof1277affectstheoriesoftimeaswell.Notwithstandingthecondemnationoftheeternityoftime,theAris-totelianemphasisuponeternitywasneverthelessembracedandrefinedbytheScholastics.83TheAristoteliandefinitionoftimereap-pearsthroughoutthefourteenth,fifteenth,andearlysixteenthcen-turies,butwithprogressivemodification.BothPinesandSirathavearguedthatGersonides’discussionofthe“now”(atah)isverysim-ilartotheQuaestionessuperLibrosPhysicorumattributed(appar-entlywrongly)toSigerofBrabant.84Gersonides’criticalrefutationofAristotle’seternitythesisintroducesthemotifoftimeanditsre-lationtomotion.IncontradistinctiontoAristotle,whopostulatedtheeternityoftimeandmotion,Gersonidesinsiststhatbothtimeandmotionarefinite,therebyhopingtorefuteAristotle’seternityoftheworldthesisbyshowingthattheinfinityoftimeandmotionfailasexceptionstoAristotle’sownfiniteuniverse.85Aristotle’ssecondargumentforeternity,aspresentedbyGerson-idesinWarsoftheLord6:1.11,isbasedonhisdefinitionoftheinstantasthemiddlepointbetweenthe“before”(ha-qodem)and“after”(ha-mit
acher).ThemainthrustofAristotle’sargument,aspresentedbyGersonides,isthat,inordertoaccountforthecomingintoexistenceofanypresentinstant,theremustexistaprioractualinstant;butinthecaseofthefirstinstant,therecouldbenopriorinstant,actualorpotential.Gersonides’majorobjectioncentersonAristotle’sformulationofthenotionoftheinstant.Morespecifically,Gersonidesdistinguishestworolesoftheinstant:aninitialinstantthatdoesnotyetconstitutetime,andsubsequentinstantsthatde-marcate“before”from“after.”AccordingtoGersonides,thesetwonotionsoftheinstantservedifferentfunctions.Thefirstdelimitsaparticularportionoftime,namelycontinuousquantity,andischar-acterizedintermsofduration.Thelatter,ontheotherhand,reflectstheAristotelianfunctionoftheinstantascharacterizingdivision.Gersonidesclaimsthatiftherewerenodifferencebetweenthesetwofunctionsoftheinstant,wecouldnotdistinguishbetweenanytwosetsoffractionsoftime,forexamplethreehoursandthreedays,becauseourmeasureofthetwosetswouldbeidentical.Sinceeachperiodoftimewouldbedividedbythesamekindofinstant,therewouldbenowayofdistinguishingthreedaysfromthreehours.86Gersonides’pointisthatAristotle’soriginalobjectionstothefini-tudeoftimeobtainonlyiftheinstantisunderstoodinthesecondCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n362MedievalJewishphilosophysense.Whentheinstantistakenasaninitialinstantofatemporalspan,weseethattherecanbea“firstinstant”withoutcontradic-tion.Hencetheinstanttakeninthesenseofdurationneednotbeprecededbyapasttime.87ItisherethatPinesnotesthesimilaritybetweenGersonidesandtheScholastictextalludedtoabove:bothtextsmaintainthatbecausethe“now”playstworolesinAristotle,itispossiblethatinthecaseofthetemporalbeginningoftheuniverse,onlyoneoftheseroles–thatoflimit–isbeingutilized.88ButAristotlehadadditionalcriticsaswell,beginningwithPloti-nusandthenmuchlaterCrescas,whoemphasizedthattimeistheproductofthesoulandisdefinedinaccordancewithdurationratherthannumber.IncontradistinctiontoAristotle,Crescaswishestomakeseveralpoints.Thefirstisthattimecanmeasurerestaswellasmotion.Secondly,timecanbemeasuredbyrestaswellasbymotion.Andfinally,timeexistsonlyinthesoul.ThefirsttwopointsarecapturedinCrescas’reviseddefinitionoftime:“thecor-rectdefinitionoftimeisthatitisthemeasureofthecontinuityofmotionorofrestbetweentwoinstants.”89InthisdefinitionCrescasretainsAristotle’sandMaimonides’notionoftimeasa“measure”or“number.”However,Crescasaddstheimportantqualificationthattimeisthemeasurenotonlyofmotionorchange,butofrestaswell.Crescasproceedstosaythatthegenusmostappropriatetotimeismagnitude.Inasmuchastimebelongstocontinuousquantityandnumbertodiscretequantity,ifwedescribetimeasnumber,wede-scribeitbyagenusthatisnotessentialtoit.OnthisbasisCrescasconcludesthat“theexistenceoftimeisonlyinthesoul.”90Itisbe-causehumanshaveamentalconceptionofthismeasurethattimeevenexists.Therealityoftimedependsuponathinkingmind,andisindefinite,becomingdefiniteonlybybeingmeasuredbymotion.ItisinthiscontextthatCrescascomesclosesttoreflectinghisnearScholasticcontemporariesPeterAureolandWilliamofOckham.Ac-cordingtoPeterAureol,forexample,timeexistsonlyinthemind.91AndWilliamofOckhamdevelopsanevenmoresubjectivistview,accordingtowhichtimeisa“cosmicclock,”whichmeasuresthedurationoftemporaleventsandthings.LikeCrescas,whodeniestherealexistenceoftimeasanaccidentofsubstance,OckhamclaimsthattimeandinstantsoftimearenotreallyexistentAristotelianaccidents.92CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheimpactofScholasticism363conclusion:preludetothemoderneraInthischapterIhaveexaminedanumberoftopicswithinfourteenth-andfifteenth-centuryJewishphilosophythatreflecttheinfluences,eitherdirectorindirect,ofChristianScholasticismasitwasshapedbythecondemnationof1277.AlthoughlatemedievalscienceandphilosophywereindebtedtoAristotleandhismedievalfollowers,theunderlyingintellectualstructureofthemedievalworldwascrumbling.Jewishphilosophers,aswellastheirScholasticpeers,payincreasedattentiontothenaturalscienceoftheirday.Later,inthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies,naturalscienceandphilos-ophybecomemoreclearlydistinguished,andtheirsubjectmattersbecomesubjecttodifferenttypesofmethodologicalinvestigation.TheheliocentrismofCopernicusthreatensAristotle’sequationoftimewithmotioninthat,asPieroAriottihasargued,heliocentrismdoesnotprovideCopernicusandhissuccessorswithdirectlyobserv-ableuniformmotionsorconstantintervalsoftime,soimportanttoAristotle’stheory.93JewishphilosophersinRenaissanceItalywereinfluencedbothbytheCopernicanrevolutionaswellasbytheHumanistrevivalofPlatonismandNeoplatonism.Theinterconnectionsbetweenphilos-ophy,theology,andsciencefoundtheirwayintoJewishphilosoph-icaltextsfromthelatefifteenthcentury.TracingtheimpactoftheCopernicanrevolutionuponJewishthoughtinthefifteenthcentury,HillelLevinesuggeststhatEuropeanJewry,althoughclosetotheCopernicandebates,was“curiouslyunshaken”bytheimplicationsoftheCopernicanrevolutionuponmetaphysicalandepistemologicalspeculation.94DavidRudermanandothers,however,havesurveyedtheimpactofastronomyuponsixteenth-centuryeasternEuropeanJewishphilosophers.CitingtheworksofMosesIsserlesofCracow,theMaharalofPrague,andDavidGans,Isserles’mostsuccessfulstudentinthesciences,Rudermanraisesthetantalizingquestionoftheextenttowhichdevelopmentsincurrentastronomyaffectedtheirworks.95DavidGans,forexample,appearstobeup-to-dateoncontemporaryworkinastronomyandscience;inhisworkNehmadve-Na
im,hetracesrecentdevelopmentsinastronomyandmentionsCopernicusasthegreatestastronomersincePtolemy.Nevertheless,asAndreNeherandRudermanhavebothpointedout,inhisownas-´tronomicalwritingsGansadherestothegeocentricmodelsofBraheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n364MedievalJewishphilosophyandKepler.96NeherrecordsasupposedconversationbetweenDavidGansandTychoBraheinwhichGansvaliantlyupholdstherabbinicviewovercurrentastronomy.97JosephSolomondelMedigo(1591–1655),ontheotherhand,rec-ognizedthechallengeofthenewCopernicanastronomy.RudermanhasemphasizeddelMedigo’stendency,alongwiththatofhismen-torGalileo,tounderstandthenaturalworldoutsidetheframeworkofAristotelianphysics;itisthistendencythatisalignedwithdelMedigo’sinterestinkabbalahandNeoplatonicthought.98InhisworkSeferElimdelMedigodescribesthe“strangeastronomy,”aswellasthedangersinherentinthisnewastronomy,whichchallengedthereigningmetaphysics.99InGevurotHashem,aworkappendedtoSeferElim,delMedigoismoreenthusiasticinhisattitudetowardCopernicus,demonstratinghisknowledgeofthenewastronomy:HappinessandjoywereaddedtomewhenIheardthatthey(theresearchers)havebeguninourtimetothinkthattheentireuniverseislikealanternandiscalled“lanterna”;andthecandleburningwithinitisthesolarbody,whichstandsinthecenterandwhoselightspreadsoutuntilthesphereofSaturnwhichisattheouterlimitofthisuniverse.100DelMedigothustypifiesthetendencyofJewishphilosopherstolookoutward,towardnewdevelopmentsinscienceandphilosophy.notes1.S.Pines,ScholasticismafterThomasAquinasandtheTeachingsofHasdaiCrescasandhisPredecessors,inProceedingsoftheIsraelAcademyofSciencesandHumanities1.10(1967),1–101.2.Pines,Scholasticism,3.3.ForadiscussionofthedifferentattitudestowardheresyintheScholas-ticworld,seeJ.M.M.H.Thijssen,CensureandHeresyattheUni-versityofParis1200–1400(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1998),2.4.SeeR.C.Dales,MedievalDiscussionsoftheEternityoftheWorld(Leiden:Brill,1990),129.5.Foracarefulstudyofthecondemnation,seeThijssen,CensureandHeresy,ch.2.6.SeeThijssen,CensureandHeresy,40–1.7.SeeM.Kellner,DogmainMedievalJewishThought:FromMaimonidestoAbravanel(Oxford:LittmanLibrary,1986),207.8.Maimonides’textcanbefoundinKellner,Dogma,16.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheimpactofScholasticism3659.SeeS.Rosenberg,“TheConceptofEmunahinPost-MaimonideanJewishPhilosophy,”inStudiesinMedievalJewishHistoryandLit-erature,ed.I.Twersky(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1984),ii:294.10.SeeLevibenGershom,TheWarsoftheLord,trans.S.Feldman,3vols.(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,1984–99),Part1,chs.11–12,212ff.11.Kellner,Dogma,80–2.12.SeeManekin’sdiscussionofemunahinC.Manekin,“HebrewPhi-losophyintheFourteenthandFifteenthCenturies:AnOverview,”inHistoryofJewishPhilosophy,ed.D.H.FrankandO.Leaman(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997),350–78.13.SeeAbrahamBibago,DerekhEmunah(TheWayofFaith),ed.C.Frankel(Jerusalem:BialikInstitute,1978),ii.5:227–8.Thecompari-sontoAquinas’DeVeritateismadebytheeditor.14.HasdaiCrescas,TheLightoftheLord(OrAdonai),trans.anded.S.Fisher(Jerusalem:SifreiRamot,1990),2:5.5.15.SeeA.Ravitzky,Derashatha-Pesahle-RabHasdaiCrescasu-Mehqarimbe-Mishnatoha-Pilosofit(Jerusalem:IsraelAcademyofSciencesandHumanities,1988),vii.16.Ravitzky,Derashatha-Pesah,viii.TheSermonisundated,andsoschol-arshavedisagreedoverwhetherornotitpredatesLightoftheLord.RavitzkyhasarguedthattheSermonisapreliminarystudywhichisthenincorporatedbyCrescasintoLight.17.SeeRavitzky,Derashatha-Pesah,54–60.SeeScotus,ReportataParisiensia4:48–9;OpusOxoniense4:49.3,nos.5ff.18.See,e.g.,Manekin,“HebrewPhilosophy,”352.19.H.Tirosh-Rothschilddiscussesthispointinherarticle“JewishPhilosophyontheEveofModernity,”inHistoryofJewishPhilosophy,ed.D.H.FrankandO.Leaman(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997),504.20.ForfurtherdiscussionofGersonides’interactionwithChristianclergy,possiblyeventheAvignonesepopeClementvi,seeFeldman’sintroduc-torycommentsinTheWarsoftheLord,i:3–54.21.HillelbenSamuelofVerona,SeferTagmuleiha-Nefeshle-HillelbenShmu’elmi-Verona,ed.G.Sermoneta(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1981).22.Forabriefdiscussionofthehistoryanddevelopmentofthequaestiomethod,seeJ.Marenbon,LaterMedievalPhilosophy(1150–1350):AnIntroduction(London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1987),10–14.23.FormoredetaileddiscussionsoftheinfluenceofScholasticmethoduponJewishsermons,seeM.Saperstein,“YourVoicelikeaRam’sHorn”:ThemesandTextsinTraditionalJewishPreaching(Cincinnati:HebrewUnionCollegePress,1996),17,83ff.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n366MedievalJewishphilosophy24.SeeC.Manekin,“ScholasticLogicandtheJews,”BulletindePhiloso-phieMedi´evale´41(1999),123–47.25.Theoriginalmanuscript(calledBe’urla-MabobySteinschneider)isfoundinOxford,BodleyMs.Mich.314[Neubauer2187](IMHM20690,ff.43–129).Intheintroductiontothiswork,theauthorclaimsthathe“sawamongthem[i.e.theChristians]acommentaryonthecom-prehensiveintroductiononalltheprinciplesofLogic...[I]tiscalledTrakktatintheirlanguage...Iyearnedforthiscommentary,Iseizedit,haditreadbeforeme,tookmywritingmaterials,movedmypen,andtranslateditfromtheirlanguagetoourown.”ItakethisquotationfromManekin,“ScholasticLogicandtheJews,”126.26.Forfurtherdiscussionofthispoint,seeC.Manekin,“WhentheJewsLearnedLogicfromthePope:ThreeMedievalHebrewTranslationsoftheTractatusofPeterofSpain,”ScienceinContext10(1997),406.27.SeeSermoneta’scommentsinHillelbenSamuelofVerona,SeferTag-muleiha-Nefeshle-HillelbenShmu’elmi-Verona,ed.G.Sermoneta(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1981).28.ForextensivediscussionofthedevelopmentofmedicineamongJews,seeD.Ruderman,JewishThoughtandScientificDiscoveryinEarlyModernEurope(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1995).29.ForfurtherdiscussionofMesserLeon,seeManekin,“ScholasticLogicandtheJews”;H.Tirosh-Rothschild,BetweenWorlds:TheLifeandThoughtofRabbiDavidbenJudahMesserLeon(Albany:StateUni-versityofNewYorkPress,1991);andI.Husik,JudahMesserLeon’sCommentaryonthe“VetusLogica”(Leiden:Brill,1901).30.Foranintroductorysurveytothevastprimaryandsecondarylitera-turedealingwithissuesconnectedwithGod’somniscience,thefollow-ingworksshouldbeconsulted:C.Normore,“FutureContingents,”inTheCambridgeHistoryofLaterMedievalPhilosophy,ed.N.Kretz-mann,A.Kenny,andJ.Pinborg(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1982),358–81;T.M.Rudavsky(ed.),DivineOmniscienceandOmnipotenceinMedievalPhilosophy(Dordrecht:Reidel,1984);T.M.Rudavsky,TimeMatters:Time,Creation,andCosmologyinMedievalJewishPhilosophy(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2000).31.ForadetailedanalysisofthesesolutionsinJewishphilosophy,seeRudavsky,TimeMatters,ch.4.32.ForMaimonides’discussionofdivineomniscience,seeTheGuideofthePerplexed,trans.S.Pines(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1963),3:17–21.33.C.Manekin,“FreedomWithinReason?GersonidesonHumanChoice,”inFreedomandMoralResponsibility:GeneralandJewishPerspec-tives,ed.C.ManekinandM.Kellner(CollegePark:UniversityofMarylandPress,1997),168.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheimpactofScholasticism36734.ForDunsScotus’theoryofthefreewill,seehisQuaestionesSuperLibrosMetaphysicorum9:15,n.2.ForadiscussionofScotus’indeter-minism,seeR.Cross,DunsScotus(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1999),ch.7.35.Gersonides,Milhamot2:2,97;WarsoftheLord(trans.Feldman),ii:34.36.Gersonides,Milhamot3:4,138;WarsoftheLord,ii:117.37.Gersonides,Milhamot2:2,96;WarsoftheLord,ii:33.38.Pines,“Scholasticism,”8.39.SeeManekin,“FreedomwithinReason,”197.40.IbnKaspi’sdiscussioncanbefoundinIbnKaspi,Tamha-Kesef,edI.Last(London,1913),20–1.SeePines’discussionin“Scholasticism,”whichsuggestsaconnectionbetweenIbnKaspiandthePelagians,notablyDurandusofSaint-Purcain.41.Manekin,“HebrewPhilosophy,”372.42.Y.Baer,AHistoryoftheJewsinChristianSpain,2vols.(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,1978),i:332.43.Manekin,“HebrewPhilosophy,”367;seeY.Baer,“MinhatQenaotanditsInfluenceonHasdaiCrescas,”Tarbiz11(1940),191–2.44.Baer,“Minhat,”192.45.FordiscussionofAbner’stheoryofwill,seeC.Sirat,AHistoryofJewishPhilosophyintheMiddleAges(Cambridge:CambridgeUni-versityPress,1985),312.46.IsaacPollegar,Ezerha-Dat,ed.J.Levinger(TelAviv:TelAvivUniver-sityPress,1984).47.SeePollegar,Ezerha-Dat,part3.48.Pollegar,Ezerha-Dat,119–20.49.W.Z.Harvey,PhysicsandMetaphysicsinHasdaiCrescas(Amsterdam:J.C.Gieben,1998),138.50.FordiscussionofthetwostratawithinCrescas,andtheirrelationshiptoScholasticphilosophy,seeRavitzky,Derashatha-Pesah,39.Rav-itzkyarguesthatCrescas’SermonwaswrittenbeforeLight,andthatthediscussionofdeterminisminSermonwasinfluencedbyDunsSco-tus,whiletheparallelpassageinLightwasinfluencedbyAbner.ButHarvey,inareviewofRavitzky’swork,arguesthatthereisagreaterlikelihoodthattheworksofAbnerwereknowntoCrescasbeforethoseofScotus.(W.Harvey,“FirstPublicationofthePassoverSermonbyR.HasdaiCrescas”[Hebrew],Tarbiz58[1989],531–5.)51.Crescas,OrAdonai32b(inHarvey,PhysicsandMetaphysics,247).52.Crescas,OrAdonai2:1.4.53.Feldman,“Crescas’TheologicalDeterminism,”Daat9(1982),17;OrAdonai2:1.4.54.Crescas,OrAdonai2:5.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n368MedievalJewishphilosophy55.SeeU.Thiel,“Individuation,”inTheCambridgeHistoryofSeventeenth-CenturyPhilosophy,ed.D.GarberandM.Ayers(Cam-bridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998),212–62;andU.Thiel,“PersonalIdentity,”inTheCambridgeHistoryofSeventeenth-CenturyPhilosophy,868–912.56.Y.Bedersi,ATreatiseuponPersonalorIndividualFormsisfoundinParis,BibliothequeNationaleMan.`984heb.fol.´66a-93b.AsynopsisofthecontentsofthistreatisecanbefoundinS.Pines,“IndividualFormsintheThoughtofYedayaBedersi”(Hebrew),inHarryA.WolfsonJubileeVolume(Jerusalem:AmericanAcademyforJewishResearch,1965),187–201.57.ForScotus’theoryofindividuation(haecceitas)seehisOrdinatio2:3.1passim;seethediscussioninCross,DunsScotus,148–50;A.B.Wolter,“JohnDunsScotus,”inIndividuationinScholasticism:TheLaterMiddleAgesandtheCounter-Reformation1150–1650,ed.J.J.E.Gracia(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1994),271–98.58.Sirat,History,277;Pines,“IndividualForms,”5.Pinesstatesthat“thepersonalformsservingasthesubjectof[Bedersi’s]deliberationsarebutavariantoftheconceptacceptedbythedisciplesofDunsScotus...[H]isstandinthismatteriscomprehensibleonlyifoneassumesthathewasdecisivelyinfluencedonthispointbyScotistteachings,forhecouldnothaveaholdinanyothertheoryandmostdecidedlynotintheIslamic-Jewishphilosophicalteachings.”59.SeePines,“IndividualForms,”11–12,21.Pinessuggeststhattheremayhavebeenaliterarytradition,possiblyduetoperceivedpersecution,accordingtowhichlatemedievalJewishphilosophersdidnotdirectlymentiontheirChristiansources.60.Bedersi,Treatise,66b;seethecommentinPines,“IndividualForms,”3.61.SeethediscussionofthispointinPines,“IndividualForms,”9–10.62.“Similiterformaindividualisdeterminatnaturamspecificamutsithaecvere;nontamenillaformaestpropriehaec,sivehocaliquid,quiasisic,tuncsequiturquoddifferentiaessetspecies”(DunsScotus,InMet.1:7.213,n.16).63.Maimonides’argumentsarediscussedextensivelyinRudavsky,TimeMatters,ch.2.64.SeeManekin,“HebrewPhilosophy,”363;Albalag’stheoryofcre-ationisdiscussedinIsaacAlbalag,SeferTikkunha-Deot(Jerusalem:IsraelAcademyofSciencesandHumanities,1973).ForadiscussionofNarboni’stheory,seeM.Hayoun,Laphilosophieetlatheologiede´MoisedeNarbonne(Tubingen:J.C.B.Mohr,¨1989),139–53.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheimpactofScholasticism36965.SeeDales,MedievalDiscussions,97ff.AquinasmentionsMaimonides’DuxDubitantium(GuideofthePerplexed)approvinglyinhiscommen-taryontheSentences2,dist.i,quaest.i,art.5.66.Foranextensivediscussionoftheimportanceofthecondemnationof1277uponmedievalscience,seeE.Grant,“TheEffectoftheCondem-nationof1277,”inTheCambridgeHistoryofLaterMedievalPhilos-ophy,ed.N.Kretzmann,A.Kenny,andJ.Pinborg(Cambridge:Cam-bridgeUniversityPress,1982),537–8.67.J.Murdoch,“PierreDuhemandtheHistoryofLateMedievalScienceandPhilosophyintheLatinWest,”inGlistudidifilosofiamedievalefraottoenovecento,ed.R.ImbachandA.Maieru(Rome:Edizionidi`StoriaeLetteratura,1991).Proposition34reads:“Thatthefirstcausecouldnotmakemanyworlds.”Proposition49reads:“ThatGodcouldnotmovetheheavenswithrectilinearmotion,andthereasonisthatavacuumwouldremain.”68.P.Duhem,MedievalCosmology,trans.R.Ariew(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1985),442.69.Grant,“TheEffectoftheCondemnationof1277,”537–40.70.ForadiscussionofGersonides’theoryoftheprimordialbody,seeRudavsky,TimeMatters,44.71.SeeFeldman’snoteinWarsoftheLord,iii:347n.8.72.Y.Langermann,TheJewsandtheSciencesintheMiddleAges(Aldershot:Variorum,1999),46.73.Harvey,PhysicsandMetaphysics,23.74.Crescas,OrAdonai1:2.1(inH.A.Wolfson,Crescas’CritiqueofAristotle[Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1929],180).75.Aristotle,Physics4:1,208a31.76.Aristotle,Physics4:4,212a5–7.77.Crescas,OrAdonai1:1.2(inWolfson,Crescas’Critique,195).78.ForadetailedanalysisofCrescas’conceptionofspace,seeWolfson,Crescas’Critique,38–69.SeealsoH.Davidson,ProofsforEternity,Creation,andtheExistenceofGodinMedievalIslamicandJewishPhilosophy(NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1987),253ff.79.Crescas,OrAdonai1:1.2(inWolfson,Crescas’Critique,199).80.Harvey,PhysicsandMetaphysics,36.81.A.Ackerman,“HasdaiCrescas’DiscussionsofthePossibilityofMul-tipleWorlds”(unpublishedpaper,1999).AcomparisonofCrescasandOresmecanbefoundinPines,Scholasticism,504–6;Harvey,PhysicsandMetaphysics,23–9.HarveynotesimportantdifferencesbetweenOresme’stheoryofplaceandthatofCrescas.82.Harvey,PhysicsandMetaphysics,39.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n370MedievalJewishphilosophy83.S.Hutton,“SomeRenaissanceCritiquesofAristotle’sTheoryofTime,”AnnalsofScience34(1977),348.84.Sirat,History,308;Pines,Scholasticism,11.85.ForanexaminationoftheunderlyinglogicalmovesimplicitinGerson-ides’attack,seeS.Feldman,“Gersonides’ProofsfortheCreationoftheUniverse,”ProceedingsoftheAmericanAcademyforJewishResearch35(1967),113–37.86.Gersonides,Milhamot6:1.21,387;WarsoftheLord,iii:359.87.Gersonides,Milhamot6:1.21,387–8;WarsoftheLord,iii:360–1.88.SeePines,Scholasticism,12.89.Crescas,OrAdonai1:2.15(inWolfson,Crescas’Critique,289).90.Ibid.91.PeterAureol’sdiscussioncanbefoundinhisCommentarioruminse-cundumlibrumsententiarumparssecundus,dist.ii,quaest.i,art.1,quotedinDuhem,Lesystemedumonde`(Paris:Hermann,1913–17),300ff.92.ForasustaineddiscussionofWilliamOckham’stheoryoftime,seeM.M.Adams,WilliamOckham(NotreDame:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1987),853ff.;Duhem,Lesystemedumonde`,305ff.93.P.Ariotti,“TowardAbsoluteTime:TheUnderminingandRefutationoftheAristotelianConceptionofTimeintheSixteenthandSeventeenthCenturies,”AnnalsofScience30(1973),37.94.H.Levine,“ParadisenotSurrendered:JewishReactionstoCoperni-cusandtheGrowthofModernScience,”inEpistemology,Method-ologyandtheSocialSciences,ed.R.S.CohenandM.W.Wartofsky(Dordrecht:Reidel,1983),204.95.SeeRuderman,JewishThoughtandScientificDiscovery,68ff.96.SeeGans,Nehmad,9a.FordiscussionsofDavidGans,seeLevine,“ParadisenotSurrendered,”207;A.Neher,JewishThoughtandtheScientificRevolutionoftheSixteenthCentury:DavidGans(1541–1613)andhisTimes,trans.D.Maisel(Oxford:OxfordUni-versityPress,1986),216ff.;Ruderman,JewishThoughtandScientificDiscovery,83.97.Neher,JewishThought,216–18.98.SeeRuderman,JewishThoughtandScientificDiscovery,134.99.JosephdelMedigo,SeferElim(Amsterdam,1629;repr.Odessa,1864–7);seeLevine,“ParadisenotSurrendered,”208–9.Forasurveyanddiscus-sionofdelMedigo’swork,seeI.Barzilay,YosephShlomoDelmedigo(YasharofCandia):HisLife,Works,andTimes(Leiden:Brill,1974);Ruderman,JewishThoughtandScientificDiscovery,118–52.100.DelMedigo,SeferGevurotHashem,inSeferElim,292.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nariackerman16JewishphilosophyandtheJewish–Christianphilosophicaldialogueinfifteenth-centurySpainFifteenth-centuryHispanicJewishphilosophyhasbeencondemnedaslackingoriginalityandcreativity.Accordingtomany,thelastcen-turyofJewishphilosophicalactivityonIberiansoil1representstheswansongoftherichandillustrioushistoryofSpanishJewishphilos-ophy.ScholarsgenerallyattributethissupposedintellectualsterilitytothepersecutionthatJewssufferedduringthisperiod.Speakingformany,JuliusGuttmannargues,“ThefrightfulpressureunderwhichSpanishJewry,theforemostbearersofJewishphilosophy,liveddur-ingthefifteenthcenturyprecludedanyproductiveororiginalphilo-sophicalwork.”2Althoughthiscriticismoffifteenth-centuryHispanicJewishphi-losophydoescaptureanelementofitsintellectualorientation,inotherrespectsJewishphilosophyinSpainflourishedinthefinalcenturybeforetheexpulsion.RelativelyfewphilosophicalworkswerewrittenbySpanishJewsinthethirteenthcenturyandthefirsthalfofthefourteenthcentury.Bycontrast,HispanicJewishthinkersinthefollowingcenturycomposedahostofphilo-sophicalcommentariesonscripturalandrabbinictexts,commen-tariesonIslamicandJewishphilosophers,philosophicalsermons,andindependentphilosophicalandtheologicaltreatises.Moreover,thesephilosophersusednewphilosophicalsourcesanddevelopednewliterarygenresbywhichtoexpressoriginalphilosophicalconclusions.Beforeweexaminemorecloselythenatureandcharacteroffifteenth-centuryHispanicJewishphilosophy,Imustoutlinesomeoftheessentialfeaturesofthehistoricalcontextinwhichthesephiloso-pherswereactive.Inparticular,Iwillbrieflypresentthechangesthat371CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n372MedievalJewishphilosophyHispano-JewishsocietyunderwentinthisperiodandtheresponseofJewishphilosophytotheseshiftingconditions.3thedeclineofspanishjewryThedeclineofSpanishJewrythatbeganinthemiddleofthefour-teenthcenturywasintensifiedwiththeanti-Jewishriotsof1391thatravishedtheJewishcommunitiesthroughoutCastileandAragon.ManyJewsperishedatthehandsoftheriotersandnumerousoth-erswerebaptized,eithervoluntarilyorunderduress.TheaggressivemissionaryactivityoftheChurchdidnotabate–particularlyinthethreedecadesfollowingtheriots–andwasaccompaniedbytheanti-Jewishpreachingof,forexample,VicenteFerrer,disputationssuchastheTortosadebate,andanti-Jewishlegislation.Thisproducedacon-tinuousstreamofJewstothebaptismalfont(withvaryingdegreesofsincerity),creatingwithinmanycommunitiesalargenumberofconversos.ThosewhoremainedwithintheJewishcommunitycouldnotbeunaffectedbythesetraumaticevents.Apartfromtheireco-nomic,demographic,andsocialimpact,themassacresandtheensu-ingdisastersbroughtabouttheologicaldoubtandconfusionamongJewswhohadnotconverted.TheologicalconfusionamongSpanishJewrywasespeciallypreva-lentamongtheJewishintellectualelite,whereskepticalattitudeshadalreadytakenroot.EvidenceofthistrendisJoshuaLorki’slettertotheconvertPablodeSantaMaria,formerlyR.SolomonHalevi.4LorkithereraisednumerousobjectionstotheChristianbeliefinJesus’resurrection,thevirginbirth,andtrinitarianism.Hewases-peciallycriticaloftheChristiandogmaconcerningtheincarnationofJesus,characterizingitasirrationalandinconceivable.However,Lorki’sinquirytoPablodeSantaMaria,hisclosefriend,shouldnotbereadasaJewishpolemicagainstChristiandogma.Rather,itisaninquisitiveandsearchingpleafromaJewwhosefaithhadbeeneroded,butwhowasnotyetpreparedtoembraceChristianity(astepthathetookshortlyafterwards).RaisingquestionsthathinderedhisentranceintoChristianfaith,LorkirequestedfromPablodeSantaMariasolutionsthat“couldsolveformeamultitudeofdoubts.”5Thus,Lorki’slettercaptureshistenuoustheologicalstatebetweenJudaismandChristianity,anattitudesharedbymanyofhisfellowJews.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJewish–ChristianphilosophicaldialogueinSpain373philosophicalnaturalismandastrologyAlongwithitsgradualdeclineinthesecondhalfofthefourteenthcentury,SpanishJewryexperiencedtheemergenceofaradicalformofJewishphilosophy,committedtoaprinciplednaturalismonmanyissues.Duringthethirteenthandthebeginningofthefourteenthcen-tury,SpanishrabbinicscholarssuchasNahmanidesandSolomonbenAbrahamibnAdretweregenerallysuccessfulinlimitingtheimpactofradicalrationalismintheirmidst.Bycontrast,southernFrancebecamethehomeforJewishphilosopherswhoespousedrad-ical(naturalistandreductionist)viewsregarding,interalia,immor-tality,humanperfection,divineknowledgeandactivity,thereasonsforthecommandments,andthescopeofallegoricalexegesis.TheinsulationofSpanishJewryfromthefull-blownrationalismofsouthernFrenchJewry,however,weakenedinthemiddleofthefourteenthcentury.Atthattime,acircleofNeoplatonicJewishphilosopherswereactiveinCastile.6Thisphilosophicalcirclein-cludedSolomonbenHanokhal-Kostantini,SolomonFranco,EzraGatino,SamuelSarsa,ShemTovibnMeir,ShemTovibnShaprut,SolomonbenAbrahamibnYaish,andSolomonbenMeiribnYaish.InfluencedbythephilosophyofAbrahamibnEzraandMaimonides,theycombinedtherationalismoftheirsouthernFrenchcolleagueswithaninterestinastrologyandmagic.Theymaintainedthatim-mortalityisanaturalprocessthatentailsastateofcommunionwiththeActiveIntellect.Thesephilosophersalsoclaimedthatthisactofcommunionallowsonetobreakfreeofastralinfluencesthatgov-ernallsublunarevents.Likewise,theirinterpretationsoftheBibleandAggadahandtheirapproachtotheissueoftaameiha-mitzvot(thereasonsforthecommandments)wereshapedbytheirdualcom-mitmenttorationalismandastralmagic.Inaddition,theyrejectedaliteralunderstandingofcreationexnihiloandattimesespousedviewsthatlimitthescopeofGod’sknowledgeandprovidence.Althoughthisgroupappearedmainlyinthesecondhalfofthefour-teenthcenturyinCastile,itsinfluencecanbefeltatthebeginningofthefifteenthcenturyinAragon.Thisisevidentfromthesingleex-tantsermonofVidalJosephCaballeria,aSaragossanJewishphiloso-pher,whoeventuallyconverted.7There,VidalpresentedanastralandnaturalisticinterpretationoftheexodusfromEgypttakenwholesalefromtheworkofSolomonal-Kostantini,aprominentmemberoftheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n374MedievalJewishphilosophyCastilianphilosophicalcircle.Inaddition,Vidalidentifiedintellec-tualwithhumanperfection,andpositedtheformerasaprerequisitefortheattainmentofimmortality.theattackonphilosophicalrationalismOneresponseamongJewishintellectualstothetraumaticeventsof1391,theensuingspiritualcrisis,andtheemergenceofradicalphilosophicaltrendsintheirmidstwasanattackonphilosophi-calrationalism.8ManySpanishJewishscholarsinthesecondhalfofthefourteenthcenturyblamedtheAristotelianphilosophyofMaimonidesandhissuccessorsforthetragicconditionsthatplaguedSpanishJewry.Intentonrestrictingwhattheyperceivedastheper-niciousinfluenceofphilosophy,theycombatedtherationalismofJewishphilosophers.Theirattackwastwopronged:theycitedtradi-tionalprooftextstoshowthehereticalnatureoftheinnovationsofthephilosophersandemployedphilosophicaltoolsinanattempttodisprovethephilosophers’conclusions.ThemostarticulateandsophisticatedcritiquethatemergedfromthisantirationalistictrendwasthatofHasdaiCrescas,theleaderofAragoneseJewryattheendofthefourteenthcenturyandthefirstdecadeofthefifteenthcentury.Crescas’antirationalismcontinuedatendencyinitiatedbyNahmanidesandreinforcedbyotherrepre-sentativesoftherabbinicleadershipofthekingdomofAragoninthethirteenthandfourteenthcenturies,suchasSolomonibnAdret.Inparticular,Crescas’philosophydrewupontheworksofhisteacherandpreviousspiritualleaderofAragoneseJewry,NissimGerondi.9Crescasdifferedfromhisrabbinicpredecessors,however,inthebal-ancebetweenhisrabbinicandphilosophicalwritings.Nahmanides,SolomonibnAdret,andNissimGerondiconcentratedtheirintellec-tualeffortsonlegalexegesis.Incontradistinction,withtheincreasedpresenceofradicalrationalisminSpain,Crescaschosetofocuspri-marilyoncombatingtherationalists.Crescascomposedhisphilosophicalmagnumopus,TheLightoftheLord,inresponsetotheperceivedthreatofrationalism.Thisworkwascompletedin1411,butwaslargelywritteninthefinaldecadesofthefourteenthcentury.10CrescassetsouttodisprovethemajortenetsofMaimonides’philosophyanditsAristotelianscientificandmetaphysicalfoundations.HebeginswithargumentsagainstthevalidityofAristotelianphysicsandpresentsalternativeCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJewish–ChristianphilosophicaldialogueinSpain375theoriesregardingspace,time,andmotion.HealsocriticizedMaimonides’proofsofGod’sexistenceandunityandhistheoryofnegativeattributes.Initsplace,heoffersatheorythatallowsforpositiveessentialattributesofthedivine.CrescasalsoopposedMaimonides’theoriesofhumanperfectionandimmortality.ForCrescas,Maimonides’beliefthattheulti-mateperfectioncultivatedbytheTorahisintellectualperfectionwasespeciallyproblematic.Crescasarguedthatthisapproachneu-tralizestheimportanceofreligiousritualsandcreatesanelitisminwhichonlytheintellectuallygiftedcanflourish.InoppositiontoMaimonides’theorythatidentifiedintellectualadvancementasnecessaryforattainmentofthesummumbonum,CrescasclaimedthattheperformanceofthecommandmentsandtheloveofGodthattheyengenderaretheprerequisitesforperfectionandimmorta-lity.Crescas’antagonisticstancetophilosophywasadoptedbyotherscholarsinthesecondhalfofthefourteenthcentury,suchasR.JosephibnShoshan,ProfiatDuran(Efodi),andR.IsaacPerfet(Rivash).11TheantirationalisttrendofCrescasandhiscolleaguescontinuedinthefifteenthcenturywiththeSpanishkabbalists.Oneofthecen-tralfeaturesofkabbalisticliteratureduringthisperiodwasitsantag-onismtowardphilosophy.KabbalistsidentifiedphilosophyasthechiefcauseforthematerialandspiritualdeclineofSpanishJewry.Thefirstkabbalisttocastigatephilosophyforitssupposedcontri-butiontothewaveofconversionswasShemTovibnShemTov.12ShemTov’sintimateknowledgeofphilosophyallowedhimtopro-videadetailedcatalogueandanalysisoftheviewsoftheJewishphilosophers.MarshalingtextsfromthewritingsofMaimonides,AbrahamibnEzra,Albalag,andothers,ShemTovarguedthattheJewishphilosophersexpressedhereticalviewsintheareasofhumanperfection,immortality,divineprovidence,andknowledge.13TheanonymousauthorofSeferha-Meshivcontinuedandin-tensifiedtheattackonJewishphilosophyamongfifteenth-centurySpanishkabbalists.14Inthisandrelatedkabbalisticworks,philos-ophywasdepictedasanimpureforcethatoriginatesfromthede-monicrealm(sitrahahrah).Unlikethepreviouskabbalisticattacks,Seferha-Meshivpresentednoargumentsagainsttheviewsofthephilosophers.Insteadofdebatingthephilosophers’conclusionsandarguments,itvilifiedphilosophyasacorruptinginfluencethatisresponsiblefortheexilicstateoftheJews.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n376MedievalJewishphilosophyamoremoderatepositionThehostileattitudetowardphilosophywas,however,notthedom-inantapproachamongtherabbinicleadershipandtheintellectualeliteoffifteenth-centuryJewishSpain.Infact,duringthisperiod,antirationalismwasgenerallyconfinedtothekabbalists.15MostJewishphilosophersoffifteenth-centurySpaineschewedthehos-tileattitudetowardphilosophyarticulatedbyHasdaiCrescasandhiscirclethatwasprevalentattheendofthefourteenthcentury.16Instead,theyadoptedamoderatestancethatdefendedthevalueofphilosophicalspeculationwhileguardingagainstmoreradicalten-dencies.RepresentativesofthisgroupincludeAbrahambenJudah,Mosesha-Kohen,MattetyahuYitzhari,ZerahiaHalevi,JosephAlbo,JosephibnShemTov,IsaacibnShemTov,ShemTovibnShemTov,MosesibnWaqar,AbrahamBibago,JoelibnShu
eib,EliHabilio,andAbrahamShalom.17ThephilosophicaloutlookoftheseJewishintellectualsproducedlinesofcontinuitybetweenthemandtheJewishphilosophersoftheprecedingtwocenturies.Jewishphilosophyinthethirteenth,fourteenth,andfifteenthcenturieswasprofoundlyinfluencedbythephilosophyofMaimonidesandtheIslamicAristotelians.Asaresult,muchofJewishphilosophicalliteratureduringthisperiodwasexpressedintheformofcommentariesontheAristotelian,Averroean,andMaimonideancorpus.Jewishphilosophersatthistimealsosharedapredilectiontowardphilosophicalexegesisoftradi-tionaltexts,composingcommentariesonbiblicaltextsandrabbinicAggadah.Theissuesaddressedwerefamiliar:proofs(oftenwithidenticalargumentsandconclusions)forGod’sexistence,divineattributes,divineknowledgeandprovidence,humanperfection,andthereasonsforthecommandments.18Yet,despitethesesimi-larities,importantdifferencesexistedbetweentheJewishphilosoph-icalenterpriseinfifteenth-centuryJewishSpainandthatofthetwoprecedingcenturies.19ManyJewishphilosophersinsouthernFranceandSpainduringthethirteenthandfourteenthcenturieswereprimarilyconcernedwithquitegeneralphilosophicalproblems,withdisseminatingphilosoph-icalknowledge,andwithinterpretingtheJewishtraditionaccord-ingto“alienwisdom.”Mostofthesephilosophersadoptedradicalphilosophicaldoctrines,andtheirexegesisofbiblicalandrabbinicCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJewish–ChristianphilosophicaldialogueinSpain377textsandtheiranalysisoftheologicaldoctrinereflectedtheirratio-nalisticassumptions.Consequently,creationexnihiloanddivineomnisciencewereoftenreinterpreted–evenrepudiated–byphiloso-pherssuchasSamuelibnTibbon,IsaacAlbalag,JacobAnatoli,JosephibnKaspi,Gersonides,andSolomonal-Kostantini.Thesephiloso-phersoftenequatedhuman,intellectual,andreligiousperfection,depictedprophecyasanexpressionofphilosophicaltruths,andadoptedelitistpoliticaltheories.Bycontrast,Jewishphilosophersoflatefourteenth-andfifteenth-centurySpainweredeeplyinvolvedindefendingmore“conserva-tive,”theisticdoctrinesexpressedintherabbinictradition.20Inthewakeofthetheologicalconfusionthatplaguedtheircommunities,thesephilosophers–whoweregenerallyalsotherabbinicandpoliti-calleaders–composeddefensesofJudaismthatattemptedtojustifyanddefendtraditionaldoctrinesagainstboththeattacksofChristiantheologiansandthecriticismofradicalphilosophers.Thetheisticcommitmentsofthesephilosophersledthemtosharetheapprehensionoftheirantirationalisticcolleaguesabouttherad-icalviewsadoptedbycertainJewishphilosophersandtoconsiderthemadangertothefaithofthemasses.Theythereforearguedagainstthephilosophers’rationalistaxiologywhichvaluedspecu-lativeknowledgeoverfaithaccepteduponauthority.Morespecifi-cally,theyrejectedthephilosophers’understandingofimmortalityascontemplationofintelligibiliaandtheirunderstandingofthecom-mandments(mitzvot)asmeanstowardsachievingthetruehumangood,actualizingone’sintellectualpotential.Inplaceofthis,theygenerallyheldthatperformanceofthecommandmentswasitselfsufficientforsalvation.Inaddition,echoingScholasticnotions,theyemphasizedthatonlyfaith(emunah)cansecureultimatefelicity.21Thesethinkersalsoopposedthenaturalismofthephilosophersanditsimplicationsfordivinecreation,providence,andknowledge.Muchenergywasdevotedtodisprovingpreviousattemptstoexplaincreationasaneternalprocess,aswellastheoriesthatlimiteddivineomniscienceandprovidence.Ratherthanlimitingprovidencetoselectindividuals,thesefifteenth-centuryHispano-Jewishphiloso-phersarguedthatdivineprovidenceextendstoallindividuals.More-over,bycontrasttotheindirectgovernanceofothernationsthroughthenaturalrealmandthroughastrologicalinfluence,GoddirectlyoverseesthehistoryanddestinyoftheJewishnation.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n378MedievalJewishphilosophySuchoppositiontowhatwasconceivedofasexcessiverational-ismandnaturalismamongcertainoftheirJewishphilosophicalcol-leaguesdidnotleadthemtorejectphilosophywholesale,however.22Indeed,anti-rationalismwasproblematicfortheologianswhosemes-sagewasdirectedatJewswhowerewaveringbetweenJudaismandChristianity.Suchananti-philosophicalcritiquewouldhinderat-temptstoarguefortherationalityofJudaismandtheirrationalityofChristianity.Byarguingagainsttheabilityofthehumanintellecttoascertainreligioustruth,animportanttoolintheirpolemicalarsenalwouldbelost.NolongercouldonearguethatarationalinspectionofJewishandChristianbeliefswoulddemonstratetheirrationalityofChristiandogma.Thus,apartfromtheirpolemicagainstradicalrationalism,mostHispano-JewishphilosophersofthefifteenthcenturyalsocritiquedthoseJewishthinkerswhoopposedthestudyofphilosophyandar-guedthatitwasprohibited(evenoccasionallyvoicingcriticismofthetalmudicscholarswhofocusedexclusivelyonthestudyofJewishlaw).Theythereforesuppliedargumentsforthepositionsthatphilo-sophicalinquirywaspermittedandthereadingofphilosophicaltextswasnotheretical.Althoughmaintainingthatreasoncannotuncoverallthetruthssuppliedbyrevelation,theyalsoassertedthat,ifratio-nalinquiryisconductedproperly,theconclusionsgainedtherebywillnevercontradicttheTorah.ThesescholarsrebuffedtheapproachoftheantirationalistsbydismissingthechargethatphilosophycontributedtothecrisisthatengulfedSpanishJewry.Inanageoftheologicalconfusionandreligiouspolemics,theyassertedthatphilosophywasanimportantmeansforclarifyingreli-giousdoctrine,andfordefendingJudaismagainstChristianpolemics.AlthoughTorahwasviewedasamorereliablesourceoftruththanphilosophy,thestudyofnatureandmetaphysicalinquirywouldinevitablyleadtoadeeperunderstandingofGodandtherebycon-tributetohumanfelicity.ManyofthesephilosophersconcludedthatrationalinvestigationofreligiousprincipleswasobligatoryandevenpartofthecommandmenttostudytheTorah.philosophicalsourcesThepolemic-apologeticorientationofthefifteenth-centuryHispano-JewishphilosophersmanifesteditselfinthechoiceoftheirCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJewish–ChristianphilosophicaldialogueinSpain379philosophicalsources.23Liketheircounterpartsinthirteenth-andfourteenth-centurySpainandsouthernFrance,theselaterthinkerswereinfluencedbyal-Farabi,Avicenna,andAverroes.However,theformativeinfluenceofIslamicphilosopherswaslimited.BycontrasttothenaturalismoftheJewishphilosophersofthirteenth-andfourteenth-centurySpain,theJewishphilosophersoffifteenth-centurySpainmoreselectivelyborrowedideasfromtheIslamicphilosophers.Onlyideasthatwerecompatiblewith–orevensupportiveof–theirconservativephilosophicaloutlookweretakenon.TheylookedespeciallyfavorablyuponthoseconclusionsthatcouldbeemployedtopolemicizeagainstChristianity.24Thedisparateusesofphilosophicalsourcesisapparentinthein-fluenceofMaimonidesonthesetwogroups.AmongJewishphiloso-phersofthirteenth-andfourteenth-centurySpainandProvence,thegreatestsingleinfluencewasundoubtedlyMaimonides.ThesephilosopherswereparticularlyinterestedinthecentralrolethatMaimonidesascribedtointellectualactivityintheacquisitionofhumanperfectionandinhisattempttominimizeGod’sinterven-tioninthenaturalorder.TheyoftenportrayedMaimonidesverynaturalistically,minimizingornegatingelementsofhisphilosophyopposedtotheirown.25Bycontrast,Hispano-JewishphilosophersofthelaterperiodpresentedadifferentMaimonides.26WhileequallyundertheswayofMaimonides’philosophy,theywereattractedtoMaimonides’critiqueofthetheoryofeternityandhisargumentattheendoftheGuidethathumanperfectionisnotequivalenttointellectualperfection.27TheyviewedMaimonidesasaphilosopherwhowasabletodefendreligiousdoctrineagainstaradicalonslaught.TheythereforeopposedthoseJewishphilosopherswhoattributedtoMaimonidesviewstheyjudgedashereticalandthosewhoattackedMaimonidesbasedonthese“misinterpretations”ofhisphilosophy.TheunderlyingdifferencesbetweenthedominanttrendsamongJewishphilosophersoffifteenth-centurySpainandthoseofSpainandProvenceinthetwoprecedingcenturieswasnotonlyconfinedtothedifferentemploymentofsimilarphilosophicalsources.Italsopresenteditselfinthechoiceofphilosophicalsourcesthemselves.Thephilosophicalsourcesforthirteenth-andfourteenth-centuryHispano-andsouthernFrenchJewishphilosopherswere,asnoted,MaimonidesandtheIslamicphilosophers.AndlikeMaimonideshimself,histhirteenth-andfourteenth-centuryfollowerssharedaCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n380MedievalJewishphilosophycontemptforthosephilosophersthatprecededthemaster;thus,theyrarelycitedSaadyaGaon,JudahHalevi,AbrahamibnDaud,andotherimportantearlymedievalJewishphilosophers,withtheexceptionofAbrahamibnEzra.28Bycontrast,thesearchofJewishphilosophersoffifteenth-centuryJewishSpainforphilosophicalconfirmationoftheirtheisticdoc-trinesledthemtoamorefavorableviewofpre-Maimonideanthinkers.ThelessradicalconclusionsofmanyearlyJewishphiloso-phersattractedthem.Forexample,Saadya’skalam,apologeticinitsintent,correspondedtotheirowninterests.Inparticular,theywereinfluencedbyhisapproachtoissuesoffreewillandthenecessityofrevelationandcreation.JudahHalevi’sKuzarialsoexperiencedarevivalinthefinalcenturyofHispano-Jewishphiloso-phy.WhileJewishphilosophersweregenerallyreluctanttoadoptHalevi’shostileattitudetophilosophy,theyoftenlookedtohisdefenseofJudaismintheirowndiscussionsofdivineprovidence,humanperfection,andthereasonsforthecommandments.Anotherpre-MaimonideanJewishphilosopherwhowasresurrectedamonglatefourteenth-andfifteenth-centuryHispano-JewishphilosopherswasAbrahamibnDaud.Hisphilosophicalmagnumopus,EmunahRamah,wastranslatedtwiceattheendofthefourteenthcenturyandbecameinfluential.29Themostimportantchangeregardingphilosophicalsources,how-ever,relatestoChristianphilosophicalsources.Unlikemostoftheirpredecessors,manyJewishphilosophersoffifteenth-centurySpainwerestronglyinfluencedbyChristianScholasticism.OutsideofItaly,ChristianphilosophyhadaminimalinfluenceonmedievalJewishphilosophyuntilthelatefourteenthcentury,andChristianphilosophersareneverexplicitlycitedbeforethenintheworksofnon-ItalianJewishphilosophers.30Bycontrast,SpanishJewishphilosopherscommencingwithHasdaiCrescasweresubstantiallyinfluencedbytrendsinChristianScholasticism.TheywereattractedbothbyAquinasandothermoderateChristianrationalists,aswellasbytheanti-AristoteliancritiqueleveledbytheviamodernaoftheChristiannominalists.Whataccountsforthenew-foundinterestinChristianphiloso-phyinanageofprofoundtensionbetweenJewishandChristianintellectuals?Primafacie,onewouldsuspectthattheheight-enedenmitybetweenChristianityandJudaismandthethreatofCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJewish–ChristianphilosophicaldialogueinSpain381conversiontoChristianitythatwasthelotoffifteenth-centuryHispanicJewrywouldserveasabarriertotheacceptanceofnotionsfromChristianphilosophersandnotasapretextfortheflourishingofChristian–Jewishphilosophicaldialogue.Further,althoughonewouldanticipateacorrelationbetweenacommitmenttophilosoph-icalinquiryandaninterestintheregnantphilosophicaldoctrinesanddebatesthatoccupytheintellectuallandscapeoftheneighboringcul-ture,itisstillperplexingwhytheinfluenceofScholasticismwassopronouncedamongthinkerswhosecommitmenttophilosophywas(exhypothesi)soreserved.31Thesevariousimpediments,however,couldalsobeseenascon-tributingtoJewishinterestinChristianphilosophy.TheheightenedtensionbetweenJewsandChristians,duetotheincreasedpolem-icalactivitybetweenJewishandChristianscholars,ledtoJewishinterestinbecomingacquaintedwithChristianphilosophicalandtheologicaldoctrines.32Inaddition,theJewishphilosophers’oppo-sitiontosomeoftheconclusionsofsomeoftheradicalrationalistscanalsobeseenasacontributingfactortoalateJewishinterestinScholasticism.ThereisevidencethattheeffectivephilosophicaloppositionofChristianphilosopherstotheradicalrationalistsat-tractedthoseJewishphilosopherswhowereinvolvedinasimilarpursuit.Forexample,EliHabillo,intheintroductiontohistransla-tionofJeanVersoris’commentaryonAristotle’sPhysics,contrastsJewishphilosopherswhoslavishlyfollowed“thepagandoctrinesofAristotleandhisfollowers”withChristianphilosopherswhoeffec-tivelyharmonizedtheirphilosophicalsensibilitieswiththeirreli-giousbeliefs.33literarygenresAnotherfeatureoffifteenth-centuryHispano-Jewishphilosophy,in-fluencedbyitspolemicalorientation,isthechoiceofliterarygenresadopted.Intheprevioustwocenturies,Jewishphilosophicaldis-courseoscillatedbetweentechnicalandesotericdiscussionsdirectedtoaphilosophicallysophisticatedaudience,andmorepopulardis-cussionsgearedforawiderreadership.Jewishphilosopherscom-posedphilosophicalencyclopediasthatintroducedphilosophicalloretoanovice,aswellasbiblicalandaggadiccommentariesthatservedasameansofpopularizingphilosophicaldoctrine.However,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n382MedievalJewishphilosophycommentariesonAverroes’works,esotericbiblicalcommentaries,andtechnicalworksonlogic–allinaccessibletothoseuninitiatedinphilosophicaldoctrine–wereequallypopularamongJewishphilosophers.Inthefollowingcenturythebalancebetweengenresgearedforalimited,philosophicallysophisticatedaudienceandthosesuit-ableforamorepopularaudienceshifted.Jewishphilosopherscon-tinuedtocomposetechnicalphilosophicalworksdirectedtotheirfellowphilosophers,suchasIsaacibnShemTov’snumeroussu-percommentariesonAverroes’commentariesandthephilosophi-callettersofAbrahamShalom,EliHabillo,andAbrahamBibago.34However,Hispano-Jewishphilosophers,preoccupiedwithdefendingtheisticdoctrinetoawideaudience,weremorelikelytoemploygenresthatwereaccessibletothemasses.Consequently,fifteenth-centuryJewishSpainwitnessedaflourishingofthephilosophicalsermon,ausefulmeansofexpressingphilosophicaldoctrineinapopularmedium.WhilepreviouslytheonlycollectionofJewishphilosophicalsermonswasJacobAnatoli’sMalmadha-Talmidim,atleastfivecollectionsofJewishphilosophicalsermonswerecom-posedinfifteenth-centurySpain.Inaddition,thesesermoniccol-lectionsintroducedimportantchangesintotheformoftheJewishsermon,someofthemresultingfromtheimpactofelementsoftheScholasticquaestiomethod.35Likewise,SpanishJewishphiloso-phersfromtheendofthefourteenthcenturywrotepopularphilo-sophicalworksorganizedaroundanddefendingdifferenttheolog-icalprinciples.AlthoughthisgenrepossessescertainsimilaritiestoJewishkalamworks,itismostsimilarto–andevidentlyinfluencedby–theliterarystructureofChristianphilosophicalsummae.acasestudy:thescopeandnatureofdivineknowledgeTheeclectic,polemical,andtheisticnatureoffifteenth-centuryHispano-Jewishphilosophy,itsrelianceonChristianphilosophi-calsources,andthedistinctionbetweenitandradicaltrendsinthirteenth-andfourteenth-centurySpanishandsouthernFrenchJewishphilosophycanbebestillustratedbyanexaminationofapar-ticularissuethatwasdiscussedextensivelybythesephilosophers.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJewish–ChristianphilosophicaldialogueinSpain383Theissuethatweshallexplorebrieflyisthescopeandnatureofdivineknowledge.ManyJewishphilosophersofthethirteenthandfourteenthcen-turiesrejectedthebeliefinGod’somniscientknowledgeofallsub-lunarevents.Themostelaborateandinfluentialpresentationofthisviewwasthatofthefourteenth-centuryProvenc¸alphilosopherGersonides.36Heclaimedthatdivineknowledgemustbeconfinedtothefixedandtheorderedandcannotextendtothatwhichiscon-tingentandundetermined.37Gersonidesalsoconcludedthatthere-strictionsondivineknowledgecanbereconciledwithabeliefinGod’sknowledgeofparticularsandprovidenceoverterrestrialaf-fairs.ThereconciliationdependedonpositingcausalinfluenceoftheActiveIntellectandtheheavenlybodiesonsublunarevents.Astralcausalityissoencompassing,accordingtoGersonides,thatmostterrestrialevents,includingthoseinvolvinghumanchoice,arede-terminedandordered,thusallowingforGod’sknowledgeofsublunarevents.However,Gersonideswasunwillingtoplaceallhumanaf-fairswithintherealmofthefixedandtheordered.Gersonidesmain-tainedthatintellectallowshumanbeingstochoosethegoodevenwhenitcontravenesthedecreeoftheheavenlybodies.38Althoughhumansgenerallydonotusetheirintellecttosubvertthedivineorder,39therearerareoccurrenceswhenhumanchoicethwartstheheavenlymandate.Jewishphilosophersofthelatefourteenthandfifteenthcen-turiesforcefullyopposedthepositionofGersonidesandhisSpanishphilosophicalcolleagueswhohadputforthalimiteddivineomni-sciencetheory.40Gersonides’position,theymaintained,attributestoGodacertainignorance,animperfectionunattributabletoGod.Instead,theyarguedthatGodknowsallindividualsandparticularsquaparticulars.TheymarshaledasprooftraditionalargumentsthathadappearedamongpreviousJewishphilosophers,particularlyMai-monides.TheyattemptedthustodisproveGersonides’argumentsagainstMaimonides’negativetheology,anessentialcomponentofMaimonides’compatibilistview.ThesethinkersalsolookedtoScholasticism.Forinstance,ZerahiaHaleviinhisdefenseofavolitionalconceptionofhumanchoiceacknowledgeshisdebttologicalnotionsdevelopedby“thenewlogicians”(ha-hegyonimha-hadashim),areferencetothephilo-sophicalmovementofwhichWilliamofOckhamwastheforemostCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n384MedievalJewishphilosophyrepresentative.41Oneofthemostinterestingofthesediscussions(andfairlyrepresentative)isAbrahamBibago’sdiscussioninhisTheWayofBelief.42BibagobeginshistreatmentofdivineknowledgebydepictingtheviewsofthosewhodenyGod’somniscienceasbe-lieversinastrologicalinfluenceandastralmagic,perhapsmakingreferencetoviewsexpressedbycontemporarySpanishJewishratio-nalists.Hethensetsouttorefutethisapproach.Inthisregard,heofferstwoproofsforGod’somniscienceandknowledgeofparticu-lars.FollowingAquinas,hearguesthatGodmustbeomniscient,becausehepossessesallperfectionsintheirmosteminentform,andthatacreatormusthaveknowledgeofallhiscreations.43BibagoalsoattemptstoweakentheargumentsofthelimiteddivineomnisciencetheorybysupportingMaimonides’positionthatdivineandhumanknowledgesharenothingincommonexceptthename.Bibagosup-pliescounterargumentsforeachofGersonides’argumentsagainstMaimonides.44Bibago’sdefense,however,incorporatesmanyele-mentsthatareseeminglyinconsistentwithMaimonides’negativetheology.Inparticular,heascribestoMaimonidesaviewofCrescasthatdisallowscomparisonbetweendivineandhumanknowl-edge,becauseGod’sknowledgeisinfiniteandhumanknowledgeisfinite.45Insummary,twotrendsoccupytheintellectuallandscapeoflatefourteenth-andfifteenth-centurySpanishJewry.Inthesecondhalfofthefourteenthcenturyandinthefifteenthcentury,antirational-ismgrewinresponsetothegrowinginfluenceofJewishphiloso-phyinSpainandthetheologicalandsocialcrisisthatengulfedit.However,theantirationalisttrendinJewishphilosophywasdwarfedbyamoderaterationalismthatdominatedHispano-Jewishintel-lectualcircles.ThesephilosophersopposedtheradicaltrendsthathademergedamongsouthernFrenchandSpanishJewishphiloso-phers,buttheywerenotwillingtoadoptanantirationaliststancethatprohibitedthestudyofphilosophyanddeniedanysignificantvalueandefficacytorationalinquiry.Themoderaterationalismis,inmanyways,similartoandinfluencedbyapproachesdevel-opedbyChristianScholastics,particularlyAquinas.Paradoxically,attheheightofJewish–Christiananimosityandpolemicalactivity,JewishphilosopherssawtheirChristianphilosophicalcolleaguesasmodelsforcombatingradicalrationalismeffectivelywithouttherebyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJewish–ChristianphilosophicaldialogueinSpain385adoptingantirationalisticpositions.Thus,fifteenth-centuryJewishphilosophymustbeseen,amongotherthings,asbeginninganewchapterintheJewish–Christianphilosophicaldialogue.46notes1.Itshouldbenotedthatby“Spain”(Iberia)Iamreferringtotheking-domsofAragonandCastile.Inaddition,thedevelopmentsthatIamdiscussinginthischapterbegininthelatefourteenthcenturyandcon-tinueuntiltheexpulsion.Nevertheless,Igenerallyspeakhereaboutthefifteenthcentury.IwouldliketothankProfessorZevHarveyforhishelpfulcommentsonthischapter.2.J.Guttmann,PhilosophiesofJudaism,trans.D.Silverman(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1966),242.OneimportantexceptiontothistrendinscholarshipistheapproachofH.Tirosh-Rothschild(Samuelson)(seenn.16and17below),whichhasgreatlyinformedmyunderstandingofthisperiod.3.Onthisperiod,seeY.Baer,AHistoryoftheJewsinChristianSpain,2vols.(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,1978),ii:95–423;S.W.Baron,ASocialandReligiousHistoryoftheJews(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1965),x:167–219;E.Gutwirth,“TowardsExpulsion:1391–1492,”inSpainandtheJews,ed.E.Kedourie(London:Thames&Hudson,1992),51–73.4.KetavDivreiHakhamim,ed.E.Ashkenazi(Metz,1849),41–6.5.KetavDivreiHakhamim,42.6.Onthisgroup,seethemanystudiesandtextspublishedbyD.Schwartz:ThePhilosophyofaFourteenthCenturyJewishNeoplatonicCircle[Hebrew](Jerusalem:MosadBialik,1996),andtheworkscitedthereon31n.42.7.D.Schwartz,“VidalJosephCaballeria’sSermonontheExodusfromEgypt”[Hebrew]Asufot7(1993),261–80.8.Onanti-rationalisminthisperiod,seeD.Schwartz,“TheSpiritual-IntellectualDeclineoftheJewishCommunityinSpainattheEndoftheFourteenthCentury”[Hebrew]Peamim46–47(1991),92–114;E.Lawee,“ThePathtoFelicity:TeachingsandTensionsin‘EvenShetiyyahofAbrahambenJudah,DiscipleofHasdaiCrescas,”MedievalStudies59(1997),183–223.9.R.Nissim’scritiqueofphilosophyisanalyzedinS.Klein-Braslavy,“Verit´eproph´etiqueetv´erit´ephilosophiquechezNissimdeG´erone,”´RevuedesEtudesJuives134(1975),72–99.Paradoxically,CrescaswasmostindebtedtoR.Nissimfortheformulationofhisnaturalisticac-countofcreationandcausality.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n386MedievalJewishphilosophy10.LightoftheLord,ed.S.Fisher(Jerusalem:SifreiRamot,1990).FormanyofthestudiesdevotedtoexplicatingCrescas’philosophy,seethereferencesinM.Idel,“JewishThoughtinMedievalSpain,”inTheSephardiLegacy,ed.H.Beinart(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1992),i:261–81,270n.36;W.Z.Harvey,PhysicsandMetaphysicsinHasdaiCrescas(Amsterdam:J.C.Gieben,1998).11.EfodivoicedhiscriticismofJewishphilosophersintheintroductiontohisMa‘asehEfodi(D.Rapel,“TheIntroductiontoProfiatDuran’sMa‘asehEfodi”[Hebrew]Sinai100[1987],770–4).Rivash’soppositiontophilosophyappearsinoneofhisresponsa(She’elotu-Teshuvotle-Rabenuha-GadolMarenuve-Rabenuha-RavYitzhakbarSheshet,ed.D.Metzger[Jerusalem:n.p.,1993],nos.45,49–51;seealsohisresponsaontheconflictbetweenscientificconclusionsandhalakhicsources:nos.251,447).IbnShoshan’scriticismofphilosophywasexpressedinhiscommentaryonAvot(R.JosephIbnShoshan’sCommentaryonAvot,ed.S.KasherandJ.Bleichkrovitz[Jerusalem:n.p.,1968],81–3,130,153).AlthoughnoexplicitevidenceofanassociationbetweenCrescasandIbnShoshanexists,thelatterwasincontactwiththeRivash(She’elotu-Teshuvotle-Rabenu,no.157).12.E.Gottlieb,StudiesinKabbalasticLiterature[Hebrew](TelAviv:TelAvivUniversityPress,1976),347–56.13.Anotherfifteenth-centurykabbalistic,yetphilosophicallyinformed,critiqueofphilosophywastheanonymousauthorofSeferPoke’ahIvrim.Onthiswork,seeB.Huss,“SeferPoke
ahIvrim:NewInfor-mationfortheHistoryofKabbalisticLiterature,”[Hebrew]Tarbiz61(1992),489–504.Onhisattitudetowardphilosophy,seeB.Huss,“OntheStatusofKabbalahaftertheRiotsof1391,”[Hebrew]Pe‘amim56(1993),20–32.14.Onthiswork,seeM.Idel,“InquiriesintheThoughtofSeferha-Meshiv,”[Hebrew]Sefunot(NS)2(17)(1983),185–266;M.Idel,“TheOriginofAlchemyaccordingtoZosimosandaHebrewParallel,”RevuedesEtudesJuives145(1986),117–25;M.Idel,“Seferha-Meshiv’sAttitudetoChristianity,”[Hebrew]Zion46(1981),77–91.Onhisattitudetophilosophy,seeIdel,“ThoughtofSeferha-Meshiv,”232–43.15.Noteshouldalsobemadeofthefollowingexceptions:theSpanishethicist,SolomonAlami,inhisIggeretMusar(1415)identifiedthephilosophersasthecauseoftheunrestthatplaguedhiscommunityandcriticizedtheirviewofhumanperfectionandtheirallegoricalex-egesis(IggeretMusar,ed.A.Haberman[Jerusalem:Meqorot,1946],25,30,32,35,41–3,46).Seealsotheattackagainstphilosophyleveledbythepoet,SolomonBonafed(E.Gutwirth,“SocialCriticisminBonafed’sInvective,”Sefarad14[1985],28–9).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJewish–ChristianphilosophicaldialogueinSpain38716.Generaloverviewsoffifteenth-centuryHispano-Jewishphilosophycanbefoundin:Guttmann,PhilosophiesofJudaism,242–56;C.Sirat,AHistoryofJewishPhilosophyintheMiddleAges(Cambridge:Cam-bridgeUniversityPress,1985),345–97;H.Davidson,“MedievalJewishPhilosophyintheSixteenthCentury,”inJewishThoughtintheSix-teenthCentury,ed.B.Cooperman(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniver-sityPress,1983),110–14;H.Tirosh-Rothschild,“JewishPhilosophyontheEveofModernity,”inHistoryofJewishPhilosophy,ed.D.H.FrankandO.Leaman(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997),500–12.17.SeethebibliographicreferencesassembledinIdel,“JewishThoughtinMedievalSpain,”270–1;seealsoH.Tirosh-Rothschild,“PoliticalPhilosophyintheThoughtofAbrahamShalom:ThePlatonicTradi-tion,”[Hebrew]JerusalemStudiesinJewishThought9(1990),409–40;H.Tirosh-Rothschild,“HumanFelicity–FifteenthCenturySephardicPerspectivesonHappiness,”inInIberiaandBeyond:HispanicJewsbetweenCultures,ed.B.Cooperman(Newark:UniversityofDelawarePress,1998),191–244;A.Ravitzky,“TheParadoxicalConceptofFreeWillinMattathiasha-Yizhari,”inFromRometoJerusalem:MemorialVolumeforProf.JosephSermoneta,ed.A.Ravitzky(Jerusalem:HebrewUniversity,1998),239–56;J.Schwartzman,“R.IsaacbenShemTov’sCommentaryonMorehNevukim,”Da‘at26(1991),43–59;A.Nuriel,“ThePhilosophyofAbrahambenShemTovBibago,”Ph.D.dissertation,HebrewUniversityofJerusalem,1975;J.Hacker,“TheRoleofAbrahamBibagointhePolemiconthePlaceofPhilosophyinJewishLifeinSpainintheFifteenthCentury,”[Hebrew]ProceedingsoftheFifthWorldCongressofJewishStudies(Jerusalem:WorldUnionofJewishStudies,1969),iii:151–8.18.OnthesimilartopicsdiscussedandconclusionsreachedbyallmedievalJewish–aswellasIslamicandChristian–philosophers,seeH.Wolfson,FromPhilotoSpinoza(NewYork:BehrmanHouse,1977).19.Onthedifferencesbetweenfifteenth-centuryHispano-Jewishphi-losophyandJewishphilosophyofthetwoprecedingcenturies,seeM.Kellner,DogmainMedievalJewishThought:FromMaimonidestoAbravanel(Oxford:LittmanLibrary,1986),82–6,66–9.20.OnthedefenseoftheisticdoctrineinmedievalJewishphilosophy,seeH.Tirosh-Rothschild,BetweenWorlds:TheLifeandThoughtofRabbiDavidbenJudahMesserLeon(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1991),184–7.Ontheconservativeorientationoffifteenth-centuryHispano-Jewishphilosophy,seeDavidson,“MedievalJewishPhiloso-phy,”110–4.21.Ontherelationshipbetweenconceptionsofhumanperfectionoffifteenth-centuryHispano-JewishphilosophersandthoseofScholasticCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n388MedievalJewishphilosophyphilosophers,seeTirosh-Rothschild,“JewishPhilosophyontheEveofModernity,”500–12;Tirosh-Rothschild,“HumanFelicity.”22.Onthedefenseofphilosophyamongfifteenth-centuryHispano-Jewishphilosophers,seeS.Regev,“TheProblemofPhilosophicalStudyinFifteenth-CenturyJewishThought:R.JosephibnShemTovandR.Abra-hamBibago,”[Hebrew]Daat16(1986),63–88.23.Iwillhereandinthenextsectiondiscusstheimpactofthepolemical-apologeticorientationoffifteenth-centuryHispano-Jewishphiloso-phersonthephilosophicalsourcesandliterarygenresthattheyemploy.Ihavechosentheseissuesbecause,despitethelargebodyofresearchonthisgroupofphilosophers,thelinkbetweentheirpolemical–apologeticorientationandthephilosophicalsourcesandliterarygenresthattheyemployisrarelydiscussed.24.See,e.g.,Albo’suseofAverroesdocumentedinD.Lasker,“AverroisticTrendsinJewish–ChristianPolemics,”Speculum55(1980),294–304.25.A.Ravitzky,“TheSecretsofMaimonides:BetweentheThirteenthandtheTwentiethCenturies,”inhisHistoryandFaith:StudiesinJewishPhilosophy(Amsterdam:J.C.Gieben,1996),248–56.26.Ravitzky,“TheSecretsofMaimonides,”266andthesourcescitedinn.56;Schwartzman,“R.IsaacbenShemTov’sCommentaryonMorehNevukhim,”56–8.27.Forinstance,seeShemTovbenJosephibnShemTov’scommentaryonGuide3:51:SeferMorehNevukimimArbahPerushim(Warsaw,1862),64b.28.OnMaimonides’disparagingattitudetohisJewishphilosophicalprede-cessors,seeGuide1:71.29.OnthetranslationofAbrahamibnDaud’sphilosophicalwork,seeA.Eran,“TheRelationshipbetweentheTwoTranslationsofAbrahamibnDaud’sal-Akidahal-Rafiah,”[Hebrew]Tarbiz(1996),79–107.30.ThisiscontrarytotheviewofShlomoPines,whoattemptedtodoc-umenttheinfluenceofChristianphilosophyonsouthernFrenchandSpanishJewishphilosophyinthethirteenthandfourteenthcenturies.PinesthesisispresentedinScholasticismafterThomasAquinasandtheTeachingsofHasdaiCrescasandhisPredecessors,inTheCollectedWorksofShlomoPines:StudiesintheHistoryofJewishThought,ed.W.Z.HarveyandM.Idel(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1997),v:489–589,andotherstudies.ManyofthelinksthatPinesdrawsbetweentheviewsofChristianScholasticsandmedievalJewishphilosophers(withtheexceptionofCrescas)aretenuous.Inaddition,hisexplanationthattheabsenceofreferencestoChristianphilosophersamongtheJewishphilosophersofthirteenth-andfourteenth-centurySpainandsouthernFranceisaliteraryconventionisnotconvincing.IdonotdenythatCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nJewish–ChristianphilosophicaldialogueinSpain389furtherresearchmightwelluncovermoreconnectionsbetweentheJewishphilosophersofthirteenth-andfourteenth-centurySpainandsouthernFranceandScholasticsources,butIdoubtthattheseconnec-tionswillapproximatethescopeoftheimpactofChristianphilosoph-icalmaterialthatonefindsinHasdaiCrescas,AbrahamBibago,andJosephibnShemTov.31.AnothersurprisingaspectisthefactthatmostoftheradicalJewishrationalistssuchasGersonidesandJosephibnKaspilivedinsouthernFrance,i.e.closertothecentersofChristianphilosophythanthemoreChristian-influencedJewishphilosopherswhoresidedonthesouthernsideofthePyrenees.32.Ontheconnectionbetweenphilosophyandpolemicsinfifteenth-centuryIberianJewry,seeD.Lasker,“ChristianityandLateIberianJewishPhilosophy,”inCooperman(ed.),InIberiaandBeyond,175–90.33.ThispassageiscitedandanalyzedinJ.-P.Rothschild,“QuestiondephilosophiesoumiseparEliHabilloaSemTobIbnSemTov,v.`1472,”Archivesd’HistoireDoctrinaleetLitteraireduMoyenAge´61(1994),111.NotealsoArama’srecognitionofthesuccessofChristianphiloso-phersintheiroppositiontotheinfluenceofphilosophicaldoctrineontheirtheologicalprinciples(HazutKasheh[Jerusalem,n.d.],ch.8).34.H.Wolfson,“IsaacibnShem-Tob’sUnknownCommentariesonthePhysicsandhisotherUnkownWorks,”inhisStudiesintheHistoryofPhilosophyandReligion,ed.I.TwerskyandG.H.Williams(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1977),ii:477–90.35.A.Ravitzky,Crescas’SermononthePassoverandStudiesinhisPhilos-ophy[Hebrew](Jerusalem:IsraelAcademyofSciencesandHumanities,1988),130;M.Saperstein,“YourVoicelikeaRam’sHorn”:ThemesandTextsinTraditionalJewishPreaching(Cincinnati:HebrewUnionCollegePress,1996),1983.36.OnGersonides’treatmentofdivineknowledgeandhumanchoice,seeS.Klein-Braslavy,“GersonidesonDeterminism,Possibility,Choice,andForeknowledge,”[Hebrew]Daat22(1989),5–53;C.Manekin,“FreedomWithinReason?GersonidesonHumanChoice,”inFree-domandMoralResponsibility:GeneralandJewishPerspectives,ed.C.ManekinandM.Kellner(CollegePark:UniversityofMarylandPress,1997),165–204.37.MilhamotAdonai(RivadiTrento,1560),3:3–4,21d–25a.AtranslationofthesesectionsisfoundinTheWarsoftheLord,trans.S.Feldman(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,1987),ii:107–31.38.Gersonides’viewthattheintellectallowsapersontoescapethecausaleffectsoftheheavenscanbefoundinMilhamotAdonai17a–b(trans.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n390MedievalJewishphilosophyFeldman,34–5).HelimitedhumanchoicetochoosingthegoodinMilhamotAdonai19b;trans.Feldman,60.39.MilhamotAdonai17b;trans.Feldman,36:“Eventhoughchoice,whichstemsfromreason,hasthepowertoupsetthisorder,thisoccursrarely.”40.D.Schwartz,“BetweenDivineandHumanKnowledge:TheTrajectoryofaMedievalEpistemologicalConception,”[Hebrew]Iyyun39(1990),211–22.41.A.Ackerman,“ThePhilosophicSermonsofZerahiabenIsaacHaleviSaladin:JewishPhilosophicandSermonicActivityinLate14thandEarly15thCenturyAragon,”Ph.D.dissertation,HebrewUniversityofJerusalem,2000,136–9.42.Bibago,TheWayofBelief(Constantinople,1521)(reprinted,Jerusalem:Meqorot,1970),8a–14b.43.Aquinas,SummaTheologicaIa14,6.44.Bibago,TheWayofBelief,12a–14b.45.Crescas,LightoftheLord1:3.3.46.Itwouldbeinterestingtoinspectfifteenth-centurySpanish-ChristianphilosophytoseeiftheheightenedpolemicalactivitybetweenChris-tiansandJewsinfifteenth-centurySpainproducedonlyaunidirectionalinfluenceofChristianthoughtonJewishphilosophyor,asIsuspect,animpactthatwasbidirectional.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\njamest.robinson17HasdaiCrescasandanti-Aristotelianismintroduction:fourteenth-centuryphysicsThefourteenthcenturysawtheemergenceofanewtrendinmedi-evalphilosophyandscience.WhilecontinuingtoadheregenerallytoanAristotelianunderstandingofnature,Christianscholarsbe-gantoquestionandmodifycertainpremisesofAristotelianphysicsandtosuggestnon-Aristotelianalternatives,revivingpre-SocraticorHellenisticviewsanddevelopingoriginalideasbasedonobservationandexperience.SuchremarkablefiguresasThomasBradwardineandhissuccessorsinOxford,andJeanBuridanandhisstudentsinParischallengedbasicAristoteliantenetsaboutinfinity,place,vacuum,motion,andmaterialsubstance,suggestingthepossibilityofanin-finitecosmosfilledbymultipleworlds.AlthoughmotivatedlargelybyChristiandoctrineandthecondemnationsofAristotle,thismovetowardscriticalinquiryledtoanewconceptionoftheuniverse,whichanticipatedandcontributedtothescientificrevolutionofthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies.1TheoutstandingJewishrepresentativeofthiscriticaltrendinEuropeanphilosophywasHasdaiCrescas(c.1340–1410/11),legalscholar,communalleader,andcourtierinBarcelonaandSaragossa.PerhapsinfluencedbytheParisphysicists,andmotivatedbysimi-lartheologicalinterests,CrescasinhisLightoftheLordsubjectedMaimonides’summaryofAristotelianphysicstoasearchingat-tack.UnlikehisChristiancounterparts,however,Crescaswasnotcontentmerelytospeculateaboutproblemareaswithinagener-allycoherentnaturalscience.ExploitingdivergenceswithintheAristoteliantradition,andborrowingexistinganti-Aristotelianar-guments,Crescassoughtnothinglessthantodemolishthesystem391CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n392MedievalJewishphilosophyasawhole.AlthoughhisimmediateJewishfollowersandcriticsex-pressedreservationsaboutCrescas’innovations,hisideasweretakenupandelaboratedbyanti-AristoteliansintheRenaissanceandRef-ormation.TheLightoftheLorditselfwasnottranslatedintoLatinoranyRomancelanguage,butitwascitedandusedfamouslybyPicodellaMirandolaandSpinoza.Itmayhaveinfluenced,ifonlyindirectly,someofGiordanoBruno’stheoriesabouttheinfiniteuni-verseandGalileo’snovelconceptionsofweightandvelocity.2Crescas’critiqueofAristotelianphysicsformsthefirstpartofhisLightoftheLord.ItisthefoundationofanelaboraterefutationnotonlyofAristotle’sphysicalprinciples,butalsoofthetheolog-icaldoctrinesespousedbyAristotle’sJewishfollowers.FollowingabriefdiscussionofCrescas’lifeandworks,andanoutlineoftheLightoftheLordasawhole,thepresentintroductiontoCrescas’anti-Aristotelianismwillfocusonhisargumentsconcerningmotion,place,infinity,time,andmatter.lifeandwritingsBornintoaprominentfamily,CrescasspenthisearlyyearsinBarcelona,wherehestudiedintheacademyofNissimb.ReubenGerondi.ItwasunderthetutelageofNissim,theleadingrepresen-tativeofaBarcelonatraditiongoingbacktoMosesNahmanides,thatCrescasacquiredhisknowledgeofandcriticalattitudetowardphilosophy.Gainingexpertiseinlaw,philosophy,andperhapsalsokabbalah,itseemsthatCrescaswasconsideredamajorscholarinhisownrightalreadyby1370.Heiscitedfavorablyinlegalwritingsandparticipatedwithhisteacherinaliteraryexchangeofpoems.AfterservingbrieflyasrabbiinBarcelona,CrescasmovedtoSaragossain1389,wherehewasappointedcommunalrabbiandgivenroyalpowertoadjudicatecapitalcasesinallofthekingdomofAragon.ThemovetoSaragossa,thecapitalcityofAragon,broughthimintocontactwithanurbaneJewishpopulationthatincludedathrivingcircleofpoets,translators,andcourtiers.Itwaswithinthiscirclethathetaughtnotonlylawbutalsophilosophy,andhisstudentsbecametheleadingfiguresofthefollowinggeneration.Hiscourtposition,moreover,affordedhimgreatercontactwithChristianscholarsandstatesmen,bothinSaragossaandthroughoutAragonandNavarre.In1401hewassentasemissarytoPamplonawhere,ithasbeenCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nHasdaiCrescasandanti-Aristotelianism393speculated,hecouldhavelearnedaboutthenaturalphilosophyofNicoleOresme.3CrescaswasresidinginSaragossaduringtheriotsof1391,whichdestroyedmanyoftheJewishcommunitiesofCastileandAragon.AlthoughSaragossawasspared,duetothestrongroyalpresenceinthecity,Crescashimselfsufferedthelossofhisonlyson,whowaskilledasamartyrinBarcelona.Theriots,whichshapedtheremain-ingyearsofJewishlifeinSpain,hadsignificantimpactonCrescas’careeraswell.AsleaderoftheJews,heusedhisroyalconnectionstohelprestoreandreconstructJewishcommunitiesthathadbeende-stroyedbytherioting.Heinstituteddecreestoaddresstheemergencysituationandwrote,andencouragedotherstowrite,polemicalworksaimedatcounteringChristianmissionaries.ThisinterestinrefutingChristianity,moreover,isevidentinhisLightoftheLordaswell.Severalissuesdiscussedinhispolemicalwork,suchasthesuperior-ityoftheprophecyofMoses,thatspiritualrewardispromisedintheBible,andthestatusofdemons,weretakenupagaininhisphilosoph-icalwork.MoreinterestingisthefactthatCrescasborrowedseveralideasfromChristianphilosophynotonlytocombathisreligiousopponent,buttodevelopaphilosophyortheologythatcouldrivalthebeliefsystemadoptedbysomanyconversos.Crescas’peculiarideasaboutfreewill,forinstance,seemtoderivefromtheapostateAbnerofBurgos(AlfonsoofValladolid)andshowsomeaffinitywithDunsScotus.ItwasAbner,moreover,whoannouncedinHebrewcertainanti-AristotelianpositionsthatCrescaswouldlatertakeupandfurtherdevelop.4TheLightoftheLord,Crescas’philosophical-theologicalsumma,wasconceivedaspart1ofatwo-partwork.Butitseemsthatpoliti-calturmoilandcommunalresponsibilitypreventedhimfromwrit-ingthecompanionvolume,alegalworkthat,hehoped,wouldsup-plantMaimonides’MishnehTorah.ThedifficulthistoricalsettinginwhichCrescasworked,moreover,seemstohaveaffectedtheLightoftheLordaswell,forhecontinuedwritingandrevisinghismajorworkoverseveralyears,reworkingsectionsandaddingchaptersinre-sponsetohisgrowingknowledgeofChristianphilosophy.Thelatestversionofthework,whichisdated1410,includes4books,18parts,116chapters,and13“investigations.”ThesubjectofBook1istherootofallbelief,namelytheexistence,unity,andincorporealityofGod.Book2treatsofsixnecessarydogmas,withoutwhichthelawCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n394MedievalJewishphilosophycouldnotsurvive,namelydivineknowledgeofindividuals,provi-dence,divinepower,prophecy,freewill,andthefinalaimoftheTorah.Book3consistsofeightbeliefsthat,whilenotnecessaryperse,renderanyonewhodeniesthemaheretic,namelycreation,im-mortalityofthesoul,rewardandpunishment,resurrectionofthedead,eternityoftheTorah,superiorityoftheprophecyofMoses,powerofthepriesttoprophesy,andmessianicredemption.Book3includesanappendixaswell,withthreeadditionalbeliefs:efficacyofprayerandthepriestlyblessing,repentance,andtheholydays.Book4consistsofseparateinvestigationsintothevalidityofthir-teendisputedbeliefs,includingthequestionoffutureeternity,thepluralityofworlds,whethercelestialbodiesarelivingandrational,astralinfluence,demons,thepowerofamuletsandincantations,reincarnation,futurerewardofaminor,themeaningof“heaven”and“hell,”thecontentofthe“accountofthebeginning”and“accountofthechariot,”whetherintellect,intelligible,andintel-lectuallycognizingsubjectcanbecomeone,theprimemover,andthescopeofmetaphysics.5Thefirsttwenty-fivechaptersofBook1,Part1,andthefirstfour-teenchaptersofBook1,Part2,inwhichCrescassetsouthismaincritiqueofAristotle’sconceptionofnature,havebeenedited,trans-lated,andcopiouslyannotatedbyH.A.Wolfson.ConsistentwithhisapproachtoJewishphilosophyingeneral,Wolfsonattemptedtoiden-tifythesourceofeverystatementorargumentofCrescasinexistingHebrewtexts,includingthevastcorpusofliteraturetranslatedfromArabic.FocusingattentiononCrescas’contributionstothehistoryofscience,moreover,Wolfsonrearrangedthetext,placingthecritiqueofeachphilosophicalpropositiondirectlyafteritsexplanation,andseparatingthechapterswithscientificinterestfromthelargertheo-logicalcontext.ThemorerecentworkofS.PinesandW.Z.Harvey,ontheotherhand,haspointedtoparallelsincontemporaryChris-tianphilosophyandhasevensuggestedpersonalconnectionswithScholasticphilosophers.HarveyandH.Davidson,furthermore,haveexaminedthecritiqueofphysicstogetherwiththerefutationofMai-monides’proofsfortheexistence,unity,andincorporealityofGod.Thus,whilethefollowingdiscussionofCrescas’critiquewillfollowtheworkofWolfson,paralleldevelopmentsinChristianphilosophywillalsobenotedandtheologicalimplicationswillbeemphasized.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nHasdaiCrescasandanti-Aristotelianism395ItisonlywithintheselargercontextsthatCrescas’achievementcanbeappreciatedfully.6AfewpreliminaryremarksaboutthetheologicalsettingofCrescas’work,namelythecritiqueofMaimonides’proofsandpropo-sitions,alongwithabriefexplanationofhiscriticalmethod,willleadintodiscussionoftheargumentsthemselves.TheviewsofAris-totlepresentedthroughoutcorrespondwithCrescas’understand-ingofthem.Exampleshavebeenselectedwithaviewtoillustrat-inghismethodandbringingoutthemainpointsandimplications.ResemblancestotheworkofJohnPhiloponuswillalsobecited,toprovidefurtherorientationwithrespecttothehistoryofanti-Aristotelianism.Finally,thenotesatthebeginningofeachsectionprovideselectbibliographyrelatedtoallissuesdiscussed.7thecritiqueofaristotelianphysicsInthesecondpartoftheGuideofthePerplexed,Maimonidesat-temptstoprove,onphilosophicalgrounds,theexistence,unity,andincorporealityofGod.Inordertoachievethispurpose,hesetsforthtwenty-sixpropositions,twenty-fiveofwhich,heclaims,havebeendemonstrated,whereasthetwenty-sixth,theeternityofmotion,heassumesforthesakeofargument.Fromthesetwenty-sixproposi-tions,Maimonidesthenderivessixproofs,accordingtoCrescas’enu-meration,fortheexistence,unity,andincorporealityofGod.Thefirstandthirdofthesesixproofsarethemostimportantandarebrieflystatedhere.Accordingtothefirstproof,thecircularmotionoftheoutermostsphereisperpetualandrequiresamover.Butthemovercannotbeabodyoraforceinabody;itmustthereforebeanincorporealforceoutsidethebody,andthisincorporealforceisGod.Accordingtothethirdproof,existenceiseithernecessaryorpossible.Iftheexistenceofeverythingwereonlypossible,itwouldbeequallypossibleforeverythingnottoexist.Overinfinitetimethispossibilityfornonexistencewouldhavetobecomeactual;butsinceeverythinghasnotpassedintononexistence,theremustbeanexistentthatisnecessaryinitself,andthisnecessaryexistentisGod.8ThefirstproofsetforthbyMaimonides,basedonmotionandtheimpossibilityofaninfiniteregress,isderivedfromAristotle’sCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n396MedievalJewishphilosophyPhysicsandMetaphysics.Thethirdproof,ontheotherhand,basedonnecessaryandpossibleexistence,derivesfromAvicenna’speculiarreadingofAristotle’sMetaphysics,andwassubsequentlyrejectedbyAverroes.Whilebothproofscontinuedtoexerciseconsiderablein-fluencethroughouttheMiddleAges,withphilosophersdefendingei-therAvicennaorAverroes,Crescasapproachedthesetwoargumentsinadifferentway.AlthoughMaimonides’conclusionsmayormaynotfollownecessarilyfromthesetwenty-sixpropositions,itisnotatallclearthatthepropositionsthemselveshavebeensufficientlydemonstrated.AnexaminationofMaimonides’proofs,therefore,re-quiresanexaminationofhispropositions,andthisexamination,ashasbeenindicated,isthemainfunctionofBook1.Alltwenty-sixpropositionsandthesixproofsderivedfromthemareexplainedin1:1;fourteenofthepropositionsandallsixproofsarecritiquedin1:2;andCrescas’ownproofsfortheexistence,unity,andincorporealityofGod,basedonprophecyratherthanreason,aresetforthin1:3.Hiscritiqueofthetwenty-sixthproposition,theeternityofmotion,isfoundmainlyin3:1,inthecourseofhisdiscussionofcreation.ThemethodusedbyCrescasthroughouthiscritiqueisdialectical.Theargumentsofhisopponentarefirstestablishedindetail,withimplicationsdrawnoutanddifficultiesresolved.Theverysystemhehaspainstakinglybuiltupisthendemolished,withbothpremisesandconclusionsattacked.Thetwenty-sixpropositionsusedbyMaimonidesserveastheframeworkforCrescas’initialpresentationofAristotelianphilosophy,whichheelaboratesbasedonthecom-mentariesandtreatisesbyal-Ghazali,IbnDaud,al-Tabrizi,Averroes,Gersonides,andMosesNarboni.9Hiscritiqueofthesesamepropo-sitionsissimilarlyconstructedfromAristoteliansourcesbut,asalreadymentioned,heexploitsdissidentviewswithinthetraditionitself,focusesonbasicproblems,findsexceptionstogeneralrules,anddrawsinspirationfromanti-Aristotelianandnon-Aristoteliantraditions.Thedialecticalcharacterofhisworkgivestheim-pressionofaschoolexercise,inwhichCrescasaimsat“scoringapointhereandapointthere,”asWolfsonfelicitouslydescribesit.10Butthefewpositivestatementsaboutthe“truemeaning”ofplace,motion,andtime,andtheoccasionalreferencetoGodasPlaceandtotheexistenceofmultipleworlds,Indicatethatsomethingmoreisatstakethananyacademicprize.For,aswewillsee,theGodthatCrescasworshipscannotbelimitedbythefiniteworldofCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nHasdaiCrescasandanti-Aristotelianism397Aristotelianphysics.Heisnotamerecauseofmotionorofexistence,butratheraninfinitesourceofloveandgoodness,thecreatorandrulerofanunlimiteduniverse,infinitelyextendedandfilledwithapluralityofindependentworlds.PlaceasThree-DimensionalExtension11ThefirstsubjectofCrescas’critiqueofAristotleisinfinity.Follow-ingtheorderofMaimonides’propositions,Aristotle’sargumentsagainstthepossibilityofaninfinitemagnitudearefirstexplainedindetailandthenrefuted.WhileAristotle’sarguments,Crescasad-mits,areimpressive,theydependuponfurtherargumentsagainstthepossibilityofavacuum,whiletheargumentsagainstthepossi-bilityofavacuumarebaseduponAristotle’speculiarnotionsaboutplaceandmotion,whichnotionsarenotfreefromdoubt.AswithMaimonides’proofsfortheexistenceofGod,therefore,CrescasisledtoreexaminethesebasicprinciplesofAristotelianphysics.ThatAristotle’sideasaboutplaceandmotionwereproblematicwasrecognizedalreadyinantiquity.Itwasthisexistenceofsus-tainedexaminationandcriticisminthecommentarytraditionthatallowedCrescas’critiquetoproceedwithsurprisingease.Aninterestinthepropertiesofthevacuum,moreover,hadincreasedininten-sityduringthefourteenthcentury.TheideaofacompletelyemptyspaceservedasatheoreticallaboratoryofsortsinwhichScholasticphilosopherscouldtesttheirnovelideasaboutnature.AlthoughCrescasdependsupontheseexistingtraditions,aswillbeseen,hewasuniqueincarryingoldandnewinsightstotheirlogicalconclu-sion.AfterabriefexplanationofthemainargumentsusedbyAristo-tletodenytheexistenceofavacuum,Crescas’refutationofhisoppo-nentwillbediscussed.Thefullsignificanceofhisownconclusionsandtheirrelationshiptoexistingsourceswillalsobeconsidered.ThreeideasinAristotle’sconceptionofmotionaremostdistinctandnotoriouslyflawed.Allthreearebroughttobearonhisdiscus-sionofvacuum.Locomotion,inhisopinion,consistsinachangeofplace,frompointoforigintodestination.Butavacuumisho-mogeneous.Therearenodistinctplacesorpredeterminedregionsinwhichmotioncantakeplace.Thusanybodyorelementinavacuumwouldeithermovenotatallorinalldirectionsatonce;but,Aristotleexplains,suchindiscriminatemovementisabsurd.Moreover,theCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n398MedievalJewishphilosophyabsenceofanymediuminavacuummadeitimpossibleforAristotletoconceiveofeitherviolentornaturalmotion.Thatajavelincon-tinuestomoveoncereleasedfromthehand,inAristotle’sopinion,istheresultnotofsomeforceimportedtothejavelinitselfbuttothesurroundingair.Inavacuum,however,wherethereisnoair,anyprojectilewouldimmediatelyceasetomove.Thevelocityofele-ments,finally,whichhaveanaturalinclinationtomoveeitherupordown,isinAristotle’sopinionmeasuredbytheratioofweightorlevitytoresistance.Butbecauseinavacuumthereisnoresistance,therecouldbenoratio.Motioninsuchastateofexistencewouldbeinstantaneous,but,accordingtoAristotle,instantaneousmotionisimpossible.Whiletheexistenceofavacuumledtoabsurditieswhenconsid-eredinlightofAristotle’stheoryofmotion,therejectionofsuchanemptyspacewasdirectlytiedtohisdefinitionofplace.Ifavac-uumwereconsideredtheplaceofabody,Aristotleargued,thenthisthree-dimensionalextensionwoulditselfconstituteabody.Whatthismeansisthatifanotherbodyweretoenterintothisemptyspace,itwouldenterintoanexistingthree-dimensionalbody,andifonebodycouldenteranother,thenallbodiescouldenterintoone;theentireworld,thatis,“couldenterintoagrainofmustardseed.”12Becausetheexistenceoftwobodiesinoneplaceatthesametimeisimpossible,accordingtoAristotle,therecanbenovacuum.Moreover,ifthereweredimensionsexistingseparatefromamate-rialbody,thesedimensionswouldthemselveshavedimensions,andsoon,continuingtoinfinity.Butbecauseaninfiniteregressisim-possible,suchanemptyspacecannotexist.ItisinlightoftheseconsiderationsthatAristotlesetforthhisowndefinitionofplaceasthelimitofthesurroundingbody.Placeisnotthree-dimensionalextensionbuttwo-dimensionalsurface.Itisanaccidentofthebodyitdefines,separatebutcoterminous,notexistinginitself.ReturningnowfromAristotletohistrenchantcritic,Crescasde-niesthefirsttwoargumentsevenwhenacceptingAristotle’scon-ceptionofmotionandplace.Fordirection,hemaintains,couldbeorientedwithrespecttothecenteroftheearthandthelunarsphere,absolutereferencepointsthatcouldguidethemovementofanythingcontainedwithinthevacuum.Crescasdoesnotuseanimpetustheorytoaccountforviolentmotioninavacuum,ashadJohnPhiloponusinthesixthcentury,buthisargumentagainstCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nHasdaiCrescasandanti-Aristotelianism399interpenetrabilitybearsastrikingresemblancetothatusedbyhisanti-Aristotelianforbear.LikePhiloponus,Crescasrehabilitatesthedefinitionofplaceasthree-dimensionalextension,arguingthatdi-mensionscanbeconsideredincorporeal;byeliminatingtheconnec-tionbetweenthree-dimensionalspaceandmaterialbody,Aristotle’sabsurditiesareeasilyresolved.AsforAristotle’sargumentfromvelocity,therewasnoneedforCrescastosearchbeyondtheAristoteliantraditionitselftofindasuitablesourceofinspiration.BorrowingIbnBajja’stheoryofmotion,Crescasarguesthatveloc-ityshouldbeconstruednotasaratioofforcetoresistance(thatis,V=F/R)butasasubtraction(namely,V=F−R).Thus,finitemotionisnotonlypossibleinavacuum,butratheritispreciselythismotioninavacuumthatexpressesanelement’strueweight.ButwhileIbnBajjacontinuedtobelievethatarealvacuumwasim-possible,suchreservationsdidnotaffectCrescas.Thetrueplaceofabody,heexplainsemphatically,isathree-dimensionalvacuum.Thisheassertsandmore:theuniverseasawholeisasimilarlyconceivedvacuum,avastandunlimitedspace,completelyhomogeneousandinfinitelyextended.RelativeWeightandMotion13Whilethedefinitionofplaceasthree-dimensionalextensionandthecritiqueofAristotle’sargumentsagainstthepossibilityofavac-uumopenedthewayforCrescastoasserttheexistenceofaninfi-niteuniverse,Crescas’rejectionofthetheoryofnaturalmotion,towhichwenowturnourattention,servedtoeliminateAristotle’sre-jectionofmultipleworlds.TherefutationofAristotle’stheory,liketheargumentsconcerningvacuum,issetforthinthelongcritiqueofMaimonides’firstproposition;itistakenupagainandelaboratedatLightoftheLord1:1,ch.6.Themainargumentagainstthepossibilityofmultipleworlds,setforthatDeCaelo1:8–9,runsasfollows.Allmaterialexistence,ac-cordingtoAristotle,canbereducedtofourbasicelementspossessingspecificcharacteristics.Fireandair,forexample,arelight,whereasearthandwaterareheavy.Butweightandlevityaredefinednotintermsofmassbutintermsofdirection,anddirectionisdeterminednotbytheelements’motionbutbyafixednaturalstate.ThusfireandairinclineupwardbecausetheyseektoreturntotheirnaturalCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n400MedievalJewishphilosophyplaceintheupperregion,whilewaterandearthinclinedownward,seekingtoreturntotheirnaturalplacearoundthecenter.Ifthereexistedanotherworld,Aristotlecontinues,thatotherworldwouldbeorganizedinthesamewayasours.Buttheexistenceofthatotherworldwouldintroduceanadditionalnaturalplaceforeachelement.Thustheelementearth,forexample,wouldinclinebothdownwardtowardthecenterofthisworldandupwardtowardthecenteroftheotherworld,whiletheelementfire,similarly,wouldinclinebothupwardtowardthelunarsphereofthisworldanddownwardtowardtheregionoffireintheotherworld.Becausecontrarynaturalmo-tionsareimpossible,Aristotleconcludes,therecannotbemultipleworlds.Theworldinwhichweliveisunique,centeredatearth,andboundedbytheoutersphere.Consistentwithhisconceptionofnatureandfinalcausation,Aris-totle’stheoryofnaturalmotionisconstruedinabsoluteterms.Thecenterisabsolutedownand,byanalogy,thelunarsphereisabsoluteup.Fireisconsideredtopossessabsolutelightness,whichmeansthatitwouldnotdescendevenifallairwereremovedfromtheregionbelow.Theregionsofthefourelements,moreover,areprede-terminedandpriortomotionwithrespecttonatureandexistence.But,Crescasmaintains,regardlessofAristotle’sassertionstosupporttheseclaims,noneoftheseprinciplessetforthbyhimhasbeenproved.Byadaptingtohisownpurposeanexamplethathadbeenusedbythephilosopherstoillustratetheimpossibilityofavacuum,Crescasthensetsforthanalternativetheory.Thereisnoabsolutelightorheavy,hemaintains,andallelementsinclinetowardthecenter.Thatairandfireriseisnotduetosomenativeinclinationandpredeterminedplace,buttotheforceexertedbytheheavierele-ments,which,inthecourseoftheirnaturaldescentdownward,pushlighterelementsupward.Thusifsomeoneweretodigaditch,airwoulddescenddownwardintotheareaformerlyfilledwithearthnotbecause“natureabhorsavacuum,”butbecausetheheavierele-mentearth,whichhadpreviouslyimpededair’sdownwarddescent,hadbeenremoved.IncontrasttoAristotle,inCrescas’viewallbodiesareheavy.Weightanddirectionarenotabsolute,andplaceisdeterminednotbyfixedregionsbutbytherelativejockeyingforpositionofheavyandheavierbodies.AswithCrescas’definitionofplaceasextension,heretoohewasanticipatedbyPhiloponus,whilePhiloponushimselfmayCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nHasdaiCrescasandanti-Aristotelianism401haveworkedwithamoreancientPlatonicmodel.Moreover,Crescas’oldercontemporaryNicoleOresmehadsimilarlyappliedthetheoryofrelativeweighttotheproblemofmultipleworlds.ButwhilePhilo-ponus,goodPlatonistthathewas,continuedtoaffirmtheexistenceofoneperfectworld,andwhileOresme’sspeculationsremainedintherealmofthoughtexperiment,Crescasdrewactualconclusions.WithAristotle’stheoryofnaturalmotioneliminated,andwithhisrejectionofavacuumoutsidetheworldrefuted,multipleworldsmadesense,evenwhentheseworldshadsimilarcomposition.Alloftheseworlds,whetherfiniteorinfinite,wouldhaveuniquecentersaroundwhichmattercouldorganizeaccordingtoweight.FirstMatterasCorporealForm14TherejectionofAristotle’sabsolutelevityandpredeterminedplaceledCrescastoreconceivecelestialmotionaswell.Inthesamewaythatsublunarelementstendtomovedownward,hemaintains,sotoocelestialbodiestendtorevolvearound.Bothtypesofmotionaregovernednotbyvolition,soul,orintellect,butbyanaturalprop-ertyrelatedtothepossessionorprivationofweight:sublunarbodiesmovedownasaresultoftheirrelativeheaviness,whereascelestialbodiescirclearoundasaresultoftheirweightlessness.Crescasdoesnotpresentaconsistentaccountofthisimportantidea,eventhoughitwouldservehiscritiqueofMaimonides’firstproofforexistence.Butwhilehedidnotdrawoutalltheimplicationsofthisdoctrine,hedidpursueamoregeneralcritiqueofAristotle’sdistinctionbe-tweenthecelestialandsublunarrealms.Themostimportantmoveinthisdirectionishiseliminationoffirstmatter,whichissetoutmostclearlyinhisexplanationandcritiqueofMaimonides’tenthproposition.ThatthereisasharpdistinctionbetweentheupperandlowerworldsisrepeatedthroughoutAristotle’swritings;itisafundamen-talaspectofhisconceptionoftheworld.Inthelowerworld,heargues,belowthesphereofthemoon,materialexistenceiscom-posedofthefourelements.Compositeexistentscometobeandpassawayasaresultofmixtureandblending,withorganicbeingsde-composingintotheirelementalparts.Butthatthesefourelementscanchangeintooneanotherandmix,forAristotle,meantthattheremustbesomeunderlyingsubstrate,afirstmatter,apurepotentiality,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n402MedievalJewishphilosophycapableofreceivingallforms.Butwhilethelowerworldiscompos-iteandconstantlysubjecttochange,theelementsbeingdrawnawayandreturningtotheirnaturalplaces,intheupperworldthereisnoperceivedchangeinsubstance,andchangeinplaceoccursonlybyaccident,forcircularmotioniscontinuousandhasnobeginningorend.Thecelestialbodies,therefore,mustbemadeofadifferentsubstance,afifthelement,whatAristotlecallsaether.Buthowexactlythesemattersdifferandhowtheyrelatetoformisnotcompletelyspelledout.ThusCrescas,inordertoprovidefurtherexplanation,presentstheopinionsoftwoopposingschoolsofthought.AccordingtoAvicenna,heexplains,despitethedif-ferencesbetweencelestialandsublunarmatter,bodiesinbothre-gionsarecomposedofmatterandform.Firstmatterinthelowerworld,moreover,takesoncorporealform,apredispositionforthree-dimensionality,beforeassumingthespecificformsofthefourele-ments.AccordingtoAverroes,ontheotherhand,alwaysthecriticofhiseasternpredecessor,corporealformisnotapredispositionforthree-dimensionalitybutthree-dimensionalitypureandsimple.Moreover,bodiesinthecelestialworldcouldnotbecomposedofmatterandform,forcompositionimpliesdivision,anddivisionim-pliescorruptibility.Rather,itiscorporealformitself,anactualiza-tionratherthanapotentiality,whichservesassubstrateintheheav-ens.ImpressedbyAverroes’reasoning,Crescasthentakesanaddi-tionalstep,adaptingAverroes’principletoaverydifferentpurpose.Whynotunderstandfirstmatterinthesameway,heasks,notasanunderlyingpotentialitywithoutrealexistence,butasacorpo-realform,actualized,existing,apurethree-dimensionalitycapableofassumingallforms.Aswithhisnon-Aristotelianconceptionofmotionandplace,heretooCrescas’corporealformresemblesthethree-dimensionalityofPhiloponus.ButwhilePhiloponusworkswithearlierNeoplatonictraditions,itseemsthatCrescasdrawsfrommuchlatersourcesandbeginstopointawayfromhylomorphismaltogether.WhilehisideaofasimilarcorporealformassubstrateinlowerandupperworldresemblesGabirol’suniversalmatter,atheoryhecouldhavegleanedfromIbnDaud’scritiquethereof,hissuggestionthatspe-cificformbeconsiderednotasactualizingthesubstance,butasasortofaccident,movestowardatypeofatomismthathadbeensubscribedtobythemutakallimun.CorporealformconceivedasCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nHasdaiCrescasandanti-Aristotelianism403three-dimensionalitypointstowardtheexistenceofanactuallyex-istingindivisiblebody,servingasthesmallestbuildingblockofallexistence.ButwhateverCrescas’sourceorinfluence,andhoweverhistruebeliefregardingatomismshouldbeunderstood,theimpli-cationseemsclear.Ifbothlowerandupperworldsaremadeofthesamestuff,thenitisnotonlysublunarbutalsocelestialbodiesthataresubjecttobothgenerationandcorruption.Citingtherabbistoreinforcethisconclusion,heassertsthatGodcreatesworldsanddestroysthem.TimeandEternity15WhileCrescas’critiqueoftheAristotelianargumentsagainstinfin-ityandvacuum,andhisrejectionofnaturalmotionandfirstmatter,ledtoanewconceptionoftheuniverse,hisdiscussionoftimeledfromtheuniverseitselftoitsorigin.MovingonceagainfromAris-totletohiscritic,notonlythetheoriesoftimethemselvesbutalsotheimplicationswithrespecttocreationwillbeconsideredinthefollowingdiscussion.Time,accordingtoAristotle,isanaccidentconsequentuponmo-tion.Itisthemeasureofpriorandposterior,withthepresent,anonexistent“now,”markingthetransitionfrompasttofuture.Whatthismeansisthat,ifmotionweretocease,inparticularthedailymotionoftheoutermostsphere,timetoowouldceasetoexist,andifmotionandtimeceasedtoexist,therecouldbenomaterialexis-tenceinthesublunarworld.Butsincecircularmotion,accordingtoAristotle,isperfectandeternal,havingnobeginningorend,therealwayswasmotionandtime,andtherealwayswillbemotionandtime.BecauseAristotlebelievedintheeternityoftheworld,thisrela-tionbetweentimeandmotionposednoproblem.Onthecontrary,itbothderivedfromandreinforcedhisbeliefinbothpastandfu-tureeternity.ButthisrelationbetweentimeandmotioncouldnotbutaffectthemedievalJewwhoaimedtodescribeGod’screationoftheworld.For,whiletherecouldbenotimebeforethecreationofmotion,theinitialmotionofcreationwoulditselfimplyapreexis-tenttime.Anyinstant,thatis,definedbyAristotleasthetransitionfrompasttofuture,impliestheexistenceofpriortime,andpriortimeimpliestheexistenceofpriormotion,andsoon,continuingtoCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n404MedievalJewishphilosophyinfinity.Evenifonecouldescapethisinfiniteregressandconceiveofacreationexnihilo,stillAristotle’stheorywouldrequirearevisionofthebiblicalaccount.Fortheluminaries,uponwhosemotiontimedepends,couldnothavebeencreatedonthefourthday.Itisonlywiththecircularmotionofthecelestialbodiesthatthedaysthem-selvescanbecountedandthatthegenerationofplants,animals,andhumankindcanproceed.AswithotheraspectsoftheAristoteliansystem,Crescasap-proachesthesubjectoftimeandeternitynotbydefendingaposi-tivedoctrine,butbyattackingtheunderlyingprinciplesheldtruebyAristotle.Althoughtimedoesmeasuremotion,Crescasadmits,italsomeasuresrest.WhileAristotlehadalreadyrecognizedthisfact,restisconceivedbyhimnotasarealquantity,butastheprivationofmotion;themeasureoftimebasedonrestissimplythemeasureofacorrespondingabsenceofmotion.WhatCrescashasinmind,incon-trast,isnotprivationofmotion,butabsoluterest,notanabsenceofsomethingthatcouldexist,butastateinwhichmotioniscompletelyimpossible.Advocatinganon-AristotelianopinionresemblingthatofPeterAureolandWilliamofOckham,Crescasassertsthattimeoughttobeconceivednotasanaccidentofmotionorevenasasub-stance,butratherasadurationorextensionwhichexistsonlyinthesoul.Thattimecanbemeasuredinanydefinitesensedid,ofcourse,requiresomemotionorchange,butrealtime,absolutetime,couldexistwithout,andevenbefore,theexistenceofmotion.Returningnowtothequestionofcreation,Crescas’non-Aristo-telianconceptionoftimeleadstothefollowingresult.Time,likespace,isdefinedasaninfiniteextension.Itcanexistbeforethecre-ationofthisworldoranyotherworldsthatexistorhaveexisted;theseworlds,inotherwords,canbecreatedinspaceandintime.InthiswaydoesCrescasconceiveofthepreexistentuniverseasaspace-timecontinuum.But,despitethesimilaritybetweenCrescas’Godas“Place”andSpinoza’sGodasinfiniteextension,theques-tionastowhetherthisinfinitespace-timecontinuumiscreatedby,emanatesfrom,orisanattributeofGodremainsasubjectofdispute.GodofLoveandLoveofGod16Crescas’critiqueoftheAristotelianconceptionofnaturewasdevastating.AlthoughHebrewcommentatorsonAverroesandCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nHasdaiCrescasandanti-Aristotelianism405MaimonidesinthefifteenthcenturyattemptedtodefendtheStagiriteagainsthisJewishcritic,itisclear,atleastinretrospect,thattheyhadchosenthelosingside.MoreimportantfromCrescas’perspectivewasnotthedemiseofAristotle’sphysicspersebuttheconceptionofGodbaseduponit.Ashasbeenemphasizedthroughoutthepreviousdiscussion,however,althoughCrescas’methodintheLightoftheLordwascritical,hispurposeinundertakingthisworkwasnotonlythedestructionofhisopponent’ssystem.HisattackonAristotle’sphysicalprinciplesdependeduponandpointedtowardanewconceptionoftheuniverse.ThepurposeofthisfinalsectionofthechapteristoconsiderbrieflyCrescas’positiveconceptionofGod,andofhumanity’srelationshiptoGod,asitemergesfromhiscritique.Here,too,whilehisideasstandinsharpcontrasttothoseofhisJewishpredecessors,theyanticipate,andleadtoward,certaindominanttrendsinRenaissanceandearlymodernphilosophy.ThetwomainargumentsusedbyMaimonidestoprovetheex-istence,unity,andincorporealityofGod,whichhavebeende-scribedpreviously,areeasilydismissedonceCrescashasrefutedthepremisesuponwhichtheyarebased.Ifcelestialmotion,likesub-lunarmotion,isnaturalratherthanvolitional,thereisnoneedforanyexternalcauseletaloneaninfiniteincorporealforce.Ifaninfi-niteseriesofcausesandeffectsispossible,moreover,asisprovedinproposition3,thenthereisnoneedforanecessaryexistenttosecurethepropensityofexistenceovernonexistence.AlthoughonecouldreconfigureAvicenna’smetaphysicalproof,whichCrescastriestodo,itwouldpointtoanunmovedmoverbutsaynothingaboutthetrueGodofIsrael.Exploitingaskepticaltendencywithinthephilosophicaltraditionitself,Crescasarguesthatnopositiveknowl-edgeofGodcanbehadthroughphilosophicalmeans.Thus,turningfromphilosophytoScripture,hesetsoutonadifferentpath.Focus-ingonafewkeybiblicaltexts,anddrawinguponhisownpeculiarconceptionoftheuniverse,CrescasconceivesofGodnotasacauseofmotion,butasaninfinitesourceoflove.Creatorofabeginninglessuniverse,Godfillsthisvastemptyspacewithnothingbutthegoodandrulesitwithnothingbutjoy.ItisthroughlovethatGodgavethelawtoIsrael,anditisthroughlove,expressedasobediencetothelaw,thatIsraelcancleavetoandconjoinwithGod.This,Crescasmaintains,isthefinalpurposeandultimaterewardofhumanexistence.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n406MedievalJewishphilosophyAlthoughloveofGodwasimportantforMaimonidesaswell,Godwasconceivedbyhimasanobjectofloveratherthanlover,andman’sloveofGodwasconstruedprimarilyincognitiveterms.LoveofGodisknowledgeofGod,andknowledgeofGodisachievedthroughthephilosophicalstudyofnature.Insofarasimmortalityispossi-ble,soCrescasrepresentstheAristotelianposition,itisachievedbyacquiringtrueknowledge,whichtrueknowledgesurvivessepa-ratefromthebodyafterdeath.Butnotonlyisthisopinionheretical,Crescasargues,itisalsoabsurd.Evenifthiswerepossible,whichhedenies,itwouldleadtotheimmortalityofsomethingotherthanthehumanbeing,notofmanasrationalanimalbutofaseparateintellect.Moreover,thistheoryoftheacquiredintellectputstoomuchstockinhumanachievement,whilerefusingtorecognizethefixednatureofGod’sworld,whichconsists,accordingtoCrescas,ofaninfiniteseriesofcausalrelationsthatdeterminebothactionsandbeliefs.Thus,truelove,inCrescas’opinion,isnotstudybutobedience,andobedienceismeasurednotintheactionpersebutinthewillanddesiretoachievethatact.Rewardisthepleasureexpe-riencedinpursuingthishigherdesire,andthispleasure,accordingtoCrescas,whichisuniquetoeachindividual,survivesafterdeathinaself-subsistentsoulthatiseternalbynature.This,Crescasex-plainstriumphantly,ishumankind’sfinalreward.Itisnotlimitedtophilosophersbutratherisachievedevenbytheminorchildwhohasresponded“amen”totherecitationofdailyprayers.Itisperhapshere,evenmorethaninhiscritiqueofphysics,thattheinfluenceofCrescas’contemporarysituationcanbefelt.HisemphaticrejectionofrewardthroughknowledgeresemblesAbnerofBurgos’attackonIsaacPollegar,aformerstudentorcolleagueofAbneranddevoutMaimonidean.Thefocusonloveanddetermin-ism,similarly,seemstodrawfromChristianideasaboutdivinegraceandpredestination,whereastheemphasisonwilloverintellect,asalreadymentioned,resemblesthepositionsetforthbyDunsScotus.Ageneralpreoccupationwithissuesofsalvation,moreover,andawillingnesstoforgivecoercedtransgression,areverymuchinlinewiththecontemporarydespairfacedbyJewsandconversosinanin-creasinglyhostileworld.Thepreoccupationwithhumankind’sfinalend,inparticular,wouldcontinuethroughoutthefifteenthcentury,whenthedebateinSpainrevolvedaroundAristotle’sNicomacheanEthics.ButintheRenaissance,itwasthedoctrineoflovethatwouldCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nHasdaiCrescasandanti-Aristotelianism407haveparticularappeal.WhileCrescas’ideaofcosmiclove,ithasbeensuggested,wasknownandusedbyLeoneEbreo,hisideasingeneralcouldhavefoundfavoramongChristianPlatonistssuchasFicinoandPicodellaMirandola,anti-Aristoteliansandthefirstarchitectsofafullyworkedoutphilosophyoflove.conclusion:religiouscritiqueandscientificprogress17CrescasisgenerallyconsideredtobethelastgreatJewishphilosopheroftheMiddleAges.Althoughthequestionofhisoriginalitywithre-specttotheformulationofindividualargumentsremainsunclear,hiscriticalselectionofexistingsourcesandcreativeuseofthemforhisownpurposesputshimonanequallevelwiththeJewishAristotelianswhomheaimedtotopple.Hiscriticalinsight,sensibleargumentation,periodicappealtoobservationorexperience,andun-willingnesstoacceptanyscientifictradition,nomatterhownobleitssource,cannotbutfindfavorintheeyesofamodernreader.Norcanonefailtoadmirehisvisionoftheuniverseasaninfinitespacewithmultipleworlds.Itwouldbeanothertwohundredyearsbeforehisgoodjudgmentcouldbeconfirmedbyadvancesintechnology.OnaccountofhisinfluenceonPicoandSpinoza,ifnotothers,hisLightoftheLordmarksarealturningpointinthehistoryofscience.Hewaspartof,andcontributedto,themovementawayfromtheAristoteliansystem,which,asWolfsonhasdescribedit,had“goneoffintothewildsofspeculationandbuiltupanartificialstructureentirelydivorcedfromnature.”18WhilethepresentintroductiontoCrescas’philosophyhasat-temptedtoreinforcethisview,ithasalsotriedtopointtowardanotherpartofthestory.AlthoughCrescaswasamanbeforehistime,hisattackonAristotelianphysicswasnotonlymotivatedbyacriticalspiritofscientificinquiry,aninnateintellectualcurios-itywhichdrovehimtoquestionthereceivedopinionsofhisday.UnlikehiscontemporaryChristiansinOxfordandParis,CrescasdidnotwritecommentariesonAristotleorAverroes.Therearenooccasionaltreatisesondifficultproblemsthatremainfromhispenorscientificinventionsthatderivefromhisphilosophicalcritique.TheLightoftheLord,asanycursoryglanceatthetableofcon-tentswillverify,isprimarilyatheologicalwork.Thus,nomatterCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n408MedievalJewishphilosophyhowmuchCrescasmighthavebeendriveninhisinvestigationsbyaloveofscience,itwasthislargerprojectoffreeingrabbinicJudaismfromAristotlethatmotivatedhiswork.Butratherthanundermin-ingCrescas’philosophicalachievement,thehighlightingofhisreli-giousgoalsservestobringoutanimportantfactor,bothinhisworkandthatofthefourteenth-centuryphysicists.ItwasallegiancetoreligionthatgavescholarssuchasCrescasthestrengthandindepen-denceofmindtochallengethetraditionalphilosophyoftheday.Itwasexactlythisreligiouscritiqueofphilosophy,notbasedonanap-pealtobiblicalandrabbinicsources,butthroughthegrapplingwithphilosophyonitsownterms,thatopenedthewaytothescientificrevolutionoftheearlymodernperiod.Ultimately,thisisCrescas’greatestachievement,evenifitissomethinghehadnotanticipatedandwouldnothavedesired.notes1.IwishtothankProfessorAlfredIvryandDr.AngelaJaffrayforhelpfulcommentsandadvice.Forintroductiontothefourteenth-centuryphysi-cists,seeE.Grant,Planets,Stars,andOrbs:TheMedievalCosmos,1200–1687(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1996),withfullbibliographyandbriefdiscussionofthedisputesregardingthequestionofcontinuitybetweenmedievalandmodernscience.2.OntheinfluenceofandcriticismofCrescas,seeH.A.Wolfson,Crescas’CritiqueofAristotle(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1929),1–37;H.Davidson,ThePhilosophyofAbrahamShalom(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1964);W.Z.Harvey,“HasdaiCrescas’CritiqueoftheTheoryoftheAcquiredIntellect,”Ph.D.disser-tation,ColumbiaUniversity,1973.ForthecitationsbyPico,andpos-sibleinfluenceonBrunoandGalileo,seeWolfson,Crescas’Critique,indexs.v.,andC.B.Schmitt,GianfrancescoPicodellaMirandola(1469–1533)andhisCritiqueofAristotle(TheHague:Nijhoff,1967).FortheinfluenceonSpinoza,seeH.A.Wolfson,ThePhilosophyofSpinoza(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1934),index,s.v.;W.Z.Harvey,PhysicsandMetaphysicsinHasdaiCrescas,AmsterdamStudiesinJewishThought,6(Amsterdam:J.C.Gieben,1998),index,s.v.3.Forbiographicaldetails,andinformationontheBarcelonatraditionaswellasCrescas’circleinSaragossa,seeingeneralY.Baer,AHistoryoftheJewsinChristianSpain(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,1978),ii,index,s.v.OnCrescasandkabbalah,seeW.Z.Harvey,“KabbalisticElementsinHasdaiCrescas’LightoftheLord,”[Hebrew]CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nHasdaiCrescasandanti-Aristotelianism409JerusalemStudiesinJewishThought2(1982–83),75–109;N.Ophir,“Sodha-Qadish:AKabbalisticTextAttributedtoRabbiHasdaiCrescas,”[Hebrew]Daat46(2001),13–28.Forreferencesinlegalwrit-ingsandtheexchangeofpoems,see,e.g.,A.Hershman,RabbiIsaacb.SheshetandhisTimes(NewYork:JewishTheologicalSeminary,1943),index,s.v.;L.Feldman,“AnExchangeofEpistlesandPoemsbetweenNissimbenReuben,AbrahambarIsaacHalevi,DonJudahbarSheshetCrescas,andDonHasdaiCrescas,”[Hebrew]QobesalYad7(1968),125–60.ForcontactwithChristians,seeHarvey,PhysicsandMeta-physics,23–9;W.Z.Harvey,“HasdaiCrescasandBernatMetgeontheSoul,”[Hebrew]JerusalemStudiesinJewishThought5(1986),141–54.4.Fordetailsregardingtheriotsandeffortsatrestoration,seeingeneralBaer,HistoryoftheJews.CrescashimselfrecordstheseeventsinhislettertoAvignon,trans.inF.Kobler(ed.),LettersofJewsthroughtheAges(NewYork:EastandWestLibrary,1952),i:272–5.OneofCrescas’polemicalworkssurvivesinmedievalHebrewtranslation:RefutationoftheChristianPrinciples,ed.D.Lasker(BeerSheva:Ben-GurionUniver-sity,1990),andtrans.D.Lasker(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1992).OntherelationshipofEfodi’spolemicalworktoCrescas,seeF.Talmage,ThePolemicalWritingsofProfiatDuran[Hebrew](Jerusalem:MerkazShazar,1981),introduction.OnCrescas’determin-ismandtheinfluenceofAbnerandDunsScotus,seeY.Baer,“AbnerofBurgos’MinhatQena
otanditsInfluenceonHasdaiCrescas,”[Hebrew]Tarbiz11(1940),188–206;A.Ravitzky,Crescas’SermononPassoverandStudiesinhisPhilosophy[Hebrew](Jerusalem:IsraelAcademyofSciencesandHumanities,1988),introduction;W.Z.Harvey,“TheFirstPublicationoftheSermonofRabbiHasdaiCrescas,”[Hebrew]Tarbiz58(1989),531–5;Harvey,PhysicsandMetaphysics,part2;S.Feldman,“Crescas’TheologicalDeterminism,”Daat9(1982),3–28;S.Feldman,“ADebateConcerningDeterminisminLateMedievalJewishPhilosophy,”ProceedingsoftheAmericanAcademyforJewishResearch51(1984),15–54.Abner’snovelscientificviewsarementionedbyIsaacPollegar:“[W]henyouexpoundedinpublic...thatprimarymatterissubstanceandpossessesform,thatthereisavacuum,thattheangelsarecorporeal,andtheotherhere-siesandfarceswhichyouassertedinyourdetestablebookthatyoucalledTheNewPhilosophizing”(J.Hecht,“ThePolemicalEx-changebetweenIsaacPollegarandAbnerofBurgos/AlfonsoofVal-ladolidAccordingtoParmaMS2440,”Ph.D.dissertation,NewYorkUniversity,1993,113–14).ThebookthatPollegarreferstoisappar-entlylost,whichmakesitimpossibletoevaluatejustwhatinfluenceitmighthavehadonCrescas,butthefewremarkspreservedherearesuggestive.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n410MedievalJewishphilosophy5.Themanuscripts,withvariousrevisions,havebeendiscussedmostrecentlybyN.Ophir,“RabbiHasdaiCrescasasPhilosophicExegeteofRabbinicSources,”[Hebrew]Ph.D.dissertation,HebrewUniversity,1993.Thefirstedition,Ferrara(1555),wasreprintedasafacsimilein1970.TheneweditionbyS.Fisher(Jerusalem,1990)shouldbereadtogetherwiththetextseditedbyWolfson,Crescas’Critique;Harvey,“HasdaiCrescas’Critique”;Y.Eisenberg,Toratha-BeriahshelHasdaiCrescas(Jerusalem:n.p.,1980);Y.Eisenberg,Ha-ReshutNetunah(Jerusalem:Haskel,1982).AcriticaleditionoftheentiretextisbeingpreparedbyHarvey.Althoughthereisnocompletetranslation,largesectionshavebeenrenderedintoEnglishbyWolfson,Crescas’Critique;Harvey,“HasdaiCrescas’Critique”;Harvey,PhysicsandMetaphysics;S.Feldman,inWithPerfectFaith,ed.J.D.Bleich(NewYork:Ktav,1983);M.Kellner,DogmainMedievalJewishThought:FromMaimonidestoAbravanel(Oxford:LittmanLibrary,1986).Shortintroductionstothebookasawhole,withaccompanyingbibliographies,canbefoundinmostencyclopediasofJudaismorphilosophy,andinthestandardhis-toriesofmedievalJewishphilosophy.Severalmonographshavebeenwritten,including,besidesthosealreadymentioned,M.Joel,DonChas-daiCreskas’religionsphilosophischeLehren(Breslau:Schletter,1886;translatedintoHebrew,TelAviv:n.p.,1927);M.Waxman,ThePhi-losophyofDonHasdaiCrescas(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1920);S.B.Urbach,ThePhilosophicalThoughtofRabbiHasdaiCrescas[Hebrew](Jerusalem:n.p.,1961);E.Schweid,TheReligiousPhilosophyofHasdaiCrescas[Hebrew](Jerusalem:n.p.,1970).Onspecifictopics,inadditiontotheliteraturecitedthroughoutthenotes,seetherecentbookbyH.Kreisel,Prophecy:TheHistoryofanIdeainMedievalJew-ishPhilosophy,AmsterdamStudiesinJewishThought,8(Dordrecht:Kluwer,2001),425–85.6.ThebasicworkisWolfson,Crescas’Critique.Forthebroaderapproach,seeespeciallyS.Pines,ScholasticismafterThomasAquinasandtheTeachingsofHasdaiCrescasandhisPredecessors,trans.A.Ivry,re-publishedinTheCollectedWorksofShlomoPines:StudiesintheHis-toryofJewishThought(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1997),v:489–589;H.Davidson,ProofsforEternity,Creation,andtheExistenceofGodinMedievalIslamicandJewishPhilosophy(NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1987);Harvey,PhysicsandMetaphysics.7.ThesimilaritiesbetweenCrescasandPhiloponus,thesixth-centuryChristianNeoplatonistandfatherofanti-Aristotelianism,arestriking.TheyhavebeennotedbyPinesandothers,anddeservefurtherresearch.ForanintroductiontoPhiloponus’innovations,seeR.Sorabji(ed.),PhiloponusandtheRejectionofAristotelianScience(Ithaca:CornellCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nHasdaiCrescasandanti-Aristotelianism411UniversityPress,1987).ForafullbibliographyofPhiloponus’influ-enceinArabic,seeR.Wisnovsky,“Yahyaal-Nahwi,”inEncyclopediaofIslam,newed.(Leiden:Brill,2001),xi:251–3.8.SeeGuide,Prefacetopart2,2:1–2.SeealsoDavidson,ProofsandHarvey,PhysicsandMetaphysics,fordiscussionoftheproofsandCrescas’critique.9.Formethod,seeWolfson,Crescas’Critique,1–37,andindex,forrefer-encestotheauthorsmentionedhere.10.Wolfson,Crescas’Critique,114.11.ThefollowingdiscussionfocusesonLightoftheLord1:1,ch.1,and1:2,ch.1.ItisbasedonWolfson,Crescas’Critique,38–69,114–27,136–49,178–91,327–46,391–425;Harvey,PhysicsandMetaphysics,ch.1.ForbackgroundinAristotle,andhistoryofthemajorissuesdiscussedhere,seeE.Grant,MuchAdoaboutNothing:TheoriesofSpaceandVacuumfromtheMiddleAgestotheScientificRevolu-tion(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1981),withfullbibliog-raphy.ThesimilartheoriesinPhiloponusareexplainedinSorabji(ed.),Philoponus.12.Wolfson,Crescas’Critique,146–7.13.ThefollowingdiscussionfocusesonLightoftheLord1:1,ch.1,1:2,ch.1,1:1,ch.6,and4:1–2.ItisbasedonWolfson,Crescas’Critique,70–92,114–27,150–7,184–5,190–203,214–17,346–66,409–14,423–63,471–6;Harvey,PhysicsandMetaphysics,ch.1.Forthequestionofmul-tiplicityofworldsingeneral,andinScholasticisminparticular,seeGrant,Planets,Stars,andOrbs,ch.8,withfullbibliography.Forprob-lemsrelatedtonaturalplaceandmotion,inAristotleandthecommen-tarytradition,seeespeciallyR.Glasner,“Gersonides’TheoryofNaturalMotion,”EarlyScienceandMedicine1(1996),151–203.ForPhiloponus’similarviewconcerningrelativeweightanddirection,seeSorabji(ed.),Philoponus.14.ThefollowingdiscussionfocusesonLightoftheLord1:1,ch.10,and1:2,ch.7.ItisbasedonWolfson,Crescas’Critique,99–113,114–27,256–63,569–602;A.Hyman,“Aristotle’s‘FirstMatter’andAvicenna’sandAverroes’‘CorporealForm’,”inHarryA.WolfsonJubileeVolume,ed.S.LiebermanandA.Hyman(Jerusalem:AmericanAcademyforJewishResearch,1965),i:385–406;Harvey,PhysicsandMetaphysics,ch.1.ForfurtherdiscussionoftheAristotelianandNeoplatonicback-groundregardingcelestialandsublunarmatter,andthesimilarviewofPhiloponus,seeespeciallyF.A.J.deHaas,JohnPhiloponus’NewDef-initionofPrimeMatter:AspectsofitsBackgroundinNeoplatonismandtheAncientCommentaryTradition(Leiden:Brill,1997),withfullbibliography.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n412MedievalJewishphilosophy15.ThefollowingdiscussionfocusesonLightoftheLord1:1,ch.15,and1:2,ch.11,aswellasrelevantsectionsin3:1.ItisbasedonWolfson,Crescas’Critique,93–8,114–27,282–91,633–64;H.A.Wolfson,“EmanationandCreationexNihiloinCrescas,”[Hebrew]inSeferAssaf(Jerusalem:MosadHaravKook,1953),230–6;Pines,Scholasticism;W.Z.Harvey,“Albo’sDiscussionofTime,”JewishQuarterlyReview70(1980),210–38;W.Z.Harvey,“TheTermHitdabbequtinCrescas’DefinitionofTime,”JewishQuarterlyReview71(1981),44–7;Harvey,PhysicsandMetaphysics,ch.1;S.Feldman,“TheTheoryofEternalCreationinHasdaiCrescasandSomeofhisPredecessors,”Viator11(1980),289–320;T.M.Rudavsky,TimeMatters:Time,Creation,andCosmologyinMedievalJewishThought(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2000),withfullbibliography.AsfortherelationshiptoSpinoza,thenegativeviewisargued,withreferencetoearlierstudies,byHarvey,PhysicsandMetaphysics,29–30.16.ThefollowingdiscussionfocusesonLightoftheLord1:1,chs.27–32,1:2,chs.15–20,1:3,chs.1–6,2:6,ch.1.ItisbasedonH.A.Wolfson,“CrescasontheProblemofDivineAttributes,”JewishQuarterlyRe-view7(1916),175–221;Harvey,“HasdaiCrescas’Critique”;W.Z.Harvey,“Crescasvs.MaimonidesonKnowledgeandPleasure,”inAStraightPath:StudiesinMedievalPhilosophyandCulture,EssaysinHonorofArthurHyman,ed.R.Link-Salinger,R.Long,andC.Manekin(Washington,D.C.:TheCatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,1988),113–23;W.Z.Harvey,“KnowledgeofGodAccordingtoThomasAquinas,JudahRomano,andHasdaiCrescas,”[Hebrew]JerusalemStudiesinJewishThought14(1998),223–38;W.Z.Harvey,“Maimonides’FirstCommandment,Physics,andDoubt,”inHazonNahum:StudiesinJewishLaw,Thought,andHistoryPresentedtoDr.NormanLamm,ed.Y.ElmanandJ.S.Gurock(NewYork:YeshivaUniversityPress,1998),149–62;Harvey,PhysicsandMetaphysics,chs.2–4.ThesimilaritybetweenAbnerandDunsScotuswithrespecttofreewillhasalreadybeenmentioned;thecritiqueofPollegarisinHecht,“ThePolemicalExchange.”Fordisputesaboutimmortalityinthefifteenthcentury,seetherecentdiscussionbyH.Tirosh-Rothschild,“HumanFelicity:Fifteenth-CenturySephardicPerspectivesonHappi-ness,”inInIberiaandBeyond:HispanicJewsbetweenCultures,ed.B.Cooperman(Newark:UniversityofDelawarePress,1998),191–244.FortheinfluenceofthecontemporarypoliticalsituationonCrescas’philosophy,seeOphir,“RabbiHasdaiCrescasasPhilosophicExegeteofRabbinicSources”;forCrescas’influenceonLeoneEbreo,seeHarvey,PhysicsandMetaphysics,114–17.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nHasdaiCrescasandanti-Aristotelianism41317.FortheevaluationofCrescas’contribution,seeWolfson,Crescas’Critique,114–27;S.Pines,Scholasticism;Harvey,PhysicsandMeta-physics;Y.T.Langermann,“ScienceintheJewishCommunitiesoftheIberianPeninsula,”inhisTheJewsandtheSciencesintheMiddleAges(Aldershot:Variorum,1999).Wolfson,Pines,andHarveyempha-sizeCrescas’scientificachievement;LangermannarguesthatCrescashadnointerestinscienceperse.18.Wolfson,Crescas’Critique,127.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nseymourfeldman18TheendandaftereffectsofmedievalJewishphilosophyintroductionAlthoughthemaincenterofthedevelopmentandmaturationofJewishphilosophycametoanendwiththeexpulsionoftheJewsfromSpain,Jewishphilosophydidnotdisappear.TheexiledSephardicJewswhowereinterestedinphilosophytookwiththemtheirphilosophicallibrariesandcontinuedtheirphilosophicalpur-suitsintheirnewdomiciles.SomeofthesetransplantedSpanishemigr´escontinuedtodophilosophyinthewaystheyknewandwere´usedto;some,however,absorbedinvariousdegreesthephilosoph-icalenvironmentoftheirnewabodes,whichwereconsiderablydif-ferentfromthephilosophicalcultureinwhichtheywereeducated.ThiswasmostnotableinItaly,wheresomeofthemoreprominentSephardicexilessettled.Afterall,ItalywasthehomeoftheRenais-sance,duringwhichphilosophy,aswellastheartsandliterature,underwentsomesignificanttransformations.TheveryexistenceofadistinctiveRenaissancephilosophyhassometimesbeenquestioned,andconsequentlyadistinctiveRenais-sanceJewishphilosophyhasbeenchallenged.1ThereisnoquestionthatmedievalAristotelianism,initsvariousforms,continuedun-abatedthroughoutthefifteenth–seventeenthcenturies,especiallyintheuniversities.AnditfounditsadherentsandadvocatesamongstJewishphilosophicalthinkers,asweshallsee.Butthereisnodoubtthatthephilosophicalclimateinfifteenth-centuryItalywaschang-ingandthatnewordifferentphilosophicalbookswerebeingreadandmadepartofthephilosophicalcultureoftheperiod.Thiswasmostevident,butnotexclusivelyso,intherevivalandrediscov-eryofthePlatonictradition.Throughoutthefifteenthcenturynew414CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheendandaftereffects415translationsofPlato’swritings,especiallythoseunknownintheMiddleAges,weremadeavailable.ThisrecoveryofPlatoreacheditsculminationwiththecompleteLatintranslationofPlato’sdialoguesbyMarsilioFicinoin1484.In1492FicinopublishedhisLatintrans-lationoftheEnneadsofPlotinus,aphilosopherwhowasvirtuallyunknownintheWestuntilFicino’stranslation.2TranslationsfromotherPlatonicphilosophers,suchasPorphyryandProclus,werealsomadeavailable.AlthoughPlatonismdidnotbecomeanintegralcom-ponentoftheacademicstudyofphilosophy,itdidattractsomeofthemoreintellectuallyadventurousthinkersofthefifteenthandsix-teenthcenturies,suchasFicino,PicodellaMirandola,andFrancescoPatrizzi.Indeed,somescholarshavemaintainedthatthereisastrongstrainofPlatonisminthefounderofmodernscience,Galileo.ThisreturntoPlatowillbeevidentamongseveralJewishphilosophersoftheperiod.3Anaccountofphilosophicalthoughtduringthisperiodshouldnotneglecttheworldofscience.Afterall,scientificstudyandspec-ulationwerepartofthemedievalphilosophicalcurriculum,andthescientistsoftheearlymodernperiodconsideredthemselvestobe“naturalphilosophers,”or“philosophersofnature.”Insofarasthesescientificspeculationsledtothedevelopmentofnewand,insomecases,radicalideas,wecanlegitimatelyspeakofa“scientificrevo-lution,”whichbeganinthesixteenthcenturyandculminatedwithNewtonattheendoftheseventeenthcentury.AndinbetweenwehaveCopernicus,Galileo,Kepler,Descartes,andLeibniz.AlthoughsomeoftheJewishthinkersoftheperiodwerelargelyoblivioustothesenewerdevelopments,somewerenot;afterall,TychoBrahehadasoneofhisassistantsR.DavidGans,alongwithJohannesKepler.AndoneofGalileo’smorefaithfulstudentswasR.JosephSolomondelMedigo.ThestoryofJewishphilosophyduringthe“longcentury”of1450–1650shouldthenincludesomediscussionoftheimpactofthenewscience.Finally,RenaissancephilosophyispermeatedwithafeatureofmedievalJewishthoughtthatintheMiddleAgeswasforthemostpartkeptdistinctfromphilosophy–mysticism,especiallythekab-balah.BytheendofthefourteenthcenturythemysticaltheosophyofIberianJewryhadeclipsedphilosophyinitsinfluenceandbythefifteenthcenturyhadbeguntoinfiltrateChristiancircles,somuchsothatonecanspeakofa“Christiankabbalah”duringtheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n416MedievalJewishphilosophyRenaissance.4Asweshallsee,manyofthecharactersinthestoryIamabouttotellweretouchedbykabbalahinonewayoranother.Someadopteditwholeheartedly;othersrejecteditcompletely;andsomepaidtheirrespectstoitandthenwenttheirownway.ItisafactorthatneedstobeconsideredinanydiscussionofJewishphilo-sophicalthoughtduringthisperiod.thepersistenceofmedievaljewisharistotelianismintheitalianrenaissance:elijahdelmedigoNotonlySpainbutItalytooprovidedahomeforthepursuitofphilosophybyJewsduringthelatemedievalperiod.BothinSicilyandonthemainlandaphilosophicalliteratureinHebrewemergedbasedprimarilyuponMaimonides,butwithagooddoseofAquinasthrownin,primarilytocounterthemoreradicalinterpretationsofAristotleandMaimonidessuggestedbyphilosophers,bothJewishandChristian,influencedbyAverroes.WecanthereforespeakofanindigenousItalo-JewishphilosophicaltraditioninthemedievalperiodthatwasessentiallyAristotelianincharacter.5Thistradi-tionwasperpetuatedinamore“radical”formbyElijahdelMedigo(c.1460–1493),whoadoptedanAverroistreadingofAristotle.AnativeofCrete,delMedigocametoItalytostudymedicineattheUniversityofPadua.Sincethemedicalcurriculumatthattimecon-sistedofthestudyofphilosophyaswellasthesciences,delMedigowasintroducedtothestudyofAristotlebyteacherswhoweredeeplyinfluencedbyAverroes’interpretationofAristotle.6DelMedigoper-petuatedthistradition.EvidentlyhelecturedinPadua,somethingquiteunusualforaJewatthattime;eventuallyhebecameateacherofPicodellaMirandola.Thelatterwasinterestedinmanythings,andamongthemwasAristotle,aswellasPlato,andthekeytoAristotleinthosedayswasAverroes.DelMedigobecamePico’stutorinAverroes,andtranslatedintoLatinseveralofAverroes’treatisesforPico’suse.Eventuallytheirrelationshipcametoanend,mostlikelybecausePicobecamelessinterestedinAristotleandAverroesandturnedhisattentionandloyaltytoPlatoandthekabbalah,subjectsinwhichdelMedigohadminimalornointerest.Asweshallsee,PicowastohireanotherJewishteacherforinstructioninkabbalah.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheendandaftereffects417DelMedigo’sAverroismismostapparentinhistranslationsandcommentariesonthoseshorttreatisesAverroeshadwrittenononeofthemorecontroversialthemesinmedievalphilosophy–theimmor-talityofthesoul,atopicthatwastooccupythemindsofmanyRe-naissancethinkersaswell.AverroeshadformulatedaradicaltheoryofhumanimmortalitythatdelMedigotaughttoPico,whoprobablyrejecteditandthusconcludedthatheneededadifferentteacher.Averroes’theoryisnoteasytostatesuccinctly,foritisquitecom-plicatedandheappearstohavemodifieditthroughouthiscareer.IntwoobscureparagraphsinDeAnima3:5Aristotlesuggeststhattheprimaryefficientcauseofhumanthinkingissomeeternal,incor-porealintellectthatisalwaysthinking.Hismaincommentatorinantiquity,AlexanderofAphrodisias,formulatedanentirevocabularyforthissuggestion,wherebythisactivecauseofhumanthoughtbe-cameknownasthe“Active,orAgent,Intellect,”whereasthehumanintellectbecamethe“materialintellect.”Whenengagedinthinkingthematerialintellectbecomesthe“intellectinact”;whenperfecteditisthe“acquiredintellect.”TheAgentIntellectistranscendentandeternal;indeed,forAlexanderitisGod.AlthoughAlexanderwasnotobsessedwiththeproblemofimmortality,hedidsuggestthatwecanattainimmortalitybyperfectingourintellectandtherebyachieveconjunctionwiththeAgentIntellect.ItisnotclearwhetherornotforAlexandertheachievedstateofimmortalityisindividual.7BythetimethisdoctrinereachedAverroesithadundergoneseveralalternativeinterpretationsandmodifications.UltimatelyAverroesdevelopedhisowntheory,accordingtowhichhumanim-mortalityisachieved,asAlexanderhadsuggested,byconjunction,indeedunion,withtheAgentIntellect.ButwhereasAlexanderhadbeenrelativelysilentorambivalentontheissueofindividualim-mortality,Averroeswasquiteclear:thereisnoindividualimmor-tality.Hereachedthisradicalandstrikingconclusionastheresultofhisviewthattherereallyisonlyonematerialintellect,whichallhumansshareindividuallywhiletheyhavecorporealexistence.However,whenanindividualdies,thatwhichindividuatesthem,alltheircorporealhistory,disappears;allthatremainsistheonemate-rialintellect,whichatthisstageisnolongerindividuated.Indeed,thematerialintellectisreallyjusttheAgentIntellectasseenfromthehumanpointofview;or,theAgentIntellectistheformofthematerialintellect.Nomatterhowwelookatit,ourimmortalityhasCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n418MedievalJewishphilosophynothingpersonalaboutorinit.Inrealitythereisjustoneintellect,andultimatelyallareoneinit.8InhistranslationsandcommentariesonAverroes’shortessaysonthistopicdelMedigofaithfullyreportsthistheoryandoffersnocriticismsofit.AccordingtoKalmanBland,delMedigobelievedthatAverroes’readingofAristotlewascorrectandthatAristotlehadthetruepsychology.Inshort,Averroeshadtherightideaabouthumanimmortality.Ontheotherhand,delMedigorealizedthatJewishreligioustraditionteachesindividualrewardandpunishmentafterdeath,thusimplyingapluralityofintellects.Moreover,itempha-sizesthedoctrineoftheresurrectionofthedead,anotiondifficulttoreconcilewithintellectualconjunction.Sensingsomedifficultyhere,delMedigoexplicitlyexpresseshisloyaltytoreligioustraditioninthefollowing:“Letnoneofmyco-religioniststhinkthattheopin-ionwhichIfirmlybelieveisthis[Aristotelian]one.FormybeliefistrulythebeliefoftheJews.”9This,coupledwithhiscommitmenttoAverroism,allowsonetoseeindelMedigotheseedsoftheso-called“doubletruththeory,”towhichweshallturnshortly.ForreasonsthatarestilluncleardelMedigoleftItalyin1490andreturnedtohisnativeCrete,wherehecomposedhislastworkBehinatha-Dat(TheExaminationofReligion).Whereasthetrea-tisesonAverroeshavenowonlyhistoricalinterest,thislatterworkraisessomeinterestingissuesconcerningtherelationshipbetweenrevealedreligionandphilosophy.Anditisinthisworkthattheissueofthe“doubletruththeory”ariseswithfullforce.TheworkappearstobemodeledafterAverroes’treatiseOntheHarmonybetweenRe-ligionandPhilosophy(Faslal-Maqal),inwhichAverroesdealtwithavarietyofissues,especiallythelegitimacyofphilosophyanditsre-lationshiptotheology.NotonlydidAverroeslegitimizephilosophy,hemadeitsstudyobligatoryforthosewhoarequalified.10DelMedigo’sBehinatha-Datlikewiseattemptstolegitimizephi-losophybeforeJewishlaw,buthedoesnotstretchtheTorahbe-yondrecognitiontomakeitsaythatphilosophyiscommanded.TheBiblepermits,evenrecommends,rationalinquiry,butitdoesnotrequireit.Formostpeoplethereissimplynoneedtophilosophize:theyeitherhavenoabilityforthesubjectorareuninterestedinit.Thisweakeningoftheobligationtodophilosophyisbaseduponastrictapplicationofa“divisionoflaborprinciple,”accordingtowhichphilosophyandrevealedreligionconstitutetwoverydisparateCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheendandaftereffects419disciplines,whosemethodsandgoalsarequitedifferent.DelMedigospeaksofphilosophyandreligionashavingproceduresandpurposesthataredomain-limited.Ingeneralthetwodomainsdonotoverlap,andhencethereisusuallynoneednorjustificationforinterferenceorintervention.HerethebiblicalcommandmentinDeuteronomy19:14nottotransgressboundariesismostrelevant.Harmonybe-tweenreligionandphilosophyisnotobtainedbyeliminatingthe-ologyandthetheologian,asurgedbyAverroes,butbymakingsurethatthephilosopherandtheologianareeachseparatelydoingwhattheyaresupposedtodo.11However,thingsarenotalwayssopeacefulbetweenreligionandphilosophy,evenwhenthephilosopherandthetheologianaremind-ingtheirownstores,anddelMedigoisawareofthisfact.Thereare,heclaims,situationswherethephilosopherhastheright,indeedthedutytocorrectwhatthetheologianhassaid.Letusconsideradoc-trinethatvexesdelMedigoagreatdeal,thekabbalistictheoryofthetensefirot.12AccordingtodelMedigo,thisdoctrineimpugnsandimpairsdivineunity.Sincethelatterhasbeenprovedphilosophi-callyandisthebasicprincipleofJudaism,thedoctrineofthesefirotistoberejected,nomatterhowitisinterpreted.HeredelMedigoexhibitsconsiderablecourage,sincethekabbalahhadachievedgreatauthorityatthistime,andnotonlyamongstJews.13Religionmustbeimmunefromabsurdity.Anditispartofthebusinessofthephiloso-phertopointouttheirrationalityofbeliefsthatarenonsensical.Religionisnotphilosophy,butitcannothidebehindthedivisionoflaborprincipleinordertopreachnonsense,evenifthenonsenseis“Jewish.”14Letusreturntotheaforementionedremarksconcerningindivid-ualimmortality.DelMedigoseemstosuggestthatphilosophyholdsdeathtobetheendoftheindividual,whereasJudaismpresumesin-dividualimmortality.Ingeneral,suchdivergenceonspecificissuesistheconsidereddoctrineoftheChristianAverroists,whowerewill-inginthefinalanalysistosacrificereasononthealtarofreligiousfaith.15OnthisveryissueofimmortalityAverroeshimselfmain-tainedthatitdoesnotmattertoomuchwhichdoctrineoftheafter-lifeoneadheresto,aslongasonebelievesinsomesuchdoctrine.Ifthemassesprefertheresurrectiondoctrine,thatisacceptable;ifthephilosophersbelieveinintellectualconjunction,thattooisac-ceptable.Whatmattersishowonebehaves:ifthephilosopherandCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n420MedievalJewishphilosophytheordinarypersonbehaverightly,bothwillberewarded;itisGod’sbusinesshowthisrewardistoberealized.16ItistemptingtoreaddelMedigoonthisissueinthisway.Likehisphilosophicalmentor,hetooisconcernedonlywiththegeneralprincipleofrewardandpunishment,whichhetakestobecentraltoJudaism.Howthisprin-cipleistobeinterpretedisanotherquestion,onethatdoesnothavetobedecidedinadogmaticmanner.Sinceitisabeliefthatisaction-oriented,aslongasthedesiredbehaviorisachieved,itmatterslittlehowtheprincipleisinterpreted.Godisherenotinthedetails.ItisnoteasytounderstanddelMedigo’srealbeliefsonthismatter.Perhapshe“wasnotabovedissimulating,”asHerbertDavidsonandKalmanBlandhavesuggested.17Hisearlierappealtoreligioustradi-tionmayhavebeenjustadvocacyofabeliefthathadsomepoliticalandpedagogicaluse,asbothAverroesandMaimonidessuggestedwithrespecttosomereligiousdogmas.Itmayhavebeenthathede-niedindividualimmortality.Or,perhapsheissimplyinconsistent.AccordingtoJuliusGuttmann,delMedigowaversbetweentheorig-inalpositionofAverroesandthe“doubletruththeory”oftheChris-tianAverroists.AttimeshesoundslikeAverroesandseemspreparedtominimizeanyapparentconflictasarelativelyminormatterthatcouldberesolved.But,aswehaveseen,onoccasionheseemstore-coilfromthispositioninthemannerofaChristianAverroist.18ThisambivalenceseemstohavebeenafeatureofsomeofhisPaduancolleaguesaswell,suchasPietroPomponazzi,whoalsowaveredbetweena“radical”philosophicalpositionandtraditionalreligiousaffirmation,especiallyonthequestionofimmortality.19betweenaristotleandplato:isaacabravanelIn1492,twoyearsafterElijahdelMedigoleftItalyforhisnativeCrete,IsaacAbravanelandhisfamilywentintoItalianexilefromtheirnativeIberia.AllhisfinancialandpoliticalconnectionsandexperiencecouldnotsavehimandhisfellowJewsfromexpulsionorforcedconversion.SettlingfirstinNaplesandtheneventuallylivingthelastdecadeofhislifeinVenice,IsaacAbravanelspenttheseyearsinItalyprimarilyinintellectualpursuits.AlthoughhehadbegunorcompletedseveralworksinSpainorPortugal,mostofhisvastout-putwasinitiatedorcompletedinItaly.Abravanel’smainconcernswereexegeticalandtheological,althoughhisfirstworkwasapurelyCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheendandaftereffects421philosophicalessayonatopicinAristotle’snaturalphilosophy,TheFormsoftheElements(Tzurotha-Yesodot).Ashewastosayattheendofhislife,thetwoaxesaroundwhichhisthinkingandwritingrevolvedweretheBibleandMaimonides’GuideofthePerplexed,onbothofwhichhewrotecommentaries.AlthoughhewasnotaphilosopherinthesensethatElijahdelMedigowas–indeed,asweshallsee,hewouldhavebeenangeredbysuchanattribution–hiswritingsaredeeplyentrenchedinthemedievalAristotelianframe-work,evenwhenheiscriticalofthistradition.InthisrespectwecanseehimaswellasdelMedigoasamongthelastremnantsofAristotelianisminJewishthought.AlthoughhewasnotunfamiliarwithsomeRenaissanceliteraryandphilosophicaltrends,Abravanel’sintellectualoutlookwasessen-tiallymedieval.EnormouslyeruditeandwellreadinLatinclassicalandmedievalliterature,hepresentsakindofphilosophicalskep-ticismor“weariness”thathasledsomeinterpreterstolabelhimasan“antirationalist.”ThereareindeedargumentsinAbravanelagainstphilosophyingeneralandinparticularagainstAristotleandhisfollowers,bothJewishandMuslim;buthiscriticismsareal-mostalwaysphilosophical.Moreover,whenheadvanceshisownviews,especiallyonthemorevexingproblemsinmedievalreligiousthought,suchascreationoftheuniverse,histreatmentishighlyphilosophical.Insomeveryimportantrespectshecanbeconsid-eredamoderateMaimonidean.Althoughhesharedsomeofthecrit-icismsleveledagainstMaimonidesbyHasdaiCrescas,herejectedsomeofthemoreextremeviewsofthelatteronsuchquestionsasdi-vineomniscienceandcreationoftheuniverse.LikeMaimonidesandCrescas,hesawhimselfasadefenderofthefaith,butheperformedthisroleinamoreconservativemanner,carefullyusingphilosophytoserveasa“handmaiden”totheologywithoutcastingheroutofthehousewhenthejobhadbeendone.Thiscanbeillustratedbyex-amininghisdiscussionsoftwoofthemorevexingissuesinmedievalphilosophicalandtheologicalliterature:creationoftheuniverseandimmortalityofthesoul.UnlikeElijahdelMedigo,whoshowedlit-tleinterestintheformerquestion,Abravanelwasobsessedwithit.Inadditiontohislengthydiscussionofcreationinhiscommen-taryonGenesis,hewrotetwomonographsdevotedtothissubject:TheDeedsofGod(MifalotElohim)andNewHeavens(ShamayyimHadashim).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n422MedievalJewishphilosophyAbravaneldefendsexplicitlyandvigorouslythetraditionaldoc-trineofcreationexnihilo,whichtheoryhebelievedwasin-adequatelydefendedbyMaimonides,unjustifiablyrejectedbyGersonides,andbetrayedbyCrescas’eternalemanationinterpreta-tionofit.Hedefendsthetraditionalversionofthistheory,accordingtowhichGod,employingnointermediaries,createdtheentireuni-versefromnopreexistingmatteratthefirstinstantoftime,whichitselfwascreatedwiththecreationoftheworld.Aftercanvassingandcriticizingthevariousviewsoncreation,es-peciallyGersonides’rejectionofcreationexnihilo,Abravanelthenproceedstodevelophisowndefenseofthisdoctrine.Hefirstarguesthattheconceptisnotlogicallyabsurd,asthephilosophershadmain-tainedintheirdictumexnihilonihilfit.HerehereliesheavilyupontheprincipleofGod’sinfinitepower,definedashisabilitytodowhateverislogicallypossible.Hethendistinguishesbetweenthatwhichisabsolutely,orlogically,impossibleandthatwhichisim-possiblerelativetosomeagent.MichelangeloneedsmarbletomakehisstatueofDavid,sincehiscreativepowerisfinite,nomatterhowgreat.ButGod’screativepowerisunlimited;hence,hecanmakeaworldwithoutrequiringanypre-mundaneeternalmatter.20Indeed,indoingthelatterGodexhibitshisomnipotencemostclearly.OnceAbravanelhasshownthatcreationexnihiloislogicallypossible,hethenproceedstoarguethattheuniversehasbeencreated,asfollows:Ifphysicalbodiesareessentiallycorruptible,aswasshownbyPlatoandJohnPhiloponus,thensoonerorlaterthephysicalworldwillself-destruct.But,asAristotlehimselfproved,whateverhasanendhasabeginning.21Abravanel’sconservatismisalsoevidentinhisaccountofindivid-ual(human)immortality.IfhehadknownofElijahdelMedigo’ssym-pathetic,perhapssincere,defenseofAverroes’doctrine,hewouldhavesharplydisagreedwithhiscoreligionistonthismatter.Notonlydoeshedefendthetraditionaldoctrineofindividualimmortal-ity,butherejectsthewholeAverroistpsychologyuponwhichthedenialofindividualimmortalityrests.Mostimportant,inseveralplacesheexpressesdoubtsaboutthedoctrineoftheAgentIntellect.ThereisnoconjunctionwiththeAgentIntellect,accordingtoAbravanel.Norisimmortalityachievablethroughintellectualper-fection,especiallythroughphilosophyandscience,asMaimonidesCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheendandaftereffects423andGersonideshadmaintained.LoveofGodthroughobservanceofthecommandmentsisthesummumbonum.Indeed,AbravanelismuchclosertoPlato’spsychologythanheistoAristotle’sdoctrineofthesoul,forheholdsthatthehumansoulisaseparate(incorporeal)substance,notjustanembodiedsetofcapaci-ties,orfaculties,forcognition,asmanyofthemedievalAristotelianshadbelieved,includingMaimonides,accordingtoAbravanel’sread-ingoftheGuide.AlthoughGodcreatedallhumansouls,thesesoulsareinherentlyincorruptiblebyvirtueofincorporeality;theirdomi-cileinthebodyisonlytemporary.AbravanelisclearlyweddedtoPlato’sdualisticpsychology:thesoulandthebodyaretwoontolog-icallydistinctentities.UpondeatheachhumansoulsurvivesandreturnstoGod,itssource(Ecclesiastes12:8).However,atsometimeinthefutureeachsoulwillreturntoitsownoriginalbody,whichwillberesurrectedandthenbothwillbejudged.IfGodcancreatetheworldexnihilo,whycannotherevivethedead?Further,thetraditionaldoctrinesofindividualimmortalityandresurrectionofthedeadarejoinedbyanother(Greek)idea–transmigrationofsouls.ThisdoctrineenteredJudaismfairlylate,butwasrejectedbySaadyaandisig-noredbyMaimonidesandGersonides.Nevertheless,itfounditswayintoJewishmysticalliterature,andbyAbravanel’stimeitbecameawidelyheldviewinthekabbalah.Abravanelisopentoitandusesittoexplainthebiblicalpracticeofleviritemarriage:thesoulofthedeadbrothercomestoinhabitthebodyofthesonofhiswidowandlivingbrother,whohasmarriedhiswidow.22Abravanelrejects,how-ever,thoseversionsofthisdoctrinethatallowfortransmigrationofhumansoulsintoanimalbodies,andconversely.Abravanel’sdiscussionsofcreationandimmortalitymanifesthisambivalencetowardPlatonism.Whereashiscosmologyisanti-Platonic,hispsychologyisPlatonic.InseveralofhiswritingsthereareotherfavorablecommentsaboutPlatoandthePlatonists.ThereisevenperhapsareferencetoPlotinus,whomhereferstounderthename“Polotino.”23However,ashiscommentsshow,Abravanel’sfamiliaritywithPlotinus’thoughtisatbestsuperficial.Forexam-ple,heconsidersPlotinustohavebeenastudentofAristotle.ItistruethatinthesescatteredandnotalwaysaccurateorconsistentcommentsaboutPlatonicphilosophyAbravanelwascognizantofCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n424MedievalJewishphilosophythenewerPlatonicphilosophyoftheRenaissance.ButhewasnotaPlatonistinhisphilosophy,totheextentthathehadaconsistentphilosophicalframework;norwashefamiliarwithsomeofthenewertranslationsofPlato’sdialogues,especiallythosethatwereunknownintheMiddleAges,suchastheSymposium.HemadeuseofPlato,totheextentthatheknewPlato,whenitsuitedhispurposes.ButforamoregenuineandthoroughgoingassimilationofPlatonicphi-losophyintoJudaismwemustturntosomeotherJewishthinkers,oneofwhomwasIsaacAbravanel’sownsonJudah.therevivalofplatonism:yohananalemanno,judahabravanel,andjudahmoscatoPerhapstheearliestoftheRenaissanceJewishPlatonistswasYohananAlemanno(1434–1504).BorninFrancebutresidinginItalyformostofhislife,AlemannorepresentedpreciselythenewtrendinphilosophythatElijahdelMedigoresistedandcriticized:Neo-platonickabbalah.Inhiswritingsonefindsacomplexblendofideasdrawnfromavarietyofsources,butmainlyfromthemedievalArabicandHebrewPlatonicliteratureandthekabbalah.Yet,hewasalsoopentothenewerPlatooftheFlorentinecircle,sincehebecameoneofPico’sJewishteachers.Itis,however,noteworthythathisknowl-edgeofthenewerPlatoandtheNeoplatonistsislessinfluentialuponhisthinkingthanthatofthemedievalJewishandMuslimPlatonists.AlthoughhementionsPlotinus,Porphyry,andProclus,hisknowl-edgeoftheirwritingsisnotdeep,andprobablyonlysecondhand.Whatwasofprimaryinteresttohimwasthecompatibility,indeedidentityofPlatonism,asheunderstoodit,andkabbalah.AndthiswaswhatinterestedPicoaswell.Bothharnessedthesetwothoughtsystemstoproduceapracticalphilosophythatwasexplicitlymagicalandtheurgic.InthisregardhereflectsanotheraspectofRenaissancethought:themarriageofphilosophy,mysticism,andtheoccult.OneofthemorePlatonicthemesinAlemanno’sthoughtishisconceptionoftheidealpoliticalleader.Thisisexpressedinalau-datiodedicatedtoLorenzode’Medici.ThelaudatiowasacommonliteraryformthroughouttheRenaissance,anditwascultivatedbyJewish,aswellasChristian,intellectuals.24InAlemanno’spanegyricwefindablendofPlatonicandbiblicalmotifscenteredaroundthefigureofKingSolomon,the“wisestofallkings.”WantingtoflatterCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheendandaftereffects425andplacatehispoliticalpatron,AlemannopresentsLorenzoasamodernKingSolomon,indeedasPlato’sidealphilosopher-king.RelyingheavilyuponAverroes’CommentaryonPlato’sRepublic,AlemannoportraysSolomon(andLorenzobyimplication)astheidealprince,whosepracticalwisdom,aswellastheoreticalknowl-edge,wasmanifestthroughouthislongreignandinmanyways.NotonlydidSolomonmasterallthestandardsciences,hewasalsomostskilledinmagic,astrology,andmysticism,allofwhichheusedinhisroleasking.Butasgreatashistheoreticalandpoliticalvirtueswere,SolomonwasprimarilymotivatedbyhisloveofGod,whichreachedsuchalevelofpassionthatheattainedthesummumbonum–conjunctionwithGod.ItisnowonderthathewroteSongofSongs,onwhichAlemannohimselfwroteacommentary.InthatbiblicalbookthebelovedisGodandtheloverisKingSolomon,who,astheprototypeoftheperfectrulerandtheperfectphilosopher,attainsim-mortalitythroughhisintensepassionforGod.Theintellectualcon-junctionwiththeAgentIntellect,whichfortheAverroist-mindedJewishphilosopherssuchasElijahdelMedigoconstitutedimmor-tality,eventhoughitmeanttheobliterationofindividuality,isnowreplacedwiththePlatonic-kabbalisticideaoflove.AsSolomon’ssongteaches,loveisstrongerthandeath(SongofSongs8:6).Andinthispassionateconjunction,whichisareunionwithGod,humanindividualityispreserved.JewishPlatonismismoreevidentandmorephilosophicallyrep-resentedinJudahAbravanel(c.1460–1523),whowentintoItalianexilewithhisfather.UnlikeIsaac,JudahAbravanelwasnotafinan-cierordiplomatbutaphysician,andcontinuedtopracticethispro-fessioninItaly,primarilyinNaples,althoughhespentsometimeinGenoa.Itwasprobablyinthelattercitythathebeganthebookthatmadehimfamous,TheDialoguesofLove(Dialoghid’Amore).25Pennedunderthenameof“LeoneEbreo,”itisstilluncertaininwhichlanguageheoriginallywrotethiswork.Ithasbeenalterna-tivelymaintainedthatheinitiallywroteitinSpanish,Hebrew,orLatin.Whatevertheoriginallanguage,itbecameabestsellerthrough-outtheRenaissance,translatedintoSpanish(threetimes),French(twice),Latin,andHebrew.26WrittenindialogueformwithtwocharactersPhilo(love)andSophia(wisdom),whosenamesalreadysetthetoneandthrustofthebook,theworkdiscussesavarietyoftopics,manyofwhichclearlymanifestthenewerPlatooftheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n426MedievalJewishphilosophyFlorentinePlatonicAcademyofMarsilioFicino,whohimselfalsowroteaBookofLove(Librod’Amore),aswellasalengthycommen-taryuponPlato’smaindialogueonlove,theSymposium.Indeed,Leone’sworkitselfisinmanyrespectsacommentaryonandasym-patheticcritiqueoftheSymposium.Boththetitle,style,andcontentoftheworkmarkmajordepar-turesfromtheintellectualoutlookofhisfather,IsaacAbravanel.Otherthanthetraditionalideaofthesummumbonumasman’sloveofGod,loveassuchwasofnointeresttoIsaac.Moreover,eventhoughIsaacwaswellreadinLatin,hehadnorealinterestinclassicalbelleslettres.Judah’sworkaboundsindiscussionsofGreekmytho-logicalthemes,withovertreferencestoHomerandOvid.Indeed,theDialoghid’AmoremaybethefirstJewishworktoexhibitsuchaninterestinpaganreligionandliterature.InthesediscussionsJudahat-temptstofindphilosophicalsignificanceintheGreekmythsandtoshowthesimilarities,aswellasdifferences,withbiblicalanalogues.NoristhereinJudahanyrealworryaboutoneofthemainpreoccu-pationsofmedievalphilosophy,therelationshipbetweenreasonandrevelation.WhereashisfatherIsaacwasmostconcernedtodrawthelinessharplyandtolimitthescopeandpowerofreason,Judahseesnoproblem.Heassumesthatphilosophyisthekeytohumanhap-pinessanddoesnotworryatallaboutconflictsbetweenphilosophyandprophecy.Anyapparentorputativeconflictwouldberesolvablethroughinterpretation.AlthoughJudahmakesitquiteevidentthatheisafaithfulJewandmakesplentifulreferencestotheBibleandpostbiblicalauthors,suchasSolomonibnGabirolandMaimonides,forthemostparttheDialoghiisaphilosophicalbook,addressedtophilosophicallyliteratereadersofanyreligion.Inpartthisexplainsitssuccessthroughoutthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies.BeforeweexaminethePlatonicdimensionoftheDialoghi,wemustnotethepresenceofamedievalremnantinJudahAbravanel’sthinking.ThisishisAristotelian-Averroistconceptionofthenatureofhumanimmortality.StillweddedtoAristotle’spsychologicalthe-oryanditsramificationsforthesurvivalofthehumanintellect,Abravaneloffersasummaryofthevariousmedievalaccountsofthehumanintellect,allcouchedinthelanguageofAristotleandAver-roes.Whatisespeciallynoteworthyishisconclusion:heeventuallyoptsforamodifiedAlexandriantheoryoftheintellect,wherebyourimmortalityconsistsinconjunctionwiththeAgentIntellect,whoCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheendandaftereffects427isnoneotherthanGod.AlthoughsomeofthemedievalJewishandMuslimphilosophers,suchasGersonidesandal-Farabi,weresympa-thetictoAlexander’spsychology,theyrefusedtoidentifytheAgentIntellectwithGod.NotsoAbravanel.HisAgentIntellect/Godisboththeformalandefficientcauseofallreality:theformal,insofarasitcontainsalltheideasofallthings;theefficientinsofarasitistheproductivecauseofthings.YeteveninthismostAristoteliandigres-sion,hecannothelpbutintroduceaPlotiniantheme:theultimatecauseofthingsisalsothe“home”towhichallthingsreturntofindtheirfinalfelicity.27Thisreturnisachievedbylove,asAlemannohademphasized;butAbravanelgivesthisloveadistinctlyintellectualcast.HisloveisidenticalwithknowledgeofGod.Itisadmittedlyapassion,butitisanemotionstimulatedandgovernedbycognition.EchoingMaimonidesandanticipatingSpinoza,Abravanelenunci-atesthegoalofthe“intellectualloveofGod.”LikeMaimonidesandAlemanno,AbravaneltoolinksthismotiftoKingSolomon’sSongofSongs;butforhimtheguidebacktoGodisfurnishedbyphiloso-phy,notprophecyormysticism.28The“circleofbeing”isidenticalwiththecircleoflove,andbothareexpressedandactivatedthroughintellectuallove,athemethatpervadesAbravanel’scosmologyaswellashispsychology.29Abravanel’scosmologicalspeculationsconstitutethebulkofthethirdbook,thelongestoftheextantthreebooksoftheDialoghi.30Inhisdiscussionsofthequestionofthecreationoftheworld,AbravanelisclearlyawarenotonlyofPlato’sTimaeus,butofthelaterPlatonicinterpretationsofthiswork,includingthatofPlotinus,whomhementionsbyname.31Butunlikehisfather,Abravanelisquitecon-vincedthattheworldwascreatedoutofsomekindofformlessmatter,whichhelikestocall“chaos,”followingthepracticeofOvidandBoccaccio.32Interestingly,AbravanelmakesnomentionofGersonides,theforemostadvocateofthisdoctrineinmedievalJewishphilosophy,butreliessolelyuponPlato.AlthoughheisawarethatthisisnottheaccepteddoctrineoftraditionalJudaism,itisclearthatthisishisview.Thetraditionaldoctrineofcreationexnihiloheattributestothe“faithful,”whoarerepresentedbySophia,thequestionerinthedialogues.Thedoctrineofcreationexnihilo,al-thoughlogicallypossible,iscontrarytothewidelyacceptedviewofthephilosophersthatnothingcomesfromnothing.33Philo,whoistheteacherofSophia,adherestothelatterprinciple.However,CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n428MedievalJewishphilosophyAbravaneldoesmakeoneconcessiontotradition:heclaimsthataccordingtoPlatohimselfthismatteriseternallycreatedbyGod,anideathatonecouldgetfromtheTimaeusifonereadsitinaPlotinianmode,wherebyeverything,includingmatter,emanateseternallyfromtheOne.34Onceeternalmatterisintroducedintothestoryofcreation,Abra-vanelproceedstoconstructaphilosophicalmidrashonthethemeofGod’screatingtheworldfromtheprimevalchaos.InthisaccountGodiscalled“thefather,”whereasmatter,orchaos,iscalled“themother.”35Again,AbravanelisalludingtotheTimaeus,especiallyPlato’scharacterizationofthesubstratumofcreationasa“recepta-cle,”whichinGreekisfeminineingender.Asnoted,hecorrectsthisaccount,whichhefindsinOvidaswell,statingthatmattertooiscreatedbyGod,albeiteternally.Theworldisproducedbythefather’sfashioningacosmosoutofformlessmatter.Laterinthebook,however,Abravanelproceedstoofferusasome-whatdifferentcosmologicalscheme.ItstillpreservesthekeyPla-tonicmotifofeternalformlessmatterbutintroducesanewfactorintothestory.Thestage-settingofthissceneinthedialogueisaninterestinganalysisofbeauty,whichleadsAbravaneltoenterintoadiscussionofPlatonicForms.Afterreportingthestateoftheissue,especiallyAristotle’scritiqueofthePlatonichypostatizationoftheForms,AbravanelagainsideswithPlato.ButitisnotwithPlatohim-self,asitiswithsomeofthelaterPlatonists.ForhenowintroducesaversionofthePhilonicLogostheory:betweenGodandthephysi-calworldthereisanintermediaryagentcontainingalltheFormsasparadigms.Abravanellabelsthisentitywithdifferentnames:“theIdeaoftheuniverse”(407),“thefirstintellect”(414–15),“primarybeauty”(405),and“wisdom”(415).InthelanguageofPlotinus,Abravanelproceedstocharacterizethisentityaseternallyemanat-ingfromGod,whois“higher”thanit.36Abravanel’sfirstintellectisindeednoneotherthanPlotinus’Nous.EquallystrikinginthisaccountofcreationisAbravanel’srevamp-ingofthefather–mothertheme.Themotherofcreationisnowthisfirstbeauty,intellect,orwisdom.HereheweavestogetherPlatoniccosmologywithJewishmidrashiclore,especiallytheinterpretationofProverbsandSongofSongs,especiallyProverbs’elevationofwis-domasGod’sassistantinmakingtheworld(Proverbsch.8).OneshouldkeepinmindthatinHebrew,Greek,Latin,andthemodernCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheendandaftereffects429languagesderivingfromLatin,thetermforwisdomisfeminineingender.Accordingly,inthismidrashtheworldhas,asitsactivecause,thefather,God;thepassivecauseisitsmother,wisdomorbeauty.37Thephysicalworldisthen“theson”producedfromGodandwisdom.InthismidrashmatterhasbeenrelegatedtoabackseatinfavorofIntellect;butthistooisgoodPlatonism.Itisnotobviouswhetherthesetwocosmologicalschemescanbemadeconsistent.Indeed,itisnotevidentthatAbravanelsawhimselfaspropoundingasystematiccosmology.HiscosmologicaldiscussionsmaybejustPlatonicmidrashimonGenesis1,ratherlikePlato’sownmythofcreationintheTimaeus,whichPlatocon-fessesisjustalikelystory.Ifwesimplyignorethemetaphoricalaspectsofthesemidrashimandfocusupontheirmorephilosophicalaspects,wecaneasilyseethePlatonicimprint.ItisquiteclearthatAbravaneliscommittedtosomekindofPlatonicaccountofcreation.SuchanaccountacknowledgestheeternityofmatterandtheroleofanintermediaryintellectualparadigmasGod’s“instrument”increation.JudahAbravanelisnotaloneinhisPlatonic–Plotinianconceptionofcreation.ItwasechoedbyalaterJewishthinker,JudahMoscatoofMantua(c.1530–1593).Althoughmainlyapulpitrabbi,Moscatocomposedtwoworks,QolYehudah(TheVoiceofJudah),alongcom-mentaryuponJudahHalevi’sKuzari,andacollectionofsermons,entitledNefutzotYehudah(TheDispersionsofJudah).TheformerisavirtualencyclopediaofmedievalJewishphilosophyusedtoelu-cidateHalevi’swork.ThelatterisapartialselectionfromMoscato’shomiliesondiffferentportionsfromtheBibleandincludesalsosev-eraldedicatorysermons.38Sincesomeofthesesermonsarequitephilosophical,itislikelythattheywereintendedtobereadatleisureratherthantobeheardonthespotinthesynagogue.Inadditiontotheirphilosophicalinterest,severalofthesermonscontainref-erences,amongtheearliestinHebrewliterature,tothelong-lostJewishPlatonistPhiloofAlexandria.ForoveramillenniumPhilowasunknowntohiscoreligionistsuntilhewasrediscoveredbyItalianRenaissanceJews.MoscatonotonlymentionsPhilobynamebutreferstoseveralofhisbooks.39ThePhilonicpresenceinMoscatoisnotjustwindowdressing.ItisanimportantelementintheoverallPlatoniccosmologicalimprintinMoscato’sthinkingaboutcreation,whichisfoundinseveralofCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n430MedievalJewishphilosophyhissermons.InSermon8MoscatointerpretstheopeningsentenceofGenesisasfollows:FirstofallGodemanatedforthacreatedintellectasaneffect,unitaryandperfect;heendoweditwiththepatternsofallthings...IntheemanationofthiseffectnotonlydidGodcreateallthingsbuthecreatedtheminthemostperfectmanner.ThisintellecthasbeencalledbythePlatonistsandotherancientphilosophers“God’sson,”asisrecordedbythesagePicodellaMirandolainashortessaythathewroteontheheavenlyanddivinelove(Sermon8,21c[noteMoscato’sreferencetoPico];mytranslation).This“intellectualsonofGod”isofcoursePhilo’sLogosandPloti-nus’Nous.NotonlyisMoscatocontenttoincorporatethisPlatonicmotifintohisexegesisofGenesis1,butheisalsonotreluctanttolabelPlotinus’secondhypostasisbythemetaphor“son,”despitetheobviousChristianconnotationsofthisterm.AndlikePlotinus,MoscatomentionstheverticalvectorsofIntellect:itturnsupwardandimitatesGod,theOne,anddownwardandproducestheWorld-Soul,thethirdofPlotinus’hypostases.Thelattertoohasbothup-wardanddownwardvectors:bylookingupitreceivesfromIntellectthepatterns,orForms;inlookingdownitproducessoulsandthecorporealformsofearthlysubstances,themostimportantofwhichishumankind,who,unlikeallotherterrestrialsubstances,iscapa-bleofreceivingintellect.Moreover,MoscatotellshisaudiencethatthelightmentionedinPsalms104andinseveralmidrashimreferstoGod’sson,Intellect,whichis“theplaceoftheForms”andthe“gloryofGod’screation.”40InseveralofhissermonsMoscatoaddressesanotherthemeinPlatonicphilosophy.MostmedievalepistemologicaldiscussionsweredominatedbyAristotelianempiricism.InSermon9,entitled“MantheMicrocosm,”MoscatodevelopsPlato’stheoryofinnateideasandfindsthisthemeinPsalms19:9,whereitiswritten:“thepreceptsoftheLordareright,rejoicingtheheart.”TheHebrewtermfor“precepts”inthisverseisunusual:insteadofoneofthemanybiblicallegalterms,thepassagehasthetermpequdei,whichliter-allymeans“deposited.”MoscatointerpretsthispassageinaPlatonicvein:theteachingsoftheLordareplacedinhumankind’smindbyGod.Theseteachingsincludenotonlythecommandments,butalsothefirstprinciplesofknowledge.MoscatoisquiteawarethathisadoptionandadaptationofPlato’stheoryisanti-Aristotelian.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheendandaftereffects431Moreover,heexplainsourcognitivecareerbyutilizingbothPlato’sdoctrineofrecollectionandthebiblicalstoryofAdam’sandEve’ssin.Theirchoicetoindulgeincorporealpleasurecausedforgetfulnessoftheiroriginalintellectualendowment.Henceforth,thehumanspeciesiscontinuallystrivingtorecallwhatitoriginallyknew.ThisincorporationofPlatonicinnatismisfortifiedbyhisclaimthatthehumanintellectisindependentofthebody.Moscatostates:[T]heintellectisnotdependentupontheimagination,asifthelatterweretheinstrumentforitsintellectualactivity.Inthisregardtheintellect’sac-tivitydiffersfromtheactivityofperception...theactivityoftheintellectiscompleteinitselfwithout[theneedof]aninstrument...(QolYehudah,3:53a;mytranslation).However,MoscatomakesaconcessiontoAristotle:inourpresentconditionthehumanmindneedssensorydataforknowledge.HereMoscatosoundsratherlikeDunsScotusandWilliamofOckham,whoclaimedthatintheorythehumanintellectcouldhaveintuitive,thatis,directapprehensionofexternalobjects,butinourpresentmortalstateweneedthehelpofsense-percepts.41thescientificrevolution:josephsolomondelmedigoRenaissancethoughtwasmarkednotonlybytherediscoveryandassimilationofancientphilosophy.Italsoreflectssomeofthenewideasofthe“scientificrevolution”ofthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies.Philosophyandsciencewerenotwhollydistinctdisci-plinesintheMiddleAges,norweretheycompletelyseparateduringtheRenaissance.ItisnotaccidentalthatoneofthemajorcentersofphilosophicalactivityinItalyatthistimewasalsoanimportantplaceforscientificandmedicalstudy–theUniversityofPadua.WehavealreadynotedthatElijahdelMedigostudiedmedicineandphi-losophythere.IntheseventeenthcenturyanotherJewfromCrete,perhapsafamilyrelationofElijah,studiedatPaduawithGalileoandbecameoneoftheearliestJewish“converts”tothe“newscience”–JosephSolomondelMedigo(1591–1655).(HenceforthIshallrefertohimbyhisHebrewacronym“Yashar.”)However,whatmakesYasharbothperplexingandintriguingishisincorporationofNeopla-tonicandkabbalisticelementsintohisnewscientificapproachtoCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n432MedievalJewishphilosophyphilosophy.Thesediverseelementsarenotalwayseasytodisentan-gleinhiswritings.Moreover,hishabitofhidinghisviewsbehindthevoiceofotherspokesmen,somefictitious,makesitdifficulttode-termineYashar’srealpositions.Nevertheless,severalsalientstrandsinhisthoughtcanbediscerned.42Yashar’s“newscience”beginswithacritiqueofAristoteliannat-uralphilosophyandmetaphysics.LikeHasdaiCrescas,forwhomhehasthehighestappreciation,YasharrejectsthebasicassumptionsandprinciplesofAristotelianphilosophy,whichbytheseventeenthcenturywaslosinggroundinItaly,evenatPadua.ButunlikeCrescas,whosecritiqueofAristotlewastheologicallymotivated,Yashar’sre-jectionofAristotlewasbasedupontheadoptionofanalternativephysicaltheoryandnaturalphilosophy.UnderlyinghiscritiqueisacertaindisappointmentthatAristotleisinsufficientlyempiricalandrigorous.AlthoughherecognizesthatAristotle’sphilosophyisgroundedinsenseperceptionandthelogicaldemandsofstrictproof,YasharaccusesAristotleofnotbeingfaithfultohisownmethods.InlanguageechoingGalileo’sremarks,YasharoftenchidesAristo-tlefornotgettinghishandsdirtyinthelaboratoryorgoingoutsidehisstudyandlookingathowfallingbodiesfall.Ifhehaddoneso,hewouldhaveseenthathishylomorphictheoryofnaturewasnotbaseduponthefacts.SkepticalofAristotle’sessentialism,whichheseesasaformofdisguisedPlatonism,Yasharoptsforaphysicsbasedupontheobservedpropertiesofbodies,manyofwhichwouldberegardedbyAristotleas“accidental”andthusnon-essential.Thewholeno-tionofformorsubstanceisreplacedwiththeconceptofseparable,ortransient,andinseparable,orsemi-permanent,properties,bothofwhichareobservable.Thesepropertiesare“effective,”orcausal,andthereisnoneedtopositunobservableunderlying“formal”causes,oressences.ReferringtoGalileo,Yasharclaims:Aristotle’sprincipleofessentialforms...isbaseduponthinairandisnoth-ingbutwilddreams...AccordingtoAristotlehimself,thequalitiesthem-selvesarethecausesofallchanges...Theessencesarenotperceived;there-fore,theyareofnouse(Yashar,SeferElim49;mytranslation).NotonlyisYasharcriticalofAristotle’sterrestrialphysics;heisequallyhostiletothelatter’stheoryofthecelestialmoversoftheheavenlybodies,whichinthemedievalAristoteliantraditionwereknownasthe“separateintellects.”ThisdoctrinehadalreadybeenCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheendandaftereffects433challengedphilosophicallybyCrescas,andnowwiththenewas-tronomyofCopernicusandGalileotheirpostulationbecameotiose.Yashar’scriticismofthistheory,however,wasmorescientificthanphilosophical:Iheardfrommyteacher[Galileo]thatthereasonforpositingtheseparateintellectsasthemoversoftheheavenlysphereswasthatthesephiloso-phers[thePeripatetics]observedthattheyhadcontrarymotions...How-ever,accordingtoCopernicus,theheavenlymotionisregular,notforced.Hebelievesthateachspherehasonlyonemotion...ThesameistruefortheEarth...OneshouldnotdistortrealitytofitAristotle’stheory,butthetheoryshouldagreewithreality...Thereisnoneedforseparatemoversandintellects(Yashar,SeferElim58,61;mytranslation).ConvincedbyCopernicusandGalileooftheheliocentrictheory,YashardismissesthewholeAristotelian–Ptolemaiccosmology,withitselaboratedoctrinesofincorporealmoversoftheheavenlybodies,retrogradeplanetarymotion,andthecentralityoftheEarth.43Asnotedpreviously,Yashar’sthoughtisnotsimpleormono-lithic.Confoundinghiscommentators,hemovescontinuallybe-tweennaturalisticargumentsanddoctrines,whichhelearnedfromGalileo,andRenaissanceNeoplatonismandkabbalah,whichwaseverpresent.HisknowledgeoftheancientPlatonistswasquiteex-tensiveandbaseduponprimarysources,sincehewasabletoreadan-cientGreek.HereferstoPlotinus’Enneads,citingbookandchapter.HeisfamiliarwiththelaterGreekPlatonistsaswell;healsoquotesPhilo.44Equallypervasivebutmoreperplexingishisattitudeto-wardandusesofkabbalah,asubjecthetreatsindetailinhislaterworkSeferTa
alumotHokhmah,thefirstpartofwhich,Matzrefla-Hokhmah,isdevotedtothekabbalah.Tocharacterizehisdiversestatementsaboutkabbalahasambivalentwouldbeanunderstate-ment.Somecommentatorshavedismissedhispositivestatementsasjustwindow-dressingtoappeasehismysticallyinclinedaudi-ence;othercommentatorshavecontrarilyarguedforamorebalancedandnuancedapproach,givingdueconsiderationtohisutilizationofkabbalah.45AnexampleofYashar’samalgamofmysticismandscienceishisadoptionandadaptationofatomism.Theoncedespisedancientthe-oryofDemocritusandEpicuruswasnowgainingrespectability.InapassagethatanticipatesSpinoza’sdenigrationofPlatoandAristotleCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n434MedievalJewishphilosophyinfavorofDemocritusandEpicurus,46Yasharrevealshisatomistsympathiesalongwithhiswillingnesstointerpretatomismwithinakabbalistmetaphysics.Afterexpressinghiscommitmenttoanatom-istphysics,hecomments:Someofthephilosophersthoughtthatbytheaggregationandsegregationoftheatomsallthethingsintheworldaregeneratedandcorrupted.Theirwordsseemstrangeatfirstglance...ButperhapstheyintendedtheworldofpointsoftheWisdomofkabbalahoutofwhichtheletterswereformedandalltheworlds.47InanotherpassageYashar,referringtoLucretius’OntheNatureofThingsBook4,discussestheatomistdoctrineoflightaccordingtowhichlightconsistsofsubtleparticlesoratoms.Hethenidentifiesthistheorywiththekabbalistdoctrineofthepoints,whichhadbeendevelopedbythegreatsixteenth-centurykabbalistIsaacLuria.48NomatterhowthedebateoverYashar’sattitudetowardthekabbalahwillberesolved,itisclearthatheandmanyofhiscontemporariesinboththeChristianandJewishworldswerenotimmunefromitsattractivenessandassimilateditsdoctrinesinvariousanddiverseways.theendandthebeginning:spinozaInhislibrarySpinozahadcopiesofbothJudahAbravanel’sDialoghid’AmoreinaSpanishtranslationandYashar’sTa’alumotHokhmah.But,asweshallsee,whateverinfluencethesebooksmayhavehaduponhisintellectualdevelopment,Spinozawastotransformrad-icallythemajormotifsofmedievalphilosophyingeneral,andnotmerelymedievalJewishphilosophy.Indeed,JuliusGuttmannarguesthatSpinozabelongstothehistoryofEuropeanphilosophy,andnottothehistoryofJewishphilosophy.49Spinoza’slifewouldseemtosupportthisclaim:hewasexcommunicatedfromthesynagogueattheageoftwenty-fourandlivedtherestofhisshortlifeonlyamidstChristians.50Nevertheless,Spinoza’srelationshiptohismedievalJewishprede-cessorshasbeenamajorpreoccupationofhistoriansofphilosophy,especiallyhistoriansofmedievalJewishphilosophy.Inhiscommen-taryonSpinoza’sEthics,HarryWolfsonoffersthestudentofSpinozaahistoryofmedievalJewishphilosophyaswell.51Indeed,severalCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheendandaftereffects435morerecentSpinozascholars,primarilymedievalists,havelabeledSpinozaa“Maimonidean.”52Analternativetothisapproachistheperspectiveproposedbythe“Hispanists,”whostresstheSephardic,especiallyMarrano,backgroundofSpinoza.Seenfromthisangle,Spinozawasthenatural,ifextreme,outgrowthofaheterodoxMarranoenvironmentinJewishAmsterdam.53ThisfocusupontheJewishbackgroundofSpinozacan,however,leadusawayfromthemoreimmediateandrelevantphilosophical-scientificcontextofSpinoza’sthought:thephilosophyandphysicsofDescartesandthepoliticalthoughtofHobbes.Spinozawasfirstandforemostathinkerinandofthesecondhalfoftheseventeenthcen-tury.HisconceptualframeworkwassetbytheCopernican-Galileanrevolutioninastronomy,thenewnaturalphilosophyofDescartes,andHobbesianpolitics,ratherthantheassumptionsofMaimonides,Crescas,andJudahAbravanel.54Althoughthenotionoftheintel-lectualloveofGodandtherejectionofAristotelianphysicsandmetaphysicsaretobefoundinSpinoza,theformerhasacompletelydifferentmeaningforSpinozathanforJudahAbravanel,justashiscommitmenttomodernscienceisdevoidofanymagicalorkab-balisticinterpretations.ThereareremnantsofmedievalthoughtinSpinoza,buttheyaretobeunderstoodmoreasobsoleterelicstobediscardedthanaspositivefactorsinhisnewphilosophicalsystem.InseveralimportantrespectsitisusefultolookatSpinozaasaphilosopherofscience.He,likehisphilosophicalmentorDescartes,wasdeeplyconcernedwithmethodologicalissues,especiallyastheyaroseinthesciences.55Thereareinadditionsomecriticalanal-ysesandrevisionsofCartesianmechanicsinSpinoza.56AlthoughnotapracticingscientistlikeGalileoorDescartes,exceptinop-tics,Spinozawaswellversedinthescientificliteratureofhisdayandreflectedphilosophicallyaboutitsimplicationsforanunder-standingofnatureandhumankind.Heconcludedintheendthattraditionalparadigmsofsupranaturalismandcosmologicaldualismmustbeabandoned.Cosmologicaldualismsuggeststhatnatureisinsomewaypro-ducedbyordependentuponatranscendentcausethatisontologi-callydistinctfromitseffect.WhetherweunderstandthisultimatecauseasdidPlato,Aristotle,Plotinus,orthemedievals,itisclearlysupranatural,“above”(outsideof)nature.Moreover,initsstan-dardmedieval,evenCartesian,version,thismodelallowsfordivineCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n436MedievalJewishphilosophyinterventioninthecourseofnature,foronthisviewnatureexhibitsdesignandgoals.Thenaturalorderwascreatedvoluntarilyandpur-posivelybyasupranaturalcauseandhencecanbealtered,albeitonlymomentarily,forapurpose.Nomatterhoworderly,theregularityofthenaturalorderissubordinatetoa“higher”will,andhenceisinthissenseonlyaccidental,orcontingent.Spinozarejectsthiswholecon-ceptionofnature,andsubstitutesforitanaturalismthatabolishesanyformofcosmologicaldualism.Forhim,everythingisliterally“natural”;thereisnothingthatisaboveorbeyondnature.Theulti-mategroundorcauseofnatureisnottranscendent,butimmanent(Spinoza,Ethics,i,18;iv,Preface).Godandnatureareone.ThisidentificationofGodwiththeactiveforceswithinnature(Ethics,i,29,Scholium)leadsSpinozatorejectthetraditionalcon-ceptionofGodasanagentwhoactsinawayincomprehensibletohumans.Spinozahasnotoleranceforfideistsormystics.AsJonathanBennettaptlyputsit,Spinozawasabsolutelycommittedtotheprin-cipleof“explanatoryrationalism”:everythingcanbeexplained.57Butthisdoesnotlimittheseexplanationstothosethatareanthro-pocentric.Natureisneutral:itisdevoidofanyteleology,whichforSpinozaisnomorethanahumanimpositionuponnature.Asafixedsystemoflaws,natureprecludesany(miraculous)interruptionsorinterventions.Indeed,topositthepossibilityofmiraclesistodenyGod;again,Godisnature.AchangeinnaturewouldbeachangeinGod,andthisisabsurd.58Ifcosmologicaldualismistoberejected,ispsychologicaldual-ismstillpossible?FromPlatothroughDescartes,philosophershavemaintainedthatthehumansoulormindisadistinctontologicalen-tity,incorporealandimmortal.ThisdoctrinewasanessentialpartofthemedievalandRenaissancephilosophicaltradition,aswehaveseeninsuchthinkersasIsaacAbravanelandJudahMoscato.How-ever,intheinteractionistversionofDescartesitsdifficultiesbecameapparent,anddifferentaccountsofthehumanmindwereproposedbyDescartes’contemporariesandimmediatesuccessors.Someweremonistic–eithermaterialistic,suchasHobbes’,ormentalistic,suchasBerkeley’s–othersretainedsomeformofdualism,butdeniedin-teractionism,suchasMalebrancheandLeibniz.Spinozaforgedanewpath.JustastheinfiniteGod,ornature,exhibitsinfiniteattributes,includingextension,sotoohumankindmanifestsbothphysicalandmentalfeatures.ButthesearenotpropertiesoftworadicallydistinctCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheendandaftereffects437substancesorentities,astheyareinDescartes’psychology;theyarerathertwodifferentbutcomplementarywaysofunderstandinghu-mannature.Mindandbodyarenottwodistinctentities;theyareoneandthesamethingseenundertwodifferentattributes.Neitherattributeisreducibletotheother,buttheydonotdesignatetwodistinctentities(Ethics,ii,7–13).Havingestablishedthemetaphysicalandpsychologicalfounda-tionsofhumankind’splaceinnature,SpinozamovesontoconsiderthehumanconditionintheconcludingtwobooksoftheEthics.Heseeshumansasessentiallyinbondage,inservitudetotheirpassions,emotionsbroughtaboutthroughignoranceandsubmissiontoexter-nalforce.Freedom(fromsubmission)isachievedthroughanarduousandcontinuousprocessofself-education,wherebyweovercomeourpassivityandbecomeactivethroughtheacquisitionoftruebeliefs(“adequateideas”)concerningourselvesandtheworldinwhichwelive.Knowledgeliberatesus;itenablesustobecomeautonomousagents,totheextentpossibletous,ratherthandependentbeings.IndevelopingthisprogramSpinozarevisesradicallysomeofthemoreveneratedvaluesintraditionalmorality,especiallyinitsre-ligiousversion.Consider,forexample,hisanalysesofthevirtuesofhumilityandrepentance.Humilityisthefeelingonehasofone’sweakness;assuch,itcausespain.Butsincepainisalossofpower,humilitycannotbeavirtue(Ethics,iv,53).Noristhereanypointtorepentance.Torepentistoexpressremorseoversomethingdonethatcouldhavebeenotherwise.Butthisisanillusion:whatwasdonecouldnothavebeenotherwisethanitwas.Tothinkotherwiseistothinkthatnature,orGod,couldhavebeendifferent.Butthisisabsurd(Ethics,i,33andiv,54).ItisnotsurprisingthatNietzsche,thegreat“transvaluatorofvalues,”sawSpinozaasforerunnerofhisnewethicalagenda.59TheculminationoftheEthicsisitsdepictionofthefreeman,whomSpinozadescribesas“blessed.”Withrespecttosuchblessed-ness,SpinozarevertstothenotionwefoundinJudahAbravanel:theintellectualloveofGod.ButSpinoza’samorDeiisnotidenticalwiththatofhisJewishpredecessor.HisGodisnottheGodofAbra-ham,Isaac,andJacob.Thefreeperson’sloveofGodisforSpinozatheknowledgeofnatureanditsinexorablelaws,anintellectualin-tuitionengenderinginusthehighestformofmentalcontentment,orjoy.Thisisoursalvation,oureternity.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n438MedievalJewishphilosophySpinoza’sEthicswasnotpublishedinhislifetime;hisTheological-PoliticalTreatise(TTP)was.InmanyrespectstheTTPisjustasrad-icalastheearlierEthics.Writteninamoreengagingandlessformalstyle,theTTPwasimmediatelycontroversial.Leibniz,whohadmetwithSpinozaseveraltimesinTheHagueayearbeforethelatter’sdeath,wasextremelyagitatedwhenhelearnedofandlaterreadtheTTP.InithecorrectlysawdoctrinesthatwerepotentiallyevenmoredisturbingthanthoseoftheEthicspreciselybecausetheywerepo-liticalandtheological.InthePrefaceSpinozamakesquiteplainhisagenda:toproduceatheoreticalframeworkwithinwhichpoliticalpeacecanbesecured.LivingduringthereligiouswarsthatplaguedEuropeandbeingtheoffspringofvictimsofreligiouspersecutioninIberia,Spinozaknewverywellwhathappenswhenchurchandstateformanalliance.Indeed,theNetherlandsatthistimewasnotatpeace,withdifferentreligiousfactionsstrugglingtoinfluencepoli-ticsandtogainpoliticalpowerforthemselves.InthePrefacetotheTTPSpinozaputsforthhismainthesis:therewillbenocivilpeaceunlesschurchandstatearedivorcedonceandforalltime.Theun-holyalliancebetweenthesecularandtheecclesiasticalauthoritieshasproducedonlycivildiscordandwar.Inshort,whatisneededistheseparationofchurchandstate,arevolutionarydoctrineintheseventeenthcentury.Butashedevelopshisargument,Spinozamakesitclearthatheisalsoseekinganotherdivorce:hewantstoemancipatephilosophyfromreligion,ortheology.Themarriageofphilosophyandreligionthatcharacterizes,indeeddefines,muchofmedievalthoughthasbeenforSpinozaanabsolutedisaster,tothedetrimentofboth.Accordingly,theTTPwageswarontwofronts:itarguesfortheseparationofthestatefromreligionandtheautonomyofphilosophyvis-a-visreligion.`Spinoza’sstrategyistoattacktheverybasisforboththeun-holyalliancebetweenthechurchandthestateandthemarriagebetweenphilosophyandtheology–theBible.WhytheBible?First,theBiblewasthemodeluponwhichseveralProtestantcountries,especiallythosemodeledafterCalvin’sGeneva,constructedtheirpolities.Moses’theocracywasforthemtheparadigmforgovern-mentpendingthesecondcomingoftheMessiah.Second,oneoftheunderlyingassumptionsofmedievalphilosophywasthattheBiblewasabookcontainingimportantphilosophicalteachingsthatcouldbeextractedbyintelligentexegesis.InthiswayitcouldbeshownCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheendandaftereffects439thatrevelationandreasonareinharmony.Thus,theBiblewasbothpoliticallyandphilosophicallyrelevantandauthoritative.Spinozarejectsbothassumptions.HedoesthisbydenyingthesupranaturaloriginandcharacterofScripture.BoththeOldandNewTestamentsareonlyhumandoc-uments,nodifferentthanHomer’sIliad.Theyaretheproductsofmanyhandsovermanycenturies,reflectingthediversestagesofde-velopmentoftheancientHebrewsandtheirspecificsocial,political,andculturalcircumstances.60Theprophetswerepeoplewhospokeonthebasisofimagination,notreason;theywerenotphilosophersorscientists,butrathermoralpreachersandinsomecasespoliticalpundits.Someoftheirpronouncementsuponphilosophicalorsci-entificissueswerefalse;evenwhentrue,thesestatementswerenotattainedinaphilosophicalorscientificmanner.ThisholdstrueevenforMoses,whoisinthisrespectnodifferentfromAmos,whowasashepherd.Ontheotherhand,SpinozahasconsiderablerespectforKingSolomon,whosedeterminist(fatalist)speculationsinEcclesi-astesarequiteinaccordwithhisownphilosophy.61InhissecularizationofScriptureSpinozaattacksnotonlythein-stitutionandnatureofprophecy,butalsotheelectionofIsrael,theimportanceofrituallaw,thepossibilityofmiracles,andtherele-vanceofbiblicallawtothemodernstate.Inthecourseofthiscri-tiquehefrequentlyattacksMaimonidesbyname,accusinghimofnotreadingthebiblicaltextliterally.Asaresultofthiserror,heapsuponheapsofmisleadingandmistakeninterpretationsoftheBiblehaveaccumulated.ScripturehasbecomePlato,Aristotle,orPlotinusspeakingHebrew(TTP,ch.7).WhiletheBibleisstillavaluableguideformorality,especiallythevirtueofobedience,itisnotphilosophyorphysicsorevenpoliticalscience.ItmayhavebeenagoodpoliticalguidefortheancientIsraelites,butnowitisantiquated.HobbesandMachiavelliaremorerelevant(TTP,chs.18–19).Spinozamarksnotjusttheendofmedievalphilosophy,andmuchofRenaissancephilosophyaswell;hesignalsitscompleteobsoles-cenceandirrelevance.He,notDescartes,isthefirstmodernphiloso-pher,onewhohasemancipatednotonlyhimselfbutalsophilosophyfromreligion,whoisunafraidofthenewscienceanditsimplicationsforphilosophyandmorals,andwhowelcomesthesecularstateasthelocusofsalvation.Religionistobedomesticatedandprivatized,sothatitwilldominimumharm.PhilosophyandscienceneednoCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n440MedievalJewishphilosophylegitimationfromeitherthestateorthechurch.Ifthelattermindtheirownstores,therewillbepeace;iftheydonot,warwillen-sue.IsitanywonderthenthatSpinozabecameformanymodernJewishthinkersamodelfortheirownuntraditionalphilosophies.62AmsterdamJewrymaynothavebeenfullycognizantofwhatwasinSpinoza’sheartormindatthetimeofhisexcommunication,buttheywerequiteprescientofwherehishereticalthoughtswouldtakehim.Thecommunitycouldnotallowhiskindofcritiqueofthesta-tusquo;otherwiseitsexistenceasatoleratedminoritywouldbejeopardized.Nevertheless,Spinozapersevered,andthusbecameaparadigmofthe“freespirit”whosuffersforhisrighttophilosophize.HeisaSocratesredivivus.notes1.H.Davidson,“MedievalJewishPhilosophyintheSixteenthCentury,”inJewishThoughtintheSixteenthCentury,ed.B.Cooperman(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1983),106–45.2.SomeoftheEnneadswereknownintheMiddleAges,firstinArabictranslationandtheninLatinasTheTheologyofAristotle.Plotinushimself,however,wasnotknown;seeP.O.Kristeller,“NeoplatonismoeRinascimento,”inIlNeoplatonismonelRinascimento,ed.PietroPrini(Rome:IstitutodellaEnciclopediaItaliana,1993),8–28.3.TheRenaissancealsowitnessedtherediscoveryofHellenisticphiloso-phy,astheobsessionwithCicero’swritingsindicates.Lucretius,Seneca,andSextusEmpiricus,amongothers,alsoreappearinthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies.TheirinfluenceuponJewishthinkersofthisperiod,however,wasminor.Nevertheless,theVenetianrabbiSimha(Simone)Luzzatto(1582–1663)showssignsoftheinfluenceofSextusEmpiricusinhistreatiseSocrate;seeD.Ruderman,JewishThoughtandScientificDiscoveryinEarlyModernEurope(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1995),ch.5.4.J.Blau,TheChristianInterpretationoftheCabalaintheRenaissance(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1944).SinceBlau,anenormousliteraturehasarisenonthissubject;seeespeciallyM.Idel,“MagicalandNeoplatonicInterpretationsofKabbalahintheRenaissance,”inJewishThoughtintheSixteenthCentury,ed.B.Cooperman(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1983),186–242.5.OnthissubjecttheworkofJosephSermonetaismostimportant.Forabibliographyofhiswritings,seetheJosephBaruchSermonetaMemo-rialVolume,ed.A.Ravitzky(Jerusalem:HebrewUniversity,1998),493–506.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheendandaftereffects4416.Indeed,PaduawasthecenterofthestudyofAverroes.SeeJ.H.Randall,“TheDevelopmentofScientificMethodintheSchoolofPadua,”inRenaissanceEssays,ed.P.O.KristellerandP.Wiener(NewYork:Harper&Row,1968),217–51.7.P.Merlan,Monopsychism,Mysticism,Metaconsciousness(TheHague:Mouton,1962),ch.2;H.Davidson,Alfarabi,AvicennaandAverroesontheIntellect:TheirCosmologies,TheoriesoftheActiveIntellect,andTheoriesofHumanIntellect(NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1992),ch.2.8.A.Ivry,“AverroesonIntellectionandConjunction,”JournaloftheAmericanOrientalSociety86(1966),76–85.9.QuotedinK.Bland,“ElijahdelMedigo,UnicityoftheIntellectandImmortalityoftheSoul,”ProceedingsoftheAmericanAcademyforJewishResearch61(1995),17.10.Averroes,OntheHarmonybetweenReligionandPhilosophy,trans.G.Hourani(London:Luzac,1961).11.ElijahdelMedigo,Behinatha-Dat,ed.J.Ross(TelAviv:RosenbergSchoolofJewishStudies,1984),75–84.D.Geffen,“InsightsintotheLifeandThoughtofElijahdelMedigo,BaseduponhisPublishedandUnpublishedWorks,”ProceedingsoftheAmericanAcademyforJewishResearch41–42(1973–74),69–86.12.Thedoctrineofthesefirotisoneofthemorefundamentalideasinkabbalah.Ingeneral,thesefirotarethesupernalpowersthatemanatefromGod.SomekabbalistsunderstoodthemastheessentialattributesofGod;othersconstruedthemasinstrumentsofdivineactivity.Foragoodintroductiontothisthornytopic,seeE.Wolfson’sentry,“JewishMysticism:APhilosophicalOverview,”intheHistoryofJewishPhilos-ophy,ed.D.H.FrankandO.Leaman(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997),ch.19.13.ElijahdelMedigo,Behinatha-Dat,91;K.Bland,“ElijahdelMedigo’sAverroistResponsetotheKabbalahsofFifteenth-CenturyJewryandPicodellaMirandola,”JewishThoughtandPhilosophy1(1991),23–53.14.DelMedigobelievedthatauthenticJudaismcontainsverylittleoftheirrational;hereinliesoneofitsvirtues,whereasChristianityisladenwithphilosophicalandtheologicalabsurdities(Behinatha-Dat,81–2).15.BoethiusofDacia,OntheEternityoftheWorld,trans.J.Wippel(Toronto:PontificalInstituteofMediaevalStudies,1987).16.Averroes,TheIncoherenceoftheIncoherence(Tahafutal-Tahafut)trans.S.vandenBergh(London:Luzac,1954),i:359–63.17.Davidson,“MedievalJewishPhilosophyintheSixteenthCentury,”110.Bland,“UnicityoftheIntellect,”18.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n442MedievalJewishphilosophy18.J.Guttmann,“EliadelMedigosVerhaltniszuAverroesinseinem¨Behinatha-Dat,”inJewishStudiesinMemoryofIsraelAbrahams(NewYork:JewishInstituteofReligion,1927),202–3.19.Pomponazzi,OntheImmortalityoftheSoul,trans.W.H.Hayii,inTheRenaissancePhilosophyofMan,ed.E.Cassirer,P.O.Kristeller,andJ.H.Randall,Jr.(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1948),280–381,esp.379–81.20.Abravanel,TheDeedsofGod(MifalotElohim)4.4.Abravanel’sdistinc-tionissimilartothatmadebysomemedievalthinkersbetweenthatwhichislogicallyimpossibleandthatwhichisnaturallyimpossible,abovenature.Thus,miraclesareinstancesofthelatter,butnotoftheformer(Maimonides,TreatiseonResurrection,chaps.37,41–3;Aquinas,DisputedQuestionsonPower,1.3and7;CommentaryontheSentences,4:17.1.5).Abravanel’sargumentforcreationfromcosmicdestructionisbaseduponPlato,Phaedo78b-c;Republic478e–479a;Timaeus41a-b;Philoponus,DeAeternitateMundicontraProclum,ed.H.Rabe(Leipzig:Teubner,1899),241–2.SeeH.Davidson,ProofsforEternity,CreationandtheExistenceofGodinMedievalIslamicandJewishPhilosophy(NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1987),ch.4.21.Aristotle,OntheHeavens1:12.Abravanel,TheDeedsofGod,book9.22.Abravanel,CommentaryonDeuteronomy,ParshatTetze(NewYork,1959),107b–109a.23.Abravanel,CommentaryonGenesis,ParshatBereshit,24b.24.Alemanno’slaudatiohasbeenstudiedbyseveralscholars;seeE.I.J.Rosenthal,“SomeObservationsonYohananAlemanno’sPoliticalIdeas,”inStudiesinJewishReligiousandIntellectualHistory,ed.S.SteinandR.Loewe(University:UniversityofAlabamaPress,1979),247–61;A.Melamed,“TheHebrew‘Laudatio’ofYohananAlemannoinPraiseofLorenzoilMagnificoandtheFlorentineConstitution,”inJewsinItaly:StudiesDedicatedtotheMemoryofUmbertoCassuto,ed.H.Beinart(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1988),Englishsection,1–34.25.ThestandardeditioninItalianisstillthatofS.Carmella(Bari:Guis,Laterza,andFigli,1929).AnEnglishtranslationwasmadebyF.Friedeberg-SeeleyandJ.H.BarnesunderthetitleThePhilosophyofLove(London:Soncino,1937).26.AmodernHebrewtranslationwasdonebyM.Dorman(Jerusalem:MosadBialik,1983).Itcontainsacomprehensivebiographicalandhis-toricalintroductionbyDorman.27.LeoneEbreo,PhilosophyofLove,38–46;Carmella,36–43.28.AlthoughAbravanelmakesseveralsympatheticsalutestokabbalahandlinksPlatotothelatter,itisnotaltogetherobviousthatbytheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheendandaftereffects443term“kabbalah”hemeansanythingmorethan“tradition.”Moreover,specifickabbalisticdoctrines,suchasthetheoryofthesefirot,playhardlyanyroleinhisthinking.29.M.Idel,“SourcesoftheImagesoftheCircleintheDialoghid’Amore,”[Hebrew]Iyyun28(1980),156–66.30.Itismaintainedbyseveralscholarsthatafourthdialoguewasplanned;seeCarmella(ed.),Dialoghi,428–9.31.PhilosophyofLove,277–87;Carmella,236–46.32.Ovid,Metamorphoses1:1;Boccaccio,GenealogieDeorumGentilium,proemium3.33.PhilosophyofLove,282–3;Carmella,240–1.34.PhilosophyofLove,278;Carmella,237.35.PhilosophyofLove,122–4,283–5;Carmella,108–9,242–3.36.PhilosophyofLove,415–23;Carmella,348–51.37.PhilosophyofLove,424;Carmella,355.38.IusetheWarsaweditionoftheNefutzotYehudah,publishedin1871.FortheQolYehudah,IusetheVilnaeditionofHalevi’sKuzari(1904).39.ItisnotcertainwhowasthefirstJewtorehabilitatePhilo.PerhapsitwasMoscato’scolleague,theMantuanhistorianAzariahdiRossi.Atanyrate,MoscatoreferstoPhiloinsermons18,31,and36;hemen-tionsPhiloalsoinQolYehudah,Book5,123.OnPhilo’sreappearanceamongItalianRenaissanceJewry,seeJ.Weinberg,“TheQuestforPhiloinSixteenth-CenturyJewishHistoriography,”inJewishHistory:EssaysinHonorofChimenAbramsky,ed.A.Rapoport-AlbertandS.Zipper-stein(London:P.Halban,1988),163–87.40.M.Idelgivesanexcellentanalysisofthisthemeinhisimportantessay,“JudahMoscato:ALateRenaissanceJewishPreacher,”inPreachersoftheItalianGhetto,ed.D.Ruderman(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1992),41–66.IdelpointstotheHermeticandkabbal-isticstrainsinMoscato’sthought,aswellastothePlatonicones.SeealsoI.Barzilay,BetweenReasonandFaith:Anti-RationalisminItalianJewishThought,1250–1650(TheHagueandParis:Mouton,1967),167–93.41.SeeS.Day,IntuitiveCognition:AKeytotheSignificanceoftheLaterScholastics(St.Bonaventure:FranciscanInstitute,1947).42.ThemostcomprehensiveanddetailedstudyofYasharisI.Barzilay,YosephShlomoDelmedigo(YasharofCandia):HisLife,Works,andTimes(Leiden:Brill,1974).43.WhetherYasharwasthefirstJewishthinkertoadoptthenewastron-omyisnotcertain;buthewasthefirsttopromulgateitinwriting.TheVenetianrabbiSimha(Simone)Luzzatto(1582–1663)alsohadmathe-maticalandastronomicalinterests,andinoneofhisworksreferstotheCambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n444MedievalJewishphilosophyobservationaldiscoveriesofGalileo.However,unlikeYashar,Luzzattousestheseresultstobolsterhisargumentforepistemologicalskepti-cism.Moreover,Luzzattowasalsouninterestedinandmildlycriticalofkabbalah;seehisTreatiseontheJewsofVenice[Hebrew],trans.D.Lattes,ed.M.ShulvassandR.B.Bachi(Jerusalem:MosadBialik,1950),143.ForagooddiscussionofLuzzatto’sskepticism,seeRuder-man,JewishThoughtandScientificDiscovery,ch.5.44.SeehisMatzrefla-Hokhmah,Jerusalem(reprintoftheWarsaweditionof1890),onPhilo,53,114;onPlotinus,113;onPorphyry,113;onProclus,113;onIamblichus,114.45.BarzilayandtheearliercommentatorstendtominimizetheimportanceofkabbalahforYashar;seeBarzilay,YosefShlomoDelmedigo,ch.16.MorerecentlyRudermanhasarguedforamorepositiveroleofkabbalahinhisthought;seeRuderman,JewishThoughtandScientificDiscovery,ch.4.46.Spinoza,letter56.AlthoughSpinozawasnotanatomist,inthisletterheclearlyexpressesmoreappreciationfortheancientatomiststhanforPlatoorAristotle.47.NovlotHokhmah,7a,quotedinIdel,“DifferingConceptionsofKab-balahintheSeventeenthCenturyinJewishThought,”inJewishThoughtintheSeventeenthCentury,ed.I.TwerskyandB.Septimus(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1987),185.IdelclaimsthatYashar’satomismwasmoreindebtedtoBrunothantoGalileo(195nn.289–90).48.CitedbyIdel,“DifferingConceptions,”195.49.J.Guttmann,PhilosophiesofJudaism,trans.D.Silverman(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1973),301.However,thisclaimdidnotpreventGuttmannfromdevotingovertwentypagestoadiscussionofSpinoza’sphilosophy.50.Thespecificsofhisexcommunicationarestillnotclearorprecise.Thereisawholeliteratureonthisquestion.Forrecentdiscussions,seeS.Nadler,Spinoza:ALife(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999),andS.Nadler,Spinoza’sHeresy:ImmortalityandtheJewishMind(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2001).51.H.A.Wolfson,ThePhilosophyofSpinoza,2vols.(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1969).52.W.Z.Harvey,“APortraitofSpinozaasaMaimonidean,”JournaloftheHistoryofPhilosophy19(1981),151–72.53.SeethepioneeringworkofI.S.Revah,SpinozaetJuandePrado(TheHagueandParis:Mouton,1959).Morerecently,Y.Yovelhasex-pandeduponthisthemeinhisSpinozaandOtherHeretics(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1989),i.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nTheendandaftereffects44554.IagreewithM.Gueroult,whocharacterizesWolfson’sapproachas“l’obsessiondelalitteraturejuive”;seehis´Spinozai:Dieu(Paris:Aubier-Montaigne,1968),445.55.Spinozadiscussesmethodologyinhisearlyessay,TreatiseontheEmen-dationoftheIntellect,andalsoinseveralletters,especiallythosead-dressed(viaHenryOldenburg)totheEnglishchemistRobertBoyle,letters6and11.56.SeePart2ofhisPrinciplesofCartesianPhilosophy;Ethics,Part2,Proposition13;Letters81and83.A.Lecrivain’sessay“SpinozaandCartesianMechanics”(inSpinozaandtheSciences,ed.M.GreneandD.Nails[Dordrecht:Reidel,1986],15–60)ismoststimulatingonthistopic.57.J.Bennett,AStudyofSpinoza’s“Ethics”(Indianapolis:Hackett,1984),29.58.Spinoza,Ethicsi,Appendix;TheTheological-PoliticalTreatise(TTP),ch.6.59.Nietzsche,Human,All-Too-Human,paragraph408;Yovel,SpinozaandOtherHeretics,ii,ch.5.60.Spinoza,TTP,chs.8–11.61.Spinoza,TTP,chs.1–2.62.OntheimportanceofSpinozaformodernJewishthought,seeE.Schweid,TheHistoryofJewishThoughtinModernTimes[Hebrew](Jerusalem:Keter,1977),ch.1;Z.Levy,Spinoza’sInterpretationofJudaism[Hebrew](TelAviv:SifriyahPoelim,1983).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nguidetofurtherreadinginenglishFormoredetailedbibliographies,includingprimarytextsandmaterialinforeignlanguages,seethenotestotheindividualchapters.generalworksFrank,D.H.andO.Leaman(eds.),HistoryofJewishPhilosophy(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997).Frank,D.H.,O.Leaman,andC.H.Manekin(eds.),TheJewishPhilosophyReader(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2000).Guttmann,J.PhilosophiesofJudaism,trans.D.Silverman(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1973)[originallypublished1933].Husik,I.AHistoryofMediaevalJewishPhilosophy(NewYork:Atheneum,1976)[originallypublished1916].Hyman,A.andJ.J.Walsh(eds.),PhilosophyintheMiddleAges,2nded.(Indianapolis:Hackett,1973).Lerner,R.andM.Mahdi(eds.),MedievalPoliticalPhilosophy:ASourceReader(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1963).Sirat,C.AHistoryofJewishPhilosophyintheMiddleAges(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1985).biblicalandrabbinicbackgroundtomedievaljewishphilosophyEisen,R.GersonidesonProvidence,Covenant,andtheChosenPeople:AStudyinMedievalJewishPhilosophyandBiblicalCommentary(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1995).Elman,Y.“TheContributionofRabbinicThoughttoaTheologyofMis-fortune,”inJewishPerspectivesontheExperienceofSuffering,ed.S.Carmy(Northvale,N.J.:JasonAronson,1999),155–212.Halbertal,M.PeopleoftheBook:Canon,Meaning,andAuthority(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1997).446CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nFurtherreading447Harvey,W.Z.“RabbinicAttitudestowardPhilosophy,”in“OpenThouMineEyes”:EssaysonAggadahandJudaicaPresentedtoWilliamG.BraudeonhisEightiethBirthdayandDedicatedtohisMemory,ed.H.Blum-berg(Hoboken:Ktav,1992),83–101.Kraemer,D.ResponsestoSufferinginClassicalRabbinicLiterature(NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1995).Moore,G.JudaismintheFirstCenturiesoftheChristianEra,3vols.(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1927–30).Runia,D.T.ExegesisandPhilosophy:StudiesonPhiloofAlexandria(Aldershot:Variorum,1990).Saperstein,M.DecodingtheRabbis:AThirteenth-CenturyCommen-taryontheAggadah(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1980).Schechter,S.AspectsofRabbinicTheology(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1961).Urbach,E.TheSages:TheirConceptsandBeliefs,trans.I.Abrahams(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1987).Winston,D.LogosandMysticalTheologyinPhiloofAlexandria(Cincin-nati:HebrewUnionCollegePress,1985).Wolfson,H.A.Philo:FoundationsofReligiousPhilosophyinJudaism,ChristianityandIslam,2vols.(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1968).islamiccontextandjewishkalamAlon,I.SocratesinMedievalIslamicLiterature(Leiden:Brill,1991).Altmann,A.(ed.andtrans.),Saadya:TheBookofDoctrinesandBeliefs(Oxford:EastandWestLibrary,1946;reprinted,withnewintroductionbyD.H.Frank,Indianapolis:Hackett,2002).Ben-Shammai,H.“StudiesinKaraiteAtomism,”JerusalemStudiesinArabicandIslam6(1985),243–98.Ben-Shammai,H.“KalaminMedievalJewishPhilosophy,”inHistoryofJewishPhilosophy,ed.D.H.FrankandO.Leaman(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997),115–48.Black,D.LogicandAristotle’sRhetoricandPoeticsinMedievalArabicPhilosophy(Leiden:Brill,1990).Brody,R.TheGeonimofBabyloniaandtheShapingofMedievalJewishCulture(NewHavenandLondon:YaleUniversityPress,1998).Chiesa,B.andW.Lockwood,Ya‘qubal-QirqisanionJewishSectsandChris-tianity(FrankfurtamMain:PeterLang,1984).Chittick,W.TheSufiPathofKnowledge:Ibnal-Arabi’sMetaphysicsofImagination(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1989).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n448FurtherreadingChodkiewicz,M.AnOceanwithoutShore:IbnArabi,theBook,andtheLaw(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1993).Cohen,B.(ed.),SaadiaAnniversaryVolume:ProceedingsoftheAmericanAcademyforJewishResearch(NewYork:JewishPublicationSociety,1943).Corbin,H.HistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,trans.L.Sherrard(London:KeganPaulInternational,1993).Daftary,F.TheIsmailis:TheirHistoryandDoctrines(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1990).Davidson,H.ProofsforEternity,CreationandtheExistenceofGodinMedi-evalIslamicandJewishPhilosophy(NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1987).Davidson,H.Alfarabi,Avicenna,andAverroes,onIntellect:TheirCosmolo-gies,TheoriesoftheActiveIntellect,andTheoriesofHumanIntellect(NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1992).Fakhry,M.AHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,2nded.(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1983).Goodman,L.E.TheBookofTheodicy:TranslationandCommentaryontheBookofJobbySaadiahbenJosephal-Fayyumi(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1988).Gutas,D.GreekThought,ArabicCulture:TheGraeco–ArabicTranslationMovementinBaghdadandEarlyAbbasidSociety(2nd–4th/8th–10thCenturies)(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1998).Hourani,G.(ed.),EssaysonIslamicPhilosophyandScience(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1978).Kraemer,J.L.PhilosophyintheRenaissanceofIslam:Al-SijistaniandhisCircle(Leiden:Brill,1986).Kraemer,J.L.HumanismintheRenaissanceofIslam:TheCulturalRevivalduringtheBuyidAge,2nded.(Leiden:Brill,1992).Lameer,J.Al-FarabiandAristotelianSyllogistics:GreekTheoryandIslamicPractice(Leiden:Brill,1994).Leaman,O.ABriefIntroductiontoIslamicPhilosophy(Cambridge:PolityPress,1999).Leaman,O.AnIntroductiontoClassicalIslamicPhilosophy(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002).Malter,H.SaadiaGaon,hisLifeandWorks(NewYork:JewishPublicationSociety,1921).Morewedge,P.(ed.),NeoplatonismandIslamicThought(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1992).Nasr,S.AnIntroductiontoIslamicCosmologicalDoctrines,rev.ed.(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1993).Nasr,S.andO.Leaman(eds.),HistoryofIslamicPhilosophy(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1996).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nFurtherreading449Netton,I.MuslimNeoplatonists:AnIntroductiontotheThoughtoftheBrethrenofPurity(London:GeorgeAllen&Unwin,1982).Netton,I.AllahTranscendent:StudiesintheStructureandSemioticsofIslamicPhilosophy,TheologyandCosmology(London:Routledge,1989).Rashed,R.(ed.),withR.Morelon,EncyclopediaoftheHistoryofArabicScience,3vols.(London:Routledge,1996).Rescher,N.StudiesinArabicPhilosophy(Pittsburgh:UniversityofPitts-burghPress,1966).Rosenthal,F.TheClassicalHeritageinIslam(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1975).Schwarz,M.“WhowereMaimonides’Mutakallimun?:SomeRemarksonGuideofthePerplexedPart1Chapter73,”MaimonideanStudies2(1992),159–209;3(1995),143–72.Sklare,D.SamuelbenHofniGaonandhisCulturalWorld:TextsandStud-ies(Leiden:Brill,1996).Stroumsa,S.(ed.andtrans.),DawudibnMarwanal-Muqammis’s“TwentyChapters”(IshrunMaqala)(Leiden:Brill,1989).Wolfson,H.A.ThePhilosophyoftheKalam(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1976).Wolfson,H.A.RepercussionsoftheKalaminJewishPhilosophy(Cam-bridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1979).jewishneoplatonismAltmann,A.“CreationandEmanationinIsaacIsraeli,aReappraisal,”inEssaysinJewishIntellectualHistory,ed.A.Altmann(Hanover:UniversityPressofNewEngland,1981),1–15.Altmann,A.andS.Stern(eds.andtrans.),IsaacIsraeli:ANeoplatonicPhilosopheroftheEarlyTenthCentury(London:OxfordUniversityPress,1958).Dillon,J.“SolomonibnGabirol’sDoctrineofIntelligibleMatter,”inNeo-platonismandJewishThought,ed.L.E.Goodman(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1992),43–59.Goodman,L.E.(ed.),NeoplatonismandJewishThought(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1992).Hyman,A.“FromWhatisOneandSimpleonlyWhatisOneandSim-pleCanCometoBe,”inNeoplatonismandJewishThought,ed.L.E.Goodman(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1992),111–35.Ivry,A.L.“NeoplatonicCurrentsinMaimonides’Thought,”inPerspectivesonMaimonides:PhilosophicalandHistoricalStudies,ed.J.L.Kraemer(Oxford:LittmanLibrary,1991),115–40.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n450FurtherreadingIvry,A.L.“MaimonidesandNeoplatonism:ChallengeandResponse,”inNeoplatonismandJewishThought,ed.L.E.Goodman(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1992),137–56.Katz,S.T.(ed.),JewishNeoplatonism(NewYork:Arno,1980).Rudavsky,T.“ConflictingMotifsinIbnGabirol’sDiscussionofMatterandEvil,”TheNewScholasticism52(1978),54–71.Wolfson,H.A.“TheMeaningofExNihiloinIsaacIsraeli,”JewishQuarterlyReview50(1959),1–12.Wolfson,H.A.“TheMeaningofExNihilointheChurchFathers,ArabicandHebrewPhilosophy,andSt.Thomas,”inhisStudiesintheHistoryofPhilosophyandReligion,2vols.,ed.I.TwerskyandG.Williams(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1973),i:207–21.judahhaleviBaneth,D.“JudahHaleviandal-Ghazali,”inStudiesinJewishThought:AnAnthologyofGerman-JewishScholarship,ed.A.Jospe(Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress,1981),181–99.Berger,M.S.“TowardaNewUnderstandingofJudahHalevi’sKuzari,”JournalofReligion72(1992),210–28.Davidson,H.Alfarabi,Avicenna,andAverroesonIntellect:TheirCosmolo-gies,TheoriesoftheActiveIntellect,andTheoriesofHumanIntellect(NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1992).Goitein,S.D.“Judeo-ArabicLettersfromSpain(EarlyTwelfthCentury),”OrientaliaHispanica1(1974),331–50.Goodman,L.E.“JudahHalevi,”inHistoryofJewishPhilosophy,ed.D.H.FrankandO.Leaman(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997),188–227.Green,K.“Religion,Philosophy,andMorality:HowLeoStraussReadJudahHalevi’sKuzari,”JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion61(1993),225–73.Kreisel,H.Prophecy:TheHistoryofanIdeainMedievalJewishPhilosophy.AmsterdamStudiesinJewishThought,8(Dordrecht:Kluwer,2001).Lasker,D.“JudahHaleviandKaraism,”inFromAncientIsraeltoMod-ernJudaism:IntellectinQuestofUnderstanding:EssaysinHonorofMarvinFox,4vols.,ed.J.Neusneretal.(Atlanta:ScholarsPress,1989),iii:111–25.Lobel,D.BetweenMysticismandPhilosophy:SufiLanguageofReligiousExperienceinJudahHalevi’sKuzari(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2000).Pines,S.“ShiiteTermsandConceptionsinJudahHalevi’sKuzari,”JerusalemStudiesinArabicandIslam2(1980),165–251.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nFurtherreading451Silman,Y.PhilosopherandProphet:JudahHalevi,theKuzari,andtheEvo-lutionofhisThought(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1995).Strauss,L.“TheLawofReasonintheKuzari,”inhisPersecutionandtheArtofWriting(Glencoe:TheFreePress,1952;reprinted,Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1998),95–141.Wolfson,H.A.“ThePlatonic,AristotelianandStoicTheoriesofCreationinHalleviandMaimonides,”inStudiesintheHistoryofPhilosophyandReligion,2vols.,ed.I.TwerskyandG.Williams(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1973),i:234–49.Wolfson,H.A.“MaimonidesandHallevi:AStudyinTypicalAttitudesTo-wardsGreekPhilosophyintheMiddleAges,”inStudiesintheHistoryofPhilosophyandReligion,2vols.,ed.I.TwerskyandG.Williams(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1977),ii:120–60.maimonidesBenor,E.WorshipoftheHeart:AStudyofMaimonides’PhilosophyofRe-ligion(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1995).Buijs,J.(ed.),Maimonides:ACollectionofCriticalEssays(NotreDame:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1988).Burrell,D.KnowingtheUnknowableGod:Ibn-Sina,Maimonides,Aquinas(NotreDame:UniversityofNotreDamePress,1986).Cohen,R.andH.Levine(eds.),MaimonidesandtheSciences(Dordrecht:Kluwer,2000).Diamond,J.MaimonidesandtheHemeneuticsofConcealment(Albany:StateUniversityPressofNewYork,2002).Dobbs-Weinstein,I.MaimonidesandSt.ThomasontheLimitsofReason(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1995).Fox,M.InterpretingMaimonides:StudiesinMethodology,Metaphysics,andMoralPhilosophy(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1990).Frank,D.H.(ed.),Maimonides(specialissue),AmericanCatholicPhilo-sophicalQuarterly76(2002).Goodman,L.E.OnJustice:AnEssayinJewishPhilosophy(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1991).Goodman,L.E.GodofAbraham(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1996).Guttmann,J.(ed.)andC.Rabin(trans.),TheGuideofthePerplexed(London:EastandWestLibrary,1952;reprinted,withnewintroductionbyD.H.Frank,Indianapolis:Hackett,1995).Halbertal,M.andA.Margalit,Idolatry(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniver-sityPress,1992).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n452FurtherreadingHalkin,A.(trans.)andD.Hartman,CrisisandLeadership:EpistlesofMaimonides(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,1985).Hartman,D.Maimonides:TorahandPhilosophicQuest(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,1976).Hartman,D.ALivingCovenant:TheInnovativeSpiritinTraditionalJu-daism(NewYork:FreePress,1985).Kellner,M.MaimonidesonHumanPerfection(Atlanta:ScholarsPress,1990).Kellner,M.MaimonidesonJudaismandtheJewishPeople(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1991).Kellner,M.MaimonidesontheDeclineoftheGenerationsandtheNatureofRabbinicAuthority(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1996).Kraemer,J.L.(ed.),PerspectivesonMaimonides:PhilosophicalandHistor-icalStudies(Oxford:LittmanLibrary,1991).Kreisel,H.Maimonides’PoliticalThought:StudiesinEthics,Law,andtheHumanIdeal(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1999).Lachterman,D.“MaimonideanStudies1950–86:ABibliography,”MaimonideanStudies1(1990),197–216.Langermann,Y.“TheMathematicalWritingsofMaimonides,”JewishQuar-terlyReview75(1984),57–65.Langermann,Y.TheJewsandtheSciencesintheMiddleAges(Aldershot:Variorum,1999).Leaman,O.MosesMaimonides(London:Routledge,1990).Leibowitz,Y.TheFaithofMaimonides(NewYork:AdamaBooks,1987).Novak,D.TheImageoftheNon-JewinJudaism:AnHistoricalandCon-structiveStudyoftheNoahideLaws(Lewiston,N.Y.:EdwinMellenPress,1983),275–318.Novak,D.NaturalLawinJudaism(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998).Ormsby,E.(ed.),MosesMaimonidesandhisTime(Washington,D.C.:TheCatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,1989).Pines,S.andY.Yovel(eds.),MaimonidesandPhilosophy(Dordrecht:Nijhoff,1986).Robinson,I.,L.Kaplan,andJ.Bauer(eds.),TheThoughtofMosesMai-monides:PhilosophicalandLegalStudies(Lewiston,N.Y.:EdwinMellenPress,1990).Rudavsky,T.M.TimeMatters:Time,Creation,andCosmologyinMe-dievalJewishPhilosophy(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2000).Seeskin,K.JewishPhilosophyinaSecularAge(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1990).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nFurtherreading453Seeskin,K.Maimonides:AGuideforToday’sPerplexed(WestOrange,N.J.:BehrmanHouse,1991).Seeskin,K.SearchingforaDistantGod:TheLegacyofMaimonides(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2000).Stern,J.ProblemsandParablesofLaw:MaimonidesandNahmanidesonReasonsfortheCommandments(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1998).Strauss,L.PhilosophyandLaw:ContributionstotheUnderstandingofMai-monidesandhisPredecessors,trans.E.Adler(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1994)[originallypublished1935].Twersky,I.(ed.),AMaimonidesReader(NewYork:BehrmanHouse,1972).Twersky,I.(ed.),IntroductiontotheCodeofMaimonides(MishnehTorah)(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1980).Twersky,I.(ed.),StudiesinMaimonides(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1991).Weiss,R.Maimonides’Ethics:TheEncounterofPhilosophicandReligiousMorality(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1991).Weiss,R.andC.Butterworth(eds.andtrans.),EthicalWritingsofMai-monides(NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,1975).medievaljewishpoliticalthoughtBerman,L.V.“AReexaminationofMaimonides’‘StatementonPoliticalScience’,”JournaloftheAmericanOrientalSociety89(1969),106–11.Biale,D.PowerandPowerlessnessinJewishHistory(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1986).Elazar,D.(ed.),KinshipandConsent(Ramat-Gan:Turtledove,1987).Elon,M.JewishLaw:History,Sources,andPrinciples,trans.B.AuerbachandM.J.Sykes(PhiladelphiaandJerusalem:JewishPublicationSociety,1994).Fox,M.InterpretingMaimonides:StudiesinMethodology,MetaphysicsandMoralPhilosophy(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1990).Frank,D.H.“IdolatryandtheLoveofAppearances:MaimonidesandPlatoonFalseWisdom,”inProceedingsoftheAcademyforJewishPhiloso-phy,ed.D.NovakandN.Samuelson(Lanham,London,andNewYork:UniversityPressofAmerica,1992),iii:155–68.Funkenstein,A.PerceptionsofJewishHistory(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1993).Goitein,S.D.AMediterraneanSociety:TheJewishCommunitiesoftheArabWorldasPortrayedintheDocumentsoftheCairoGeniza.ii.TheCommunity(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1971).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n454FurtherreadingHartman,D.IsraelisandtheJewishTradition:AnAncientPeopleDebatingitsFuture(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2000).Kellner,M.DogmainMedievalJewishThought:FromMaimonidestoAbra-vanel(Oxford:LittmanLibrary,1986).Kellner,M.MaimonidesonJudaismandtheJewishPeople(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1991).Kellner,M.“Chosenness,notChauvinism:MaimonidesontheChosenPeo-ple,”inAPeopleApart:ChosennessandRitualinJewishPhilosophicalThought,ed.D.H.Frank(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1993),51–75.Kreisel,H.“JudahHalevi’sInfluenceonMaimonides:APreliminaryAppraisal,”MaimonideanStudies2(1992),95–121.Kreisel,H.Maimonides’PoliticalThought:StudiesinEthics,Law,andtheHumanIdeal(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1999).Lorberbaum,M.PoliticsandtheLimitsofLaw:SecularizingthePoliticalinMedievalJewishThought(Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,2001).Macy,J.“TheRuleofLawandtheRuleofWisdominPlato,al-Farabi,andMaimonides,”inStudiesinIslamicandJudaicTraditions,ed.W.M.BrinnerandS.D.Ricks(Atlanta:ScholarsPress,1986),205–32.Melamed,A.“MedievalandRenaissanceJewishPoliticalPhilosophy,”inHistoryofJewishPhilosophy,ed.D.H.FrankandO.Leaman(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997),415–49.Melamed,A.ThePhilosopher-KinginMedievalandRenaissanceJewishPoliticalThought(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2003).Netanyahu,B.DonIsaacAbravanel:StatesmanandPhilosopher(Philadel-phia:JewishPublicationSociety,1982).Pines,S.“TruthandFalsehoodversusGoodandEvil,”inStudiesinMai-monides,ed.I.Twersky(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1991),95–157.Pines,S.“Spinoza’sTractatusTheologico-Politicus,MaimonidesandKant,”inTheCollectedWorksofShlomoPines,ed.W.Z.HarveyandM.Idel(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1997),v:687–711[originallypublished1968].Ravitzky,A.HistoryandFaith:StudiesinJewishPhilosophy,AmsterdamStudiesinJewishThought,2(Amsterdam:J.C.Gieben,1996).Scholem,G.TheMessianicIdeainJudaismandOtherEssaysonJewishSpirituality(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1971).Schorsch,I.“OntheHistoryofthePoliticalJudgmentoftheJew,”inhisFromTexttoContext:TheTurntoHistoryinModernJudaism(Hanover,N.H.andLondon:BrandeisUniversityPress,1994),118–32.Silman,Y.PhilosopherandProphet:JudahHalevi,theKuzari,andtheEvo-lutionofhisThought,trans.L.J.Schramm(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1995).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nFurtherreading455Smith,S.B.Spinoza,Liberalism,andtheQuestionofJewishIdentity(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1997).Strauss,L.“OnAbravanel’sPhilosophicalTendencyandPoliticalTeach-ings,”inIsaacAbravanel:SixLectures,ed.J.B.TrendandH.Loewe(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1937),95–129.Strauss,L.PersecutionandtheArtofWriting(Glencoe:TheFreePress,1952).Strauss,L.WhatisPoliticalPhilosophy?(NewYork:TheFreePress,1959).Strauss,L.PhilosophyandLaw:ContributionstotheUnderstandingofMai-monidesandhisPredecessors,trans.E.Adler(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1995)[originallypublished1935].Twersky,I.(ed.)IntroductiontotheCodeofMaimonides(MishnehTorah)(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1980).Walzer,M.,M.Lorberbaum,andN.Zohar(eds.)andY.Lorberbaum(co-ed.),TheJewishPoliticalTradition.i.Authority(NewHaven:YaleUniver-sityPress,2000).Weiler,G.JewishTheocracy(Leiden:Brill,1988).sufism,pietism,andkabbalah:jewishmysticismAltmann,A.StudiesinReligiousPhilosophyandMysticism(Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress,1969).Altmann,A.“LurianicKabbalahinPlatonicKey:AbrahamCohenHerrera’sPuertadelCielo,”HebrewUnionCollegeAnnual53(1982),317–55.Cohen,G.“TheSoteriologyofAbrahamMaimuni”,ProceedingsoftheAmericanAcademyforJewishResearch35(1967),75–98;36(1968),33–56.Fenton,P.B.“SomeJudaeo-ArabicFragmentsbyRabbiAbrahamhe-Hasid,theJewishSufi,”JournalofSemiticStudies26(1981),47–72.Fenton,P.B.TheTreatiseofthePool,al-Maqalaal-Hawdiyyaby‘ObadyahMaimonides(London:Octagon,1981).Fenton,P.B.“TheLiteraryLegacyofDavidIIMaimuni,”JewishQuarterlyReview74(1984),1–56.Goitein,S.D.“AJewishAddicttoSufismintheTimeofNagidDavidiiMaimonides,”JewishQuarterlyReview44(1953–54),37–49.Goitein,S.D.“ATreatiseinDefenceofthePietists,”JournalofJewishStudies16(1965),105–14.Goitein,S.D.“AbrahamMaimonidesandhisPietistCircle,”inJewishMedievalandRenaissanceStudies,ed.A.Altmann(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1967),145–64.Goldziher,I.“IbnHud,theMuhammadanMystic,andtheJewsofDamas-cus,”JewishQuarterlyReview6(1893),218–20.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n456FurtherreadingHellerWilensky,S.O.“IsaacibnLatif:PhilosopherorKabbalist?”inJewishMedievalandRenaissanceStudies,ed.A.Altmann(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1967),185–223.Huss,B.“Seferha-ZoharasCanonical,SacredandHolyText:ChangingPerspectivesoftheBookofSplendorbetweentheThirteenthandEigh-teenthCenturies,”JournalofJewishThoughtandPhilosophy7(1998),257–307.Idel,M.“TheMagicalandNeoplatonicInterpretationsoftheKabbalahintheRenaissance,”inJewishThoughtintheSixteenthCentury,ed.B.Coop-erman(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1983),186–242.Idel,M.“HitbodedutasConcentrationinEcstaticKabbalah,”inJewishSpir-ituality:FromtheBibletotheMiddleAges,ed.A.Green(NewYork:Crossroad,1986),405–38.Idel,M.“DifferingConceptionsofKabbalahintheEarlySeventeenthCen-tury,”inJewishThoughtintheSeventeenthCentury,ed.I.TwerskyandB.Septimus(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1987),137–200.Idel,M.AbrahamAbulafiaandtheMysticalExperience(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1988).Idel,M.StudiesinEcstaticKabbalah(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1988).Idel,M.Language,TorahandHermeneuticsinAbrahamAbulafia,trans.M.Kallus(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1989).Idel,M.“JewishKabbalahandPlatonismintheMiddleAgesandtheRe-naissance,”inNeoplatonismandJewishThought,ed.L.E.Goodman(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1992),319–51.Idel,M.Kabbalah:NewPerspectives(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1994).Idel,M.“EncountersbetweenSpanishandItalianKabbalistsintheGenera-tionsoftheExpulsion,”inCrisisandCreativityintheSephardicWorld:1391–1648,ed.B.Gampel(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1997),190–222,andnn.336–51.Idel,M.MessianicMystics(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1998).Liebes,Y.StudiesintheZohar,trans.A.Schwarz,S.Nakache,andP.Peli(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1993).Matt,D.“TheMysticandtheMizvot,”inJewishSpirituality:FromtheBiblethroughtheMiddleAges,ed.A.Green(NewYork:Crossroad,1986),367–404.Rosenblatt,S.(ed.),TheHighWaystoPerfectionofAbrahamMaimonides(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1927).Ruderman,D.Kabbalah,Magic,andScience:TheCulturalUniverseofaSixteenth-CenturyJewishPhysician(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUni-versityPress,1988).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nFurtherreading457Scholem,G.MajorTrendsinJewishMysticism(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1941).Scholem,G.OntheKabbalahanditsSymbolism(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1965).Scholem,G.OriginsoftheKabbalah,trans.A.Arkush,ed.R.J.Z.Werblowsky(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,andPrinceton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1987).Tirosh-Rothschild,H.“TheologyofNatureinSixteenth-CenturyItalianJewishPhilosophy,”ScienceinContext10(1997),529–70.Tishby,I.TheWisdomoftheZohar,3vols.,trans.D.Goldstein(London:LittmanLibrary,1998).Wirszubski,C.PicodellaMirandola’sEncounterwithJewishMysticism(CambridgeMass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1989).Wolfson,E.ThroughaSpeculumthatShines:VisionandImaginationinMe-dievalJewishMysticism(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1994).Wolfson,E.“JewishMysticism:APhilosophicalOverview,”inHistoryofJewishPhilosophy,ed.D.H.FrankandO.Leaman(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997),450–98.Wolfson,E.AbrahamAbulafia–KabbalistandProphet:Hermeneutics,TheosophyandTheurgy(LosAngeles:CherubPress,2000).thethirteenthcentury:philosophyinhebrewandthemaimonideancontroversyBaer,Y.AHistoryoftheJewsinChristianSpain,2vols.(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,1978)[originallypublished1945].Halbertal,M.PeopleoftheBook:Canon,Meaning,andAuthority(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1997),109–19.Halkin,A.“WhywasLevibenHayyimHounded?,”ProceedingsoftheAmer-icanAcademyforJewishResearch34(1966),65–76.Halkin,A.“YedaiahBedershi’sApology,”inJewishMedievalandRenais-sanceStudies,ed.A.Altmann(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1967),165–84.Harvey,S.Falaquera’s“EpistleoftheDebate”:AnIntroductiontoJewishPhilosophy(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1987).Harvey,S.“DidMaimonides’LettertoSamuelibnTibbonDetermineWhichPhilosophersWouldbeStudiedbyLaterJewishThinkers?”JewishQuar-terlyReview83(1992),51–70.Harvey,S.(ed.),TheMedievalHebrewEncyclopediasofScienceandPhi-losophy,AmsterdamStudiesinJewishThought,7(Dordrecht:Kluwer,2000).Ravitzky,A.“SamuelibnTibbonandtheEsotericCharacteroftheGuideofthePerplexed,”AJSReview6(1981),87–123.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n458FurtherreadingSaperstein,M.DecodingtheRabbis:AThirteenth-CenturyCommentaryontheAggadah(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1980),47–158.Saperstein,M.“TheConflictovertheRashba’sHeremonPhilosophicalStudy:APoliticalPerspective,”JewishHistory1(1986),27–38.Saperstein,M.“TheSocialandCulturalContext:ThirteenthtoFifteenthCenturies,”inHistoryofJewishPhilosophy,ed.D.H.FrankandO.Leaman(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997),294–330.Sarachek,J.FaithandReason:TheConflictovertheRationalismofMai-monides(NewYork:HermonPress,1970).Septimus,B.Hispano-JewishCultureinTransition:TheCareerandCon-troversiesofRamah(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1982).Stern,G.“PhilosophicAllegoryinJewishCulture:TheCrisisinLangue-doc(1304–6),”inInterpretationandAllegory:AntiquitytotheModernWorld,ed.J.Whitman(Leiden:Brill,2000),187–207.Twersky,I.“AspectsoftheSocialandCulturalHistoryofProvenc¸alJewry,”inhisStudiesinJewishLawandPhilosophy(NewYork:Ktav,1982),180–202.thefourteenthcentury:gersonides,andtheimpactofscholasticismonjewishphilosophyBaer,Y.AHistoryoftheJewsinChristianSpain,2vols.(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,1978).Dales,R.C.MedievalDiscussionsoftheEternityoftheWorld(Leiden:Brill,1990).Eisen,R.GersonidesonProvidence,Covenant,andtheChosenPeople:AStudyinMedievalJewishPhilosophyandBiblicalCommentary(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1995).Feldman,S.“LevibenGershom(Gersonides),”inHistoryofJewishPhiloso-phy,ed.D.H.FrankandO.Leaman(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997),379–98.Freudenthal,G.“Gersonides,”inHistoryofIslamicPhilosophy,ed.S.NasrandO.Leaman(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1996),739–54.Freudenthal,G.(ed.),StudiesonGersonides:AFourteenth-CenturyJewishPhilosopher-Scientist(Leiden:Brill,1992).Funkenstein,A.TheologyandtheScientificImaginationfromtheMid-dleAgestotheSeventeenthCentury(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1986).Glasner,R.“LevibenGershomandtheStudyofIbnRushdintheFourteenthCentury,”JewishQuarterlyReview86(1995),51–90.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nFurtherreading459Grant,E.“TheEffectoftheCondemnationof1277,”inTheCambridgeHistoryofLaterMedievalPhilosophy,ed.N.Kretzmann,A.Kenny,andJ.Pinborg(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1982),537–40.Kellner,M.DogmainMedievalJewishThought:FromMaimonidestoAbravanel(Oxford:LittmanLibrary,1986).Kellner,M.“BibliographiaGersonideana:AnAnnotatedListofWritingsbyandaboutR.LevibenGershom,”inStudiesonGersonides:AFourteenth-CenturyJewishPhilosopher-Scientist,ed.G.Freudenthal(Leiden:Brill,1992),367–414.Langermann,Y.TheJewsandtheSciencesintheMiddleAges(Aldershot:Variorum,1999).Levine,H.“ParadisenotSurrendered:JewishReactionstoCopernicusandtheGrowthofModernScience,”inEpistemology,MethodologyandtheSocialSciences,ed.R.S.CohenandM.W.Wartofsky(Dordrecht:Reidel,1983),203–25.Manekin,C.“HebrewPhilosophyintheFourteenthandFifteenthCenturies:AnOverview,”inHistoryofJewishPhilosophy,ed.D.H.FrankandO.Leaman(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997),350–78.Manekin,C.“WhentheJewsLearnedLogicfromthePope:ThreeMedievalHebrewTranslationsoftheTractatusofPeterofSpain,”ScienceinCon-text10(1997),395–430.Pines,S.ScholasticismafterThomasAquinasandtheTeachingsofHasdaiCrescasandhisPredecessors,inTheCollectedWorksofShlomoPines:StudiesintheHistoryofJewishThought,ed.W.Z.HarveyandM.Idel(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1997),v:489–589[originallypublished1967].Rosenberg,S.“TheConceptofEmunahinPost-MaimonideanJewishPhilos-ophy,”inStudiesinMedievalJewishHistoryandLiterature,ed.I.Twer-sky(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1984),ii:273–307.Rudavsky,T.M.TimeMatters:Time,Creation,andCosmologyinMedievalJewishPhilosophy(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2000).Ruderman,D.JewishThoughtandScientificDiscoveryinEarlyModernEurope(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1995).Thijssen,J.M.M.H.CensureandHeresyattheUniversityofParis1200–1400(Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1998).thefifteenthcentury:crescas,andthejewish–christianphilosophicaldialogueBaer,Y.AHistoryoftheJewsinChristianSpain,2vols.(Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety,1978).Baron,S.ASocialandReligiousHistoryoftheJews(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1965),x:167–219.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n460FurtherreadingDavidson,H.“MedievalJewishPhilosophyintheSixteenthCentury,”inJewishThoughtintheSixteenthCentury,ed.B.Cooperman(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1983),106–45,esp.110–14.Davidson,H.ProofsforEternity,Creation,andtheExistenceofGodinMedievalIslamicandJewishPhilosophy(NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1987).Davidson,H.Alfarabi,Avicenna,andAverroes,onIntellect:TheirCosmolo-gies,TheoriesoftheActiveIntellect,andTheoriesofHumanIntellect(NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1992).Feldman,S.“TheTheoryofEternalCreationinHasdaiCrescasandSomeofhisPredecessors,”Viator11(1980),289–320.Feldman,S.“Crescas’TheologicalDeterminism,”Daat9(1982),3–28.Feldman,S.“ADebateConcerningDeterminisminLateMedievalJewishPhilosophy,”ProceedingsoftheAmericanAcademyforJewishResearch51(1984),15–54.Feldman,S.“OntheEndoftheUniverseinMedievalJewishPhilosophy,”AJSReview11(1986),53–77.Gutwirth,E.“TowardsExpulsion:1391–1492,”inSpainandtheJews,ed.E.Kedourie(London:Thames&Hudson,1992),51–73.Harvey,W.Z.“HasdaiCrescas’CritiqueoftheTheoryoftheAcquiredIntellect,”Ph.D.dissertation,ColumbiaUniversity,1973.Harvey,W.Z.“Albo’sDiscussionofTime,”JewishQuarterlyReview70(1980),210–38.Harvey,W.Z.“Crescasvs.MaimonidesonKnowledgeandPleasure,”inAStraightPath:StudiesinMedievalPhilosophyandCulture,EssaysinHonorofArthurHyman,ed.R.Link-Salinger,R.Long,andC.Manekin(Washington,D.C.:TheCatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,1988),113–23.Harvey,W.Z.“ThePhilosopherandPolitics:GersonidesandCrescas,”inScholarsandScholarship:TheInteractionbetweenJudaismandOtherCultures,ed.L.Landman(NewYork:YeshivaUniversityPress,1990),53–65.Harvey,W.Z.“NissimofGeronaandWilliamofOckhamonPrimeMatter,”JewishHistory6(1992),88–98.Harvey,W.Z.PhysicsandMetaphysicsinHasdaiCrescas,AmsterdamStudiesinJewishThought,6(Amsterdam:J.C.Gieben,1998).Idel,M.“JewishThoughtinSpain,”inTheSephardiLegacy,ed.H.Beinart(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1992),i:261–81.Kellner,M.DogmainMedievalJewishThought:FromMaimonidestoAbravanel(Oxford:LittmanLibrary,1986).Kreisel,H.Prophecy:TheHistoryofanIdeainMedievalJewishPhilosophy,AmsterdamStudiesinJewishThought,8(Dordrecht:Kluwer,2001).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nFurtherreading461Lasker,D.JewishPhilosophicalPolemicsagainstChristianityintheMiddleAges(NewYork:Ktav,1977).Lasker,D.“TheImpactofChristianityonLateIberianJewishPhilosophy,”inInIberiaandBeyond:HispanicJewsbetweenCultures,ed.B.Coop-erman(Newark:UniversityofDelawarePress,1998),175–90.Rudavsky,T.M.TimeMatters:Time,Creation,andCosmologyinMe-dievalJewishPhilosophy(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2000).Tirosh-Rothschild,H.“JewishPhilosophyontheEveofModernity,”inHistoryofJewishPhilosophy,ed.D.H.FrankandO.Leaman(London:Routledge,1997),499–573,esp.500–12.Tirosh-Rothschild,H.“HumanFelicity–FifteenthCenturySephardicPerspectivesonHappiness,”inInIberiaandBeyond:HispanicJewsbetweenCultures,ed.B.Cooperman(Newark:UniversityofDelawarePress,1998),191–243.Wolfson,H.A.Crescas’CritiqueofAristotle(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1929).Wolfson,H.A.ThePhilosophyofSpinoza,2vols.(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1969)[originallypublished1934].theendandaftereffectsofmedievaljewishphilosophyBarzilay,I.BetweenReasonandFaith:Anti-RationalisminItalianJewishThought,1250–1650(TheHagueandParis:Mouton,1967).Barzilay,I.YosephShlomoDelmedigo(YasharofCandia):HisLife,Works,andTimes(Leiden:Brill,1974).Bennett,J.AStudyofSpinoza’s“Ethics”(Indianapolis:Hackett,1984).Bland,K.“ElijahdelMedigo’sResponsetotheKabbalahsofFifteenth-CenturyJewryandPicodellaMirandola,”JewishThoughtandPhilos-ophy1(1991),23–53.Bland,K.“ElijahdelMedigo,UnicityoftheIntellectandImmortalityoftheSoul,”ProceedingsoftheAmericanAcademyforJewishResearch61(1995),1–22.Blau,J.TheChristianInterpretationoftheCabalaintheRenaissance(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1944).Davidson,H.“MedievalJewishPhilosophyintheSixteenthCentury,”inJewishThoughtintheSixteenthCentury,ed.B.Cooperman(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1983),106–45.Feldman,S.“IsaacAbravanel’sDefenseofCreationexNihilo,”inProceed-ingsoftheEleventhWorldCongressofJewishStudies,DivisionC,vol.2(Jerusalem:WorldUnionofJewishStudies,1994),33–40.Feldman,S.PhilosophyinaTimeofCrisis:DonIsaacAbravanel,DefenderoftheFaith(LondonandNewYork:RoutledgeCurzon,2003).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n462FurtherreadingGarrett,D.(ed.),TheCambridgeCompaniontoSpinoza(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1996).Geffen,D.“InsightsintotheLifeandThoughtofElijahdelMedigoBaseduponhisPublishedandUnpublishedWorks,”ProceedingsoftheAmer-icanAcademyforJewishResearch41–42(1973–74),69–86.Grene,M.andD.Nails(eds.),SpinozaandtheSciences(Dordrecht:Reidel,1986).Husik,I.JudahMesserLeon’sCommentaryonthe“VetusLogica”(Leiden:Brill,1901).Idel,M.“MagicalandNeoplatonicInterpretationsofKabbalahintheRenais-sance,”inJewishThoughtintheSixteenthCentury,ed.B.Cooperman(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1983),186–242.Idel,M.“DifferingConceptionsofKabbalahintheSeventeenthCenturyinJewishThought,”inJewishThoughtintheSeventeenthCentury,ed.I.TwerskyandB.Septimus(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1987),137–200.Idel,M.“JudahMoscato:ALateRenaissanceJewishPreacher,”inPreachersoftheItalianGhetto,ed.D.Ruderman(Berkeley:UniversityofCalifor-niaPress,1992),41–66.Kaplan,Y.IsaacOrobiodeCastro:FromChristianitytoJudaism(Oxford:LittmanLibrary,1989).Kristeller,P.O.RenaissanceThoughtanditsSources(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1979).Lesley,A.“‘TheSongofSolomon’sAscents’byYohananAlemanno:LoveandHumanPerfectionAccordingtoaJewishAssociateofPicodellaMi-randola,”Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley,1976.Lesley,A.“ThePlaceoftheDialoghid’AmoreinContemporaneousJewishThought,”inFicinoandRenaissanceNeoplatonism,ed.K.EisenbichlerandO.Pugliese(Ottawa:DovehouseEditionsCanada,1986),69–86.Melamed,A.“TheHebrew‘Laudatio’ofYohananAlemannoinPraiseofLorenzoilMagnificoandtheFlorentineConstitution,”inJewsinItaly:StudiesDedicatedtotheMemoryofUmbertoCassuto,ed.H.Beinart(Jerusalem:MagnesPress,1988),Englishsection,1–34.Nadler,S.Spinoza:ALife(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999).Nadler,S.Spinoza’sHeresy:ImmortalityandtheJewishMind(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2001).Preus,J.S.SpinozaandtheIrrelevanceofBiblicalAuthority(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001).Ravven,H.andL.E.Goodman(eds.),JewishThemesinSpinoza’sPhilosophy(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2002).Rosenthal,E.I.J.“SomeObservationsonYohananAlemanno’sPoliticalIdeas,”inStudiesinJewishReligiousandIntellectualHistory,ed.CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\nFurtherreading463S.SteinandR.Loewe(University:UniversityofAlabamaPress,1979),247–61.Ruderman,D.JewishThoughtandScientificDiscoveryinEarlyModernEurope(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1995).Smith,S.Spinoza,Liberalism,andtheQuestionofJewishIdentity(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1997).Tirosh-Rothschild,H.BetweenWorlds:TheLifeandThoughtofRabbiDavidbenJudahMesserLeon(Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1991).Tirosh-Rothschild,H.“JewishPhilosophyontheEveofModernity,”inHistoryofJewishPhilosophy,ed.D.H.FrankandO.Leaman(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997),499–573,esp.512–29.Wolfson,H.A.ThePhilosophyofSpinoza,2vols.(NewYork:SchockenBooks,1969).Yovel,Y.SpinozaandOtherHeretics,2vols.(Princeton:PrincetonUniver-sityPress,1989).CambridgeCompanionsOnline©CambridgeUniversityPress,2006\n\n\n