Sepharad in Ashkenaz. Medieval Knowledge and ... - KNAW
Sepharad in Ashkenaz. Medieval Knowledge and ... - KNAW
Sepharad in Ashkenaz. Medieval Knowledge and ... - KNAW
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
<strong>Medieval</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong> <strong>and</strong> Eighteenth-Century Enlightened<br />
Jewish Discourse
Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of the Colloquium,<br />
Amsterdam, February 2002
Kon<strong>in</strong>klijke Nederl<strong>and</strong>se Akademie van Wetenschappen<br />
Verh<strong>and</strong>el<strong>in</strong>gen, Afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, deel 189<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
<strong>Medieval</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
Eighteenth-Century Enlightened<br />
Jewish Discourse<br />
Edited by Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e, Andrea Schatz <strong>and</strong> Irene Zwiep<br />
Amsterdam, 2007
© 2007 Royal Netherl<strong>and</strong>s Academy of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences<br />
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored <strong>in</strong> a retrieval system or transmitted<br />
<strong>in</strong> any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copy<strong>in</strong>g, record<strong>in</strong>g or otherwise,<br />
without the prior written permission of the publisher.<br />
P.O. Box 19121, 1000 GC Amsterdam, the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
T +31205510700<br />
F +31206204941<br />
E edita@bureau.knaw.nl<br />
www.knaw.nl<br />
ISBN 978-90-6984-482-4<br />
The paper <strong>in</strong> this publication meets the requirements of « ISO-norm 9706 (1994) for<br />
permanence.
Table of Contents<br />
Preface VII<br />
Introduction IX<br />
Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er<br />
From Renaissance to Revolution: The Eighteenth Century <strong>in</strong> Jewish History 1<br />
David B. Ruderman<br />
The Impact of Early Modern Jewish Thought on the Eighteenth Century:<br />
A Challenge to the Notion of the Sephardi Mystique 11<br />
Tangible <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>tangible transmissions<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamosc, ca. 1730: The Early Years of Rabbi Israel<br />
ben Moses Halevi of Zamosc 25<br />
Adam Shear<br />
Judah Halevi’s Sefer ha-Kuzari <strong>in</strong> Early Modern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> the Early<br />
Haskalah: A Case Study <strong>in</strong> the Transmission of Cultural <strong>Knowledge</strong> 69<br />
Steven Harvey<br />
The Introductions of Early Enlightenment Th<strong>in</strong>kers as Harb<strong>in</strong>gers of the<br />
Renewed Interest <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Medieval</strong> Jewish Philosophers 85<br />
‘What’s new?’<br />
Raphael Jospe<br />
Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist 107<br />
Albert van der Heide<br />
The Beˆur <strong>in</strong> Progress: Salt <strong>and</strong> Spices at a <strong>Medieval</strong> Banquet 141<br />
V
Thomas Kollatz<br />
Under the Cover of Tradition: Old <strong>and</strong> New Science <strong>in</strong> the Works of Aron<br />
Salomon Gumpertz 147<br />
Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e<br />
Natural Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit: P<strong>in</strong>chas Hurwitz on Animals <strong>and</strong> Meteorological<br />
Phenomena 157<br />
Transformations<br />
Warren Zev Harvey<br />
Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Maimon on the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong> 185<br />
Carlos Fraenkel<br />
Maimonides, Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, Solomon Maimon, <strong>and</strong> the Completion of the Copernican<br />
Revolution <strong>in</strong> Philosophy 193<br />
Accommodation<br />
Shlomo Berger<br />
From Philosophy to Popular Ethics: Two Seventeenth-Century Translations of<br />
Ibn Gabirol’s Keter Malkhut 223<br />
Wout van Bekkum<br />
Some Thoughts on the ‘Secularization’ of Hebrew Liturgical Poetry <strong>in</strong> Pre-<br />
Modern <strong>and</strong> Modern Times 235<br />
Emile G. L. Schrijver<br />
Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong>’s Besamim Rosh: The Maskilic Appreciation of <strong>Medieval</strong><br />
<strong>Knowledge</strong> 249<br />
Bridges<br />
Andrea Schatz<br />
Return<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>Sepharad</strong>: Maskilic Reflections on Hebrew <strong>in</strong> the Diaspora 263<br />
Irene Zwiep<br />
Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered: The Dutch Eighteenth Century 279<br />
Summaries 311<br />
List of Contributors 319<br />
Index of Authors 323<br />
Index of Book Titles 331<br />
VI
Preface<br />
The present volume is the result of a colloquium sponsored by the Royal Netherl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
Academy of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences <strong>and</strong> held <strong>in</strong> the Trippenhuis <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam from 18<br />
through 21 February 2002. The sixteen contributions collected <strong>in</strong> this volume represent<br />
exp<strong>and</strong>ed versions of the papers that were delivered dur<strong>in</strong>g these four days of<br />
<strong>in</strong>tense scholarly exchange <strong>and</strong> discussion. The colloquium’s organizers, who now<br />
act as this volume’s editors, are most grateful to Lenn Schramm (Jerusalem) for his<br />
meticulous edit<strong>in</strong>g of this widely varied range of articles, <strong>and</strong> to Lies Meiboom for<br />
tak<strong>in</strong>g care of the <strong>in</strong>dices.<br />
The editors would further like to express their deepest thanks to the Royal Netherl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
Academy of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences for select<strong>in</strong>g, f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> support<strong>in</strong>g their<br />
project, which enabled them to br<strong>in</strong>g together an <strong>in</strong>ternational <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>terdiscipl<strong>in</strong>ary<br />
group of experts. Steven Harvey (Bar-Ilan University) <strong>and</strong> Emile Schrijver (Universiteit<br />
van Amsterdam) acted as advisers <strong>in</strong> the early stages of the project’s genesis. It<br />
is a pleasure to acknowledge here their <strong>in</strong>sightful comments <strong>and</strong> suggestions. Further<br />
thanks are due to the Salomon Ludwig Ste<strong>in</strong>heim-Institut für deutsch-jüdische<br />
Geschichte (Duisburg) <strong>and</strong> the Menasseh ben Israel Instituut voor joodse sociaalwetenschappelijke<br />
en cultuur-historische studies (Amsterdam) for their additional<br />
f<strong>in</strong>ancial support of this highly stimulat<strong>in</strong>g enterprise.<br />
Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e, Andrea Schatz <strong>and</strong> Irene Zwiep<br />
The Editors VII
Introduction<br />
The Editors<br />
I am unpack<strong>in</strong>g my library. Yes, I am. … I must ask you to jo<strong>in</strong> me <strong>in</strong><br />
the disorder of crates that have been wrenched open, the air saturated<br />
with wood dust, the floor covered with torn paper, to jo<strong>in</strong> me among<br />
piles of volumes that are see<strong>in</strong>g daylight aga<strong>in</strong> after two years of darkness,<br />
so that you may be ready to share with me a bit of the mood –<br />
certa<strong>in</strong>ly not an elegiac mood but, rather, one of anticipation …<br />
Walter Benjam<strong>in</strong> (1931)*<br />
A library is not supposed to move. It def<strong>in</strong>es the place where a book can be found, so<br />
it should not itself change places. And if it does – what will become of the books?<br />
For some time they will be <strong>in</strong>accessible. They will be tucked away <strong>in</strong> boxes that are<br />
securely closed. The order that once was imposed on them is disrupted. Even though<br />
it will be restored <strong>in</strong> a new place, it will never be quite the same. The shelves are<br />
arranged <strong>in</strong> a different manner. The boxes will be opened <strong>and</strong> several books will be<br />
miss<strong>in</strong>g – an entire box may have disappeared, while books that were long considered<br />
lost suddenly reappear among the piles of displaced volumes. A number of<br />
books will be set aside for repair. The books will be rearranged. The new place creates<br />
new proximities <strong>and</strong> new distances. Books that previously were consigned to an<br />
obscure corner are now sitt<strong>in</strong>g proudly <strong>in</strong> the middle of the shelf, right <strong>in</strong> front of the<br />
curious reader’s eyes. Books that may have looked obsolete return to the shelves solidly<br />
bound <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> new covers, attract<strong>in</strong>g the attention of the w<strong>and</strong>er<strong>in</strong>g m<strong>in</strong>d. The<br />
library has moved. The catalogue rema<strong>in</strong>s valid. Yet many changes have taken place.<br />
What has a library to do with tradition? This question has occupied a prom<strong>in</strong>ent<br />
place <strong>in</strong> recent research on the transformations of Jewish culture <strong>in</strong> the early modern<br />
period. In <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>, tradition as a canon <strong>and</strong> as a method of def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> transmitt<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the canon was radically refashioned with the advent of the pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g press <strong>and</strong> the<br />
dissem<strong>in</strong>ation of a Sephardi canon of learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> scholarship, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g philosophical<br />
<strong>and</strong> exegetical writ<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> the ShulÌan ¨arukh. Elchanan Re<strong>in</strong>er has characterized<br />
the changes that took place <strong>in</strong> the sixteenth <strong>and</strong> early seventeenth centuries as<br />
the result not of a struggle with a New Science, but with a ‘New Library’. 1 We may<br />
* ‘Unpack<strong>in</strong>g My Library', trans. Harry Zohn, <strong>in</strong> Walter Benjam<strong>in</strong>, Selected Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, vol. 2.2, ed.<br />
Michael W. Jenn<strong>in</strong>gs, Howard Eil<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> Gary Smith (Cambridge, MA, 1999), p. 486.<br />
1 Elchanan Re<strong>in</strong>er, ‘The Attitude of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Society to the New Science <strong>in</strong> the Sixteenth Century’,<br />
Science <strong>in</strong> Context 10 (1997): 589–603. The tensions or convergence between the conceptual library of<br />
IX
add, however, that this ‘New Library’ was not a universal library: it was not conceived<br />
as a comprehensive collection provid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>sight <strong>in</strong>to the history <strong>and</strong> present<br />
state of human knowledge (from a Jewish po<strong>in</strong>t of view or from other perspectives). 2<br />
Rather, it constituted an alternative canon with new <strong>and</strong> contested criteria for def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
the fields of knowledge that it would make accessible. 3 What we can observe<br />
then at the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of the eighteenth century may be characterized as a further<br />
shift: tradition moved from the ‘New Library’ of the Jewish early modern world to<br />
the universal library of the Jewish enlightenment.<br />
The year 1742 is mentioned several times <strong>in</strong> the present volume, because it has<br />
assumed an almost emblematic character, encapsulat<strong>in</strong>g the new <strong>in</strong>tellectual possibilities<br />
that presented themselves as the result of the complex <strong>and</strong> fruitful encounter<br />
between medieval knowledge 4 <strong>and</strong> early Jewish enlightened discourse. Maimonides’<br />
halakhic code, the Mishneh torah, had been repr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> Jessnitz between 1739 <strong>and</strong><br />
1742 at the <strong>in</strong>itiative of David Fraenkel, who served as rabbi of the Jewish community<br />
<strong>in</strong> nearby Dessau <strong>and</strong> was revered by his young student Moses Mendelssohn.<br />
When the new edition of the Mishneh torah was complete, another work was added<br />
to this already impressive achievement: <strong>in</strong> 1742, Maimonides’ contested philosophical<br />
treatise Guide of the Perplexed was repr<strong>in</strong>ted for the first time <strong>in</strong> almost two hundred<br />
years. At about the same time, Mendelssohn set out to study the Guide; it has<br />
often been assumed that it was the Jessnitz edition that allowed him to become acqua<strong>in</strong>ted<br />
with Maimonides’ philosophical thought. However, annotations <strong>in</strong> his h<strong>and</strong><br />
can be found <strong>in</strong> a copy of the Sabbioneta edition of 1553 – a fact that, far from detract<strong>in</strong>g<br />
from the importance of this particular moment <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i cultural history,<br />
adds to its complex texture 5 <strong>and</strong> allows us to study a number of features that seem to<br />
be characteristic of the encounter between medieval knowledge <strong>and</strong> enlightened discourse<br />
<strong>in</strong> the eighteenth century.<br />
the ‘canon’ <strong>and</strong> actual – private or semi-public – book collections deserve further attention. See, for example,<br />
Zeev Gries’ discussion of the large <strong>and</strong> varied book collections of <strong>in</strong>dividual scholars as well as<br />
battei midrash, which provide <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>sights <strong>in</strong> the limitations as well as the flexibility of ‘canon’,<br />
<strong>in</strong> Ha-sefer ke-sokhen tarbut ba-shanim t”s–t”rs (1700–1900) (Tel Aviv, 2002), pp. 65–77.<br />
2 On the emergence of the idea of the ‘universal library’ that transcended confessional boundaries, see<br />
Roger Chartier, The Order of Books: Readers, Authors, <strong>and</strong> Libraries <strong>in</strong> Europe between the Fourteenth<br />
<strong>and</strong> Eighteenth Centuries, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Stanford, 1992), pp. 61–88; Jonathan Israel, Radical<br />
Enlightenment: Philosophy <strong>and</strong> the Mak<strong>in</strong>g of Modernity 1650–1750 (Oxford, 2001), pp. 119–21.<br />
On the humanist library <strong>and</strong> its ‘centrifugal elements’ see Anthony Grafton, Commerce with the Classics:<br />
Ancient Books <strong>and</strong> Renaissance Readers (Ann Arbor, 1997), pp. 19–35.<br />
3 On early modern debates regard<strong>in</strong>g the place of metaphysics <strong>and</strong> the sciences <strong>in</strong> Jewish learn<strong>in</strong>g, see<br />
David Ruderman, Jewish Thought <strong>and</strong> Scientific Discovery <strong>in</strong> Early Modern Europe (New Haven,<br />
1995), ch. 2, pp. 54–99.<br />
4 For the purposes of this volume, we suggest a rather broad def<strong>in</strong>ition of ‘knowledge’ as ‘any <strong>and</strong><br />
every set of ideas <strong>and</strong> acts accepted by one or another social group or society of people – ideas <strong>and</strong> acts<br />
perta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g to what they accept as real for them <strong>and</strong> for others’, see E. Doyle McCarthy, <strong>Knowledge</strong> as<br />
Culture: The New Sociology of <strong>Knowledge</strong> (London <strong>and</strong> New York, 1996), p. 23. This def<strong>in</strong>ition emphasizes<br />
the social embeddedness <strong>and</strong> historical fluidity of knowledge <strong>and</strong> allows us to refer to various<br />
‘sets of ideas <strong>and</strong> acts’ without impos<strong>in</strong>g hierarchical claims as to their validity.<br />
5 This copy can be exam<strong>in</strong>ed today <strong>in</strong> the British Library (C. 49. e. 13.). See Moses Mendelssohn,<br />
Gesammelte Schriften: Jubiläumsausgabe, ed. Alex<strong>and</strong>er Altmann et al., 14: 271 (Hebrew text) <strong>and</strong><br />
20.1: LXXXIV–LXXXV.<br />
X Introduction
While <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i scholars of the sixteenth <strong>and</strong> seventeenth centuries were concerned<br />
with the selection of books that would constitute a new canon, an authoritative<br />
source of religious knowledge, the <strong>in</strong>tellectuals of the eighteenth century had<br />
someth<strong>in</strong>g different on their m<strong>in</strong>ds. They did not select books; rather, they wished to<br />
br<strong>in</strong>g books together <strong>in</strong> a different place. They no longer def<strong>in</strong>ed tradition as a<br />
canon, but as the Jewish section of a universal library. 6 Thus they were reluctant to<br />
discuss matters of exclusion <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>stead focused on strategies of <strong>in</strong>clusion, juxtaposition,<br />
<strong>and</strong> critical discernment. They pr<strong>in</strong>ted Maimonides’ Mishneh torah along<br />
with his Guide of the Perplexed <strong>and</strong> advocated the study of the Bible as well as the<br />
study of philosophy <strong>and</strong> history. They cited Judah Halevi alongside Christian Wolf<br />
<strong>and</strong> the Talmud alongside Kant. As a glimpse at Mendelssohn’s copy of the Guide<br />
reveals, the fact that the early Jewish Enlightenment made a number of medieval<br />
works available <strong>in</strong> new editions does not imply that all of these works had previously<br />
been <strong>in</strong>accessible. However, they were certa<strong>in</strong>ly deemed to be less accessible<br />
than was desirable. The rabbis, scholars, <strong>and</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ters of the early Jewish Enlightenment<br />
attempted to def<strong>in</strong>e the outl<strong>in</strong>es of a new cultural space <strong>in</strong> which more books<br />
would become available to a larger number of readers, <strong>in</strong> which new proximities <strong>and</strong><br />
new possibilities for study <strong>and</strong> comparison would emerge, <strong>in</strong> which read<strong>in</strong>gs would<br />
be unpredictable, <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> which tradition <strong>and</strong> critique would meet, produc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>novative<br />
‘uses of tradition’. For the authors of the early Jewish Enlightenment, the transition<br />
to modernity was <strong>in</strong>extricably l<strong>in</strong>ked to this effort to establish tradition <strong>in</strong> a new<br />
place, to move a library, to unpack its volumes <strong>in</strong> a different environment, to open<br />
them <strong>in</strong> changed contexts, to cope with dust, loss, <strong>and</strong> disorder <strong>and</strong> to restore the<br />
books to visibility <strong>in</strong> a ‘mood’ of ‘anticipation’. The promise associated with this<br />
moment found perfect expression <strong>in</strong> the words of the pr<strong>in</strong>ter of the Jessnitz edition<br />
of the Guide, Israel bar Abraham, <strong>in</strong> his preface: ‘u-vkhen eÒ ha-da¨at ha-zot eÒ<br />
Ìayyim hi la-maÌaziqim bah’. 7<br />
This volume beg<strong>in</strong>s by juxtapos<strong>in</strong>g two contributions that reflect two widely diverg<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretations of this transition to modernity. Together, the essays by<br />
Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er <strong>and</strong> David Ruderman <strong>in</strong>vite us to a midrashic read<strong>in</strong>g of the present<br />
volume, forc<strong>in</strong>g us to make sense of the tensions that arise from the presence of tradition<br />
<strong>in</strong> modernity <strong>and</strong> encourag<strong>in</strong>g us to read the rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g essays with a new <strong>and</strong><br />
less static underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the role of both tradition <strong>and</strong> critique <strong>in</strong> shap<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>tellectual<br />
worlds of modern Judaism.<br />
Elaborat<strong>in</strong>g upon Isaiah Berl<strong>in</strong>’s characterization of the eighteenth century as a<br />
highly complex <strong>and</strong> confused – rather than rational <strong>and</strong> harmonious – epoch, Shmuel<br />
Fe<strong>in</strong>er draws our attention to the particular dynamic <strong>and</strong> turbulence of the ‘Jewish<br />
eighteenth century’. In this troubled era, when science was counterbalanced by mysticism<br />
<strong>and</strong> Haskalah by Hasidism, the rise of a Jewish enlightened discourse repre-<br />
6 The term ‘alternative library’ that Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er suggested <strong>in</strong> his description of the ‘bookshelf of the<br />
early maskilim’ po<strong>in</strong>ts to significant changes <strong>in</strong> the evaluation of languages, genres <strong>and</strong> books <strong>in</strong> the<br />
eighteenth century, but detracts from the underly<strong>in</strong>g decisive shift <strong>in</strong> the underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the concept of<br />
the ‘library’ itself, which we would like to emphasize here. Cf. Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er, The Jewish Enlightenment,<br />
trans. Chaya Naor (Philadelphia, 2004), p. 44.<br />
7 Moses Maimonides, Moreh nevukhim, Jessnitz 1742, Pr<strong>in</strong>ter's preface.<br />
The Editors<br />
XI
sented only one revolution among many. Fe<strong>in</strong>er documents this rise <strong>in</strong> terms of a l<strong>in</strong>ear<br />
development, from a grow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> medieval Sephardi philosophy among<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i scholars, via new <strong>and</strong> revolutionary approaches to <strong>in</strong>tellectual <strong>and</strong> social<br />
issues, to the maskilic rejection of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic genres <strong>and</strong> authority. <strong>Medieval</strong> Sephardi<br />
books formed part of a library where <strong>in</strong>dividuals developed read<strong>in</strong>gs of Jewish religion,<br />
culture, <strong>and</strong> society that transcended the <strong>in</strong>terpretative frameworks provided by<br />
the rabb<strong>in</strong>ic élite. Fe<strong>in</strong>er’s narrative gives prom<strong>in</strong>ence to struggle, rupture, <strong>and</strong> concomitant<br />
pa<strong>in</strong>; the maskilim are revealed to be the <strong>in</strong>stigators of a Jewish Kulturkampf<br />
that has lasted down to the present time<br />
Whereas Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er draws our attention to the Jews’ potential for revolution,<br />
David Ruderman emphasizes the revolutionary potential of the Jewish tradition. He<br />
argues that earlier Jewish scholars, notably <strong>in</strong> sixteenth- <strong>and</strong> seventeenth-century<br />
Italy, forged a modernity <strong>in</strong> which tradition <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>novation (epitomized <strong>in</strong> Kabbalah<br />
<strong>and</strong> science) were essentially compatible. If on the surface Ruderman’s picture appears<br />
to be more positive <strong>and</strong> tranquil than Fe<strong>in</strong>er’s, it certa<strong>in</strong>ly is no less dynamic.<br />
Here, however, the dynamic is not presented as a result of the clash between traditional<br />
<strong>and</strong> revolutionary forces, but as an <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic part of tradition per se. When reshap<strong>in</strong>g<br />
itself, Ruderman seems to imply, tradition has no need for crisis <strong>and</strong> critique.<br />
It can rely on its own orig<strong>in</strong>ality, especially when seasoned by occasional stimuli<br />
from the outside, non-Jewish world.<br />
The tension between these two conceptions of tradition vis-à-vis modernity is illum<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
because it helps us perceive a diversity that usually rema<strong>in</strong>s hidden beh<strong>in</strong>d<br />
a too-rigid term<strong>in</strong>ology. Thus we learn that <strong>in</strong>novation <strong>and</strong> the shap<strong>in</strong>g of a new <strong>in</strong>tellectual<br />
sphere may depend as much on the embrac<strong>in</strong>g of tradition as on its rejection;<br />
that, <strong>in</strong> fact, tradition is not a s<strong>in</strong>gle uniform structure, but a constellation of traditions<br />
from which Jewish authors could choose, if only to challenge <strong>and</strong> subvert<br />
what they had found. Moreover, it seems to have made a difference <strong>in</strong> which section<br />
of the new library old books were unpacked: the selection of books that received particular<br />
attention <strong>and</strong> the ways <strong>in</strong> which these were <strong>in</strong>troduced, cited, <strong>and</strong> contextualized<br />
vary accord<strong>in</strong>g to the area of knowledge that was at stake. Fe<strong>in</strong>er is concerned<br />
ma<strong>in</strong>ly with religious <strong>and</strong> philosophical thought, while Ruderman addresses primarily<br />
the sciences <strong>and</strong> natural philosophy. F<strong>in</strong>ally, <strong>in</strong> both accounts <strong>Sepharad</strong> appears<br />
<strong>in</strong> two different guises. Whereas Fe<strong>in</strong>er identifies the contemporary Sephardi ‘portculture’<br />
as the chief model of the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i cultural critique <strong>and</strong> medieval Sephardi<br />
science <strong>and</strong> philosophy as its pr<strong>in</strong>cipal source, Ruderman reduces the medieval<br />
Sephardi scholars to distant cultural icons who had once succeeded <strong>in</strong> perform<strong>in</strong>g an<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellectual balanc<strong>in</strong>g act but whose work was now found want<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the face of contemporary<br />
scientific endeavour. Throughout this volume, we shall witness <strong>Sepharad</strong><br />
assum<strong>in</strong>g these alternative <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>deed conflict<strong>in</strong>g roles. Unpack<strong>in</strong>g the works of medieval<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> could mean a proud presentation of a splendid history of Jewish <strong>in</strong>volvement<br />
with philosophy <strong>and</strong> the sciences, document<strong>in</strong>g a development that led<br />
from <strong>Sepharad</strong> to the eighteenth century <strong>and</strong> imply<strong>in</strong>g that contemporary achievements<br />
had their roots <strong>in</strong> Jewish tradition. It could also mean reflect<strong>in</strong>g, with no less<br />
pride, on <strong>in</strong>novation as a step beyond the limitations of even the greatest authors of<br />
the past.<br />
XII Introduction
The three case studies that follow take us to the entrance doors of the library. What<br />
were the tangible <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>tangible processes of transmission that made it possible for<br />
medieval Sephardi books to enter the library of the Jewish Enlightenment? Israel of<br />
Zamosc, the protagonist of the first of these three studies, is a special case <strong>in</strong> the history<br />
of the encounter between <strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>; <strong>and</strong>, given the fact that he<br />
was among the early mentors of Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> other maskilim <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>, a highly<br />
significant case as well. As argued by Gad Freudenthal, for Israel of Zamosc<br />
Sephardi culture was not at all remote, given the physical presence, <strong>in</strong> Zamosc’s earlier<br />
history, of a Sephardi community <strong>and</strong> its legacy – an unusually rich Sephardi library.<br />
Freudenthal places Israel with<strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>tellectual context of neo-Maimonidean<br />
scholarship <strong>and</strong> a ‘largely <strong>in</strong>visible scientific sub-culture’ <strong>in</strong> Jewish Pol<strong>and</strong>. However,<br />
Israel’s approach to the halakhic text <strong>and</strong> his subversive <strong>in</strong>terpretations transcend<br />
the <strong>in</strong>novative, scientific read<strong>in</strong>gs of the Talmud that he could f<strong>in</strong>d elsewhere.<br />
He presents scientific knowledge as a source of authority that is superior to the<br />
halakhic text.<br />
Adam Shear traces the transmission <strong>and</strong> representation of one particularly prom<strong>in</strong>ent<br />
Sephardi text, Judah Halevi’s Kuzari, <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> of the sixteenth to eighteenth<br />
centuries. Shear’s narrative shows that until well <strong>in</strong>to the eighteenth century<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i scholars used the book ma<strong>in</strong>ly as a repository of useful <strong>in</strong>formation on<br />
various subjects, whereas early maskilim like Wetzlar were <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> its overall<br />
thesis about the relationship between revelation <strong>and</strong> philosophy. The maskilic commentaries<br />
of Zamosc <strong>and</strong> Satanow, which comb<strong>in</strong>e the two earlier approaches, represent<br />
a true transformation of Halevi’s Kuzari <strong>in</strong>to a work to be taught to others. Shear<br />
argues that it was the comb<strong>in</strong>ation of many heterogeneous factors that led to the eventual<br />
transformation of this Sephardi text <strong>in</strong>to a maskilic vehicle for discuss<strong>in</strong>g new<br />
scientific theories. Its ‘availability’ rested on the image of the work <strong>and</strong> on the categories<br />
<strong>in</strong> which it was <strong>in</strong>terpreted as well as on the physical transmission of the book.<br />
Steven Harvey explores the presence of medieval Sephardi texts from a slightly<br />
different angle, emphasiz<strong>in</strong>g the role of the Hebrew pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g press <strong>and</strong> the importance<br />
of new editions, given the paucity of pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions of philosophical works <strong>in</strong> the<br />
period follow<strong>in</strong>g Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s challenge. Exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>troductions to the writ<strong>in</strong>gs of<br />
Israel of Zamosc, Naphtali Hirsch Goslar, Judah Loeb Margolioth, <strong>and</strong> P<strong>in</strong>chas Elias<br />
Hurwitz, Harvey suggests that these <strong>in</strong>troductions be viewed as harb<strong>in</strong>gers of a renewed<br />
<strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the writ<strong>in</strong>gs of medieval Jewish philosophy that was to be followed<br />
by a wider <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> these works themselves. The <strong>in</strong>troductions are the more <strong>in</strong>structive<br />
<strong>in</strong> that they display very different, even conflict<strong>in</strong>g reports about the familiarity<br />
with the sciences among eighteenth-century Jews as well as widely divergent attitudes<br />
toward the medieval rationalists. The reception of the Sephardi heritage was<br />
anyth<strong>in</strong>g but uniform, with enthusiasm, criticism, <strong>and</strong> scepticism all manifested <strong>in</strong><br />
various degrees.<br />
These detailed studies of the transmission of medieval Sephardi texts allow us to<br />
trace moments of <strong>in</strong>novation <strong>in</strong> the often neglected lim<strong>in</strong>al spaces where new approaches<br />
<strong>and</strong> concepts are about to emerge but are still articulated <strong>in</strong> an ambiguous or<br />
contradictory manner, because they still rely, <strong>in</strong> part, on previous models of thought<br />
<strong>and</strong> speech. It is not always an easy task to identify ‘what is new’ even <strong>in</strong> the work of<br />
The Editors<br />
XIII
those scholars who are most frequently cited as symbols of <strong>in</strong>novation <strong>and</strong> renewal.<br />
Raphael Jospe portrays Mendelssohn, often perceived as the very embodiment of German<br />
Haskalah, as a ‘medieval modernist’. This appellation reflects Mendelssohn’s <strong>in</strong>debtedness<br />
to medieval Jewish philosophers along with his attempt to re<strong>in</strong>terpret <strong>and</strong><br />
transform their theories <strong>and</strong> apply them with<strong>in</strong> contemporary political contexts. While<br />
Mendelssohn’s approach to political thought <strong>and</strong> to the separation of church <strong>and</strong> state<br />
reveals the elasticity of tradition <strong>and</strong> may serve as an example of <strong>in</strong>novative exegesis,<br />
the philosopher takes a conservative stance on core questions of biblical criticism, to<br />
the extent of ignor<strong>in</strong>g the more audacious views of one of his medieval sources,<br />
Abraham Ibn Ezra. Albert van der Heide confirms the portrait of Mendelssohn as a<br />
medievalist <strong>in</strong> his case study of Mendelssohn’s commentary on Exodus 19, compar<strong>in</strong>g<br />
this chapter of the Beˆur with Dubno’s commentary on Genesis 22. Rabb<strong>in</strong>ic exegesis<br />
<strong>and</strong> medieval commentators, whether mentioned by name or not, take pride of place<br />
<strong>in</strong> both chapters. The medieval flavour of the Beˆur is further accentuated by the fact<br />
that Mendelssohn follows the medieval model of the topically arranged commentary<br />
<strong>in</strong>stead of embrac<strong>in</strong>g the more discursive approach widely adopted by contemporary<br />
Christian scholars. The comb<strong>in</strong>ation of fairly conservative read<strong>in</strong>gs of Sephardi texts<br />
with <strong>in</strong>terpretations that led to radical <strong>in</strong>novation clearly illustrates that the new library<br />
allowed for a variety of <strong>in</strong>terpretative practices: some could actually be considered<br />
a part of the medieval Sephardi heritage; others, like Mendelssohn’s read<strong>in</strong>g<br />
strategies <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem, clearly transcended it.<br />
Thomas Kollatz further elaborates on the often very circumspect ways <strong>in</strong> which<br />
readers moved about <strong>in</strong> the new library. Aron Gumpertz, scholar, physician, <strong>and</strong><br />
friend of Moses Mendelssohn’s, published a revised edition of Loeseke’s compendium<br />
on pharmaceutics <strong>and</strong> a supercommentary on Abraham Ibn Ezra’s commentary<br />
on the Five Megillot. In both works Gumpertz adopts a historiciz<strong>in</strong>g strategy, emphasiz<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the <strong>in</strong>herent progress of science s<strong>in</strong>ce the days of medieval authorities like<br />
Galen <strong>and</strong> Ibn Ezra. Thus, <strong>in</strong>stead of openly confront<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> repudiat<strong>in</strong>g the views of<br />
the older scholars, he takes these as a po<strong>in</strong>t of departure for his explanations of contemporary<br />
achievements <strong>in</strong> the sciences, based on experiment, exploration, <strong>and</strong> new<br />
discoveries. Gumpertz decides to use revision <strong>and</strong> commentary as a writ<strong>in</strong>g space <strong>in</strong><br />
which tradition <strong>and</strong> critique are not contradictory forces. The older works become<br />
accessible to the extent that they can be <strong>in</strong>tegrated <strong>in</strong>to a dynamic history of the sciences<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>spire the writ<strong>in</strong>g of supplements that reflect the best of contemporary<br />
knowledge.<br />
In Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e’s contribution on P<strong>in</strong>chas Hurwitz’s encyclopaedia Sefer ha-<br />
Berit we encounter a quite different evaluation of the Sephardi heritage. Unlike<br />
Gumpertz, Hurwitz challenges the very idea of progress. He does not hesitate to declare<br />
that medieval science has become obsolete <strong>in</strong> the light of modern scientific discoveries.<br />
However, the new concepts, too, are likely to be replaced by other notions<br />
sooner or later. Therefore, true knowledge is provided solely by rabb<strong>in</strong>ic <strong>and</strong> kabbalistic<br />
sources. Incidentally, these sources happen to conta<strong>in</strong> many views that are <strong>in</strong><br />
accordance with modern theories. Thus Hurwitz presents a rather orig<strong>in</strong>al approach<br />
to the new library. He takes books from many different crates <strong>and</strong> looks for a place<br />
for them on the shelves, while at the same time establish<strong>in</strong>g criteria to conta<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
XIV Introduction
control the many facets of change. In this effort, he relies on works that the authors<br />
of the Jewish Enlightenment rarely touched – medieval <strong>and</strong> early modern kabbalistic<br />
texts. Hurwitz’s work, written towards the end of the eighteenth century, clearly reflects<br />
the turbulence of a new age <strong>and</strong> the impact of the revolution wreaked on contemporary<br />
Jewry by new discoveries <strong>and</strong> experiments. Be<strong>in</strong>g dynamic as well as conservative,<br />
Sefer ha-Berit can be viewed as support<strong>in</strong>g both Fe<strong>in</strong>er’s <strong>and</strong> Ruderman’s<br />
perceptions of the eighteenth century. While this may sound contradictory, the picture<br />
that arises from Sefer ha-Berit is that of a self-confident author who is able to<br />
formulate a mean<strong>in</strong>gful answer to the challenge of his day.<br />
We have already noted that Maimonides’ Guide occupied a particularly prom<strong>in</strong>ent<br />
place <strong>in</strong> the early Jewish Enlightenment. Read<strong>in</strong>g his work <strong>in</strong> the context of the new<br />
library could lead to surpris<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> highly consequential revisions of Maimonidean<br />
as well as contemporary philosophical contentions. Warren Zev Harvey exam<strong>in</strong>es<br />
Moses Mendelssohn’s rejection <strong>and</strong> Salomon Maimon’s subversion of Maimonides’<br />
classification of moral rules as ‘generally accepted op<strong>in</strong>ions’. Whereas Mendelssohn<br />
builds his argument aga<strong>in</strong>st Maimonides on Halevi, Maimon turns to Kant. Harvey<br />
captures the <strong>in</strong>tensity <strong>and</strong> fluidity of read<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> the new library when he outl<strong>in</strong>es the<br />
dense texture with<strong>in</strong> which Mendelssohn formulated his thoughts on the epistemological<br />
foundations of moral rules: ‘with the help of Judah Halevi, [Mendelssohn]<br />
platonized NaÌmanides’ August<strong>in</strong>ian version of Maimonides’ Aristotelian <strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />
of the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong> of Good <strong>and</strong> Evil’. A particularly creative reader,<br />
Maimon <strong>in</strong>scribes <strong>in</strong> Maimonides’ text notions that contradict Maimonides but are <strong>in</strong><br />
l<strong>in</strong>e with Kant. Carlos Fraenkel, stress<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>tellectual union between <strong>Sepharad</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>, demonstrates that Maimon’s <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> Kantian philosophy culm<strong>in</strong>ates<br />
<strong>in</strong> his attempt to reformulate Maimonides’ concept of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong><br />
terms of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s doctr<strong>in</strong>e of Deus sive Natura <strong>in</strong> order to complete the Copernican<br />
revolution <strong>in</strong> Kant’s theory of knowledge. For Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Maimon, the philosophical<br />
works of <strong>Sepharad</strong> – <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the writ<strong>in</strong>gs of Maimonides, Halevi, <strong>and</strong><br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza – rema<strong>in</strong> cornerstones of contemporary philosophical reflection. Their relevance<br />
does not depend on modern supplements <strong>and</strong> appendices, as is the case <strong>in</strong> the<br />
sciences. Quite the contrary: the elucidation of key issues <strong>in</strong> modern thought depends,<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Maimon, on a creative re-read<strong>in</strong>g of the medieval<br />
<strong>and</strong> early modern Sephardi masters.<br />
While philosophy <strong>and</strong> the sciences constituted fields of study that were considered<br />
to be essential for the enlightened m<strong>in</strong>d, other fields that were not prom<strong>in</strong>ent <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Christian world but had always attracted great attention <strong>in</strong> the Jewish world rema<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
relevant as well. Many of the most important exponents of the Jewish Enlightenment<br />
were <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> the liturgy – they edited, translated, <strong>and</strong> wrote commentaries on<br />
the prayer book. But while they admired some liturgical poetry, such as Judah<br />
Halevi’s ∑iyyon ha-lo tishˆali, which had become part of the liturgy for Tish¨ah beav,<br />
they were reluctant to restore another genre – rhymed <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i piyyu† – to the<br />
shelves of the new library. Before the ‘literary rediscovery’ of liturgical poetry by the<br />
maskilim <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>, other strategies of accommodation prevailed. Shlomo Berger<br />
presents two early modern Yiddish translations of Solomon Ibn Gabirol’s Keter<br />
malkhut, a poem that had become part of the Sephardi liturgy for Yom Kippur, <strong>and</strong><br />
The Editors<br />
XV
traces the ways <strong>in</strong> which this philosophically <strong>in</strong>spired poem was transformed <strong>in</strong>to an<br />
expression of popular ethics. Thus, a Hebrew poem from <strong>Sepharad</strong> could be accommodated<br />
<strong>in</strong> an <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i library via translation <strong>in</strong>to Yiddish <strong>and</strong> transposition <strong>in</strong>to a<br />
different genre. But when Zeev Wolf Buchner, an author of the Jewish Enlightenment,<br />
became <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> the medieval poem, he chose to rewrite it <strong>in</strong> Hebrew, restor<strong>in</strong>g<br />
its philosophical character <strong>and</strong> add<strong>in</strong>g a dist<strong>in</strong>ctively Jewish national perspective.<br />
In contrast, the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i piyyu†im tended to resist accommodation. Wout van<br />
Bekkum turns to the early proponents of the Science of Judaism <strong>and</strong> demonstrates<br />
that whereas the Sephardi poems could be described <strong>in</strong> the aesthetic terms of the late<br />
eighteenth <strong>and</strong> early n<strong>in</strong>eteenth centuries, the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i piyyu†im could be analysed<br />
only <strong>in</strong> historical terms. Both the aesthetic <strong>and</strong> the historical re-evaluation of liturgical<br />
poetry po<strong>in</strong>t to the <strong>in</strong>tricate relationship between religious reform <strong>and</strong> seculariz<strong>in</strong>g<br />
scholarship. As emerges from Emile Schrijver’s contribution, an opposite strategy<br />
of accommodation was followed by Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong>, who sought to promulgate<br />
new ideas through an ‘orig<strong>in</strong>al’ medieval genre. Invok<strong>in</strong>g the authority of the fourteenth-century<br />
Talmudic scholar Asher ben YeÌiel, his pseudo-epigraphic responsacollection<br />
Besamim rosh (Berl<strong>in</strong> 1793) exploited the accommodative potential of the<br />
traditional she’elot u-teshuvot genre, thus <strong>in</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> on the Sephardi<br />
bookshelf.<br />
In this volume ‘<strong>Sepharad</strong>’ denotes not only medieval texts that were rearranged<br />
<strong>in</strong>to a modern library, but also a contemporary context that shaped the <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the<br />
medieval books: Wetzlar po<strong>in</strong>ts to the Sephardi community of Amsterdam as a<br />
model for <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>; Wessely wishes to be buried <strong>in</strong> the Sephardi cemetery of<br />
Altona; <strong>and</strong> Gumpertz, <strong>in</strong> his medical writ<strong>in</strong>gs, mentions Mendez d’Acosta <strong>and</strong><br />
Jacob de Castro Sarmento, both fellows of the Royal Society <strong>in</strong> London. Andrea<br />
Schatz <strong>and</strong> Irene Zwiep explore the relation between medieval <strong>and</strong> contemporary<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong>, the impact of the latter on Jewish enlightened discourse, <strong>and</strong> the ways <strong>in</strong><br />
which the image of <strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> the eighteenth century facilitated <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>formed the<br />
construction of ‘bridges’ between medieval <strong>and</strong> contemporary practices of Jewish<br />
read<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> writ<strong>in</strong>g. Schatz addresses the various manifestations of ‘<strong>Sepharad</strong>’ <strong>in</strong><br />
maskilic writ<strong>in</strong>gs on the Hebrew language: medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong>, Christian Spa<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
the contemporary Sephardi communities <strong>in</strong> Europe <strong>and</strong> the Ottoman Empire were<br />
evoked not as isolated historical models, but as dist<strong>in</strong>ct configurations <strong>in</strong> a series of<br />
historical recurrences that reflected <strong>and</strong> supported each other <strong>and</strong> formed the multilayered<br />
basis for the maskilic project of creat<strong>in</strong>g a bil<strong>in</strong>gual, diasporic Jewish modernity.<br />
Zwiep presents the <strong>in</strong>tellectual strategies <strong>and</strong> attitudes that played a role <strong>in</strong> the<br />
formation of a series of new Hebrew canons <strong>in</strong> the eighteenth-century Dutch Republic.<br />
She po<strong>in</strong>ts to the parallels <strong>and</strong>, <strong>in</strong> a number of <strong>in</strong>stances, even productive dynamic<br />
between the contemporary spheres of <strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> exam<strong>in</strong>es<br />
their different roles as catalyst, <strong>in</strong>stigator, <strong>and</strong> appreciative audience. The creative<br />
<strong>in</strong>teraction between <strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam st<strong>and</strong>s out as yet another<br />
example of the local specificity of the processes of transition that we can observe <strong>in</strong><br />
European Jewish communities between 1700 <strong>and</strong> 1800. 8 The Jewish Enlightenment<br />
8 See, for example, the contributions to the volume Ha-haskalah li-gevanehah: ¨iyyunim Ìadashim betoldot<br />
ha-haskalah u-ve-sifrutah, ed. Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er <strong>and</strong> Israel Bartal (Jerusalem, 2005).<br />
XVI Introduction
<strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> Königsberg has to be analyzed with<strong>in</strong> a diasporic network <strong>in</strong> which<br />
many paths could lead to modernity; <strong>and</strong> although most of them <strong>in</strong>tersected at one<br />
po<strong>in</strong>t or another, not all of them may have formed part of the Jewish Enlightenment.<br />
One of the most ambitious projects of the Jewish Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> was the<br />
establishment of a Hebrew pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g press under the auspices of the Jüdische<br />
Freischule. A significant fraction of the books that bear its impr<strong>in</strong>t are new editions<br />
of medieval <strong>and</strong> early modern works, among them Saadia’s Emunot ve-de¨ot (1789),<br />
Alguadez’ translation of the Nicomachean Ethics as Sefer ha-Middot (1790),<br />
Maimonides’ Moreh nevukhim (1791–1795), <strong>and</strong> Judah Halevi’s Kuzari (1795).<br />
Works that had already become available <strong>in</strong>clude BaÌya’s Îovot ha-levavot (Jessnitz<br />
1744), Maimonides’ Millot ha-higgayon (Berl<strong>in</strong> 1765), Benjam<strong>in</strong> Mussaphia’s<br />
Zekher rav (Berl<strong>in</strong> 1765/66), Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Sefer ∑aÌot (Berl<strong>in</strong> 1769), <strong>and</strong><br />
Isaac Israeli’s Yesod ¨olam (Berl<strong>in</strong> 1777). In addition we also f<strong>in</strong>d a significant<br />
number of newly edited works from Italy, such as Elijah Levita’s Sefer ha-BaÌur<br />
(1767), Moshe Îayyim Luzzato’s La-yesharim tehillah (1780), <strong>and</strong> Azariah de’<br />
Rossi’s Meˆor ¨enayim (1793/94). These <strong>and</strong> many other volumes <strong>in</strong>dicate that the<br />
maskilim – <strong>in</strong> collaboration with wealthy owners of rare manuscripts, rabb<strong>in</strong>ic scholars<br />
who provided approbations, <strong>and</strong> a community of subscribers – wished to establish<br />
a new library <strong>in</strong> a quite literal sense. The contributions to the present volume, however,<br />
make it clear that these efforts were merely the culm<strong>in</strong>ation of many different<br />
<strong>and</strong> contradictory trends <strong>and</strong> that they assume mean<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> a much broader historical<br />
context. They can be traced back to Israel’s Zamosc, Goslar’s Halberstadt,<br />
Gumpertz’ Berl<strong>in</strong>, <strong>and</strong> David Franco Mendes’ Amsterdam. They emerge from a<br />
complex history of re-read<strong>in</strong>g medieval <strong>and</strong> early modern scientific <strong>and</strong> philosophical<br />
concepts. They articulate the desire to ground tradition <strong>in</strong> modernity <strong>and</strong> modernity<br />
<strong>in</strong> tradition. The effects of the changes that took place <strong>in</strong> the age of transition<br />
between 1700 <strong>and</strong> 1800 far surpassed this particular moment when the library that<br />
had moved was tak<strong>in</strong>g tangible shape. The proponents of the Science of Judaism articulated<br />
the fasc<strong>in</strong>ation with both medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>and</strong> the world of libraries <strong>in</strong><br />
new political <strong>and</strong> cultural contexts. Like the proponents of Jewish enlightened discourse<br />
<strong>in</strong> the eighteenth century, they heeded the advice of Judah Ibn Tibbon, who<br />
admonished his son, the translator of Maimonides’ Moreh nevukhim: ‘Make thy<br />
books thy companions, let thy cases <strong>and</strong> shelves be their pleasure-grounds <strong>and</strong> gardens.<br />
Bask <strong>in</strong> their paradise, gather their fruit, pluck their roses, take their spices <strong>and</strong><br />
their myrrh.’ 9<br />
Andrea Schatz, Irene E. Zwiep <strong>and</strong> Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e<br />
9 Translation from Israel Abrahams, ed., Hebrew Ethical Wills, part I (Philadelphia, 1926), p. 63.<br />
The Editors<br />
XVII
XVIII Introduction
Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er<br />
From Renaissance to Revolution:<br />
The Eighteenth Century <strong>in</strong> Jewish History<br />
In the old Sephardi cemetery <strong>in</strong> Altona, tombstone No. 1308, decorated with a draw<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of a deer <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>scribed with Hebrew verse, marks the grave of an <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Jew<br />
of Ukra<strong>in</strong>ian descent who was buried there <strong>in</strong> 1805. This is neither a co<strong>in</strong>cidence nor<br />
a mistake. Naphtali Herz Wessely, the Hebrew poet <strong>and</strong> philologist, one of the fathers<br />
of the cultural renaissance of eighteenth-century <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Jewry, spent his last<br />
years <strong>in</strong> Hamburg. There he made a surpris<strong>in</strong>g, unconventional request of the community:<br />
he asked to be laid to rest <strong>in</strong> the Sephardi section of the cemetery, deliberately<br />
forgo<strong>in</strong>g burial <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i section where he would have been <strong>in</strong>terred<br />
near two of the most prom<strong>in</strong>ent rabbis of the previous generation – Jonathan<br />
Eybeschuetz <strong>and</strong> Jacob Emden. 1 This was far more than a symbolic act. It was a twofold<br />
statement, through which Wessely disassociated himself from the contemporary<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i culture <strong>and</strong> identified with what he considered to be the source of <strong>in</strong>spiration<br />
best fitted to a new direction <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>tellectual life. Wessely had already chosen the<br />
Sephardim as his cultural reference group <strong>in</strong> the formative stage of his life when, <strong>in</strong><br />
the 1740s, he jo<strong>in</strong>ed the circle of Amsterdam Jewish scholars who cultivated the Hebrew<br />
language, the Bible, poetry, <strong>and</strong> philosophy. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to one of his biographers,<br />
his identification with the Sephardim was so strong that, <strong>in</strong> his old age, the<br />
Portuguese community <strong>in</strong> London <strong>in</strong>vited him to serve as its Ìakham (rabbi). 2<br />
About half a century earlier, <strong>in</strong> 1749, Isaac Wetzlar, a wealthy merchant from<br />
Celle, completed his Libes briv, a surpris<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> radical critique, <strong>in</strong> Yiddish, of the<br />
flaws of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Jewish society, <strong>in</strong> particular of the religious elite. 3 His impressive<br />
knowledge of religious literature, especially medieval ethical <strong>and</strong> philosophical writ<strong>in</strong>gs,<br />
along with his experience as a broad-m<strong>in</strong>ded bus<strong>in</strong>essmen who traveled widely<br />
throughout Europe, enabled him to observe the rabbis from outside their circle <strong>and</strong> to<br />
criticize, often with sharp cynicism, their low <strong>in</strong>tellectual level <strong>and</strong> moral corruption.<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ce this work rema<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> manuscript <strong>and</strong> was never published, it did not provoke<br />
any outrage at the time. It is, however, a fasc<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> subversive document by one<br />
of the lesser-known figures <strong>in</strong> the early modernist awaken<strong>in</strong>g. For example, Wetzlar<br />
attacked the tendency to study only the Talmud <strong>and</strong> halakhah. He saw it as a deplorable<br />
evil <strong>and</strong> l<strong>in</strong>ked it to dishonesty <strong>in</strong> commerce, which, he believed, was be<strong>in</strong>g<br />
given religious justification <strong>and</strong> was economically disastrous for the Jews: ‘Today,<br />
1 YoÌanan Witkover, Aguddat peraÌim (Altona, 1880), pp. 303–4.<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
Shmuel Royal Netherl<strong>and</strong>s Fe<strong>in</strong>er Academy of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences, 2007<br />
1
however, because of our many s<strong>in</strong>s, our holy Torah is unfortunately turned <strong>in</strong>to a<br />
fraud by many evil scholars. The truth is hard to f<strong>in</strong>d. Similarly, God have mercy, our<br />
<strong>in</strong>come <strong>and</strong> livelihood are difficult <strong>and</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>ess is fraud <strong>and</strong> wealth is very unstable’.<br />
In confrontations with scholars, Wetzlar writes, he leveled grave accusations at them;<br />
for example, he decried their disgraceful <strong>in</strong>ability to represent the Jewish religion<br />
properly: ‘In their relations with nobles <strong>and</strong> gentile scholars, could they defend their<br />
faith <strong>and</strong> sanctify the name of God?’ His recommended remedy is the study of philosophy<br />
<strong>and</strong> ethics, <strong>in</strong> particular the writ<strong>in</strong>gs of Saadia Gaon <strong>and</strong> Maimonides, as<br />
well as BaÌya Ibn Paquda’s Îovot ha-levavot (his favourite book, which had been<br />
repr<strong>in</strong>ted only a short time earlier, after a long absence from the Jewish library). He<br />
also praised the curriculum of the Sephardi communities: ‘In contrast, among the<br />
Sephardim the curriculum is as God desires. … I believe that because of this, the<br />
abundance of wealth <strong>and</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>ess have permanence among the Sephardim. … I do<br />
not want to write the truth about who is responsible for this. Let everyone decide <strong>and</strong><br />
arrive at the truth for himself’. 4<br />
Several years after Wetzlar’s death <strong>in</strong> 1749, a most astonish<strong>in</strong>g text, an anomaly <strong>in</strong><br />
the world of Hebrew books, was published <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>. It was, <strong>in</strong> effect, a k<strong>in</strong>d of sophisticated<br />
secular sermon addressed to young Jewish men – students <strong>in</strong> batei<br />
midrash who were fulfill<strong>in</strong>g the precept of Torah study or embark<strong>in</strong>g on a rabb<strong>in</strong>ical<br />
career. This secular sermon, one of the most <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g texts of the early Jewish Enlightenment,<br />
promoted two values that had been <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic to the European humanistic<br />
ethos s<strong>in</strong>ce the Renaissance <strong>and</strong> to the contemporary Enlightenment culture: pleasure<br />
<strong>and</strong> the centrality of man. In the sermon, written by the young Moses Mendelssohn<br />
<strong>and</strong> published pseudonymously as the first article <strong>in</strong> the unprecedented periodical,<br />
Qohelet musar, Jews were called on to fill their lungs with the air of natural life, to<br />
notice the beauty of nature, to smell the fragrance of the blossoms, to nurture their<br />
aesthetic sense <strong>and</strong> to delight <strong>in</strong> the perfect harmony prevail<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the world, which,<br />
as Leibniz taught, is the best of all possible worlds. Autonomous man, ‘God’s f<strong>in</strong>est<br />
creature’, is at the center of nature, <strong>and</strong> it is unth<strong>in</strong>kable that the Jews, of all people,<br />
should repress their human traits. This secular sermon pushes its readers out the<br />
doors of the beit midrash <strong>and</strong> lowers their gaze from the heavens earthward, to the<br />
sensual world, which, although the marvellous creation of God, is also the arena of<br />
man’s earthly activity, an <strong>in</strong>vit<strong>in</strong>g, excit<strong>in</strong>g, seductive, thrill<strong>in</strong>g world. Mendelssohn,<br />
then <strong>in</strong> his twenties, rebukes his readers, all of whom certa<strong>in</strong>ly belonged to the religious<br />
elite: ‘In all my days on this earth, I have never seen a man pass through a<br />
pleasant field <strong>in</strong> which the buds have appeared whose eyes did not roam from its beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to its end. God gave man an eye with which to see, to feast on the rich pleasure<br />
of the glory of all creatures’. 5<br />
2 On Wessely, see: Moshe Pelli, The Age of Haskalah: Studies <strong>in</strong> the Hebrew Literature of the Enlightenment<br />
<strong>in</strong> Germany (Leiden, 1979), pp. 113–30; Edward Breuer, ‘Naphtali Herz Wessely <strong>and</strong> the Cultural<br />
Dislocations of an Eighteenth-Century Maskil’, <strong>in</strong> New Perspectives on the Haskalah, ed. Shmuel<br />
Fe<strong>in</strong>er <strong>and</strong> David Sork<strong>in</strong> (London <strong>and</strong> Portl<strong>and</strong>, Oregon, 2001), pp. 27–47.<br />
3 The Libes briv of Isaac Wetzlar, ed. <strong>and</strong> trans. Morris M. Faierste<strong>in</strong> (Atlanta, Ga., 1996).<br />
4 Ibid., Chapter 13.<br />
5 Meir Gilon, Mendelssohn’s Qohelet musar <strong>in</strong> its Historical Context (Heb.) (Jerusalem, 1979), p. 158.<br />
2 From Renaissance to Revolution: The Eighteenth Century <strong>in</strong> Jewish History
What is the textual basis for this view? Where does he f<strong>in</strong>d legitimation for the<br />
experience of pleasure, observation, <strong>and</strong> hedonism, which seem to be so alien to the<br />
ethos of talmudic <strong>and</strong> halakhic study? He has two sources: the Sages who composed<br />
the bless<strong>in</strong>g on trees when they bud <strong>in</strong> the spr<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong>, of course, Maimonides, the<br />
solid twelfth-century foundation for the workers of the eighteenth-century renaissance:<br />
‘Maimonides expla<strong>in</strong>ed that everyth<strong>in</strong>g the Almighty created, He created <strong>in</strong><br />
the best, most perfect, <strong>and</strong> most attractive manner. … He said further that this too is a<br />
great pr<strong>in</strong>ciple. A man who contemplates all of these will know <strong>and</strong> recognize God’s<br />
benevolence to him’. 6<br />
The quotation from The Guide of the Perplexed is not entirely accurate, but the<br />
message is clear: the harmonious world view <strong>and</strong> the duty to look at nature are values<br />
clearly implied <strong>in</strong> legitimate Jewish texts; hence there is noth<strong>in</strong>g to prevent their<br />
adoption – especially s<strong>in</strong>ce the pleasure Mendelssohn recommended was not merely<br />
sensual, but culm<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>in</strong> a philosophical experience, a coherent, analytical observation,<br />
a sense of excitement at the perfection of creation as a whole.<br />
Before return<strong>in</strong>g to that secular sermon <strong>in</strong> Qohelet musar, I want to emphasize that<br />
Wessely’s burial <strong>in</strong> the Sephardi cemetery, Wetzlar’s criticism of the scholars <strong>and</strong> the<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i curriculum <strong>and</strong> preference for the Sephardi model, <strong>and</strong> Maimonides’ role<br />
<strong>in</strong> Mendelssohn’s text are only three of the many milestones on the road to the revolution<br />
that reshaped the cultural <strong>and</strong> social world of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Jewry <strong>in</strong> the modern<br />
era. It began with a Jewish renaissance, the project of recover<strong>in</strong>g neglected texts <strong>and</strong><br />
scientific, l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>and</strong> philosophical knowledge – a task that had not been considered<br />
relevant <strong>in</strong> what David Sork<strong>in</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ed as ‘the Baroque culture’ of pre-modern<br />
European Jewry – <strong>and</strong> the return to the Jewish library of works such as Maimonides’<br />
Moreh nevukhim <strong>and</strong> Millot ha-higgayon, BaÌya’s Îovot ha-levavot, <strong>and</strong> Halevi’s<br />
Kuzari. In the 1740s, Wessely, Wetzlar, <strong>and</strong> Mendelssohn could read the Moreh<br />
nevukhim because it had been repr<strong>in</strong>ted, for the first time <strong>in</strong> two hundred years, <strong>in</strong><br />
Jesnitz near Dessau <strong>in</strong> 1742. Start<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the 1780s, there were signs of a revolution<br />
that gave rise to the first modern Jewish ideology, the Haskalah, created the Jewish<br />
public sphere, <strong>and</strong> also set off a Jewish Kulturkampf.<br />
All of this took place <strong>in</strong> the fasc<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g, contradiction-filled eighteenth century.<br />
What didn’t happen <strong>in</strong> that century? Throughout the century, among the million to a<br />
million <strong>and</strong> a half Jews of Europe, there existed an underground Sabbatean movement<br />
that legitimized religious-radical permissiveness <strong>and</strong> caused frequent sc<strong>and</strong>als.<br />
Study circles of scholars <strong>and</strong> kabbalists were opened under the auspices of philanthropists.<br />
Messianic expectations <strong>and</strong> calculations of the ‘end of days’ excited mystics<br />
<strong>and</strong> rationalists alike. At an accelerat<strong>in</strong>g pace, the members of the wealthy elite<br />
were becom<strong>in</strong>g acculturated, first to the lifestyle of the aristocratic Baroque culture<br />
<strong>and</strong> later to the European bourgeois ethos. And unbeknownst to the historians, Jewish<br />
deists <strong>and</strong> atheists appeared <strong>and</strong> became the target of an early Orthodox offensive. In<br />
my recent studies on the formation of the early Haskalah <strong>in</strong> the eighteenth century,<br />
which, among other th<strong>in</strong>gs, rejected kabbalistic enthusiasm, I concluded that one cannot<br />
achieve a full underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of a phenomenon such as the Haskalah without look-<br />
6 Ibid., p. 159.<br />
Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er<br />
3
<strong>in</strong>g at the overall historical picture, <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> particular without an underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the<br />
power of kabbalistic groups or the strength of the Sabbatean libert<strong>in</strong>e threat to the<br />
religious <strong>and</strong> social order. Everyone – Frankists, Hasidim of the Ba¨al Shem ov,<br />
early maskilim, community rabbis, mitnaggedim, later maskilim like Mendelssohn,<br />
the economic elite composed of successful merchants, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Italian <strong>and</strong> western<br />
Sephardi ‘Port Jews’ – played a role on the historical stage of the eighteenth century.<br />
Their <strong>in</strong>teractions are often the key to underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g the special role of each group.<br />
Indeed, this was a century of great political <strong>and</strong> spiritual expectations of a religious<br />
revival, of transformation <strong>and</strong> rationalization, of div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>and</strong> earthly redemption, of<br />
religious tolerance <strong>and</strong> cosmopolitanism. But it was also a century of great anxieties<br />
<strong>and</strong> an awareness of crisis. Those who view the eighteenth century as a relatively stable<br />
century, the end of the Middle Ages (as Jacob Katz put it), <strong>in</strong> which processes of<br />
change began to emerge only dur<strong>in</strong>g its last third, must, <strong>in</strong> my view, adopt a much<br />
more complex <strong>and</strong> dynamic picture, full of conflicts <strong>and</strong> schisms.<br />
For a long time, I have been suggest<strong>in</strong>g that various historical phenomena <strong>in</strong> Jewish<br />
history should be exam<strong>in</strong>ed through the organiz<strong>in</strong>g term ‘the eighteenth century’.<br />
I believe that many conundrums of the Jews’ enormously significant transition from<br />
the old world to the modern world can be understood <strong>in</strong> a new way if scholars can<br />
take <strong>in</strong> a broad, synchronic, <strong>and</strong> polyphonal view of the entire sweep of processes<br />
experienced by the Jews <strong>in</strong> the eighteenth century. The historical research on the century<br />
is primarily thematic. Historians have divided the story of European Jews geographically<br />
– Western, Central, <strong>and</strong> Eastern European Jewry – or accord<strong>in</strong>g to key<br />
processes – the history of Ìasidim <strong>and</strong> mitnaggedim, of Sabbateanism, of the<br />
Haskalah, of the emancipation, <strong>and</strong> the roots of antisemitism. Only a few scholars<br />
have dared to suggest an overall, <strong>in</strong>tegrated picture. The most prom<strong>in</strong>ent among them<br />
is, of course, Jacob Katz, who, beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g with his Tradition <strong>and</strong> Crisis, tried to<br />
present the face of Jewish society as a whole. His less well-known article, ‘The<br />
Eighteenth Century as a Turn<strong>in</strong>g Po<strong>in</strong>t of Modern Jewish History’, is one of the few<br />
<strong>in</strong> which he tried to propose an overall thesis about the course of Jewish history <strong>in</strong><br />
the eighteenth century. In that essay, Katz ref<strong>in</strong>ed his ‘tradition <strong>and</strong> crisis’ model <strong>and</strong><br />
argued that maskilic rationalism <strong>and</strong> hasidic mysticism (with their subversive social<br />
expressions <strong>in</strong> the form of maskilic groups <strong>and</strong> hasidic courts with their charismatic<br />
leaders) devastated the patterns of traditional life. The eighteenth century, <strong>in</strong> his<br />
view, was a turn<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> Jewish history. The age of the traditional society passed;<br />
from then on, the Jews would voluntarily live <strong>in</strong> totally different circumstances. 7<br />
But the historian who listens to the voices of the eighteenth century, who reads the<br />
various texts <strong>and</strong> attempts to dist<strong>in</strong>guish processes of renewal from desperate attempts<br />
to hold on to the old world can no longer be completely satisfied with the concepts<br />
provided by Katz’s model of modernization. The ma<strong>in</strong> critics of this model are<br />
Todd Endelman, Yosef Kaplan, <strong>and</strong> David Sork<strong>in</strong>, who argue that the tradition <strong>and</strong><br />
crisis model is not appropriate for cases such as the Jews of Engl<strong>and</strong> or western<br />
7 See Jacob Katz, ‘The Eighteenth Century as a Turn<strong>in</strong>g Po<strong>in</strong>t of Modern Jewish History’, <strong>in</strong> Vision<br />
Confronts Reality: Historical Perspectives on the Contemporary Jewish Agenda, ed. David Sidorsky,<br />
Ruth Kozodoy, <strong>and</strong> Kalman Sultanik (Madison, NJ, 1989), pp. 40–55.<br />
4 From Renaissance to Revolution: The Eighteenth Century <strong>in</strong> Jewish History
Sephardi Jewry, who did not need an enlightenment movement to become modern;<br />
Katz, they allege, failed to take account of their non-ideological process of acculturation<br />
or of the ‘Port Jew’ type. 8 Indeed, Katz asserted that until the 1770s no Jew felt<br />
he was witness<strong>in</strong>g a mean<strong>in</strong>gful shift. 9 This problematic claim overlooks a series of<br />
turbulent political, cultural, <strong>and</strong> social events <strong>and</strong> presents too shallow a picture of<br />
the period. In particular, it fails to see the renaissance of the early Haskalah <strong>and</strong> is<br />
<strong>in</strong>sensitive to the dissatisfaction <strong>and</strong> the sense of flux typical of many Jews who put<br />
their thoughts <strong>in</strong> writ<strong>in</strong>g. Katz’s narrative is fundamentally tragic <strong>and</strong> draws a picture<br />
of collapse, notably the collapse of the community structure <strong>and</strong> the decl<strong>in</strong>e of a society<br />
that, <strong>in</strong> his view, was firmly grounded on the authoritative organizational <strong>and</strong> political<br />
order <strong>and</strong> on traditional values but now crumbled under a series of blows. He<br />
failed to notice the <strong>in</strong>tellectual renaissance; he tried to fit the dream of modernization,<br />
with its hopes <strong>and</strong> traumas, <strong>in</strong>to Weberian paradigms; <strong>and</strong> he only partially<br />
identified the power of the Haskalah revolution, a subject he dealt with rather superficially.<br />
Even <strong>in</strong> the more sophisticated narrative of Jonathan Israel, the eighteenth century<br />
is presented only partially, backed up by m<strong>in</strong>imal documentation <strong>and</strong> tightly l<strong>in</strong>ked to<br />
Katz’s framework of ‘tradition <strong>and</strong> crisis’. In his European Jewry <strong>in</strong> the Age of Mercantilism,<br />
Israel asserts that the golden age of European Jewry was when western<br />
Spanish Jewry flourished <strong>in</strong> the sixteenth <strong>and</strong> seventeenth centuries; the eighteenth<br />
century was marked by decl<strong>in</strong>e – both demographic <strong>and</strong> economic – <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>tellectual<br />
stagnation. 10 Although he did po<strong>in</strong>t to several phenomena of revival (such as<br />
Hasidism) <strong>in</strong> the second edition of his book (1989), the concession was made grudg<strong>in</strong>gly<br />
<strong>and</strong> with many reservations. He argued that the drift away from traditional<br />
Judaism was a mass movement even before Mendelssohn. The Haskalah, whose<br />
value he greatly understates, is viewed as a movement that repudiates tradition <strong>and</strong><br />
moves towards assimilation. This image is at variance with that proposed by newer<br />
research <strong>and</strong> is more <strong>in</strong> keep<strong>in</strong>g with the stereotype nurtured by the assimilated, on<br />
the one h<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> by the Ultraorthodox, on the other. In general, Israel makes some<br />
very sharp observations about the <strong>in</strong>tellectual decadence of Jewish life that he viewed<br />
as a more or less universal phenomenon dur<strong>in</strong>g the first half of the eighteenth century.<br />
His conclusions also contradict the view of themselves held by many persons <strong>in</strong><br />
the eighteenth century. For example, Wessely’s optimistic take on the last quarter of<br />
the century was that many changes were tak<strong>in</strong>g place <strong>in</strong> the lives of the Jews <strong>in</strong> exile,<br />
right before his eyes. They were no longer persecuted as <strong>in</strong> the past. And although<br />
still a nation of merchants, many new economic opportunities were open<strong>in</strong>g up for<br />
them. With regard to culture, language, <strong>and</strong> educational patterns, Wessely drew a l<strong>in</strong>e<br />
8 See: Todd Endelman, The Jews of Georgian Engl<strong>and</strong>, 1714–1830: Tradition <strong>and</strong> Change <strong>in</strong> a Liberal<br />
Society (Ann Arbor, 1999); Yosef Kaplan, An Alternative Path to Modernity: The Sephardi Diaspora <strong>in</strong><br />
Western Europe (Leiden, 2000); David Sork<strong>in</strong>, ‘The Port Jew: Notes Toward a Social Type’, Journal of<br />
Jewish Studies 1 (1999): 87–97.<br />
9 See Jacob Katz, Tradition <strong>and</strong> Crisis: Jewish Society at the End of the Middle Ages, trans. Bernard D.<br />
Cooperman (New York, 1993), Ch. 24.<br />
10 See Jonathan I. Israel, European Jewry <strong>in</strong> the Age of Mercantilism 1550–1750 (Oxford, 1989), Ch. 10<br />
<strong>and</strong> 11.<br />
Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er<br />
5
to separate the Jewish communities <strong>in</strong> the Muslim East <strong>and</strong> Sephardi communities of<br />
Western Europe from <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Jewry. Whereas the latter, especially <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>, was<br />
backward, liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the past <strong>in</strong> isolation <strong>and</strong> accord<strong>in</strong>g to the old norms, Sephardi <strong>and</strong><br />
Eastern Jewry were liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the present <strong>and</strong> ready for the future. The members of<br />
these communities spoke the vernacular naturally; their commercial ties with gentiles<br />
were very strong <strong>and</strong> their manners appropriate to the norms of the surround<strong>in</strong>g society.<br />
What was needed now was a jo<strong>in</strong>t effort by enlightened rulers <strong>and</strong> Jews to transform<br />
the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im (especially those <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>, whose cultural situation was the<br />
worst). Thanks to education, they too would be fit to be counted as people of the<br />
present, people of the eighteenth century. 11<br />
It is true that Wessely observed the contemporary scene through rose-colored<br />
glasses. Nonetheless, his is historical testimony that cannot be overlooked. Instead of<br />
the ‘Tradition <strong>and</strong> Crisis’ model, perhaps we should <strong>in</strong>terpret the Jewish eighteenth<br />
century through the lens of complex <strong>and</strong> multifaceted Jewish modernization. Straight<br />
l<strong>in</strong>es of development cannot always be identified. Elements of the old <strong>and</strong> the new<br />
world <strong>in</strong>term<strong>in</strong>gled <strong>and</strong> sometimes engaged <strong>in</strong> a conflict that was not resolved, even<br />
for <strong>in</strong>dividuals. It was a far more complex age than the label ‘century of enlightenment’<br />
can depict. In fact, it was an unstable century, which can perhaps be called the<br />
‘melt<strong>in</strong>g pot’ of the modern Jewish world. Everyth<strong>in</strong>g began <strong>in</strong> it but noth<strong>in</strong>g really<br />
ended. It was a fasc<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g century of <strong>in</strong>novations, struggles, contradictions, disputes,<br />
uncerta<strong>in</strong>ties, <strong>and</strong> hesitations. It <strong>in</strong>cluded Joseph II <strong>in</strong> Vienna <strong>and</strong> the emancipation <strong>in</strong><br />
Paris, blood libels <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> the Uman massacre <strong>in</strong> the Ukra<strong>in</strong>e, a deist philosopher<br />
like Solomon Maimon <strong>and</strong> an eccentric fideistic kabbalist like Rabbi NaÌman of<br />
Bratzlav. The status of Jewish women did not change fundamentally <strong>and</strong> they did not<br />
play an active role <strong>in</strong> the public sphere. Gender differences rema<strong>in</strong>ed as rigid as ever<br />
<strong>and</strong> women were absent from the ranks of Haskalah. But they did play a key economic<br />
role; some of them were bus<strong>in</strong>esswomen like Glueckel of Hameln <strong>and</strong> Esther<br />
Liebman. The library of books <strong>in</strong>tended to enhance women’s knowledge of Judaism<br />
exp<strong>and</strong>ed – particularly <strong>in</strong> Yiddish. Thanks to private tutor<strong>in</strong>g, women of the upper<br />
<strong>and</strong> middle classes <strong>in</strong> Central <strong>and</strong> Western Europe learned European languages <strong>and</strong><br />
became more acculturated. Towards the end of the century a group of salon women<br />
emerged; some of them, such as Rahel Lev<strong>in</strong> Varnhagen <strong>and</strong> Dorothea Schlegel,<br />
were also <strong>in</strong>tellectuals <strong>and</strong> key figures <strong>in</strong> the cultural shift from enlightenment to romanticism.<br />
Ada Rapoport-Albert has recently shown how the gender boundaries between<br />
men <strong>and</strong> women were broken down <strong>in</strong> the Sabbatean movement <strong>and</strong> how<br />
egalitarian trends, supported by kabbalist ideas, emerged, notably <strong>in</strong> Jacob Frank’s<br />
anarchist sect. 12 As David Ruderman demonstrated about Engl<strong>and</strong>, not all <strong>in</strong>tellectuals<br />
were affiliated with the Haskalah <strong>and</strong> the Anglo-Jewish <strong>in</strong>telligentsia was not<br />
identical to the Haskalah movement. 13 But noth<strong>in</strong>g that began <strong>in</strong> this century reached<br />
11 Naphtali Herz Wessely, Divrei shalom ve-emet (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1782).<br />
12 See Ada Rapoport-Albert, ‘On the Position of Women <strong>in</strong> Sabbateanism’ (Heb.), pp. 143–327 <strong>in</strong> The<br />
Sabbatean Movement <strong>and</strong> its Aftermath: Messianism, Sabbateanism <strong>and</strong> Frankism, ed. Rachel Elior,<br />
vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 2001).<br />
13 See David Ruderman, Jewish Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> an English Key: Anglo-Jewry’s Construction of Modern<br />
Jewish Thought (Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton, 2000).<br />
6 From Renaissance to Revolution: The Eighteenth Century <strong>in</strong> Jewish History
maturity by its end: Hasidism, the Emancipation, the question of the rabb<strong>in</strong>ical leadership,<br />
the replacement of rabb<strong>in</strong>ical hegemony by secular <strong>in</strong>tellectuals, even the lessons<br />
to be learned from Sabbateanism – none of these fully crystallized.<br />
When we focus the historian’s spotlight on the <strong>in</strong>tellectual elite, we can discern,<br />
amidst all the complex events that affected European Jewry dur<strong>in</strong>g this century, first<br />
a renaissance, manifested by the early Haskalah, <strong>and</strong> later a revolution worked by the<br />
maskilim <strong>in</strong> its last two decades. I have already written extensively about the early<br />
Haskalah; here I will merely po<strong>in</strong>t to several of its major trends:<br />
– a quasi-erotic attraction to science <strong>and</strong> philosophy felt by young men of the<br />
talmudic elite;<br />
– an attempt to grapple with the legitimacy of this science vis-à-vis the exclusive<br />
role of religious knowledge, as pr<strong>in</strong>ciple <strong>and</strong> as precept, <strong>in</strong> the pre-modern<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i culture;<br />
– the production of a new library, alongside the talmudic literature, conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g books<br />
on science, philosophy, ethics, <strong>and</strong> the Hebrew language;<br />
– a struggle aga<strong>in</strong>st superstition, folly, <strong>and</strong> ignorance, <strong>and</strong> the ecstatic pietism of the<br />
Sabbateans <strong>and</strong> the enthusiastic Ìasidim, on the one h<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> aga<strong>in</strong>st trends of<br />
skepticism <strong>and</strong> heresy on the other;<br />
– a consciousness of <strong>in</strong>tellectual <strong>in</strong>feriority to the European cultural world, accompanied<br />
by an endeavor to redeem the neglected knowledge of science <strong>and</strong> philosophy<br />
at a time of crisis <strong>in</strong> Jewish culture. 14<br />
It is important to realize that the early Haskalah was far from be<strong>in</strong>g a united <strong>and</strong><br />
cohesive movement. It was characterized by many <strong>in</strong>ternal contradictions, by uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty,<br />
<strong>and</strong> by unusual personalities. Rabbi Jacob Emden, for example, who – consider<strong>in</strong>g<br />
his curiosity about <strong>and</strong> immense attraction to secular knowledge, his obsessive<br />
fight aga<strong>in</strong>st Sabbatean apostasy, <strong>and</strong> his <strong>in</strong>dividualism – could be taken for a Jewish<br />
renaissance figure, was one of the fiercest enemies of the philosophers. In his polemic<br />
aga<strong>in</strong>st philosophy, <strong>in</strong> his MitpaÌat sefarim, he stated, for example, that he<br />
simply could not believe that Maimonides had written the Guide of the Perplexed. 15<br />
Although I regard the early Haskalah as a renaissance phenomenon that wanted to<br />
restore a vanished world, it also po<strong>in</strong>ted toward revolution. If we return for a moment<br />
to Qohelet musar, we should note two important features of this special text. First, it<br />
marks a dramatic shift <strong>in</strong> the description of the world <strong>and</strong> life from that of the thenpopular<br />
musar literature. Whereas best-sell<strong>in</strong>g, widely distributed books like Qav hayashar<br />
by Zevi Hirsch Koidonover of Vilna <strong>and</strong> Shevet musar by Elijah ha-Kohen of<br />
Izmir depicted a demonic <strong>and</strong> threaten<strong>in</strong>g world <strong>and</strong> called upon the Jew to suppress<br />
his earthly passions, struggle ceaselessly aga<strong>in</strong>st his evil <strong>in</strong>st<strong>in</strong>cts, <strong>and</strong> ponder the<br />
horrible punishments of Hell that await all s<strong>in</strong>ners, Qohelet musar’s secular message<br />
is optimistic, <strong>in</strong>vit<strong>in</strong>g the Jews to experience a world of earthly pleasures <strong>and</strong> depict<strong>in</strong>g<br />
God as desir<strong>in</strong>g the good of His creatures. Second, the secular sermon did not<br />
14 Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er, The Jewish Enlightenment (Philadelphia, 2003), Ch. 1–3; idem, ‘Seductive Science<br />
<strong>and</strong> the Emergence of the Secular Jewish Intellectual’, Science <strong>in</strong> Context, 15(1) (2002): 121–36.<br />
15 Jacob Emden, Mi†paÌat sefarim (1768) (Lvov, 1871).<br />
Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er<br />
7
have the back<strong>in</strong>g of the talmudic elite, but rather of the new secular elite of writers.<br />
This fact, which marks the <strong>in</strong>cipient breakdown of the former’s monopoly on knowledge<br />
<strong>and</strong> the public sphere, has revolutionary implications.<br />
This revolution reached its peak <strong>in</strong> the last quarter of the century <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
Königsberg <strong>in</strong> Prussia. Its well-known heroes <strong>in</strong>cluded Isaac Euchel, Isaac Satanow,<br />
Aaron Wolfsohn, David Friedländer, Moses Mendelssohn, <strong>and</strong> Naphtali Herz<br />
Wessely. The new secular maskilic elite penetrated the public sphere, underm<strong>in</strong>ed the<br />
talmudic elite’s dom<strong>in</strong>ance of culture, knowledge, <strong>and</strong> public <strong>in</strong>doctr<strong>in</strong>ation, <strong>in</strong>vented<br />
the ‘new era’ as a powerful modernist ethos, dem<strong>and</strong>ed the application of religious<br />
tolerance to the Jews both from without (the state, with regard to civil rights)<br />
<strong>and</strong> from with<strong>in</strong> (the rabbis, with regard to their coercive powers), established modern<br />
educational <strong>in</strong>stitutions, <strong>and</strong> fought the <strong>in</strong>itial battles of a Jewish Kulturkampf.<br />
I have written about the course <strong>and</strong> significance of this revolution at length <strong>in</strong> my<br />
book The Jewish Enlightenment. Here I shall cite one example of a motif that is<br />
rarely mentioned – the anticlericalism of the Haskalah.<br />
In Aaron Wolfsohn’s radical play, SiÌah be-ereÒ ha-Ìayyim (‘A conversation <strong>in</strong><br />
the l<strong>and</strong> of the liv<strong>in</strong>g’), published <strong>in</strong> Ha-meˆassef <strong>in</strong> the 1790s, the culture war is<br />
brought for a decision by no less an authority than the Heavenly Court, but first before<br />
the medieval philosopher, Maimonides. The litigation pits Rabbi Raphael<br />
Kohen of Hamburg aga<strong>in</strong>st Moses Mendelssohn, with Maimonides as the arbiter.<br />
The rabbi appeals for Maimonides’ approval. But as he describes the world view of<br />
the rabb<strong>in</strong>ical elite that claims a monopoly on the Torah <strong>and</strong> its <strong>in</strong>terpretation, on the<br />
Jewish bookshelf, <strong>and</strong> on knowledge itself, Maimonides becomes more <strong>and</strong> more<br />
repelled by him: ‘Woe to the generation whose leader you are! God’s people, how<br />
grievously you have stumbled <strong>and</strong> decl<strong>in</strong>ed!’ 16 Wolfsohn scath<strong>in</strong>gly criticizes the<br />
narrow-m<strong>in</strong>dedness, fanaticism, <strong>and</strong> ignorance of the rabb<strong>in</strong>ical elite with the aim of<br />
challeng<strong>in</strong>g its pretension to cont<strong>in</strong>ued hegemony. Even <strong>in</strong> this fictional posthumous<br />
confrontation, the rabbi cont<strong>in</strong>ues to cl<strong>in</strong>g to rigidly Orthodox anti-maskilic positions,<br />
while Mendelssohn ga<strong>in</strong>s Maimonides’ full support <strong>and</strong> recognition as a k<strong>in</strong>dred<br />
soul. The two jo<strong>in</strong> the great Greek philosophers <strong>in</strong> the universal world of souls.<br />
God Himself decides the Kulturkampf <strong>in</strong> favor of the maskilim, declar<strong>in</strong>g: ‘My dear<br />
son, Moses [Mendelssohn] has brought to naught the counsel of the evil men of the<br />
l<strong>and</strong> who do not underst<strong>and</strong> the actions of the Almighty <strong>and</strong> the work of His<br />
h<strong>and</strong>s’. 17<br />
At the end of the play, the rabbi is left st<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g alone on the stage. The message is<br />
unmistakable: the rabb<strong>in</strong>ical elite will soon admit its failure <strong>and</strong>, mortified, disappear<br />
from history, <strong>in</strong> the Haskalah’s ultimate triumph.<br />
While these trends, which ultimately led to the secularization of Jewish culture<br />
<strong>and</strong> the emergence of a secular <strong>in</strong>tellectual elite, were proceed<strong>in</strong>g, the hasidic revolution<br />
was tak<strong>in</strong>g place <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>. It developed an allur<strong>in</strong>g new model of religious life<br />
<strong>and</strong> proposed an alternative leadership that captivated many hearts. The old-style rab-<br />
16 Aaron Wolfsohn-Halle, ‘SiÌah be-ereÒ ha-Ìayyim’, <strong>in</strong> Studies <strong>in</strong> Hebrew Satire, I: Hebrew Satire <strong>in</strong><br />
Germany (Heb.), ed. Y. Friedl<strong>and</strong>er, (Tel Aviv, 1979), p. 151.<br />
17 Ibid., p. 176.<br />
8 From Renaissance to Revolution: The Eighteenth Century <strong>in</strong> Jewish History
is were rejected <strong>in</strong> favor of religious leaders who placed the religious experience at<br />
the center of life. A counter-revolution began <strong>in</strong> the early 1770s, a stormy battle<br />
waged by those we usually call ‘Mitnaggedim’. They rightly identified among the<br />
Ìasidim trends of openness to earthly life <strong>and</strong> a rejection of the <strong>in</strong>tellectual religiosity<br />
of the talmudic scholars. Ultimately, though, when the early n<strong>in</strong>eteenth century revealed<br />
that the confrontation with modernity was the crucial story of the new era <strong>in</strong><br />
Jewish history, Hasidism proved to be the best bulwark to safeguard Orthodoxy. In<br />
the struggle aga<strong>in</strong>st the enticements of Europe, the new knowledge <strong>and</strong> the culture of<br />
the Haskalah, mystical Hasidism evidently wielded the best weapons for wag<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
Orthodox battle. Its rejection of modernity was more absolute, underp<strong>in</strong>ned by a religious<br />
view that dismissed corporeal existence <strong>and</strong> rationalist thought. The Hasidim<br />
were among the first to adopt unyield<strong>in</strong>g anti-maskilic positions. Hasidism added<br />
magic to the world at the very time when secularization was at its height <strong>in</strong> Europe<br />
<strong>and</strong> the magic of religion rapidly vanish<strong>in</strong>g from it.<br />
The eighteenth century, then, also holds the key to underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g why <strong>and</strong> how<br />
Orthodoxy took the position it did. The roots of Orthodoxy, accord<strong>in</strong>g to the usual<br />
def<strong>in</strong>ition of the traditionalists’ defensive, negative counter-reaction when confronted<br />
by the threats of modernity <strong>and</strong> alternative Jewish ideologies, lie <strong>in</strong> the anti-<br />
Sabbatean <strong>and</strong> anti-maskilic struggles of the eighteenth century. That is <strong>in</strong> fact how<br />
th<strong>in</strong>gs look retrospectively from the end of that century. Dur<strong>in</strong>g that century, several<br />
oppos<strong>in</strong>g revolutions took place. The revolution of religious revival, <strong>in</strong>fluenced by<br />
the Kabbalah, split <strong>in</strong>to two: Sabbateanism <strong>and</strong> Hasidism. Both offered a promise of<br />
freedom – namely, the possibility of a direct or dialectic contribution to the ethos of<br />
modernity, to the destruction of traditional rabb<strong>in</strong>ical <strong>and</strong> community authority, to<br />
autonomy <strong>and</strong> secularization. Sabbateanism, denounced as soon as its destructive<br />
potential became apparent, went underground <strong>and</strong> f<strong>in</strong>ally disappeared. Hasidism<br />
was persecuted at first but ultimately triumphed <strong>in</strong> Eastern Europe, where it won over<br />
the hearts of the masses <strong>and</strong> ga<strong>in</strong>ed religious legitimacy. At the same time, the<br />
Haskalah’s revolution was proceed<strong>in</strong>g, fed by the pr<strong>in</strong>ciple of religious tolerance,<br />
faith <strong>in</strong> absolutist rulers, a new read<strong>in</strong>g of universal history, <strong>and</strong> above all a belief <strong>in</strong><br />
the Enlightenment. This revolution, too, was perceived as a threat to the rabb<strong>in</strong>ical<br />
elite <strong>and</strong> met by an Orthodox reaction.<br />
The hasidic revolution did not fulfill its subversive potential <strong>and</strong> merged <strong>in</strong>to Orthodoxy,<br />
with which it turned out to have much <strong>in</strong> common: the religious leader<br />
wielded great authority <strong>and</strong> his followers were dependent on him; it isolated itself<br />
from everyth<strong>in</strong>g modern <strong>and</strong> external; <strong>and</strong> it <strong>in</strong>troduced even stricter norms of religious<br />
behavior. The early Haskalah fought a two-front battle, aga<strong>in</strong>st the extreme rationalists<br />
<strong>and</strong> ecstatic kabbalistic religiosity. Similarly, the Haskalah at the end of the<br />
century fought aga<strong>in</strong>st religious hypocrisy <strong>and</strong> clericalism, but also denounced hedonists,<br />
libert<strong>in</strong>es, <strong>and</strong> assimilationists. The germ of the Kulturkampf <strong>and</strong> schisms<br />
that mark the Jewish world at the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of the twentieth-first century was already<br />
present beneath the surface at the end of the eighteenth century.<br />
In his lectures <strong>in</strong> the 1960s on the roots of Romanticism, Isaiah Berl<strong>in</strong> po<strong>in</strong>ted to<br />
the complexity of the eighteenth century:<br />
Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er<br />
9
[P]erhaps somewhat to the surprise of people who believe the eighteenth century to have<br />
been a harmonious, symmetrical, <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>itely rational, elegant, glassy sort of century, a<br />
k<strong>in</strong>d of peaceful mirror of human reason <strong>and</strong> human beauty not disturbed by anyth<strong>in</strong>g<br />
deeper <strong>and</strong> darker, we f<strong>in</strong>d that never <strong>in</strong> the history of Europe had so many irrational<br />
persons w<strong>and</strong>ered over its surface claim<strong>in</strong>g adherence. 18<br />
Those who lived at the time knew that even better than we do. Voltaire, for example,<br />
perhaps the most fasc<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g figure of the eighteenth century, exposed the religious<br />
fanaticism of Catholicism as manifested <strong>in</strong> France <strong>in</strong> the 1760s <strong>in</strong> the trials <strong>and</strong><br />
barbarous executions of Jean Calas <strong>and</strong> of the Chevalier de La Barre. 19 Mendelssohn<br />
was skeptical about the possibility of combat<strong>in</strong>g prejudice <strong>and</strong> imbu<strong>in</strong>g the masses<br />
with the pr<strong>in</strong>ciple of religious tolerance. In 1784, <strong>in</strong> his ‘Was ist Aufklärung?’<br />
Immanuel Kant concluded that his was not an ‘enlightened age’. At best, he ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed,<br />
it is an age <strong>in</strong> which there is ‘Aufklärung’. 20<br />
Even though he was more knowledgeable <strong>and</strong> cultured than many of his Jewish<br />
brethren, Naphtali Herz Wessely, with whom I began, was not acqua<strong>in</strong>ted with all the<br />
contradictory trends at work dur<strong>in</strong>g his generation. He was, however, certa<strong>in</strong>ly aware<br />
of his own role <strong>in</strong> the cultural renaissance of the early Haskalah <strong>and</strong> believed that he<br />
himself was responsible for the breakthrough that produced the cultural shift <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Jewry. Nonetheless, to judge by his reactions dur<strong>in</strong>g the 1782 Kulturkampf<br />
he <strong>in</strong>stigated with the publication of Divrei shalom ve-emet, it is doubtful that<br />
he understood the revolutionary mean<strong>in</strong>g of his challenge to the rabb<strong>in</strong>ical elite <strong>and</strong><br />
of his dem<strong>and</strong> for a reth<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g of all aspects of the social, economic, educational, <strong>and</strong><br />
cultural life of the Jews. In any event, his request to be buried <strong>in</strong> the Sephardi section<br />
of the Altona cemetery is a historical episode that signifies the emergence of <strong>in</strong>dependent,<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividualistic th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g, critical audacity, <strong>and</strong> openness to <strong>in</strong>novative options<br />
of liv<strong>in</strong>g. In this sense, his l<strong>in</strong>k to the Sephardi cultural model is emblematic of<br />
one of the most fasc<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g trends of the Jewish eighteenth century.<br />
18 Isaiah Berl<strong>in</strong>, The Roots of Romanticism, ed. Henry Hardy (Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton, 1999), p. 47.<br />
19 Voltaire, Treatise on Tolerance <strong>and</strong> Other Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, ed. Simon Harvey, trans. Simon Harvey <strong>and</strong><br />
Brian Masters (Cambridge <strong>and</strong> New York, 2000).<br />
20 Immanuel Kant, ‘Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?’ Berl<strong>in</strong>ische Monatsschrift 4<br />
(1784): 481–94.<br />
10 From Renaissance to Revolution: The Eighteenth Century <strong>in</strong> Jewish History
David B. Ruderman<br />
The Impact of Early Modern Jewish Thought on the Eighteenth Century:<br />
A Challenge to the Notion of the Sephardi Mystique<br />
In one of the most dramatic <strong>in</strong>troductions to an elementary manual on the natural<br />
sciences, Judah Loeb Margolioth (1747–1811) opens his Or ¨olam ¨al Ìokhmat<br />
ha-†eva¨ (1782) with the provocative words of a woman <strong>in</strong> black personify<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
science of nature. She proclaims:<br />
Who will listen <strong>and</strong> pay attention to me? Wait. I am the science of nature who <strong>in</strong> the past<br />
was the cornerstone but now I have become like a lost vessel <strong>and</strong> like a rejected def<strong>in</strong>ition,<br />
ab<strong>and</strong>oned <strong>and</strong> forgotten <strong>and</strong> forsaken. Canals run dry [Isa. 19:6] <strong>and</strong> there is no<br />
one on the earth who cures [or heals] from my light <strong>and</strong> my precious lights. … Why is<br />
philosophy open <strong>and</strong> uncovered, peer<strong>in</strong>g through the w<strong>in</strong>dow [Judg. 5:28], saturat<strong>in</strong>g its<br />
plump furrows [after Ps. 65:11]… while I am estranged. … I am astonished most of all<br />
by the officer of the Torah, the author of the Guide [Maimonides], notwithst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g the<br />
wonders he accomplished for the Torah <strong>and</strong> the law <strong>and</strong> the hidden lights his h<strong>and</strong> uncovered<br />
<strong>and</strong> the philosophy he seized with violent trembl<strong>in</strong>g [Gen. 27:33]. For from the<br />
time he wondrously made a praiseworthy name for it [philosophy], the task became onerous<br />
[echo<strong>in</strong>g Exod. 5:9]. What perverseness did he f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong> the science of nature such that<br />
he left it bereaved <strong>and</strong> ab<strong>and</strong>oned, proven displeas<strong>in</strong>g by the fact that he did not designate<br />
her [see Exod. 21:8] because he went after philosophy whose buds are blown away<br />
like dust [Isa. 5:24]. 1<br />
Margolioth’s open contempt for Maimonides’ privileg<strong>in</strong>g metaphysics over physics<br />
might be mean<strong>in</strong>gfully compared with another remarkable declaration composed<br />
some fifty years earlier by the Italian Jewish Kabbalist Solomon Aviad Sar-Shalom<br />
Basilea <strong>in</strong> his Emunat Ìakhamim (1730). In this passage, Basilea describes an old<br />
sage <strong>in</strong> Mantua who had apparently accumulated much ‘old-fashioned’ learn<strong>in</strong>g<br />
which rendered him <strong>in</strong>capable of hav<strong>in</strong>g any new <strong>in</strong>sight other than what he had previously<br />
learned. Basilea cleverly offered to perform an experiment on him us<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
eyeglasses on the bridge of his nose. He said to him: ‘Master, the spectacles on your<br />
nose can make people appear so that their heads are below <strong>and</strong> their feet are above;<br />
that they can extend their heads to the ground <strong>and</strong> their lower extremities toward<br />
heaven, so that when a person walks to the east, it will appear to him that he goes to<br />
1 Judah Loeb Margolioth, Sefer Or ¨olam ¨al Ìokhmat ha-†eva¨ (Warsaw, 1842), pp. 3a–3b. On<br />
Margolioth, see Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er, ‘The Dragon Attached to the Beehive: Y. L. Margolioth <strong>and</strong> the Paradox<br />
of the Early Haskalah’, (Hebrew) Zion 63 (1997/98): 39–74.<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
David Royal B. Netherl<strong>and</strong>s RudermanAcademy<br />
of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences, 2007<br />
11
the west. So all th<strong>in</strong>gs might appear to be opposite of what they actually are’. The old<br />
philosopher dismissed Basilea’s offer as nonsensical <strong>and</strong> attempted to offer philosophical<br />
proofs demonstrat<strong>in</strong>g the impossibility of what he was claim<strong>in</strong>g to accomplish.<br />
Basilea cont<strong>in</strong>ues:<br />
I then asked him to h<strong>and</strong> me his glasses <strong>and</strong> I placed them far from his eyes at the po<strong>in</strong>t<br />
where the image breaks up [the focal po<strong>in</strong>t] <strong>and</strong> beyond it. He then observed … what<br />
was impossible for him to believe. This was because he had not studied the science of<br />
optics even though he was a great scholar, <strong>and</strong> he did not underst<strong>and</strong> how the lens works<br />
<strong>and</strong> how the rays [enter<strong>in</strong>g] the eyes or any rays are bent. … On the contrary, he always<br />
imag<strong>in</strong>ed the opposite to be the case, for with the spectacles on his nose he read a book<br />
<strong>and</strong> perceived everyth<strong>in</strong>g to be <strong>in</strong> order. Maimonides’ case is similar, s<strong>in</strong>ce he learned<br />
only the doctr<strong>in</strong>es of Aristotle <strong>in</strong> these matters <strong>and</strong> could not underst<strong>and</strong> that our voice<br />
from below works above; thus he denied the power of us<strong>in</strong>g God’s names. 2<br />
Reflect<strong>in</strong>g on this fasc<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g passage, I once wrote:<br />
Like the Mantuan scholar, Maimonides had understood the world through the lens of a<br />
scholastic conceptual scheme. Despite his <strong>in</strong>tellectual accomplishments, Maimonides<br />
could not be expected to underst<strong>and</strong> the cultural <strong>and</strong> scientific world of the eighteenth<br />
century, a world where the potency of forces not understood by the <strong>in</strong>tellect was deemed<br />
possible <strong>and</strong> even regularly observed. It wasn’t that ‘the great eagle’ was dead wrong; he<br />
was simply wear<strong>in</strong>g the wrong lens. 3<br />
From Basilea’s perspective, the empirical study of nature could now become a tool to<br />
subvert the rational orthodoxies of the medievals while reconfirm<strong>in</strong>g the previously<br />
discounted sapience of ancient rabb<strong>in</strong>ic <strong>and</strong> kabbalistic traditions.<br />
I began this essay by cit<strong>in</strong>g two eighteenth-century Hebrew writers, Margolioth<br />
<strong>and</strong> Basilea, to reflect on the Jewish <strong>in</strong>tellectual world of their era from an apparently<br />
different vantage po<strong>in</strong>t than most of the essays <strong>in</strong> this volume. In focus<strong>in</strong>g primarily<br />
on texts written on scientific <strong>and</strong> medical subjects, several of which reflect a kabbalistic<br />
bent as well, I am struck by how an expected appreciation <strong>and</strong> even veneration<br />
for the Jewish tradition of medieval philosophy, especially the vaunted Maimonides,<br />
had worn th<strong>in</strong>. Maimonides <strong>and</strong> his philosophical colleagues – Ibn Tibbon, Ibn Ezra,<br />
even Saadia – might be revered as cultural heroes; their Sephardi mystique might<br />
appear allur<strong>in</strong>g to an <strong>in</strong>tellectual community try<strong>in</strong>g to balance the religious with the<br />
secular, the external with the <strong>in</strong>ternal. But as a source of real knowledge about the<br />
material, natural world, the medieval philosophers had become more liable to error<br />
<strong>and</strong> more vulnerable than ever before. Maimonides might still be embraced for his<br />
metaphysical <strong>in</strong>sight <strong>and</strong> his legal brilliance, but he was pa<strong>in</strong>fully out of date <strong>in</strong> the<br />
light of new scientific <strong>in</strong>formation, <strong>and</strong> he was woefully myopic because he was<br />
wear<strong>in</strong>g the wrong epistemological lens, to borrow Basilea’s metaphor once more.<br />
2 Solomon Aviad Sar-Shalom Basilea, Sefer Emunat Ìakhamim (Mantua, 1730), p. 17a. The full passage<br />
is translated <strong>and</strong> discussed <strong>in</strong> David Ruderman, Jewish Thought <strong>and</strong> Scientific Discovery <strong>in</strong> Early<br />
Modern Europe (New Haven, 1995; Detroit, 2001), p. 221.<br />
3 Ibid., p. 222.<br />
12 The Impact of Early Modern Jewish Thought on the Eighteenth Century
To a community of maskilim enamoured of the natural world, cautiously <strong>and</strong> timidly<br />
explor<strong>in</strong>g the new emerg<strong>in</strong>g scientific literature of their day, the need to present<br />
science <strong>in</strong> a manner uncorrosive to Jewish faith was paramount. As Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er<br />
has po<strong>in</strong>ted out, their enlightened positions would not be advanced by sacrific<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Judaism. They sought a balance between the Torah of God <strong>and</strong> the knowledge of<br />
man, so their secularism was always limited, moderate, <strong>and</strong> controlled. 4 To justify<br />
<strong>and</strong> legitimate the novelty of their new prob<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong>to the natural world <strong>and</strong> to argue<br />
that the latter were essential to the education of a new generation of Jewish students,<br />
they turned not to the Maimonidean corpus but to one more recent, more up-to-date,<br />
more <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e with their own emerg<strong>in</strong>g epistemological positions: that of a group of<br />
th<strong>in</strong>kers <strong>and</strong> writers <strong>in</strong> early modern Europe, especially those tra<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> medic<strong>in</strong>e <strong>and</strong><br />
the new sciences <strong>in</strong> Italian universities. In their discovery of a group of authors who<br />
had already ab<strong>and</strong>oned for the most part the presuppositions of medieval thought <strong>in</strong><br />
favour of a new experimental philosophy of the late sixteenth <strong>and</strong> early seventeenth<br />
centuries, 5 they found a means of embrac<strong>in</strong>g the new without ab<strong>and</strong>on<strong>in</strong>g the old.<br />
Rather than <strong>in</strong>vent a new tradition ex nihilo to pursue scientific knowledge, they<br />
found ready-made a literature of their most recent <strong>in</strong>tellectual ancestors, composed <strong>in</strong><br />
Hebrew, written from a respectable traditional pedigree, <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>sightful <strong>in</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g<br />
some of the same religious <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>tellectual issues the maskilim were now fac<strong>in</strong>g. Instead<br />
of Maimonides <strong>and</strong> Ibn Ezra, many of them would draw profit <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>spiration<br />
<strong>in</strong>stead from Joseph Delmedigo (Yashar mi-C<strong>and</strong>ia), Tobias Cohen, David Gans, or<br />
Jacob Zahalon <strong>in</strong> the area of natural sciences. And <strong>in</strong> the not-unrelated area of history<br />
<strong>and</strong> historical scholarship, Solomon Ibn Verga, David Gans, Azariah de’ Rossi, <strong>and</strong><br />
Menasseh ben Israel would be consulted <strong>and</strong> cited, s<strong>in</strong>ce, <strong>in</strong> many ways, their <strong>in</strong>tellectual<br />
achievements were relevant to an age where science <strong>and</strong> history had been elevated<br />
to the highest level of human consciousness.<br />
To draw unambiguous conclusions from the vast literary output of European Jewish<br />
writers who wrote <strong>in</strong> the eighteenth century is most hazardous. Because I have<br />
utilized only some dozen authors who focused primarily on theological <strong>and</strong> scientific<br />
issues, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g several German Jews as well as Jews on the marg<strong>in</strong>s of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i<br />
Jewish culture such as those <strong>in</strong> Italy <strong>and</strong> Engl<strong>and</strong>, my very tentative impressions are<br />
subject to careful scrut<strong>in</strong>y <strong>and</strong> evaluation. I do not mean to suggest the medieval<br />
writers did not occupy a significant role <strong>in</strong> eighteenth-century Jewish thought. I only<br />
wish to <strong>in</strong>dicate by my limited prob<strong>in</strong>gs that both medieval <strong>and</strong> early modern authorities<br />
were consulted seriously <strong>in</strong> this century; that both Italy as well as <strong>Sepharad</strong><br />
caught the serious attention of the maskilim; <strong>and</strong> that the impact of pre-modern Jewish<br />
thought was not limited to rational <strong>and</strong> philosophical writ<strong>in</strong>g. Kabbalistic sources<br />
<strong>and</strong> ideas are not lack<strong>in</strong>g even among the most rational <strong>and</strong> secularized writers well<br />
<strong>in</strong>to the n<strong>in</strong>eteenth century.<br />
On the basis of my small sampl<strong>in</strong>g of authors <strong>and</strong> their writ<strong>in</strong>g, let me suggest four<br />
possible relations that emerge between the medieval/early modern authorities <strong>and</strong><br />
their eighteenth-century <strong>in</strong>terlocutors <strong>and</strong> illustrate them with several examples.<br />
4 Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er, ‘Towards a Historical Def<strong>in</strong>ition of the Haskalah’, <strong>in</strong> New Perspectives on the<br />
Haskalah, ed. Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er <strong>and</strong> David Sork<strong>in</strong> (London, 2001), pp. 206–19.<br />
David B. Ruderman<br />
13
In the first case, I would suggest that several eighteenth-century Jewish writers<br />
openly cite medieval authors, even writ<strong>in</strong>g commentaries on their work, but ultimately<br />
challenge their assumptions, significantly update their knowledge, <strong>and</strong> subvert<br />
the actual mean<strong>in</strong>g of the texts they are us<strong>in</strong>g for their own purposes. Israel of<br />
Zamosc’s commentary on Judah Ibn Tibbon’s RuaÌ Ìen, published <strong>in</strong> 1744, is a case<br />
<strong>in</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t. One of its overrid<strong>in</strong>g themes is to demonstrate how modern knowledge has<br />
outstripped that of the ancients, through its reliance on the most advanced philosophies<br />
of nature challeng<strong>in</strong>g longst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g Aristotelian notions, <strong>and</strong> through its use of<br />
modern <strong>in</strong>struments such as the microscope <strong>and</strong> air-pump. 6 Even more devastat<strong>in</strong>g is<br />
Mordecai Schnaber Levisohn’s commentary on Maimonides’ thirteen pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of<br />
faith. Only the bare skeleton of thirteen subsections rema<strong>in</strong>s to rem<strong>in</strong>d the reader that<br />
Levisohn is <strong>in</strong>deed comment<strong>in</strong>g on Maimonides’ conceptions. Beyond this, the<br />
reader enters the world of Locke <strong>and</strong> L<strong>in</strong>naeus <strong>and</strong> their epistemological categories,<br />
underscor<strong>in</strong>g Levisohn’s commitment to the fashionable physico-theology of the<br />
eighteenth century. When Levisohn does mention Maimonides, he almost always<br />
challenges or dismisses his antiquated notions. More useful to him is an array of kabbalistic<br />
sources that can be more easily conjo<strong>in</strong>ed to his modernist conclusions. 7<br />
More common than subvert<strong>in</strong>g the medieval authorities is cit<strong>in</strong>g them – not as the<br />
last word, but rather together with more updated <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>formative early modern<br />
sources.<br />
Aaron Gumpertz’ highly mov<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>troduction to Megalleh sod, his supercommentary<br />
on Ibn Ezra’s commentary on the five scrolls, acknowledges from the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the author’s <strong>in</strong>debtedness to Maimonides <strong>and</strong> Joseph Delmedigo. 8 His genealogy of<br />
‘geonim’ who have pursued medic<strong>in</strong>e <strong>and</strong> science before him beg<strong>in</strong> with the<br />
medievals – Saadia, Maimonides, Ibn Ezra, Gersonides – but concludes with those<br />
closer to his own generation – Arama, Abravanel, Isserles, Mordecai Jaffe, <strong>and</strong> aga<strong>in</strong><br />
clos<strong>in</strong>g with Delmedigo. 9 Levisohn’s aforementioned treatise on the thirteen pr<strong>in</strong>ciples<br />
is not adverse to cit<strong>in</strong>g such medieval lum<strong>in</strong>aries as BaÌya Ibn Paquda, Joseph<br />
Albo, <strong>and</strong> Judah Halevi, but the number of early modern authorities – Moses Isserles,<br />
Isaiah Horowitz, Eliezer <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i, Abraham Bibago, Joseph Delmedigo, Jacob<br />
Emden, <strong>and</strong> more – far outweighs the earlier th<strong>in</strong>kers. And most reveal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> a<br />
th<strong>in</strong>ker who reads Locke seriously is the ample citation of kabbalistic sages, from the<br />
Zohar <strong>and</strong> Gikatilla to Mattathias Delacrut <strong>and</strong> Immanuel Îai Ricchi. 10 Similarly, the<br />
5 These th<strong>in</strong>kers are treated <strong>in</strong> Ruderman, Jewish Thought; see also David Ruderman, Kabbalah,<br />
Magic, <strong>and</strong> Science: The Cultural Universe of a Sixteenth-Century Jewish Physician (Cambridge,<br />
Mass., 1988).<br />
6 Israel ben Moses ha-Levi of Zamosc, Sefer RuaÌ Ìen (Warsaw, 1826; repr. Jerusalem, 1970, orig<strong>in</strong>ally<br />
published <strong>in</strong> Jessnitz, 1744). For a discussion of this text <strong>and</strong> early bibliography, see Ruderman,<br />
Jewish Thought, pp. 332–4, 341–3.<br />
7 Mordecai Gumpel Schnaber Levisohn, Shelosh ¨esreh yesodei ha-torah (Altona[?], 1792). The work<br />
is discussed <strong>in</strong> Ruderman, Jewish Thought, pp. 345–68. For examples of his dismissive attitude towards<br />
Maimonides, see pp. 8a, 14a, 21a, 44b.<br />
8 Aaron Salomon Gumpertz, Sefer Megalleh sod (Lemberg, 1910; orig<strong>in</strong>ally published <strong>in</strong> Hamburg,<br />
1765), p. 3a. On Gumpertz, see Ruderman, Jewish Thought, pp. 334–5, 343–4.<br />
9 Gumpertz, Sefer Megalleh sod, p. 3b.<br />
10 See Levisohn, Shelosh ¨esreh yesodei ha-torah, for example, pp. 2a (Albo); 3a (BaÌya); 33b<br />
(Pseudo-Ravad <strong>and</strong> Ma¨arekhet ha-elohut); 39a (Gikatilla, Isserles, Isaiah Horowitz, Eliezer Ashke-<br />
14 The Impact of Early Modern Jewish Thought on the Eighteenth Century
aforementioned Judah Loeb Margolioth quotes Saadia <strong>and</strong> Maimonides but amply<br />
cites their successors, from Bibago <strong>and</strong> Jaffe to Delmedigo <strong>and</strong> Israel of Zamosc. 11<br />
Moses Mendelssohn’s use of the medievals has been amply discussed by David<br />
Sork<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> others. 12 But Mendelssohn’s wide familiarity with early modern Jewish<br />
thought also suggests that for him, medieval sources needed to be supplemented by<br />
more recent ones such as Abravanel, Ibn Verga, Sforno, de’ Rossi, Menasseh ben<br />
Israel, <strong>and</strong> others. 13 Sork<strong>in</strong>’s emphasis on the medieval foundations of Mendelssohn’s<br />
th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g clearly understates the significant impact of these later th<strong>in</strong>kers of the<br />
Jewish tradition on his Hebrew commentaries.<br />
In a few cases, a medieval th<strong>in</strong>ker might serve as a bridge <strong>in</strong> assert<strong>in</strong>g a thoroughly<br />
modern position. Take the <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g example of Israel of Zamosc’s use of<br />
Judah Halevi <strong>in</strong> RuaÌ Ìen. Halevi’s brief remarks question<strong>in</strong>g the validity of Aristotle’s<br />
four elements offer him a pretext to adopt the new scheme of five elements advocated<br />
by the chemical philosophers. 14 In an even larger sense, David Nieto’s<br />
Kuzari sheni is simply a convenient way of offer<strong>in</strong>g a new philosophy for his age,<br />
utiliz<strong>in</strong>g the structure of Halevi’s classic work to reth<strong>in</strong>k the mean<strong>in</strong>g of the Jewish<br />
faith <strong>in</strong> the context of an <strong>in</strong>tellectual climate radically transformed by the new philosophies<br />
of Descartes, Newton, Boyle, <strong>and</strong> Gassendi. 15<br />
Most common of all, at least among the eighteenth-century writers on nature <strong>and</strong><br />
science, is a clear recognition, as <strong>in</strong> the case of Margolioth <strong>and</strong> Basilea, that the Jewish<br />
tradition of early modern writers is more usable <strong>and</strong> relevant than that of their<br />
medieval predecessors. The former not only supersedes the latter <strong>in</strong> the accuracy <strong>and</strong><br />
expansiveness of its formulations; it is closer to the scientific assumptions shared by<br />
most eighteenth-century Jewish writers. One might even argue that the excessive reliance<br />
on these authors of the preced<strong>in</strong>g generation or two hampered their quest to <strong>in</strong>vestigate<br />
more modern <strong>and</strong> up-to-date sources. In comparison with the early modern<br />
authors themselves, eighteenth-century writers on scientific matters are less <strong>in</strong>formed<br />
<strong>and</strong> less up-to-date. They know more about the scientific discoveries of the seventeenth<br />
century than their own century, <strong>in</strong> reveal<strong>in</strong>g contrast to several early modern<br />
th<strong>in</strong>kers like Tobias Cohen <strong>and</strong> Joseph Delmedigo, who were remarkably up-to-date.<br />
Like Basilea, his early eighteenth-century Jewish contemporaries Tobias Cohen<br />
<strong>and</strong> David Nieto are enamoured of contemporary philosophy <strong>and</strong> science. In a real<br />
sense, they have distanced themselves almost completely from medieval philosophi-<br />
nazi); 43b (Abravanel, Eliezer <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i); 44b (Bibago); 45b (Kabbalists cited); 74a <strong>and</strong> 76a (Joseph<br />
Delmedigo); 87b (Immanuel Îai Ricchi); 97a (Delacrut); <strong>and</strong> 101a (Jacob Emden).<br />
11 See Margolioth, Or ¨olam, e.g., 4a (Jaffe); 4b (Arama); 6a (Delmedigo, Jaffe); 6b (Delmedigo); 7b<br />
(Saadia); 8a (Bibago); 9a (Jaffe); 11a (Isserles); 14a (Delmedigo); 18b (Delmedigo); 19b (Jaffe, Israel<br />
of Zamosc): 22a <strong>and</strong> 23a–23b (Saadia); 22b (Israel of Zamosc).<br />
12 David Sork<strong>in</strong>, Moses Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> the Religious Enlightenment (Berkeley, 1996), especially pp.<br />
xxii–xxiii; Alex<strong>and</strong>er Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study (University of Alabama,<br />
1973).<br />
13 See Sork<strong>in</strong>, Moses Mendelssohn, pp. 76–7 (on de’ Rossi, Sforno, <strong>and</strong> Abravanel); Altmann, Moses<br />
Mendelssohn, pp. 463–74 (on Menasseh ben Israel); 575–7 (on Ibn Verga). See also Rivka Horwitz,<br />
‘Kabbalah <strong>in</strong> the Writ<strong>in</strong>gs of Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> the Berl<strong>in</strong> Circle of Maskilim’, Leo Baeck Year Book 45<br />
(2000): 3–24.<br />
14 Israel of Zamosc, Sefer RuaÌ Ìen, p. 3a, cit<strong>in</strong>g Kuzari 5:14.<br />
15 On Nieto, see Ruderman, Jewish Thought, pp. 310–31.<br />
David B. Ruderman<br />
15
cal authorities whom they consider unreliable <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>complete. 16 The late eighteenthcentury<br />
authors on science who follow them, Judah Loeb Margolioth <strong>and</strong> Baruch<br />
L<strong>in</strong>dau, cont<strong>in</strong>ue the process of liberat<strong>in</strong>g themselves from the hegemony of Maimonides<br />
<strong>and</strong> medieval philosophy <strong>in</strong> favour of early modern authorities. L<strong>in</strong>dau’s Reshit<br />
limmudim (1789) is a more comprehensive <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>formed view of the sciences than<br />
Margolioth’s more amateurish Or ¨olam, published only seven years earlier. It relies<br />
almost exclusively on contemporary authorities, both Jews such as Marcus Herz <strong>and</strong><br />
Marcus Bloch <strong>and</strong> non-Jews like Buffon, Newton, <strong>and</strong> Andreas Bünger. It is a clear<br />
statement that when it comes to science, Jews have much to learn from contemporary<br />
authorities, not medieval or even early modern ones. 17<br />
P<strong>in</strong>chas Hurwitz’s unusual compendium of Kabbalah <strong>and</strong> science, Sefer ha-Berit<br />
(1797), strongly privileges early modern authorities over medieval ones. Hurwitz<br />
transparently felt the need to justify his forays <strong>in</strong>to science by us<strong>in</strong>g Jewish authorities<br />
who wrote <strong>in</strong> Hebrew. An <strong>in</strong>dex of his citations through the large encyclopaedia<br />
testifies to his wide <strong>and</strong> extensive knowledge of early modern <strong>and</strong> contemporary<br />
Jewish literature <strong>and</strong> his heavy reliance on more recent authorities <strong>in</strong> creat<strong>in</strong>g his<br />
massive tome. He cites, for example the follow<strong>in</strong>g authors: Azariah de’ Rossi,<br />
Baruch L<strong>in</strong>dau, Nathan Spira, Isaac Satanow, Moses Mendelssohn, Moses Îayyim<br />
Luzzatto, Yair Bacharach, Solomon Maimon, Joseph Ergas, David Gans, Joseph<br />
Delmedigo, Moses Isserles, Tobias Cohen, Eliakim Hart, Sar-Shalom Basilea, Jacob<br />
Emden, Moses Cordovero, Mordecai Schnaber Levisohn, Israel of Zamosc, Moses<br />
Îefetz Gentili, Abraham Herrera, Eliezer <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i, <strong>and</strong> others. 18 Hurwitz’s work<br />
underscores, more than any other, both the <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g dialectic between early modern<br />
th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> that of the later eighteenth century <strong>and</strong> the fasc<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g juxtaposition of<br />
kabbalistic <strong>and</strong> Enlightenment thought. 19<br />
One f<strong>in</strong>al example of this last category of privileg<strong>in</strong>g early modern over medieval<br />
thought is the emergence of commentaries or editions of early modern works published<br />
by eighteenth-century Jewish authors. Mendelssohn’s edition of Menasseh ben<br />
Israel’s V<strong>in</strong>diciae Judaeorum is the most prom<strong>in</strong>ent example of this new genre. 20 We<br />
might also mention two other more obscure but nevertheless unusual cases of the<br />
eighteenth century’s fasc<strong>in</strong>ation with its most immediate past. My first example is<br />
the publication of YoÌanan Alemanno’s Sha¨ar ha-Ìesheq by Jacob Baruch <strong>in</strong><br />
Livorno <strong>in</strong> 1790. Allemanno’s important role as the teacher of Pico della Mir<strong>and</strong>ola<br />
<strong>and</strong> his critical place <strong>in</strong> the history of Christian Kabbalah <strong>and</strong> Renaissance th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g<br />
16 On Tobias Cohen <strong>and</strong> his sources, see ibid., pp. 229–55.<br />
17 I have used the 1821 Cracow edition of Baruch L<strong>in</strong>dau, Reshit limmudim. The contemporary authorities<br />
are cited <strong>in</strong> his <strong>in</strong>troduction, <strong>and</strong> see the approbations of Herz, Bloch, <strong>and</strong> Wessely.<br />
18 P<strong>in</strong>chas Hurwitz, Sefer ha-Berit ha-shalem (Jerusalem, 1989/90), pp. 157 (de’ Rossi); 199, 222, 223<br />
(L<strong>in</strong>dau); 205 (Spira); 358 (Satanow); 471 (Mendelssohn); 435 (Luzzatto); 6, 15 (Bacharach); 41, 189,<br />
362, 392 (Maimon); 45, 340, 498, 504 (Ergas); 47, 157, 159, 504–5 (Gans); 47, 299, 314 (Delmedigo);<br />
47 (Isserles); 54, 89, 91, 92, 183, 290, 484 (Cohen); 56, 156, 193, 252 (Hart); 70, 71 (Basilea); 71, 95,<br />
232, 377, 499, 502, 541 (Emden); 75 (Cordovero); 88 (Levisohn); 104, 109, 119, 204 (Israel of<br />
Zamosc); 131, 154, 239 (Gentili); 141, 143 (Herrera); 143 (<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i).<br />
19 On Hurwitz, see David Ruderman, ‘Some Jewish Responses to Smallpox Prevention <strong>in</strong> the Late<br />
Eighteenth <strong>and</strong> Early N<strong>in</strong>eteenth Centuries: A New Perspective on the Modernization of European<br />
Jewry’, Aleph 2 (2002): 111–44, where previous works are cited.<br />
20 On this, see Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn, pp. 463–74.<br />
16 The Impact of Early Modern Jewish Thought on the Eighteenth Century
has been grasped only by recent scholarship. 21 Baruch not only rescued him from<br />
oblivion <strong>in</strong> 1790, he also argued for the relevance of his syncretistic philosophy for<br />
his own day. Similarly unique is the brief compendium of Eliakim ben Abraham<br />
Hart, ∑uf novelot, a brief anthology of the writ<strong>in</strong>g of Joseph Delmedigo. Hart, an<br />
English Jew <strong>and</strong> close associate of P<strong>in</strong>chas Hurwitz, <strong>in</strong>itiated an ambitious publish<strong>in</strong>g<br />
program of brief <strong>and</strong> accessible anthologies on a wide array of subjects from<br />
messianic prophecies, to Gikatilla, to Hebrew grammar. The project was apparently<br />
aborted but his edition of Delmedigo was published. 22 Given the many examples we<br />
have already seen of citations from Delmedigo’s writ<strong>in</strong>g, this ‘portable’ Yashar<br />
might not seem so remarkable for a late eighteenth-century Jew. It underscored yet<br />
aga<strong>in</strong> the esteem acquired by this complex, restless, <strong>and</strong> hardly understood seventeenth-century<br />
th<strong>in</strong>ker a century after his death.<br />
Another way of captur<strong>in</strong>g the significant impact of early modern Jewish writers on<br />
their counterparts of the eighteenth <strong>and</strong> early n<strong>in</strong>eteenth centuries is to consider the<br />
career of several sem<strong>in</strong>al <strong>and</strong> repercussive early modern texts dur<strong>in</strong>g these two centuries.<br />
In consider<strong>in</strong>g the impact of my modest list of eight ‘best-sellers’, it is important<br />
to consider an enlarged readership of Christians as well as Jews. While no one, to my<br />
knowledge, has studied the issue carefully, it st<strong>and</strong>s to reason that the popularity of a<br />
Hebrew text with Christian readers might enhance its popularity among Jews. Indeed,<br />
one of the goals of our collective prob<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> this volume should be a consideration<br />
of how the eighteenth-century Christian read<strong>in</strong>g public was aware of <strong>and</strong> appreciative<br />
of medieval <strong>and</strong> early modern Hebrew works <strong>and</strong> how this correlates with the Jewish<br />
read<strong>in</strong>g public. Certa<strong>in</strong>ly by the eighteenth century, if not earlier, enlightened Christians’<br />
significant <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> Hebraica had created a market quite <strong>in</strong>dependent of<br />
though not unrelated to that available to Jewish readers. If my modest exploration of<br />
Anglo-Jewish th<strong>in</strong>kers at the end of the eighteenth century is any <strong>in</strong>dication, Jews<br />
were also consult<strong>in</strong>g works by Christian Hebraists as authorities on their own Jewish<br />
history <strong>and</strong> culture. 23 If one can then make a case that Christian read<strong>in</strong>g tastes could<br />
<strong>in</strong>fluence those of Jews <strong>in</strong> the eighteenth century, then the ‘best-sellers’ I am mention<strong>in</strong>g<br />
were most likely prom<strong>in</strong>ent not only because Jews were read<strong>in</strong>g them, but<br />
Christians as well.<br />
I have not done exhaustive bibliographical research on any of these books. Nevertheless,<br />
it would be safe to say, on the basis of what I have already mentioned, that<br />
Joseph Delmedigo was well read <strong>and</strong> cited by the late eighteenth century, at least his<br />
scientific work Sefer Elim. Even the cursory list I have compiled of authors who cite<br />
him – Aaron Gumpertz, Mordecai Schnaber Levisohn, Judah Margolioth, P<strong>in</strong>chas<br />
Hurwitz, Baruch L<strong>in</strong>dau, <strong>and</strong> Eliakim Hart – suggests his prom<strong>in</strong>ent place among the<br />
maskilim as a trusted authority on the natural world. 24 I f<strong>in</strong>d fewer references to<br />
21 See Fabrizzio Lelli, ‘Alemanno, Yohanan ben Isaac’, Encyclopedia of the Renaissance (New York,<br />
1999), 1: 40–2, <strong>and</strong> the bibliography cited there.<br />
22 On Hart <strong>and</strong> his publications, see David Ruderman, Jewish Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> an English Key: Anglo-<br />
Jewry’s Construction of Modern Jewish Thought (Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton, 2000), pp. 188–200.<br />
23 Ibid. See, for example, Emanuel Mendes da Costa’s citations of Christian authorities (p. 207) or<br />
David Levi’s citations of Humphrey Prideaux (pp. 245, 248) as well as many other Christian authors.<br />
24 I have already cited these references <strong>in</strong> earlier notes under the relevant authors.<br />
David B. Ruderman<br />
17
Tobias Cohen’s Ma¨aseh uviyyah <strong>in</strong> these same authors; but its five separate editions<br />
<strong>in</strong> the eighteenth century testify to its usefulness <strong>and</strong> circulation as a h<strong>and</strong>book<br />
of medical <strong>in</strong>formation. 25<br />
The creativity of early modern Jewish authors <strong>in</strong> medic<strong>in</strong>e <strong>and</strong> science represented<br />
only one avenue of <strong>in</strong>fluence on their eighteenth-century readers. History, antiquarianism,<br />
<strong>and</strong> apologetics, pioneered by early modern Jews <strong>in</strong> Italy <strong>and</strong> Holl<strong>and</strong>, also<br />
resonated deeply among a later generation of enlightened readers. Hardly a bestseller,<br />
given its vast erudition <strong>and</strong> complexity, Azariah de’ Rossi’s Meˆor ¨enayim,<br />
was well known, quoted, <strong>and</strong> deeply admired by Jewish <strong>and</strong> Christian writers well<br />
<strong>in</strong>to the n<strong>in</strong>eteenth century. Cited by Christian authors from as early as the sixteenth<br />
century, here is a good example of how a Hebrew text crossed over <strong>in</strong>to the Christian<br />
world <strong>and</strong> then eventually stimulated a Jewish scholarly readership as well. Jewish<br />
readers of de’ Rossi beg<strong>in</strong> with Menasseh ben Israel <strong>and</strong> Joseph Delmedigo of the<br />
seventeenth century <strong>and</strong> then <strong>in</strong>clude, Raphael Levi Hannover, Zalman Hanau, Isaiah<br />
Bassani, Isaac Lampronti, Asher Anshel Worms, Malachi ha-Kohen, Menachem<br />
Novara, Naphtali Herz Wessely, Moses Mendelssohn, Saul Berl<strong>in</strong>, P<strong>in</strong>chas Hurwitz,<br />
Judah Margolioth, Eliezer Fleckeles, <strong>and</strong> more. 26<br />
Solomon Ibn Verga’s Shevet Yehudah, first pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> the middle of the sixteenth<br />
century, was republished often <strong>in</strong> the seventeenth <strong>and</strong> eighteenth centuries <strong>in</strong> its<br />
orig<strong>in</strong>al Hebrew as well as <strong>in</strong> Yiddish, Spanish, <strong>and</strong> Lat<strong>in</strong>. While <strong>in</strong> the eighteenth<br />
century the book was especially well known <strong>in</strong> Yiddish, by the next century the book<br />
rega<strong>in</strong>ed its popularity among Hebrew readers, with fifteen separate editions. 27<br />
Michael Stanislawski has recently del<strong>in</strong>eated the significant differences between the<br />
Hebrew <strong>and</strong> Yiddish editions <strong>and</strong> their different audiences. 28 From the perspective of<br />
the Haskalah, however, Ibn Verga’s meditations on Jewish-Christian relations <strong>and</strong> on<br />
the causes of Jew-hatred, <strong>and</strong> even his implicit criticisms of his co-religionists were<br />
apparently noticed <strong>and</strong> appreciated. A more careful study of the uses of Ibn Verga’s<br />
powerful narrative, especially the seventh chapter, would be useful <strong>in</strong> underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
more clearly how the critical m<strong>in</strong>dset of a sixteenth-century Jewish author was received<br />
several hundred years later <strong>in</strong> Western <strong>and</strong> Eastern Europe.<br />
Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er has already po<strong>in</strong>ted out the remarkable publish<strong>in</strong>g history of other<br />
sixteenth-century historical works <strong>in</strong> the eighteenth <strong>and</strong> n<strong>in</strong>eteenth centuries:<br />
Gedaliah Ibn YaÌya’s Shalshelet ha-qabbalah, David Gans’ ∑emaÌ David, <strong>and</strong><br />
YeÌiel Heilpr<strong>in</strong>’s later Seder ha-dorot. Editions of all these works multiply as the<br />
n<strong>in</strong>eteenth century unfolds. As was the case <strong>in</strong> the sixteenth century, Sefer Yosippon<br />
reta<strong>in</strong>ed its primary place as the most widely read account of the ancient Jewish<br />
25 He is amply cited by P<strong>in</strong>chas Hurwitz, who also cites Gans’ astronomical work NeÌmad ve-na¨im.<br />
See n. 19 above. His book was published <strong>in</strong> Venice <strong>in</strong> 1707, 1715, 1728, 1769, <strong>and</strong> 1850 <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> Jessnitz<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1721.<br />
26 This <strong>in</strong>formation is gleaned from Joanna We<strong>in</strong>berg’s edition of Azariah de’ Rossi, The Light of the<br />
Eyes (New Haven, 2001), <strong>in</strong>troduction, pp. xx–xxii.<br />
27 See Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er, Haskalah ve-historiyah (Jerusalem, 1995), p. 277.<br />
28 Michael Stanislawski, ‘The Yiddish Shevet Yehudah: A Study <strong>in</strong> the “Ashkenization” of a Spanish-<br />
Jewish Classic’, <strong>in</strong> Jewish History <strong>and</strong> Jewish Memory: Essays <strong>in</strong> Honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi,<br />
ed. Elisheva Carlebach, John Efron, <strong>and</strong> David Myers (Hanover, N.H., 1998), pp. 134–49.<br />
18 The Impact of Early Modern Jewish Thought on the Eighteenth Century
past. 29 Nevertheless, it was read together with the rest of the library of early modern<br />
works, not <strong>in</strong>stead of them. If the Haskalah discovered the uses of the study of the<br />
past as a dimension of modern Jewish consciousness, it was facilitated <strong>in</strong> this discovery<br />
by these writ<strong>in</strong>gs of its early modern ancestors. History as a resource for modern<br />
Jewish self-def<strong>in</strong>ition cannot be fully comprehended without a recognition of the<br />
place of de’ Rossi, Gans, Ibn Verga, <strong>and</strong> Ibn YaÌya <strong>in</strong> the eighteenth <strong>and</strong> n<strong>in</strong>eteenth<br />
centuries.<br />
The beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>gs of Jewish apologetic works, manuals of <strong>in</strong>struction, <strong>and</strong> even catechisms,<br />
both <strong>in</strong> Hebrew <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> Western languages, can be located <strong>in</strong> the seventeenth<br />
century <strong>in</strong> Italy <strong>and</strong> Amsterdam. I refer especially to the writ<strong>in</strong>gs of Leone Modena<br />
<strong>and</strong> Menasseh ben Israel, but the list of such books could be amplified. The wellknown<br />
dissem<strong>in</strong>ation of Modena’s Historia dei riti ebraici <strong>in</strong>cludes several English<br />
editions <strong>and</strong> its <strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>in</strong> the first volume of Bernard Picart’s Cérémonies et<br />
coutumes religieuses (1733). The history of this book alone is a study of the selfpresentation<br />
of Judaism to a learned Christian audience, first <strong>in</strong> Italy <strong>and</strong> then<br />
throughout Western Europe. By the late eighteenth century, the work becomes a<br />
model for the production of similar manuals summariz<strong>in</strong>g the Jewish faith <strong>in</strong> Engl<strong>and</strong>,<br />
written for both Jewish <strong>and</strong> Christian consumption. In a similar manner,<br />
Menasseh ben Israel’s apologetic writ<strong>in</strong>gs left their mark on subsequent readers <strong>in</strong><br />
both the Jewish <strong>and</strong> Christian communities. The proliferation of compendia, religious<br />
guides, <strong>and</strong> catechisms <strong>in</strong> the late eighteenth <strong>and</strong> early n<strong>in</strong>eteenth centuries, for Jewish<br />
<strong>and</strong> Christian usage, should be seen as the culm<strong>in</strong>ation of a process <strong>in</strong>itiated <strong>in</strong><br />
Venice <strong>and</strong> Amsterdam 150 years earlier. 30<br />
One f<strong>in</strong>al subject that requires attention here is the impact of kabbalistic texts on<br />
the eighteenth <strong>and</strong> n<strong>in</strong>eteenth centuries. Conventional wisdom views the Haskalah as<br />
a repudiation of kabbalistic <strong>and</strong> hasidic sapience. The hasidic rebbe epitomizes the<br />
dark, irrational, <strong>and</strong> contemptible aspects of Jewish spirituality <strong>and</strong> cultural backwardness,<br />
to be overcome by the new rationality <strong>and</strong> its accompany<strong>in</strong>g pedagogic<br />
reform. Yet recent scholarship has not susta<strong>in</strong>ed this impression. The late eighteenth<br />
<strong>and</strong> early n<strong>in</strong>eteenth centuries mark the age of a remarkable creativity <strong>in</strong> kabbalistic<br />
th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g, culm<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the great th<strong>in</strong>kers of the first generations of Hasidic writers.<br />
And the impact of the Kabbalah on the Gaon Elijah of Vilna <strong>and</strong> his disciples has<br />
long been documented. 31 More recently, we have become aware of the impact of kabbalistic<br />
ideas <strong>and</strong> praxis on the enlightened rabbi of Prague, Ezekiel L<strong>and</strong>au. 32<br />
29 Fe<strong>in</strong>er, Haskalah ve-historiyah, pp. 277–8.<br />
30 See Mark R. Cohen, ‘Leone da Modena’s Riti: A Seventeenth Century Plea for Social Toleration of<br />
Jews’, Jewish Social Studies 34 (1972): 287–321; repr. <strong>in</strong> David Ruderman, ed., Essential Papers on<br />
Jewish Culture <strong>in</strong> Renaissance <strong>and</strong> Baroque Italy (New York, 1992), pp. 429–73. See also: Richard<br />
Cohen, Jewish Icons: Art <strong>and</strong> Society <strong>in</strong> Modern Europe (Berkeley, 1998), pp. 10–67; Ruderman, Jewish<br />
Enlightenment, pp. 240–60; Jacob Petuchowski, ‘Manuals <strong>and</strong> Catechisms of the Jewish Religion <strong>in</strong><br />
the Early Period of Emancipation’, <strong>in</strong> Studies <strong>in</strong> N<strong>in</strong>eteenth-Century Jewish Intellectual History, ed.<br />
Alex<strong>and</strong>er Altmann (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), pp. 47–64.<br />
31 See Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson, ‘The Personality of the Gra <strong>and</strong> his Historical Influence’, (Heb.) Zion<br />
31 (1965/66): 39–86, 197–216; Emanuel Etkes, YaÌid be-doro: Ha-gaˆon mi-Vilna, demut ve-dimmui<br />
(Jerusalem, 1998).<br />
32 See Sharon Flatto’s recent Yale dissertation on L<strong>and</strong>au’s attitude to the Kabbalah.<br />
David B. Ruderman<br />
19
More difficult to reconcile with our own preconceptions of Jewish enlightenment<br />
figures is their cont<strong>in</strong>ued <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> citation of kabbalistic authorities. Rivka<br />
Horwitz <strong>and</strong> Moshe Idel, among others, have noticed the Kabbalah’s place <strong>in</strong> the<br />
th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g of several enlightened figures, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Moses Mendelssohn. Horwitz<br />
rightly contends that attacks on the Frankists – or <strong>in</strong> Mendelssohn’s case, on Sp<strong>in</strong>oza<br />
– should not be mistaken for attacks on kabbalistic lore as a whole. In his multiple<br />
citations of kabbalistic writers, Mendelssohn shared an appreciation <strong>in</strong> common with<br />
Jacob Emden, but also with Salomon Maimon, NaÌman Krochmal, Isaac Satanow,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Mordecai Schnaber Levisohn. He was especially attracted to the writ<strong>in</strong>g of Moses<br />
Îayyim Luzzatto. In the case of Maimon, his <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> Kabbalah was no doubt<br />
stimulated by kabbalist elements <strong>in</strong> the thought of Leibniz, which <strong>in</strong> turn drew on the<br />
still powerful currents of Christian kabbalistic writers from Pico <strong>and</strong> Reuchl<strong>in</strong> though<br />
Knorr von Rosenroth. Maimon composed an entire book on Kabbalah, associat<strong>in</strong>g it<br />
with science. 33<br />
Rivka Horwitz also discusses the impact of Menasseh ben Israel’s Nishmat<br />
Ìayyim, a work <strong>in</strong>fused with kabbalistic doctr<strong>in</strong>es on the immortality of the soul,<br />
transposed <strong>in</strong>to a neoplatonic key, on Mendelssohn. 34 This should rem<strong>in</strong>d us aga<strong>in</strong> of<br />
the <strong>in</strong>debtedness of the eighteenth century to Jewish th<strong>in</strong>kers, this time kabbalistic<br />
ones, of the early modern period. I refer not only to the references to Luria <strong>and</strong><br />
Cordovero but also to the particular merger of kabbalah <strong>and</strong> philosophy, especially<br />
natural philosophy, <strong>in</strong> such Jewish th<strong>in</strong>kers as YoÌanan Alemanno, Abraham Jagel,<br />
Joseph Delmedigo, Abraham Herrera, <strong>and</strong> Menasseh ben Israel from the late fifteenth<br />
through the seventeenth centuries. 35 Surely the repercussions of this <strong>in</strong>tegration of<br />
Kabbalah <strong>and</strong> science left their mark on subsequent Jewish <strong>and</strong> Christian thought.<br />
The belated <strong>in</strong>fluence of this approach to knowledge can be traced not only to<br />
Mendelssohn, but certa<strong>in</strong>ly to Basilea, to Maimon, <strong>and</strong> even to P<strong>in</strong>chas Hurwitz’s<br />
strange amalgamation of the Kabbalah <strong>and</strong> natural science. Despite the decl<strong>in</strong>e of<br />
Hermeticism <strong>and</strong> the occult by the late eighteenth century, kabbalistic modes of<br />
th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g were never absent from modern Jewish thought <strong>in</strong> the period we are consider<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Moreover, the particular systems of kabbalistic thought of the eighteenth <strong>and</strong><br />
n<strong>in</strong>eteenth centuries were themselves directly shaped by the creative th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g of early<br />
modern Kabbalists, particularly those filtered through the unique ambience of Italian<br />
Jewish culture <strong>in</strong> the preced<strong>in</strong>g centuries.<br />
In the light of the above, we might summarize our conclusions as follows:<br />
1. While the eighteenth century paid homage to Jewish medieval th<strong>in</strong>kers like<br />
Maimonides <strong>and</strong> Ibn Ezra, <strong>in</strong> many respects they were prov<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>adequate as<br />
sources of knowledge <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>sight. In the area of natural philosophy they were<br />
obsolete. In search of a traditional pedigree for their strong scientific proclivities,<br />
eighteenth-century writers on nature turned to the early modern writers<br />
33 Horwitz, ‘Kabbalah <strong>in</strong> the Writ<strong>in</strong>gs of Mendelssohn’; Moshe Idel, Hasidism: Between Ecstasy <strong>and</strong><br />
Magic (New York, 1995), pp. 37–43, cites Maimon’s kabbalistic work <strong>in</strong> manuscript, Îesheq Shelomo.<br />
34 Horwitz, ‘Kabbalah <strong>in</strong> the Writ<strong>in</strong>gs of Mendelssohn’, pp. 18–24.<br />
35 See Moshe Idel, ‘Major Currents <strong>in</strong> Italian Kabbalah between 1560 <strong>and</strong> 1660’, <strong>in</strong> Ruderman, Essential<br />
Papers, pp. 346–67.<br />
20 The Impact of Early Modern Jewish Thought on the Eighteenth Century
whose physics had already been divorced from an outdated <strong>and</strong> repudiated<br />
Aristotelian metaphysics.<br />
2. Similarly, <strong>in</strong> the areas of history <strong>and</strong> apologetics, eighteenth- <strong>and</strong> n<strong>in</strong>eteenthcentury<br />
Jewish th<strong>in</strong>kers read with great <strong>in</strong>terest the literary creations of their<br />
early modern ancestors. As <strong>in</strong> the case of science, their own <strong>in</strong>terests co<strong>in</strong>cided<br />
more directly with the latter, whose social <strong>and</strong> cultural concerns were <strong>in</strong>deed<br />
closer.<br />
3. For some eighteenth- <strong>and</strong> n<strong>in</strong>eteenth-century th<strong>in</strong>kers, kabbalistic th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g was<br />
compatible with modernity, certa<strong>in</strong>ly more so than medieval philosophy. Although<br />
anchored <strong>in</strong> a remote past, its epistemological pliability <strong>and</strong> its correlations<br />
with other philosophies, ancient <strong>and</strong> modern, allowed for a creative dialogue<br />
between the Jewish tradition <strong>and</strong> modernist th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g. In this respect, the<br />
creative merger of Kabbalah <strong>and</strong> science <strong>in</strong> Maimon, Hurwitz, Schick, 36 <strong>and</strong><br />
others was a direct cont<strong>in</strong>uation of similar efforts by Jewish (<strong>and</strong> Christian)<br />
writers <strong>in</strong> the preced<strong>in</strong>g centuries.<br />
4. <strong>Medieval</strong> Sephardi th<strong>in</strong>kers become more important as cultural icons for modern<br />
Jewish th<strong>in</strong>kers than as actual sources of knowledge <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>sight. At least<br />
with respect to science, history, apologetics, <strong>and</strong> Kabbalah, early modern<br />
Jewish thought, especially <strong>in</strong> Italy, leaves a more significant mark on their<br />
th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
5. The dialogue I am describ<strong>in</strong>g between early modern <strong>and</strong> modern Jewish<br />
thought was also shaped <strong>in</strong> the context of a new factor relevant to both periods:<br />
Christian Hebraism. With an <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g awareness of the ‘other’, Jewish ideas<br />
circulated widely between the two communities. It is not uncommon to witness<br />
the impact of an early Jewish idea on a later Jewish th<strong>in</strong>ker through the mediation<br />
of a Christian author. This is dramatically illustrated <strong>in</strong> the case of the<br />
highly assimilated <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>tellectually open Jewish community of Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> the<br />
late eighteenth century.<br />
I would like to add one f<strong>in</strong>al thought, which perhaps transcends the particular<br />
agenda of this volume but seems somehow to follow from the observations made<br />
here. If I am correct <strong>in</strong> call<strong>in</strong>g for a re-evaluation of the impact of early modern Jewish<br />
thought on the eighteenth century <strong>and</strong> beyond, perhaps such a re-evaluation also<br />
calls <strong>in</strong>to question the orig<strong>in</strong>ality <strong>and</strong> the overall <strong>in</strong>tellectual creativity usually associated<br />
with the Haskalah <strong>in</strong> Jewish historiography. Here I am ask<strong>in</strong>g, rather <strong>in</strong>solently,<br />
a question only an early modern <strong>in</strong>tellectual historian could ask: So what’s new<br />
here?! Why is the ideational world of the Haskalah traditionally perceived as a radical<br />
break from the past, iconoclastically shap<strong>in</strong>g a new secular consciousness, a new<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellectual elite, <strong>and</strong> a new construction of Jewish identity? How novel, how revolutionary<br />
was its <strong>in</strong>tellectual production? From the perspective of the dynamic <strong>in</strong>tellectual<br />
universe of the sixteenth <strong>and</strong> seventeenth centuries, the eighteenth century <strong>in</strong><br />
Jewish thought seems rather unspectacular <strong>in</strong> the novelty of its formulations regard<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the modern age. Its significance lies rather <strong>in</strong> its radical impact with<strong>in</strong> the politi-<br />
36 On him, see David Fishman, Russia’s First Modern Jews (New York, 1995).<br />
David B. Ruderman<br />
21
cal, social, <strong>and</strong> cultural spheres, <strong>and</strong> not necessarily the <strong>in</strong>tellectual, even when one<br />
considers such exceptional th<strong>in</strong>kers as Mendelssohn or Maimon. In the fields I have<br />
discussed <strong>in</strong> this essay – natural philosophy, Kabbalah, history, <strong>and</strong> apologetics – the<br />
seeds of much of what emerges <strong>in</strong> Jewish writ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> this era can be located centuries<br />
earlier. If one compares how thoroughly up-to-date <strong>and</strong> how genu<strong>in</strong>ely aware such<br />
writers as Delmedigo, Cohen, <strong>and</strong> de’ Rossi were of their immediate <strong>in</strong>tellectual surround<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
with the limited cognisance of their counterparts some 150 years later, the<br />
contrast is truly strik<strong>in</strong>g. With the weight of several centuries of relative <strong>in</strong>tellectual<br />
isolation from the centres of European culture on their shoulders, <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i<br />
maskilim were struggl<strong>in</strong>g to keep up, to rega<strong>in</strong> what their ancestors had achieved, especially<br />
<strong>in</strong> Italy, centuries before. One of the best means at their disposal was to read<br />
<strong>and</strong> absorb some of the earlier <strong>in</strong>sights of their remarkably precocious early modern<br />
ancestors.<br />
22 The Impact of Early Modern Jewish Thought on the Eighteenth Century
Gad Freudenthal 1<br />
Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730:<br />
The Early Years of Rabbi Israel ben Moses Halevi of Zamos´c´<br />
Introduction<br />
‘Wo immer so e<strong>in</strong> Funke entglimmt, oft mitten im tiefsten Dunkel, und<br />
zur Leuchte wird, ist auch etwas Rätselhaftes dabei – den letzten Grund<br />
kennen wir nicht.’<br />
Karl Emil Franzos 2<br />
‘Every scholar is permitted to th<strong>in</strong>k accord<strong>in</strong>g to his own underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g,<br />
without rely<strong>in</strong>g on someone else’s underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g. This has been<br />
done by the modern astronomers who came after Ptolemy.’<br />
Israel b. Moses Halevi of Zamosc 3<br />
Israel b. Moses Halevi (or Segal) of Zamosc has been immortalized <strong>in</strong> a way that not<br />
even Maimonides can boast: he is the subject of two separate entries <strong>in</strong> the Encyclopedia<br />
Judaica – one, written by the Editors, under ‘Segal, Israel ben Moses of<br />
Zamosc’, the other, under ‘Zamosc, Israel ben Moses Halevi’, written by G[etzel]<br />
K[ressel]. 4 To judge by medieval theories of the immortality of the soul, Israel’s <strong>in</strong>tellectual<br />
accomplishments were exceptional; thus they warrant a closer look.<br />
R. Israel b. Moses 5 ga<strong>in</strong>ed his renown from his two-fold role <strong>in</strong> the early history of<br />
the Haskalah. While still <strong>in</strong> Zamosc, he wrote his first book, which applies science to<br />
1 Acknowledgements: For helpful discussions of po<strong>in</strong>ts treated here <strong>and</strong>/or for hav<strong>in</strong>g read <strong>and</strong> commented<br />
on an earlier version of this paper I am grateful to Abraham David, Gideon Freudenthal, Ruth<br />
Glasner, Bernard R. Goldste<strong>in</strong>, <strong>and</strong> David B. Ruderman. Special thanks go to Mr. Lenn Schramm who<br />
embellished my English style <strong>and</strong> whose close <strong>and</strong> learned read<strong>in</strong>g saved me from more blunders than I<br />
like to recall. It is a pleasure to thank the Jewish <strong>and</strong> University Library <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem for its hospitality,<br />
<strong>and</strong> the Sidney M. Edelste<strong>in</strong> Center for the History of Science, Technology, <strong>and</strong> Medic<strong>in</strong>e at the Hebrew<br />
University <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem for the facilities it generously puts at my disposal dur<strong>in</strong>g my stays <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem.<br />
Bibliographical references to articles <strong>and</strong> books <strong>in</strong> Hebrew: when the article or the book were given an<br />
English title by the author, this title is used, followed by the <strong>in</strong>dication ‘(Hebrew)’; otherwise, the Hebrew<br />
title itself is given <strong>in</strong> transliteration.<br />
2 Der Pojaz. E<strong>in</strong>e Geschichte aus dem Osten (1905) (Hamburg, 1994), p. 214. I am very grateful to<br />
Prof. Delph<strong>in</strong>e Bechtel (Paris) for draw<strong>in</strong>g my attention to this little known but very <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong><br />
mov<strong>in</strong>g novel by Karl Emil Franzos (1848–1904).<br />
3 Arubbot ha-shamayim, New York, Jewish Theological Sem<strong>in</strong>ary, MS 2612 (= Institute for Microfilmed<br />
Hebrew Manuscripts, Jerusalem, No. 28865), fol. 76b (Hebrew numerals) (all subsequent references to<br />
this work are to this manuscript). See the description of this manuscript <strong>in</strong> Yosef Avivi, Rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Manuscripts.<br />
Mendel Gottesman Library Yeshiva University (New York, 1998), pp. 166–7 (No. 312).<br />
4 Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1972; hereafter: EJ), 14: 1106–7 <strong>and</strong> 16: 929. I am grateful to<br />
Prof. Daniel Lasker for call<strong>in</strong>g this to my attention.<br />
5 S<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>in</strong> this paper I often refer to the town of Zamosc, I cannot refer to Israel b. Moses by the name<br />
of his town as ‘Zamosc’; to use his first name seemed simplest.<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
Gad Royal Freudenthal Netherl<strong>and</strong>s Academy of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences, 2007<br />
25
the <strong>in</strong>terpretation of the Talmud, both halakhah <strong>and</strong> aggadah: NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel (= The<br />
Eternity of Israel; hereafter NY; all folio numbers given <strong>in</strong> brackets <strong>in</strong> the body of<br />
this paper refer to this work). 6 After its publication <strong>in</strong> 1741, Israel settled <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>. It<br />
is generally believed that he left Zamosc to avoid persecution on account of his predilection<br />
for science, a view that has turned him <strong>in</strong>to an early martyr of the Haskalah.<br />
In Berl<strong>in</strong>, Israel was for a while Moses Mendelssohn’s teacher of philosophy. There<br />
he also wrote his second book, a commentary on the medieval classic RuaÌ Ìen<br />
(1744); <strong>in</strong> this work Israel presented, for the first time <strong>in</strong> Hebrew, some facets of<br />
early modern (qualitative) science. Even more than the Zamosc chapter <strong>in</strong> his life, his<br />
activity <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> secured Israel a place <strong>in</strong> all histories of the early Haskalah.<br />
Israel became one of the first th<strong>in</strong>kers of Polish orig<strong>in</strong> to enter the history of<br />
Haskalah thanks to his <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> commitment to science, especially astronomy <strong>and</strong><br />
mathematics. Given the general state of scientific education among Jews <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />
the early eighteenth century, Israel’s engagement with mathematical science comes as a<br />
surprise. In this paper, I will focus on the formation of Israel’s scientifically moulded<br />
frame of m<strong>in</strong>d. I will argue that, to account for it, Israel should be set <strong>in</strong> his local context,<br />
the town of Zamosc, which, I will suggest, was a centre of learn<strong>in</strong>g where the<br />
Sephardi tradition of science study may have been perpetuated on Polish soil. Consequently,<br />
I will consider only the early part of Israel’s life, passed <strong>in</strong> Zamosc. 7<br />
R. Israel b. Moses Halevi <strong>in</strong> Zamosc 8<br />
Israel b. Moses was born around 5460/1700 9 <strong>in</strong> the small Galician town of Bóbrka, 10<br />
some 30 kilometres southeast of Lvov (Lemberg), now <strong>in</strong> Ukra<strong>in</strong>e. Noth<strong>in</strong>g is known<br />
6 Frankfurt on the Oder, 1741.<br />
7 For Israel’s later scientific activity <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>, see: David B. Ruderman, Jewish Thought <strong>and</strong> Scientific<br />
Discovery <strong>in</strong> Early Modern Europe (New Haven <strong>and</strong> London, 1995), pp. 332 ff.; David Sork<strong>in</strong>, ‘The<br />
Early Haskalah’, <strong>in</strong> New Perspectives on the Haskalah, ed. Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er <strong>and</strong> David Sork<strong>in</strong> (London,<br />
2001), pp. 9–26, on pp. 17–9. Discussions of Israel often draw on statements collected from all his works.<br />
This is misguided, for dur<strong>in</strong>g his life Israel’s thought evolved, while yet ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a certa<strong>in</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>uity.<br />
His two posthumous works, the commentaries on the Kuzari <strong>and</strong> on Îovot ha-levavot (the dates of composition<br />
are uncerta<strong>in</strong>), <strong>in</strong> particular, seem to reflect a relatively traditionalist attitude. See Gad Freudenthal,<br />
‘Jisrael ben Moshe Halewi Zamosc’, <strong>in</strong> Lexikon jüdischer Philosophen und Theologen, ed. Andreas<br />
Kilcher <strong>and</strong> Otfried Fraisse (Stuttgart, 2003), pp. 174–6; idem, ‘Zamosc, Israel ben Moses Halevi’, YIVO<br />
Encyclopedia of Jews <strong>in</strong> Eastern Europe (forthcom<strong>in</strong>g), as well as n. 137 below. Israel’s later works thus<br />
have only <strong>in</strong>direct bear<strong>in</strong>g for the underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the scientific tradition among Jews <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>.<br />
8 Useful accounts of Israel’s life <strong>and</strong> works are the follow<strong>in</strong>g: Isaac Baer Lev<strong>in</strong>sohn, Te¨udah be-Yisraˆel<br />
(Warsaw, 1878), p. 146; Samuel Joseph Fuenn, Knesseth Yisra}el (Warsaw, 1886), pp. 690–2; C.<br />
Stanislavsky, ‘Israel Zamosc’ (<strong>in</strong> Russian), Voskod 6 (1886): 131–7; Salomon W<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>ger, Grosse<br />
jüdische National-Biographie, 7 vols. (Cernau†i, 1925–1936), 3: 210; Israel Z<strong>in</strong>berg, A History of Jewish<br />
Literature, vol. 6: The German-Polish Cultural Center, trans. <strong>and</strong> ed. Bernard Mart<strong>in</strong> (C<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>nati <strong>and</strong><br />
New York, 1975), pp. 244–5; Ben-Zion Katz, Rabbanut, Ìasidut, haskalah (Tel Aviv, 1956), 1: 142–4,<br />
185–7, 209–10; Raphael Mahler, Divrei yemei Yisraˆel ha-aÌaronim (MerÌavia, 1956), 1: IV-26–30;<br />
Jacob Dov M<strong>and</strong>elboim, ‘Îakhmei Zamoshtsh’ (Hebrew), <strong>in</strong> P<strong>in</strong>qas Zamosc (Buenos Aires, 1957), pp.<br />
221–316, on p. 270; G[edaliahu] A[lkoshi] <strong>in</strong> Encyclopedia Hebraica (Hebrew), vol. 16 (Jerusalem <strong>and</strong><br />
Tel-Aviv, 1963), col. 867; Getzel Kressel, Cyclopedia of Modern Hebrew Literature (Hebrew), vol. 1<br />
(MerÌavia, 1965), p. 755; see also the two entries by the present writer referred to at the end of n. 7.<br />
9 All the works <strong>in</strong> the previous note <strong>in</strong>dicate ‘c. 1700’, except Mahler <strong>and</strong> one of the two articles <strong>in</strong> EJ,<br />
which have ‘1710’ (without argument).<br />
10 Also known as Bibrka (Ukra<strong>in</strong>ian), Boiberke (Yiddish), <strong>and</strong> Prachnik (German); by contrast,<br />
‘Boiberik’ is a misnomer deriv<strong>in</strong>g from the name of a fictional town <strong>in</strong> Shalom Aleichem’s stories.<br />
26 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
about his family, but it seems to have been without dist<strong>in</strong>ction or scholarly antecedents.<br />
11 Jews first settled <strong>in</strong> Bóbrka around 1625, when the town began to prosper; a<br />
century later (<strong>in</strong> 1765), the community numbered only 713. 12 Educational opportunities<br />
<strong>in</strong> Bóbrka were obviously quite limited, <strong>and</strong> so it is not surpris<strong>in</strong>g that early <strong>in</strong><br />
his life Israel moved to Zamosc, the town with which his name was to be associated.<br />
13 He moved to Zamosc, halfway between Lvov <strong>and</strong> Lubl<strong>in</strong>, because the town<br />
was a ris<strong>in</strong>g economic <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>tellectual centre, as we shall see. The only source of <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
about Israel’s life <strong>in</strong> Zamosc is his book NY, especially its <strong>in</strong>troduction,<br />
written <strong>in</strong> rhymed prose. 14<br />
We do not know where <strong>and</strong> under whom Israel studied, 15 but <strong>in</strong> midlife he had already<br />
acquired the reputation of a great scholar. In his haskamah (letter of approbation)<br />
to NY (1737), Joel Ba{al Shem (on whom more below) refers to Israel as ‘one of<br />
the worthies [yaqqirei] of our community’ <strong>and</strong> says that he agreed to write the approbation<br />
because ‘it is unfitt<strong>in</strong>g to turn down a great sage [gadol]’ (fol. 3a). Other rabbis,<br />
too, describe him <strong>in</strong> their approbations to NY as ‘great <strong>in</strong> knowledge’, ‘erudite’<br />
(Ìarif), 16 <strong>and</strong> ‘an astronomer’ (tokhen).<br />
While liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Zamosc (until 1741), Israel completed his major work, NY, as well<br />
as three other books: Arubbot ha-shamayim (The W<strong>in</strong>dows of Heaven) – an astronomical<br />
treatise (extant <strong>in</strong> two <strong>in</strong>complete manuscripts); 17 a commentary on Sefer<br />
11 Israel puts <strong>in</strong>to the mouth of a contemporary the follow<strong>in</strong>g words, suggest<strong>in</strong>g he came from a humble<br />
orig<strong>in</strong>: ‘Whose son is this youngster who talks to us so highly?… I searched <strong>in</strong> the books of all the lords<br />
of the l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> found not a s<strong>in</strong>gle word on his past’ (fol. 2ba).<br />
12 Le-zekher qehilat Bobrka u-venoteha (Boiberke memorial book), ed. Shraga F. Kallay (Jerusalem,<br />
1964); English translation (excerpts) at http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/bobrka/bobrka.html; P<strong>in</strong>kas<br />
Hakehilot, partial English translation at http://www.shtetl<strong>in</strong>ks.jewishgen.org/Bobrka/history.htm. Other<br />
sources give slightly different figures.<br />
13 He apparently did not move to Zamosc with all his family, for <strong>in</strong> NY he thanks his ‘em<strong>in</strong>ent’ brother<br />
P<strong>in</strong>Ìas Lafa†nir of Brody for his f<strong>in</strong>ancial help (fol. 3a); see also below, n. 121. The record of Israel’s<br />
funeral <strong>in</strong> the Brody cemetary notes that Israel was ‘the brother of R. P<strong>in</strong>Ìas Lef<strong>in</strong>er (or: Lap<strong>in</strong>er,<br />
Lap<strong>in</strong>ar)’; see: Nathan M. Gelber, ‘Aus dem “P<strong>in</strong>ax des alten Judenfriedhofes <strong>in</strong> Brody” (1699–1831)’,<br />
Jahrbuch der jüdisch-literarischen Gesellschaft 13 (1920): 130 (No. 115).<br />
14 On the tradition of this genre <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>, see Nurith Govr<strong>in</strong>, ‘Signon ha-maqqamah ba-sifrut ha-<br />
¨ivrit ba-dorot ha-aÌaronim’, Meˆassef le-divrei sifrut, biqqoret ve-hagut 7–8 (1968): 394–417 (NY is<br />
briefly mentioned on p. 397). Govr<strong>in</strong> also refers to Israel’s much discussed Nezed ha-dema¨. She is exceptional<br />
<strong>in</strong> not<strong>in</strong>g that there is a similarity between the latter <strong>and</strong> the <strong>in</strong>troduction to NY, but does not<br />
systematically br<strong>in</strong>g the latter to bear on the former. Curiously, the recent <strong>and</strong> most detailed study of<br />
Nezed ha-dema¨ does not draw on the <strong>in</strong>troduction to NY, but <strong>in</strong>stead on that of Solomon b. Moses of<br />
Chelm’s Mirkevet ha-mishneh (below, p. 44), published ten years later; see Yehuda Friedl<strong>and</strong>er, Bemisterei<br />
ha-sa†irah. Hebrew Satire <strong>in</strong> Europe <strong>in</strong> the Eighteenth <strong>and</strong> N<strong>in</strong>eteenth Centuries (Hebrew), vol.<br />
2 (Ramat Gan, 1989), pp. 9–110. Future research on Nezed ha-dema¨ should take the <strong>in</strong>troduction to NY<br />
<strong>in</strong>to consideration.<br />
15 In NY, Israel often alludes to his ‘friends’ <strong>and</strong> names them (see below), but mentions none of his<br />
teachers.<br />
16 Îarif is often understood as ‘sharp-witted’; but when R. Jacob Isaac Îarif took a German name he<br />
chose ‘Hochgelernter’ (below, p. 41), signall<strong>in</strong>g that the term’s primary signification was ‘erudite’.<br />
17 See n. 3; the second manuscript is London, Jews’ College, Montefiore Collection, MS 427 (= Institute<br />
for Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts, Jerusalem, No. 8752). The two manuscripts cover the same<br />
text, but have numerous variants due to scribal errors. Both are <strong>in</strong>complete, for <strong>in</strong> NY (fol. 2ba) Israel<br />
explicitly refers to the <strong>in</strong>troduction to Arubbot, which neither manuscript has; he also refers to a geometrical<br />
section of Arubbot (see below) <strong>and</strong> to ‘tables’ (presumably astronomical tables) that it <strong>in</strong>cluded<br />
(fol. 52bb); but these are not <strong>in</strong> either of the two extant manuscripts. Isaac Baer Lev<strong>in</strong>sohn (Zerubbavel<br />
[Warsaw, 1901], 1: 68, n. 3) refers to an ‘autograph manuscript’ of Arubbot that he has seen, ‘written <strong>in</strong><br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
27
Yesod ¨olam by Isaac Israeli of Toledo (a work from the 1320s that Israel read <strong>in</strong><br />
manuscript); <strong>and</strong> a commentary on Sefer Elim by Joseph Solomon Delmedigo (published<br />
<strong>in</strong> Amsterdam <strong>in</strong> 1629). 18 The last two works seem to be lost. 19 They were<br />
written before 1737, for on Tuesday, 7 Elul [5]497 (= Sept. 3, 1737), Joel Ba¨al Shem<br />
mentions both of them by name <strong>and</strong> describes them as ‘clear <strong>and</strong> transparent’ (3a). 20<br />
In NY, Israel himself mentions only Arubbot ha-shamayim. In the (undated) preface<br />
he refers to it as ‘a composition I wrote <strong>in</strong> mathematical science [Ìokhmat halimmudim],<br />
<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g all the branches of mathematics, such as geometry, optics <strong>and</strong><br />
trigonometry [reˆiyah u-Òelalim], 21 as well as astronomy, all by clear proofs from top<br />
to bottom, none is absent, <strong>and</strong> it will be revealed when I can afford the pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g costs’<br />
(3aa). 22 In the body of NY, too, Israel refers to Arubbot explicitly. 23 From this we<br />
the author’s own h<strong>and</strong>’, <strong>in</strong> the possession of Nachman Krochmal, to whom, he says, it was given to prepare<br />
for publication; he adds that the h<strong>and</strong>writ<strong>in</strong>g has become blurred by time <strong>and</strong> that the last two<br />
leaves are miss<strong>in</strong>g. Can this manuscript be one of the two extant ones? Israel spent his last years <strong>in</strong><br />
Brody; <strong>and</strong> Krochmal, too, had ties with this town (his father lived there). Nachman Krochmal was <strong>in</strong><br />
close contact with Leopold Zunz, who prepared Moreh nevukhei ha-zeman for posthumous publication<br />
(1851). See<strong>in</strong>g that the London manuscript of Arubbot was at one time owned by Zunz (the notation<br />
‘Zunz cod 25’ is on the recto of the page after the cover; noted <strong>in</strong> Hartwig Hirschfeld, Descriptive Catalogue<br />
of the Hebrew Manuscripts of the Montefiore Collection [London, 1903], 127, No. 427), the suspicion<br />
arises that this is the autograph manuscript that Lev<strong>in</strong>sohn believed he saw. It can be stated with<br />
confidence, however, that neither this nor the New York manuscript is an autograph: comparison establishes<br />
that neither derives from the other, so that both are (quite faulty) copies, direct or <strong>in</strong>direct, of an<br />
archetype. Similarly, although neither manuscript conta<strong>in</strong>s the <strong>in</strong>troduction that Israel says he wrote, the<br />
number<strong>in</strong>g of the folios, which seems orig<strong>in</strong>al, beg<strong>in</strong>s with 1. Although it is not excluded that the manuscript<br />
that Lev<strong>in</strong>sohn saw <strong>in</strong> the h<strong>and</strong>s of Krochmal is the one now <strong>in</strong> London (Lev<strong>in</strong>sohn may have<br />
simply mistaken it for an autograph), this seems unlikely, for the manuscript is not particularly blurred.<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ce both the London <strong>and</strong> New York manuscripts end at the same spot, quite abruptly, <strong>and</strong> may lack<br />
the end, they could both derive from the manuscript seen by Lev<strong>in</strong>sohn (which he noted was miss<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
last two leaves). It would thus seem that at least the London manuscript was copied from the one <strong>in</strong> the<br />
possession of Krochmal, a surmise that expla<strong>in</strong>s how it reached Zunz.<br />
18 It should be noted that writ<strong>in</strong>g a commentary on the traditional Sefer Yesod ¨olam by Isaac Israeli, the<br />
venerated student of R. Asher ben YeÌiel (the Rosh), was a relatively st<strong>and</strong>ard exercise, for similar commentaries<br />
had been written earlier; see e.g. Jacob Elbaum, Openness <strong>and</strong> Insularity: Late Sixteenth-<br />
Century Jewish Literature <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1990), p. 77 (see also p. 91, n.<br />
24). By contrast, devot<strong>in</strong>g a commentary to the more recent Sefer Elim was an <strong>in</strong>novative <strong>and</strong> dar<strong>in</strong>g<br />
enterprise.<br />
19 In 1782, the Berl<strong>in</strong> maskil Naphtali Herz Wessely (1725–1805) wrote of ‘great Torah scholars’ who<br />
came to Berl<strong>in</strong> after hav<strong>in</strong>g studied the sciences <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong> out of ‘the few books which were written by<br />
scholars of our nation, such as Yesod ¨olam by Isaac Israeli <strong>and</strong> Elim by Joseph of K<strong>and</strong>iah’ (Divrei<br />
shalom we-emet [Berl<strong>in</strong>, 3 rd ed., 1898], Second Letter, 20a, translation quoted from David E. Fishman,<br />
Russia’s First Modern Jews: The Jews of Shklov [New York, 1995], p. 35). The precise co<strong>in</strong>cidence of<br />
these two titles with the two commentaries written by Israel (as well as some further <strong>in</strong>dications) make it<br />
quite certa<strong>in</strong> that Wessely had Israel <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d (rather than Barukh of Shklov, as Fishman [p. 36] surmises).<br />
See also below, n. 65.<br />
20 The approbation by Moses b. Aaron of Lvov, given <strong>in</strong> Frankfort on the Oder <strong>in</strong> June 1741, refers <strong>in</strong><br />
general terms to ‘various ample [muflagim] writ<strong>in</strong>gs [by Israel] that I have seen’, but gives no details.<br />
The other approbations do not mention any other compositions.<br />
21 See Ben Yehuda’s Dictionary, vol. 11, p. 5482.<br />
22 Israel may have borrowed the title Arubbot ha-shamayim from Joseph Solomon Delmedigo who, <strong>in</strong><br />
his Ma¨ayan ganim, says he had composed a work by that name bear<strong>in</strong>g on geometry (‘the solution of<br />
triangles’). See Sefer Elim (Odessa, 1865), p. 136.<br />
23 E.g. fol. 54ba; at fol. 52ba the reference to ‘Sefer ha-yesodot [Book of Elements] that I composed’ is<br />
perhaps an allusion to the first, mathematical part of Arubbot, now lost, for Israel elsewhere refers to<br />
‘my book Arubbot ha-shamayim, Part One, which is a composition that I wrote on the science of math-<br />
28 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
may <strong>in</strong>fer that when NY was completed Arubbot existed already, at least <strong>in</strong> part, <strong>and</strong><br />
that both works were quickly followed by the two lost commentaries. 24 This reconstruction<br />
is consistent with the fact that Arubbot does not mention any of the other<br />
three works <strong>and</strong> that Israel refers to NY as his ‘first fruit’ (reˆshit peri ra¨yonotay)<br />
(fol. 2bb). The end of 1737 is the date ante quem for the completion of all four<br />
books. 25<br />
NY, whose title plays on the double mean<strong>in</strong>g of ‘Israel’ as both the Jewish people<br />
<strong>and</strong> (follow<strong>in</strong>g a long tradition) the author’s name (‘it is appropriate to call the effect<br />
by the name of its cause’ [fol. 3ab]), is the work of a scholar deeply versed <strong>in</strong> Talmud<br />
<strong>and</strong> halakhah <strong>and</strong> at the same time also very knowledgeable <strong>in</strong> philosophy <strong>and</strong> mathematics<br />
<strong>and</strong> animated by a critical scientific spirit. Israel’s frame of m<strong>in</strong>d is dist<strong>in</strong>ctively<br />
Maimonidean: ably play<strong>in</strong>g with metaphors, Israel likens the effect of the<br />
Guide of the Perplexed on readers like himself to a resurrection – it brought to life<br />
many who ‘slumbered <strong>in</strong> the dust of ignorance’. 26 Israel stresses that he comb<strong>in</strong>es<br />
Talmud study with science, that he ‘is filled with the love of the sciences, after hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
been replete with the bread of the Talmud’ (fol. 1aa). Israel thus reads the Talmud<br />
<strong>and</strong> the halakhic literature of his day from the perspective of a scholar who has<br />
mastered the sciences available <strong>in</strong> Hebrew. Formally, NY rema<strong>in</strong>s a decidedly conservative<br />
book, for its ostensible ambition is limited to contribut<strong>in</strong>g to the classic literary<br />
genre of resolv<strong>in</strong>g talmudic sugyot, specifically (but not exclusively) those on<br />
which light derived from science can be shed. But NY is subversive, <strong>in</strong>deed explosive,<br />
on another plane; namely, that of the texts it accepts as authoritative. Whereas<br />
halakhic scholars traditionally appeal only to earlier halakhic authorities, Israel regards<br />
science as another, <strong>in</strong>deed superior, source of knowledge <strong>and</strong> authority. Consequently,<br />
many of his Ìiddushim (novellae) result not from <strong>in</strong>ner textual analyses of<br />
the traditional corpus, but from adduc<strong>in</strong>g knowledge derived from external sources to<br />
illum<strong>in</strong>ate it. We will come back to this below.<br />
Israel’s vehement rejection of contemporary methods of Talmud study, which he<br />
describes as be<strong>in</strong>g largely senseless pilpul (fol. 2ab–2ba), goes h<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> h<strong>and</strong> with this<br />
scientifically motivated criticism. 27 The debate about pilpul has been around for a<br />
long time, 28 but Israel gives his criticism a social twist. As a result of the exile <strong>and</strong><br />
the troubles that came <strong>in</strong> its wake, he charges, many scholars found it difficult to<br />
make a liv<strong>in</strong>g. They resorted to us<strong>in</strong>g the Torah as a means to support themselves <strong>and</strong><br />
ematics <strong>and</strong> astronomy’ (fol. 54ba). See also below, n. 150. The reference to ‘the book that I wrote’ on<br />
fol. 52bb may also refer to Arubbot.<br />
24 NY conta<strong>in</strong>s a clear, although implicit, allusion to the commentary on Elim as a forthcom<strong>in</strong>g book:<br />
‘This matter has been expla<strong>in</strong>ed by R. Joseph of C<strong>and</strong>ia <strong>in</strong> the book Ma¨ayan Ìatum [a part of Elim],<br />
<strong>and</strong> you will see its proof <strong>in</strong> a book I <strong>in</strong>tend to write’ (fol. 40ab).<br />
25 In his haskamah, Joel Ba¨al Shem does not mention Arubbot ha-shamayim by name. But he refers to<br />
Israel as ‘the great astronomer’ who ‘rose to the heaven’, probably an allusion to that astronomical<br />
work.<br />
26 Ve-rabbim mi-yeshenei admat ¨afar ha-ivvelet heqiÒu we-¨amedu ¨al maˆamarav ha-nikhbadim (NY,<br />
fol. 42bb); cf. Dan. 12:2.<br />
27 See on this Jay M. Harris, How Do We Know This? Midrash <strong>and</strong> the Fragmentation of Modern<br />
Judaism (Albany, 1995), pp. 137–41 <strong>and</strong> n. 118 below.<br />
28 For an overview, see Mordecai Breuer, Oholei Torah (The Tents of Torah): The Yeshiva, Its Structure<br />
<strong>and</strong> History (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 2003), pp. 186–227.<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
29
made simple th<strong>in</strong>gs appear complicated <strong>in</strong> order to give their own work added economic<br />
value. These dishonest scholars gathered haphazard premises, Israel accuses,<br />
<strong>and</strong> wove them together <strong>in</strong>to a spider’s web (2ab). ‘Lakhen hitÌilu ofanei ha-limmud<br />
lihyot ¨aqalqalot we-darkhei ha-Ìokhmah avelot’ (thus the modes of <strong>in</strong>quiry turned<br />
crooked, <strong>and</strong> the ways of knowledge became sorrowful [cf. Lam. 1:4]). He goes to<br />
great lengths to castigate those who have no respect for truth <strong>and</strong> whose Torah is<br />
grounded <strong>in</strong> false premises <strong>and</strong> suppositions. He mentions, however, some halakhists<br />
whom he believed to have held positions ak<strong>in</strong> to his own, notably the fourteenth-century<br />
Tosaphist Samson b. Isaac of Ch<strong>in</strong>on, author of the methodological work Sefer<br />
ha-keritut (Cremona, 1558) <strong>and</strong>, more importantly, Solomon Ephraim b. Aaron of<br />
Luntshits (Leczyca, 1550–1619) <strong>and</strong> his books Keli yaqar <strong>and</strong> ¨Ammudei Shesh<br />
(fol. 2ba). 29<br />
His criticisms notwithst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g, Israel’s image of himself is that of a traditional<br />
Halakhic scholar. This image is <strong>in</strong> tune with <strong>and</strong> underscored by the fact that NY was<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> Frankfurt on the Oder <strong>in</strong> 1741. 30 That town was a ris<strong>in</strong>g centre of Jewish<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g: from only ten titles before 1650, to 139 <strong>in</strong> the second half of the seventeenth<br />
century, 264 <strong>in</strong> the first quarter of the eighteenth century, 309 <strong>in</strong> the second<br />
quarter (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g NY), <strong>and</strong> 373 <strong>in</strong> the third quarter. But quality, too, is important<br />
here. All the books pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> Frankfurt on the Oder were strictly traditionalist: their<br />
titles typically <strong>in</strong>clude the terms tosafot, pilpulim, Ìiddushim, perushim, etc. – all of<br />
them bear<strong>in</strong>g on halakhah <strong>and</strong> on Talmud study. 31 That Israel had his book pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong><br />
Frankfurt on the Oder thus reflects the fact that, despite his criticism of contemporary<br />
scholarship, his reference group rema<strong>in</strong>ed that of the halakhists <strong>and</strong> he wanted it to<br />
be viewed as a contribution to the traditional genre of halakhah <strong>and</strong> Talmud study.<br />
Still, Israel’s critical attitude <strong>and</strong> the seditious potential of his talmudic hermeneutics<br />
did not go unheeded. Long before the publication of NY, he was <strong>in</strong> bitter conflict<br />
with parts of his environment. In the preface to NY he expresses <strong>in</strong> strong <strong>and</strong><br />
mov<strong>in</strong>g words his exasperation, <strong>in</strong>deed his despair, over how his ideas are received:<br />
‘I can no longer bear the tongues of the human-look<strong>in</strong>g oxen,… who are seasoned<br />
with the mustard of foolishness, 32 … whose tongues are like po<strong>in</strong>ted arrows, like<br />
whips <strong>and</strong> scorpions,… which are stuck <strong>in</strong> the hearts of those who study the Torah<br />
for its own sake’ (fol. 1aa). Israel’s emotional reaction to the situation as he perceives<br />
29 It is not surpris<strong>in</strong>g that Israel found a k<strong>in</strong>dred spirit <strong>in</strong> R. Solomon Ephraim: like Israel, the latter,<br />
who apparently belonged to a low social stratum, was favourably <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ed to the study of philosophy<br />
<strong>and</strong> gave approbations to several rationalist books, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g David Gans’ Magen David (1612; a prospectus<br />
for NeÌmad ve-na¨im, Gans’ full-scale astronomical work pr<strong>in</strong>ted only much later). See Elbaum,<br />
Openness <strong>and</strong> Insularity, notably pp. 97–105, 175, 314, 322 (views), 175, 250 (n. 7) (approbations; on<br />
the approbation for Magen David see also André Néher, David Gans u-zemano, trans. from the French<br />
by Avital Inbar [Jerusalem, 1982], pp. 107–8). On Keli yaqar see Elbaum, Openness <strong>and</strong> Insularity, notably<br />
pp. 82–4 (n. 4), 97–9. R. Ephraim had a student who became <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> astronomy; ibid. 255<br />
(n. 22). See also: EJ 6: 814–15; Simcha Assaf, Meqorot le-toledot ha-Ì<strong>in</strong>nukh be-Yisra}el, ed. Shmuel<br />
Glick, vol. 1 (New York <strong>and</strong> Jerusalem, 2002), pp. 27–30.<br />
30 Pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g began on 4 Sivan [5]501 (= Friday, May 19, 1741) <strong>and</strong> ended on Tuesday, 20 Tammuz of<br />
the same year (= July 4, 1741); NY, fol. 59a.<br />
31 Yeshayahu V<strong>in</strong>ograd, Thesaurus of the Hebrew Book, Pt. II (Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 568–79.<br />
32 The expression ‘mustard of foolishness’ apparently means that their ignorance is mordant to the others.<br />
30 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
it is characterized by two words he uses: q<strong>in</strong>eˆah <strong>and</strong> q<strong>in</strong>ah, zealousness <strong>and</strong> lamentation:<br />
‘On account of this I will wrap myself <strong>in</strong> zealousness like a cloak // <strong>and</strong> raise<br />
lamentation on the heights’ (fol. 2ba). 33 On the one h<strong>and</strong>, he is zealous to defend the<br />
‘true learn<strong>in</strong>g’: he is <strong>in</strong> an offensive mood, <strong>and</strong> his book is his first move <strong>in</strong> the battle<br />
he wages. But at the same time there is also discouragement – q<strong>in</strong>ah. Israel describes<br />
how an onlooker must perceive him <strong>and</strong> refers <strong>in</strong> one breath to his courage <strong>and</strong> to his<br />
deep despondency: ‘Have you seen that one, the man <strong>and</strong> his rant<strong>in</strong>g // his valorous<br />
heart <strong>and</strong> stubborn spirit?’ 34 There are many other expressions of depression: he refers<br />
to his founta<strong>in</strong>s of sorrow <strong>and</strong> the floodgates of his griefs 35 <strong>and</strong> beseeches God to<br />
take his soul <strong>and</strong> deliver him from his tribulations. 36 ‘Better to render it [the soul] to<br />
You, rather than to tribulations’ (fol. 1aa). Why should I live, he asks rhetorically, if<br />
this <strong>in</strong>tellect, which I called ‘my son’, is the source of my troubles (fol. 1ab)? These<br />
are not rhetorical flourishes <strong>and</strong> still less conventional elements <strong>in</strong> an author’s <strong>in</strong>troduction<br />
to a work of talmudic exegesis. Rather, they give us a w<strong>in</strong>dow onto Israel’s<br />
personality: prepared to struggle for his ideas <strong>and</strong> ideals, he is also beset by a gloom<br />
that threatens to ga<strong>in</strong> the upper h<strong>and</strong> at any moment <strong>and</strong> push him <strong>in</strong>to deep melancholy.<br />
To paraphrase Goethe’s Faust, q<strong>in</strong>eˆah <strong>and</strong> q<strong>in</strong>ah are the two souls dwell<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong><br />
his breast. 37 Unfortunately, of all his <strong>in</strong>troductions, only that to NY survives, leav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
it almost the only w<strong>in</strong>dow onto Israel’s mood <strong>in</strong> that period. 38<br />
Although we have no contemporary documents from Zamosc that refer to Israel,<br />
there can be no doubt that his compla<strong>in</strong>ts are not imag<strong>in</strong>ary <strong>and</strong> that he was <strong>in</strong>deed<br />
hounded <strong>in</strong> Zamosc. The writer Isaac Leib Peretz (1852–1915), one of the bestknown<br />
sons of Zamosc, reports <strong>in</strong> his memoirs that <strong>in</strong> his childhood it was not regarded<br />
as bon ton to mention Israel’s name. 39 The fact that <strong>in</strong> his whole life Israel<br />
gave only two approbations to books by other scholars (both after he left Zamosc 40 )<br />
33 ¨Al zeh ani e¨e†eh ka-me¨il q<strong>in</strong>eˆah // we-esaˆ ¨al shefayim q<strong>in</strong>ah (cf. Isa. 59:17 <strong>and</strong> Jer. 7:29).<br />
34 Ha-reˆitem peloni ha-ish we-siÌo // omeÒ libo u-qeshi ruÌo? On the source of this phrase see below,<br />
p. 65.<br />
35 Ma¨ayanot yegonotav, arubbot shemei tugotav niftaÌu – the latter is an echo of Gen. 7:11 <strong>and</strong> at the<br />
same time alludes to the title of Israel’s astronomical book.<br />
36 Ve-atta ha-Shem qaÌ-naˆ nafshi ve-hoÒiˆah mi-telaˆot.<br />
37 Evidence from a number of Israel’s writ<strong>in</strong>gs suggests that he had alternate periods of melancholy <strong>and</strong><br />
great elation.<br />
38 As already mentioned (above, n. 17), Israel alludes to the <strong>in</strong>troduction he wrote to Arubbot hashamayim,<br />
of which he says that it also criticized contemporaries (tokhaÌah megullah; fol. 2ba). This<br />
<strong>in</strong>troduction is not found <strong>in</strong> either of the surviv<strong>in</strong>g manuscripts of the work. Nor do any of Israel’s<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ted works (except NY) have an <strong>in</strong>troduction.<br />
39 I. L. Peretz, Ale verk fun Y. L. Peretz, vol. 11: Zikhroynes, briv un redn (New York, 1948), p. 71;<br />
I also used the (very accurate) Hebrew translation: Kol kitvei Y. L. Peretz, vol. 9: Zikhronotay, trans.<br />
S. Melzer (Tel Aviv, 1957), p. 87. The English translation, by Fred Goldberg, is rarely faithful to the<br />
orig<strong>in</strong>al; see My Memories (New York, 1964), p. 124. Peretz writes: ‘About Israel Zamosc … people<br />
talk very little. He was the teacher of the one from Dessau [= Moses Mendelssohn]; better rema<strong>in</strong> silent.<br />
[Say] no good th<strong>in</strong>gs, no bad th<strong>in</strong>gs’. The fact that Peretz alludes to Mendelssohn <strong>in</strong> this context suggests<br />
the possibility that it was also his association with the latter <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> that <strong>in</strong>duced the people <strong>in</strong><br />
Zamosc to avoid talk<strong>in</strong>g about Israel, <strong>and</strong> not only events related to his life <strong>in</strong> Zamosc.<br />
40 The two works are: Mordecai b. Meir Kalmanns, Sefer Tavnit ha-bayit (Frankfurt on the Oder,<br />
1747); <strong>and</strong> SimÌah b. Joshua Haas, Lev SimÌah (Zó¥kiew, 1754). The former was given on Friday, 19<br />
Sheva† [5]505 (= January 22, 1745), the latter <strong>in</strong> Brody on Thursday, 2 Kislev [5]517 (= November 25,<br />
1756).<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
31
confirms his marg<strong>in</strong>al status. These conflicts, the reasons for which are less clear<br />
than is usually thought (see below, pp. 49 ff.), are probably what <strong>in</strong>duced Israel to<br />
leave Zamosc. In mid-1741 he was <strong>in</strong> Frankfurt on the Oder, oversee<strong>in</strong>g the pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of NY. The next year we already f<strong>in</strong>d him <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>. Presumably he never returned to<br />
Zamosc after the publication of what conservative circles were quick to disparage as<br />
ReÒaÌ Yisrael (The Assass<strong>in</strong>ation of Israel). 41 His arrival <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> opens a radically<br />
new chapter <strong>in</strong> Israel’s life; but that is beyond the scope of the present article.<br />
Illum<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g the Talmud with the Light of Science:<br />
The Hermeneutic Method of NY<br />
In sixteenth-century Pol<strong>and</strong>, a (th<strong>in</strong>) Hebrew scientific tradition, which largely cont<strong>in</strong>ued<br />
the medieval one, was alive; a number of dist<strong>in</strong>guished halakhic scholars, notably<br />
R. Moses Isserles (1525–1572) <strong>and</strong> R. Mordecai Jaffe (ca. 1535–1612), regarded<br />
scientific knowledge as legitimate. 42 This tradition faded away dur<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
seventeenth century – or, if it was alive, it was not so much <strong>in</strong> the open. Hence some<br />
words of justification were required to draw on science to clarify the text of the Talmud<br />
<strong>in</strong> Zamosc of the 1730s. Israel offers us a hermeneutic theory that expla<strong>in</strong>s his<br />
method of <strong>in</strong>terpret<strong>in</strong>g talmudic texts <strong>in</strong> the light of science <strong>and</strong> legitimizes the appeal<br />
to the ‘foreign’ sciences. I shall consider separately his scientifically <strong>in</strong>formed<br />
halakhic discussions <strong>and</strong> his <strong>in</strong>terpretation of aggadah.<br />
Shedd<strong>in</strong>g the Light of Mathematics on Halakhah<br />
After declar<strong>in</strong>g (fol. 1ab) that he has th<strong>in</strong>gs of great importance to add to the earlier<br />
literature discuss<strong>in</strong>g talmudic sugyot, Israel def<strong>in</strong>es the specific locus of his contribution<br />
through a series of recursive divisions (themselves a clear <strong>in</strong>dication of his thorough<br />
philosophic tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g). The Torah as a whole is divided <strong>in</strong>to a practical part <strong>and</strong> a<br />
theoretical (¨iyyuni) part. The former is the practice of observ<strong>in</strong>g the precepts <strong>and</strong> is not<br />
at issue. The rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g, theoretical, part is aga<strong>in</strong> divided <strong>in</strong>to two. One part is purely<br />
theoretical, with no bear<strong>in</strong>g on practice; this is what Maimonides called ma¨aseh<br />
merkavah <strong>and</strong> ma¨aseh bereshit, <strong>and</strong> Israel will not consider it. We are thus left with<br />
theory that has implications for practice; this will be at the centre of his <strong>in</strong>terest. This<br />
is <strong>in</strong> turn divided <strong>in</strong>to two. One part is concerned with the <strong>in</strong>terpretation of the precepts:<br />
this <strong>in</strong>terpretative effort, Israel claims, has become necessary merely because<br />
matters that the talmudic Sages considered to be simple <strong>and</strong> readily comprehensible are<br />
obscure for the later, less perceptive generations. The entire enterprise of Talmud study<br />
<strong>and</strong> exegesis is thus a result of the low spiritual level of the recent generations <strong>and</strong> has<br />
no <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic value <strong>in</strong> itself; a great sage (moreh Òedeq), were he to appear, would be<br />
41 D. H., [Review of: Isaac Baer Lev<strong>in</strong>sohn, Te¨udah be-Yisraˆel], <strong>in</strong> Sulamith 8 (1833): 94–8, on p. 96n.<br />
42 On this tradition <strong>and</strong> its <strong>in</strong>fluence see David Fishman, ‘Rabbi Moshe Isserles <strong>and</strong> the Study of Science<br />
Among Polish Rabbis’, Science <strong>in</strong> Context 10 (1997): 571–88; Ruderman, Jewish Thought <strong>and</strong><br />
Scientific Discovery, chap. 2, <strong>and</strong> the literature <strong>in</strong>dicated there. On Isserles’ astronomy, see Y. Tzvi<br />
Langermann, ‘The Astronomy of Rabbi Moses Isserles’, <strong>in</strong> Physics, Cosmology <strong>and</strong> Astronomy, 1300–<br />
1700: Tension <strong>and</strong> Accommodation, Sabetai Unguru (= Boston Studies <strong>in</strong> the Philosophy of Science,<br />
vol. 126) (Dordrecht, 1991), pp. 83–98.<br />
32 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
able to explicate all the precepts, mak<strong>in</strong>g pilpul <strong>and</strong> its cognates redundant. The other<br />
part of theory that has a bear<strong>in</strong>g on practice is dist<strong>in</strong>guished by hav<strong>in</strong>g its own <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic<br />
value. This part <strong>in</strong>cludes, for example, the precepts concern<strong>in</strong>g the calculation of ‘equ<strong>in</strong>oxes<br />
<strong>and</strong> solstices <strong>and</strong> new moons’: <strong>in</strong>herent (if implicit) <strong>in</strong> these precepts is an <strong>in</strong>junction<br />
to study astronomy. Here the theoretical effort (¨iyyun) is not devoted to the<br />
explication of a text that has become obscure, but rather to the application of a general<br />
precept to empirical reality. This task does not require hermeneutics, but rather ‘a deep<br />
<strong>in</strong>quiry <strong>in</strong>to the science of astronomy’, as was stated by no lesser than Maimonides<br />
(fol. 1ab). Thus this part of Torah is <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sically bound up with scientific <strong>in</strong>quiry; adherence<br />
to the Torah ipso facto implies an <strong>in</strong>volvement with science.<br />
A tell<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stance of such an <strong>in</strong>quiry is <strong>in</strong>troduced by Israel apropos of a<br />
cosmological passage <strong>in</strong> tractate PesaÌim. Israel remarks that Rashi’s cosmology is<br />
entirely wrong, whereas that of the Sages is correct. One of Israel’s guid<strong>in</strong>g pr<strong>in</strong>ciples<br />
is the general assumption that the Sages were ‘accomplished astronomers’ <strong>and</strong><br />
held true cosmological beliefs (fol. 56bb; see also 2bb, 49aa). He is outraged by <strong>in</strong>terpretations<br />
that ascribe long-refuted views to them – for example, that the earth is<br />
flat: ‘Heaven forbid that we say the Sages were ignorant of astronomy <strong>and</strong> knew<br />
noth<strong>in</strong>g of it!’ (fol. 24ba). They ‘had ten shares <strong>in</strong> natural science’ as well (fol.<br />
52bb). Later scholars, because of their ignorance of scientific matters, have attributed<br />
false views to the Sages, <strong>and</strong>, occasionally, to the Tosafists as well (fols. 37ab, 38bb).<br />
Israel harshly castigates those who propound such calumnious <strong>in</strong>terpretations.<br />
Israel thereupon makes the follow<strong>in</strong>g methodological declaration of <strong>in</strong>tentions:<br />
I set myself the aim of expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g all the statements <strong>in</strong> the Talmud bear<strong>in</strong>g on astronomy<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to my own underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g, which conflicts with Rashi, but which follows the<br />
deep fundamentals of the astronomy accepted (nehugah) at present <strong>in</strong> the world. [I do so]<br />
<strong>in</strong> order that they [the astronomical statements] conform to [lit. are one with] the statements<br />
of the Sages. Indeed, the statements of the astronomy that is well-known [or: generally<br />
accepted; ha-mefursam] among us now are almost all grounded <strong>in</strong> strong mathematical<br />
proofs that no created be<strong>in</strong>g can possibly reject. (Fol. 55ab)<br />
Israel proceeds to enunciate the fundamental pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of astronomy, which turn<br />
out to be four premises of st<strong>and</strong>ard Ptolemaic astronomy. Clearly, his endorsement of<br />
the Sages at once legitimizes his own work <strong>and</strong> discredits the traditional authorities<br />
whom he criticizes for their erroneous scientific views.<br />
Break<strong>in</strong>g at last with his successive bifurcations, Israel identifies (fol. 1ba) two<br />
further k<strong>in</strong>ds of theoretical study with a bear<strong>in</strong>g on practice. The first aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>volves<br />
science: whenever we identify a crux (qushiyyah) <strong>in</strong> the words of the Sages or of<br />
later great scholars, we are obliged, Israel says, to resolve it (fol. 1bb). This obligation<br />
holds <strong>in</strong> particular ‘when we see that the words of the Talmud must be explicated<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to one of the foreign sciences, i.e., one of the seven sciences’ 43 (fol.<br />
43 In the Middle Ages, the seven sciences were identified as the trivium <strong>and</strong> the quadrivium. There were<br />
different views, however, on precisely which sciences belonged to these two groups. See, e.g., Harry<br />
Austryn Wolfson, ‘The Classification of Sciences <strong>in</strong> <strong>Medieval</strong> Jewish Philosophy’, Hebrew Union College<br />
Jubilee Volume (C<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>nati, 1925), pp. 263–315; Dov Rappel, Sheva¨ ha-Ìokhmot: Ha-vikkuaÌ ¨al<br />
limmudei Ìol ba-yahadut (Jerusalem, 1990).<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
33
1ba). The sciences <strong>in</strong> question are those ‘whose statements cannot possibly be denied<br />
<strong>and</strong> whose foundations cannot be uprooted, namely, mathematical science, which <strong>in</strong>cludes<br />
[<strong>in</strong> addition to astronomy] geometry <strong>and</strong> optics. For all the statements of<br />
mathematical science are grounded <strong>in</strong> strong <strong>and</strong> evident proofs … that cannot be<br />
rejected by any means’ (fol. 1ba). By contrast, Israel adds, the proofs of the other<br />
profane discipl<strong>in</strong>es, like logic <strong>and</strong> natural science, are not so certa<strong>in</strong>; hence, if they<br />
contradict the Talmud, their statements are to be rejected <strong>in</strong> favour of the Talmud<br />
(fol. 1ba). Lastly, the second k<strong>in</strong>d of theoretical <strong>in</strong>quiry with a bear<strong>in</strong>g on reality is<br />
purely halakhic <strong>and</strong> will not deta<strong>in</strong> us here.<br />
Israel has thus def<strong>in</strong>ed a twofold role for science <strong>in</strong> the study of the Talmud. For<br />
one th<strong>in</strong>g, the study of astronomy, notably, is ‘programmed’ <strong>in</strong>to the precepts concern<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the calendar. For another, when Talmudic statements seem to contradict<br />
truths established by the exact sciences, one must accept the latter because they have<br />
been apodictically established, <strong>and</strong> the Talmudic text must be <strong>in</strong>terpreted accord<strong>in</strong>gly.<br />
The Maimonidean <strong>in</strong>spiration is visible at every turn.<br />
Underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g ‘Strange Aggadot’ <strong>in</strong> the Light of Science.<br />
We now come to Israel’s underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of very different texts, namely ‘strange<br />
aggadot’ – specifically those that, taken literally, conflict with science. 44 The<br />
hermeneutic theory here differs from the one just considered.<br />
The po<strong>in</strong>t of departure is talmudic statements (B Sukkah 29a) that eclipses are the<br />
consequence of various immoral actions (e.g., the rape of a betrothed girl, homosexual<br />
acts, false testimony, <strong>and</strong> the cutt<strong>in</strong>g down of useful trees).This passage ‘has<br />
raised <strong>in</strong> us numerous <strong>and</strong> huge doubts’, Israel says (fol. 40ba), <strong>in</strong>asmuch as it makes<br />
eclipses depend on men’s actions <strong>and</strong> thus on their choices <strong>and</strong> free will. It is well<br />
known, however, that ‘<strong>in</strong> truth the cause of the eclipse … follows with necessity<br />
from the heavenly bodies, [i.e.,] it is made necessary by their motions’ (fol. 40ba).<br />
Israel briefly describes the astronomical conditions for an eclipse <strong>and</strong> adds: ‘[the astronomers’]<br />
affirmations are tested [yibbaÌanu] publicly, for they foretell when the<br />
eclipse will take place – <strong>in</strong> what month, on what day, at what time, <strong>and</strong> at which position<br />
the Sun will be eclipsed <strong>and</strong> what parts of it will be eclipsed’ (fol. 40ba).<br />
Taken literally, the aggadah is thus patently absurd. This is all the more embarrass<strong>in</strong>g<br />
as the gentiles ‘mock us’, say<strong>in</strong>g ‘where is your wisdom?’ <strong>and</strong> allege that the Sages<br />
were ignorant (fol. 40ba).<br />
Fortunately, Israel writes, ‘God has granted me a true <strong>in</strong>terpretation’ for this<br />
aggadah (fol. 40ba). To convey it to his readers, he <strong>in</strong>troduces two dist<strong>in</strong>ctions. The<br />
first is between the two parts of the Torah: Wisdom, which is ‘the concealed part, I<br />
mean the Wisdom of the Kabbalah’; <strong>and</strong> ‘Torah’ (<strong>in</strong> a narrower sense) ‘which is vis-<br />
44 The <strong>in</strong>terpretation of ‘strange’ aggadot had been much discussed <strong>in</strong> earlier Polish rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature<br />
(see, e.g., Elbaum, Openness <strong>and</strong> Insularity, pp. 95–142, 162, 252–3). Israel’s discussions belong to this<br />
established genre. It will not be possible to discuss here how he relates to his predecessors, although it<br />
appears likely that he went beyond them <strong>in</strong> assess<strong>in</strong>g the aggadot from the viewpo<strong>in</strong>t offered by science.<br />
David Nieto, too, felt a need to <strong>in</strong>terpret some aggadot rationally; see Kuzari ha-sheni [or] Ma††eh<br />
Dan IV, §§291–318 ([Jerusalem, 1958], pp. 159–72).<br />
34 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
ible, namely the accomplishment of the precepts’. People differ <strong>in</strong> their attitudes toward<br />
these two parts of the Torah, <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> fact are divided <strong>in</strong>to several classes (named<br />
for three of the four sons <strong>in</strong> the PesaÌ Haggadah):<br />
(1) The wicked, those who deny the reality of Wisdom, believ<strong>in</strong>g it to be the very<br />
opposite of Tradition (dat). ‘Because they do not believe what is concealed<br />
they deny the fundamental tenet’. 45<br />
(2) The simple-m<strong>in</strong>ded, who believe that ‘God has noth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> His world but the<br />
practical part’ (cf. B Berakhot 8a): <strong>in</strong> their eyes Wisdom is redundant. Of<br />
them, Israel suggests, Scripture says that they walk <strong>in</strong> darkness (Ps. 82:5).<br />
(3) The Wise, namely those who underst<strong>and</strong> that ‘Wisdom <strong>and</strong> Tradition are the<br />
two great lum<strong>in</strong>aries (cf. Gen. 1:16): the Great Lum<strong>in</strong>ary is Wisdom, the<br />
Small Lum<strong>in</strong>ary is Tradition’.<br />
Let us consider the worldview of ‘the Wise’, Israel’s own group. To characterize<br />
the relationship between the traditional texts <strong>and</strong> what he calls ‘Wisdom’ (Ìokhmah,<br />
a term whose precise denotation we shall consider later), Israel offers an audacious<br />
metaphor (fol. 40bb). ‘Wisdom’, he says, bears the same relation to ‘Tradition’<br />
(dat 46 ) as the sun to the moon: the latter, the small lum<strong>in</strong>ary, has no light of its own<br />
<strong>and</strong> illum<strong>in</strong>ates by virtue of the light it receives from the great lum<strong>in</strong>ary: ‘as the<br />
moon receives light from the sun, which actualizes its potential light, so too the Tradition<br />
receives its light from Wisdom’ (fol. 40bb). 47 Israel’s thesis is thus that Tradition<br />
sh<strong>in</strong>es only when illum<strong>in</strong>ated by Wisdom. Indeed, human be<strong>in</strong>gs, be<strong>in</strong>g constituted<br />
of matter, cannot apprehend Wisdom directly, just as they cannot look directly<br />
at the sun. The purpose of the God-given ‘Torah of Truth’ is to allow us to receive<br />
the light of Wisdom <strong>and</strong> to benefit from it, just as we can look at the moon (fol.<br />
40bb). ‘You, the <strong>in</strong>quirer’, Israel tells his reader, ‘please underst<strong>and</strong> how deep this<br />
analogy is, <strong>and</strong> how the relationship of Wisdom to Tradition is wonderfully like that<br />
between the sun <strong>and</strong> the moon’ (ibid.). Israel confirms the analogy by adduc<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
midrashic statement that the light created on the first day allowed Adam to see from<br />
one end of the world to the other (B Îagigah 12a): this cannot refer to light <strong>in</strong> the<br />
ord<strong>in</strong>ary sense, Israel observes, because we know from optics that stronger light does<br />
not allow one to see farther. Necessarily, then, ‘light is here a designation for Wisdom’<br />
<strong>and</strong> the ‘see<strong>in</strong>g’ <strong>in</strong> question is <strong>in</strong>tellectual, not sensual (ibid.). The same applies<br />
to the talmudic statement that the face of Moses was like that of the sun, that of<br />
Joshua like that of the moon (B Baba Batra 75a): Moses hav<strong>in</strong>g been ‘the choicest of<br />
the human species’ he apprehended Wisdom itself, whereas Joshua received the Torah<br />
from him, just as the moon receives the light from the sun. Similarly, Israel adds,<br />
<strong>in</strong> the verse that identifies God with ‘the sun <strong>and</strong> a shield’ (after Ps. 84:12–13), the<br />
45 I.e., the very existence of God.<br />
46 The word dat often means ‘law’, but <strong>in</strong> the present context its mean<strong>in</strong>g is much wider <strong>and</strong> denotes the<br />
totality of Jewish beliefs <strong>and</strong> practices, as we shall see.<br />
47 Israel alleges that this view was taken by Shem ov b. Joseph <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>troduction to his commentary<br />
on the Guide of the Perplexed. He is not be<strong>in</strong>g fair, however, for <strong>in</strong> fact R. Shem ov used the metaphor<br />
of the two lum<strong>in</strong>aries simply to characterize one of three possible positions on the relationship between<br />
Wisdom <strong>and</strong> Tradition, but without endors<strong>in</strong>g it himself.<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
35
sun aga<strong>in</strong> st<strong>and</strong>s for Wisdom: the verse states that the deity ‘is the utmost Wisdom’;<br />
‘He <strong>and</strong> His Wisdom are one <strong>and</strong> the same th<strong>in</strong>g, as is known to those who delve <strong>in</strong>to<br />
what is hidden [ha-ma¨amiqim ba-nistar]’. 48 The upshot of the discussion is that <strong>in</strong><br />
the passage about the causes of eclipses, ‘sun’ <strong>and</strong> ‘moon’ do not denote the heavenly<br />
bodies, but rather Wisdom <strong>and</strong> Tradition. In this read<strong>in</strong>g, the aggadah is no<br />
longer ‘strange’.<br />
Israel’s po<strong>in</strong>t of departure is thus a particular aggadah that is absurd if understood<br />
literally as relat<strong>in</strong>g to the natural world. Uncover<strong>in</strong>g its ‘hidden’ mean<strong>in</strong>g requires the<br />
light of ‘Wisdom’. But what does Israel mean by ‘Wisdom’? For an answer we turn<br />
to another methodological discussion.<br />
Israel reflects at considerable length on the very notion of ‘strange aggadot’,<br />
which he characterizes as ‘those that are at variance with what has been established<br />
by philosophical [rational] <strong>in</strong>quiry (heqqesh) <strong>and</strong> which are found <strong>in</strong> the Talmud’<br />
(fol. 42bb). He rem<strong>in</strong>ds the reader that Maimonides himself – ‘the Glory of the<br />
Sages’ – stated that such aggadot must not be taken literally; rather they conceal a<br />
secret or <strong>in</strong>ner mean<strong>in</strong>g. 49 Why did the Sages choose to conceal their knowledge?<br />
The answer is that they wished to make it accessible only to the truly learned of<br />
every generation – a prudence all the more necessary because their statements were<br />
div<strong>in</strong>ely <strong>in</strong>spired (ibid.). Israel argues that not only the Sages of Israel, but also those<br />
of the nations, notably Plato, wrote <strong>in</strong> ‘parables <strong>and</strong> riddles’. 50 Why, then, does Israel<br />
feel free to disclose the Sages’ secrets? Because, he writes (fol. 43aa), <strong>in</strong> the time of<br />
the talmudic Sages people were either extremely learned or totally ignorant; the<br />
former understood the secrets of the strange aggadot on their own, whereas the latter<br />
were not even troubled by them <strong>and</strong> did not realize that they cannot be understood<br />
literally. At present, however, there is a large <strong>in</strong>termediate class of people who are<br />
clever enough to be troubled by strange aggadot but not clever enough to underst<strong>and</strong><br />
them without help. The existence of this new class led great sages, beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g with<br />
Rabbenu Nissim, Saadia Gaon, <strong>and</strong> Samuel b. Îofni Gaon, to elucidate some of<br />
them. Israel ends his apology for <strong>in</strong>terpret<strong>in</strong>g aggadot with the follow<strong>in</strong>g significant<br />
statement:<br />
In their footsteps [of the aforementioned scholars] followed all the ancients, offer<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terpretations<br />
of some of the aggadot, above all the Great Eagle, Maimonides of blessed<br />
memory. The div<strong>in</strong>e kabbalist, the A.R.I. [= Isaac Luria] of blessed memory, too, performed<br />
wonders <strong>in</strong> his writ<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>terpretation of some of the strange aggadot. Both<br />
these <strong>and</strong> those [Maimonides’ <strong>and</strong> Luria’s] are statements of the Liv<strong>in</strong>g God. They made<br />
the splendour of the aggadot [ziv nogah ha-aggadot] sh<strong>in</strong>e from one end of the world to<br />
the other, <strong>and</strong> until this very day wise men walk <strong>in</strong> their powerful light. (fol. 43aa)<br />
48 See below, n. 51.<br />
49 Israel uses two terms: sod <strong>and</strong> tokhiyyut. The former is common, the latter not. Israel presumably has<br />
<strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d Guide III, 43. See also Harris, How Do We Know This?, pp. 138–9.<br />
50 Israel comments that esoteric writ<strong>in</strong>g is also used <strong>in</strong> astronomy <strong>and</strong> adduces an <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g example:<br />
‘Hipparchus, the first astronomer, wrote as follows: “pay heed to the vessel [sef<strong>in</strong>ah] suspended <strong>in</strong> the<br />
air <strong>and</strong> mov<strong>in</strong>g forward <strong>and</strong> backward <strong>in</strong> four hundred years” ’ (42bb). The allusion, it turns out, is to<br />
the motion of precession. Israel repeats the example <strong>in</strong> Arubbot ha-shamayim, fol. 12a, where he <strong>in</strong>dicates<br />
that it is borrowed (almost literally) from Yesod ¨olam (II 6; ed. Baer Goldberg <strong>and</strong> Leo<br />
Rosenkranz, vol. 1 [Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1848], p. 21).<br />
36 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
The theoretical basis for <strong>in</strong>terpret<strong>in</strong>g strange aggadot is thus twofold: science <strong>and</strong><br />
philosophy on the one h<strong>and</strong>, Kabbalah on the other. Both are equally valid. In Israel’s<br />
usage, ‘Kabbalah’ <strong>and</strong> ‘Wisdom’ (Ìokhmah) both refer to the doctr<strong>in</strong>es of any<br />
discipl<strong>in</strong>e that searches for ‘what is hidden’; he refers to metaphysics, too, as a science<br />
of ‘the hidden’. 51 This was <strong>in</strong> all likelihood an <strong>in</strong>tentional amalgamation, aimed<br />
at legitimiz<strong>in</strong>g the ‘foreign’ <strong>and</strong> profane philosophy by associat<strong>in</strong>g it with the venerated,<br />
authentically Jewish Kabbalah. That Israel considered Kabbalah to be a source<br />
of knowledge on equal foot<strong>in</strong>g with philosophy is noteworthy, for it is belies the<br />
usual view of him as a staunch rationalist forerunner of the Haskalah. 52 More than<br />
once he alludes with respect <strong>and</strong> accords authority to kabbalistic works: <strong>in</strong> addition<br />
to Luria, he mentions ‘the holy Zohar’ (fol. 2ba) <strong>and</strong> ‘our Master Abraham of Grenada’<br />
(Rabbenu Avraham me-Rimmon) (fol. 3ab), i.e. Abraham b. Isaac, the author of<br />
Berit menuÌah. 53 He refers deferentially to the doctr<strong>in</strong>es of ‘those who are knowledgeable<br />
<strong>in</strong> the science of the hidden, i.e., the Kabbalists [yode¨ei Ì“n hamequbbalim]’<br />
(fol. 43ab; similarly, fols. 24bb, 25aa <strong>and</strong> passim). 54 As far as I can<br />
see, however, Israel himself offers very few kabbalistic <strong>in</strong>terpretations (see however<br />
fol. 43ab). Although Kabbalah’s precise impact on him will have to be assessed<br />
through further research, it is clear that as a rule he <strong>in</strong>terprets aggadot from the viewpo<strong>in</strong>t<br />
of science alone: this is where his <strong>in</strong>terests lay, as well as his orig<strong>in</strong>ality <strong>and</strong><br />
strength. The discussions of astronomical <strong>and</strong> mathematical matters thus typically<br />
draw on four types of texts: one or more passages from the Mishnah or Gemara, a<br />
medieval authority such as Maimonides, a recent commentator on the Talmud or on<br />
Maimonides, <strong>and</strong> scientific works.<br />
Israel did not claim absolute truth for his views: ‘I do not state that my <strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />
of the Sages is compulsory. It is possible that they <strong>in</strong>tended deep th<strong>in</strong>gs that have<br />
rema<strong>in</strong>ed concealed from me. Rather, my <strong>in</strong>tention is to show that their [prima facie<br />
strange] statements can be <strong>in</strong>terpreted without any difficulty’ (fol. 43aa).<br />
Hav<strong>in</strong>g noted the grounds Israel offers for th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g that science can ‘illum<strong>in</strong>ate’<br />
the Talmud, let us now look at how he does so <strong>in</strong> practice. NY is composed of two<br />
51 We already came across Israel’s remark (above, p. 36) that ‘God, blessed be He, is the utmost Wisdom,<br />
<strong>and</strong> He <strong>and</strong> His Wisdom are one <strong>and</strong> the same th<strong>in</strong>g, as is known to those who delve <strong>in</strong>to what is<br />
hidden [le-ha-ma¨amiqim ba-nistar]’ (fol. 40bb): the attribution of the famous philosophic dictum (e.g.<br />
Guide I, 68) to those ‘who delve <strong>in</strong>to what is hidden’ puts philosophers <strong>and</strong> kabbalists <strong>in</strong> one bag.<br />
52 It is consonant with a not uncommon tendency <strong>in</strong> the sixteenth century to ‘harmonize’ philosophy<br />
<strong>and</strong> Kabbalah; see Elbaum, Openness <strong>and</strong> Insularity, pp. 180–1, 184 n. 3, 286–92. R. Mordecai Jaffe,<br />
for one, studied <strong>and</strong> wrote commentaries on both Sha¨arei orah <strong>and</strong> the Guide (ibid., pp. 41, 146, 169).<br />
53 See Gershom Scholem <strong>in</strong> EJ 2: 145–6. This identification is borne out by Haqdamat sha¨ar hahaqdamot,<br />
by Îayyim Vital. (I am grateful to Prof. Ronit Meroz for this <strong>in</strong>formation.) Mahler, Divrei<br />
yemei Yisraˆel, p. 27n., wrongly identifies ‘Abraham of Rimmon’ as Abraham b. Shem ov Bibago, the<br />
author of Derekh emunah. Israel here quotes R. Abraham as affirm<strong>in</strong>g that the verse Isaiah 33:6 enumerates<br />
the seven sciences. This sentence is quoted verbatim <strong>in</strong> Isaac Baer Lev<strong>in</strong>sohn, Te¨udah be-<br />
Yisraˆel (Warsaw, 1878), p. 92 (who apparently quotes from NY <strong>and</strong> did not see Berit menuÌah).<br />
54 Israel was also acqua<strong>in</strong>ted with ¨Asarah maˆamarot (Venice, 1597) by MenaÌem Azaria of Fano<br />
(1548–1620) (fol. 37ab, 56aa, 56ab), but the ideas to which he alludes are not dist<strong>in</strong>ctly kabbalistic.<br />
While Israel respected Kabbalah, he was critical of contemporaries who pretended to be kabbalists.<br />
Arubbot ha-shamayim (fol. 12a) makes sarcastic remarks about those whose <strong>in</strong>tellect does not suffice<br />
for Talmud study <strong>and</strong> who therefore ‘take refuge’ <strong>in</strong> the Kabbalah <strong>and</strong> look down on talmudists. This<br />
passage may shed light on the enigmas of Israel’s much discussed Nezed ha-dema¨ (see above, n. 14).<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
37
unequal parts. The bulk (fols. 3b–51b) is followed by a few supplementary folios<br />
(51a–57b), labelled the ‘last quire’ (qun†res aÌaron). Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Israel, the latter is<br />
specifically devoted to the discussion of ‘profound parables (aggadot Ìamurot) <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Talmud, namely those with a bear<strong>in</strong>g on astronomy <strong>and</strong> the other mathematical sciences’,<br />
which not all scholars have understood (fol. 52aa). In fact, however, aggadot<br />
are discussed <strong>in</strong> the first part of NY no less than <strong>in</strong> the ‘last quire’, which <strong>in</strong> turn conta<strong>in</strong>s<br />
discussions of both aggadot <strong>and</strong> Halakhah. Closer scrut<strong>in</strong>y discloses that the<br />
two parts are dist<strong>in</strong>guished not by the type of Talmudic passages discussed (halakhah<br />
vs. aggadah), but rather by the role played <strong>in</strong> each by scientific discourse. The ma<strong>in</strong><br />
part of NY is devoted to discuss<strong>in</strong>g sugyot, most of which have noth<strong>in</strong>g to do with<br />
science; <strong>in</strong> those discussions that do, Israel only briefly draws on, but does not develop,<br />
the relevant science. In the ‘last quire’, by contrast, the discussions all <strong>in</strong>volve<br />
science, <strong>and</strong> the relevant scientific material is presented <strong>in</strong> detail (notably by means<br />
of geometric proofs). 55 The ‘last quire’, Israel expla<strong>in</strong>s, was separated from the bulk<br />
of NY because the discussions of sacred matters should be separate from profane<br />
ones; <strong>in</strong> addition, many of ‘our contemporaries’ are ignorant of scientific matters <strong>and</strong><br />
shun them, <strong>and</strong> for them scientific discussions would have been ‘burdensome <strong>and</strong> tir<strong>in</strong>g’<br />
(fol. 3aa). (We f<strong>in</strong>d a similar separation of the sacred from the profane <strong>in</strong><br />
Mirkevet ha-mishneh by R. Solomon b. Moses of Chelm; see below, p. 44.) Israel,<br />
we see, was <strong>in</strong>tent on address<strong>in</strong>g all quarters. Consequently, the two parts of the book<br />
are arranged <strong>in</strong> parallel, each tak<strong>in</strong>g up selected sugyot from the talmudic tractates<br />
taken <strong>in</strong> order. In their literary form, we aga<strong>in</strong> note, Israel’s discussions conform to<br />
the traditional genre of the talmudic novella.<br />
R. Israel b. Moses Halevi’s Scientific Learn<strong>in</strong>g<br />
In the appendix to this article I give examples of the issues that Israel identified as<br />
requir<strong>in</strong>g elucidation <strong>in</strong> the light of science (below, pp. 59–62). These discussions<br />
clearly ev<strong>in</strong>ce his <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>and</strong> competence <strong>in</strong> science, especially mathematics <strong>and</strong> astronomy,<br />
as well as <strong>in</strong> philosophy (essentially medieval). We should now realize that<br />
the very presence <strong>in</strong> Zamosc of a scholar competent <strong>in</strong> the sciences <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> philosophy<br />
is surpris<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> calls for an explanation.<br />
Indeed, Israel’s scientific bookshelf (<strong>in</strong> which we are primarily <strong>in</strong>terested), all of it<br />
<strong>in</strong> Hebrew, turns out to be surpris<strong>in</strong>gly rich (below, pp. 62–67): Euclid, Ptolemy,<br />
Abraham bar Îiyya, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, Averroes, Meir Aldabi, Gersonides,<br />
Joseph Solomon Delmedigo, etc. (<strong>in</strong> addition, of course, to a large body of<br />
halakhic literature). To be sure, this rich bookshelf was accessible to Israel thanks to<br />
the spread of Hebrew pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g, which was one of the factors that helped dissem<strong>in</strong>ate<br />
Hebrew science <strong>and</strong> rationalist thought <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> from the sixteenth century onward.<br />
56 Still, the benefits of the pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g of profane works were unevenly distributed<br />
55 Note that <strong>in</strong> the bulk of NY, Israel at times refers the reader forward to the ‘last quire’, <strong>and</strong> vice versa.<br />
56 See Elbaum, Openness <strong>and</strong> Insularity, pp. 25, 42–5, 180; Elchanan Re<strong>in</strong>er, ‘The Attitude of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i<br />
Society to the New Science <strong>in</strong> the Sixteenth Century’, Science <strong>in</strong> Context 10 (1997): 589–603.<br />
38 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
<strong>and</strong> Israel’s bookshelf was certa<strong>in</strong>ly not that of the ord<strong>in</strong>ary scholar <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>. A list<br />
of books, drawn up <strong>in</strong> 1747 by R. P<strong>in</strong>Ìas Katzenellenbogen, who was a rabbi <strong>in</strong><br />
Moravia, <strong>in</strong>cludes more than 500 titles, of which only five are elementary philosophical<br />
or scientific works. 57 Similarly, Salomon Maimon, five decades after Israel, had<br />
to walk ‘thirty miles’ <strong>in</strong> order to have a look at ‘a Hebrew Peripatetic philosophical<br />
book of the tenth century’ <strong>and</strong> had great difficulty acquir<strong>in</strong>g a modicum of philosophical<br />
<strong>and</strong> scientific knowledge <strong>in</strong> his native shtetl of Nieszwicz. 58 Israel’s easy<br />
access to philosophical works was thus no trifl<strong>in</strong>g matter.<br />
That there is someth<strong>in</strong>g here call<strong>in</strong>g for explanation becomes even clearer when<br />
we note that Israel also had at his disposal works that were available <strong>in</strong> manuscript<br />
only: most importantly, the medieval Hebrew translations of Euclid’s Elements <strong>and</strong><br />
Ptolemy’s Almagest (both of them unpublished to this very day), as well as Abraham<br />
Ibn Ezra’s Keli ha-neÌoshet <strong>and</strong> Isaac Israeli’s Yesod ¨olam. Although no systematic<br />
study has been conducted of the availability of these manuscript works <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />
that era, 59 we may note that David Gans (1541–1613), writ<strong>in</strong>g ca. 1601, after a whole<br />
life devoted to science <strong>in</strong> a major city like Prague, <strong>in</strong>forms us that he had not been<br />
able to read Ibn Ezra’s astronomical works <strong>and</strong> the astronomical part of Gersonides’<br />
MilÌamot ha-Shem (none of them pr<strong>in</strong>ted at the time) <strong>and</strong> that, <strong>in</strong> general, copies of<br />
Hebrew books on astronomical matters were ‘scarce’ then. 60 Gans also considered<br />
the fact that he had access to a copy of the Elements as worth of special mention: ‘I<br />
saw a copy of Euclid’s book … <strong>and</strong> I studied it <strong>in</strong> the state of Saxony, <strong>in</strong> the town of<br />
Northeim [<strong>in</strong> the duchy of Brunswick], <strong>in</strong> the home of my father-<strong>in</strong>-law, R. Mann of<br />
blessed memory’. 61<br />
Moreover, the availability of texts is one th<strong>in</strong>g, but underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g them is still another.<br />
There is some evidence that these scientific works were largely impenetrable<br />
without proper preparation, mean<strong>in</strong>g study with a competent teacher. Thus ZeraÌ b.<br />
Nathan of Troki (near Vilna), the learned Karaite scholar whose correspondence with<br />
Joseph Solomon Delmedigo gave rise to Sefer Elim, reports of the largely fruitless<br />
efforts by himself <strong>and</strong> three other scholars to study Ptolemy’s Almagest. 62 ‘These<br />
57 See his Sefer Yesh manÌil<strong>in</strong>, ed. Isaac Dov Feld (Jerusalem, [5]746 [= 1986]), pp. 41–51. Some observations<br />
on Katzenellenbogen’s list can now be found <strong>in</strong> Zeev Gries, The Book as an Agent of Culture.<br />
1700–1900 (Hebrew) (Tel Aviv, 2002), pp. 65–70, where, however, the few scientific books go<br />
unmentioned.<br />
58 Salomon Maimon, Lebensgeschichte, I, 14, ed. Zwi Batscha (Frankfurt a.M., 1995), p. 86. The reference<br />
is presumably to Saadia Gaon’s Emunot ve-de¨ot (latest pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g: Amsterdam, 1608).<br />
59 It would <strong>in</strong>deed be <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g to make a systematic survey of extant scientific manuscripts that were<br />
copied or owned <strong>in</strong> Eastern Europe dur<strong>in</strong>g this period.<br />
60 David Gans, NeÌmad ve-na¨im (Jessnitz, 1743), 8aa, 9ab.<br />
61 David Gans, ∑emaÌ David, ed. Mordecai Breuer (Jerusalem, 1983), p. 127 (§30); quoted <strong>in</strong> Elbaum,<br />
Openness <strong>and</strong> Insularity, p. 255. Other authors noted by Elbaum as hav<strong>in</strong>g been acqua<strong>in</strong>ted with Euclid’s<br />
work are the extremely well-read R. Shemarya b. ManoaÌ Hendel, R. Yom ov Lipmann Heller,<br />
<strong>and</strong> R. MenaÌem b. Isaac Îayut (pp. 77, 256–7, n. 31). R. Shemarya b. ManoaÌ Hendel had at his disposal<br />
a particularly large library; see ibid., pp. 76–8, as well as Yizchak Lev<strong>in</strong>e, ‘Rabbi ManoaÌ Hendel<br />
ben Shemaryahu: Author of the ManoaÌ Halevavot’ (Hebrew), <strong>in</strong>: Jubilee Volume <strong>in</strong> Honor of… Rabbi<br />
Joseph B. Soloveitchik, ed. Shaul Israeli, Norman Lamm, <strong>and</strong> Yitzchak Raphael (Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> New<br />
York, 1984), pp. 961–5, esp. 962–3 on the books read <strong>and</strong> 969–70 (n. 17) on the chronology of his studies.<br />
This neglected figure certa<strong>in</strong>ly calls for research.<br />
62 Sefer Elim, p. 19. On ZeraÌ, see EJ 16: 996.<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
39
th<strong>in</strong>gs cannot be learned from books <strong>and</strong> from mute teachers’ (i.e. books), he comments,<br />
‘but only from live scholars, through oral transmission. And whoever, ow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to lack of luck or to poverty, has not had a teacher, will fail throughout his life <strong>and</strong><br />
waste his time’. 63 Similarly, <strong>in</strong> ¨Eder ha-yaqar, a commentary on Maimonides’<br />
Hilkhot qiddush ha-Ìodesh (see appendix), R. Mordecai b. Abraham Jaffe considers<br />
the fact that he studied astronomy on his own, ‘without any master’, as an exceptional<br />
accomplishment, thereby suggest<strong>in</strong>g that this was uncommon although not totally<br />
impossible. 64 (Israel would probably have commented that Jaffe’s auto-didacticism<br />
<strong>in</strong>deed did not take him very far.) Assum<strong>in</strong>g, then, that it was difficult to<br />
become a scientific autodidact, the question of how Israel acquired his considerable<br />
scientific competence arises. 65<br />
It thus seems that the very presence <strong>in</strong> Zamosc of a scholar competent <strong>in</strong> (medieval<br />
Hebrew) science no less than <strong>in</strong> Halakhah calls for an explanation. The mystery<br />
is enhanced when we note that Israel was not a solitary figure. In the next section I<br />
will provide some <strong>in</strong>formation about Israel’s social network <strong>and</strong> the <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> science<br />
<strong>in</strong> contemporary Zamosc. Then I will try to account for the observed facts.<br />
R. Israel b. Moses Halevi <strong>and</strong> His Allies: Amateurs of Science <strong>in</strong> Zamosc,<br />
ca. 1735<br />
Contrary to what Israel’s bitter compla<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> the Introduction to NY might lead one<br />
to th<strong>in</strong>k, <strong>and</strong> contrary also to what has been widely held, Israel was not altogether<br />
isolated <strong>in</strong> Zamosc. He himself says that he writes <strong>in</strong> order to satisfy ‘the desire of<br />
the friends who listen to me’ (ha-Ìaverim ha-maqshivim le-qoli; e.g. 3ab, 52aa),<br />
‘scholars’ (maskilim; fol. 54ab), among whom are ‘many great <strong>and</strong> excellent ones’<br />
(gedolim ve-†ovim; fol. 52aa; also fol. 2bb, 3ab). He gives an <strong>in</strong>kl<strong>in</strong>g of their <strong>in</strong>tellec-<br />
63 Sefer Elim, p. 19.<br />
64 Yeshu¨ah be-Yisraˆel, p. 34aa. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to other accounts, Jaffe studied mathematics, astronomy,<br />
<strong>and</strong> philosophy dur<strong>in</strong>g a ten-year stay <strong>in</strong> Italy; see Elbaum, Openness <strong>and</strong> Insularity, 41. Furthermore,<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to Elbaum, Jaffe was not only a student of Isserles, himself a competent astronomer, but also<br />
of R. Matityahu Delacrut, an astronomer as well; see ibid., pp. 149, 215 (with n. 118). Delacrut translated<br />
<strong>in</strong>to Hebrew the Image du monde by Gauthier de Metz, under the title ∑el ha-¨olam, a work that<br />
enjoyed great popularity after its first pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> 1733; see Rappel, Sheva¨ ha-Ìokhmot, pp. 95–7, 212–<br />
3; Jacob Elbaum, ‘The Editions of Sefer ∑el ha-¨olam’ (Hebrew) Kiryat Sefer 47 (1972): 162–8. On<br />
Delacrut, see Fishman, ‘Rabbi Moshe Isserles <strong>and</strong> the Study of Science Among Polish Rabbis’, p. 575–6.<br />
The significance of Jaffe’s affirmation concern<strong>in</strong>g his autodidactic mastery of astronomy thus needs <strong>in</strong>vestigation.<br />
In any event, Jaffe had a positive attitude to the study of philosophy <strong>and</strong> to astronomy<br />
(Elbaum, ibid., pp. 146, 169, 215, 263).<br />
65 Israel himself never names any of his teachers, <strong>in</strong> either traditional or secular sciences. Wessely<br />
(above, n. 19), referr<strong>in</strong>g to Jewish scholars who came to Berl<strong>in</strong> after hav<strong>in</strong>g mastered Hebrew works of<br />
science <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>, writes that they were autodidacts. I suggest that he is referr<strong>in</strong>g exclusively to Israel.<br />
Should we conclude that Wessely had reliable <strong>in</strong>formation that Israel was an autodidact? I do not th<strong>in</strong>k<br />
so. Wessely apparently did not know Israel personally <strong>and</strong> seems to have derived his <strong>in</strong>formation from<br />
literary sources only: NY (the references to Yesod ¨olam <strong>and</strong> Elim) <strong>and</strong> Friedrich Nicolai’s well-known<br />
remarks about Israel, which he slightly misstated, however (see ‘Friedrich Nicolai’s Anmerkungen zu<br />
Moses Mendelsohn’s Briefwechsel mit Gotthold Ephraim Less<strong>in</strong>g’, <strong>in</strong> Gotthold Ephraim Less<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
Sämtliche Schriften, vol. 29 [Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> Stett<strong>in</strong>, 1828], p. 373). Wessely mentions ‘the sages of the Nations<br />
[who] have marvelled’ at the accomplishment of the Polish scholars, a remark that fits Nicolai’s<br />
observation on Israel.<br />
40 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
tual profile when he warns that his analyses <strong>in</strong> NY are not addressed to those who<br />
‘have not mastered mathematics, still less to those who have no knowledge at all of<br />
this science’; rather, he says, ‘I address myself only to those who have studied the<br />
mathematical sciences <strong>in</strong> depth’ (52ab). Clearly, then, contemporary Zamosc counted<br />
some amateurs of science. Although the <strong>in</strong>formation at our disposal is scant, we can<br />
identify five or six persons with whom Israel had scientific <strong>and</strong> friendly exchanges.<br />
1. One person whom Israel explicitly describes (fols. 15bb, 31bb, 41aa) as one<br />
‘who listens to me’ is R. Eleazar Katz, orig<strong>in</strong>ally from Stry but resident <strong>in</strong> Zamosc,<br />
‘the son-<strong>in</strong>-law of the late rabbi of Zamosc’, mean<strong>in</strong>g Aryeh Judah Leib b. YeÌiel of<br />
Lubl<strong>in</strong> (see below). 66 Israel describes Eleazar as extremely learned <strong>and</strong> possessed of<br />
‘true erudition’, <strong>and</strong> he names him frequently (although only <strong>in</strong> halakhic, not scientific,<br />
contexts); <strong>in</strong> fact, NY <strong>in</strong>cludes some of the Eleazar’s novellae, which Israel<br />
learned by word of mouth (e.g. fols. 15bb, 41aa), as well as answers to queries raised<br />
by him (e.g. fols. 31bb, 45ab). Despite his erudition, Eleazar apparently never published<br />
anyth<strong>in</strong>g. 67<br />
2. The only other person whom Israel explicitly describes as a friend ‘who listens<br />
to me’ is Dov Baer, the ‘son of the late rabbi of Zamosc’ (fols. 15bb, 31bb, 41aa,<br />
45ba) – the same Aryeh Judah Leib b. YeÌiel of Lubl<strong>in</strong>. Dov Baer, too, never seems<br />
to have written a book, but he gave approbations <strong>in</strong> 1747 (when he served as av bet<br />
d<strong>in</strong> [head of the rabb<strong>in</strong>ical court] <strong>in</strong> Kaznitz [Lubl<strong>in</strong> district]), <strong>in</strong> 1775, <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> 1777<br />
(by which time he was av bet d<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> Lvov). 68<br />
3. Another scholar who was close to Israel is Aryeh Judah Leib b. YeÌiel of<br />
Lubl<strong>in</strong> himself, the father-<strong>in</strong>-law <strong>and</strong> father of the two just mentioned, who headed<br />
the Zamosc rabb<strong>in</strong>ical court for some four decades <strong>and</strong> held politically <strong>in</strong>fluential<br />
positions. 69 He wrote one of the six approbations to NY, <strong>in</strong> which he refers not only<br />
to Israel’s erudition <strong>and</strong> commitment to learn<strong>in</strong>g, but also to conversations with him.<br />
He died a short time after writ<strong>in</strong>g that approbation (which is dated Monday, 9 Sivan<br />
[5]499 = June 15, 1739). In his Memories, 70 Isaac Leib Peretz reports rumours he<br />
heard <strong>in</strong> his youth, accord<strong>in</strong>g to which Israel used to spend time with two scholars,<br />
one of whom was ‘the rabbi of Zamosc’, who was versed ‘<strong>in</strong> all seven sciences’ (see<br />
below, p. 43): this probably refers to Aryeh Judah Leib rather than to his successor,<br />
R. Jacob Îarif, who arrived <strong>in</strong> Zamosc only shortly before Israel left it (see next<br />
paragraph).<br />
4. NY also received an approbation from R. Jacob Isaac Îarif (Hochgelernter; ca.<br />
1710–1770), 71 who succeeded Aryeh Judah Leib b. YeÌiel as av bet d<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> Zamosc <strong>in</strong><br />
66 So too the head<strong>in</strong>g of Aryeh Judah Leib’s approbation to NY refers to him as ‘ha-rav ha-manoaÌ’<br />
(NY, back of title page).<br />
67 He does not appear <strong>in</strong> M<strong>and</strong>elboim, ‘Îakhmei Zamoshtsh’ (n. 8). M<strong>and</strong>elboim’s very detailed bibliography,<br />
with its rich annotation, is an extremely useful resource for the study of the <strong>in</strong>tellectual history<br />
of Zamosc.<br />
68 M<strong>and</strong>elboim, ‘Îakhmei Zamoshtsh’, pp. 287 (No. 69), 246 (No. 20), 257 (No. 36).<br />
69 Israel Lew<strong>in</strong>, ‘Le-toledot ha-yehudim be-Zamoshtsh’, <strong>in</strong> Zamoshtsh bi-geˆonah u-ve-shivrah, Moshe<br />
Tamari, ed. (Tel Aviv, 1953), pp. 33–73, on p. 45.<br />
70 Peretz, Zikhroynes, p. 70; Zikhronotay, p. 86–7; My Memories, pp. 124 (truncated).<br />
71 See M<strong>and</strong>elboim, ‘Îakhmei Zamoshtsh’, 270; EJ, 7: 1338.<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
41
1740 (the approbation is dated Tuesday, 25 Nissan [5]501 = April 11, 1741) <strong>and</strong><br />
founded the dynasty of rabbis who would hold that position for almost a century. 72<br />
5. The friend about whom we know the most is R. Joel b. Uri Ba¨al Shem (the<br />
younger), who gave a warm haskamah to NY <strong>and</strong> who is described <strong>in</strong> its head<strong>in</strong>g as<br />
‘the author’s ally’ (ba¨al berit ha-meÌabber; fol. 3a). Joel Ba¨al Shem appreciated<br />
Israel’s scientific competence, for he describes his unpublished writ<strong>in</strong>gs – with which<br />
he was obviously familiar – as ‘wondrous <strong>and</strong> precious’: Israel, he writes, ‘went up<br />
to the heaven <strong>and</strong> descended to the waters;… he reached from the ocean of the Talmud<br />
to the ocean of the lofty <strong>and</strong> occult [secular] sciences’ (fol. 3aa). 73 This association<br />
between a ba¨al shem <strong>and</strong> the follower of Maimonides is less an alliance contre<br />
nature than one might th<strong>in</strong>k. It is true that Joel was not a staunch rationalist, but a<br />
healer <strong>and</strong> practitioner of folk-medic<strong>in</strong>e, who used practical Kabbalah, amulets, <strong>and</strong><br />
segullot. 74 Still, he did not entirely shun rationalist philosophy <strong>and</strong> obviously had<br />
some sympathy for scientific study. The Sefer Toledot adam, to which he gave two<br />
approbations <strong>and</strong> which reports many of his own remedies, conta<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong>dications of<br />
his familiarity with <strong>and</strong> positive attitude toward rational knowledge. In his second<br />
approbation, Joel po<strong>in</strong>ts out that the book describes not only remedies founded on<br />
tradition (such as amulets <strong>and</strong> segullot), but also ‘natural remedies, [i.e.,] remedies<br />
grounded <strong>in</strong> natural science [heqqesh ha-†eva¨, i.e., logically deduced from medical<br />
theory], which are true too, <strong>in</strong>sofar as I could gather from the books composed by<br />
scholars of natural science’; he adds that it is needless to dwell on ‘the potency of the<br />
philosophiz<strong>in</strong>g’ of the latter. 75 The (anonymous) compiler of Toledot adam also mentions<br />
biblical exegesis by Joel, draw<strong>in</strong>g on Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed, <strong>and</strong><br />
discussions based on <strong>in</strong>formation gleaned from Delmedigo’s Sefer Elim, <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
his familiarity with that book as well. 76 Joel gave an approbation to the ethical treatise<br />
Tavnit ha-bayit (Frankfurt on the Oder, 1747) by the Zamosc resident Mordecai<br />
b. Meir Kalmanns; that book also received approbations from two other scholars<br />
with rationalist <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ations: Israel himself <strong>and</strong> R. David Fraenkel 77 (1707–1762;<br />
72 Zevi Halevi Horowitz, Sefer Kitvei ha-geˆonim (Piarkov, 1828), p. 140 (No. 6). Horowitz, a gr<strong>and</strong>son<br />
of Jacob Hochgelernter, refers to Israel <strong>in</strong> approv<strong>in</strong>g terms, thus confirm<strong>in</strong>g that his image <strong>in</strong> the family<br />
was positive. See also M<strong>and</strong>elboim, ‘Îakhmei Zamoshtsh’, pp. 266–7 (No. 45), 246–7 (No. 21); these<br />
entries make clear that Jacob Isaac Hochgelernter did not compose any works.<br />
73 R. Joel’s approbation is dated Tuesday, 7 Elul [5]497 (= Sept. 3, 1737), misread <strong>in</strong> Shatzky,<br />
‘Haskalah <strong>in</strong> Zamoshtsh’ (Yidd.), YIVO Bleter 36 (1952): 24–63, on p. 25 n. 2.<br />
74 The ba¨alei shem, <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> particular Joel Ba¨al Shem II (his gr<strong>and</strong>father’s name was also Joel), have<br />
been the subject of some scholarly <strong>in</strong>terest recently. See: Immanuel Etkes, Ba¨al Hashem. The Besht:<br />
Magic Mysticism Leadership (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 2000), pp. 15–53 (41–50 on Joel); Michal Oron,<br />
Samuel Falk: The Baal Shem of London (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 2002); Karl Gröz<strong>in</strong>ger, ‘Jüdische<br />
Wundermänner <strong>in</strong> Deutschl<strong>and</strong>’, <strong>in</strong> Judentum im deutschen Sprachraum, ed. Karl Gröz<strong>in</strong>ger (Frankfurt,<br />
1991), pp. 190–221. Valuable material on Joel has been collected <strong>in</strong> Ba¨alei Shem, ed. Moshe Hillel (Jerusalem,<br />
[5]753 [= 1993]), pp. 155–79.<br />
75 Sefer Toledot adam , ed. Moshe Hillel (Jerusalem, [5]754 [= 1994]), p. 157. Joel was not the author<br />
of Sefer Toledot adam, but it describes many of his own remedies <strong>and</strong> he was <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> its pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
76 Ibid., pp. 49, 50.<br />
77 M<strong>and</strong>elboim, ‘Îakhmei Zamoshtsh’, pp. 287–8. Note that Joel gave an approbation also to the commentary<br />
on Avot by the Zamosc scholar Eliezer Lippman (Zó¥kiew, 1723), which had another approbation<br />
also from Aryeh Judah Leib of Lubl<strong>in</strong>, one of Israel’s ‘friends’ (ibid., p. 275 [No. 52]). The social<br />
networks reflected <strong>in</strong> approbations are an important source for historical research, but which has hardly<br />
been used so far.<br />
42 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
Fraenkel was Moses Mendelssohn’s teacher <strong>in</strong> Dessau <strong>and</strong> the <strong>in</strong>stigator of the 1742<br />
Jessnitz pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g of the Guide of the Perplexed). An early historian of Zamosc, Zevi<br />
Halevi Horowitz, lists Israel <strong>and</strong> Joel among the four Zamosc scholars who were the<br />
first to comb<strong>in</strong>e Torah study with science. 78 All this, together with Joel’s approbation<br />
for NY, prais<strong>in</strong>g its author’s scientific competence, suggests that Joel was at home <strong>in</strong><br />
rationalist literature <strong>and</strong> did not consider it <strong>in</strong>compatible with his activities as a ba¨al<br />
shem. 79 Israel, for his part, took some steps <strong>in</strong> the direction of his ‘ally’: as we have<br />
seen, he was not hostile to Kabbalah, <strong>and</strong>, like most persons of the time, accepted the<br />
existence of demons (shedim) as factual <strong>and</strong> endorsed astrology. 80 Rationalist philosophy<br />
<strong>and</strong> popular mysticism <strong>and</strong> shamanism were not as opposed as their essentialist<br />
def<strong>in</strong>itions sometimes (mis-)lead us to th<strong>in</strong>k: Israel <strong>and</strong> Joel were fellow travellers<br />
who shared some <strong>in</strong>terests <strong>and</strong> commitments.<br />
Yet another of Israel’s associates was a synagogue sexton said to be competent <strong>in</strong><br />
mathematics <strong>and</strong> astronomy but who unfortunately rema<strong>in</strong>s unidentifiable. This man<br />
is mentioned by I. L. Peretz <strong>in</strong> the course of a lively description of nightly scientific<br />
gather<strong>in</strong>gs of Israel <strong>and</strong> his scientifically-m<strong>in</strong>ded friends. Although not an eyewitness<br />
account, it probably reflects the reality to some extent. After a story illustrat<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
absentm<strong>in</strong>dedness of the rabbi of Zamosc – to whom he refers as ‘the Gaon’ <strong>and</strong><br />
‘Iron Head’ (aizerner kop) – Peretz writes:<br />
And that very same Gaon was knowledgeable <strong>in</strong> seven sciences. He engaged, they tell, <strong>in</strong><br />
disputations with the priest, <strong>in</strong> which the latter was always defeated…. And then there<br />
was also a synagogue sexton, a very poor fellow, with many children. And nobody knew<br />
what a figure this man <strong>in</strong> fact cut. For this Jew had devised ‘a new method of calculation’,<br />
allow<strong>in</strong>g one to predict, ‘centuries <strong>in</strong> advance’, all the eclipses of the sun <strong>and</strong> all<br />
those of the moon. After his death, a correspondence on this subject which he conducted<br />
with the Paris Academy was discovered. 81 How much of all this is true, <strong>and</strong> what became<br />
of these writ<strong>in</strong>gs, nobody knows.<br />
It is told that at midnight, this sexton <strong>and</strong> Rabbi Israel Zamosc, the author of the book On<br />
Nature (if I am not mistaken), would meet at the house of the ‘Iron Head’ <strong>and</strong>, after midnight,<br />
before dawn, discuss science. 82<br />
78 Horowitz, Sefer Kitvei ha-geˆonim, p. 138 n. b. The other two scholars are R. Solomon Chelm <strong>and</strong> R.<br />
Abraham ha-Kohen, on whom more below. Hayyim Dembitzer follows Horowitz <strong>in</strong> associat<strong>in</strong>g these<br />
four scholars; see his Sefer Kelilat yofi (Cracow, 1888), p. 180b. R. David Fraenkel was among those<br />
who gave approbations both to Chelm’s Mirkevet ha-mishneh <strong>and</strong> to Abraham ha-Kohen’s Bet<br />
Avraham: this, too, l<strong>in</strong>ks together all these scholars <strong>in</strong> a social web with shared <strong>in</strong>tellectual preferences.<br />
79 Joel’s gr<strong>and</strong>son, R. Wolff Baer Schiff, wrote a commentary on the tractate ¨Eruv<strong>in</strong> (Sefer M<strong>in</strong>Ìat<br />
zikkaron ¨al Masekhet ¨Eruv<strong>in</strong> [Cracow, 1894]), <strong>in</strong> which he treats <strong>in</strong>ter alia mathematical topics, as the<br />
title page explicitly states. In rabb<strong>in</strong>ic families, traditions are usually long-lived, so Schiff’s <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong><br />
mathematics is not <strong>in</strong>significant. Schiff, who was born <strong>in</strong> Zamosc <strong>in</strong> 1768 <strong>and</strong> is said <strong>in</strong> one approbation<br />
to have been great both <strong>in</strong> Torah scholarship <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> ‘the science of arithmetic <strong>and</strong> geometry’ (p. Ib, [unnumbered]),<br />
began work on this book <strong>in</strong> 1792 (see p. IVb [unnumbered]), i.e. only half a century after<br />
the period here considered.<br />
80 Demons: fol. 15ba; astrology: fol. 43ab.<br />
81 Taken literally, this phrase refers to the Académie royale des sciences <strong>in</strong> Paris; but <strong>in</strong> the absence of<br />
any further <strong>in</strong>formation, this must rema<strong>in</strong> very uncerta<strong>in</strong>. Although we know noth<strong>in</strong>g more about this<br />
figure, <strong>and</strong> although Peretz himself expresses doubts concern<strong>in</strong>g the veracity of the reports he had heard,<br />
thei probably conta<strong>in</strong> a gra<strong>in</strong> of truth.<br />
82 Peretz, Zikhroynes, pp. 70–1; Zikhronotay, pp. 87; truncated <strong>in</strong> Memories, p. 124. Peretz of course<br />
was mistaken with respect to the title of Israel’s work.<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
43
Israel, then, was certa<strong>in</strong>ly not altogether isolated <strong>in</strong> Zamosc. Far from it. He<br />
counted among his friends a number of persons who belonged to the local elite: the<br />
old av bet d<strong>in</strong>, Aryeh Judah Leib b. YeÌiel, as well as his son <strong>and</strong> his son-<strong>in</strong>-law; the<br />
new av bet d<strong>in</strong>, Jacob Hochgelernter; the famous Joel Ba¨al Shem; <strong>and</strong> perhaps also<br />
the elusive, humble, but gifted synagogue sexton. 83 Israel regularly discussed the<br />
problems that <strong>in</strong>terested him with at least some of them: we noted that NY bears the<br />
stamp of his discussions with Eleazar Katz; more generally, Israel explicitly says that<br />
the ideas expounded <strong>in</strong> NY ‘have been w<strong>in</strong>nowed through my own humble <strong>in</strong>tellect<br />
<strong>and</strong> the <strong>in</strong>tellect of the friends who listen to me’ (fol. 3ab). NY, we see clearly, was<br />
subjected to the critical scrut<strong>in</strong>y of Israel’s friends <strong>and</strong> is not the work of an isolated<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual entirely cut off from his surround<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
The existence of a scientific ‘sub-culture’ <strong>in</strong> contemporary Zamosc is confirmed by<br />
R. Solomon b. Moses of Chelm (1717–1781), an outst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g scholar who was born <strong>and</strong><br />
educated <strong>in</strong> Zamosc less than two decades after Israel. 84 In a well-known passage <strong>in</strong> the<br />
<strong>in</strong>troduction to his magnum opus, Mirkevet ha-mishneh (a commentary on Maimonides’<br />
Mishneh Torah), Chelm writes that <strong>in</strong> his youth he studied arithmetic (‘<strong>in</strong>tegers <strong>and</strong><br />
fractions’), algebra (‘pretty <strong>and</strong> h<strong>and</strong>some’), 85 geometry (‘a touchstone <strong>and</strong> a foundation’),<br />
astronomy (‘a gate of hope <strong>in</strong> calculations <strong>and</strong> measurements prescribed by the<br />
Law’), natural science, philosophy, grammar, <strong>and</strong> logic. 86 Chelm was also versed <strong>in</strong><br />
medic<strong>in</strong>e <strong>and</strong> knew a number of European languages, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Lat<strong>in</strong>. 87 His mathematical<br />
competence is confirmed by the Qun†res berekhot be-Ìeshbon, which is appended at<br />
the end of Mirkevet ha-mishneh (i.e., after the commentary on Hilkhot melakhim) <strong>and</strong><br />
which discusses various talmudic passages of mathematical significance. 88 More gener-<br />
83 The other approbations to NY come from scholars who were not residents of Zamosc: One (dated<br />
Wednesday 7 Tammuz [5]501 = June 21, 1741) is by R. Moses b. Aaron of Lvov, who was liv<strong>in</strong>g at the<br />
time <strong>in</strong> Frankfurt on the Oder; obviously it was acquired just prior Israel went to pr<strong>in</strong>t there. A second<br />
haskamah (dated Friday, Rosh Ìodesh Îeshvan [5]501 = Oct. 21, 1740) is by Joseph b. Avigdor, av bet<br />
d<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> Tren<strong>in</strong>rad, who clearly discerned that NY was ‘grounded on the foundations of truth <strong>and</strong> reason’.<br />
A third is by R. Aryeh Leib, who at the time of the approbation (dated Rosh Ìodesh MarÌeshvan [5]500<br />
= Monday, Nov. 2, 1739) was chief rabbi of Amsterdam <strong>and</strong> only ‘passed through Zamosc’ on his way<br />
to Lubl<strong>in</strong>; he takes care to emphasize, however, that he had subjected Israel to a close scrut<strong>in</strong>y (tahiti ¨al<br />
qanqano). See NY, unnumbered folio, on the back of the title page.<br />
84 The most detailed account of R. Solomon Chelm is Abraham Brik, Rabbi Shelomo Îalma Ba¨al<br />
‘Mirkevet ha-mishneh’ (Jerusalem, 5745 [= 1985]). Although rich <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation, it is not entirely reliable.<br />
Very valuable is Joel Qa†an, ‘Introduction’, to Chelm’s Sefer ShulÌan tamid, vol. 1 (Jerusalem,<br />
5760 [=2000]), 18–34. See also Mahler, Divrei yemei Yisraˆel, 1: IV-25–6; Z<strong>in</strong>berg, History of Jewish<br />
Literature, 6: 241–3.<br />
85 Chelm is certa<strong>in</strong>ly referr<strong>in</strong>g to MafteaÌ ha-algebra by Anschel Worms (Offenbach, 1722).<br />
86 Mirkevet ha-mishneh (Frankfurt on the Oder, 1751), Introduction.<br />
87 Solomon Chelm, Lev Shelomo 3:6 (Jerusalem, 5732 [= 1972]), p. 33b: ‘va-ani yada¨ti me¨a†<br />
birfuˆot’, followed by a discussion of Lat<strong>in</strong> medical term<strong>in</strong>ology; Qa†an, <strong>in</strong> Sefer ShulÌan tamid, p. 19.<br />
In the <strong>in</strong>troduction to his famous map of the L<strong>and</strong> of Israel, Chelm explicitly states that it is his own<br />
translation ‘from a foreign language’ (leshon lo¨ez); see Îug ha-areÒ ha-shalem, ed. Shabbetai<br />
Rosenthal (Jerusalem, 5748 [= 1988]), p. 47. The sources of this map call for research.<br />
88 The objective <strong>and</strong> method of this Qun†res obviously recall those of the ‘last quire’ of NY, which however<br />
is not mentioned. (Solomon Chelm seems to mention NY, albeit <strong>in</strong> a purely halakhic context, <strong>in</strong> Lev<br />
Shelomo 21:3, 121b–122a.). Brik (Rabbi Shelomo Îalma, p. 62, n. 76) states that the Qun†res berekhot<br />
be-Ìeshbon had been pr<strong>in</strong>ted separately, before Mirkevet ha-mishneh, <strong>and</strong> was appended to the latter<br />
after it was pr<strong>in</strong>ted. Qa†an rejects this claim as unfounded (Sefer ShulÌan tamid, p. 23 n. 27). In any<br />
event, just like Israel, R. Solomon Chelm believed that mathematical discussions were out of place <strong>in</strong> a<br />
work of halakhah.<br />
44 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
ally, numerous passages draw<strong>in</strong>g on almost all the sciences are <strong>in</strong>terspersed throughout<br />
Chelm’s writ<strong>in</strong>gs. 89 Unlike Israel, <strong>and</strong> despite his dabbl<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> science, Chelm never<br />
found himself <strong>in</strong> conflict with his surround<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>ued to pursue a dist<strong>in</strong>guished<br />
scholarly <strong>and</strong> political career <strong>in</strong> the very heart of the establishment (he was the rabbi of<br />
the district of Chelm, the town after he which he came to be called). Despite the (misguided)<br />
attempts of later maskilim <strong>and</strong> historians to enlist him <strong>in</strong> their cause <strong>and</strong> see him<br />
as a forerunner of the Haskalah, 90 he rema<strong>in</strong>s venerated <strong>in</strong> Orthodox circles to this day.<br />
From our perspective, the salient po<strong>in</strong>t is that Chelm acquired a thorough scientific education<br />
<strong>in</strong> the town of Zamosc less than two decades after Israel.<br />
We have <strong>in</strong>formation on one further Zamosc scholar of that era who is reported to<br />
have had a profound knowledge of philosophy <strong>and</strong> astronomy: Abraham ha-Kohen,<br />
the author of a volume of responsa entitled Beit Avraham. 91 A brother-<strong>in</strong>-law of R.<br />
Solomon Chelm, 92 he is clearly related to the circle of Zamosc amateurs of science.<br />
We should now consider another facet of Zamosc as a cultural centre, namely the<br />
existence of particularly large book collections <strong>in</strong> that town, <strong>and</strong> specifically the existence<br />
of a well-stocked public library. 93 We have an explicit report from the midn<strong>in</strong>eteenth<br />
century that the library of the local bet midrash possessed not only religious<br />
books but also ‘books of philosophy, Hebrew compositions on astronomy <strong>and</strong><br />
mathematics – of course the ancient ones’. 94 Somewhat later, <strong>in</strong> 1878, David<br />
Shiffman wrote that the library of the bet midrash conta<strong>in</strong>ed 4,000 books: <strong>in</strong> addition<br />
to the traditional literature, also ‘philosophy <strong>and</strong> everyth<strong>in</strong>g of learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> mathematics<br />
[Ìeshbon]’. 95 This library was public property <strong>and</strong> adm<strong>in</strong>istered by a voluntary<br />
society, which acquired new books <strong>and</strong> saw to the conservation of old ones. 96<br />
We do not know when this society was established, but it may well go back to the<br />
eighteenth century. There were also private book collections; that of R. Solomon<br />
Chelm is known to have been particularly large.<br />
Zamosc, then, was far from be<strong>in</strong>g a monolithic conservative stronghold <strong>in</strong> which<br />
Israel unaccountably blazed like a lone meteor <strong>in</strong> a dark sky. Rather, Israel had a<br />
number of allies with knowledge of secular sciences <strong>and</strong> we know of at least one<br />
other scholar who became well-versed <strong>in</strong> mathematics only a few years later. It has<br />
<strong>in</strong>deed long been noted that not long after the period studied here, Zamosc was one<br />
of the first Polish towns <strong>in</strong> which the Haskalah (or what was to become the Haskalah)<br />
appeared. In 1828, R. Zevi Halevi Horowitz, a gr<strong>and</strong>son of Jacob Hochgelernter,<br />
wrote that Zamosc was ‘the first town <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> which philosophy <strong>and</strong> science<br />
found a home. Many of its greatest scholars studied religious philosophy, as well as<br />
89 Brik, Rabbi Shelomo Îalma, pp. 61–7, 109–10, collected many passages.<br />
90 For a survey see ibid., pp. 112–19.<br />
91 Horowitz, Sefer Kitvei ha-geˆonim, p. 138 n. b. On Beit Avraham (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1753) (non vidi), see<br />
M<strong>and</strong>elboim, ‘Îakhmei Zamoshtsh’, p. 239.<br />
92 Dembitzer, Sefer Kelilat yofi, p. 184b.<br />
93 Shatzky, ‘Sfardim <strong>in</strong> Zamoshtsh’ (Yidd.), <strong>in</strong> P<strong>in</strong>qas Zamoshtsh (Buenos Aires, 1957), p. 56.<br />
94 Quoted <strong>in</strong> Judah Aryeh Klausner, ‘Zamoshtsh – the Birthplace of Peretz’ (Hebrew), He-¨avar 13<br />
(Iyyar 5726 [= 1966]): 98–117, on p. 107 (a statement from 1869).<br />
95 Quoted <strong>in</strong> ibid., p. 107.<br />
96 Lew<strong>in</strong>, ‘Le-toledot ha-yehudim be-Zamoshtsh’, p. 57. See also Jacob Shatzky, ‘Haskalah <strong>in</strong><br />
Zamoshtsh’, p. 26.<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
45
arithmetic, geometry, medic<strong>in</strong>e, <strong>in</strong> addition to their Torah scholarship’. 97 This was<br />
long before the German, Mendelssohnian, Haskalah spread to Pol<strong>and</strong>. 98 The question<br />
is: why Zamosc? What gave Jewish Zamosc this s<strong>in</strong>gularity? Specifically, how did<br />
Israel <strong>and</strong> his associates acquire their scientific <strong>in</strong>struction? I suggest that the answer<br />
to these questions is to be found <strong>in</strong> some dist<strong>in</strong>ctive characteristics of its history.<br />
Zamosc: The Sephardi Heritage<br />
Zamosc was founded by Jan Zamoyski (1541–1605), the future royal chancellor <strong>and</strong><br />
gr<strong>and</strong> hetman (comm<strong>and</strong>er <strong>in</strong> chief) of Pol<strong>and</strong>. 99 The son of a Calv<strong>in</strong>ist senator,<br />
Zamoyski (who converted to Catholicism) was educated <strong>in</strong> France <strong>and</strong> Italy, especially<br />
Padua, where he served as rector of the university. Imbued with humanist culture,<br />
Zamoyski decided to found Zamosc as a town modelled on the ideas of the<br />
theorists of the Italian Quattrocento. He himself, together with the Paduan architect<br />
Bernardo Mor<strong>and</strong>o (1540 or 1541–1600), drew up the plan for the town <strong>in</strong> 1578. The<br />
new town, consist<strong>in</strong>g of a fortress, a palace, a collegiate church, a court, <strong>and</strong> the centres<br />
of <strong>in</strong>tellectual life (an academy <strong>and</strong> a pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g-house), satisfied both ideological<br />
<strong>in</strong>tentions (its plan reflects the harmonious structure of Zamoyski’s doma<strong>in</strong>, ruled <strong>in</strong><br />
accordance with the law by a wise <strong>and</strong> learned pr<strong>in</strong>ce) <strong>and</strong> aesthetic values (its proportions<br />
are simple <strong>and</strong> harmonious, expressed <strong>in</strong> mathematical ratios). 100 An <strong>in</strong>tegral<br />
part of this model town was the famous academy founded by Zamoyski, the third<br />
university <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>: its statutes were approved <strong>in</strong> 1594 by Pope Clement VIII, one<br />
year before it opened (it closed <strong>in</strong> 1784). 101 In an attempt to make Zamosc a centre of<br />
learn<strong>in</strong>g, Zamoyski brought scholars from Italy <strong>and</strong> elsewhere to teach the new science<br />
<strong>and</strong> humanism.<br />
To attract dynamic elements to the town, foreigners who settled <strong>in</strong> Zamosc were<br />
granted special privileges. In 1588 Zamoyski (who had encountered Jewish students<br />
<strong>in</strong> Padua) granted Jews of Iberian orig<strong>in</strong> the right to settle <strong>in</strong> Zamosc <strong>and</strong> enjoy the<br />
same privileges as the other citizens. 102 These privileges were extended only to<br />
97 Horowitz, Sefer Kitvei ha-geˆonim, p. 138 n. b.<br />
98 A generation later, the town of Zamosc became a centre of early Haskalah; the first Jewish poet who<br />
wrote <strong>in</strong> German, Issachar Falkensohn Behr (1746–1817), the author of Gedichte von e<strong>in</strong>em polnischen<br />
Juden (1772; see the recent edition by Andreas Wittbrodt [Gött<strong>in</strong>gen, 2002], is held to have been born<br />
<strong>in</strong> Zamosc <strong>and</strong> to have been a relative of Israel’s. Raphael Mahler, Hasidism <strong>and</strong> the Jewish Enlightenment:<br />
Their Confrontation <strong>in</strong> Galicia <strong>and</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> the First Half of the N<strong>in</strong>eteenth Century (Philadelphia,<br />
1985), pp. 233–8, notes that Haskalah came early to Zamosc. But although he mentions Israel <strong>and</strong><br />
R. Solomon Chelm, he deals with a later period than that treated here.<br />
99 Zamoyski played an important role <strong>in</strong> br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g about the election of Stephen Báthory as k<strong>in</strong>g of Pol<strong>and</strong><br />
(Dec. 14, 1575) <strong>and</strong> subsequently <strong>in</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g Pol<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>to a ‘democracy of the nobility’ grounded <strong>in</strong><br />
the equality of all noblemen, the powers of the Sejm, the latter’s control over royal power, <strong>and</strong> religious<br />
tolerance. The follow<strong>in</strong>g quotation is often attributed to him: ‘The k<strong>in</strong>g reigns, but does not govern’.<br />
100 See http://www.fondazione-delbianco.org/<strong>in</strong>glese/relaz/toA3.htm. Zamosc (about 90 km southeast<br />
of Lubl<strong>in</strong>) is today on the UNESCO list of World Heritage Sites.<br />
101 On the Zamoyska Academy, see W kregu Akademickiego Zamoscia, ed. Henryk Gmiterek (Lubl<strong>in</strong>:<br />
Wydawn. Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Sklodowskiej, 1996). For this reference I am <strong>in</strong>debted to Michael<br />
G. Müller (Halle).<br />
102 For this <strong>and</strong> for what follows see Jacob Shatzki, ‘Sephardi Jews <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>’ (Hebrew), <strong>in</strong> Tamari,<br />
Zamoshtsh bi-geˆonah u-ve-shivrah, pp. 11–28; Nathan M. Gelber, ‘On the History of the Sephardim <strong>in</strong><br />
46 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
Sephardi Jews because, unlike the local <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im, they were merchants with <strong>in</strong>ternational<br />
connections <strong>and</strong> a general culture already <strong>in</strong>formed by the Renaissance. A<br />
specific provision allowed Jewish physicians who passed an exam<strong>in</strong>ation before the<br />
Zamosc Academy <strong>and</strong> were awarded the title of ‘doctor’ to practice medic<strong>in</strong>e <strong>and</strong> operate<br />
pharmacies. 103 Thus, beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the late sixteenth century, Sephardi Jews<br />
from Turkey, Italy, <strong>and</strong> the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s settled <strong>in</strong> Zamosc, creat<strong>in</strong>g an organized,<br />
though not very large, Sephardi community. Wealthy Jewish merchants from Constant<strong>in</strong>ople,<br />
who had been liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Lvov, moved to Zamosc <strong>and</strong> ‘elevated it to the<br />
highest development’. 104 This Sephardi community ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed a separate existence<br />
until sometime <strong>in</strong> the middle of the seventeenth century (the exact date is a matter of<br />
dispute), after which it merged <strong>in</strong>to the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i community through <strong>in</strong>termarriage.<br />
The <strong>in</strong>tellectual legacy, however, seems to have survived its disappearance as a dist<strong>in</strong>ct<br />
organized body: R. Solomon Chelm, for one, is known to have had great <strong>in</strong>terest<br />
<strong>in</strong>, <strong>and</strong> first-h<strong>and</strong> knowledge of, Sephardi rul<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> customs <strong>and</strong> to have been <strong>in</strong><br />
contact with Sephardi scholars. 105 A number of Zamosc families, notably that of the<br />
writer I. L. Peretz (orig<strong>in</strong>ally Pérez), kept the memory of their Sephardi orig<strong>in</strong>s<br />
alive. 106<br />
This all-too-brief account of the history of Zamosc, <strong>in</strong> particular of Jewish Zamosc,<br />
is sufficient to suggest several aspects of an answer to our question. The first is the<br />
presence <strong>in</strong> Zamosc of a Sephardi community, whose members arrived from three<br />
important Jewish centres of learn<strong>in</strong>g – Turkey <strong>in</strong> the Muslim East <strong>and</strong> Italy <strong>and</strong> the<br />
Netherl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the Christian West. These immigrants may be assumed to have<br />
brought with them the legacy of the medieval Jewish culture that flourished <strong>in</strong> Spa<strong>in</strong>:<br />
They were open to the study of the ‘foreign sciences’ <strong>and</strong> they helped diffuse medieval<br />
<strong>and</strong> post-medieval Hebrew texts pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> the three Jewish centres of learn<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Presumably they also brought with them manuscripts of still-unpr<strong>in</strong>ted works. 107 Last<br />
but not least, they may have perpetuated oral traditions of the study of the various<br />
sciences. The last two po<strong>in</strong>ts bear special emphasis: as noted, Israel used manuscripts<br />
of scientific works, the fruits of the medieval Sephardi heritage, which were rather<br />
rare <strong>in</strong> Eastern Europe at the time (above, p. 39). These manuscripts may very well<br />
have been brought to Zamosc by the Sephardim. Assum<strong>in</strong>g, furthermore, that it is<br />
very difficult or impossible to study mathematics <strong>and</strong> astronomy without a teacher,<br />
Pol<strong>and</strong>’ (Hebrew), <strong>in</strong>: OÒar yehudei Sefarad, vol. 6 (Jerusalem, 1963), pp. 88–98, on pp. 94–8; Alex<strong>and</strong>er<br />
Gutterman, ‘Sephardi Jews on the Polish Soil’ (Hebrew), Pe¨amim 18 (1984): 53–79; Klausner,<br />
‘Zamoshtsh’.<br />
103 Shatzki, ‘Sephardi Jews <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>’, p. 24; Gelber, ‘On the History’, p. 95; Gutterman, ‘Sephardi<br />
Jews’, p. 64.<br />
104 Horowitz, Sefer Kitvei ha-geˆonim, p. 139.<br />
105 Brik, Rabbi Shelomo Îalma, pp. 32ff. This of course refers to Chelm’s knowledge prior to his leav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Pol<strong>and</strong> on his way east. The fact that Chelm chose to have the second edition of Mirkevet hamishneh<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> the east also po<strong>in</strong>ts to his ties with Sephardi Judaism.<br />
106 Gutterman, ‘Sephardi Jews’, p. 70. No attempt has been made to study systematically the Sephardi<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellectual legacy <strong>in</strong> Zamosc. This subject calls for further research.<br />
107 In his well-known ethical will, R. Judah Ibn Tibbon makes clear the supreme value he ascribes to the<br />
transmission of books from father to son. See Israel Abrahams, Hebrew Ethical Wills (Philadelphia,<br />
1926; repr. 1976), pp. 51–99, on 57–8, 80–2. This document was composed <strong>in</strong> the middle of the twelfth<br />
century, but presumably reflects an endur<strong>in</strong>g social norm.<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
47
we may conjecture that the population of Zamosc <strong>in</strong>cluded families of Sephardi extraction<br />
that owned scientific manuscripts <strong>and</strong> passed down the tradition of study<strong>in</strong>g<br />
them from father to son. This hypothesis – <strong>and</strong> at this stage it is no more than that –<br />
allows us to underst<strong>and</strong> how Israel was <strong>in</strong>troduced to the study of science <strong>and</strong> how he<br />
had access to a comprehensive collection of Hebrew scientific works of science, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<br />
some that existed <strong>in</strong> manuscript only.<br />
Another aspect is the possible <strong>in</strong>fluence of the non-Jewish environment on Jewish<br />
learn<strong>in</strong>g. Zamosc of the early eighteenth century was still a relatively important centre<br />
with a cosmopolitan atmosphere, <strong>in</strong> which some Jews had far-flung <strong>in</strong>ternational<br />
commercial connections. This may have had consequences for Jewish <strong>in</strong>tellectual<br />
life. For one th<strong>in</strong>g, although most Polish Jews could read only Hebrew <strong>and</strong> Yiddish,<br />
108 th<strong>in</strong>gs were different <strong>in</strong> Zamosc. We have already mentioned that Solomon<br />
Chelm knew a number of languages; so, evidently, did others educated <strong>in</strong> the<br />
town. 109 Peretz gives us an idea of the social mechanism that may have been at work<br />
<strong>and</strong> may have allowed the progressive cultural climate <strong>in</strong> Zamosc to affect the Jews,<br />
too. His maternal great-gr<strong>and</strong>father, he recounts, who owned a warehouse for goods<br />
imported from overseas <strong>and</strong> from Leipzig, dealt with ‘Pr<strong>in</strong>ce Zamoyski’ (apparently<br />
a descendant of the founder of the town) as an equal (‘face to face’) <strong>and</strong> spoke German<br />
‘like a stream of water flow<strong>in</strong>g downhill’. 110 We also have some <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
about Jewish physicians <strong>in</strong> Zamosc who had studied <strong>in</strong> Padua <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> Frankfurt on the<br />
Oder 111 : no details are available, but we can surmise that those of them who passed<br />
the exam<strong>in</strong>ation set by the Zamosc Academy (p. 47) had studied at a university.<br />
Peretz’s report of the alleged exchange of letters between the synagogue sexton <strong>and</strong><br />
the ‘Academy <strong>in</strong> Paris’ (above, p. 43) <strong>and</strong> of discussions between the local rabbi <strong>and</strong><br />
a priest (<strong>in</strong> which the latter was regularly bested, of course), 112 whatever their historical<br />
kernel, also reflect a relatively open atmosphere. All this suggests that some<br />
members of the Jewish community may have <strong>in</strong>teracted with their non-Jewish surround<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Nevertheless, the Zamosc Academy never enrolled any Jewish students<br />
(except for five converted ones) 113 <strong>and</strong> the path to serious <strong>in</strong>tellectual exchanges was<br />
fraught with difficulties. 114 It is <strong>in</strong>deed important to emphasize that the body of scientific<br />
knowledge itself reflected <strong>in</strong> NY was clearly limited to that transmitted by the<br />
108 The paper by Daniel Stone, ‘<strong>Knowledge</strong> of Foreign Languages among Eighteenth-Century Polish<br />
Jews’, <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>in</strong>: Studies <strong>in</strong> Polish Jewry, vol. 10: Jews <strong>in</strong> Early Modern Pol<strong>and</strong>, ed. Gershon David<br />
Hundert (London, 1997), pp. 200–18, is not very helpful here.<br />
109 R. Abraham Cohen, the author of the responsa Bet Avraham (above, n. 91) knew Lat<strong>in</strong>; see<br />
Horowitz, Sefer kitvei ha-geˆonim, p. 138 n. b.<br />
110 Peretz, Zikhroynes, p. 50; Zikhronotay, pp. 61–2; My Memories, pp. 91–2.<br />
111 Shatzky, ‘Haskalah <strong>in</strong> Zamosc’, pp. 26–7. One of the physicians who studied <strong>in</strong> Frankfurt <strong>in</strong>forms us<br />
that he had studied ‘medic<strong>in</strong>e’ <strong>in</strong> the yeshiva <strong>in</strong> Zamosc (ibid., p. 27), which may refer to popular medic<strong>in</strong>e<br />
practised by ba¨alei shem, one of whom, as we saw, was Israel’s ‘ally’.<br />
112 Peretz, Zikhroynes, p. 70; Zikhronotay, p. 87; My Memories, p. 124. See above, p. 43.<br />
113 Henryk Gmiterek, ‘Ze studiów nad struktura wyznaniowa mlodziezy Akademii Zamoyskiej (1595–<br />
1784)’, Res Historica (Lubl<strong>in</strong>) 10 (2000): 221–31, on p. 231. I am <strong>in</strong>debted to Sebastian Sobecki (Cambridge)<br />
for his helpful advice on this subject.<br />
114 See, e.g., Salomon Maimon’s remarks <strong>in</strong> his Lebensgeschichte, I, 13, ed. Batscha, p. 73. Franzos,<br />
Der Pojaz (n. 2), impressively describes the obstacles <strong>in</strong> the path of a Jewish youth who wanted to learn<br />
a foreign language.<br />
48 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
Hebrew textual corpus: no traces of knowledge appropriated from the non-Jewish<br />
culture are discernible <strong>in</strong> NY <strong>and</strong> Israel knew only Hebrew <strong>and</strong> Yiddish. Israel occasionally<br />
alludes to Gentiles who ‘mock us’, say<strong>in</strong>g, ‘where is your wisdom?’ (fols.<br />
24bb, 40ba), but this sounds more like the repetition of an entrenched literary topos<br />
than a product of his personal experience. 115 It thus seems that the non-Jewish environment<br />
at most k<strong>in</strong>dled or encouraged the Zamosc Jews’ <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> science, but did<br />
not contribute to it substantively. The issue obviously calls for further study.<br />
The Polish town of Zamosc, then, especially Jewish Zamosc, was sui generis. Established<br />
by a pr<strong>in</strong>ce imbued with the enlightened spirit of the Italian Renaissance,<br />
the prevail<strong>in</strong>g social <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>tellectual conditions were unique. Its Sephardi community<br />
presumably brought with it a tradition of study<strong>in</strong>g the profane sciences, which was<br />
susta<strong>in</strong>ed by its endur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>ternational connections. As a result, a sub-culture characterized<br />
by an attitude of (relative) openness toward science <strong>and</strong> philosophy apparently<br />
existed with<strong>in</strong> the more traditionalist, ‘ma<strong>in</strong>stream’, Jewish culture of Zamosc.<br />
It is with<strong>in</strong> this sub-culture that Israel could emerge <strong>and</strong> f<strong>in</strong>d his ‘allies’ <strong>and</strong> friends<br />
who ‘listened’ to him. In a word, the Sephardi heritage created the conditions necessary<br />
for acquir<strong>in</strong>g knowledge of philosophy <strong>and</strong> science <strong>in</strong> eighteenth-century<br />
Zamosc.<br />
Why was R. Israel b. Moses Halevi Hounded out of Zamosc?<br />
Despite the Sephardi heritage, not everyone <strong>in</strong> Zamosc shared Israel’s passion for<br />
science. Far from it. As we saw, the strong opposition to Israel <strong>in</strong> Zamosc, of which<br />
he compla<strong>in</strong>s bitterly <strong>in</strong> the Introduction to NY, ultimately <strong>in</strong>duced him to leave the<br />
town for good. Unfortunately, what we know about this conflict derives exclusively<br />
from Israel himself, <strong>and</strong> no <strong>in</strong>dependent sources are known. The fact that Israel does<br />
not name any of his detractors makes it impossible to identify the conservative <strong>in</strong>dividuals<br />
or circles that harassed him. Still, we should ask what caused the antagonism<br />
he experienced? The answer is less obvious than has been assumed.<br />
It st<strong>and</strong>s to reason that the antagonism toward Israel had someth<strong>in</strong>g to do with his<br />
commitment to science. Note that none of the haskamot, except that of Joel Ba¨al<br />
Shem, specifically lauded his scientific erudition <strong>and</strong> efforts to br<strong>in</strong>g the Talmud <strong>and</strong><br />
science together. Certa<strong>in</strong>ly many of his contemporaries were suspicious of the very<br />
study of ‘foreign sciences’: <strong>in</strong> these circles, draw<strong>in</strong>g on mathematics <strong>in</strong> a halakhic<br />
work was perceived as ipso facto subversive, whether or not it was so <strong>in</strong>tended. 116<br />
But his scientifically <strong>in</strong>spired talmudic exegesis cannot be the sole cause of the antipathy<br />
shown Israel. This traditional notion of the causes for his feud with his native<br />
town is refuted by the fact that, as we saw, he had a number of <strong>in</strong>fluential ‘friends’<br />
115 Cf. Harris, How Do We Know This? p. 140: ‘Zamosc’s response shows little awareness of, or concern<br />
for, the judgment of the outside world…. I can see no concern for that world’s view of Jews <strong>and</strong><br />
Judaism’.<br />
116 Salomon Maimon, writ<strong>in</strong>g half a century after the events, seems to have sensed this: ‘Natürlicherweise<br />
war unserem Rabbi Israel mehr an Verbreitung nützlicher Kenntnisse unter se<strong>in</strong>er Nation als<br />
an der Erklärung oder Bestimmung e<strong>in</strong>es Gesetzes gelegen, dessen er sich bloss als e<strong>in</strong>es Vehikels<br />
bediente’ (Maimon, Lebensgeschichte, p. 158).<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
49
who ‘listened’ to him. It is also contradicted by the case of R. Solomon Chelm, only<br />
17 years younger than Israel, who, like Israel, studied the sciences <strong>and</strong> even appended<br />
a mathematical disquisition to his major halakhic work – which did not prevent<br />
him from hav<strong>in</strong>g had a dist<strong>in</strong>guished career <strong>in</strong> which he became the rabbi of the<br />
whole district of Chelm, <strong>and</strong> for several years even of Zamosc itself. We must conclude<br />
that Israel’s exclusion was not a consequence of his <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> science as such.<br />
In an approbation he gave <strong>in</strong> 1745, Israel provides an <strong>in</strong>sightful analysis of social<br />
reactions to <strong>in</strong>novation. There can be little doubt that here he expressed his personal<br />
experience. Someone who wants to publish a halakhic novella (devar halakhah), he<br />
notes, is met with an outcry: ‘How does today differ from yesterday, that you want<br />
your name to be applied to a [new] truth? You are young; how dare you speak up <strong>in</strong><br />
front of the elders? Do you know someth<strong>in</strong>g we do not know?’ Should this scholar<br />
‘persist <strong>in</strong> his <strong>in</strong>nocent wish to teach what God has put <strong>in</strong> his heart <strong>and</strong> ignore the<br />
gossipmongers’, he is sl<strong>and</strong>ered <strong>and</strong> vilified. ‘In sum: the newcomer is beaten <strong>and</strong><br />
battered from all sides’. 117 Innovation per se was badly received <strong>in</strong> some quarters,<br />
those of which Israel compla<strong>in</strong>s so bitterly <strong>in</strong> the Introduction to NY. ‘Ìadash asur<br />
m<strong>in</strong> ha-Torah’ – ‘the Torah forbids <strong>in</strong>novation’ – the Îatam Sofer (1762–1839)<br />
would say half a century later, epitomiz<strong>in</strong>g a certa<strong>in</strong> dom<strong>in</strong>ant mentality.<br />
But this is not the whole story <strong>and</strong> the usual resistance to <strong>in</strong>novation is not the only<br />
reason for the opposition Israel encountered. Israel’s <strong>in</strong>novations, we must appreciate,<br />
were not on a par with those of other talmudic scholars. At issue were above all<br />
the sources of legitimate knowledge. We saw that Israel considered science to be the<br />
Great Lum<strong>in</strong>ary that allows the light of Tradition, the Small Lum<strong>in</strong>ary, to pass from<br />
potentiality to actuality. The view that <strong>in</strong> order to be apprehended Tradition requires<br />
the light of science <strong>in</strong>troduced a difference of pr<strong>in</strong>ciple between Israel’s <strong>in</strong>novations<br />
<strong>and</strong> those of the other scholars. The latter all debated sugyot with<strong>in</strong> a closed universe<br />
of discourse – that of the Talmud <strong>and</strong> its <strong>in</strong>terpreters <strong>and</strong> codifiers. Arguments could<br />
be constructed only out of premises derived from <strong>and</strong> sanctioned by the traditional<br />
authoritative texts of Judaism. Israel, by contrast, drew on external premises, not part<br />
of the talmudic discourse itself, but rather derived from science. Furthermore, as a<br />
faithful student of Maimonides <strong>and</strong> the rationalist Hebrew philosophical tradition, he<br />
regarded the mathematical sciences as afford<strong>in</strong>g certa<strong>in</strong>, <strong>in</strong>controvertible truths that<br />
were not open to doubt or discussion. The basis for Israel’s <strong>in</strong>terpretations of talmudic<br />
passages (both halakhah <strong>and</strong> aggadah) is thus a sort of Archimedean po<strong>in</strong>t located<br />
outside the Talmud itself. For him, not only the traditional Jewish texts are authoritative;<br />
so too are scientific works – <strong>and</strong> their authority is, <strong>in</strong>deed, superior. It is<br />
precisely the validity <strong>and</strong> legitimacy of this <strong>in</strong>terpretive horizon that were rejected by<br />
the traditionalists, few of whom could hope to benefit from the light afforded by science.<br />
They <strong>in</strong>terpreted the same texts as Israel did, but from an utterly <strong>in</strong>compatible<br />
stance. Israel was thus, literally, an outsider to the community of most students of the<br />
Talmud <strong>in</strong> Zamosc, his few allies excluded. Little wonder that he regarded his critics<br />
as ‘imbeciles’ <strong>and</strong> ‘idiots’, who, the less they were learned, the more they hated him<br />
(fol. 1aa). ‘This is the way of our fellowmen: with the whip of their treacherous<br />
117 Tavnit ha-bayit, fol. 56a.<br />
50 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
tongues they put to death each <strong>and</strong> every [scholar] who has penetrated <strong>in</strong>to the <strong>in</strong>ner<br />
court of <strong>in</strong>vestigation [an allusion to the Guide 3:51]’ (fol. 1aa). 118 These scholars<br />
‘disparage all science <strong>and</strong> all knowledge that is hidden from them’ <strong>and</strong> call the sciences<br />
‘foolishness’. Israel comments with sarcasm that they hope to merit the World<br />
to Come by virtue of ‘not hav<strong>in</strong>g ever tasted the taste of any science, nor ever seen<br />
the light of reason. They th<strong>in</strong>k that by virtue of this [ignorance] they deserve a great<br />
reward. So far did the stupidity <strong>and</strong> the jealousy of these people reach’ (fol. 3aa).<br />
A small detail noted by Israel is tell<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> this context. The famous allegedly<br />
talmudic dictum assert<strong>in</strong>g that, <strong>in</strong> the dispute about the correct cosmology, ‘the sages<br />
of the nations of the world vanquished [those of Israel]’ – a classic proof-text adduced<br />
by Maimonides <strong>and</strong> many later writers to legitimate the ‘foreign’ sciences – ‘is<br />
not found <strong>in</strong> our books here’, Israel writes, add<strong>in</strong>g that he knows it only through the<br />
citation <strong>in</strong> Maimonides’ Guide (2:8) (fol. 33bb). 119 Thus, even the talmudic text itself<br />
was <strong>in</strong> dispute.<br />
The trust <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>fallibility of science – recall that he referred to the <strong>in</strong>tellect as<br />
‘my son’ (above, p. 31) – gave Israel an immoderate measure of self-assurance<br />
when deal<strong>in</strong>g with <strong>in</strong>terpretations based on it. We noted that Israel believed the<br />
Sages to have held true cosmological views, which had been mis<strong>in</strong>terpreted by certa<strong>in</strong><br />
later authorities. Particularly outrageous for Israel were comments by Rashi <strong>and</strong><br />
R. Samuel <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i suggest<strong>in</strong>g that the Sages held the earth to be flat, 120 a cosmological<br />
stance Israel describes <strong>in</strong> no uncerta<strong>in</strong> terms as ‘an extremely specious <strong>and</strong><br />
wicked view’ (fol. 56ab). Israel realized, of course, that these scholars ascribed to<br />
the Sages the cosmology they themselves thought correct (fol. 49aa–ab) <strong>and</strong> was<br />
thus aware that he was criticiz<strong>in</strong>g both their cosmology <strong>and</strong> their talmudic scholarship.<br />
‘How can a marvellous scholar like [the Yefeh toˆar, i.e., R. Samuel <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i]…<br />
be led to ascribe to the Sages such a bizarre <strong>and</strong> outrageous view, which is<br />
as far from the truth as the apex of the daily sphere is from the centre of the earth?’<br />
(fol. 24bb), he asks rhetorically. ‘Would that the Yefeh toˆar could rise from the<br />
dead so that I could face him <strong>and</strong> confront him’ (fol. 56bb). He says that he sets out<br />
‘to fight God’s wars <strong>in</strong> the camp of truth <strong>and</strong> the camp of the Sages’ <strong>and</strong> thus ‘break<br />
the bows of [<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i’s] proofs’; his own view is ‘the opposite of that of the Yefeh<br />
toˆar’ (fol. 24bb). Of Rashi’s cosmology he similarly says that it is ‘extremely difficult<br />
to underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> refuted by strong arguments’ (fol. 24ba). ‘I cannot fathom<br />
118 The pr<strong>in</strong>cipled s<strong>in</strong>gularity of Israel’s scientifically grounded novellae goes unnoticed <strong>in</strong> Harris, How<br />
Do We Know This?, p. 140: ‘Despite his bold <strong>in</strong>troduction, his talmudic novellas read like those of his<br />
contemporaries, his frequent recourse to science notwithst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g’. This view does not allow one to underst<strong>and</strong><br />
the bitter opposition Israel encountered (why should a book of st<strong>and</strong>ard novellae be dubbed<br />
ReÒaÌ Yisraˆel?), which Harris <strong>in</strong>deed leaves unmentioned.<br />
119 R. P<strong>in</strong>chas Eliyahu Hurwitz, <strong>in</strong> 1797, alludes to this same fact, but from the opposite stance: he<br />
th<strong>in</strong>ks Maimonides fell victim to a scribal error. See Sefer ha-Berit 2:10 (Jerusalem, [5]750 [= 1990]),<br />
pp. 47–8. This statement is <strong>in</strong>deed not <strong>in</strong> the current editions of the Talmud (PesaÌim 94b), as Munk<br />
noted long ago (Le Guide des égarés [Paris, 1856–1866), 2: 79, n. 1). See also the editor’s erudite note <strong>in</strong><br />
Abraham Maimonides, ‘Maˆamar ¨al odot derashot Îazal’, <strong>in</strong> MilÌamot ha-Shem, ed. Reuben Margaliyot<br />
(Jerusalem, 1953), p. 88. A list of medieval <strong>and</strong> post-medieval discussions of this passage is given <strong>in</strong><br />
Isadore Twersky, ‘Joseph ibn Kaspi. Portrait of a <strong>Medieval</strong> Jewish Intellectual’, <strong>in</strong> idem, ed., Studies <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>Medieval</strong> Jewish History <strong>and</strong> Literature (Cambridge, Mass., 1979), pp. 231–57, on p. 256 n. 52.<br />
120 See notably fols. 24ba–bb, 32bb–33bb, 34ab–34bb, 49aa–49ab, 56aa.<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
51
that anyone who has a bra<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> his head would th<strong>in</strong>k this midrash should be taken<br />
literally’, he writes elsewhere (fol. 56ba). Such vehement criticism of authoritative<br />
scholars would presumably have been unth<strong>in</strong>kable if based on <strong>in</strong>tra-talmudic<br />
premises only. It was made possible by the fact that Israel considered that mathematics<br />
afforded demonstrations of its statements. 121 His outspokenness, grounded<br />
<strong>in</strong> the certa<strong>in</strong>ty he derived from science, must have been perceived as impudence by<br />
those around him. The very source of Israel’s self-assurance was thus the reason for<br />
his rejection: the <strong>in</strong>troduction <strong>in</strong>to the closed talmudic discourse of ‘external’<br />
premises, borrowed, moreover, from the science of the Gentiles, necessarily irritated<br />
his contemporaries <strong>in</strong> Zamosc. This, <strong>and</strong> not science per se, is what brought down<br />
the wrath on his head.<br />
Another element that presumably played a role is Israel’s social position. The title<br />
page of NY alludes to the f<strong>in</strong>ancial difficulties that beset Israel throughout most of his<br />
life: as usual <strong>in</strong> those days, he had to bear the pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g costs, <strong>and</strong> thanks his brother,<br />
P<strong>in</strong>Ìas Lafa†nir of Brody, for his f<strong>in</strong>ancial assistance, 122 promis<strong>in</strong>g to have his other<br />
books pr<strong>in</strong>ted as soon as his material situation allows (it never did). 123 Whereas Solomon<br />
Chelm was wealthy <strong>and</strong> a member of the upper crust of Zamosc Jewish society,<br />
Israel, with his humble orig<strong>in</strong>s (above, p. 27), was at the bottom of the social ladder.<br />
This <strong>in</strong> all likelihood played a role when it came to tolerat<strong>in</strong>g his <strong>in</strong>novations <strong>and</strong><br />
criticism. Nor was Israel’s vehement censure of those who use the study of Torah to<br />
enrich themselves (fol. 2a) likely to endear him to his fellow Talmud scholars <strong>in</strong><br />
Zamosc. 124 F<strong>in</strong>ally, the fact that Israel seems to have been unmarried 125 <strong>and</strong> childless<br />
126 – a rare condition for that time – confirms the impression that he was a social<br />
loner. Indeed, as an outsider, Israel was never ‘appo<strong>in</strong>ted a rabbi’ (fol. 2ba); on the<br />
title page of NY he describes himself as be<strong>in</strong>g only ‘one of the teachers [melammedim]<br />
at the yeshiva [or: a yeshiva] <strong>in</strong> Zamosc’.<br />
121 Israel carefully dist<strong>in</strong>guishes between scientific discipl<strong>in</strong>es that provide demonstrations (mofetim<br />
Ìazaqim u-verurim) <strong>and</strong> the others that afford ‘evidence’ only (reˆayot bilevad); see NY 1ba.<br />
122 P<strong>in</strong>Ìas Lafa†nir seems to have been a wealthy man. Israel calls him ‘our teacher’ (m.h.v.r.r.) <strong>and</strong><br />
describes him as ha-rosh we-ha-qaÒ<strong>in</strong> ha-torani <strong>and</strong> as a nagid: this seems to mean that he was learned<br />
<strong>and</strong> powerful, <strong>and</strong> one of the leaders of the Brody community. In the last two decades or so of his life,<br />
Israel lived <strong>in</strong> Brody off <strong>and</strong> on over periods of time; it seems that it was his wealthy brother who supported<br />
him then.<br />
123 Israel’s failure to publish Arubbot ha-shamayim is probably not due to economic factors only. In the<br />
commentary on RuaÌ Ìen, written <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> between 1741 <strong>and</strong> 1744, Israel writes that he will add new,<br />
updated, chapters to his astronomical work written when he still was <strong>in</strong> Zamosc: he clearly sensed that<br />
Arubbot was outdated <strong>and</strong> needed updat<strong>in</strong>g. Later, notably after the publication of David Gans’ NeÌmad<br />
ve-na¨im <strong>in</strong> 1743, he must have realized that the work was obsolete beyond repair, whereupon, I suppose,<br />
he (wisely) gave up this project altogether. It is another question why the commentaries on the<br />
Kuzari <strong>and</strong> Îovot ha-levavot were not published by Israel dur<strong>in</strong>g his lifetime.<br />
124 This criticism goes some way toward expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g Israel’s depress<strong>in</strong>g material situation: we have it<br />
from Aryeh Judah Leib of Lubl<strong>in</strong>, the rabbi of Zamosc, that Israel devoted himself entirely to scholarship:<br />
‘His Torah is his craft all days, <strong>and</strong> he never left the Tent of the Torah’ (unnumbered folio, back of<br />
title page).<br />
125 Jewish scholars who came to Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> the 1740s to f<strong>in</strong>d a place as a ‘Hauslehrer’ <strong>in</strong> a wealthy family<br />
had to be unmarried.<br />
126 NY, fol. 2bb, alludes to this <strong>in</strong> the phrase ‘lo †ov heyot ha-adam holekh ¨ariri le-vet ¨olamo // ki gever<br />
yamut ve-yeÌelash ve-avad shemo’. The fact that Israel called <strong>in</strong>tellect ‘my son’ (above, p. 31) can perhaps<br />
be <strong>in</strong>terpreted as confirm<strong>in</strong>g that he had no biological children.<br />
52 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
Yet what seems to have elicited the strong opposition to Israel, more than anyth<strong>in</strong>g<br />
else, is that he was not only enlightened, but was fuelled by the desire to enlighten<br />
others as well. His confidence that he had access to truth itself moved him with a zeal<br />
to get his contemporaries to follow him, to awaken them from the ‘slumber of ignorance’<br />
(fol. 42bb). Israel himself attests that this is how his contemporaries perceived<br />
him (fol. 2ba–bb): they viewed him, he says, as a man wag<strong>in</strong>g war on his surround<strong>in</strong>gs,<br />
as ‘a prophet’ (ke-naviˆ ve-Ìozeh) imbued with God’s spirit, who has the ambition<br />
‘to cleanse the filth of the sons of our time’, <strong>and</strong> who publicly censured men<br />
‘who are greater <strong>and</strong> better than himself’. They were sc<strong>and</strong>alized by the fact that, although<br />
his family was of no dist<strong>in</strong>ction, Israel saw himself ‘elevated above the entire<br />
public’, confident that God had ‘ano<strong>in</strong>ted him’ <strong>and</strong> endowed him with ‘superior underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g’<br />
(fol. 2bb). Far from content<strong>in</strong>g himself with the social role of a scholar<br />
produc<strong>in</strong>g novellas by apply<strong>in</strong>g science to the Talmud, Israel saw himself as a reformer,<br />
a critic of the spiritual cum social state of contemporary Jews. This characteristic<br />
trait is very marked <strong>in</strong> Israel’s life <strong>in</strong> Zamosc, as reflected <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>troduction to<br />
NY; it also comes to the fore <strong>in</strong> the enigmatic Nezed ha-dema¨ (date of composition<br />
unknown). 127 In his endeavours to enlighten others, Israel already belonged to what<br />
would become the Haskalah movement: a gulf separates those who can be deemed<br />
‘early maskilim’ merely because they acquired an education <strong>in</strong> the ‘foreign’ sciences<br />
<strong>and</strong> those who also sought to teach them to others, with a view to reform<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Judaism. 128 It was this aspect of his conduct, above all, that aroused the antagonism<br />
of his contemporaries <strong>in</strong> Zamosc. Jacob Shatzky’s spirited comment that Israel’s<br />
maskilism was far from militantishkeit (activism) 129 must be <strong>in</strong>verted: it was precisely<br />
his militantishkeit, clearly perceived by conservative circles, that earned Israel<br />
the cognomen ReÒaÌ Yisrael.<br />
Conclusion: Israel’s Place <strong>in</strong> the History of Early Modern Jewish Science<br />
Israel was a product of his time <strong>and</strong> place, but he was also a bold <strong>in</strong>novator. On the<br />
one h<strong>and</strong>, he acquired his knowledge of Hebrew science <strong>and</strong> philosophy <strong>in</strong> Zamosc,<br />
where he had a small group of like-m<strong>in</strong>ded friends. They all benefited from a small<br />
127 See Friedl<strong>and</strong>er, Be-misterei ha-sa†irah, p. 24.<br />
128 This dist<strong>in</strong>ction is not always made. Take only one example: by virtue of their shared <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong><br />
science, Israel <strong>and</strong> Solomon Chelm are often lumped together as ‘early maskilim.’ But, as the <strong>in</strong>troduction<br />
to Mirkevet ha-mishneh makes clear, the idea of impart<strong>in</strong>g his scientific knowledge to others never<br />
crossed Chelm’s m<strong>in</strong>d; quite the contrary, he gave up the study of the sciences himself. Israel <strong>and</strong><br />
Chelm are thus ‘maskilim’ <strong>in</strong> very different senses. For a similar viewpo<strong>in</strong>t see Immanuel Etkes, ‘Immanent<br />
Factors <strong>and</strong> External Influences <strong>in</strong> the Development of the Haskalah Movement <strong>in</strong> Russia’, <strong>in</strong> Toward<br />
Modernity: The European Jewish Model, ed. Jacob Katz (New Brunswick <strong>and</strong> Oxford, 1987), pp.<br />
13–32, on 20–1. Etkes perceptively observes that Israel, like R. Barukh of Shklov some forty years later,<br />
‘shared a common resolve to propagate scientific knowledge among the Jews’. In terms of his ideal-type<br />
model of the Haskalah, he consequently classifies both as belong<strong>in</strong>g to an ‘<strong>in</strong>termediate phase’ <strong>in</strong> that<br />
thei ‘did not [yet] l<strong>in</strong>k the dissem<strong>in</strong>ation of scientific knowledge with a program or vision of a radical<br />
change <strong>in</strong> Jewish society <strong>and</strong> its relation to the surround<strong>in</strong>g’. In this precise sense, Israel, but not Chelm,<br />
can be viewed as a ‘forerunner’ of the Haskalah, rather than as a mere ‘early maskil’. On the dist<strong>in</strong>ction<br />
between the two notions see, e.g., Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er, The Jewish Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> the Eighteenth Century<br />
(Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 2002), pp. 46–56.<br />
129 Shatzky, ‘Haskalah <strong>in</strong> Zamoshtsh’, p. 25.<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
53
local sub-culture that had a favourable view of secular knowledge <strong>and</strong> allowed <strong>in</strong>dividuals<br />
to acquire some proficiency <strong>in</strong> it. This sub-culture, as we have seen, may<br />
have been the fruit of a Sephardi heritage. Yet, although ‘progressive’ <strong>in</strong> the context<br />
of eighteenth-century Polish Judaism, Israel’s science was hopelessly outdated: half<br />
a century after the publication of Newton’s Pr<strong>in</strong>cipia, his scientific sources, all <strong>in</strong><br />
Hebrew, were still almost exclusively medieval. The only exception is Joseph<br />
Delmedigo’s Sefer Elim, but Israel never alludes to any of its post-medieval ideas,<br />
notably heliocentric cosmology. In fact, the most ‘modern’ statement to be found <strong>in</strong><br />
NY is an allusion to the gun (or cannon). 130 The literary form of NY, too, the discussion<br />
of sugyot, is traditional. Indeed, it can be said that the content of NY, its matter,<br />
was medieval Sephardi, whereas the method, or the form, was that of sixteenth- <strong>and</strong><br />
seventeenth-century Polish halakhic <strong>in</strong>quiry, giv<strong>in</strong>g NY the appearance of a conservative<br />
work.<br />
Yet this conservative work harboured a radical message. Israel <strong>in</strong>novated <strong>in</strong> methodically<br />
apply<strong>in</strong>g science to all talmudic passages he deemed problematic. The primacy<br />
he ascribed to science <strong>in</strong>evitably led him to criticize important authorities, notably<br />
Rashi <strong>and</strong> Samuel <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i. This gave NY a considerable subversive<br />
potential, which derived from its author’s faith <strong>in</strong> the power of reason, <strong>and</strong> especially<br />
<strong>in</strong> mathematics. The s<strong>in</strong>gularity of NY is the boldness of the scientifically based criticism<br />
of revered authorities.<br />
<strong>Medieval</strong> Hebrew science, associated as it was with the names of great <strong>and</strong> venerated<br />
sages, enjoyed legitimacy even with<strong>in</strong> conservative circles. Its classic texts<br />
could thus serve as <strong>in</strong>struments of progress. 131 Israel himself owed them his scientific-rationalist<br />
frame of m<strong>in</strong>d <strong>and</strong> his commitment to science, <strong>and</strong> they also provided<br />
him with rhetorical tools, legitimized by tradition, to be used <strong>in</strong> address<strong>in</strong>g the community<br />
of Talmud scholars. This is the paradox: <strong>in</strong> Western Europe, the medieval<br />
heritage was shaken off <strong>in</strong> the first half of the seventeenth century; but <strong>in</strong> Zamosc<br />
(<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> Jewish culture <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong> generally), more than a century later, medieval Hebrew<br />
science was used to promote progress. Later maskilim, too, employed this traditional<br />
rhetoric, present<strong>in</strong>g modern ideas <strong>in</strong> commentaries on classics of the Jewish<br />
rationalist tradition: e.g., Israel’s own commentary on RuaÌ Ìen (1744), Mendelssohn’s<br />
commentary on Maimonides’ Millot ha-higgayon (Logical Term<strong>in</strong>ology)<br />
(1762, 1766), Satanow’s edition of <strong>and</strong> commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean<br />
Ethics (1790), <strong>and</strong> Solomon Maimon’s commentary on the Guide of the Perplexed<br />
(1791).<br />
What, then, is Israel’s place <strong>in</strong> the history of early modern Jewish scientific<br />
thought? Does not the fact that almost two centuries after Copernicus’ death, <strong>and</strong> a<br />
century after Galileo <strong>and</strong> Joseph Delmedigo, Israel was still draw<strong>in</strong>g on medieval science<br />
<strong>in</strong> an effort to improve Talmud <strong>in</strong>terpretation ipso facto exclude him from the<br />
130 Thunder is compared to the noise produced by the explosion of ‘the powder’ <strong>in</strong> ‘a conf<strong>in</strong>ed place’ as<br />
found <strong>in</strong> guns (or cannons) (fol. 53aa).<br />
131 This po<strong>in</strong>t was forcefully made by the late Amos Funkenste<strong>in</strong>, <strong>in</strong> his ‘Das Verhältnis der jüdischen<br />
Aufklärung zur mittelalterlichen jüdischen Philosophie’, <strong>in</strong> Aufklärung und Haskala <strong>in</strong> jüdischer und<br />
nichtjüdischer Sicht, ed. Karlfried Gründer <strong>and</strong> Nathan Rotenstreich (Heidelberg, 1990), pp. 13–21; <strong>in</strong>corporated<br />
<strong>in</strong>to his Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley, 1993), 234–47.<br />
54 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
history of science? Can the history of the use of long-obsolete theories be considered<br />
as a part of the history of science?<br />
One obvious reason that Israel deserves a place <strong>in</strong> the annals of Hebrew scientific<br />
thought is his role <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g the German Haskalah to the tradition of medieval Hebrew<br />
science. It is well known that the young Mendelssohn studied Hebrew <strong>and</strong> Jewish<br />
philosophy with Israel shortly after both of them arrived <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>. Of their common<br />
study we possess palpable, poignant testimony <strong>in</strong> the form of parts of Israel’s<br />
commentary on the Kuzari, copied <strong>in</strong> Mendelssohn’s h<strong>and</strong>. 132 The late Alex<strong>and</strong>er<br />
Altmann, Mendelssohn’s biographer, commented that Mendelssohn’s commentary<br />
on Maimonides’ Millot ha-higgayon ‘could hardly have been written had he not been<br />
the disciple of [Israel] Zamosc’. 133 Less well known, but no less important, is the<br />
similar formative <strong>in</strong>fluence that Israel exerted on another early maskil, Aaron<br />
Salomon Gumpertz (Emmerich; 1723–1769). Gumpertz was the first Jew <strong>in</strong> Germany<br />
to be <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> modern science on an equal foot<strong>in</strong>g: between 1751 <strong>and</strong> 1754<br />
he was the personal secretary of Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1698–1759),<br />
the great Newtonian scientist who was then president of the Berl<strong>in</strong> Academy of Science,<br />
<strong>and</strong> also of Jean-Baptiste de Boyer, Marquis d’Argens (1704–1771). He was<br />
competent enough <strong>in</strong> mathematical optics to be <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> the achromatism controversy<br />
between John Dollond <strong>and</strong> Leonhard Euler, <strong>and</strong> he revised <strong>and</strong> updated a new<br />
edition of a contemporary medical treatise. 134 His only published Hebrew book,<br />
Megalleh sod (Hamburg, 1765), which appeared only toward the end of his life but<br />
was written much earlier, reveals the author’s familiarity not only with the medieval<br />
philosophical corpus (Saadia, Maimonides, Albo), but also with more recent Polish<br />
Torah authorities, precisely those we have encountered <strong>in</strong> NY – Isserles, Jaffe, etc. –<br />
whom Gumpertz probably studied with Israel. 135 This work, which a perceptive historian<br />
has characterized as a Kampfschrift 136 <strong>and</strong> that exerted some <strong>in</strong>fluence on the<br />
132 Mendelssohn at first copied the commentary on the marg<strong>in</strong>s of the Basel 1660 edition of the Kuzari<br />
published by Johannes Buxtorf ‘the younger' (1599–1664) <strong>and</strong> later on sheets <strong>in</strong>serted <strong>in</strong> the book. The<br />
manuscript was separated <strong>in</strong>to several parts of which two are known to survive: New York, JTS Mic.<br />
2520 <strong>and</strong> Warsaw, Jewish Historical Institute 1215 (= Jerusalem, Institute for Microfilmed Hebrew<br />
Manuscripts, Nos. 28773 <strong>and</strong> 10113 [also 31022], respectively). Israel’s commentary on the Kuzari, entitled<br />
OÒar neÌmad, was published after his death by his nephew YeruÌam Baer (Vienna, 1796). It has<br />
become one of the st<strong>and</strong>ard commentaries.<br />
133 Alex<strong>and</strong>er Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn. A Biographical Study (London, 1998), p. 22.<br />
134 As I recently discovered, Gumpertz is also the author of the anonymous Schreiben e<strong>in</strong>es Juden an<br />
e<strong>in</strong>en Philosophen nebst der Antwort, the first call <strong>in</strong> Germany for a complete equality of civil status for<br />
the Jews <strong>in</strong> Germany (1753); see: Gad Freudenthal, ‘Aaron Salomon Gumpertz, Gotthold Ephraim<br />
Less<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> the First Call for an Improvement of the Civil Rights of Jews <strong>in</strong> Germany (1753)’, AJS<br />
Review 29 (2005): 299–353; idem, ‘New Light on the Physician Aaron Salomon Gumpertz: Medic<strong>in</strong>e,<br />
Science <strong>and</strong> Early Haskalah <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>’, Zutot 3 (2003): 59–70; Hans Lausch, ‘A. S. Gumpertz und die<br />
Académie royale des sciences et des belles-lettres <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>. Zum Ausbruch der Euler-Dollondschen<br />
Achromasie-Kontroverse’, Bullet<strong>in</strong> of the Leo Baeck Institute 88 (1991): 11–26; idem, ‘ “The Ignorant<br />
Hold Back Their Judgment <strong>and</strong> Await the Conclusions of the Know<strong>in</strong>g”: Moses Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong><br />
Other Mathematicians’, Aleph: Historical Studies <strong>in</strong> Science <strong>and</strong> Judaism 2 (2002): 93–109. See also<br />
the contribution by Thomas Kollatz <strong>in</strong> this volume.<br />
135 J[oseph] Eschelbacher, ‘Die Anfänge allgeme<strong>in</strong>er Bildung unter den deutschen Juden vor Mendelssohn’,<br />
Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Juden. Festschrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstage Mart<strong>in</strong><br />
Philippsons (Leipzig, 1916), pp. 168–77, on 174–6.<br />
136 Ibid., p. 176.<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
55
Berl<strong>in</strong> Haskalah (Mendelssohn lauded it <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>troduction to chapter 14 of his commentary<br />
on Millot ha-higgayon), is also <strong>in</strong>debted to Israel’s <strong>in</strong>put. Israel was thus a<br />
conduit through which medieval Hebrew science <strong>and</strong> the rationalist tradition, as studied<br />
<strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>, helped mould the Berl<strong>in</strong> Haskalah. This contribution certa<strong>in</strong>ly earns<br />
Israel a place <strong>in</strong> the annals of Jewish scientific thought.<br />
Israel also deserves a place <strong>in</strong> the history of science as the author of the forwardlook<strong>in</strong>g<br />
commentary on RuaÌ Ìen, the medieval companion volume to Maimonides’<br />
Guide. In this commentary, which Israel published <strong>in</strong> Jessnitz <strong>in</strong> 1744, he presented,<br />
for the first time ever <strong>in</strong> Hebrew, some aspects of qualitative modern science that he<br />
had acquired from German sources. 137<br />
But Israel merits a secure place <strong>in</strong> the history of Hebrew science for a more important<br />
reason as well, namely, as the outst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g figure of a largely <strong>in</strong>visible scientific<br />
tradition. Our <strong>in</strong>quiry has revealed that he was heir to a long tradition of scientific<br />
study <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong> – a tradition that flourished particularly <strong>in</strong> Zamosc but was found<br />
elsewhere, too. It can be traced back to R. Moses Isserles <strong>and</strong> to R. Judah Loew b.<br />
BeÒalel, the Maharal, <strong>and</strong> was alive <strong>and</strong> well <strong>in</strong> the work of various great authorities<br />
who were their direct or <strong>in</strong>direct disciples. 138 These authorities, who <strong>in</strong> their different<br />
ways were favourably <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ed toward science, are Israel’s <strong>in</strong>terlocutors: they legitimate<br />
the study of the ‘alien’ sciences <strong>and</strong> their application to talmudic exegesis.<br />
These halakhists embody the Hebrew scientific tradition <strong>in</strong> that period: although they<br />
wrote almost no works on mathematics or astronomy <strong>and</strong> touched on scientific topics<br />
only <strong>in</strong> halakhic contexts <strong>and</strong> en passant (so that their science is mostly applied science),<br />
they had some knowledge <strong>in</strong> these discipl<strong>in</strong>es <strong>and</strong> transmitted it to their students.<br />
Their halakhic works are the venue of sixteenth-century Hebrew science. To<br />
be sure, this is not <strong>in</strong>novative science <strong>and</strong> it lags far beh<strong>in</strong>d contemporary non-Jewish<br />
science; still, it constitutes a scientific tradition that should be studied as a historical<br />
phenomenon <strong>in</strong> its own right. Insofar as science is concerned, Israel is doubtless the<br />
most brilliant product of this tradition. As such he occupies a central place <strong>in</strong> the annals<br />
of Hebrew science <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>. The study of Israel’s scientific work <strong>in</strong> Zamosc <strong>in</strong><br />
turn casts important light on that tradition.<br />
Last but not least, our study of NY <strong>and</strong> of the milieu <strong>in</strong> which it was produced<br />
suggests that the tradition of Polish halakhists who were (mildly) favourable to<br />
Maimonides’ philosophy <strong>and</strong> to the study of science 139 helped create the conditions<br />
137 See above, n. 7. It must be noted that the science Israel assimilated <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> is limited to (notably<br />
Wolffian) qualitative-empirical science, i.e., to what the late Thomas S. Kuhn called ‘Baconian science’,<br />
to be dist<strong>in</strong>guished from science <strong>in</strong> the mathematical tradition. See his ‘Mathematical versus Experimental<br />
Traditions <strong>in</strong> the Development of Physical Science’, <strong>in</strong> The Essential Tension: Selected Studies<br />
<strong>in</strong> Scientific Tradition <strong>and</strong> Change (Chicago, 1979), pp. 31–65. A close read<strong>in</strong>g of Israel’s commentary<br />
on RuaÌ Ìen reveals that the mathematics of Galilean (not to mention Newtonian) physics were much<br />
beyond his reach <strong>and</strong> that even on a qualitative level he totally misunderstood Newton’s Law of Gravity.<br />
See my “R. Israel Zamosc's Encounter with Early Modern Science (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1744): The Subversive<br />
Commentary on RuaÌ Îen <strong>and</strong> the Birth of a New Conservative", <strong>in</strong>: Th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g Impossibilities: The<br />
Legacy of Amos Funkenste<strong>in</strong>, ed. S. Westman <strong>and</strong> David Biale (Toronto, forthcom<strong>in</strong>g).<br />
138 For a comprehensive overview of this tradition <strong>and</strong> the various historiographic problems connected<br />
with its assessment see Ruderman, Jewish Thought <strong>and</strong> Scientific Discovery, chapter 2.<br />
139 On this tradition see Herbert A. Davidson, ‘<strong>Medieval</strong> Jewish Philosophy <strong>in</strong> the Sixteenth Century’,<br />
<strong>in</strong> Jewish Thought <strong>in</strong> the Sixteenth Century, ed. Bernard Dov Cooperman (Cambridge, Mass., 1983),<br />
pp. 106–45.<br />
56 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
for the reception of early modern science <strong>in</strong> the early Haskalah <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>. In other<br />
words, these sixteenth-century traditionalist, but neo-Maimonidean halakhists (as<br />
we might call them) created the terra<strong>in</strong> on which the <strong>in</strong>novat<strong>in</strong>g ‘heroes’ who familiarized<br />
themselves with early modern science <strong>and</strong> subsequently <strong>in</strong>troduced it<br />
<strong>in</strong>to Judaism could appear, more than a century later. Israel may be emblematic<br />
here: however outdated the contents of the scientific education he received <strong>in</strong><br />
Zamosc, it was the commitment to science qua science that fuelled his <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong><br />
science – medieval science while still <strong>in</strong> Zamosc, early modern science after he arrived<br />
<strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>. The new science could attract the <strong>in</strong>terest of prepared m<strong>in</strong>ds only,<br />
like Israel’s. If his case is representative of at least a number of his contemporaries,<br />
it was the neo-Maimonidean segment with<strong>in</strong> Polish halakhic culture that prepared<br />
the ground for the reception of science with<strong>in</strong> that culture <strong>in</strong> the eighteenth century.<br />
140<br />
It is true that we know of almost no scientifically m<strong>in</strong>ded scholars <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> the<br />
seventeenth century. Historians consider the period to be one of ‘cultural closure’,<br />
dur<strong>in</strong>g which Jewish <strong>in</strong>tellectuals devoted themselves exclusively to halakhic studies.<br />
If this view is true, there was no cont<strong>in</strong>uity between the sixteenth-century neo-<br />
Maimonidean talmudic sub-culture <strong>and</strong> the early eighteenth century. But there are<br />
reasons to doubt that this was the case. A relatively th<strong>in</strong> scientific sub-culture can<br />
exist without produc<strong>in</strong>g visible works. None of Israel’s Zamosc friends wrote a s<strong>in</strong>gle<br />
l<strong>in</strong>e on science; yet we know that they were competent <strong>in</strong> mathematics <strong>and</strong> astronomy,<br />
favoured their study, <strong>and</strong> encouraged Israel <strong>in</strong> his <strong>in</strong>vestigations. Several<br />
other examples can be mentioned at r<strong>and</strong>om. In his work Yeshu¨ah be-Yisraˆel, published<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1720, Jonathan b. Joseph of Ruzhany, repeatedly refers to Jacob b. Samuel<br />
Koppelman (1555–1594), the author of the mathematical ¨Omeq halakhah, who also<br />
wrote on astronomy, as his ‘ancestor’ (lit. gr<strong>and</strong>father): presumably the <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong><br />
mathematics was alive <strong>in</strong> this family throughout the seventeenth century, without<br />
leav<strong>in</strong>g any traces <strong>in</strong> the form of published writ<strong>in</strong>gs. In 1743, R. Joel b. Jequtiel<br />
Sachs, born <strong>in</strong> Glogau <strong>and</strong> rabbi of Austerlitz <strong>in</strong> Moravia, published David Gans’<br />
NeÌmad ve-na¨im <strong>in</strong> Jessnitz. 141 Sachs was presumably able to appreciate the book’s<br />
importance, but we know this only because of his <strong>in</strong>volvement <strong>in</strong> its publication,<br />
given that he himself wrote noth<strong>in</strong>g on astronomy. Indeed there was <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong><br />
NeÌmad ve-na¨im dur<strong>in</strong>g the century <strong>and</strong> a half between its composition <strong>and</strong> its first<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g: <strong>in</strong> the seventeenth <strong>and</strong> early eighteenth centuries the work was copied fre-<br />
140 It should be emphasized that the case of the early Polish maskilim is totally different from that of<br />
their German counterparts. The cultural background of, say, Anschel Worms, Meir Neumark, or Aaron<br />
Salomon Gumpertz, who grew up <strong>in</strong> well-to-do Jewish families <strong>in</strong> Germany <strong>and</strong> received a ‘general’ as<br />
well as a Jewish education (see Eschelbacher, ‘Die Anfänge allgeme<strong>in</strong>er Bildung unter den deutschen<br />
Juden’), has little <strong>in</strong> common with that of Israel or of Solomon Chelm, who were educated <strong>in</strong> traditionalist<br />
Polish yeshivot. It is mislead<strong>in</strong>g to treat them <strong>in</strong> one breath merely because they were Jews <strong>in</strong>terested<br />
<strong>in</strong> science at roughly the same time. The rise of <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> science among eighteenth-century Jews<br />
is a complex European phenomenon, consist<strong>in</strong>g of a number of <strong>in</strong>teract<strong>in</strong>g, but largely <strong>in</strong>dependent,<br />
more or less simultaneous movements. This topic calls for further <strong>in</strong>vestigation.<br />
141 Gans, NeÌmad ve-na¨im, title page. The very same year he published Gans’ book, Sachs went to<br />
serve as a dayyan <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>, where he was called by David Fraenkel, the rabbi of Berl<strong>in</strong>; see Néher,<br />
David Gans u-zemano, p. 96.<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
57
quently, as shown by the number of extant manuscripts. 142 Aga<strong>in</strong>, were it not for the<br />
novellae on Euclid’s Elements pr<strong>in</strong>ted at the end of his posthumously published<br />
responsa, we would not know that the erudite scribe R. Jonah L<strong>and</strong>sofer (1678–1712)<br />
of Prague was knowledgeable <strong>in</strong> mathematics. 143 Lastly, it is only through his <strong>in</strong>troduction<br />
to a halakhic work published <strong>in</strong> 1684 that we know that R. Isaac Meir<br />
Fraenkel-Teomim <strong>in</strong>tended to write books on astronomy, arithmetic, <strong>and</strong> geometry.<br />
144 This r<strong>and</strong>om sample suggests that at least to some extent <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> some places<br />
the neo-Maimonidean <strong>and</strong> pro-scientific segment of the halakhic culture, which orig<strong>in</strong>ated<br />
with Isserles <strong>and</strong> the Maharal, survived under the surface dur<strong>in</strong>g the seventeenth<br />
century. Max Freudenthal made a similar po<strong>in</strong>t a century ago, suggest<strong>in</strong>g that<br />
R. David Fraenkel’s (moderately) positive attitude toward philosophy <strong>and</strong> science<br />
can be traced to his be<strong>in</strong>g a descendent of Moses Isserles’. 145<br />
Israel’s significance for the history of Hebrew science thus lies <strong>in</strong> his be<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
product of a largely <strong>in</strong>visible scientific sub-culture, that of the ‘normal’ science of<br />
Jewish Pol<strong>and</strong>. Yet he was the most outst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g product of this sub-culture <strong>and</strong><br />
emerged <strong>in</strong> an atypical town. Zamosc, I suggested, was exceptional, perhaps because<br />
of the <strong>in</strong>fluential Sephardi legacy, which favoured scientific <strong>in</strong>quiry. It is quite possible<br />
that other towns also had halakhic sub-cultures not hostile to science, with their<br />
founta<strong>in</strong>head <strong>in</strong> the sixteenth-century authorities. If this hypothesis, which calls for<br />
further research, is confirmed, it would mean that the first students of early modern<br />
Hebrew science <strong>in</strong> Eastern Europe 146 were the visible tips of a largely <strong>in</strong>visible tradition<br />
of Polish neo-Maimonideanism – an <strong>in</strong>digenous phenomenon of Polish Judaism,<br />
rather than one triggered by external <strong>in</strong>fluence. Israel b. Moses Halevi of Zamosc, <strong>in</strong><br />
any event, was certa<strong>in</strong>ly the most prom<strong>in</strong>ent scientific figure to emerge from Jewish<br />
Pol<strong>and</strong>.<br />
142 See George Alter, Two Renaissance Astronomers: David Gans, Joseph Delmedigo (Prague, 1956),<br />
pp. 16–19, 33–4; Néher, David Gans u-zemano, pp. 98–104, 117–123.<br />
143 Assaf, Meqorot le-toledot ha-Ì<strong>in</strong>nukh (n. 28), 1: 67; EJ 10: 1415–16.<br />
144 Katz, Rabbanut, Ìasidut, haskalah, 1: 124. The work is ¨En Ya¨aqov. Fraenkel-Teomim studied <strong>in</strong><br />
Metz, knew languages other than Hebrew, <strong>and</strong> served as a rabbi <strong>in</strong> Zó¥kiev, before mov<strong>in</strong>g to Lithuania.<br />
145 Max Freudenthal, Aus der Heimat Mendelssohns. Moses Benjam<strong>in</strong> Wulff und se<strong>in</strong>e Familie, die<br />
Nachkommen des Moses Isserles (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1900); see also idem, ‘R. David Fränckel’, Gedenkbuch zur<br />
Er<strong>in</strong>nerung an David Kaufmann, ed. Markus Brann <strong>and</strong> Ferd<strong>in</strong><strong>and</strong> Rosenthal (Breslau, 1900), pp. 569–<br />
98. Freudenthal’s <strong>in</strong>quiry was triggered by Mendelssohn’s remark that his own family descended from<br />
Isserles. Fraenkel, as already mentioned, was responsible for the first pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> two centuries of the<br />
Guide of the Perplexed (Jessnitz, 1742). He was the <strong>in</strong>direct owner of the Jessnitz pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g press, which<br />
was also to pr<strong>in</strong>t Israel’s commentary on RuaÌ Ìen.<br />
146 On these early maskilim, see, <strong>in</strong>ter alia: Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er, ‘Ben ¨anenei ha-sikhlut le-or ha-muskalot:<br />
Yehudah Horowitz, maskil muqdam ba-meˆah ha-18’, <strong>in</strong> Be-ma¨agalei Ìasidim, ed. Immanuel Etkes et<br />
al. (Jerusalem, 1990), pp. 111–60; Immanuel Etkes, ‘Li-sheˆelat mevasserei ha-haskalah be-mizraÌ<br />
eropa’, <strong>in</strong> The East European Jewish Enlightenment (Hebrew), ed. Immanuel Etkes (Jerusalem, 1993),<br />
pp. 25–44; Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er, ‘The Dragon around the Bee-Hive: Juda Leib Margolioth <strong>and</strong> the Paradox of<br />
the Early Haskalah’ (Hebrew), Zion 63 (1998): 39–74; Fishman, Russia’s First Modern Jews, ch. 2.<br />
58 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
Appendix:<br />
Rabbi Israel Ben Moses Halevi’s Scientific Interests <strong>and</strong> Bookshelf<br />
I. NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel: Apply<strong>in</strong>g Science to the Talmud<br />
In what follows I offer some examples of problems to which Israel applies science.<br />
A. Science <strong>in</strong> the Ma<strong>in</strong> Part of NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel<br />
1. Astronomy<br />
a. Israel discusses (fols. 34ab–bb) at length the statements <strong>in</strong> B PesaÌim 94a concern<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the ‘width’ of the heavens <strong>and</strong> the dependent issue of the length of twilight.<br />
He refers to both halakhic <strong>and</strong> scientific literature. Examples of the first<br />
k<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong>clude Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, Yefeh marˆeh by Samuel Jaffe <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i<br />
(sixteenth century), <strong>and</strong> Samuel Eliezer b. Judah Halevi Edels (the Maharsha,<br />
1555–1631) (fol. 34bb). For scientific matters Israel refers to unnamed ‘astronomers’<br />
– the reference is <strong>in</strong> fact to Sefer Elim by Joseph Solomon Delmedigo<br />
(1597–1655), 147 which he elsewhere mentions explicitly – <strong>and</strong> to unnamed works<br />
on geography (fol. 34bb), which I could not identify.<br />
b. Israel rejects without much argument an <strong>in</strong>terpretation offered by Edels which assumes<br />
that the earth is flat: ‘This is empty <strong>and</strong> false’, he writes bluntly, ‘<strong>and</strong> we<br />
do not f<strong>in</strong>d this op<strong>in</strong>ion among real astronomers’ (fol. 43ba). 148 Rather, earth <strong>and</strong><br />
water form a globe, which is suspended at the centre of ‘the sphere’. Elsewhere,<br />
Israel takes Rashi <strong>and</strong> the Yefeh toˆar (Samuel <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i) to task for comments<br />
ascrib<strong>in</strong>g to the Sages the view that the earth is flat (fols. 32bb–33bbb, 34ab–bb,<br />
49aa–ab, 56ab; <strong>and</strong> see below).<br />
c. Israel also takes up aggadot. One of them (explicitly described as an aggadah)<br />
concerns a famous problem reportedly put by Alex<strong>and</strong>er the Great to the Elders of<br />
the South: which distance is greater – that from the heavens to the earth or that<br />
from east to west (B Tamid 32a)? Israel seizes on this opportunity to confirm his<br />
unfavourable op<strong>in</strong>ion of the Yefeh toˆar. This passage, he says, ‘affords a rebuke<br />
to those who allege that our Sages, the authors of the Talmud, supposed that the<br />
earth is flat <strong>and</strong> that its edges touch the sphere’ (fol. 49aa). He notes that it seems<br />
odd that Alex<strong>and</strong>er, ‘the student of the great astronomer Naqtanibor, as mentioned<br />
<strong>in</strong> Yosaf<strong>in</strong> [= Sefer Yosippon], <strong>and</strong> of Aristotle too’, 149 should put this question to<br />
the Elders of the South. His explanation is that Alex<strong>and</strong>er was really ask<strong>in</strong>g<br />
147 Israel’s allusion to the views of Ìakhmei ha-tekhunah (fol. 34ba, bottom) refers to Sefer Elim,<br />
Ma¨ayan Ìatum, p. 436.<br />
148 Edels was not averse to astronomy however; see Elbaum, Openness <strong>and</strong> Insularity, pp. 171–2.<br />
149 Israel explicitly refers to Sefer Yosipon. In David Flusser’s edition (Jerusalem, 1980), ‘Naqtanibor’,<br />
i.e., Alex<strong>and</strong>er’s alleged father Nektanebos, is not mentioned, but he is alluded to <strong>in</strong> the tradition of the<br />
romance The Gests of Alex<strong>and</strong>er, albeit as a great magician, not as an astronomer (ibid., 2: 217, 221).<br />
That Alex<strong>and</strong>er was Aristotle’s student is recorded <strong>in</strong> ibid., 1: 462.<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
59
whether or not the Sages thought there were epicycles. Israel thereupon expla<strong>in</strong>s<br />
the notion of epicycles <strong>in</strong> some detail, conclud<strong>in</strong>g that the Jewish elders ‘reached<br />
the same conclusion as the astronomers <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed the existence of epicycles’<br />
(fol. 49aa–49ba).<br />
2. Geometry<br />
Occasionally, Israel takes up problems whose solution requires mathematical knowledge.<br />
He more than once notes that a talmudic elucidation depends on the assumption<br />
that the ratio of the circumference to the radius is 3:1, add<strong>in</strong>g that ‘the geometers’<br />
(Ìakhmei ha-middot) know that this is only an approximation (fols. 1ba, 42ba–b).<br />
Similarly, throughout the discussion of the exchange between Alex<strong>and</strong>er <strong>and</strong> the<br />
Elders of the South he assumes that his reader has some knowledge of mathematics:<br />
the fact that all the po<strong>in</strong>ts on the circumference of a circle are equidistant from its<br />
centre is said to be known to ‘a one-day old geometer’ (fol. 49ab). He writes of one<br />
mathematical statement that ‘the demonstration thereof is easily clarified by draw<strong>in</strong>g<br />
on Euclid, as [I will show] elsewhere’ (fol. 49ba). 150<br />
3. Optics<br />
Apropos of certa<strong>in</strong> problems related to the construction of a sukkah, Israel draws on<br />
‘the science of optics’ (Ìokhmat ha-reˆiyyah), whose statements are confirmed by<br />
‘everyday experience’ (fol. 40ab). Here Israel says that Sefer Elim as well as to ‘the<br />
book I <strong>in</strong>tend to write’ (possibly the commentary on the latter) conta<strong>in</strong> proofs of his<br />
statements (ibid.). Similarly, a statement <strong>in</strong> tractate Megillah <strong>and</strong> the attempt to underst<strong>and</strong><br />
Maimonides’ rephras<strong>in</strong>g of it lead him to ask what is the maximum angular<br />
extent of the human field of vision. To solve the difficulties raised, Israel, aga<strong>in</strong> referr<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to Sefer Elim, states (fols. 41ab–ba) that ‘recent’ students of optical science<br />
have discovered that the angle of vision cannot exceed two-thirds of a right angle,<br />
whereas the ancients had believed it could be equal to an entire right angle. In an<br />
aside, he notes that Maimonides himself stated <strong>in</strong> the Guide that the mathematical<br />
sciences were ‘not complete’ <strong>in</strong> the days of the Sages: 151 the idea that the sciences<br />
advance allows Israel to suggest that Maimonides was better <strong>in</strong>formed than the<br />
talmudic Sages were. ‘This is evident to those who are knowledgeable <strong>in</strong> the science<br />
of optics’, Israel concludes the discussion (fol. 41ba). Elsewhere, he relies on ‘optical<br />
science’ for the statement that the sun appears larger when it is low <strong>in</strong> the horizon<br />
than when it is high <strong>in</strong> the sky, because of the exhalations ris<strong>in</strong>g from the earth (fol.<br />
49ab; similarly fol. 38bb).<br />
B. Science <strong>in</strong> the ‘Last Quire’ (Qun†res aÌaron)<br />
We now turn to the ‘last quire’. Here Israel considers 13 passages, from six talmudic<br />
tractates, that bear on matters of astronomy, mathematics, or natural science, with the<br />
150 Israel refers to the mathematical part of Arubbot ha-shamayim, which he <strong>in</strong>tended to precede the<br />
astronomical one. This part is not extant (see above, n. 23).<br />
151 Guide II, 19, 24; Maimonides of course refers to mathematics at the time of Aristotle, but Israel assumes<br />
that the Sages lived <strong>in</strong> the same period; see also Guide III, 14. Israel aga<strong>in</strong> uses the idea that the<br />
sciences were not perfected <strong>in</strong> the Sages’ days on fol. 49ba.<br />
60 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
aim of prov<strong>in</strong>g that they are <strong>in</strong> accord with what has been demonstrated <strong>in</strong> science.<br />
Here are several examples.<br />
1. Astronomy<br />
a. How should the Holy Ark be oriented <strong>in</strong> a synagogue? Israel (fol. 52a–b), draw<strong>in</strong>g<br />
on general astronomical knowledge, takes the Levush tekhelet (a commentary<br />
on the ShulÌan ¨arukh by Mordecai b. Abraham Jaffe) <strong>and</strong> two other rabb<strong>in</strong>ical<br />
authorities to task. From Delmedigo’s Sefer Elim he borrows values for the longitude<br />
<strong>and</strong> latitude of several cities (Jerusalem, Tunis, Toledo, Bayonne) <strong>and</strong> values<br />
for the s<strong>in</strong>e function, <strong>and</strong> even remarks on a computational error he identified <strong>in</strong><br />
the book.<br />
b. Similarly, apropos of a passage <strong>in</strong> tractate Rosh Hashanah, Israel cites a passage<br />
from Maimonides’ Hilkhot qiddush ha-Ìodesh, which, he notes, ‘has perplexed<br />
many astronomers <strong>and</strong> talmudists’. He affirms that the matter was misunderstood<br />
by Mordecai Jaffe (the reference is to Jaffe’s ¨Eder ha-yaqar, a commentary on<br />
Hilkhot qiddush ha-Ìodesh) <strong>and</strong> by two other authorities: Jacob b. Samuel Koppelman<br />
<strong>in</strong> ¨Omeq halakhah <strong>and</strong> Jonathan b. Joseph of Ruzhany <strong>in</strong> Yeshu¨ah be-<br />
Yisra}el. He then offers his own account (fol. 56bb–57ab). That these three authorities<br />
are mentioned together is no accident: ¨Eder ha-yaqar was repr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong><br />
Yeshu¨ah be-Yisra}el (Frankfurt am Ma<strong>in</strong>, 1720); 152 Mordecai Jaffe was Koppelman’s<br />
teacher, 153 <strong>and</strong> the latter was an ancestor of Jonathan of Ruzhany (as he<br />
himself more than once states <strong>in</strong> his book). These three authors thus form a cha<strong>in</strong><br />
of transmission <strong>and</strong> belong to the same <strong>in</strong>tellectual current.<br />
2. Geometry<br />
a. Rules stated <strong>in</strong> tractate Kilˆayim raise geometrical problems concern<strong>in</strong>g the distances<br />
that must be left between the plants of different species. Israel (fol. 53aa–<br />
54ab) exam<strong>in</strong>es how they are understood <strong>in</strong> Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah <strong>and</strong><br />
po<strong>in</strong>ts out several difficulties, which he then resolves. In so do<strong>in</strong>g he draws on<br />
general <strong>and</strong> basic geometric knowledge.<br />
b. Similarly, with regard to a mathematical statement <strong>in</strong> tractate ¨Eruv<strong>in</strong>, Israel remarks<br />
that he had seen the problem treated only <strong>in</strong> the aforementioned Yeshu¨ah<br />
be-Yisrael. But this author, Israel comments, ‘did not adduce a proof for his statements<br />
<strong>and</strong> consequently the matter rema<strong>in</strong>ed as doubtful as ever’. However, the<br />
statement ‘has a proof deriv<strong>in</strong>g from the science of geometry [Ìokhmat hamedidah],<br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g the way taken by the Ancients, as mentioned <strong>in</strong> Euclid. This,<br />
however, is a long proof, which is difficult to learn. But there is a shorter <strong>and</strong><br />
easier way, one that I devised myself <strong>and</strong> advanced <strong>in</strong> my book Arubb[o]t hashamayim,<br />
Part I, which is a work on mathematics <strong>and</strong> astronomy that I have written’<br />
(fol. 54ab–54ba). Israel presents two mathematical premises, followed by the<br />
proof itself.<br />
152 ¨Eder ha-yaqar appears on the title page of Yeshu¨ah be-Yisraˆel; <strong>in</strong> the body of the book the text<br />
appears under the head<strong>in</strong>g Levush.<br />
153 Elbaum, Openness <strong>and</strong> Insularity, p. 146.<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
61
3. Optics<br />
a. Many are eager to underst<strong>and</strong> Maimonides’ statement, <strong>in</strong> his commentary on the<br />
Mishnah, that dawn beg<strong>in</strong>s about an hour prior to sunrise, Israel writes (fol. 52aa).<br />
He expla<strong>in</strong>s this statement by draw<strong>in</strong>g on basic optics <strong>and</strong> on Delmedigo’s Sefer<br />
Elim.<br />
b. With regard to a statement <strong>in</strong> tractate Sukkah, Israel expla<strong>in</strong>s the length of shadows,<br />
based very generally on geometry <strong>and</strong> on what ‘has been expla<strong>in</strong>ed’ <strong>in</strong> natural<br />
science about the nature of shadows (57ab).<br />
4. Natural science<br />
With respect to a statement by the Sages concern<strong>in</strong>g thunder (B. Berakhot 59a), Israel<br />
mentions (fol. 52bb) that some people say the Sages were ignorant of the natural<br />
sciences. But ‘may the lips that say lies about the righteous become dumb’, he exclaims.<br />
Then he expounds some premises of natural science <strong>in</strong> order, he says, to<br />
show everyone that ‘our Sages, too, possessed ten shares <strong>in</strong> the natural sciences’. He<br />
outl<strong>in</strong>es one version of the Aristotelian theory of thunder, which, he says, makes it<br />
possible to comprehend the Sages’ true <strong>in</strong>tention. Israel mentions no specific source.<br />
II. R. Israel b. Moses Halevi’s Bookshelf<br />
Below is a list of the ma<strong>in</strong> works that Israel mentions <strong>in</strong> a scientific context <strong>in</strong> NY<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> Arubbot ha-shamayim. These fall <strong>in</strong>to several categories: strictly scientific<br />
works – ancient, medieval, <strong>and</strong> post-medieval; halakhic works that <strong>in</strong>clude discussions<br />
of scientific issues – medieval <strong>and</strong> post-medieval; <strong>and</strong> biblical commentaries. I<br />
make no pretense of be<strong>in</strong>g exhaustive: my only goal is to provide a rough picture of<br />
Israel’s scientific horizons. For the scientific literature, I <strong>in</strong>dicate whether the work<br />
was pr<strong>in</strong>ted or available only <strong>in</strong> manuscript.<br />
A. NeÒaÌ Yisrael<br />
Ancient science (<strong>in</strong> Hebrew translation)<br />
Euclid, The Elements. The book is mentioned explicitly only a few times (e.g., fols.<br />
49ba, 54ba), but mastery of it is perceptible throughout. Israel could have studied<br />
this work only <strong>in</strong> manuscript. 154<br />
<strong>Medieval</strong> science <strong>and</strong> philosophy<br />
Rabbenu Nissim, Saadia Gaon, Samuel b. Îofni Gaon (fol. 43aa). Mentioned without<br />
reference to specific works of theirs.<br />
Abraham bar Îiyya, Sefer ∑urat ha-areÒ (twelfth century). Referred to, e.g., on fols.<br />
26ab, 28aa, <strong>and</strong> 55ab (numbered 58). The book was available <strong>in</strong> the 1720 Offenbach<br />
edition, published by R. Jonathan b. Joseph of Ruzhany.<br />
154 Katz, Rabbanut, Ìasidut, haskalah, 1: 209–10, unaware that Euclid’s Elements was translated <strong>in</strong>to<br />
Hebrew <strong>in</strong> the late thirteenth century, endowed Israel with fluency <strong>in</strong> German <strong>in</strong> order to account for his<br />
familiarity with this book. This has no basis <strong>in</strong> reality, however.<br />
62 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
Abraham Ibn Ezra(?), Sefer Mishpe†ei ha-kokhavim, an astrological work. Mentioned<br />
on fol. 38b. The authorship of this work is not certa<strong>in</strong>, but Abraham Ibn Ezra is a<br />
reasonable guess. All works that went under this title were astrological <strong>and</strong> available<br />
only <strong>in</strong> manuscript. 155<br />
Maimonides, Hilkhot qiddush ha-Ìodesh. Referred to many times, e.g., fols. 1ab,<br />
56bb–57ab. This work was available <strong>in</strong> a number of editions, but <strong>in</strong> all likelihood<br />
Israel used the one, accompanied by five commentaries, conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> Jonathan b.<br />
Joseph of Ruzhany’s Yeshu¨ah be-Yisrael (Frankfurt a.M., 1720), a work that he<br />
mentions often (see below). Israel occasionally refers to specific commentaries<br />
(e.g., R. Levi ben Îabib, fol. 33ab; ¨Eder ha-yaqar, fol. 56bb; Obadiah the Commentator,<br />
fol. 57aa). Israel notes that ‘many astronomers <strong>and</strong> talmudists have been<br />
greatly perplexed by the Hilkhot qiddush ha-Ìodesh,… namely the Levush, the author<br />
of ¨Omeq halakhah, the Tosefot Yom-Tov, <strong>and</strong> along with them also R.<br />
Jonathan the author of Teshu¨ah [sic] be-Yisra}el’ (fol. 56bb; accord<strong>in</strong>g to Israel,<br />
R. Jonathan changed his m<strong>in</strong>d about the correct <strong>in</strong>terpretation several times [fol.<br />
65bb–57aa]). This remark is significant, <strong>in</strong>asmuch as it bespeaks Israel’s awareness<br />
of a cont<strong>in</strong>uous scholarly tradition relat<strong>in</strong>g to Maimonides’ scientific text, a<br />
tradition that has recently garnered attention. 156<br />
Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed. Its presence is ubiquitous; it is referred to explicitly<br />
on numerous occasions; e.g., fols. 2aa, 41ba, 42bb, 55ab (numbered 58),<br />
56ab. Israel explicitly refers to the 1551 Venice edition (fol. 57aa), which conta<strong>in</strong>s<br />
Shem ov’s Commentary, to which Israel also explicitly refers (fol. 40bb).<br />
Maimonides, Introduction to Pereq Ìeleq. Mentioned on fol. 42bb. The text was <strong>in</strong>cluded<br />
<strong>in</strong> Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishnah, available <strong>in</strong> various<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />
Meir Aldabi, Shevilei emunah (mid-14th century). Referred to on fol. 42ba. Available<br />
<strong>in</strong> a number of pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />
Isaac Israeli, Sefer Yesod ¨olam (early fourteenth century). Mentioned frequently. Israel<br />
greatly respected Isaac Israeli, to whom he referred as ‘an em<strong>in</strong>ent scholar’<br />
(fol. 38ab); he even wrote a commentary on his work. 157 Israel could have studied<br />
this work only <strong>in</strong> manuscript.<br />
John Sacrobosco, Sefer Asfera ha-gadol, alias Marˆeh ha-ofanim, <strong>in</strong> the translation of<br />
Solomon b. Abraham Avigdor (early 15 th century). 158 Mentioned on fol. 26ab, together<br />
with Sefer ∑urat ha-areÒ, with which it was pr<strong>in</strong>ted (Offenbach 1720).<br />
155 A collection of astrological treatises by Abraham Ibn Ezra at times bore this title (see I. Ben-Yakov,<br />
OÒar ha-sefarim [Vilna, 1880], p. 199, No. 794); there were, however, other astrological works with<br />
this title; see ibid. p. 387, Nos. 2581, 2582, 2583. The <strong>in</strong>formation Israel cites from this book is too<br />
general to allow a precise identification.<br />
156 In addition to the works cited <strong>in</strong> n. 42 above, see Joseph Davis, ‘<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Rationalism <strong>and</strong><br />
Midrashic Natural History: Responses to the New Science <strong>in</strong> the Works of Rabbi Yom-Tov Lipmann<br />
Heller (1578–1654)’, Science <strong>in</strong> Context 10 (1997): 605–26, on pp. 606–7.<br />
157 See the approbation by Joel Ba¨al Shem <strong>in</strong> NY, fol. 3aa; see also above, pp. 27–28.<br />
158 On this translation see Moritz Ste<strong>in</strong>schneider, Die hebraeischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters und<br />
die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1893; repr<strong>in</strong>ted Graz, 1956), §407.<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
63
Post-medieval science <strong>and</strong> philosophy<br />
Joseph Solomon Delmedigo, Sefer Elim. Israel greatly esteemed Delmedigo, whose<br />
work, pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam <strong>in</strong> 1629, <strong>in</strong>fluenced him strongly. It is referred to frequently<br />
(often by the names of its various parts): e.g., fol. 33bb, 34ba, 159 40ab,<br />
41ba, 43ba, 52aa, 52b, 55ab (numbered 58), 55ba, 56ab. At the time of publication<br />
of NY, Israel had completed a commentary on this work. 160 It is notable that Israel<br />
is silent about heliocentrism <strong>and</strong> other recent astronomical theories that Delmedigo<br />
expounded <strong>in</strong> his book. Although he rema<strong>in</strong>ed hostile to Copernicanism throughout<br />
his life, 161 <strong>in</strong> NY Israel simply ignored the topic. Israel thus drew on Sefer Elim<br />
for its technical <strong>in</strong>formation alone, which is <strong>in</strong>dependent of cosmology. Noteworthy<br />
is the fact that where Israel takes numerical material from Sefer Elim (fol.<br />
52bb) he uses Arabic numerals, whereas <strong>in</strong> material borrowed from medieval Jewish<br />
sources the numbers are written <strong>in</strong> Hebrew letters.<br />
Jonathan b. Joseph of Ruzhany, Yeshu¨ah be-Yisra}el (Frankfurt a.M., 1720). Referred<br />
to (at times as Teshu¨ah be-Yisrael) on fols. 54ab–54ba, 56bb–57ab. The<br />
work consists of Maimonides’ Hilkhot qiddush ha-Ìodesh with commentaries (see<br />
above).<br />
Anonymous books on science<br />
– Unnamed books on geography (fols. 34bb, 52ab).<br />
– Books by ‘the masters of the science of optics’; Israel at times dist<strong>in</strong>guishes between<br />
the views of ancient <strong>and</strong> modern masters of that science (fols. 40bb, 41ab,<br />
41ba, 49ab, 52aa).<br />
– Astrologers (fol. 43ab).<br />
<strong>Medieval</strong> Bible commentaries<br />
[Pseudo.-]Saadia Gaon, commentary on Daniel. 162 E.g., fols. 50ab–50ba.<br />
Abraham Ibn Ezra, commentary on Genesis. E.g., fols. 26bb–27aa, 55ab, 55ba.<br />
NaÌmanides, commentary on Genesis. E.g., fol. 3ab.<br />
Isaac Abravanel, commentary on Genesis. E.g., fol. 55ab (numbered 58).<br />
<strong>Medieval</strong> <strong>and</strong> later works, notably halakhic, conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g discussions bear<strong>in</strong>g on scientific<br />
matters<br />
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah. Very frequently referred to.<br />
Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah. Very frequently referred to.<br />
159 Israel alludes to the views of Ìakhmei ha-tekhunah (fol. 34ba, bottom); the reference is to Sefer<br />
Elim, Ma¨ayan Ìatum, p. 436.<br />
160 See above, p. 28.<br />
161 Sefer RuaÌ Ìen, with a commentary by Israel b. Moses Halevi (Warsaw, 1826), 2b. In his (posthumously<br />
published) OÒar neÌmad (a commentary on the Kuzari; see above, n. 132), Israel alludes to<br />
Copernicus’ computations, but does not comment on his cosmology; see commentary on Kuzari 4:29<br />
(current editions, 4:133). I am grateful to Adam Shear for this reference.<br />
162 The commentary on Daniel pr<strong>in</strong>ted under Saadia’s name <strong>in</strong> the various editions of Miqraˆot gedolot<br />
(presumably Israel’s source) is by a later author; see Henry Malter, Saadia Gaon. His Life <strong>and</strong> Works<br />
(Philadelphia, 1942), p. 326.<br />
64 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
Samuel Jaffe <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i, Yefeh marˆeh <strong>and</strong> Yefeh toˆar. Very frequently mentioned,<br />
e.g., fol. 2bb, 34bb, 49aa–ab, 56ab. This work is one of the ma<strong>in</strong> targets of Israel’s<br />
criticism.<br />
Moses Isserles, Torat ha-¨olah. E.g., fol. 3aa.<br />
Mordecai b. Abraham Jaffe, Levush tekhelet <strong>and</strong>, more generally, the various<br />
Levushim, a series of commentaries on the ShulÌan ¨arukh. 163 E.g., fols. 52a–b,<br />
56bb–57ab. Jaffe was a student of Isserles.<br />
Jacob b. Samuel Koppelman, ¨Omeq halakhah (Cracow, 1598). E.g., fols. 56bb–<br />
57ab. This work, by a student of Mordecai Jaffe <strong>and</strong> an ancestor of Jonathan b.<br />
Joseph of Ruzhany, has much the same goals as NY – to exam<strong>in</strong>e Talmudic passages<br />
<strong>in</strong> the light of mathematics. 164 Israel approves of its <strong>in</strong>tentions, but faults it<br />
for the author’s alleged mathematical <strong>in</strong>competence.<br />
David b. Samuel Halevi (Segal), urei zahav (on the ur <strong>and</strong> ShulÌan ¨arukh). E.g.,<br />
fol. 52a–b.<br />
Samuel Eliezer b. Judah Halevi Edels (the Maharsha), Îiddushei halakhot. Frequently<br />
mentioned, e.g., fols. 4bb, 42aa, 43ba, 57bb.<br />
Judah Loew b. BeÒalel of Prague (the Maharal). Beˆer ha-golah. E.g., fol. 56aa.<br />
Judah Loew b. BeÒalel of Prague (the Maharal). Sefer Ìayyim. E.g., fol. 2ba.<br />
Ephraim Solomon b. Aaron of Luntshits, Keli yaqar. 165 E.g., fol. 2ba.<br />
Joseph Trani, ∑ofenat pa¨neaÌ (on the Torah). E.g., fol. 34ab.<br />
Jacob b. Joseph Reischer, Îoq le-Ya¨aqov (on the laws of Passover <strong>in</strong> the ShulÌan<br />
¨arukh). 166 E.g., fols. 33aa, 34ba.<br />
Yair Bacharach, Îavvot Yaˆir. E.g., fols. 37ab, 54bb, 55aa (numbered 58) (‘this is a<br />
great error’).<br />
We have already noted that Israel drew on kabbalistic literature as well. We may add<br />
that he was also acqua<strong>in</strong>ted with Hebrew historical writ<strong>in</strong>gs, such as Sefer YuÌas<strong>in</strong>,<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> 1561 <strong>and</strong>, with additions by R. Moses Isserles, <strong>in</strong> 1580/1 (fol. 37ba),<br />
∑emaÌ David, pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> 1592/3 (fol. 37ba), Shalshelet ha-qabbalah, pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> 1596<br />
(fol. 45ba), <strong>and</strong> Sefer Yosippon, pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> 1589 (fol. 49ba; see above, p. 59). 167<br />
Lastly <strong>and</strong> quite <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>gly, he was also familiar with Ben ha-melekh ve-ha-nazir:<br />
a phrase quoted earlier <strong>in</strong> which Israel describes his suffer<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> courage (Hareˆitem<br />
peloni ha-ish we-siÌo // omeÒ libo u-qeshi ruÌo? ‘Have you seen that one, the<br />
man <strong>and</strong> his rant<strong>in</strong>g // his valorous heart <strong>and</strong> stubborn spirit?’; fol. 2ba) is a verbatim<br />
quotation from that work. 168<br />
163 See on this work Elbaum, Openness <strong>and</strong> Insularity, p. 403.<br />
164 On the author <strong>and</strong> the work see ibid., p. 146, <strong>and</strong> n. 203.<br />
165 See references above, n. 29.<br />
166 See EJ 15: 61–2.<br />
167 On the pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> subsequent study of these works see Elbaum, Openness <strong>and</strong> Insularity,<br />
pp. 257–60.<br />
168 Ben ha-melekh we-ha-nazir, Gate 17 (ed. Nissan Neyezov [Rishon Le-Zion, 2002], p. 95).<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
65
B. Arubbot ha-shamayim<br />
Only scientific works are mentioned <strong>in</strong> this book:<br />
Euclid’s Elements. Already noted above.<br />
Ptolemy, Almagest. Omnipresent. This basic text of medieval astronomy (‘Ptolemy<br />
has brought astronomy to completion, as is made clear <strong>in</strong> Sefer Yesod ¨olam’<br />
[fol. 24bb]) was translated <strong>in</strong>to Hebrew <strong>in</strong> the thirteenth century. Israel read this<br />
still-unpublished work <strong>in</strong> manuscript. Israel specifically refers to Ptolemy’s tables.<br />
169<br />
Abraham Ibn Ezra, Sefer Keli ha-neÌoset. Fol. 5a. This book on the mak<strong>in</strong>g of the<br />
astrolabe was not published until 1845, <strong>and</strong> Israel read it <strong>in</strong> manuscript.<br />
Averroes, Epitome of the Almagest. Israel mentions it explicitly, e.g., on fol. 39a;<br />
elsewhere (fol. 98a) he uses the concept mofet taÌbuli, which derives from that<br />
work. 170 This work, extant <strong>in</strong> Hebrew translation only, has not yet been published;<br />
Israel read it <strong>in</strong> manuscript. 171<br />
Isaac Israeli, Sefer Yesod ¨olam. Very often referred to. Already mentioned above.<br />
Gersonides, MilÌamot ha-Shem (= Wars of the Lord) or Perush ha-Torah (Commentary<br />
on the Pentateuch). Quite surpris<strong>in</strong>gly, Arubbot ha-shamayim mentions (fol.<br />
39b) the dist<strong>in</strong>ctive Gersonidian concept of ‘a body that does not preserve its<br />
shape’ (geshem bilti shomer temunato), on which Gersonides draws <strong>in</strong> both his<br />
cosmology <strong>and</strong> his cosmogony. Israel drew either on the published philosophical<br />
part of MilÌamot ha-Shem (Riva di Trento, 1560), or on the Perush ha-Torah<br />
(Venice, 1547). 172 Israel does not mention Gersonides’ name, of course, for the<br />
latter was decried as the author of the ‘Wars Aga<strong>in</strong>st the Lord’. 173<br />
Joseph b. Solomon Delmedigo, Sefer Elim. As already noted, Israel greatly admired<br />
Delmedigo (‘the wondrous scholar’ [fol. 76b]), on whose work he draws repeatedly<br />
<strong>in</strong> Arubbot ha-shamayim, too. Often Israel uses it tacitly; e.g., when referr<strong>in</strong>g<br />
169 Arubbot ha-shamayim, fol. 11a (which may be a later <strong>in</strong>terpolation, however).<br />
170 See Bernard R. Goldste<strong>in</strong>, ‘Levi ben Gerson’s Theory of Planetary Distances’, Centaurus 29 (1986):<br />
272–313, on p. 279. I am grateful to Prof. Goldste<strong>in</strong> for call<strong>in</strong>g this to my attention.<br />
171 On this relatively little known work, see Julianne Lay, ‘L’Abrégé de l’Almageste: un <strong>in</strong>édit<br />
d’Averroès en version hébraïque’, Arabic Sciences <strong>and</strong> Philosophy 6 (1996): 23–61.<br />
172 MilÌamot ha-Shem 5.2.2; Perush ha-Torah, fol. 10a–b. The context is a discussion of the question<br />
of eccentric orbs. Israel recalls that Maimonides declared their existence impossible, because it would<br />
imply the existence of the void (Guide 2:24). Should one postulate that some matter fills the space between<br />
the orbs, the question arises, why the orbs do not transmit their motions to one another. Thereupon<br />
Israel writes: ‘This difficulty has clearly been noticed [by some; u-khvar hirgishu be-zeh hasafeq].<br />
But it has led them to “believe that between every two orbs there are substances, dist<strong>in</strong>ct from<br />
those of the orb”, which fill up the place of the void: one is <strong>in</strong>side the circle [¨iggul] of the Sun, <strong>and</strong> one<br />
outside it. Each one of these has been called by them a body that does not preserve its shape’ (fol. 39a:<br />
16–19). The embedded citation is from the Guide 2:24 (Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed,<br />
trans. S. P<strong>in</strong>es [Chicago, 1963], p. 324), to which Israel added the reference to Gersonides’<br />
‘body that does not preserve its shape’. Israel subsequently briefly expla<strong>in</strong>s the idea with the help of an<br />
illustration <strong>and</strong> quickly refutes it. At one po<strong>in</strong>t (fol. 24bb) he says of himself that he set out to fight ‘the<br />
Lord’s wars, to fight <strong>in</strong> the camp of truth…’, perhaps echo<strong>in</strong>g Gersonides.<br />
173 See, e.g., Menachem M. Kellner, ‘Gersonides <strong>and</strong> his Cultured Despisers: Arama <strong>and</strong> Abravanel’,<br />
Journal of <strong>Medieval</strong> <strong>and</strong> Renaissance Studies 6 (1976): 269–96.<br />
66 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
to ‘all the new worlds’ (fol. 5b). 174 The references <strong>in</strong> Arubbot ha-shamayim to ‘recent’<br />
(scil. non-Jewish) astronomers, like Francesco Maurolico (fol. 5b), Pedro<br />
Nuñes, <strong>and</strong> Tycho Brahe (fol. 31a), are all taken from Elim. 175 The same holds for<br />
the frequent allusions to Copernicus (ignor<strong>in</strong>g his heliocentrism, however). In this<br />
work, too, as <strong>in</strong> NY, but more frequently, Israel uses Arabic numerals when the<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation derives from Sefer Elim. (It is not certa<strong>in</strong>, however, that all the numbers<br />
presented <strong>in</strong> Arabic numerals come from Sefer Elim.)<br />
Conspicuous by its absence is Tobias Kohen’s Sefer Ma¨aseh uviah (1707). Nor is<br />
Azariah de’ Rossi’s Sefer Meˆor ¨e<strong>in</strong>ayim (1571–1574) mentioned (although banned,<br />
it was sometimes read <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>). Nor was Israel aware of the existence of David<br />
Nieto’s Second Kuzari, published <strong>in</strong> London <strong>in</strong> 1714.<br />
174 Borrowed from Sefer Elim, pp. 269–70.<br />
175 Ibid., pp. 333 <strong>and</strong> 275, respectively.<br />
Gad Freudenthal<br />
67
68 Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamos´c´, ca. 1730
Adam Shear<br />
Judah Halevi’s Sefer ha-Kuzari <strong>in</strong> Early Modern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> the Early<br />
Haskalah: A Case Study <strong>in</strong> the Transmission of Cultural <strong>Knowledge</strong><br />
In contrast to some European Enlightenment movements that tended to see <strong>in</strong>tellectuals<br />
of recent centuries as beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g to grope their way out of the darkness, maskilim<br />
tended to see their immediate <strong>in</strong>tellectual predecessors, rabb<strong>in</strong>ic scholars <strong>in</strong> early<br />
modern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>, as those who created the darkness. David Sork<strong>in</strong> has recently<br />
stressed the importance of view<strong>in</strong>g the Haskalah as a movement concerned with<br />
reform<strong>in</strong>g early modern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i culture – the ‘Jewish Baroque’ <strong>in</strong> his terms. 1<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to the maskilic view, this culture had over-emphasized study of the Talmud<br />
<strong>and</strong> neglected study of the Bible, the Hebrew language, science, philosophy, <strong>and</strong><br />
secular languages.<br />
The fact that critics of the curriculum had <strong>in</strong>deed been around for many years<br />
with<strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i culture raises questions about the novelty of much of the<br />
Haskalah’s cultural agenda. Historians have long focused on such critics as protomaskilim<br />
or ‘forerunners of the Haskalah’. 2 More recently, Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er, along<br />
with Sork<strong>in</strong>, has offered us a new way of describ<strong>in</strong>g this phenomenon – ‘Early<br />
Haskalah’ – <strong>and</strong> argued that it should be seen as dist<strong>in</strong>ct from the Haskalah itself.<br />
Eighteenth-century proponents of this ‘Early Haskalah’ attempted to revive cultural<br />
elements already present <strong>in</strong> medieval sources; <strong>in</strong> contrast, the Haskalah proper was<br />
concerned with social as well as cultural transformation <strong>and</strong> with f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g a new role<br />
for Jews <strong>in</strong> a new, enlightened Europe.<br />
In the present essay, I address the emergence of one of those medieval sources,<br />
Judah Halevi’s twelfth-century Sefer ha-Kuzari, as an important text for the Jewish<br />
Enlightenment. The Kuzari was arguably one of the most important of the medieval<br />
texts read <strong>and</strong> used by maskilim to construct their cultural agenda. Halevi’s work<br />
laid a strong particularistic emphasis on the superiority of Jewish culture while<br />
nonetheless provid<strong>in</strong>g a basis for the study of knowledge from outside the Jewish<br />
tradition. Halevi’s work, written <strong>in</strong> Arabic <strong>in</strong> the third decade of the twelfth century,<br />
was translated <strong>in</strong>to Hebrew <strong>in</strong> the second half of that century, mak<strong>in</strong>g it available to<br />
1 See David Sork<strong>in</strong>, ‘The Early Haskalah’, <strong>in</strong> New Perspectives on the Haskalah, ed. Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er <strong>and</strong><br />
David Sork<strong>in</strong> (London, 2001), pp. 9–26, esp. pp. 9–10.<br />
2 See: Immanuel Etkes, ‘The Question of the Forerunners of the Haskalah <strong>in</strong> Eastern Europe’ (Hebrew),<br />
Tarbiz 57 (1987): 95–114; idem, ‘Immanent Factors <strong>and</strong> External Influences <strong>in</strong> the Development<br />
of the Haskalah Movement <strong>in</strong> Russia’, <strong>in</strong> Toward Modernity, ed. Jacob Katz (New Brunswick, NJ,<br />
1987), pp. 13–32; Sork<strong>in</strong>, ‘The Early Haskalah’; Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er, ‘The Early Haskalah <strong>in</strong> Eighteenth-<br />
Century Judaism’ (Hebrew), Tarbiz 67 (1998): 189–240.<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
Adam Royal Netherl<strong>and</strong>s Shear Academy of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences, 2007<br />
69
Jewish scholars <strong>in</strong> the non-Arabophone communities of Christian Europe. Although<br />
it was not widely read <strong>in</strong> the thirteenth <strong>and</strong> fourteenth centuries, a revival of <strong>in</strong>terest<br />
occurred <strong>in</strong> Spa<strong>in</strong>, Provence, <strong>and</strong> Italy <strong>in</strong> the fifteenth <strong>and</strong> sixteenth centuries. This<br />
led to a number of commentaries, three pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions <strong>in</strong> sixteenth-century Italy,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Lat<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> Spanish translations <strong>in</strong> the seventeenth century. 3 Dur<strong>in</strong>g the crystallization<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>stitutionalization of the Berl<strong>in</strong> Haskalah, <strong>in</strong> the second half of the eighteenth<br />
century, the Kuzari also emerged as a key text for the maskilim. 4 Two commentaries<br />
on it were written <strong>in</strong> the 1760s <strong>and</strong> 1770s. Their pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> the 1790s,<br />
alongside the text of the Kuzari, were the first editions of the work under <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i<br />
auspices.<br />
The first of these commentaries, entitled OÒar neÌmad, was by Israel of Zamosc,<br />
Mendelssohn’s teacher <strong>and</strong> a familiar figure on the Jewish scene of mid-century Berl<strong>in</strong>.<br />
5 Zamosc may have written a first version of his commentary while <strong>in</strong>struct<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Aron Gumpertz <strong>in</strong> medieval Jewish philosophy shortly after his arrival<br />
<strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> the 1740s. It appears that he then revised it <strong>and</strong> completed a f<strong>in</strong>al<br />
version of his commentary <strong>in</strong> the 1760s, under the patronage of Daniel Itzig, a leader<br />
of the Berl<strong>in</strong> Jewish community. The second major commentary was by Isaac<br />
Satanow. 6 He too wrote his commentary under Itzig’s patronage <strong>in</strong> the early 1770s,<br />
shortly after his own arrival <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> from the east. Zamosc’s commentary was<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ted posthumously <strong>in</strong> 1796. Satanow supervised the publication of his own commentary<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1795, <strong>in</strong> his capacity as manager of a project to publish maskilic texts<br />
under the auspices of the Jüdische Freischule (Î<strong>in</strong>nukh ne¨arim) society.<br />
The approaches of Zamosc <strong>and</strong> Satanow are similar enough to offer us a relatively<br />
coherent picture of the ‘maskilic Kuzari’. Both use their commentaries as vehicles to<br />
discuss new scientific discoveries <strong>and</strong> theories while attempt<strong>in</strong>g subtle forms of accommodation<br />
that ‘save’ Halevi’s overall philosophical <strong>and</strong> religious authority. Both<br />
exploit Halevi’s criticisms of Aristotelian philosophy to <strong>in</strong>troduce philosophical concepts<br />
to their readers <strong>and</strong> often provide the German equivalent for key terms. 7<br />
3 A survey of the medieval <strong>and</strong> early modern reception of the work can be found <strong>in</strong> Adam Shear, ‘The<br />
Later History of a <strong>Medieval</strong> Hebrew Book: Studies <strong>in</strong> the Reception of Judah Halevi’s Sefer ha-Kuzari’,<br />
doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 2003.<br />
4 I use ‘<strong>in</strong>stitutionalization’ here <strong>in</strong> a relative sense. As Fe<strong>in</strong>er <strong>and</strong> others have po<strong>in</strong>ted out, the<br />
Haskalah was hardly a unified, coherently organized, or hierarchically def<strong>in</strong>ed entity. Rather, as Fe<strong>in</strong>er<br />
puts it, the Haskalah is best seen as ‘a k<strong>in</strong>d of literary republic’ (‘Towards a Historical Def<strong>in</strong>ition of the<br />
Haskalah’, <strong>in</strong> Fe<strong>in</strong>er <strong>and</strong> Sork<strong>in</strong>, New Perspectives on the Haskalah, p. 218). Many of the def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stitutions<br />
of such a commonwealth of letters (most notably schools, literary societies, journals, <strong>and</strong> publish<strong>in</strong>g<br />
houses) emerged for the first time <strong>in</strong> the last third of the eighteenth century.<br />
5 On Zamosc, see: David Ruderman, Jewish Thought <strong>and</strong> Scientific Discovery <strong>in</strong> Early Modern Europe<br />
(New Haven, 1993), pp. 332–4; Eliezer Schweid, Toledot he-hagut ha-yehudit ba-¨et ha-Ìadashah<br />
(Jerusalem, 1977), pp. 111–3, <strong>and</strong> Gad Freudenthal’s essay <strong>in</strong> this volume. I have treated Zamosc’s <strong>and</strong><br />
Satanow’s commentaries at greater length <strong>in</strong> ‘Judah Halevi’s Kuzari <strong>in</strong> the Haskalah: The Re<strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />
<strong>and</strong> Re-imag<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g of a <strong>Medieval</strong> Work’, <strong>in</strong> Renew<strong>in</strong>g the Past, Reconfigur<strong>in</strong>g Jewish Culture from<br />
al-Andalus to the Haskalah, ed. Ross Brann <strong>and</strong> Adam Sutcliffe (Philadelphia, 2004), pp. 71–92. Full<br />
references can be found <strong>in</strong> that essay <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> my dissertation.<br />
6 For Satanow’s biography, see Nehama Rezler Bersohn, ‘Isaac Satanow, the Man <strong>and</strong> his Work: A<br />
Study <strong>in</strong> the Berl<strong>in</strong> Haskalah’, doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1975.<br />
7 By translat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to German, Zamosc <strong>and</strong> Satanow were provid<strong>in</strong>g Yiddish readers with new vocabulary<br />
as well. Despite the complicated l<strong>in</strong>guistic history of ‘German’, ‘Judeo-German’, <strong>and</strong> ‘Yiddish’, it<br />
70 Judah Halevi's Sefer ha-Kuzari <strong>in</strong> Early Modern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> the Early Haskalah
Zamosc <strong>and</strong> Satanow also take up Halevi’s central concern – the status of revealed<br />
religion vis-à-vis the rational quest for truth. Here Zamosc <strong>and</strong> Satanow differ. For<br />
Zamosc, the k<strong>in</strong>g’s negative response to the philosopher is a rejection of ‘<strong>in</strong>vestigation<br />
seek<strong>in</strong>g the truth accord<strong>in</strong>g to the dictates of reason alone’. 8 Satanow’s major<br />
project <strong>in</strong> his commentary, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, is to present the Kuzari as an argument<br />
on behalf of the rational <strong>in</strong>vestigation of religion. 9<br />
But rationality plays an important role for Zamosc as well. In Kuzari 2:68, Halevi<br />
endorses a role for rational laws <strong>in</strong> the adm<strong>in</strong>istration of society. Although Halevi<br />
appears to make a fundamental dist<strong>in</strong>ction between rational laws, natural to all societies,<br />
<strong>and</strong> religious law, given to the Jews by revelation, Zamosc re<strong>in</strong>terprets this passage<br />
<strong>in</strong> a way that makes rational laws appear to be the build<strong>in</strong>g blocks of div<strong>in</strong>e<br />
law. 10 For Satanow, too, revealed or div<strong>in</strong>e law is not the same as rational law but is<br />
understood as be<strong>in</strong>g never contrary to reason. 11 Satanow recommends the study of<br />
the Kuzari <strong>and</strong> other works of the medieval Sephardi philosophical tradition precisely<br />
to further underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the relationship between reason <strong>and</strong> revelation. 12<br />
Moreover, the Kuzari’s dist<strong>in</strong>ction between rational <strong>and</strong> revealed law may well have<br />
<strong>in</strong>fluenced Moses Mendelssohn <strong>in</strong> his conception of Judaism as represent<strong>in</strong>g div<strong>in</strong>e<br />
legislation certified by ‘Historical Truth’. 13<br />
This brief discussion of Zamosc’s <strong>and</strong> Satanow’s basic underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>gs of Halevi’s<br />
work can serve as a summary of the maskilic reception of the Kuzari <strong>in</strong> the late eighteenth<br />
century. The ‘maskilic Kuzari’ was a vehicle for education – an opportunity to<br />
<strong>in</strong>troduce basic philosophical concepts to new audiences. It was also a less anti-rationalist<br />
<strong>and</strong> less particularistic work than the Kuzari of authorial <strong>in</strong>tention but still a<br />
work that offered Jews a justification <strong>and</strong> explanation of the superiority of Judaism.<br />
In the n<strong>in</strong>eteenth century, the cultural authority of the work <strong>and</strong> its author would be<br />
mobilized to produce a third facet: the Kuzari as precedent or justification for particular<br />
(<strong>and</strong> even conflict<strong>in</strong>g) maskilic activities. For example, some cited the work’s<br />
praise of the Hebrew language to justify a Hebraist agenda; others, writ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Russian<br />
or German, noted that Halevi <strong>and</strong> Maimonides had written their prose works <strong>in</strong><br />
the scholarly language of their age (Arabic).<br />
In many ways, the reception of the Kuzari with<strong>in</strong> the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i cultural area fits<br />
well with the Sork<strong>in</strong>/Fe<strong>in</strong>er model. Until the eighteenth century, the Kuzari was a<br />
seems reasonable to conclude that technical <strong>and</strong> scientific terms passed easily between these dist<strong>in</strong>ct l<strong>in</strong>guistic<br />
constructs.<br />
8 OÒar neÌmad on Kuzari 1:2, <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Kuzari (Vienna, 1796), p. 6 r [hereafter Kuzari (Vienna)].<br />
9 Sefer ha-Kuzari (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1795), <strong>in</strong>troduction, page follow<strong>in</strong>g title page. See also pp. 11 v , 16 r , 17 v<br />
[hereafter Kuzari (Berl<strong>in</strong>)].<br />
10 OÒar neÌmad on Kuzari 2:48, Kuzari (Vienna), p. 47 r .<br />
11 ‘… There is noth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the Torah that is aga<strong>in</strong>st reason. As the Ìaver says, <strong>in</strong> the absence of someth<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong> the Torah, one solves it by reason…. And here is this book, whose holy path is to make clear<br />
<strong>and</strong> elucidate <strong>and</strong> to arrive at all that is hidden <strong>in</strong> beliefs <strong>and</strong> op<strong>in</strong>ions, <strong>in</strong> reason <strong>and</strong> knowledge, <strong>and</strong> for<br />
<strong>in</strong>vestigation <strong>and</strong> tradition to ride side by side together….’ (Kuzari [Berl<strong>in</strong>], <strong>in</strong>troduction; see also p.<br />
39 v ). Here, Satanow accords with a long l<strong>in</strong>e of Jewish philosophers beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g with Saadia Gaon <strong>in</strong> the<br />
tenth century. For Satanow, however, it is not only laws govern<strong>in</strong>g action but also beliefs (‘<strong>in</strong>tellectual<br />
comm<strong>and</strong>ments’) that can be divided <strong>in</strong>to two categories – rational (such as the belief <strong>in</strong> God’s unity<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>corporeality) <strong>and</strong> revealed (such as creation ex nihilo or reward <strong>and</strong> punishment).<br />
12 Ibid., p.59 r .<br />
13 On this, see my ‘Judah Halevi’s Kuzari <strong>in</strong> the Haskalah’ <strong>and</strong> chapter 4 of my dissertation.<br />
Adam Shear<br />
71
elatively ignored example of a relatively ignored genre. In the middle of the century,<br />
it attracted new <strong>in</strong>terest on the part of a representative of the Early Haskalah (Israel<br />
Zamosc) <strong>and</strong>, a few years later, of an early member of the <strong>in</strong>stitutionalized Haskalah<br />
(Isaac Satanow). Through one of the central <strong>in</strong>stitutions of the Haskalah – the pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g<br />
presses of Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> Vienna – their maskilic versions of the work were dissem<strong>in</strong>ated<br />
to a wider audience <strong>in</strong> Central <strong>and</strong> Eastern Europe at the end of the eighteenth<br />
<strong>and</strong> start of the n<strong>in</strong>eteenth centuries.<br />
Here, though, I want to exam<strong>in</strong>e this model <strong>in</strong> a bit more depth, us<strong>in</strong>g the reception<br />
of the Kuzari as a case study <strong>in</strong> how the cultural knowledge of early modern<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong> was transmitted to <strong>and</strong> by the early maskilim. It is unlikely that Zamosc<br />
<strong>and</strong> Satanow first happened on the Kuzari when they arrived <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> the 1740s<br />
<strong>and</strong> 1770s, respectively. Zamosc almost certa<strong>in</strong>ly read the work as a young man <strong>in</strong><br />
Pol<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Satanow, too, probably encountered it before his arrival <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>. Nevertheless,<br />
Berl<strong>in</strong> of the middle <strong>and</strong> late eighteenth century was the locus where these<br />
first two <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i commentaries on this 600-year-old work emerged. In order to<br />
underst<strong>and</strong> the emergence of these commentaries <strong>and</strong> the deep engagement with the<br />
Kuzari by early maskilim such as Zamosc, Satanow, <strong>and</strong> Zamosc’s student Moses<br />
Mendelssohn, we must ask some questions about the availability of the work with<strong>in</strong><br />
this culture.<br />
Certa<strong>in</strong>ly the work was physically available, <strong>in</strong> the form of manuscripts <strong>and</strong>/or<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions accessible to Zamosc, Satanow, Mendelssohn, <strong>and</strong> others. But what<br />
about – with a nod to the technological term<strong>in</strong>ology of our own time – its ‘virtual’<br />
availability? What place did it occupy <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i cultural imag<strong>in</strong>ation? What<br />
was the image of the book <strong>and</strong> its author among <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i scholars <strong>and</strong> students?<br />
What associations did it trigger for a ‘typical’ educated <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i? To what genre<br />
was the work assigned?<br />
The traditional historiographical view (one promulgated, <strong>in</strong> fact, by the maskilim<br />
themselves) that there was little or no philosophical activity by rabbis of the sixteenth,<br />
seventeenth, <strong>and</strong> eighteenth centuries <strong>in</strong> Germany <strong>and</strong> Eastern Europe has<br />
been challenged <strong>in</strong> recent years from a number of perspectives. It is now clear that<br />
there was an <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> philosophy <strong>and</strong> science among some Jewish <strong>in</strong>tellectuals <strong>in</strong><br />
early modern Central <strong>and</strong> Eastern Europe. However, the orig<strong>in</strong>s of this <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>and</strong><br />
the extent of its <strong>in</strong>fluence on the broad outl<strong>in</strong>es of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i culture rema<strong>in</strong> subjects<br />
of debate among historians. 14 Ephraim Kupfer argued for a native, medieval<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i tradition of rationalist philosophy. 15 He has been followed to a certa<strong>in</strong> extent<br />
by Lawrence Kaplan <strong>and</strong> Joseph Davis <strong>in</strong> their studies of <strong>in</strong>dividual early modern<br />
rabbis. 16 Others, notably H. H. Ben-Sasson, have argued for <strong>in</strong>fluence from out-<br />
14 For brief summaries of these historiographical issues, see: Ruderman, Jewish Thought <strong>and</strong> Scientific<br />
Discovery, pp. 55–9; Joseph Davis, ‘The Cultural <strong>and</strong> Intellectual History of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>ic Jews 1500–<br />
1750: A Selective Bibliography <strong>and</strong> Essay’, Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 38 (1993): 343–86.<br />
15 E. Kupfer, ‘Li-demuto ha-tarbutit shel yahadut ashkenaz ve-Ìakhameha ba-meˆot ha-14–ha-15’,<br />
Tarbiz 42 (1972–73): 113–47.<br />
16 Joseph Davis, ‘R. Yom Tov Lippman Heller, Joseph b. Isaac Ha-Levi, <strong>and</strong> Rationalism <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>ic Jewish Culture, 1550–1650’, doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1990; Lawrence<br />
Kaplan, ‘Rabbi Mordecai Jaffe <strong>and</strong> the Evolution of Jewish Culture <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> the Sixteenth Century’,<br />
<strong>in</strong> B. Cooperman, ed., Jewish Thought <strong>in</strong> the Sixteenth Century, (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), pp. 266–82.<br />
72 Judah Halevi's Sefer ha-Kuzari <strong>in</strong> Early Modern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> the Early Haskalah
side <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i culture. Ben-Sasson alleged a direct <strong>in</strong>fluence of Sephardi <strong>and</strong> Italian<br />
philosophical traditions on certa<strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i <strong>in</strong>tellectuals. 17 Jacob Elbaum has followed<br />
this view <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed especially that, <strong>in</strong> the sixteenth century, pr<strong>in</strong>ted<br />
books from Italy were responsible for a brief period of ‘openness’ to science <strong>and</strong> philosophy<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i culture. 18 But Elbaum views the seventeenth century as a period<br />
of renewed <strong>in</strong>sularity, as Lurianic kabbalah spread <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> displaced<br />
the ‘openness’ of the sixteenth century.<br />
In any case, two key po<strong>in</strong>ts st<strong>and</strong> out from these differ<strong>in</strong>g accounts. First, despite<br />
some cases of <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> philosophy <strong>and</strong> science, these subjects were not<br />
part of the cultural ma<strong>in</strong>stream as they had been <strong>in</strong> medieval Spa<strong>in</strong> or early modern<br />
Italy. Philosophy <strong>and</strong> science never became part of the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i curriculum. Second,<br />
as David Ruderman has po<strong>in</strong>ted out, it is important to clarify just what is meant<br />
by an <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> science <strong>and</strong> philosophy. 19 Interest <strong>in</strong> astronomy for the purpose of<br />
calculat<strong>in</strong>g the Jewish calendar or comment<strong>in</strong>g on the laws of the sanctification of<br />
the new moon <strong>in</strong> Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah does not necessarily entail adoption of<br />
a rationalist outlook on religion.<br />
In other words, ‘knowledge’ can be extracted from a book without necessarily adher<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to the central message (or messages) of the book or author. Indeed, sometimes<br />
books are not viewed as bearers of an all-encompass<strong>in</strong>g thesis but are simply understood<br />
to be repositories of <strong>in</strong>formation, useful or otherwise <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g. This may<br />
seem to us like ignor<strong>in</strong>g the moral of one of Aesop’s fables <strong>and</strong> pay<strong>in</strong>g attention only<br />
to the nut-gather<strong>in</strong>g methods of squirrels; but some readers may, for their own reasons,<br />
be more <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> collect<strong>in</strong>g nuts. Where the Kuzari was part of the library<br />
of a Jewish culture (<strong>in</strong> both the physical <strong>and</strong> ‘virtual’ senses), readers <strong>and</strong> potential<br />
readers could enterta<strong>in</strong> both the ‘thesis’ approach <strong>and</strong> the ‘contents’ approach to the<br />
work.<br />
As we might expect, there does not seem to have been much of a presence of the<br />
Kuzari <strong>in</strong> the physical library of early modern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im. In addition to the lack of<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions from <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i presses, there appear to be no extant manuscript<br />
copies of the work or commentaries <strong>in</strong> an <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i h<strong>and</strong> from the sixteenth or seventeenth<br />
centuries, <strong>and</strong> only two from the fifteenth century. 20 Nor is it <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong><br />
most extant booklists of that era. 21 One must be wary, however, about mak<strong>in</strong>g an ar-<br />
17 H. H. Ben-Sasson, ‘Jewish-Christian Disputation <strong>in</strong> the Sett<strong>in</strong>g of Humanism <strong>and</strong> Reformation <strong>in</strong> the<br />
German Empire’, Harvard Theological Review 59 (1966): 369–90.<br />
18 PetiÌut ve-histagrut: ha-yeÒirah ha-ruÌanit ha-sifrutit be-pol<strong>in</strong> u-ve-arÒot ashkenaz be-shilhe hameˆah<br />
ha-shesh-¨esreh (Jerusalem, 1990). A concise summary of his views is available <strong>in</strong> English translation<br />
<strong>in</strong> ‘The Influence of Spanish-Jewish Culture on the Jews of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> the Fifteenth-<br />
Seventeenth Centuries’, B<strong>in</strong>ah. Volume 3: Jewish Intellectual History <strong>in</strong> the Middle Ages, ed. Joseph<br />
Dan (Westport, CT, 1994), pp. 179–97.<br />
19 Ruderman, Jewish Thought <strong>and</strong> Scientific Discovery, p. 55.<br />
20 Based on an exam<strong>in</strong>ation of microfilms conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> the Institute for Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts<br />
(IMHM) <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem. The catalogue dates two manuscripts <strong>in</strong> an <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i h<strong>and</strong> to the eighteenth<br />
or n<strong>in</strong>eteenth centuries. One of these (MS Sasson 1252/4) is <strong>in</strong>complete. I am not able to date the<br />
other (MS St. Petersburg – Institute of the Oriental Studies B 269) more precisely. The two from the<br />
fifteenth century are MS Tur<strong>in</strong>-National A. III 13/5 <strong>and</strong> MS Cambridge-Addison 666/2; both were most<br />
likely written <strong>in</strong> northern Italy.<br />
21 See Isaiah Sonne, ‘Book Lists Through Three Centuries’, Studies <strong>in</strong> Bibliography <strong>and</strong> Booklore 1<br />
(1953): 55-77. The follow<strong>in</strong>g booklists from <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> do not list copies of the Kuzari: M. Freudenthal,<br />
Adam Shear<br />
73
gument from silence <strong>and</strong> conclud<strong>in</strong>g that nobody <strong>in</strong> this area <strong>and</strong> age read the Kuzari.<br />
There may well have been manuscripts that have not survived. Furthermore, the large<br />
volume of trade between Jews <strong>in</strong> Italy <strong>and</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>, especially <strong>in</strong> books, suggests that<br />
Italian pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions may well have found their way to Eastern <strong>and</strong> Central Europe.<br />
Certa<strong>in</strong> Italian scholars, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Judah Moscato, the author of the first pr<strong>in</strong>ted commentary<br />
on the Kuzari, were also read <strong>in</strong> Eastern Europe <strong>in</strong> this period. 22<br />
Even though it is difficult to ascerta<strong>in</strong> the extent of the physical transmission of<br />
the text <strong>in</strong> this place <strong>and</strong> period, we may still ask questions about the image of the<br />
book. There is no doubt that many were aware of its author <strong>and</strong> of its frame story. In<br />
part, this is due to the mention of the Kuzari <strong>in</strong> works that did circulate <strong>in</strong> the<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i world. RuaÌ Ìen, for example, which cites the Kuzari, was pr<strong>in</strong>ted twice<br />
<strong>in</strong> Italy <strong>in</strong> the mid-sixteenth century <strong>and</strong> aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> Prague <strong>in</strong> 1593 <strong>and</strong> Lubl<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> 1620.<br />
At least one popular <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i writer – David Gans – cited the Kuzari <strong>and</strong> its framestory.<br />
It is not certa<strong>in</strong> that he read it, however, s<strong>in</strong>ce his citations appear to be based<br />
on Azariah de Rossi’s discussions of the work <strong>in</strong> Meˆor ¨enayim <strong>and</strong> on mentions of<br />
Halevi <strong>in</strong> Sefer YuÌas<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> Shalshelet ha-qabbalah. 23<br />
Nonetheless, Gans beg<strong>in</strong>s his discussion of Halevi by prais<strong>in</strong>g the work as ‘a<br />
pleasant <strong>and</strong> precious book, <strong>in</strong> which many sciences are <strong>in</strong>cluded’ (sefer neÌmad veyaqar<br />
ve-Ìokhmot rabbot nikhlalan). 24 Most of Gans’ praises are quoted from Meˆor<br />
¨enayim, but here Gans amplifies it by stress<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>clusive nature of Halevi’s<br />
work. The fact that it <strong>in</strong>corporates many different k<strong>in</strong>ds of knowledge makes the<br />
work particularly useful. Gans, for <strong>in</strong>stance, cites the Kuzari as one of the authorities<br />
for the date of the redaction of the Mishnah. 25<br />
Gans’ contemporary, the noted halakhist Moses Isserles (c. 1525–1572), also appears<br />
to have been familiar with the contents of the Kuzari. Isserles was a vigorous<br />
defender of the study of philosophy. Respond<strong>in</strong>g to an attack by Solomon Luria<br />
(the Maharshal), Isserles defended the study of ‘Greek wisdom’ on a number of<br />
grounds. 26 Accord<strong>in</strong>g to him, Solomon Ibn Adret (the Rashba) <strong>and</strong> his followers<br />
never sought to ban philosophy outright but only to set a m<strong>in</strong>imum age <strong>and</strong> ensure<br />
the maturity of its students. As for the ‘foreign’ nature of these subjects, the sages bid<br />
Jews learn the truth from any source. Isserles argues that Aristotle’s physics (though<br />
not his metaphysics) is entirely compatible with Jewish authorities. He also argues<br />
‘Dokumente zur Schriftenverfolgung durch Pfefferkorn’, Zeitschrift für die Geschichte der Juden <strong>in</strong><br />
Deutschl<strong>and</strong> n.s. 3 (1931): 227–32 (on p.232); Wilhelm Volkert, ‘Der Regensburger Judenregister von<br />
1470’, Münchener Historische Studien 10 (1982): 115–41; Christ<strong>in</strong>e Ineichen-Eder, Mittelalterliche<br />
Bibliothekskataloge Deutschl<strong>and</strong>s und den der Schweiz, (Munich, 1977), vol. 4, part 1, pp. 459–62; MS<br />
Oxford-Bodl. 2075 Opp. 699; MS Sasson 1282; MS Zurich 80,1; MS Israel Museum 180/52. An ambiguous<br />
case is the list of books confiscated from Jews <strong>in</strong> Frankfurt by Pfefferkorn <strong>in</strong> 1510. The term<br />
‘Cotzar’ appears often on the lists, <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g kiÒÒur, i.e., abridgement. On two of the lists, we f<strong>in</strong>d<br />
‘Coczar’ <strong>and</strong> ‘Koser’, perhaps referr<strong>in</strong>g to the Kuzari. See I. K<strong>in</strong>caur, ‘Verzeichnis der von Pfefferkorn<br />
1510 <strong>in</strong> Frankfurt am Ma<strong>in</strong> confiscierten jüdische Bücher’, Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und<br />
Wissenschaft des Judenthums 44 (1900): 320–32, 423–30, <strong>and</strong> 455–60, esp. 424 <strong>and</strong> 429.<br />
22 See Elbaum, PetiÌut ve-histagrut, p.18.<br />
23 See Sefer ∑emaÌ David, ed. Mordecai Breuer (Jerusalem, 1983), pp. 95, 117, 120–1.<br />
24 Ibid., p.120.<br />
25 ∑emaÌ David, p.95.<br />
26 Shut ha-Rema, ed. Asher Ziv (Jerusalem,1970), no.7, pp. 29 ff.<br />
74 Judah Halevi's Sefer ha-Kuzari <strong>in</strong> Early Modern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> the Early Haskalah
that Maimonidean philosophy has become ma<strong>in</strong>stream with<strong>in</strong> Judaism: ‘although a<br />
few [Jewish] sages have disputed this <strong>and</strong> burned [Maimonides’] books, <strong>in</strong> any case<br />
his books have spread to all the recent authorities, <strong>and</strong> all have taken this crown for<br />
their heads, to br<strong>in</strong>g proof from his words as if it were a halakhah from Moses on<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ai’. 27<br />
Isserles, however, does not mention the Kuzari <strong>in</strong> his defence of philosophy.<br />
Rather, he <strong>in</strong>vokes the work <strong>in</strong> a halakhic discussion of the validity of a divorce decree<br />
(ge†) written <strong>in</strong> Aramaic. There he ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s that Aramaic should not be thought<br />
of as a language dist<strong>in</strong>ct from Hebrew but rather as a ‘corrupted holy language’ <strong>and</strong><br />
cites the Kuzari <strong>in</strong> support of this op<strong>in</strong>ion. 28 In a later responsum, he writes: ‘Aramaic<br />
is thought to be a sacred language even if it is a corrupted language. And I remember<br />
that these words are the words of the Kuzari, even though it was said with a<br />
different <strong>in</strong>tention’. 29 Isserles is right: Halevi does not discuss Aramaic primarily to<br />
praise that language. In fact, he ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s that Hebrew is more holy than Aramaic<br />
<strong>and</strong> notes that Aramaic was an everyday <strong>and</strong> not a sacred language. 30 He does, however,<br />
note the similarity between Hebrew, Aramaic, <strong>and</strong> Arabic. Judah Moscato, <strong>in</strong><br />
his commentary on the Kuzari, cites Abraham Ibn Ezra’s statement that the three languages<br />
belong to the same family. 31 Isserles could not have read Moscato’s commentary,<br />
but he <strong>and</strong> Moscato may represent a common sixteenth-century underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
of the relationship of Hebrew, Aramaic, <strong>and</strong> Arabic, which both ‘f<strong>in</strong>d’ <strong>in</strong> Halevi’s<br />
text. Isserles had read the Kuzari – or at least this section of it – <strong>and</strong> considered<br />
Halevi’s work to be an authority (even <strong>in</strong> a halakhic matter) on the question of Jewish<br />
languages. Apparently, the discussion of the Hebrew language <strong>in</strong> the second part<br />
of the Kuzari was already a locus classicus for some <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im.<br />
Yom ov Lipmann Heller (1578–1654) also used the Kuzari as a source of <strong>in</strong>formation.<br />
As Joseph Davis has shown, Heller had absorbed some aspects of the new<br />
science (mostly from Hebrew works), but his major sources of scientific knowledge<br />
were medieval Hebrew philosophical works. 32 The Kuzari was one such source;<br />
Heller quotes Halevi about the activities of alchemists. 33 The Kuzari, along with<br />
Moscato’s commentary, was also one of Heller’s sources for Jewish theology. 34<br />
Davis has po<strong>in</strong>ted out that the Kuzari was also one of many medieval sources used<br />
by Heller’s teacher, Joseph Halevi, <strong>in</strong> his Giv¨at ha-moreh (1611). 35<br />
For Ephraim of Luntschitz (1550–1619), Heller’s senior colleague <strong>in</strong> the Prague<br />
rabb<strong>in</strong>ate, the Kuzari was also a source of theological op<strong>in</strong>ions. Ephraim, who was<br />
well-known as a preacher, cited the work twice <strong>in</strong> his comments on the verse, ‘And I<br />
27 Ibid., p.32.<br />
28 Ibid., no.126, p. 495.<br />
29 Ibid., no.127, p. 497. He also cites the Kuzari on this <strong>in</strong> no.128, p. 501, <strong>and</strong> no.130, p. 507.<br />
30 Kuzari 2:68.<br />
31 S.v. leshon meyuÌedet leshon ha-qodesh (see Qol Yehudah <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Kuzari [Warsaw, 1880], vol.<br />
2, p. 156).<br />
32 Davis, ‘R. Yom Tov Lippman Heller’, passim; idem, ‘<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>ic Rationalism <strong>and</strong> Midrashic Natural<br />
History: Responses to the New Science <strong>in</strong> the Works of Rabbi Yom Tov Lippman Heller (1578–<br />
1654)’, Science <strong>in</strong> Context 10.4 (1997): 605–26, esp. 609–10.<br />
33 Ibid., p. 611.<br />
34 Davis, ‘R. Yom Tov Lippman Heller’, p. 406, n.156.<br />
35 Ibid., p. 207.<br />
Adam Shear<br />
75
will walk among you’ (Lev. 26:12). 36 On this potentially problematic passage, which<br />
appears to offer promises regard<strong>in</strong>g only this world <strong>and</strong> not the world to come,<br />
Luntschitz offers seven different op<strong>in</strong>ions he found <strong>in</strong> various rishonim, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Saadia, Halevi, Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, BaÌya, NaÌmanides, Nissim Gerondi, <strong>and</strong><br />
Joseph Albo. Indeed, the Kuzari is cited twice as the orig<strong>in</strong> of two different (although<br />
not contradictory) op<strong>in</strong>ions, one about strengthen<strong>in</strong>g belief <strong>in</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e providence, the<br />
other about the presence of the Shekh<strong>in</strong>ah among the Jews.<br />
We see, then, that the Kuzari was not totally unknown or unstudied <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
up to the middle of the seventeenth century. But the overwhelm<strong>in</strong>g sense given by<br />
these sixteenth- <strong>and</strong> early-seventeenth-century examples is of the Kuzari as one of<br />
Judaism’s authoritative repositories of useful <strong>in</strong>formation on a wide variety of subjects<br />
– the ‘contents’ approach.<br />
In the case of Luntschitz, the subject is theology <strong>and</strong> biblical exegesis. In the case<br />
of Isserles, the Kuzari is viewed as the teach<strong>in</strong>g of a rishon that offers an authoritative<br />
precedent on a particular halakhic matter. 37 Isserles does not engage with the<br />
work’s ‘thesis’ about the proper <strong>in</strong>terrelationship of faith, reason, revelation, <strong>and</strong> philosophy,<br />
even though he was <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> such a debate himself. The scattered references<br />
from the sixteenth <strong>and</strong> early seventeenth centuries do not appear to regard the<br />
Kuzari as belong<strong>in</strong>g – for good or for ill – to the genre of ‘philosophical’ books enter<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i world. 38<br />
At the end of the seventeenth century, Yair Îayyim Bacharach (1638–1702)<br />
pa<strong>in</strong>ted a somewhat different picture of the Kuzari’s role <strong>in</strong> this earlier period:<br />
In earlier times, accord<strong>in</strong>g to what I have heard, they used to study <strong>in</strong> their youth, Sefer<br />
ha-¨Aqedah [Isaac Arama’s ¨Aqedat YiÒÌaq], <strong>and</strong> the ¨Iqqarim [by Joseph Albo], <strong>and</strong> the<br />
Kuzari, <strong>and</strong> the like, because their tendencies were to perfect their souls. … Therefore<br />
they studied the books of the theologians <strong>and</strong> scholars. 39<br />
As Elbaum has po<strong>in</strong>ted out, however, Bacharach was not necessarily lament<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
lack of such study <strong>in</strong> his own time, for he cont<strong>in</strong>ues:<br />
But <strong>in</strong> this [matter] the present generations have done well to distance themselves from<br />
these studies. For it is good for us <strong>and</strong> our children to believe <strong>in</strong> the beliefs that are imposed<br />
upon us without <strong>in</strong>vestigation, <strong>and</strong> I have elaborated on this elsewhere. 40<br />
36 Sefer Keli yaqar ha-shalem (Bene Beraq, 1985), part 2, p. 445. This homily by Luntschitz is available<br />
<strong>in</strong> English translation by Louis Jacobs, <strong>in</strong> his Jewish Biblical Exegesis (New York, 1973), pp. 158–61.<br />
See also the discussion by Israel Bettan <strong>in</strong> ‘Ephraim Luntschitz: Champion of Change’, <strong>in</strong> his Studies <strong>in</strong><br />
Jewish Preach<strong>in</strong>g (C<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>nati, 1939), p. 276 n. 14.<br />
37 I am grateful to Elchanan Re<strong>in</strong>er for po<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g out to me the typicality of this approach by <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>ic<br />
poseqim of the sixteenth century, who tended to see all previous Jewish literature as material to be<br />
m<strong>in</strong>ed for halakhic <strong>in</strong>sights.<br />
38 Note the absence of the Kuzari from the text of a debate that raged <strong>in</strong> the yeshivot of Poznan <strong>and</strong><br />
Prague <strong>in</strong> the sixteenth century, published by Philipp Bloch, ‘Der Streit um den Moreh des Maimonides<br />
<strong>in</strong> der Geme<strong>in</strong>de Posen um die Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts’, Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und<br />
Wissenschaft des Judenthums 47 (1903): 153–69, 263–79, 346–56. For a discussion, see Elchanan<br />
Re<strong>in</strong>er, ‘The <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Elite at the Beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of the Modern Era: Manuscript versus Pr<strong>in</strong>ted Book’,<br />
Jews <strong>in</strong> Early Modern Pol<strong>and</strong>, Pol<strong>in</strong> 10 (1997), p. 95.<br />
39 Sefer Sheˆelot u-teshuvot Îavvot Yaˆir, ed. Shim¨on Kutas (Ramat Gan, 1997), vol. 1, p. 342, no. 124<br />
[<strong>in</strong> some editions of Îavvot Yaˆir, this responsum is numbered 123].<br />
40 Îavvot Yaˆir, p. 342. Elbaum’s discussion of this passage can be found <strong>in</strong> PetiÌut ve-histagrut, p. 155<br />
76 Judah Halevi's Sefer ha-Kuzari <strong>in</strong> Early Modern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> the Early Haskalah
Nevertheless, Bacharach goes on to offer a qualified endorsement of limited study<br />
of Jewish philosophy:<br />
Also there were some who studied <strong>in</strong> this regard Sefer Îovot ha-levavot [Duties of the<br />
Heart, by BaÌya Ibn Paquda], which also speaks about [theological/philosophical] <strong>in</strong>quiry<br />
<strong>in</strong> Part 1; <strong>and</strong> the other parts are full of knowledge <strong>and</strong> fear of God. And see what<br />
is written <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>troduction regard<strong>in</strong>g the man who learns the laws of marriage <strong>and</strong> divorce<br />
but knows noth<strong>in</strong>g of the duties of the heart that are required of every Jew. See<br />
there. Also see <strong>in</strong> ¨Iqqarim, article 1, at the end of chapter 3, which is relevant to our<br />
<strong>in</strong>quiry here, for even the section OraÌ Ìayyim [of the ShulÌan ¨arukh] requires every<br />
Jew to know at least its general pr<strong>in</strong>ciples <strong>and</strong> most of its details, <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>deed this is the<br />
favoured study taught by the Sages [M Avot 4:5], to learn <strong>in</strong> order to do <strong>and</strong> to be<br />
granted the opportunity [to learn <strong>and</strong> to teach, to observe, <strong>and</strong> to do]. 41<br />
When Bacharach discusses the ideal curriculum for the elite student, the works of<br />
Halevi <strong>and</strong> others are not <strong>in</strong> the forefront. He does, however, suggest that some m<strong>in</strong>imal<br />
acqua<strong>in</strong>tance with such material should be atta<strong>in</strong>ed. It is important, however, to<br />
note the subtle valences here. In former generations, even <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>, the elite were<br />
concerned with philosophical <strong>in</strong>quiry – ‘metahalakhic’ studies, as the late Isadore<br />
Twersky put it. 42 For Bacharach, the elite should be most concerned with talmudic<br />
studies, while basic theological study is the prov<strong>in</strong>ce of every Jew (or at least every<br />
Jewish male – kol ish yisraˆel is his phrase). In medieval Sephardi culture the prevail<strong>in</strong>g<br />
view, as expressed by Maimonides, was that, for the elite, talmudic study should<br />
precede advanced philosophical study; here the sequence is partially reversed. For<br />
Bacharach, the <strong>in</strong>itial stages of education should <strong>in</strong>clude basic practical knowledge of<br />
the OraÌ Ìayyim <strong>and</strong> Yoreh de¨ah, the two sections of the ShulÌan ¨arukh deal<strong>in</strong>g<br />
with everyday matters <strong>in</strong> the life of the Jew. Then, the basic ‘duties of the heart’<br />
should be learned as a supplement to this.<br />
It is quite clear, however, that despite the priority he gave here to halakhic over<br />
metahalakhic studies, Bacharach himself had extensive knowledge of philosophical<br />
<strong>and</strong> kabbalistic works, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the Kuzari. 43 Although he does not seem to be advo-<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> his article ‘The Influence’, p. 197 n. 16. Cf. the somewhat different translation of the passage<br />
offered there.<br />
41 Îavvot Yaˆir, pp. 342–43.<br />
42 See Isadore Twersky, ‘Talmudists, Philosophers, Kabbalists: The Quest for Spirituality <strong>in</strong> the Sixteenth<br />
Century’, <strong>in</strong> Cooperman, Jewish Thought <strong>in</strong> the Sixteenth Century, p. 450 n. 1: ‘I use meta-<br />
Halakhah <strong>in</strong> its dual sense to connote both that area of study which comes after Halakhah as well as that<br />
which is the appropriate, <strong>in</strong>dispensable culm<strong>in</strong>ation of the learn<strong>in</strong>g process by virtue of its reveal<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
<strong>in</strong>frastructure <strong>and</strong> superstructure, the foundations <strong>and</strong> goals, of religious law <strong>and</strong> life…. This<br />
conceptualization does not eclipse or curtail the autonomous significance of each discipl<strong>in</strong>e per se but<br />
does help us focus on their <strong>in</strong>terrelationship. Inasmuch as kabbalists <strong>and</strong> philosophers recognize that<br />
their areas of study have a special relationship to Halakhah, it is neither restrictive nor imperialistic to<br />
speak of Halakhah <strong>and</strong> meta-Halakhah. Indeed, the latter, whatever it be (philosophy, Kabbalah,<br />
Hasidism) rema<strong>in</strong>s sovereign <strong>in</strong> all respects <strong>and</strong> scholars cont<strong>in</strong>ue to <strong>in</strong>vestigate these fields <strong>in</strong> their totality.’<br />
43 For a full discussion of Bacharach’s attitudes on these issues, see Isadore Twersky, ‘Law <strong>and</strong> Spirituality<br />
<strong>in</strong> the Seventeenth Century: A Case Study <strong>in</strong> R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach’, <strong>in</strong> Jewish Thought <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Seventeenth Century, ed. Isadore Twersky <strong>and</strong> Bernard Septimus (Cambridge, Mass., 1987), pp. 447–<br />
68.<br />
Adam Shear<br />
77
cat<strong>in</strong>g a return to (a probably legendary) situation <strong>in</strong> which texts like the Kuzari were<br />
widely studied, he certa<strong>in</strong>ly thought that elite scholars could supplement their<br />
halakhic studies with such works. 44<br />
But note the apparent shift: whereas the few examples of <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the Kuzari<br />
from the formative period of early modern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i culture appear to be very much<br />
‘content’-based, what Bacharach ‘remembers’ of this earlier period is systematic<br />
study of the work as religious philosophy. This shift cont<strong>in</strong>ues <strong>in</strong> the generation after<br />
Bacharach, <strong>in</strong> the Libes briv, a wide-rang<strong>in</strong>g critique of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i education by<br />
Isaac Wetzlar (c. 1680–1751). 45 Wetzlar, whose work may be seen as <strong>in</strong>dicative of<br />
early Haskalah trends, cites Bacharach as an authority permitt<strong>in</strong>g the study of medieval<br />
works, especially Îovot ha-levavot. As for Bacharach’s statement that works<br />
such as the Kuzari should not be studied, Wetzlar concludes:<br />
Indeed the great sage, the author of the Îavvot Yaˆir … writes about those who study the<br />
books ¨Aqedah, ¨Iqqarim, <strong>and</strong> the Kuzari, ‘the present generations have done well to distance<br />
themselves from these studies’. He writes this only about young people. ‘I have<br />
heard that they study this <strong>in</strong> their youth’. It is <strong>in</strong>deed good that they first study to ‘fill<br />
their bellies’ with Talmud <strong>and</strong> Codes <strong>in</strong> the way that the sage, the above-mentioned author,<br />
writes <strong>in</strong> this responsum. However, a householder who, with the help of God, has<br />
already completed these studies [that is, basic halakhic study] cannot study anyth<strong>in</strong>g better<br />
[than these works], for the sake of heaven. 46<br />
With this recommendation to the average Jewish householder, Wetzlar significantly<br />
modifies Bacharach’s curriculum <strong>and</strong> advises the majority of young Jewish men<br />
(who will not cont<strong>in</strong>ues their early halakhic studies) to cont<strong>in</strong>ue their study with<br />
works of philosophy.<br />
In the ‘Early Haskalah’ of Wetzlar, the message or thesis of the Kuzari seems to<br />
be mobilized, for the first time, for a specific cultural agenda. In the lists offered by<br />
Bacharach <strong>and</strong> Wetzlar, <strong>in</strong> the first half of the eighteenth century, the Kuzari was<br />
seen as part of a dist<strong>in</strong>ct genre – medieval Sephardi Jewish thought – ‘philosophy’ <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i parlance. Commentaries such as Zamosc’s <strong>and</strong> Satanow’s comb<strong>in</strong>ed the<br />
‘thesis’ <strong>and</strong> ‘contents’ approaches to create a pedagogical vehicle that not only<br />
makes it possible to teach elements of knowledge but also offers an overall argument.<br />
Although <strong>in</strong>dividual members of the <strong>in</strong>tellectual elite of early modern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
either read or were aware of the Kuzari as a learned treatise by one of their medieval<br />
Sephardi predecessors, the work did not penetrate the st<strong>and</strong>ard curriculum of the<br />
masses or secondary elite. In this, of course, the fate of the Kuzari was no different<br />
from that of other theological-philosophical works, like the Guide of the Perplexed or<br />
Sefer ha-¨Iqqarim. We should not conclude from this, however, that <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i men<br />
(<strong>and</strong> perhaps women) were not aware of the work <strong>in</strong> another way. Halevi was a<br />
popular character <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i folktales <strong>and</strong> his frame story for the Kuzari, the conversion<br />
of the Khazars, was a well-known ‘historical event’ <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>.<br />
44 See ibid., pp. 455–6.<br />
45 On Wetzlar, see: The Libes Briv of Isaac Wetzlar, ed. <strong>and</strong> trans. Morris M. Faierste<strong>in</strong> (Atlanta, 1996),<br />
pp. 1–37; Sork<strong>in</strong>, ‘The Early Haskalah’, pp. 16–7.<br />
46 Libes Briv, p. 104.<br />
78 Judah Halevi's Sefer ha-Kuzari <strong>in</strong> Early Modern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> the Early Haskalah
Isaac Akrish’s collection conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the Khazar correspondence, orig<strong>in</strong>ally published<br />
<strong>in</strong> Constant<strong>in</strong>ople <strong>in</strong> the sixteenth century, was repr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> Cracow <strong>in</strong> 1595<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> Offenbach <strong>in</strong> 1720. 47 Works like Ibn YaÌya’s Shalshelet ha-qabbalah, conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation about the conversion of the Khazars <strong>and</strong> Halevi’s authorship of<br />
the Kuzari, circulated <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> alongside Gans’ ∑emaÌ David. 48 At the end of the<br />
seventeenth century, Halevi came to be associated directly with the Khazar conversion.<br />
In Simeon Akiva Baer’s popular book of Yiddish folktales, Ma¨aseh ha-Shem,<br />
Halevi visits the Khazar k<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> converts him. This story, <strong>in</strong> which Halevi is<br />
conflated with the Ìaver, is paired with the well-known tale of Halevi’s daughter’s<br />
marriage to Abraham Ibn Ezra. 49 The popularity of Baer’s work (<strong>in</strong> part because it<br />
consists ma<strong>in</strong>ly of Yiddish versions of stories from the Zohar) suggests that the<br />
Halevi-Khazar connection was implanted <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i popular consciousness<br />
even if most people were not aware of a separate work known as Sefer ha-Kuzari or<br />
had read it if they were aware of it. The author’s prestige as a rishon <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong><br />
the background story – along with the maskilic appropriation of <strong>and</strong> use of the work<br />
– may well have prepared the ground for the wider popularity of the work <strong>in</strong> the<br />
n<strong>in</strong>eteenth century.<br />
The fact that a h<strong>and</strong>ful of elite scholars mentioned the Kuzari, plus culturally diffused<br />
notions about the work’s author <strong>and</strong> frame story, is not enough to place the<br />
physical book <strong>in</strong> the h<strong>and</strong>s of potential readers <strong>and</strong> commentators such as Zamosc<br />
<strong>and</strong> Satanow. As I have noted, the Kuzari tends not to be found <strong>in</strong> booklists of sixteenth-<br />
<strong>and</strong> seventeenth-century <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>. Even if we assume that the Italian editions<br />
of the sixteenth century were distributed <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> that period, we may safely<br />
assume that those copies had become relatively scarce by the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of the eighteenth<br />
century.<br />
At the same time, catalogues of the libraries of non-Jews <strong>in</strong> Engl<strong>and</strong>, France, Germany,<br />
<strong>and</strong> the Low Countries reveal that many copies of Johann Buxtorf’s 1660<br />
Lat<strong>in</strong> translation of the Kuzari were <strong>in</strong> circulation throughout the eighteenth century.<br />
This would be of little <strong>in</strong>terest for the story of Jewish transmission <strong>and</strong> reception,<br />
were it not for an important feature of Buxtorf’s edition: the Hebrew text is pr<strong>in</strong>ted<br />
alongside the Lat<strong>in</strong> text, mak<strong>in</strong>g this the only Hebrew edition pr<strong>in</strong>ted between 1594<br />
<strong>and</strong> 1795. We need not merely speculate, however, that Jewish readers might have<br />
found this edition of <strong>in</strong>terest. The best-known evidence for Jewish use of the 1660<br />
edition is the existence of a copy <strong>in</strong> which Moses Mendelssohn copied Zamosc’s<br />
comments <strong>in</strong>to the marg<strong>in</strong>s. 50 In addition to the Zamosc/Mendelssohn copy of<br />
47 On Akrish, see Abraham Ya¨ari, ‘The Adventures <strong>and</strong> Books of R. Isaac Akrish’ (Hebrew), <strong>in</strong> his<br />
MeÌqere sefer (Jerusalem, 1958), pp. 235–244. Qol mevasser was republished <strong>in</strong> Cracow, <strong>in</strong> 1595 <strong>in</strong><br />
Ma¨aseh bet David bime malkhut Paras; <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> Offenbach, 1720, <strong>in</strong> an edition of Abraham Farissol’s<br />
Iggeret orÌot ¨olam.<br />
48 There were two <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i editions of Shalshelet ha-qabbalah: Cracow, 1595/6; Amsterdam, 1697.<br />
49 Ma¨aseh ha-Shem (Frankfurt, 1700), pp. 51 v –52 r ; repr. Amsterdam (1723), p. 44 v ; Hamburg (1725),<br />
pp. 72 r –72 v ; [n.p.] (1740), section 48. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Ste<strong>in</strong>schneider, there is an earlier edition of the<br />
work from 1691 (Cat. Bod, vol. 2, pp. 2612–13). I was not able to consult this edition, but D. M.<br />
Dunlop, History of the Jewish Khazars (Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton, 1954), p. 120n, reports that this book conta<strong>in</strong>s the<br />
story (or stories) of Halevi, Ibn Ezra, <strong>and</strong> the Khazars. (Dunlop gives the call number as Oppenheim<br />
octavo 1103 [1] <strong>and</strong> refers to pages 29 v –30 v .)<br />
50 The question of when Mendelssohn copied Zamosc’s commentary requires further <strong>in</strong>vestigation. A<br />
Adam Shear<br />
79
Buxtorf’s Kuzari, another extant copy, which is miss<strong>in</strong>g its title page, bears a note on<br />
the first page, <strong>in</strong> an eighteenth-century <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i h<strong>and</strong>, identify<strong>in</strong>g the work as that<br />
of ‘of the Christian sage Buxtorf, Basilea 1660’. 51 A further survey of copies of the<br />
Buxtorf edition will likely turn up other <strong>in</strong>dications of Jewish readership <strong>in</strong> the eighteenth<br />
century. In addition, s<strong>in</strong>ce Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Zamosc also cite Moscato’s commentary,<br />
we may conclude that at least one copy of the 1594 Venice edition circulated<br />
<strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> the middle of the eighteenth century.<br />
Neither Zamosc, nor Satanow, nor the young Mendelssohn would have had the f<strong>in</strong>ancial<br />
resources to regularly purchase sixteenth- <strong>and</strong> seventeenth-century editions of<br />
the Kuzari or similar works. The relatively humble economic status of many early<br />
maskilim can be cited to support the importance of the 1740 repr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
Maimonides’ Guide, which offered eighteenth-century <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i scholars new access<br />
to this text. Indeed, it is clear that the pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g presses that permitted the dissem<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
of new works <strong>and</strong> newly conceived traditional works were among the central<br />
<strong>in</strong>stitutions of the Haskalah, both early <strong>and</strong> late. Satanow’s work with the Î<strong>in</strong>nukh<br />
Ne¨arim press <strong>in</strong> the 1790s serves as a good example of such a project. 52 But an emphasis<br />
on repr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>gs, many of them relatively late <strong>in</strong> the history of the movement,<br />
obscures another crucial element <strong>in</strong> the Haskalah’s use of medieval Jewish materials<br />
– large private libraries <strong>and</strong> the patronage of the Jewish elite.<br />
Especially important were the activities of the wealthy Itzig family, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g its<br />
pater familias, Daniel Itzig or Jaffe (1723–1799), a banker <strong>and</strong> Jewish communal<br />
leader. 53 One might argue that the 1765 move of the Itzig family from their house <strong>in</strong><br />
Geckhol Street (which later became the first home of the Î<strong>in</strong>nukh Ne¨arim school) to<br />
a sprawl<strong>in</strong>g complex of mansions on Burgstrasse was a crucial moment <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>stitutionalization<br />
of the Berl<strong>in</strong> Haskalah. 54 In one of these build<strong>in</strong>gs, Itzig set up a bet<br />
midrash, a study hall for Jewish <strong>in</strong>tellectuals, whether visit<strong>in</strong>g from the east or more<br />
permanently established <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> as teachers or tutors. This eighteenth-century version<br />
of an ‘Institute for Advanced Study’ provides us with an example of a social<br />
context for the study, teach<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> comment<strong>in</strong>g on the Kuzari at the very beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of the Haskalah <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> the 1760s <strong>and</strong> 1770s. It was there, over much of the period<br />
from 1765 to 1770, that Zamosc revised <strong>and</strong> completed his commentary on the<br />
prelim<strong>in</strong>ary exam<strong>in</strong>ation of microfilms of this manuscript shows differences between its text <strong>and</strong> that of<br />
the 1796 pr<strong>in</strong>ted edition. To my m<strong>in</strong>d, the most reasonable hypothesis is that Zamosc prepared an early<br />
version of his commentary or taught the work orally <strong>in</strong> the 1740s <strong>and</strong> then revised <strong>and</strong> completed the<br />
commentary <strong>in</strong> the 1760s <strong>in</strong> the Daniel Itzig bet midrash (see below). In this scenario, Mendelssohn’s<br />
copy was made <strong>in</strong> the 1740s or 1750s <strong>and</strong> represents this earlier stage of work. My thoughts on this<br />
matter have been greatly stimulated by discussions with Gad Freudenthal, Warren Zev Harvey, Steven<br />
Harvey, <strong>and</strong> Andrea Schatz dur<strong>in</strong>g our colloquium <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam.<br />
51 JTS Rare B759 J8 K8 1660<br />
52 On the activities of the press, see Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er, ‘Programmot Ì<strong>in</strong>nukhiyot ve-ideˆalim Ìevratiyyim:<br />
bet ha-sefer ‘Î<strong>in</strong>nukh ne¨arim’ be-Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1778–1825’, <strong>in</strong> Î<strong>in</strong>nukh ve-historiyah: heqsherim tarbutiyyim<br />
u-folitiyyim, ed. Rivka Feldhay <strong>and</strong> Imanuel Etkes (Jerusalem, 1999), p. 248.<br />
53 On Itzig <strong>and</strong> other early patrons of the Haskalah, see: Steven M. Lowenste<strong>in</strong>, ‘Jewish Upper Crust<br />
<strong>and</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> Jewish Enlightenment’, <strong>in</strong> From East <strong>and</strong> West: Jews <strong>in</strong> a Chang<strong>in</strong>g Europe, ed. Frances<br />
Mal<strong>in</strong>o <strong>and</strong> David Sork<strong>in</strong> (Oxford, 1991), pp. 182–201; idem, The Berl<strong>in</strong> Jewish Community: Enlightenment,<br />
Family, <strong>and</strong> Crisis, 1770–1830 (New York, 1994); Deborah Hertz, Jewish High Society <strong>in</strong> Old<br />
Regime Berl<strong>in</strong> (New Haven, 1988).<br />
54 See Lowenste<strong>in</strong>, Berl<strong>in</strong> Jewish Community, pp. 27–8, for a description of the Itzig property.<br />
80 Judah Halevi's Sefer ha-Kuzari <strong>in</strong> Early Modern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> the Early Haskalah
Kuzari under Itzig’s patronage. 55 While work<strong>in</strong>g on his commentary, he may have<br />
been jo<strong>in</strong>ed by a relative, Issachar Falkensohn Behr (1746–1817), who spent some<br />
four years there as well <strong>and</strong> wrote the first volume of German poetry by a Jew (published<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1771). 56<br />
A fuller description of this bet midrash, circa 1772, is provided by an account<br />
written by Joseph Teomim later <strong>in</strong> the century. Teomim, a recently-arrived Polish<br />
rabbi, spent some two years under Itzig’s patronage while work<strong>in</strong>g on his Peri<br />
megadim, a commentary on the ShulÌan ¨arukh. 57 Years later, he described Itzig’s bet<br />
midrash as a ‘a room full of books’ <strong>and</strong> praised his patron for provid<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
room for each talmid Ìakham to use <strong>in</strong> ‘study<strong>in</strong>g whatever his heart desired’. 58 After<br />
two years <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>, Teomim moved to Lvov <strong>and</strong> later to Frankfurt an der Oder,<br />
where he served as rabbi until his death <strong>in</strong> 1792. Three years after Teomim’s death,<br />
his approbation appeared <strong>in</strong> the edition of the Kuzari published <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> with a commentary<br />
by Isaac Satanow. This approbation, dated 1786, also returns us to Itzig’s<br />
house <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> describes how he studied the Guide <strong>and</strong> the Kuzari there with<br />
Isaac Satanow:<br />
Here is the rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sage, our teacher Isaac Halevi [Satanow], whom I knew from the<br />
time we were together days, or years, <strong>in</strong> the house of the great capta<strong>in</strong> of the Jews, the<br />
leader, Daniel Jaffe, parnas <strong>and</strong> leader of the holy community of Berl<strong>in</strong>; I knew this man<br />
<strong>and</strong> [from] his conversation that he is a God-fearer…. In that time, we would study together<br />
these books [the Kuzari <strong>and</strong> Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed] <strong>and</strong> I heard<br />
from him f<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>terpretations of all the material, <strong>in</strong> hol<strong>in</strong>ess. 59<br />
Given Satanow’s penchant for self-promotion <strong>and</strong> plagiarism, it is possible that<br />
this approbation was forged <strong>in</strong> the 1790s. But <strong>in</strong> the period before battle l<strong>in</strong>es had<br />
fully hardened between ‘Orthodoxy’ <strong>and</strong> ‘Haskalah,’ it is not implausible that<br />
Teomim <strong>and</strong> Satanow had <strong>in</strong>deed studied the Kuzari <strong>and</strong> Guide together <strong>in</strong> the<br />
1770s. 60 In any case, we have reports of at least four books that were written by Jewish<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellectuals <strong>in</strong> the late 1760s <strong>and</strong> early 1770s under the auspices of the Itzig<br />
55 See YeruÌam ben Yissakhar Baer, publisher’s <strong>in</strong>troduction, <strong>in</strong> Kuzari (Vienna).<br />
56 On Behr, see Meyer Kayserl<strong>in</strong>g, ‘Isachar Falkensen Behr’, <strong>in</strong> his Der Dichter Ephraim Kuh (Berl<strong>in</strong>,<br />
1864), pp. 43–7.<br />
57 On Teomim (c. 1727–1792), see: EJ 15: 1011–2; Moritz Frankel, Kur ha-zahav shel mishpaÌat<br />
Frankel (New York, 1928), Hebrew section, p. 84; <strong>and</strong> Solomon Buber, Anshe shem (Cracow, 1895),<br />
pp. 95–7.<br />
58 Sefer No†ariqon (Bilgoraj, 1909/10), colophon.<br />
59 Kuzari (Berl<strong>in</strong>), page follow<strong>in</strong>g title page.<br />
60 There are three possibilities to consider: (1) that Teomim <strong>and</strong> Satanow did study together <strong>and</strong> that<br />
Teomim did write the approbation; (2) that Teomim <strong>and</strong> Satanow did study together, but that Satanow<br />
forged the approbation; <strong>and</strong> (3) that Teomim <strong>and</strong> Satanow did not study together <strong>and</strong> Satanow forged<br />
the approbation. (It would be absurd to enterta<strong>in</strong> the possibility that Teomim <strong>and</strong> Satanow did not study<br />
together <strong>and</strong> that nonetheless Teomim wrote an approbation say<strong>in</strong>g they had done so.) Given that<br />
Teomim <strong>and</strong> Satanow frequented the bet midrash <strong>in</strong> the same period <strong>and</strong> that the early 1770s were not<br />
an era of sharp traditionalist-maskilic polarization, it seems quite plausible that they did study these<br />
works together. The period to exam<strong>in</strong>e, then, is the 1780s (when Teomim supposedly wrote the approbation)<br />
<strong>and</strong> the 1790s (when Satanow published the work with this approbation). Here either (1) or (2)<br />
rema<strong>in</strong> plausible options requir<strong>in</strong>g more research.<br />
Adam Shear<br />
81
‘th<strong>in</strong>k tank’: a book of German poetry, a commentary on Jewish law, <strong>and</strong> two commentaries<br />
on the Kuzari. 61<br />
The recent sale of manuscripts from the library of the London Beth D<strong>in</strong>, many of<br />
them once owned by Daniel Itzig, offers a new look at this ‘room full of books’. A<br />
glance at the catalogue <strong>in</strong>dicates a collection that was rich not only <strong>in</strong> halakhah but<br />
also <strong>in</strong> kabbalah <strong>and</strong> to a lesser extent <strong>in</strong> philosophy. 62 It is quite likely that Itzig <strong>and</strong><br />
other wealthy Jews <strong>in</strong> mid-century Berl<strong>in</strong> owned copies of the Basel <strong>and</strong> the two<br />
Venice editions of the Kuzari <strong>and</strong> that it was <strong>in</strong> their libraries that early maskilim like<br />
Zamosc ga<strong>in</strong>ed access to the material needed to write his commentary. Indeed, the<br />
theme of discover<strong>in</strong>g books <strong>in</strong> these libraries is a trope of early maskilic writ<strong>in</strong>gs. 63<br />
Two aspects to this phenomenon of the use of private libraries should be mentioned.<br />
First, the contents of the libraries were purposefully collected by their elite<br />
<strong>and</strong> well-educated owners, who were themselves <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im. When deal<strong>in</strong>g with<br />
the reception of the Kuzari <strong>in</strong> traditional <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i culture, we should be wary of<br />
what David Hackett Fischer calls the fallacy of the ‘pseudo-fact’. One version of this<br />
fallacy occurs ‘whenever a historian quotes an allegation by a member of group A, to<br />
the effect that A is not sufficiently <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> B’. 64 These private libraries were not<br />
the monasteries of the fourteenth <strong>and</strong> fifteenth centuries, which conta<strong>in</strong>ed material<br />
that had <strong>in</strong>deed been lost to the cultural imag<strong>in</strong>ation. The Kuzari <strong>and</strong> similar works<br />
were never entirely absent from the ‘virtual’ <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i library.<br />
Second, what was <strong>in</strong> the physical libraries was not an unmediated medieval<br />
Sephardi corpus but rather a mixture of medieval <strong>and</strong> early modern manuscripts <strong>and</strong><br />
early modern Italian, <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i, Ottoman, <strong>and</strong> Christian pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>gs, commentaries,<br />
<strong>and</strong> even translations. <strong>Sepharad</strong> gets to <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> – <strong>in</strong> the case of the Kuzari – via<br />
Venice, Mantua, <strong>and</strong> Basel.<br />
Certa<strong>in</strong>ly, what Zamosc <strong>and</strong> Satanow did with the Kuzari appears to have been<br />
unprecedented <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i culture: that is, writ<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>in</strong>e-by-l<strong>in</strong>e commentaries, mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
use of the work’s ‘content’ while also focus<strong>in</strong>g on its ‘thesis’; teach<strong>in</strong>g the work<br />
to students like Mendelssohn; <strong>and</strong> study<strong>in</strong>g the work <strong>in</strong> Ìevruta with Teomim. Until<br />
the works were pr<strong>in</strong>ted, however, it is important to note that we are still <strong>in</strong><br />
Bacharach’s world – a book for the elite. Thus, the dissem<strong>in</strong>ation of Satanow’s <strong>and</strong><br />
Zamosc’s works via the pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g press marks a crucial moment <strong>in</strong> this late eighteenthcentury<br />
transition from ‘Baroque’ to ‘Haskalah’ reception of the Kuzari <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>.<br />
After the 1790s, the Wetzlar program had a chance.<br />
61 I hope <strong>in</strong> a future project to trace other works produced under Itzig’s patronage, <strong>in</strong> order to more fully<br />
explore this <strong>in</strong>stitutional context of the early Haskalah.<br />
62 See: Christie’s New York, Important Hebrew Manuscripts <strong>and</strong> Pr<strong>in</strong>ted Books from the Library of the<br />
London Beth D<strong>in</strong> (New York, 1999); Kestenbaum <strong>and</strong> Company, Catalogue of Important Hebrew<br />
Pr<strong>in</strong>ted Books <strong>and</strong> Manuscripts from the Library of the London Beth D<strong>in</strong>, the Third Portion (New York,<br />
2001). I am grateful to Emile Schrijver for provid<strong>in</strong>g me with a copy of the Christie’s catalog.<br />
63 See, for example, Barukh of Shklov’s <strong>in</strong>troduction to his edition of Isaac Israeli’s Yesod ¨olam (Berl<strong>in</strong>,<br />
1777).<br />
64 David Hackett Fischer, Historians’ Fallacies (New York, 1970), p. 45. Fischer’s example here is the<br />
historian of early America who quotes Thomas Jefferson’s compla<strong>in</strong>t ‘that eighteenth–century<br />
Virg<strong>in</strong>ians were not much <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> music’ as evidence for a lack of <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> music among<br />
Jefferson’s contemporaries. Jefferson’s compla<strong>in</strong>t, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Fischer, demonstrates that at least one<br />
Virg<strong>in</strong>ian was <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>and</strong> begs the question of how many other Virg<strong>in</strong>ians shared Jefferson’s <strong>in</strong>terest.<br />
82 Judah Halevi's Sefer ha-Kuzari <strong>in</strong> Early Modern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> the Early Haskalah
The reception of the Kuzari <strong>and</strong> Halevi <strong>in</strong> modern Jewish culture required the<br />
maskilic efforts of the late eighteenth century. But these maskilic efforts depended on<br />
what I have called the work’s ‘availability’ <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i culture of mid-eighteenth-century<br />
Berl<strong>in</strong>: the pre-exist<strong>in</strong>g image of the work, the pre-exist<strong>in</strong>g categories<br />
for consider<strong>in</strong>g the work, <strong>and</strong> the pre-exist<strong>in</strong>g physical copies of the work. This narrative<br />
certa<strong>in</strong>ly does not suggest cont<strong>in</strong>uity or deny the <strong>in</strong>novations of the Haskalah<br />
as a moderniz<strong>in</strong>g movement. Trac<strong>in</strong>g the transmission of one particular text does,<br />
however, enable us to ga<strong>in</strong> a better underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the discont<strong>in</strong>uity <strong>and</strong> the <strong>in</strong>novation.<br />
Adam Shear<br />
83
84 Judah Halevi's Sefer ha-Kuzari <strong>in</strong> Early Modern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> the Early Haskalah
Steven Harvey<br />
The Introductions of Early Enlightenment Th<strong>in</strong>kers as Harb<strong>in</strong>gers of the<br />
Renewed Interest <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Medieval</strong> Jewish Philosophers<br />
Prologue<br />
From the moment I heard of the colloquium, ‘<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>’, I was attracted<br />
by certa<strong>in</strong> of its underly<strong>in</strong>g themes: To what extent were the authors of the early<br />
Jewish Enlightenment familiar with the medieval Jewish philosophers? To what extent<br />
did they cite them? How did they underst<strong>and</strong> them? In the present paper I will<br />
address these questions with regard to several th<strong>in</strong>kers, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Israel Zamosc,<br />
Naphtali Hirsch Goslar, Judah Loeb Margolioth, <strong>and</strong> P<strong>in</strong>chas Elias Hurwitz, 1 on the<br />
basis of their <strong>in</strong>troductions to their own works. My title is not <strong>in</strong>tended to express an<br />
op<strong>in</strong>ion as to whether these early maskilim should be considered harb<strong>in</strong>gers of a new<br />
era. It is <strong>in</strong>tended to suggest that their <strong>in</strong>troductions may be viewed as heralds of a<br />
renewed <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the medieval Jewish philosophers. My focus on the <strong>in</strong>troductions<br />
is premised on the belief that these th<strong>in</strong>kers attached as much importance to their<br />
<strong>in</strong>troductions as the medieval Jewish philosophers did to theirs. As will soon be seen,<br />
this belief is not unfounded.<br />
My title, of course, also implies that there was a period <strong>in</strong> which the works of the<br />
medieval Jewish philosophers were not so popular. This is by no means self-evident<br />
<strong>and</strong> requires a bit of explanation. I should po<strong>in</strong>t out that, follow<strong>in</strong>g Wolfson, my tendency<br />
is to end medieval Jewish philosophy <strong>in</strong> the mid-seventeenth century with a<br />
certa<strong>in</strong> Dutch philosopher <strong>and</strong> lens gr<strong>in</strong>der, particularly well known <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam.<br />
By this reckon<strong>in</strong>g, the period between the end of medieval Jewish philosophy <strong>and</strong><br />
that of the th<strong>in</strong>kers considered here is only 100 to 150 years. For Wolfson, this philosopher<br />
Benedictus was ‘the first of the moderns’, while his alter ego Baruch was<br />
‘the last of the mediaevals. … [W]e cannot get the full mean<strong>in</strong>g of what Benedictus<br />
says unless we know what has passed through the m<strong>in</strong>d of Baruch’. 2 Thanks <strong>in</strong> great<br />
1 The spell<strong>in</strong>g ‘P<strong>in</strong>chas Elias’ is Hurwitz’s own. See his signature <strong>in</strong> the revised edition of Sefer ha-<br />
Berit (Brünn, 1807), p. 7a. The author’s signature does not appear <strong>in</strong> every copy of this pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g. It is,<br />
e.g., found <strong>in</strong> the copy at Bar-Ilan University, but not <strong>in</strong> that <strong>in</strong> the Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana, Amsterdam.<br />
On the reason for the author’s signature here, see ibid., p. 6a.<br />
2 Harry Austryn Wolfson, The Philosophy of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass, 1934), vol. 1, preface,<br />
p. vii.<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
Steven Royal Netherl<strong>and</strong>s Harvey Academy of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences, 2007<br />
85
measure to Wolfson’s gr<strong>and</strong> study, The Philosophy of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, we have a pretty good<br />
idea of how steeped Sp<strong>in</strong>oza was <strong>in</strong> the medieval Jewish philosophers, how well he<br />
understood them, <strong>and</strong> how much they <strong>in</strong>fluenced him. For Wolfson, Sp<strong>in</strong>oza was the<br />
last of the medievals because ‘it was [Sp<strong>in</strong>oza] who for the first time launched a<br />
gr<strong>and</strong> assault upon [medieval religious philosophy]… It was [Sp<strong>in</strong>oza] who pulled it<br />
down’. 3 Wolfson was not ignorant of history when he ended medieval philosophy <strong>in</strong><br />
the early seventeenth century, but gave priority to other criteria. Not all scholars<br />
agree with his periodization. Husik <strong>and</strong> Sirat conclude their histories of medieval<br />
Jewish philosophy <strong>in</strong> the fifteenth century, although both mention Joseph Solomon<br />
Delmedigo (1591–1655), the well-known scholar <strong>and</strong> scientist of the generation prior<br />
to Sp<strong>in</strong>oza. 4 Tirosh-Rothschild <strong>in</strong> the Routledge History of Jewish Philosophy considers<br />
the period from 1400 to 1600 – that is, the period just before Delmedigo (who<br />
is conspicuously absent from the History) – to be ‘the transition from the medieval to<br />
the modern epoch <strong>in</strong> the history of Jewish philosophy’. 5 She expla<strong>in</strong>s that ‘with the<br />
renewed affirmation of the myth of Judaism, as elaborated by Kabbalah, medieval<br />
philosophy reached its <strong>in</strong>evitable demise. The synthesis of religion <strong>and</strong> philosophy –<br />
the hallmark of the medieval outlook – was dissolved by the end of the sixteenth century’.<br />
6 Accord<strong>in</strong>g to this underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g, medieval philosophy lasted till the end of the<br />
sixteenth century. Thus Husik, Sirat, <strong>and</strong> Tirosh-Rothschild, while formally del<strong>in</strong>eat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
periodizations of medieval Jewish philosophy that differ from that of Wolfson<br />
<strong>and</strong> accord more with general periodizations of history, <strong>in</strong> actuality all agree that<br />
medieval Jewish philosophy cont<strong>in</strong>ued until the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of the seventeenth century.<br />
It is <strong>in</strong>disputable that someth<strong>in</strong>g happened to the enterprise of Jewish philosophy<br />
with Sp<strong>in</strong>oza. For Wolfson, he is the <strong>in</strong>augurator of the philosophy that tries to free<br />
itself from Scripture. Tirosh-Rothschild expla<strong>in</strong>s that <strong>in</strong>stead of harmoniz<strong>in</strong>g religion<br />
<strong>and</strong> philosophy, ‘Jewish th<strong>in</strong>kers who cultivated philosophy’ <strong>in</strong> the seventeenth <strong>and</strong><br />
eighteenth centuries can be divided <strong>in</strong>to two groups: those like Sp<strong>in</strong>oza who affirmed<br />
the primacy of reason <strong>and</strong> challenged the validity of the Jewish myth, view<strong>in</strong>g it as a<br />
construct of the human imag<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>and</strong> not as a div<strong>in</strong>ely revealed truth; <strong>and</strong> those<br />
who were faithful to the myth <strong>and</strong> consequently sought to separate philosophy <strong>and</strong><br />
religion. 7 If this evaluation is correct, th<strong>in</strong>kers after Sp<strong>in</strong>oza would have had no use<br />
for the medieval philosophers <strong>and</strong> their attempts to harmonize faith <strong>and</strong> reason.<br />
In fact, <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the medieval Jewish philosophers decl<strong>in</strong>ed rapidly <strong>in</strong> the decades<br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g Sp<strong>in</strong>oza. The clearest evidence of this is the dearth of pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong><br />
3 Harry Austryn Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy <strong>in</strong> Judaism, Christianity, <strong>and</strong><br />
Islam, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass, 1947), vol. 2, pp. 457–60.<br />
4 Isaac Husik, A History of Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy (Philadelphia, 1941; repr<strong>in</strong>t, M<strong>in</strong>eola, New<br />
York, 2002), p. 431; Colette Sirat, A History of Jewish Philosophy <strong>in</strong> the Middle Ages (Cambridge,<br />
1985), p. 411. Georges Vajda mentions some later th<strong>in</strong>kers <strong>in</strong> his history of medieval Jewish thought ‘<strong>in</strong><br />
order to complete this panorama of the Jewish philosophical-theological speculation of the Middle<br />
Ages’ (Introduction à la pensée juive du moyen âge [Paris, 1947], p. 191). Vajda also mentions Joseph<br />
Solomon Delmedigo (p. 193, n. 1), but adds that he does not present a ‘coherent philosophic system’.<br />
5 Îava Tirosh-Rothschild, ‘Jewish Philosophy on the Eve of Modernity’, <strong>in</strong> History of Jewish Philosophy,<br />
ed. Daniel H. Frank <strong>and</strong> Oliver Leaman (London, 1997), p. 499.<br />
6 Ibid., p. 549.<br />
7 Ibid.<br />
86 The Introductions of Early Enlightenment Th<strong>in</strong>kers
Hebrew of the classics of medieval Jewish thought dur<strong>in</strong>g this period. Consider the<br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g examples: Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed was published for the first<br />
time <strong>in</strong> Italy <strong>in</strong> 1473/4, followed by editions <strong>in</strong> 1551 <strong>and</strong> 1553. 8 After that, however,<br />
the masterpiece of Jewish philosophy was not pr<strong>in</strong>ted aga<strong>in</strong> until 1742 <strong>in</strong> Jessnitz, an<br />
occasion that Altmann has called ‘a literary event of the first order, herald<strong>in</strong>g as it did<br />
a thaw <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>tellectual climate of German Jewry’. 9 Interest <strong>in</strong> the work <strong>in</strong>creased,<br />
<strong>and</strong> it was next pr<strong>in</strong>ted some fifty years later by Isaac Satanow <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> another<br />
five times over the next fifty years. Judah Halevi’s Kuzari was published three times<br />
between 1506 <strong>and</strong> 1594, <strong>and</strong> aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> 1660 by Buxtorf, along with his Lat<strong>in</strong> translation,<br />
but would not be published aga<strong>in</strong> for 135 years until Satanow’s 1795 Berl<strong>in</strong> edition<br />
<strong>and</strong> the 1796 Vienna edition with the commentary of Israel ben Moses of<br />
Zamosc. The Kuzari also returned to favour <strong>and</strong> was published at least six times over<br />
the next half century. Similarly, the popular thirteenth-century RuaÌ Ìen was published<br />
five times between 1544 <strong>and</strong> 1620, but not aga<strong>in</strong> until the 1744 Jessnitz edition<br />
with a commentary by Zamosc. Over the next century <strong>and</strong> a quarter, it was repr<strong>in</strong>ted<br />
at least five times. My f<strong>in</strong>al illustration of the conspicuous scarcity dur<strong>in</strong>g these years<br />
of editions of the classics of medieval Jewish philosophy is Joseph Albo’s Sefer ha-<br />
¨Iqqarim, perhaps the most often pr<strong>in</strong>ted work of the genre <strong>in</strong> the first centuries of<br />
Hebrew pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g. Between 1485 <strong>and</strong> 1618, Albo’s book was pr<strong>in</strong>ted no less than<br />
eight times. It was not pr<strong>in</strong>ted aga<strong>in</strong> until 1772, <strong>and</strong> aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> Frankfurt <strong>in</strong> 1788. 10<br />
These many examples do not mean that medieval philosophic works were not accessible<br />
<strong>and</strong> were not read from roughly the mid-seventeenth century to the mideighteenth<br />
century. They do, however, suggest that there was not much <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong><br />
them. This was <strong>in</strong> part to be expected, given the chang<strong>in</strong>g attitude toward the relationship<br />
between faith <strong>and</strong> reason, as outl<strong>in</strong>ed by Tirosh-Rothschild. To a great extent,<br />
it was due to the new-found popularity of Kabbalah. Altmann expla<strong>in</strong>s that a<br />
‘hostile attitude toward philosophy <strong>and</strong> secular learn<strong>in</strong>g had set <strong>in</strong> toward the end of<br />
the sixteenth century <strong>and</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>ued <strong>in</strong>to the eighteenth, due chiefly to the <strong>in</strong>fluence<br />
of Kabbala’. 11 Another cause was surely the pronouncements aga<strong>in</strong>st the study of<br />
philosophy by prom<strong>in</strong>ent seventeenth-century rabbis, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>fluential<br />
talmudist, Rabbi Yair Îayyim Bacharach (1638–1702). Bacharach himself was quite<br />
familiar with the classics of medieval Jewish philosophy. His attitude toward phi-<br />
8 The editio pr<strong>in</strong>ceps of the Guide is generally thought to have been pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> Rome around 1480. Adri<br />
K. Offenberg now shows that, as a matter of bibliographical methodology, Rome cannot be established<br />
as the place of pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Offenberg, the edition comes from an unidentified Italian town<br />
<strong>and</strong> can be dated to 1473–4. See his Catalogue of Books Pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> the XVth Century now <strong>in</strong> the British<br />
Museum [British Library], part 13 (’t Goy-Houten, 2004), pp. xlv <strong>and</strong> 10–11. I have not <strong>in</strong>cluded a 1497<br />
Lisbon edition, mentioned <strong>in</strong> Friedberg (below, n. 10) <strong>and</strong> other list<strong>in</strong>gs. There is little evidence for this<br />
edition, <strong>and</strong> no evidence for Hebrew pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Lisbon <strong>in</strong> 1497. It is not <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> Jacob I. Dienstag,<br />
‘Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed: A Bibliography of Editions <strong>and</strong> Translations', <strong>in</strong> Occident <strong>and</strong><br />
Orient: A Tribute to the Memory of Alex<strong>and</strong>er Scheiber, ed. Robert Dán (Budapest, 1988), esp. pp. 96–8.<br />
9 Alex<strong>and</strong>er Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study (Philadelphia, 1973), p. 10.<br />
10 Information on the pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g history of these books has been garnered primarily from Îayyim<br />
Friedberg, Bet eked sepharim: Bibliographical Lexicon, 2 nd ed. (4 vols.; Tel-Aviv, 1951–56), <strong>and</strong> the<br />
website of the ‘Israel Union List’ of books. See also Yeshayahu V<strong>in</strong>ograd, OÒar ha-sefer ha-¨ivri (2<br />
vols.; Jerusalem, 1993–95).<br />
11 Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn, p. 21.<br />
Steven Harvey<br />
87
losophy has been discussed recently by Isadore Twersky, who portrays him as ‘a<br />
skillful <strong>and</strong> persuasive protagonist of pure Talmudism, [whose] ostensible aim is to<br />
curtail extra-Talmudic study <strong>and</strong> foster de facto concentration on Talmud’. 12 The<br />
best-known statement of Bacharach’s attitude reads as follows:<br />
Behold <strong>in</strong> the former generations, accord<strong>in</strong>g to what I have heard tell, people used to<br />
study <strong>in</strong> their youth [Arama’s] ¨Aqedat [YiÒÌaq], [Albo’s Sefer] ha-¨Iqqarim, Halevi’s<br />
Kuzari, <strong>and</strong> the like, for their entire purpose was to atta<strong>in</strong> perfection of their soul, which<br />
is the belief <strong>in</strong> the pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of religion. Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, they studied the books that speak<br />
about <strong>and</strong> discuss this. But what the present generations, who shun these studies, do is<br />
preferable, for it is far better for us <strong>and</strong> our children to believe what we ought to believe<br />
without <strong>in</strong>vestigation. 13<br />
Twersky expla<strong>in</strong>s that, for Bacharach, although past generations may have studied<br />
philosophic works to atta<strong>in</strong> perfection of the soul, this goal could be achieved<br />
through the study of halakhah, without the difficulties <strong>and</strong> dangers of philosophic<br />
speculation. ‘Theological pr<strong>in</strong>ciples … may be appropriated on faith’. Twersky sums<br />
up, ‘with one stroke of the pen, he disposed of philosophy’. 14 The study of Jewish<br />
philosophic literature, even the most moderate variety of Halevi <strong>and</strong> Arama, was discouraged<br />
by Bacharach as quite unnecessary. Blunter <strong>and</strong> more characteristic of the<br />
negative attitude toward philosophy is the reply by the lead<strong>in</strong>g Polish talmudist,<br />
Rabbi Joel Sirkes (1561–1640), to a query concern<strong>in</strong>g a doctor <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam who<br />
belittled Aggadah <strong>and</strong> Kabbalah <strong>and</strong> claimed that philosophy was the only discipl<strong>in</strong>e<br />
worth study<strong>in</strong>g. In his responsum Sirkes wrote that Kabbalah is ‘the source of the<br />
Torah <strong>and</strong> its pr<strong>in</strong>ciple’, whereas philosophy is ‘the essence of heresy <strong>and</strong> the foreign<br />
woman about whom Solomon cautioned’. 15 These charges aga<strong>in</strong>st philosophic speculation<br />
were not new, but now no one seemed <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> com<strong>in</strong>g to its defence. For<br />
whatever reason, the classics of medieval Jewish philosophy would, for a while, be<br />
largely ignored.<br />
Introductions<br />
My claim that the <strong>in</strong>troductions of the eighteenth-century th<strong>in</strong>kers under discussion<br />
may be viewed as harb<strong>in</strong>gers of a renewed <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the medieval Jewish philosophers<br />
is, as I have stated, premised on the belief that these th<strong>in</strong>kers attached as much impor-<br />
12 Isadore Twersky, ‘Law <strong>and</strong> Spirituality <strong>in</strong> the Seventeenth Century: A Case Study <strong>in</strong> R. Yair Îayyim<br />
Bacharach’, <strong>in</strong> Jewish Thought <strong>in</strong> the Seventeenth Century, ed. Isadore Twersky <strong>and</strong> Bernard Septimus<br />
(Cambridge, Mass., 1987), p. 456.<br />
13 Yair Îayyim Bacharach, Îavvot Yaˆir (Lemberg, 1896), n. 124, p. 63d. There is no doubt that this<br />
statement dissuaded many from read<strong>in</strong>g these books ‘<strong>and</strong> the like’. Yet as early as 1749 we see a way to<br />
circumvent it from a somewhat unexpected source. See Morris M. Faierste<strong>in</strong>, The Libes Briv of Isaac<br />
Wetzlar (Atlanta, 1996), p. 104. On Wetzlar’s positive attitude toward medieval Jewish philosophy, see,<br />
e.g., pp. 43–4 <strong>and</strong> 105–8, <strong>and</strong> Faierste<strong>in</strong>’s remarks on pp. 5 <strong>and</strong> 27–8.<br />
14 Twersky, ‘Law <strong>and</strong> Spirituality’, p. 461. See also idem, ‘Talmudists, Philosophers, Kabbalists: The<br />
Quest for Spirituality <strong>in</strong> the Sixteenth Century’, <strong>in</strong> Jewish Thought <strong>in</strong> the Sixteenth Century, ed. Bernard<br />
Dov Cooperman (Cambridge, Mass., 1983), p. 434.<br />
15 Joel Sirkes, Bayit Ìadash (Ostrog, 1834), n. 5, p. 2a. Cf. Louis Jacobs, Theology <strong>in</strong> the Responsa<br />
(London, 1975), pp. 151–2.<br />
88 The Introductions of Early Enlightenment Th<strong>in</strong>kers
tance to their <strong>in</strong>troductions as the medieval Jewish philosophers did to theirs. This belief<br />
is not completely true. One of the first of the eighteenth-century th<strong>in</strong>kers to take an<br />
<strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the Jewish philosophers was Israel ben Moses of Zamosc (ca. 1700–1772),<br />
whom I have already had occasion to mention. Zamosc wrote commentaries on BaÌya<br />
Ibn Paquda’s Duties of the Heart, the Kuzari, <strong>and</strong> the RuaÌ Ìen, <strong>and</strong> each beg<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong><br />
most unmedieval fashion, without so much as a word of <strong>in</strong>troduction. In this respect,<br />
however, Zamosc’s commentaries – <strong>and</strong> other writ<strong>in</strong>gs, such as Arubbot ha-shamayim<br />
<strong>and</strong> Nezed ha-dema¨ – were not typical of the works of the th<strong>in</strong>kers under discussion.<br />
In fact, Zamosc himself prefaced his controversial book, NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel, first published<br />
<strong>in</strong> Frankfurt an der Oder <strong>in</strong> 1741, with a lengthy <strong>in</strong>troduction that shows his awareness<br />
of an <strong>in</strong>troduction tradition. He writes at the outset that<br />
it is proper for anyone who writes a book on whatever <strong>in</strong>quiry or subject to call attention<br />
<strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>troduction of the book to the methods of that <strong>in</strong>quiry or subject, <strong>and</strong> to the modes<br />
of its pr<strong>in</strong>ciples, the customary manner of <strong>in</strong>struction <strong>and</strong> its arguments, <strong>and</strong> the scope of<br />
its themes. 16<br />
Zamosc goes on to expla<strong>in</strong> that s<strong>in</strong>ce his book is an <strong>in</strong>quiry <strong>in</strong>to ‘our holy Torah’ <strong>and</strong><br />
these matters are well known with regard to this subject, he need not expla<strong>in</strong> them <strong>in</strong><br />
his <strong>in</strong>troduction. Nonetheless, there are other matters, not addressed by his predecessors,<br />
that he states may be discussed with great benefit <strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>troduction. I will<br />
briefly touch on some of these matters <strong>in</strong> the next section.<br />
A different perspective on the purposes of the <strong>in</strong>troduction is provided by Rabbi<br />
Judah Loeb Margolioth (1747–1811), who was born six years after the publication of<br />
NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel. Margolioth beg<strong>in</strong>s his little-known Iggeret ha-meliÒah u-mishpa†<br />
(Nowy Dwor, 1796) with a short <strong>in</strong>troduction <strong>in</strong> which he expla<strong>in</strong>s the ma<strong>in</strong> purposes<br />
of the <strong>in</strong>troduction.<br />
The custom of authors of books is to write <strong>in</strong>troductions at the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of their compositions.<br />
The utility of the <strong>in</strong>troduction falls with<strong>in</strong> three head<strong>in</strong>gs: notification [hoda¨ah],<br />
rhetorical defence [meliÒah], <strong>and</strong> attraction [Ìibbuv]. Notification makes known to the<br />
reader the matter <strong>and</strong> subject that will be discussed. Rhetorical defence is written aga<strong>in</strong>st<br />
the deriders to defend the work – so that they will not open their mouth to say [cf. Ezek.<br />
16:63, Exod. Rabbah 41:3, et al.] what profit can a man [cf. Job 22:2] have <strong>in</strong> new<br />
books? Are not the old ones sufficient? – <strong>and</strong> to make known the methods of the book,<br />
that it has utility, <strong>and</strong> that the likes of it were not composed <strong>in</strong> former days, <strong>and</strong> … to<br />
raise <strong>in</strong> advance <strong>and</strong> answer questions that others might ask of us. … Attraction is that<br />
the book will be liked by the reader. It expla<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> detail the boughs <strong>and</strong> branches that<br />
extend from the book that arouse his heart to read it. 17<br />
For Margolioth, each of these three head<strong>in</strong>gs makes known someth<strong>in</strong>g about the book<br />
that readers ought to know at the outset, whether it is the book’s subject, its utility, or<br />
its attraction. Yet while these th<strong>in</strong>gs ought to be made known, Margolioth denies that<br />
<strong>in</strong>troductions are always necessary. For example, he says that the present book beg<strong>in</strong>s<br />
by present<strong>in</strong>g these matters, so there is no need to bother with an <strong>in</strong>troduction.<br />
16 Israel ben Moses of Zamosc, NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel (Frankfurt an der Oder, 1741), p. 1ab.<br />
17 Iggeret ha-meliÒah u-mishpa† (Nowy Dwor, 1796), 1b.<br />
Steven Harvey<br />
89
Some may say that even so the <strong>in</strong>troduction is still useful, for sometimes it is also<br />
used for the author humbly to deny his worth<strong>in</strong>ess to write the book <strong>and</strong> to expla<strong>in</strong><br />
that he did so only because certa<strong>in</strong> circumstances required him to do so. For<br />
Margolioth, this is just a waste of words; if the author really is unworthy, his apologies<br />
will not help. Moreover, as the sage has said – <strong>and</strong> here the reference likely derives<br />
from Maimonides, but <strong>in</strong> a different context – ‘Accept the truth from whoever<br />
says it’. 18<br />
On the basis of this <strong>in</strong>troduction one might th<strong>in</strong>k that Margolioth, like Zamosc, did<br />
not write many <strong>in</strong>troductions. In fact, as we shall see <strong>in</strong> the next section, he wrote<br />
several, lengthy <strong>and</strong> reveal<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>troductions.<br />
While these <strong>in</strong>troductions by Zamosc <strong>and</strong> Margolioth suggest that they had given<br />
thought to the importance <strong>and</strong> purpose of <strong>in</strong>troductions, it is hard to imag<strong>in</strong>e anyone<br />
of the period who valued the <strong>in</strong>troduction more than P<strong>in</strong>chas Elias Hurwitz (1765–<br />
1821), author of Sefer ha-Berit – a fasc<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g work, published <strong>in</strong> 1797, endowed<br />
with a foreword, a long preface, <strong>and</strong> an <strong>in</strong>troduction, <strong>and</strong> repr<strong>in</strong>ted ten years later <strong>in</strong> a<br />
second edition with a second long preface. Hurwitz’s one-page foreword consists primarily<br />
of a long list of topics covered, to which he adds that there is not a treatise, let<br />
alone chapter, of his book ‘that does not conta<strong>in</strong> new <strong>and</strong> wonderful <strong>in</strong>formation, all<br />
<strong>in</strong> easy language so that even one who is not an <strong>in</strong>itiate <strong>and</strong> knows only Scripture <strong>and</strong><br />
Mishnah will underst<strong>and</strong> it’. A purchaser of his book, we are told, is like someone<br />
who buys many books by secular scientists <strong>and</strong> Jewish scholars. ‘He acquires a<br />
teacher who will <strong>in</strong>struct <strong>and</strong> teach him all the sciences <strong>and</strong> all knowledge’. Hurwitz<br />
concludes his foreword with a pithy comment on the importance of <strong>in</strong>troductions:<br />
‘Just as it is not proper to enter one’s friend’s house suddenly without first knock<strong>in</strong>g<br />
on the door’, he writes, allud<strong>in</strong>g to a talmudic dictum, ‘so it is not proper to read any<br />
book, <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> particular this book, without first read<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>troduction’. 19<br />
Although none of the eighteenth-century <strong>in</strong>troductions discussed below formally<br />
adopt the accessus ad auctores or Alex<strong>and</strong>rian prooemium tradition of the medieval<br />
falâsifah <strong>and</strong> the late medieval Jewish philosophers who followed them, such as<br />
Samuel Ibn Tibbon <strong>and</strong> Gersonides, Hurwitz’s first preface to Sefer ha-Berit <strong>in</strong> fact<br />
<strong>in</strong>cludes most of the eight elements of that tradition. He treats the aim of his book, its<br />
utility, its divisions, its rank, its method of <strong>in</strong>struction, the mean<strong>in</strong>g of its title, <strong>and</strong> its<br />
author – although he does not disclose his name. Hurwitz also announces the <strong>in</strong>tended<br />
readership of his book <strong>and</strong> emphasizes its nature <strong>and</strong> order. The first preface,<br />
<strong>in</strong> short, provides <strong>in</strong>structions for read<strong>in</strong>g the book. The second preface, written ten<br />
years later, is less helpful <strong>in</strong> this connection. In it the author expresses his gratitude to<br />
God for the success of his book, whose two thous<strong>and</strong> copies have been received<br />
warmly throughout Europe <strong>and</strong> even <strong>in</strong> North Africa <strong>and</strong> the Middle East. The book<br />
has been out of pr<strong>in</strong>t for some years <strong>and</strong> the author has taken the occasion of the new<br />
18 Ibid. See Maimonides, Eight Chapters, <strong>in</strong>troduction. The exact quote, referr<strong>in</strong>g no doubt to<br />
Maimonides, is found <strong>in</strong> Simeon Duran, Magen avot (Livorno, 1762), on M Avot 4 (‘Elisha ben Abuyah<br />
said’), p. 66a. See also Profiat Duran’s grammar book, Ma¨aseh efod (Vienna, 1865), p. 25.<br />
19 Sefer ha-Berit (Jerusalem, 1990), p. i. All references to Sefer ha-Berit are to this edition, rather than<br />
the 1807 pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g referred to <strong>in</strong> n. 1, above. The teach<strong>in</strong>g that one should not enter a friend’s house suddenly<br />
is part of Rabbi Aqiba’s advice to his son (B PesaÌim 112a).<br />
90 The Introductions of Early Enlightenment Th<strong>in</strong>kers
edition to make some 350 corrections <strong>and</strong> additions. He also expresses his anger at an<br />
illegal pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g of the first part of his book <strong>and</strong> gives explicit directions for future<br />
repr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>gs after the copyright expires <strong>in</strong> 1819.<br />
For Hurwitz, an <strong>in</strong>troduction (haqdamah) to someth<strong>in</strong>g is exceed<strong>in</strong>gly important:<br />
it provides <strong>in</strong>formation necessary for underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g that someth<strong>in</strong>g. His book, Sefer<br />
ha-Berit, is <strong>in</strong>tended as an <strong>in</strong>troduction to Îayyim Vital’s Sha¨arei qedushah; the<br />
first part of Sefer ha-Berit is an <strong>in</strong>troduction to the second part; the last chapter of<br />
each of its treatises is as an <strong>in</strong>troduction to the follow<strong>in</strong>g treatise; <strong>and</strong> the last l<strong>in</strong>es of<br />
each chapter are as an <strong>in</strong>troduction to the follow<strong>in</strong>g chapter. Hurwitz thus warns us<br />
that his <strong>in</strong>troduction (petiÌah) to Sefer ha-Berit must be read at the outset, for it conta<strong>in</strong>s<br />
‘<strong>in</strong>formation, suggestions, <strong>and</strong> premises that are required for underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g the<br />
book’. 20 Although the first preface of Sefer ha-Berit functions more as a medieval <strong>in</strong>troduction<br />
than his <strong>in</strong>troduction does, we will shortly see how the two po<strong>in</strong>t to a renewed<br />
<strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the medieval Jewish philosophers.<br />
The Introductions as Harb<strong>in</strong>gers<br />
I have suggested that the eighteenth-century authors we are consider<strong>in</strong>g appreciated<br />
the importance of the <strong>in</strong>troduction to their books. I have also stated that the classic<br />
texts of medieval Jewish philosophy were relatively ignored from the second half of<br />
the seventeenth century through most of the first half of the eighteenth century. Now<br />
I shall exam<strong>in</strong>e some of these <strong>in</strong>troductions to see <strong>in</strong> what sense they were harb<strong>in</strong>gers<br />
of a renewed <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> medieval Jewish philosophy. I will proceed chronologically,<br />
from Zamosc to Hurwitz, although I will limit my remarks about both these th<strong>in</strong>kers<br />
as they are discussed at length <strong>in</strong> other papers <strong>in</strong> the present volume.<br />
Israel Zamosc<br />
Israel Zamosc’s purpose <strong>in</strong> his <strong>in</strong>troduction to NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel was to persuade readers<br />
of the importance of scientific knowledge for underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g the Talmud <strong>and</strong> the<br />
teach<strong>in</strong>gs of the rabbis. 21 Zamosc divides the Torah <strong>in</strong>to two parts, one practical <strong>and</strong><br />
one theoretical. The practical part concerns the performance of the comm<strong>and</strong>ments.<br />
The theoretical part is itself divided <strong>in</strong>to two parts: that which exists <strong>in</strong> its own right<br />
<strong>and</strong> that whose existence is only for the sake of action. That which exists <strong>in</strong> its own<br />
right, apart from any deeds, is the study of ma¨aseh bereshit <strong>and</strong> ma¨aseh merkavah<br />
(the Account of the Beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> the Account of the Chariot), which Maimonides,<br />
Zamosc notes, identified with natural science <strong>and</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e science, respectively. He<br />
adds that, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Maimonides, there is ‘great utility <strong>in</strong> their study’. He refers<br />
the reader to Maimonides’ discussions of these topics <strong>in</strong> the Commentary on the<br />
Mishnah <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> the Mishneh Torah, add<strong>in</strong>g that his task <strong>in</strong> the present book is not to<br />
expla<strong>in</strong> these topics. 22 Interest<strong>in</strong>gly, he does not refer to Maimonides’ discussions of<br />
20 Sefer ha-Berit, pp. 14–5; see also pp. 5–6 <strong>and</strong> 31.<br />
21 But this was not his only purpose <strong>in</strong> NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel. See Jay M. Harris, How Do We Know This?<br />
(Albany, 1995), pp. 138–41.<br />
22 Zamosc, NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel, p. 1ab–ba.<br />
Steven Harvey<br />
91
ma¨aseh bereshit <strong>and</strong> ma¨aseh merkavah <strong>in</strong> the Guide. In fact, although Maimonides<br />
is the author mentioned most often <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>troduction, with citations from the Commentary<br />
on the Mishnah (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the Eight Chapters <strong>and</strong> the commentary on Avot),<br />
the Book of the Comm<strong>and</strong>ments, <strong>and</strong> the Mishneh Torah, there is only one quotation<br />
from the Guide. 23 This contrasts with the other <strong>in</strong>troductions we will be exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g,<br />
all of which cite the Guide repeatedly. Indeed, throughout Zamosc’s lengthy <strong>in</strong>troduction,<br />
there is no mention by name of any other work of medieval Jewish philosophy.<br />
While such omissions may to a great extent be expla<strong>in</strong>ed by Zamosc’s <strong>in</strong>tentions<br />
<strong>in</strong> this work, they also likely reflect the status of Jewish rationalism <strong>in</strong> general<br />
<strong>and</strong> of Maimonides’ Guide <strong>in</strong> particular at that time, a year before the 1742 republication<br />
of the Guide <strong>in</strong> Jessnitz.<br />
As for the theoretical part of the Torah whose purpose is only for the sake of action,<br />
it also has two aspects: mak<strong>in</strong>g known or deriv<strong>in</strong>g the comm<strong>and</strong>ments <strong>and</strong> the<br />
manner of their performance through logical <strong>and</strong> pseudo-logical reason<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>and</strong> expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g aspects of the comm<strong>and</strong>ments through scientific knowledge,<br />
such as the use of astronomy for the calculation <strong>and</strong> sanctification of the new moon.<br />
The first aspect is very important for perform<strong>in</strong>g the comm<strong>and</strong>ments, but of no <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic<br />
value: were a learned teacher to expla<strong>in</strong> how we should perform all the comm<strong>and</strong>ments,<br />
there would be no need for such reason<strong>in</strong>g. The second aspect, the scientific<br />
learn<strong>in</strong>g needed for determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g certa<strong>in</strong> comm<strong>and</strong>ments, is <strong>in</strong> a way more<br />
important, for it is always needed; for example, each month it is needed once aga<strong>in</strong><br />
for calculat<strong>in</strong>g the new moon. 24<br />
From this brief outl<strong>in</strong>e of what may be called Torah study, Zamosc’s attempt to<br />
restore the value of science for traditional Jews is immediately evident. The study of<br />
natural science <strong>and</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e science is of great importance; together these two discipl<strong>in</strong>es<br />
constitute the theoretical part of Torah that has <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic value, apart from any<br />
connection to the comm<strong>and</strong>ments. Sciences such as astronomy <strong>and</strong> mathematics<br />
serve a vital <strong>and</strong> constant role <strong>in</strong> determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g certa<strong>in</strong> comm<strong>and</strong>ments. Zamosc writes<br />
further that if one sees a difficulty <strong>in</strong> the words of the Talmud, one is obligated to try<br />
to resolve it, even if it does not affect the performance of a comm<strong>and</strong>ment. This is<br />
also true if the words of the Talmud appear to conflict with one of the seven secular<br />
sciences. Here too we are obligated to underst<strong>and</strong> the sciences <strong>in</strong> order to resolve<br />
their conflict with the teach<strong>in</strong>gs of the Sages. This is particularly true with regard to<br />
those ‘sciences whose teach<strong>in</strong>gs cannot be denied <strong>and</strong> whose foundations can <strong>in</strong> no<br />
way be uprooted, <strong>and</strong> these are the mathematical sciences, … which are built upon<br />
strong <strong>and</strong> clear demonstrations’. We are under no obligation to resolve such conflicts<br />
for those sciences whose proofs are not demonstrative; but if we can do so, ‘it<br />
is praiseworthy’. 25<br />
In his <strong>in</strong>troduction, Zamosc discusses a number of other themes, such as disagreements<br />
about whether certa<strong>in</strong> comm<strong>and</strong>ments are biblical or rabb<strong>in</strong>ic, whether<br />
midrashim should be taken literally – this is where he presents a long quotation from<br />
23 Ibid., p. 2aa. The reference is to Guide III, 43 (trans. Shlomo P<strong>in</strong>es [Chicago, 1963], p. 573), <strong>and</strong><br />
follows the Hebrew translation of Samuel Ibn Tibbon.<br />
24 NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel, p. 1ab–ba.<br />
25 Ibid., p. 1ba.<br />
92 The Introductions of Early Enlightenment Th<strong>in</strong>kers
the Guide – <strong>and</strong> the appropriateness of study<strong>in</strong>g Torah for worldly reasons. But this<br />
is not his ma<strong>in</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t. ‘I have expla<strong>in</strong>ed clearly’, he writes, ‘how, on the contrary, the<br />
Sages, of blessed memory, studied astronomy most deeply. … Those who do not<br />
study astronomy deeply will weary try<strong>in</strong>g to underst<strong>and</strong> the teach<strong>in</strong>gs of the Sages’. 26<br />
He cont<strong>in</strong>ues: ‘The truth is that the pr<strong>in</strong>ciple that br<strong>in</strong>gs us life <strong>in</strong> the world-to-come<br />
is occupation with Gemara; nonetheless, we cannot take the sciences lightly’.<br />
Zamosc offers three ‘trustworthy witnesses’ for this view from among the great early<br />
scholars: Maimonides, Rabbenu Tam, <strong>and</strong> the kabbalist R. Abraham ben Isaac of<br />
Granada, who is mentioned along with Isaac Luria’s high praise of him. 27 The support<strong>in</strong>g<br />
passages from Maimonides are from the Commentary on the Mishnah <strong>and</strong> the<br />
Mishneh Torah, but noticeably not from the Guide. The case for the value of the sciences<br />
could best be made to the reader of NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel on the basis of religious<br />
sources, not philosophical ones.<br />
Zamosc’s ideas, as expressed <strong>in</strong> NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel, aroused great controversy <strong>and</strong><br />
forced him to flee Pol<strong>and</strong>; but the case for the sciences had been made. 28 While it did<br />
not <strong>in</strong>spire readers to turn to the books of medieval Jewish philosophy, NeÒaÌ<br />
Yisraˆel did help create an atmosphere <strong>in</strong> which those books would flourish. The follow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
year the Guide appeared, <strong>and</strong> two years later the RuaÌ Ìen with Zamosc’s<br />
commentary was published, also <strong>in</strong> Jessnitz. Unlike his NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel, the open<strong>in</strong>g<br />
pages of the commentary featured several citations from the Guide <strong>and</strong> other classics<br />
of medieval Jewish philosophy. 29<br />
Naphtali Hirsch Goslar<br />
R. Naphtali Hirsch Goslar is the least known of the eighteenth-century authors I have<br />
mentioned. An older relative of Moses Mendelssohn, Goslar served as a dayyan <strong>in</strong><br />
Halberstadt. Altmann, <strong>in</strong> his biography of Mendelssohn, f<strong>in</strong>ds it <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g that<br />
Goslar discovered Maimonides’ Guide about the same time that Mendelssohn did,<br />
although Goslar was some thirty years older. 30 Goslar’s book that concerns us is his<br />
Maˆamar efsharit ha-†iv¨it, which was published <strong>in</strong> a h<strong>and</strong>some edition <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1762. In this book, Goslar sees himself as sid<strong>in</strong>g with Maimonides <strong>and</strong> other<br />
Jewish scholars aga<strong>in</strong>st teach<strong>in</strong>gs of Aristotle <strong>and</strong> his followers, such as that the<br />
world is eternal. In his short three-page <strong>in</strong>troduction, Goslar reveals that he himself<br />
had never seen Maimonides’ Guide or any other work of Jewish philosophy until he<br />
was fifty years old, when he chanced upon them <strong>and</strong> was stirred to look <strong>in</strong>to them<br />
26 Ibid., pp. 2bb–3aa.<br />
27 Ibid., p. 3aa.<br />
28 See Raphael Mahler, Divrei yemei Yisraˆel: Dorot aÌaronim, vol. 1, book 4 (MerÌavia, 1962), p. 28;<br />
abridged trans., A History of Modern Jewry 1780–1815 (London, 1971), p. 554. Mahler writes that<br />
Zamosc was ‘violently persecuted after the publication of The Eternity of Israel [NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel] <strong>and</strong><br />
forced to leave Pol<strong>and</strong>’. See also Israel Z<strong>in</strong>berg, A History of Jewish Literature, trans. Bernard Mart<strong>in</strong>,<br />
vol. 6 (New York, 1975), p. 244. On the persecution of Zamosc, see the paper by Gad Freudenthal <strong>in</strong> the<br />
present volume. Freudenthal expla<strong>in</strong>s that Zamosc’s views were well known <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong> before the publication<br />
of NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel <strong>and</strong> that he may well have fled Pol<strong>and</strong> before the publication of his book.<br />
29 See RuaÌ Ìen with the commentary of Israel Zamosc (Warsaw, 1826), pp. 1b–3a.<br />
30 Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn, p. 22. Altmann’s source for his <strong>in</strong>formation on Goslar was Adolf<br />
Jell<strong>in</strong>ek, ‘Biographische Skizzen’, Literaturblatt des Orients 7 (1846): 260.<br />
Steven Harvey<br />
93
<strong>and</strong> their subjects. Philosophy is seductive. Goslar cites <strong>in</strong> this connection ‘the true<br />
sage’, the author of Proverbs, who wrote that ‘none who go unto her [the foreign<br />
woman (ishah zarah)] return [Prov. 2:19] to their former state’. The problem is that<br />
most philosophers oppose the beliefs of Judaism <strong>and</strong> do not believe <strong>in</strong> the Torah.<br />
Goslar applies the complimentary talmudic epithet, ‘first of the speakers’ (rosh hamedabberim)<br />
31 to the prime target of his attack, Aristotle:<br />
Aristotle is the first of the speakers, capta<strong>in</strong> of their hosts (cf. Josh. 5:14 et passim),<br />
bearer of their shield [cf. 1 Sam 17:7], their knops <strong>and</strong> their branches [Ex. 25:36,<br />
37:22]; their sheaves gathered round [Gen. 37:7] his words, <strong>and</strong> he is a prick<strong>in</strong>g brier<br />
<strong>and</strong> a pierc<strong>in</strong>g thorn to the house of Israel [Ezek. 28:24] <strong>and</strong> their Torah. [He <strong>and</strong> his<br />
followers] do not believe <strong>in</strong> the creation of the world, but rather their foundations are<br />
built upon eternity. … They reduce the power of God, may His name be exalted, <strong>and</strong><br />
deny the miracles of Israel, the signs <strong>and</strong> the wonders. 32<br />
Goslar states that Maimonides tried through his great Guide to show the Aristotelians<br />
(‘the workers of <strong>in</strong>iquity’) the errors of their ways, but he did not benefit them <strong>and</strong><br />
they turned not as they went [Ezek. 10:11]. Goslar offers to cont<strong>in</strong>ue the battle, <strong>in</strong>asmuch<br />
as he has received div<strong>in</strong>e help. The words ‘div<strong>in</strong>e help’ (¨ezer elohi) refer to<br />
Maimonides’ first or lowest of the degrees of prophecy, which, accord<strong>in</strong>g to the<br />
Guide, is when ‘an <strong>in</strong>dividual receives a div<strong>in</strong>e help that moves <strong>and</strong> activates him to<br />
a great, righteous, <strong>and</strong> important action’. 33 Yet Goslar acknowledges that his task will<br />
be difficult, because the stubborn Aristotelians go to great lengths to repair the<br />
breaches of their house (2 K<strong>in</strong>gs 12:13). He will not be able to persuade most of his<br />
readers. Some know only what they hear from others. They will reject his words<br />
without reason <strong>and</strong> deride him for attempt<strong>in</strong>g what Maimonides <strong>and</strong> other great<br />
th<strong>in</strong>kers could not accomplish. Others, men of stature <strong>and</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g, may not accept<br />
his objections. But those who have atta<strong>in</strong>ed the high rank, <strong>and</strong> they are the clever<br />
ones – here Goslar uses two talmudic expressions (benei ¨aliyyah, Ìakhmei<br />
Ìarashim) that are employed by Maimonides <strong>in</strong> Guide I, 34 to refer to the few to<br />
whom one may reveal the secrets of the Torah 34 – they will appreciate his arguments<br />
<strong>and</strong> see that he has refuted the false claims of the Aristotelians. 35 Like Maimonides <strong>in</strong><br />
his <strong>in</strong>troduction, Goslar is concerned only with those who are able to underst<strong>and</strong>,<br />
however few they may be. Goslar concludes his <strong>in</strong>troduction with the follow<strong>in</strong>g advice:<br />
Whoever wishes to underst<strong>and</strong> the essence of Maimonides’ dispute with the<br />
Aristotelians need only read his little book. 36<br />
Goslar’s <strong>in</strong>troduction was written <strong>in</strong> rhymed prose, with virtually every sentence<br />
built upon or play<strong>in</strong>g upon phrases from Scripture. His <strong>in</strong>tended readership was certa<strong>in</strong>ly<br />
learned observant Jews. But why was there a need, <strong>in</strong> 1762, to conv<strong>in</strong>ce those<br />
31 On this epithet, see B Berakhot 63b, B Shabbat 33b, <strong>and</strong> B MenaÌot 103b.<br />
32 Naphtali Hirsch Goslar, Maˆamar efsharit ha-†iv¨it (Amsterdam, 1762), <strong>in</strong>troduction, p. 2a.<br />
33 Guide II, 45, p. 396. The Arabic words translated as ¨ezer elohi are ma¨ûnah ilâhiyyah. Maimonides<br />
states that he himself received ‘div<strong>in</strong>e help’(Guide III, <strong>in</strong>troduction, p. 416).<br />
34 Guide I, 34, pp. 73 <strong>and</strong> 78. For the expressions, see B Sukkah 45b <strong>and</strong> B Sanhedr<strong>in</strong> 97b; B Îagigah<br />
13a <strong>and</strong> 14a (cit<strong>in</strong>g Isa. 3:3).<br />
35 Maˆamar efsharit ha-†iv¨it, <strong>in</strong>troduction, p. 2a–b.<br />
36 Ibid., 2b.<br />
94 The Introductions of Early Enlightenment Th<strong>in</strong>kers
Jews of the falsehood of certa<strong>in</strong> Aristotelian teach<strong>in</strong>gs? The author himself, a learned<br />
dayyan, was no doubt typical of his readership, yet he himself had not read the medieval<br />
Jewish philosophers until his fiftieth year, some ten years before writ<strong>in</strong>g his<br />
book. It seems likely that the repr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g of the Guide <strong>in</strong> Jessnitz some two decades<br />
earlier, as well as well as the writ<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> activities of Zamosc <strong>and</strong> others, had<br />
sparked a renewed <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the Guide <strong>and</strong>, <strong>in</strong>evitably with it, the adoption or at<br />
least consideration of heterodox op<strong>in</strong>ions by some Jewish readers. Goslar, who had<br />
taken a strong <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the Guide <strong>and</strong> the medieval commentaries on it, as well as<br />
other classic works of Jewish philosophy, saw the dangers <strong>and</strong> thus the need to propound<br />
<strong>and</strong> defend a traditional Jewish theology. The very need for such a book, as<br />
spelled out <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>troduction, heralds the renewed <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the medieval Jewish<br />
philosophers.<br />
It may be noted that when Goslar was writ<strong>in</strong>g his book, another acqua<strong>in</strong>tance of<br />
Mendelssohn’s, the physician Aaron Salomon Gumpertz (1723–1769), who like<br />
Mendelssohn studied with Zamosc <strong>and</strong> who discovered Maimonides’ Guide <strong>and</strong><br />
other works of Jewish philosophy at the same time as Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Goslar, was<br />
writ<strong>in</strong>g his own book, Megalleh sod, a supercommentary on Abraham Ibn Ezra’s<br />
commentary on the Five Scrolls. 37 Gumpertz attached to this work a short essay, perhaps<br />
as an <strong>in</strong>troduction of sorts, entitled Maˆamar ha-madda¨, on the nature <strong>and</strong> content<br />
of the sciences. Yet whereas Goslar was concerned about contemporary Jews<br />
whose study of philosophy <strong>and</strong> science had led them to consider heterodox views,<br />
Gumpertz’s goal was to <strong>in</strong>duce his readers to study the sciences. After all, he writes,<br />
if scholars such as Saadia Gaon, BaÌya, Maimonides, Ibn Ezra, Gersonides, Levi<br />
ben Îabib, <strong>and</strong> Albo, as well as those ‘closer to our generation’ such as Arama,<br />
Abravanel, Moses Isserles, Mordecai Jaffe, Joseph Solomon Delmedigo, <strong>and</strong> many<br />
others, ‘engaged diligently <strong>and</strong> with much effort <strong>in</strong> the study of the sciences, wrote<br />
endless books on them, <strong>and</strong> found noth<strong>in</strong>g wrong with them’, why should we object<br />
to them? 38 Unlike Goslar, who speaks of the many who deride his efforts to counter<br />
radical Aristotelian teach<strong>in</strong>gs, Gumpertz speaks of the ‘multitude of people who deride<br />
<strong>and</strong> mock science, among whom are those who detest it as if it had no utility,<br />
<strong>and</strong> among whom are those who despise it as if it opposed, God forbid, the<br />
fundaments <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>tentions of Torah’. The cause of these views is the ignorance of<br />
those who hold them, who know virtually noth<strong>in</strong>g about the sciences. ‘In our generation’,<br />
he adds, ‘even most of those who consider themselves among the scientists <strong>and</strong><br />
scholars study only arithmetic, geometry <strong>and</strong> other subjects of mathematics’. 39<br />
Gumpertz’s little essay on the sciences is <strong>in</strong>tended to provide the knowledge that<br />
could change the way many Jews view the sciences. In weigh<strong>in</strong>g the seem<strong>in</strong>gly conflict<strong>in</strong>g<br />
reports of Goslar <strong>and</strong> Gumpertz <strong>and</strong> attempt<strong>in</strong>g to evaluate the extent to<br />
which Jews of the early 1760s were familiar with the medieval Jewish philosophers,<br />
37 On this work, see Thomas Kollatz’s paper <strong>in</strong> the present volume. On Gumpertz, see also David<br />
Sork<strong>in</strong>, ‘The Early Haskalah’, <strong>in</strong> New Perspectives on the Haskalah, ed. Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er <strong>and</strong> David<br />
Sork<strong>in</strong> (London, 2001), pp. 19–25; Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn, pp. 23–5.<br />
38 Aaron Salomon Gumpertz, Maˆamar ha-madda¨, pr<strong>in</strong>ted with Megalleh sod (Lemberg, 1910), p. 46.<br />
The first edition appeared <strong>in</strong> Hamburg, 1765.<br />
39 Ibid., p. 31.<br />
Steven Harvey<br />
95
it should be kept <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d that Gumpertz was probably referr<strong>in</strong>g ma<strong>in</strong>ly to contemporary<br />
science when speak<strong>in</strong>g of the ignorance of most of his fellow Jews. 40<br />
Judah Loeb Margolioth<br />
R. Judah Loeb Margolioth was one of the best-known, most productive, <strong>and</strong> most<br />
widely published authors of the early Haskalah <strong>in</strong> Eastern Europe. 41 He was an opponent<br />
of Hasidism but also, to some extent, of philosophy. While he was one of the<br />
Orthodox rabbis of the time who encouraged the study of mathematics <strong>and</strong> the sciences,<br />
he became <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly concerned with their subversive effect at the h<strong>and</strong>s of<br />
the maskilim. Apart from books of biblical exegesis, sermons, responsa, <strong>and</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistic<br />
studies, Margolioth was also the author of an enumeration of the sciences, Or<br />
¨olam: ¨al Ìokhmat ha-†eva¨ (Light of the world: on natural science), which appeared<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1777, <strong>and</strong> an ethical work, Bet middot (House of virtues), also published <strong>in</strong> 1777<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> a revised edition <strong>in</strong> 1786, which was further revised <strong>and</strong> exp<strong>and</strong>ed <strong>and</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ted<br />
under the title al orot (Dew of lights) <strong>in</strong> 1811, the last year of his life. 42 These three<br />
works are of particular importance for judg<strong>in</strong>g the extent of his knowledge <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
of the medieval Jewish philosophers.<br />
The view that the Jews were, <strong>in</strong> general, not familiar with natural science is the<br />
basic premise of Or ¨olam. In the <strong>in</strong>troduction to this book, published over a decade<br />
after the works of Goslar <strong>and</strong> Gumpertz, natural science is personified <strong>and</strong> compla<strong>in</strong>s<br />
about be<strong>in</strong>g neglected <strong>and</strong> forsaken by the Jews. Margolioth’s book is <strong>in</strong>tended to<br />
come to its aid. Yet, as Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er has recently shown, the science presented <strong>in</strong><br />
the book is basically an eclectic version of the old Aristotelian science of the<br />
medievals, dotted with touches of contemporary popular science. 43 Significantly, the<br />
book is not a call to medieval philosophy, <strong>and</strong> the author expresses his surprise <strong>and</strong><br />
disapproval with the Master of Torah, Maimonides, whose focus on philosophy led<br />
him to neglect natural science. ‘What <strong>in</strong>iquity’, he asks, ‘did he f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong> natural sci-<br />
40 Mendelssohn thus advises the readers of the second edition of his commentary on Maimonides’ Treatise<br />
on Logic: If you ‘long to know the nature <strong>and</strong> object of every science <strong>in</strong> the way it has been enriched<br />
by modern scholars <strong>and</strong> has been augmented by valuable discoveries s<strong>in</strong>ce the time of<br />
Maimonides, turn your attention to the Maˆamar ha-madda¨ … <strong>and</strong> know<strong>in</strong>g it will prove beneficial to<br />
your soul’ (trans. <strong>in</strong> Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn, p. 25).<br />
41 On Margolioth, see now Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er’s <strong>in</strong>sightful <strong>in</strong>tellectual portrait, ‘The Dragon around the<br />
Beehive: Judah Leib Margolioth <strong>and</strong> the Paradox of the Early Haskalah’ (Hebrew), Zion 63 (1998): 39–<br />
74. Cf. David E. Fishman, Russia’s First Modern Jews: The Jews of Shklov (New York, 1995), pp. 112–<br />
5; Z<strong>in</strong>berg, History of Jewish Literature, vol. 6, pp. 257–60; <strong>and</strong> Mahler, Divrei yemei Yisraˆel, vol. 1,<br />
book 4, pp. 40–4; abridged trans., pp. 562–4.<br />
42 Or ¨olam: ¨al-Ìokhmat ha-†eva¨ (Frankfurt an der Oder, 1777; Nowy Dwor, 1782); all references are<br />
to the 1842 Warsaw edition. Bet middot (Dyhernfurth, 1777; Shklov, 1786; Prague, 1786); all references<br />
are to the 1862 Lyck edition (repr. Jerusalem, 1970). al orot (Frankfurt an der Oder, 1811); all<br />
references are to the 1843 Pressburg edition. On the differences between the 1777 <strong>and</strong> 1786 editions of<br />
Bet middot, <strong>and</strong> between Bet middot <strong>and</strong> al orot, see Fe<strong>in</strong>er, ‘Dragon around the Beehive’, pp. 58–60<br />
<strong>and</strong> 70–1. The title Or ¨olam comes from Isa. 60:19–20; Bet middot is a play on the ‘wide house’ of Jer.<br />
22:14; al orot comes from Isa. 26:19.<br />
43 Fe<strong>in</strong>er (‘Dragon around the Beehive’, pp. 55–6) calls Or ¨olam ‘a th<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> disappo<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g little book’,<br />
whose science is ‘for the most part Aristotelian, outdated <strong>and</strong> eclectic’. He describes the scientific approach<br />
of the book as a comb<strong>in</strong>ation of ‘medieval beliefs <strong>and</strong> views with allusions to the breakthroughs<br />
<strong>in</strong> physics <strong>and</strong> with emphasis on the experimental aspect of science’.<br />
96 The Introductions of Early Enlightenment Th<strong>in</strong>kers
ence that he left her bereaved of children <strong>and</strong> solitary [Isa. 49:21]?’ 44 While<br />
Margolioth’s criticism of Maimonides may not have been fair, it underscored his own<br />
desire <strong>in</strong> 1777 to <strong>in</strong>terest the ignorant reader <strong>in</strong> science, while discourag<strong>in</strong>g philosophic<br />
study. 45 How widespread was familiarity with the classics of medieval philosophy,<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to Margolioth? In the preface to Bet middot <strong>and</strong> also to al orot,<br />
he refers to them as difficult to f<strong>in</strong>d, little read, <strong>and</strong> even less understood. 46 This<br />
statement is supported by the testimony of his Shklov pr<strong>in</strong>ters, who speak of the rarity<br />
<strong>and</strong> difficulty of the works of medieval Jewish philosophy <strong>and</strong> describe Bet<br />
middot as ‘a key to underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g these books’. 47 Let us take a closer look at the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
of Bet middot <strong>and</strong> al orot.<br />
al orot consists of a two-page preface (haqdamah), a 28-page <strong>in</strong>troduction<br />
(petiÌah), <strong>and</strong> ten chapters (she¨arim). The preface basically comb<strong>in</strong>es the prefaces to<br />
the two editions of Bet middot, while the <strong>in</strong>troduction revises <strong>and</strong> exp<strong>and</strong>s that of Bet<br />
middot.<br />
The preface, written <strong>in</strong> flowery ornate prose, constructed from <strong>and</strong> play<strong>in</strong>g on biblical<br />
phrases, could easily pass for a medieval preface. In it the author promises to<br />
clarify the precious wisdom of the earlier th<strong>in</strong>kers, whose teach<strong>in</strong>gs are hidden by<br />
their difficult language.<br />
And he said: I cannot [underst<strong>and</strong>] for the language is hidden <strong>and</strong> sealed [Isa. 29:11; cf.<br />
Dan. 12:4]. And I, when it was <strong>in</strong> my heart [1 K<strong>in</strong>gs 8:18] – <strong>and</strong> my soul lusted exceed<strong>in</strong>gly<br />
[cf. Ps. 106:14; Deut. 12:20 et passim] – to fill my belly with the delicacies [Jer.<br />
51:34] of the masters of old <strong>and</strong> to know <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong> the abundance of the dew of<br />
lights [Isa. 26:19], the rods of their pure h<strong>and</strong>s [cf. Cant. 5:14]; I went down <strong>in</strong>to the garden<br />
of logic at first to look at the buds [Cant. 6:11] of the flowers of this language. Afterwards<br />
I w<strong>and</strong>ered <strong>in</strong> the place of the k<strong>in</strong>g’s scribes [Est. 3:12; 8:9; BM: the k<strong>in</strong>g’s merchants<br />
(1 K<strong>in</strong>gs 10:28)], <strong>and</strong> these are the compositions of the former ones (from R.<br />
Saadia Gaon, Abraham Ibn Ezra, the Kuzari [Judah Halevi], the one from C<strong>and</strong>ia [Joseph<br />
Solomon Delmedigo], R. Joseph Albo, R. Isaac Arama, <strong>and</strong> R. Abraham Bibago, to the<br />
tereb<strong>in</strong>th of the Guide [Gen. 12:6] of the Perplexed) <strong>and</strong> to all who are near unto him<br />
[Deut. 1:6], his armour-bearers [1 Sam. 14:1 et passim], who polish the gold of what is<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellected <strong>and</strong> drop the honey [cf. Cant. 4:11] of the proverb, <strong>and</strong> also the book (of the<br />
Physics <strong>and</strong> the Ethics) of those who speak pla<strong>in</strong>ly [Isa. 32:4] <strong>and</strong> talk honestly. So I set<br />
my face [Lev. 20:5], my leisure, <strong>and</strong> connected them with loops of wisdom <strong>and</strong> planted<br />
for them a noble v<strong>in</strong>e [Jer. 2:21], a deep-ploughed v<strong>in</strong>eyard. And <strong>in</strong> accordance with the<br />
m<strong>in</strong>uteness of my <strong>in</strong>tellect, I have exp<strong>and</strong>ed matters, for the former ones spoke briefly<br />
<strong>and</strong> not [as] <strong>in</strong> the present [cf. M Yevamot 15:2], for <strong>in</strong> their times a few notes were sufficient,<br />
but as for us, of small power [2 K<strong>in</strong>gs 19:26, Isa. 37:27], smitten with lust, struck<br />
with passion, would that many notes from the well of wisdom, dug by great pr<strong>in</strong>ces, the<br />
searchers of the heart [Num. 21:18, Judg. 5:16], would benefit us. 48<br />
44 Or ¨olam, p. 3b.<br />
45 The problem was not so much that Jewish philosophic books would lead directly to heresy, but that<br />
they would lead the reader to study the potentially harmful books of non-Jewish philosophers. See<br />
Fishman, Russia’s Modern Jews, p. 163, n. 36; Fe<strong>in</strong>er, ‘Dragon around the Beehive’, esp. pp. 61 <strong>and</strong> 71.<br />
46 al orot, preface, p. v; cf. Bet middot, p. 6<br />
47 al orot, pr<strong>in</strong>ters’ preface, p. iii; cf. Bet middot, p. 5.<br />
48 al orot, preface, p. v; cf. Bet middot, p. 6. The differences between the two versions of this passage<br />
are m<strong>in</strong>or.<br />
Steven Harvey<br />
97
The author thus tells us that he will exp<strong>and</strong> upon the words of the earlier th<strong>in</strong>kers to<br />
make their teach<strong>in</strong>gs comprehensible. These th<strong>in</strong>kers, whom he calls ‘the mighty<br />
ones’ (ha-gibborim) 49 <strong>in</strong> the parallel passage <strong>in</strong> Bet middot, are Saadia Gaon,<br />
Abraham Ibn Ezra, Judah Halevi, Joseph Solomon Delmedigo, Joseph Albo, Isaac<br />
Arama, Abraham Bibago, <strong>and</strong> Maimonides. This list<strong>in</strong>g, suggestive of the Jewish<br />
philosophers who were known <strong>and</strong> read at the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of the Haskalah, is <strong>in</strong><br />
roughly chronological order. Maimonides is listed last because he is <strong>in</strong> a class by<br />
himself, but the <strong>in</strong>terposition of the seventeenth-century Delmedigo between Halevi<br />
<strong>and</strong> Albo is not only out of chronological sequence, but to modern eyes, a bit out of<br />
place among the medievalists. In any case, it will soon be clear that Margolioth’s<br />
philosophic library <strong>in</strong>cluded far more than the compositions of these authors. 50<br />
Although Margolioth may <strong>in</strong>deed be seen as a popularizer of philosophic teach<strong>in</strong>gs,<br />
<strong>in</strong> his preface he makes it clear that he is not writ<strong>in</strong>g for everyone: ‘My voice is<br />
to the sons of men who underst<strong>and</strong> science’ [Prov. 8:4]. His <strong>in</strong>spiration for this caution<br />
is Maimonides, <strong>and</strong> he directs the reader to Maimonides’ <strong>in</strong>troduction to the<br />
Guide for an explanation. The passage he has <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d is Maimonides’ statement,<br />
‘How could the [<strong>in</strong>telligent man] put it down <strong>in</strong> writ<strong>in</strong>g without becom<strong>in</strong>g the butt<br />
for every ignoramus who … would let fly at him the shafts of his ignorance’, 51 which<br />
he paraphrases <strong>in</strong> Bet middot. 52<br />
The author then speaks of the importance of employ<strong>in</strong>g rhetorical devices (meliÒot).<br />
For example, through the use of such devices, one can say with brevity what one<br />
would otherwise need to discuss at length. Aga<strong>in</strong> the reader is directed to Maimonides’<br />
Guide; but this time Margolioth has misunderstood the text, <strong>in</strong> part due to an ambiguous<br />
translation by Samuel Ibn Tibbon. Maimonides wrote that the ‘exposition of one<br />
who wishes to teach without recourse to parables <strong>and</strong> riddles is so obscure <strong>and</strong> brief as<br />
to make obscurity <strong>and</strong> brevity serve <strong>in</strong> place of parables <strong>and</strong> riddles’. 53 Margolioth<br />
49 Or perhaps this is just a typographical error: ha-gibborim <strong>in</strong>stead of ha-Ìibburim (the compositions).<br />
50 See below. One is tempted to assume that the only texts of medieval Jewish philosophy available to<br />
the early maskilim were those works that had been published <strong>and</strong> were readily accessible at the time.<br />
Given the conspicuous paucity of pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> repr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>gs of the texts (see the discussion above) <strong>and</strong><br />
the difficulty of obta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g even those books that had been published (see above, n. 47), the best gauge<br />
for judg<strong>in</strong>g which works were read would seem to be the frequency with which they were cited by contemporary<br />
authors. In this respect, Margolioth’s list is representative of the best-known or most-cited<br />
th<strong>in</strong>kers. But the <strong>in</strong>itial assumption that the maskilim did not read manuscripts is not quite right; manuscripts<br />
of works by the medieval philosophers did circulate <strong>and</strong> found their way <strong>in</strong>to the collections of<br />
bibliophiles who sought them out <strong>and</strong> had the means to acquire them. Margolioth was apparently such a<br />
collector. We thus read at the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of Margolioth’s edition of a Hebrew translation of the Twelve<br />
Homilies on Song of Songs attributed to Saadia (Königsberg, 1903), p. 1: ‘Rabbi Judah Loeb Margolioth<br />
compiled [this commentary on Song of Songs] from a manuscript which was <strong>in</strong> his library [bet genazav]<br />
of the hitherto unpublished Twelve Homilies of Saadia’. Margolioth’s edition was first published <strong>in</strong><br />
Nowy Dwor <strong>in</strong> 1777, the same year as the first editions of Or ¨olam <strong>and</strong> Bet middot. That same year <strong>in</strong><br />
Berl<strong>in</strong>, R. Barukh Schick of Shklov published his edition of Isaac ben Joseph Israeli’s astronomical treatise,<br />
Yesod ¨olam. Schick was assisted <strong>in</strong> this project by R. Hirschl Lev<strong>in</strong> of Berl<strong>in</strong>, who lent him two(!)<br />
manuscripts of the book from his own private library (see Fishman, Russia’s Modern Jews, pp. 32–9,<br />
esp. 32).<br />
51 Guide of the Perplexed, <strong>in</strong>troduction, p. 6.<br />
52 That this is the passage he has <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d is not clear <strong>in</strong> al orot, where it is not cited; see al orot,<br />
preface, pp. v–vi; cf. Bet middot, p. 8.<br />
53 Guide of the Perplexed, <strong>in</strong>troduction, p. 8.<br />
98 The Introductions of Early Enlightenment Th<strong>in</strong>kers
writes: ‘In a similar ve<strong>in</strong>, Maimonides wrote that the nature of the obscurity of the<br />
matter is to be caught <strong>in</strong> the thicket [Gen. 22:13] of length<strong>in</strong>ess so as to make [obscurity<br />
<strong>and</strong> length<strong>in</strong>ess] serve <strong>in</strong> place of speak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> riddles’. 54 For Maimonides, riddles<br />
<strong>and</strong> similar devices make for a longer exposition that is preferable to compact concision;<br />
for Margolioth’s Maimonides, they allow for a shorter exposition that removes<br />
the burden of prolixity.<br />
Another advantage of these devices is that they make it difficult for the teach<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
be understood at first thought. This is important for Margolioth, because learn<strong>in</strong>g<br />
should not come easily. He quotes, <strong>in</strong> the name of the Peripatetics (meÌaqqerim),<br />
Aristotle’s say<strong>in</strong>g that wonder is the cause of underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g. 55 Wonder leads to <strong>in</strong>vestigation<br />
<strong>and</strong> study, <strong>and</strong> they <strong>in</strong> turn lead to learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g. This notion<br />
that the acquisition of knowledge does not come easily is also found, Margolioth<br />
tells us, <strong>in</strong> Saadia’s <strong>in</strong>troduction to his Book of Beliefs <strong>and</strong> Op<strong>in</strong>ions: ‘Th<strong>in</strong>gs that are<br />
difficult for the <strong>in</strong>tellect to conceive at first are afterwards, through the conclusions<br />
of philosophic speculation, grasped by the <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>and</strong> embraced by it <strong>and</strong> absorbed<br />
<strong>in</strong>to it for a long time’. The <strong>in</strong>troductory phrase is Margolioth’s, but the rest, beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g<br />
with ‘through the conclusions of philosophic speculation’ (lit., ‘when the butter<br />
of philosophic speculation emerges’) – as it appears <strong>in</strong> Bet middot – is taken almost<br />
verbatim from Judah Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew translation of Saadia. In al orot, <strong>in</strong> the<br />
process of rewrit<strong>in</strong>g, Margolioth rephrased the quotation <strong>and</strong> made it more difficult<br />
to recognize. 56 Margolioth adds that the idea that learn<strong>in</strong>g requires effort is already<br />
found <strong>in</strong> the rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature, where the verse, Also my wisdom stood unto me<br />
(Eccl. 2:9), is expla<strong>in</strong>ed as ‘the wisdom that I learned <strong>in</strong> wrath, this has rema<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
with me’. This explanation, cited <strong>in</strong> the name of the Sages, is based on a midrashic<br />
exegesis found <strong>in</strong> Ecclesiastes zu†a <strong>and</strong> later <strong>in</strong> Yalqu† Shim¨oni; but the precise formulation<br />
is that of Maimonides <strong>in</strong> his Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Talmud Torah, who<br />
unobtrusively changed the torah of the midrashic text to Ìokhmah. 57<br />
Margolioth concludes both versions of his preface with a h<strong>in</strong>t that the book will<br />
conta<strong>in</strong> rhetorical devices <strong>and</strong> is not <strong>in</strong>tended for everyone. The preface to al orot<br />
concludes: ‘The <strong>in</strong>tercessor will build his house for those whose eyes are <strong>in</strong> their<br />
head <strong>and</strong> whose feet are straight feet [Ezek. 1:7]. They will come <strong>in</strong>to it <strong>and</strong> delight<br />
<strong>in</strong> its goodness, but the bl<strong>in</strong>d <strong>and</strong> the lame cannot come <strong>in</strong>to the house [2 Sam 5:8]’.<br />
‘Intercessor’ (ha-meliÒ) replaces the explicit ‘I’ of Bet middot; but more <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>gly,<br />
the revised version omits the verbatim quote from the Guide found at this po<strong>in</strong>t<br />
<strong>in</strong> Bet middot: ‘As for what is fitt<strong>in</strong>g for one s<strong>in</strong>gle virtuous person <strong>and</strong> not fitt<strong>in</strong>g for<br />
54 al orot, preface, p. vi; cf. Bet middot, p. 9. The confusion stems from Ibn Tibbon’s render<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
Maimonides’ al-}îjâz (brevity) by the ambiguous ha-ha¨avarah. On Shem ov Falaquera’s critique of<br />
this translation, see Yair Shiffman, ‘Falaquera <strong>and</strong> Ibn Tibbon as Translators of the Guide’ (Hebrew),<br />
Da¨at 32–33 (1994): 105.<br />
55 al orot, preface, p. vi (not <strong>in</strong> Bet middot). See Metaphysics I, 982 b 12–27.<br />
56 al orot, preface, p. vi; cf. Bet middot, p. 9. Cf. Saadia, Emunot ve-de¨ot (Josefow, 1885), <strong>in</strong>troduction,<br />
4, p. 42; English trans., Samuel Rosenblatt, The Book of Beliefs <strong>and</strong> Op<strong>in</strong>ions (New Haven, 1948),<br />
p. 14.<br />
57 Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Talmud Torah, 3,12 (also commentary on Avot 5:23, without the word hiˆ):<br />
יל הדמע איה ףאב יתדמלש המכח. Cf. Ecclesiastes zu†a 2,9, <strong>and</strong> Yalqu† Shim¨oni 247, 968: יתדמלש הרות<br />
יל המייקתנ ףאב.<br />
Steven Harvey<br />
99
ten thous<strong>and</strong> ignoramuses, I am he who chooses to address that s<strong>in</strong>gle man by himself,<br />
<strong>and</strong> I do not heed the blame of that large group of people’. 58 One wonders if this<br />
deletion signals a change <strong>in</strong> Margolioth’s perception of his <strong>in</strong>tended audience. 59<br />
The <strong>in</strong>troduction to al orot beg<strong>in</strong>s with a summary of Maimonides’ teach<strong>in</strong>g on<br />
the four perfections of man, which is noteworthy for the author’s slight change to<br />
Maimonides’ text that makes the fourth perfection more acceptable to traditional<br />
readers. Maimonides had written that this perfection is ‘the true human perfection; it<br />
consists <strong>in</strong> the acquisition of the rational virtues – I refer to the conception of<br />
<strong>in</strong>telligibles, which teach true op<strong>in</strong>ions concern<strong>in</strong>g the div<strong>in</strong>e th<strong>in</strong>gs’. 60 Margolioth<br />
writes that Maimonides expla<strong>in</strong>ed that this perfection is ‘the true human perfection;<br />
it is the conception of the true <strong>in</strong>telligibles concern<strong>in</strong>g div<strong>in</strong>e matters <strong>and</strong> matters of<br />
the Torah <strong>and</strong> wisdom’. 61 Yet more tell<strong>in</strong>g of Margolioth’s underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of this account<br />
of the perfections <strong>and</strong> of Maimonides’ philosophic teach<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> general is his<br />
reluctance to treat the fourth perfection. ‘It is not my task to compose a work on<br />
op<strong>in</strong>ions. Great scholars have been unable to f<strong>in</strong>d words of delight <strong>and</strong> speak of it<br />
[Isa. 58:13, Eccl. 12:10] truly. … Thus I will establish the cornerstone of my composition<br />
on matters of ethics alone, <strong>in</strong> order to guide men to their perfection’. 62<br />
Margolioth supports his case for not treat<strong>in</strong>g the fourth perfection with two accurate<br />
quotations from Maimonides. One is from Guide I, 58 (mistakenly cited as I, 31), to<br />
the effect that God’s essence cannot be apprehended by human <strong>in</strong>tellect. The second,<br />
a particularly apt warn<strong>in</strong>g from Guide II, 24, is that ‘to fatigue the m<strong>in</strong>ds with notions<br />
that cannot be grasped by them <strong>and</strong> for the grasp of which they have no <strong>in</strong>strument, is<br />
a defect <strong>in</strong> one’s <strong>in</strong>born disposition <strong>and</strong> madness’. 63 Margolioth then quotes from<br />
Kevod Elohim, by Joseph Ibn Shem ov (c. 1400–c. 1460), that the Peripatetics’<br />
weakest discussions are those that treat of metaphysics. 64 Margolioth, cit<strong>in</strong>g Maimonides<br />
<strong>and</strong> Averroes, acknowledges that ‘moral perfection is not sufficient for man<br />
without the perfection of op<strong>in</strong>ions’; but, as we have seen, he does not feel he should<br />
treat of this perfection. Yet, he tells us that his ‘soul yearns, yea, even p<strong>in</strong>es [Ps.<br />
84:3] to lead the many to righteousness [M Avot 5:22] <strong>and</strong> to guide them to their<br />
perfection <strong>and</strong> their good’. The importance of not simply be<strong>in</strong>g virtuous, but also<br />
guid<strong>in</strong>g others to the right path, is illustrated through citations from BaÌya Ibn<br />
58 Bet middot, p. 9. See Guide, <strong>in</strong>troduction, p. 16. Margolioth also quotes this passage from the Guide<br />
<strong>in</strong> the preface to his Qorban reshit.<br />
59 Such an <strong>in</strong>terpretation would fit <strong>in</strong> well with Fe<strong>in</strong>er’s view of Margolioth’s chang<strong>in</strong>g attitude toward<br />
the study of philosophy <strong>and</strong> science (see his ‘Dragon around the Beehive’).<br />
60 Guide, III, 54, p. 635. Maimonides writes (pp. 634–5) that, accord<strong>in</strong>g to the philosophers, there are<br />
four species of perfections: perfection of possessions, perfection of the bodily constitution <strong>and</strong> shape,<br />
perfection of the moral virtues, <strong>and</strong> perfection of the rational virtues. He emphasizes that this last perfection<br />
is the only true human perfection.<br />
61 al orot, p. 1a; Bet middot, p. 10. Bet middot does not attribute the passage to Maimonides, but to the<br />
ancient philosophers (Maimonides attributes it to ‘the ancient <strong>and</strong> modern philosophers’).<br />
62 al orot, pp. 1d–2a.<br />
63 Guide I, 58, p. 137, <strong>and</strong> II, 24, p. 327. The second reference is <strong>in</strong>troduced, ‘<strong>and</strong> he further wrote’, <strong>and</strong><br />
the locus <strong>in</strong> the Guide is not provided.<br />
64 Kevod elohim (Ferrara, 1556), p. 23a; Bet middot, p. 11. This passage is actually a quote from<br />
Averroes’ Middle Commentary on the Metaphysics, book L, <strong>and</strong> is attributed to Averroes by Joseph Ibn<br />
Shem ov.<br />
100 The Introductions of Early Enlightenment Th<strong>in</strong>kers
Paquda’s Duties of the Heart as well as from the rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature. 65 On the other<br />
h<strong>and</strong>, Margolioth has no <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> guid<strong>in</strong>g others to the first two perfections, for he<br />
does not see how they can help one atta<strong>in</strong> the true perfection. As Maimonides writes,<br />
‘the endeavour <strong>and</strong> efforts directed by man to this k<strong>in</strong>d of perfection are noth<strong>in</strong>g but<br />
an effort with a view to someth<strong>in</strong>g purely imag<strong>in</strong>ary’. 66 His book will guide readers<br />
to moral perfection. ‘I have chosen that my task <strong>in</strong> this composition will concern<br />
matters that lead souls to their perfection, <strong>and</strong> it is an exceed<strong>in</strong>gly precious task,<br />
above all others from the po<strong>in</strong>t of view of subject <strong>and</strong> end’. 67 Margolioth thus beg<strong>in</strong>s<br />
his <strong>in</strong>quiry with an exam<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>in</strong>to the mean<strong>in</strong>g of ethics.<br />
The repeated references <strong>in</strong> Margolioth’s prefaces <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>troductions to the Guide<br />
<strong>and</strong> other works of medieval Jewish philosophy, even as their author was struggl<strong>in</strong>g<br />
with the advisability of read<strong>in</strong>g or encourag<strong>in</strong>g the read<strong>in</strong>g of these works <strong>and</strong> the<br />
philosophical subjects they treat, may be viewed as a clear sign of a renewed <strong>in</strong>terest<br />
<strong>in</strong> these texts. Further evidence for this is that he often br<strong>in</strong>gs these works as proof<br />
texts for po<strong>in</strong>ts he wishes to make.<br />
P<strong>in</strong>chas Elias Hurwitz<br />
P<strong>in</strong>chas Hurwitz’s Sefer ha-Berit was first published 1797, over half a century after<br />
Zamosc’s NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel, at a time when many of the classics of medieval Jewish<br />
philosophy were available <strong>in</strong> recent editions <strong>and</strong> the Jewish Enlightenment was already<br />
<strong>in</strong> full sw<strong>in</strong>g. Hence its <strong>in</strong>troduction can hardly be seen as presag<strong>in</strong>g a renewed<br />
<strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the medieval Jewish philosophers. It may, however, portend a broad <strong>in</strong>terest<br />
<strong>in</strong> these th<strong>in</strong>kers among Jews – far from the centre of the German Haskalah – who<br />
decades earlier would have had little to do with them. I say ‘portend’ <strong>and</strong> not ‘have<br />
encouraged’, but perhaps even ‘portend’ is mislead<strong>in</strong>g. Hurwitz did not explicitly<br />
encourage the read<strong>in</strong>g of Maimonides’ Guide or of any works of medieval Jewish<br />
philosophy. In fact, <strong>in</strong> the second treatise of his book he <strong>in</strong>veighs aga<strong>in</strong>st those who<br />
believe that everyth<strong>in</strong>g Maimonides wrote is correct, when <strong>in</strong> fact, with regard to<br />
much of what he said, the opposite is true. ‘The reason’, he writes, ‘that it has taken<br />
so long for truth to come to our nation is that many th<strong>in</strong>k that to disagree with the<br />
words of Maimonides, of blessed memory, is to disagree with that whose truth is<br />
without doubt’. 68 Part of the problem is that Maimonides followed the old science of<br />
Aristotle; for Hurwitz, though, the problem with Maimonides <strong>and</strong> other medieval rationalists<br />
is not only their science, but also their theology. He rejects their view that<br />
God can be known through the study of philosophy. 69 But even apart from these con-<br />
65 al orot, pp. 1a–b. See BaÌya, Duties of the Heart, X, 6; Hebrew ed. <strong>and</strong> English trans., Moses<br />
Hyamson, 2 vols. (repr. Jerusalem, 1970), vol. 2, pp. 365–366; Rashi on Gen. 18:4; Genesis Rabbah<br />
48, 10; <strong>and</strong> B Baba meÒi¨a 86b. This passage is not <strong>in</strong> Bet middot.<br />
66 al orot, p. 1c-d. See Guide III, 54, p. 634. Maimonides is writ<strong>in</strong>g about the first perfection.<br />
67 al orot, p. 1c. Here he br<strong>in</strong>gs support for the loft<strong>in</strong>ess of the subject of ethics from Aristotle’s<br />
Nicomachean Ethics, book I.<br />
68 Sefer ha-Berit, I, ii, 6, pp. 41–42.<br />
69 On this po<strong>in</strong>t, see Ira Rob<strong>in</strong>son, ‘Kabbalah <strong>and</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit: A Modernization Strategy<br />
for Orthodox Jews’, Modern Judaism 9 (1989): 275–88, esp. pp. 279–81, <strong>and</strong> the notes thereto. See also<br />
Z<strong>in</strong>berg, History of Jewish Literature, vol. 6, p. 264.<br />
Steven Harvey<br />
101
siderations, which m<strong>in</strong>imize the value of the medieval rationalists, the <strong>in</strong>troduction<br />
makes clear that the book’s encyclopaedic character obviates the need to waste time<br />
on other books of science <strong>and</strong> philosophy. Hurwitz expla<strong>in</strong>s that an ‘exceed<strong>in</strong>gly<br />
great’ benefit of his book is that ‘a Jew will not need to spend his time read<strong>in</strong>g endless<br />
books’, <strong>and</strong> will have ample time for the study of Torah, for ‘nearly everyth<strong>in</strong>g<br />
one could desire to know’ may be found <strong>in</strong> his book. 70<br />
If, then, the works of the medieval rationalists are outdated <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> any case, after<br />
Sefer ha-Berit, superfluous, wouldn’t this book have served to curtail <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> medieval<br />
Jewish philosophy rather than arouse it? I th<strong>in</strong>k not. Hurwitz’s own debt to<br />
the medievals should not be underestimated. 71 For now, I will simply po<strong>in</strong>t out that<br />
unlike some of the previous th<strong>in</strong>kers I have considered, Hurwitz’s <strong>in</strong>terest was not<br />
chiefly <strong>in</strong> the medieval Jewish philosophers, but <strong>in</strong> the well-known philosophers <strong>and</strong><br />
scientists of the nations, ancients <strong>and</strong> moderns. Most of the early maskilim acquired<br />
their scientific knowledge primarily from medieval Jewish writers <strong>and</strong> the Greek<br />
<strong>and</strong> Arabic scientific sources they translated, cited, <strong>and</strong> explicated; Hurwitz’s ma<strong>in</strong><br />
sources were recent <strong>and</strong> non-Jewish. It is the latter he has <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d when he speaks of<br />
philosophers <strong>and</strong> natural scientists, <strong>and</strong> it is their writ<strong>in</strong>gs his readers will not have<br />
to read, because they have learned the science they need to learn from his book. But<br />
this does not mean that Hurwitz ignored the medieval th<strong>in</strong>kers. His prefaces <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>troduction<br />
betray the <strong>in</strong>fluence of the medieval Jewish philosophers. Thus, his specific<br />
use <strong>in</strong> them of Saadia’s Book of the Beliefs <strong>and</strong> Op<strong>in</strong>ions, RuaÌ Ìen, <strong>and</strong><br />
Maimonides’ Guide shows that, <strong>in</strong> his view, one can still learn from these books.<br />
Indeed, his <strong>in</strong>troduction, which <strong>in</strong>troduces the reader to such basic topics as Aristotle’s<br />
ten categories, substance <strong>and</strong> accident, matter <strong>and</strong> form, <strong>and</strong> the four elements,<br />
is rooted <strong>in</strong> the discussions <strong>and</strong> Hebrew term<strong>in</strong>ology of medieval philosophical texts<br />
such as BaÌya’s Duties of the Heart, the anonymous RuaÌ Ìen, <strong>and</strong> Maimonides’<br />
Guide, which is cited both word-for-word <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> embellished loose paraphrase.<br />
While one cannot conclude from this that the prefaces <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>troduction to Sefer ha-<br />
Berit <strong>in</strong>spired others to read the medievals, these texts do reveal someth<strong>in</strong>g about the<br />
grow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> these th<strong>in</strong>kers. Hurwitz, as we have seen, felt compelled to write<br />
his book <strong>in</strong> part to provide the science <strong>and</strong> philosophy necessary for underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
the third part of Vital’s Sha¨arei qedushah, which, he claims, few had the requisite<br />
scientific <strong>and</strong> philosophic knowledge to underst<strong>and</strong>. Of course, Vital wrote his work<br />
200 years before Sefer ha-Berit, so one could conclude that for Hurwitz, few knew<br />
much even about the science <strong>and</strong> philosophy of that time. There were, however,<br />
enough such people for Hurwitz to compla<strong>in</strong> about the bl<strong>in</strong>d followers of Maimonides.<br />
Yet what is perhaps most tell<strong>in</strong>g about the extent of <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> science on the part<br />
of Hebrew readers of the time is the book’s immediate <strong>and</strong> great success throughout<br />
the Jewish world, as reported by Hurwitz <strong>in</strong> the second preface. Clearly, the book ei-<br />
70 Sefer ha-Berit, pp. 9–10, 18.<br />
71 On the various <strong>in</strong>fluences on Sefer ha-Berit, see the paper by Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> the present volume.<br />
On the impact of the medieval philosophers on Sefer ha-Berit, see also Rob<strong>in</strong>son, ‘Kabbalah <strong>and</strong><br />
Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit’, p. 286, n. 8.<br />
102 The Introductions of Early Enlightenment Th<strong>in</strong>kers
ther created or filled a need. The world was chang<strong>in</strong>g. By the end of the eighteenth<br />
century – that ‘fasc<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g, contradiction-filled eighteenth century’ 72 – there were<br />
many Hebrew readers eager to learn science <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong> its relation to their religion.<br />
This fact <strong>in</strong> itself portends the broaden<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> medieval Jewish philosophy<br />
that would be manifested <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g century.<br />
Conclusion<br />
David Sork<strong>in</strong> has recently def<strong>in</strong>ed the early Haskalah as ‘an effort to revise baroque<br />
Judaism or the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i culture of early modern Europe’. For him, one of the ‘four<br />
def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g characteristics’ of this Judaism is that ‘medieval Jewish philosophy was ostracized’.<br />
The early Haskalah sought to revive knowledge of this neglected field. 73<br />
Amos Funkenste<strong>in</strong> put it slightly differently: ‘One can, without exaggeration, tie the<br />
beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of the Haskalah to the renewed <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> medieval religious philosophy.<br />
… The early Haskalah manifested itself through a renewed dedication to medieval<br />
philosophical writ<strong>in</strong>gs’. 74 The fact is that for well over a century the medieval Jewish<br />
philosophers were mostly ignored, their works rarely cited <strong>and</strong> conspicuously not<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ted. The early maskilim gradually rediscovered them. This is not to say that the<br />
early maskilim all approached the medieval philosophers <strong>in</strong> the same way. For some<br />
of them, their ‘<strong>in</strong>tellectual world was anchored <strong>in</strong> the medieval rationalistic tradition’;<br />
for others it was not. 75 Some saw the medieval philosophers as sufficient<br />
guides for the study of science <strong>and</strong> philosophy, while others saw the need to update<br />
their science with more recent science. Some saw them as a means of escap<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
darkness of previous generations <strong>and</strong> recover<strong>in</strong>g the enlightened wisdom that characterized<br />
Jewish scholars of the past, while others – though not disagree<strong>in</strong>g – feared<br />
that the medieval Jewish philosophers could lead readers astray, whether <strong>in</strong>directly<br />
(by <strong>in</strong>spir<strong>in</strong>g the study of contemporary non-Jewish philosophy) 76 or directly, <strong>and</strong><br />
underm<strong>in</strong>e their religious belief. Authors’ <strong>in</strong>troductions provided them with the opportunity<br />
to expla<strong>in</strong> their own approaches. They allow us to gauge – both through<br />
their own explanations <strong>and</strong> the use they make of the medieval Jewish th<strong>in</strong>kers – the<br />
extent of their familiarity with them <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> their teach<strong>in</strong>gs. I have tried to<br />
72 For this formulation, see Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er’s paper <strong>in</strong> the present volume.<br />
73 Sork<strong>in</strong>, ‘The Early Haskalah’, pp. 9–10.<br />
74 Amos Funkenste<strong>in</strong>, Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley, 1993), pp. 235 <strong>and</strong> 238. Sork<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
Funkenste<strong>in</strong> do not use the words ‘early Haskalah’ <strong>in</strong> the same way. For Sork<strong>in</strong>’s underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong><br />
dat<strong>in</strong>g of the early Haskalah, see his ‘Early Haskalah’, esp. pp. 9–10 <strong>and</strong> 25–26. Cf. Funkenste<strong>in</strong>, Perceptions,<br />
pp. 238–9.<br />
75 Emmanuel Etkes, ‘Immanent Factors <strong>and</strong> External Influences <strong>in</strong> the Development of the Haskalah<br />
Movement <strong>in</strong> Russia’, <strong>in</strong> Toward Modernity: The European Jewish Model, ed. Jacob Katz (New Brunswick<br />
<strong>and</strong> Oxford, 1987), p. 22. Cf. Mahler, Divrei yemei Yisraˆel, vol. 1, book 4, p. 36; abridged trans.,<br />
p. 559: [They] ‘relied on the ethical <strong>and</strong> philosophical works of medieval Jewish authors … for their<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>cipal <strong>in</strong>tellectual <strong>in</strong>spiration’. Etkes’ quotation comes from a description of Israel Zamosc, who is<br />
contrasted <strong>in</strong> this respect with Barukh Schick of Shklov, for whom, despite his Western education, ‘the<br />
justification of the need to study science was based on assumptions <strong>and</strong> claims derived from that [medieval<br />
rationalistic] tradition’. On Schick, see Fishman, Russia’s Modern Jews, pp. 26–30.<br />
76 See above, n. 45. See also Etkes, ‘Immanent Factors’, p. 26.<br />
Steven Harvey<br />
103
show, through a few representative <strong>in</strong>troductions of early Enlightenment th<strong>in</strong>kers,<br />
that these <strong>in</strong>troductions may be viewed as harb<strong>in</strong>gers of the wider <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the medieval<br />
Jewish philosophers that was soon to come. 77<br />
77 For a full discussion of the early maskilim (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g many not mentioned <strong>in</strong> this study) <strong>and</strong> their<br />
differ<strong>in</strong>g attitudes toward science <strong>and</strong> philosophy, see Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er, ‘The Early Haskalah <strong>in</strong> the Eighteenth<br />
Century’ (Hebrew), Tarbiz 67 (1998): 189–240. The <strong>in</strong>terest of the German maskilim <strong>in</strong> the medieval<br />
Jewish philosophers is, to some extent, another matter. For various reasons why they turned to the<br />
medievals, see Funkenste<strong>in</strong>, Perceptions of Jewish History, pp. 239–40. Cf. James H. Lehmann,<br />
‘Maimonides, Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> the Me’asfim’, Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 20 (1975): 87–108. See<br />
further Solomon Maimon’s <strong>in</strong>troduction to his Giv¨at ha-moreh, ed. Samuel Hugo Bergman <strong>and</strong> Nathan<br />
Rotenstreich (Jerusalem, 1965), pp. 1–5.<br />
104 The Introductions of Early Enlightenment Th<strong>in</strong>kers
Raphael Jospe<br />
Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist<br />
Preface<br />
In many respects, Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786) personally embodied the Enlightenment<br />
<strong>in</strong> eighteenth-century Germany. A central figure <strong>in</strong> enlightened German<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellectual circles, he was widely perceived by non-Jews <strong>and</strong> Jews alike as represent<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Jews <strong>and</strong> Judaism <strong>in</strong> a society undergo<strong>in</strong>g major transformation, both political<br />
(Jewish emancipation) <strong>and</strong> cultural (Jewish enlightenment). Yet many aspects of<br />
Mendelssohn’s religious thought are deeply <strong>and</strong> thoroughly traditional on core theological<br />
issues, often reflect<strong>in</strong>g the thought, with which he was quite familiar, of the<br />
medieval Jewish philosophers <strong>and</strong> Bible commentators. The modern Berl<strong>in</strong> philosopher<br />
is <strong>in</strong> many respects the student of medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong>.<br />
On some questions, notably criticism of the biblical text, Mendelssohn reaffirmed<br />
a conservative <strong>and</strong> traditionalist view, not only <strong>in</strong> opposition to the overtly critical<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretations of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, but also <strong>in</strong> sharp contrast to the radical questions posed, or<br />
implied, by Abraham Ibn Ezra. Mendelssohn frequently cites the latter’s commentary<br />
but passes over his radicalism <strong>in</strong> deafen<strong>in</strong>g silence, even <strong>in</strong> passages where<br />
Mendelssohn cites some other po<strong>in</strong>t raised by Ibn Ezra.<br />
Nevertheless, although Mendelssohn clearly affirmed <strong>and</strong> identified with basic traditional<br />
Jewish beliefs <strong>and</strong> rema<strong>in</strong>ed a fully observant Jew throughout his life, he was<br />
modern <strong>in</strong> his application, extension, <strong>and</strong> transformation of medieval theory <strong>and</strong> traditional<br />
themes. New historical circumstances <strong>and</strong> a modern political context required<br />
apply<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> extend<strong>in</strong>g traditional Jewish beliefs <strong>and</strong> practices <strong>in</strong> new ways.<br />
Necessity begets virtue, as Mendelssohn came to underst<strong>and</strong> the state’s neutrality <strong>in</strong><br />
religious matters as the only legitimate relationship of these two forces <strong>and</strong> as political<br />
toleration of diverse religions was no longer merely a matter of pragmatic accommodation<br />
but rather an ideal situation reflect<strong>in</strong>g a div<strong>in</strong>ely orda<strong>in</strong>ed pluralism <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>clusive conception of truth.<br />
In affirm<strong>in</strong>g the essential rationality of Judaism (the doctr<strong>in</strong>es of which, he believed,<br />
are none other than the pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of natural religion), Mendelssohn echoed<br />
such medieval predecessors as Saadia Gaon <strong>and</strong> Maimonides. Mendelssohn struck<br />
out <strong>in</strong> new directions with his barely concealed implication that Judaism’s rationality<br />
<strong>and</strong> lack of dogmatic claims to exclusive truth render it not only superior to Christianity,<br />
but also the most tolerant <strong>and</strong> liberal, <strong>and</strong> thus the most modern, religion. 1<br />
1 This paper is based, <strong>in</strong> part, on several earlier studies of diverse aspects of Mendelssohn’s thought:<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
Raphael Royal Netherl<strong>and</strong>s Jospe Academy of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences, 2007<br />
107
Mendelssohn’s Thought <strong>in</strong> Light of Saadia Gaon, Abraham Ibn Ezra, <strong>and</strong><br />
Judah Halevi: Selected Themes<br />
Jewish Particularity<br />
Mendelssohn is deeply <strong>in</strong>debted to Judah Halevi on the basic question of what constitutes<br />
Jewish identity. Rationalist Jewish philosophers of the Middle Ages had<br />
tended to ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> an essentialist def<strong>in</strong>ition of Jewish identity: the Torah, or some<br />
other Jewish ‘essence’, def<strong>in</strong>es the Jewish people. In the words of Saadia Gaon, ‘our<br />
nation of the children of Israel is a nation only by virtue of its laws’. 2 Similarly, for<br />
Abraham Ibn Ezra, the ability of the Jews to transcend astral determ<strong>in</strong>ism is not <strong>in</strong>herent<br />
or national but a function of their knowledge <strong>and</strong> observance of the Torah. 3<br />
For Maimonides, as Menachem Kellner has argued persuasively, ‘the difference between<br />
Jew <strong>and</strong> Gentile is theological <strong>and</strong> not essential … <strong>in</strong> terms first <strong>and</strong> foremost<br />
of <strong>in</strong>tellectual commitment as opposed to national or racial affiliation’. 4<br />
Judah Halevi, of course, represents the epitome of the national, <strong>in</strong>deed racial approach.<br />
The Torah does not, as the rationalists claim, def<strong>in</strong>e the Jews, but the contrary.<br />
‘Without the children of Israel there would be no Torah; moreover, they did not<br />
derive their uniqueness from Moses, but Moses derived his uniqueness from them’. 5<br />
For Halevi, the Jewish people, biologically descended from Abraham, possess a<br />
unique ‘div<strong>in</strong>e faculty’ for prophetic revelation, the amr ilahi (Hebrew: ¨<strong>in</strong>yan elohi). 6<br />
‘Jewish Particularity from Ha-Levi to Kaplan: Implications for Def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g Jewish Philosophy’, <strong>in</strong> Go <strong>and</strong><br />
Study: Essays <strong>and</strong> Studies <strong>in</strong> Honor of Alfred Jospe, ed. Raphael Jospe <strong>and</strong> Samuel Fishman (New<br />
York, 1980), pp. 307–25 [revised <strong>and</strong> republished <strong>in</strong> Forum (World Zionist Organization, Nos. 46/47,<br />
Fall/W<strong>in</strong>ter, 1982): 77–90]; ‘Faith <strong>and</strong> Reason: The Controversy Over Philosophy’, <strong>in</strong> Great Schisms<br />
<strong>in</strong> Jewish History, ed. Raphael Jospe <strong>and</strong> Stanley Wagner (New York 1980), pp. 73–117 [revised <strong>and</strong><br />
republished as ‘Faith <strong>and</strong> Reason: The Controversy Over Philosophy <strong>in</strong> Jewish History’, <strong>in</strong> La Storia<br />
della Filosofia Ebraica, ed. Irene Kajon (Milan, 1993), pp. 99–135]; ‘The Superiority of Oral over<br />
Written Communication <strong>in</strong> Judah Ha-Levi’s Kuzari <strong>and</strong> Modern Jewish Thought’, <strong>in</strong> From Ancient Israel<br />
to Modern Judaism: Essays <strong>in</strong> Honor of Marv<strong>in</strong> Fox, ed. Jacob Neusner, Ernest Frerichs <strong>and</strong><br />
Nahum Sarna (Atlanta, 1989), vol. 3, pp. 127–56; ‘Biblical Exegesis as a Philosophic Literary Genre:<br />
Abraham Ibn Ezra <strong>and</strong> Moses Mendelssohn’, <strong>in</strong> Jewish Philosophy <strong>and</strong> the Academy, ed. Emil<br />
Fackenheim <strong>and</strong> Raphael Jospe (Madison, 1996), pp. 48–92; ‘Sa’adiah Gaon <strong>and</strong> Moses Mendelssohn:<br />
Pioneers of Jewish Philosophy’, <strong>in</strong> Paradigms <strong>in</strong> Jewish Philosophy, ed. Raphael Jospe (Madison,<br />
1997), pp. 37–59; ‘Chosenness <strong>in</strong> Judaism: Exclusivity vs. Inclusivity’, <strong>in</strong> Covenant <strong>and</strong> Chosenness<br />
<strong>in</strong> Judaism <strong>and</strong> Mormonism, ed. Raphael Jospe, Truman Madsen, <strong>and</strong> Seth Ward (Madison, 2001),<br />
pp. 173–94. Unless otherwise <strong>in</strong>dicated, all translations from the Hebrew or Arabic are m<strong>in</strong>e.<br />
2 Saadiah Gaon, The Book of Beliefs <strong>and</strong> Op<strong>in</strong>ions III:7, trans. Samuel Rosenblatt (New Haven, 1948),<br />
p. 158.<br />
3 See Raphael Jospe, ‘Abraham Ibn Ezra’, <strong>in</strong> Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (London, 1998),<br />
4: 611–613; idem, ‘The Torah <strong>and</strong> Astrology Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Abraham Ibn Ezra’, Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of the<br />
Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division C, 2, (Jerusalem, 1994), pp. 17–24; idem, ‘Hatorah<br />
ve-ha-astrologya eÒel Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra’, Da¨at 32–33 (1994): 31–52; Y. Tzvi<br />
Langermann, ‘Some Astrological Themes <strong>in</strong> the Thought of Abraham Ibn Ezra’, <strong>in</strong> Rabbi Abraham Ibn<br />
Ezra: Studies <strong>in</strong> the Writ<strong>in</strong>gs of a Twelfth-Century Jewish Polymath, ed. Isadore Twersky <strong>and</strong> Jay M.<br />
Harris (Cambridge, Mass., 1993), pp. 28–85.<br />
4 See Menachem Kellner, Maimonides on Judaism <strong>and</strong> the Jewish People (Albany, 1991), pp. 5–6;<br />
idem, ‘Overcom<strong>in</strong>g Chosenness’, <strong>in</strong> Jospe, Madsen, <strong>and</strong> Ward, Covenant <strong>and</strong> Chosenness <strong>in</strong> Judaism<br />
<strong>and</strong> Mormonism, p. 161.<br />
5 Judah Halevi, The Kuzari 2:56.<br />
6 Ibid., 1:31–35.<br />
108 Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist
In Halevi’s view, if the historically undeniable phenomenon of prophecy were a<br />
function of the rational faculty, all peoples could have experienced div<strong>in</strong>e revelation,<br />
whereas <strong>in</strong> fact prophetic revelation is universally acknowledged (i.e., by Christians<br />
<strong>and</strong> Muslims as well as by Jews) as manifested only among the people of Israel <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong> the L<strong>and</strong> of Israel. 7<br />
Halevi also denied that Jewish dist<strong>in</strong>ctiveness could be def<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> terms of ethics<br />
or rationality, which must be universal, <strong>and</strong> without which even a b<strong>and</strong> of robbers<br />
could not exist. These universal rational <strong>and</strong> ethical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples are the foundation of<br />
any just society <strong>and</strong> are necessarily prior <strong>in</strong> nature <strong>and</strong> time to the specifically Jewish<br />
laws. 8<br />
Although I am unaware of any <strong>in</strong>dication <strong>in</strong> Mendelssohn’s thought of the k<strong>in</strong>d of<br />
racial doctr<strong>in</strong>e that lies at the core of Halevi’s theory of Jewish particularity,<br />
Mendelssohn’s structure of Jewish particularity was based on Halevi’s. Like Halevi,<br />
Mendelssohn rejected def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g Jewish identity <strong>in</strong> terms of rational truth <strong>and</strong> morality.<br />
Truth <strong>and</strong> morality, essential for human happ<strong>in</strong>ess, must be universally accessible to<br />
all people through reason. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Mendelssohn, this is the universal <strong>and</strong> rational<br />
‘natural religion’ or ‘religion of nature’ on which all positive religion must be<br />
based. Unlike Christianity, Judaism claims no truths necessary for salvation beyond<br />
those of natural religion, which were not, <strong>and</strong> could not have been, revealed. 9<br />
For Mendelssohn, then, to speak of ‘revealed religion’ or ‘revealed truth’ is a contradiction<br />
<strong>in</strong> terms. 10 Someone capable of underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g the truth does not need revelation<br />
(which is accord<strong>in</strong>gly superfluous); someone unconv<strong>in</strong>ced of the truth ‘dem<strong>and</strong>s<br />
rational proofs, not miracles’ (so that revelation is mean<strong>in</strong>gless). 11 Accord<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to Mendelssohn, therefore, Judaism is not revealed religion but revealed law. The revealed<br />
‘ceremonial laws’ (as Mendelssohn calls them) ‘refer to, or are based on, eternal<br />
verities, or rem<strong>in</strong>d us of them, or <strong>in</strong>duce us to ponder them’. 12 ‘The ceremonial<br />
law was to be the l<strong>in</strong>k between thought <strong>and</strong> action, between theory <strong>and</strong> practice’. 13<br />
So Jewish particularity is not def<strong>in</strong>ed by doctr<strong>in</strong>e. A proposition is <strong>in</strong> itself neither<br />
Jewish nor non-Jewish, but true or false. For Mendelssohn, as for Halevi, the specifically<br />
Jewish factor lies not <strong>in</strong> the rational content of what is taught, but <strong>in</strong> the manner<br />
<strong>in</strong> which it is taught, through the observance of the ceremonial law. For both Halevi<br />
<strong>and</strong> Mendelssohn, the underly<strong>in</strong>g rationality <strong>and</strong> morality must be universal <strong>and</strong> must<br />
be prior <strong>in</strong> time <strong>and</strong> nature to the posterior <strong>and</strong> particular revealed Jewish law. For<br />
Halevi, the ritual Jewish laws, <strong>in</strong> the time of the ancient Temple cult, served to acti-<br />
7 Ibid., 1:4, 95, 103; 2:12–24, 32–45, 48. On Halevi’s <strong>in</strong>fluence on Mendelssohn regard<strong>in</strong>g the uniqueness<br />
of the l<strong>and</strong> of Israel, see Zev Harvey, ‘Moshe Mendelssohn ¨al EreÒ Yisraˆel’, <strong>in</strong> EreÒ Yisraˆel bahagut<br />
ha-yehudit ba-¨et ha-Ìadashah, ed. Aviezer Ravitzky (Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 301–12.<br />
8 Halevi, Kuzari 2:48. Cf. 3:7. Nevertheless, although revelation is a function of the div<strong>in</strong>e faculty <strong>and</strong><br />
not the rational faculty, noth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the Torah can contradict reason, just as noth<strong>in</strong>g known rationally can<br />
contradict what is known empirically (ibid., 1:67, 89).<br />
9 Moses Mendelssohn, Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> Other Jewish Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, ed. <strong>and</strong> trans. Alfred Jospe (New York:<br />
Schocken, 1969), p. 69. For an analysis of Mendelssohn’s natural theology, see Allan Arkush, Moses<br />
Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> the Enlightenment (Albany, 1994), pp. 37–68.<br />
10 Ibid., p. 61.<br />
11 Ibid., p. 69.<br />
12 Ibid., p. 71.<br />
13 Ibid., pp. 98–9.<br />
Raphael Jospe<br />
109
vate the latent ‘div<strong>in</strong>e faculty’ of the Jews, mak<strong>in</strong>g the phenomenon of prophecy possible.<br />
For Mendelssohn, today as <strong>in</strong> ancient times, the ceremonial law is the ‘l<strong>in</strong>k between<br />
thought <strong>and</strong> action’. Jewish identity, for both Halevi <strong>and</strong> Mendelssohn, is thus a<br />
formal rather than essentialist category. As we shall see later, for Mendelssohn this is<br />
not merely a theoretical notion but has important practical implications for the compatibility<br />
of traditional Judaism with the modern liberal state <strong>and</strong> religious pluralism.<br />
Publicly Verifiable Historical Truth<br />
A second area <strong>in</strong> which Mendelssohn manifests a deep <strong>in</strong>debtedness to the medieval<br />
philosophers is the question of publicly verifiable historical truth as the basis for affirm<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the Torah as a div<strong>in</strong>ely revealed system of law. Here, too, the issue for<br />
Mendelssohn is not merely theoretical but has fundamental practical implications.<br />
In the <strong>in</strong>troduction to his Book of Beliefs <strong>and</strong> Op<strong>in</strong>ions, Saadia Gaon outl<strong>in</strong>es three<br />
types of universal knowledge: empirical knowledge directly derived from sensory<br />
observation; rational knowledge; <strong>and</strong> deductive ‘knowledge which is <strong>in</strong>ferred by<br />
logical necessity’. 14 To these three types of knowledge he adds a fourth, possessed by<br />
‘the community of the monotheists’ (jama¨ah al-muwaÌad<strong>in</strong>, qehal ha-meyaÌadim),<br />
namely ‘authentic tradition’ (al-khabar al-Òadiq; ha-haggadah ha-neˆemenet), which<br />
‘corroborates for us the validity of the first three sources of knowledge’. 15 Saadia<br />
then asks how this k<strong>in</strong>d of knowledge can be ‘established as convictions accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
the laws of geometry <strong>and</strong> become firmly fixed <strong>in</strong> the m<strong>in</strong>d’. 16 The answer is that the<br />
public <strong>and</strong> endur<strong>in</strong>g nature of authentic tradition (as Saadia called it), or historical<br />
truth (as Mendelssohn called it), like the stories of the exodus from Egypt, renders<br />
them <strong>in</strong>dubitable. 17<br />
For Halevi, publicly verifiable historical events like the exodus from Egypt <strong>and</strong><br />
the revelation at S<strong>in</strong>ai are far more trustworthy <strong>and</strong> reliable sources of knowledge<br />
than rationalist metaphysical speculation is. All the people of Israel had certa<strong>in</strong><br />
knowledge of these events, either through direct personal experience (¨iyan, bi-reˆut<br />
¨enehem; witness<strong>in</strong>g with one’s own eyes) or through ‘un<strong>in</strong>terrupted tradition’ (altawatur<br />
[succession, repetition, cont<strong>in</strong>uation], qabbalah nimshekhet), ‘which is like<br />
direct experience’. 18<br />
14 Saadiah Gaon, Book of Beliefs <strong>and</strong> Op<strong>in</strong>ions, Introduction, §5 (trans. Rosenblatt, p. 16). Cf. the discussion<br />
<strong>in</strong> Arkush, Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> the Enlightenment, pp. 170 ff.<br />
15 Ibid., p. 18. Shlomo P<strong>in</strong>es argues that this is a particularly Jewish type of knowledge, <strong>in</strong>tended only<br />
for Jews. I have argued, on term<strong>in</strong>ological <strong>and</strong> contextual grounds, that Saadiah’s reference to ‘the community<br />
of the monotheists’ cannot be limited to Jews alone. Cf. Jospe, ‘Sa’adiah Gaon <strong>and</strong> Moses<br />
Mendelssohn’, esp. p. 46; idem, ‘Ha-haggadah ha-neˆemenet shel Rabbi Sa¨adyah Gaon: Mi hem qehal<br />
ha-meyaÌadim?’ Da¨at 41 (1998): 5–17.<br />
16 Saadiah Gaon, Book of Beliefs <strong>and</strong> Op<strong>in</strong>ions, Introduction, §6 (trans. Rosenblatt, p. 26). There is a<br />
remarkable parallel between this question <strong>and</strong> that posed by the Royal Academy <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> the announcement,<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1761, of the topic for its 1763 essay competition, which Mendelssohn won: ‘Whether<br />
metaphysical truths <strong>in</strong> general, <strong>and</strong> the first pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of natural theology <strong>and</strong> morality <strong>in</strong> particular, are<br />
susceptible of the same evidence as mathematical truths, <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> case they are not, what is the nature of<br />
their certitude; which degree can it atta<strong>in</strong>; <strong>and</strong> whether this degree is sufficient to impart conviction’.<br />
See Alex<strong>and</strong>er Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study (Alabama, 1973), p. 113.<br />
17 Saadiah Gaon, Book of Beliefs <strong>and</strong> Op<strong>in</strong>ions, Introduction, §6 (trans. Rosenblatt, pp. 29–30).<br />
18 Halevi, Kuzari 1:25. See the discussion <strong>in</strong> Arkush, Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> the Enlightenment, pp. 174–7.<br />
110 Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist
Mendelssohn adopts these arguments, but then applies them with<strong>in</strong> the context of<br />
his political philosophy <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem. As we have seen, the eternal <strong>and</strong> necessary rational<br />
truths (def<strong>in</strong>ed by Leibniz as vérités de raison) are <strong>in</strong>herently universal <strong>and</strong> are<br />
identified with the religion of nature. But there are also temporal <strong>and</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>gent historical<br />
truths (def<strong>in</strong>ed by Leibniz as vérités de fait), ‘events which took place long<br />
ago <strong>and</strong> of which we were told by others but which we ourselves can no longer observe’.<br />
19 These historical truths<br />
can have been perceived only by the senses of those who were present at the time <strong>and</strong><br />
place they occurred <strong>in</strong> nature. Everyone else must accept them on the authority <strong>and</strong> testimony<br />
of others. Moreover, people who live at a subsequent time must rely unconditionally<br />
on the credibility of this testimony, for it testifies to someth<strong>in</strong>g which no longer exists.<br />
20<br />
The public historic revelation of the Torah at S<strong>in</strong>ai cont<strong>in</strong>ues to provide the basis<br />
of the particular Jewish way of life. Mendelssohn extends this medieval argument <strong>in</strong><br />
his modern context. Sp<strong>in</strong>oza had argued <strong>in</strong> his Theologico-Political Treatise that the<br />
Jewish law was valid only with<strong>in</strong> the ancient Jewish polity. In Julius Guttmann’s<br />
words, Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s<br />
identification of Jewish law with Jewish political order was <strong>in</strong>tended to limit the scope of<br />
its applicability to the time when a Jewish state existed, <strong>and</strong> to remove from it any possible<br />
value for the present. 21<br />
Mendelssohn accepted Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s idea that the Jewish law had an enforceable, political<br />
function only with<strong>in</strong> the context of the ancient Jewish polity. But he rejected<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s conclusion regard<strong>in</strong>g the cont<strong>in</strong>ued general validity of the law. The fact<br />
that Jewish law is no longer politically enforceable <strong>in</strong> no way means that it is no<br />
longer religiously valid <strong>and</strong> obligatory for all Jews today (with the exception of those<br />
laws specifically relat<strong>in</strong>g to the Jewish polity <strong>in</strong> the L<strong>and</strong> of Israel <strong>and</strong> the Temple<br />
cult <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem, which no longer exist), precisely because there has been no equally<br />
public, div<strong>in</strong>e revocation of the orig<strong>in</strong>al public, div<strong>in</strong>e revelation:<br />
I cannot see how those who were born <strong>in</strong>to the household of Jacob can <strong>in</strong> good conscience<br />
exempt themselves from the observance of the law. … The law can perhaps also<br />
be changed accord<strong>in</strong>g to the requirements of a particular time, place <strong>and</strong> set of circumstances,<br />
but only if <strong>and</strong> when it pleases the supreme Lawgiver to let us recognize His will<br />
– to make it known to us just as openly, publicly, <strong>and</strong> beyond any possibility of doubt<br />
<strong>and</strong> uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty, as He did when He gave us the law itself. As long as this has not happened,<br />
as long as we can show no such authentic dispensation from the law, no sophistry<br />
of ours an free us from the strict obedience we owe to it. … To be sure, we are exempted<br />
today from those laws which were once, of necessity, connected with l<strong>and</strong> ownership <strong>and</strong><br />
certa<strong>in</strong> civil <strong>in</strong>stitutions [<strong>in</strong> ancient Palest<strong>in</strong>e]. Outside of Judea, without the Temple <strong>and</strong><br />
19 Mendelssohn, Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> Other Jewish Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, p. 62.<br />
20 Ibid., p. 64.<br />
21 Julius Guttmann, Philosophies of Judaism, trans. David Silverman (New York: 1964), p. 299. Cf.<br />
Guttmann, ‘Mendelssohn’s Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s Theologico-Political Treatise’, <strong>in</strong> Studies <strong>in</strong> Jewish<br />
Thought: An Anthology of German Jewish Scholarship, ed. Alfred Jospe (Detroit, 1981), pp. 361–86.<br />
Raphael Jospe<br />
111
priesthood, there can be neither sacrifices nor laws of purification nor levies to support<br />
the priests, <strong>in</strong>asmuch as all these depend on our possession of that l<strong>and</strong>. But personal<br />
comm<strong>and</strong>ments, duties imposed upon every son of Israel, which are unrelated to Temple<br />
service <strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong> ownership <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>e, must, as far as I can see, be strictly observed<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to the words of the law until it will please the Most High to set our conscience<br />
at rest <strong>and</strong> to proclaim their abrogation clearly <strong>and</strong> publicly. 22<br />
This argument obviously precludes both the secularization <strong>and</strong> assimilation of the<br />
Jews <strong>in</strong>to European society, represented by Sp<strong>in</strong>oza <strong>in</strong> the century before<br />
Mendelssohn, <strong>and</strong> the radical religious reforms of Judaism <strong>in</strong> the century after<br />
Mendelssohn. But it also has a more immediate political application. Towards the<br />
end of Jerusalem Mendelssohn explicitly <strong>and</strong> boldly states that if the price of Jewish<br />
emancipation is the ab<strong>and</strong>onment of traditional Jewish way of life based on the laws<br />
of the Torah, the Jews must rema<strong>in</strong> faithful to the Torah <strong>and</strong> renounce emancipation:<br />
If we can be united with you as citizens only on the condition that we deviate from the<br />
law which we still consider b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g, then we s<strong>in</strong>cerely regret the necessity of declar<strong>in</strong>g<br />
that we shall renounce our claim to civil [equality <strong>and</strong>] union with you. … We cannot<br />
forsake the law <strong>in</strong> good conscience – <strong>and</strong> without a conscience of what use would fellow<br />
citizens be to you? 23<br />
Mendelssohn’s modern political application of the medieval argument that the<br />
public nature of the S<strong>in</strong>aitic revelation is proof of its facticity <strong>and</strong> validity also underlies<br />
his exegesis of the open<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>in</strong>e of the Decalogue, ‘I am the Lord your God who<br />
brought you out of the l<strong>and</strong> of Egypt’ (Ex. 20:2 <strong>and</strong> Deut. 5:6). Here, as on the question<br />
of Jewish particularity discussed above, Mendelssohn sides firmly with Judah<br />
Halevi aga<strong>in</strong>st Abraham Ibn Ezra <strong>and</strong> Maimonides. 24<br />
For all of these th<strong>in</strong>kers, the question raised by this verse is the cognitive status<br />
<strong>and</strong> philosophic implications of the phrase, ‘I am the Lord your God’. For Judah<br />
Halevi, as we have seen, historical truth is superior to <strong>and</strong> more certa<strong>in</strong> than metaphysical<br />
speculation. God, therefore, identifies himself to the Israelites <strong>in</strong> terms of<br />
the Exodus, a certa<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> undeniable fact of their national historical experience, <strong>and</strong><br />
not <strong>in</strong> terms of the creation of the world, a speculative metaphysical doctr<strong>in</strong>e questioned<br />
by many. 25<br />
22 Mendelssohn, Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> Other Jewish Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, pp. 104–5. Altmann <strong>and</strong> Arkush also ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><br />
that Mendelssohn’s claims regard<strong>in</strong>g public revelation reflect a medieval Jewish type of historical argumentation<br />
rather than Wolff or other non-Jewish th<strong>in</strong>kers. See Arkush, Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> the Enlightenment,<br />
p. 168. In this chapter, Arkush subjects Mendelssohn’s theory of revelation to sharp criticism.<br />
23 Mendelssohn, Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> Other Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, pp. 106–7.<br />
24 Zev Harvey has discussed Ibn Ezra’s <strong>and</strong> Halevi’s different approaches to this passage <strong>in</strong> ‘Ha-dibber<br />
ha-rishon ve-elohei ha-historiyah: Rabbi Yehudah Halevi ve-Rabbi Îasdai Crescas mul Rabbi Avraham<br />
Ibn Ezra ve-Rambam’, Tarbiz 57(2) (1988): 203–16. In his postscript, Harvey briefly cites Mendelssohn<br />
<strong>and</strong> comments that ‘Mendelssohn’s relationship to Halevi does not always receive appropriate attention’<br />
(p. 216, n. 31). Cf. the discussion <strong>in</strong> David Sork<strong>in</strong>, Moses Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> the Religious Enlightenment<br />
(Berkeley, 1996), p. 129.<br />
25 In the same way, at the start of the dialogue between the Jewish Ìaver <strong>and</strong> the k<strong>in</strong>g of the Khazars<br />
(Kuzari 1:25), Halevi has the k<strong>in</strong>g question why the Ìaver had def<strong>in</strong>ed his belief <strong>in</strong> historical terms<br />
of God as the redeemer of the people, rather than <strong>in</strong> natural terms as the creator <strong>and</strong> ruler of the<br />
world. Halevi has him reply that a religion that underst<strong>and</strong>s God <strong>in</strong> such natural terms is based on dubi-<br />
112 Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist
Ibn Ezra, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, regarded the historical reference <strong>in</strong> our verse as essentially<br />
a concession to the primitive level of underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the Israelites who had<br />
only recently been brought out of Egyptian bondage. These common people had no<br />
way to know God scientifically, through the study of nature. The Torah therefore had<br />
to refer to their immediate historic experience, s<strong>in</strong>ce it was addressed to the entire<br />
nation. For Ibn Ezra, then, as for Maimonides after him, ‘I am the Lord your God’ is<br />
a positive comm<strong>and</strong>ment, <strong>in</strong>deed the most basic of the comm<strong>and</strong>ments, namely, to<br />
affirm the fundamental rational truth of the existence of God.<br />
For Mendelssohn, however, consistent with his general philosophic Weltanschauung,<br />
this verse does not comm<strong>and</strong> belief, because belief cannot be comm<strong>and</strong>ed,<br />
<strong>and</strong> because what is revealed can only be laws, not truths. That be<strong>in</strong>g the case, ‘I am<br />
the Lord your God who brought you out of the l<strong>and</strong> of Egypt’ cannot be construed as<br />
a comm<strong>and</strong>ment at all, but rather as the historical preamble or preface to the subsequent<br />
comm<strong>and</strong>ments. It reiterates the public historical truth upon which the legal<br />
<strong>in</strong>junctions are founded: s<strong>in</strong>ce I am the God who brought you out of Egypt (a historical<br />
fact of the people’s experience), you should have no other gods <strong>in</strong> my presence,<br />
you should make no images, <strong>and</strong> so forth. In short, ‘I am the Lord your God’ is the<br />
foundation of the other comm<strong>and</strong>ments, but not one of them. Therefore, God’s identify<strong>in</strong>g<br />
himself <strong>in</strong> terms of the exodus from Egypt rather than the creation of the<br />
world is not a concession (as <strong>in</strong> Ibn Ezra) to the primitive state of the people, but<br />
establishes a more certa<strong>in</strong> basis (as <strong>in</strong> Halevi) for the people’s acceptance <strong>and</strong> observance<br />
of the Torah.<br />
Mendelssohn, of course, agreed with Ibn Ezra <strong>and</strong> Maimonides that the existence<br />
of God is a universal rational truth, accessible to all people <strong>and</strong> fundamental to all<br />
other religious affirmation <strong>and</strong> behaviour. Unlike them, however, he could not construe<br />
it as a comm<strong>and</strong>ment. To do so would have been to confuse rational truth,<br />
which must be universal <strong>and</strong> accessible to all humans, with the content of a particular<br />
revelation, at a specific time <strong>and</strong> place, to one particular nation, which can govern<br />
only behaviour <strong>and</strong> not convictions.<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Mendelssohn’s <strong>in</strong>terpretation, <strong>in</strong> purely syntactical terms, this verse,<br />
unlike all the subsequent verses of the Decalogue, conta<strong>in</strong>s no imperative verb; it is<br />
merely a descriptive historical statement. As he later developed his political philosophy<br />
<strong>in</strong> Jerusalem, however, belief per se never admits of comm<strong>and</strong> or coercion,<br />
whether human or div<strong>in</strong>e. Only external behaviour can be coerced. The <strong>in</strong>ner convictions<br />
of the heart are subject <strong>and</strong> responsive only to persuasion, not to coercion. To<br />
comm<strong>and</strong> belief <strong>in</strong> God, even <strong>in</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e revelation, is therefore, once aga<strong>in</strong>, a contradiction<br />
<strong>in</strong> terms.<br />
Among the precepts <strong>and</strong> ord<strong>in</strong>ances of the Mosaic law, there is none say<strong>in</strong>g ‘you shall<br />
believe’ or ‘You shall not believe’. All say, ‘You shall do’ or ‘You shall not do’. You are<br />
not comm<strong>and</strong>ed to believe, for faith accepts no comm<strong>and</strong>s; it accepts only what comes to<br />
it by reasoned conviction. 26<br />
ous rational speculation, whereas when God is identified <strong>in</strong> historical terms (such as <strong>in</strong> the open<strong>in</strong>g<br />
verse of the Decalogue) the claim is undeniable <strong>and</strong> certa<strong>in</strong>, because (as we saw above) it is based on<br />
direct personal experience or on un<strong>in</strong>terrupted tradition, which is equally reliable <strong>and</strong> certa<strong>in</strong>.<br />
26 Mendelssohn, Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> Other Jewish Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, pp. 70–2.<br />
Raphael Jospe<br />
113
Mendelssohn’s philosophic exegesis of this verse, therefore, reflects not merely<br />
syntactic <strong>and</strong> theological concerns, like those of his medieval predecessors. Even<br />
more important, it reflects his modern political aim of provid<strong>in</strong>g a theoretical philosophic<br />
framework separat<strong>in</strong>g religious law from coercive political power. To suggest<br />
that human convictions are subject to comm<strong>and</strong>, even if only div<strong>in</strong>e comm<strong>and</strong>, is to<br />
misconstrue the very nature of both rational truth <strong>and</strong> revelation. Furthermore, it<br />
opens a dangerous breach <strong>in</strong> the absolute barrier between religious conviction <strong>and</strong><br />
practice, which must be free, <strong>and</strong> the legitimate but <strong>in</strong>herently coercive political<br />
power of the state. It thus <strong>in</strong>volves not only theoretical error, but an immediate <strong>and</strong><br />
practical danger to modern, enlightened society.<br />
Theory of Language: The Superiority of the Hebrew Language, Biblical Poetry, <strong>and</strong><br />
Oral Communication<br />
Another area <strong>in</strong> which Mendelssohn is deeply <strong>in</strong>debted to Judah Halevi is his theory of<br />
language. While many of the questions raised are purely theoretical, there are, once<br />
aga<strong>in</strong>, at least implicit modern practical applications. Here, however, Mendelssohn refra<strong>in</strong>s,<br />
quite possibly deliberately, from mak<strong>in</strong>g or even mention<strong>in</strong>g those applications.<br />
In the Kuzari 1:53–56 Halevi posits the theory that human languages are not natural<br />
<strong>and</strong> eternal, but generated <strong>and</strong> conventional. Unlike other languages, which arise<br />
at a given time by common agreement, the Hebrew language is neither conventional<br />
nor temporal. It is, rather, the div<strong>in</strong>e language of creation <strong>and</strong> was the orig<strong>in</strong>al human<br />
language, the language of Adam <strong>and</strong> Eve. 27<br />
Halevi then develops a theory of the superiority of oral over written communication,<br />
first <strong>in</strong> general terms <strong>and</strong> then, aga<strong>in</strong>, <strong>in</strong> terms of biblical Hebrew. The unpunctuated<br />
biblical text was endowed with an oral dimension by means of the masoretic<br />
cantillation signs (ta¨amei ha-miqraˆ). These notes convert the unpunctuated written<br />
scripture, which cannot be understood alone, <strong>in</strong>to a liv<strong>in</strong>g text that is read – <strong>in</strong>to a<br />
liv<strong>in</strong>g word heard by the reader <strong>and</strong> the congregation. It is precisely this oral dimension<br />
of biblical Hebrew that renders it superior to other languages.<br />
Biblical Hebrew poetry is similarly superior to the poetry of other languages. Foreign<br />
poetry requires a metric structure; but Hebrew poetry is not constra<strong>in</strong>ed by such<br />
artificial devices, because it aimed at a ‘superior <strong>and</strong> more beneficial quality’ than<br />
mere beauty. 28 The formal aesthetic advantage of meter comes at the expense of effective<br />
communication of the poetic content, the mean<strong>in</strong>g, which is what is truly important.<br />
Meter constitutes an artificial <strong>and</strong> divisive formal structure that often fails to<br />
conform to the true mean<strong>in</strong>g (or possibly diverse levels of mean<strong>in</strong>g) of the words.<br />
The biblical cantillation signs, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, conform to the mean<strong>in</strong>g of the<br />
words, punctuate them, <strong>and</strong> thereby facilitate underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g their mean<strong>in</strong>g. Secular<br />
poetry need be merely pleas<strong>in</strong>g aesthetically. Biblical poetry (from Halevi’s perspective)<br />
was not merely meant to please, however aesthetically pleas<strong>in</strong>g it may actually<br />
be. Its purpose was to <strong>in</strong>struct.<br />
27 Cf. also Kuzari 2:67–68, 4:25.<br />
28 Ibid., 2:70. Altmann (Moses Mendelssohn, p. 410) comments that it is ‘a bit strange’ that Halevi,<br />
himself a great <strong>and</strong> prolific author of metrical poetry, should have regarded meter so negatively.<br />
114 Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist
Although the vibrancy <strong>and</strong> immediacy of oral communication render it superior to<br />
written communication, what one sees <strong>and</strong> experiences personally makes a greater<br />
impression than what one is told by others. Moreover, see<strong>in</strong>g the sensible object facilitates<br />
underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g abstract ideas. 29 The need for visible symbols to facilitate<br />
comprehension does not contradict Halevi’s preference for oral over written communication.<br />
Oral communication is not superior because it is audible, rather than visible,<br />
but because it is immediate, alive, <strong>and</strong> facilitated by aids (gestures, tone of voice,<br />
etc.) – what we today call ‘body language’ – <strong>in</strong> a face-to-face encounter. Sensible<br />
symbols (whether visible or audible) similarly assist <strong>in</strong> our comprehension of otherwise<br />
abstract ideas by endow<strong>in</strong>g them with an immediate <strong>and</strong> liv<strong>in</strong>g quality.<br />
All of these ideas recur <strong>and</strong> resound <strong>in</strong> Mendelssohn’s thought. Mendelssohn’s<br />
Hebrew <strong>in</strong>troduction to the Torah, Or la-netivah (Light for the path), as well as his<br />
Beˆur (the Hebrew commentary on the Torah, which he published together with the<br />
Hebrew text of the Pentateuch <strong>and</strong> his German translation thereof under the title<br />
Netivot ha-shalom [Paths of peace]) 30 , as well as his German-language Jerusalem,<br />
clearly reflect Halevi’s Kuzari on all these po<strong>in</strong>ts: Hebrew as the orig<strong>in</strong>al language of<br />
creation <strong>and</strong> of Adam <strong>and</strong> Eve; 31 the superiority of the Hebrew language; the superiority<br />
of biblical poetry; the role of the biblical cantillation signs; the superiority of<br />
oral communication; the need for concrete symbols. It is only <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem, <strong>in</strong>tended<br />
for a non-Jewish audience, that Mendelssohn went farther than Halevi on the question<br />
of the superiority of oral communication <strong>and</strong> the need for visible symbols (although<br />
he refra<strong>in</strong>ed from tak<strong>in</strong>g the next logical step or, perhaps, failed to realize the<br />
potentially radical implications of his theory).<br />
For Mendelssohn, as for Halevi, the biblical cantillation signs were one of the<br />
unique features of the Hebrew language that make it superior to other languages. But<br />
Mendelssohn adds a po<strong>in</strong>t that, so far as I know, is not made by Halevi <strong>in</strong> the Kuzari:<br />
Moses actually heard the words precisely as <strong>in</strong>dicated by the masoretic vocalization<br />
<strong>and</strong> the cantillation signs, which were then transmitted orally from generation to generation.<br />
32 As Halevi had said, the cantillation signs do not merely punctuate the text<br />
by connect<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> separat<strong>in</strong>g the words. Rather, they add a liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> oral dimension<br />
to the ‘dry bones’ of the written text. 33<br />
Mendelssohn also discusses the question of the orig<strong>in</strong>al Hebrew script <strong>in</strong> which<br />
the Torah was written (cit<strong>in</strong>g Kuzari 3:30) <strong>and</strong> (like Halevi) concludes his discussion<br />
of biblical Hebrew with a survey of Hebrew grammar.<br />
29 Kuzari 4:5.<br />
30 Cf. Psalm 119:105, ‘Your word is a lamp for my feet <strong>and</strong> a light for my path’. The phrase ‘the paths<br />
of peace’ is taken from Proverbs 3:17, ‘Its ways are ways of pleasantness <strong>and</strong> all its paths are peace.’<br />
On Mendelssohn’s associates <strong>in</strong> the Beˆur project, see the discussion <strong>in</strong> the next section of this paper.<br />
31 Mendelssohn, Or la-netivah (1783), <strong>in</strong> Sefer Netivot ha-shalom (Prague, 1836), vol. 1 (Genesis), p. 2.<br />
In addition to Altmann’s discussion of this work <strong>in</strong> Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study, see<br />
Edward R. Levenson, ‘Moses Mendelssohn’s Underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of Logico-Grammatical <strong>and</strong> Literary Construction<br />
<strong>in</strong> the Pentateuch: A Study of His German Translation <strong>and</strong> Hebrew Commentary (The Beˆur)’<br />
(Ph.D. dissertation, Br<strong>and</strong>eis University, 1972). Levenson’s valuable study deals extensively with<br />
Mendelssohn’s attitude toward <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpretative use of the masoretic system of biblical cantillations.<br />
See also: Perez S<strong>and</strong>ler, Ha-beˆur la-torah shel Moshe Mendelssohn ve-si¨ato (Jerusalem, 1940);<br />
Sork<strong>in</strong>, Moses Mendelssohn, pp. 53–90.<br />
32 Or la-netivah, pp. 3a–b. Cf. the discussion <strong>in</strong> Sork<strong>in</strong>, Moses Mendelssohn, pp. 66–7.<br />
33 Or la-netivah, p. 3b.<br />
Raphael Jospe<br />
115
In the <strong>in</strong>troduction to the Song of Moses (Exodus 15) <strong>in</strong> the Beˆur, Mendelssohn<br />
follows <strong>and</strong> amplifies Halevi’s theory of biblical poetry <strong>and</strong> aga<strong>in</strong> explicitly cites the<br />
Kuzari. Like Halevi, Mendelssohn appreciated biblical poetry’s freedom from the artificial<br />
constra<strong>in</strong>ts of meter, such as typified Greek <strong>and</strong> Lat<strong>in</strong> poetry, as well as its<br />
freedom from the constra<strong>in</strong>ts of rhyme. 34 Sacred poetry thus does not merely please;<br />
it <strong>in</strong>structs <strong>and</strong> corrects <strong>in</strong>dividuals <strong>and</strong> aims at ‘controll<strong>in</strong>g the faculties of the soul<br />
<strong>and</strong> rul<strong>in</strong>g its qualities, <strong>and</strong> chang<strong>in</strong>g its characteristics as it wishes’. 35 Biblical poetry<br />
thus serves a moral, <strong>and</strong> not merely aesthetic, purpose.<br />
In short, <strong>in</strong> his two Hebrew works on the Bible (Or la-netivah <strong>and</strong> the Beˆur), written<br />
<strong>in</strong> the traditional manner <strong>and</strong> aimed at Jewish readers, Mendelssohn cites the<br />
Kuzari <strong>and</strong> further develops Judah Halevi’s theories of the superiority of the Hebrew<br />
language, biblical poetry, <strong>and</strong> the system of biblical cantillation – all positions<br />
scarcely appropriate for a Gentile audience.<br />
Mendelssohn’s Jerusalem, written <strong>in</strong> German <strong>and</strong> aimed at non-Jewish readers,<br />
also manifests Judah Halevi’s <strong>in</strong>fluence <strong>in</strong> these matters, but transforms Halevi’s arguments<br />
<strong>and</strong> applies them <strong>in</strong> a new direction. Halevi’s l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>and</strong> pedagogic arguments<br />
regard<strong>in</strong>g the superiority of the Hebrew language, biblical poetry, <strong>and</strong> oral<br />
communication concern the most effective way of communicat<strong>in</strong>g mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> facilitat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
comprehension. Mendelssohn beg<strong>in</strong>s with such l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>and</strong> pedagogic arguments,<br />
but proceeds from the level of communicat<strong>in</strong>g mean<strong>in</strong>g to the level of apprehend<strong>in</strong>g<br />
metaphysical <strong>and</strong> religious truth. The Jewish religion conveys abstract<br />
metaphysical truth while avoid<strong>in</strong>g dilution of that truth by plastic symbols or obscur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the truth by limit<strong>in</strong>g it to the fixed <strong>and</strong> immutable written word.<br />
Halevi (<strong>in</strong> Kuzari 4:5 <strong>and</strong> 5:20) acknowledged that visible symbols may be<br />
needed to represent abstract truths. Mendelssohn extends this <strong>in</strong>sight, enrich<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
discussion with two new elements that prove for him the superiority of Jewish religion<br />
<strong>in</strong> general terms <strong>and</strong> specifically over Christianity. First, s<strong>in</strong>ce plastic symbols<br />
<strong>in</strong>evitably lead to idolatry, 36 Judaism employs the comm<strong>and</strong>ments, rather than images,<br />
as a concrete means of <strong>in</strong>culcat<strong>in</strong>g abstract truths. 37 Second, Mendelssohn says<br />
that today, because of the spread of the written word, we are witness<strong>in</strong>g a breakdown<br />
<strong>in</strong> immediate oral communication. The ceremonial laws, which <strong>in</strong> Judaism replace<br />
images as the l<strong>in</strong>k between thought <strong>and</strong> action, were orig<strong>in</strong>ally largely transmitted<br />
orally <strong>and</strong> were not committed to writ<strong>in</strong>g for centuries, until changed historic circumstances<br />
required that radical change.<br />
It was only much later that the heads of the Synagogue decided, albeit with considerable<br />
reluctance, to grant permission – which by then had become necessary – to record some<br />
legal traditions <strong>in</strong> writ<strong>in</strong>g. 38<br />
34 Beˆur, <strong>in</strong>troduction to the Song of the Sea, Exodus 15:1, p. 82a. Cf. Sork<strong>in</strong>, Moses Mendelssohn,<br />
pp. 76–7.<br />
35 Beˆur, <strong>in</strong>troduction to the Song of the Sea, Exodus 15:1, p. 82a.<br />
36 Mendelssohn, Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> Other Jewish Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, p. 82.<br />
37 Ibid., p. 90.<br />
38 Ibid., p. 74.<br />
116 Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist
Oral <strong>in</strong>struction is superior to the written word for both the <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>and</strong> the nation,<br />
because it encourages the student to explore <strong>and</strong> emulate the liv<strong>in</strong>g example of<br />
his teacher. 39 Moreover, unlike the immutable <strong>and</strong> fixed written word, oral <strong>in</strong>struction<br />
rema<strong>in</strong>s flexible <strong>and</strong> can respond creatively <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>novatively to chang<strong>in</strong>g conditions<br />
<strong>and</strong> circumstances. 40 Without its oral <strong>in</strong>terpretation, the written Torah would<br />
have become <strong>in</strong>comprehensible, ‘s<strong>in</strong>ce no words or letters can reta<strong>in</strong> their mean<strong>in</strong>g<br />
unchanged from one generation to the next’. 41<br />
For Mendelssohn, then, the oral Torah is a crucial argument for the superiority of<br />
Judaism over Christianity. The obvious applicability to Christianity (certa<strong>in</strong>ly classical<br />
Christianity) of his arguments aga<strong>in</strong>st plastic images required no explicit mention;<br />
discretion precluded mention<strong>in</strong>g the obvious. But what about <strong>in</strong>ternal Jewish<br />
problems? S<strong>in</strong>ce, as he explicitly acknowledged, it became necessary to commit the<br />
oral Torah to writ<strong>in</strong>g, the obvious question concerns the effect of that radical change<br />
on subsequent developments <strong>in</strong> Judaism. After all, the change was not recent, but had<br />
taken place at about the same time that Christianity was splitt<strong>in</strong>g away from Judaism.<br />
Mendelssohn, however, refra<strong>in</strong>s from address<strong>in</strong>g this question. Despite his promise<br />
‘to show the <strong>in</strong>fluence of these factors upon religion <strong>and</strong> morals more clearly’, he<br />
never <strong>in</strong> fact discusses the impact on Judaism of the <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g shift from oral to<br />
written communication. 42 He discusses at length <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> general terms the problems<br />
<strong>in</strong>herent <strong>in</strong> represent<strong>in</strong>g abstract truth by plastic symbols. But except for his brief discussion<br />
of the Golden Calf (based on Halevi’s <strong>in</strong>terpretation of the story, <strong>in</strong> Kuzari<br />
1:97), he does not exam<strong>in</strong>e the ‘<strong>in</strong>fluence of these factors upon religion <strong>and</strong> morals’<br />
<strong>in</strong> specifically Jewish terms.<br />
In summary, Mendelssohn argues that Judaism is superior to Christianity, <strong>in</strong>ter<br />
alia, because, unlike Christianity, it adds no dogmas essential for salvation to the basic<br />
rational truths of the religion of nature, <strong>and</strong> because, <strong>in</strong> order to <strong>in</strong>culcate abstract<br />
truth, Judaism posits the ceremonial laws as the ‘l<strong>in</strong>k between thought <strong>and</strong> action’<br />
rather than employ<strong>in</strong>g potentially idolatrous plastic symbols. The oral quality of its<br />
teach<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> the concomitant flexibility <strong>in</strong>herent <strong>in</strong> the oral Torah also contribute to<br />
its superiority <strong>in</strong> convey<strong>in</strong>g the truth. But if all this is true, as Mendelssohn affirmed,<br />
then surely one needs to <strong>in</strong>vestigate how the alleged flexibility of the oral Torah was<br />
affected once it came to be written down. For a millennium <strong>and</strong> a half the ‘oral’ Torah<br />
of Judaism had, <strong>in</strong> fact, been transmitted <strong>in</strong> written form. Mendelssohn’s promise<br />
to assess ‘the <strong>in</strong>fluence of these factors [i.e., writ<strong>in</strong>g] on religion <strong>and</strong> morals’ rema<strong>in</strong>s<br />
unfulfilled. He does not answer the question. What is more, he does not even ask the<br />
question <strong>in</strong> Jewish terms. 43<br />
39 Ibid., pp. 90–1. Cf. also Or la-netivah (p. 3b) regard<strong>in</strong>g the oral <strong>in</strong>struction of the child by the parent<br />
or teacher. The biblical text was thus transmitted orally together with the cantillation notes.<br />
40 Mendelssohn, Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> Other Jewish Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, pp. 73–4.<br />
41 Ibid., p. 99.<br />
42 Ibid., p. 76.<br />
43 This question became one of the fundamental issues debated <strong>in</strong> the generation after Mendelssohn,<br />
first with regard to Jewish educational reform <strong>and</strong> later with regard to radical religious reform <strong>in</strong> the<br />
mid- <strong>and</strong> late-n<strong>in</strong>eteenth century. More than a century after Mendelssohn, the question was discussed by<br />
Ahad Ha’am <strong>in</strong> several essays, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g: ¨Al shtei ha-se¨ippim’ (1910), translated by Leon Simon as<br />
‘Judaism <strong>and</strong> the Gospels’, <strong>in</strong> Ten Essays on Zionism <strong>and</strong> Judaism (London, 1922); ‘Torah she-ba-lev’<br />
Raphael Jospe<br />
117
Biblical Criticism: The Modern Ibn Ezra <strong>and</strong> the <strong>Medieval</strong> Mendelssohn<br />
Mendelssohn’s silence on Bible criticism is equally deafen<strong>in</strong>g. His thorough religious<br />
traditionalism, already evident <strong>in</strong> some of the positions discussed above – such<br />
as his literalist affirmation of the public revelation at S<strong>in</strong>ai, Hebrew as the orig<strong>in</strong>al<br />
language of creation <strong>and</strong> of Adam <strong>and</strong> Eve, <strong>and</strong> Moses’ hav<strong>in</strong>g heard the biblical text<br />
together with the masoretic punctuation <strong>and</strong> cantillations, <strong>and</strong> his silence about the<br />
potentially radical implications of the oral Torah’s transmission for centuries <strong>in</strong> written<br />
form – is further evident <strong>in</strong> his refusal even to mention (if only to attack) textcritical<br />
questions <strong>in</strong> his Or la-netivah <strong>and</strong> Beˆur.<br />
Mendelssohn assumed overall responsibility for the entire Beˆur project, although<br />
several associates collaborated <strong>and</strong> wrote various sections. As Mendelssohn himself<br />
states (Or la-netivah 13b–14), Solomon Dubno (1739–1813) wrote the commentary<br />
on most of Genesis, although Mendelssohn himself wrote the commentary to the first<br />
‘parashah’ (Genesis 1:1–6:8) <strong>and</strong> added his own comments <strong>in</strong> square brackets<br />
throughout the commentary. The commentary on Exodus was written by Mendelssohn<br />
himself, with bracketed comments by Dubno. The commentary on Leviticus<br />
was written by Naphtali Herz (Hartwig) Wessely (1725–1805), with bracketed comments<br />
by Mendelssohn. Regard<strong>in</strong>g the commentaries on Numbers <strong>and</strong> Deuteronomy,<br />
Mendelssohn writes ‘I was assisted <strong>in</strong> comment<strong>in</strong>g on them … but because of their<br />
humility [my associates] did not permit me to reveal their names’. In fact, Aaron<br />
Jaroslav helped with the Numbers commentary <strong>and</strong> Herz Homberg (1749–1841) with<br />
the Deuteronomy commentary. S<strong>in</strong>ce Mendelssohn supervised <strong>and</strong> edited the entire<br />
Torah commentary, add<strong>in</strong>g his own comments to those of his associates (or add<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Dubno’s comments to his own), I treat the whole Beˆur as Mendelssohn’s work <strong>and</strong><br />
certa<strong>in</strong>ly as reflect<strong>in</strong>g his ideas.<br />
Mendelssohn saw his biblical commentaries as completely traditional. But Alex<strong>and</strong>er<br />
Altmann has suggested that they were seen by others as <strong>in</strong>novative, despite<br />
Mendelssohn’s conservative <strong>in</strong>tentions: ‘The rank <strong>and</strong> file of the Jewish community<br />
… were much more likely to be struck by the novelty of the work than by its loyalty<br />
to accepted st<strong>and</strong>ards’. 44<br />
Altmann’s statement that ‘Mendelssohn was well aware of the problems raised by<br />
critical scholarship’ is undoubtedly true. The <strong>in</strong>fluence of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza on Mendelssohn’s<br />
thought, both positive <strong>and</strong> negative, has been well documented. Mendelssohn must<br />
have given serious consideration to Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s attack on the biblical text.<br />
Mendelssohn’s silence <strong>in</strong> the Beˆur on problematical biblical passages, as well as<br />
his outspoken defence of the unitary Mosaic authorship of the Torah <strong>in</strong> Or lanetivah,<br />
are therefore equally eloquent <strong>and</strong> clearly manifest both a rejection of bibli-<br />
(1894), partially translated by Leon Simon as ‘The People of the Book’, <strong>in</strong> Essays, Letters, Memoirs<br />
[by] Ahad Ha-am (Oxford, 1946); ‘Sh<strong>in</strong>nui ha-¨arakh<strong>in</strong>’ (1898), translated by Leon Simon as ‘A Transvaluation<br />
of Values’ (<strong>in</strong> Selected Essays by Ahad Ha-Am, Philadelphia, 1948) <strong>and</strong> (<strong>in</strong> a different <strong>and</strong><br />
abridged form) as ‘Judaism <strong>and</strong> Nietzsche’ <strong>in</strong> Ahad Ha-Am: Essays, Letters, Memoirs (Oxford, 1946).<br />
44 Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn, pp. 374–6. Altmann also comments: ‘It is remarkable how tenaciously<br />
Mendelssohn sometimes adhered to theories evolved at an early period of his life. By its very<br />
nature his work <strong>in</strong> the Beˆur tended to re<strong>in</strong>force ideas of a conservative character’ (p. 411).<br />
118 Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist
cal criticism <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciple <strong>and</strong> a pragmatic avoidance of discussion of problematic passages,<br />
even when they are discussed directly or obliquely <strong>in</strong> the classical exegetical<br />
literature, most notably <strong>in</strong> the commentaries of Abraham Ibn Ezra, which are otherwise<br />
cited frequently <strong>and</strong> approv<strong>in</strong>gly.<br />
What was Ibn Ezra’s attitude towards the unitary Mosaic authorship of the Torah?<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Sp<strong>in</strong>oza (<strong>in</strong> the Theologico-Political Treatise, Ch. 8):<br />
Aben Ezra, a man of enlightened <strong>in</strong>telligence, <strong>and</strong> no small learn<strong>in</strong>g… [who] was the<br />
first, so far as I know, to treat of this op<strong>in</strong>ion, dared not express his mean<strong>in</strong>g openly, but<br />
conf<strong>in</strong>ed himself to dark h<strong>in</strong>ts which I shall not scruple to elucidate, thus throw<strong>in</strong>g full<br />
light on the subject… In these few words he h<strong>in</strong>ts, <strong>and</strong> also shows, that it was not Moses<br />
who wrote the Pentateuch, but someone who lived long after him, <strong>and</strong> further, that the<br />
book which Moses wrote was someth<strong>in</strong>g different from any now extant. 45<br />
Note that these are precisely the two po<strong>in</strong>ts Mendelssohn defends – Moses as the<br />
author of the entire Torah (aga<strong>in</strong>st ‘higher criticism’) <strong>and</strong> the <strong>in</strong>tegrity <strong>and</strong> authenticity<br />
of the biblical text that we have (aga<strong>in</strong>st ‘lower criticism’).<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza then identifies six passages <strong>in</strong> which he underst<strong>and</strong>s Ibn Ezra to allude to<br />
the impossibility of Mosaic authorship. Of course, Ibn Ezra could not, by Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s<br />
own admission, have explicitly made such a case, <strong>and</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s view is essentially a<br />
precursor of Leo Strauss’ thesis of ‘Persecution <strong>and</strong> the Art of Writ<strong>in</strong>g’. 46 Mendelssohn<br />
himself, as has been noted, observes a discreet silence here.<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ce Ibn Ezra wrote elliptically <strong>in</strong> these passages, no unequivocal answer is possible<br />
about his attitude toward the biblical text <strong>and</strong> there is a difference of scholarly<br />
op<strong>in</strong>ion on the subject. Some scholars, like Nahum Sarna <strong>and</strong> Uriel Simon, accept<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s read<strong>in</strong>g of Ibn Ezra; Hava Lazarus-Yafeh has suggested that Ibn Ezra’s<br />
exposure to Islamic criticism of the Torah text <strong>and</strong> arguments for its later redaction<br />
may have ‘given impetus’ to his own critical approach. 47 Their view is challenged by<br />
other scholars, such as Michael Friedländer <strong>and</strong> Amos Funkenste<strong>in</strong>, 48 who argue<br />
aga<strong>in</strong>st constru<strong>in</strong>g Ibn Ezra as a Bible critic. In the n<strong>in</strong>eteenth century we f<strong>in</strong>d vigorous<br />
affirmations of Ibn Ezra as a traditionalist, <strong>in</strong>, for <strong>in</strong>stance, the supercommentaries<br />
by Solomon Zalman Netter <strong>and</strong> Judah Leib Kr<strong>in</strong>sky <strong>and</strong> the commentary on<br />
the Pentateuch by Samuel David Luzzatto (1800–1865). 49<br />
When read<strong>in</strong>g Ibn Ezra we must be careful not to <strong>in</strong>fer too little or too much. He<br />
seems to have had no objections to the radical theological implications of a critical<br />
attitude per se – for example, with regard to anachronisms – <strong>and</strong> contented himself<br />
with counsell<strong>in</strong>g discretion: ‘the <strong>in</strong>telligent should keep silent’. Rather, his argu-<br />
45 The Chief Works of Benedict de Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, trans. R. H. M. Elwes (New York, 1951), Vol. 1, pp. 12021.<br />
46 Leo Strauss, Persecution <strong>and</strong> the Art of Writ<strong>in</strong>g (Glencoe/Ill., 1952).<br />
47 Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertw<strong>in</strong>ed Worlds: <strong>Medieval</strong> Islam <strong>and</strong> Bible Criticism (Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton, 1992), pp.<br />
73–4; cf. Nahum Sarna, ‘Hebrew Bible Studies <strong>in</strong> <strong>Medieval</strong> Spa<strong>in</strong>’, <strong>in</strong> The Sephardi Heritage (London,<br />
n.d.) pp. 349–50, <strong>and</strong> ‘Abraham Ibn Ezra as an Exegete’, <strong>in</strong> Twersky <strong>and</strong> Harris, Rabbi Abraham Ibn<br />
Ezra: Studies <strong>in</strong> the Writ<strong>in</strong>gs of a Twelfth-Century Jewish Polymath, pp. 1–27; Uriel Simon, ‘Tanakh:<br />
Parshanut’, <strong>in</strong> Encyclopedia Biblica (Jerusalem, 1982), 8:677–80; cf. also Tovia Preschel on Ibn Ezra <strong>in</strong><br />
Encyclopedia Judaica (1972) 8:1167.<br />
48 Michael Friedländer, Essays on the Writ<strong>in</strong>gs of Abraham Ibn Ezra (London, 1877), pp. 60–7; Amos<br />
Funkenste<strong>in</strong>, Signonot be-farshanut ha-miqraˆ bimei ha-benayim (Tel Aviv, 1990), p. 33.<br />
49 See the discussion <strong>in</strong> Jospe, ‘Biblical Exegesis as a Philosophic Literary Genre’, pp. 55–8.<br />
Raphael Jospe<br />
119
ments are often posed <strong>in</strong> narrow, methodological terms. But just as Ibn Ezra seems<br />
not to have had any fundamental ideological problems with at least a moderate<br />
amount of Bible criticism (keep<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d that these problematical passages are<br />
anachronistic only if, <strong>in</strong> general, the Torah is ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed to have been written <strong>in</strong> the<br />
time of Moses, as Luzzatto po<strong>in</strong>ted out), he cannot have rejected all prophecies of the<br />
future as later <strong>in</strong>terpolations, for that would have been tantamount to deny<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
phenomenon of prophecy itself. For Ibn Ezra, therefore, the question was not whether<br />
a prophet could <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciple predict the future, but the <strong>in</strong>telligibility of the prophecy<br />
to the prophet himself <strong>and</strong> to his audience. What Ibn Ezra rejects as impossible <strong>and</strong><br />
as <strong>in</strong>compatible with the rationality of revelation is any revelation that is <strong>in</strong>herently<br />
un<strong>in</strong>telligible. For if revelation is to be mean<strong>in</strong>gful, it must be comprehensible to its<br />
recipients. As Uriel Simon has written:<br />
Ibn Ezra’s objection to anachronisms does not arise, therefore, from the absurdity <strong>in</strong>herent<br />
<strong>in</strong> premature <strong>in</strong>formation about the future. Rather, only the fact that it is presented as<br />
already known <strong>and</strong> familiar underm<strong>in</strong>es the reasonableness of its style <strong>and</strong> the clarity of<br />
its content. 50<br />
If Ibn Ezra’s critical or proto-critical approach is, therefore, ambiguous <strong>and</strong> perhaps<br />
consciously ambivalent, there is no ambiguity or ambivalence <strong>in</strong> the case of<br />
Mendelssohn, who explicitly reaffirms (both <strong>in</strong> Or la-netivah <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> the Beˆur) the<br />
traditional unitary Mosaic authorship of the entire Torah, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the last twelve<br />
verses of Deuteronomy (34:1–12, describ<strong>in</strong>g the death <strong>and</strong> burial of Moses) – despite<br />
the fact that the authorship of these verses is discussed <strong>in</strong> the Talmud itself (Bava<br />
Batra 15a) <strong>in</strong> a totally non-controversial <strong>and</strong> non-ideological manner, without the<br />
slightest implication that the view attribut<strong>in</strong>g these verses to Joshua <strong>in</strong>volves any<br />
problem. Mendelssohn’s desire to avoid even the slightest h<strong>in</strong>t of critical controversy<br />
may be the reason why the Beˆur ends with Deuteronomy 33 <strong>and</strong> there is no commentary<br />
on Deuteronomy 34.<br />
Let us review how some of these passages, which, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Sp<strong>in</strong>oza <strong>and</strong> many<br />
modern readers, Ibn Ezra understood critically, are h<strong>and</strong>led <strong>in</strong> the Beˆur. The glosses<br />
on Deuteronomy 1:1–2, 3:11, 27:2, <strong>and</strong> 31:9 <strong>in</strong>clude references to Ibn Ezra but<br />
totally ignore the critical questions raised by Ibn Ezra that formed the basis of<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s argument.<br />
The Beˆur is also silent about Genesis 22:14, where Ibn Ezra cryptically comments<br />
that ‘the mean<strong>in</strong>g of “on the mounta<strong>in</strong> of the Lord will be seen” [may be<br />
found] <strong>in</strong> [the commentary to] Deuteronomy [1:2]’. Mendelssohn follows Rashi <strong>in</strong><br />
say<strong>in</strong>g that ‘on the mounta<strong>in</strong> of the Lord will be seen’ means that this is the mounta<strong>in</strong><br />
on which, <strong>in</strong> later generations, God would be seen by his people as they worship <strong>in</strong><br />
the Temple erected on that spot. In other words, ha-yom = ‘that day’ or ‘today’ refers<br />
not to a later author writ<strong>in</strong>g the text but to later generations read<strong>in</strong>g the text.<br />
Mendelssohn adds: ‘These are the words of Moses which Moses wrote <strong>in</strong> the Torah.<br />
He meant to signify that place <strong>and</strong> to <strong>in</strong>form the people of his generation about it’.<br />
50 Uriel Simon, ‘Ibn Ezra Between <strong>Medieval</strong>ism <strong>and</strong> Modernism: The Case of Isaiah XL–LXVI’, Vetus<br />
Testamentum 36 (1985): 266.<br />
120 Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist
The most blatant case of the Beˆur’s silence on Ibn Ezra’s critical implications is<br />
its treatment of Genesis 12:6, ‘the Canaanite was then <strong>in</strong> the l<strong>and</strong>’. Here it cites only<br />
the non-controversial first half of Ibn Ezra’s comment. Ibn Ezra had said that if<br />
‘then’ refers to an earlier time, it simply means that <strong>in</strong> Abraham’s time the<br />
Canaanites controlled the l<strong>and</strong> but had not done so previously; whereas if ‘then’ refers<br />
to a later time, namely then but not now, when this passage of the Torah was<br />
written, ‘it has a secret mean<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> the <strong>in</strong>telligent should keep silent’. In other<br />
words, if ‘then’ is contrasted to a later time when there were no longer Canaanites <strong>in</strong><br />
the l<strong>and</strong>, it could not have been written <strong>in</strong> the time of Moses, when the Canaanites<br />
did <strong>in</strong>habit the l<strong>and</strong>. The Beˆur ignores Ibn Ezra’s controversial conclusion.<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to the Beˆur:<br />
The term ‘then’ <strong>in</strong>dicates a particular time, sometimes to negate an earlier time, i.e., then<br />
<strong>and</strong> not before. Sometimes it negates a later time, i.e., then <strong>and</strong> not now. Here, accord<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to Rashi’s commentary, it negates the earlier time, <strong>and</strong> that is also the <strong>in</strong>terpretation of<br />
Ibn Ezra at the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of his words, <strong>and</strong> this is also how it is translated <strong>in</strong> the German<br />
[‘Das Volk Canaan war damals noch im L<strong>and</strong>e’].<br />
Only on Genesis 36:31 (‘These are the k<strong>in</strong>gs who ruled <strong>in</strong> the l<strong>and</strong> of Edom before<br />
any k<strong>in</strong>g ruled over the children of Israel’) does the Beˆur touch, however<br />
lightly, on a critical reference <strong>in</strong> Ibn Ezra. Ibn Ezra comments here:<br />
Some say that this portion was written prophetically. YiÒÌaqi says <strong>in</strong> his book that this<br />
portion was written <strong>in</strong> the time of Jehoshafat (2 K<strong>in</strong>gs 8)…. God forbid that it be as he<br />
said, <strong>in</strong> the time of Jehoshafat; his book should be burned… The true <strong>in</strong>terpretation of<br />
‘before any k<strong>in</strong>g ruled over the children of Israel’ is [that it refers] to Moses the k<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
Israel, as it is written, ‘He was k<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Jeshurun’ (Deut. 33:5).<br />
The Beˆur cites Ibn Ezra here, but aga<strong>in</strong>, only partially, <strong>and</strong> adds its own explanatory<br />
comment:<br />
Ibn Ezra wrote: Some say that this portion was written prophetically, because they<br />
thought that ‘before any k<strong>in</strong>g ruled over the children of Israel’ [refers to] Saul, which<br />
Moses could only have known prophetically. [Ibn Ezra] cited the op<strong>in</strong>ion of YiÒÌaqi,<br />
who was Isaac ben Yashush the Spaniard 51 <strong>and</strong> argued aga<strong>in</strong>st it. The end of [Ibn Ezra’s]<br />
words is ‘the true <strong>in</strong>terpretation of “before any k<strong>in</strong>g ruled” is [that it refers] to Moses the<br />
k<strong>in</strong>g of Israel, as it is written, “He was k<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Jeshurun”’.<br />
The Beˆur comments further on the passage, beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g with Rashbam’s similar<br />
view that the k<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> question is Moses. 52 What is significant is that the Beˆur men-<br />
51 Cf. ‘Ibn Yashush, Isaac Ibrahim’ <strong>in</strong> Encyclopaedia Judaica (1972) 8:1211. Uriel Simon rejects the<br />
identification of Ibn Ezra’s YiÒÌaqi, whose lost commentary seems to have been written <strong>in</strong> Hebrew,<br />
with the l<strong>in</strong>guist Isaac ibn Yashush, <strong>in</strong> whose time commentaries <strong>and</strong> grammar were often written <strong>in</strong><br />
Arabic. See Uriel Simon, ‘Parshanut ha-miqraˆ ¨al derekh ha-pesha†: Ha-askolah ha-sefaradit’, <strong>in</strong><br />
Moreshet Sefarad, ed. Haim Be<strong>in</strong>art (Jerusalem, 1992), p. 97.<br />
52 Note, however, that accord<strong>in</strong>g to the Beˆur on Deuteronomy 33:5, ‘He was k<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Jeshurun’ refers to<br />
God: ‘Then the Lord was k<strong>in</strong>g over Israel, who accepted the yoke of his k<strong>in</strong>gship <strong>in</strong> the assembly of the<br />
heads of the nation’.<br />
Raphael Jospe<br />
121
tions Ibn Ezra’s reference to YiÒÌaqi but omits the actual argument. Mention<strong>in</strong>g Ibn<br />
Ezra’s argument is safe for Mendelssohn, because Ibn Ezra himself condemned (at<br />
least ostensibly) the radical <strong>in</strong>terpretation proposed by YiÒÌaqi. But Mendelssohn refra<strong>in</strong>s<br />
from quot<strong>in</strong>g Ibn Ezra, thereby avoid<strong>in</strong>g the controversial text.<br />
As mentioned before, the Beˆur’s silence <strong>in</strong> all these passages is deafen<strong>in</strong>g. It<br />
clearly cannot be accidental, but must be a form of self-censorship. As Altmann has<br />
suggested, the controversy <strong>in</strong> Orthodox circles that Mendelssohn’s German translation<br />
of the Torah <strong>and</strong> the Hebrew Beˆur aroused was of paramount concern to<br />
Mendelssohn, who clearly wished for himself <strong>and</strong> his work to be accepted by traditionalist<br />
circles.<br />
Mendelssohn’s traditionalism on core theological issues, both as a philosopher <strong>and</strong><br />
certa<strong>in</strong>ly as a Bible exegete, is obvious. Engag<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> biblical criticism would have<br />
violated his own deeply held religious convictions <strong>and</strong> traditionalist belief <strong>in</strong> the div<strong>in</strong>e<br />
authority <strong>and</strong> Mosaic authorship of the Torah. Discuss<strong>in</strong>g or even mention<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the critical issues raised explicitly by Sp<strong>in</strong>oza <strong>and</strong> at least implicitly by Abraham Ibn<br />
Ezra would have underm<strong>in</strong>ed the traditionalist religious <strong>and</strong> pedagogic purposes on<br />
whose behalf Mendelssohn engaged <strong>in</strong> what was already a sufficiently controversial<br />
undertak<strong>in</strong>g. Hence Mendelssohn followed Ibn Ezra’s admonition that ‘the <strong>in</strong>telligent<br />
should rema<strong>in</strong> silent’ by deliberately ignor<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g silent on the problematical<br />
implications of Ibn Ezra’s own work.<br />
Mendelssohn’s Modern Applications <strong>and</strong> Extensions of <strong>Medieval</strong> Theory <strong>and</strong><br />
Traditional Themes<br />
Mendelssohn, as we have portrayed him thus far, is clearly a student of the medieval<br />
Jewish philosophers <strong>and</strong> Bible exegetes. In some cases his modern, post-Sp<strong>in</strong>oza reaffirmation<br />
of traditional doctr<strong>in</strong>es is far more conservative than the more radical (or<br />
potentially radical) positions of Abraham Ibn Ezra, who had greater freedom to explore<br />
critical or proto-critical questions not only because of his discreet <strong>and</strong> elliptical<br />
style, which permitted him to avoid a frontal attack on tradition, but also because<br />
these questions were not yet widely known (as they were <strong>in</strong> Mendelssohn’s time)<br />
<strong>and</strong> therefore did not pose an obvious <strong>and</strong> immediate danger <strong>in</strong> the eyes of his public.<br />
In other cases, the challenges Mendelssohn faced were different from those of his<br />
medieval predecessors <strong>and</strong> required him to transform whatever theories or themes he<br />
adopted from them. At the very beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>gs of medieval Jewish philosophy, <strong>in</strong> the<br />
n<strong>in</strong>th <strong>and</strong> tenth centuries, Saadia Gaon attempted to meet the challenges faced by the<br />
Jewish <strong>in</strong>tellectual that came from three different sources: philosophy; other religions<br />
(specifically Islam <strong>and</strong> Christianity); <strong>and</strong>, with<strong>in</strong> Judaism, Karaism. Two of<br />
these challenges were overtly religious. But there was a religious dimension to the<br />
philosophical challenge as well. Although philosophy is <strong>in</strong>herently rational <strong>and</strong> universal<br />
<strong>in</strong> its methodology <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> that sense is ‘secular’, much of Islamic, Jewish, <strong>and</strong><br />
Christian philosophy <strong>in</strong> the Middle Ages was fundamentally religious <strong>in</strong> its content,<br />
as scholars like Julius Guttmann <strong>and</strong> Alex<strong>and</strong>er Altmann have ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed. As Guttmann<br />
wrote:<br />
122 Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist
Even dur<strong>in</strong>g the Middle Ages – which knew someth<strong>in</strong>g like a total, all-embrac<strong>in</strong>g culture<br />
based on religion – philosophy rarely transcended its religious centre. This religious orientation<br />
constitutes the dist<strong>in</strong>ctive character of Jewish philosophy…. In this respect the<br />
philosophy of Judaism, whatever the differences <strong>in</strong> content deriv<strong>in</strong>g from the specific<br />
doctr<strong>in</strong>es <strong>and</strong> the concepts of authority of the religions concerned, is formally similar to<br />
that of Christianity <strong>and</strong> Islam. 53<br />
This ‘all-embrac<strong>in</strong>g culture based on religion’, which provided the Sitz im Leben<br />
for Jewish philosophy <strong>in</strong> the Middle Ages, no longer existed <strong>in</strong> the Age of Reason.<br />
Mendelssohn, it will be recalled, often faced traditional Christian evangelical challenges,<br />
such as that posed by Johann Caspar Lavater <strong>in</strong> 1769. Mendelssohn’s response<br />
to Lavater <strong>in</strong>voked the tolerant ideals of the Enlightenment. S<strong>in</strong>ce Judaism<br />
<strong>and</strong> Christianity share a common morality, those theoretical issues on which they differ<br />
are of no legitimate concern to society <strong>and</strong> need not be defended publicly. In<br />
other words, when challenged (rather rudely) by evangelical Christian polemics,<br />
Mendelssohn sought refuge <strong>in</strong> the cherished ideals of the Enlightenment. But <strong>in</strong><br />
1782, when he was challenged by the anonymous ‘Searcher for Light <strong>and</strong> Right’, 54<br />
Mendelssohn recognized that this time the challenge was greater <strong>and</strong> would have to<br />
be addressed directly, because it came from the Enlightenment itself. The greater<br />
challenge to modern Judaism, <strong>in</strong> short, came not from Christian religion but from<br />
secular culture. Furthermore, the <strong>in</strong>tensity of the new challenge was enhanced not<br />
only by its secular cultural content (the Enlightenment) but also by its secular political<br />
context (emancipation).<br />
Therefore, even when his religious or philosophical positions were adopted from<br />
his medieval predecessors, Mendelssohn had to adapt them so they could be applied<br />
<strong>in</strong> different circumstances. We can discern two stages of this process of adopt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong><br />
adapt<strong>in</strong>g. The first stage is theological: the reaffirmation of the superiority of<br />
Judaism <strong>in</strong> the face of compet<strong>in</strong>g claims, with the result<strong>in</strong>g conclusion that Judaism<br />
is more ‘modern’ than Christianity <strong>in</strong> its rationality <strong>and</strong> toleration. The second stage<br />
is philosophical: Mendelssohn’s Jewish critique of modern political philosophy (specifically<br />
Locke <strong>and</strong> Less<strong>in</strong>g).<br />
The Theological Stage: Mendelssohn’s Reaffirmation of the Superiority of Judaism<br />
as More ‘Modern’ than Christianity <strong>in</strong> Its Rationality <strong>and</strong> Toleration<br />
First, we have already seen that Mendelssohn argues that Judaism adds no dogmas,<br />
no eternal truths necessary for salvation, to the basic rational truths of natural reli-<br />
53 Julius Guttmann, Philosophies of Judaism, pp. 9–10. Similar views are expressed, for example, about<br />
Christian philosophy by Etienne Gilson <strong>and</strong> about Islamic philosophy by Henri Corb<strong>in</strong>. For a discussion<br />
of these issues, see Raphael Jospe, What Is Jewish Philosophy? 2 nd ed. (Ramat Aviv, 1990), pp. 30–43.<br />
54 The pamphlet Das Forschen nach Licht und Recht (‘The search for light <strong>and</strong> right’) appeared <strong>in</strong> June<br />
1782. Mendelssohn <strong>in</strong>itially thought that the author was the apostate Josef von Sonnenfels, a figure <strong>in</strong><br />
Vienna Enlightenment circles. By April 1783 Mendelssohn knew that the author was actually August<br />
Friedrich Cranz. See the discussion <strong>in</strong> Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn, pp. 502 ff. Regard<strong>in</strong>g the challenge<br />
Mendelssohn faced with the publication of the pamphlet, Arkush (Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> the Enlightenment,<br />
p. xiii) states that ‘it was not his metaphysics but his liberalism that Mendelssohn had to reconcile<br />
with traditional Judaism’.<br />
Raphael Jospe<br />
123
gion, namely the existence of God, providential reward <strong>and</strong> punishment, <strong>and</strong> the immortality<br />
of the human soul, on the grounds that these truths must be rationally accessible<br />
to all humans <strong>in</strong> all times <strong>and</strong> all places <strong>and</strong> cannot be revealed. His structure<br />
of Jewish particularity is formally similar to that of Judah Halevi. Mendelssohn’s<br />
theory differs from Halevi’s not only because it is not racially based, but also because<br />
Halevi argued for the universality of reason <strong>and</strong> morality, not for the existence of a<br />
universal, rational religion of nature. Mendelssohn’s theory establishes the basis for<br />
two modern corollaries that are basic pillars of the Enlightenment ideology of religious<br />
toleration. First, s<strong>in</strong>ce all positive religions, with their diverse theoretical doctr<strong>in</strong>es<br />
<strong>and</strong> ritual practices, share a common, universal rational basis <strong>and</strong> morality, the<br />
state can <strong>and</strong> must tolerate diversity <strong>and</strong> be neutral <strong>in</strong> religious areas. Second, s<strong>in</strong>ce<br />
the truths essential for human happ<strong>in</strong>ess are rationally accessible to all, there is no<br />
basis for claim<strong>in</strong>g exclusivity of salvation. A different <strong>and</strong> more positive relationship<br />
among religions is therefore not only practically possible, <strong>in</strong> terms of political toleration,<br />
but also theoretically desirable, <strong>in</strong> terms of pluralism.<br />
For Judah Halevi, the rational basis of universal truth <strong>and</strong> morality proves that<br />
what is dist<strong>in</strong>ctively Jewish is a supra-rational, biological faculty of prophecy. This,<br />
<strong>in</strong> turn, <strong>in</strong> no way means the relativization of diverse ritual practices <strong>in</strong> different religions.<br />
At the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of the Kuzari, it will be recalled, the Khazar k<strong>in</strong>g has a recurr<strong>in</strong>g<br />
dream, <strong>in</strong> which he is addressed by an angel who tells him that his <strong>in</strong>tentions are<br />
pleas<strong>in</strong>g to God, but not his actions. For Halevi, ritual or, to use Mendelssohn’s term,<br />
‘ceremonial’ actions are of the highest religious importance, <strong>in</strong> terms of serv<strong>in</strong>g God<br />
<strong>and</strong> activat<strong>in</strong>g the latent ‘div<strong>in</strong>e faculty’ <strong>in</strong> every native-born Jew.<br />
Halevi’s theory cannot, therefore, be confused with the modern political theory of<br />
a state separate from <strong>and</strong> neutral <strong>in</strong> religious affairs, which did not exist <strong>in</strong> his time.<br />
Nor can Halevi’s theory be construed as advanc<strong>in</strong>g the cause of religious pluralism.<br />
In both these respects – political toleration <strong>and</strong> religious pluralism – Judah Halevi<br />
provides a formal basis for Mendelssohn’s thought, but Mendelssohn applies <strong>and</strong> extends<br />
the medieval theory <strong>in</strong> new modern directions, giv<strong>in</strong>g it new (<strong>and</strong> even opposite)<br />
content.<br />
Second, <strong>in</strong> his open letter to Johann Caspar Lavater, 55 Mendelssohn cites the rabb<strong>in</strong>ic<br />
statement that ‘the righteous of the nations of the world have a portion <strong>in</strong> the<br />
world to come’ (Ìasidei ummot ha-¨olam yesh la-hem Ìeleq la-¨olam ha-baˆ) – whom<br />
he, like Maimonides, equates with those who observe ‘the seven comm<strong>and</strong>ments of<br />
the children of Noah’ (sheva¨ miÒvot benei NoaÌ). 56<br />
55 English translation by Alfred Jospe, <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> Other Jewish Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, p. 113–22; see<br />
pp. 168–9, n. 44.<br />
56 This is the phras<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, Book of <strong>Knowledge</strong>, Laws of Repentance 3:5,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Book of Judges, Laws of K<strong>in</strong>gs 8:11. Cf. T Sanhedr<strong>in</strong> 13:2, ed. M. S. Zuckerm<strong>and</strong>el <strong>and</strong> Saul<br />
Lieberman (Jerusalem, 1970), p. 434, <strong>and</strong> the different text <strong>in</strong> B Sanhedr<strong>in</strong> 105a. On the different views<br />
<strong>in</strong> the Tosefta passage, see Raphael Jospe, ‘The Concept of the Chosen People: An Interpretation’,<br />
Judaism. 43(2) (1994): pp. 130–1. Jacob Katz (Exclusiveness <strong>and</strong> Tolerance: Jewish-Gentile Relations<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>Medieval</strong> <strong>and</strong> Modern Times [New York, 1962], pp. 174–7) discusses Mendelssohn’s <strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />
of Maimonides’ view <strong>and</strong> his consultation on the subject with Rabbi Jacob Emden. The text of<br />
Maimonides available to Mendelssohn was defective <strong>and</strong> presented a more restrictive view, (namely,<br />
that a person who affirms the seven Noachide comm<strong>and</strong>ments on the basis of reason alone is ‘not a<br />
124 Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist
Our rabbis hold unanimously that the written as well as the oral laws that constitute our<br />
revealed religion are b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g only for our own people…. All other nations were enjo<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
by God to observe the law of nature <strong>and</strong> the religion of the patriarchs. All who live <strong>in</strong><br />
accordance with this religion of nature <strong>and</strong> of reason are called ‘the righteous among the<br />
nations’; they too are entitled to eternal bliss. Far from obsessed by any desire to proselytize,<br />
our rabbis require us to discourage as forcefully as we can anyone who asks to be<br />
converted…. In his present state, he is obligated to fulfil only the Noachide laws <strong>in</strong> order<br />
to be saved. 57<br />
Once aga<strong>in</strong>, Mendelssohn extends the traditional notion <strong>and</strong> applies it <strong>in</strong> new<br />
ways. In the Tosefta, the discussion revolves around the issue of who qualifies for a<br />
‘portion <strong>in</strong> the world to come’ <strong>and</strong> who does not. The text <strong>in</strong>cludes an argument between<br />
Rabbi Eliezer, who believed that wicked Jews <strong>and</strong> all Gentiles have no portion<br />
<strong>in</strong> the world to come, <strong>and</strong> Rabbi Joshua, who argued that Rabbi Eliezer erred, because<br />
only those nations (i.e., the Gentiles) ‘forgetful of God’ are excluded, like<br />
wicked Jews, from the world to come, <strong>and</strong> not all Gentiles categorically. The criteria<br />
for <strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>and</strong> exclusion are thus moral <strong>and</strong> not national. Mendelssohn certa<strong>in</strong>ly<br />
agreed with Rabbi Joshua’s position, as he did with Maimonides’ def<strong>in</strong>ition of a<br />
righteous gentile as one who observes ‘the seven comm<strong>and</strong>ments of the children of<br />
Noah’. But he uses these two ideas – the <strong>in</strong>clusion of righteous gentiles <strong>in</strong> the world<br />
to come <strong>and</strong> the def<strong>in</strong>ition of such righteous gentiles as people who observe the<br />
seven Noachide comm<strong>and</strong>ments – to make two modern po<strong>in</strong>ts. The first is to build an<br />
argument aga<strong>in</strong>st exclusivity of salvation <strong>and</strong> aga<strong>in</strong>st proselytiz<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> favour of<br />
greater respect for dissent<strong>in</strong>g religious op<strong>in</strong>ion. One may consider other op<strong>in</strong>ions to<br />
be theoretically wrong, but <strong>in</strong> practical terms they rema<strong>in</strong> the foundation of the common<br />
morality <strong>and</strong> should not be underm<strong>in</strong>ed:<br />
It is my good fortune to count among my friends many an excellent man who is not of<br />
my faith…. I enjoy the pleasure of his company <strong>and</strong> feel enriched by it. But at no time<br />
has my heart whispered to me, ‘What a pity that this beautiful soul should be lost’….<br />
Only that man will be troubled by such regrets who believes that there is no salvation<br />
outside his church…. Some of my countrymen hold views <strong>and</strong> convictions which, although<br />
I consider them wrong, do belong to a higher order of theoretical pr<strong>in</strong>ciples. They<br />
are not harmful, because they have little or no relationship to the practical concerns of<br />
daily life. Yet they frequently constitute the foundation on which people have erected<br />
their systems of morality <strong>and</strong> social order <strong>and</strong> are therefore of great importance to them.<br />
To question such notions publicly merely because we consider them biased or erroneous<br />
would be like remov<strong>in</strong>g the foundation stones of a build<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> order to exam<strong>in</strong>e the<br />
soundness of its structure. 58<br />
righteous Gentile nor [ve-lo] one of their sages’) that created difficulties for Mendelssohn. Most current<br />
scholarly op<strong>in</strong>ion underst<strong>and</strong>s Maimonides <strong>in</strong> light of a broader textual read<strong>in</strong>g (namely, that a person<br />
who affirms the seven Noachide comm<strong>and</strong>ments on the basis of reason alone is ‘not a righteous Gentile<br />
but rather [ela] one of their sages’), a read<strong>in</strong>g with which Mendelssohn would have been happier.<br />
57 Letter to Lavater, 12 December 1769, <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> Other Jewish Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, pp. 116–7. Arkush<br />
(Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> the Enlightenment, p. 201) correctly notes that the identification of the righteous gentile<br />
with a person who observes the seven Noachide comm<strong>and</strong>ments is Maimonidean, not talmudic, <strong>and</strong><br />
that Mendelssohn’s statement here is accord<strong>in</strong>gly somewhat <strong>in</strong>accurate.<br />
58 Ibid., pp. 118–9. Mendelssohn’s example here of underm<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a build<strong>in</strong>g is paralleled later <strong>in</strong> Jerusa-<br />
Raphael Jospe<br />
125
The second po<strong>in</strong>t is Mendelssohn’s equation of ‘the seven comm<strong>and</strong>ments of the<br />
children of Noah,’ which are observed by ‘the righteous among other nations’ with<br />
‘the law of nature <strong>and</strong> the religion of the patriarchs’ <strong>and</strong> with ‘this religion of nature<br />
<strong>and</strong> of reason’ – the universal religion of nature.<br />
Here, aga<strong>in</strong>, a traditional Jewish idea is extended <strong>and</strong> applied <strong>in</strong> a modern context.<br />
For Mendelssohn, Judaism, unlike Christianity (or at least Lavater’s evangelical type<br />
of Christianity), does not claim exclusivity of salvation <strong>and</strong> therefore has no reason<br />
to seek proselytes. On the contrary, Judaism recognizes the common, universal rational<br />
<strong>and</strong> moral basis of diverse religions (namely, the religion of nature, which is<br />
equated here with the seven Noachide comm<strong>and</strong>ments) <strong>and</strong> the legitimacy of the existence<br />
of diverse religions. The implication, discreetly left unstated, is that Judaism<br />
is therefore more conducive than evangelical Christianity to social harmony <strong>and</strong><br />
peace, because it does not attempt to underm<strong>in</strong>e other groups’ dissent<strong>in</strong>g theoretical<br />
foundations of the common, universal morality.<br />
Third, Mendelssohn’s theory that, <strong>in</strong> Judaism, the revealed ceremonial laws replace<br />
plastic images as rem<strong>in</strong>ders of abstract truth <strong>and</strong> that most of the Jewish laws<br />
were transmitted orally <strong>in</strong> order to preserve flexibility <strong>and</strong> encourage immediate,<br />
face-to-face <strong>in</strong>terpersonal communication, is also extended <strong>and</strong> applied <strong>in</strong> a modern<br />
context. Modernity, he argued, is characterized by <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g reliance on the written<br />
word <strong>in</strong> place of direct communication. ‘Everyth<strong>in</strong>g is reduced to the dead letter; the<br />
spirit of liv<strong>in</strong>g dialogue no longer exists anywhere’. 59 The result is human alienation<br />
<strong>and</strong> a gradual social breakdown of religion <strong>and</strong> morals. Judah Halevi’s theory of the<br />
superiority of oral communication is thus extended <strong>and</strong> applied to a broad critique of<br />
what Mendelssohn regarded as a dangerous <strong>and</strong> deleterious development <strong>in</strong> modern<br />
society, a development for which Judaism provides a remedy.<br />
The Philosophical Stage: Mendelssohn’s Jewish Critique of Modern Political<br />
Philosophy (Locke <strong>and</strong> Less<strong>in</strong>g)<br />
In the second stage of Mendelssohn’s modern application <strong>and</strong> extension of medieval<br />
<strong>and</strong> traditional themes, we can see how his philosophical critiques of Locke (<strong>in</strong> Part I<br />
of Jerusalem) <strong>and</strong> of his friend Less<strong>in</strong>g (<strong>in</strong> Part II of Jerusalem) reflect Jewish as<br />
well as purely philosophic considerations.<br />
Mendelssohn’s Jerusalem is deeply <strong>in</strong>fluenced by his read<strong>in</strong>g of political philosophy,<br />
especially Sp<strong>in</strong>oza <strong>and</strong> Hobbes, but most of all by John Locke’s A Letter Concern<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Toleration (written <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam, 1683–1689). His <strong>in</strong>debtedness to Locke is<br />
so pervasive that the source is often unmentioned. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Alex<strong>and</strong>er Altmann,<br />
‘Mendelssohn refers only to those aspects of Locke’s doctr<strong>in</strong>e that provoke his criticism’.<br />
60 Locke’s <strong>in</strong>fluence, which is both ideological <strong>and</strong> stylistic, is particularly pervasive<br />
<strong>in</strong> Part I of Jerusalem, on the proper relationship between state <strong>and</strong> religion.<br />
lem, <strong>in</strong> the passage cited below, to the effect that Christianity is based on Judaism <strong>and</strong> anyone who underm<strong>in</strong>es<br />
the foundations will also cause the collapse of the upper stories.<br />
59 Mendelssohn, Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> Other Jewish Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, p. 75.<br />
60 Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn, p. 160.<br />
126 Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist
The arguments <strong>in</strong> both books are often expressed <strong>in</strong> remarkably similar style <strong>and</strong><br />
phraseology.<br />
Mendelssohn’s earlier (1782) preface to the German translation of Menasseh Ben-<br />
Israel’s V<strong>in</strong>diciae Judaeorum – the publication of which led the ‘Searcher’ to challenge<br />
Mendelssohn, which <strong>in</strong> turn led him to write Jerusalem – also broadly manifests<br />
Locke’s <strong>in</strong>fluence. In one particular <strong>in</strong>stance, Mendelssohn simply reverses<br />
Locke’s argument, the shoe be<strong>in</strong>g on the other foot. Locke had argued that if the state<br />
cannot religiously coerce the Jew, it certa<strong>in</strong>ly cannot coerce dissent<strong>in</strong>g Christians:<br />
Now if we acknowledge that such an <strong>in</strong>jury may not be done unto a Jew, as to compel<br />
him aga<strong>in</strong>st his own op<strong>in</strong>ion, to practice <strong>in</strong> his religion a th<strong>in</strong>g that is <strong>in</strong> its nature <strong>in</strong>different;<br />
how can we ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> that any th<strong>in</strong>g of this k<strong>in</strong>d may be done to a Christian? 61<br />
Mendelssohn turns the argument around when he opposes the rabb<strong>in</strong>ic ban of excommunication<br />
(Ìerem): if the Jews now enjoy external toleration by the Christians<br />
among whom they live, how can they not practice <strong>in</strong>ternal toleration of dissent<strong>in</strong>g<br />
op<strong>in</strong>ion with<strong>in</strong> their own community?<br />
I have that confidence <strong>in</strong> the more enlightened amongst the Rabb<strong>in</strong>s, the elders of my<br />
nation, that they will be glad to rel<strong>in</strong>quish so pernicious a prerogative, that they will<br />
cheerfully do away with all church <strong>and</strong> synagogue discipl<strong>in</strong>e, <strong>and</strong> let their flock enjoy, at<br />
their h<strong>and</strong>s, even that k<strong>in</strong>dness <strong>and</strong> forbearance, which they themselves have been so<br />
long pant<strong>in</strong>g for. Ah, my brethren, you have hitherto felt too hard the yoke of <strong>in</strong>tolerance,<br />
<strong>and</strong> perhaps thought it a sort of satisfaction, if the power of bend<strong>in</strong>g those under<br />
you to such another yoke were allowed to you…. You, perhaps, let yourselves be seduced<br />
to adopt the very same system; <strong>and</strong> the power of persecut<strong>in</strong>g was to you the most<br />
important prerogative which your own persecutors could bestow upon you. Thank the<br />
God of your forefathers, thank the God who is all love <strong>and</strong> mercy, that that error appears<br />
to be gradually vanish<strong>in</strong>g. The nations are now tolerat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> bear<strong>in</strong>g with one another,<br />
while to you also they are shew<strong>in</strong>g k<strong>in</strong>dness <strong>and</strong> forbearance…. If you would be protected,<br />
tolerated <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>dulged, protect, tolerate <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>dulge one another. Love, <strong>and</strong> ye<br />
will be loved. 62<br />
Return<strong>in</strong>g to Jerusalem, we should note, however, that even <strong>in</strong> Part II of the book,<br />
which deals with Mendelssohn’s application to Judaism of the general political<br />
theory of Part I <strong>and</strong> thereby presents his response to the ‘Searcher’, a major element<br />
<strong>in</strong> the structure of his argument is borrowed directly from Locke. Aga<strong>in</strong>, the similarities<br />
are of both form <strong>and</strong> content. Mendelssohn ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s that the ancient Jewish<br />
state was unique <strong>in</strong> all history because <strong>in</strong> that state, <strong>and</strong> only <strong>in</strong> that state, God was<br />
61 John Locke, A Letter Concern<strong>in</strong>g Toleration, <strong>in</strong> Locke on Politics, Religion, <strong>and</strong> Education, ed.<br />
Maurice Cranston (New York, 1965), p. 126. It is <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g to note that a similar argument was made<br />
by Peter Stuyvesant, governor of the Dutch colony of New Amsterdam (later New York), who opposed<br />
Jewish settlement <strong>in</strong> the colony. In a letter to the Dutch West India Company, he wrote: ‘Giv<strong>in</strong>g them<br />
liberty, we cannot refuse the Lutherans <strong>and</strong> the Papists’ (cited <strong>in</strong> Henry Fe<strong>in</strong>gold, Zion <strong>in</strong> America: The<br />
Jewish Experience from Colonial Times to the Present [New York, 1974], p. 23).<br />
62 Mendelssohn, preface to the German translation of V<strong>in</strong>diciae Judaeorum. English translation by M.<br />
Samuels <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem: A Treatise on Ecclesiastical Authority <strong>and</strong> Judaism (London, 1838), vol. 1, pp.<br />
115–6. Selections from the preface may also be found <strong>in</strong> Moses Mendelssohn: Selections from his Writ<strong>in</strong>gs,<br />
ed. <strong>and</strong> trans. Eva Jospe (New York, 1975), pp. 89–92.<br />
Raphael Jospe<br />
127
the sovereign lawgiver, so that religion <strong>and</strong> state were not two dist<strong>in</strong>ct entities, the<br />
artificial union of which leads to tyranny, but completely identical.<br />
State <strong>and</strong> religion <strong>in</strong> this orig<strong>in</strong>al constitution were not united but identical, not jo<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
together but one <strong>and</strong> the same. Man’s relation to society <strong>and</strong> his relation to God converged<br />
<strong>in</strong> one po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>and</strong> could never come <strong>in</strong>to tension. God, the Creator <strong>and</strong> Keeper of<br />
the world, was at the same time the K<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> Adm<strong>in</strong>istrator of this nation,… the nation’s<br />
Lawgiver <strong>and</strong> Magistrate. Every civil act, therefore, was <strong>in</strong>vested with sacredness <strong>and</strong><br />
religious significance, <strong>and</strong> every act of civic service became, at the same time, a true act<br />
of div<strong>in</strong>e worship…. This constitution existed only once; call it, if you will, by the name<br />
of its founder, the Mosaic constitution. It has disappeared, <strong>and</strong> only the Almighty knows<br />
among what people <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> which century someth<strong>in</strong>g similar may appear once aga<strong>in</strong>. 63<br />
A century before Mendelssohn, Locke had written <strong>in</strong> similar language:<br />
For the commonwealth of the Jews, different <strong>in</strong> that from all others, was an absolute theocracy:<br />
nor was there, or could there be, any difference between that commonwealth <strong>and</strong><br />
the church. The laws established there concern<strong>in</strong>g the worship of one <strong>in</strong>visible Deity,<br />
were the civil laws of that people, <strong>and</strong> a part of their political government, <strong>in</strong> which God<br />
himself was the legislator. 64<br />
Locke refers here to the ancient Jewish state as an ‘absolute theocracy’. Mendelssohn<br />
was obviously uncomfortable with the negative contemporary implications of<br />
such a term. Consequently, despite his agreement <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciple with Locke <strong>and</strong> his<br />
generally similar language, Mendelssohn rejects call<strong>in</strong>g ‘the Jewish polity… a<br />
hierocracy, an ecclesiastical government, a priestly state, a theocracy, if you will’.<br />
Instead, he suggests, it should be called the ‘Mosaic constitution’ (Mosaische<br />
Verfassung) <strong>in</strong> order to emphasize its unique, one-time, <strong>and</strong> sui generis status. He<br />
then comments:<br />
All these technical terms throw a false light upon the matter, <strong>and</strong> this I had to avoid. It<br />
seems that all we ever want to do is to classify <strong>and</strong> compartmentalize…. Why do you<br />
keep look<strong>in</strong>g for the gender of a th<strong>in</strong>g which has no gender, which defies every classification,<br />
which cannot be put under the same rubric together with anyth<strong>in</strong>g else? 65<br />
Term<strong>in</strong>ology aside, this argument provides the basis for Mendelssohn’s claim,<br />
aga<strong>in</strong>st the ‘Searcher’, that the Torah laws were politically enforceable only with<strong>in</strong><br />
63 Mendelssohn, Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> Other Jewish Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, pp. 99–102. Zev Harvey has shown that<br />
Mendelssohn, <strong>in</strong> the Beˆur, regarded ‘set a k<strong>in</strong>g over yourselves’ (Deut. 17:15) not as a comm<strong>and</strong>ment<br />
to the people, whose desire for a mortal k<strong>in</strong>g was a rebellion aga<strong>in</strong>st God’s k<strong>in</strong>gship, but as a comm<strong>and</strong>ment<br />
to the people’s leaders to respect the people’s wish – what he called mishpat he-hamon, ‘the way<br />
of the multitude’. ‘In truth, Deuteronomy 17:15, as <strong>in</strong>terpreted by Mendelssohn, is not a comm<strong>and</strong>ment<br />
of monarchy, but rather a comm<strong>and</strong>ment of democracy: the people must be free to accept or reject their<br />
government, even if they choose to reject the government of God!’ (Zev Harvey, ‘Mendelssohn’s Heavenly<br />
Politics’, <strong>in</strong> Perspectives on Jewish Thought <strong>and</strong> Mysticism, ed. Alfred Ivry, Elliot Wolfson, <strong>and</strong><br />
Allan Arkush (Amsterdam, 1998), p. 405. Harvey notes that Mendelssohn’s phrase ‘heavenly politics’<br />
(himmlische Politik) reflects the Hebrew malkhut shamayim, ‘the k<strong>in</strong>gdom of heaven’. Although the<br />
state, unlike religion, may need to resort to coercion, ‘a government is good to the extent that it rules by<br />
education, not by coercion’ (ibid., p. 409).<br />
64 Locke, A Letter Concern<strong>in</strong>g Toleration, p. 131.<br />
65 Mendelssohn, Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> Other Jewish Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, p. 102.<br />
128 Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist
that unique ancient Jewish polity <strong>and</strong> that there is no contradiction or <strong>in</strong>consistency,<br />
therefore, <strong>in</strong> his religious affirmation of the validity of the Torah <strong>and</strong> Jewish law, on<br />
the one h<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> his political philosophy oppos<strong>in</strong>g religious coercion, on the other<br />
h<strong>and</strong>.<br />
In Part I of Jerusalem, though, Mendelssohn takes issue with one important area<br />
of Locke’s theory. Locke had argued ‘that all the power of civil government relates<br />
only to men’s civil <strong>in</strong>terests, is conf<strong>in</strong>ed to the care of th<strong>in</strong>gs of this world, <strong>and</strong> [has]<br />
noth<strong>in</strong>g to do with the world to come’. 66 Similarly,<br />
Th<strong>in</strong>gs ever so <strong>in</strong>different <strong>in</strong> their own nature, when they are brought <strong>in</strong>to the church <strong>and</strong><br />
worship of God, are removed out of the reach of the magistrate’s jurisdiction, because <strong>in</strong><br />
that use they have no connection at all with civil affairs. The only bus<strong>in</strong>ess of the church<br />
is the salvation of souls: <strong>and</strong> it no ways concerns the commonwealth, or any member of<br />
it, that this or the other ceremony be there made use of. 67<br />
State <strong>and</strong> religion thus have completely separate spheres of <strong>in</strong>terest, accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
Locke. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Mendelssohn, though, this total separation, although a clever<br />
def<strong>in</strong>ition, is unsusta<strong>in</strong>able both theoretically <strong>and</strong> practically <strong>and</strong> therefore cannot<br />
provide a basis for resolv<strong>in</strong>g the problem of the relationship between the two.<br />
Locke… attempted to protect freedom of conscience <strong>in</strong> a different way [from Hobbes]….<br />
He def<strong>in</strong>ed a state as a society of men who unite <strong>and</strong> act collectively to promote their<br />
temporal welfare. Consequently, the state is not to concern itself with a citizen’s convictions<br />
regard<strong>in</strong>g his eternal salvation. It must tolerate all whose civil conduct does not <strong>in</strong>terfere<br />
with their fellow citizens’ pursuit of temporal happ<strong>in</strong>ess. The state as state has no<br />
right to take notice of the differences between religions, for religion <strong>in</strong>herently has no<br />
bear<strong>in</strong>g or <strong>in</strong>fluence on temporal affairs. Any connection between the two realms is the<br />
result of an arbitrary act of men. Well, then, if the dispute could be settled by a verbal<br />
def<strong>in</strong>ition, I would know of none that is more convenient; <strong>and</strong> if words could have talked<br />
the restless m<strong>in</strong>ds of his age out of their <strong>in</strong>tolerance, Locke himself would not have<br />
found it necessary to go <strong>in</strong>to exile quite so frequently…. Now, if the state limits its concerns<br />
merely to temporal matters, a question arises: To whom are we to entrust the care<br />
for the eternal? To the church? Then we would be back at the po<strong>in</strong>t from which we had<br />
started [i.e., the tension between] state <strong>and</strong> church…. Actually, it is neither correct nor <strong>in</strong><br />
man’s best <strong>in</strong>terest to dist<strong>in</strong>guish so sharply between the temporal <strong>and</strong> the eternal. Eternity,<br />
<strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciple, can never be man’s portion; his ‘eternity’ is merely an <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>itely prolonged<br />
temporality. His temporality never ceases; it is an <strong>in</strong>tegral <strong>and</strong> essential part of<br />
his cont<strong>in</strong>uity. To counterpoise man’s temporal welfare <strong>and</strong> his eternal bliss leads to a<br />
confusion of concepts which has important practical consequences…. As our rabbis say,<br />
this life is merely a vestibule <strong>in</strong> which we are to prepare ourselves if we wish to enter the<br />
<strong>in</strong>nermost chamber. 68 Nevertheless, we must be careful not to establish an antithesis between<br />
this life <strong>and</strong> the one to come, or to persuade people that their true welfare <strong>in</strong> this<br />
life <strong>and</strong> their eternal bliss <strong>in</strong> the life to come are unrelated. 69<br />
66 Ibid., p. 110.<br />
67 Ibid., p. 125.<br />
68 The reference is to M Avot 4:21, ‘This world resembles a corridor lead<strong>in</strong>g to the world to come;<br />
correct yourself <strong>in</strong> the corridor, so that you may enter the salon’. See the discussion <strong>in</strong> Altmann, Moses<br />
Mendelssohn, pp. 520–1.<br />
69 Mendelssohn, Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> Other Jewish Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, pp. 15–7.<br />
Raphael Jospe<br />
129
Locke’s differentiation between the respective realms of state <strong>and</strong> religion, namely<br />
temporal <strong>and</strong> eternal matters, simply does not hold up either theoretically or practically.<br />
The differentiation fails theoretically because the temporal is part of the eternal<br />
<strong>and</strong> the eternal is an extension of the temporal. It fails practically because people’s<br />
behaviour <strong>in</strong> this world is predicated, at least to some extent, on their beliefs regard<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the world to come.<br />
A better way of differentiat<strong>in</strong>g the two realms, both theoretically <strong>and</strong> practically, is<br />
to dist<strong>in</strong>guish between those actions <strong>and</strong> convictions that relate to other people, <strong>and</strong><br />
those actions <strong>and</strong> convictions that relate to God.<br />
Man’s rational actions <strong>and</strong> convictions are determ<strong>in</strong>ed partly by his relations to his<br />
fellowmen <strong>and</strong> partly by his relations to his Creator <strong>and</strong> Keeper. The former are the<br />
prov<strong>in</strong>ce of the state, the latter that of religion. Insofar as man’s actions <strong>and</strong> convictions,<br />
which serve the common good, spr<strong>in</strong>g from the relations between man <strong>and</strong> man, they are<br />
the doma<strong>in</strong> of civil law; where the source of man’s actions <strong>and</strong> convictions is his relationship<br />
to God, they are the doma<strong>in</strong> of church, synagogue, <strong>and</strong> mosque. 70<br />
A corollary difference between the two realms is that the state is satisfied with<br />
mere compliance with the law, regardless of correct <strong>in</strong>tention, whereas, for religion,<br />
only actions undertaken freely, s<strong>in</strong>cerely, <strong>and</strong> without coercion are spiritually valid.<br />
Mendelssohn then expounds on the social contract, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the theory of perfect<br />
<strong>and</strong> imperfect rights. The only legitimate use of force is by the state – <strong>and</strong> even then,<br />
only <strong>in</strong> the case of actions, not convictions, which <strong>in</strong> any event cannot be coerced –<br />
<strong>in</strong> order to protect people from be<strong>in</strong>g harmed by others <strong>and</strong> prevent violation of their<br />
rights. The contractual basis by which society governs the exchange of rights does<br />
not exist between a person <strong>and</strong> God; hence religion never has the right to enforce its<br />
rules by coercive power.<br />
Nevertheless, the realms of religion <strong>and</strong> state overlap to some extent <strong>and</strong> there is a<br />
need for a co-operative relationship between them. S<strong>in</strong>ce many religious precepts <strong>in</strong>volve<br />
our relationship with other people <strong>and</strong> are believed to be div<strong>in</strong>e comm<strong>and</strong>ments<br />
– not to murder, steal, commit adultery, for example – by fulfill<strong>in</strong>g these social<br />
comm<strong>and</strong>ments we are also serv<strong>in</strong>g God. Conversely, s<strong>in</strong>ce the state can govern<br />
more effectively by education <strong>and</strong> persuasion than by coercive power, religion can be<br />
a major force for social good.<br />
One of the state’s ma<strong>in</strong> efforts must therefore be to govern men by <strong>in</strong>fluenc<strong>in</strong>g their<br />
morals <strong>and</strong> attitudes. Now, there is no better way of improv<strong>in</strong>g the attitudes <strong>and</strong> thereby<br />
the morals of men than a strongly held conviction. Laws do not change attitudes; arbitrary<br />
punishments <strong>and</strong> rewards neither produce a concept of truth nor improve morality.<br />
Fear <strong>and</strong> hope are no criteria for truth, either…. And it is here that religion can come to<br />
the assistance of the state <strong>and</strong> the church can become the support of civic welfare. The<br />
task of the church is to conv<strong>in</strong>ce people, with all the emphasis at its comm<strong>and</strong>, of the<br />
truth of the pr<strong>in</strong>ciples <strong>and</strong> views it proclaims. The church must show them that duties<br />
toward men are also duties toward God, <strong>and</strong> that to reject them is to live <strong>in</strong> deepest misery.<br />
It must show them that by serv<strong>in</strong>g the state we truly serve God.<br />
70 Ibid., pp. 18–9.<br />
130 Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist
… If, however, the character of a nation… makes it impossible to govern the people on<br />
the basis of their attitudes alone, the state will have to resort to public measures such as<br />
the enforcement of the law by coercion, the punishment of crime, <strong>and</strong> the reward<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
merit…. Here we have a first essential difference between state <strong>and</strong> religion. The state<br />
comm<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> coerces, religion issues comm<strong>and</strong>ments. The state possesses physical<br />
power <strong>and</strong> uses it when necessary; the power of religion is love <strong>and</strong> charity…. In one<br />
word: civil society, viewed as a moral person, has the right of coercion; <strong>in</strong> fact, it has<br />
secured this right through the social contract. Religious society neither dem<strong>and</strong>s the right<br />
of coercion nor can it possibly obta<strong>in</strong> it by any contract. 71<br />
Mendelssohn thus rejects Locke’s total separation of religion <strong>and</strong> state. They are<br />
truly separate only <strong>in</strong> the area of coercive power, not <strong>in</strong> their overlapp<strong>in</strong>g areas of<br />
<strong>in</strong>terest. Alex<strong>and</strong>er Altmann has shown that Mendelssohn’s own theory is closer to<br />
collegianism, the idea that a church is not a div<strong>in</strong>ely founded body but, like the state,<br />
a free association of like-m<strong>in</strong>ded <strong>in</strong>dividuals, a contractually based collegium.<br />
He tacitly accepted the fundamental tenet of collegianism, namely, the view that the<br />
churches were freely established religious associations. What he strenuously denied was<br />
the contractual orig<strong>in</strong> of religious societies. Only the state had come <strong>in</strong>to be<strong>in</strong>g as a result<br />
of a social contract. 72<br />
71 Ibid., pp. 20–3. Regard<strong>in</strong>g the relationship of the church to the coercive political power of the state,<br />
Arkush (Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> the Enlightenment, p. 124) argues that Mendelssohn never addressed the<br />
question ‘<strong>in</strong> Jerusalem or <strong>in</strong> any of his other published writ<strong>in</strong>gs’ of what the churches should do when<br />
their country is clearly wrong or a law is clearly immoral. Arkush overlooks Mendelssohn’s clear statement<br />
<strong>in</strong> his preface to V<strong>in</strong>diciae Judaeorum – long before Henry David Thoreau’s ‘On the Duty of Civil<br />
Disobedience’ (1849) – that immoral laws must be deliberately disobeyed: ‘That barbarous laws are of<br />
the most terrible consequences the more legally the proceed<strong>in</strong>gs are conducted, <strong>and</strong> the more rigidly the<br />
judge pronounces after the letter, is an important truth which cannot be too often <strong>in</strong>culcated. The only<br />
way of amend<strong>in</strong>g unwise laws, is by deviat<strong>in</strong>g from them; as one would correct mistakes <strong>in</strong> calculation<br />
by other willful mistakes’ (preface to V<strong>in</strong>diciae Judaeorum [trans. Samuels, vol. 1, p. 89]).<br />
72 Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn, p. 519. Locke had also argued that a church is ‘a voluntary society of<br />
men, jo<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g themselves together of their own accord. It is a voluntary society. Nobody is born a member<br />
of any church…. No man by nature is bound <strong>in</strong>to any particular church or sect, but everyone jo<strong>in</strong>s<br />
himself voluntarily to that society <strong>in</strong> which he believes he has found that profession <strong>and</strong> worship which<br />
is truly acceptable to God’ (Locke, A Letter Concern<strong>in</strong>g Toleration, pp. 110–1). Locke then denies that<br />
‘Christ imposed that law upon his church’, i.e., the rules of its organization <strong>and</strong> governance (p. 112).<br />
Altmann succ<strong>in</strong>ctly summarizes Mendelssohn <strong>in</strong> relationship to Locke, Hobbes, <strong>and</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>oza:<br />
The state has no <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> religion <strong>in</strong>sofar as theological tenets are concerned, but it is vitally <strong>in</strong>terested<br />
<strong>in</strong>sofar as religion teaches morality <strong>and</strong> social conduct. If the nation is to be, ideally, governed<br />
by the <strong>in</strong>culcation of moral pr<strong>in</strong>ciples, the church will prove an <strong>in</strong>valuable asset to the<br />
state…. By emphasiz<strong>in</strong>g moral teach<strong>in</strong>gs presumed to be common to the various religions,<br />
Mendelssohn found a way of <strong>in</strong>tegrat<strong>in</strong>g the church <strong>in</strong>to the state’s sphere of <strong>in</strong>terest, without permitt<strong>in</strong>g<br />
any <strong>in</strong>terference by the state <strong>in</strong> the affairs of the church. Religion reta<strong>in</strong>s its autonomy <strong>and</strong><br />
at the same time becomes a pillar of the state. This theory avoids the pitfalls of both Locke’s radical<br />
separation of the two societies <strong>and</strong> the complete subord<strong>in</strong>ation of the church by the state advocated<br />
by Hobbes <strong>and</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>oza. What Mendelssohn took over from Locke was the postulate of a<br />
completely free <strong>and</strong> uncontrolled worship, <strong>and</strong> what he shared with Hobbes <strong>and</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>oza was the<br />
<strong>in</strong>clusion of religion <strong>in</strong> the state’s sphere of <strong>in</strong>terest. He also agreed with the commonly accepted<br />
notion that the social contract entitled the state to the use of coercive power to produce right action.<br />
He saw <strong>in</strong> this right of law enforcement ‘the divid<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>in</strong>e’… between church <strong>and</strong> state. (Altmann,<br />
Moses Mendelssohn, pp. 522–6)<br />
Cf. the discussion <strong>in</strong> Sork<strong>in</strong>, Moses Mendelssohn, p. 125.<br />
Raphael Jospe<br />
131
The differences between Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Locke are thus more theoretical than<br />
practical. It is <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g to note that the American constitutional doctr<strong>in</strong>e of separation<br />
of church <strong>and</strong> state, which of course is a consequence of Locke’s <strong>in</strong>fluence on<br />
American Revolutionary th<strong>in</strong>kers, <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> which Mendelssohn took an active <strong>in</strong>terest,<br />
73 is <strong>in</strong> many respects closer to Mendelssohn’s theory of mutual co-operation <strong>and</strong><br />
overlapp<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terests than to Locke’s total separation. Despite the theoretical constitutional<br />
wall separat<strong>in</strong>g church <strong>and</strong> state, religion, whether a general form of Protestant<br />
Christianity or some form of civil religion, has always been an essential part of<br />
the fabric of American life: <strong>in</strong> the open<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> clos<strong>in</strong>g words of the Declaration of<br />
Independence (‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created<br />
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certa<strong>in</strong> unalienable rights…. With<br />
a firm reliance on the protection of Div<strong>in</strong>e Providence…’), American currency (‘In<br />
God We Trust’), military <strong>and</strong> congressional chapla<strong>in</strong>s, the <strong>in</strong>vocations at <strong>in</strong>augurations<br />
<strong>and</strong> sessions of the Congress <strong>and</strong> state legislatures, Thanksgiv<strong>in</strong>g celebrations,<br />
<strong>and</strong> even the Supreme Court’s uphold<strong>in</strong>g of the constitutionality of publicly funded<br />
Christmas symbols <strong>and</strong> pageants <strong>in</strong> government <strong>and</strong> public facilities.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, Mendelssohn’s critique of Locke obviously reflects his theoretical <strong>and</strong><br />
practical difficulties with the proposed separation of church <strong>and</strong> state <strong>in</strong> general<br />
philosophical terms. His objections, however, also reflect Jewish categories <strong>and</strong> con-<br />
73 Mendelssohn added a note to the last page of Jerusalem, presumably reflect<strong>in</strong>g recent news he received<br />
after the book was already <strong>in</strong> proofs: ‘Alas, we can hear even the American Congress <strong>in</strong>tone the<br />
old song once aga<strong>in</strong> when it speaks of a “dom<strong>in</strong>ant religion” ’. See Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> Other Jewish Writ<strong>in</strong>gs,<br />
p. 168 n. 43. See also Moses Mendelssohn, Jerusalem, or, On religious power <strong>and</strong> Judaism, trans.<br />
Allan Arkush, <strong>in</strong>troduction <strong>and</strong> commentary by Alex<strong>and</strong>er Altmann (Hanover, N.H., 1983), p. 139.<br />
Altmann suggests (Moses Mendelssohn, p. 240) that ‘this is possibly a reference to the “General Assessment<br />
Bill for Support of Christian Denom<strong>in</strong>ations” which was debated by the American Congress <strong>in</strong><br />
1783–84…. Thanks to the efforts made by James Madison, this bill was not passed’. In 1782, the year<br />
that Mendelssohn wrote the Jerusalem, Thomas Jefferson wrote <strong>in</strong> his ‘Notes on Virg<strong>in</strong>ia’, Query 17:<br />
‘The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are <strong>in</strong>jurious to others…. Reason <strong>and</strong><br />
free <strong>in</strong>quiry are the only effectual agents aga<strong>in</strong>st error…. It is error alone which needs the support of<br />
government. Truth can st<strong>and</strong> by itself…. Is uniformity of op<strong>in</strong>ion desirable?… Difference of op<strong>in</strong>ion is<br />
advantageous <strong>in</strong> religion.’<br />
The year that Mendelssohn died (1786), Jefferson authored the ‘Act Establish<strong>in</strong>g Religious Freedom<br />
Passed <strong>in</strong> the Assembly of Virg<strong>in</strong>ia’, which he regarded as one of his greatest accomplishments:<br />
Well aware that Almighty God hath created the m<strong>in</strong>d free… that truth is great <strong>and</strong> will prevail if<br />
left to herself…. Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled<br />
to frequent or support any religious worship… nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious<br />
op<strong>in</strong>ions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, <strong>and</strong> by argument to ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>,<br />
their op<strong>in</strong>ions <strong>in</strong> matters of religion…. That the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of<br />
mank<strong>in</strong>d.<br />
Cf. Thomas Jefferson on Democracy, ed. Saul K. Padover (New York, 1954), pp. 109–14.<br />
George Wash<strong>in</strong>gton expressed similar sentiments regard<strong>in</strong>g religious freedom <strong>and</strong> diversity, <strong>in</strong> his reply<br />
to a letter (dated 17 August 1790) from the Hebrew Congregation <strong>in</strong> Newport, Rhode Isl<strong>and</strong>:<br />
All possess alike liberty of conscience <strong>and</strong> immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration<br />
is spoken of as if it were the <strong>in</strong>dulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise<br />
of their <strong>in</strong>herent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives<br />
to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection<br />
should demean themselves as good citizens <strong>in</strong> giv<strong>in</strong>g it on all occasions their effectual support.<br />
For the complete letter, see The Jews of the United States 1790-1840: A Documentary History, ed.<br />
Joseph Blau <strong>and</strong> Salo Baron (New York, 1963), p. 9.<br />
132 Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist
siderations. Although Mendelssohn does not mention it explicitly, his differentiation<br />
between actions <strong>and</strong> convictions that ‘spr<strong>in</strong>g from the relations between man <strong>and</strong><br />
man’ <strong>and</strong> actions <strong>and</strong> convictions that have to do with ‘his relationship to God’ is<br />
simply borrowed from the classical rabb<strong>in</strong>ic categories of actions ben adam le-<br />
Ìavero (‘between an <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>and</strong> his fellow’) <strong>and</strong> actions that are ben adam lamaqom<br />
(‘between an <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>and</strong> God’). For example, <strong>in</strong> their discussion of the<br />
atonement rituals of Yom Kippur, the rabbis ruled that<br />
[r]egard<strong>in</strong>g transgressions between an <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>and</strong> God, Yom Kippur can atone. Regard<strong>in</strong>g<br />
transgressions between an <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>and</strong> his fellow, Yom Kippur cannot atone,<br />
until he satisfies his fellow. 74<br />
Mendelssohn thus f<strong>in</strong>ds a better theoretical basis for the differentiation between<br />
the realms of state <strong>and</strong> religion <strong>in</strong> an ancient rabb<strong>in</strong>ic category than <strong>in</strong> the modern<br />
Locke. If Mendelssohn did not see fit to mention explicitly this Jewish category <strong>in</strong> a<br />
general discussion of political philosophy, why did state explicitly, a page or two earlier,<br />
that ‘as our rabbis say, this life is merely a vestibule <strong>in</strong> which we are to prepare<br />
ourselves if we wish to enter the <strong>in</strong>nermost chamber’?<br />
On a purely textual basis, it is possible that Mendelssohn felt comfortable quot<strong>in</strong>g<br />
from Pirqei avot, the collection of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic ethical aphorisms <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Mishnah, which would have been known <strong>in</strong> Hebrew or <strong>in</strong> translation to at least some<br />
of his non-Jewish readers, but avoided cit<strong>in</strong>g a more technical text that would have<br />
required explication. On a broader level, however, it seems to me that here we have a<br />
subtle rem<strong>in</strong>der by Mendelssohn that Judaism provides a basis for correct<strong>in</strong>g Locke’s<br />
error <strong>and</strong> establish<strong>in</strong>g the proper relationship between religion <strong>and</strong> state. Thus<br />
Mendelssohn already implies <strong>in</strong> Part I of Jerusalem what he discusses explicitly <strong>and</strong><br />
at length <strong>in</strong> Part II, namely, that traditional Judaism is capable of modern application<br />
<strong>and</strong> is compatible with modern political theory.<br />
Jewish considerations also underlie what is, on the surface, a general philosophical<br />
argument between Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> his old friend Gotthold Ephraim Less<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Part<br />
II of Jerusalem. Less<strong>in</strong>g affirmed historical l<strong>in</strong>ear progress <strong>in</strong> the education of humanity,<br />
a view that Mendelssohn regarded as philosophically unwarranted <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>consistent<br />
with the historical facts:<br />
I, for my part, cannot share the view of mank<strong>in</strong>d’s education <strong>in</strong>to which my late friend<br />
Less<strong>in</strong>g was misled by I don’t know what scholar of history. He conceives of mank<strong>in</strong>d<br />
not as a collectivity but as an <strong>in</strong>dividual whom Providence, as it were, has sent to school<br />
here on earth <strong>in</strong> order to raise him from childhood to manhood…. ‘Progress’ is a term<br />
that applies only to the <strong>in</strong>dividual, dest<strong>in</strong>ed by Providence to spend part of his eternity<br />
here on earth…. That it could, however, also have been the <strong>in</strong>tention of Providence to let<br />
mank<strong>in</strong>d as a whole advance steadily <strong>and</strong> toward perfection <strong>in</strong> the course of time <strong>and</strong><br />
here on earth is someth<strong>in</strong>g I cannot believe…. If you take mank<strong>in</strong>d as a whole, you will<br />
not f<strong>in</strong>d that there is constant progress <strong>in</strong> its development that br<strong>in</strong>gs it ever nearer to<br />
perfection. On the contrary, we see constant fluctuations; mank<strong>in</strong>d as a whole has never<br />
yet taken any step forward without soon <strong>and</strong> with redoubled speed slid<strong>in</strong>g back to its pre-<br />
74 M Yoma 8:9.<br />
Raphael Jospe<br />
133
vious position…. Individual man makes progress; but mank<strong>in</strong>d oscillates cont<strong>in</strong>ually<br />
with<strong>in</strong> fixed limits. Seen as a whole, however, mank<strong>in</strong>d has clearly ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed virtually<br />
the same degree of morality through all fluctuations <strong>and</strong> periods – the same mixture of<br />
religion <strong>and</strong> irreligion, of virtue <strong>and</strong> vice, of happ<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>and</strong> misery. 75<br />
Here Mendelssohn is react<strong>in</strong>g to Less<strong>in</strong>g’s theory, <strong>in</strong> The Education of the Human<br />
Race, that the education of humanity progresses from childhood to youth <strong>and</strong> then to<br />
maturity, three stages represented respectively by Judaism, Christianity, <strong>and</strong> the ‘new<br />
eternal gospel’, i.e., an autonomous rational religion. 76 In Mendelssohn’s view, the<br />
notion of general progress of humanity simply does not face the historical facts <strong>and</strong> is<br />
totally <strong>in</strong>consistent with them. (In his denial of Less<strong>in</strong>g’s naive <strong>and</strong> optimistic belief<br />
<strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>evitability of human progress, perhaps we can call Mendelssohn neither medieval<br />
nor modern but ‘proto-postmodern’).<br />
Underly<strong>in</strong>g Mendelssohn’s critique of Less<strong>in</strong>g on general grounds of the philosophy<br />
of history is surely a Jewish concern that Less<strong>in</strong>g’s argument is an Enlightenment<br />
resurrection of classical Christian supersessionism. Classical or conservative<br />
evangelical Christian supersessionism – the doctr<strong>in</strong>e that Christianity has replaced<br />
<strong>and</strong> supplanted Judaism as Verus Israel – was obviously totally unacceptable from a<br />
Jewish religious perspective as well as from the perspective of a general philosophical<br />
pluralism. The double supersessionism of the modern Enlightenment – that the<br />
religion of reason has supplanted both Judaism <strong>and</strong> Christianity – was ultimately no<br />
better <strong>in</strong> its <strong>in</strong>tolerant ‘liberal’ <strong>and</strong> ‘rationalist’ denial of the validity, legitimacy, <strong>and</strong><br />
desirability of cont<strong>in</strong>ued Jewish identity <strong>in</strong> the modern world.<br />
Conclusions: ‘Old W<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> a New Flask’ 77<br />
Mendelssohn’s Jewish writ<strong>in</strong>gs thus represent a fasc<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g mixture of old <strong>and</strong> new,<br />
of traditional <strong>and</strong> radical elements, as he rema<strong>in</strong>ed loyal to classical <strong>and</strong> medieval<br />
Jewish beliefs while extend<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> apply<strong>in</strong>g them <strong>in</strong> a modern philosophical <strong>and</strong> political<br />
context. His core theology rema<strong>in</strong>ed thoroughly traditional, as he consistently<br />
75 Mendelssohn, Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> other Jewish Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, pp. 67–8. Mendelssohn advances similar arguments<br />
<strong>in</strong> a letter (25 June 1782) to August von Henn<strong>in</strong>gs, councillor of the Danish Legation <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>,<br />
who defended Mendelssohn’s Bible translation. For excerpts, see Jospe, Moses Mendelssohn: Selections,<br />
pp. 168–9.<br />
76 Cf. Alex<strong>and</strong>er Altmann’s discussion of Less<strong>in</strong>g’s theory <strong>and</strong> its sources <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem, or, On religious<br />
power <strong>and</strong> Judaism, pp. 211–2.<br />
77 M Avot 4:27: ‘Rabbi Meir says: Do not look at the flask, but at what is <strong>in</strong> it. There is a new flask<br />
filled with old [w<strong>in</strong>e], <strong>and</strong> an old [flask] which does not even conta<strong>in</strong> any new w<strong>in</strong>e.’ Arkush<br />
(Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> the Enlightenment, p. 178) also notes the antiquated nature of Mendelssohn’s belief<br />
<strong>in</strong> revelation: ‘The most strik<strong>in</strong>g th<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong> fact, about Mendelssohn’s discussions of the historicity of<br />
revelation is that <strong>in</strong> none of them does he show any unmistakable signs of hav<strong>in</strong>g taken heed of the objections<br />
raised by Sp<strong>in</strong>oza…. Defend<strong>in</strong>g the historicity of the S<strong>in</strong>aitic revelation at the end of the eighteenth<br />
century, when skepticism regard<strong>in</strong>g the biblical narrative had already made serious headway,<br />
Mendelssohn behaves as if he were still liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the fourteenth century, when no one dared to express<br />
such doubts’. In light of Abraham Ibn Ezra’s critical approach <strong>in</strong> the twelfth century, with which fourteenth-century<br />
exegetes like Samuel ben Saadia Ibn Motot <strong>and</strong> Samuel Ibn Seneh ∑arÒa struggled <strong>in</strong> order<br />
to <strong>in</strong>terpret him traditionally, Arkush fails to give sufficient credit here to the fourteenth century. See<br />
Jospe, ‘Biblical Exegesis as a Philosophic Literary Genre’, pp. 57 ff.<br />
134 Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist
affirmed what were for him basic Jewish tenets, while his philosophy, especially his<br />
political philosophy, eagerly explored new <strong>and</strong> modern themes <strong>and</strong> concerns. Avoid<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the Deism so prevalent <strong>in</strong> contemporary <strong>in</strong>tellectual circles (the modern equivalent<br />
of what Judah Halevi called ‘the God of Aristotle’), Mendelssohn, who faithfully<br />
<strong>and</strong> punctiliously observed traditional Jewish ritual, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g daily prayer, until his<br />
dy<strong>in</strong>g day, <strong>in</strong>sisted on reaffirm<strong>in</strong>g the traditional beliefs <strong>in</strong> what Judah Halevi called<br />
‘the God of Abraham’, the God who loves <strong>and</strong> is loved, the God who providentially<br />
<strong>in</strong>tervenes <strong>in</strong> history <strong>and</strong> whose Torah was publicly revealed at S<strong>in</strong>ai.<br />
Modern political <strong>and</strong> historical developments, the evolution of new conceptions of<br />
the state, <strong>and</strong> Jewish emancipation made it necessary for Mendelssohn to re<strong>in</strong>terpret<br />
traditional Judaism <strong>in</strong> a new context. Modern political philosophy made it possible<br />
for Mendelssohn to re<strong>in</strong>terpret traditional sources <strong>in</strong> such a way as to give them new<br />
content <strong>and</strong> provided him with the tools to do so. Thus, as we have seen, the rabb<strong>in</strong>ic<br />
statements about righteous gentiles who have a portion <strong>in</strong> the world to come are<br />
transformed <strong>in</strong>to an argument for religious toleration by the state <strong>and</strong> for religious<br />
pluralism, <strong>and</strong> the rabb<strong>in</strong>ic notion of ‘seven comm<strong>and</strong>ments of the children of Noah’<br />
is equated with the universal <strong>and</strong> rational religion of nature.<br />
In political philosophy, Mendelssohn represents a shift from the classical <strong>and</strong> medieval<br />
notion (such as found <strong>in</strong> Maimonides) of the ideal state as embody<strong>in</strong>g absolute<br />
religious truth <strong>and</strong> foster<strong>in</strong>g spiritual salvation to the modern liberal <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>strumental<br />
view of the state as concerned only with practical temporal matters, a state that tolerates<br />
<strong>and</strong> even encourages a pluralistic diversity of religions.<br />
Here, too, it seems to me that Mendelssohn’s vision goes beyond Locke’s. Locke<br />
had argued pragmatically that the state is <strong>in</strong>capable of determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g which religion is<br />
true <strong>and</strong> must therefore tolerate dissent <strong>and</strong> variety:<br />
There is only one of these which is the true way to eternal happ<strong>in</strong>ess. But <strong>in</strong> this great variety<br />
of ways that men follow, it is still doubted which is this right one. Now neither the<br />
care of the commonwealth, nor the right of enact<strong>in</strong>g laws, does discover this way that leads<br />
to heaven more certa<strong>in</strong>ly to the magistrate, than every private man’s search <strong>and</strong> study discovers<br />
it unto himself…. Neither the right, nor the art of rul<strong>in</strong>g, does necessarily carry<br />
along with it the certa<strong>in</strong> knowledge of other th<strong>in</strong>gs; <strong>and</strong> least of all of the true religion. 78<br />
Mendelssohn goes beyond such a pragmatic view of toleration <strong>and</strong> affirms the <strong>in</strong>herent<br />
value <strong>and</strong> desirability of religious pluralism. Diversity is part of the div<strong>in</strong>e<br />
plan for humanity. Address<strong>in</strong>g Christian rulers, he concludes Jerusalem as follows:<br />
Dear brothers, you are well-mean<strong>in</strong>g. But do not let yourselves be deceived! To belong<br />
to this omnipresent shepherd, it is not necessary for the entire flock to graze on one pasture<br />
or to enter <strong>and</strong> leave the master’s house through just one door. It would be neither <strong>in</strong><br />
accord with the shepherd’s wishes nor conducive to the growth of his flock. 79 … A union<br />
of faiths, if it were ever to come about, could have only the most disastrous conse-<br />
78 Locke, A Letter Concern<strong>in</strong>g Toleration, p. 121.<br />
79 Although Jesus’ claim to be Israel’s shepherd can be seen as referr<strong>in</strong>g back to Ezekiel 37:24, it seems<br />
to me that here Mendelssohn deliberately employs the image of multiple doors for the sheep to counter<br />
the exclusivism of Jesus’ ‘I am the door of the sheep…. I am the door; if anyone enters by me, he will<br />
be saved’ (John 10:7–9).<br />
Raphael Jospe<br />
135
quences for reason <strong>and</strong> freedom of conscience…. If the goal of this universal delusion<br />
were to be realized, I am afraid man’s barely liberated m<strong>in</strong>d would once aga<strong>in</strong> be conf<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
beh<strong>in</strong>d bars…. Brothers, if you care for true godl<strong>in</strong>ess, let us not pretend that conformity<br />
exists where diversity is obviously the plan <strong>and</strong> goal of Providence. Not one<br />
among us th<strong>in</strong>ks <strong>and</strong> feels exactly like his fellowman. Why, then, should we deceive<br />
each other with lies? It is sad enough that we are do<strong>in</strong>g this <strong>in</strong> our daily relations, <strong>in</strong> conversations<br />
that are of no particular importance. But why also <strong>in</strong> matters which concern<br />
our temporal <strong>and</strong> eternal welfare, our very dest<strong>in</strong>y? Why should we use masks to make<br />
ourselves unrecognizable to each other <strong>in</strong> the most important concerns of life, when God<br />
has given each of us his own dist<strong>in</strong>ctive face for some good reason?… A union of faiths<br />
is not tolerance. It is the very opposite. For the sake of your happ<strong>in</strong>ess <strong>and</strong> ours, do not<br />
use your powerful prestige to give the force of law to some eternal truth that is immaterial<br />
to civic well-be<strong>in</strong>g; do not transform some religious doctr<strong>in</strong>e to which the state<br />
should be <strong>in</strong>different <strong>in</strong>to a statute of the l<strong>and</strong>! Concentrate on what men should or<br />
should not do; judge them wisely by their actions; <strong>and</strong> let us reta<strong>in</strong> the freedom of<br />
thought <strong>and</strong> speech with which the Father of all mank<strong>in</strong>d has endowed us as our <strong>in</strong>alienable<br />
heritage <strong>and</strong> immutable right…. Let every man who does not disturb the public welfare,<br />
who obeys the law, acts righteously toward you <strong>and</strong> his fellowmen be allowed to<br />
speak as he th<strong>in</strong>ks, to pray to God after his own fashion or after the fashion of his fathers,<br />
<strong>and</strong> to seek eternal salvation where he th<strong>in</strong>ks he may f<strong>in</strong>d it. Permit no one <strong>in</strong> your country<br />
to search someone else’s heart or to judge someone else’s thoughts. Let no one usurp<br />
a right which the Omniscient has reserved to Himself. If we render to Caesar what is<br />
Caesar’s, then let us also render unto God what is God’s. Love truth! Love peace! 80<br />
Mendelssohn had long <strong>and</strong> consistently held such pluralistic views, reject<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
exclusivistic claims made by any religion. In his response (precise date unknown) to<br />
80 Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> Other Jewish Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, pp. 107–10. Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er (Mahpekhat ha-neˆorut [Jerusalem,<br />
2002], pp. 149–50 <strong>and</strong> 191–3) suggests that Mendelssohn’s preface to V<strong>in</strong>diciae Judaeorum reflects<br />
his enthusiasm, <strong>in</strong> early 1782, for the recent Patent of Tolerance. By the time he wrote Jerusalem,<br />
later that year, he had grown pessimistic about the rabb<strong>in</strong>ic commitment to toleration <strong>and</strong> suspicious of<br />
the real <strong>in</strong>tentions of the state’s alleged toleration, which aimed at ‘a union of faiths’ rather than true<br />
toleration of religious pluralism. Fe<strong>in</strong>er calls Mendelssohn’s Jerusalem ‘his most pessimistic work’ <strong>and</strong><br />
attributes the sharp change <strong>in</strong> Mendelssohn’s attitude to the challenge posed by the ‘Searcher for Light<br />
<strong>and</strong> Right’. Interest<strong>in</strong>gly, Mendelssohn concludes Jerusalem with a play on Matthew 22:21, ‘Render<br />
therefore unto Caesar the th<strong>in</strong>gs which are Caesar’s, <strong>and</strong> unto God the th<strong>in</strong>gs that are God’s.’ As Zev<br />
Harvey has noted:<br />
The people’s request for a k<strong>in</strong>g is presented <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem as the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of a long, gradual process<br />
of the deterioration of the Mosaic constitution, a process which came to an end with the destruction<br />
of the Second Temple…. By the end of the Second Temple period, with the state under<br />
foreign dom<strong>in</strong>ion, the collision of duties had become an everyday reality. It was dur<strong>in</strong>g this sad<br />
period that the founder of Christianity said: ‘Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, <strong>and</strong> unto God<br />
what is God’s’ (Mat. 22:21). This dictum, affirm<strong>in</strong>g the separation of religion <strong>and</strong> state, attested to<br />
the unfortunate end of the Mosaic constitution <strong>and</strong> its heavenly politics. The difference <strong>in</strong> emphasis<br />
between Mendelssohn’s comments <strong>in</strong> the Beˆur <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem are sufficiently expla<strong>in</strong>ed by<br />
the different contexts. In the Beˆur, he sought to clarify the status of the monarchy <strong>in</strong> ancient Israel,<br />
<strong>and</strong> concluded it was a rebellion aga<strong>in</strong>st God. In Jerusalem, he sought to contrast Judaism <strong>and</strong><br />
Christianity on the question of religion <strong>and</strong> state, <strong>and</strong> deemed it important to <strong>in</strong>dicate that Christianity<br />
has no connection with the heavenly politics of the Mosaic constitution.’ (Harvey,<br />
‘Mendelssohn’s Heavenly Politics’, p. 408)<br />
The f<strong>in</strong>al words of the Jerusalem are based on Zechariah 8:19, ‘Love truth <strong>and</strong> peace’. Compare the<br />
similarity of Mendelssohn’s call for religious diversity with that of Thomas Jefferson, cited above, note<br />
73.<br />
136 Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist
a letter from Pr<strong>in</strong>ce Karl-Wilhelm of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel (dated 2 January<br />
1770), Mendelssohn wrote of liberal Christian reformers that<br />
[t]hey must not base their system… on the hypothesis that Judaism <strong>and</strong>, even more so,<br />
natural religion are <strong>in</strong>adequate means to ensure man’s salvation. S<strong>in</strong>ce all men must have<br />
been dest<strong>in</strong>ed by the Creator to atta<strong>in</strong> eternal bliss, no particular religion can have an exclusive<br />
claim to truth. This thesis, I dare to submit, might serve as a criterion of truth <strong>in</strong><br />
all religious matters. A revelation claim<strong>in</strong>g to show man the only way to salvation cannot<br />
be true, for it is not <strong>in</strong> harmony with the <strong>in</strong>tent of the all-merciful Creator. 81<br />
Mendelssohn’s consistency <strong>in</strong> this regard is evident <strong>in</strong> his explicit application of<br />
his pluralistic pr<strong>in</strong>ciples to Judaism <strong>and</strong> not only to Christianity <strong>and</strong> other religions.<br />
That same year, dur<strong>in</strong>g the Lavater controversy, <strong>in</strong> a letter to an unknown correspondent<br />
(dated 20 August 1770), he wrote:<br />
Worship, however, as everyone knows, can be private as well as public, <strong>in</strong>ternal as well<br />
as external, <strong>and</strong> one does well to differentiate between the two. The <strong>in</strong>ternal worship of<br />
the Jew is not based on any pr<strong>in</strong>ciples except those of natural religion. To spread these is,<br />
<strong>in</strong>deed, <strong>in</strong>cumbent upon us…. Our external worship, however, is <strong>in</strong> no way meant to address<br />
itself to others, s<strong>in</strong>ce it consists of rules <strong>and</strong> prescriptions that are related to specific<br />
persons, times, <strong>and</strong> circumstances. I grant we believe that our religion is the best, because<br />
we consider it to be div<strong>in</strong>ely <strong>in</strong>spired. Nevertheless, it does not follow from this<br />
premise that it is absolutely the best. It is the best religion for ourselves <strong>and</strong> our descendants,<br />
the best for certa<strong>in</strong> times, circumstances, <strong>and</strong> conditions. 82<br />
At the same time that Mendelssohn denies that Judaism ‘is absolutely the best’ religion,<br />
<strong>in</strong> a different sense he does assert its <strong>in</strong>tellectual <strong>and</strong> moral superiority. The<br />
superiority of Judaism, however, lies not <strong>in</strong> its specific laws <strong>and</strong> practices, but <strong>in</strong> its<br />
rationality (s<strong>in</strong>ce its core is noth<strong>in</strong>g more than natural religion, to which, unlike<br />
Christianity, it adds no doctr<strong>in</strong>es necessary for salvation) <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> its pluralistic <strong>and</strong><br />
tolerant spirit (s<strong>in</strong>ce it makes no claims of exclusive salvation, nor claims that its particular<br />
way of life applies to anyone else).<br />
In a letter to the Swiss physician <strong>and</strong> mystic Jacob Hermann Obereit (dated 13<br />
March 1770), Mendelssohn wrote that the best religion is the most tolerant religion:<br />
You ask me which of all the world’s religions I consider the most likely to <strong>in</strong>culcate the<br />
most perfect possible conduct toward God <strong>and</strong> man, hence make such conduct really<br />
possible. I should th<strong>in</strong>k it would be that religion which is the most tolerant, permitt<strong>in</strong>g us<br />
to embrace all mank<strong>in</strong>d with equal love. Noth<strong>in</strong>g makes us as narrow-m<strong>in</strong>ded as a religion<br />
that excludes certa<strong>in</strong> men on pr<strong>in</strong>ciple. Though it may not <strong>in</strong>cite us to bloody<br />
81 In Moses Mendelssohn: Selections, trans. E. Jospe, pp. 116–7.<br />
82 In Mendelssohn, Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> Other Jewish Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, p. 134. Altmann discusses this passage <strong>in</strong><br />
light of Less<strong>in</strong>g’s play Nathan der Weise: ‘He [Less<strong>in</strong>g] had then emphasized the idea that all men had<br />
the duty <strong>and</strong> right to fulfil their own particular dest<strong>in</strong>y, a concept that must have seemed to him the natural<br />
corollary of the r<strong>in</strong>g parable, <strong>and</strong> that, <strong>in</strong> the play, Salad<strong>in</strong> formulated <strong>in</strong> the words: “I have never<br />
desired / That one bark grow on all trees of the woods”. Similarly, Mendelssohn said <strong>in</strong> his Jerusalem<br />
that <strong>in</strong> order to belong to the omnipresent Shepherd, it was not necessary for the entire flock to graze <strong>in</strong><br />
one pasture’ (Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn, p. 578).<br />
Raphael Jospe<br />
137
persecutions, it is apt to produce <strong>in</strong> us a certa<strong>in</strong> lack of lov<strong>in</strong>gness <strong>and</strong> a pride <strong>in</strong> what we<br />
regard as our s<strong>in</strong>gular worth <strong>in</strong> the eyes of God, thus putt<strong>in</strong>g a wrong slant on even our<br />
best <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ations. 83<br />
Mendelssohn’s belief <strong>in</strong> the superiority of Judaism as the most rational <strong>and</strong> tolerant<br />
religion, <strong>in</strong> contrast with Christianity, implicit <strong>in</strong> this letter to a non-Jew, became<br />
explicit <strong>in</strong> a letter written a year later (22 July 1771) to a Jewish friend, Elkan Herz,<br />
to whom Mendelssohn perhaps thought he could express himself more frankly:<br />
Christians <strong>in</strong> general <strong>and</strong> theologians <strong>in</strong> particular easily accuse others of deism, because<br />
their own revealed religion superimposes on natural religion a very great deal that goes<br />
beyond <strong>and</strong> aga<strong>in</strong>st reason. We, however, can praise God for hav<strong>in</strong>g given us the teach<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of truth. We have no dogmas that go beyond or aga<strong>in</strong>st reason, nor do we add anyth<strong>in</strong>g<br />
but comm<strong>and</strong>ments, statutes, <strong>and</strong> straightforward rules to natural religion. Our religious<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ciples <strong>and</strong> tenets are grounded <strong>in</strong> reason, <strong>and</strong> therefore [are] not <strong>in</strong> any conflict<br />
with it. Rather than contradict the f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs of rational <strong>in</strong>vestigation, they are fully congruent<br />
with them. This actually constitutes the pre-em<strong>in</strong>ence of our religion, our true <strong>and</strong><br />
div<strong>in</strong>e religion, over all other confessions of faith. 84<br />
The paradox for Mendelssohn was, accord<strong>in</strong>gly, that he was challenged by the<br />
‘Searcher for Light <strong>and</strong> Right’ whether Judaism is compatible with modernity,<br />
whereas the real question should be whether Christianity, the dom<strong>in</strong>ant religion shap<strong>in</strong>g<br />
European culture, with its dogmas <strong>and</strong> exclusivistic claims of salvation, is compatible<br />
with modernity. Discretion prevented Mendelssohn from phras<strong>in</strong>g the paradox<br />
so bluntly. But he did not refra<strong>in</strong> from quot<strong>in</strong>g the Searcher’s challenge – that by<br />
deny<strong>in</strong>g the legitimacy of political enforcement of religion Mendelssohn had essentially<br />
denied the Torah, which ‘prescribes coercion as well as def<strong>in</strong>ite punishment for<br />
the non-observance of ritual duties’. 85 Nor did Mendelssohn m<strong>in</strong>ce his words, despite<br />
his discretion, <strong>in</strong> respond<strong>in</strong>g to the Searcher’s attack:<br />
This objection goes right to my heart <strong>and</strong> troubles me deeply. I must confess that this<br />
view of Judaism… is shared by many of my co-religionists. If I were conv<strong>in</strong>ced that it is<br />
true, I would retract my statements, despite the <strong>in</strong>evitable embarrassment I would have to<br />
face, <strong>and</strong> I would subord<strong>in</strong>ate reason to the yoke of faith…. In any event, it is not only<br />
distress<strong>in</strong>g but an offensive accusation by the anonymous ‘Searcher for Light <strong>and</strong><br />
Right’… that it is my odious <strong>in</strong>tention to abolish the religion I profess <strong>and</strong> to renounce it<br />
covertly, if not overtly…. Nevertheless, my dear sir, shall I take this step without first<br />
ponder<strong>in</strong>g whether it will really extricate me from the state of confusion <strong>in</strong> which you<br />
th<strong>in</strong>k I f<strong>in</strong>d myself? If it were true that the cornerstones of my house are so out of alignment<br />
that the entire build<strong>in</strong>g threatens to collapse, would I act wisely if I attempted to<br />
save my belong<strong>in</strong>gs simply by mov<strong>in</strong>g them from the lower to the upper floor? Would I<br />
83 In Moses Mendelssohn: Selections, p. 146. Mendelssohn’s reply to Obereit is discussed by Altmann,<br />
Moses Mendelssohn, pp. 539–40.<br />
84 Letter to Elkan Herz, <strong>in</strong> Moses Mendelssohn: Selections, p. 121. Cf. Altmann’s discussion of this letter<br />
(Moses Mendelssohn, p. 249). Jacob Katz (Exclusiveness <strong>and</strong> Tolerance, p. 172) also suggests that<br />
Mendelssohn ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed Judaism’s superiority <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>tellectual terms (its essential rationality) <strong>and</strong> moral<br />
terms (its <strong>in</strong>herent toleration).<br />
85 Cited by Mendelssohn <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem <strong>and</strong> Other Jewish Writ<strong>in</strong>gs, Part II, p. 56.<br />
138 Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist
e safer there? Christianity, as you know, is built upon Judaism <strong>and</strong> would therefore collapse<br />
along with it. 86<br />
The ideal religion is thus one that is rational (or at least <strong>in</strong> no way <strong>in</strong>consistent<br />
with reason) <strong>and</strong> tolerant. For Mendelssohn, Judaism meets these <strong>in</strong>tellectual <strong>and</strong><br />
moral tests. Judaism, therefore, <strong>in</strong> Mendelssohn’s barely concealed view, is not only<br />
the truest positive religion, closest to natural religion, but also the most tolerant or<br />
pluralistic, <strong>and</strong> thus modern, religion.<br />
APPENDIX<br />
Excerpt from Mendelssohn’s Or la-netivah<br />
Moses our teacher, peace be on him, wrote the whole Torah <strong>in</strong> its entirety from ‘In<br />
the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g’ until ‘<strong>in</strong> the sight of all Israel’, even the last eight verses from ‘Moses<br />
died’ until the end of the Torah…. It is possible to raise a difficulty, whether the<br />
Holy One blessed be He spoke <strong>and</strong> Moses wrote down the whole Torah… for wherever<br />
it said ‘The Lord spoke to Moses’ [<strong>in</strong> the third person], it should have said ‘I the<br />
Lord spoke to Moses’ or ‘The Lord spoke to me’ [<strong>in</strong> the first person]…. As is known,<br />
there are people who had this difficulty, <strong>and</strong> this difficulty almost caused them to<br />
doubt who wrote the Torah. Proof can be brought from [the case of] Baruch, who<br />
testified about himself that he wrote the scroll [of Jeremiah] from the mouth of Jeremiah,<br />
<strong>and</strong> nevertheless always mentions Jeremiah <strong>and</strong> Baruch speak<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the third<br />
person…. Ramban (Nahmanides) wrote at the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of the Torah the reason why<br />
Moses did not write the Torah as if he were speak<strong>in</strong>g for himself, <strong>and</strong> did not mention<br />
himself <strong>in</strong> the Torah until he was born, as if someone else were tell<strong>in</strong>g about<br />
him, because the Torah precedes the creation of the world, <strong>and</strong> thus all the more so<br />
[it precedes] the birth of Moses our teacher…. So Moses was like a scribe copy<strong>in</strong>g<br />
from an ancient book…. It is true <strong>and</strong> clear that Moses wrote the whole Torah prophetically,<br />
from the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of the book of Genesis until ‘<strong>in</strong> the sight of all Israel’….<br />
We the whole community of the congregation of Israel believe that just as<br />
Moses our teacher wrote his Torah, so do we now possess it today. Noth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> it has<br />
changed s<strong>in</strong>ce then until now. Nor did what happens to secular books happen to it,<br />
namely that scribes <strong>and</strong> copyists over the years change them by add<strong>in</strong>g or delet<strong>in</strong>g or<br />
chang<strong>in</strong>g, sometimes by mistake on account of laz<strong>in</strong>ess, <strong>and</strong> sometimes deliberately<br />
<strong>and</strong> willfully <strong>in</strong> order to correct the author’s words. Thus over time the correct read<strong>in</strong>g<br />
became completely forgotten <strong>and</strong> the text of the book became set…. Therefore<br />
[God] provided us scribes <strong>and</strong> Masoretes, who counted all the letters of the Torah <strong>in</strong><br />
order to preserve them from addition or subtraction, <strong>and</strong> who watched over the books<br />
86 Ibid., pp. 57–8.<br />
Raphael Jospe<br />
139
as they were copied <strong>in</strong> order to remove any mistake <strong>in</strong> writ<strong>in</strong>g, accord<strong>in</strong>g to rules<br />
which were transmitted from the days of Ezra…. They also paid attention to the vowels<br />
<strong>and</strong> cantillation notes… It is the same regard<strong>in</strong>g the qeri [the way a word is read]<br />
<strong>and</strong> the ketiv [the way a word is written]. Moses our teacher, of blessed memory,<br />
only wrote down <strong>in</strong> his Torah the ketiv, but when he transmitted it to Joshua, he<br />
would read it to him accord<strong>in</strong>g to the qeri <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>formed him the secret of the difference<br />
between them, <strong>and</strong> thus it was transmitted from person to person.<br />
140 Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist
Albert van der Heide<br />
The Be'ur <strong>in</strong> Progress: Salt <strong>and</strong> Spices at a <strong>Medieval</strong> Banquet<br />
Moses Mendelssohn’s endeavour to publish a new edition of the Torah, entitled<br />
Netivot ha-shalom, <strong>and</strong> conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong> addition to the Hebrew, a German translation,<br />
a Hebrew commentary (beˆur), <strong>and</strong> a detailed account of the correctness of the<br />
masoretic text (Tiqqun soferim), was very much tied up with the needs <strong>and</strong> ideals of<br />
his time <strong>and</strong> environment <strong>and</strong> mirrors a complex set of ideologies. 1 The work began<br />
<strong>in</strong> about 1773 or 1774; the fifth volume of the Torah was published ten years later, <strong>in</strong><br />
the spr<strong>in</strong>g of 1783. Mendelssohn was the translator; the scholar <strong>and</strong> poet Solomon<br />
Dubno (1738–1813) h<strong>and</strong>led the masoretic details of Tiqqun soferim. The two<br />
worked together to produce the commentary, with Dubno assembl<strong>in</strong>g the material<br />
<strong>and</strong> Mendelssohn assum<strong>in</strong>g responsibility for supervision <strong>and</strong> redaction. While the<br />
work on Exodus was <strong>in</strong> progress, Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Dubno clashed over the publication<br />
of Dubno’s share <strong>in</strong> the long <strong>in</strong>troduction to the project (first published separately<br />
as Or la-netivah <strong>in</strong> 1782 2 ), <strong>and</strong> Dubno dropped out of the project. As a result,<br />
Mendelssohn had to write the commentary on Exodus himself before he found other<br />
collaborators: Naphtali Herz (Hartwig) Wessely (1725–1805) for Leviticus, Aaron<br />
Jaroslav 3 for Numbers, <strong>and</strong> Naphtali Herz Homberg (1749–1841) for Deuteronomy.<br />
For this reason, the Beˆur on Exodus may come closest to what Mendelssohn himself<br />
had <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d for this work, all the more so because the occasional <strong>in</strong>clusion of passages<br />
by Dubno offer <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g sidelights.<br />
Given Solomon Dubno’s background, tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>terest as a traditional scholar<br />
(with moderately ‘modern’ ideals), the overwhelm<strong>in</strong>gly traditional <strong>and</strong> almost medi-<br />
1 For the follow<strong>in</strong>g observations I relied ma<strong>in</strong>ly on Edward Breuer, The Limits of Enlightenment: Jews,<br />
Germans <strong>and</strong> the Eighteenth-Century Study of Scripture (Cambridge, Mass., 1996), as well as Perez<br />
S<strong>and</strong>ler, Ha-beˆur la-torah shel Mosheh Mendelssohn ve-si¨ato (Jerusalem, 1940/41); Alex<strong>and</strong>er<br />
Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical Study (London, 1973), esp. ch. 5; Werner We<strong>in</strong>berg,<br />
‘E<strong>in</strong>leitung’, <strong>in</strong>: Moses Mendelssohn, Gesammelte Schriften: Jubiläumsausgabe, vol. 15,1: Hebräische<br />
Schriften II, 1: der Pentateuch, ed. Werner We<strong>in</strong>berg (Stuttgart–Bad Cannstadt, 1990), pp. IX–CLIV.<br />
2 Now repr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> photo-offset <strong>in</strong> Gesammelte Schriften: Jubiläumsausgabe, vol. 15,1, pp. 19–55, <strong>and</strong><br />
translated <strong>in</strong> vol. 9,1: Schriften zum Judentum III,1: Pentateuchübersetzung <strong>in</strong> deutscher Umschrift, ed.<br />
Werner We<strong>in</strong>berg (Stuttgart–Bad Cannstadt, 1993), pp. 1–96. We<strong>in</strong>berg (pp. XLIII–IV) is the first to<br />
argue plausibly for la-netivah <strong>in</strong>stead of the usual li-netivah (cf. Ps. 119:105: ve-or li-netivati).<br />
3 Jaroslav is the least known of those mentioned here; even his dates seem to be unknown. Accord<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to S<strong>and</strong>ler (Ha-be’ur, p. 145 n. 1), he referred to himself by his hometown, but his family name was<br />
Friedenthal (Freudenthal? Altmann [Moses Mendelssohn, p. 359] has ‘Aaron Zechariah Friendenthal’<br />
[sic]). Getzel Kressel, Leqsiqon ha-sifrut ha-¨ivrit ba-dorot ha-aÌaronim (MerÌavia, 1965–67), vol. 2,<br />
cols. 105–6, depends on S<strong>and</strong>ler <strong>and</strong> provides no additional <strong>in</strong>formation.<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
Albert Royal Netherl<strong>and</strong>s van der Heide Academy of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences, 2007<br />
141
eval character of the Beˆur on Genesis is no great surprise. But it is <strong>in</strong>deed remarkable<br />
that Mendelssohn seems to have gone along fully with Dubno’s method of<br />
process<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> rework<strong>in</strong>g the mass of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic <strong>and</strong> medieval exegesis. A closer look<br />
at Genesis 22 will confirm this. Later on we will have a look at Exodus 19. 4<br />
Genesis 22:1–19 tells the story of God’s comm<strong>and</strong> to Abraham to sacrifice his<br />
only son, the journey to Mount Moriah, Isaac’s b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g on the altar, <strong>and</strong> the sacrifice<br />
of the ram <strong>in</strong>stead of him, God’s reaction to Abraham’s behaviour <strong>and</strong> His renewed<br />
bless<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> f<strong>in</strong>ally the return home.<br />
In the Beˆur all this is covered <strong>in</strong> about thirty exegetical entries, most of them<br />
rather short, because the Beˆur was conceived to be an old-fashioned gloss rather<br />
than a theological or philosophical commentary. Five topics are discussed more extensively<br />
than the others. Considerable attention is given to the mean<strong>in</strong>g of the verb<br />
nissah – here mean<strong>in</strong>g ‘to test’. The name Moriah (v. 2) is also treated at length. The<br />
correct underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the problematic phrase, ‘Now I know that you are God-fear<strong>in</strong>g’<br />
(v. 12), is discussed, as is the question of the new name for the mounta<strong>in</strong> where<br />
the sacrifice took place: ‘The Lord will see’ (v. 14). A long discussion of the problematic<br />
chronology of Abraham’s stay <strong>in</strong> Beersheba, mentioned <strong>in</strong> v. 19, which does<br />
not really belong to the story itself, is appended. In two of these cases Mendelssohn<br />
himself explicitly took the lead: on the mean<strong>in</strong>g of nissah <strong>and</strong> on ‘Now I know’.<br />
These, <strong>in</strong> fact, are the core theological issues of the whole chapter, because both<br />
touch on the belief <strong>in</strong> God’s omniscience. In another topic (‘Moriah’), Mendelssohn’s<br />
guid<strong>in</strong>g h<strong>and</strong> can be suspected.<br />
In true medieval fashion the commentary is replete with quotations from <strong>and</strong> references<br />
to earlier authorities, all of them Jewish. There is no mention of any non-Jewish<br />
exegetical literature. We beg<strong>in</strong> with a classification <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>ventory.<br />
The classical rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources are explicitly mentioned only three times, but they<br />
are implied <strong>in</strong> the word<strong>in</strong>g of at least three other <strong>in</strong>stances. The Targums (Onkelos<br />
<strong>and</strong> Pseudo-Jonathan) are mentioned seven times. Rashi gets eight mentions, but<br />
s<strong>in</strong>ce he usually transmits an earlier rabb<strong>in</strong>ic view these can also be accounted as<br />
additional references to the rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature.<br />
Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam), Rashi’s gr<strong>and</strong>son, was not a very well-known<br />
exegete at the time, but he was highly esteemed by the Beˆur-ists for his dedication to<br />
the pesha† or pla<strong>in</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g; he is mentioned here four times (once, however, to be<br />
soundly rejected). 5 Abraham Ibn Ezra is mentioned five times, <strong>and</strong> Saadia, David<br />
KimÌi, Obadiah Sforno, Elijah Levita, <strong>and</strong> Isaac Abravanel once each. Maimonides<br />
appears twice but NaÌmanides no fewer than eight times, the same as Rashi. The<br />
Masorah is mentioned once.<br />
We will now take a closer look at Dubno’s treatment of the name Moriah <strong>and</strong> then<br />
at Mendelssohn’s solution of the problem of God’s trial of Abraham.<br />
Dubno beg<strong>in</strong>s by po<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g out that there is a strong tradition that Mount Moriah is<br />
identical with the Temple Mount <strong>and</strong> that it was an ancient place of worship, go<strong>in</strong>g<br />
4 Genesis first appeared <strong>in</strong> 1780; Exodus <strong>in</strong> 1781. The texts are now available <strong>in</strong> photo-offset <strong>in</strong><br />
Gesammelte Schriften: Jubiläumsausgabe, vols. 15,2 <strong>and</strong> 16: Hebräische Schriften II: der Pentateuch,<br />
ed. Werner We<strong>in</strong>berg (Stuttgart–Bad Cannstatt, 1990).<br />
5 His well-argued but semantically untenable view that here nissah means ‘to punish’; see below.<br />
142 The Be'ur <strong>in</strong> Progress: Salt <strong>and</strong> Spices at a <strong>Medieval</strong> Banquet
ack to the time of Adam. 6 As for the name Moriah, there are many midrashim. For<br />
the pla<strong>in</strong> mean<strong>in</strong>g (pesha†), however, the name should be connected with mor, the<br />
myrrh of sacrificial worship, as NaÌmanides said, follow<strong>in</strong>g Onkelos <strong>and</strong> Rashi.<br />
Then Dubno suddenly embarks on a pilpulistic treatment of whether myrrh could be<br />
found <strong>in</strong> the L<strong>and</strong> of Israel <strong>and</strong> whether it should be identified with musk. Evidently<br />
he does so because NaÌmanides <strong>in</strong>vokes conflict<strong>in</strong>g traditions on these po<strong>in</strong>ts. 7<br />
Dubno clearly wants to sort this out but is unable to give a clear answer. Then the<br />
gloss ends abruptly with the general observation that, actually, there is little po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong><br />
try<strong>in</strong>g to f<strong>in</strong>d the mean<strong>in</strong>gs of the many proper names that appear <strong>in</strong> the Torah, for<br />
<strong>in</strong> those cases where the Torah does offer a mean<strong>in</strong>g, the solution is often quite unexpected.<br />
‘Who could have guessed the mean<strong>in</strong>g of the name Jacob, had the Torah<br />
not told us that “his h<strong>and</strong> was grasp<strong>in</strong>g Esau’s heel (¨aqev)”?’ (cf. Gen. 25:26).<br />
These sensible remarks st<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> such a contrast to the frantic search for the mean<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of the name Moriah a few l<strong>in</strong>es before that the h<strong>and</strong> of the Master may be suspected<br />
here.<br />
For the mean<strong>in</strong>g of nissah Dubno aga<strong>in</strong> beg<strong>in</strong>s by offer<strong>in</strong>g several views from earlier<br />
sources. He quotes but dismisses Rashbam’s unique suggestion that nissah be<br />
rendered by the French contraria (‘to punish’, ‘to thwart’; perhaps a past tense here).<br />
He does the same with the traditional derivation of nissah from nes, ‘banner, mast’.<br />
He prefers those traditions that underst<strong>and</strong> ‘to test’ as the literal mean<strong>in</strong>g of nissah.<br />
Here ha-metargem ha-ashkenazi – who is of course Mendelssohn himself – steps <strong>in</strong><br />
with the assertion that, although the verbs nissah <strong>and</strong> baÌan are largely synonymous<br />
– both mean<strong>in</strong>g ‘prüfen = to test’ – nissah has an additional sense; namely, ‘to become<br />
used to, to be tra<strong>in</strong>ed’. In our case, Mendelssohn says, nissah can be paraphrased<br />
as ‘to realize a thought or an <strong>in</strong>tention by a deed’. Therefore his translation is<br />
not ‘Gott prüfte Abraham’ but ‘Gott versuchte Abraham’, mean<strong>in</strong>g ‘that He gave him<br />
the opportunity to strengthen his heart (le-ammeÒ et levavo) <strong>in</strong> the ways of the fear of<br />
God <strong>and</strong> His service’.<br />
Much more could be said about this. 8 To the discern<strong>in</strong>g eye, however, it is clear<br />
that Mendelssohn was well aware of the discussions on the verb nissah <strong>in</strong> medieval<br />
exegetical literature <strong>and</strong> made good use of them – especially, as we shall see, of the<br />
writ<strong>in</strong>gs of NaÌmanides, who ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed that the essence of Abraham’s trial was the<br />
opportunity given him by God to prove his good <strong>in</strong>tentions.<br />
Later, <strong>in</strong> v. 12, when the Angel of the Lord sums up the results of Abraham’s trial,<br />
Mendelssohn translates: ‘… denn nun weiss ich, dass du gottesfürchtig 9 bisst’. The<br />
commentary aga<strong>in</strong> starts by review<strong>in</strong>g the positions of earlier exegetes (Saadia,<br />
Maimonides, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, <strong>and</strong> NaÌmanides), but only NaÌmanides’ op<strong>in</strong>ion is<br />
quoted <strong>in</strong> full: ‘For now I know’ means, ‘from the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g I knew the potentiality<br />
6 Based on 2 Chron. 3:1 <strong>and</strong> Pirqei de-Rabbi Eli¨ezer 31 (fol. 70b <strong>in</strong> the 1852 Warsaw edition).<br />
7 NaÌmanides refers to J Peˆah 7c <strong>in</strong> his commentary on Gen. 22:2 but follows an altogether different<br />
tradition <strong>in</strong> his commentary on Ex. 30:23 (‘flow<strong>in</strong>g myrrh’).<br />
8 Cf. Albert van der Heide, ‘Banner, Miracle, Trial? <strong>Medieval</strong> Hebrew Lexicography between Facts<br />
<strong>and</strong> Faith’, <strong>in</strong> Hebrew Scholarship <strong>and</strong> the <strong>Medieval</strong> World, ed. Nicholas de Lange (Cambridge, 2001),<br />
pp. 92–106.<br />
9 We<strong>in</strong>berg (vol. 9,1, p. 140 <strong>and</strong> XXV–XXVI) opts for the spell<strong>in</strong>g ‘gottesfürchtig’.<br />
Albert van der Heide<br />
143
of your fear of God, which was not yet actualized by the deed; but now, s<strong>in</strong>ce it has<br />
become known by a deed, its merit has become complete’. 10 This op<strong>in</strong>ion, Dubno<br />
says, is also adopted by ha-metargem ha-ashkenazi, ‘<strong>and</strong> he added salt <strong>and</strong> spices<br />
(hosif melaÌ u-teval<strong>in</strong>)’ by mak<strong>in</strong>g the follow<strong>in</strong>g observation. A relatively long passage<br />
follows, <strong>in</strong> which Mendelssohn po<strong>in</strong>ts out the philosophical impossibility that<br />
an omniscient God acquire knowledge. Designations of temporality <strong>in</strong> relation to<br />
God should be understood as designations of causality. Abraham’s deed of obedience<br />
was the cause of God’s acknowledgement of his piety, which was, of course, already<br />
known to Him from eternity. In German: ‘… hierdurch habe ich erkannt dass du<br />
[gottesfürchtig bisst]’. It is <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g to see that here <strong>in</strong> the commentary Mendelssohn<br />
offers a version that varies from his more literal <strong>and</strong> ‘official’ translation:<br />
‘Denn nun weiss ich …’. But for the rest the term<strong>in</strong>ology is entirely medieval <strong>and</strong> so<br />
is the reason<strong>in</strong>g, as far as I can see. 11<br />
When we proceed to look at the Beˆur on Exodus 19, the story of the Revelation at<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ai, we must realize that it was produced <strong>in</strong> a different situation. Dubno had left the<br />
enterprise 12 <strong>and</strong> Mendelssohn wrote the commentary himself. From that perspective,<br />
it is remarkable that the Beˆur on Exodus is hardly different from that on Genesis,<br />
although a slightly different atmosphere may be detected.<br />
First some numbers. The twenty-five verses of Chapter 19 stimulate some fifty entries,<br />
almost all of them rather short. Nearly everyth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> these entries is derived<br />
from st<strong>and</strong>ard Jewish exegetical literature, either as explicit quotation, paraphrase, or<br />
implicit quotation without reference to a name or a source.<br />
There are seven <strong>in</strong>stances of a more elaborate treatment. In v. 5, the universalistic<br />
mean<strong>in</strong>g of ¨am segullah is highlighted <strong>in</strong> a rather succ<strong>in</strong>ct fashion. In v. 9, the authority<br />
of Moses as a prophet is discussed. There is considerable attention to the peculiar<br />
form of the verb yiyyareh ‘will be shot’ <strong>in</strong> v. 13, where an <strong>in</strong>tricate note by<br />
Dubno is <strong>in</strong>cluded. Also <strong>in</strong> v. 13 is the question about who was allowed to climb the<br />
mounta<strong>in</strong> together with Moses. 13 In v. 18, the morphology of the noun ¨ashan<br />
‘smoke’ is discussed extensively, accord<strong>in</strong>g to the view of Abraham Ibn Ezra, with<br />
reference to a somewhat problematic read<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Rashbam. 14 In v. 20, the problem-<br />
10 NaÌmanides on Gen. 22:12 (Perush ha-Ramban ¨al ha-torah, ed. Îayyim. D. Chavel [Jerusalem,<br />
1959], p. 127 offers a slightly different manuscript read<strong>in</strong>g; cf. the translation <strong>in</strong> Îayyim B. Chavel,<br />
Ramban (Nachmanides): Commentary on the Torah, Genesis [New York, 1971], p. 279). For a fuller<br />
version of NaÌmanides’ views see Torat ha-adam, sha¨ar ha-gemul (<strong>in</strong> Kitvei Rabbenu Moshe ben<br />
NaÌman, ed. Îayyim Chavel [Jerusalem, 1964], 1:272; Îayyim Chavel, Ramban (Nachmanides): Writ<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
<strong>and</strong> Discourses [New York, 1978], 1: 445–6). Note that Mendelssohn omits the notion of reward<br />
(sakhar) so much stressed by NaÌmanides.<br />
11 Although one rarely sees the matter put as clearly <strong>and</strong> succ<strong>in</strong>ctly as Mendelssohn does here. It is remarkable<br />
that Maimonides’ articulate view of the ¨aqedah as an example for humanity (Guide of the<br />
Perplexed II, 24) is completely ignored here.<br />
12 But he clearly left a lot of material beh<strong>in</strong>d. Thus the Tiqqun soferim is conspicuously present at the<br />
beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of Exodus 20, the Decalogue, with its double set of accents. Passages already written by<br />
Dubno were <strong>in</strong>corporated <strong>in</strong> the commentary, too, marked by a circellus.<br />
13 Includ<strong>in</strong>g an addition between brackets with<strong>in</strong> the translation: ‘Nämlich: Aaron, se<strong>in</strong>e Söhne und die<br />
siebzig Ältesten.’<br />
14 Ibn Ezra, long commentary on Exodus, ad loc. (Perushei ha-torah le-rabbenu Avraham Ibn Ezra,<br />
Shemot, ed. Asher Weiser [Jerusalem, 1976], pp. 123–4); Rashbam ad loc. (David Ros<strong>in</strong>, Der Pentateuch-Commentar<br />
des R. Samuel ben Meïr [Breslau, 1881], p. 109).<br />
144 The Be'ur <strong>in</strong> Progress: Salt <strong>and</strong> Spices at a <strong>Medieval</strong> Banquet
atic anthropomorphism implied by the Lord’s com<strong>in</strong>g down on the top of the mounta<strong>in</strong><br />
is solved by a long quotation from Abraham Ibn Ezra. The events recounted at<br />
the end of the chapter <strong>and</strong> the number of times that Moses ascended <strong>and</strong> descended<br />
the mounta<strong>in</strong> are outl<strong>in</strong>ed with great care. Characteristically, this seems to be the<br />
only <strong>in</strong>stance where Mendelssohn voices an op<strong>in</strong>ion of his own 15 <strong>and</strong> does not implicitly<br />
agree with the authorities he quotes, such as Rashi, Rashbam, <strong>and</strong> Ibn Ezra.<br />
Mendelssohn’s view of this dialogue between God <strong>and</strong> Moses is <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g. Why,<br />
he asks, did Moses argue with God <strong>in</strong> v. 23 about not allow<strong>in</strong>g the people to ascend<br />
the mounta<strong>in</strong>? Wasn’t that clear from the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g? His answer is that Moses was<br />
unwill<strong>in</strong>g to ab<strong>and</strong>on his privileged position close to God <strong>and</strong> was afraid that he<br />
would have to st<strong>and</strong> among the people when God gave them the Ten Comm<strong>and</strong>ments.<br />
As noted, the commentary on this chapter is full of references to the traditional exegetical<br />
literature, though often only implicitly. The Mekhilta is mentioned six times<br />
<strong>and</strong> implied once; these are op<strong>in</strong>ions usually taken over by Rashi as well. The same<br />
applies to the two references to rabb<strong>in</strong>ical literature <strong>in</strong> general. Onkelos <strong>and</strong>/or<br />
Pseudo-Jonathan are mentioned six times. Rashi, too, is mentioned explicitly six<br />
times <strong>and</strong> implicitly an additional seven times; <strong>in</strong> one <strong>in</strong>stance Mendelssohn gives<br />
his own explanation of Rashi’s view (v. 13: hemmah ya¨alu). Rashbam is quoted<br />
seven times directly <strong>and</strong> once implicitly. Abraham Ibn Ezra is quoted no less than<br />
n<strong>in</strong>e times, twice quite extensively; his views are implied <strong>in</strong> three additional cases.<br />
NaÌmanides, who was rather conspicuous <strong>in</strong> Genesis, plays a special role here too by<br />
serv<strong>in</strong>g as Mendelssohn’s <strong>in</strong>visible spokesman <strong>in</strong> seven <strong>in</strong>stances. The only time that<br />
he is explicitly mentioned, the reference is not wholly clear (v. 20: mi-divrei ha-<br />
Ramban). F<strong>in</strong>ally, Obadiah Sforno is mentioned twice. It rema<strong>in</strong>s to be remarked that<br />
Dubno, <strong>in</strong> his <strong>in</strong>serted note on yiyyareh (v. 13), discusses the conflict<strong>in</strong>g views of<br />
Joseph <strong>and</strong> David KimÌi.<br />
Exodus 19 is not an easy chapter. It is difficult to determ<strong>in</strong>e the sequence of events<br />
<strong>and</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e utterances. From the time of Rashi, Jewish exegetes have tried to establish<br />
a coherent view of the cha<strong>in</strong> of events. The Beˆur clearly follows <strong>in</strong> their path. Apart<br />
from a slightly unbalanced <strong>and</strong> haphazard attention to details of morphology (yiyyareh<br />
<strong>in</strong> v. 13, ¨ashan <strong>in</strong> v. 18), the explicit preference for pesha† over midrashic solutions,<br />
the awareness of the nature of biblical style (<strong>in</strong> vv. 2 <strong>and</strong> 4), <strong>and</strong> the special<br />
attention to the purpose of the dialogue between God <strong>and</strong> Moses <strong>in</strong> the latter part of<br />
the chapter are clear evidence of a marked exegetical sensitivity. As <strong>in</strong> Genesis 22,<br />
Mendelssohn was able to realize his hermeneutical ideas almost exclusively through<br />
his selections from rabb<strong>in</strong>ical <strong>and</strong> medieval authorities. There is no doubt that a more<br />
discursive <strong>and</strong> less topically arranged commentary on a chapter like Exodus 19<br />
would have been more appropriate for his purpose. Examples of such commentaries<br />
were abundantly available to Mendelssohn <strong>in</strong> contemporary Old Testament scholarship.<br />
Their absence from the Beˆur is significant. Nor did Mendelssohn follow the<br />
example of later Jewish exegetes like Isaac Abravanel, whose attention to context<br />
15 The remarks on biblical literary style <strong>in</strong> vv. 2 <strong>and</strong> 4 (‘Auf Adlersflügeln getragen’), set off aga<strong>in</strong>st<br />
different, rabb<strong>in</strong>ical views, may also be Mendelssohn’s own.<br />
Albert van der Heide<br />
145
<strong>and</strong> cohesion came at the price of extreme word<strong>in</strong>ess. Mendelssohn chose to follow<br />
the example of the great medieval classics. The result is – to borrow the phrase that<br />
Dubno so graciously applied to his employer – a medieval banquet, where even the<br />
salt <strong>and</strong> spices have a medieval flavour.<br />
146 The Be'ur <strong>in</strong> Progress: Salt <strong>and</strong> Spices at a <strong>Medieval</strong> Banquet
Thomas Kollatz<br />
Under the Cover of Tradition:<br />
Old <strong>and</strong> New Science <strong>in</strong> the Works of Aron Salomon Gumpertz<br />
Born <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> 1723, the scion of a wealthy, learned, <strong>and</strong> respected family, 1 Aron<br />
Emmerich Salomon Gumpertz, designated for a rabb<strong>in</strong>ical career, soon preferred the<br />
study of science to the study of halakhah. Many contemporary sources testify to his<br />
successful pursuit of knowledge. His scholarly <strong>and</strong> scientific skills were widely<br />
known <strong>and</strong> highly appreciated both <strong>in</strong>side <strong>and</strong> outside the Jewish community. He<br />
was a man of science closely associated with the centres of scientific endeavour <strong>and</strong><br />
scholarly exchange of ideas. He was one of the few Jews <strong>in</strong> eighteenth-century Berl<strong>in</strong><br />
who had deal<strong>in</strong>gs with non-Jewish scholars. Together with Moses Mendelssohn he<br />
attended the lectures (<strong>in</strong> Lat<strong>in</strong>) on modern philosophy given by Johann Philip<br />
He<strong>in</strong>ius, headmaster of the Joachimsthal Gymnasium, 2 <strong>and</strong> participated <strong>in</strong> the<br />
monthly meet<strong>in</strong>gs of the Kaffeehaus-Gesellschaft, a learned society devoted to science<br />
<strong>and</strong> philosophy. 3 For years he was closely associated with members of the<br />
Royal Academy of Sciences <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> – the Marquis d’Argens, Pierre Moreau de<br />
Maupertuis, Leonhard Euler, Louis Isaac de Beausobre, Johann Christoph Gottsched,<br />
1 For biographical details on Aron Gumpertz, see: David Kaufmann <strong>and</strong> Max Freudenthal, Die Familie<br />
Gomperz (Frankfurt a.M., 1907), pp. 164–200; Eliezer L<strong>and</strong>shuth, ‘Dr. Aron Gumpertz gen. Aron<br />
Emmerich’, Die Gegenwart: Berl<strong>in</strong>er Wochenschrift für jüdische Angelegenheiten 1 (1867/1868): 318–<br />
9, 324–6, 330–1, 340–1, 347–8, 357–8, 365–7; Meyer Kayserl<strong>in</strong>g, ‘Moses Mendelssohn und se<strong>in</strong>e<br />
Verw<strong>and</strong>ten, Allgeme<strong>in</strong>e Zeitung des Judenthums 63 (1899): 463; Joseph Eschelbacher, ‘Die Anfänge<br />
allgeme<strong>in</strong>er Bildung unter den deutschen Juden vor Mendelssohn’, Beiträge zur Geschichte der<br />
deutschen Juden [Festschrift M. Philippson] (Leipzig, 1916), pp. 172–7; David Sork<strong>in</strong>, ‘Aaron Solomon<br />
Gumpertz’, <strong>in</strong> The Berl<strong>in</strong> Haskalah <strong>and</strong> German Religious Thought: Orphans of <strong>Knowledge</strong> (London<br />
<strong>and</strong> Portl<strong>and</strong>, 2000), pp. 56–62; Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er, The Jewish Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> the Eighteenth Century<br />
(Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 2002), pp. 64–5.<br />
2 Cf. Friedrich Nicolai, ‘Nekrolog auf Moses Mendelssohn’, <strong>in</strong> idem, Sämtliche Werke, Briefe,<br />
Dokumente, ed. P.M. Mitchell, Hans-Gert Roloff, <strong>and</strong> Erhard Weidl, vol. 6, p. 38: ‘Er [=Gumperz]<br />
verschaffte ihm [=Mendelssohn] auch die Bekanntschafft e<strong>in</strong>iger jungen Leute auf dem joachimsthalischen<br />
Gymnasium, welche die Philosophie liebten.’<br />
3 ‘E<strong>in</strong>e Art von gelehrtem Kaffeehause für e<strong>in</strong>e geschlossene Gesellschaft von hundert Personen, meist<br />
Gelehrten oder doch Freunden der Gelehrsamkeit, angelegt. J.A. Euler, Aep<strong>in</strong>ius, Jacobi, Gumperz,<br />
Wilke,…, Mart<strong>in</strong>i,…, Bamberger, Resewitz, Lüdke und viele a. m. waren nebst mir und Moses<br />
Mendelssohn Mitglieder dieser Gesellschaft. Alle vier Wochen ward da e<strong>in</strong>e Abh<strong>and</strong>lung vorgelesen,<br />
mathematischen, physikalischen, philosophischen Inhalts’ (idem, ‘Ueber me<strong>in</strong>e gelehrte Bildung, über<br />
me<strong>in</strong>e Kenntniß der kritischen Philosophie und me<strong>in</strong>e Schriften dieselbe betreffend, und über die Herren<br />
Kant, J. B. Erhard, und Fichte. E<strong>in</strong>e Beylage zu den neun Gesprächen zwischen Christian Wolf und<br />
e<strong>in</strong>em Kantianer’, ibid., p. 464).<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
Thomas Royal Netherl<strong>and</strong>s Kollatz Academy of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences, 2007<br />
147
<strong>and</strong> others. 4 Between 1745 <strong>and</strong> 1752 Gumpertz was also responsible for the astronomic<br />
<strong>and</strong> mathematical calculations for the Jewish calendar published <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> on<br />
behalf of the Royal Academy. 5 In 1751 he completed his medical degree at the University<br />
of Frankfurt on the Oder. 6 Then he travelled <strong>in</strong> France, Engl<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> the<br />
Netherl<strong>and</strong>s, keenly observ<strong>in</strong>g the scientific scene abroad. 7<br />
In a remarkable letter to Gottsched, written <strong>in</strong> 1745, Gumpertz reflected on the<br />
educational <strong>and</strong> professional decisions he had made <strong>in</strong> his youth:<br />
For twenty years I have been a member of human society. Most of it I have devoted to<br />
the customary studies of my fellow believers. Above all I have spent uncounted hours on<br />
exercises <strong>in</strong> French, arithmetic, <strong>and</strong> writ<strong>in</strong>g. Although I pursued these studies on my<br />
own, driven only by eagerness, … I spared no pa<strong>in</strong>s, did not rest <strong>in</strong> day or night, <strong>in</strong> summer<br />
or w<strong>in</strong>ter, all the time reflect<strong>in</strong>g on mathematics <strong>and</strong> physics, for as much as the circumstances<br />
as well as the time reserved for Hebrew studies made it possible to satisfy<br />
my thirst for knowledge. 8<br />
4 ‘Wie ich denn seit dem die Ehre gehabt mit verschiedenen berühmten Mitgliedern der hiesigen [=Berl<strong>in</strong>er]<br />
Academie <strong>in</strong> Bekanntschaft zu gerathen’, as Gumpertz had remarked <strong>in</strong> a letter to Gottsched (15<br />
December 1747), with special mention of the Marquis d’Argens (Theodor Wilhelm Danzel, Gottsched<br />
und se<strong>in</strong>e Zeit: Auszüge aus se<strong>in</strong>em Briefwechsel [Leipzig, 1844], p. 335).<br />
5 Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Moritz Ste<strong>in</strong>schneider, ‘Der Berl<strong>in</strong>er Kalender’, Zeitschrift für die Geschichte der Juden<br />
<strong>in</strong> Deutschl<strong>and</strong> 3 (1888/89): 262–74, the title pages of the Berl<strong>in</strong> Judencalender referred to Gumpertz<br />
as a ‘(great) astronomer’ (1745, 1749) as well as ‘experienced <strong>in</strong> medical science’ (1752); idem,<br />
‘Mathematik bei den Juden (1551–1840)’, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des<br />
Judenthums 49 (1905): 728–9. On the approval of the calendar by the Academy, see Holger Lausch, ‘A.<br />
S. Gumpertz und die Academie Royale des Sciences et Belles-Lettres <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>. Zum Auftakt zur Euler-<br />
Dollondschen Achromasie Kontroverse’, Bullet<strong>in</strong> des Leo Baeck Instituts 88 (1991): 13–4.<br />
6 Gumpertz probably earned his liv<strong>in</strong>g as physician, as suggested by the remarks reflect<strong>in</strong>g practical<br />
experience <strong>in</strong> his revision of Loeseke’s Abh<strong>and</strong>lung. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Eduard Duckesz, Chachme Ahw.<br />
Biographien und Grabste<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>schriften der Dajanim, Autoren und der sonstigen hervorragenden Männer<br />
der drei Geme<strong>in</strong>den Altona, Hamburg, W<strong>and</strong>sbeck (Hamburg, 1908), p. 48, Gumpertz served as the<br />
physician for the poor <strong>in</strong> Hamburg.<br />
7 Gumpertz repeatedly alludes to a journey to Engl<strong>and</strong>; e.g., <strong>in</strong> the preface to Megalleh sod (Hamburg,<br />
1765). In 1752 he wrote from London to Euler, the famous mathematician <strong>and</strong> director of the mathematics<br />
class of the Berl<strong>in</strong> Academy, <strong>in</strong>form<strong>in</strong>g him about J. Dollond’s remarks on lenses, which contradicted<br />
Euler’s own theory on the subject; see Lausch, ‘A. S. Gumpertz’, pp. 15–6. In the same letter,<br />
Gumpertz mentions his plans to travel to France. From Paris he corresponded with Mendez d’Acosta <strong>in</strong><br />
London; see David Ruderman, Jewish Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> an English Key: Anglo-Jewry’s Construction of<br />
Modern Jewish Thought (Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton, 2000), p. 211. Mendelssohn criticised Gumpertz’s habit of spend<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the summer <strong>in</strong> warm countries <strong>and</strong> the w<strong>in</strong>ter <strong>in</strong> cold ones <strong>and</strong> considered his frequent travels – especially<br />
to Paris – to be harmful to his health; see Mendelssohn’s letter to Joseph Mayer (12 November<br />
1768), <strong>in</strong> Moses Mendelssohn, Gesammelte Schriften: Jubiläumsausgabe (Stuttgart–Bad Cannstatt,<br />
1971 ff.) 20/2: 170 [letter 101] (hereafter JubA).<br />
8 The passage is entitled ‘kle<strong>in</strong>e Erklärung me<strong>in</strong>es St<strong>and</strong>es’: ‘Ich b<strong>in</strong> seit 20 Jahren e<strong>in</strong> Mitglied der<br />
menschlichen Gesellschaft. Den allergrößten Theil dieser Zeit habe auf die Studien gew<strong>and</strong>t, die bey<br />
me<strong>in</strong>en Glaubensgenoßen <strong>in</strong> Gebrauch e<strong>in</strong>geführt s<strong>in</strong>d. Die Nebenstunden ungerechnet, die zuweilen zu<br />
der französischen Sprache, der Rechen Kunst und e<strong>in</strong>er Uebung im Schreiben; wiewohl ohne jem<strong>and</strong>es<br />
Anführung, sondern wie es mir der natürliche Eifer e<strong>in</strong>gab, herhalten mußten. … Man kann leicht<br />
ermessen, dass ich weder fleiß noch Mühe gesparet, weder Tag noch Nacht geschont, so wenig die<br />
anmuthige Sommer als die tiefs<strong>in</strong>nige W<strong>in</strong>terzeit verfließen lassen, ohne im Nachs<strong>in</strong>nen <strong>in</strong> der Mathematic<br />
und Naturlehre, <strong>in</strong>sofern es me<strong>in</strong>e Umstände und die den hebräischen Studien gewidmete Zeit<br />
erlaubte, me<strong>in</strong>en Durst zu löschen, und mich zu ergezen’ (Letter to Gottsched [8 March 1745], <strong>in</strong><br />
Danzel, Gottsched und se<strong>in</strong>e Zeit, p. 333).<br />
148 Old <strong>and</strong> New Science <strong>in</strong> the Works of Aron Salomon Gumpertz
About twenty years later, Gumpertz repeated this account <strong>in</strong> a Hebrew autobiographical<br />
note, claim<strong>in</strong>g aga<strong>in</strong> that his studies went beyond ‘Hebrew subjects’ to <strong>in</strong>clude<br />
modern languages as well as philosophy, natural science, <strong>and</strong> mathematics. 9<br />
When Gumpertz died – he was only 46 10 – on April 3, 1769, Moses Mendelssohn<br />
made efforts to safeguard his friend’s scientific legacy:<br />
Please notify me … if he has left many manuscripts. Perhaps Madame 11 could send them<br />
to me <strong>in</strong> order to get them published. … It would be a pity if all his scholarship died with<br />
him. 12<br />
Mendelssohn’s search for material worth publish<strong>in</strong>g was sparked by Gumpertz<br />
himself, who repeatedly referred to work <strong>in</strong> progress <strong>in</strong> diverse fields – Hebrew<br />
prosody, belles lettres, mathematics, geography, natural science, <strong>and</strong> materia medica.<br />
But Mendelssohn’s endeavours to acquire unpublished work seems to have failed,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Gumpertz’ manuscripts <strong>in</strong>deed died with him. Today, only three scientific works<br />
published by Gumpertz 13 <strong>in</strong> lifetime are known: a doctoral thesis (1751), 14 a revision<br />
(1758), 15 <strong>and</strong> a commentary (1765). 16<br />
9 Megalleh sod, preface [n.p.].<br />
10 ‘Half of his days’, <strong>in</strong> the words of the <strong>in</strong>scription on Gumpertz’s tombstone <strong>in</strong> the Altona cemetery.<br />
For the tombstone <strong>in</strong>scriptions of both Gumpertz <strong>and</strong> his first wife Hitzel, see: Max Grunwald,<br />
Hamburgs deutsche Juden bis zur Auflösung der Dreigeme<strong>in</strong>den 1811 (Hamburg, 1904), p. 340; <strong>and</strong><br />
Duckesz, Chachme, p. 48.<br />
11 ‘Madame’ is a reference to Gumpertz’ second wife, Friebche Gett<strong>in</strong>g, who – to Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong><br />
Fromet Gugenheim’s utter <strong>in</strong>dignation – remarried soon after his death.<br />
12 ‘Melden Sie mir doch,… ob er vil Manuscript h<strong>in</strong>terlasen. Villeicht schikt Madam mir selbige zu,<br />
und ich lase etwas davon druken…. es wäre doch wirklich schade wen so alle se<strong>in</strong>e Wissenschaften mit<br />
ihm weg gestorben se<strong>in</strong> solte’ (Mendelssohn to Joseph Mayer, 25 April 1769, JubA 20/2: 175 [letter<br />
105]). Mendelssohn was also <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> the famous Gumpertz library: ‘Wird von se<strong>in</strong>en Büchern<br />
Auktion gemacht?’ (ibid.). Gumpertz mentions his father’s extensive book collection <strong>in</strong> the preface to<br />
Megalleh sod. Mendelssohn had previously expressed his esteem for Gumpertz <strong>in</strong> a letter to his fiancée,<br />
Fromet Gugenheim (16 June 1761): ‘Ihm alle<strong>in</strong> habe alles zu danken, was ich <strong>in</strong> Wissenschaften<br />
profitirt habe’ (JubA 11: 220 [letter 114]).<br />
13 Besides his responsibility for the calendar, Gumpertz also seems to have been <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> Jewish<br />
communal affairs <strong>and</strong> to have contributed to occasional publications on behalf of the Jewish community.<br />
In 1745 he translated a Hebrew poem of thanks <strong>and</strong> a sermon by David Fränkel, written on the occasion<br />
of Prussia’s victory over Saxony (<strong>in</strong> the Second Silesian War). See: Eliezer L<strong>and</strong>shuth, Toledot anshei<br />
ha-shem u-fe¨ulatam ba-¨adat Berl<strong>in</strong>: me-ˆet hivvasedah bi-shnat 5431 (1671) ¨ad shenat 631 (1871)<br />
(Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1884 [repr. New York, 1994]), pp. 40–8; Herman Pick, ‘Aron Salomon Gumpertz als Uebersetzer<br />
patriotischer Gelegenheitsschriften’, Zeitschrift für hebräische Bibliographie 14 (1874): 183–5;<br />
Moritz Ste<strong>in</strong>schneider, ‘Hebräische Drucke <strong>in</strong> Deutschl<strong>and</strong> (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1733–62)’, Zeitschrift für die<br />
Geschichte der Juden <strong>in</strong> Deutschl<strong>and</strong> 3 (1888/89): 266–7.<br />
14 De temperamentis (Frankfurt ad Viadrum 1751), §91.<br />
15 Johann Ludwig Leberecht Loesecke, Abh<strong>and</strong>lung der auserlesensten Arzeney-Mittel nach derselben<br />
Ursprung, Güte, Best<strong>and</strong>theilen, Maase und Art zu würken; <strong>in</strong>gleichen wie dieselben aus der Apothecke<br />
zu verschreiben s<strong>in</strong>d; Zum Nutzen se<strong>in</strong>er Zuhörer abgefaßt mit Anmerkungen versehen und mit e<strong>in</strong>er<br />
Tabelle vermehret von A. S. Gumpertz der Arzeney gel. Doctor, second edition (Berl<strong>in</strong>: Gottfried<br />
Wilhelm Nicolai, 1758). The third edition (1763) was a repr<strong>in</strong>t of the second edition. Subsequent editions,<br />
too, <strong>in</strong>cluded updates by famous contemporary physicians: Johann Friedrich Zückert, the fourth<br />
edition (1773); Johann Friedrich Gmel<strong>in</strong>, the fifth (1785) <strong>and</strong> sixth (1790) editions.<br />
16 Megalleh sod, Gumpertz’s only extant Hebrew work, has been repr<strong>in</strong>ted several times: Vilna 1836,<br />
Lvov/Lemberg 1910, <strong>and</strong> Brooklyn 1992. In 1840 a review signed ‘S. Mg.’ lauded Gumpertz’s supercommentary:<br />
‘Aharon Emrich’s Commentar zu Ibn-Esras Commentar über die fünf Megillot’, Literaturblatt<br />
des Orients 1 (1840): 438–9.<br />
Thomas Kollatz<br />
149
In 1751, Gumpertz submitted his dissertation for his medical degree, ‘De<br />
temperamentis’, which offered a scientific perspective on the ancient medical <strong>and</strong><br />
philosophical doctr<strong>in</strong>e of the four humours. Gumpertz’ argument is directed chiefly<br />
aga<strong>in</strong>st theories based on tradition <strong>and</strong> op<strong>in</strong>ion rather than on experiments <strong>and</strong> physics.<br />
17<br />
When Gumpertz revised Johann Ludwig Leberecht Loeseke’s compendium on<br />
pharmaceutics published <strong>in</strong> 1758, he added an <strong>in</strong>troduction on methodology <strong>and</strong> exp<strong>and</strong>ed<br />
the work by 150 annotations to Loeseke’s entries. 18 Both showed Gumpertz’<br />
acqua<strong>in</strong>tance with contemporary pharmaceutical theories <strong>and</strong> his solid knowledge of<br />
the literature on the subject, through frequent citations from the most recent discussion<br />
<strong>in</strong> European academies. 19 As <strong>in</strong> his dissertation, Gumpertz attacked scholastic<br />
‘Weltweisheit’, represented, for example, by contemporary followers of Galen – or<br />
worse of Paracelsus – who still adhered to theories based on hypotheses rather than<br />
experiments. In a short but comprehensive survey of recent discoveries <strong>in</strong> medical<br />
science, 20 Gumpertz writes that the reform of sciences, which began <strong>in</strong> the seventeenth<br />
century, also had far-reach<strong>in</strong>g implications for medic<strong>in</strong>e <strong>and</strong> pharmaceutics,<br />
as hypotheses were replaced by experiments. 21 Occasionally Gumpertz <strong>in</strong>serted<br />
first-h<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation ga<strong>in</strong>ed dur<strong>in</strong>g his stay abroad. 22 He repeatedly referred to<br />
the op<strong>in</strong>ions of lead<strong>in</strong>g European scholars, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g his teacher <strong>in</strong> Frankfurt,<br />
Johann Friedrich Cartheuser. 23 Gumpertz also mentioned the two most prom<strong>in</strong>ent<br />
Jewish scholars <strong>in</strong> Engl<strong>and</strong>, his ‘friend’ Mendez d’Acosta, 24 <strong>and</strong> Jacob de Castro<br />
17 ‘Illi nempe ad praecepta sua, physica ceteroqu<strong>in</strong> posthabita ratione, cuncta redigere annixi sunt: Hi<br />
rursum suis nimis <strong>in</strong>dulgentes hypothesibus, tot occultis utuntur facultatibus, ut occulta maneat et haec<br />
res. Sic, quod Galenus <strong>in</strong>ter veteres, quodque asseclae uberrime protulerunt, scholam redolet, nec istud,<br />
nisi qui praeoccupati op<strong>in</strong>ione, auctoritati, non rationibus, obsequentes, credunt, et <strong>in</strong>telligere fatentur’<br />
(de Temperamentis, preface, [n.p.]).<br />
18 The first edition of Loeseke’s popular compendium on pharmaceutics – Abh<strong>and</strong>lung der<br />
auserlesensten Arzeney-Mittel… (1755) sold out quickly. Loeseke was aware of the need for a thorough<br />
revision, but died <strong>in</strong> 1757. See Gumpertz's preface: ‘Die erste Ausgabe dieses nützlichen und<br />
brauchbaren Werkes f<strong>in</strong>g an aufzugehen, und der Verleger beschloß, e<strong>in</strong>e zwote zu besorgen. Der<br />
Verfasser, der noch am Leben war, und der ohnedem se<strong>in</strong> Werk vollständiger und nutzbarer zu machen<br />
wünschte, versprach, die zwote Auflage mit Vermehrungen und Verbesserungen zu versehen. Er würde<br />
vermuthlich Wort gehalten haben, wenn ihn nicht der Tod,… überrascht… hätte. Der Herr Verleger…<br />
trug mir auf, die etwa nöthigen Vermehrungen und Verbesserungen von dem Me<strong>in</strong>igen h<strong>in</strong>zuzuthun’.<br />
19 Gumpertz’s study on the humours reflected a strong <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> pharmaceutics. See de<br />
Temperamentis, pp. 36–7 (§§89–90), <strong>and</strong> especially §91, <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g that he had much more to contribute<br />
on the subject: ‘De dosi medicamentorum, cuique idonea, adhuc nonnulla dicenda essent, imo plura<br />
alia, eaque satis utilia, quae de hac faecundissima re afferri potuissent, restant, sed ulteriorem<br />
ventilationem <strong>in</strong>stituti ratio, ac metus, ne dissertatio <strong>in</strong> molem nimiam excrescat, prohibent, et <strong>in</strong>vitus<br />
igitur rivulos claudo’ (ibid., p. 37). He also underscored the importance of a close underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the<br />
antidromic effects of drugs <strong>in</strong> the preface to Megalleh sod.<br />
20 Loeseke, Abh<strong>and</strong>lung, preface, [n.p.].<br />
21 ‘Die Hypotheses wurden nach und nach verbannt, wenigstens setzte man sie so lange, als zweifelhaft,<br />
zum voraus, bis sie durch vielfältige Versuche, welche der neuern Naturlehre eigen s<strong>in</strong>d, bestätigt<br />
wurden’ (ibid.).<br />
22 E.g., Gumpertz mentioned the collegia medica <strong>in</strong> London <strong>and</strong> Ed<strong>in</strong>burgh <strong>in</strong> his preface to the<br />
Abh<strong>and</strong>lung, <strong>and</strong> frequently cited English medical practices (ibid., pp. 69, 235, 287, 395, 480).<br />
23 Ibid., pp. 53, 55, 226, 235.<br />
24 Ibid., p. 215: ‘Ich habe ihn [= lapis bezoar orientalis] von der Grösse e<strong>in</strong>es Hüner-Eyes besessen, und<br />
nachher me<strong>in</strong>em Freunde dem Herrn Mendez d’Acosta zu London geschenckt, welcher ihn se<strong>in</strong>er<br />
berühmten M<strong>in</strong>eralien-Sammlung e<strong>in</strong>verleibt.’ Later Gumpertz wrote to d’Acosta from Paris <strong>in</strong> 1759<br />
<strong>and</strong> from Hamburg <strong>in</strong> 1767; see Ruderman, Jewish Enlightenment, pp. 211–3.<br />
150 Old <strong>and</strong> New Science <strong>in</strong> the Works of Aron Salomon Gumpertz
Sarmento. 25 Both were fellows of the Royal Society <strong>and</strong> renowned scientists –<br />
d’Acosta for his studies of fossils <strong>and</strong> as librarian of the Royal Society, de Castro as<br />
a physician. His own practical know-how as physician found its way <strong>in</strong>to the addenda,<br />
too; e.g., where Gumpertz remarked that he once produced a positive effect <strong>in</strong><br />
obstetrics by the application of a musk enema. 26<br />
Fully aware of the advantages <strong>and</strong> disadvantage of revis<strong>in</strong>g a best-sell<strong>in</strong>g scientific<br />
work written by an established scholar, Gumpertz’s attitude to the task was ambivalent.<br />
On the one h<strong>and</strong> it enabled him to communicate some of his own theories <strong>and</strong><br />
experiences – ‘<strong>in</strong> the form of a foreigner’s work’ 27 – to a broader public; on the other<br />
h<strong>and</strong>, he was forced to stick closely to Loeseke’s arrangement <strong>and</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e of argumentation.<br />
28 Despite his <strong>in</strong>put the book is still perceived as Loeseke’s Abh<strong>and</strong>lung, not as<br />
Gumpertz’s materia medica.<br />
His best-known publication is a small book of seventy pages, published <strong>in</strong> 1765,<br />
entitled Megalleh sod. A six-page autobiographical preface <strong>in</strong> rhymed prose, recount<strong>in</strong>g<br />
his educational background, is followed by Megalleh sod, a supercommentary on<br />
Abraham Ibn Ezra’s commentaries on Ecclesiastes, Esther, the Song of Songs, Ruth,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Lamentations, attest<strong>in</strong>g to Gumpertz’s <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> grammar <strong>and</strong> the sciences (49<br />
pages). The last fifteen pages are a systematic presentation <strong>and</strong> classification of the<br />
sciences, entitled Maˆamar ha-madda¨, <strong>in</strong> which Gumpertz asserts that the methods<br />
of modern science, based on <strong>in</strong>vestigation, experiment, observation, <strong>and</strong> the evidence<br />
of the senses, are compatible with Jewish tradition <strong>and</strong> halakhah – provided that<br />
physics is dist<strong>in</strong>guished from metaphysics. 29 This precondition clearly separated science<br />
from philosophy, religion, <strong>and</strong> tradition, with the result that the latter lost their<br />
hermeneutic primacy.<br />
Gumpertz, who wrote the first pr<strong>in</strong>ted supercommentary on Ibn Ezra’s commentary<br />
on the Five Megillot, classified Megalleh sod as a supplement to a recent edition<br />
of Ibn Ezra’s commentary on the Pentateuch, 30 Margaliyyot †ovah, published <strong>in</strong> 1722<br />
<strong>in</strong> Amsterdam by Jequtiel Lazi b. NaÌum <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i, with f<strong>in</strong>ancial support from<br />
25 Loeseke, Abh<strong>and</strong>lung, pp. 225, 477.<br />
26 Ibid., p. 554: ‘Ich habe e<strong>in</strong>st bey e<strong>in</strong>er schwangern Frau, die gantzer 6. Monat rasend und mit<br />
Krämpfen ausserordentlich geplagt war, als sie ihrer Entb<strong>in</strong>dung nahe zu se<strong>in</strong> schien, daran aber dem<br />
Ansche<strong>in</strong>e nach, wegen der häufigen Krämpfe im Unterleibe verh<strong>in</strong>dert wurde,… den Versuch gemacht,<br />
und ihr e<strong>in</strong> Clystir, wor<strong>in</strong>n etwa e<strong>in</strong> halber Scrupel Bisam war, beybr<strong>in</strong>gen lassen, wornach nicht nur die<br />
Krämpfe abnahmen, sondern auch <strong>in</strong> weniger als 12 Stunden die Entb<strong>in</strong>dung glücklich erfolgte’.<br />
27 Ibid., dedication to C. A. Cothenius [n.p.]: ‘unter dem Schutze e<strong>in</strong>er fremden Schrift’.<br />
28 Ibid., p. 56: ‘Ich war… genöthiget se<strong>in</strong>er E<strong>in</strong>richtung zu folgen, sofern ich nicht dem gantzen Werke,<br />
wider die Absichten des Verlegers e<strong>in</strong>e <strong>and</strong>ere Gestalt geben wollte; wäre dieses nicht, so würde ich<br />
e<strong>in</strong>ige Capitel gäntzlich aussen gelassen, <strong>and</strong>ere h<strong>in</strong>gegen zusammen gezogen oder sonst verändert<br />
haben.’<br />
29 Cf. Megalleh sod, pp. 13b, 15, et passim. Mendelssohn praised Maˆamar ha-madda¨ for its excellent<br />
presentation of old <strong>and</strong> new sciences (Millot ha-higgayon [Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1765], §14). Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Ruderman,<br />
‘the importance of Gumpertz’s comparatively modest work lies <strong>in</strong> articulat<strong>in</strong>g the boundaries separat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
physics from metaphysics, allow<strong>in</strong>g the faithful to feel secure <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>vestigat<strong>in</strong>g nature <strong>in</strong> its own right’<br />
(David Ruderman, Jewish Thought <strong>and</strong> Scientific Discovery <strong>in</strong> Early Modern Europe [New Haven,<br />
1995], p. 343).<br />
30 Whereas Ibn Ezra’s philosophical <strong>and</strong> grammatical works were not published until the 1760s or later<br />
– Sefer ha-neÌmad Ìai ben meqiÒ (Berl<strong>in</strong>, [5]527 [1767]); Sefer ∑aÌot (Berl<strong>in</strong>,1769); Jesod mora (Hamburg,<br />
1771) – his biblical commentaries, which appear <strong>in</strong> most editions of the Rabb<strong>in</strong>ic Bible (miqraˆot<br />
gedolot) were readily available.<br />
Thomas Kollatz<br />
151
Naphtali Herz Sussk<strong>in</strong>d. Margaliyyot †ovah <strong>in</strong>cludes Ibn Ezra’s commentary on the<br />
Pentateuch along with a selection of the supercommentaries by Ibn Motot, Joseph<br />
ben Eliezer, <strong>and</strong> Ibn ∑arÒa, thoroughly revised <strong>and</strong> abridged. Ibn Ezra’s commentary<br />
was pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> the centre, surrounded by the three supercommentaries – treat<strong>in</strong>g Ibn<br />
Ezra’s commentary like the biblical text <strong>in</strong> Miqraˆot gedolot, a practice justified on<br />
the title page of Margaliyyot †ovah as follows:<br />
This scholar – Abraham Ibn Ezra – performed wonders <strong>in</strong> his commentaries on the Torah.<br />
It is itself Torah <strong>and</strong> study<strong>in</strong>g it requires a commentary on his commentary.<br />
Indeed, Ibn Ezra’s unsystematic laconic style <strong>and</strong> enigmatic language create an objective<br />
need for supercommentaries; dozens were written <strong>in</strong> the fourteenth century.<br />
Their authors, ma<strong>in</strong>ly of Mediterranean orig<strong>in</strong>, obviously preferred writ<strong>in</strong>g commentaries<br />
to <strong>in</strong>dependent research <strong>and</strong> apparently viewed Ibn Ezra’s as an ultimate <strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />
of Scripture that merely required appropriate elucidation. These medieval<br />
supercommentaries can be roughly classified as either philosophical or exegetical.<br />
Gumpertz seems to adhere more to the exegetical than the philosophical <strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />
of Ibn Ezra <strong>and</strong> criticized his predecessors for be<strong>in</strong>g more enigmatic than Ibn Ezra:<br />
I have moved far away from the paths of the great commentators [of Ibn Ezra], who hang<br />
their words on a tall tree, <strong>in</strong> their honour sometimes conceal<strong>in</strong>g the explanations <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpret<strong>in</strong>g<br />
arcane matters <strong>in</strong> an even more arcane fashion [than Ibn Ezra did]. That is not<br />
right for me. I have undertaken the task for men of my age <strong>and</strong> level, <strong>and</strong> have expla<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
as they require, speak<strong>in</strong>g as one does to his fellows. 31<br />
Gumpertz ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed a relatively sober attitude towards the well-known phenomena<br />
of sod <strong>and</strong> ev<strong>in</strong>ced less <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> Ibn Ezra’s Neoplatonic-t<strong>in</strong>ted explanations<br />
than his predecessors had. Generally speak<strong>in</strong>g, Gumpertz tends to highlight Ibn<br />
Ezra’s grammatical po<strong>in</strong>ts; <strong>in</strong> any case he was attracted by the pesha† <strong>and</strong> more concerned<br />
with the exegetical, l<strong>in</strong>guistic, <strong>and</strong> scientific than the philosophical aspects of<br />
Ibn Ezra’s commentary. Wherever Ibn Ezra refers to astronomy, mathematics, medic<strong>in</strong>e,<br />
etc., Gumpertz does not hesitate to add the f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs of contemporary science<br />
<strong>and</strong> the achievements of scholarship s<strong>in</strong>ce Ibn Ezra’s day.<br />
An example of br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g science to bear is found <strong>in</strong> Gumpertz’s remarks on<br />
Ecclesiastes 1:8, ‘the eye is not satisfied with see<strong>in</strong>g, nor the ear filled with hear<strong>in</strong>g.’<br />
Here Ibn Ezra wrote:<br />
We can know universals, but not the particulars to which they give rise <strong>and</strong> which do not<br />
last for one moment [by themselves]. Therefore no man can count them <strong>and</strong> the eye is<br />
not satisfied with see<strong>in</strong>g them.<br />
The eye’s ability to see is caused by the images that appear <strong>in</strong> the pure air <strong>and</strong> do not last<br />
one moment.<br />
Nor is the ear filled with hear<strong>in</strong>g particulars, for hear<strong>in</strong>g is caused by the entrance of air,<br />
which conta<strong>in</strong>s images of sound, <strong>in</strong>to the ear, <strong>and</strong> they too do not last. For this reason,<br />
the eye has no dom<strong>in</strong>ion over their particulars, nor does the ear hear their number. They<br />
have no f<strong>in</strong>itude or number for human be<strong>in</strong>gs; only the Creator knows the universals as<br />
well as the particulars, because they are all work of His h<strong>and</strong>s.<br />
31 Megalleh sod, preface, [n.p.].<br />
152 Old <strong>and</strong> New Science <strong>in</strong> the Works of Aron Salomon Gumpertz
Here Ibn Ezra has <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d the philosophical notions of Creator <strong>and</strong> creature <strong>and</strong><br />
their respective ability <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>ability to know universals <strong>and</strong> particulars.<br />
In his supercommentary Gumpertz strikes out on a new path:<br />
The optical sciences, reflections, <strong>and</strong> shadows are a subject call<strong>in</strong>g for long <strong>and</strong> broad<br />
examples; but so that you can underst<strong>and</strong> the words of the Rabbi, I will expla<strong>in</strong> them to<br />
you, reader, <strong>in</strong> short. Sense perception is caused by the specific forms of each object,<br />
which are reflected from the outside to the sense via the eye, for the eye is the organ <strong>and</strong><br />
faculty of see<strong>in</strong>g. Images are, as it were, pa<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> the pure air. For the rays of light are<br />
like l<strong>in</strong>es <strong>and</strong> emerge from the illum<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g object, whether the sun or a bright light, <strong>and</strong><br />
spread through the pure air as far as the objects, where they are reflected <strong>and</strong> return to<br />
the eye that sees [them], <strong>and</strong> there they pa<strong>in</strong>t a small picture that is like the object itself<br />
<strong>in</strong> every detail. This sense <strong>and</strong> the m<strong>in</strong>d apprehend the form <strong>and</strong> the movement made <strong>in</strong><br />
the eye. Hence see<strong>in</strong>g is caused by the pure air, for if there is no air it is impossible to<br />
see. The case is analogous with the sense of hear<strong>in</strong>g, for the sound pushes <strong>and</strong> moves the<br />
air <strong>and</strong> this motion spreads until it reaches the ear that hears [it], where it touches a th<strong>in</strong><br />
drum-like sk<strong>in</strong>, <strong>and</strong> through this drum <strong>and</strong> the truly wondrous organs <strong>in</strong>side the ear the<br />
sound is felt by the nerves of the bra<strong>in</strong>, by means of which the m<strong>in</strong>d apprehends them.<br />
The sound is heard as strong or weak accord<strong>in</strong>g to the strength or weakness of the motion<br />
of the air, <strong>and</strong> the sound is heard as high or low accord<strong>in</strong>g to its rapidity or moderation.<br />
On this foundation <strong>and</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciple is built the entire science of music, which teaches<br />
which are the movements of the air <strong>and</strong> which are the sounds that are sweet <strong>and</strong> acceptable<br />
<strong>and</strong> pleasant to the ear <strong>and</strong> which sounds are repugnant to the sense of hear<strong>in</strong>g. Accord<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to this sense the sounds are comb<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>and</strong> mixed <strong>and</strong> become a melody. There is<br />
no benefit <strong>in</strong> add<strong>in</strong>g more here. It follows that hear<strong>in</strong>g requires air, for without air there<br />
is no hear<strong>in</strong>g. 32<br />
Unlike Ibn Ezra, Gumpertz shows no <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the differences between<br />
Creator <strong>and</strong> creature <strong>and</strong> their relations with universals <strong>and</strong> particulars. Instead,<br />
he uses Ibn Ezra’s philosophical note as the start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t for a scientific explanation<br />
of the physiological processes <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> sight <strong>and</strong> hear<strong>in</strong>g. Whereas Ibn<br />
Ezra’s <strong>in</strong>terpretation could be read as part of the traditional philosophical discourse<br />
about universals <strong>and</strong> particulars, Gumpertz’s note belongs to the contemporary scientific<br />
discourse, specify<strong>in</strong>g the physical <strong>and</strong> biological aspects of see<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> hear<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g, en passant, a theory of music.<br />
A similar shift of <strong>in</strong>terest between commentator <strong>and</strong> supercommentator can be observed<br />
<strong>in</strong> their respective treatments of Ecclesiastes 1:12: ‘I, Kohelet, was k<strong>in</strong>g over<br />
Israel <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem.’ Ibn Ezra wrote as follows:<br />
He said ‘<strong>in</strong> Jerusalem’ because it is the appropriate place to receive wisdom, for it is<br />
known that the <strong>in</strong>habited part of the world is divided <strong>in</strong>to seven parts. Men of good sense<br />
can receive wisdom only <strong>in</strong> the three middle parts, for the excess of heat or cold <strong>in</strong> the<br />
first <strong>and</strong> last parts <strong>in</strong>terferes with human reason. It is also known that Jerusalem is at the<br />
33 rd degree of latitude, which is the centre of the <strong>in</strong>habited world, because human settlement<br />
depends on the degree of <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ation of the sun <strong>in</strong> the north or <strong>in</strong> the south.<br />
32 Ibid., fol. 3a–b.<br />
Thomas Kollatz<br />
153
Referr<strong>in</strong>g to the classical geographic topos that the world is divided <strong>in</strong>to <strong>in</strong>habited<br />
<strong>and</strong> un<strong>in</strong>habited parts, Ibn Ezra concluded that Jerusalem is located <strong>in</strong> the best part of<br />
all <strong>and</strong> is therefore most suited for the reception of wisdom. Ibn Ezra’s brief exposition<br />
enables Gumpertz to expound the shape of the globe <strong>and</strong> its <strong>in</strong>fluence on day<br />
<strong>and</strong> night:<br />
We have already expla<strong>in</strong>ed that the path of the sun is a circle that cuts the middle circle,<br />
called equator. The equator divides the earth <strong>in</strong>to two parts, namely, the north <strong>and</strong> the<br />
south. The distance <strong>in</strong> each direction between the equator <strong>and</strong> the tips of the earthly<br />
globe, called the pole, is n<strong>in</strong>ety degrees of the great circle of the globe. The length of the<br />
days <strong>and</strong> nights changes accord<strong>in</strong>g to this distance, so that the measure of the longest day<br />
for those who live on the equator is exactly twelve hours <strong>and</strong> is equal to the night. The<br />
farther a country from the equator <strong>and</strong> [the closer] to the pole, the longer is the measure<br />
of the longest day. Scholars have divided the full expanse [of longitude] <strong>in</strong>to seven parts,<br />
which they call ‘climates’. In the climates that are closer to the equator, the longest day<br />
is shorter than it is <strong>in</strong> the climates that are farther from it. The farther a climate is from<br />
the equator, the greater the cold, <strong>and</strong> the opposite as it is closer to the equator. All of the<br />
scholars of antiquity whose words have reached us, however, were Greeks <strong>and</strong> lived <strong>in</strong><br />
the countries near Greece. They understood that <strong>in</strong> climates near the equator the heat of<br />
the sun keeps <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g … while the opposite [is true] <strong>in</strong> climates near the pole, where<br />
the cold <strong>in</strong>creases, to the po<strong>in</strong>t that the sea there truly freezes <strong>and</strong> actually becomes ice.<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>gly they concluded that those countries <strong>and</strong> climates near the equator or near<br />
the pole are not part of the <strong>in</strong>habited world, because of the great heat or great cold. 33<br />
Thus far he is recapitulat<strong>in</strong>g a short history of science, <strong>in</strong> order to determ<strong>in</strong>e Ibn<br />
Ezra’s po<strong>in</strong>t of view historically. 34 Next, Gumpertz turned to contemporary theories<br />
of climatic zones:<br />
In these times however, when the navigation of ships at sea is more sophisticated than it<br />
was formerly, <strong>in</strong> their time, <strong>and</strong> sailors <strong>in</strong> their ships have reached the equator itself <strong>and</strong><br />
many degrees further on its southern side, they have found that the heat there really is<br />
very great, to the po<strong>in</strong>t that the people of the country are all black: they are the kushim –<br />
‘Mohren’ <strong>in</strong> German. Nevertheless those districts are part of the <strong>in</strong>habited world. Every<br />
year people from Holl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> others go there <strong>in</strong> order to trade. Others have<br />
gone to the far north, very close to the pole itself, where they discovered <strong>in</strong>habited countries.<br />
And as science cont<strong>in</strong>ues to advance <strong>in</strong> this age, every year they discover other<br />
countries not mentioned by the ancients or known to them. In this way they discovered,<br />
about 250 years ago – around the Spanish exile – a long <strong>and</strong> broad country, on both sides<br />
of the equator, [so large] that they called it the fourth part of the world. Others called it<br />
the New World <strong>and</strong> the New L<strong>and</strong> – namely, America. It too is <strong>in</strong>habited. But <strong>in</strong> former<br />
times, due to their lack of knowledge <strong>in</strong> navigation <strong>and</strong> shipbuild<strong>in</strong>g, people were not<br />
able to reach there <strong>and</strong> were ignorant of those countries. 35<br />
33 Ibid., fol. 3b.<br />
34 A similar historification can be found <strong>in</strong> Gumpertz’s rejection of Ibn Ezra’s count of the stars.<br />
Gumpertz apologizes for Ibn Ezra by not<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>in</strong> his time it was common to use Hipparchus’ star<br />
map, whereas s<strong>in</strong>ce then astronomy had improved <strong>and</strong> discovered previously unknown stars.<br />
35 Ibid., fol. 3b–4a.<br />
154 Old <strong>and</strong> New Science <strong>in</strong> the Works of Aron Salomon Gumpertz
Step by step, Gumpertz <strong>in</strong>troduces his audience to the recent history of exploration,<br />
enabled by the substantial progress <strong>in</strong> astronomy <strong>and</strong> navigation – po<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g out<br />
the significance of scientific progress for development of trade <strong>and</strong> commerce. The<br />
Greek idea that only the northern hemisphere is <strong>in</strong>habited has been disproved by<br />
modern explorers <strong>and</strong> tangible evidence. Gumpertz takes the h<strong>in</strong>t provided by Ibn<br />
Ezra <strong>and</strong> uses it to <strong>in</strong>troduce contemporary scientific discoveries <strong>in</strong>to his supercommentary.<br />
By underscor<strong>in</strong>g the ‘natural’ progress <strong>and</strong> dynamic development of<br />
science, however, he avoids declar<strong>in</strong>g older theories obsolete or portray<strong>in</strong>g modern<br />
<strong>in</strong>sights as refut<strong>in</strong>g traditional theories. Gumpertz’s strategy is to historicize the scientific<br />
mis<strong>in</strong>terpretations of the past before provid<strong>in</strong>g the modern po<strong>in</strong>t of view.<br />
Determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the length of the meridian degree <strong>and</strong> thus the shape of the earth was<br />
of great <strong>in</strong>terest for eighteenth-century science. In the first half of the century, two<br />
French expeditions were send out to measure the meridian degree – the first to Peru,<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1735, <strong>and</strong> the second, led by Pierre de Maupertuis, to northern Sweden, <strong>in</strong> 1738.<br />
From the difference between the two measurements, Maupertuis determ<strong>in</strong>ed that the<br />
globe is an oblate spheroid. 36 As mentioned above, <strong>in</strong> his Berl<strong>in</strong> years Gumpertz was<br />
<strong>in</strong> close contact with Maupertuis, 37 who could have provided him with first-h<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
about the polar region, its <strong>in</strong>habitants, <strong>and</strong> its climate, which ultimately<br />
found its way <strong>in</strong>to his supercommentary. 38<br />
Ibn Ezra’s commentary frequently enabled Gumpertz to <strong>in</strong>troduce his readers to<br />
the methods <strong>and</strong> systems of modern science, such as the L<strong>in</strong>naeus’ new taxonomy of<br />
plants <strong>and</strong> animals, the distribution of liv<strong>in</strong>g th<strong>in</strong>gs, <strong>and</strong> the motion of the w<strong>in</strong>ds.<br />
Ibn Ezra, of course, was strongly <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ed to astrology, but Gumpertz denied any<br />
substantial stellar <strong>in</strong>fluence on humans. Apropos the phrase ‘under the sun’ (Eccles.<br />
1:3 et passim), Ibn Ezra <strong>in</strong>vokes the stars <strong>and</strong> their affect on human life. Gumpertz,<br />
however, talks about the force of gravity:<br />
The effect of the sun is better known <strong>and</strong> greater than any actions of the others stars,<br />
even though they too have an effect on the earth; for example, the moon causes the runn<strong>in</strong>g<br />
out <strong>and</strong> return of the water – ‘Ebbe und Flut’ <strong>in</strong> German. 39<br />
Both Ibn Ezra <strong>and</strong> Gumpertz wrote about celestial <strong>in</strong>fluences. But whereas Ibn<br />
Ezra did so <strong>in</strong> terms of medieval Neoplatonism, Gumpertz, the faithful follower of<br />
Isaac Newton, 40 conceived of nature as <strong>in</strong>dependent of any spiritual order.<br />
In Megalleh sod, his only Hebrew work, the recourse to a medieval source <strong>and</strong> the<br />
use of a ‘medieval’ genre – the supercommentary – enabled Gumpertz to employ a<br />
scholarly approach to both the text (via grammar) <strong>and</strong> nature (via science). By writ<strong>in</strong>g<br />
about a commentary rather than about the Bible, Gumpertz exploited the advan-<br />
36 On Maupertuis’ expedition <strong>and</strong> the attempts to determ<strong>in</strong>e the length of a degree of longitude, see<br />
Charles S<strong>in</strong>ger, A Short History of Scientific Ideas to 1900 (Oxford, 1959), pp. 316–8.<br />
37 Gumpertz dedicated de Temperamentis to ‘patrono ac fautori meo’ – Maupertuis.<br />
38 Gumpertz had already devoted himself to the <strong>in</strong>fluence of climatic zones on human be<strong>in</strong>gs; see de<br />
temperamentis, p. 30–1 (§79).<br />
39 Megalleh sod, fol. 1b.<br />
40 The only non-Jewish scholar mentioned <strong>in</strong> Maˆamar ha-madda¨ is Newton (fol. 13a [error <strong>in</strong> pag<strong>in</strong>ation,<br />
should be 17a]). Gumpertz also recommended him to students of medic<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> the preface to<br />
Loeseke’s Abh<strong>and</strong>lung, [n.p.].<br />
Thomas Kollatz<br />
155
tage of the supercommentary genre: he is not offer<strong>in</strong>g an authoritative <strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />
of the sacrosanct Scripture, but merely of Abraham Ibn Ezra, the renowned exegete.<br />
Textual emendations, impossible as regards the Bible, were permitted <strong>in</strong> a supercommentary.<br />
Thus, covered by tradition, Gumpertz could raise Ibn Ezra’s medieval<br />
st<strong>and</strong>ard of knowledge to the level of contemporary science, follow<strong>in</strong>g the method he<br />
had outl<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>troduction to Megalleh sod <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> Maˆamar ha-madda¨ <strong>and</strong><br />
which he had already successfully applied <strong>in</strong> his dissertation <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> the revision of<br />
Loeseke’s Abh<strong>and</strong>lung.<br />
In all three scientific works, Gumpertz strove to supplement, to augment, <strong>and</strong> – if<br />
necessary – to modify traditional scientific concepts. Whenever Gumpertz disagreed<br />
with Galen <strong>and</strong> his school, with Ibn Ezra, <strong>and</strong> to a certa<strong>in</strong> degree even with his contemporary<br />
Loeseke, his perspective was always def<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>and</strong> motivated by the state<br />
<strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ards of the scientific research of his day.<br />
156 Old <strong>and</strong> New Science <strong>in</strong> the Works of Aron Salomon Gumpertz
Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e<br />
Natural Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit:<br />
P<strong>in</strong>chas Hurwitz on Animals <strong>and</strong> Meteorological Phenomena<br />
Introduction<br />
One of the salient characteristics of the eighteenth century is its susta<strong>in</strong>ed production<br />
of encyclopaedic works. The timeless endeavour to collect <strong>and</strong> record everyth<strong>in</strong>g that<br />
can be known reached its peak dur<strong>in</strong>g the eighteenth century, result<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> an impressive<br />
series of encyclopaedic writ<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> various European languages, of which<br />
Diderot <strong>and</strong> d’Alembert’s Encyclopédie is the most famous. 1 In 1797, this series was<br />
supplemented by the publication of a Hebrew encyclopaedic work, Sefer ha-Berit<br />
(Book of the Covenant), written by the Galician Jew P<strong>in</strong>chas Elias Hurwitz (d.<br />
1821). 2 The author had worked on it for many years while resid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> different countries<br />
<strong>in</strong> Eastern <strong>and</strong> Western Europe. 3 The book, which, curiously enough, has received<br />
relatively little scholarly attention, immediately became a best-seller throughout<br />
the Jewish world. In his preface to the second, enlarged edition (1807), Hurwitz<br />
declares the appellation ‘encyclopaedia’, used by some Berl<strong>in</strong> scholars to describe<br />
the book, to be a fitt<strong>in</strong>g qualification. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to the author, Sefer ha-Berit is <strong>in</strong>deed<br />
‘a qesher (“bond” – <strong>in</strong> German: Bund) that connects all the sciences <strong>and</strong> everyth<strong>in</strong>g<br />
that can be known’. To emphasize the adequacy of the designation he adds that<br />
1 For the history of encyclopaedias <strong>in</strong> general, see: Robert Collison, Encyclopaedias: Their History<br />
throughout the Ages (New York, 1964); Tous les savoirs du monde: Encyclopédies et bibliothèques, de<br />
Sumer au XXIe siècle, ed. Rol<strong>and</strong> Schaer (Paris, 1996).<br />
2 P<strong>in</strong>chas Hurwitz, Sefer ha-Berit (Brünn, 1797). References are to the follow<strong>in</strong>g edition: P<strong>in</strong>chas<br />
Hurwitz, Sefer ha-Berit ha-shalem (Jerusalem, 1990).<br />
3 For some general <strong>in</strong>formation on the book <strong>and</strong> its author, see: Israel Z<strong>in</strong>berg, A History of Jewish Literature,<br />
trans. Bernard Mart<strong>in</strong>, vol. 6 (New York, 1975), pp. 260–70; Raphael Mahler, A History of<br />
Modern Jewry 1780–1815 (London, 1971), pp. 559–69. The follow<strong>in</strong>g articles deal with various aspects<br />
of the work: Ira Rob<strong>in</strong>son, ‘Kabbalah <strong>and</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit: A Modernization Strategy for Orthodox<br />
Jews’, Modern Judaism 9 (1989): 275–88; Noah Rosenblum, ‘Ha-enÒiqlopedyah ha-¨ivrit harishonah,<br />
meÌabberah we-hishtalshelutah’, Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of the American Academy for Jewish Research<br />
55 (1988): 15–65; S. A. Horodezky, Yahadut ha-sekhel we-yahadut ha-regesh (Tel Aviv, 1947), 2:<br />
387–404; Monford Harris, ‘The Book of the Covenant: An Eighteenth Century Quest for the Holy<br />
Spirit’, <strong>in</strong> The Solomon Goldman Lectures. Perspectives <strong>in</strong> Jewish Learn<strong>in</strong>g, ed. Nathaniel Stampfer,<br />
vol. 3 (Chicago, 1982), pp. 39–53; David Ruderman, ‘Some Jewish Responses to Smallpox Prevention<br />
<strong>in</strong> the Late Eighteenth <strong>and</strong> Early N<strong>in</strong>eteenth Centuries: A New Perspective on the Modernization of<br />
European Jewry’, Aleph 2 (2002): 111–44, esp. 126–31. I would like to thank Professor Ruderman for<br />
his bibliographical help. See also the articles by Steven Harvey <strong>and</strong> David Ruderman <strong>in</strong> this volume.<br />
4 SB, first preface, p. 18.<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
Resianne Royal Netherl<strong>and</strong>s Fonta<strong>in</strong>e Academy of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences, 2007<br />
157
‘almost everyth<strong>in</strong>g can be found <strong>in</strong> this book, <strong>in</strong> contradist<strong>in</strong>ction to other books that<br />
deal with one subject exclusively’. 4<br />
The book is divided <strong>in</strong>to two parts. The first (pp. 1–395) deals with various<br />
branches of natural science; the second (pp. 396–610) is devoted to ethics <strong>and</strong> Jewish<br />
religious topics. 5 In the preface to the first edition, Hurwitz claimed that Sefer ha-<br />
Berit (henceforth: SB) was the first Hebrew book <strong>in</strong> which all the sciences were assembled<br />
<strong>and</strong> that its like had not been written s<strong>in</strong>ce the days of exile (p. 9). As<br />
Hurwitz himself was well aware, these claims were not entirely valid. Several seventeenth-<br />
<strong>and</strong> eighteenth-century Jewish scholars had covered more than one subject <strong>in</strong><br />
their scientific writ<strong>in</strong>gs. Still, Hurwitz’s claims to orig<strong>in</strong>ality are valid to some extent,<br />
for none of those earlier works can compare to SB <strong>in</strong> its scope. In this respect it<br />
can <strong>in</strong>deed be regarded as the first Hebrew encyclopaedia of the early modern period.<br />
The production of encyclopaedias <strong>in</strong> the eighteenth century has a parallel <strong>in</strong> the<br />
thirteenth century, a century dur<strong>in</strong>g which Lat<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> Hebrew authors were <strong>in</strong>volved<br />
<strong>in</strong> the collection of contemporary knowledge <strong>in</strong>to cyclopaedic works. 6 In the Jewish<br />
world, the encyclopaedic undertak<strong>in</strong>g was largely the result of the impact of<br />
Maimonides’ Guide; the Hebrew encyclopaedias were one of the channels through<br />
which contemporary secular knowledge was transmitted to wider circles of Jewish<br />
scholars. 7<br />
In light of the theme of the present volume, the question arises of what impact the<br />
medieval encyclopaedias <strong>and</strong>, more generally, the Sephardi scientific tradition of<br />
which they form a part, had on Hurwitz’s undertak<strong>in</strong>g. Judg<strong>in</strong>g by what the author<br />
himself tells his readers about his sources, though, it is apparent that he did not th<strong>in</strong>k<br />
highly of mediaeval knowledge. In his first preface Hurwitz announces that for each<br />
item (¨al kol davar) discussed <strong>in</strong> SB he will present three views: (1) that of the early<br />
philosophers (ha-filosofim ha-rishonim) – a category that <strong>in</strong>cludes ancient <strong>and</strong> mediaeval<br />
theories; (2) that of the later (i.e., modern) philosophers (ha-filosofim haaÌaronim),<br />
which <strong>in</strong>validate the earlier ones because there is ‘another spirit’ (cf.<br />
Numbers 14:24) <strong>in</strong> their words; <strong>and</strong> (3) that of the talmudic sages, the Zohar, <strong>and</strong> the<br />
trustworthy kabbalists. With respect to the philosophers (groups 1 <strong>and</strong> 2), Hurwitz<br />
specifies that where their views do not contradict those of the Sages (group 3) he will<br />
5 In his first preface, Hurwitz says that he has assembled ‘the words of the philosophers’ <strong>and</strong> the natural<br />
scientists’ <strong>in</strong> Part I, whereas <strong>in</strong> Part II one f<strong>in</strong>ds ‘the words of the true sages’ (Ìakhmei emet, p. 6). Towards<br />
the end of his <strong>in</strong>troduction (petiÌah) we read that Part I deals with man <strong>in</strong> so far as he belongs to<br />
the realm of what is corporeal <strong>and</strong> compound, while Part II is concerned with the four souls of Jews <strong>and</strong><br />
the four worlds from which these derive – <strong>in</strong> short, with the realm of the spiritual <strong>and</strong> simple (p. 31). In<br />
the same passage Hurwitz emphasizes that Part I serves as an <strong>in</strong>troduction to Part II, an assertion he<br />
repeats at the end of Part I (p. 395). A bit later, at the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of his encyclopaedic survey, he writes<br />
that Part I discusses ‘the lower world’ (ha-¨olam ha-taÌton), which is divided <strong>in</strong>to heaven <strong>and</strong> earth; i.e.,<br />
the world of the four elements, or ¨olam ha-¨asiyah (SB I.1.1, p. 33). In the next section he says that Part<br />
I deals with matters perta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g to human wisdom (divrei Ìokhmat adam), whereas Part II deals with div<strong>in</strong>e<br />
wisdom (Ìokhmat elohim) (SB I.2.7, p. 43). Part I is entitled Ketav yosher; Part II, Divrei emet.<br />
Both derive from Eccl. 12:10; what is more, the f<strong>in</strong>al letters of the four words (bet-resh-yod-tav) together<br />
make up the name of the book: (Sefer ha-)Berit.<br />
6 For the medieval Hebrew encyclopaedias, see The Hebrew Encyclopaedias of Science <strong>and</strong> Philosophy,<br />
ed. Steven Harvey (Dordrecht, 2000).<br />
7 See Gad Freudenthal, ‘Les sciences dans les communautés juives médiévales de Provence: Leur appropriation,<br />
leur rôle’, Revue des études juives 152 (1993): 29–136.<br />
158 Natural Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit
exam<strong>in</strong>e which are true <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>veigh aga<strong>in</strong>st false views. If he f<strong>in</strong>ds no view that he<br />
deems valid, he will offer his own. Where, however, the philosophers contradict the<br />
views of the Sages <strong>and</strong> tradition, Hurwitz will uncompromis<strong>in</strong>gly refute them: ‘I will<br />
not make a covenant with them, but I will thrust out their right eyes (cf. 1 Sam.<br />
11:2); I will not tolerate any heretic <strong>and</strong> I will br<strong>in</strong>g their views to judgement until<br />
their ideas are <strong>in</strong>validated <strong>and</strong> their thoughts perish’ (cf. Ps. 146:4). 8<br />
In other words, this classification reflects a hierarchical order<strong>in</strong>g. From the outset<br />
it is clear that the mediaeval sources occupy the lowest rank <strong>in</strong> the hierarchy. Hence<br />
we might expect this corpus of knowledge to play only a marg<strong>in</strong>al role <strong>in</strong> SB. In the<br />
present article I propose to exam<strong>in</strong>e the place <strong>and</strong> role of the mediaeval scientific<br />
heritage <strong>in</strong> Hurwitz’s encyclopaedia by focus<strong>in</strong>g on Hurwitz’s attitude towards it visà-vis<br />
his other two types of sources. To this end I will explore the implementation of<br />
Hurwitz’s aforementioned method <strong>in</strong> his survey of two discipl<strong>in</strong>es from the doma<strong>in</strong><br />
of natural philosophy, namely zoology <strong>and</strong> meteorology. It should immediately be<br />
noted, however, that Hurwitz would have strongly objected to such a procedure,<br />
given that he explicitly urges his reader to read the book <strong>in</strong> its entirety, from beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to end. In his preface, he <strong>in</strong>forms readers that limit<strong>in</strong>g themselves to selected<br />
portions will cause them to miss the <strong>in</strong>ner harmony of SB, for the book is <strong>in</strong> fact a<br />
s<strong>in</strong>gle subject, <strong>in</strong> which everyth<strong>in</strong>g is coherent <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>terconnected (¨<strong>in</strong>yan eÌad<br />
davuq u-meÌubbar). 9 Nonetheless I hope to show that it is <strong>in</strong>structive to analyze his<br />
use of sources even when the analysis is based on only a small part of the book.<br />
Zoology<br />
Let it be said at the outset that Hurwitz, <strong>in</strong> his account of the animals, does not apply<br />
the procedure outl<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> his preface as rigorously <strong>and</strong> systematically as one might<br />
expect from his emphatic statement <strong>in</strong> his preface. It is far from true that he presents<br />
three different views for each <strong>and</strong> every piece of <strong>in</strong>formation on animals. Instead, the<br />
bulk of this chapter appears to be based on the views of contemporary natural scientists.<br />
Hurwitz’s discussion of animals is found <strong>in</strong> chapter 14 of the first part of his encyclopaedia.<br />
Before exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g its contents, however, it is useful to consider briefly the<br />
general structure of this part. After the prefaces <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>troduction, Hurwitz first discusses<br />
the supralunar realm, deal<strong>in</strong>g with cosmology <strong>and</strong> astronomy (chs 1–4). He<br />
then turns to the sublunar natural world, first provid<strong>in</strong>g a general account of the four<br />
elements (ch. 5) <strong>and</strong> then devot<strong>in</strong>g a separate chapter to each of them – fire, air, water,<br />
<strong>and</strong> earth (chs 6–9) – before conclud<strong>in</strong>g this part with a chapter on meteorology<br />
(ch. 10). This is followed by a general description (ch. 11) of the natural be<strong>in</strong>gs to be<br />
discussed <strong>in</strong> the rest of this part. The next three chapters are devoted to m<strong>in</strong>erals,<br />
plants, <strong>and</strong> animals respectively. The human soul constitutes the central subject of<br />
the last seven chapters (chs 15–21, pp. 227–395).<br />
8 SB, first preface, p. 8.<br />
9 Ibid., first preface, p. 14.<br />
Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e<br />
159
The chapter on zoology consists of eight sections. In l<strong>in</strong>e with his procedure <strong>in</strong> the<br />
chapters on m<strong>in</strong>erals, plants, <strong>and</strong> human be<strong>in</strong>gs, Hurwitz devotes the first section to a<br />
discussion of the place of the animal k<strong>in</strong>gdom <strong>in</strong> the scale of be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> notes the particular<br />
day on which this group of liv<strong>in</strong>g be<strong>in</strong>gs was created, accord<strong>in</strong>g to the biblical<br />
creation story. The second section provides a general classification of the animal<br />
k<strong>in</strong>gdom <strong>in</strong>to six ma<strong>in</strong> groups: mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, <strong>in</strong>sects, <strong>and</strong> worms. 10<br />
Each of the rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g six sections treats one of these classes. In each section Hurwitz<br />
describes a number of animals, provid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>formation on their size, habitat, life expectancy,<br />
number of young, <strong>and</strong> the behaviour that is characteristic or unique to the<br />
animal <strong>in</strong> question. In addition, we occasionally learn such details about which animal<br />
is the largest, the most beautiful, the laziest, the greatest sleeper, etc. He does not<br />
provide all these details for every animal he discusses, however. As a result, the<br />
length of the descriptions of the various animals varies from a s<strong>in</strong>gle sentence, as <strong>in</strong><br />
the case of the so-called ‘Knurrfisch’, 11 to two pages, as <strong>in</strong> the case of beavers, an<br />
animal extremely popular with eighteenth-century authors. 12<br />
Hurwitz’s six-fold division of the animal k<strong>in</strong>gdom suggests a contemporary<br />
source, reflect<strong>in</strong>g as it does L<strong>in</strong>naeus’ <strong>in</strong>fluential classification of animals, which was<br />
based on the presence or absence of certa<strong>in</strong> body parts. 13 But Hurwitz did not take<br />
over the Swedish scholar’s further subdivision <strong>in</strong>to orders, genera, <strong>and</strong> species. 14<br />
In his zoology, Hurwitz mentions neither L<strong>in</strong>naeus (1707–1778) nor any other<br />
contemporary non-Jewish source. In his preface he notes that all the <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>in</strong><br />
the natural sciences comes from non-Jewish sources. Unfortunately, he adds no more<br />
detailed <strong>in</strong>formation other than that these books have not yet been translated <strong>in</strong>to<br />
Hebrew, except for a very few, <strong>and</strong> that they are expensive <strong>and</strong> hard to come by. 15 He<br />
expla<strong>in</strong>s that an otherwise unspecified person ‘who is knowledgeable <strong>in</strong> every book<br />
<strong>and</strong> every language’ read them to him <strong>in</strong> their orig<strong>in</strong>al language, with Hurwitz writ<strong>in</strong>g<br />
down his words <strong>in</strong> Yiddish <strong>and</strong> then translat<strong>in</strong>g them <strong>in</strong>to Hebrew, someth<strong>in</strong>g he<br />
found difficult. 16<br />
10 These are def<strong>in</strong>ed as follows: mammals, warm-blooded <strong>and</strong> viviparous; birds, warm-blooded <strong>and</strong><br />
oviparous; amphibians, cold-blooded <strong>and</strong> breath<strong>in</strong>g through lungs; fish, cold-blooded <strong>and</strong> breath<strong>in</strong>g<br />
through gills; <strong>in</strong>sects, bloodless, six-legged, <strong>and</strong> possess<strong>in</strong>g antennas; <strong>and</strong> worms, no antennas <strong>and</strong> with<br />
small or no legs. Hurwitz also mentions the number of species <strong>in</strong> each of these classes.<br />
11 On this fish, Hurwitz notes the follow<strong>in</strong>g: ‘And there is a fish called Knurrfisch, because when it is<br />
chased it makes the sound “knurr, knurr”. It is found a lot <strong>in</strong> the North Sea <strong>and</strong> it is also found <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Elbe River’ (p. 219).<br />
12 Ibid., pp. 211–3.<br />
13 Carolus L<strong>in</strong>naeus, Systema Naturae, per regna tria naturae secundum classes, ord<strong>in</strong>es, species<br />
(Leiden, 1735–1758).<br />
14 Incidentally, it is noteworthy that there is no difference between the classification <strong>in</strong> the first edition<br />
of his work <strong>and</strong> that <strong>in</strong> the second, <strong>in</strong> which Hurwitz claims to have <strong>in</strong>serted over 350 corrections <strong>and</strong><br />
supplements. By the time the second edition appeared (1807), George Cuvier (1769–1832) had ref<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
L<strong>in</strong>naeus’ classification, but this new classification has not found its way <strong>in</strong>to the enlarged Sefer ha-<br />
Berit. See George Cuvier, Tableau élémentaire de l’histoire naturelle des animaux (Paris, 1798).<br />
15 SB first preface, pp. 9–10.<br />
16 Ibid., p. 12; cf. I.8.3, p. 126, end of section: ‘I have translated from the foreign people (bene-nekhar)<br />
who <strong>in</strong>vestigate to make known to the people God’s <strong>in</strong>numerable mighty <strong>and</strong> wondrous deeds’. In his<br />
article on SB, Rosenblum casts doubts on Hurwitz’s proclaimed ignorance of foreign languages on the<br />
grounds that his prolonged stay <strong>in</strong> Germany must have given him a substantial read<strong>in</strong>g knowledge of<br />
German (Rosenblum, ‘Ha-enÒiqlopedyah ha-rishonah’, pp. 19–20).<br />
160 Natural Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit
Later, though, just before embark<strong>in</strong>g on the description of <strong>in</strong>animate <strong>and</strong> animate<br />
be<strong>in</strong>gs, Hurwitz names several of the non-Jewish scholars on whose works he drew.<br />
These <strong>in</strong>clude Georg Christian Raff (1748–1788) <strong>and</strong> George Louis Leclerc, Comte<br />
de Buffon (1707–1788), two authors whose zoological writ<strong>in</strong>gs were most popular <strong>in</strong><br />
the eighteenth century. He notes that Raff’s book had been rendered <strong>in</strong>to Hebrew <strong>in</strong><br />
Reshit limmudim (henceforth: RL). 17 This compendium of the sciences by Baruch<br />
ben Judah Loeb of L<strong>in</strong>dau (1759–1849) preceded Hurwitz’s encyclopaedia by n<strong>in</strong>e<br />
years.<br />
While thus acknowledg<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> this passage that he also drew on Jewish scholars, he<br />
emphasizes that he was eager to collect material ‘from many nations’ that had not yet<br />
been translated <strong>in</strong>to Hebrew. It is therefore somewhat surpris<strong>in</strong>g to f<strong>in</strong>d that his zoology<br />
is based first <strong>and</strong> foremost on RL. This is immediately apparent from Hurwitz’s<br />
classification of animals, which reproduces, though with some abridgement, that provided<br />
by Baruch L<strong>in</strong>dau, <strong>and</strong> from the German term<strong>in</strong>ology (terms for animal names<br />
<strong>and</strong> body parts) found <strong>in</strong> both authors. 18 Moreover, significant portions of Hurwitz’s<br />
zoological expositions match RL word for word. Rosenblum has already po<strong>in</strong>ted out<br />
a few such parallels. 19 These correspondences, however, are not limited to isolated<br />
cases. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that Hurwitz’s account is largely an abstract<br />
of the sixth chapter of L<strong>in</strong>dau’s work. In some places times Hurwitz changed the order;<br />
for example, by plac<strong>in</strong>g beavers among the amphibians <strong>and</strong> whales among the<br />
fish, even though he observes that whales are <strong>in</strong> fact mammals. Another change of<br />
order concerns RL’s section on apes, which Hurwitz places not <strong>in</strong> the chapter on animals,<br />
but <strong>in</strong>stead <strong>in</strong> chapter I.15, which deals with the faculties of the animal soul<br />
(pp. 194–5).<br />
Nonetheless, it can be shown that Hurwitz also consulted non-Jewish sources. His<br />
account reveals the <strong>in</strong>fluence of a non-Jewish book that was most popular <strong>in</strong> his day,<br />
namely Raff’s Naturgeschichte für K<strong>in</strong>der, the same source from which L<strong>in</strong>dau derived<br />
his <strong>in</strong>formation. The passages <strong>in</strong> SB that correspond with RL word-for-word<br />
display <strong>in</strong> turn a close similarity to Raff’s book. A comparison of the three books reveals<br />
that Hurwitz used Raff’s Naturgeschichte alongside RL, for at times he provides<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation from the former that is not found <strong>in</strong> RL. For example, his detailed<br />
description of whal<strong>in</strong>g has no parallel <strong>in</strong> RL, but reflects Raff’s account of the subject,<br />
<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the German words ‘Matrosen’, ‘Harpun’, <strong>and</strong> ‘Fischtran’. 20 Another<br />
example can be found <strong>in</strong> Hurwitz’s section on beavers, which conta<strong>in</strong>s a long <strong>and</strong><br />
vivid report on the structures built by this animal, for which we may look <strong>in</strong> va<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />
RL. Moreover, Raff’s <strong>in</strong>fluence is noticeable not only <strong>in</strong> these sections that supplement<br />
RL, but also <strong>in</strong> passages that Hurwitz copied from RL. When deal<strong>in</strong>g with the<br />
whale, he notes that this animal has a protrusion (beli†ah) on its head, called a<br />
17 SB I, 11.10, p. 199, end of section. Two more names are mentioned here: ‘Oyber†’ <strong>and</strong> ‘ZelÒer’.<br />
Rosenblum suggests that the former may be a corruption of d’Alembert <strong>and</strong> the second of Zedler (‘HaenÒiqlopedyah<br />
ha-rishonah’, p. 50 nn. 19 <strong>and</strong> 21).<br />
18 For the classification, see SB, p. 208, cf. Reshit limmudim (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1788), 25 v –26 r .<br />
19 Rosenblum, ‘Ha-enÒiqlopedyah ha-rishonah’, p. 20 n. 2.<br />
20 SB, pp. 216–17; cf. Georg Christian Raff, Naturgeschichte für K<strong>in</strong>der (Gött<strong>in</strong>gen, 1781), pp. 447–50.<br />
Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e<br />
161
‘Puckel’ (correspond<strong>in</strong>g to Raff’s ‘Bukkel’) – an observation absent from RL. 21 With<br />
respect to the beaver, he notes that this animal produces a greasy secretion that it applies<br />
to its fur before enter<strong>in</strong>g the water to keep itself from gett<strong>in</strong>g cold. Although the<br />
passage was probably copied from RL, the detail about gett<strong>in</strong>g cold seems to derive<br />
from the Naturgeschichte rather than RL. 22<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ce, however, Hurwitz’s account also conta<strong>in</strong>s snippets of <strong>in</strong>formation that are<br />
not found <strong>in</strong> either RL or the Naturgeschichte, Hurwitz must have made use of additional<br />
sources. A case <strong>in</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t is his observation, <strong>in</strong> his discussion of the ostrich, that<br />
these birds hatch their eggs merely by look<strong>in</strong>g at them. He also notes that they produce<br />
a wail<strong>in</strong>g sound. 23 These two details are mentioned by neither Raff nor L<strong>in</strong>dau,<br />
but they do have a parallel <strong>in</strong> Buffon’s Histoire naturelle. As we saw above, Hurwitz<br />
cited Buffon as one of his sources, but it is difficult to determ<strong>in</strong>e whether he actually<br />
used Buffon’s magnum opus. Given the scale of that work, it is more likely that he<br />
derived his material from another source that was based on it; but this question requires<br />
more <strong>in</strong>vestigation. 24 In any event, it is clear that the chapter on the animals <strong>in</strong><br />
SB reveals a use of contemporary Jewish <strong>and</strong> non-Jewish sources <strong>and</strong> that the Jewish<br />
sources played a greater role than the author’s own words suggest.<br />
What is more important for our theme, however, is that Hurwitz’s chapter on zoology<br />
is almost totally devoid of ancient <strong>and</strong> mediaeval sources. There are a number of<br />
references to biblical or talmudic passages that refer to the animal under discussion, 25<br />
<strong>and</strong> the author also refers briefly to mediaeval commentators such as Rashi, Ibn Ezra,<br />
<strong>and</strong> KimÌi. 26 By contrast, there is no mention of any mediaeval scientific work that<br />
deals with animals. The three major thirteenth-century Hebrew encyclopaedias, all of<br />
which conta<strong>in</strong> extensive surveys on zoology, play no role whatsoever <strong>in</strong> Hurwitz’s<br />
chapter on animals. For the first two of them, Judah ben Solomon’s Midrash ha-<br />
Ìokhmah <strong>and</strong> Shem ov Ibn Falaquera’s De¨ot ha-filosofim, this is hardly surpris<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
given that these texts were available only <strong>in</strong> manuscript. 27 However, he also does not<br />
21 SB, p. 216p; Raff, Naturgeschichte, p. 444.<br />
22 Ibid., p. 437.<br />
23 As for the wail<strong>in</strong>g sound, Buffon gives an etymological explanation: ‘Les Ecriva<strong>in</strong>s sacrés<br />
comparent son cri a un gémissement, & on prétend même que son nom hébreu jacnah est formé ‘ianah,<br />
qui signifie hurler’ (George Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon, Histoire naturelle des oiseaux [Paris,<br />
1770], 1: 451).<br />
24 It should be noted that at times Hurwitz is not entirely <strong>in</strong> accordance with either Raff or Buffon.<br />
When deal<strong>in</strong>g with beavers he notes that these animals repair their dams if they are damaged, but not if<br />
they are completely destroyed, <strong>in</strong> which case the group breaks up (p. 213). Raff notes <strong>in</strong>stead that they<br />
do build new dams (Naturgeschichte, p. 436); Buffon states that they rebuild them until, as a result of<br />
hav<strong>in</strong>g been chased, they become too weak <strong>and</strong> few <strong>and</strong> will change their habitat <strong>and</strong> retire ‘au lo<strong>in</strong> dans<br />
les solitudes les plus profondes’ (Buffon, Histoire Naturelle [Paris, 1760], 8: 297). It should also be<br />
borne <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d that there may be differences among the various editions of Buffon’s <strong>and</strong> Raff’s works.<br />
The earlier editions of Buffon, for example, do not <strong>in</strong>clude an account of the whale.<br />
25 For example Esther 8:10, ‘swift horses’ (SB, p. 209) <strong>and</strong> M Kelim 17:14, the ‘vulture’ (SB, p. 214).<br />
26 In the section on the ostrich, Hurwitz quotes David KimÌi as say<strong>in</strong>g that ostriches live <strong>in</strong> the desert<br />
<strong>and</strong> produce a ‘wail<strong>in</strong>g sound’, <strong>and</strong> Abraham Ibn Ezra as not<strong>in</strong>g that the flesh of ostriches is dry as<br />
wood <strong>and</strong> not fit for consumption, except for the flesh of females that are only a few days old. (p. 215).<br />
Interest<strong>in</strong>gly, Buffon ascribes the view that young females are preferable for food to David KimÌi<br />
(Histoire naturelle des oiseaux, 1: 442). Rashi is mentioned as an adherent of the theory of spontaneous<br />
generation (p. 222).<br />
27 It should be noted, though, that Hurwitz occasionally used manuscripts; he refers to differences be-<br />
162 Natural Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit
seem to be familiar with the most popular of them, Gershom bar Solomon’s Sha¨ar<br />
ha-shamayim, which was available <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>t by the time Hurwitz issued his second<br />
edition. 28 Mediaeval scientific views on the subject are absent because the sources on<br />
which the thirteenth-century Hebrew encyclopaedists based their zoological surveys,<br />
namely Aristotle’s zoological treatises, had become irrelevant for Hurwitz. Although<br />
the ‘father of biology’ was still important to eighteenth-century biologists, they had<br />
forged new directions; this new knowledge is what we f<strong>in</strong>d reflected <strong>in</strong> SB. There is<br />
<strong>in</strong>deed ‘another spirit’ <strong>in</strong> Hurwitz’s presentation of animals.<br />
Another aspect that displays an eighteenth-century rather than a mediaeval approach<br />
<strong>in</strong>volves the moral <strong>and</strong> religious dimensions that permeate Hurwitz’s account<br />
of animals. With respect to a certa<strong>in</strong> animal, for example, he reports that when it<br />
feels death approach<strong>in</strong>g it goes to a place where it is bound to be found by human<br />
be<strong>in</strong>gs, so that they can use its sk<strong>in</strong>. From this Hurwitz <strong>in</strong>fers that dur<strong>in</strong>g our lives<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> the hour of our death we should be concerned about our fellow men (p. 211).<br />
When discuss<strong>in</strong>g birds, he refers to the zemirah, which before it dies s<strong>in</strong>gs happily<br />
until its belly bursts. This teaches us, says Hurwitz, that even <strong>in</strong> his hour of death a<br />
man should keep study<strong>in</strong>g the Torah (p. 215). He adds that, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Socrates,<br />
the survival of the soul can be <strong>in</strong>ferred from this phenomenon, as it shows that one<br />
should not be sad about the separation of the soul from the body (ibid.). Likewise,<br />
when Hurwitz relates how the ostrich uses its eyes to hatch its eggs, he warns aga<strong>in</strong>st<br />
look<strong>in</strong>g at women, because of the <strong>in</strong>tense power of the sense of sight, <strong>and</strong> refers to<br />
Job 31:1 – ‘I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I look upon a<br />
virg<strong>in</strong>?’ (ibid.). Another example: near the end of his zoological survey he describes<br />
how God <strong>in</strong> his providence supplies food for all animals. Hurwitz deduces the moral<br />
lesson that we should beware of over-exert<strong>in</strong>g ourselves for our ma<strong>in</strong>tenance on the<br />
one h<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> of idleness on the other (p. 225).<br />
The piety is not limited to his description of animal behaviour. The chapter on zoology<br />
as a whole is embedded <strong>in</strong> a dist<strong>in</strong>ctly religious framework. At both its beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>and</strong> end the author emphasizes that the work<strong>in</strong>gs of God’s wisdom, his providence,<br />
<strong>and</strong> mercy can be learned from the behaviour <strong>and</strong> bodies of animals. In fact,<br />
<strong>in</strong> his preface Hurwitz notes that his book shows how God’s mighty works can be<br />
learned from the secrets of nature, such as meteorological phenomena, plants, animals,<br />
<strong>and</strong> the faculties of the soul (p. 9).<br />
The notion that the study of nature leads to knowledge of God is certa<strong>in</strong>ly a mediaeval<br />
notion, too, but the aforementioned mediaeval encyclopaedias provide primarily<br />
scientific <strong>in</strong>formation. In this respect also SB clearly reflects the contemporary<br />
religious <strong>and</strong> ideological attitude to the study of nature. Recall that L<strong>in</strong>naeus’ concern<br />
with taxonomy was theologically <strong>in</strong>spired, for he believed that it revealed the<br />
complexity of God’s creation. Hurwitz’s emphasis <strong>in</strong> the section under consideration<br />
on how God’s wondrous works can be learned from the secrets of nature has a parallel<br />
<strong>in</strong> L<strong>in</strong>naeus, who chose Psalm 104:24 – ‘O Lord, how manifold are thy works’ –<br />
tween a manuscript <strong>and</strong> a pr<strong>in</strong>ted edition of Vital’s ¨EÒ Ìayyim (pp. 33 <strong>and</strong> 118). It should be borne <strong>in</strong><br />
m<strong>in</strong>d, however, that ¨EÒ Ìayyim was of primary importance to Hurwitz (see below).<br />
28 Roedelheim, 1801.<br />
Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e<br />
163
as the motto for his Systema Naturae. 29 Raff, too, <strong>in</strong> his Naturgeschichte, regularly<br />
<strong>in</strong>troduces ‘der liebe Gott’ <strong>in</strong> his descriptions of animals.<br />
Hurwitz’s eagerness to draw lessons for human conduct from the animal k<strong>in</strong>gdom<br />
is also related to his <strong>in</strong>tention to place his work with<strong>in</strong> the tradition of musar literature.<br />
That he assigned his work to this genre is evident from his observation that, <strong>in</strong><br />
contrast to other ethical writ<strong>in</strong>gs, his book will not teach musar by <strong>in</strong>spir<strong>in</strong>g fear or<br />
rebuk<strong>in</strong>g the reader. 30<br />
We should not conclude from the above, however, that Hurwitz wholeheartedly<br />
adopts modern views <strong>and</strong> discards earlier ones. The last section of his chapter on zoology<br />
(I.14.8) reveals that his attitude to his sources is <strong>in</strong> fact more complex. In this<br />
section, which deals with <strong>in</strong>sects, we f<strong>in</strong>ally f<strong>in</strong>d Hurwitz evaluat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> contrast<strong>in</strong>g<br />
modern, mediaeval, <strong>and</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic views, as his preface had said he would do for each<br />
issue. Unlike the preced<strong>in</strong>g sections, it does not follow Reshit limmudim closely.<br />
Start<strong>in</strong>g from that source, the section on worms primarily conta<strong>in</strong>s a discussion of<br />
spontaneous generation, a subject that also engaged mediaeval authors. Here we f<strong>in</strong>d<br />
a passage <strong>in</strong> which Hurwitz explicitly rejects a view held by L<strong>in</strong>dau – the latter’s endorsement<br />
of the omnia ex ovo theory held by many contemporary non-Jewish authors<br />
(Ìakhmei ummot ha-¨olam), accord<strong>in</strong>g to which all animals, even the t<strong>in</strong>iest<br />
worms <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>sects, develop from eggs, that is, sexual reproduction, <strong>and</strong> not from putrefaction<br />
or spontaneous generation. Hurwitz quotes a passage from RL <strong>in</strong> which<br />
L<strong>in</strong>dau rejects spontaneous generation, s<strong>in</strong>ce it would entail the creation of a new<br />
species. In L<strong>in</strong>dau’s view, this is aga<strong>in</strong>st the laws of nature that posit the fixity of<br />
species, every species hav<strong>in</strong>g been created dur<strong>in</strong>g the creation. 31 Accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
Hurwitz, this objection is <strong>in</strong>valid. Tak<strong>in</strong>g M Tohorot 1:4, where the Sages refer to ‘a<br />
mouse that is half flesh, half earth’, as his basis, he argues that God has ‘built <strong>in</strong>’ to<br />
creation the possibility that this species, as well as others, such as the salam<strong>and</strong>er,<br />
can be produced <strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> circumstances, with the number of species rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the<br />
same. Moreover, he expresses his amazement at L<strong>in</strong>dau’s rejection of spontaneous<br />
generation, given that Maimonides adopts the theory <strong>in</strong> his Mishnah commentary. He<br />
further asserts that the Sages’ view is preferable to that of non-Jewish scientists <strong>and</strong><br />
offers additional evidence to support the theory of generation from putrefaction,<br />
without sexual reproduction. He even goes so far as to ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> that lice are generated<br />
from sweat, not from eggs, aga<strong>in</strong> tak<strong>in</strong>g issue with L<strong>in</strong>dau, who classified lice,<br />
fleas, <strong>and</strong> bugs (i.e., heteroptera) as viviparous animals. 32<br />
29 For L<strong>in</strong>naeus’ ideas on God’s providence, <strong>and</strong> more generally, his physico-theological system <strong>and</strong><br />
their impact on Hurwitz’s younger contemporary George Levison (Mordecai Schnaber), see David<br />
Ruderman, Jewish Thought <strong>and</strong> Scientific Discovery (New Haven <strong>and</strong> London, 1995), pp. 357–65.<br />
30 SB, first preface, p. 10.<br />
31 Ibid., p. 222; cf. RL, p. 59b.<br />
32 SB, pp. 222–3, cf. RL, p. 63a. For the seventeenth- <strong>and</strong> eighteenth-century debate on spontaneous<br />
generation, see John Farley, The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Opar<strong>in</strong> (Baltimore<br />
<strong>and</strong> London, 1977), pp. 8–30. For Jewish responses, see Ruderman, Jewish Thought, pp. 260–7.<br />
Hurwitz does not discuss, at least not <strong>in</strong> this context, the halakhic question of whether or not it is permitted<br />
to kill lice on Shabbat.<br />
164 Natural Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit
After establish<strong>in</strong>g this to his satisfaction, he goes on to expla<strong>in</strong> that there are <strong>in</strong>numerable<br />
species of t<strong>in</strong>y animals, some of them <strong>in</strong>visible to the naked eye, <strong>and</strong> that<br />
God <strong>in</strong> his wisdom has created all of them for a specific purpose. God’s providence<br />
extends to all of them <strong>and</strong> to every detail of their lives, even though his essence is<br />
separate from all creatures. In this context Hurwitz criticizes Maimonides, who, <strong>in</strong><br />
Hurwitz’s <strong>in</strong>terpretation, believed that God’s providence extends only to the species<br />
(p. 224).<br />
What does this long exposition reveal about Hurwitz’s attitude to contemporary<br />
<strong>and</strong> older sources? Of the two references to Maimonides, the second concerns the<br />
rejection of a mediaeval rationalistic philosophical view, whereas the former, on<br />
spontaneous generation, is an issue on which Hurwitz sides with Maimonides. From<br />
Hurwitz’s discussion, though, it is clear that his acceptance of spontaneous generation<br />
was <strong>in</strong>spired not by the authority of Maimonides, but by that of the talmudic<br />
sages. In other words, here we f<strong>in</strong>d Hurwitz preferr<strong>in</strong>g a view taken from the third<br />
category <strong>in</strong> his survey, at the expense of the view of the ‘later philosophers’, Jewish<br />
or non-Jewish.<br />
There is one more passage where Hurwitz adopts a similar procedure; aga<strong>in</strong> this<br />
concerns a rejection of L<strong>in</strong>dau’s position – the nature of the ¨a†allef (p. 216). Bas<strong>in</strong>g<br />
himself on a rabb<strong>in</strong>ic statement, Hurwitz concludes that L<strong>in</strong>dau’s identification of<br />
this bird (RL 49a) with the ‘Schwalbe’ (sparrow) cannot be correct (p. 217). Moreover,<br />
L<strong>in</strong>dau is <strong>in</strong>consistent for elsewhere he identifies it as the ‘Wiedehopf’ (hoopoe)<br />
(RL 44a). From this Hurwitz deduced that L<strong>in</strong>dau <strong>in</strong> fact did not know what bird was<br />
meant <strong>and</strong> that he would have done better to admit this <strong>and</strong> refra<strong>in</strong> from translat<strong>in</strong>g it<br />
altogether. He adds that, accord<strong>in</strong>g to David KimÌi, the ¨a†allef is the ‘w<strong>in</strong>ged bird<br />
that is called Fledermaus (bat)’, a view he deems plausible, for this animal seems to<br />
be halfway between birds <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>sects; furthermore, it accords with the Sages’ view.<br />
Aga<strong>in</strong>, rabb<strong>in</strong>ical op<strong>in</strong>ion seems to be Hurwitz’s criterion for determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g which<br />
view is correct.<br />
In sum, Hurwitz’s account of animals is largely based on contemporary Jewish<br />
<strong>and</strong> non-Jewish sources. Mediaeval authors are cited <strong>in</strong>frequently; only <strong>in</strong> a few<br />
cases do these quotations conta<strong>in</strong> scientific views. Their views are accepted only if<br />
they happen to be <strong>in</strong> agreement with the Sages’ teach<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />
Meteorology<br />
New versus Ancient Views<br />
As we shall soon see, Hurwitz’s preference for new views over old ones is also clear<br />
<strong>in</strong> his exposition of meteorology. In this chapter, though, the relations among the<br />
three categories of sources underly<strong>in</strong>g his presentation are more complex.<br />
Meteorology is the subject of SB Part One, chapter 10, which consists of 15 sections<br />
(pp. 167–90). Throughout this chapter Hurwitz refers to the four previous chapters,<br />
on the elements (see above), which <strong>in</strong>clude meteorological material that was<br />
presented <strong>in</strong> mediaeval treatises with<strong>in</strong> the framework of meteorology proper, such<br />
as the sea’s sal<strong>in</strong>ity (<strong>in</strong> the chapter on the sea, SB I.8.4) <strong>and</strong> the <strong>in</strong>habited world (<strong>in</strong><br />
Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e<br />
165
the chapter on earth, SB I.9.5). Hurwitz’s chapter on meteorology deals with earthquakes,<br />
w<strong>in</strong>d, ice, exhalations, dew, frost, mist, clouds, ra<strong>in</strong>, snow, hail, the ra<strong>in</strong>bow,<br />
lightn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> thunder, thunderstones <strong>and</strong> ‘fire-rods’ 33 – <strong>in</strong> other words, phenomena<br />
that have their orig<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> the atmosphere. By contrast, Hurwitz deals with phenomena<br />
such as the Milky Way <strong>and</strong> comets, which mediaeval authors, follow<strong>in</strong>g Aristotle,<br />
treated with<strong>in</strong> the context of meteorology, <strong>in</strong> the context of cosmology, <strong>in</strong> his survey<br />
on the heavens (SB I.3.5).<br />
As was the case <strong>in</strong> the chapter on animals, not all of the aforementioned meteorological<br />
issues receive equal treatment. Each section starts with a description of the<br />
nature <strong>and</strong> orig<strong>in</strong> of the phenomenon under consideration. At times the author adds<br />
personal observations. When describ<strong>in</strong>g fog, for example, he relates that <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam<br />
the mist sometimes makes it so dark that people must carry lanterns dur<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
daytime (p. 175)<br />
Hurwitz does not mention any sources <strong>in</strong> chapter 10. If we are to believe him, he<br />
has derived his <strong>in</strong>formation on the elements primarily from books of ‘experimental<br />
physics … as I translated them from the nations of the world <strong>and</strong> some th<strong>in</strong>gs that are<br />
scattered <strong>in</strong> Jewish books’. 34 Despite these claims, Hurwitz appears to be heavily <strong>in</strong>debted<br />
to two Jewish books: L<strong>in</strong>dau’s RL, <strong>and</strong> the commentary on RuaÌ Ìen by Israel<br />
of Zamosc (c. 1700–1772). 35 Although Hurwitz refers to these two authors, he<br />
does not acknowledge his major debt to them. This is especially true with regard to<br />
RL, <strong>in</strong> which chapters 3–5 treat of meteorological phenomena. Hurwitz can be shown<br />
to have borrowed from this source <strong>in</strong> his accounts of w<strong>in</strong>ds, fog, clouds, ra<strong>in</strong>, dew,<br />
snow, hail, lightn<strong>in</strong>g, fireballs, <strong>and</strong> the ra<strong>in</strong>bow. The length of his borrow<strong>in</strong>gs may<br />
vary from a few words or l<strong>in</strong>es to several paragraphs. 36 Other passages are more<br />
loosely based on RL. Moreover, the German words that Hurwitz uses can also be<br />
traced back to this source. 37<br />
There are also some notable differences, however. To beg<strong>in</strong> with, throughout the<br />
chapter Hurwitz is much more extensive than his source. He beg<strong>in</strong>s the discussion of<br />
each phenomenon with a description of how it comes about, which is not always the<br />
case <strong>in</strong> RL. Moreover, <strong>in</strong> most cases he ends his account by po<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g out the usefulness<br />
or the good <strong>and</strong> bad effects of the phenomenon under discussion, effects that he<br />
ascribes to God’s providence. L<strong>in</strong>dau also devoted attention to this aspect (for example,<br />
when deal<strong>in</strong>g with w<strong>in</strong>ds <strong>and</strong> snow), but Hurwitz does so more consistently.<br />
Moreover, L<strong>in</strong>dau’s division of the various meteorological phenomena <strong>in</strong>to wasser-<br />
33 The phenomenon discussed by Aristotle <strong>in</strong> Meteor. 377 a 29– b 15.<br />
34 SB, I.5.4, p. 85. Cf. also the end of I.8.3, p. 126. See above, n. 16.<br />
35 On Israel of Zamosc, see Gad Freudenthal’s contribution to this volume.<br />
36 The first part of the section on ra<strong>in</strong> (I.10.9, p.176), for example, corresponds almost literally to the<br />
correspond<strong>in</strong>g section <strong>in</strong> RL (§34, pp. 16b–17a), though Hurwitz omits some items of <strong>in</strong>formation. In<br />
his last section, too, the passages on fire-balls, so-called ‘fly<strong>in</strong>g dragons’ (fliegende Drachen), <strong>and</strong> willo’-the-wisps<br />
derive entirely from L<strong>in</strong>dau’s book, aga<strong>in</strong> with some abridgements (SB I.10.15, p. 187 r 1–<br />
19; cf. RL §40, p. 19a ult–19b 22). To mention other examples, <strong>in</strong> his discussion of w<strong>in</strong>ds (I.10.2), the<br />
description of differences <strong>in</strong> w<strong>in</strong>d force <strong>and</strong> the various directions of w<strong>in</strong>ds have been <strong>in</strong>corporated from<br />
RL (§31, p. 15b); <strong>in</strong> that of clouds (I.10.8), the description of variations <strong>in</strong> the height of clouds from the<br />
earth (RL §33, p. 17b). Hurwitz also used RL <strong>in</strong> other parts of his work, for example, <strong>in</strong> the section on<br />
tides, <strong>in</strong> the discussion of elemental water (SB I.8.5, p. 130, cf. RL §47, p. 23b). In this chapter (SB I.8.4,<br />
p. 127) Hurwitz refers directly to RL <strong>in</strong> (§47, p. 23b).<br />
166 Natural Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit
ige Luftersche<strong>in</strong>ungen (ra<strong>in</strong>, clouds, etc.), feuerige Luftersche<strong>in</strong>ungen (lightn<strong>in</strong>g, fireballs,<br />
etc.). <strong>and</strong> glänzende Luftersche<strong>in</strong>ungen (the ra<strong>in</strong>bow), a division that provides<br />
the structure for the discussion <strong>in</strong> RL – is absent from SB. Furthermore, Hurwitz does<br />
not always follow his source’s order or <strong>in</strong>clude all the topics discussed <strong>in</strong> it. F<strong>in</strong>ally,<br />
for reasons that are unclear, he chose to omit several topics, such as the northern<br />
lights <strong>and</strong> the halo.<br />
As for Hurwitz’s use of the second Hebrew source, Israel of Zamosc’s commentary<br />
on the mediaeval treatise RuaÌ Ìen, sometimes he adopts its views <strong>and</strong> sometimes<br />
criticizes them. 38 His criticism of Zamosc, to whom he often refers as ba¨al<br />
NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel, concerns primarily measurements. While he adopts the latter’s estimate<br />
of the height of the air/clouds above the earth (83,088 feet), 39 he rejects<br />
Zamosc’s estimates of the weight of the air <strong>and</strong> the maximum extent of expansion of<br />
air thanks to its pores. 40 For our subject it is important to note that the underly<strong>in</strong>g<br />
reason for Hurwitz’s agreement with Zamosc on the height of the air is that this figure<br />
conforms with the Sages’ view on the subject. By contrast, he rejects Zamosc’s<br />
estimate of the porosity of air because it does not conform to what ‘the latest scholars’<br />
have found. In another passage <strong>in</strong> the chapter on air, Hurwitz expresses his<br />
amazement at Zamosc’s long-w<strong>in</strong>dedness <strong>in</strong> his demonstration of the existence of the<br />
void, s<strong>in</strong>ce, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Hurwitz, the void can be shown to exist by an experiment<br />
us<strong>in</strong>g a simple sponge <strong>in</strong> an air pump. 41<br />
The passages where Hurwitz agrees with Zamosc <strong>in</strong>volve the latter’s preference of<br />
modern views over ancient ones. For example, Hurwitz uses Zamosc’s statement that<br />
the air pump proves that air has weight as a po<strong>in</strong>t of departure for his own defence of<br />
the theory that everyth<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g air <strong>and</strong> fire, has weight – a theory that Zamosc<br />
shares with modern non-Jewish scientists (Ìakhmei ha-¨ammim ha-aÌaronim). 42 He<br />
also makes use of Zamosc’s commentary on RuaÌ Ìen when discuss<strong>in</strong>g the temperature<br />
of the various strata of air; here too he follows his source <strong>and</strong> rejects the ancients’<br />
view on this subject. 43 Another issue on which Hurwitz wholeheartedly agrees<br />
with Zamosc is his criticism of the ancients’ theory of how the exhalations that arise<br />
from earth <strong>and</strong> water produce meteorological phenomena. In particular, Hurwitz <strong>and</strong><br />
Zamosc refuse to accept the Aristotelian view that the elements strive for their natural<br />
places. Hurwitz mocks this view with the same words as his source: ‘Do they [air<br />
<strong>and</strong> fire] have human eyes to watch for their proper place <strong>and</strong> yearn to return to their<br />
estate?’ 44 A third modern view on air, which Hurwitz accepts, <strong>in</strong> agreement with<br />
37 Likewise, the expression Hurwitz uses for atmosphere, ¨iggul ha-neshimah (e.g., p. 95), is found <strong>in</strong><br />
RL (e.g., §32a, p. 16b), where L<strong>in</strong>dau gives Dunstkreis <strong>and</strong> Atmosphäre as its equivalents. These two<br />
terms appear on p. 102 of SB.<br />
38 The authorship of this thirteenth-century treatise has not yet been established. It has been attributed to<br />
Judah Ibn Tibbon, Samuel Ibn Tibbon, <strong>and</strong> Jacob Anatoli. See Colette Sirat, ‘Le Livre Rouah Hen’,<br />
Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, 1977), 3: 117–23.<br />
39 SB I.7.11 (p. 104; cf. also I.10.8, p. 175); cf. RuaÌ Ìen (Warsaw, 1864), p. 27 (hereafter RH).<br />
40 SB I.7.11 (p. 104); cf. RH, (Warsaw, 1864), p. 22. SB I.7.15 (p. 109).<br />
41 Ibid. I.7.23 (p. 119).<br />
42 Ibid., pp. 98–9; cf. SB 98.14 to RH, p. 22.5–7. Cf. also SB. I.10.4 (p. 172) to RH, 21.21–3. For<br />
Zamosc on the gravity of air <strong>and</strong> fire, see RH, p. 22.10.<br />
43 SB I.7.14; cf. RH, pp. 17ff, esp. 25.<br />
44 SB, p. 172; cf. RH, pp. 21.29–22.4.<br />
Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e<br />
167
Zamosc, is that air exp<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> contracts because it has pores. 45 In sum, his words<br />
‘all this [the ancients’ theories on exhalation] is of no worth to me, <strong>and</strong> the wisdom<br />
(Ìokhmah) of the later ones is better on this question’ express the same attitude found<br />
<strong>in</strong> his source. Zamosc writes that he sees no need to deta<strong>in</strong> himself everywhere with<br />
the many errors of the ancients who were not versed <strong>in</strong> the sciences. 46<br />
It is possible that Hurwitz drew on a third Hebrew textbook, namely Maˆamar ha-<br />
Torah ve-ha-Ìokhmah (1771) by Gumpel Schnaber, alias George Levisohn (1741–<br />
1797), another Jewish scholar who <strong>in</strong>corporated the new theories about air <strong>in</strong> his<br />
work. 47 However, Levison’s chapter on air does not show any literal parallels with<br />
SB, apart from the statement that the air pump was <strong>in</strong>vented by Otto von Guericke of<br />
Magdeburg (1602–1686) <strong>and</strong> that Boyle (1627–1691) improved it – <strong>in</strong>formation that<br />
Hurwitz could have found <strong>in</strong> many other sources, Jewish <strong>and</strong> non-Jewish. 48<br />
In any event, it appears that Hurwitz drew on Hebrew sources much more than he<br />
seems to be will<strong>in</strong>g to admit <strong>and</strong> that he follows these sources <strong>in</strong> adopt<strong>in</strong>g views held<br />
by non-Jewish scientists. However, while it is obvious that Hurwitz employed contemporary<br />
non-Jewish sources along with RL <strong>and</strong> RuaÌ Ìen, it is not easy to determ<strong>in</strong>e<br />
which of these he had at his disposal, because he could have found the relevant <strong>in</strong>formation<br />
<strong>in</strong> various eighteenth-century textbooks of physical science. Johann Christian<br />
Polykarp Erxleben’s Anfangsgründe der Naturlehre; Johann Gottlob Krüger’s Die<br />
ersten Gründe der Naturlehre, <strong>and</strong> Petrus van Musschenbroek’s Grundlehren der<br />
Naturwissenschaft, as well as encyclopaedias like Zedler’s Universal-Lexicon <strong>and</strong><br />
d’Alembert’s <strong>and</strong> Diderot’s Encyclopédie, are likely c<strong>and</strong>idates. To identify Hurwitz’s<br />
exact sources one would have to carry out a thorough comparison of Sefer ha-Berit<br />
with the writ<strong>in</strong>gs on natural philosophy by seventeenth- <strong>and</strong> eighteenth-century non-<br />
Jewish authors <strong>in</strong> their various editions, as well as a comparison of Hurwitz’s Jewish<br />
predecessors <strong>in</strong> the period under consideration. 49 This would shed light not only on<br />
the question of Hurwitz’s sources, but also on the more general question of how familiar<br />
eighteenth-century Jewish scholars actually were with the work of their non-<br />
Jewish colleagues. Such an exam<strong>in</strong>ation clearly exceeds the bounds of the present paper,<br />
however. I will therefore limit myself to a few prelim<strong>in</strong>ary observations.<br />
45 SB, pp. 172–3. For Zamosc’s description of experiments with the air pump to prove the elasticity of<br />
air, see Ruderman, Jewish Thought, p. 333. An abridged version of this description is found <strong>in</strong> SB I.7.6,<br />
p. 100.<br />
46 SB I.10.4, p. 172; cf. RH, p. 24.12–13.<br />
47 On this author, see Ruderman, Jewish Thought, pp. 345–68.<br />
48 SB I.6.6, p. 92; cf. Maˆamar ha-torah we ha-Ìokhmah (London, 1771), p. 70. Hurwitz’s spell<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
proper nouns differs from Levison’s. This text also conta<strong>in</strong>s some of the Lat<strong>in</strong> words found <strong>in</strong> SB, such<br />
as globus celestis (SB, p. 64; Maˆamar, p. 15); globus terrestris (SB, p. 63; Maˆamar, p. 70), polus<br />
articus/polus antarcticus <strong>and</strong> antipodes (SB, p. 63; Maˆamar, p. 20); antlia pneumatica (SB, p. 87;<br />
Maˆamar, p. 20). It rema<strong>in</strong>s to be <strong>in</strong>vestigated whether Hurwitz knew these words from Levison or from<br />
a German textbook that also conta<strong>in</strong>ed Lat<strong>in</strong> names, such as Erxleben’s (see below). In general, Hurwitz<br />
refers to Lat<strong>in</strong> as bi-leshonam (e.g., SB, pp. 81, 139–40), although occasionally one comes across bileshon<br />
lat<strong>in</strong> (p. 276).<br />
49 A detailed <strong>in</strong>vestigation would also have to compare the first edition of SB with the second, as<br />
Hurwitz claims that the second edition conta<strong>in</strong>s some 350 additions <strong>and</strong> corrections. In his first preface<br />
Hurwitz mentions some of the sections that were enlarged. These do not <strong>in</strong>clude the chapters under discussion<br />
here. I have briefly compared portions of SB I.10 <strong>and</strong> I.14 <strong>in</strong> the two editions <strong>and</strong> found no significant<br />
differences. However, the situation may well be different for other sections.<br />
168 Natural Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit
To beg<strong>in</strong> with, it should be borne <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d that all these books cover roughly the<br />
same material with regard to meteorological phenomena. Given Hurwitz’s prolonged<br />
stay <strong>in</strong> Germany, though, German sources would seem more likely. Furthermore, it<br />
seems plausible to assume that for his systematic account Hurwitz would have preferred<br />
h<strong>and</strong>books as primary source texts over an encyclopaedia with alphabetical<br />
entries. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the order of the meteorological phenomena<br />
discussed <strong>in</strong> Chapter 10 largely corresponds to that adopted by Erxleben (1744–<br />
1777) <strong>in</strong> his Anfangsgründe der Naturlehre (1772), a work that was very popular <strong>and</strong><br />
widely used dur<strong>in</strong>g the late eighteenth century. 50 A modern scholar describes it as<br />
‘the best German physics text of the eighteenth century’. 51 Much of the material presented<br />
<strong>in</strong> this work can be found <strong>in</strong> SB, even though Hurwitz’s explanations of how<br />
the various phenomena come about are more extensive. In addition, some of the<br />
Lat<strong>in</strong> terms that Hurwitz <strong>in</strong>serts from time to time can be found <strong>in</strong> this work, such as<br />
the antlia pneumatica (air-pump).<br />
As for Van Musschenbroek (1692–1761), this author’s Grundlehren der Naturwissenschaft<br />
<strong>and</strong> SB are both marked by their frequent references to God’s providence.<br />
Like his contemporaries, Erxleben too certa<strong>in</strong>ly believed that the earth had<br />
been produced by a wise, mighty <strong>and</strong> good creator; unlike Hurwitz <strong>and</strong> Van Musschenbroek,<br />
however, he does not refer <strong>in</strong> his meteorology to any beneficial effects of<br />
meteorological phenomena that should be ascribed to div<strong>in</strong>e providence. Hurwitz lists<br />
such effects, alongside harmful ones, for phenomena such as earthquakes, w<strong>in</strong>ds, <strong>and</strong><br />
dew. His description of the effects of w<strong>in</strong>d reveals several similarities to Van<br />
Musschenbroek’s: w<strong>in</strong>d cleanses the air <strong>and</strong> removes plague; it transports ra<strong>in</strong> clouds,<br />
clears the air by blow<strong>in</strong>g away bad odours that are harmful to man’s health; by cool<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the air <strong>in</strong> hot regions it makes it possible for human be<strong>in</strong>gs to live there; <strong>and</strong> it<br />
makes it possible to sail the seas. 52 Another example of God’s providence is the high<br />
sal<strong>in</strong>ity of the waters around the equator. Were it not for this added salt, Hurwitz<br />
states, the waters there would produce an unbearable stench, because of the extreme<br />
heat of the sun <strong>in</strong> that region. 53 Interest<strong>in</strong>gly, Hurwitz’s statement that it is thanks to<br />
div<strong>in</strong>e providence that the air can exp<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> contract also has a parallel <strong>in</strong> Van<br />
Musschenbroek. 54 Hence when Hurwitz refers to non-Jewish authors who studied the<br />
natural world <strong>in</strong> order to provide arguments for God’s providence, he may well have<br />
had this scholar <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d (see above, n. 16). An acqua<strong>in</strong>tance with this author’s work is<br />
all the more plausible, given that earlier research has established that Van<br />
Musschenbroek was known to Jewish scholars. 55 One strik<strong>in</strong>g parallel between the<br />
50 Johann Christian Polykarp Erxleben, Anfangsgründe der Naturlehre (Gött<strong>in</strong>gen, 1768). My references<br />
are to the sixth edition (1794), §§727–60 <strong>in</strong> Chapter 13, ‘Von der Erde <strong>in</strong>sbesondere’. The only<br />
difference <strong>in</strong> order is that SB places snow before hail. Also, Erxleben does not discuss earthquakes here.<br />
51 John Lewis Heilbron, Electricity <strong>in</strong> the Seventeenth <strong>and</strong> Eighteenth Centuries (Berkeley, 1979),<br />
p. 16.<br />
52 Petrus van Musschenbroek, Grundlehren der Naturwissenschaft (Leipzig, 1747), §1375, p. 801.<br />
53 Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Van Musschenbroek, it is the tides that have this effect; see his Introduction to Essai de<br />
Physique, the French translation (1762) of his Beg<strong>in</strong>selen der Natuurkunde (Leiden, 1736), p. 3.<br />
54 SB I.10.4, pp. 172–3. The view that the Creator made the air elastic is ascribed to Newton <strong>in</strong> the appendix<br />
to Van Musschenbroek’s work about experiments with the air pump (see preced<strong>in</strong>g note), p. 18.<br />
55 See: Ruderman, Jewish Thought, p. 351; Shim¨on Bolag, ‘A Selection of Scientific Sources <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e<br />
169
two works is found <strong>in</strong> Hurwitz’s discussion of the barometer. Here he describes,<br />
among other th<strong>in</strong>gs, the rise <strong>and</strong> fall of mercury <strong>in</strong> the barometer <strong>and</strong> what these<br />
changes <strong>in</strong>dicate about the clarity <strong>and</strong> humidity of the air. He notes that scientists keep<br />
tables of their daily barometric observations <strong>and</strong> thus found that <strong>in</strong> Holl<strong>and</strong>, where the<br />
air is always humid, the maximum height of the mercury is never more than 30<br />
<strong>in</strong>ches, while the m<strong>in</strong>imum is 27 <strong>and</strong> two l<strong>in</strong>es. The very same observation can be<br />
found <strong>in</strong> Van Musschenbroek. 56 Moreover, Hurwitz shares with this Newtonian<br />
scholar not only the theological justification of the study of nature, but also his conviction<br />
that physical science should be based on observation <strong>and</strong> experiment. 57<br />
Another issue on which Hurwitz displays more similarity to Van Musschenbroek<br />
than to Erxleben is his explanation of the orig<strong>in</strong> of lightn<strong>in</strong>g, a subject that occupied<br />
the m<strong>in</strong>ds of university professors <strong>and</strong> laypersons alike <strong>in</strong> the eighteenth century.<br />
Hurwitz contrasts the position of the ancients (that is, Aristotle <strong>and</strong> his mediaeval<br />
followers) to that of the moderns <strong>and</strong> then decides <strong>in</strong> favour of the latter. 58 Accord<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to the moderns, says Hurwitz, lightn<strong>in</strong>g orig<strong>in</strong>ates <strong>in</strong> the hot dry exhalation that rises<br />
from the earth <strong>and</strong> gathers <strong>in</strong>to clouds, mixed with particles of sulphur. Through their<br />
motion the clouds are heated <strong>and</strong> ignited when they are pressed together upon meet<strong>in</strong>g<br />
cold air. The phras<strong>in</strong>g reveals that this account is based on RL. 59 The explanation,<br />
however, seems to reflect Van Musschenbroek’s view that the cause of lightn<strong>in</strong>g<br />
must be sulphur comb<strong>in</strong>ed with an admixture of exhalation. 60<br />
Hurwitz presents this as the modern view. Erxleben, however, explicitly states that<br />
lightn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> thunder are without any doubt the result of the work<strong>in</strong>gs of electricity.<br />
61 As might be expected, he refers to the experiments of Benjam<strong>in</strong> Frankl<strong>in</strong>. 62<br />
Hebrew Writ<strong>in</strong>gs of the Seventeenth <strong>and</strong> Eighteenth Centuries’ (Hebrew), Korot 9 (5–6) (1987): 127–<br />
47, esp. 141–5. I wish to thank Professor Steven Harvey for send<strong>in</strong>g me a copy of this article.<br />
56 Cf. Grundlehren, §1077, p. 628: ‘Die kle<strong>in</strong>ste und grösste Höhe desselben die man <strong>in</strong> Holl<strong>and</strong><br />
bemerket hat, ist 27 Zolle und 2 L<strong>in</strong>. und 30 Rhe<strong>in</strong>ländischen Zolle’.<br />
57 In this regard it is noteworthy that several of the experiments conducted with the air pump, as described<br />
<strong>in</strong> SB, are parallel to those described <strong>in</strong> Van Musschenbroek’s list. Likewise, Hurwitz’s reference<br />
to the <strong>in</strong>vention of an <strong>in</strong>strument by which w<strong>in</strong>e can be pumped out of a barrel (<strong>in</strong> German:<br />
Heber), <strong>and</strong> his comparison of the pump<strong>in</strong>g of air with a suck<strong>in</strong>g baby have parallels <strong>in</strong> this author. For<br />
Heber; cf. SB I.7.7, p. 101 with Grundlehren, §1091, p. 639; for the baby (or animal), cf. SB loc. cit.<br />
with Grundlehren §1090, p. 639).<br />
58 SB I.10.13, pp. 181–2.<br />
59 RL §37a, 18a.<br />
60 Van Musschenbroek, Grundlehren §1341, p. 747: ‘Weil die vom Wetterstrale angezündeten Sachen<br />
nach Schwefel riechen, so kann man wohl nicht zweifeln, dass die meiste verbrennliche Materie<br />
desselben der Schwefel sei’.<br />
61 Cf. Erxleben, Anfangsgründe §747, pp. 717–8: ‘Dass heutiges Tages nicht mehr daran gezweifelt<br />
werden kann, dass Blitz und Donner nur Wirkungen e<strong>in</strong>er starken Elektricität s<strong>in</strong>d’; cf. §750, ‘Der Blitz<br />
ist e<strong>in</strong> grosser elektrischer Funken’. The same view is found <strong>in</strong> Johann Gottlob Krüger, Die ersten<br />
Gründe der Naturlehre (Halle, 1750), §241, p. 295. However, <strong>in</strong> a later edition (1771, pp. 554–72),<br />
electricity is presented without reference to Frankl<strong>in</strong>; cf. Heilbron, Electricity, p. 263. In Zedler’s Universal-Lexicon,<br />
a work that precedes the discoveries of Frankl<strong>in</strong>, we read, s.v. Blitz, that there is no certa<strong>in</strong>ty<br />
as to the cause of lightn<strong>in</strong>g. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to the Lexikon, one can observe that lightn<strong>in</strong>g is a fire <strong>and</strong><br />
that this fire consists of ‘Schwefelichten Theilen’. It is also noted that several causes for lightn<strong>in</strong>g have<br />
been posited: natural ones, God, or the devil (Johann He<strong>in</strong>rich Zedler, ed., Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon<br />
aller Wissenschafften und Künste, 64 vols. (Halle <strong>and</strong> Leipzig, 1732–1750; repr. Graz,<br />
1961–1964), vol. 4 (1733), p. 166.<br />
62 Anfangsgründe §746, p. 717.<br />
170 Natural Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit
Curiously, Frankl<strong>in</strong> does not figure at all <strong>in</strong> the relevant discussion <strong>in</strong> SB; this is all<br />
the more remarkable as Hurwitz reports extensively on the <strong>in</strong>vention of the lightn<strong>in</strong>g<br />
rod <strong>and</strong> the experiments carried out with it, even provid<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>structions for build<strong>in</strong>g<br />
one. 63 Hurwitz credits (Johann Gottlob) Krüger (1715–1759), a professor at Halle,<br />
with the <strong>in</strong>vention of the ‘Wetterleiter’ (p. 184) <strong>and</strong> relates how this scholar was<br />
commissioned by ‘the famous k<strong>in</strong>g of Prussia’ to build an <strong>in</strong>sulated house near the<br />
palace where one could hide dur<strong>in</strong>g lightn<strong>in</strong>g (p. 186). In other words, his <strong>in</strong>clusion<br />
of the earlier eighteenth-century view shows that, notwithst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g Hurwitz’s proclaimed<br />
preference for ‘the moderns’, his accounts are not always up-to-date.<br />
Incidentally, Hurwitz’s section on lightn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> thunder is a good illustration of<br />
the heterogeneous character of the <strong>in</strong>formation he assembled <strong>in</strong> his book. Not only is<br />
the reader <strong>in</strong>formed about the natural explanation of meteorological phenomena, he<br />
also learns about the religious aspects associated with them. Lightn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> other meteorological<br />
phenomena, Hurwitz states, are <strong>in</strong>tended to make people turn away from<br />
their bad ways <strong>and</strong> return to God (p. 185). Likewise, he <strong>in</strong>terprets earthquakes as div<strong>in</strong>e<br />
punishment, admonish<strong>in</strong>g the reader to repent, pray, <strong>and</strong> do good deeds to ward<br />
off the danger. As stated above, such moral lessons are not found <strong>in</strong> the mediaeval<br />
encyclopaedias of science <strong>and</strong> philosophy, but they are found <strong>in</strong> eighteenth-century<br />
science books. For example, <strong>in</strong> his Universal-Lexicon, Johann He<strong>in</strong>rich Zedler<br />
(1706–1751) asserts that God uses earthquakes to demonstrate his majesty <strong>and</strong> his<br />
power <strong>and</strong> to punish humanity for its s<strong>in</strong>s. 64 In Zedler’s lemma on lightn<strong>in</strong>g we read<br />
that an <strong>in</strong>correct perception of God’s providence is one of the causes of the fear of<br />
lightn<strong>in</strong>g. Here he recommends pray<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> s<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g as means to overcome fear. Although<br />
Hurwitz mentions only pray<strong>in</strong>g, the religious orientation is the same <strong>in</strong> the<br />
work of both authors.<br />
This leads us to yet another aspect of SB, one <strong>in</strong> which it aga<strong>in</strong> differs from mediaeval<br />
encyclopaedias. This concerns the practical advice that Hurwitz lavishes on his<br />
readers. In the section on lightn<strong>in</strong>g he warns them not to st<strong>and</strong> beneath tall trees dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
lightn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> thunder, <strong>and</strong> to stay away from draughts when <strong>in</strong>doors; 65 he adds<br />
that people who are born with a caul need special protection. 66 Another example of<br />
this practical advice is found <strong>in</strong> his account of the air. Here he warns aga<strong>in</strong>st overheat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
houses dur<strong>in</strong>g the w<strong>in</strong>ter, because it causes people to get sick <strong>and</strong> die, so that<br />
their houses turn <strong>in</strong>to graves. In particular, the room of an <strong>in</strong>fant with smallpox<br />
should not be overheated. 67<br />
To return to Hurwitz’s attitude towards his sources <strong>in</strong> his discussions of meteorology<br />
<strong>and</strong> the elements, Hurwitz’s dismissal of mediaeval theories is more marked here<br />
than <strong>in</strong> the chapter on zoology. At the same time, however, this section is more reveal<strong>in</strong>g<br />
about his appreciation of mediaeval learn<strong>in</strong>g than his zoology. His discussion<br />
of the <strong>in</strong>habited sections of the earth, a subject that Hurwitz br<strong>in</strong>gs up <strong>in</strong> several pas-<br />
63 These <strong>in</strong>structions derive from RL, §37, p. 18b; cf. SB, p. 184.<br />
64 Zedler, Universal-Lexicon, vol. 8 (1734), p. 1527.<br />
65 Cf. RL §38, pp. 18b–19a.<br />
66 SB, pp. 185–6.<br />
67 Ibid. I.7.20, p. 115.<br />
Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e<br />
171
sages <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> different contexts, may serve as an illustration. Mediaeval scholars were<br />
of the op<strong>in</strong>ion that the northern <strong>and</strong> southern polar region were un<strong>in</strong>habited, due to<br />
extreme cold, while the torrid zone around the equator was unfit for habitation due to<br />
extreme heat. Hurwitz expla<strong>in</strong>s how modern discoveries have proved these authors<br />
wrong, for the torrid zone is <strong>in</strong> fact <strong>in</strong>habited. The northern polar zone is <strong>in</strong>habited as<br />
far as Greenl<strong>and</strong>, even though human settlement there is not as extensive as it is further<br />
south. As for the southern polar region, he observes that although no expedition<br />
has yet demonstrated that it is habitable, it is nonetheless probable, see<strong>in</strong>g that other<br />
regions once believed to be un<strong>in</strong>habitable has s<strong>in</strong>ce been found to be <strong>in</strong>habited.<br />
Hurwitz rejects as <strong>in</strong>correct the theory that the southern hemisphere was covered<br />
with water, mention<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> this regard some ‘great <strong>and</strong> dist<strong>in</strong>guished Jewish sages’ of<br />
the Middle Ages who held this view, namely David KimÌi, Abraham Ibn Ezra,<br />
Abraham bar Îiyya, Isaac Israeli, Meir Aldabi, <strong>and</strong> Solomon Ibn Gabirol. 68<br />
But he hastens to add that one should not jump to the conclusion that the mediaeval<br />
authors he quoted, ‘the philosophiz<strong>in</strong>g ancients of our people’ (ha-qadmonim mibenei<br />
¨ammenu ha-mitpalsefim), were less <strong>in</strong>telligent than the moderns. Hurwitz ‘exonerates’<br />
them by not<strong>in</strong>g that it is only the progress of time <strong>and</strong> new discoveries that<br />
have rendered their theories outdated. 69<br />
Moreover, when it comes to exegetical explanations Hurwitz allows himself to<br />
draw on mediaeval authors, as he explicitly acknowledges. For example, when deal<strong>in</strong>g<br />
with the ra<strong>in</strong>bow he acknowledges that Gersonides <strong>and</strong> NaÌmanides provided<br />
him with explanations of why God should have preferred the ra<strong>in</strong>bow, of all natural<br />
phenomena, as a sign for his covenant (pp. 180–1). In other words, although Hurwitz<br />
emphatically sides with the moderns <strong>in</strong> this chapter, the presence of the mediaevals is<br />
nonetheless more evident than <strong>in</strong> the chapter on zoology.<br />
All <strong>in</strong> all, it appears that Hurwitz’s attitude vis-à-vis ancient <strong>and</strong> mediaeval notions<br />
on the one h<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> ‘modern’ ones on the other is not the same for the two<br />
discipl<strong>in</strong>es under discussion here. This difference also seems to reflect the difference<br />
<strong>in</strong> the ‘state of the art’ of the two discipl<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong> his day. Whereas for zoology Hurwitz<br />
could rely on Buffon’s accomplishments, as expounded <strong>in</strong> various sources, meteorology<br />
<strong>in</strong> the eighteenth century had not crystallized <strong>in</strong>to an <strong>in</strong>dependent discipl<strong>in</strong>e. It<br />
was still studied with<strong>in</strong> the framework of physics, a branch that was <strong>in</strong> a constant<br />
process of change <strong>and</strong> redef<strong>in</strong>ition. 70 The Aristotelian system had been ab<strong>and</strong>oned,<br />
but no new system had taken its place, with the result that many different explanations<br />
of meteorological phenomena were <strong>in</strong> circulation <strong>and</strong> provided Hurwitz with a<br />
variety of options. The account of meteorology <strong>in</strong> SB seems to reflect the transitional<br />
status of this science dur<strong>in</strong>g the eighteenth century.<br />
68 Ibid. I.9.6, p. 145; cf. p. 143, <strong>and</strong> I.9.13, pp. 161–2, where Hurwitz rejects the seven-clime theory of<br />
the ancients, replac<strong>in</strong>g it by an eightfold division of the earth.<br />
69 Ibid. I.9.6, p. 146.<br />
70 See John Lewis Heilbron, ‘Experimental Natural Philosophy’, <strong>in</strong> The Ferment of <strong>Knowledge</strong>: Studies<br />
<strong>in</strong> the Historiography of Eighteenth-Century Science, ed. G[eorge] S[ebastian] Rousseau <strong>and</strong> Ray Porter<br />
(Cambridge, 1980), pp. 357–88, esp. 361–4.<br />
172 Natural Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit
Traditional versus Modern <strong>and</strong> Ancient Views<br />
Thus far we have discussed Hurwitz’s attitude towards modern <strong>and</strong> ancient views,<br />
leav<strong>in</strong>g his use of sources from the third category out of consideration. As we shall<br />
shortly see, his use of traditional <strong>and</strong> kabbalistic sources <strong>in</strong> the chapters under discussion<br />
constitutes yet another difference between the chapters on meteorology <strong>and</strong> zoology.<br />
As will be recalled, his zoology <strong>in</strong>voked rabb<strong>in</strong>ic views only occasionally <strong>and</strong><br />
hardly referred to kabbalistic literature at all. In fact, the only reference to the latter is<br />
that, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Isaac Luria (the Ari), a certa<strong>in</strong> fish, although kosher, is not fit for<br />
human consumption, as it is lethal (SB, p. 215).<br />
By contrast, <strong>in</strong> the chapters under consideration Hurwitz adduces ‘traditional’<br />
views on a number of occasions. Concern<strong>in</strong>g the number of elements, for example,<br />
Hurwitz states, build<strong>in</strong>g upon RH, that the ancients who taught that there are four elements<br />
were <strong>in</strong> agreement with the view held by the Sages <strong>and</strong> Kabbalists. But, he<br />
cont<strong>in</strong>ues, the new generation rejects everyth<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> posits the existence of only<br />
three elements, while others allow only one element. 71 The chemical philosophers,<br />
for their part, believe that everyth<strong>in</strong>g is composed of five elements: sulphur, salt,<br />
mercury, water, <strong>and</strong> earth. 72 One should therefore not rely on the philosophers,<br />
Hurwitz concludes, for each teaches accord<strong>in</strong>g to his own whims. Instead, one should<br />
follow the Kabbalists who taught that there are four elements, as expla<strong>in</strong>ed by<br />
Îayyim Vital. In other words, here we f<strong>in</strong>d Hurwitz adher<strong>in</strong>g to an ancient philosophical<br />
view on the authority of the Kabbalists.<br />
In his discussion of whether air has weight, it is rather modern theories that prove<br />
the Kabbalists to be right <strong>in</strong>stead of the ancients. As Hurwitz relates, (otherwise unspecified)<br />
non-Jewish Aristotelian scholars derided the kabbalists for believ<strong>in</strong>g that<br />
air has weight <strong>and</strong> claimed that there was no wisdom among Jews because Jews did<br />
not engage <strong>in</strong> the study of philosophy but limited themselves to kabbalah. Now that<br />
experiments us<strong>in</strong>g modern <strong>in</strong>ventions <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>struments have proven that every body,<br />
<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g air, has weight, it appears that the Kabbalists were right after all <strong>and</strong> that<br />
their views are trustworthy. 73<br />
The <strong>in</strong>fluence of traditional sources is also to be found <strong>in</strong> another passage <strong>in</strong> his<br />
account of air, where Hurwitz accepts the existence of demons on the authority of the<br />
Sages <strong>and</strong> the Kabbalists. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to him, scientists believe that the air is filled<br />
with t<strong>in</strong>y liv<strong>in</strong>g creatures that lay eggs, whereas the Kabbalists believe that the air<br />
conta<strong>in</strong>s demons (shedim). Hurwitz decides <strong>in</strong> favour of this view because the<br />
talmudic Sages postulated their existence. 74<br />
Yet another example of this attitude is provided by Hurwitz’s discussion of the<br />
distribution of l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> water over the earth, a theme that also engaged the mediae-<br />
71 SB I.5.4–5, pp. 84–5; cf. I.10.15, p. 189.<br />
72 Ruderman, Jewish Thought, p. 341.<br />
73 SB I.7.3–4, pp. 97–9.<br />
74 Ibid. I.7.22, p. 118. Interest<strong>in</strong>gly, <strong>in</strong> his description of the meteorological phenomenon of will-o’-thewisps<br />
he criticizes the behaviour of the ¨ammei ha-areÒ who, out of fear <strong>and</strong> due to their lack of scientific<br />
knowledge, believe that these lights are a k<strong>in</strong>d of shedim. Hurwitz mocks people who <strong>in</strong> their panic<br />
recite the Shema <strong>and</strong> put on tefill<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong>, when they reach home, tell their families that a miracle has<br />
happened, thereby grossly exaggerat<strong>in</strong>g the matter so as to <strong>in</strong>spire fear <strong>in</strong> people’s hearts (p. 187).<br />
Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e<br />
173
vals. 75 In the section on mounta<strong>in</strong>s Hurwitz expla<strong>in</strong>s that the earth is the only element<br />
that is not surrounded <strong>in</strong> its entirety by another element. Not only is this another sign<br />
of God’s mercy; it also proves, aga<strong>in</strong>st the heretics, that the world was created by a<br />
Creator who possesses a will, <strong>and</strong> not by chance or nature. However, the fact that<br />
parts of the earth are not covered by water raises the question of what happened to<br />
the surplus of water. Hurwitz f<strong>in</strong>ds the solution <strong>in</strong> a theory he encountered <strong>in</strong><br />
Abraham Cohen Herrera’s neo-platonist <strong>and</strong> kabbalistic Sha¨ar ha-shamayim (early<br />
seventeenth century). Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Herrera, there is a large hole <strong>in</strong> the earth near the<br />
North Pole, through which the waters of the ocean enter the earth. 76 Hurwitz adds<br />
that this is what the words yiqqavu ha-mayim ‘let the waters be gathered’ (Gen. 1:9)<br />
refer to. The existence of this hole was already known to the Sages, who often refer<br />
to the waters <strong>in</strong>side the earth. Elaborat<strong>in</strong>g on the theme of the water <strong>in</strong>side the earth,<br />
Hurwitz adds that David KimÌi’s <strong>and</strong> Abraham Ibn Ezra’s <strong>in</strong>terpretation of Ps.<br />
104:10 is far from the truth, whereas the explanation of Eliezer <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i (Greece,<br />
eighteenth century), although also <strong>in</strong>correct, at least assumes the existence of a water<br />
open<strong>in</strong>g. 77<br />
With respect to Hurwitz’s use of the third group of sources, it is important to note<br />
that on several occasions he emphasizes that many modern discoveries <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>ventions<br />
were <strong>in</strong> fact known to the Sages. They were, for example, aware of the existence<br />
of America, which they called ‘Ofir’, <strong>and</strong> they foresaw that new planets would<br />
be discovered <strong>in</strong> the course of time. 78 Elsewhere he defends the rabbis aga<strong>in</strong>st people<br />
‘who are wise <strong>in</strong> their own eyes’ who ridiculed <strong>and</strong> despised their <strong>in</strong>terpretations. 79<br />
In this regard, the chapter on water conta<strong>in</strong>s a most reveal<strong>in</strong>g passage. 80 Here<br />
Hurwitz describes with great enthusiasm how <strong>in</strong> his day it has become possible to<br />
explore the seabed by means of the div<strong>in</strong>g bell, a large metal construction that can<br />
hold people st<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g upright. He lists the signals by means of which those <strong>in</strong>side it<br />
can communicate with the sailors on board the ship to which the div<strong>in</strong>g bell is connected<br />
<strong>and</strong> relates how they are provided with fresh air by a new device, thanks to<br />
which they can stay under water ‘for many days’.<br />
Here Hurwitz is probably referr<strong>in</strong>g to the h<strong>and</strong>-operated pump <strong>in</strong>troduced by John<br />
Smeaton <strong>in</strong> 1788. Hurwitz expresses regret that he could not augment his description<br />
with an illustration or copper engrav<strong>in</strong>g, because he could not afford the extra expense<br />
<strong>in</strong>volved. Clearly the author was fasc<strong>in</strong>ated by this <strong>in</strong>vention. He then goes on<br />
to note that the people of Europe were most excited by this discovery, which caused<br />
them to adopt an arrogant attitude towards the Jews, claim<strong>in</strong>g that Jews possess only<br />
knowledge of the Talmud. Hurwitz countered this allegation by argu<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>in</strong> fact<br />
75 This problem is addressed by Gad Freudenthal, ‘(Al-)chemical Foundations for Cosmological Ideas:<br />
Ibn S<strong>in</strong>a on the Geology of an Eternal World’, <strong>in</strong> Physics, Cosmology <strong>and</strong> Astronomy, 1300–1700, ed.<br />
Sabetai Unguru (Dordrecht, 1991), pp. 47–73.<br />
76 SB I.9.4, pp. 141–2. See Abraham Cohen de Herrera, Gate of Heaven, trans. Kenneth Krabbenhoft<br />
(Leiden, 2002), p. 351. Interest<strong>in</strong>gly, Hurwitz does not take over from his source that this is also the<br />
place from which evil spirits come.<br />
77 SB I.9.4, p. 143.<br />
78 Ibid. I.1.3, p. 36. Here Hurwitz reports about the discovery of Uranus <strong>in</strong> 1781.<br />
79 Ibid. I.2.9, p. 45.<br />
80 Ibid. I.8.4, pp. 128–9.<br />
174 Natural Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit
the technique underly<strong>in</strong>g the construction of the div<strong>in</strong>g bell was already known to the<br />
Sages, for <strong>in</strong> M Miqvaˆot 10:1 we read that no water can enter a vessel that is immersed<br />
upside down – precisely the pr<strong>in</strong>ciple underly<strong>in</strong>g the technique of the div<strong>in</strong>g<br />
bell. In other words, the Sages were great natural scientists, who merely lacked the<br />
technical means to construct such <strong>in</strong>struments. In adopt<strong>in</strong>g this apologetic stance<br />
Hurwitz st<strong>and</strong>s <strong>in</strong> a long tradition of Jewish authors who attempted to v<strong>in</strong>dicate rabb<strong>in</strong>ic<br />
knowledge that had been discredited by scientific theories. 81<br />
In sum, Hurwitz’s use of the third group of sources <strong>in</strong> the sections studied here is<br />
dictated partly by his scepticism vis-à-vis modern views <strong>and</strong> partly by polemical zeal.<br />
Moreover, the ultimate criterion for whether or not a scientific view (ancient/mediaeval<br />
or modern) should be accepted appears to be whether or not it accords with traditional<br />
talmudic or kabbalistic views. Given this hierarchy, the mediaevals often appear<br />
to be the ‘big losers’ <strong>in</strong> Hurwitz’s coverage of contemporary science. Yet while<br />
it is clear that mediaeval notions <strong>and</strong> sources are less prom<strong>in</strong>ent <strong>in</strong> SB <strong>and</strong> less important<br />
for Hurwitz than are the other sources for his encyclopaedia – contemporary<br />
(Jewish <strong>and</strong> non-Jewish), early modern Jewish, <strong>and</strong> ‘traditional’ sources – it would<br />
be rash to conclude that they are <strong>in</strong>significant. 82 As we have seen, Hurwitz accepts<br />
them when they accord with the traditional view, even if they are at variance with<br />
modern theories. Moreover, as noted above, there appears to be a difference with regard<br />
to Hurwitz’s use of mediaeval sources <strong>in</strong> the chapter on meteorology <strong>and</strong> that on<br />
zoology. Therefore, the situation may well be different <strong>in</strong> other sections. For example,<br />
the <strong>in</strong>troduction, which <strong>in</strong>troduces basic philosophical notions such as substance,<br />
accident, form, matter, etc., reads to a large extent like a mediaeval treatise <strong>and</strong> employs<br />
mediaeval Hebrew term<strong>in</strong>ology. 83 The same holds for Hurwitz’s discussion of<br />
the vegetative, animal, <strong>and</strong> rational souls <strong>and</strong> their faculties (chs 15–18). More importantly,<br />
the structur<strong>in</strong>g pr<strong>in</strong>ciple for his account of liv<strong>in</strong>g be<strong>in</strong>gs is the same classification<br />
of the various faculties of the soul that we f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong> mediaeval psychological<br />
treatises. We may thus conclude that Hurwitz borrowed more elements from the mediaeval<br />
scientific heritage than he leads us to believe <strong>in</strong> his preface.<br />
Hurwitz’s Motivation<br />
As will be clear from the forego<strong>in</strong>g, Hurwitz’s attitude towards contemporary natural<br />
science was ambivalent. One the one h<strong>and</strong>, he displays great enthusiasm for contemporary<br />
science, as can be <strong>in</strong>ferred from his detailed <strong>and</strong> spirited descriptions of new<br />
<strong>in</strong>struments <strong>and</strong> the experiments conducted with them. Moreover, he deems it important<br />
to supply <strong>in</strong>structions for build<strong>in</strong>g these <strong>in</strong>struments, such as the thermometer<br />
<strong>and</strong> air pump. It is no exaggeration to say that he was fasc<strong>in</strong>ated by the achievements<br />
of the science of his day. 84 His account of the hot-air balloon clearly testifies to his<br />
81 Cf. Ruderman, Jewish Thought, pp. 263–72.<br />
82 For a list of seventeenth- <strong>and</strong> eighteenth-century Jewish treatises referred to by Hurwitz, see the article<br />
by Ruderman <strong>in</strong> the present volume.<br />
83 Cf. the section on SB <strong>in</strong> the article by Steven Harvey <strong>in</strong> the present volume.<br />
84 On the attraction of the air-pump experiments for Jewish scholars, see Ruderman, Jewish Thought,<br />
pp. 332–8.<br />
Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e<br />
175
excitement. He describes not only how one is built, but also how spectacular it is to<br />
sail through the air with a friend, or perhaps with a lady. Here too he offers practical<br />
advice, carefully not<strong>in</strong>g that one can make the balloon fly higher by throw<strong>in</strong>g overboard<br />
s<strong>and</strong> from bags brought for that purpose, but that one should never throw<br />
stones overboard, to avoid hurt<strong>in</strong>g people on the ground. 85<br />
Obviously the author is eager to provide his readers with knowledge of every new<br />
discovery. On the other h<strong>and</strong>, he appears just as eager to prove that <strong>in</strong> fact ‘there is<br />
noth<strong>in</strong>g new under the sun’, because the Sages were familiar with the pr<strong>in</strong>ciples underly<strong>in</strong>g<br />
these <strong>in</strong>ventions. It is the same sceptical attitude towards modern science<br />
that leads him to emphasize that non-Jewish scientists are divided on many issues,<br />
such as the correct explanation of tides (I.10.15, p. 188) <strong>and</strong> of the sea’s sal<strong>in</strong>ity, or<br />
the number of elements. 86<br />
Hurwitz’s scepticism with respect to contemporary science is clearly expressed at<br />
the end of the chapter on meteorology. In a long digression, Hurwitz states that it is<br />
imperative for Jews to study physical science, not only because it teaches tiqqun<br />
¨olam, but also because it equips them with the knowledge they need <strong>in</strong> their contacts<br />
with non-Jewish scholars. 87 However, Jews should not learn sciences from non-Jewish<br />
books, for some of them conta<strong>in</strong> heretical views, <strong>in</strong> that they ‘ascribe everyth<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to nature’ <strong>in</strong>stead of to the Creator. Such th<strong>in</strong>gs are harmful for young readers, which<br />
is why one should avoid these books <strong>and</strong> learn science only from SB. Moreover, one<br />
should not assume that the moderns are more <strong>in</strong>telligent than the ancients (cf.<br />
above); their only advantage is the progress of time, thanks to which they possess<br />
<strong>in</strong>struments <strong>and</strong> can perform experiments. However, Hurwitz notes sceptically, the<br />
new f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs will, <strong>in</strong> turn, be annulled by the discoveries of a next generation, <strong>and</strong><br />
these by the next, when even more wondrous <strong>in</strong>struments have been <strong>in</strong>vented <strong>and</strong><br />
more experiments have been carried out, <strong>and</strong> so on. New f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs will <strong>in</strong>variably<br />
overthrow what had been established on the basis of rational proofs. Logical reason<strong>in</strong>g<br />
cannot guarantee the validity of any theory whatsoever. 88 All sciences are far<br />
from the truth, except for geometry <strong>and</strong> arithmetic. To this he adds that those who<br />
pursue the sciences are lack<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> faith, although science itself serves God. 89 Therefore,<br />
Hurwitz concludes, referr<strong>in</strong>g to Ecclesiastes 3:11 <strong>and</strong> 8:17, one should not<br />
waste one’s time, lose sleep, <strong>and</strong> ru<strong>in</strong> one’s health <strong>in</strong> the pursuit of the sciences, for<br />
85 SB I.7.21, pp. 115–6.<br />
86 Ibid. I.5.3–5, pp. 83–5. Hurwitz’s observation on the uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty that results from scholarly disputes<br />
rem<strong>in</strong>ds one of Erxleben’s observation <strong>in</strong> his Anfangsgründe §774, p. 753: ‘Mit aller der Hochachtung<br />
aber, die ich für die Chemie habe, muss ich gestehen, dass ich immer weniger von den Elementen der<br />
Körper mit Gewissheit behaupten mag, je länger ich mich mit dieser Wissenschaft beschäftige’. With<br />
respect to sal<strong>in</strong>ity, Erxleben lists various theories <strong>and</strong> concludes by say<strong>in</strong>g: ‘Hat die Frage: woher das<br />
Meer se<strong>in</strong> Salz erhalte wirklich e<strong>in</strong>en vernünftigen S<strong>in</strong>n? Kaum’ (Anfangsgründe §676, p. 652).<br />
87 SB I.10.15, pp. 187–90.<br />
88 Ibid., p. 189. In this regard, Hurwitz refers to Kant, stat<strong>in</strong>g that this philosopher has ruthlessly ‘uprooted’<br />
all the foundations of the philosophers. Although Hurwitz declares <strong>in</strong> his first preface (p. 14)<br />
that, unlike other authors, he will refra<strong>in</strong> from referr<strong>in</strong>g to later chapters of his book, here he refers the<br />
reader to I.20.25, announc<strong>in</strong>g that there he will deal with Kant <strong>and</strong> ‘his book’ ‘that has spread all over<br />
the world’. It is true that almost all the references that Hurwitz lavishly <strong>in</strong>serts <strong>in</strong> his expositions are to<br />
preced<strong>in</strong>g sections. Apparently this issue is of special importance to him.<br />
89 Here Hurwitz seems to contradict himself, for elsewhere he wrote that non-Jewish scholars study nature<br />
with a view to prais<strong>in</strong>g God (see above).<br />
176 Natural Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit
the closer one th<strong>in</strong>ks he has come to truth, the further it recedes from him. Nor will<br />
one be rewarded for this pursuit <strong>in</strong> the next world; <strong>in</strong>stead, punishment will be meted<br />
out because of the neglect of the study of the Torah. It is <strong>in</strong> view of all this, Hurwitz<br />
ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>s, that he has ‘filtered’ <strong>and</strong> assembled <strong>in</strong> his own book all that is worth<br />
know<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Curiously, these sceptical words were written by a man who himself toiled day<br />
<strong>and</strong> night to acquire scientific knowledge until he ru<strong>in</strong>ed his eyes <strong>and</strong> nearly lost his<br />
sight as a result, <strong>and</strong> who, moreover, did not stop work<strong>in</strong>g on SB after he recovered. 90<br />
This leads us to the question of Hurwitz’s goal <strong>and</strong> motivation. In his first preface,<br />
Hurwitz states that SB was <strong>in</strong> fact meant to serve as an <strong>in</strong>troduction to Îayyim Vital’s<br />
Sha¨arei qedushah. Hurwitz considered this a most important book because it<br />
enables human be<strong>in</strong>gs to atta<strong>in</strong> their goal, namely achiev<strong>in</strong>g a degree of the Holy<br />
Spirit (ruaÌ ha-qodesh) even when not <strong>in</strong> the Holy L<strong>and</strong>. However, accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
Hurwitz, the last part of Vital’s book is <strong>in</strong>comprehensible without knowledge of<br />
natural science <strong>and</strong> rema<strong>in</strong>s ‘a sealed book’, a situation that Hurwitz seeks to remedy.<br />
91 Hurwitz thus presents himself as a commentator on Vital.<br />
As Hurwitz expla<strong>in</strong>s it, here<strong>in</strong> lies the first of the three utilities of SB, the other two<br />
be<strong>in</strong>g that it reveals God’s glory <strong>and</strong> helps human be<strong>in</strong>gs come closer to God. In addition,<br />
he mentions other useful aspects: it obviates the need for non-Jewish books on<br />
science (see above), thereby free<strong>in</strong>g time for the study of tradition <strong>and</strong> Kabbalah; it<br />
enables one to underst<strong>and</strong> ma¨aseh bereshit <strong>and</strong> ma¨aseh merkavah as expla<strong>in</strong>ed by<br />
Luria; moreover, the reader will ‘know what to answer a freeth<strong>in</strong>ker (apiqoros)’. 92<br />
Furthermore, it offers ‘someth<strong>in</strong>g for everyone’. Perhaps this expla<strong>in</strong>s why the book<br />
was <strong>in</strong> such great dem<strong>and</strong>. As Hurwitz relates <strong>in</strong> the preface to the second edition (pp.<br />
18–9), the book was much sought after throughout the Jewish world. The 2,000 copies<br />
of the first edition were sold with<strong>in</strong> a few years, lead<strong>in</strong>g to a pirate edition <strong>in</strong> 1801. The<br />
second edition of 1807 was repr<strong>in</strong>ted frequently. 93 Moreover, SB was translated <strong>in</strong>to<br />
Yiddish <strong>and</strong> Lad<strong>in</strong>o. It appealed to both enlightened circles <strong>and</strong> traditional Jews. What<br />
expla<strong>in</strong>s its success? What was Hurwitz’s true aim? Was it <strong>in</strong>deed his <strong>in</strong>tention to lead<br />
his fellow-Jews to the atta<strong>in</strong>ment of the Holy Spirit? If so, how helpful would it have<br />
been for them to know how to build a balloon <strong>and</strong> fly it, with or without a lady friend?<br />
In a review of SB that appeared <strong>in</strong> Ha-Meˆassef <strong>in</strong> 1809, that is, after the publication<br />
of the second edition, the reviewer found it hard to accept Hurwitz’s claim that<br />
he had written the book with a view to facilitat<strong>in</strong>g underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g Sha¨arei qedushah.<br />
94 He considers it <strong>in</strong>credible that Hurwitz wrote such a volum<strong>in</strong>ous work merely<br />
90 Hurwitz relates this story <strong>in</strong> his preface, p. 13. For a comprehensive account of the ‘mak<strong>in</strong>g of’ SB,<br />
see Rosenblum, ‘Ha-enÒiqlopedyah ha-¨ivrit ha-rishonah’.<br />
91 SB, first preface, p. 4 <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>troduction, p. 31. See also the section on SB <strong>in</strong> the article by Steven<br />
Harvey <strong>in</strong> this volume.<br />
92 SB, first preface, p. 9.<br />
93 Fourteen editions were published dur<strong>in</strong>g the n<strong>in</strong>eteenth century; see Zeev Gries, The Book as an<br />
Agent of Culture, 1700–1900 (Heb.) (Tel Aviv, 2002), p. 134 n. 41, who refers to Ch. B. Friedberg, Bet<br />
Eked Sepharim (Tel Aviv, 1951–56), 1:170, No. 1474.<br />
94 The review is signed dalet heh. Thomas Kollatz suggested that this may be an abbreviation for ‘der<br />
Herausgeber’.<br />
Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e<br />
177
to serve as a prolegomena to a brief treatise of 40 pages. If that really was Hurwitz’s<br />
aim, he cont<strong>in</strong>ues, the book would certa<strong>in</strong>ly not have become so successful, for who<br />
is still <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> Kabbalah? Why should the author have hidden his true aim,<br />
namely, the diffusion of scientific knowledge? For the reviewer, who was not the<br />
least <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> Kabbalah <strong>and</strong> who moreover criticized Hurwitz for his adherence<br />
to traditional views that are patently wrong <strong>and</strong> for his deficient Hebrew, the value<br />
<strong>and</strong> utility of the book lay exclusively <strong>in</strong> its scientific content.<br />
The reviewer’s perception of Hurwitz’s motives actually says more about the reviewer<br />
than about SB. The reviewer was evidently unaware that Hurwitz had written<br />
kabbalistic treatises before he embarked on SB. 95 Moreover, Hurwitz’s kabbalistic<br />
orientation <strong>in</strong> SB can hardly be overlooked, as will have become manifest above. Indeed,<br />
the end of the <strong>in</strong>troduction (p. 31) <strong>and</strong> the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of the first section (p. 33)<br />
make it sufficiently clear that his description of the world of the elements, for all its<br />
Aristotelian-philosophical orientation, is embedded <strong>in</strong> a kabbalistic perception of the<br />
universe.<br />
The few modern scholars who have studied SB do not doubt that Hurwitz was a<br />
Kabbalist. 96 As to his true aim <strong>and</strong> the explanation of the success of his work, however,<br />
they have suggested different <strong>in</strong>terpretations. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Ira Rob<strong>in</strong>son, its<br />
success was due to Hurwitz’s synthesis of modern science with Kabbalah. As he puts<br />
it, Sefer ha-Berit provided a ‘modernization strategy’ that enabled Orthodox Jews <strong>in</strong><br />
the n<strong>in</strong>eteenth <strong>and</strong> twentieth century to accommodate modern science <strong>and</strong> technology<br />
with<strong>in</strong> a traditional-kabbalistic worldview. 97 M. Harris also views SB as a synthesis<br />
of science <strong>and</strong> kabbalah. More specifically, he th<strong>in</strong>ks it was meant to serve as an alternative<br />
to Hasidism, which Hurwitz shunned due to its character as a mass movement.<br />
In the wake of the shock caused by Sabbatianism, Hurwitz preferred to address<br />
the question of how the <strong>in</strong>dividual can acquire the Holy Spirit on his own <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> solitude.<br />
98 Rosenblum, by contrast, suggests a more down-to-earth motivation. He argues<br />
that Hurwitz first wrote the second part of his book with a view to us<strong>in</strong>g it dur<strong>in</strong>g his<br />
years as a w<strong>and</strong>er<strong>in</strong>g scholar <strong>in</strong> order to earn a liv<strong>in</strong>g. But after he became familiar<br />
with the rationalistic orientation <strong>in</strong> western Europe he decided to add the part on science,<br />
<strong>in</strong> order to enhance its chances of publication; this is why he emphasized its<br />
many-sidedness <strong>and</strong> various useful aspects. In other words, <strong>in</strong> Rosenblum’s view,<br />
Hurwitz’s ma<strong>in</strong> aim was to sell his book. 99 If this was <strong>in</strong>deed his focus, it cannot be<br />
denied that he succeeded. Here we can cite Zeev Gries’ explanation of its success,<br />
namely, that it was acceptable to Orthodox circles because it quotes from maskilic<br />
works with reservations <strong>and</strong> at the same time served as an orig<strong>in</strong>al source book for<br />
enlightened Jews. 100<br />
Scholars are not only divided about Hurwitz’s true aim, but also about the related<br />
question of whether or not SB should be viewed as a maskilic book, <strong>and</strong>, conse-<br />
95 See: Rosenblum, ‘Ha-enÒiqlopedyah’, pp. 38–9, 41; Horodetzky, ‘Yahadut ha-sekhel’, p. 388 n. 4.<br />
96 For the relation between Vital’s work <strong>and</strong> SB, see Rosenblum, ‘Ha-enÒiqlopedyah’, pp. 41–6.<br />
97 Rob<strong>in</strong>son, ‘Kabbalah <strong>and</strong> Science’, p. 284.<br />
98 Harris, ‘Book of the Covenant’, p. 52.<br />
99 Rosenblum, ‘Ha-enÒiqlopedyah’, pp. 46, 60–3.<br />
100 Gries, ‘Book’, p. 133–4.<br />
178 Natural Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit
quently, about whether Hurwitz was a Maskil, a forerunner of the Haskalah, or an<br />
anti-maskil. 101 Relevant as these questions may be, it is not possible to go <strong>in</strong>to them<br />
<strong>in</strong> great detail here. It is clear that any attempt to answer them should be based on a<br />
full study of the contents of the book; even then it is doubtful whether any def<strong>in</strong>itive<br />
answers can be provided, given that SB somehow seems to elude categorization.<br />
With this reservation <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d, I would nonetheless venture to suggest that the absence<br />
of any idealization of the mediaeval rationalists or of the Sephardi heritage<br />
speaks aga<strong>in</strong>st the notion of SB as a work of the Haskalah. It cannot be said that this<br />
heritage served as a source of <strong>in</strong>spiration. Nor do the mediaeval philosophers figure<br />
as cultural icons. On the contrary, Hurwitz emphatically ascribes the lack of scientific<br />
progress among Jews to the authority of Maimonides, which deterred people<br />
from undertak<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>in</strong>dependent search for truth. 102 Indeed, for all his pursuits to<br />
collect secular knowledge, Hurwitz shows himself to be hostile to the study of philosophy.<br />
In the long penultimate chapter of Part One he repeatedly <strong>and</strong> energetically<br />
criticizes the philosophers, from Aristotle to the moderns, even though he asserts that<br />
he does not <strong>in</strong>tend to discredit the mediaeval Jewish philosophers, mention<strong>in</strong>g BaÌya<br />
Ibn Paquda by name. 103 From another passage, however, it can be learned that<br />
Hurwitz saw himself called upon to ‘fight’ aga<strong>in</strong>st Jewish philosophers, too, for even<br />
though the good among them did not violate the Torah, they ‘left the paths of righteousness’<br />
by spend<strong>in</strong>g all their days read<strong>in</strong>g foreign books on philosophy. 104 Aga<strong>in</strong>st<br />
the philosophers Hurwitz claims on several occasions that it is God’s will that faith<br />
(emunah) be based not on speculation <strong>and</strong> philosophical proofs, but on ‘trustworthy<br />
tradition’. 105 None of this seems to fit <strong>in</strong> with Enlightenment ideals.<br />
However, whether or not SB is a Haskalah book is perhaps ultimately not all that<br />
relevant. As we have seen, Hurwitz himself considered it a musar-book. 106 Moreover,<br />
<strong>in</strong> my view, it is more important to underscore that SB represents an attempt to provide<br />
an answer to contemporary challenges, <strong>and</strong> as such is no novelty. As Ruderman<br />
po<strong>in</strong>ts out, similar attempts had been made <strong>in</strong> the sixteenth <strong>and</strong> seventeenth centu-<br />
101 Cf. Rob<strong>in</strong>son, ‘Kabbalah <strong>and</strong> Science’, pp. 276–7. Mahler writes (History of Modern Jewry, p. 559):<br />
‘These writers, like all forerunners of Haskalah, still relied on the ethical <strong>and</strong> philosophical works of<br />
medieval Jewish authors, <strong>and</strong> even Aristotle, for their pr<strong>in</strong>cipal <strong>in</strong>tellectual <strong>in</strong>spiration’. This observation,<br />
<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the appellation ‘forerunner of Haskalah’, requires some qualification <strong>in</strong> the case of<br />
P<strong>in</strong>chas Hurwitz. The same applies to Mahler’s statement that ‘The <strong>in</strong>fluence exerted by contemporary<br />
European science <strong>and</strong> literature was barely discernible <strong>in</strong> their ideas’. As for term<strong>in</strong>ology, see Shmuel<br />
Fe<strong>in</strong>er’s typology <strong>in</strong> The Jewish Enlightenment (Philadelphia, 2004), pp. 27–35: ‘“Precursors of the<br />
Haskalah” or “early Maskilim”?’ For Fe<strong>in</strong>er’s qualification of P<strong>in</strong>chas Hurwitz as an ‘enemy of Enlightenment’,<br />
see ibid., p. 349.<br />
102 SB I.2.6, pp. 41–2. It should be noted that other passages express admiration of Maimonides.<br />
Hurwitz’s ambivalent attitude towards Maimonides is a topic that deserves further study.<br />
103 Cf. SB I.20.20, p. 349; I.20.6, p. 324.<br />
104 SB I.20.25, p. 357.<br />
105 See SB I.20, pp. 324, 349, 350, <strong>and</strong> the end of the chapter on p. 389. Interest<strong>in</strong>gly, <strong>in</strong> this last passage<br />
Hurwitz notes that, after hav<strong>in</strong>g written his book <strong>in</strong> Buczacz, he came across Joseph Jabez’s Or ha-<br />
Ìayyim, which was prompted by the same motives. However, Hurwitz goes on to state, Jabez’s book<br />
differed from his own <strong>in</strong> that it did not present arguments <strong>and</strong> refutations aga<strong>in</strong>st the philosophers <strong>and</strong>,<br />
moreover, was written out of bitterness.<br />
106 My colleague Shlomo Berger characterizes SB as ‘a Yiddish musar-book written <strong>in</strong> Hebrew’.<br />
Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e<br />
179
ies. 107 One can go one step further, though, <strong>and</strong> say that <strong>in</strong> this respect SB reveals a<br />
likeness to the mediaeval encyclopaedias whose contents Hurwitz did not know or<br />
chose to ignore. Even though the parameters had changed, Hurwitz’s aim of mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
contemporary non-Jewish secular knowledge available to Jews was not very different<br />
from the mediaevals’ goal.<br />
Curiously, a comparison of SB with one of these encyclopaedias, Judah ha-Cohen<br />
ten Solomon's Midrash ha-Ìokhmah, reveals many <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g similarities. This mediaeval<br />
encyclopaedist felt called upon to dissem<strong>in</strong>ate the new knowledge of his time<br />
(namely Aristotelian philosophy, as expla<strong>in</strong>ed by Averroes), but was sceptical about<br />
its value <strong>and</strong> validity. 108 Like Hurwitz, he appears to have been ambivalent about<br />
contemporary secular science <strong>and</strong> about philosophy <strong>in</strong> particular. Like Hurwitz (SB<br />
I.7.3, p. 97), he justified the necessity of his encyclopaedic undertak<strong>in</strong>g by referr<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to the fact that ‘the nations’ derided the Jews for their lack of scientific knowledge,<br />
<strong>in</strong>vok<strong>in</strong>g the same Biblical verse (Deut. 4:6 – ‘a wise <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g people’) <strong>in</strong><br />
this regard. Moreover, <strong>in</strong> spite of his critical stance towards the authority of his day,<br />
Aristotle, Judah made allowances for him, say<strong>in</strong>g that had Aristotle possessed knowledge<br />
of the Jewish tradition he would not have erred. In the same ve<strong>in</strong>, Hurwitz is<br />
conv<strong>in</strong>ced that had Maimonides known Kabbalah he would have accepted it. 109<br />
Hurwitz defends Maimonides’ position on the spheres (SB I.2.10, p. 48), say<strong>in</strong>g that<br />
he may have had defective manuscripts at his disposal. Likewise, Judah seeks to exempt<br />
Ptolemy from the ascription of base character-traits to Jews <strong>in</strong> his astrology,<br />
suggest<strong>in</strong>g that the Arabic manuscript tradition may be responsible for such an attribution.<br />
As for Maimonides, both Judah <strong>and</strong> Hurwitz display an ambivalent attitude,<br />
comb<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g admiration with a critical attitude towards his thought (<strong>in</strong> the case of<br />
Judah, towards the underly<strong>in</strong>g sources of his thought). Moreover, both authors urged<br />
their readers to read the entire encyclopadia, from cover to cover. Such words betray<br />
the authors’ self-esteem, of course, but they may also reflect their conviction that<br />
their work, when studied as a whole, can help readers def<strong>in</strong>e their position vis-à-vis<br />
contemporary challenges – def<strong>in</strong>itely a concern shared by Judah <strong>and</strong> Hurwitz. In this<br />
regard, it is also significant that both authors deliberately chose Hebrew as the vehicle<br />
for the transmission of secular knowledge. Judah claims to have first written his<br />
work <strong>in</strong> Arabic (the orig<strong>in</strong>al has not survived) <strong>and</strong> to have translated it <strong>in</strong>to Hebrew<br />
at the request of friends who could not read Arabic. Yiddish was Hurwitz’s mother<br />
tongue, but he preferred to write his encyclopaedia <strong>in</strong> Hebrew. Both authors refer to<br />
the difficulties they encountered <strong>in</strong> writ<strong>in</strong>g Hebrew <strong>and</strong> apologize for their errors<br />
(e.g., SB, preface p. 12). Both, however, evidently considered the effort worthwhile<br />
<strong>in</strong> view of their goal of reach<strong>in</strong>g a wide audience, given the impact of the foreign<br />
knowledge they were confront<strong>in</strong>g. 110 Another shared characteristic is the fact that<br />
107 Ruderman, Jewish Thought, pp. 340–1.<br />
108 In what follows I have drawn on Colette Sirat, ‘Judah b. Salomon Ha-Cohen: Philosophe, astronome<br />
et peut-être kabbaliste de la première moitié du XIII e siècle’, Italia 2 (1977): 39–61, <strong>and</strong> on my own<br />
research on this text. See Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e, ‘Judah ben Solomon ha-Cohen’s Midrash ha-Hokhmah:<br />
Its Sources <strong>and</strong> Use of Sources’ <strong>in</strong> Harvey (ed.), Hebrew Encyclopaedias, pp. 191–210.<br />
109 SB I.20.15. With respect to Judah’s statement about Aristotle, see Kuzari I.64.<br />
110 It is no exaggeration to say that the two books <strong>in</strong> fact belong to the genre of Hebrew translation literature,<br />
at least for the parts where the authors present contemporary science.<br />
180 Natural Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit
oth authors supplemented their surveys of contemporary secular knowledge with<br />
sections devoted to religious topics, which can be taken as <strong>in</strong>tended to offset these<br />
surveys. F<strong>in</strong>ally, they both emphasize that they have collected all worthwhile knowledge<br />
<strong>in</strong> one book, to save readers time <strong>and</strong> enable them to return to study<strong>in</strong>g the Torah.<br />
In sum, the parallels <strong>and</strong> similarities between the eighteenth-century <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i<br />
encyclopaedia <strong>and</strong> its thirteenth-century Sephardi predecessor can be expla<strong>in</strong>ed by<br />
their authors’ common concern to help their fellow Jews def<strong>in</strong>e their position vis-àvis<br />
the secular knowledge of their day <strong>and</strong> to expla<strong>in</strong> the extent to which it can be<br />
made compatible with Jewish tradition. Hurwitz’s endeavour thus st<strong>and</strong>s <strong>in</strong> a long<br />
tradition of Jewish writ<strong>in</strong>g that is not bound to any specific historical era. Such endeavours<br />
have emerged whenever Judaism was confronted with new challenges – a<br />
process that is timeless.<br />
In view of this, it does not seem too far fetched to suggest that the very name of<br />
Hurwitz’s captivat<strong>in</strong>g book, Sefer ha-Berit, may be <strong>in</strong>terpreted on two levels: it is an<br />
encyclopaedia that ‘connects all th<strong>in</strong>gs’, all th<strong>in</strong>gs worth know<strong>in</strong>g, while at the same<br />
time it is ‘a book of the covenant’, a Jewish book.<br />
Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e<br />
181
182 Natural Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit
Warren Zev Harvey<br />
Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Maimon on the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong><br />
In their respective exegeses of the biblical Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong> of Good <strong>and</strong> Evil,<br />
Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786) <strong>and</strong> Solomon Maimon (1754–1800) were critically<br />
<strong>in</strong>fluenced by Moses Maimonides (1135/8–1204), but neither could accept his view<br />
that moral rules are merely ‘generally accepted op<strong>in</strong>ions’, each reject<strong>in</strong>g it for his<br />
own reason.<br />
Mendelssohn<br />
In the Beˆur on Genesis 2:9, Moses Mendelssohn discusses the mean<strong>in</strong>g of the Tree<br />
of <strong>Knowledge</strong> of Good <strong>and</strong> Evil. 1 He beg<strong>in</strong>s by present<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>terpretations of<br />
Maimonides (1135/8–1204) <strong>in</strong> his Guide of the Perplexed, I, 2, <strong>and</strong> Moses<br />
NaÌmanides (1194–1270) <strong>in</strong> his Commentary on Genesis, ad loc. He presents<br />
NaÌmanides’ <strong>in</strong>terpretation first, even though it is dependent on Maimonides’ <strong>in</strong>terpretation.<br />
He does this presumably because NaÌmanides (together with Rashi,<br />
Rashbam, <strong>and</strong> Ibn Ezra) is one of the four medieval commentators whose works are<br />
consulted systematically throughout the Beˆur, <strong>and</strong> also because Mendelssohn’s own<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretation will be closer to NaÌmanides’ than to Maimonides’.<br />
NaÌmanides had <strong>in</strong>terpreted ‘knowledge of good <strong>and</strong> evil’ as referr<strong>in</strong>g to the will<br />
(raÒon), that is, the ability to choose good or evil. 2 The Hebrew term da¨at, which<br />
underlies the term ‘knowledge’ <strong>in</strong> ‘Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong> of Good <strong>and</strong> Evil’, is understood<br />
by him to mean ‘will’. The fruit of the tree gives one the ability to choose. The<br />
ability to choose is, accord<strong>in</strong>g to him, a div<strong>in</strong>e attribute, as proved by Genesis 3:5,<br />
‘ye shall be as God know<strong>in</strong>g [i.e., choos<strong>in</strong>g between] good <strong>and</strong> evil’, <strong>and</strong> by Genesis<br />
3:22, ‘And the Lord God said: Behold, man has become as one of us to know [i.e., to<br />
1 Îummash Netivot shalom, conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch, the Aramaic Targum of<br />
Onqelos, the Commentary by Rashi, the German translation by Moses Mendelssohn, <strong>and</strong> a Hebrew<br />
commentary (= Beˆur) edited by Mendelssohn (Berl<strong>in</strong> 1783), on Genesis 2:9, s.v. ve-¨eÒ ha-da¨at †ov vara¨.<br />
The commentary on the pericope of Bereshit (Gen. 1:1–6:8) was written chiefly by Mendelssohn.<br />
The first part of the commentary on Genesis 2:9 may have been written by Solomon Dubno, not<br />
Mendelssohn, or by Dubno <strong>and</strong> Mendelssohn together; the second part (preceded by the comment: ‘But<br />
I shall <strong>in</strong>form you of the op<strong>in</strong>ion of the German translator [i.e., Mendelssohn] on the solution of [the<br />
problems], <strong>and</strong> these are his words’) was obviously written by Mendelssohn. In my discussion, I treat<br />
the first part as hav<strong>in</strong>g been written by Mendelssohn; for if he did not author or co-author it, he edited it.<br />
2 See Rabbi Moses ben NaÌman (NaÌmanides), Perush ha-Ramban ¨al ha-torah, ed. Îayyim B. Chavel<br />
(Jerusalem, 1962), pp. 35–37; English translation by Chavel, Commentary on the Torah (New York,<br />
1971), pp. 71–3.<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
Warren Royal Netherl<strong>and</strong>s Zev HarveyAcademy<br />
of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences, 2007<br />
185
choose between] good <strong>and</strong> evil’. While the ability to choose is, accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
NaÌmanides, a div<strong>in</strong>e attribute, it is <strong>in</strong> his analysis disastrous <strong>in</strong> human be<strong>in</strong>gs, who<br />
are unable to control their lusts. Adam <strong>and</strong> Eve, accord<strong>in</strong>g to him, engaged <strong>in</strong> sex <strong>in</strong><br />
the Garden of Eden before their s<strong>in</strong>, but did so with no sexual desire. They acted by<br />
the necessity of nature, <strong>in</strong> the unchang<strong>in</strong>g manner of the motions of the heavenly<br />
bodies, <strong>and</strong> felt no lust. This, he suggests, is the sense of Ecclesiastes 7:29: ‘God<br />
made man upright, but they have sought out many <strong>in</strong>ventions’. There is only one<br />
right path that accords with human nature, but human be<strong>in</strong>gs, us<strong>in</strong>g their will, <strong>in</strong>vent<br />
many wrong ones.<br />
Mendelssohn <strong>in</strong>troduces his presentation of Maimonides’ <strong>in</strong>terpretation by remark<strong>in</strong>g<br />
on its similarity to NaÌmanides’ <strong>in</strong>terpretation: ‘Near to this is the op<strong>in</strong>ion<br />
of Maimonides, but accord<strong>in</strong>g to him good <strong>and</strong> evil [†ov <strong>and</strong> ra¨] are the same as<br />
beautiful <strong>and</strong> ugly [naˆeh <strong>and</strong> megunneh], <strong>and</strong> are not <strong>in</strong> his view <strong>in</strong>telligibilia, but<br />
generally accepted op<strong>in</strong>ions [mefursamot]’. 3 The view held by Maimonides that ‘with<br />
regard to what is of necessity’ there is no good <strong>and</strong> evil but only true <strong>and</strong> false is<br />
br<strong>and</strong>ed by Mendelssohn as Aristotelian. 4 <strong>Knowledge</strong> of good <strong>and</strong> evil, Maimonides<br />
had taught, is not div<strong>in</strong>e, but represents the rejection of div<strong>in</strong>e knowledge, which is<br />
that of true <strong>and</strong> false, i.e., the <strong>in</strong>telligibilia. In order to ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> that knowledge of<br />
good <strong>and</strong> evil is not div<strong>in</strong>e, Maimonides had to expla<strong>in</strong> the two difficult biblical texts<br />
that seem to attribute the knowledge of good <strong>and</strong> evil to God: ‘Ye shall be as God<br />
[elohim] know<strong>in</strong>g good <strong>and</strong> evil’ (Gen. 3:5) <strong>and</strong> ‘Behold, man has become one of us<br />
[mimmenu] to know good <strong>and</strong> evil’ (Gen. 3:22). He is able to neutralize both texts by<br />
read<strong>in</strong>g them <strong>in</strong> accordance with the Aramaic translation of Onqelos. S<strong>in</strong>ce the Hebrew<br />
word elohim may mean ‘rulers’ as well as ‘God’, he underst<strong>and</strong>s the first text:<br />
‘Ye shall be as rulers know<strong>in</strong>g good <strong>and</strong> evil’. S<strong>in</strong>ce the Hebrew word mimmenu<br />
may mean ‘of him’ (third person s<strong>in</strong>gular) as well as ‘of us’ (first person plural), he<br />
underst<strong>and</strong>s the second text: ‘Behold, man has become unique, of himself he knows<br />
good <strong>and</strong> evil’. Mendelssohn, who was far more committed to the literal exegesis of<br />
Scripture than was Maimonides, considers these <strong>in</strong>terpretations far-fetched. 5<br />
Furthermore, Mendelssohn rejects Maimonides’ <strong>in</strong>terpretation of the Tree of<br />
<strong>Knowledge</strong> of Good <strong>and</strong> Evil on the grounds of ethics, s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>in</strong> his judgement moral<br />
rules about good <strong>and</strong> evil are <strong>in</strong>deed <strong>in</strong>telligibilia, <strong>and</strong> do not have the same epistemological<br />
status as aesthetic propositions (‘beautiful’ <strong>and</strong> ‘ugly’), which are not<br />
<strong>in</strong>telligibilia. ‘Good’ <strong>and</strong> ‘evil’, writes Mendelssohn <strong>in</strong> criticism of Maimonides, are<br />
not synonyms of ‘beautiful’ <strong>and</strong> ‘ugly’, for they are said ‘with regard to the <strong>in</strong>tellect’<br />
(beÌ<strong>in</strong>at ha-sekhel), while ‘beautiful’ <strong>and</strong> ‘ugly’ are said ‘with regard to the senses’<br />
3 See Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. Shlomo P<strong>in</strong>es (Chicago, 1963), pp. 23–6.<br />
Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Maimon used Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew translation (available <strong>in</strong> many editions).<br />
4 In fact, Maimonides’ view is orig<strong>in</strong>al, although it has partial antecedents <strong>in</strong> the Aristotelian literature.<br />
See P<strong>in</strong>es, ‘Truth <strong>and</strong> Falsehood versus Good <strong>and</strong> Evil’, <strong>in</strong> Studies <strong>in</strong> Maimonides, ed. Isadore Twersky<br />
(Cambridge, MA, 1991), pp. 95–157.<br />
5 Maimonides <strong>in</strong>terprets Genesis 3:5 <strong>in</strong> Guide, I, 2, p. 23. He <strong>in</strong>terprets 3:22 <strong>in</strong> his commentary on the<br />
Mishnah, Introduction to Avot (= Eight Chapters), chap. 8, <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> his Mishneh Torah, Book of <strong>Knowledge</strong>,<br />
Hilkhot Teshuvah 5:1. Mendelssohn discusses Onqelos’ translation at length <strong>in</strong> the Beˆur on Genesis<br />
3:22, s.v. Vay-yomer Ha-Shem Elohim. Cf. my ‘Maimonides on Genesis 3:22’ (Hebrew), Da¨at 12<br />
(1984): 15–22.<br />
186 Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Maimon on the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong>
(beÌ<strong>in</strong>at ha-Ìushim). Like Cicero, Saadia Gaon, Judah Halevi, Thomas Aqu<strong>in</strong>as, <strong>and</strong><br />
Kant, but unlike Maimonides, Mendelssohn held that ethical rules are rational or<br />
natural laws.<br />
For Maimonides, the ethical <strong>and</strong> the aesthetic are epistemologically equal; for<br />
Mendelssohn, the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of vice is precisely <strong>in</strong> the confusion of ethics <strong>and</strong> the<br />
aesthetics, <strong>and</strong> the consequent relativization of ethics. A true Aufklärer, Mendelssohn<br />
considers Maimonides’ equation of the ethical <strong>and</strong> the aesthetic to be profoundly<br />
subversive. He prefers NaÌmanides’ <strong>in</strong>terpretation of the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong> of<br />
Good <strong>and</strong> Evil, even though his own views on human excellence are much closer to<br />
those of the Philosopher from Cordoba than to those of the kabbalist from Girona.<br />
The observation made by Mendelssohn concern<strong>in</strong>g the similarity of Maimonides’<br />
<strong>and</strong> NaÌmanides’ <strong>in</strong>terpretations is astute. NaÌmanides, as Mendelssohn perceived,<br />
built his <strong>in</strong>terpretation on that of Maimonides. The ma<strong>in</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t of similarity<br />
Mendelssohn evidently had <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d concerns human choice. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to both<br />
Maimonides <strong>and</strong> NaÌmanides, Adam did not have ‘choice’ until he ate of the forbidden<br />
fruit. For Maimonides, this means merely that the purely rational person, like<br />
Adam <strong>in</strong> his orig<strong>in</strong>al state, has no choice, for reason limits us to that which is true. If<br />
I am purely rational, I have no choice as to the sum of 3 + 4, <strong>and</strong> am coerced to answer<br />
7; but if I am not purely rational, I have countless choices. For Maimonides, the<br />
proposition that Adam had no choice before he ate of the forbidden fruit is solely<br />
epistemological <strong>and</strong> has noth<strong>in</strong>g to do with the problem of physical determ<strong>in</strong>ism. For<br />
NaÌmanides, however, the proposition that Adam did not have choice before his s<strong>in</strong><br />
explicitly concerns physical action. Upon eat<strong>in</strong>g the forbidden fruit, Adam’s nature<br />
changed: before eat<strong>in</strong>g it, he had acted without will or desire; after eat<strong>in</strong>g it, he acted<br />
with will <strong>and</strong> desire. In effect, NaÌmanides turned Maimonides’ epistemological<br />
proposition <strong>in</strong>to a mythical one.<br />
Mendelssohn prefers NaÌmanides’ <strong>in</strong>terpretation of the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong> of<br />
Good <strong>and</strong> Evil to Maimonides’ <strong>in</strong>terpretation. However, he modifies NaÌmanides’<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretation significantly. He cannot accept NaÌmanides’ view that Adam <strong>and</strong> Eve<br />
did not have desire or free choice when they engaged <strong>in</strong> sex before hav<strong>in</strong>g eaten of<br />
the fruit of the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong> of Good <strong>and</strong> Evil. He cannot accept the implication<br />
that sexual desire is bad or s<strong>in</strong>ful. He does not describe NaÌmanides’ view as<br />
‘Christian’ or ‘August<strong>in</strong>ian’, but he must have been aware that the view that Adam<br />
did not have libido until he s<strong>in</strong>ned is August<strong>in</strong>ian. P<strong>in</strong>es has <strong>in</strong> fact argued conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>gly<br />
that NaÌmanides was <strong>in</strong>fluenced by August<strong>in</strong>e not only with regard to the view<br />
that Adam did not have libido until he s<strong>in</strong>ned, but also with regard to the view that<br />
knowledge of good <strong>and</strong> evil is positive <strong>in</strong> God but negative <strong>in</strong> human be<strong>in</strong>gs. 6<br />
As we shall see, Mendelssohn modifies NaÌmanides’ <strong>in</strong>terpretation of the Tree of<br />
<strong>Knowledge</strong> of Good <strong>and</strong> Evil <strong>in</strong> accordance with an essentially Platonic doctr<strong>in</strong>e,<br />
which he has borrowed from the Kuzari of Rabbi Judah Halevi (before 1075–1141).<br />
His own <strong>in</strong>terpretation of the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong> of Good <strong>and</strong> Evil may thus be understood<br />
as a Halevian read<strong>in</strong>g of NaÌmanides’ variation on Maimonides’ <strong>in</strong>terpreta-<br />
6 See P<strong>in</strong>es, ‘Truth <strong>and</strong> Falsehood’, pp. 155–7; idem, ‘NaÌmanides on Adam <strong>in</strong> the Garden of Eden’<br />
(Hebrew), Galut aÌar Golah (Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 159–64.<br />
Warren Zev Harvey<br />
187
tion. Alternatively, it may be understood as a Platonization of an August<strong>in</strong>ian variation<br />
on an Aristotelian <strong>in</strong>terpretation.<br />
In Mendelssohn’s view, the eat<strong>in</strong>g of the fruit of the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong> of Good<br />
<strong>and</strong> Evil did not create <strong>in</strong> Adam the faculty of desire, but it <strong>in</strong>creased that faculty. It<br />
thus brought about the disruption of the harmonic balance between the faculty of reason<br />
(koaÌ ha-sekhel or koaÌ ha-hassagah) <strong>and</strong> the faculty of desire (koaÌ hateshuqah),<br />
which harmony is a prerequisite for the atta<strong>in</strong>ment of the noble virtues.<br />
The forbidden fruit <strong>in</strong>creased the power of the faculty of desire, thus destroy<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
equilibrium between it <strong>and</strong> the faculty of reason. Hav<strong>in</strong>g eaten of the forbidden fruit,<br />
human be<strong>in</strong>gs devoted themselves to material luxuries <strong>and</strong> sensual pleasures, <strong>and</strong> forsook<br />
the noble virtues. The preponderance of the faculty of desire over the faculty of<br />
reason is ‘the cause of all s<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> rebellion <strong>in</strong> the human be<strong>in</strong>g’ [hiˆ sibbat kol Ìe†ˆ<br />
ve-khol meri ba-adam].<br />
Mendelssohn’s theory about the harmonic balance between the faculties of reason<br />
<strong>and</strong> desire was borrowed from Rabbi Judah Halevi’s Kuzari, although Halevi is not<br />
mentioned by him here. Influenced directly or <strong>in</strong>directly by Plato’s Republic, IV,<br />
439d–443e, Halevi had argued <strong>in</strong> Kuzari, II, 50, that the Law of Moses aims to<br />
achieve a just equilibrium between all the faculties of the soul, giv<strong>in</strong>g each its due, <strong>in</strong><br />
neither excess nor deficiency: ‘for an excess <strong>in</strong> one faculty causes a deficiency <strong>in</strong> another<br />
faculty, <strong>and</strong> one who <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>es toward the faculty of desire (koaÌ ha-taˆavah)<br />
causes a deficiency <strong>in</strong> the faculty of reason (koaÌ ha-maÌashavah), <strong>and</strong> the converse.’<br />
In his Commentary on the Kuzari, ad loc., Mendelssohn’s onetime teacher, Rabbi Israel<br />
Zamosc (c. 1700–1772), remarks that God has fixed the proper equilibrium (gevul<br />
ha-shaveh) between the faculties. Mendelssohn similarly writes <strong>in</strong> his explanation of<br />
the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong> that God has fixed the proper equilibrium (yaÌas ha-shivvui)<br />
between the faculties. This is an example of a case <strong>in</strong> which Mendelssohn’s mature<br />
philosophic position reflects his formative study of the Kuzari with Zamosc. 7<br />
As already mentioned, Mendelssohn rejects NaÌmanides’ view that before Adam<br />
<strong>and</strong> Eve ate of the fruit of the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong> of Good <strong>and</strong> Evil, they engaged <strong>in</strong><br />
sex without desire. He cannot accept the August<strong>in</strong>ian implication that sexual desire is<br />
bad or s<strong>in</strong>ful. In his view, Adam <strong>and</strong> Eve <strong>in</strong> the Garden of Eden experienced sexual<br />
desire <strong>and</strong> enjoyed sex. When sexual desire is properly balanced, Mendelssohn affirms,<br />
‘it is not a reproach [genut] or a disgrace [Ìerpah] to a human be<strong>in</strong>g, as some<br />
scholars [meÌaqqerim] have thought’. On the contrary, it is a th<strong>in</strong>g of beauty for the<br />
human be<strong>in</strong>g (ve-hiˆ lo le-tifˆeret).<br />
Mendelssohn’s comments here manifestly reflect those of Pseudo-NaÌmanides <strong>in</strong><br />
his popular kabbalistic treatise Iggeret ha-qodesh, who argued that sex is ‘holy <strong>and</strong><br />
pure’, <strong>and</strong> attacked Aristotle <strong>and</strong> Maimonides for hold<strong>in</strong>g that it is a reproach (genut)<br />
7 Judah Halevi, Kuzari, Hebrew translation by Judah Ibn Tibbon, with the commentaries Qol Yehudah<br />
by Judah Moscato <strong>and</strong> OÒar neÌmad by Israel Zamosc (Warsaw, 1880), p. 57b. Dur<strong>in</strong>g his early years <strong>in</strong><br />
Berl<strong>in</strong>, Mendelssohn, then <strong>in</strong> his mid-teens, studied philosophy under Zamosc, <strong>and</strong> transcribed a copy<br />
of his commentary on the Kuzari. See Alex<strong>and</strong>er Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn (Philadelphia, 1973),<br />
pp. 21–3, 25, 346. One might th<strong>in</strong>k it odd that the German Socrates, celebrated author of the Phaedon,<br />
who read Plato <strong>in</strong> the Greek orig<strong>in</strong>al, should have absorbed this Platonic doctr<strong>in</strong>e through an <strong>in</strong>termediary,<br />
but Mendelssohn had read Judah Halevi <strong>in</strong> Hebrew years before he read Plato <strong>in</strong> any language.<br />
188 Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Maimon on the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong>
or disgrace (Ìerpah). 8 His use of the term ‘beauty’ (tifˆeret) alludes to a mystical secret,<br />
found later <strong>in</strong> the same passage of this kabbalistic treatise, accord<strong>in</strong>g to which<br />
the male partner <strong>in</strong> the sex act is like the div<strong>in</strong>e sefirah of Tifˆeret <strong>and</strong> the female like<br />
the div<strong>in</strong>e sefirah of Malkhut. 9 Mendelssohn thus sides with Pseudo-NaÌmanides<br />
aga<strong>in</strong>st NaÌmanides. If he accepted Iggeret ha-qodesh as an authentic work of<br />
NaÌmanides, he would have seen himself as argu<strong>in</strong>g with NaÌmanides aga<strong>in</strong>st<br />
NaÌmanides.<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Mendelssohn’s <strong>in</strong>terpretation, Adam <strong>and</strong> Eve, before they ate of the<br />
fruit of the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong> of Good <strong>and</strong> Evil, enjoyed properly balanced sex, but<br />
after they ate of it their sexual desire exceeded its proper bounds. Such powerful desire<br />
is appropriate for God or angels, but causes problems for us human be<strong>in</strong>gs, because<br />
our faculty of reason is not sufficiently powerful to control such mighty <strong>and</strong><br />
glorious div<strong>in</strong>e lusts. Whereas August<strong>in</strong>e <strong>and</strong> NaÌmanides had spoken about the generation<br />
of desire after the s<strong>in</strong>, Mendelssohn speaks about the generation of an overpower<strong>in</strong>g<br />
or disproportionate desire after the s<strong>in</strong>.<br />
Desires <strong>and</strong> lusts, <strong>in</strong>sists Mendelssohn aga<strong>in</strong>st NaÌmanides (<strong>and</strong> August<strong>in</strong>e) are <strong>in</strong><br />
themselves vital <strong>and</strong> positive. Without them human be<strong>in</strong>gs would never be moved to<br />
great deeds. He quotes the Talmudic dictum: ‘whoever is greater than his fellow has<br />
a greater desire [yeÒer] than he’ (B Sukkah 52a). Similarly, the angels on high, who<br />
have puissant <strong>in</strong>tellects, have equally puissant desires to match.<br />
Thus, Mendelssohn, with the help of Judah Halevi, Platonized NaÌmanides’ August<strong>in</strong>ian<br />
version of Maimonides’ Aristotelian <strong>in</strong>terpretation of the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong><br />
of Good <strong>and</strong> Evil. Maimonides’ Adam <strong>and</strong> Eve, before their s<strong>in</strong>, were purely<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellectual; NaÌmanides’ Adam <strong>and</strong> Eve, before their s<strong>in</strong>, were purely desireless;<br />
<strong>and</strong> Mendelssohn’s Adam <strong>and</strong> Eve, before their s<strong>in</strong>, enjoyed a perfect equilibrium<br />
between reason <strong>and</strong> desire.<br />
Maimon<br />
Solomon Maimon discusses the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong> of Good <strong>and</strong> Evil <strong>in</strong> Giv¨at hamoreh,<br />
his Hebrew commentary on Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed, when com-<br />
8 The Holy Letter, ed. <strong>and</strong> trans. Seymour J. Cohen (New York 1976), chap. 2, pp. 40–9. Current scholarship<br />
tends to ascribe the treatise to the circle of Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla (1248–c. 1325). Cf. chap. 5,<br />
pp. 110–11, where the philosophers are called Ìakhmei ha-meÌqar (‘sages of <strong>in</strong>quiry’), with<br />
Mendelssohn’s use of the term meÌaqqerim (‘<strong>in</strong>quirers’).<br />
9 Ibid., chap. 2, pp. 58–59. The text (not translated literally by Cohen) reads: ‘The conjo<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g of a man<br />
to his wife, if he is worthy, is the image of the coitus of heaven <strong>and</strong> earth’. On ‘heaven’ as Tifˆeret <strong>and</strong><br />
‘earth’ as Malkhut, see Moshe Idel, ‘Sexual Metaphors <strong>and</strong> Praxis <strong>in</strong> the Kabbalah’, <strong>in</strong> David Kraemer,<br />
ed., The Jewish Family (Oxford, 1989), pp. 211, 220–1. This doctr<strong>in</strong>e of human <strong>and</strong> celestial tifˆeret is<br />
echoed <strong>in</strong> the cont<strong>in</strong>uation of the passage <strong>in</strong> the Beˆur, where Mendelssohn asserts that the immense<br />
desire of the ‘angels on high’ (malˆakhei ma¨alah) or the ‘high ones’ (ha-¨elyonim) is their tifˆeret. On<br />
Mendelssohn’s penchant for Kabbalah (particularly NaÌmanides <strong>and</strong> Gikatilla), see Rivka Horwitz,<br />
‘Moses Mendelssohns Interpretation des Tetragrammaton: Der Ewige’, Judaica 55 (1999): 2–19, 132–<br />
52; eadem, ‘Kabbalah <strong>in</strong> the Writ<strong>in</strong>gs of Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> the Berl<strong>in</strong> Circle of Maskilim’, Leo Baeck<br />
Institute Year Book 45 (2000), pp. 3–24; eadem, Yahadut rabbat panim (Beersheba, 2002), pp. 11–74<br />
(= the Hebrew orig<strong>in</strong>als of the two essays). Cf. Andreas Kilcher, Die Sprachtheorie der Kabbala als<br />
ästhetisches Paradigma (Stuttgart, 1998).<br />
Warren Zev Harvey<br />
189
ment<strong>in</strong>g on Maimonides’ <strong>in</strong>terpretation of it <strong>in</strong> Guide, I, 2. He exp<strong>and</strong>s on the topic<br />
of good <strong>and</strong> evil <strong>in</strong> his comments on I, 15. 10<br />
Closely follow<strong>in</strong>g Maimonides, Maimon agrees with him that the eat<strong>in</strong>g of the<br />
fruit of the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong> of Good <strong>and</strong> Evil represented the rejection of Reason.<br />
He still fairly explicates Maimonides when he writes that the human be<strong>in</strong>g, hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
eaten of the forbidden fruit, no longer used Reason to determ<strong>in</strong>e the f<strong>in</strong>al end of life,<br />
but used it only to determ<strong>in</strong>e various means to achieve irrational ends.<br />
The generally accepted op<strong>in</strong>ions, which Maimonides had identified with moral<br />
rules, are identified by Maimon with ‘th<strong>in</strong>gs that are not good or bad <strong>in</strong> themselves’.<br />
Thus, reason for a human be<strong>in</strong>g is good <strong>in</strong> itself, s<strong>in</strong>ce it makes a human be<strong>in</strong>g a human<br />
be<strong>in</strong>g. However, food, sex, money, <strong>and</strong> honour, for example, are not good or<br />
bad <strong>in</strong> themselves for a human be<strong>in</strong>g, but only good or bad as means to achieve the<br />
true human end, which is reason. In other words, they are only relatively good <strong>and</strong><br />
bad for a human be<strong>in</strong>g. 11<br />
Maimon expla<strong>in</strong>s that it is the imag<strong>in</strong>ation that confuses the means with the end.<br />
<strong>Knowledge</strong> of the relative or imag<strong>in</strong>ary ‘good <strong>and</strong> evil’ thus comes to replace the<br />
knowledge of the natural or rational good <strong>and</strong> evil. Maimon makes a statement regard<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the relationship of the relative good to the natural good that is analogous to<br />
Mendelssohn’s statement about reason <strong>and</strong> desire: ‘upon the <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> the perception<br />
of the accidental <strong>and</strong> imag<strong>in</strong>ary relationship [between means <strong>and</strong> ends], there<br />
follows a weaken<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the perception of the natural <strong>and</strong> rational relationship [between<br />
means <strong>and</strong> ends]’. The more one becomes obsessed with the means, the less<br />
one can perceive the end. The more reason is employed <strong>in</strong> atta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g means, the less it<br />
can be employed <strong>in</strong> atta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the true end, the natural good. This is what Ecclesiastes<br />
meant when he said: ‘He that loveth silver shall not be sated of silver’ (5:9). 12<br />
This explication by Maimon of Maimonides’ position is accurate <strong>and</strong> perceptive as<br />
far as it goes. However, it omits a basic proposition <strong>in</strong> Maimonides’ <strong>in</strong>terpretation.<br />
Maimon explicates Maimonides’ discussion of the ‘generally accepted op<strong>in</strong>ions’<br />
without mention<strong>in</strong>g Maimonides’ view that these generally accepted op<strong>in</strong>ions are the<br />
moral rules, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g not only the moral rule that one should not appear naked <strong>in</strong><br />
public (Gen. 3:7), but also the moral rules found <strong>in</strong> the Ten Comm<strong>and</strong>ments, such as<br />
‘Thou shalt not murder’ <strong>and</strong> ‘Thou shalt not steal’ (Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17; cf.<br />
Guide, II, 33).<br />
When Maimonides, <strong>in</strong> Guide, I, 2, says that Adam was able to be comm<strong>and</strong>ed by<br />
God because he was created <strong>in</strong> ‘the image of God’ (Gen. 1:26–27), that is, hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
pure reason, Maimon adds, <strong>in</strong> a splendid example of the genre of ‘subversive commentary’<br />
discussed by Gad Freudenthal: ‘<strong>and</strong> for the sake of his <strong>in</strong>tellect God also<br />
10 Solomon Maimon, Giv¨at ha-moreh, ed. Samuel Hugo Bergman <strong>and</strong> Nathan Rotenstreich (Jerusalem,<br />
1965), pp. 35–8, 48–51. The work as known today covers only Part I of the Guide, although it orig<strong>in</strong>ally<br />
may have covered the entire book. The cited passages are analyzed by P<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong> ‘Truth <strong>and</strong> Falsehood’,<br />
pp. 146–50.<br />
11 Giv¨at ha-moreh, pp. 35–6.<br />
12 Ibid., p. 37. Cf. I, 73, premise 10, note, pp. 140–9: Maimon states (pp. 142–3) that the <strong>in</strong>tellect<br />
knows th<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> themselves (noumena), whereas the imag<strong>in</strong>ation knows only the appearances of th<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
(phenomena); it thus follows that the imag<strong>in</strong>ation cannot know the true ends of th<strong>in</strong>gs, but only apparent<br />
ends or ‘relative good <strong>and</strong> evil’.<br />
190 Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Maimon on the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong>
comm<strong>and</strong>ed him, “He who spilleth the blood of man, by man his blood shall be spilt,<br />
for <strong>in</strong> the image of God made He man” [Gen. 9:6]’. 13 While Maimonides had held<br />
that the moral rule aga<strong>in</strong>st murder was merely a ‘generally accepted op<strong>in</strong>ion’,<br />
Maimon, like Mendelssohn – <strong>and</strong> Cicero, Saadia, Halevi, Aqu<strong>in</strong>as, <strong>and</strong> Kant – holds<br />
that the moral rule aga<strong>in</strong>st murder is <strong>in</strong>deed rational. Moreover, he holds that<br />
Maimonides held that it is rational! After all, Genesis 9:6 seems prima facie to force<br />
such a position on him. 14 This is subversive exegesis at its best.<br />
Like Mendelssohn, Maimon cannot accept Maimonides’ proposition that the moral<br />
rules are not <strong>in</strong>telligibilia but merely generally accepted op<strong>in</strong>ions. However, whereas<br />
Mendelssohn had explicitly criticized Maimonides’ proposition, <strong>and</strong> rejected it,<br />
Maimon <strong>in</strong>terprets Maimonides’ proposition out of existence, <strong>and</strong> affirms its contrary!<br />
Maimon, however, goes further. In his Commentary to Guide, I, 15, he argues that<br />
the propositions of ethics are founded on Reason more than are those of natural science:<br />
the former are a priori, the latter a posteriori. Moral rules are universal propositions,<br />
known directly by Reason. They are not empirical propositions deduced from<br />
the accidents of life. The propositions of natural science, however, are empirical,<br />
based on observation <strong>and</strong> experiments. Thus, the propositions of ethics are more rational<br />
<strong>and</strong> more certa<strong>in</strong> than those of natural science. 15 Maimon is here clearly <strong>in</strong>fluenced<br />
by Kant. 16 He is also attribut<strong>in</strong>g to Maimonides a position contrary to that set<br />
down <strong>in</strong> the Guide: for <strong>in</strong> the Guide Maimonides cites propositions of natural science<br />
as examples of <strong>in</strong>telligibilia, <strong>and</strong> ethical rules as examples of generally accepted<br />
op<strong>in</strong>ions. 17<br />
For Maimon, the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of vice is <strong>in</strong> the confusion of a priori ethical reason<strong>in</strong>g<br />
with the a posteriori reason<strong>in</strong>g of the empirical sciences. This leads to a relativism <strong>in</strong><br />
ethics. Maimon’s remarks about the confusion between ethical propositions <strong>and</strong> scientific<br />
propositions are similar to Mendelssohn’s remarks about the confusion between<br />
ethical propositions <strong>and</strong> aesthetic propositions. As Mendelssohn was concerned<br />
to give ethics epistemological priority over aesthetics, Maimon was concerned<br />
to give it epistemological priority over natural science.<br />
Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Maimon were both fasc<strong>in</strong>ated by Maimonides’ discussion of the<br />
Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong> of Good <strong>and</strong> Evil, but neither could accept his view that the rules<br />
of ethics are no more than generally accepted op<strong>in</strong>ions. Both considered this view<br />
morally subversive, but for different reasons.<br />
In see<strong>in</strong>g where Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Maimon differed from their medieval Master,<br />
we may better underst<strong>and</strong> their own respective philosophies.<br />
13 Ibid., p. 35. Cf. Maimonides, Guide, p. 24. See Freudenthal’s essay <strong>in</strong> this volume, pp. 25–67.<br />
14 Maimonides does not discuss this verse <strong>in</strong> the Guide. He quotes it <strong>in</strong> Mishneh Torah, Book of Torts,<br />
Hilkhot RoÒeaÌ 2:3, omitt<strong>in</strong>g the part about the ‘image of God’. It may be surmised that if he had to<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpret the verse, he would hold that the ‘image of God’ justifies not the law aga<strong>in</strong>st murder, but the<br />
function of the judge. Cf. Rabbi Joseph Bekhor Shor, Perush ha-Torah, ed. Y. Nevo (Jerusalem, 1994),<br />
ad loc., p. 21, s.v. ki be-Òelem.<br />
15 Giv¨at ha-moreh, pp. 51–2. Cf. P<strong>in</strong>es, ‘Truth <strong>and</strong> Falsehood’, pp. 147–9.<br />
16 See ibid., p. 150.<br />
17 See Guide, I, 2, pp. 24–25. Cf. P<strong>in</strong>es, ‘Truth <strong>and</strong> Falsehood’, p. 149.<br />
Warren Zev Harvey<br />
191
A F<strong>in</strong>al Historicistic Note<br />
In our own era of pragmatism, existentialism, logical positivism, deconstructionism,<br />
<strong>and</strong> now postmodernism, most of us would probably agree with Maimonides<br />
that moral rules are not <strong>in</strong>telligibilia, but merely conventions or op<strong>in</strong>ions. Mendelssohn<br />
<strong>and</strong> Maimon were two completely different k<strong>in</strong>ds of philosophers, but both represented<br />
the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. Both disagreed with Maimonides <strong>and</strong><br />
with most of us. In try<strong>in</strong>g to underst<strong>and</strong> why they rejected Maimonides’ position, we<br />
perhaps can also underst<strong>and</strong> why they disagree with most of us, <strong>and</strong> why the rationality<br />
of ethics was so important to them. And this may teach us someth<strong>in</strong>g significant<br />
about what it meant to be a Jewish philosopher of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment.<br />
192 Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Maimon on the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong>
Carlos Fraenkel<br />
Maimonides, Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, Solomon Maimon, <strong>and</strong> the Completion of the<br />
Copernican Revolution <strong>in</strong> Philosophy<br />
In a note on an article of the German scholar Herr Obereit, Maimon describes the<br />
philosophical project underly<strong>in</strong>g his famous Essay on Transcendental Philosophy<br />
(1790) as a ‘Salto mortale’ consist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the attempt ‘to unify Kantian philosophy<br />
with Sp<strong>in</strong>ozism [die Vere<strong>in</strong>igung der Kantischen Philosophie mit dem Sp<strong>in</strong>ozismo]’<br />
(III, 455, note). 1 In light of this statement it is at first view surpris<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>in</strong> the only<br />
reference to Sp<strong>in</strong>oza <strong>in</strong> the Essay itself (II, 365), Maimon emphasizes that Sp<strong>in</strong>oza is<br />
not the source of his argument. The thesis for which I will argue <strong>in</strong> this paper is that,<br />
notwithst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g the disclaimer, Maimon’s spr<strong>in</strong>gboard for this Salto mortale is to a<br />
large extent built on a Sp<strong>in</strong>ozist <strong>in</strong>terpretation of the medieval Jewish Aristotelian<br />
Maimonides. I suggest characteriz<strong>in</strong>g Maimon’s philosophical project <strong>in</strong> the Essay as<br />
the completion of Kant’s ‘Copernican revolution’ <strong>in</strong> philosophy with the purpose of<br />
solv<strong>in</strong>g the problems that <strong>in</strong> his view haunted Kant’s theory of knowledge. 2 Maimon’s<br />
solution <strong>in</strong> nuce consists <strong>in</strong> posit<strong>in</strong>g cognitive activity as the source of both form <strong>and</strong><br />
matter of the object of cognition, unlike Kant, for whom cognitive activity is the<br />
source only of the object’s form. S<strong>in</strong>ce the key concept <strong>in</strong> this solution is the metaphysical<br />
doctr<strong>in</strong>e of the ‘<strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect’, 3 my focus will be on clarify<strong>in</strong>g how this<br />
doctr<strong>in</strong>e is related to Maimonides’ doctr<strong>in</strong>e of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect on the one h<strong>and</strong>,<br />
<strong>and</strong> to Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s doctr<strong>in</strong>e of Deus sive Natura on the other. My contention is that<br />
Maimon’s doctr<strong>in</strong>e of the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect is the result of the transformation of<br />
Maimonides’ doctr<strong>in</strong>e of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect on the basis of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s doctr<strong>in</strong>e of<br />
Deus sive Natura. I would like to emphasize from the outset that my <strong>in</strong>terest is primarily<br />
historical. I will not discuss systematically, or attempt to evaluate Maimon’s<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretation <strong>and</strong> critical transformation of Maimonides, Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, <strong>and</strong> Kant.<br />
The paper is subdivided <strong>in</strong>to three parts. The first part provides a brief account of<br />
Kant’s ‘Copernican revolution’ <strong>in</strong> philosophy, then discusses Maimon’s critical assessment<br />
of it, as well as his solution for what he believed to be its <strong>in</strong>herent prob-<br />
1 I quote Maimon accord<strong>in</strong>g to Solomon Maimon, Gesammelte Werke, ed. Valerio Verra (Hildesheim,<br />
1965). The Roman numerals refer to the volume, the Arabic numerals to the page of this edition.<br />
2 For a good account of Maimon’s general philosophical project based on a careful study of the primary<br />
texts, see Achim Engstler, Untersuchungen zum Idealismus Salomon Maimons (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt,<br />
1990).<br />
3 In Maimon’s German writ<strong>in</strong>gs, ‘unendlicher Verst<strong>and</strong>’; <strong>in</strong> his commentary on the Guide, ‘יתלב לכש<br />
תילכת לעב’. For the central role of this doctr<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> Maimon’s thought, see ibid., pp. 143–65.<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
Carlos Royal Netherl<strong>and</strong>s Fraenkel Academy of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences, 2007<br />
193
lems. The second part discusses how Maimon presents his relationship to Maimonides,<br />
<strong>and</strong> then exam<strong>in</strong>es <strong>in</strong> detail how his doctr<strong>in</strong>e of the ‘<strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect’ is related<br />
to Maimonides’ doctr<strong>in</strong>e of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect. The third part expla<strong>in</strong>s how Maimon<br />
used Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s doctr<strong>in</strong>e of Deus sive Natura <strong>in</strong> order to transform Maimonides’ doctr<strong>in</strong>e<br />
of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect, who is only the formal cause of the world, <strong>in</strong>to his doctr<strong>in</strong>e<br />
of the ‘<strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect’, who is both the formal <strong>and</strong> the material cause of the<br />
world.<br />
The impact of Maimonides <strong>and</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>oza on Maimon has been the object of a considerable<br />
amount of scholarship. 4 To the best of my knowledge, however, there is<br />
neither a plausible account of Maimon’s use of Maimonides’ doctr<strong>in</strong>e of the div<strong>in</strong>e<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellect, 5 nor any account of how Maimon transformed it <strong>in</strong> the light of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s<br />
concept of Deus sive Natura. 6 Though the pieces of the puzzle have been known for<br />
4 On Maimon <strong>and</strong> Maimonides, see: Curt Rosenbaum, Die Philosophie Salomon Maimons <strong>in</strong> se<strong>in</strong>em<br />
hebräischen Kommentar gibath-hammoreh zum moreh-nebuchim des Maimonides, Diss., Gießen, 1928;<br />
Samuel Atlas, ‘Solomon Maimon’s Treatment of the Problem of Ant<strong>in</strong>omies <strong>and</strong> its Relation to<br />
Maimonides’, <strong>in</strong> Hebrew Union College Annual 21 (1948): 105–53; idem, ‘Maimon <strong>and</strong> Maimonides’,<br />
Hebrew Union College Annual 23 (1950/1951): 517–47; Samuel Hugo Bergman, The Philosophy of<br />
Solomon Maimon, trans. Noah J. Jacobs (Jerusalem, 1967), esp. ch. 10, ‘Maimonides <strong>and</strong> Maimon’;<br />
David Lachterman, ‘Mathematical Construction, Symbolic Cognition <strong>and</strong> the Inf<strong>in</strong>ite Intellect: Reflections<br />
on Maimon <strong>and</strong> Maimonides’, Journal of the History of Philosophy 30(4) (1992): 497–522;<br />
Maurice Ruben Hayoun, ‘Introduction’, <strong>in</strong> Commentaires de Maïmonide, ed. <strong>and</strong> trans. <strong>in</strong>to French by<br />
idem (Paris, 1999), pp. 7–55. [The <strong>in</strong>troduction is identical to two articles by Hayoun: ‘Publications<br />
récentes sur Salomon Maïmon’, Revue des études juives 156(3–4) (1997); ‘Salomon Maimon, Moïse<br />
Maimonide et Kant’, <strong>in</strong> La philosophie allem<strong>and</strong>e dans la pensée juive, ed. Gerard Bensussan (Paris,<br />
1997).] On Maimon <strong>and</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, see: Samuel Atlas, ‘Solomon Maimon <strong>and</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’, Hebrew Union<br />
College Annual 30 (1959): 233–85; Bergman, The Philosophy of Solomon Maimon, esp. ch. 11,<br />
‘Sp<strong>in</strong>oza <strong>and</strong> Maimon’; Sylva<strong>in</strong> Zac, ‘Maimon, Sp<strong>in</strong>oza et Kant’, <strong>in</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>oza entre Lumières et<br />
Romantisme. Les Cahiers de Fontenay 36 (1985): 65–75; Achim Engstler, ‘Salomon Maimons Versuch<br />
e<strong>in</strong>er “Vere<strong>in</strong>igung der Kantischen Philosophie mit dem Sp<strong>in</strong>ozismo” ’, <strong>in</strong> Die Goldene Regel der<br />
Kritik: Festschrift für Hans Radermacher zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Harald Holz (Bern, Frankfurt a. M.<br />
etc., 1990), pp. 39–54; Achim Engstler, ‘Zwischen Kabbala und Kant. Salomon Maimons “streifende”<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza-Rezeption’, <strong>in</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>oza <strong>in</strong> der europäischen Geistesgeschichte, ed. H. Delf, Julius Schoeps, <strong>and</strong><br />
Manfred Walther (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1994), pp. 162–92. See also Samuel Atlas, From Critical to Speculative Idealism:<br />
The Philosophy of Solomon Maimon (The Hague, 1964), considerable parts of which are based on<br />
his studies, cited above, of the <strong>in</strong>fluence on Maimon of both Maimonides <strong>and</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>oza.<br />
5 That Maimon’s doctr<strong>in</strong>e of the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect is <strong>in</strong> some way related to Maimonides’ doctr<strong>in</strong>e of the<br />
div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect is obvious, because Maimon explicitly l<strong>in</strong>ks the two <strong>in</strong> Giv¨at ha-moreh, his Hebrew<br />
commentary on Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed. The question, therefore, is not if the two doctr<strong>in</strong>es<br />
are related, but how. In their attempt to answer this question, even scholars like Samuel Atlas <strong>and</strong><br />
Samuel Hugo Bergman, who emphasized the importance of Maimonides’ <strong>in</strong>fluence on Maimon, are<br />
rather vague. Typical of this vagueness is Atlas’s remark about Maimon’s commentary on a passage <strong>in</strong><br />
Guide I, 1, <strong>in</strong> an article supposed to elucidate the ‘historical relations’ of Maimon’s doctr<strong>in</strong>e of the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellect: ‘The very fact that Maimon <strong>in</strong>troduces the concept of <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite reason <strong>in</strong> his commentary<br />
on that chapter <strong>in</strong> the Guide which deals with the relation of human <strong>and</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e reason seems to <strong>in</strong>dicate<br />
that the orig<strong>in</strong>al impulse beh<strong>in</strong>d the development of this concept <strong>in</strong> his thought came to him through the<br />
<strong>in</strong>fluence of Maimonides. Although, <strong>in</strong> this <strong>in</strong>stance, he read <strong>in</strong>to Maimonides more than the passage<br />
actually warrants, he did so because of his recognition of the general similarity between his own <strong>and</strong><br />
Maimonides’ thought’. Hav<strong>in</strong>g stated this ‘general similarity’ between Maimonides <strong>and</strong> Maimon, Atlas<br />
immediately turns to Leibniz: ‘In order to underst<strong>and</strong> Maimon’s po<strong>in</strong>t of view <strong>and</strong> the basis of his<br />
whole philosophy, we have to go back to Leibniz’. See Samuel Atlas, ‘Solomon Maimon’s Doctr<strong>in</strong>e of<br />
Inf<strong>in</strong>ite Reason <strong>and</strong> its Historical Relations’, Journal of the History of Ideas 13 (1952): 168–87. Cf.<br />
Atlas, From Critical to Speculative Idealism, pp. 76–7.<br />
6 The only article deal<strong>in</strong>g with all three th<strong>in</strong>kers is not relevant to the topic of the present paper: Samuel<br />
Atlas, ‘Moses <strong>in</strong> the Philosophy of Maimonides, Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, <strong>and</strong> Solomon Maimon’, Hebrew Union College<br />
Annual 25 (1954): 369–400. Bergman, comment<strong>in</strong>g on Maimon’s cryptic remark about Guide I,<br />
194 Completion of the Copernican Revolution <strong>in</strong> Philosophy
some time, they have never been put together accord<strong>in</strong>g to what I th<strong>in</strong>k is the correct<br />
solution.<br />
1. Kant’s Incomplete ‘Copernican Revolution’ <strong>in</strong> Philosophy<br />
In Kant’s view the task of metaphysics, to cognize the world from a priori concepts,<br />
can only be carried out if we <strong>in</strong>verse our underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the process of cognition.<br />
Through this <strong>in</strong>version Kant thought to have accomplished a philosophical revolution<br />
similar to Copernicus’ revolution <strong>in</strong> astronomy. In the Critique of Pure Reason he<br />
writes:<br />
Hitherto it has been assumed that all of our cognition [Erkenntnis] must conform to the<br />
objects [müsse sich nach den Gegenständen richten]; but on this assumption all attempts<br />
to establish anyth<strong>in</strong>g about them a priori by means of concepts [Begriffe], through which<br />
our cognition would be extended, ended <strong>in</strong> failure [g<strong>in</strong>gen zunichte]. One ought to try,<br />
therefore, whether we will not make more progress concern<strong>in</strong>g the tasks of metaphysics,<br />
if we assume that the objects have to conform to our cognition; this would already agree<br />
better with the required possibility of their cognition a priori which should state someth<strong>in</strong>g<br />
about objects, before they are given to us. It is with this matter the same as with the<br />
idea of Copernicus who, s<strong>in</strong>ce he did not get very far <strong>in</strong> the explanation of the celestial<br />
motions on the assumption that the host of stars revolved around the spectator, tried<br />
whether he would not succeed better, if he let the spectator turn around, whereas the stars<br />
rema<strong>in</strong>ed at rest. 7<br />
Kant agrees with the empiricist thesis that we cannot derive certa<strong>in</strong> knowledge<br />
about the world – i.e., knowledge expressed <strong>in</strong> judgements characterized by ‘necessity<br />
<strong>and</strong> strict universality’ 8 – from experience (<strong>in</strong> Kant’s technical term<strong>in</strong>ology:<br />
from a posteriori synthetic judgements). From the repeated observation that a stone<br />
is heated by fire, 9 we cannot <strong>in</strong>fer that this is a necessary causal relation (or that the<br />
physical laws govern<strong>in</strong>g the process necessarily produce the observed effect). All we<br />
can say is that a stone is customarily heated by fire. 10 Certa<strong>in</strong> knowledge, for Kant,<br />
must be a priori, i.e., derived from concepts of pure cognition where ‘pure’ means<br />
‘<strong>in</strong>dependent of empirical experience’. 11 The philosophical tradition, however, knew<br />
of only one k<strong>in</strong>d of a priori knowledge: knowledge derived from ‘analytic judgements’.<br />
But analytic judgements do not extend the scope of our knowledge; they<br />
only ‘clarify [erläutern]’ the elements entailed by a concept we already know. 12<br />
Through analysis we will never reach the conclusion that a stone is necessarily<br />
heated by fire for the concept ‘stone’ does not entail ‘to be heated by fire’, nor does<br />
the concept ‘fire’ entail the concept ‘to heat stones’. Thus the dilemma: a posteriori<br />
68, which I will discuss <strong>in</strong> detail below, briefly alluded to the possibility of Maimon’s Sp<strong>in</strong>ozist underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
of Maimonides. See Bergman, The Philosophy of Solomon Maimon, p. 34. Bergman’s note,<br />
however, falls more than short of an explanation of the connection.<br />
7 Kant, Kritik der re<strong>in</strong>en Vernunft, B xvi [henceforth KrV].<br />
8 Ibid., B 4.<br />
9 This is one of Maimon’s examples to illustrate the category of causality. Cf. II, 72.<br />
10 Cf. Kant’s account of David Hume’s skepticism <strong>in</strong> KrV, B 792–795. As an example of a causal relation<br />
Kant uses <strong>in</strong> this passage a piece of wax be<strong>in</strong>g melted by the sun.<br />
Carlos Fraenkel<br />
195
synthetic judgements extend the scope of our knowledge but are not certa<strong>in</strong>; a priori<br />
analytic judgements are certa<strong>in</strong> but do not extend the scope of our knowledge. If,<br />
then, we assume that all our knowledge is determ<strong>in</strong>ed through the objects of cognition,<br />
there simply would be no concepts of pure cognition. This would lead to a sceptical<br />
position concern<strong>in</strong>g the possibility of certa<strong>in</strong> knowledge, which Kant wishes to<br />
avoid. Now it is for Kant a fact that we possess a priori cognitions that are not analytic<br />
but synthetic, <strong>and</strong>, therefore, extend the scope of our knowledge. 13 Thus the<br />
question for him is not if such cognitions are possible, but how. 14 S<strong>in</strong>ce they cannot<br />
be derived from experience, Kant suggests <strong>in</strong>vert<strong>in</strong>g our assumption about the process<br />
of cognition. Our concepts are not determ<strong>in</strong>ed by the objects of cognition; rather,<br />
the objects of cognition are determ<strong>in</strong>ed through our cognitive activity. The forms of<br />
‘<strong>in</strong>tuition [Anschauung]’ <strong>and</strong> of ‘underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g [Verst<strong>and</strong>]’ constitute the structure of<br />
nature as we perceive it. 15 Be<strong>in</strong>g a priori they are necessary <strong>and</strong> universal. It is this<br />
<strong>in</strong>version which Kant compares to Copernicus’ <strong>in</strong>version of the position of the earth<br />
<strong>in</strong> relation to the stars. If our cognitive activity constructs, as it were, the world that<br />
we experience, the exam<strong>in</strong>ation of the forms of our cognitive activity will provide us<br />
with certa<strong>in</strong> knowledge about the structure of this world. Transcendental philosophy,<br />
therefore, deals not with objects but with our ‘mode of cognition [Erkenntnisart] of<br />
objects <strong>in</strong>sofar as it is possible a priori’. 16<br />
* *<br />
In Maimon’s view, however, Kant’s revolutionary elan was not sufficient for more<br />
than halfway to the goal. 17 ‘Between the forms <strong>and</strong> the matter’ of the object of cognition<br />
he identified a ‘gap [Lücke]’ (II, 521) <strong>in</strong> his system: Our cognitive activity (i.e.,<br />
the forms of <strong>in</strong>tuition <strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g) determ<strong>in</strong>es only the form but not the matter<br />
of the object of cognition. Our senses receive its matter by be<strong>in</strong>g affected through a<br />
reality exist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dependently of our cognition: Kant’s so-called ‘th<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> itself [D<strong>in</strong>g<br />
an sich]’. 18 This D<strong>in</strong>g an sich, for Kant, rema<strong>in</strong>s ‘completely unknown to us [bleibt<br />
11 Cf. ibid., A 11.<br />
12 Cf. Kant’s account of the ‘difference between analytic <strong>and</strong> synthetic judgements’, ibid., B 10 ff.<br />
13 Cf. ibid., B 14–8.<br />
14 This is the central question of the KrV. See B 19.<br />
15 Cf. Kant’s <strong>in</strong>terpretation of the method of natural science: ‘Reason only cognizes that [<strong>in</strong> nature]<br />
which it itself produced accord<strong>in</strong>g to its plan’ (ibid., B xiii). For the forms of <strong>in</strong>tuition, see the first part,<br />
for the forms of underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g, the second part of the ‘Transcendental Doctr<strong>in</strong>e of Elements<br />
[Transzendentale Elementarlehre]’.<br />
16 Ibid., B 25.<br />
17 Maimon directly addresses Kant’s analogy between his revolution <strong>in</strong> philosophy <strong>and</strong> the Copernican<br />
revolution <strong>in</strong> astronomy <strong>in</strong> his late work, Kritische Untersuchungen über den menschlichen Geist<br />
(1797). His analysis of the difference between Ptolemaic <strong>and</strong> Copernican astronomy <strong>and</strong> analogous<br />
epistemological dist<strong>in</strong>ctions is, however, not relevant for this paper. On the passage <strong>in</strong> question, see C.<br />
Katzoff, ‘Solomon Maimon’s Interpretation of Kant’s Copernican Revolution’, Kant-Studien 66 (1975):<br />
342–56.<br />
18 Cf. KrV, B 29, where Kant speaks of ‘two sources [zwei Stämme] of human cognition, which perhaps<br />
derive from a common root [geme<strong>in</strong>schaftliche Wurzel] that is, however, unknown to us, namely sensibility<br />
<strong>and</strong> underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g [S<strong>in</strong>nlichkeit und Verst<strong>and</strong>], through the first of which the objects are given to<br />
us, whereas through the second they are apprehended [gedacht]’. Cf. ibid., B 33–4 <strong>and</strong> B 74–6. Cf. also<br />
196 Completion of the Copernican Revolution <strong>in</strong> Philosophy
uns gänzlich unbekannt]’. 19 Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Maimon, Kant’s dualistic account of cognition<br />
leads to a number of problems. The most prom<strong>in</strong>ent among them is the ‘important<br />
problem … quid juris?’, which Maimon considered to be the crucial concern of<br />
Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, <strong>and</strong> which prompted him to write his exposition <strong>and</strong><br />
critical exam<strong>in</strong>ation of the Critique <strong>in</strong> the Essay on Transcendental Philosophy. In<br />
the summary of the Essay’s genesis <strong>and</strong> content given <strong>in</strong> the Autobiography Maimon<br />
states that <strong>in</strong> it ‘the important problem [das wichtige Problem], with the solution of<br />
which the Critique is concerned: quid juris? is elaborated <strong>in</strong> a much wider sense than<br />
Mr. Kant takes it’ (I, 558). Accord<strong>in</strong>g to the Essay itself, the ‘question quid juris’ is<br />
not only Kant’s concern; it is ‘the important question, which all philosophers always<br />
[seit jeher] dealt with, namely the explanation of the community [Geme<strong>in</strong>schaft] of<br />
soul <strong>and</strong> body’ (II, 62). In Kantian terms soul <strong>and</strong> body become form <strong>and</strong> matter of<br />
the object of cognition: ‘the forms … which must be <strong>in</strong> us a priori’, <strong>and</strong> the ‘matter,<br />
or the representation [Vorstellung] of <strong>in</strong>dividual objects a posteriori’ (II, 62). As a<br />
consequence the question ‘of the unification [Vere<strong>in</strong>igung] of soul <strong>and</strong> body’ can be<br />
formulated as follows:<br />
How is it conceivable that a priori forms should correspond [übere<strong>in</strong>stimmen] to a<br />
posteriori given th<strong>in</strong>gs [gegebenen D<strong>in</strong>gen]? (II, 63)<br />
For a cognition to be true, ‘forms’ <strong>and</strong> ‘th<strong>in</strong>gs’ must correspond to each other, for<br />
truth is def<strong>in</strong>ed as ‘correspondence between ideas <strong>and</strong> objects [Übere<strong>in</strong>stimmung der<br />
Gedanken mit den Objekten]’ (III, 182). The question quid juris, therefore, asks the<br />
philosopher to justify the application of a priori cognitive forms to a posteriori empirical<br />
objects, <strong>and</strong> the justification consists <strong>in</strong> show<strong>in</strong>g how this application leads to<br />
a true cognition – that is, a cognition, <strong>in</strong> which Gedanke <strong>and</strong> Objekt correspond to<br />
each other. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Maimon it is not possible to provide such a justification on<br />
the basis of Kant’s dualistic account of cognition. If form <strong>and</strong> matter of the cognized<br />
object derive from ‘completely different sources [ganz verschiedene Quellen]’, the<br />
problem quid juris rema<strong>in</strong>s ‘unsolvable [unauflöslich]’ (II, 63) – all the more so because<br />
the source of the empirical component is Kant’s mysterious D<strong>in</strong>g an sich, of<br />
which we can neither ‘demonstrate the existence’ nor ‘form any concept [gar ke<strong>in</strong>en<br />
Begriff]’. It is, therefore, ‘an empty word without any mean<strong>in</strong>g’ (III, 185).<br />
To solve these problems, Maimon suggests assum<strong>in</strong>g cognitive activity to be the<br />
only source of our cognition. It determ<strong>in</strong>es not only the form, but both form <strong>and</strong> matter<br />
of the cognized object. The elements of the object’s empirical component (i.e., its<br />
matter) are, he holds, ‘<strong>in</strong>tellectual ideas [Verst<strong>and</strong>esideen]’ (II, 192); ultimately,<br />
these <strong>in</strong>tellectual ideas are the D<strong>in</strong>g an sich. 20 The obvious objection to this solution<br />
Kant’s account of Leibniz’s <strong>and</strong> Locke’s theories of knowledge, each of which recognized only one of<br />
the two sources of cognition, ibid., B 327. It is <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g to note that Maimon nowhere discusses<br />
Kant’s cryptic remark that the two sources of cognition ‘perhaps derive from a common root that is,<br />
however, unknown to us’.<br />
19 Ibid., B 59–60.<br />
20 Cf. III, 186: ‘The th<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> itself is, therefore, an <strong>in</strong>tellectual idea [Vernunftidee]’. These ‘<strong>in</strong>tellectual<br />
ideas’ that underlie the phenomena are what Maimon elsewhere describes as ‘differentials’. The latter<br />
aga<strong>in</strong> he identifies with Kant’s ‘noumena’ (cf. II, 32).<br />
Carlos Fraenkel<br />
197
is that we perceive empirical objects as given <strong>and</strong> not as produced through our cognitive<br />
activity. Maimon’s reply to this objection is that empirical objects are not produced<br />
through the cognitive activity of the f<strong>in</strong>ite human <strong>in</strong>tellect, but through the<br />
cognitive activity of God’s ‘<strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect [unendlicher Verst<strong>and</strong>]’, for which ‘the<br />
forms are at the same time the objects of cognition [Objekte des Denkens]’ (II, 64).<br />
We perceive the empirical objects as ‘given’, i.e., as exist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dependently of our<br />
cognition, because of the ‘f<strong>in</strong>ite [e<strong>in</strong>geschränkt]’ (II, 65) character of our <strong>in</strong>tellect.<br />
From the perspective of God’s <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect, however, the cognitive form is the<br />
cognized object. S<strong>in</strong>ce the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect ‘comprehends all possible th<strong>in</strong>gs [alle<br />
möglichen D<strong>in</strong>ge]’ (IV, 58), the objects that we perceive as <strong>in</strong>dependent of our cognitive<br />
activity are ultimately God’s thoughts; <strong>and</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ce the human <strong>in</strong>tellect is ‘precisely<br />
the same [ebenderselbe]’ (II, 65) as the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect, the problem quid juris<br />
is solved: form <strong>and</strong> matter of the object of cognition are no longer heterogeneous. In<br />
the process of cognition the f<strong>in</strong>ite human <strong>in</strong>tellect applies cognitive forms to objects,<br />
which are themselves cognitive forms <strong>in</strong> God’s <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect. Given that both<br />
ideas <strong>and</strong> objects are cognitive forms, cognitions are, therefore, true s<strong>in</strong>ce the former<br />
correspond to the latter.<br />
2. Maimon <strong>and</strong> Maimonides<br />
At first view it will strike the reader of Maimon’s work as bizarre to f<strong>in</strong>d more than a<br />
quarter of his autobiography dedicated to an exposition of Maimonides’ Guide of the<br />
Perplexed. As probably not less bizarre it will strike him to f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong> the commentary<br />
on the Guide (1791), <strong>in</strong> which he would have expected an exposition of Maimonides’<br />
philosophy, mostly Maimon’s own philosophical reflections: extensive discussions<br />
of Giordano Bruno, Leibniz <strong>and</strong> Mendelssohn, <strong>and</strong>, above all, the results of his study,<br />
critique <strong>and</strong> transformation of Kant, 21 published <strong>in</strong> greater detail a year earlier <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Essay on Transcendental Philosophy. In the autobiography, therefore, the surprised<br />
reader f<strong>in</strong>ds Maimonides; for Maimon he has to look <strong>in</strong> the commentary on the<br />
Guide.<br />
There are several possible explanations for this curious quid pro quo. One recently<br />
suggested by Y. Schwartz po<strong>in</strong>ts to the different audiences that Maimon addressed<br />
<strong>and</strong> the correspond<strong>in</strong>g different apologetic strategies that he pursued: The autobiography<br />
was written <strong>in</strong> German <strong>and</strong> aimed at a German readership. By present<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
summary of the classic work of Jewish philosophy, it sought to conv<strong>in</strong>ce its readers<br />
that Jews had a long tradition of substantial contributions to philosophy. The commentary<br />
on the Guide was written <strong>in</strong> Hebrew <strong>and</strong> aimed at a Jewish readership. By<br />
present<strong>in</strong>g contemporary philosophy as well as his own views <strong>in</strong> the form of a commentary<br />
on an authoritative work of Jewish thought, Maimon <strong>in</strong>tended to convey<br />
ideas to his readers that would not have reached them <strong>in</strong> their orig<strong>in</strong>al sett<strong>in</strong>g. 22<br />
21 In the preface to their edition of Giv¨at ha-moreh (Jerusalem, 1965), Bergman <strong>and</strong> Rotenstreich characterize<br />
the commentary as ‘the first Hebrew book that is a modern philosophical discussion, a discussion<br />
conducted us<strong>in</strong>g the concepts that were <strong>in</strong>troduced <strong>in</strong> the new philosophy, <strong>in</strong> particular <strong>in</strong> Kant’s’<br />
(p. 5).<br />
22 I would like to thank Yosef Schwartz for send<strong>in</strong>g me a draft of his still unpublished paper, ‘Causa<br />
198 Completion of the Copernican Revolution <strong>in</strong> Philosophy
I cannot discuss Schwartz’s suggestion here <strong>in</strong> detail. I believe, however, that<br />
Maimon did not consider Maimonides’ work merely as a vehicle for either justify<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Jewish philosophy, or <strong>in</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g contemporary ideas to a Jewish audience. As I <strong>in</strong>dicated<br />
above, <strong>in</strong> my view Maimon made substantial philosophical use of what he<br />
learned from Maimonides, <strong>in</strong> particular with regard to the doctr<strong>in</strong>e at the heart of his<br />
metaphysics: the doctr<strong>in</strong>e of the ‘<strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect’. Start<strong>in</strong>g from this assumption let<br />
me give a different explanation for Maimon’s attempt to blur the l<strong>in</strong>e of demarcation<br />
between Maimonides <strong>and</strong> himself.<br />
When Maimon studied the Guide he did not have the impression that it comprised<br />
simply the personal views of its author. Rather, it seemed to conta<strong>in</strong> ‘teach<strong>in</strong>gs dictated<br />
by div<strong>in</strong>e wisdom [göttliche Weißheit]’ (I, 307), presented through the ‘voice of<br />
truth itself’ (I, 320). The ‘cognition of the truth’ was also the ‘ma<strong>in</strong> motive [Hauptbewegungsgrund]’<br />
for Maimon’s own philosophical quest as he writes <strong>in</strong> the preface<br />
to the Essay on Transcendental Philosophy (II, 10–11). S<strong>in</strong>ce for Maimon the truth is<br />
immutable <strong>and</strong> eternal, 23 it follows that the truth conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> the teach<strong>in</strong>gs of the<br />
Guide must be the same that he pursued <strong>in</strong> his philosophical quest. Moreover, when<br />
Maimon speaks of ‘div<strong>in</strong>e wisdom’, his notion of the ‘<strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect’ is certa<strong>in</strong>ly <strong>in</strong><br />
the back of his m<strong>in</strong>d. After all, what is ‘div<strong>in</strong>e wisdom’ if not the content of ‘God’s<br />
<strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect [der unendliche Verst<strong>and</strong> Gottes]’ (IV, 58)? Maimon thus must have<br />
considered Maimonides to be <strong>in</strong> some sense united to God’s <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect if the<br />
latter is <strong>in</strong>deed the source of the teach<strong>in</strong>gs of the Guide. 24 Given the central role that<br />
Maimon himself assigns to the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect, it seems safe to <strong>in</strong>fer that <strong>in</strong> his view<br />
Maimonides’ <strong>and</strong> his own philosophy ultimately stem from the same source. Thus I<br />
cannot help but <strong>in</strong>terpret<strong>in</strong>g Maimon’s remarks on the Guide as h<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g at some form<br />
of <strong>in</strong>tellectual union between <strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>, a union beyond space <strong>and</strong><br />
time with<strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect as the common source of their thought. 25<br />
Below we will see <strong>in</strong> detail how Maimon’s notion of God’s <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect is related<br />
to Maimonides’ notion of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect. If for now we take this relationship<br />
for granted, the suggestion of an <strong>in</strong>tellectual union appears to be consistent with<br />
materialis: Solomon Maimon, Moses ben Maimon <strong>and</strong> the Possibility of Philosophical Transmission’.<br />
23 Cf. I, 489.<br />
24 This characterization of Maimonides st<strong>and</strong>s <strong>in</strong> a tradition <strong>in</strong>augurated by Samuel Ibn Tibbon, the<br />
medieval translator of the Guide from Arabic to Hebrew. In his Commentary on Ecclesiastes he describes<br />
Maimonides as the ‘true sage, the div<strong>in</strong>e philosopher’ whose ‘spirit God had stirred to write very<br />
important books [דאמ םידבכנ םירפס רבחל וחור תא םשה ריעהו]’ (MS Parma Palat<strong>in</strong>a 82/2 [De Rossi<br />
272]), 5b–6a). Cf. my ‘From Maimonides to Samuel Ibn Tibbon: The Transformation of the Dalalat alhaˆir<strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>to the Moreh ha-nevukhim’ (Hebrew), doctoral dissertation, Free University of Berl<strong>in</strong>, 2000,<br />
pp. 141–2. In a critical comment on Guide III, 18, Ibn Tibbon expresses his astonishment that a certa<strong>in</strong><br />
passage could possibly come ‘from the mouth of the Lord, the <strong>in</strong>tellect of Maimonides [לכש הרובגה יפמ<br />
ברה]’. See my edition of the note <strong>in</strong> ibid., pp. 406–7, <strong>and</strong> its discussion, pp. 171–72. For the expression<br />
‘הרובגה יפ’ as referr<strong>in</strong>g to God, see B Shabbat 88b.<br />
25 Aga<strong>in</strong> the parallel to Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s description of his relationship to Maimonides is <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to note. Cf. the discussion <strong>in</strong> Fraenkel, ‘Ibn Tibbon’, pp. 139–43. I agree, therefore, with Hayoun<br />
(Commentaires, p. 7) that the summary of the Guide <strong>in</strong> the Autobiography ‘montre que [pour Maimon]<br />
cette œuvre représentait … une partie <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sèque de lui-même et de son existence’. I would not, however,<br />
describe Maimon as present<strong>in</strong>g himself as a ‘ré<strong>in</strong>carnation en Maïmonide’; rather, Maimonides’<br />
work is presented as a means to unite with the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect who is devoid of personal features. See<br />
below.<br />
Carlos Fraenkel<br />
199
Maimon’s <strong>in</strong>terpretation of Maimonides’ doctr<strong>in</strong>e of the immortality of the soul <strong>in</strong><br />
his early Hebrew work Îesheq Shelomoh: 26<br />
You already know, from the op<strong>in</strong>ion of Maimonides of blessed memory about the human<br />
soul, that it is only potentiality <strong>and</strong> preparation [הנכהו חכ], as was the op<strong>in</strong>ion of Alex<strong>and</strong>er<br />
[of Aphrodisias], <strong>and</strong> the acquired <strong>in</strong>tellect [הנקנה לכשה] comes from the emanation<br />
of the active <strong>in</strong>tellect [לעופה לכשה], through which it became a substance, <strong>and</strong> it [the<br />
active <strong>in</strong>tellect] is what actualizes [the soul]. And immortality of the soul is the union of<br />
the acquired <strong>in</strong>tellect with the active <strong>in</strong>tellect. As a consequence, all immortal souls will<br />
be one th<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> itself [ומצעב דחא רבד], <strong>and</strong> this is the substance of the active <strong>in</strong>tellect,<br />
s<strong>in</strong>ce no number<strong>in</strong>g can be conceived regard<strong>in</strong>g the separate [<strong>in</strong>tellects] except if they are<br />
causes <strong>and</strong> effects. But what rema<strong>in</strong>s of Reuben is neither cause nor effect <strong>in</strong> relation to<br />
what rema<strong>in</strong>s of Simon. This is what can be derived from the words of [Maimonides] of<br />
blessed memory. 27 (297)<br />
The immortality of the soul is, therefore, the result of the process of perfection of<br />
the human <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong> the course of which it becomes an ‘acquired <strong>in</strong>tellect’ until f<strong>in</strong>ally<br />
achiev<strong>in</strong>g union with the ‘active <strong>in</strong>tellect’, 28 <strong>in</strong> which all <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>in</strong>tellects<br />
become one <strong>and</strong> the same. It is precisely this k<strong>in</strong>d of immortality which accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
Maimon can be reached through the study of the Guide. In the preface to Giv¨at hamoreh<br />
he writes:<br />
When [Maimonides’] words are expla<strong>in</strong>ed accord<strong>in</strong>g to what agrees with his <strong>in</strong>tention,<br />
<strong>and</strong> when the passages which he of blessed memory presented <strong>in</strong> a summary fashion are<br />
elaborated, <strong>and</strong> when what was lack<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the sciences of his time has been completed by<br />
means [of the sciences] <strong>in</strong> our time – then this treatise will be found to be a treasure,<br />
conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g valuable sciences <strong>and</strong> esteemed knowledge [תודבכנה תועידיהו תורקיה תומכחה]<br />
that guide man to [<strong>in</strong>tellectual] perfection [ותומילשל םדאה תא םיכירדמה]. And for this<br />
reason it is appropriate for us to be grateful to the Master, the author of blessed memory,<br />
who left a bless<strong>in</strong>g for our life, as is now the case [cf. Deuteronomy 6:24]. (GM, 4)<br />
The ‘life’, of which the Guide – after hav<strong>in</strong>g been expla<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>and</strong> scientifically updated<br />
through Giv¨at ha-moreh – becomes the source, is clearly the eternal life of the<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellect achieved through <strong>in</strong>tellectual perfection. 29 Now, if the study of the Guide<br />
leads to <strong>in</strong>tellectual perfection, <strong>and</strong> if Maimon was a student of the Guide, then, sub<br />
specie <strong>in</strong>tellectus, there is no real difference between teacher <strong>and</strong> student, between<br />
26 My translation is based on MS 8°6426, Jewish National <strong>and</strong> University Library. An edition of the<br />
text is be<strong>in</strong>g prepared by Gideon Freudenthal <strong>and</strong> Yitzhak Melamed. I wish to thank Melamed for send<strong>in</strong>g<br />
me a copy of his transcript of parts of the manuscript.<br />
27 Cf. Giv¨at ha-moreh on Guide I, 74, the seventh method.<br />
28 Note that <strong>in</strong> the cosmology of medieval Aristotelians, the ‘active <strong>in</strong>tellect’ is the last <strong>in</strong> a series of<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellects separate from matter, of which the first is the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect. For a general account of this<br />
theory <strong>in</strong> Muslim Aristotelianism, see Hebert A. Davidson, Alfarabi, Avicenna, <strong>and</strong> Averroes on Intellect<br />
(New York <strong>and</strong> Oxford, 1992). For Maimonides’ version of this theory, see ibid., pp. 197–207.<br />
29 Cf. Guide III, 27: <strong>in</strong>tellectual perfection is ‘the only cause of the eternal life [םידימתמה םייחה]’<br />
(p. 470). If not <strong>in</strong>dicated otherwise, quotations from the Guide are based on S. Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew<br />
translation, ed. Judah Even-Shmuel (Jerusalem, 1987). S<strong>in</strong>ce Maimon read only Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew<br />
version of the Guide, the translation is more important for the purpose of this paper than the Arabic<br />
orig<strong>in</strong>al.<br />
200 Completion of the Copernican Revolution <strong>in</strong> Philosophy
Maimon, Moshe <strong>in</strong> twelfth-century <strong>Sepharad</strong>, <strong>and</strong> Maimon, Shelomoh <strong>in</strong> eighteenthcentury<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>. 30<br />
But let us leave aside these variations on an Averroistic theme. The role that the<br />
Guide played <strong>in</strong> Maimon’s <strong>in</strong>tellectual biography 31 is <strong>in</strong> my view sufficiently important<br />
to expla<strong>in</strong> both its place <strong>in</strong> the Autobiography, <strong>and</strong> the place of Maimon’s own<br />
philosophical concerns <strong>in</strong> his commentary on the Guide. In a sense, I believe, the<br />
Guide is Maimon’s <strong>in</strong>tellectual biography <strong>and</strong> his <strong>in</strong>tellectual biography is a commentary<br />
on the Guide.<br />
Carlos Fraenkel<br />
* *<br />
Let us now turn to the result of this <strong>in</strong>tellectual collaboration between Maimonides<br />
<strong>and</strong> Maimon <strong>and</strong> exam<strong>in</strong>e how the former’s concept of God is related to the latter’s.<br />
The central chapter, <strong>in</strong> which Maimonides describes God <strong>in</strong> terms of noÕv, i.e., <strong>in</strong><br />
terms of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect of the Aristotelian tradition, is Guide I, 68. In this chapter<br />
Maimonides presents what the ‘philosophers concerned with div<strong>in</strong>e science …<br />
have demonstrated’ regard<strong>in</strong>g the nature of God. Only ‘ignoramuses’, accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
Maimonides, ‘hold that the knowledge of the necessary truth concern<strong>in</strong>g this [תעידי<br />
הז בויח תתמא] is concealed from the m<strong>in</strong>ds’ (140):<br />
You already know that this say<strong>in</strong>g of the philosophers with regard to God, may He be<br />
praised, is generally admitted: the say<strong>in</strong>g that He is the <strong>in</strong>tellect as well as the subject of<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellection <strong>and</strong> the object of <strong>in</strong>tellection, <strong>and</strong> that these three notions form <strong>in</strong> Him, may<br />
He be praised, one notion, <strong>in</strong> which there is no multiplicity [םה 'תי וב םינינע השלשה ולאשו<br />
וב יוביר ןיא לכשומהו ליכשמהו לכשה אוה ,דחא ןינע].<br />
God’s unity thus consists <strong>in</strong> the identity of ‘the <strong>in</strong>tellect, the subject <strong>and</strong> the object<br />
of <strong>in</strong>tellection [Arabic: לוקעמלאו לקאעלאו לקעלא]’. 32 In Giv¨at ha-moreh Maimon<br />
expla<strong>in</strong>s this formula first accord<strong>in</strong>g to Kant, then accord<strong>in</strong>g to Leibniz:<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to the op<strong>in</strong>ion of the philosopher Kant, cognition [die Erkenntnis] requires<br />
two th<strong>in</strong>gs [םירבד ינש הרכהה לא וכרטצי] that are different from one another, i.e., the <strong>in</strong>-<br />
30 It should be mentioned <strong>in</strong> this context that, as Bergman noted, the ‘first source’ of Maimon’s own<br />
doctr<strong>in</strong>e of immortality was ‘Maimonides’ teach<strong>in</strong>g concern<strong>in</strong>g “the acquired <strong>in</strong>tellect” that man ga<strong>in</strong>s<br />
throughout his life on earth by the acquisition of truths’ (Bergman, The Philosophy of Solomon Maimon,<br />
p. 199).<br />
31 In the Autobiography, he describes Maimonides’ ‘most decisive <strong>in</strong>fluence [entscheidendster E<strong>in</strong>fluß]’<br />
on his <strong>in</strong>tellectual development (I, 306–8). Cf. I, 455. A precise assessment of the scope of this <strong>in</strong>fluence<br />
rema<strong>in</strong>s difficult, however. In his works <strong>and</strong> essays written <strong>in</strong> German Maimon discusses<br />
Maimonides twice: <strong>in</strong> his ‘Probe Rabb<strong>in</strong>ischer Philosophie’, written <strong>in</strong> 1789 (I, 589–98); <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> his<br />
‘Über das Vorhersehungsvermögen’, written <strong>in</strong> 1791 (III, 276–98). The first is a comment on a passage<br />
<strong>in</strong> Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishnah; the second, a discussion of the concept of prophecy as<br />
set forth <strong>in</strong> the Guide. His Hebrew works are for the most part either <strong>in</strong> manuscript or lost. Of Giv¨at hamoreh<br />
only the part on Guide I was pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> 1791. Unfortunately, Maimon’s manuscript,<br />
which accord<strong>in</strong>g to a remark <strong>in</strong> the Autobiography conta<strong>in</strong>ed also the commentary on Guide II <strong>and</strong> III<br />
(cf. I, 574), is not extant. In addition, Maimon apparently had already written a commentary on the<br />
Guide before his first visit to Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> 1777 (cf. I, 268), <strong>and</strong> planned a new edition of the Guide together<br />
with his commentary (cf. I, 269–70).<br />
32 Quotations from the Arabic source: Dalalat al-Ìaˆir<strong>in</strong>, ed. Salomon Munk <strong>and</strong> Issachar Joel (Jerusalem,<br />
1931), p. 112.<br />
201
tellect (der Verst<strong>and</strong>) <strong>and</strong> the sensibility (die S<strong>in</strong>nlichkeit) [שוחהו לכשה]; the sensibility<br />
receives (from the external object that is <strong>in</strong>accessible to us) the matter [רמוח] of cognition,<br />
<strong>and</strong> the <strong>in</strong>tellect produces through itself the form [תרוצ] of cognition; <strong>and</strong> the cognition<br />
is the relation of the <strong>in</strong>tellectual form to a particular matter. … For this reason both<br />
are necessarily required <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> this way the <strong>in</strong>tellect, the subject <strong>and</strong> the object of <strong>in</strong>tellection<br />
will be one th<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> itself [ומצעב דחא] only with respect to the form of cognition,<br />
when it [the form] <strong>in</strong> itself is the object of cognition (Objekt der Erkenntnis) – as I have<br />
expla<strong>in</strong>ed. (GM, 107)<br />
As we saw above, Kant, <strong>in</strong> Maimon’s view, assumes two ‘completely different<br />
sources’ to expla<strong>in</strong> form <strong>and</strong> matter of the object of cognition. If Kant’s account is<br />
applied to Maimonides’ notion of the <strong>in</strong>tellect, it follows that the unity of <strong>in</strong>tellect,<br />
subject, <strong>and</strong> object of <strong>in</strong>tellection is restricted to the form of the object produced <strong>and</strong><br />
known through our cognitive activity. It is this epistemological dualism that I described<br />
above as Kant’s <strong>in</strong>complete ‘Copernican revolution’ <strong>in</strong> philosophy <strong>and</strong><br />
which, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Maimon, leaves the problem quid juris ‘unsolvable’ mak<strong>in</strong>g it<br />
impossible to justify the application of the form to the matter of the cognized object.<br />
The problem can be solved, however, if we assume that both form <strong>and</strong> matter of the<br />
cognized object are the product of cognitive activity. This solution Maimon presents<br />
as the Leibnizian <strong>in</strong>terpretation of Maimonides’ div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect formula:<br />
But accord<strong>in</strong>g to the op<strong>in</strong>ion of the philosopher Leibniz, the dist<strong>in</strong>ction between <strong>in</strong>tellect<br />
<strong>and</strong> sensibility is not real [ייאשונ לדבה], but only formal [יירוצ לדבה] (ihr Unterschied ist<br />
nicht reell, sondern nur formell), <strong>and</strong> every sensible concept can be dissolved [רתוי] <strong>in</strong>to<br />
an <strong>in</strong>tellectual concept, s<strong>in</strong>ce the sensible concept is the confused <strong>in</strong>tellectual concept <strong>in</strong><br />
itself. For this reason the <strong>in</strong>tellect, the subject of <strong>in</strong>tellection, <strong>and</strong> the object of <strong>in</strong>tellection<br />
are not only one <strong>in</strong> itself with regard to the <strong>in</strong>tellectual form when posited as the<br />
object of cognition, but also with regard to the relation [סוחי] of the <strong>in</strong>tellectual form to<br />
the object of the <strong>in</strong>tellect, or the sensibility. And between the Inf<strong>in</strong>ite Intellect [לכשה<br />
תילכת לעב יתלבה], exalted be He, <strong>and</strong> our <strong>in</strong>tellect the difference is only formal – as I<br />
have expla<strong>in</strong>ed. This is so because the Inf<strong>in</strong>ite Intellect, exalted be He, produces by<br />
means of the <strong>in</strong>tellectual forms the objects of these forms, which are the objects of <strong>in</strong>tellection<br />
[תולכשומה םהש םמצע םהיאשונ תויילכשה תורוצה תועצמאב לעופה לא איצומ]. This<br />
possibility will become clear through the example of the objects of arithmetic, because<br />
the numbers are noth<strong>in</strong>g but <strong>in</strong>tellectually cognized relations, i.e., forms of <strong>in</strong>tellection<br />
<strong>and</strong> their objects as a unity. But the cognition of the f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect necessarily dist<strong>in</strong>guishes<br />
the form of apprehension from the apprehended object itself not through a substantial<br />
[יימצע לדבה] but at least through a formal dist<strong>in</strong>ction. This is so because the form<br />
of apprehension [הגשהה תרוצ] is an <strong>in</strong>tellectual relation for [the f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect], <strong>and</strong> the<br />
apprehended object, although <strong>in</strong> itself also an <strong>in</strong>tellectual relation, is only the object of<br />
the relation for [the f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect], because it does not apprehend the mentioned relation<br />
clearly. (GM, 107–8)<br />
In mathematics, therefore, ‘we are similar to God [Gott ähnlich]’ (IV, 42) as<br />
Maimon puts it <strong>in</strong> the famous phrase of his ‘On the Progress of Philosophy’ (1792).<br />
While our <strong>in</strong>tellectual activity <strong>in</strong> a s<strong>in</strong>gle act both produces <strong>and</strong> apprehends the objects<br />
of mathematics (these objects be<strong>in</strong>g ‘noth<strong>in</strong>g but <strong>in</strong>tellectually cognized relations’),<br />
the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong> a s<strong>in</strong>gle act both produces <strong>and</strong> apprehends nature as a<br />
202 Completion of the Copernican Revolution <strong>in</strong> Philosophy
whole. From the perspective of the f<strong>in</strong>ite human <strong>in</strong>tellect, form <strong>and</strong> matter of the objects<br />
of mathematics are determ<strong>in</strong>ed through <strong>and</strong> are identical to its <strong>in</strong>tellectual activity.<br />
From the perspective of the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect, form <strong>and</strong> matter of all objects <strong>in</strong><br />
nature are determ<strong>in</strong>ed through <strong>and</strong> are identical to its <strong>in</strong>tellectual activity. To quote<br />
aga<strong>in</strong> from ‘On the Progress of Philosophy’:<br />
God produces the objects of nature [die Objekte der Natur] <strong>in</strong> the same way as we [produce]<br />
the objects of mathematics, namely through real th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g [durchs reelle Denken]<br />
that is through construction [Konstrukzion]. (IV, 58)<br />
Due to its f<strong>in</strong>ite nature the human <strong>in</strong>tellect perceives the empirical objects as<br />
‘given’, i.e., as objects that exist <strong>in</strong>dependently of its cognitive activity. As a consequence,<br />
cognition <strong>and</strong> empirical object appear to the f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect as dist<strong>in</strong>ct. S<strong>in</strong>ce,<br />
however, the objects of cognition are God’s thoughts, <strong>and</strong> our <strong>in</strong>tellectual activity is<br />
only ‘formally’ but not ‘substantially’ different from God’s <strong>in</strong>tellectual activity, it<br />
follows that the <strong>in</strong>tellectual activity which cognizes the empirical object is the same<br />
as the <strong>in</strong>tellectual activity which takes on the shape of the object. S<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>in</strong>tellectual<br />
activity is thus the source of both the object’s form <strong>and</strong> matter, the application of the<br />
former to the latter is justified. For Maimon, this <strong>in</strong>terpretation of Maimonides’ div<strong>in</strong>e<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellect formula thus solves the problem posed by its Kantian <strong>in</strong>terpretation.<br />
But s<strong>in</strong>ce it is presented <strong>in</strong> the name of Leibniz, it is at first not clear whether it has<br />
anyth<strong>in</strong>g to do with Maimonides himself. When describ<strong>in</strong>g the difference between<br />
the human <strong>and</strong> the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect as ‘formal’, Maimon refers back to an explanation<br />
he has given previously <strong>in</strong> Giv¨at ha-moreh. In the passage, which occurs <strong>in</strong> his commentary<br />
on Guide I, 1, we not only learn what ‘formal’ <strong>in</strong> this context means;<br />
Maimon also explicitly presents his concepts of f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect as an <strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />
of Maimonides’ explanation of the relationship between human <strong>and</strong> div<strong>in</strong>e<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellect. Maimonides aga<strong>in</strong> presents his explanation as an exegesis of the verse<br />
Genesis 1:26, <strong>in</strong> which God declares his <strong>in</strong>tention to ‘make man <strong>in</strong> our image [םלצ],<br />
after our likeness’. The Hebrew word ‘image’ [םלצ], accord<strong>in</strong>g to Maimonides, refers<br />
to the ‘natural form, I mean to the notion <strong>in</strong> virtue of which a th<strong>in</strong>g is constituted<br />
as a substance <strong>and</strong> becomes what it is’. With regard to human be<strong>in</strong>gs the natural form<br />
is ‘<strong>in</strong>tellectual apprehension’: It is ‘because of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect conjo<strong>in</strong>ed with<br />
man that it is said of the latter that he is “<strong>in</strong> the image of God <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> His likeness”’.<br />
Human be<strong>in</strong>gs, therefore, are said to have been created <strong>in</strong> God’s image because, <strong>in</strong><br />
their substance, both are <strong>in</strong>tellect. Maimon <strong>in</strong> his turn expla<strong>in</strong>s Maimonides’ exegesis<br />
as follows:<br />
This dist<strong>in</strong>ction between the way of apprehed<strong>in</strong>g from the prior to the posterior [םדוקהמ<br />
רחואמה לא] or from the posterior to the prior is appropriate only for the apprehension of<br />
a f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect, because the be<strong>in</strong>g of the th<strong>in</strong>gs does not follow upon [the f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect’s]<br />
apprehension [ותגשה רחא תכשמנ יתלב], but on the contrary; that is, its apprehension<br />
follows upon the actual be<strong>in</strong>g of the th<strong>in</strong>gs. But with regard to the apprehension by<br />
an <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect, the two become one, because the be<strong>in</strong>g of th<strong>in</strong>gs always follows<br />
upon [the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect’s] apprehension. … The <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect can conceive an actually<br />
exist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>tellect outside itself, if it conceives itself <strong>in</strong> a limited way [לבגומ ךרדב];<br />
<strong>in</strong> the same way the f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect can conceive the existence of an <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect if it<br />
Carlos Fraenkel<br />
203
conceives itself by negation of the limitation. But because quantity does not enter <strong>in</strong>to<br />
the def<strong>in</strong>ition of the substance [םצעה רדגב], the substance of the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>and</strong> of<br />
the f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect is one <strong>in</strong> itself, <strong>and</strong> they will only be dist<strong>in</strong>guished <strong>in</strong> degree [הגרדמב].<br />
This is the explanation of the mean<strong>in</strong>g ‘<strong>in</strong> the image of God he made the human be<strong>in</strong>g’<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to the op<strong>in</strong>ion of Maimonides, may his memory be blessed. (GM, 33–4)<br />
Whereas for Kant a cognition results from the conjunction of a posteriori objects<br />
that affect our cognitive faculty, with a priori forms that our cognitive faculty applies<br />
to them, for Maimon this dist<strong>in</strong>ction is valid only with regard to the f<strong>in</strong>ite human <strong>in</strong>tellect,<br />
which does not produce the empirical objects but f<strong>in</strong>ds them as exist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dependently<br />
of itself. With regard to God’s <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, the cognitive<br />
forms are the cognized objects: cognition <strong>and</strong> production are the same act.<br />
Div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>and</strong> human <strong>in</strong>tellect are, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Maimon, of the same substance,<br />
differ<strong>in</strong>g only ‘<strong>in</strong> degree’ or quantitatively: the former is unlimited, i.e., <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite<br />
<strong>in</strong> scope, whereas the latter is limited, i.e., f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong> scope. It is this quantitative<br />
difference, which Maimon describes as ‘formal’ <strong>in</strong> his commentary on Guide I, 68.<br />
The last sentence of the quotation shows clearly that Maimon <strong>in</strong>tends his account of<br />
the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect, the f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>and</strong> the relation between them to be understood<br />
as an explication of Maimonides’ account of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect, the human<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellect, <strong>and</strong> the relation between them <strong>in</strong> his exegesis of Genesis 1:26. The more<br />
important question, however, is whether he is entitled to present it <strong>in</strong> this way. Let<br />
me expla<strong>in</strong> why I th<strong>in</strong>k he is.<br />
In the commentary on Guide I, 68 Maimon <strong>in</strong>troduced the notion of the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong> the context of his Leibnizian <strong>in</strong>terpretation of Maimonides’ div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect<br />
formula. The description of God’s <strong>in</strong>tellect as ‘<strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite’ only tells us that its scope<br />
has no limits. It does not provide a positive account of its content. In the essay ‘On<br />
the Progress of Philosophy’ Maimon gives such an account:<br />
In the way I conceive the system of Leibniz (<strong>and</strong> if a disciple of Leibniz does not approve<br />
it, it may be called the system of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza), God’s <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect comprehends all possible<br />
th<strong>in</strong>gs [beziehet sich der unendliche Verst<strong>and</strong> Gottes auf alle möglichen D<strong>in</strong>ge] …,<br />
which are at the same time real with regard to it. (IV, 58)<br />
The scope of the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect, therefore, extends to ‘all possible th<strong>in</strong>gs’. Keep<strong>in</strong>g<br />
this <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d, let us return to Maimonides’ account of the structure of the div<strong>in</strong>e<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong> Guide I, 68. We saw that, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Maimonides, God’s unity consists<br />
<strong>in</strong> the identity of ‘the <strong>in</strong>tellect, the subject <strong>and</strong> the object of <strong>in</strong>tellection’. As an example<br />
for this unity Maimonides describes the <strong>in</strong>tellectual cognition of a ‘tree’ 33 by a<br />
human <strong>in</strong>tellect. When ‘a man … has stripped’ the form of the tree ‘from its matter,<br />
<strong>and</strong> has represented to himself the pure form – this be<strong>in</strong>g the act of the <strong>in</strong>tellect [לעופ<br />
לכשה] – at that time the man would become one who is <strong>in</strong>tellectually cogniz<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong><br />
actu [לעופב ליכשמ]’. In an <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong> actu there is no dist<strong>in</strong>ction between <strong>in</strong>tellect<br />
<strong>and</strong> apprehension for ‘the true be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> essence of the <strong>in</strong>tellect is apprehension<br />
[הגשה]’. Maimonides contrasts this unity of an <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong> actu with the threefold na-<br />
33 Hebrew: ןליא, Arabic: ‘הבש'כ , which means ‘piece of wood’.<br />
204 Completion of the Copernican Revolution <strong>in</strong> Philosophy
ture of an <strong>in</strong>tellectual cognition <strong>in</strong> potentia: ‘The man … who is the <strong>in</strong>tellectually<br />
cogniz<strong>in</strong>g subject <strong>in</strong> potentia, the potentiality that is the <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong> potentia; <strong>and</strong> the<br />
th<strong>in</strong>g apt to be <strong>in</strong>tellectually cognized, which is the potentially cognizable object’. In<br />
the above given example these three ‘would be …: man, hylic <strong>in</strong>tellect, <strong>and</strong> the form<br />
of the tree’ (141). Maimonides describes ‘apprehension’ further as ‘the act of the <strong>in</strong>tellect<br />
[Arabic: לקעלא לעפ]’, 34 <strong>and</strong> thus concludes that the act of the <strong>in</strong>tellect is ‘its<br />
true reality <strong>and</strong> its substance’ (141). This ‘act of the <strong>in</strong>tellect’, therefore, constitutes<br />
the unity of the <strong>in</strong>tellect, the subject <strong>and</strong> the object of <strong>in</strong>tellection. At first view<br />
Maimonides does not seem to go beyond what Aristotle says <strong>in</strong> Metaphysics XII, 7<br />
<strong>and</strong> 9: 35 God is <strong>in</strong>tellectual cognition, 36 which cognizes itself. Aristotle explicitly<br />
rules out that God can cognize an object other than himself, or pass from cogniz<strong>in</strong>g<br />
himself to an object other than himself. 37 God only ‘th<strong>in</strong>ks … himself [aütòn …<br />
noe⁄]'. 38 S<strong>in</strong>ce God is pure ‘th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g [nójsiv]’ 39 his ‘th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g is th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g of th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g<br />
[nójsiv noßsewv nójsiv]’. 40 To conv<strong>in</strong>ce us that there is a way lead<strong>in</strong>g from<br />
Maimonides’ account of God’s knowledge to his own account of the content of the<br />
<strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect, Maimon would have to show that Maimonides’ God, unlike Aristotle’s,<br />
is not absorbed <strong>in</strong> eternal self-contemplation but also produces, apprehends <strong>and</strong><br />
is identical to the tree as well as all other objects that the human <strong>in</strong>tellect perceives as<br />
‘given’, i.e., as exist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dependently from its cognitive activity. The example of the<br />
apprehension of a tree by a human <strong>in</strong>tellect shows that, for Maimonides, the doctr<strong>in</strong>e<br />
of the unity of the <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciple characterizes the ‘true reality of every <strong>in</strong>tellect<br />
[לכש לכ קוחב]’ (142). The dist<strong>in</strong>ctive feature of God’s <strong>in</strong>tellect, accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
Maimonides, is that <strong>in</strong> God’s <strong>in</strong>tellect ‘there is absolutely no potentiality [חוכ וב ןיא<br />
ללכ]’ (142), whereas the human <strong>in</strong>tellect acquires knowledge by successively pass<strong>in</strong>g<br />
from potentiality to actuality. Before know<strong>in</strong>g the tree it is <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong> potentia<br />
with regard to the tree; if it acquires knowledge of the tree it becomes <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong><br />
actu with regard to the tree, but rema<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong> potentia with regard to the table,<br />
<strong>and</strong> so forth. The claim that <strong>in</strong> God’s <strong>in</strong>tellect ‘there is absolutely no potentiality’,<br />
therefore, could be understood as imply<strong>in</strong>g that God is <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong> actu with regard to<br />
all objects of <strong>in</strong>tellectual cognition. This is precisely how Maimon understood it, as<br />
we learn from the summary of Guide I, 68 <strong>in</strong> the Autobiography:<br />
34 Dalalat, 113.<br />
35 I cannot follow Lachterman, ‘Mathematical Construction’, 511 ff., <strong>in</strong> his attempt to show that a<br />
Neoplatonic rather than the Aristotelian version of the formula underlies Maimonides’ notion of the<br />
unity of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect. The former <strong>in</strong> his view is the ‘ancestor of the theme of self-know<strong>in</strong>g as selfconsciousness’<br />
(522). I see no evidence for this thesis <strong>in</strong> Maimonides’ claim that <strong>in</strong> the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect<br />
noÕv, nójsiv, <strong>and</strong> nojtón are identical. On the other h<strong>and</strong>, Lachterman misses the po<strong>in</strong>t, on which<br />
Maimonides <strong>in</strong>deed differs from Aristotle <strong>and</strong> which is of paramount importance for Maimon’s <strong>in</strong>terpretation:<br />
the object of God’s thought (see below). In light of Maimonides’ thesis that the <strong>in</strong>tellect’s ‘true<br />
reality <strong>and</strong> its substance’ is ‘the act of the <strong>in</strong>tellect’, Lachterman’s contention that Maimon’s ‘modern<br />
read<strong>in</strong>g of th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g as essentially mak<strong>in</strong>g or even self-mak<strong>in</strong>g’ reflects his ‘“productive” modification<br />
of Maimonides’ (522) also requires reexam<strong>in</strong>ation. In my view, Maimon’s read<strong>in</strong>g of Maimonides is on<br />
the whole quite close to the latter’s <strong>in</strong>tention.<br />
36 Or ‘<strong>in</strong>tellectual activity’: Greek nójsiv, the nomen actionis of noe⁄n.<br />
37 1074 b 23ff.<br />
38 XII, 9, 1074 b 15–34.<br />
39 As already established <strong>in</strong> XII, 7, 1072 b 15–30.<br />
40 XII, 9, 1074 b 34–35.<br />
Carlos Fraenkel<br />
205
S<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>in</strong> God there is no potentiality but everyth<strong>in</strong>g th<strong>in</strong>kable (possible) is actually<br />
thought by him [alles Vorstellbare (Mögliche) von ihm wirklich vorgestellt wird]; it follows<br />
from this, that God as th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g subject, his thought <strong>and</strong> the object of thought … are<br />
one <strong>and</strong> the same th<strong>in</strong>g. The th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g reader can easily see where this leads.<br />
Here Maimon describes the content of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong> Guide I, 68 <strong>in</strong> almost<br />
the same words he used <strong>in</strong> the passage from ‘The Progress’ quoted above to describe<br />
‘God’s <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect’ accord<strong>in</strong>g to the ‘the system of Leibniz’ (or, if you prefer,<br />
‘the system of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’): ‘God’s <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect comprehends all possible th<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
[beziehet sich der unendliche Verst<strong>and</strong> Gottes auf alle möglichen D<strong>in</strong>ge]’. Incidentally,<br />
Leibniz himself understood Maimonides <strong>in</strong> this way. In a note on Guide I, 68<br />
he writes:<br />
God is <strong>in</strong>tellect, subject <strong>and</strong> object of <strong>in</strong>tellection, <strong>and</strong> these three <strong>in</strong> him are one. An <strong>in</strong>tellect<br />
that exists <strong>in</strong> actu is the same as the object of <strong>in</strong>tellection: for example the abstracted<br />
form of the tree. But an <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong> potentia <strong>and</strong> the tree <strong>in</strong>tellectually cognized<br />
<strong>in</strong> potentia are different th<strong>in</strong>gs. But s<strong>in</strong>ce God is always cogniz<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>tellectually <strong>in</strong> actu<br />
without any potentiality with regard to all objects of <strong>in</strong>tellection [Cum autem Deus sit<br />
semper actu <strong>in</strong>telligens s<strong>in</strong>e ulla potentia respectu omnium <strong>in</strong>telligibilium], <strong>in</strong> him the<br />
subject <strong>and</strong> the object of <strong>in</strong>tellection are always the same. 41<br />
If Maimon’s <strong>in</strong>terpretation of Maimonides is correct, the structural similarity between<br />
their respective concepts of God’s <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>and</strong> the human <strong>in</strong>tellect is <strong>in</strong>deed<br />
strik<strong>in</strong>g. For both, the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>and</strong> the human <strong>in</strong>tellect are of the same substance, <strong>and</strong><br />
differ only quantitatively: The scope of God’s knowledge extends to all <strong>in</strong>telligibles<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> this sense is unlimited. The scope of the human <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong> actu extends only<br />
to a segment of all <strong>in</strong>telligibles <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> this sense is limited. What is the implication of<br />
this <strong>in</strong>terpretation of Maimonides, to which accord<strong>in</strong>g to Maimon the ‘th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g<br />
reader’ will be led? 42 If God th<strong>in</strong>ks all possible th<strong>in</strong>gs, <strong>and</strong> if subject <strong>and</strong> object of<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellection are identical <strong>in</strong> God, it follows that God is all possible th<strong>in</strong>gs. In other<br />
words: God produces, cognizes <strong>and</strong> is identical to the <strong>in</strong>telligible structure of reality<br />
as a whole. 43 If this <strong>in</strong>terpretation is correct, Maimonides’ God is <strong>in</strong>deed very close<br />
to Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s. As we will see later, Maimon was aware of the fact that Sp<strong>in</strong>oza himself<br />
h<strong>in</strong>ted at this similarity. It follows that when the human <strong>in</strong>tellect cognizes a<br />
posteriori an element of this structure – such as the form of a tree – the object of its<br />
cognition is ultimately one of God’s thoughts: our <strong>in</strong>tellectual activity apprehends<br />
God’s <strong>in</strong>tellectual activity that took on the form of a tree. Let us now see whether we<br />
f<strong>in</strong>d support <strong>in</strong> Maimonides himself for Maimon’s <strong>in</strong>terpretation of the content of the<br />
41 Gottfried W. Leibniz, ‘Observationes ad Rabbi Mosis Maimonidis librum qui <strong>in</strong>scribitur Doctor<br />
Perplexorum’, <strong>in</strong> Alex<strong>and</strong>re Foucher de Careil, La philosophie juive et la cabale (Paris, 1861). Repr<strong>in</strong>ted<br />
as an appendix to Maimonides, Doctor Perplexorum, Lat<strong>in</strong> trans. Johannes Buxtorf (Basel,<br />
1629; repr. 1969), pp. 2–46. The quotation is from the gloss on Guide I, 68, 10 (emphasis added).<br />
42 By ‘th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g reader’ Maimon means a reader who, <strong>in</strong> contrast to the dull reader, is able to grasp the<br />
conclusions h<strong>in</strong>ted at – but not explicitly stated – by the author.<br />
43 Maurice Ruben Hayoun, <strong>in</strong> a note to his French translation of the autobiography, <strong>in</strong>terprets Maimon’s<br />
reference to the ‘th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g reader’ as imply<strong>in</strong>g that, for him, ‘l’auteur du Guide professait secrètement<br />
l’éternité du monde’ (Commentaires, p. 100, n. 1). In my view this is clearly not the case.<br />
206 Completion of the Copernican Revolution <strong>in</strong> Philosophy
div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong> Guide I, 68. In Guide III, 21 Maimonides <strong>in</strong>deed provides a detailed<br />
explanation of the genesis <strong>and</strong> structure of God’s knowledge of the universe,<br />
with which Maimon’s <strong>in</strong>terpretation is wholly consistent:<br />
There is a great disparity … with regard to that which exists taken as a whole <strong>in</strong> its relation<br />
to our knowledge, <strong>and</strong> [<strong>in</strong> relation to] His knowledge, may He be exalted. For we<br />
know all that we know only by look<strong>in</strong>g at the existents [תואצמנב תולכתסהה ינפמ]; therefore,<br />
we can neither know future events, nor the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite. Our cognitions are renewed <strong>and</strong><br />
multiplied accord<strong>in</strong>g to the th<strong>in</strong>gs from which we acquire their knowledge. He, may He<br />
be exalted, is not like that. I mean that His knowledge of th<strong>in</strong>gs is not derived from them,<br />
so that there is multiplicity <strong>and</strong> renewal, but the th<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> question follow upon His<br />
knowledge, which preceded <strong>and</strong> established them as they are [םיכשמנ םהה םירבדה לבא<br />
וילע םהש המ יפכ םתוא תבשימה תמדוקה ותעידי ירחא] – either as a separate existence, or as<br />
the existence of an <strong>in</strong>dividual endowed with permanent matter, or as the existence of<br />
what is endowed with matter <strong>and</strong> has chang<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dividuals, [but] follows <strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>corruptible<br />
<strong>and</strong> immutable order. Hence, with regard to Him, may He be exalted, there is no<br />
multiplicity of cognitions <strong>and</strong> renewal <strong>and</strong> change of knowledge. For through know<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the true reality of His own immutable essence, He knows the totality of what necessarily<br />
derives from all His acts [ויתולועפל בייחתיש המ לכ עדי הנתשת אל רשא ומצע תתמא ותעדב<br />
םלוכ]. (441–2)<br />
From this passage it is clear that Maimonides’ God, <strong>in</strong> contrast to Aristotle’s,<br />
knows not only himself but also his creation, which for Maimonides means the entire<br />
Aristotelian universe with its threefold structure: the separate <strong>in</strong>tellects (the ‘separate<br />
existence’); the celestial spheres, (‘the existence of an <strong>in</strong>dividual endowed with permanent<br />
matter’); the objects of the sublunar world, (‘the existence of what is endowed<br />
with matter that has chang<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>dividuals, [but] follows <strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>corruptible<br />
<strong>and</strong> immutable order’). God’s knowledge of the existents is presented as the consequence<br />
of God’s self-<strong>in</strong>tellection <strong>and</strong> the causal dependence of the universe on God.<br />
The argument is simple: By know<strong>in</strong>g himself God knows the first cause of nature.<br />
<strong>Knowledge</strong> of the cause entails knowledge of the effect. Therefore God knows what<br />
follows from his causal activity, i.e., his creation. Maimonides thus comb<strong>in</strong>es two<br />
characteristics of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect accord<strong>in</strong>g to Aristotle’s account <strong>in</strong> the Metaphysics:<br />
(1) the characterization of the essence of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect as self-<strong>in</strong>tellection;<br />
44 (2) the functional characterization of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect as the first cause <strong>in</strong><br />
the order of nature. 45 From these two Aristotelian characterizations, Maimonides<br />
draws the un-Aristotelian <strong>in</strong>ference that the object of God’s knowledge is not only<br />
God himself, but his creation as well. S<strong>in</strong>ce accord<strong>in</strong>g to Maimonides noth<strong>in</strong>g exists<br />
‘besides God, may He be exalted, <strong>and</strong> the totality of th<strong>in</strong>gs He has made’ (Guide I,<br />
34, 63), <strong>and</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ce God knows himself <strong>and</strong> his creation, it follows that his knowledge<br />
<strong>in</strong>deed comprehends everyth<strong>in</strong>g ‘th<strong>in</strong>kable’ or ‘possible’ as Maimon has claimed.<br />
Although Maimonides does not explicitly affirm the identity of God with the <strong>in</strong>telligible<br />
form of his creation, it clearly follows from his account of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong><br />
Guide I, 68, <strong>and</strong> his account of God’s knowledge <strong>in</strong> Guide III, 21. An early ‘th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g<br />
44 Cf. the references given above to Metaphysics XII, 9.<br />
45 Metaphysics, XII, 7; cf. Physics, VIII.<br />
Carlos Fraenkel<br />
207
eader’, Profiat Duran, one of Maimonides’ medieval commentators, had already<br />
po<strong>in</strong>ted out this obvious conclusion:<br />
In this chapter [Maimonides] solved a certa<strong>in</strong> doubt without mention<strong>in</strong>g this doubt, viz.,<br />
how God, exalted be He, knows all existents without be<strong>in</strong>g subject to change <strong>and</strong> multiplicity,<br />
<strong>and</strong> he solved the problem as follows: All existents are <strong>in</strong>scribed <strong>in</strong> His essence<br />
[ומצעב תועבטומ], blessed be He, <strong>and</strong> His essence, exalted be He, is one form which comprises<br />
all existents accord<strong>in</strong>g to their subdivisions [תואצמנה ינימ לכ תללוכ תחא הרוצ<br />
םהינימל]: <strong>in</strong>tellectual existents, spherical existents, <strong>and</strong> terrestrial existents. 46<br />
Profiat Duran thus spells out what is implied <strong>in</strong> Maimonides’ account of God’s<br />
knowledge: that the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect is identical to the order of nature. Maimon himself<br />
was clearly aware of this consequence. In his commentary on Guide I, 74 he refers<br />
back to what has ‘already been expla<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> chapter 68 of this treatise’:<br />
And s<strong>in</strong>ce, as we all agree, everyth<strong>in</strong>g possible [רשפאה לכ] <strong>in</strong> God, exalted be He, is always<br />
<strong>in</strong> actuality, s<strong>in</strong>ce there is absolutely no potentiality <strong>in</strong> Him [ללכ חכ וב ןיא] <strong>and</strong><br />
s<strong>in</strong>ce what is <strong>in</strong>tellectually cognized by God, exalted be He [הלעתי םשה לא לכשומה], is<br />
necessarily true; that is, corresponds to its object, or 47 the <strong>in</strong>tellectual cognition is the<br />
object itself. Now, what is <strong>in</strong>tellectually cognized by God is the notion of the world, i.e.,<br />
the notion of all possible th<strong>in</strong>gs, their order <strong>and</strong> their relation to one another. It clearly<br />
follows from this that the world is <strong>in</strong> Him, exalted be He, as the <strong>in</strong>tellectual cognition is<br />
<strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>tellect [לכשב לכשומה תואיצמכ הלעתי וב אצמנ םלועה תויה הזמ ראובמ]. (GM, 165)<br />
Note how Maimon aga<strong>in</strong> bases his <strong>in</strong>terpretation on the key phrase <strong>in</strong> Guide I, 68:<br />
that ‘there is absolutely no potentiality <strong>in</strong> God’. In sum, for both Maimonides <strong>and</strong><br />
Maimon God’s <strong>in</strong>tellect produces, cognizes <strong>and</strong> is identical to the order of all th<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />
Moreover, it seems to me very probable that Maimonides’ dist<strong>in</strong>ction between div<strong>in</strong>e<br />
<strong>and</strong> human cognition <strong>in</strong> Guide III, 21 is the basis for Maimon’s dist<strong>in</strong>ction between<br />
the cognition of the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>and</strong> the cognition of the f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong> his<br />
commentary on Guide I, 1. Both claim that, <strong>in</strong> the case of God’s <strong>in</strong>tellect, objects<br />
follow upon <strong>and</strong> are determ<strong>in</strong>ed by his knowledge, whereas <strong>in</strong> the case of the human<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellect, knowledge follows upon <strong>and</strong> is determ<strong>in</strong>ed by objects that appear to exist<br />
<strong>in</strong>dependently of its <strong>in</strong>tellectual activity. The thesis of Maimon’s dependence on<br />
Maimonides on this po<strong>in</strong>t becomes yet more plausible if we consider his explicit reference<br />
to Guide III, 21 <strong>in</strong> his account of God’s knowledge <strong>in</strong> Îesheq Shelomoh:<br />
The E<strong>in</strong>-Sof apprehends always <strong>in</strong> actuality the totality of th<strong>in</strong>gs [לכה] because from<br />
Him come all th<strong>in</strong>gs, <strong>and</strong> He actualizes <strong>and</strong> determ<strong>in</strong>es them [לעופה לא םאיצומה אוה<br />
םליבגמהו] with regard to their disposition, their time <strong>and</strong> their place. … The E<strong>in</strong>-Sof apprehends<br />
the future as He apprehends the present because through the knowledge of<br />
Himself He knows all th<strong>in</strong>gs [ויתולועפל בייחתמה לכ עדי ומצע ותעידיב יכ] that necessarily<br />
follow from his actions as Maimonides of blessed memory has said. (126–7)<br />
46 Profiat Duran’s (Efodi) commentary is pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> the 1872 Warsaw edition of Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew<br />
translation of the Guide. The passage quoted is from the commentary on Guide III, 21, 31b.<br />
47 In my view, here ‘or [וא]’ is not disjunctive but <strong>in</strong>troduces an explanation of the mean<strong>in</strong>g of the preced<strong>in</strong>g<br />
‘corresponds [םיכסמ]’.<br />
208 Completion of the Copernican Revolution <strong>in</strong> Philosophy
3. Maimon’s Sp<strong>in</strong>ozist Transformation of Maimonides<br />
The major difference between Maimonides’ <strong>and</strong> Maimon’s concepts of God is that<br />
for the former God’s <strong>in</strong>tellect only produces, cognizes <strong>and</strong> is identical to the form of<br />
all th<strong>in</strong>gs, whereas for the latter God’s <strong>in</strong>tellect produces, cognizes <strong>and</strong> is identical to<br />
both form <strong>and</strong> matter of all th<strong>in</strong>gs. This difference is due to what <strong>in</strong> Maimon’s view<br />
is the ma<strong>in</strong> problem that rema<strong>in</strong>ed unsolved <strong>in</strong> Maimonides’ system: the problem of<br />
the orig<strong>in</strong> of matter. In a sense, therefore, Maimonides’ cosmology is haunted by the<br />
same problem as Kant’s theory of knowledge. In fact, <strong>in</strong> the Essay on Transcendental<br />
Philosophy, Maimon explicitly presents the problem of the orig<strong>in</strong> of matter as a<br />
second version of the problem quid juris. As we saw above, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Maimon, all<br />
philosophers were concerned with the problem quid juris when they tried to expla<strong>in</strong><br />
‘the community between soul <strong>and</strong> body’ (II, 62). Then he adds: ‘or … the genesis<br />
[Entstehung] of the world (with regard to its matter) from an Intelligence [Intelligenz]’.<br />
Thus the epistemological <strong>and</strong> the cosmological problem are two versions of<br />
the same fundamental philosophical concern. With regard to the former the question<br />
is how ‘a priori forms’ could ‘correspond to a posteriori given th<strong>in</strong>gs’. With regard<br />
to the latter Maimon formulates the question as follows:<br />
How is the genesis of matter as someth<strong>in</strong>g only given [bloß gegebenes] conceivable<br />
through the assumption of an Intelligence s<strong>in</strong>ce they are so heterogeneous? (II, 63)<br />
As a th<strong>in</strong>ker with<strong>in</strong> the framework of Aristotelianism, Maimonides was committed<br />
to God’s <strong>in</strong>corporeality. To give up this doctr<strong>in</strong>e would have meant to ab<strong>and</strong>on the<br />
entire system of Aristotelian physics <strong>and</strong> metaphysics, on the premises of which his<br />
proofs for God’s existence, unity <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>corporeality <strong>in</strong> Guide II, 1 are based. As pure,<br />
<strong>in</strong>corporeal <strong>in</strong>telligence, however, the God of a medieval Aristotelian could only be<br />
the efficient, formal <strong>and</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al cause of the world, but not its material cause. In Guide<br />
I, 69, which discusses God’s relation to the world, Maimonides writes accord<strong>in</strong>gly:<br />
In natural science, it has been made clear that there are causes for everyth<strong>in</strong>g that has a<br />
cause; that they are four, namely: matter, form, the efficient, <strong>and</strong> the f<strong>in</strong>al cause [רמחה<br />
תילכתהו לעופהו הרוצהו]. … Now one of the op<strong>in</strong>ions of the philosophers, an op<strong>in</strong>ion with<br />
which I do not disagree, is that God, may He be precious <strong>and</strong> exalted, is the efficient<br />
cause, that He is the form, <strong>and</strong> that He is the f<strong>in</strong>al cause. (144)<br />
On the assumption that God is <strong>in</strong>corporeal, Maimon contends, one cannot expla<strong>in</strong><br />
how the material component of the corporeal world could have orig<strong>in</strong>ated from God.<br />
In his commentary on Guide I, 69, Maimon criticizes Maimonides’ exclusion of<br />
matter from God, <strong>and</strong> presents his own concept of God as not only the world’s efficient,<br />
formal, <strong>and</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al cause but its material cause as well:<br />
That God, may He be exalted, is the efficient cause, that He is the form, <strong>and</strong> that He is<br />
the f<strong>in</strong>al cause etc. The author says: One has to wonder about the philosophers why they<br />
did not say that God, may He be exalted, is also the matter [רמוחה], I mean to say the<br />
ultimate subject for all th<strong>in</strong>gs [םירבדה לכל ןורחאה אשונה], which <strong>in</strong> itself is not a predicate<br />
[אושנ] of anyth<strong>in</strong>g else. If this were the case He, may He be exalted, would be the<br />
ultimate cause with regard to all k<strong>in</strong>ds of causes that we mentioned. Because if we as-<br />
Carlos Fraenkel<br />
209
sume Him, may He be exalted, to be only the efficient cause, the form <strong>and</strong> the f<strong>in</strong>al cause<br />
without be<strong>in</strong>g also the material cause, we must necessarily posit the existence of eternal<br />
matter [ןומדק רמוח], I mean to say [matter] that does not have a cause. And this contradicts<br />
the concept of God, may He be exalted, i.e., the all-comprehensive cause of every<br />
existent [אצמנ לכל תללוכה הבסה]. But <strong>in</strong> truth it is as I have mentioned, i.e., that God,<br />
exalted be He, is the ultimate cause <strong>in</strong> every respect. (GM, 109)<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to this passage, the extension of God’s causality to <strong>in</strong>clude the world’s<br />
material cause is required if we are to defend a pure <strong>and</strong> unadulterated monotheism.<br />
Deny<strong>in</strong>g that God is the world’s material cause leads to a dualistic view, for eternal,<br />
uncaused matter would become a second cause of the world alongside, <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>dependent<br />
of, God. Maimon’s account of God as the ‘material cause’ is complex, <strong>and</strong> I cannot<br />
discuss it exhaustively here. Yitzhak Melamed has conv<strong>in</strong>c<strong>in</strong>gly argued that the<br />
description of the material cause as ‘the ultimate subject of all th<strong>in</strong>gs, which <strong>in</strong> itself<br />
is not a predicate of anyth<strong>in</strong>g else’ ultimately goes back to Aristotle’s def<strong>in</strong>ition of<br />
the ‘underly<strong>in</strong>g [üpokeímenon]’ <strong>in</strong> Metaphysics VII, 3 as that, of which ‘the other<br />
th<strong>in</strong>gs [tà ãlla] are predicated, whereas it itself is not predicated of another’<br />
(1028 b 36–37). 48 But s<strong>in</strong>ce for Maimon the material cause is the subject of ‘all<br />
th<strong>in</strong>gs’, no entity corresponds to it <strong>in</strong> Aristotle’s cosmology; <strong>in</strong> fact, for Aristotle<br />
even the sublunar <strong>and</strong> the supralunar realm do not share the same material substrate.<br />
Here it seems to me more fruitful to look for Neoplatonic sources such as Pseudo-<br />
Empedocles’ Book on the Five Substances, which was probably the source for Solomon<br />
Ibn Gabirol’s concept of matter set forth <strong>in</strong> the Fons Vitae. 49 Ibn Gabirol is<br />
quoted by Giordano Bruno <strong>in</strong> his De la causa, pr<strong>in</strong>cipio et uno, <strong>and</strong> Maimon translates<br />
Bruno’s account of matter <strong>and</strong> form <strong>in</strong> his commentary on Guide I, 69, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the reference to Ibn Gabirol. S<strong>in</strong>ce he was unaware that the ‘Arab Avicebron’<br />
quoted by Bruno was Ibn Gabirol, he refers to him as ‘the Arab Sage’ who claimed<br />
‘matter to be the God conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g all existence [תואיצמה לכ ללוכה הולאה רמוחה תויה]’<br />
(112). Moreover, it is important to note that Maimon’s account of the material cause<br />
quoted above corresponds to only one of three notions of matter that he <strong>in</strong>troduces <strong>in</strong><br />
the commentary on Guide I, 69, <strong>in</strong> part translat<strong>in</strong>g Bruno literally, <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> part summariz<strong>in</strong>g<br />
his views.<br />
Follow<strong>in</strong>g Bruno, he first dist<strong>in</strong>guishes between two k<strong>in</strong>ds of matter, of which the<br />
second k<strong>in</strong>d reflects the Aristotelian concept of prime matter that underlies the physical<br />
world below the sphere of the moon: ‘matter of the second k<strong>in</strong>d’ is the ‘subject<br />
for the natural th<strong>in</strong>gs that change [םינתשמה םייעבטה םירבדל אשונ]’ (114). Matter of<br />
the first k<strong>in</strong>d, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, is contrasted with form whereby both terms, <strong>in</strong> view<br />
to their ontological scope, are used <strong>in</strong> a clearly un-Aristotelian sense: God’s matter<br />
<strong>and</strong> God’s form are the totality of be<strong>in</strong>g, both <strong>in</strong>tellectual <strong>and</strong> physical, both cogitatio<br />
<strong>and</strong> extensio. They are dist<strong>in</strong>ct only <strong>in</strong> that matter is undeterm<strong>in</strong>ed while form is determ<strong>in</strong>ed.<br />
To describe God as the formal cause of the world Maimon uses Bruno’s<br />
48 Yitzhak Melamed, ‘Salomon Maimon <strong>and</strong> the Rise of Sp<strong>in</strong>ozism <strong>in</strong> German Idealism’, Journal of the<br />
History of Philosophy 42(1) (2004): 67–96, on p. 80 <strong>and</strong> n. 48.<br />
49 Cf. David Kaufmann, ‘Pseudo-Empedocles as a Source of Solomon ibn Gabirol’, <strong>in</strong> Studies <strong>in</strong> <strong>Medieval</strong><br />
Hebrew Literature (Jerusalem, 1962), pp. 78–165 (Hebrew).<br />
210 Completion of the Copernican Revolution <strong>in</strong> Philosophy
concept of the ‘worldsoul [םלועה חור]’, which ‘is the form of the world as a whole<br />
[וללכב םלועה תרוצ איה]’ (110). In his Philosophical Dictionary he describes the<br />
worldsoul as ‘the formal <strong>and</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al cause of all objects [die causa formalis und f<strong>in</strong>alis<br />
aller Objekte]’ (III, 194), where ‘f<strong>in</strong>al cause’ simply means the realization or actuality<br />
of the form. As for the concept of matter, he quotes Bruno:<br />
In the same way as sensible th<strong>in</strong>gs [םישגרומה םירבדה] with regard to their sensible nature<br />
participate <strong>in</strong> one corporeal subject [ימשג דחא אשונב], also <strong>in</strong>telligible th<strong>in</strong>gs [םירבדה<br />
םילכשומה] necessarily participate <strong>in</strong> one <strong>in</strong>telligible subject. And the two mentioned<br />
k<strong>in</strong>ds necessarily participate <strong>in</strong> one subject as well, which comprises both of them. …<br />
The mentioned comprehensive matter [ללוכה רמוחה] is on the one h<strong>and</strong> multiple, i.e.,<br />
with regard to its compris<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> itself all possible forms; on the other h<strong>and</strong> it is one, i.e.,<br />
with regard to itself. And it truly is everyth<strong>in</strong>g that can exist as a unity [רשפאש המ לכ<br />
דחאכ תויהל]. And for this reason it is not a determ<strong>in</strong>ed th<strong>in</strong>g at all, <strong>and</strong> (as has been made<br />
clear) matter is not only disposition [הנכה], as some of the philosophers th<strong>in</strong>k – to which<br />
all activity <strong>and</strong> perfection is denied – but <strong>in</strong> truth it is a power striv<strong>in</strong>g towards actuality<br />
[לעפה לא האיציה לע לדתשמ חכ], similar to a woman sitt<strong>in</strong>g on a travail<strong>in</strong>g chair <strong>in</strong> relation<br />
to birth. (114)<br />
Matter, therefore, is the totality of th<strong>in</strong>gs as undifferentiated unity, <strong>and</strong> at the same<br />
time is activity: the power striv<strong>in</strong>g towards actuality. Thus while the ‘worldsoul’ is<br />
the formal <strong>and</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al cause, matter covers the two rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the four causes: the<br />
material cause <strong>and</strong> the agent (or efficient cause).<br />
Let us now turn to Maimon’s third notion of matter, which he presents as a summary<br />
of Bruno’s discussion of matter <strong>and</strong> form (or ‘worldsoul’). Accord<strong>in</strong>g to this<br />
third notion, which Maimon unfortunately does not clearly def<strong>in</strong>e as an <strong>in</strong>dependent<br />
concept, all the dist<strong>in</strong>ctions relat<strong>in</strong>g to matter versus form that we saw above are not<br />
real dist<strong>in</strong>ctions, but merely describe different aspects of one active subject: a monistic<br />
totality, which determ<strong>in</strong>es itself <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> the act of self-determ<strong>in</strong>ation, unites the<br />
undeterm<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>and</strong> the determ<strong>in</strong>ed, or ‘matter of the first k<strong>in</strong>d’ <strong>and</strong> form. In this sense<br />
Maimon can speak of the ultimate unity of the four causes <strong>and</strong> reduce them to this<br />
third <strong>and</strong> most comprehensive notion of matter:<br />
The conclusion of this account is that the four k<strong>in</strong>ds of causes …, i.e., the material, the<br />
formal, the active <strong>and</strong> the f<strong>in</strong>al cause, are one th<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> itself with regard to be<strong>in</strong>g as a<br />
whole [ומצעב דחא רבד תויאצמה ללכ תניחבב]. Matter is the absolute subject [אשונה<br />
טלחומה] for all existents, the corporeal <strong>and</strong> the <strong>in</strong>tellectual, <strong>and</strong> it is also the form, because<br />
it conta<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> itself all possible forms <strong>in</strong> a way concealed from us; <strong>and</strong> it [matter]<br />
<strong>in</strong> itself is the agent, i.e., that which differentiates the forms <strong>and</strong> reveals them to the outside<br />
[ץוחה לא ןתוא הלגמ], <strong>and</strong> it is also the end [תילכת], which is the existence of everyth<strong>in</strong>g<br />
that can exist. But I dealt with this <strong>in</strong> detail because it is a very subtle <strong>in</strong>vestigation,<br />
difficult to underst<strong>and</strong> when one beg<strong>in</strong>s to reflect. Nonetheless this <strong>in</strong>vestigation is very<br />
important <strong>and</strong> useful for apprehend<strong>in</strong>g the true essence of nature <strong>and</strong> its actions <strong>and</strong> [for<br />
apprehend<strong>in</strong>g] that the whole of reality [תואיצמה לכ] is one th<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> itself <strong>and</strong> noth<strong>in</strong>g<br />
except that. (GM, 114–115)<br />
This transformation of Maimonides’ God, which I will argue below is best characterized<br />
as Sp<strong>in</strong>ozist, solves the second version of the problem quid juris: the explana-<br />
Carlos Fraenkel<br />
211
tion of ‘the genesis of the world (with regard to its matter) from an Intelligence’ (II,<br />
62). The act of <strong>in</strong>tellectual self-cognition of Maimonides’ God, <strong>in</strong> which subject, object,<br />
<strong>and</strong> act of <strong>in</strong>tellectual cognition are one, becomes the act of self-determ<strong>in</strong>ation of<br />
Maimon’s God, <strong>in</strong> which the undeterm<strong>in</strong>ed, the determ<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>and</strong> the act of determ<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
are one. In contrast to Maimonides’ God, Maimon’s God is no longer pure <strong>in</strong>telligence.<br />
For Maimon, the undeterm<strong>in</strong>ed (identified with ‘matter of the first k<strong>in</strong>d’), <strong>and</strong><br />
the determ<strong>in</strong>ed (identified with form) comprehend both the <strong>in</strong>telligible <strong>and</strong> the material<br />
dimension of reality. In this sense, ideas <strong>and</strong> th<strong>in</strong>gs are <strong>in</strong>deed identical <strong>in</strong> God;<br />
or, as Maimon puts it: ‘the forms are at the same time the objects of cognition’ (II,<br />
64). The fact that Maimon <strong>in</strong> other passages refers to his God as ‘<strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect’ is,<br />
therefore, somewhat mislead<strong>in</strong>g, s<strong>in</strong>ce his God has only the structure with<br />
Maimonides’ div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong> common. This term<strong>in</strong>ological ambiguity was probably<br />
deliberate s<strong>in</strong>ce a straightforward presentation of his Sp<strong>in</strong>ozist God would not have<br />
been received with much sympathy by his readers, as we will see below.<br />
Let us now turn to the role that <strong>in</strong> my view should be assigned to Sp<strong>in</strong>oza <strong>in</strong> the<br />
transition from Maimonides’ monotheism to Maimon’s monism. My general suggestion<br />
is that God’s matter <strong>and</strong> God’s form, as described <strong>in</strong> Maimon’s commentary on<br />
Guide I, 69, are best understood <strong>in</strong> terms of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s Substance or Natura naturans<br />
<strong>and</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s order of modes or Natura naturata 50 (if we limit the ontological scope<br />
of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s God to the two attributes known to us, namely, thought <strong>and</strong> extension).<br />
Moreover, Maimon’s third notion of matter, which unites the four causes, <strong>and</strong> makes<br />
it possible to underst<strong>and</strong> ‘the whole of reality’ as ‘one th<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> itself’, corresponds <strong>in</strong><br />
my op<strong>in</strong>ion to Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s Deus sive Natura as the unity of Natura naturans <strong>and</strong><br />
Natura naturata. Let me expla<strong>in</strong> what I th<strong>in</strong>k supports this suggestion. In the Autobiography,<br />
Maimon explicitly notes that the ‘complete solution’ of the problem quid<br />
juris ‘necessarily [leads] to a Sp<strong>in</strong>ozist or Leibnizian type of dogmatism’ (I, 558).<br />
Kant himself remarked <strong>in</strong> a letter to Markus Herz that Maimon’s ‘approach [Vorstellungsart]’<br />
is ‘the same as … Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s [mit dem Sp<strong>in</strong>ozism … e<strong>in</strong>erlei]’. 51 In addition,<br />
<strong>in</strong> the note on the article of the German scholar Obereit referred to above,<br />
Maimon writes that <strong>in</strong> his Essay on Transcendental Philosophy ‘he attempted to<br />
unify Kantian philosophy with Sp<strong>in</strong>ozism [die Vere<strong>in</strong>igung der Kantischen Philosophie<br />
mit dem Sp<strong>in</strong>ozismo]’ (III, 455, note).<br />
On the other h<strong>and</strong>, <strong>in</strong> the Essay itself he presents his solution for the problem quid<br />
juris as based on the ‘system of Leibniz <strong>and</strong> Wolf’ (II, 63) <strong>and</strong> openly rejects its association<br />
with the philosophy of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza (cf. II, 365). In Giv¨at ha-moreh as well,<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza is not mentioned <strong>in</strong> the context of the discussion of God as the material<br />
cause of the world; <strong>in</strong>stead, Maimon here uses Giordano Bruno. To underst<strong>and</strong> this<br />
seem<strong>in</strong>gly curious absence of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza it is <strong>in</strong> my view helpful to recall the audiences<br />
50 Cf. E I, Prop. 29, Scholium (<strong>in</strong> Opera, 4 vols, ed. Carl Gebhardt [Heidelberg, 1925], 2: 71). In<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, the terms Natura naturans <strong>and</strong> Natura naturata describe the causal relationship between God<br />
(or Substance) <strong>and</strong> his modes: ‘… by Natura naturans we mean … God, <strong>in</strong>sofar he is considered as a<br />
free cause [causa libera]. But by [Natura naturata] I mean all that follows from the necessity [ex necessitate]<br />
of God’s nature…, i.e., all the modes of God’s attributes’. Cf. Korte Verh<strong>and</strong>el<strong>in</strong>g van God, de<br />
Mensch, en des zelfs Welst<strong>and</strong> I, chapter 8 <strong>and</strong> 9 (Opera, ed. Gebhardt, 1: 47–8).<br />
51 Letter dated 26 May 1789, <strong>in</strong> Kant, Gesammelte Schriften (Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> Leipzig, 1902–), 11: 50.<br />
212 Completion of the Copernican Revolution <strong>in</strong> Philosophy
for which Maimon was writ<strong>in</strong>g. The substitution of the ‘system of Leibniz <strong>and</strong> Wolf’<br />
to Sp<strong>in</strong>oza can be understood, I believe, <strong>in</strong> the light of the follow<strong>in</strong>g passage from<br />
the Autobiography:<br />
I read Sp<strong>in</strong>oza; I very much liked the deep thought of this philosopher <strong>and</strong> his love of the<br />
truth, <strong>and</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ce I was led to his system [auf das System desselben gerathen war] already<br />
<strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong> on occasion of [my study of] kabbalistic writ<strong>in</strong>gs, I began aga<strong>in</strong> to reflect<br />
about it. I became so conv<strong>in</strong>ced of its truth that all efforts of Mendelssohn to dissuade me<br />
from it were fruitless. I responded to all objections made aga<strong>in</strong>st it by the disciples of<br />
Wolf [<strong>and</strong>] made myself objections aga<strong>in</strong>st their system. … I could also not expla<strong>in</strong> to<br />
myself the <strong>in</strong>sistence of Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> the disciples of Wolf <strong>in</strong> general that their system<br />
is someth<strong>in</strong>g other than political tricks <strong>and</strong> hypocrisy [politische Kniffe und<br />
Heuchelei], through which they diligently tried to approach the way of th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g of the<br />
vulgar [Denkungsart des geme<strong>in</strong>en Mannes], <strong>and</strong> I expressed this publicly <strong>and</strong> without<br />
any restra<strong>in</strong>t. (I, 469–70)<br />
We learn from this passage that Maimon became familiar with ‘the system’ of<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza even before he read Sp<strong>in</strong>oza himself, namely <strong>in</strong> the context of his study of<br />
Kabbalah <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>. As we will see below, the concept of God <strong>in</strong> Lurianic Kabbalah,<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to Maimon, is essentially the same as Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s concept of God. 52 Moreover,<br />
we learn that Maimon was conv<strong>in</strong>ced of the truth of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s philosophy, 53 that<br />
Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> his circle did not receive his enthusiasm for Sp<strong>in</strong>oza with sympathy,<br />
that he rejected the system of Leibniz <strong>and</strong> Wolf, on which the official position of<br />
Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> his circle was based, <strong>and</strong>, f<strong>in</strong>ally, that he assumed them to be<br />
adopt<strong>in</strong>g this position for political reasons only, i.e., <strong>in</strong> order to speak ad captum<br />
vulgi, to quote Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s famous ‘rule of liv<strong>in</strong>g’. 54 In this context it may be noted<br />
that Maimon described Mendelssohn’s critique of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, <strong>and</strong> his emphasis on the<br />
differences between Leibniz <strong>and</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>oza as part of Mendelssohn’s ‘exoteric exposition<br />
[exoterischen Vortrage]’ (IV, 59). In light of the passage from the Autobiography,<br />
I would suggest that the motive for Maimon’s seem<strong>in</strong>gly <strong>in</strong>consistent attitude<br />
towards Sp<strong>in</strong>oza was that exoterically he found it more convenient to present himself<br />
as a disciple of Leibniz. In addition, several remarks of Maimon imply that he dist<strong>in</strong>guished<br />
between an exoteric <strong>and</strong> an esoteric content of Leibniz’ doctr<strong>in</strong>e, 55 <strong>and</strong> that<br />
52 This passage <strong>in</strong> the autobiography has frequently been misunderstood as imply<strong>in</strong>g that Maimon actually<br />
studied Sp<strong>in</strong>oza <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>. See, e.g.: Zac, ‘Maimon’, p. 67; Engstler ‘Vere<strong>in</strong>igung’, p. 40. It seems<br />
very unlikely, however, that Maimon could have had access to Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s writ<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> that period. As<br />
Melamed remarks (‘Maimon <strong>and</strong> the Rise of Sp<strong>in</strong>ozism’), ‘the Ethics was translated <strong>in</strong>to Hebrew <strong>and</strong><br />
Yiddish only <strong>in</strong> the second half of the 19 th century’. Although it is not <strong>in</strong>conceivable that Maimon got<br />
hold of a German translation, <strong>and</strong> studied it with the little German he already knew, it seems to me<br />
much simpler to read Maimon here as suggest<strong>in</strong>g that he realized retrospectively he had already encountered<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s ‘system’ when study<strong>in</strong>g Kabbalah. This <strong>in</strong>terpretation of the passage is compatible with<br />
its word<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> much more plausible than the traditional <strong>in</strong>terpretation. It is also supported by the fact<br />
that Sp<strong>in</strong>oza is not mentioned <strong>in</strong> Maimon’s early Hebrew work Îesheq Shelomoh, which would be surpris<strong>in</strong>g<br />
had Maimon already been familiar with his philosophy when he composed the treatise.<br />
53 Cf. also I, 488, where Maimon states that ‘no <strong>in</strong>dependent th<strong>in</strong>ker [ke<strong>in</strong> Selbstdenker] can f<strong>in</strong>d fault’<br />
with the ‘<strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ation [Neigung] to Sp<strong>in</strong>ozism’.<br />
54 Cf. Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s Tractactus de <strong>in</strong>tellectus emendatione (Opera, ed. Gebhardt, 2: 9).<br />
55 Cf. IV, 52, where Maimon refers to Leibniz’s ‘exoteric way of teach<strong>in</strong>g [exoterische Lehrart]’. Cf.<br />
also IV, 42.<br />
Carlos Fraenkel<br />
213
<strong>in</strong> his view Leibniz’s esoteric position was ultimately the same as that of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza. 56<br />
If, therefore, Leibniz himself could be read as a disguised Sp<strong>in</strong>ozist, Maimon could<br />
rema<strong>in</strong> loyal to Sp<strong>in</strong>oza even while pretend<strong>in</strong>g to be follow<strong>in</strong>g Leibniz.<br />
Political reasons may also account for the replacement of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza through Giordano<br />
Bruno <strong>in</strong> Maimon’s commentary on the Guide as has been suggested by<br />
Yitzhak Melamed. The commentary was commissioned by members of the Berl<strong>in</strong><br />
Haskalah with the aim of diffus<strong>in</strong>g their ideas among Jewish readers. S<strong>in</strong>ce<br />
Maimonides’ authority was accepted <strong>in</strong> traditional circles, the Guide provided an appropriate<br />
vehicle to carry out this program. The explanation of Maimonides’ doctr<strong>in</strong>es<br />
<strong>in</strong> light of the reviled heretic Sp<strong>in</strong>oza would, however, obviously have defeated<br />
the purpose. Giordano Bruno, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, was unknown to this audience. 57<br />
That Maimon was <strong>in</strong>deed th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza when he used Bruno is <strong>in</strong> my view<br />
conclusively proven by the fact that he used Friedrich He<strong>in</strong>rich Jacobi’s German<br />
translation of Bruno’s De la causa, pr<strong>in</strong>cipio et uno. Jacobi had published this translation<br />
as an appendix to the second edition of his On the Teach<strong>in</strong>gs of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza <strong>in</strong><br />
Letters to Mr. Moses Mendelssohn, <strong>and</strong> stated explicitly <strong>in</strong> the preface: ‘It is my<br />
ma<strong>in</strong> aim … to demonstrate [darzulegen] <strong>in</strong> my book the Summa of the philosophy<br />
of the ¨En kai Pan through the juxtaposition [Zusammenstellung] of Bruno with<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’. 58 It may be noted <strong>in</strong> this context that <strong>in</strong> 1793 – two years after the publication<br />
of Giv¨at ha-moreh – Maimon wrote a short commentary on Jacobi’s German<br />
translation of Bruno. 59<br />
But aside from these somewhat speculative arguments for Maimon’s esoteric<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>ozism, there is also textual evidence that he considered the material <strong>and</strong> formal<br />
cause <strong>in</strong> Bruno’s account of God to correspond to the two basic constituents of<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s ontology: the notion of substance (or Natura naturans) <strong>and</strong> the notion of<br />
modes (or Natura naturata). To make this l<strong>in</strong>k visible, let us consider a passage from<br />
Îesheq Shelomoh <strong>in</strong> which Maimon gives an account of the relation of God <strong>and</strong> the<br />
world that is clearly related to the account we saw <strong>in</strong> his commentary on Guide I, 69:<br />
My <strong>in</strong>tention <strong>in</strong> this chapter is to clarify the relationship of God, may He be praised, to<br />
the world. It is already known that every existent has four causes; they are the material<br />
<strong>and</strong> the formal cause, the efficient <strong>and</strong> the f<strong>in</strong>al cause. … Also the world as a whole<br />
56 Cf. the passage quoted above (IV, 58), <strong>in</strong> which Maimon refers to ‘the way I underst<strong>and</strong> Leibniz’s<br />
system’, which ‘may be called Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s system’ <strong>in</strong> case Leibniz’s disciples disapprove of his underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g.<br />
Maimon was not the only representative of a Sp<strong>in</strong>ozist read<strong>in</strong>g of Leibniz. See, e.g., Less<strong>in</strong>g<br />
as quoted by Jacobi, <strong>in</strong> Friedrich He<strong>in</strong>rich Jacobi, Über die Lehre des Sp<strong>in</strong>oza <strong>in</strong> Briefen an den Herrn<br />
Moses Mendelssohn (Hamburg, 2000), pp. 29ff. Later, Fichte mentions Maimon as hav<strong>in</strong>g demonstrated<br />
that ‘the system of Leibniz, if thought through to its conclusion [<strong>in</strong> se<strong>in</strong>er Vollendung gedacht] is noth<strong>in</strong>g<br />
but Sp<strong>in</strong>ozism’ (Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre, §1, ed.<br />
Wilhem Gustav Jacobs, 4 th ed. [Hamburg, 1988], p. 21). In Maimon’s view, Leibniz’s esoteric doctr<strong>in</strong>e<br />
agreed with Sp<strong>in</strong>oza on two crucial issues: First, that <strong>in</strong> God all possible worlds are real <strong>and</strong> that the<br />
dist<strong>in</strong>ction between real world <strong>and</strong> possible worlds is a result of the f<strong>in</strong>ite nature of the human <strong>in</strong>tellect;<br />
second, that the doctr<strong>in</strong>e of monads does not imply a plurality of substances; rather, the monads are different<br />
degrees of limitation of one substance. On Maimon’s <strong>in</strong>terpretation of Leibniz, see Wolfgang H.<br />
Schrader, ‘Leibniz versus Kant – Die Leibniz-Rezeption Salomon Maimons’, <strong>in</strong> Leibniz, Werk und<br />
Wirkung, 4 th International Leibniz Congress (Hannover, 1983), pp. 697–707.<br />
57 Cf. Melamed, ‘Maimon <strong>and</strong> the Rise of Sp<strong>in</strong>ozism’, pp. 83–5.<br />
58 Jacobi, Lehre des Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, 159.<br />
59 ‘Auszug aus Jordan Bruno von Nola. Von der Ursache, dem Pr<strong>in</strong>zip und dem E<strong>in</strong>em’ (IV, 617–52).<br />
214 Completion of the Copernican Revolution <strong>in</strong> Philosophy
[וללכב םלועה] has the four mentioned causes: the one is the material cause, i.e., the subject<br />
[אשונה] which received the form of the world, <strong>and</strong> this is the substance [םצעה] of the<br />
E<strong>in</strong>-Sof, may He be praised. … The world as a whole received a form after not hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
had a form at all, <strong>and</strong> this is the mean<strong>in</strong>g of creation ex nihilo. Underst<strong>and</strong> this! And the<br />
second cause is the form, i.e., the form of the world as a whole <strong>and</strong> of its parts, <strong>and</strong> [this<br />
form] is appropriate to make visible His glory, may He be praised, <strong>in</strong> the same way as<br />
the form of the body as a whole <strong>and</strong> of its parts is appropriate to make visible the actions<br />
of the soul. … And the third cause is the agent, <strong>and</strong> it also is He Himself, may He be<br />
praised, Who acts <strong>in</strong> the world. And the fourth cause is the end, <strong>and</strong> it is also He Himself,<br />
may He be praised. … You should know that the material <strong>and</strong> the act<strong>in</strong>g [or: efficient<br />
(תיילעפה)] causes are attributed to Him with regard to the E<strong>in</strong>-Sof, but the formal<br />
<strong>and</strong> the f<strong>in</strong>al [causes] with regard to the Sefirot. Underst<strong>and</strong> this! I have shown now that<br />
He, may He be praised – His relation to the world [םלועה לא וסוחי] is the relation of the<br />
four mentioned causes, <strong>and</strong> from now on it shall be impossible to conceive a be<strong>in</strong>g other<br />
than Him, may He be praised, … <strong>and</strong> this is the secret of unity [תודחאה דוס]. (138–9)<br />
Several elements <strong>in</strong> this passage recall Maimon’s commentary on Guide I, 69. 60<br />
But what is crucial for our context is the association of the four Aristotelian causes<br />
with the two basic constituents of kabbalistic ontology: the E<strong>in</strong>-Sof <strong>and</strong> the Sefirot.<br />
From this association it is clear that the Sefirot, to which the formal <strong>and</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al causes<br />
are attributed, have the function assigned to the form or ‘worldsoul’ <strong>in</strong> the commentary<br />
on the Guide, while the E<strong>in</strong>-Sof, to which the material <strong>and</strong> efficient causes are<br />
attributed, has the function assigned there to ‘matter of the first k<strong>in</strong>d’. Now, Maimon’s<br />
identification of Kabbalah with Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s system <strong>in</strong> the Autobiography is<br />
based precisely on the identification of the basic constituents of kabbalistic ontology,<br />
the E<strong>in</strong>-Sof <strong>and</strong> Sefirot, with the basic constituents of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s ontology, substance<br />
<strong>and</strong> modes: 61<br />
Indeed, Kabbalah is noth<strong>in</strong>g but extended Sp<strong>in</strong>ozism [erweiterter Sp<strong>in</strong>ozismus], <strong>in</strong> which<br />
not only the genesis of the world is expla<strong>in</strong>ed from the limitation [E<strong>in</strong>schränkung] of the<br />
div<strong>in</strong>e be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> general, but also the genesis of each k<strong>in</strong>d of be<strong>in</strong>g [Wesen] <strong>and</strong> their relation<br />
to all other [k<strong>in</strong>ds of be<strong>in</strong>g] is derived from a specific property [Eigenschaft] of God.<br />
God as the ultimate subject <strong>and</strong> as the ultimate cause of all be<strong>in</strong>gs is called E<strong>in</strong>-Sof (the<br />
<strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite, of which, considered <strong>in</strong> itself, noth<strong>in</strong>g can be predicated.) In relation to the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite<br />
be<strong>in</strong>gs, however, positive properties are attributed to Him; these are reduced by the<br />
kabbalists to ten, which are called the ten Sefirot. (I, 141)<br />
What Maimon means when describ<strong>in</strong>g Kabbalah as ‘extended’ Sp<strong>in</strong>ozism is simply<br />
that the Kabbalists develop <strong>in</strong> detail the generation of <strong>in</strong>dividual th<strong>in</strong>gs from the<br />
60 E.g., the description of the actualization of the form of the world as creation ex nihilo recalls the determ<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
of the undeterm<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> the translation of Bruno <strong>in</strong> the commentary; the comparison of the<br />
form of the world as express<strong>in</strong>g God’s activity with the form of the body as express<strong>in</strong>g the soul’s activity<br />
recalls the role assigned to the ‘worldsoul’.<br />
61 For a recent study of Kabbalah <strong>in</strong> Maimon’s Autobiography, see Christoph Schulte, ‘Kabbala <strong>in</strong><br />
Salomon Maimons Lebensgeschichte’, <strong>in</strong> Kabbala und die Literatur der Romantik, eds. Evel<strong>in</strong>e<br />
Goodman-Thau, Gerd Mattenklott, <strong>and</strong> Christoph Schulte (Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen, 1999), pp. 33–67. For the history<br />
of the kabbalistic <strong>in</strong>terpretation of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, see Andreas Kilcher, ‘Kabbala <strong>in</strong> der Maske der<br />
Philosophie: Zu e<strong>in</strong>er Interpretationsfigur <strong>in</strong> der Sp<strong>in</strong>oza-Literatur’, <strong>in</strong> Delf, Schoeps, <strong>and</strong> Walther,<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, pp. 193–242.<br />
Carlos Fraenkel<br />
215
Sefirot, whereas Sp<strong>in</strong>oza only provides a general account of the generation of f<strong>in</strong>ite<br />
modes from <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite modes. Note already here the similarity between the description<br />
of God as E<strong>in</strong>-Sof <strong>and</strong> the description of God as the material cause <strong>in</strong> the commentary<br />
on Guide I, 69: the former characterized as ‘the ultimate subject <strong>and</strong> as the ultimate<br />
cause of all be<strong>in</strong>gs’, the latter as ‘the ultimate subject of all th<strong>in</strong>gs’. That the<br />
identification of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza <strong>and</strong> Kabbalah is <strong>in</strong>deed based on what Maimon takes to be<br />
the analogous structure of the ontology of the Kabbalists <strong>and</strong> that of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza becomes<br />
clear from the follow<strong>in</strong>g short summary of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s ‘system’ <strong>in</strong> the Autobiography:<br />
The system of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza … assumes one <strong>and</strong> the same substance as immediate cause<br />
[unmittelbare Ursache] of all the different effects, which have to be considered as predicates<br />
of one <strong>and</strong> the same subject. Matter <strong>and</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d [Materie und Geist] are <strong>in</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>oza<br />
one <strong>and</strong> the same substance, which appears once under this, once under that attribute.<br />
This unique [e<strong>in</strong>zige] substance is, accord<strong>in</strong>g to him, not only the only possible self-sufficient<br />
[selbständige] (from an external cause <strong>in</strong>dependent) [be<strong>in</strong>g], but also the only be<strong>in</strong>g<br />
subsist<strong>in</strong>g by itself [für sich bestehende Wesen], the k<strong>in</strong>ds (modes) of which (these<br />
attributes limited <strong>in</strong> a particular way) are all the so-called be<strong>in</strong>gs outside itself. (I, 153)<br />
Both the E<strong>in</strong>-Sof <strong>and</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s substance are the cause of all th<strong>in</strong>gs (for the kabbalists<br />
of the Sefirot <strong>and</strong> everyth<strong>in</strong>g that derives from them; for Sp<strong>in</strong>oza of the order<br />
of <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>and</strong> f<strong>in</strong>ite modes) <strong>and</strong> both are related to their effects as a subject is related<br />
to its predicates. The passage <strong>in</strong> Îesheq Shelomoh, therefore, provides the l<strong>in</strong>k that<br />
makes the Sp<strong>in</strong>ozist background of the account of God as matter <strong>and</strong> form <strong>in</strong> the<br />
commentary on the Guide visible: ‘matter of the first k<strong>in</strong>d’, E<strong>in</strong>-Sof, <strong>and</strong> Substance<br />
(or Natura naturans) on the one h<strong>and</strong>, form (or ‘worldsoul’), Sefirot, <strong>and</strong> order of<br />
modes (or Natura naturata) on the other h<strong>and</strong> are synonymous concepts derived<br />
from Giordano Bruno, Kabbalah, <strong>and</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>oza. Matter <strong>and</strong> E<strong>in</strong>-Sof <strong>and</strong> form <strong>and</strong><br />
Sefirot are associated respectively with the same two of the four Aristotelian causes<br />
(material <strong>and</strong> efficient causes the former, formal <strong>and</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al causes the latter); E<strong>in</strong>-Sof<br />
<strong>and</strong> Sefirot, <strong>in</strong> their turn, are identified with substance <strong>and</strong> modes <strong>in</strong> ‘the system of<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’. The two series of concepts refer, therefore to the same entities <strong>in</strong> Maimon’s<br />
ontology. Ultimately they describe the structure of his God or <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect. That<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza is the most important of the three mentioned sources becomes clear, I th<strong>in</strong>k,<br />
if we take the follow<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong>to account: first, Maimon’s statements about his<br />
study of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza <strong>in</strong> the Autobiography; second, his view that the philosophical value<br />
of the kabbalistic system consisted <strong>in</strong> its be<strong>in</strong>g ‘noth<strong>in</strong>g but extended Sp<strong>in</strong>ozism’;<br />
<strong>and</strong> third, that Bruno’s text replaces Sp<strong>in</strong>oza <strong>in</strong> the commentary on the Guide primarily<br />
for political reasons.<br />
Maimon’s Sp<strong>in</strong>ozistic transformation of Maimonides’ notion of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect<br />
thus provides a solution for the cosmological version of the problem quid juris: ‘the<br />
genesis of the world (with regard to its matter) from an Intelligence’ (II, 62). It follows<br />
that, if God is the world’s formal <strong>and</strong> material cause, an <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect can be<br />
conceived that not only produces <strong>and</strong> is identical to the <strong>in</strong>telligible form of the objects<br />
of cognition (as was the case of Maimonides’ God) but produces <strong>and</strong> is identical<br />
216 Completion of the Copernican Revolution <strong>in</strong> Philosophy
to both their form <strong>and</strong> matter. Thus the ‘gap’ (II, 521) <strong>in</strong> Kant’s system, stemm<strong>in</strong>g<br />
from the assumption of two ‘completely different sources’ (II, 63) for the components<br />
of the cognized object is closed – at least with regard to the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect.<br />
What are the implications of this Sp<strong>in</strong>ozist bridge over the ‘gap’ <strong>in</strong> Kant’s system<br />
for Maimon’s concept of the apprehension of the human <strong>in</strong>tellect, <strong>in</strong> particular with<br />
regard to the question which Kant proved unable to answer: how ‘a priori forms<br />
should correspond to a posteriori given th<strong>in</strong>gs’ (II, 63). Now, correspondence, <strong>in</strong> the<br />
strong sense of unity of ideas <strong>and</strong> objects, is precisely what characterizes Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s<br />
order of modes. In the last passage from the Autobiography quoted above, Maimon<br />
paraphrased, by <strong>and</strong> large accurately, a passage <strong>in</strong> the Ethics (‘matter <strong>and</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d are <strong>in</strong><br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza one <strong>and</strong> the same substance, which appears once under this, once under that<br />
attribute’) which is immediately followed by a passage (not paraphrased by<br />
Maimon), <strong>in</strong> which Sp<strong>in</strong>oza makes the same claim about the order of modes. Us<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Maimon’s term<strong>in</strong>ology one could paraphrase this claim as follows: there is only one<br />
order of modes, which under the attribute of ‘matter’ appears as the ‘order of th<strong>in</strong>gs’,<br />
<strong>and</strong> under the attribute of ‘m<strong>in</strong>d’ as the ‘order of ideas’. Given this context it is not<br />
particularly surpris<strong>in</strong>g that Maimon’s answer to the correspondence question is<br />
clearly <strong>in</strong>spired by Sp<strong>in</strong>oza. 62 In the entry ‘truth’ of his Philosophical Dictionary he<br />
writes:<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Mr. Kant, the th<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> itself is that outside our cognitive faculty [Erkenntnißvermögen],<br />
to which the concept [Begriff] or the representation [Vorstellung] refers. I<br />
claim, <strong>in</strong> contrast, that the th<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> itself, so understood, is an empty word without any<br />
mean<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>in</strong>asmuch as one is not only unable to demonstrate the existence of this th<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
but one also cannot form a concept of it; accord<strong>in</strong>g to me, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, the th<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong><br />
itself, <strong>and</strong> the concept <strong>and</strong> representation of a th<strong>in</strong>g are objectively one <strong>and</strong> the same<br />
th<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> dist<strong>in</strong>guished from one another [vone<strong>in</strong><strong>and</strong>er unterschieden] only subjectively,<br />
that is with regard to the completeness [Vollständigkeit] of our cognition. (III, 185)<br />
The <strong>in</strong>completeness of human cognition, which <strong>in</strong> this passage expla<strong>in</strong>s why, subjectively,<br />
ideas <strong>and</strong> objects are dist<strong>in</strong>ct, refers to Maimon’s by now familiar claim<br />
about the limitation of the human <strong>in</strong>tellect, which is f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong> contrast to the div<strong>in</strong>e<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellect, which is <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite. The passage that Maimon paraphrases <strong>in</strong> his account of<br />
the unity of ‘matter <strong>and</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d’ as characteristic of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s notion of substance, is<br />
the scholium to Ethics II, proposition 7, <strong>and</strong> it is apparently the description of modes<br />
<strong>in</strong> this same scholium, which Maimon had <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d when he speaks of the objective<br />
unity <strong>and</strong> subjective dist<strong>in</strong>ctness of ideas <strong>and</strong> objects with regard to the human <strong>in</strong>tellect.<br />
Let us, therefore, exam<strong>in</strong>e this passage more closely. The proposition states the<br />
identity of the order of th<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> the order of ideas, <strong>and</strong> the scholium expla<strong>in</strong>s this<br />
identity <strong>in</strong> light of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s ontology:<br />
Prop. 7: The order <strong>and</strong> connection of ideas [ordo et connexio idearum] is the same as the<br />
order <strong>and</strong> connection of th<strong>in</strong>gs [ordo et connexio rerum].<br />
Schol.: Here … we must recall what we showed above, viz. that whatever can be perceived<br />
by an <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect as constitut<strong>in</strong>g the essence of substance [substantiae essen-<br />
62 See also Engstler, ‘Sp<strong>in</strong>oza-Rezeption’, p. 176.<br />
Carlos Fraenkel<br />
217
tiam constituens] perta<strong>in</strong>s to only one [unicam] substance, <strong>and</strong> consequently that the<br />
th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g substance <strong>and</strong> the extended substance are one <strong>and</strong> the same substance, which is<br />
now comprehended under this attribute [sub illo attributo comprehenditur], now under<br />
that. So also a mode of extension <strong>and</strong> the idea of that mode are one <strong>and</strong> the same th<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
but expressed <strong>in</strong> two ways [duobis modis expressa]; which some of the Hebrews appear<br />
to have seen, as if through a cloud [quidam Hebraeorum quasi per nebulam vidisse<br />
videntur], who ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> that God, God’s <strong>in</strong>tellect, <strong>and</strong> the th<strong>in</strong>gs by him <strong>in</strong>tellectually<br />
cognized [res ab ipso <strong>in</strong>tellectas] are one <strong>and</strong> the same th<strong>in</strong>g. For example, a circle, <strong>and</strong><br />
the idea of the exist<strong>in</strong>g circle, which is also <strong>in</strong> God, are one <strong>and</strong> the same th<strong>in</strong>g, which is<br />
expla<strong>in</strong>ed through different attributes. … 63<br />
In my view, this scholium is not only a crucial passage <strong>in</strong> the Ethics for Maimon’s<br />
underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza <strong>and</strong> for his Sp<strong>in</strong>ozist transformation of Maimonides’ notion<br />
of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>and</strong> human <strong>in</strong>tellect; it also seems to imply, if we pursue the reference<br />
to the God of ‘some of the Hebrews’, that Sp<strong>in</strong>oza himself considered his notion<br />
of God to be no more than an unclouded version of Maimonides’ notion of God, <strong>and</strong>,<br />
moreover, that Maimon was aware of this. The reference to the God of ‘some of the<br />
Hebrews’ is, to be sure, not devoid of travesty. Looked at more closely the God of<br />
the Hebrews turns out to be none other than the God of the Greeks – more precisely<br />
the div<strong>in</strong>e noÕv, ultimately derived from Aristotle’s Metaphysics XII, 7 <strong>and</strong> 9. From<br />
this we must <strong>in</strong>fer that the alleged ‘Hebrews’ were not the Hebrews of Biblical times,<br />
but medieval Jewish Aristotelians, <strong>in</strong> particular Maimonides, 64 who had transformed<br />
the God of Aristotle <strong>in</strong>to the God of the Bible. They had provided the div<strong>in</strong>e noÕv<br />
with a Hebrew garb, <strong>and</strong>, draped <strong>in</strong> this costume, Sp<strong>in</strong>oza made his acqua<strong>in</strong>tance.<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s claim that <strong>in</strong> order to reach his monism from the monotheism of the Hebrews<br />
all he had to do was dissipate a ‘cloud’ seems to be justified if we recall the<br />
structure of God’s <strong>in</strong>tellectual activity <strong>in</strong> Maimonides: The unity of substance reflects<br />
the unity of God as the subject <strong>and</strong> object of the act of self-<strong>in</strong>tellection. The<br />
unity of the order of modes reflects the unity of the <strong>in</strong>telligible order of nature <strong>and</strong> its<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellectual cognition <strong>in</strong> God’s apprehension of everyth<strong>in</strong>g that follows from his<br />
causal activity. Elsewhere I have reconstructed <strong>in</strong> detail the path that <strong>in</strong> my view<br />
leads from Maimonides’ monotheism to Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s monism, <strong>and</strong> I have presented the<br />
textual evidence from Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s early works as well as the Ethics, which supports<br />
my reconstruction. 65 Briefly summarized my thesis is that, on the one h<strong>and</strong>, Sp<strong>in</strong>oza<br />
applied the structure of the <strong>in</strong>tellectual activity of Maimonides’ God to the relation of<br />
substance <strong>and</strong> modes (or Natura naturans <strong>and</strong> Natura naturata) of his Deus sive<br />
Natura; on the other h<strong>and</strong> he extended God’s ontological scope by <strong>in</strong>tegrat<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
attribute of extension <strong>in</strong>to his be<strong>in</strong>g. The <strong>in</strong>tellectual activity that for Maimonides<br />
63 Opera, ed. Gebhardt, 2: 89–90.<br />
64 Most commentators take ‘Hebrews’ to be a reference to Maimonides. See Harry Austryn Wolfson,<br />
The Philosophy of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza: Unfold<strong>in</strong>g the Latent Process of His Reason<strong>in</strong>g, (Cambridge, Mass., 1934),<br />
2: 24–27; Warren Zev Harvey, ‘A Portrait of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza as a Maimonidean’, Journal of the History of<br />
Philosophy 19(2) (1981): 165. For a general account of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s medieval Jewish sources, see Manuel<br />
Joël, Sp<strong>in</strong>ozas theologisch-politischer Traktat auf se<strong>in</strong>e Quellen geprüft (Breslau, 1870); idem, Zur<br />
Genesis der Lehre Sp<strong>in</strong>ozas (Breslau, 1871).<br />
65 See Carlos Fraenkel, ‘Maimonides’ God <strong>and</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s Deus sive Natura’, Journal of the History of<br />
Philosophy 44 (2006): 169-215.<br />
218 Completion of the Copernican Revolution <strong>in</strong> Philosophy
constitutes God’s essence recurs <strong>in</strong> what Sp<strong>in</strong>oza describes as God’s essentia actuosa<br />
<strong>in</strong> the scholium to Ethics II, 3. This ‘active essence’, however, is no longer limited to<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellectual activity but becomes extension (or, if you wish, extensive activity) as<br />
well. 66 The ‘cloud’, therefore, which Sp<strong>in</strong>oza had to dissipate <strong>in</strong> order to reach his<br />
monism from the monotheism of ‘some of the Hebrews’, refers to the same problem<br />
that Maimon addressed <strong>in</strong> his commentary on Guide I, 69: the exclusion of matter<br />
(or extension) from God, i.e., the cosmological version of the problem quid juris.<br />
To sum up the argument of this paper: In his Essay on Transcendental Philosophy,<br />
Maimon claims that ‘the greatest difficulty’ that <strong>in</strong> his view haunts Kant’s<br />
theory of knowledge can be solved if we assume first, an ‘<strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect <strong>in</strong> which<br />
the forms are at the same time the objects of cognition’, <strong>and</strong> second, that our human<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellect is <strong>in</strong> substance ‘the same’ as the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect differ<strong>in</strong>g from it only <strong>in</strong><br />
degree, because of its f<strong>in</strong>itude (II, 64–5). In Giv¨at ha-moreh we saw that Maimon<br />
presents his account of the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect, the f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect, <strong>and</strong> the relation between<br />
them as an explication of Maimonides’ account of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect, the human<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellect, <strong>and</strong> the relation between them, <strong>and</strong> I argued <strong>in</strong> detail why <strong>in</strong> my view<br />
he is justified to do so. Maimon, I suggested, found <strong>in</strong> Maimonides a key for the solution<br />
of the first version of the problem quid juris: how ‘a priori forms should correspond<br />
to a posteriori given th<strong>in</strong>gs’ (II, 63). Follow<strong>in</strong>g Maimonides, he could argue<br />
that the th<strong>in</strong>gs given to the human <strong>in</strong>tellect a posteriori are not heterogeneous to it,<br />
but are themselves <strong>in</strong>tellectual forms produced <strong>and</strong> cognized by the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect as<br />
a consequence of the act of self-<strong>in</strong>tellection.<br />
Maimonides’ account, however, leaves the cosmological version of the problem<br />
quid juris unsolved, for <strong>in</strong> the worldview of the medieval Aristotelian there is no<br />
place for the material component of objects <strong>in</strong> either the div<strong>in</strong>e or the human <strong>in</strong>tellect.<br />
This second version of the problem can be solved only through the Sp<strong>in</strong>ozist<br />
transformation of Maimonides’ God: from a God who is only the formal cause of the<br />
world <strong>in</strong>to a God who is both the formal <strong>and</strong> the material cause of the world. Thus<br />
the ‘gap’ (II, 521) <strong>in</strong> Kant’s system, due to the twofold source of the cognized object,<br />
is closed. The <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect now secures the unity of ideas <strong>and</strong> objects. This unity,<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, also characterizes the order of modes; whence <strong>in</strong> my view<br />
Maimon derived his thesis that for the human <strong>in</strong>tellect ideas <strong>and</strong> objects are ‘objectively<br />
one <strong>and</strong> the same’ (III, 185), <strong>and</strong> that the dist<strong>in</strong>ction between them is only<br />
‘subjective’, a consequence of the <strong>in</strong>completeness, i.e., f<strong>in</strong>ite nature of human cognition.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, Maimon’s paraphrase of the scholium to Ethics II, proposition 7, <strong>in</strong> which<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza himself acknowledges his debt to the God of Maimonides, leaves no doubt<br />
that he was aware that his attempt to complete Kant’s ‘Copernican revolution’ <strong>in</strong> philosophy<br />
is based on the metaphysical l<strong>in</strong>e of thought lead<strong>in</strong>g from Maimonides to<br />
66 Note that <strong>in</strong> his early work, Cogitata Metaphysica, Sp<strong>in</strong>oza uses the peculiar term essentia actuosa to<br />
describe the activity of God conceived as pure cognition (CM II, 11; Opera, ed. Gebhardt, 1: 275). This<br />
passage is <strong>in</strong> my view crucial for an underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the development of the concept <strong>in</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s<br />
thought.<br />
Carlos Fraenkel<br />
219
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, <strong>and</strong> from Sp<strong>in</strong>oza to himself. 67 The ‘voice of the truth’ that presented to him<br />
the teach<strong>in</strong>gs of the Guide must have been the same that conv<strong>in</strong>ced him of the truth<br />
of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s philosophy. In the <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect, therefore, <strong>in</strong> which Maimon,<br />
Moshe, <strong>and</strong> Maimon, Shelomoh were united, there certa<strong>in</strong>ly was a place for Baruch<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza as well.<br />
67 Bergman (The Philosophy of Solomon Maimon, p. 34) overlooked the connection described above<br />
<strong>and</strong> thus claimed that Maimon was not aware of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s implicit reference to Maimonides <strong>in</strong> the<br />
scholium to Ethics II, proposition 7.<br />
220 Completion of the Copernican Revolution <strong>in</strong> Philosophy
Shlomo Berger<br />
From Philosophy to Popular Ethics:<br />
Two Seventeenth-Century Translations of Ibn Gabirol’s Keter Malkhut<br />
Sephardi medieval culture was <strong>in</strong>corporated <strong>in</strong>to the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Haskalah through<br />
various channels; not all of them took a l<strong>in</strong>ear course. One route passed through<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Yiddish culture, which provided an important venue for the exchange of<br />
ideas that facilitated the transformation. Although scholars may question the role of<br />
Yiddish here – after all, the maskilim themselves were so biased aga<strong>in</strong>st this language<br />
– this irony cannot be swept under the rug. As two students of eighteenth-century<br />
Jewish culture have suggested lately, Yiddish served as an <strong>in</strong>strument of modernization<br />
<strong>and</strong> stood on the threshold of the early Haskalah. Zeev Gries made three<br />
po<strong>in</strong>ts: First, Hebrew <strong>and</strong> Yiddish books triggered a revolution <strong>in</strong> the Jewish world<br />
<strong>in</strong> the early modern period. Second, start<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the eighteenth century there was a<br />
steady <strong>in</strong>crease <strong>in</strong> the pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g of books not <strong>in</strong>tended for educational <strong>and</strong> ritual purposes.<br />
Third, Yiddish literature was the ma<strong>in</strong> beneficiary of the above-mentioned<br />
trend <strong>in</strong> the eighteenth century. 1 Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Rena Fuks-Mansfeld, translations <strong>in</strong>to<br />
Yiddish, like Moses Frankfort’s version of Isaac Aboab’s Menorat ha-maˆor (Amsterdam,<br />
1722), are evidence of a modern mode of th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g. 2 Read<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>troductions<br />
of both the translator <strong>and</strong> publisher of Menorat ha-maˆor, Fuks-Mansfeld<br />
claims that the idea of spread<strong>in</strong>g knowledge among Jews, <strong>and</strong> compar<strong>in</strong>g their approach<br />
to knowledge with that of the gentile world, occupies a central position: Yiddish<br />
is permissible because it helps fulfil this task.<br />
Thus, <strong>in</strong> addition to the <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic importance of analys<strong>in</strong>g Yiddish translations of a<br />
famous medieval philosophical poem like Keter malkhut from <strong>Sepharad</strong>, what follows<br />
may also provide vivid <strong>in</strong>sights <strong>in</strong>to several key questions discussed by scholars<br />
of Yiddish <strong>and</strong> Jewish culture. These <strong>in</strong>clude the role of the <strong>in</strong>ternal bil<strong>in</strong>gualism (or<br />
Hebrew-Yiddish diglossia) <strong>and</strong> its effect on Yiddish texts, the study of genres of Yiddish<br />
literature, <strong>and</strong> the impact on Yiddish of translations <strong>in</strong>to it from Hebrew. We<br />
shall see how Yiddish writers <strong>and</strong>/or translators <strong>in</strong>troduced methods that were later<br />
characterized, albeit <strong>in</strong> a different sett<strong>in</strong>g, as ‘enlightened’. The study of Yiddish versions<br />
of Keter malkhut is reward<strong>in</strong>g for two reasons: first, the poem has a high st<strong>and</strong>-<br />
1 Zeev Gries, ‘The Book as Cultural Agent <strong>in</strong> the Eighteenth <strong>and</strong> N<strong>in</strong>eteenth Centuries: Pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g Books,<br />
Read<strong>in</strong>g Books <strong>and</strong> Book Criticism’, Jewish Studies 39 (1999): 5–33.<br />
2 Rena Fuks-Mansfeld, ‘The role of Yiddish <strong>in</strong> the Early Dutch-Jewish Haskalah’, <strong>in</strong> Shlomo Berger et<br />
al., eds., Speak<strong>in</strong>g Jewish – Jewish Speak: Multil<strong>in</strong>gualism <strong>in</strong> Western <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Culture = Studia<br />
Rosenthaliana 36 (2002/03): 147-55.<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
Shlomo Royal Netherl<strong>and</strong>s Berger Academy of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences, 2007<br />
223
<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> the canon of Jewish <strong>and</strong> Hebrew literature; second, we possess two different<br />
translations, published with<strong>in</strong> the compass of a s<strong>in</strong>gle century – one <strong>in</strong> Italy, the<br />
other <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam. 3 The comparative nature of the study may br<strong>in</strong>g features of the<br />
Yiddish Weltanschauung of the pre-modern <strong>and</strong>/or early modern era to light.<br />
The first translation, from Italy, was pr<strong>in</strong>ted by Juan Di Gara of Venice <strong>in</strong> 1600. 4<br />
The circumstances that led the translator, R. Jacob Halperon, to take up such a venture<br />
are fairly clear. 5 From this <strong>and</strong> two other Yiddish translations he published through Di<br />
Gara <strong>in</strong> a space of four years (1598–1602), it is obvious that he hoped to earn a liv<strong>in</strong>g<br />
from such endeavours. 6 All three books are dedicated to a Jewish woman with whose<br />
family he had some relationship. Each translation is accompanied by a long dedicatory<br />
letter <strong>in</strong> which Halperon declares that he composed the Yiddish text as a token of<br />
friendship for the woman <strong>and</strong> her family. 7 We may nevertheless assume that he also<br />
hoped to be compensated for his efforts. Indeed, other available evidence attests to<br />
Halperon’s dire economic situation. He was employed by the Jewish community of<br />
Padua <strong>and</strong> between 1612 <strong>and</strong> 1623 Halperon was the sofer, or scribe, responsible for<br />
copy<strong>in</strong>g community’s decisions <strong>in</strong>to the local p<strong>in</strong>kas. On 23 January 1623, on the<br />
verge of retirement, he asked the community’s leaders for f<strong>in</strong>ancial support for himself<br />
<strong>and</strong> his family. The parnassim agreed. Halperon retired, published his volume of<br />
responsa, NaÌalat Ya¨aqov, <strong>and</strong> died before Passover of 1625. From two later entries<br />
<strong>in</strong> the Padua p<strong>in</strong>kas we learn that the community agreed to make a one-time grant to<br />
his impoverished widow on condition that she left the city <strong>and</strong> never returned. 8<br />
From the Yiddish dedicatory letter attached to Keter malkhut, addressed to Keyle,<br />
the wife of Rabbi Mendele Otel<strong>in</strong>g (= Ottolenghi), we learn that he considered the<br />
3 Title pages: I. רפ שדקה ןושל ןיא ל"צז לוריבג ן' המלש ר'רהמכ בר רכילטשוק ןייא טכאמיג טאה זד תוכלמ רתכ<br />
ןייא 'נוא הלפת ןייא ךונ רד 'נוא ןפאשיב טוה טלעוו יד רע איוו רדנואוו 'תי זטוג טליצ רעד טרעוו ןנירד .ןטייצ ןגנל<br />
בר ןכילרע 'נוא ןמורפ ןייא ןופ ןבירשיג 'נוא טנמייריג נוא ךורפש רשטייט ןיא [!] ןטשייוט רפ ןדראוו זיא .ןיוש ראג יודיו<br />
זאוו טצעזיג וצ ליפ ךא טאה רעד ןורפלייה בקעי ר'רה טנאה ךרוד קורד ןיא רדנוציא ןדראוויג טכורביג זע זיא וזא נוא<br />
רעד .ןנאמ יכילטע נוא רבייוו ימורפ ןייז הכזמ וצ טימ שדקה ןושל םעד וצ ןייז ךיילג זע טרעוו זד טימ רד ,זיא ןגנאג בא<br />
סש תנש הראג יד ןאוז אייב האיציניוב טקורדיג .אבה םלועה ייחל ןייז הכוז טרעוו ךואוו ילא ןגאז נוא ןפאק טרעוו זע<br />
ק"פל<br />
Con licentia de Superiori.<br />
II./ןיפיוק ליוו שע רעוו /ןיוויג ןאק שע זא טוג וזא /ןייפ 'נוא שפיה שטייט ףיוא טקורדיג (תוכלמ רתכ) שד .תוכלמ רתכ<br />
/ןייז הכוז ריא טרעוו ךרוד רעד /ןאיירפ רעד ךיז טרעוו ץרעה רעייא /ןאייל וצ ןנירד טכאמ שטאג /ןפיול וצ ןמוק לאז<br />
יולה ןורהא רר'הכ ררא'לב שבייו ירוא ר"מכ חבושמה סופדב ספדנ .הלס ןמא /ןיירא דנל ןגילייה ןיא ןמוק וצ<br />
.ק"פל לאגת תנשב םדריטשמאב הפ :הה'לצז .<br />
For bibliographical details, see the works by Habermann (n. 4) <strong>and</strong> Shmeruk (n. 5).<br />
4 See Abraham Habermann, Giovanni Di Gara: Pr<strong>in</strong>ter, Venice 1564–1610 (Jerusalem, 1982); see also<br />
Jean Baumgarten, ‘Giovanni Di Gara, Imprimeur de livres Yiddish à Venise (milieu du XV e -début du<br />
XVI e siècle) et la culture juive de la Renaissance’, Revue des études juives 159 (2000): 587–98.<br />
5 See: Chone Shmeruk, ‘Defusei yiddish be-I†alyah’, I†alyah 3 (1982) 130–1, Chava Turniansky,<br />
‘Meydlekh <strong>in</strong> der altyidisher literatur’, <strong>in</strong> Walter Röll <strong>and</strong> Simon Neuberg, eds., Jiddische Philologie:<br />
Festschrift für Erika Timm (Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen, 1999), pp. 7*–16*. On Yiddish literature <strong>in</strong> Italy, see Chava<br />
Turniansky, ‘La letteratura yiddish nell’Italia del C<strong>in</strong>quecento’, La Rassegna Mensile de Israel 62<br />
(1996): 63–93.<br />
6 The two other books are Sefer Orekh yomim <strong>and</strong> D<strong>in</strong>im ve-seder; see below.<br />
7 For the texts of the dedicatory letters, see Shmeruk, ‘Defusei yiddish be- I†alyah’, pp. 161–3, 164–6<br />
(Keter malkhut), <strong>and</strong> 172–3.<br />
8 See Daniel Carpi, P<strong>in</strong>qas va¨ad q“q Padova (5)364–(5)390 (Jerusalem, 1979): no. 513 (Halperon’s<br />
request for f<strong>in</strong>ancial aid, 1623); no. 585 (term<strong>in</strong>us ante quem of Halperon’s death, Passover 1625); no.<br />
623 (Halperon’s widow’s request for f<strong>in</strong>ancial aid, 1626).<br />
224 Two Seventeenth-Century Translations of Ibn Gabirol's Keter Malkhut
family to be his ‘cous<strong>in</strong>s’ (kuz<strong>in</strong>es) <strong>and</strong> that he stayed as a guest <strong>in</strong> their house on<br />
two occasions: <strong>in</strong> 1579 <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> 1586. Pursu<strong>in</strong>g the common tack of f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g a l<strong>in</strong>k between<br />
the book’s title (<strong>and</strong> subject matter) <strong>and</strong> the deeds <strong>and</strong> character of his benefactor,<br />
Halperon did not elaborate on the poem’s philosophical theme of God’s creation<br />
<strong>and</strong> the structure of the universe. Instead, he played with the word keter ‘crown’,<br />
<strong>in</strong>sist<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>in</strong> Italian Keyle’s name is Corona <strong>and</strong> so too <strong>in</strong> Yiddish, by the change<br />
of the <strong>in</strong>itial qof to kaf. He further elaborates how Keyle’s father (whose family name<br />
was Katz, an acronym for kohen Òedeq) was honoured with the priestly crown or<br />
keter kehunnah; her husb<strong>and</strong>, with the keter Torah; <strong>and</strong> Keyle herself with the crown<br />
of a good name or keter shem †ov. He writes that he <strong>in</strong>itially <strong>in</strong>tended to dedicate the<br />
book to one of Keyle’s four daughters, who had been his pupil (most probably dur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
one of his so-called ‘visits’, <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g that he was also a simple melammed). Because,<br />
however, he did not wish to arouse jealousy among the sisters he decided to<br />
pay tribute to the mother. Consequently, <strong>in</strong> the name of mother <strong>and</strong> daughters, the<br />
entire family will be crowned with keter malkhut, a royal crown. Evidently, Halperon<br />
had no particular reason for translat<strong>in</strong>g this poem for that lady.<br />
The translator of the second Yiddish version of Keter malkhut, published <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1673, is not named on the title page. The name of the bokher zetser or<br />
typesetter, Na¨im Barukh ben SimÌah ha-Levi, appears at the bottom of the last page<br />
of the Yiddish text. He was a native of the village of Wambach (or Wampach) <strong>in</strong><br />
Germany <strong>and</strong> a member of the Jewish community of Friedburg. But as the <strong>in</strong>troduction<br />
reveals, the translator was also the person who decided to pr<strong>in</strong>t Ibn Gabirol <strong>in</strong> a<br />
Yiddish version. Hence we cannot rule out the possibility that Na¨im Barukh ben<br />
SimÌah was also the translator, but preferred to conceal this fact, honour<strong>in</strong>g the Hebrew<br />
poet <strong>and</strong> m<strong>in</strong>imiz<strong>in</strong>g the importance of his own role <strong>in</strong> produc<strong>in</strong>g the Yiddish<br />
translation (f. 1 v ):<br />
/טכנ אייב טעב ןיימ ףיוא ןגיל ןיא לאמ ןייא /ןאק ןינרעל ליפ טינ רעד /ןאמ רמירא לפש ךיא ינא<br />
ןלעטש דניז הניימ ןגיקטנא ךיא לאז שאוו /טכארטיג באה 'נוא ןיקנאדיג יניימ ןיגנג ףיוא ןייז<br />
ריפ רימ ךיא באה ןיבלאה טנרעד /ןירעה יכוה ןעד ראפ ןמוק רעוו ךיא ןעוו /ןרעוו וצ טגיליוויב<br />
ןייא טכאמג טאה אד איד הליפת הבושח ןייא /ןימוק קורד רעד ןיא ןיזאל שאוו ליוו ךיא /ןמונג<br />
טוט… ןדיימ זא ןיטש ראפ שדוקה ןושל ןייק ראג איד טרפב 'נוא /לוריבג ןב המלש 'ר לודג םכח<br />
ךיא באה םורד /רבייל יריא הלא טימ טאג ןיבאה ביל אד איד הלא 'נוא /רבייוו 'נוא /ןנענ ןיא ןאמ<br />
ןיקורד ןזאל נוא טשטייט ראפ דנאטש ראפ ריצרוק ןיימ ךונ 'תוכלמ ר'תכ הלפת הבושח איד<br />
.ןייפ<br />
Like so many before <strong>and</strong> after him, the Yiddish translator claimed to have translated<br />
for the benefit of the female readers: ‘girls <strong>and</strong> women <strong>and</strong> all those who have<br />
the love of God <strong>in</strong> their bodies’.<br />
The Amsterdam version does not betray any unambiguous l<strong>in</strong>k to the earlier Yiddish<br />
translation. There is no evidence that Na¨im Barukh knew Halperon’s version<br />
<strong>and</strong> deliberately opted for a prose rather than a poetic translation. The occasional<br />
parallelisms, for <strong>in</strong>stance <strong>in</strong> word choice, do not allow us to conclude that the earlier<br />
version <strong>in</strong>fluenced the later one.<br />
Shlomo Berger<br />
225
These two translations enriched the corpus of Yiddish literature with a highly ref<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
poem composed by one of the most celebrated Hebrew poets <strong>and</strong> philosophers of the<br />
Golden Age of al-Andalus. 9 Keter malkhut, probably one of Ibn Gabirol’s last poems,<br />
is of particular importance with<strong>in</strong> his oeuvre. 10 It is usually associated with his philosophical<br />
magnum opus, Meqor Ìayyim, composed <strong>in</strong> Arabic <strong>and</strong> widely dissem<strong>in</strong>ated<br />
<strong>in</strong> its Lat<strong>in</strong> translation Fons Vitae. Although Keter malkhut is not a direct poetical expression<br />
of Meqor Ìayyim, as Jacob Schlanger determ<strong>in</strong>es, 11 it nevertheless conta<strong>in</strong>s<br />
traces of Ibn Gabirol’s philosophy. In Keter malkhut, Ibn Gabirol tries to comb<strong>in</strong>e two<br />
worlds <strong>in</strong>to one: the world of belief <strong>and</strong> the world of philosophical contemplation <strong>and</strong><br />
br<strong>in</strong>gs together ideas that are not necessarily complementary. Meqor Ìayyim was<br />
meant for philosophers (both Jews <strong>and</strong> non-Jews), whereas Keter malkhut was written<br />
for a Jewish readership. Hence the former was composed <strong>in</strong> Arabic <strong>and</strong> the latter <strong>in</strong><br />
Hebrew. The philosopher Ibn Gabirol writes <strong>in</strong> Meqor Ìayyim that the road to wisdom<br />
passes by way of the supremacy of the soul over the body. The devout Jew Ibn<br />
Gabirol, writ<strong>in</strong>g Keter malkhut, does not believe <strong>in</strong> such a division of body <strong>and</strong> soul;<br />
on the contrary, they complement each other <strong>and</strong> share a common duty to serve God<br />
<strong>in</strong> accordance with His comm<strong>and</strong>ments. Nevertheless, <strong>in</strong> their effort to achieve wisdom<br />
<strong>and</strong> knowledge on the one h<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> to fulfil God’s will on the other h<strong>and</strong>, human<br />
be<strong>in</strong>gs call on the soul as created by Him. Thus <strong>in</strong> Keter malkhut Ibn Gabirol praises,<br />
not the God of wisdom <strong>and</strong> the God of the believers, but the One God <strong>in</strong> His various<br />
aspects. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Schlanger, 12 Ibn Gabirol did not recognize two sets of Truth,<br />
s<strong>in</strong>ce he himself was not conscious of the existence of such a position <strong>and</strong> did not deliberately<br />
elaborate on this dualism. Rather, the poem reflects Ibn Gabirol’s state of<br />
m<strong>in</strong>d: for him, the division is not between two diametrically opposed Truths but between<br />
two different approaches to a s<strong>in</strong>gle worldview. That there rema<strong>in</strong>s a contradiction<br />
between the Jewish <strong>and</strong> Neoplatonic systems is no cause for alarm. Ibn Gabirol<br />
chose to live accord<strong>in</strong>g to the rules of one system, the Jewish; his philosophical<br />
speculations did not lead him to deny revelation. Hence no one need have misgiv<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
about turn<strong>in</strong>g his Hebrew poem <strong>in</strong>to a widely read piece of literature.<br />
Neither Yiddish translator was a philosopher. And, as will soon become clear, they<br />
were not read<strong>in</strong>g either a ‘philosophical text’ or a poetical exposition of theological<br />
ideas.<br />
The two translators used similar Hebrew texts of the poem. The history of its textual<br />
transmission has not been studied <strong>in</strong> full, but it is clear that several variants of the<br />
Keter malkhut circulated <strong>in</strong> manuscript <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>t. 13 There are two important textual<br />
9 See, for <strong>in</strong>stance, the critical anthology by Raymond Sche<strong>in</strong>dl<strong>in</strong>, Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Poems on God,<br />
Israel <strong>and</strong> the Soul (Philadelphia, 1991).<br />
10 The follow<strong>in</strong>g is based on Jacques Schlanger, Ha-filosofyah shel Shlomo Ibn Gabirol (Jerusalem,<br />
1979).<br />
11 Ibid., pp. 39–42.<br />
12 Ibid.<br />
13 On the manuscript tradition, see Uwe Kornberger, Salomon Ibn Gabirols Keter Malchut: textkritisch<br />
bearbeitet, übersetzt und kommentiert (Heidelberg, 1992); there is no study of the pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g history of the<br />
text.<br />
226 Two Seventeenth-Century Translations of Ibn Gabirol's Keter Malkhut
traditions. One <strong>in</strong>cludes the text later adopted for literary editions of the poem. The<br />
other, which has a different conclusion <strong>and</strong> occasional lexical variations, is that<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> the prayer book for the Day of Atonement accord<strong>in</strong>g to the Sephardi rite. 14<br />
The various different branches of the latter stemma are the basis of both Yiddish<br />
translations. Here are both conclusions of the poem:<br />
תודוהל בייח ינא הז לכ לעו .ינלמגת יתומ םוי דע רשאו ,ינתלמג רשא הבוטה לכ לע דסח יי ךלו<br />
,ךידחימ יפב דחיתת ,ךישידקמ יפב שדקתת ,ךיאורב יפב חבתשת ;ךתוא םמורלו ראפל ללהל<br />
ינודא םיהולאב ךומכ ןיא יכ ,ךיאשנמ יפב אשנתת ,ךיממורמ יפב םמורתת ,ךיראפמ יפב ראפתת<br />
( ןדרי)<br />
.ילאוגו ירוצ יי ךינפל יבל ןויגהו יפ ירמא ןוצרל ויהי .ךישעמב ןיאו<br />
,ינקזחת הרוהטה ךתאריבו ,ינלמגת יתומ םוי דע רשאו ,ינתלמג רשא הבוטה לכ לע דסח יי ךלו<br />
,ךרבל ,םמורל ,ראפל ,חבשל ,ללהל ,תודוהל בייח ינא הז לכ לעו ,ינצמאת המימתה ךתרותבו<br />
,ךרבתת םיקידצ יתפשבו ,םמורתת םירשי יפב ,ארונהו ,רובגה ,לודגה ךמש תא דחילו ,שדקלו<br />
חבתשת ,רדהתתו ראפתת םילארא תקהלבו ,ללהתת םישודק ברקבו ,שדקתת םידיסח ןושלבו<br />
יפב אשנתת ,ךידחימ יפב דחיתת ,ךיכאלמ יפב םמורתת ,ךישודק יפב שדקתת ,ךימוחר יפב<br />
ןיריעו םיבורכו םינפואו תויח תונחמבו ,ךישעמכ ןיאו ינודא םיהולאב ךומכ ןיא יכ .ךיאשנמ<br />
דחא יוג לארשי ךמע .דחפו ארומב ךידחימ יפב דחיתתו ,לעממ םימשב הלעתתו אשנתת ,ןישידק<br />
ןויגהו יפ ירמא ןוצרל ויהי ;דוע ןיא תחתמ ץראה לעו לעממ םימשב םיהולא אוה התא .ץראב<br />
(םירופיכה םויל רוזחמ)<br />
.ילאוגו ירוצ יי ךינפל יבל<br />
Evidently both men took the poem from the prayer book <strong>and</strong> not from a literary<br />
edition. The two translators worked <strong>in</strong> places (Italy, Amsterdam) with flourish<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Sephardi communities <strong>and</strong> relied on the Sephardi prayer book for their text. Neither<br />
enterta<strong>in</strong>ed major literary ambitions at the outset of the project. The Yiddish versions<br />
were not <strong>in</strong>tended to arouse aesthetic appreciation. As will be shown below, neither<br />
translator was <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> Ibn Gabirol the philosopher <strong>and</strong> his philosophical tour de<br />
force. In fact, the other two books that Halperon translated <strong>in</strong>to Yiddish deal with the<br />
education of children (Sefer Orekh yomim) <strong>and</strong> with the preparation of kosher meat<br />
(D<strong>in</strong>im ve-seder). When he offered a Yiddish book to his Jewish ladies he was not<br />
look<strong>in</strong>g for literary gems that could <strong>in</strong>spire them, <strong>and</strong> certa<strong>in</strong>ly not for philosophical<br />
contemplation. On the contrary, the practical nature of the venture is obvious. Keter<br />
malkhut clearly satisfied the same desideratum, as a prayer worth read<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> recit<strong>in</strong>g<br />
each week, as announced on the title page (ךואוו ילא ןגאז).<br />
The nature of the Amsterdam version is obvious from its form <strong>and</strong> content. Although<br />
he does not follow the Sephardi practice of read<strong>in</strong>g the poem before the<br />
Morn<strong>in</strong>g Service on the Day of Atonement, the Amsterdam translator envisages the<br />
recitation of the poem as an act of regular devotion. This translation is divided <strong>in</strong>to<br />
seven sections, one for each day of the week. In fact, there is no evidence that seventeenth-century<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im read Keter malkhut on the Day of Atonement <strong>and</strong> that the<br />
14 On the various manuscript traditions of the text, see ibid., pp. 23ff., 158–60 (a schematic description<br />
of the last section of the poem). For variants <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ted prayer books, see Shem ov Gagu<strong>in</strong>e, Keter<br />
shem †ov: New Year <strong>and</strong> Day of Atonement (London, 1955), pp. 344–9.<br />
Shlomo Berger<br />
227
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i prayer book <strong>in</strong>cluded the poem. 15 Nevertheless, two <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i prayer<br />
books published <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam – by Emanuel Benvenishti <strong>in</strong> 1649 <strong>and</strong> by Joseph<br />
Athias <strong>in</strong> 1667 – <strong>in</strong>clude Keter malkhut as an additional prayer not associated with a<br />
specific occasion. Benvenishti’s title page explicitly notes the poem’s <strong>in</strong>clusion,<br />
thereby confirm<strong>in</strong>g that it was unusual for Keter malkhut to appear <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i<br />
siddurim. More importantly, <strong>in</strong> both prayer books the poem is divided <strong>in</strong>to sections<br />
correspond<strong>in</strong>g to the days of the week – the division adopted by the Yiddish translator.<br />
It is most likely, then, that the text of the poem as found <strong>in</strong> one of these two<br />
prayer books, or a similar one, was used by the Amsterdam Yiddish translator.<br />
The Amsterdam translator was probably <strong>in</strong>fluenced by several genres of Yiddish<br />
literature, all of which can be subsumed under the head<strong>in</strong>g ‘ethical literature’ (muser<br />
sforim), whose role was to mould <strong>and</strong> propagate ideals of behaviour for <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
Jews <strong>and</strong> the community as a whole. 16 To make such books accessible to Jewish<br />
readers <strong>and</strong> achieve their goal, the authors of muser sforim employed many devices,<br />
stylistic <strong>and</strong> otherwise. The use of the vernacular was one of them. Although it is primarily<br />
a philosophical poem <strong>and</strong> does not provide practical advice for daily liv<strong>in</strong>g, as<br />
ethical literature customarily does, both Yiddish versions of Keter malkhut can be<br />
subsumed under this tradition <strong>and</strong> could be <strong>in</strong>terpreted <strong>in</strong> the light of ethical literature.<br />
Read<strong>in</strong>g (<strong>and</strong> re-read<strong>in</strong>g) a section of the poem each day, pious Jews could pray<br />
to God <strong>and</strong> perceive their own position on earth. Repeat<strong>in</strong>g the maxims about God’s<br />
nature, deeds, role, <strong>and</strong> place <strong>in</strong> the universe, <strong>and</strong> about human be<strong>in</strong>gs’ humble position,<br />
s<strong>in</strong>ful character, <strong>and</strong> constant pleas for div<strong>in</strong>e forgiveness would guide them to<br />
follow the path of righteousness.<br />
Given that both translations were addressed to women <strong>and</strong> that Yiddish literature<br />
<strong>in</strong> general was often referred to as ‘women’s literature’, the Yiddish versions can also<br />
be <strong>in</strong>terpreted <strong>in</strong> this ve<strong>in</strong>. 17 Both could function as a somewhat <strong>in</strong>tellectual tkh<strong>in</strong>e or<br />
supplication. Tkh<strong>in</strong>es written for a broad spectrum of events <strong>and</strong> occurrences <strong>in</strong> the<br />
lives of women were published regularly from the middle of the seventeenth century<br />
on; an early <strong>and</strong> famous example is a volume pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam <strong>in</strong> 1648. 18 Such<br />
collections often <strong>in</strong>cluded prayers for each day of the week <strong>and</strong> for important dates<br />
on the calendar. 19 The Amsterdam version of Keter malkhut might have been <strong>in</strong> this<br />
15 See Daniel Goldshmit, MaÌzor la-yamim ha-noraˆim: Yom Kippur (Jerusalem, 1970), <strong>in</strong>troduction.<br />
Leopold Zunz (Die Ritus des synagogalen Gottesdienst [Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1859], p. 147), mentions the popularity<br />
of Keter malkhut <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>, but it is clear that it was not part of the Yom Kippur liturgy. On the <strong>in</strong>fluence<br />
of the Sephardi liturgy on the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i, see Hirsch Jacob Zimmels, <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im <strong>and</strong> Sephardim:<br />
Relations, Differences <strong>and</strong> Problems as Reflected <strong>in</strong> the Rabb<strong>in</strong>ical Responsa (London, 1958), esp.<br />
pp. 122–3 <strong>and</strong> n. 3 (on Keter malkhut <strong>in</strong> n<strong>in</strong>eteenth-century German prayer books). Gagu<strong>in</strong>e, Keter<br />
shem †ov, also mentions Zunz’s reference <strong>and</strong> adds ‘[although it is known that] the ancient Polish <strong>and</strong><br />
German Jews ran away from study<strong>in</strong>g philosophy like someone who runs away from a fire’ (p. 348).<br />
16 See: Yosef Dan, Sifrut ha-musar ve-ha-derush (Jerusalem, 1975); Zeev Gries, Sifrut ha-hanhagot<br />
(Jerusalem, 1989), pp. 28–30; Chava Turniansky, Sefer Massah u-merivah (Jerusalem, 1985), esp.<br />
pp. 58–86. On muser sforim <strong>in</strong> Yiddish, see Max Erik, Geshikhte fun der yidisher literatur fun der<br />
elteste tsayt biz di haskole tkufe (Warsaw, 1928), pp. 207–319.<br />
17 On the question of ‘women’s literature’ <strong>and</strong> Yiddish readership, see Chava Turniansky, Be<strong>in</strong> qodesh<br />
le-Ìol: Lashon, Ì<strong>in</strong>nukh ve-haskalah be-mizraÌ Eiropah (Pol<strong>in</strong>) (unit 7) (Tel Aviv, 1994), pp. 61–78.<br />
18 Chava Weissler, Voices of the Matriarchs: Listen<strong>in</strong>g to the Prayers of Early Modern Jewish Women<br />
(Boston, 1998).<br />
19 Ibid., p. 13.<br />
228 Two Seventeenth-Century Translations of Ibn Gabirol's Keter Malkhut
tradition. Because the poem’s subject is God’s Creation, which took place <strong>in</strong> seven<br />
days, it was appropriate to divide the poem <strong>in</strong>to seven sections as well. 20 A woman<br />
could read this poem with<strong>in</strong> a week or a section of it on a particular day. It became<br />
an <strong>in</strong>dividual prayer rather than public synagogue liturgy. Moreover, Ibn Gabirol’s<br />
use of figures of speech like repetition lends the poem an aura of a repetitive prayer<br />
<strong>and</strong> disguises the ‘difficult’ philosophical premises that might have deterred readers<br />
from approach<strong>in</strong>g it. The down-to-earth prose of the Amsterdam translation, with its<br />
l<strong>in</strong>e-by-l<strong>in</strong>e fidelity to the Hebrew orig<strong>in</strong>al, could only support the notion that it is a<br />
simple prayer, a recitation of axioms about the essence of God’s universe. Difficult<br />
passages could be understood as a ‘godly riddle’ that can be grasped only by clever<br />
students of His wisdom. In fact, such riddles enhance the poem’s aura of power: the<br />
rational, classical form of the Hebrew orig<strong>in</strong>al is converted <strong>in</strong>to a popular/‘mystical’<br />
<strong>and</strong> not totally understood read<strong>in</strong>g experience. Keter malkhut becomes an ethical-religious<br />
poem rather than a philosophical one. It was popularized through its translation<br />
strategy <strong>and</strong> provided the masses with a dose of Sephardi culture.<br />
The Italian Yiddish Keter malkhut, though also with<strong>in</strong> this ambit, has a different<br />
character. Try<strong>in</strong>g to do justice to the orig<strong>in</strong>al Hebrew poem, Halperon opted for a<br />
translation <strong>in</strong> verse. It cannot be proven that he was <strong>in</strong>fluenced by illustrious ‘Italian’<br />
examples, such as the Bove mayse of Elijah Levita (BaÌur); Halperon’s verses are<br />
rhymed but not metrical. 21 Giv<strong>in</strong>g primacy to the poetic form, he paraphrased <strong>and</strong><br />
even summarized Ibn Gabirol’s text when necessary, <strong>in</strong>evitably simplify<strong>in</strong>g or obscur<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the author’s ideas. Halperon abridged some passages so drastically that they<br />
are no longer faithful to the orig<strong>in</strong>al: for <strong>in</strong>stance, nam<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the functions<br />
of the ten planets, he neglects the characteristics of each planet as presented <strong>in</strong><br />
the Hebrew. 22 Occasionally he added short prayers <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>vocations to God not found<br />
<strong>in</strong> the Hebrew; 23 <strong>in</strong> a number of <strong>in</strong>stances he merges sections of the orig<strong>in</strong>al Hebrew.<br />
24<br />
The idea that Keter malkhut is a sort of prayer <strong>in</strong> rhymed verse rather than a poem<br />
is also reflected <strong>in</strong> Halperon’s decision to affix a title to the last part of the poem,<br />
sections 34 to 40: יודיו א, ‘A Confession’. 25 Although Halperon suggested that his<br />
readers recite this piyyut every week, the added section title nevertheless associates<br />
the Yiddish version with the Day of Atonement, when a confession is added to the<br />
¨amidah prayer. 26 Indeed, <strong>in</strong> his translation of Section 39 Halperon added a sentence<br />
20 The division of the Amsterdam version of the poem does not entirely correspond to the contents.<br />
Raphael Loewe (Ibn Gabirol [London, 1989], pp. 108–12) divides the poem <strong>in</strong>to four parts: (1) Ch. 1–<br />
9, (2) Ch. 10–29, (3) Ch. 30–32, (4) Ch. 33–40. The Yiddish poem is divided as follows: Sunday: Ch.<br />
1–9; Monday, 10–15; Tuesday, 16–23; Wednesday, 24–32; Thursday, 33–35; Friday, 36–37; Shabbat,<br />
38–40. Loewe subdivides his fourth section, chapters 33–40, as follows: 33–37a, 37b–d, <strong>and</strong> 38–40,<br />
which does not correspond to the Yiddish poem’s sections for Thursday through Shabbat.<br />
21 On Elijah Levita, see Chone Shmeruk, Perokim fun der yidisher literatur-geshikhte (Tel Aviv, 1987),<br />
pp. 141–56.<br />
22 See, for <strong>in</strong>stance, f. 7 r .<br />
23 See, for <strong>in</strong>stance, eight l<strong>in</strong>es on ff. 8 v –9 r .<br />
24 See, for <strong>in</strong>stance, ff. 10 v –11 r .<br />
25 The confession is also mentioned on the title page.<br />
26 Goldshmit, MaÌzor la-yamim ha-noraˆim, 10*–12*.<br />
Shlomo Berger<br />
229
not found <strong>in</strong> any Hebrew text of Keter malkhut: ךימ אוט נוא ןכיוז רוב טינ רימ אייז נוא<br />
ןכוב םנייד ןיא ןביירש, which is a direct allusion to the Yom Kippur liturgy. As modern<br />
scholarship confirms, the addition of the vidduy to the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i rite stimulated the<br />
composition of piyyutim to accompany it. 27 Halperon may have been aware of this<br />
practice.<br />
Indeed, both translators occasionally <strong>in</strong>troduced their own redivision of the orig<strong>in</strong>al<br />
Hebrew chapters as found <strong>in</strong> the known literary editions. In several cases both<br />
men conclude a section with the open<strong>in</strong>g sentence of what is the next section <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Hebrew. It must be borne <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d, however, that prayer books <strong>in</strong>clude many textual<br />
variants, reflect<strong>in</strong>g their editors’ whims, so it is difficult to determ<strong>in</strong>e any fixed textual<br />
tradition <strong>in</strong> this matter. 28<br />
The translators’ success <strong>in</strong> f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g Yiddish equivalents for many Hebrew scientific,<br />
astronomical, or philosophical terms is an <strong>in</strong>dex of their knowledge, l<strong>in</strong>guistic abilities,<br />
<strong>and</strong> cultural surround<strong>in</strong>gs. S<strong>in</strong>ce such words play a significant role <strong>in</strong> the orig<strong>in</strong>al<br />
Hebrew poem, the translators’ treatment of these words may <strong>in</strong>dicate their basic<br />
dis<strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> philosophy <strong>and</strong> how difficult they found it to come up with appropriate<br />
Yiddish equivalents. In fact, they relied on their readers’ will<strong>in</strong>gness to accept their<br />
choices without question. But this strategy may also be <strong>in</strong>tended to mystify the terms,<br />
as already suggested above. Their emphasis was not scientific accuracy but the sense<br />
of astonishment at God’s created universe. The Amsterdam pr<strong>in</strong>ter went one step further<br />
<strong>and</strong> set such Hebrew words <strong>in</strong> a large <strong>and</strong> bold square type, three times the size<br />
of the tsur font of the Yiddish text. 29 Interrupt<strong>in</strong>g the flow of the Yiddish l<strong>in</strong>e, the<br />
Hebrew terms st<strong>and</strong> out as particularly important. Evidently this reflects a semiotic<br />
or semantic shift of philosophical notions <strong>in</strong>to a set of religious ones. These terms are<br />
Hebrew markers that readers should memorize, because they denote fundamentals of<br />
Jewish culture <strong>and</strong> religion.<br />
The two translators’ choice of Yiddish equivalents for such terms merits <strong>in</strong>vestigation.<br />
Almost at the start of the poem we confront the first tricky notion: <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>e 7<br />
(Yarden’s edition) Ibn Gabirol writes (quot<strong>in</strong>g Psalm 139:14): ישפנו ךישעמ םיאלפנ<br />
דואמ תעדוי. Halperon chooses ‘ziel’/‘zel’ for שפנ; the Amsterdam version opts for<br />
‘layb’ <strong>in</strong>stead. The latter is more correct, s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>in</strong> biblical usage nefesh is equivalent<br />
to ‘body’ <strong>and</strong> frequently denotes ‘a human be<strong>in</strong>g’. Indeed, forty l<strong>in</strong>es later (l. 47),<br />
Halperon faced an acute problem: the Hebrew text reads, יכ המשנו שפנכ אלו יח התא<br />
המשנל המשנ התא, requir<strong>in</strong>g him to f<strong>in</strong>d a suitable lexical differentiation between body<br />
<strong>and</strong> soul or between God’s soul <strong>and</strong> that of His human creatures. Here Halperon does<br />
27 Ibid.<br />
28 I do not know which prayer books were used by the two translators. What follows is based on a comparison<br />
of the text as pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> literary editions (those of Jefim Shirman, Dov Yarden, <strong>and</strong> Raphael<br />
Loewe) with that <strong>in</strong> several prayer books (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g a n<strong>in</strong>eteenth-century Dutch-Sephardi prayer book).<br />
29 On Yiddish fonts, see: Herbert Zafren, ‘Variety <strong>in</strong> the Typography of Yiddish: 1535–1635’, Hebrew<br />
Union College Annual 53 (1982): 37–163; idem, ‘Early Yiddish Typography’, Jewish Book Annual 44<br />
(1986–87): 106–19. I would like to thank Dr. Adri Offenberg, the former curator of the Bibliotheca<br />
Rosenthaliana, for clarify<strong>in</strong>g matters of fonts <strong>and</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g possibilities.<br />
230 Two Seventeenth-Century Translations of Ibn Gabirol's Keter Malkhut
employ layb for nefesh <strong>and</strong> writes of the opposition between ‘layb un ziel’ on the one<br />
h<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> ‘ziel tsu ziel’ on the other h<strong>and</strong>. But <strong>in</strong> l. 64 he aga<strong>in</strong> uses ‘ziel’ for שפנ.<br />
In l. 473 Ibn Gabirol writes, ‘You gave me a השודק שפנ’, rendered by Halperon as<br />
‘ayn rayn neshome’ (rather than ‘ziel’, <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> the mascul<strong>in</strong>e!). Note too the unexpected<br />
replacement of qedoshah ‘holy’ by rayn ‘pure’. The Amsterdam version is<br />
consistent: nefesh is ‘layb’ <strong>and</strong> neshamah is ‘ziel’ (<strong>in</strong> several cases neshome); thus<br />
l. 473 becomes, ‘ayn haylige layb’. So where Ibn Gabirol writes (l. 364), שפנהו<br />
תוומ הארת אל המכחה, ‘<strong>and</strong> the wise soul will not see death’, the Amsterdam translator<br />
is hoist on his own petard: אטיוט ןייק טכיז המשנ איד זיא הגיבלעז שד הגולק שד בייל שד –<br />
‘<strong>and</strong> the wise body, which is the same as the soul, will see no death’. Here he had to<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpolate a l<strong>in</strong>k between nefesh <strong>and</strong> neshamah, s<strong>in</strong>ce only the soul knows immortality.<br />
This may also <strong>in</strong>dicate that his usage of ‘layb’ <strong>in</strong>tended the body <strong>in</strong> the most<br />
earthly fashion. Alongside these terms for soul <strong>and</strong> body, we ought to note that when<br />
the Hebrew text has ףוג (mean<strong>in</strong>g not always a human body, but also any body), it is<br />
also employed <strong>in</strong> the Yiddish <strong>in</strong> both translations.<br />
Two other examples can help clarify the two translators’ word choices, <strong>and</strong> the<br />
maze they had to navigate.<br />
The Italian occasionally takes over the Hebrew word לכש, which is a legitimate<br />
Yiddish word; elsewhere Halperon writes ןקאנדיג <strong>and</strong> בול ןקנאדדיג, which is also<br />
found <strong>in</strong> the Amsterdam version: ןיקנדיג נוא ביול. The Amsterdam translator also<br />
uses ןיקנדיג for the Hebrew ןויער, <strong>and</strong> loyb ‘praise’ refers to sekhel. It is also used to<br />
render הליהת. When Ibn Gabirol refers to the cunn<strong>in</strong>g human m<strong>in</strong>d he writes תעד<br />
המיזמו. The Amsterdam Yiddish text has גנוטכיט נוא ןיז; Halperon simply skips over<br />
this term. We should notice, though, that the Amsterdam version also uses גנוטכיט for<br />
ןויגה, or human <strong>in</strong>tellectual ability.<br />
Another important notion is ןיאמ שי (ex nihilo or de non esse ad esse 30 ). F<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
Yiddish form as concise as the Hebrew was evidently difficult. So we f<strong>in</strong>d ןיאמ אציו<br />
שיל rendered as זיא אי וצ זיא טשינ ןופ ןגנאגיג זיוא זיא (Amsterdam); עקתנו שיה לאו as<br />
ןטלאה ףיוא ןכאמ טיארד טוה זיפע נוא (Halperon); <strong>and</strong> ןיאה ןמ שיה ךשמ ךושמל as ןהיצ וצ<br />
זיא טינ אד זד ןופ זיא אד זד (Amsterdam) or טכינ שיוא שיווצע טשיא וד זד זלא ןהיצ שיוא וצ<br />
(Halperon). 31 The Yiddish versions rely on pure description <strong>and</strong> primitive forms of<br />
expression; both translators seem to be totally unaware of the possible philosophical<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretations of שיו ןיא. 32<br />
Both translations also reflect the world of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i religious notions. In the Italian<br />
version, the Hebrew םידיסח becomes םיקידצ. God’s universe also conta<strong>in</strong>s demons<br />
(לבייוט) <strong>and</strong> the angel of death (תוומה ךאלמ), who are not mentioned <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Hebrew orig<strong>in</strong>al. When Ibn Gabirol writes תיחשמה ךאלמ, Halperon aga<strong>in</strong> has לבייוט.<br />
םיללעמ becomes ערה רצי <strong>and</strong> the prophets are turned <strong>in</strong>to soothsayers or רגעזראוו.<br />
The sharp dichotomy between good <strong>and</strong> evil, the existence of demons, <strong>and</strong> similar<br />
30 This is the term used <strong>in</strong> the Lat<strong>in</strong> Fons Vitae; see below, n. 32.<br />
31 In modern usage, ןיאמ שי is a legitimate Yiddish noun <strong>in</strong> both the s<strong>in</strong>gular <strong>and</strong> the plural (yesh<br />
meˆay<strong>in</strong>s): see YiÒÌaq Niborsky <strong>and</strong> Simon Neuberg, Verterbukh fun loshn-koydeshshtamike verter <strong>in</strong><br />
yidish (Paris, 1997), p. 117.<br />
32 See Shlomo P<strong>in</strong>es, ‘ “Ve-qaraˆ el ha-ˆay<strong>in</strong> ve-nivqa¨ ”: Le-Ìeqer Keter malkhut li-Shlomo Ibn<br />
Gabirol’, Tarbiz 50 (1980): 339–47.<br />
Shlomo Berger<br />
231
notions are to be found <strong>in</strong> the ethical literature <strong>and</strong> accord<strong>in</strong>gly surface here as well.<br />
Both translators <strong>in</strong>sert a first-person narrator ןליצ רד ךיא ליוו ןונ <strong>and</strong> use רמולכ or זד<br />
טשייה to <strong>in</strong>troduce an explanation <strong>in</strong> Yiddish of a concept stated <strong>in</strong> the Hebrew but<br />
which they believe must be correctly understood by the readers. 33 Translations are<br />
also commentaries <strong>and</strong> such glosses were typical of Yiddish ethical literature <strong>and</strong><br />
books like the Tsene rene.<br />
The Yiddish <strong>and</strong> Hebrew languages are <strong>in</strong>separable. Yiddish cannot undo its Hebrew<br />
background, from its use of the Hebrew alphabet to it substantial vocabulary of Hebrew<br />
words. In addition, Yiddish legitimizes <strong>and</strong> perpetuates the primacy of its<br />
mother tongue with<strong>in</strong> the Jewish cultural system. This polysystem 34 enabled Yiddish<br />
to develop a full range of expressive forms that paralleled those found <strong>in</strong> Hebrew.<br />
Because Hebrew books were translated <strong>in</strong>to Yiddish <strong>in</strong> order to provide read<strong>in</strong>g matter<br />
for an <strong>in</strong>itially less-sophisticated public, the process entailed various sorts of<br />
transformation. 35 The translations of Keter malkhut disclose a general process of<br />
transformation from one set of cultural signs to another. At the l<strong>in</strong>guistic level, we<br />
<strong>in</strong>deed have a translation that cannot match the Hebrew text. Both translators had to<br />
resort to <strong>in</strong>genious solutions that failed to do justice to the orig<strong>in</strong>al. The translators<br />
had to grapple with medieval Hebrew, which borrowed extensively from the Bible;<br />
so their effort was doomed to failure from the outset. Nevertheless, the anticipation<br />
of such a failure may have led the Amsterdam translator to opt for a prose version<br />
<strong>and</strong> the transfer of Ibn Gabirol’s text from its orig<strong>in</strong>al doma<strong>in</strong> to that of ethical literature.<br />
The emphasis given to Hebrew words <strong>in</strong> the Amsterdam pr<strong>in</strong>ted book – bold<br />
square letters with<strong>in</strong> parentheses – should not be ascribed solely to a ‘tradition’ that<br />
def<strong>in</strong>ed the lexicographical relationship between Yiddish <strong>and</strong> Hebrew. 36 It should<br />
also be understood as the plac<strong>in</strong>g of cultural markers, signs that denote that the range<br />
of Yiddish culture is wider than the possibilities available <strong>in</strong> this language. These<br />
markers work <strong>in</strong> two directions: <strong>in</strong>ternally, they give the Hebrew terms a special position<br />
with<strong>in</strong> the Yiddish text; 37 externally, they preserve the l<strong>in</strong>k to the other language<br />
<strong>in</strong> the cultural system <strong>and</strong> provide Yiddish readers with a tool for referr<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
the Hebrew text.<br />
33 See Simon Neuberg, Pragmatische Aspekte der Jiddischen Sprachgeschichte am Beispiel der<br />
‘Zenerene’ (Hamburg, 1999), pp. 158–60.<br />
34 Itamar Even-Zohar launched the study of polysystems <strong>in</strong> 1970. See his Polysystem Studies = Poetics<br />
Today 11.1 (1990). See also the methodological <strong>in</strong>quiry by Gideon Toury, ‘Li-sheˆelat teˆur ha-sifrut kerav–ma¨arekhet’,<br />
Ha-Sifrut 18–19 (1974): 1–19. For a discussion of polysystems <strong>in</strong> Yiddish, see<br />
Benjam<strong>in</strong> Harshav, The Mean<strong>in</strong>g of Yiddish (Berkeley, 1990), passim.<br />
35 Itamar Even-Zohar, ‘Aspeq†im shel ha-rav–ma¨arekhet ¨ivrit-yiddish’, Ha-Sifrut 35–36 (1986): 46–<br />
54, esp. 50–2.<br />
36 The writ<strong>in</strong>g conventions <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>corporation of Hebrew words <strong>in</strong>to Yiddish <strong>and</strong> the subsequent<br />
use of grammatical symbols <strong>in</strong> Yiddish is a neglected subject. See my ‘On the Use of Hebrew<br />
Words <strong>in</strong> Parenthesis <strong>in</strong> a Yiddish Text: The Case of Keter Malkhut (Amsterdam 1673)’, Zutot: Perspectives<br />
on Jewish Culture 3 (2003): 34–9.<br />
37 On the place of Hebrew words <strong>in</strong> Yiddish, see, for <strong>in</strong>stance, Uriel We<strong>in</strong>reich, ‘Ha-¨ivrit ha-ashkenazit<br />
ve-ha-¨ivrit she-be-yiddish: beÌ<strong>in</strong>atan ha-geˆografit’, Leshonenu 22 (1960): 242–52.<br />
232 Two Seventeenth-Century Translations of Ibn Gabirol's Keter Malkhut
By associat<strong>in</strong>g the Yiddish version with the Day of Atonement or with ethical literature,<br />
the translators relocated the religious text <strong>in</strong>to the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i religious world<br />
of ideas. 38 The philosophical notions were transformed <strong>in</strong>to a set of religious ones.<br />
These are no mere simplifications, s<strong>in</strong>ce one wonders how many Sephardim could <strong>in</strong><br />
fact decode Ibn Gabirol’s mean<strong>in</strong>g. Because the Yiddish text could never become<br />
canonical, the translators could exp<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> comment, play with their word choice,<br />
<strong>and</strong> rework their versions to the po<strong>in</strong>t where they found their own place with<strong>in</strong> an<br />
<strong>in</strong>dependent Yiddish hierarchy. The Yiddish versions of Keter malkhut were an exploration<br />
of the potential of the Jewish vernacular, essential to the evolution <strong>and</strong> expansion<br />
of the language, the construction of its own literary norms, <strong>and</strong> the enlargement<br />
of its corpus. Armed with a Yiddish Keter malkhut, readers could reassess the<br />
status of the Hebrew orig<strong>in</strong>al with<strong>in</strong> the canon <strong>and</strong> redef<strong>in</strong>e the functions of both the<br />
Hebrew <strong>and</strong> Yiddish texts.<br />
This mode of operation dem<strong>and</strong>s an openness <strong>and</strong> flexibility of the sort employed<br />
by the maskilim of later generations. 39 Yiddish books accord<strong>in</strong>gly served as a cultural<br />
agent that un<strong>in</strong>tentionally <strong>in</strong>troduced ideas <strong>and</strong> methods later employed <strong>and</strong> developed<br />
by the maskilim. In 1794, Zeev Wolf Buchner composed a Hebrew ‘maskilic’<br />
version of Keter malkhut that imitated the orig<strong>in</strong>al medieval poem. Unlike the orig<strong>in</strong>al,<br />
with its ref<strong>in</strong>ed classical <strong>and</strong> universal forms, Buchner’s Keter is marked by a<br />
romantic, emotional, <strong>and</strong> almost exclusive Jewish character. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Naomi<br />
Zohar, 40 Buchner had an anthropocentric view located with<strong>in</strong> a ‘Jewish national’<br />
background, whereas his medieval model was theocentric <strong>and</strong> universalistic. She <strong>in</strong>terprets<br />
Buchner’s view as characteristic of enlightened Jewish <strong>and</strong> gentiles alike.<br />
The Yiddish versions of Keter malkhut turned medieval philosophical th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to<br />
popular ethics with an <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i form. A maskil like Buchner tried to re-elevate this<br />
to the level of philosophy with<strong>in</strong> an <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i sett<strong>in</strong>g. Thus was <strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong>corporated<br />
<strong>in</strong>to <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i culture through Yiddish <strong>and</strong> redef<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> Hebrew by the<br />
Haskalah. 41<br />
38 On the efforts by authors to <strong>in</strong>troduce Yiddish liturgy <strong>and</strong> their failure to make <strong>in</strong>roads <strong>in</strong>to the synagogue,<br />
see Max We<strong>in</strong>reich, ‘Inevaynikste tsveyshprakhkayt <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> biz der haskole: fakt’n un<br />
bagrif’n’, Di Goldene Keyt 35 (1959). On Eastern European religious world of ideas, see Gershon D.<br />
Hundert, ‘Jewish Popular Spirituality <strong>in</strong> the Eighteenth Century’, Pol<strong>in</strong> 15 (2002), pp. 93–104.<br />
39 See, for <strong>in</strong>stance, the tradition of ‘nach Literatur’: Îayyim Shoham, Be-Òel haskalat Berl<strong>in</strong> (Tel<br />
Aviv, 1992).<br />
40 Naomi Zohar, ¨Olelot mi-baÒir: Haskalah-Ìasidut-mitnaggedut biÒirot nishkaÌot (Jerusalem, 1987),<br />
pp. 19–81, esp. 52–81.<br />
41 I would like to thank the Bodleian Library <strong>in</strong> Oxford <strong>and</strong> the University Library <strong>in</strong> Rostock for provid<strong>in</strong>g<br />
me with copies of the Yiddish texts of Keter malkhut. Special thanks to Heike Tröger <strong>and</strong> Arie<br />
Schippers.<br />
Shlomo Berger<br />
233
Wout van Bekkum<br />
Some Thoughts on the ‘Secularization’ of Hebrew Liturgical Poetry <strong>in</strong><br />
Pre-Modern <strong>and</strong> Modern Times<br />
Introduction<br />
An exam<strong>in</strong>ation of the history of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i liturgy <strong>and</strong> liturgical poetry, or piyyu†, <strong>in</strong><br />
the late medieval <strong>and</strong> early modern periods produces a rather confus<strong>in</strong>g image. Here<br />
I will share a few thoughts about the historical range of attitudes to liturgical poetry.<br />
I hope these will provide some <strong>in</strong>formation about approaches to the tradition of<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i liturgy <strong>in</strong> the Haskalah <strong>and</strong> Wissenschaft periods. Hebrew poetry –<br />
Sephardi <strong>and</strong> to a lesser extent <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i, both secular <strong>and</strong> liturgical – was a major<br />
preoccupation of the ‘Science of Judaism’. What were the motives for this <strong>in</strong>terest?<br />
Where did it come from? Can we arrive at some new <strong>in</strong>sight <strong>in</strong>to what I would like<br />
to call ‘the liturgical downfall of piyyu† <strong>and</strong> the scientific rise of piyyu† <strong>in</strong> pre-<br />
Wissenschaft <strong>and</strong> Wissenschaft times’?<br />
First of all, piyyu†, by its very nature, can be viewed as hav<strong>in</strong>g orig<strong>in</strong>ally been a<br />
non-st<strong>and</strong>ard liturgical element, which ga<strong>in</strong>ed popularity <strong>in</strong> the first centuries CE. 1<br />
The synagogues of late Antiquity <strong>in</strong>corporated new hymns, composed <strong>in</strong> verse with<br />
acrostics <strong>and</strong> rhyme, <strong>in</strong>to their communal prayer <strong>and</strong> ritual. The fourth to the sixth<br />
centuries give us less or more evolved compositions like the q<strong>in</strong>ah, the seliÌah, the<br />
yoÒer, <strong>and</strong>, above all, the qerovah or qedushta. The qedushta for every Sabbath <strong>and</strong><br />
festival consists of between seven <strong>and</strong> n<strong>in</strong>e stanzas with alphabetical <strong>and</strong> name acrostics<br />
<strong>and</strong> strophic rhyme schemes. The length of both the yoÒer <strong>and</strong> the qedushta, as<br />
well as the versification of biblical <strong>and</strong> midrashic themes, reflects the high status of<br />
these poems, which were apparently performed from the bimah by the cantor, who<br />
was often also the composer, while a small choir or perhaps even the whole congregation<br />
jo<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> some refra<strong>in</strong>s. The most impressive achievement of these (mostly<br />
Palest<strong>in</strong>ian) cantor-poets is undoubtedly their poetic excellence <strong>and</strong> the variety of<br />
lyrical devices they <strong>in</strong>troduced. These hymns also played a role <strong>in</strong> education. Along<br />
with the synagogue prayers, they <strong>in</strong>troduced worshippers to the elements of Jewish<br />
theology. Recall that even Maimonides’ Thirteen Pr<strong>in</strong>ciples are better known to a<br />
wider audience <strong>in</strong> their versified form, Yigdal, than <strong>in</strong> his orig<strong>in</strong>al formulation. But as<br />
Jakob Petuchowski has observed, piyyu†im, far from impos<strong>in</strong>g orthodox theology,<br />
tended to embody <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>dividual creativity:<br />
1 Leon We<strong>in</strong>berger, Jewish Hymnography, A Literary History (London, 1998), pp. 7–9.<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
Wout Royal van Netherl<strong>and</strong>s Bekkum Academy of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences, 2007<br />
235
Statements <strong>and</strong> arguments which, <strong>in</strong> prose, would immediately be br<strong>and</strong>ed as ‘heretical’<br />
have become, once they were couched <strong>in</strong> poetic form, <strong>in</strong>gredients of the liturgy, <strong>and</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>ue<br />
to be rehearsed – often with more devotion than comprehension – by multitudes of<br />
the unsuspect<strong>in</strong>g pious who would be utterly shocked to discover the true <strong>in</strong>tent of their<br />
authors. 2<br />
Although Petuchowski is right about the theological flexibility <strong>and</strong> literary spontaneity<br />
of liturgical poetry, he uses rather strong words for its supposed <strong>in</strong>comprehensibility<br />
<strong>and</strong> obscurity, as if hardly anyone ever understood what was go<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>in</strong> these<br />
sacred verses. In that sense, his remarks co<strong>in</strong>cide with the centuries of opposition to<br />
piyyu†. Critics <strong>in</strong> medieval <strong>and</strong> modern times have po<strong>in</strong>ted out that piyyu†, as an <strong>in</strong>tegral<br />
part of the religious tradition, has removed itself from the normal sphere of poetry<br />
by plac<strong>in</strong>g elegance of language above clarity of mean<strong>in</strong>g. Similar considerations<br />
led the n<strong>in</strong>eteenth-century European Reformers to excise most of the hymns<br />
from the synagogue liturgy. Hebrew liturgical verse as a liv<strong>in</strong>g phenomenon <strong>in</strong> Jewish<br />
worship rema<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> grave peril <strong>in</strong> modern times, but academic studies of piyyu†<br />
have broken new ground <strong>and</strong> yielded novel <strong>in</strong>sights. Consider<strong>in</strong>g the state of affairs<br />
<strong>in</strong> Hebrew poetic research at the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of the twenty-first century, we can be exceed<strong>in</strong>gly<br />
grateful to the Cairo Geniza treasures, which have permitted dramatic advances<br />
<strong>in</strong> the scholarly study of piyyu†. Thanks to the Jewish practice of not destroy<strong>in</strong>g<br />
texts that conta<strong>in</strong>ed God’s name, the Jews of Fostat preserved their documents<br />
<strong>and</strong> letters, as well as liturgical codices <strong>and</strong> others books, when these were no longer<br />
fit for public use, <strong>in</strong> a room of the Ibn Ezra synagogue. The Geniza provides us with<br />
many fragments <strong>and</strong> more various extensive texts than are available from st<strong>and</strong>ard<br />
sources <strong>and</strong> editions. Scholars like Davidson, Zulay, Schirmann, <strong>and</strong> Fleischer have<br />
published <strong>and</strong> classified thous<strong>and</strong>s of works of hitherto little known or unknown<br />
synagogue poets. They have divided Late Antique <strong>and</strong> medieval Hebrew poetry <strong>in</strong>to<br />
a pre-classical <strong>and</strong> a classical stage <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>e, a post-classical stage <strong>in</strong> Babylonia,<br />
<strong>and</strong> a more or less neo-classical stage <strong>in</strong> Muslim <strong>and</strong> Christian Spa<strong>in</strong>. The last of<br />
these – Spanish secular <strong>and</strong> liturgical poetry – became the st<strong>and</strong>ard for later<br />
hymnological developments <strong>in</strong> Sephardi <strong>and</strong> Ottoman-Jewish culture, mostly thanks<br />
to the refugees from Spa<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> Portugal after the expulsions of 1492 <strong>and</strong> 1496.<br />
The decipherment, reconstruction, <strong>and</strong> identification of poetic texts <strong>in</strong> the Geniza<br />
yielded numerous new <strong>in</strong>sights <strong>in</strong>to the dynamic character of piyyu†, relevant to the<br />
liturgy of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> to a limited extent. Unfortunately, the history of Central- <strong>and</strong><br />
West-European piyyu† is much more difficult to reconstruct. In recent decades, however,<br />
Daniel Goldschmidt <strong>and</strong> Yonah Frankel published their festival maÌzorim,<br />
which conta<strong>in</strong> a tremendous amount of <strong>in</strong>formation about variant read<strong>in</strong>gs. For me,<br />
their selections <strong>and</strong> compilations of hymns represent a k<strong>in</strong>d of modern scholarly canonization<br />
of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i piyyu† for the holidays; thanks to the <strong>in</strong>clusion of the st<strong>and</strong>ard<br />
prayers, their critical editions can be used dur<strong>in</strong>g synagogue services. Although<br />
the hymnists of France, Italy, <strong>and</strong> Germany <strong>in</strong> the High Middle Ages built their<br />
works on earlier classical models, they permitted themselves numerous additions <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>novations <strong>in</strong> genre, style, language, <strong>and</strong> theme. All the while, classical composi-<br />
2 Jakob Petuchowski, Theology <strong>and</strong> Poetry (London, 1978), p. 5.<br />
236 Some Thoughts on the ‘Secularization' of Hebrew Liturgical Poetry
tions, notably those of Eleazar ha-Qalir or Qilir, who resided <strong>in</strong> Palest<strong>in</strong>e late sixth<br />
<strong>and</strong> early seventh centuries, cont<strong>in</strong>ued to be popular. Qilir <strong>and</strong> later works <strong>in</strong> his style<br />
were <strong>in</strong>deed not easy to underst<strong>and</strong>. The phenomenon of commentaries on traditional<br />
piyyu† compositions, most of them works <strong>in</strong> the style of Qilir, was not a novelty <strong>in</strong><br />
Jewish learn<strong>in</strong>g. As Elisabeth Hollender has shown <strong>in</strong> her Habilitationsschrift, there<br />
are many parallels with the literature of biblical exegesis <strong>and</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistics. 3<br />
For many centuries a large number of piyyu†im were held <strong>in</strong> high esteem by the<br />
Jewish congregations of Western <strong>and</strong> Central Europe. However, criticism of piyyu†<br />
became louder <strong>in</strong> modern times. The famous chief rabbi of Copenhagen, Abraham<br />
Alex<strong>and</strong>er Wolff (1801–1891), listed the objections of medieval <strong>and</strong> early modern<br />
Jewish authorities <strong>in</strong> defense of his elim<strong>in</strong>ation of piyyu†im from the service <strong>in</strong> a series<br />
of articles <strong>in</strong> Literaturblatt des Orients. 4 An outst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g opponent of piyyu†<br />
quoted by Wolff is Rabbi Jacob Emden, who wrote, <strong>in</strong> his prayer book ¨Ammudei<br />
shamayyim (1750):<br />
May God grant the moment that one can make a dist<strong>in</strong>ction between true m<strong>in</strong>hagim <strong>and</strong><br />
pseudo-m<strong>in</strong>hagim, that is, to purify <strong>and</strong> to cleanse obligatory prayer from the lumber of<br />
later times, from the piyyu†im! Oh the piyyu†im! They are the ones that blacken our reputation<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>flict on us <strong>in</strong>dignities!<br />
The publications <strong>in</strong> Literaturblatt des Orients were considered a s<strong>in</strong>ful aberration by<br />
an anonymous author from Leeuwarden (most probably Baruch Bendit Dusnus, chief<br />
rabbi of Leeuwarden from 1840 until 1886), who <strong>in</strong> 1842 adhered steadfastly to the<br />
traditional position of piyyu† <strong>in</strong> Jewish liturgy. 5 Piyyu† had become a contested issue;<br />
a large number of hymns were very vulnerable <strong>and</strong> liable to disappear <strong>in</strong> an age of<br />
religious renewal <strong>and</strong> liturgical reform. Although German Orthodox rabbis <strong>and</strong> cantors<br />
objected to any changes <strong>in</strong> synagogue services, they too were not always eager to<br />
have the piyyu†im recited <strong>in</strong> full.<br />
In some ways, the question of the place of piyyu† <strong>in</strong> modern Jewish culture accords<br />
with the situation <strong>in</strong> earlier times. Individual poems or longer series of poems reveal<br />
3 Mittelalterliche hebräische Kompilationsliteratur am Beispiel aschkenasischer und französischer<br />
Pijjutkommentare (Duisburg, 2000), pp. 55–63; eadem, “Hebräische Kommentare hebräischer liturgischer<br />
Poesie: e<strong>in</strong>e Taxonomie der wichtigsten Kommentarelemente”, <strong>in</strong>: Der Kommentar <strong>in</strong> Antike und<br />
Mittelalter: Beiträge zu se<strong>in</strong>er Erforschung, Clavis Commentatoriorum Antiquitatis et Medii Aevi 2,<br />
ed. Wilhelm Geerl<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> Christian Schulz (Leiden, 2002), pp. 163–82; eadem, Clavis Commentariorum<br />
of Hebrew Liturgical Poetry <strong>in</strong> Manuscript, Clavis Commentariorum Antiquitatis et Medii Aevi,<br />
4 (Leiden, 2005).<br />
4 No. 23, 5 June 1841, pp. 337–41; No. 24, 12 June 1841, pp. 359–62; No. 25, 19 June 1841, pp. 369–<br />
80; No. 26, 26 June 1841, pp. 385–93. These articles were published under the curious pseudonym<br />
Aniam ben Schemida. Wolff used his own name <strong>in</strong> 1856–57 when the collected articles were published<br />
<strong>in</strong> a booklet entitled Ateret Shalom we-Emet: Die Stimmen der ältesten glaubwürdigsten Rabb<strong>in</strong>en über<br />
die Pijutim (Leipzig, 1857). Cf. also Wolff’s Lehrbuch der israelitischen Religion (Copenhagen, 1836),<br />
on matters of Jewish theology.<br />
5 K<strong>in</strong>ath Schalom Weëmeth: Eifer der Wahrheit und des Friedens! Die Stimmen der ältesten, glaubwürdigsten<br />
Rabbienen, über die Pijutim; E<strong>in</strong>e Gegenschrift wieder das kürzlich herausgekommene<br />
Werk des Aniam ben Schemida genannt Angthereth Schalom Weëmeth (Leeuwarden, 1842), p. 8: ‘You<br />
say that all your great authorities are <strong>in</strong> favour of elim<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g piyyu†im; you have made a fool of yourselves!<br />
Who among them has said to elim<strong>in</strong>ate them all? You should consult their books aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> see<br />
that no one discusses the piyyu†im for ¨amidah, only those [yoÒrot] for the read<strong>in</strong>g of Shema¨.’<br />
Wout van Bekkum<br />
237
a complex textual history both <strong>in</strong> manuscripts <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ted editions: copyists could<br />
<strong>in</strong>advertently or deliberately alter words <strong>and</strong> phrases, omit l<strong>in</strong>es <strong>and</strong> strophes, or skip<br />
entire poems. The preferences of both cantor <strong>and</strong> congregation might produce variant<br />
read<strong>in</strong>gs. When the pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g press became responsible for siddurim <strong>and</strong> maÌzorim,<br />
further changes might occur. Pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g added a new dimension to the transmission of<br />
piyyu†im, affect<strong>in</strong>g both read<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> presentation: often the structure of a poem was<br />
ignored <strong>and</strong> the l<strong>in</strong>es were pr<strong>in</strong>ted one after another, with no display of acrostics <strong>and</strong><br />
rhyme schemes.<br />
With regard to m<strong>in</strong>hagim, the extant sources reflect several major trends: Western<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong> (for <strong>in</strong>stance, the Worms maÌzor), Eastern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> (Pol<strong>and</strong>, Galicia,<br />
Lithuania, etc.), France (both the northeast <strong>and</strong> Provence), Rome, <strong>and</strong> Romania. 6 The<br />
Genizah manuscripts offer essential additions to the reception history of classical Palest<strong>in</strong>ian<br />
piyyu†im still found <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i liturgy (e.g., some ¨avodot for the Day of<br />
Atonement by Yossi ben Yossi [fourth-fifth centuries], a few compositions by<br />
Yannai [sixth century], <strong>and</strong> a large number of works by Qilir). Another factor complicat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the reception history of piyyu†im is the impact of the (self-)censorship of<br />
prayer <strong>in</strong> both traditional <strong>and</strong> modern contexts. While it is true that censorship was<br />
frequently unsystematic <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>efficient, prayers <strong>and</strong> hymns were more <strong>in</strong>fluenced by<br />
censorship than is often realized. Some of the texts were as ancient as the ¨Alenu<br />
prayer, which caused controversies even <strong>in</strong> modern times because of its supposed<br />
anti-Christian <strong>and</strong> anti-Muslim contents. 7<br />
Wolf Benjam<strong>in</strong> Heidenheim<br />
As traditional attitudes toward liturgy <strong>and</strong> poetry changed dur<strong>in</strong>g the early modern<br />
period, it was <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly felt that the fashion for freer <strong>in</strong>teraction between Jewish<br />
<strong>and</strong> European literature posed a new challenge to synagogue hymns. 8 The l<strong>in</strong>guistic<br />
<strong>and</strong> textual study of Jewish prose liturgy <strong>and</strong> hymnology goes back to the geonic period,<br />
when the leaders of Rabbanite Judaism, notably Saadia Gaon, sought to formulate<br />
a basic canon of the prayers <strong>in</strong> their prist<strong>in</strong>e form, for the use of the entire Jewish<br />
community. For the maskilim of the eighteenth century, both Saadia <strong>and</strong> the Spanish<br />
poets provided a crucial precedent for the <strong>in</strong>troduction of liturgical poetry based on<br />
6 Stefan Reif, Judaism <strong>and</strong> Hebrew Prayer (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 256–93.<br />
7 Jacob Elbaum, ‘On Two Changes to the Text of ¨Alenu’ (Hebrew), Tarbiz 42 (1972–73): 204–8;<br />
Naphtali Wieder, ‘Regard<strong>in</strong>g an Anti-Christian <strong>and</strong> Anti-Muslim Gematria (<strong>in</strong> the “¨Alenu le-shabeaÌ”<br />
prayer)’ (Hebrew), S<strong>in</strong>ai 76 (1975): 1–14; repr. <strong>in</strong> The Formation of Jewish Liturgy <strong>in</strong> the East <strong>and</strong> the<br />
West (Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 453–68.<br />
8 Such a general view needs a more discrim<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g formulation, one that dist<strong>in</strong>guishes between the options<br />
of <strong>in</strong>teraction on a majority-m<strong>in</strong>ority basis. Maskilic <strong>and</strong> modernist ideals do not imply a strict dichotomy<br />
of religious practice or erosion of traditional values. See the thought-provok<strong>in</strong>g argument <strong>in</strong><br />
David Sork<strong>in</strong>, The Berl<strong>in</strong> Haskalah <strong>and</strong> German Religious Thought: Orphans of <strong>Knowledge</strong> (London<br />
<strong>and</strong> Portl<strong>and</strong>, OR, 2000), pp. 125–9: ‘The time has therefore come to cease us<strong>in</strong>g the Berl<strong>in</strong> Haskalah as<br />
the symbolic whipp<strong>in</strong>g boy for Jewish modernization. Its politicization <strong>in</strong> the clos<strong>in</strong>g decades of the<br />
[eighteenth] century did implicate it <strong>in</strong> a fateful polarization of Jewish society which on the one h<strong>and</strong><br />
contributed to the formation of the conventional view, <strong>and</strong> thus to our cont<strong>in</strong>ued misunderst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of<br />
the Haskalah itself, <strong>and</strong> on the other has endured <strong>in</strong> a variety of fateful permutations (orthodox vs. reform,<br />
nationalist vs. assimilationist, secular vs. religious) to the present time <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>controvertibly constitutes<br />
one of the hallmarks of Jewish modernity.’<br />
238 Some Thoughts on the ‘Secularization' of Hebrew Liturgical Poetry
the vocabulary of biblical Hebrew. This biblicist approach toward the traditional language<br />
of the piyyu† was implicitly a dem<strong>and</strong> for adaptation <strong>and</strong> modification of the<br />
time-honoured synagogue hymns. Isaac ben Moses ha-Levi Satanow (1732–1804)<br />
took a rather radical st<strong>and</strong> when he <strong>in</strong>troduced his various sedarim <strong>and</strong> tefillot. His<br />
brusque attempts to liberalize <strong>and</strong> reshape <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i liturgy were to no avail. 9<br />
The biography of Wolf Benjam<strong>in</strong> Heidenheim, a traditionalist who kept his study<br />
of the literary <strong>and</strong> historical aspects of piyyu† with<strong>in</strong> the rabb<strong>in</strong>ic tradition, helps<br />
place the modern challenge to Jewish liturgy <strong>in</strong>to focus. Heidenheim was born <strong>in</strong><br />
Heidenheim <strong>in</strong> 1757; an outst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g Hebrew scholar, translator, <strong>and</strong> publisher, <strong>in</strong><br />
1798 he established the first modern pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g press for Jewish books at Rödelheim.<br />
Between 1798 <strong>and</strong> the year of his death <strong>in</strong> 1832 he published editions of the maÌzor,<br />
10 the prayer books Safah berurah <strong>and</strong> Sefat emet, the Pentateuch, the Haggadah,<br />
Pirqei avot, the prayers for Tish¨ah be-Av, <strong>and</strong> the seliÌot, each with his own translations<br />
<strong>and</strong> commentaries. He also produced a text on the Hebrew language (Mevoˆ halashon),<br />
a book on Hebrew pronunciation (Mishpe†ei ha-†e¨amim), <strong>and</strong> a commentary<br />
on the Pentateuch (Havanat ha-miqraˆ). His meticulously produced <strong>and</strong> annotated<br />
prayerbooks made his name among Jewish scholars <strong>and</strong> laymen. Heidenheim’s contribution<br />
to liturgical reform awaits scholarly analysis, but he can certa<strong>in</strong>ly be considered<br />
as hav<strong>in</strong>g set an example for the later efforts of scholars like Leopold Zunz.<br />
As an appendix to the maÌzor, <strong>in</strong> 1798 he published a booklet on piyyu†im <strong>and</strong><br />
their authors, an <strong>in</strong>troduction that comb<strong>in</strong>es liturgical <strong>and</strong> historical <strong>in</strong>terests:<br />
The pay†anim <strong>and</strong> their poems, which became a part of our prayerbooks, are our heritage.<br />
Most of them were scholars, some from EreÒ Yisrael <strong>and</strong> Babylonia, others from Spa<strong>in</strong><br />
as well as France <strong>and</strong> Germany. They were all active dur<strong>in</strong>g a span of three hundred<br />
years, that is, from the middle of the eighth century of the fifth millennium until the end<br />
of the millennium [i.e., c. 990–1240 CE]. There are no rhymes <strong>in</strong> all the prayers <strong>and</strong> devotions<br />
that the Men of the Great Assembly <strong>in</strong>stituted for us. Many prayers <strong>and</strong> hymns of<br />
our masters, the talmudic sages, can be found <strong>in</strong> the chapter ‘One who sees’ [B Berakhot,<br />
ch. 9] <strong>and</strong> other places; <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> B ¨Avodah zarah 24b as well as Genesis Rabbah, ch. 54,<br />
p. 61a, Seder Eliyahu Rabbah ch. 11, <strong>and</strong> Midrash Shmuel end of ch. 12 [we f<strong>in</strong>d] the<br />
song of the cows, ‘Rejoice, rejoice, acacia tree’ (q.v.). None of them is rhymed, <strong>and</strong> so<br />
too <strong>in</strong> all the texts written before the period mentioned, like ‘who on account of the fathers’<br />
<strong>and</strong> ‘who frustrated’ 11 <strong>and</strong> others, <strong>and</strong> the piyyu†im ‘you underst<strong>and</strong> the meditations<br />
of the heart’, ‘do not come to us with reproofs’, <strong>and</strong> ‘Lord of every be<strong>in</strong>g’, which<br />
are <strong>in</strong> manuscript <strong>and</strong> were mentioned by Rabbi Saadia Gaon of blessed memory <strong>in</strong> his<br />
Book of Beliefs, the fifth treatise, where he said they were written by the ancient sages –<br />
all of them are arranged alphabetically, without rhyme or meter or the author’s signature.<br />
Nor is it necessary to say that there is no rhyme or meter <strong>in</strong> the Holy Scriptures. What we<br />
f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong> a few verses, such as ‘who forgives all your s<strong>in</strong>s (¨avonekhi), who heals all your<br />
diseases (taÌaluˆaikhi)’ (Ps. 103:3), ‘those who make them are like them (¨osehem); so<br />
9 Just as his edition of <strong>and</strong> commentary on the Kuzari were not used by contemporary <strong>and</strong> later<br />
maskilim. See Nehama Rezler-Bersohn, ‘Isaac Satanow: An Epitome of an Era’, Leo Baeck Institute<br />
Year Book 25 (1980): 81–99.<br />
10 The maÌzor appeared <strong>in</strong> 1800–1805. Heidenheim used every manuscript he could f<strong>in</strong>d when he published<br />
his maÌzor reflect<strong>in</strong>g the liturgical customs of West <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>. As was the custom of<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ters <strong>in</strong> that age, he never <strong>in</strong>dicated the names <strong>and</strong> numbers of manuscripts he used.<br />
11 An alphabetic acrostic recited after the read<strong>in</strong>g of the Megillah on Purim night.<br />
Wout van Bekkum<br />
239
are all who trust <strong>in</strong> them (bo†eaÌ bahem)’ (Ps. 115:8, 135:18), ‘Is not he your father,<br />
who created you (qanekha), who made you <strong>and</strong> established you (vay-yekhonenekha)?’<br />
(Deut. 32:6), <strong>and</strong> a few others like them, because the rhyme is not <strong>in</strong>tentional but accidental.<br />
If rhym<strong>in</strong>g were a regular feature of the Holy Language, there should be thous<strong>and</strong>s<br />
or ten thous<strong>and</strong>s of them, <strong>and</strong> not just <strong>in</strong> a s<strong>in</strong>gle verse, but <strong>in</strong> entire passages.<br />
Were the rhyme <strong>in</strong>tentional <strong>in</strong> [Ps. 103:3], as those who advocate rhyme believe,<br />
namely, the sage Ben Îabib 12 <strong>and</strong> the sage Archivolti, 13 why is it followed [v. 4] by<br />
‘who redeems your life from the pit (Ìayaikhi), who crowns you with steadfast love <strong>and</strong><br />
mercy (ha-me¨a†rekhi Ìesed ve-raÌamim)’, when he could have <strong>in</strong>verted the order <strong>and</strong><br />
written ve-Ìesed ve-raÌamim me¨a†rekhi, produc<strong>in</strong>g a perfect fourfold rhyme? In fact,<br />
rhyme is foreign to our language, not one of the Hebrew children [Ex. 2:6], for its excellence<br />
is only <strong>in</strong> the sound, but it loses the greater excellence that is unique to the Hebrew<br />
language, namely thematic excellence, as all of this is demonstrated <strong>in</strong> what the rabbi<br />
tells the k<strong>in</strong>g of the Khazars <strong>in</strong> Part II, §72ff. But the two cannot co-exist; when one rises<br />
the other falls <strong>and</strong> they are mutually antagonistic. It is logical that an aural excellence<br />
give way to a thematic excellence that is natural to the language. Hence as long as our<br />
ancestors lived <strong>in</strong> their own l<strong>and</strong> they made absolutely no use of rhymes, whose excellence<br />
they accounted of little worth, because its cost exceeded its benefit. Much later,<br />
though, when they had settled <strong>in</strong> a foreign l<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> heard the lovely rhymes <strong>in</strong> the poems<br />
of the nations, they became envious of them, learned from their practices, <strong>and</strong> imitated<br />
them. This is the testimony of the sa<strong>in</strong>t 14 <strong>in</strong> his Sefer Îasidim, §781, as well as the rabbi<br />
there [<strong>in</strong> the Kuzari] at the end of §78. How pleasant are the remarks of the sage, Rabbi<br />
Samuel Ibn Tibbon, at the start of his commentary on Ecclesiastes, which were copied by<br />
the author of Qol Yehudah, 15 end of §71, as follows:<br />
‘The craft of poetry has other rules that are general to all <strong>and</strong> specific to each <strong>and</strong> every<br />
nation. They were mentioned by Aristotle <strong>in</strong> his Poetics, 16 who also noted that some nations<br />
did not repeat the f<strong>in</strong>al letters <strong>in</strong> their poems but only made them equal <strong>in</strong> the time<br />
it takes to read them. He also says that <strong>in</strong> the poetry of some nations the metre – the [alternation<br />
of] full vowels <strong>and</strong> semivowels – need not be constant <strong>and</strong> uniform, but only<br />
correspond to the melody. And there is no doubt that this worked for them, s<strong>in</strong>ce noth<strong>in</strong>g<br />
seems to be miss<strong>in</strong>g. I have written you this because it seems that <strong>in</strong> the generations of<br />
David <strong>and</strong> Solomon, peace be upon them, their poems were like this, for we f<strong>in</strong>d neither<br />
metre nor rhyme [<strong>in</strong> them]. We can say that those poems had an advantage over those<br />
produced today, because their path was not strait <strong>and</strong> they could present <strong>in</strong> their poems<br />
whatever theme they wanted, to perfection. But <strong>in</strong> these generations they have imposed<br />
many rules on their poetry, both to be followed <strong>and</strong> to be avoided, <strong>and</strong> severely straitened<br />
their path so that they cannot deviate to the left or right. And this leads them to<br />
force <strong>and</strong> abridge <strong>and</strong> leave out <strong>and</strong> permit themselves carcasses. But with all this they<br />
lose the mean<strong>in</strong>g or at least make it harder to underst<strong>and</strong>. I have gone on about this at<br />
length <strong>in</strong> honour of the poems of David <strong>and</strong> Solomon <strong>and</strong> to proclaim their merits.’<br />
This is enough of this for now, when this idea is not our ma<strong>in</strong> concern. I will return, God<br />
will<strong>in</strong>g, to expound the other causes mentioned <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>vestigate the manner of composition<br />
of piyyu†im <strong>and</strong> the changes <strong>in</strong> their names <strong>and</strong> the changes <strong>in</strong> their paths <strong>and</strong> the<br />
12 Moses Ibn Îabib (late-fifteenth–early-sixteenth century), author of Marpeˆ lashon.<br />
13 Samuel Archivolti (1515–1611), author of ¨Arugat ha-bosem.<br />
14 R. Judah the Pious of Regensburg (c. 1150–1217).<br />
15 Qol Yehudah, a commentary on Judah Halevi’s Kuzari by Judah Moscato (c. 1530–c. 1593).<br />
16 In our Greek texts, the discussion of paromoiosis <strong>and</strong> homoioteleuton is <strong>in</strong> the Rhetoric (1410 a 23ff.).<br />
240 Some Thoughts on the ‘Secularization' of Hebrew Liturgical Poetry
course of every man’s language.<br />
Before you, my masters, my companions <strong>and</strong> friends [Ps. 55:14], I lay my case [Job<br />
5:8]. Consider [Hag. 2:15, 18] these matters <strong>and</strong> pay attention to the wisdom [after Prov.<br />
22:17] of the sages mentioned. Inform me of anyth<strong>in</strong>g I have forgotten. And if I have<br />
erred <strong>in</strong> any name or date, enlighten me, for I have written all this <strong>in</strong> love of truth <strong>and</strong> to<br />
<strong>in</strong>crease knowledge, to remove obstacles, straighten out confusions, <strong>and</strong> elim<strong>in</strong>ate corruptions.<br />
May lies <strong>and</strong> falsehood be kept far [after Prov. 30:8] from my book, <strong>and</strong> your<br />
true <strong>and</strong> straightforward words [after Prov. 8:9] be <strong>in</strong>scribed <strong>in</strong> a book [Job 19:23], <strong>and</strong><br />
enlighten <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>struct generations. 17<br />
Thus Heidenheim offers his readers a rather puzzl<strong>in</strong>g historical framework of only<br />
300 years for the composition of piyyu†im, perhaps because of the <strong>in</strong>formation <strong>in</strong><br />
Saadia’s work about the qadmonim, the ancient sages, <strong>and</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>ues with an extensive<br />
discussion of the use of rhyme <strong>in</strong> Hebrew. 18 To rephrase Heidenheim’s observations<br />
<strong>in</strong> the term<strong>in</strong>ology of modern scholarship, he compares compositions from the<br />
anonymous pre-classical period (third–fifth centuries) with hymns of the classical period<br />
<strong>and</strong> with the eastern branch of Hebrew hymnography; to play on the famous<br />
rabb<strong>in</strong>ical dictum, טויפב רחואמו םדקומ ןיא (‘There is no early <strong>and</strong> late <strong>in</strong> piyyu†’). But<br />
we also f<strong>in</strong>d a clear outl<strong>in</strong>e of historical development <strong>and</strong> change. In Heidenheim’s<br />
op<strong>in</strong>ion, rhyme appears <strong>in</strong> some compositions by co<strong>in</strong>cidence, for which he adduces<br />
proof from the Bible. His conclusion is that rhyme is a foreign device that <strong>in</strong>truded<br />
<strong>in</strong>to Hebrew poetry <strong>in</strong> the course of time for aesthetic reasons. Interest<strong>in</strong>gly enough,<br />
he adduces the conflict between aesthetics (‘aural excellence’) <strong>and</strong> message (‘thematic<br />
excellence’), along with the historical circumstances of the Jews; life ‘<strong>in</strong> a foreign<br />
l<strong>and</strong>’, to expla<strong>in</strong> the appearance of rhyme. The passage from Ibn Tibbon’s commentary<br />
on Ecclesiastes, <strong>in</strong> Moscato’s version, supports the superiority of biblical<br />
poetry.<br />
Heidenheim’s work won the rabbis’ approbation. In only one <strong>in</strong>stance did he come<br />
dangerously close to a reformer – the university-educated mathematician <strong>and</strong> educator<br />
Michael Creizenach (1789–1842) from Ma<strong>in</strong>z. In the 1831 edition of the Siddur<br />
li-Bnei Yisrael, Heidenheim <strong>in</strong>cluded Creizenach’s German translations of prayers <strong>in</strong><br />
Gothic script rather than Hebrew characters. 19 Some prayer texts were omitted. The<br />
siddur <strong>in</strong>cluded a preface <strong>in</strong>corporat<strong>in</strong>g Creizenach’s historical <strong>and</strong> critical analysis<br />
of the liturgy <strong>and</strong> his suggestions for its gradual reform. Two years later Creizenach<br />
began publish<strong>in</strong>g his own reformist ShulÌan ¨arukh, which he subtitled, ‘an encyclopaedic<br />
exposition of the Mosaic law, as it has developed through rabb<strong>in</strong>ic statutes,<br />
17 One cannot avoid not<strong>in</strong>g the delicious irony that the last l<strong>in</strong>es of this <strong>in</strong>troduction, start<strong>in</strong>g from ‘to<br />
remove obstacles’, are rhymed! [Translation <strong>and</strong> annotation: Lenn Schramm]. The text was also published<br />
<strong>in</strong> Heidenheim’s edition of the German maÌzor (Sefer Qerovot) for the Feast of Shavuot<br />
(Hannover, 1839), pp. X–XX.<br />
18 For <strong>in</strong>stance, <strong>in</strong> Heidenheim’s view Qilir is not a tanna, as Abraham Ibn Ezra makes him <strong>in</strong> his commentary<br />
on Ecclesiastes 5:1; see Yalqu† Avraham Ibn Ezra, ed. Israel Lev<strong>in</strong> (New York <strong>and</strong> Tel Aviv,<br />
1985), pp. 291–7. An <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> Ibn Ezra’s commentary is his idea that piyyu†im are <strong>in</strong>tended<br />
essentially for private use.<br />
19 Wolf Heidenheim, Siddur li-Bnei Yisra}el: Israelitisches Gebetbuch <strong>in</strong> hebräischer und deutscher<br />
Sprache (Rödelheim, 1831). See Michael A. Meyer, Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform<br />
Movement <strong>in</strong> Judaism (Detroit, 1995), pp. 119–21.<br />
Wout van Bekkum<br />
241
with directions for reforms that have become useful <strong>and</strong> possible over time’. Truly<br />
‘secularized’ Jews were not attracted to a return to talmudic rule, as the Talmud was<br />
generally viewed by them as the spiritual reflection of ghettoism <strong>and</strong> particularism. 20<br />
Heidenheim was a traditionalist who rema<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong>side ma<strong>in</strong>stream <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Orthodoxy.<br />
A full discussion of his work requires consideration of the transition from<br />
an ‘<strong>in</strong>side’ use of traditional piyyu†im to their elim<strong>in</strong>ation from the liturgy <strong>and</strong> the<br />
judgment that a majority of these hymns are unsuited to modern Jewish worship.<br />
Piyyu† was removed from the liturgical doma<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> entered the world of literary science.<br />
One of the cultural <strong>and</strong> scholarly arguments advanced by its opponents was that<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i hymns were not up to st<strong>and</strong>ards, <strong>in</strong> light of the gr<strong>and</strong>eur of Sephardi poetry.<br />
21 A shift of <strong>in</strong>terest to Sephardi poetics <strong>and</strong> poetry, contrasted with <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i<br />
piyyu† to the detriment of the latter, can be found <strong>in</strong> the work of Michael Sachs<br />
(1808–1864). In Die religiöse Poesie der Juden <strong>in</strong> Spanien he writes of ‘Qilir’s obscurity’,<br />
which was <strong>in</strong>herited by the French <strong>and</strong> German hymnists. 22 The Protestant<br />
theologian Franz Delitzsch (1813–1890) explored the literary qualities of Spanish-<br />
Hebrew poetry; so did Abraham Geiger <strong>in</strong> his Salomo Gabirol und se<strong>in</strong>e Dichtungen<br />
(1867) <strong>and</strong> Leopold Dukes <strong>in</strong> his Moses ben Esra aus Granada (1839). In his preface,<br />
Dukes expresses his frustration <strong>and</strong> apologizes: ‘I have <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d to show the<br />
reader that there were days when Israelites had a taste for beauty <strong>and</strong> even showed<br />
their taste for beauty. Anyth<strong>in</strong>g beautiful or good does not exclusively belong to a<br />
particular l<strong>and</strong> or people or faith; it belongs to the human spirit’. 23 The general tendency<br />
to focus on Sephardi poetics <strong>and</strong> poetry <strong>in</strong>spired the Reformists to plead for<br />
the replacement of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i by Sephardi hymns dur<strong>in</strong>g the Hamburg Tempelstreit<br />
which was realised <strong>in</strong> the Hamburger siddurim of the 1840s; these prayerbooks omitted<br />
all classical <strong>and</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i hymns, replac<strong>in</strong>g them with the compositions of fa-<br />
20 Creizenach’s ShulÌan ¨arukh appeared <strong>in</strong> Frankfurt am Ma<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> 1833–40. See also: Hollender’s previously<br />
mentioned Habilitationsschrift, p. 59, n. 25. Cf. also Louis Lew<strong>in</strong> (Kattowitz), Heidenheimiana:<br />
Sonderabdruck aus dem “Jeschurun”, No. X (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1924).<br />
21 Cf. Jefim Schirmann’s <strong>in</strong>troduction to the Thesaurus of <strong>Medieval</strong> Hebrew Poetry by Israel Davidson<br />
(New York, 1924–38, four volumes), esp. pp. XII–XXII.<br />
22 Michael Sachs, Die religiöse Poesie der Juden <strong>in</strong> Spanien (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1845), p. 212 (cf. also Simon<br />
Bernfeld, Vorwort zur zweiten Auflage [Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1901]); Sachs clearly <strong>in</strong>tended his German translations<br />
of Sephardi piyyu†im <strong>in</strong> the many editions of Sämtliche Festgebete der Israeliten <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> Tefillat<br />
Jeschurun: Das Gebetbuch der Israeliten (Breslau, 1893; repr. Frankfurt am Ma<strong>in</strong>, 1928) to be used <strong>in</strong><br />
the synagogue; cf. also his Beiträge zur Sprach- und Alterthumsforschung aus jüdischen Quellen, 2 vols<br />
(Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1852–54); cf. also He<strong>in</strong>rich Graetz, Geschichte der Juden von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die<br />
Gegenwart, vol. 11: Vom Beg<strong>in</strong>n des Mendelsohnschen Zeit (1750) bis <strong>in</strong> die neueste Zeit (1848)<br />
(Leipzig, 1870), pp. 510–28; cf. also Franz D. Lucas <strong>and</strong> Heike Frank, Michael Sachs: Der konservative<br />
Mittelweg, Leben und Werk des Berl<strong>in</strong>er Rabb<strong>in</strong>ers zur Zeit der Emanzipation (Tüb<strong>in</strong>gen, 1992),<br />
pp. 74–8, 113–6.<br />
23 Leopold Dukes, Moses ben Esra aus Granada: Darstellung se<strong>in</strong>es Lebens und literarischen Wirkens<br />
nebst hebräischen Beylagen und deutschen Übersetzungen (Altona 1839; repr. Hildesheim, 1973), p. iii.<br />
In 1837, Dukes published his Ehrensäulen und Denkste<strong>in</strong>e zu e<strong>in</strong>em künftigen Pantheon hebräischer<br />
Dichter und Dichtungen: E<strong>in</strong> Versuch mit hebräischen Beilagen und Übersetzungen <strong>in</strong> Vienna. Dukes<br />
may have been <strong>in</strong>fluenced by a letter of Samuel David Luzzatto written to him <strong>in</strong> 1836. Luzzatto<br />
scolded him for his negative statements about Qilir <strong>and</strong> the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i pay†anim; cf. Abraham Meir<br />
Habermann, Liturgical Poems of Rabbi Simon bar YiÒÌaq with an Appendix of Liturgical Poems of R.<br />
Moshe bar Kalonymos (Hebrew) (Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> Jerusalem, 1938), p. 10.<br />
24 Dr. Abraham Geiger, Der Hamburger Tempelstreit, e<strong>in</strong>e Zeitfrage (Breslau 1842), pp. 69–74;<br />
Abraham Geiger: Leben und Lebenswerk, ed. Ludwig Geiger (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1910), pp. 328–51.<br />
242 Some Thoughts on the ‘Secularization' of Hebrew Liturgical Poetry
mous Sephardi poets like Ibn Gabirol, Ibn Ezra, <strong>and</strong> Halevi. 24<br />
Ismar Schorsch has argued that modern Jewish scholarship often concentrated on<br />
the Sephardi contribution to medieval Jewish culture, believ<strong>in</strong>g the Iberian ‘golden<br />
age’ to be a k<strong>in</strong>d of proto-Wissenschaft period, while neglect<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> downplay<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i developments, which n<strong>in</strong>eteenth-century German scholars associated, at<br />
least subconsciously, with the Ostjuden, whose immigration from Pol<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Russia<br />
caused them acute embarrassment. 25 Stefan Reif correctly observes that current<br />
scholarship is gradually rectify<strong>in</strong>g these biased assessments. They are mentioned here<br />
not to <strong>in</strong>validate the scholarship of the Wissenschaft des Judentums, much of which<br />
rema<strong>in</strong>s basic <strong>and</strong> sound, but to sound a note of caution about the dangers of uncritical<br />
acceptance of all theories, particularly when they date from more than a century<br />
<strong>and</strong> a half ago, when the Jews <strong>in</strong> the countries of emancipation were engaged <strong>in</strong> new<br />
theological battles about tradition, progress, <strong>and</strong> change <strong>in</strong> the modern world. 26<br />
Leopold Zunz<br />
But not all scholars decried <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i piyyu†. In particular, Leopold Zunz (1794–<br />
1886) <strong>and</strong> Samuel David Luzzatto (1800–1865) were among the few who did not<br />
yield to the general tendency to deny the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i religio-cultural identity <strong>and</strong><br />
stress the significance of Sephardi culture <strong>and</strong> literature, <strong>in</strong> pursuit of the objectives<br />
of modern Judaism, aga<strong>in</strong>st the <strong>in</strong>fluential op<strong>in</strong>ions of Solomon Judah Leib Rapoport<br />
<strong>in</strong> his <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i liturgical studies <strong>and</strong> Isaac Marcus Jost <strong>in</strong> his <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i historical<br />
studies. On the other h<strong>and</strong>, Zunz’s personal idea of the emancipated Jew was very<br />
much one of an <strong>in</strong>tellectual <strong>and</strong> cultural Sephardi <strong>in</strong> boorish <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>. This can be<br />
demonstrated by Zunz’ judgement 27 of Judah Halevi’s poetry:<br />
Each of his numerous works is beautiful, clear, full of ardour <strong>and</strong> thought. He always<br />
uses the appropriate word, the most expressive biblical passage; a great spiritual life <strong>in</strong> a<br />
few words, every part of his thought seems to move like the limb of an organism, as if all<br />
of it had developed out of itself, without the poet’s assistance. And this life is animated<br />
by a God-filled spirit; no filth adheres to its purity; it is warmed by a holy fire, the power<br />
of which projects through the centuries; it is accompanied by a sharp-th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g reason,<br />
that never loses its way <strong>in</strong> obscurity. … From the mid-tenth century, the Spanish Jews<br />
gradually worked their way up from piyyu† to poetry. 28<br />
25 Ismar Schorsch, ‘The Myth of Sephardic Supremacy’, Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 34 (1989): 47–<br />
66. Aesthetic feel<strong>in</strong>gs are also associated with the Jewish prayer service itself. The service was reformed<br />
to make it conform to notions of what was generally acceptable <strong>and</strong> respectable, that is to say, the st<strong>and</strong>ards<br />
of proper behaviour enterta<strong>in</strong>ed by Christian Germans of the time. See George L. Mosse, ‘The<br />
Secularization of Jewish Theology’, <strong>in</strong> Masses <strong>and</strong> Man: Nationalist <strong>and</strong> Fascist Perceptions of Reality<br />
(New York, 1980), pp. 249–63; idem, ‘Jewish Emancipation between Bildung <strong>and</strong> Respectability’, <strong>in</strong><br />
The Jewish Response to German Culture from the Enlightenment to the Second World War, ed. Jehuda<br />
Re<strong>in</strong>harz <strong>and</strong> Walter Schatzberg (Hanover <strong>and</strong> London, 1985), pp. 1–16.<br />
26 Reif, Judaism <strong>and</strong> Hebrew Prayer, pp. 269–70.<br />
27 Leopold Zunz, Die synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1855–1859), pp. 214 <strong>and</strong> 231.<br />
28 ‘Jedes se<strong>in</strong>er zahlreichen Werke ist schön, klar, voll Wärme und Gedanken. Stets bietet sich ihm das<br />
passende Wort, die ausdruckvollste Bibelstelle dar; e<strong>in</strong> großes Geistesleben auf kle<strong>in</strong>em Wörterraume,<br />
sche<strong>in</strong>en die e<strong>in</strong>zelnen Teile des Gedichtes sich wie Glieder e<strong>in</strong>es organischen Wesens zu bewegen, als<br />
hätte das Ganze sich selber aus sich heraus, ohne Zutun des Dichters, entwickelt. Und dieses Leben wird<br />
Wout van Bekkum<br />
243
The last sentence epitomizes Zunz’s aesthetic evaluation of medieval Hebrew poetry.<br />
Strik<strong>in</strong>gly unique is his scientific ‘rehabilitation’ of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i piyyu†.<br />
In contrast with Heidenheim, Zunz was the outsider whose historical approach to<br />
poetry <strong>and</strong> homiletics was <strong>in</strong>tended primarily for academic study. Zunz expressed his<br />
view <strong>in</strong> an article <strong>in</strong> one of the first issues of the Zeitschrift für die Wissenschaft des<br />
Judentums. After Jewish historiography ga<strong>in</strong>s the capacity to elucidate the <strong>in</strong>ner life<br />
<strong>and</strong> striv<strong>in</strong>g of the Jews, their <strong>in</strong>herited <strong>and</strong> acquired ideas, <strong>and</strong> their persistence down<br />
to the present, he wrote, ‘then we will rediscover the great laws of history <strong>and</strong> nature,<br />
of permanence <strong>and</strong> change, <strong>in</strong> every paragraph of Jewish history, <strong>and</strong> we will underst<strong>and</strong><br />
how to separate the div<strong>in</strong>e from the mundane.” 29 Zunz himself was educated <strong>in</strong><br />
a reformist environment at the Samsonsche Freischule <strong>in</strong> Wolfenbüttel, as we can<br />
learn from the fact that he had his Konfirmation there <strong>in</strong> 1807. 30 From 1815 he was<br />
actively <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> moderate synagogue reforms <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> Prague but <strong>in</strong> the<br />
1820s he already showed his disillusionment <strong>in</strong> contemporary rabb<strong>in</strong>ical authority.<br />
What Zunz had <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d was liturgical adaptation (or reform) by a w<strong>in</strong>now<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong><br />
reselection of exist<strong>in</strong>g prayer <strong>and</strong> piyyu† <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ation with German translations. 31<br />
Any change could be justified by the fact that the current liturgy was itself the product<br />
of historical vicissitudes. At the same time, he sought a scientific <strong>and</strong> nondogmatic<br />
study of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature. He preferred to call the corpus of rabb<strong>in</strong>ic sources<br />
Jewish literature or modern Hebrew literature, compris<strong>in</strong>g all fields of scholarship:<br />
history, liturgy, poetry, ethics, philosophy, medic<strong>in</strong>e, astronomy, <strong>and</strong> so on. This is<br />
how we should underst<strong>and</strong> Zunz’s work <strong>in</strong> the framework of the Wissenschaft des<br />
Judentums. His first publication <strong>in</strong> this ve<strong>in</strong> was Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge,<br />
which appeared <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> 1832. 32 Die synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters appeared<br />
<strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> two volumes, <strong>in</strong> 1855 <strong>and</strong> 1859. Die Ritus des synagogalen Gottesdienstes<br />
appeared <strong>in</strong> 1859; Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie was published<br />
<strong>in</strong> three volumes between 1865 <strong>and</strong> 1889.<br />
von e<strong>in</strong>em gotterfüllten Geiste beseelt, an dessen Re<strong>in</strong>heit ke<strong>in</strong> Schmutz haftet, von e<strong>in</strong>em heiligen<br />
Feuer erwärmt, dessen Kraft über Jahrhunderte h<strong>in</strong>ausragt, von e<strong>in</strong>er scharfdenkenden Vernunft geleitet,<br />
die sich nie <strong>in</strong> dunkle Wege verirrt.’… ‘Die Juden Spaniens hatten, etwa seit der Mitte des zehnten<br />
Jahrhunderts, allmählich sich aus dem Piut zur Poesie emporgearbeitet.’<br />
29 The article appeared <strong>in</strong> Zeitschrift für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums (1822–23): 117–8; cf. also<br />
Meyer, Response to Modernity, p. 76.<br />
30 Zunz was confirmed after answer<strong>in</strong>g questions about his belief <strong>in</strong> God <strong>and</strong> the concept of Torah m<strong>in</strong><br />
ha-shamayyim. There is an obvious l<strong>in</strong>kage between the ‘Germaniz<strong>in</strong>g’ <strong>and</strong> ‘English<strong>in</strong>g’ components of<br />
the modern Jewish confessional attitude as expressed <strong>in</strong> the German Konfirmation <strong>and</strong> the Anglo-Jewish<br />
catechism; see Jakob Petuchowski, ‘Manuals <strong>and</strong> Catechisms of the Jewish Religion <strong>in</strong> the Early Period<br />
of Emancipation’, Studies <strong>in</strong> Jewish Religious <strong>and</strong> Intellectual History: Presented to Alex<strong>and</strong>er Altmann<br />
on the occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, ed. Siegfried Ste<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> Raphael Loewe (Alabama, 1979)<br />
pp. 47–64; David Ruderman, Jewish Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> an English Key: Anglo-Jewry’s Construction of<br />
Modern Jewish Thought (Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton, 2000), pp. 249–60.<br />
31 Samuel David Luzzatto defended Zunz aga<strong>in</strong>st the accusations that he held reformist ideas. In his<br />
view, Zunz was so well versed <strong>in</strong> the tradition <strong>and</strong> history of Hebrew poetry that he should be accepted<br />
as a valid authority on contemporary Jewish religious matters, cf. Judah Leo L<strong>and</strong>au, Short Lectures on<br />
Modern Hebrew Literature, From M. H. Luzzatto to S. D. Luzzatto (Johannesburg <strong>and</strong> London, 1923),<br />
pp. 165–6: ‘My love of the man who has devoted all his life, his wisdom <strong>and</strong> energy, to the revival of<br />
the Paitanim, to the glorification of their works, to strengthen the only bond that still knits our people<br />
together, has prevailed over my religious zeal.’<br />
32 The revised 1892 edition was the basis for Î. Albeck’s translation <strong>in</strong>to Hebrew (1954).<br />
244 Some Thoughts on the ‘Secularization' of Hebrew Liturgical Poetry
Zunz certa<strong>in</strong>ly did not perform his scholarly research <strong>in</strong> a total vacuum. Judah<br />
Leib Ben Ze}ev (1764–1811) had published his OÒar ha-shorashim, a dictionary of<br />
Hebrew roots <strong>and</strong> their translation from Hebrew to German <strong>and</strong> from German to Hebrew<br />
– a breakthrough <strong>in</strong> modern Hebrew lexicography – <strong>in</strong> Vienna <strong>in</strong> 1806. 33 Fifty<br />
years later, Eliezer (Leser) L<strong>and</strong>shuth (1817–1887) assembled his ¨Ammudei ha-<br />
¨avodah (Columnae Cultus), an onomasticon of Hebrew hymnists <strong>and</strong> their works,<br />
with biographical <strong>and</strong> bibliographical notes. 34 F<strong>in</strong>ally, Samuel David Luzzatto was<br />
equally <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> translation activities related to the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i <strong>and</strong> Italian prayer<br />
books. He also composed an anthology of medieval Hebrew poetry that demonstrates<br />
his great familiarity with piyyu†. 35 With his Italian heritage he was well aware that the<br />
Jewish cultural ambience <strong>in</strong> that country had for centuries accepted the adaptation of<br />
Hebrew liturgical poetry to the Italian aesthetic of chant <strong>and</strong> music. 36<br />
Zunz’s books on Hebrew poetry show a great concern for texts, translations, <strong>and</strong><br />
explanations; the Hebrew sections are limited to appendices <strong>and</strong> lists. This amounts<br />
to the ‘secularization’ of Hebrew liturgical poetry – the removal of these hymns from<br />
their liturgical context <strong>and</strong> transposition to an academic textbook. Zunz was eager to<br />
have his work recognized as belong<strong>in</strong>g to the doma<strong>in</strong> of general scholarly activity.<br />
Stripped of all its ostensible mystery <strong>and</strong> esotericism, piyyu† def<strong>in</strong>ed as ‘synagogue<br />
poetry’ (<strong>in</strong> accordance with the title of his book) was worthy of <strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>in</strong> the general<br />
context of literary studies, not just ‘our heritage’, as Heidenheim wrote, but a<br />
legacy for all humanity. This is very much <strong>in</strong> accordance with Zunz’s general ideas<br />
about modernity. For him, Jewish emancipation <strong>and</strong> progressive Judaism meant the<br />
emancipation of Jewish knowledge <strong>and</strong> its <strong>in</strong>tegration <strong>in</strong>to that of the human race at<br />
large. This meant, first of all, fight<strong>in</strong>g dogmatism among the Jews themselves <strong>and</strong><br />
ask<strong>in</strong>g them to accept a new vision of tradition; <strong>and</strong> second, giv<strong>in</strong>g Judaism the right<br />
to figure among the great civilizations <strong>and</strong> be studied as part of the cultural heritage<br />
of humanity – <strong>in</strong> his words, ‘the right to be part of the world of m<strong>in</strong>d <strong>and</strong> reason’. It<br />
is no wonder that he opposed any segregation of Jewish or Judaic studies <strong>in</strong> separate<br />
Hochschulen <strong>and</strong> Lehrhäuser <strong>and</strong> the like. 37 But his universalist concept of the scien-<br />
33 OÒar ha-shorashim: kolel shorshei ha-lashon ha-¨ivrit… ve-ha¨ataqam… me-¨ivrit le-ashkenazit ume-ashkenazit<br />
le-¨ivrit (Vienna, 1806–08).<br />
34 Two parts were published <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> 1857 <strong>and</strong> 1862.<br />
35 Samuel David Luzzatto, al Orot: hebräische religiöse Gedichte aus verschiedenen Manuskripten<br />
(Przemysl, 1881); cf. also Daniel Goldschmidt’s <strong>in</strong>troduction to Luzzatto’s MaÌzor Bnei Roma (Livorno,<br />
1856; repr. Tel Aviv, 1966): ‘Luzzatto, like Zunz <strong>and</strong> others, saw the peculiarities of prayer rituals <strong>and</strong><br />
studied their orig<strong>in</strong>s <strong>and</strong> developments <strong>in</strong> their piyyu†im… His purpose was to <strong>in</strong>dex the names of the<br />
composers <strong>and</strong> to describe the piyyu†ic genres <strong>and</strong> occasionally solve a l<strong>in</strong>guistic problem <strong>and</strong> various<br />
exegetical issues’; cf. also Robert Bonfil, Isaac Gottlieb, <strong>and</strong> Hannah Kasher, Samuel David Luzzatto:<br />
The Bi-Centennial of His Birth (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 2004), esp. pp. 11–24, pp. 145–65.<br />
36 See Edw<strong>in</strong> Seroussi, ‘Livorno: A Crossroad <strong>in</strong> the History of Sephardic Religious Music’, <strong>in</strong> The<br />
Mediterranean <strong>and</strong> the Jews, vol. II: Society, Culture <strong>and</strong> Economy <strong>in</strong> Early Times, ed. Elliot Horowitz<br />
<strong>and</strong> Moises Orfali (Ramat Gan, 2001), pp. 131–54; Wout Jac. van Bekkum, ‘Judaism <strong>in</strong> Umbruch: Jews<br />
<strong>in</strong> Renaissance <strong>and</strong> Baroque Italy’, Tradition <strong>and</strong> Innovation <strong>in</strong> an Era of Change / Tradition und Innovation<br />
im Übergang zur frühen Neuzeit, ed. Rudolf Suntrup <strong>and</strong> Jan R. Veenstra (Frankfurt am Ma<strong>in</strong>,<br />
2001), pp. 257–66.<br />
37 Cél<strong>in</strong>e Trautmann-Waller, ‘Leopold Zunz Decl<strong>in</strong>es an Invitation to the Inauguration of the Hochschule<br />
für die Wissenschaft des Judentums’, <strong>in</strong> Yale Companion to Jewish Writ<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> Thought <strong>in</strong> German<br />
Culture, 1096–1996, ed. S<strong>and</strong>er L. Gilman <strong>and</strong> Jack Zipes (New Haven, 1997), pp. 199–204.<br />
Wout van Bekkum<br />
245
tific value of such a stubbornly particularist tradition could not withst<strong>and</strong> the pressure<br />
of Christian prejudice, modern Jewish dogmatism, <strong>and</strong> Zionism.<br />
Was there any last<strong>in</strong>g success with regard to Hebrew religious poetry as a branch<br />
of scholarship? Zunz displayed a strong <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> had a great knowledge of the<br />
Jewish literary past, but his attitude was not the same as that of a modern critical historian<br />
of literature. 38 Read<strong>in</strong>g Die synagogale Poesie is first <strong>and</strong> foremost an <strong>in</strong>troduction<br />
to the ‘pa<strong>in</strong>ful history’ (German: Leidensgeschichte) of the Jewish people.<br />
Zunz deals extensively with the genre of seliÌot or penitential hymns. Although Zunz<br />
does not subscribe to the traditional idea of a div<strong>in</strong>ely orda<strong>in</strong>ed history of suffer<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
his conclusion of the second chapter takes on moralistic overtones:<br />
Our historical survey ma<strong>in</strong>ly serves the purpose of underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g the synagogue prayers;<br />
it expla<strong>in</strong>s the reasons for rage <strong>and</strong> bitterness, opens the wells of tears, shows us the<br />
pa<strong>in</strong>s <strong>and</strong> wounds; we feel the suffer<strong>in</strong>g, hear the curses, <strong>and</strong> share the hopes. The harsh<br />
words <strong>in</strong> these Jewish psalms, for which no Christian ever paid with his life – despite<br />
be<strong>in</strong>g a cry of the blood of hundreds of thous<strong>and</strong>s of people, com<strong>in</strong>g from the earth –<br />
could be transformed <strong>in</strong>to atonement only by love, never by mock<strong>in</strong>g disda<strong>in</strong>, only by<br />
righteousness, never by oppression. 39<br />
Conclusions<br />
The modern assumption of a liturgical downfall of piyyu† <strong>and</strong> its ‘annexation’ by<br />
scholarship leads to a number of observations:<br />
1. The change of approach towards piyyu† as an object of research has often been<br />
described as ‘secularization’. This term can be used <strong>in</strong> either a purely descriptive<br />
fashion or with a deprecatory implication. When used derogatorily, it usually<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicates that a secular approach to Jewish studies <strong>in</strong>volves the destruction<br />
of the normative character of Jewish religious tradition. This is not necessarily<br />
true. However, Modern Judaism, <strong>in</strong> its formative <strong>and</strong> reformative period, was<br />
ambiguous about the legacy of the past. This ambivalence led <strong>in</strong> two directions.<br />
On the one h<strong>and</strong>, the scientific study of piyyu† ‘secularized’ the hymns, divorc-<br />
38 In Etwas über die rabb<strong>in</strong>ische Literatur Zunz <strong>in</strong>troduces his studies with the follow<strong>in</strong>g words: ‘We<br />
are not afraid of be<strong>in</strong>g understood. Here, the whole literature of the Jews, <strong>in</strong> its largest extent, is set up<br />
as an object of research, without our be<strong>in</strong>g concerned whether its total content shall or can also be a<br />
norm for our own judgement.’ Cf. Fritz Bamberger, ‘Zunz’s Conception of History. A Study of the<br />
Philosophic Elements <strong>in</strong> Early Science of Judaism’, Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs of the American Academy of Jewish<br />
Research 11 (1941): 1–25, esp. pp. 6–7: ‘The Jewish scholar, before even beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g to study this truth<br />
[the tradition of Jewish learn<strong>in</strong>g – the <strong>in</strong>terpretation of a basic truth bear<strong>in</strong>g the character of revelation<br />
<strong>and</strong> unfolded <strong>in</strong> Torah <strong>and</strong> Oral Law] <strong>in</strong> its many aspects <strong>and</strong> facets, <strong>and</strong> while study<strong>in</strong>g it, was bound to<br />
it as a norm direct<strong>in</strong>g his life <strong>and</strong> his study. Therefore, the new Wissenschaft des Judentums, though<br />
adopt<strong>in</strong>g the methods <strong>and</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of modern history <strong>and</strong> philology, was not an improved form of<br />
Jewish science, but a completely new beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g.’<br />
39 ‘Hauptsächlich dient jener geschichtliche Überblick zum Verständnis der synagogalen Gebete; er<br />
erklärt die Motive des Zorns und der Erbitterung, öffnet die Quelle der Tränen, zeigt uns die Schmerzen<br />
und Wunden; wir fühlen die Leiden, hören die Flüche und teilen die Hoffnungen. Die harten Worte <strong>in</strong><br />
diesen jüdischen Psalmen, die noch ke<strong>in</strong>em Christen das Leben gekostet, während sie selber e<strong>in</strong> aus der<br />
Erde dr<strong>in</strong>gender Schrei des Blutes von Hunderttausenden s<strong>in</strong>d, konnten nur durch die Liebe, nie durch<br />
höhnende Verachtung, nur durch Gerechtigkeit, nie durch Bedrückungen <strong>in</strong> versöhnende verw<strong>and</strong>elt<br />
werden’ (Die synagogale Poesie des Mittelalters, p. 58).<br />
246 Some Thoughts on the ‘Secularization' of Hebrew Liturgical Poetry
<strong>in</strong>g them from the religious doma<strong>in</strong>; on the other, piyyu†im rema<strong>in</strong>ed part of the<br />
Jewish liturgy <strong>and</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>ued to be relevant for the Ìazzanim or (Ober-)cantors,<br />
throughout the n<strong>in</strong>eteenth <strong>and</strong> dur<strong>in</strong>g the early twentieth century. Today, the<br />
contradiction between traditional respect <strong>and</strong> actual use is manifested <strong>in</strong> the<br />
fact that piyyu†im are still pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> maÌzorim but are hardly ever recited or<br />
sung, not even <strong>in</strong> orthodox synagogues.<br />
2. ‘Secularization’ of Jewish studies is not secularism as such or the same as<br />
secularization of national or <strong>in</strong>dividual Jewish identity <strong>in</strong> modern times. The<br />
use of the term is rather a formal expression of historicization or historische<br />
Anschauung.<br />
3. The idealization of Sephardi culture <strong>and</strong> literature <strong>and</strong> the literary (re-)construction<br />
of the Sephardi Jew helped create an attitude that <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i piyyu†<br />
was culturally deficient.<br />
4. A by-product of the Jews’ scholarly <strong>in</strong>volvement <strong>in</strong> Sephardi cultural history<br />
was an <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the Arabic <strong>and</strong> Islamic milieu of medieval Jewish poetry <strong>and</strong><br />
poetics. Such oriental studies <strong>and</strong> Orientalism are exemplified by Abraham<br />
Geiger <strong>in</strong> both his reformist <strong>and</strong> scientific attitudes. 40<br />
The study of Hebrew liturgical poetry, then, reveals a pr<strong>in</strong>cipal theme. Despite their<br />
theological <strong>and</strong> ideological differences, the cultures of Christianity <strong>and</strong> Islam exerted<br />
external <strong>in</strong>fluence on the development <strong>and</strong> flourish<strong>in</strong>g of piyyu†. Occasionally one<br />
detects a modern scholarly uneas<strong>in</strong>ess about obvious parallels between piyyu† <strong>and</strong><br />
Syriac or Greek-Byzant<strong>in</strong>e poetry, the profound impact of Arabic <strong>and</strong> Ottoman verse<br />
on Hebrew hymnology, the reformist choice of German translations <strong>in</strong>stead of orig<strong>in</strong>al<br />
Hebrew poems for public worship. There is still much to revise <strong>and</strong> to reth<strong>in</strong>k,<br />
beyond Gershom Scholem’s Hirhurim ¨al Ìokhmat yisraˆel, about what the ‘Science<br />
of Judaism’ could have thought about piyyu†. Nevertheless, Zunz’s studies had only<br />
limited success: the poetics of piyyu† have not attracted general attention even <strong>in</strong> our<br />
time. 41 One may hope that modern academic scholarship will prove able to demonstrate<br />
the importance of Jewish hymnography as it traversed various periods <strong>and</strong> entered<br />
the modern era, leav<strong>in</strong>g its own traces of development <strong>and</strong> adaptation.<br />
40 Abraham Geiger, Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen? (Bonn, 1833; repr. Leipzig,<br />
1902; Osnabrück, 1971); Nahum M. Sarna, ‘Abraham Geiger <strong>and</strong> Biblical Scholarship’, <strong>in</strong> New<br />
Perspectives on Abraham Geiger, ed. Jakob J. Petuchowski (New York, 1975), pp. 17–30: ‘A soterical<br />
role was assigned by n<strong>in</strong>eteenth-century scholars to Jüdische Wissenschaft… as the <strong>in</strong>strument for the<br />
achievement of the successful emancipation of Western Jewry… to ga<strong>in</strong> non-Jewish recognition for<br />
post-biblical Jewish <strong>in</strong>tellectual creativity as an academic discipl<strong>in</strong>e for its own sake…. By concentrat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
on post-biblical literature, Jewish scholars could avoid uncomfortable <strong>and</strong> delicate issues of faith….<br />
Theological <strong>and</strong> political nature of Wissenschaft largely determ<strong>in</strong>ed its attitude <strong>and</strong> direction <strong>in</strong> the field<br />
of biblical studies.’ I thank Professor Yossef Schwartz (Jerusalem/Frankfurt) for call<strong>in</strong>g my attention to<br />
the discussion by Mart<strong>in</strong> Buber <strong>and</strong> Franz Rosenzweig of the question, ‘Why did not the Muslims write<br />
Piyyutim?’ <strong>in</strong> Franz Rosenzweig, Der Mensch und se<strong>in</strong> Werk: Gesammelte Schriften (The Hague,<br />
1976), vol. I,2, pp. 923 <strong>and</strong> 925; Franz Rosenzweig, Briefe (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1935), p. 488, 491.<br />
41 Although it may be noted that the situation is improv<strong>in</strong>g. For <strong>in</strong>stance, <strong>in</strong> his History of the Hebrew<br />
Language (Cambridge, 1993), Angel Sáenz-Badillos has devoted relatively much attention to the piyyu†<br />
<strong>and</strong> the language of the pay†anim. T. Carmi’s Pengu<strong>in</strong> Book of Hebrew Verse (Harmondsworth, 1981)<br />
was an eye-opener to many scholars <strong>in</strong> the wider academic discipl<strong>in</strong>e of Jewish studies.<br />
Wout van Bekkum<br />
247
248 Some Thoughts on the ‘Secularization' of Hebrew Liturgical Poetry
Emile G. L. Schrijver<br />
Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong>’s Besamim Rosh:<br />
The Maskilic Appreciation of <strong>Medieval</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong><br />
Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong>’s Besamim rosh is a cause célèbre <strong>in</strong> the history of Haskalah literature<br />
<strong>and</strong> has been dealt with quite extensively <strong>in</strong> the recent literature on the subject. 1 The<br />
start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t for the present study is a rather roundabout reference to Besamim rosh.<br />
The Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana possesses one of the two known more-or-less complete<br />
medieval manuscripts of Isaac ben Moses of Vienna’s mid-thirteenth-century<br />
halakhic work Or zarua¨. The Rosenthaliana manuscript was used for the first edition<br />
of Or zarua¨, which appeared <strong>in</strong> Zhitomir <strong>in</strong> the Ukra<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong> 1862. At the time it belonged<br />
to Akiba Lehren (1795–1876), the Amsterdam banker <strong>and</strong> parnas of the Orthodox<br />
community. In a letter <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the editio pr<strong>in</strong>ceps (ill. 1) he wrote as follows:<br />
‘In earlier days this beautiful book used to be the proud possession of the<br />
author of the work Besamim rosh, R. Saul, son of Zevi Hirsch, av bet d<strong>in</strong> of Berl<strong>in</strong>,<br />
as is written on the cover of the book <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i script <strong>and</strong> as may be deduced<br />
from the h<strong>and</strong>writ<strong>in</strong>g of the notes found on the leaves of the manuscript, which is<br />
identical to that of notes found on a leaf <strong>in</strong> a copy of the work urei even, by the<br />
author of the Shaˆagat aryeh, Aryeh Leib Günzburg, which also reposed <strong>in</strong> the<br />
above-mentioned collection [that of Akiba Lehren’s older brother Hirschel], which<br />
God bestowed on me’. The history of the Or zarua¨ manuscript, which many believed<br />
had been pulled out of a stormy sea by a fisherman, who sold it to Hirschel<br />
Lehren, have been dealt with elsewhere. It is <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g to note, however, that here<br />
Akiba Lehren refers to Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong>, author of Besamim rosh, without hesitation,<br />
even though Saul’s ideas were certa<strong>in</strong>ly at variance with Lehren’s. 2<br />
1 Most recently: Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er, The Jewish Enlightenment (Philadelphia, 2002), pp. 335–41; Talya<br />
Fishman, ‘Forg<strong>in</strong>g Jewish Memory: Besamim Rosh <strong>and</strong> the Invention of pre-Emancipation Jewish Culture’,<br />
<strong>in</strong> Jewish History <strong>and</strong> Jewish Memory: Essays <strong>in</strong> Honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, ed. E.<br />
Carlebach et al. (Hanover, NH <strong>and</strong> London, 1998), pp. 70–88. See also: Moshe S. Samet, ‘R. Saul Berl<strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> his Works’ (Heb.), Kirjath Sepher 43 (1968): 429–41; Moshe Pelli, ‘The Religious Reforms of<br />
“Traditionalist” Rabbi Saul Berl<strong>in</strong> (A Chapter <strong>in</strong> the History of the Struggle of Hebrew Haskalah <strong>in</strong><br />
Germany for the Revival of Judaism) (Heb.), Hebrew Union College Annual 42 (1971): 1–23; Moshe S.<br />
Samet, ‘Rabbi Saul Berl<strong>in</strong>’s “Besamim Rosh”: Bibliography, Historiography, Ideology’ (Heb.), Kirjath<br />
Sepher 48 (1973): 509–23; Moshe Pelli, The Age of Haskalah: Studies <strong>in</strong> Hebrew Literature of the<br />
Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> Germany (Leiden, 1979), ch. 9; idem, ‘Literature of Haskalah <strong>in</strong> the Late Eighteenth<br />
Century’, Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 52 (2000): 333–48, on pp. 339–40.<br />
2 Emile G. L. Schrijver, ‘Some Light on the Amsterdam <strong>and</strong> London manuscripts of Isaac ben Moses of<br />
Vienna’s Or Zarua’’, <strong>in</strong>: Artefact <strong>and</strong> Text: The Re-creation of Jewish Literature <strong>in</strong> <strong>Medieval</strong> Hebrew<br />
Manuscripts, ed. Philip S. Alex<strong>and</strong>er <strong>and</strong> Alex<strong>and</strong>er Samely [= Bullet<strong>in</strong> of the John Ryl<strong>and</strong>s University<br />
Library of Manchester 75(3) (1993)], pp. 53–82.<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
Emile Royal G.L. Netherl<strong>and</strong>s SchrijverAcademy<br />
of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences, 2007<br />
249
Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong> was the son of Zevi Hirsch Lev<strong>in</strong>, who served as chief rabbi of Berl<strong>in</strong><br />
from 1772 until 1800. Saul, born <strong>in</strong> 1740, was apparently a brilliant scholar, well<br />
versed <strong>in</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic literature. At the age of twenty some already thought him one of<br />
the greatest rabbis of his time. He served as chief rabbi of Frankfurt an der Oder from<br />
1768 until approximately 1792. He settled <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>, where he published his most<br />
important works. In 1784 he wrote a satirical work, Ketav yosher (published posthumously<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1794), which is chiefly a defence of Wessely’s Divrei shalom ve-emet. In<br />
support of Wessely’s appeal for religious reform he ridiculed contemporary Jewish<br />
superstitions, attacked the outdated educational system, <strong>and</strong> sharply criticized what<br />
he viewed as the ridiculous number of outdated or irrelevant precepts <strong>and</strong> prohibitions<br />
that dom<strong>in</strong>ated the lives <strong>and</strong> m<strong>in</strong>ds of traditional Jews. He also strongly opposed<br />
the prevalent exegetical method of pilpul <strong>and</strong> the prom<strong>in</strong>ence of the Kabbalah.<br />
Moshe Pelli believes that he refra<strong>in</strong>ed from publish<strong>in</strong>g the book dur<strong>in</strong>g his lifetime<br />
out of respect for his father, who ‘was persuaded by other rabbis to oppose Wessely’s<br />
Divrei shalom ve’emet’. 3<br />
Saul did, however, publish other works that placed his father <strong>in</strong> an awkward position.<br />
First of all there is MiÒpeh Yoqteˆel, which he published <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>, at the famous<br />
Haskalah press of the Jüdische Freischule, <strong>in</strong> 1789 (ill. 2). This is a fierce attack on<br />
Torat Yequtiˆel by Raphael Kohen, the ultra-orthodox religious leader of the communities<br />
of Altona, Hamburg, <strong>and</strong> W<strong>and</strong>sbek, with <strong>in</strong>s<strong>in</strong>uations about the Hamburg rabbi’s<br />
halakhic <strong>in</strong>tegrity (suggest<strong>in</strong>g, for example, that he advocated a lenient attitude<br />
towards the dietary laws). Often considered to be the archetypal Haskalah attack on<br />
traditional eighteenth-century Jewish knowledge, MiÒpeh Yoqteˆel was published under<br />
the pseudonym Obadiah ben Barukh of Pol<strong>and</strong>. Just how far Saul went to conceal<br />
his identity can be seen at the end of the book, where the follow<strong>in</strong>g apology by the<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ter appears (ill. 3): ‘S<strong>in</strong>ce I do not know the author of this book, as his work was<br />
sent to me by someone else, I could not take proper care of all the corrections, <strong>and</strong><br />
therefore the reader is k<strong>in</strong>dly requested to act upon my request on his behalf <strong>and</strong> add<br />
the corrections listed <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g table of corrections <strong>in</strong> the marg<strong>in</strong>s of the book’.<br />
The book shocked the ultra-orthodox community, of course. Various rabbis, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<br />
his father Zevi Hirsch Lev<strong>in</strong>, criticized its anonymous author or even issued a ban<br />
aga<strong>in</strong>st him. When Lev<strong>in</strong> learned the author’s true identity he decided to defend his<br />
son, which may have helped; but it did not mean that Saul would change his provocative<br />
behaviour.<br />
In 1793 he published, aga<strong>in</strong> at the press of the Jüdische Freischule, his most famous<br />
work Besamim rosh. 4 Its title page (ill. 4) reveals at a glance that the tempest<br />
associated with MiÒpeh Yoqteˆel had not prevented him from go<strong>in</strong>g one step further:<br />
‘Book of Responsa, Besamim rosh. There are 392 5 of them <strong>and</strong> they are by the Rosh<br />
<strong>and</strong> other early sages. … They were collected by … Isaac di Mol<strong>in</strong>a. I prepared them<br />
for the pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g press with a few annotations of a pilpul nature, which I put on their<br />
3 Moshe Pelli, ‘Some Notes on the Nature of Saul Berl<strong>in</strong>’s Writ<strong>in</strong>gs’, The Journal of Hebraic Studies 1<br />
(1970): 47–61, on p. 52.<br />
4 There have been several repr<strong>in</strong>ts, as late as 1984.<br />
5 The numerical value of besamim is 392.<br />
250 The Maskilic Appreciation of <strong>Medieval</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong>
side, which I called Kassaˆ de-harsanaˆ. I, the young Saul, son of the excellent Zevi<br />
Hirsch, chief rabbi of Berl<strong>in</strong>.’ 6<br />
Saul claims authorship only of what he calls qeÒat haggahot devarim shel pilpul <strong>and</strong><br />
not of the responsa themselves, which he ascribes to Asher ben Yehiel <strong>and</strong> his contemporaries.<br />
This dissimulation did not turn his opponents’ hatred <strong>in</strong>to love, one of the<br />
goals he proclaims <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>troduction to the book. It soon became clear that he had<br />
written the entire work <strong>and</strong> that his claim, <strong>in</strong> the same <strong>in</strong>troduction, that the responsa<br />
had been assembled by Isaac ben Solomon di Mol<strong>in</strong>a <strong>and</strong> that he had found the book<br />
dur<strong>in</strong>g a trip to Italy, was a red herr<strong>in</strong>g. A cursory glance at the content of the supposedly<br />
medieval responsa makes it pla<strong>in</strong> that an eighteenth-century author was responsible<br />
for them, <strong>and</strong> not Asher ben Yehiel <strong>and</strong> other rishonim. An excellent example<br />
(f. 12v, §25) deals with the case of a woman who refuses to accept a religious judgment<br />
but the k<strong>in</strong>g has forbidden her excommunication. Besamim rosh advises that she<br />
be flogged; for, accord<strong>in</strong>g to halakhah, it asserts, ‘there is no difference between men<br />
<strong>and</strong> women as far as flogg<strong>in</strong>g is concerned’. Two other responsa (§212, on f. 71r, ascribed<br />
to Aaron Halevi of Barcelona; §251, on f. 76v, ascribed to Asher ben Jehiel)<br />
deal with the obligation <strong>in</strong>cumbent on learned teachers <strong>in</strong> every generation to <strong>in</strong>terpret<br />
the Torah accord<strong>in</strong>g to their own private views. This ultra-revolutionary stance is compatible<br />
with the reformist Saul but certa<strong>in</strong>ly does not reflect the ideas of the Rosh. Another<br />
responsum (§375, ff. 108v–109r) allows one to ride <strong>in</strong> a carriage on the Sabbath<br />
<strong>in</strong> order to get home as soon as possible; ‘<strong>and</strong> some sages allow rid<strong>in</strong>g on an animal on<br />
the night of Sabbath if one would lose money otherwise, but I do not agree with them’.<br />
The very style of the work, which imitated the pilpul of his traditional contemporaries,<br />
whom Saul criticized, rather than the works of the rishonim, made it clear<br />
from the onset that a maskilic provocateur was beh<strong>in</strong>d it. It did not take the camp of<br />
Raphael Kohen of Hamburg long to l<strong>in</strong>k the text to Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> to attack him<br />
fiercely. Saul’s father came to his rescue aga<strong>in</strong>, argu<strong>in</strong>g that the campaign had been<br />
launched by Raphael Kohen <strong>in</strong> order to harm his son. Zevi Hirsch Lev<strong>in</strong> accepted his<br />
son’s statement that he had found the manuscript on which the pr<strong>in</strong>ted text was based<br />
dur<strong>in</strong>g his travels. After a careful review of the sources he added that although the<br />
work did <strong>in</strong>deed conta<strong>in</strong> strange op<strong>in</strong>ions with which he did not agree, he did not<br />
consider these an <strong>in</strong>sult to Jewish tradition, but rather illustrative of the different approaches<br />
possible <strong>in</strong> halakhic discourse. 7 Saul himself argued along similar l<strong>in</strong>es,<br />
when, <strong>in</strong> defense of a responsum <strong>in</strong> Besamim rosh that questions the obligation to<br />
allow oneself to be killed rather than commit idolatry, <strong>in</strong>cest, or murder, he mentioned<br />
that ample proof of the problematic nature of that rul<strong>in</strong>g could be found <strong>in</strong> the<br />
old sources, alongside the more traditional op<strong>in</strong>ion.<br />
Leopold Zunz, too, noticed the stylistic <strong>in</strong>congruities of the work. In his Der Ritus<br />
des synagogalen Gottesdienstes (1859), he demonstrates that it cannot be authentic,<br />
but, <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>gly, without ever mention<strong>in</strong>g Saul:<br />
6 Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Rashi on B BeÒah 16, kassa de-harsana is some k<strong>in</strong>d of food prepared from fish. Saul of<br />
Berl<strong>in</strong>, however, takes it as an allusion to Mt. S<strong>in</strong>ai (har s<strong>in</strong>ai), referr<strong>in</strong>g to B Shabbat 89a: Mai har<br />
s<strong>in</strong>ai? Har she-yaredah s<strong>in</strong>ˆah le-ummot ha-¨olam ¨alav (‘What is Mount S<strong>in</strong>ai? A mounta<strong>in</strong> on which<br />
hatred came down to the pagans’). Saul was also fac<strong>in</strong>g the hatred of his enemies.<br />
7 See especially Fishman, ‘Forg<strong>in</strong>g Jewish Memory’, pp. 73–5.<br />
Emile G.L. Schrijver<br />
251
Über diese sogenannte Sammlung von Gutachten R. Ascher’s und <strong>and</strong>erer alten<br />
Rabb<strong>in</strong>en waren schon <strong>in</strong> Asulai [i.e., Shem ha-gedolim] Bedenken aufgestiegen, die er<br />
beseitigt aber nicht beschwichtigt: die Rücksicht auf die Rabb<strong>in</strong>er b<strong>and</strong> ihm die Zunge.<br />
Dass die Unächtheit des Buches schon bewiesen sei ist mir nicht bekannt. … Wer die<br />
Schreibweise der deutschen Rabb<strong>in</strong>en jener Zeit, namentlich bei halachischen Gegenständen,<br />
kennt, den wird <strong>in</strong> Ascher’s dortigen Bescheiden der Pilpul-geübte moderne Stil<br />
überraschen, der nicht die Sache trifft, obschon er weit abgeht. … In allen se<strong>in</strong>en Gutachten<br />
ist dieser angebliche R. Ascher e<strong>in</strong> Erleichternder: … In N. 251 wird erbaulich<br />
über die Glaubensartikel gesprochen; dieselben richteten sich nach der Zeit, und für heute<br />
seien des Inhalts, das wir <strong>in</strong>sgesammt nichts taugen, und von uns nur gefordert werde,<br />
Wahrheit und Frieden zu lieben, Gott und se<strong>in</strong>e Werke zu erkennen. Das mag schon se<strong>in</strong>,<br />
aber es ist Stil und Theologie des achtzehnten, nicht des vierzehnten Jahrhunderts. …<br />
Baruch ben Samuel führt (184) den Abraham b. David an, den er gar nicht kennt, und<br />
sagt <strong>in</strong> se<strong>in</strong>em angeblichen Gutachten (220) von den Karäern wörtlich: ‘Nicht e<strong>in</strong> e<strong>in</strong>ziger<br />
Fall ist <strong>in</strong> Ehesachen bekannt, der bei ihnen sich ereignet und nach talmudischem<br />
Recht unerlaubt wäre. Wollten wir derartiges beachten, – <strong>in</strong> wie vielen Satzungen s<strong>in</strong>d<br />
nicht die Talmudisten, Tanaim, Emoraim, und spätere Weise bis heutigen Tag getheilter<br />
Me<strong>in</strong>ung. Fürwahr, wer da sucht würde unter uns selber grössern Zwiespalt f<strong>in</strong>den als<br />
zwischen uns und Karäern! Schon die Talmudisten riefen: “Eure Brüder s<strong>in</strong>d die Baalei<br />
Mikra”.’ Solches Zeug schrieb ke<strong>in</strong> berühmter Rabbi um das Jahr 1200. 8<br />
Soon after the charges of forgery were advanced, <strong>and</strong> despite his father’s defence,<br />
Saul decided to leave Berl<strong>in</strong> for London, where his brother Solomon Hirschel was<br />
rabbi of the Great Synagogue. There, to quote Cecil Roth, ‘he died contrite <strong>and</strong> penitent<br />
(as his will shows) on November 16th, 1794 [a year after the publication of<br />
Besamim rosh], <strong>and</strong> was buried with great solemnity <strong>in</strong> the old cemetery of the Great<br />
Synagogue, which out of compliment to his father <strong>and</strong> his brother embodied his<br />
name <strong>in</strong> the list of its departed Rabbis.’ 9 Other sources suggest that he went to London<br />
to take up a rabb<strong>in</strong>ical pulpit but died, some say a suicide, before he could enter<br />
the post.<br />
Modern scholarship about Besamim rosh owes much to Moshe Samet’s groundbreak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
contributions. In 1968 he published a bibliography of no fewer than 159<br />
works by, react<strong>in</strong>g to, <strong>and</strong> about Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong>. 10 In 1973 he published a separate article<br />
on Besamim rosh, <strong>in</strong> which he discusses most of the contemporary sources <strong>in</strong><br />
great detail. 11 He suggests that the controversy not be blow out of proportion, given<br />
that those <strong>in</strong>volved were either Saul’s enemies s<strong>in</strong>ce the time of MiÒpeh yoqteˆel or<br />
his relatives <strong>and</strong> friends – none of them dis<strong>in</strong>terested parties. He concludes, somewhat<br />
romantically, that Saul Berl<strong>in</strong> was perhaps an idealist who ended up victimized<br />
by the enemies he made <strong>in</strong> Hamburg.<br />
Moshe Pelli is justifiably not content with this explanation <strong>and</strong> approaches the<br />
work from a completely different angle. He claims, <strong>in</strong> at least a dozen articles as well<br />
8 Leopold Zunz, Der Ritus des synagogalen Gottesdienstes, geschichtlich entwickelt (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1859),<br />
pp. 226–8.<br />
9 Cecil Roth, The Great Synagogue, London, 1690–1940 (London, 1950), pp. 182–4.<br />
10 Samet, ‘R. Saul Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> his Works’.<br />
11 Idem, ‘Rabbi Saul Berl<strong>in</strong>’s “Besamim Rosh” ’.<br />
252 The Maskilic Appreciation of <strong>Medieval</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong>
as <strong>in</strong> a separate chapter <strong>in</strong> The Age of Haskalah, that Saul was chiefly a parodist. He<br />
calls Besamim rosh ‘pseudo-halakhah’ <strong>and</strong> describes it, <strong>in</strong> a recent article on the<br />
Haskalah literature of the late eighteenth century, as a ‘new ShulÌan ¨arukh’. Pelli<br />
writes, ‘I, for one, regard this book as a parody on rabb<strong>in</strong>ical writ<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> I treat it as<br />
such. I th<strong>in</strong>k that through this traditional genre, Saul Berl<strong>in</strong> ridiculed the casuistry –<br />
known <strong>in</strong> Hebrew as “Pilpul” – of scholastic-like rabb<strong>in</strong>ical learn<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> delivered a<br />
scath<strong>in</strong>g criticism on the abundance of religious restrictions, ord<strong>in</strong>ances, <strong>and</strong> customs<br />
<strong>in</strong> Jewish life.’ 12 Another important po<strong>in</strong>t that Pelli makes a number of times is that<br />
Saul’s creativity as a maskil is proven by his choice of literary genre as well.<br />
Whereas Satanow, for example, <strong>in</strong> his Mishlei Asaf, imitated the Biblical wisdom literature,<br />
Saul chose the responsa genre, probably the most rabb<strong>in</strong>ic of all. To quote<br />
Pelli aga<strong>in</strong>: ‘In the responsa he was at home so to speak; he could show his great<br />
erudition <strong>and</strong> mastery of talmudic <strong>and</strong> halachic literature. Here he was able to communicate<br />
with the traditionalist rabbis <strong>in</strong> their own language; he could expose their<br />
weaknesses <strong>and</strong> attack them on their own ground.’ 13 Pelli also believes that Saul <strong>in</strong>tended<br />
to implant a certa<strong>in</strong> scepticism <strong>in</strong> readers by underm<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the halakhic authority<br />
of the rabbis.<br />
In another recent contribution that deserves attention, Talya Fishman speaks of<br />
‘Besamim rosh’s strange double life’ <strong>and</strong> tries to bridge the gap between the notion<br />
of Besamim rosh as a forgery <strong>and</strong> appreciation of it as a halakhic work <strong>in</strong> its own<br />
right, despite its controversial content. 14 This touched on an important aspect of the<br />
work, namely, the fact that until the present day there have always been Orthodox<br />
groups that hold Besamim rosh <strong>in</strong> great esteem. 15 Fishman draws attention to the fact<br />
that Zevi Hirsch Lev<strong>in</strong>, <strong>in</strong> his defence of his son’s work, advocates both the study of<br />
extremely hypothetical halakhic cases <strong>and</strong> the very modern notion that the actual authorship<br />
of a book is less important than its contents. Thus, she expla<strong>in</strong>s, Besamim<br />
rosh was <strong>in</strong>deed a very subtle ‘Trojan horse <strong>in</strong> the camp of halakha’, a deliberate attempt<br />
to forge Jewish memory ‘before any ideology of Reform had crystallized’. 16<br />
A few comments on these modern approaches seem <strong>in</strong> place. Samet’s view is<br />
based on careful study of the primary sources but fails to penetrate to the underly<strong>in</strong>g<br />
mentality. Pelli <strong>and</strong> Fishman attempt to do so, but their work seems apologetic, an<br />
attempt to restore Saul’s honour where his father failed. Perhaps he did mean<br />
Besamim rosh to be satire, as Pelli suggests; but it must be admitted that it was not<br />
very successful as such, if only because discussion of the po<strong>in</strong>t cont<strong>in</strong>ues more than<br />
200 years later. Did Saul really believe that his tone would conv<strong>in</strong>ce his Orthodox<br />
‘enemies’, or was he address<strong>in</strong>g an audience of maskilim or perhaps try<strong>in</strong>g ma<strong>in</strong>ly to<br />
provoke his enemies? There is no doubt that the work reflects great halakhic scholarship.<br />
But does that justify the attempt to <strong>in</strong>corporate it <strong>in</strong>to the Orthodox halakhic<br />
12 Pelli, ‘Literature of Haskalah <strong>in</strong> the Late Eighteenth Century’, p. 340.<br />
13 Idem, ‘Some Notes’, p. 51.<br />
14 Fishman, ‘Forg<strong>in</strong>g Jewish Memory’.<br />
15 As late as 1984, no less an authority than Rabbi Ovadiah Yossef wrote an approbation for a photooffset<br />
reissue of Besamim rosh produced <strong>in</strong> Meˆah She¨arim.<br />
16 Fishman, ‘Forg<strong>in</strong>g Jewish Memory’, pp. 80–1.<br />
Emile G.L. Schrijver<br />
253
discourse, as Fishman seems to <strong>in</strong>tend? It seems hard to believe that that was what<br />
our sceptical genius really had <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d.<br />
Three f<strong>in</strong>al remarks: First, Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong> chose to attribute the compilation of his<br />
responsa to the relatively unknown scholar Isaac ben Solomon di Mol<strong>in</strong>a, described<br />
by Ste<strong>in</strong>schneider as a sixteenth-century Egyptian rabbi. Mol<strong>in</strong>a was a good choice,<br />
as Fishman po<strong>in</strong>ted out, because very little is known about him. No less an authority<br />
than Joseph Caro, however, ridiculed Mol<strong>in</strong>a for fail<strong>in</strong>g to underst<strong>and</strong> the teach<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
of his predecessors; readers who knew that reference would probably not doubt the<br />
authenticity of Besamim rosh on that account, but might well question its authority.<br />
This small fact adds to our underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of Saul’s peculiar literary taste.<br />
Second, it is important to underscore how Saul presents his ostensible primary<br />
source: a manuscript that he acquired dur<strong>in</strong>g his travels. 17 It is known that the earliest<br />
maskilim set great store by the possession <strong>and</strong> study of early manuscripts of the important<br />
medieval <strong>and</strong> later texts. It is also known that with<strong>in</strong> traditional <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i<br />
Judaism there was a strong manuscript tradition alongside the pr<strong>in</strong>ted books, which<br />
catered to the <strong>in</strong>satiable need for primary texts of eighteenth-century European Jewish<br />
scholars, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the maskilim. We have already seen that Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong> owned<br />
a manuscript of Or zarua¨. It is also known that when he went to London this manuscript<br />
rema<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> the house of his father, who also owned an important library. We<br />
know too that many medieval manuscripts circulated with<strong>in</strong> the larger family of Zevi<br />
Hirsch Lev<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong>, who were close relations of the Îakham Zevi <strong>and</strong><br />
Jacob Emden, <strong>and</strong> were also connected to famous rabb<strong>in</strong>ic dynasties like the Teˆomim<br />
of Pol<strong>and</strong>. His choice for a manuscript ‘source’ must be <strong>in</strong>terpreted aga<strong>in</strong>st this<br />
background.<br />
Third, it is relevant to the discussion of the maskilic reception of medieval<br />
Sephardi scholarship that Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong> considered the medieval texts to be the<br />
most suitable for his purposes. He attributes his responsa ma<strong>in</strong>ly to Sephardi authorities<br />
<strong>and</strong> uses them to susta<strong>in</strong> the authenticity of his maskilic <strong>in</strong>sights. But, we<br />
must note, the ma<strong>in</strong> ‘author’ of his responsa was not just any Sephardi rabbi, but<br />
Asher ben YeÌiel, an <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i scholar who left Germany <strong>in</strong> 1303 <strong>and</strong> ultimately<br />
settled <strong>in</strong> Toledo, <strong>in</strong> Spa<strong>in</strong>, where he served as rabbi until his death <strong>in</strong> 1327 <strong>and</strong> became<br />
<strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> the Sephardi <strong>in</strong>tellectual discourse – a true example of ‘<strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>Sepharad</strong>’.<br />
17 Lois C. Dub<strong>in</strong>’s claim that ‘<strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> Azariah de Rossi’s Meor enayim, Saul Lew<strong>in</strong>-Berl<strong>in</strong>’s claim of<br />
Italian provenance for the manuscript of Besamim Rosh (the lenient responsa he forged) <strong>and</strong> the Florence<br />
Reform hoax of 1796, <strong>in</strong> which a synod of Italian rabbis was rumored to have sanctioned pork,<br />
Sabbath work, <strong>and</strong> other revolutionary changes – all showed how German radicals sought to further<br />
their own cause of religious reform by creat<strong>in</strong>g Italian Jews as a legitimiz<strong>in</strong>g spur <strong>and</strong> precedent’ (The<br />
Port Jews of Trieste: Absolutist Politics <strong>and</strong> Enlightenment Culture [Stanford, 1999], p. 134) does not<br />
do justice to the complexity of Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong>’s work. Rather than a ‘legitimiz<strong>in</strong>g spur <strong>and</strong> precedent to<br />
further his cause of religious reform’, Saul’s reference to Italy, the orig<strong>in</strong> of so many Hebrew books of<br />
the seventeenth <strong>and</strong> eighteenth centuries, serves to authenticate the source itself <strong>and</strong> not its supposedly<br />
political content.<br />
254 The Maskilic Appreciation of <strong>Medieval</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong>
Appendix<br />
In 1999 the author, together with B<strong>in</strong>yam<strong>in</strong> Richler <strong>and</strong> the staff of the Institute of<br />
Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem, was <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> the preparation of a<br />
catalogue of manuscripts from the library of the London Beth D<strong>in</strong>, for a sale at<br />
Christie’s <strong>in</strong> New York on 23 June 1999. The manuscripts stem from the collection<br />
of Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong>’s brother Solomon Hirschel (who died <strong>in</strong> London <strong>in</strong> 1842) <strong>and</strong> were<br />
acquired from his estate <strong>in</strong> 1845. At least eleven of the 140 manuscripts offered for<br />
sale can be traced back to Zevi Hirsch Lev<strong>in</strong>’s library. No fewer than 31 manuscripts<br />
are known to have belonged to another important maskilic library, that of Daniel<br />
Itzig (1723–1799). A short-title list of these manuscripts, which are of great importance<br />
to the underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the maskilic appreciation of manuscripts, is presented<br />
below. For full descriptions of the manuscripts, now dispersed all over the world but<br />
available on microfilm <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem, see the lavishly illustrated auction catalogue. 18<br />
References are provided to A. Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts <strong>in</strong><br />
the Jews’ College … (Oxford, 1886) <strong>and</strong> to the microfilm numbers of the Institute of<br />
Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts (IMHM) <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem.<br />
1. Aaron Berechiah of Modena (Italy, d. 1639). Ma¨avar yabboq (rites <strong>and</strong> prayers perta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
to the sick <strong>and</strong> to mourn<strong>in</strong>g) [Central or Eastern Europe, 18th century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped, <strong>and</strong> signed on fol. 10r)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 122, p. 35; IMHM F 4788<br />
6. [Alex<strong>and</strong>er the Great]. The Book of the Gests of Alex<strong>and</strong>er of Macedon (the life of<br />
Alex<strong>and</strong>er the Great) [Mediterranean, 15th–16th century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 145, p. 45–46; IMHM F 4806<br />
7. Alfasi, Isaac ben Jacob (the ‘RiF’, 1013–1103). Hilkhot ha-Rif (on Rosh Hashanah,<br />
Sukkah, Yomaˆ, Mo¨ed qa†an, Shabbat, ¨Eruv<strong>in</strong>, Îull<strong>in</strong>, m<strong>in</strong>or tractates, Niddah, <strong>and</strong> orders<br />
Nashim <strong>and</strong> Neziq<strong>in</strong>; with Pirqei Avot at the end) [Spa<strong>in</strong>, 14th century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 10, p. 4; IMHM F 4681<br />
10. Aristotle. Sefer ha-Middot (Nicomachean Ethics, <strong>in</strong> the translation from the Lat<strong>in</strong> by<br />
Meir Alguadez [c. 1400]) [Europe, eighteenth century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 44, p. 19; IMHM F 4713<br />
27. Sefer ha-Derushim (kabbalistic homilies from the teach<strong>in</strong>gs of Îayyim Vital <strong>in</strong> an unknown<br />
redaction) [Italy, 1690]<br />
Provenance: Zevi Hirsch ben Aryeh Loeb [Lev<strong>in</strong>] (fol. 1r)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 92, p. 29; IMHM F 4754<br />
18 Important Hebrew Manuscripts <strong>and</strong> Pr<strong>in</strong>ted Books from the Library of the London Beth D<strong>in</strong>. Sold by<br />
Order of the Trustees of the United Synagogue (Christie’s, New York, 23 June 1999). I would like to<br />
thank Moshe Brown, Judaica consultant to Christie’s International, for allow<strong>in</strong>g me to work on this collection.<br />
Emile G.L. Schrijver<br />
255
32. Falaquera, Shem ov ibn (c. 1225–1295). Iggeret ha-vikkuaÌ <strong>and</strong> five other ma<strong>in</strong>ly<br />
philosophical works [southern Europe, 15th–16th century]<br />
Provenance: The manuscript was presented as a gift to R. Zevi Hirsch [Lev<strong>in</strong>] <strong>in</strong> London<br />
by Judah Loeb ben Zev Wolf Praeger (fol. 1r)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 50, p. 20; IMHM F 4718<br />
43. HatÌalat ha-Ìokhmah <strong>and</strong> Sefer ha-Îesheq (kabbalistic works) [Central or Eastern Europe,<br />
1651–52]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 91, p. 39; IMHM F 4750<br />
51. Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil (d. 1280). Sefer MiÒvot qa†an (with the glosses by R.<br />
PereÒ of Corbeil <strong>and</strong> others); copied by Moses ben Eliezer for Nathan ben Solomon<br />
[<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>], 1392<br />
Provenance: Zevi Hirsch Lev<strong>in</strong> of Berl<strong>in</strong>, who <strong>in</strong>dicated the title of the manuscript on<br />
the recto of the prelim<strong>in</strong>ary leaf <strong>in</strong> a semi-cursive pseudo-Sephardi h<strong>and</strong>, which is<br />
also attested <strong>in</strong> other manuscripts <strong>in</strong> connection with his name<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 36, p. 13; IMHM F 4704; Hebrew Paleography Project,<br />
Hebrew University, No. C 569<br />
53. Isaac ben Samuel of Acre (late 13th–early 14th century). Sefer Meˆirat ¨enayim (major<br />
commentary on NaÌmanides’ mysticism, <strong>in</strong>corporat<strong>in</strong>g kabbalistic writ<strong>in</strong>gs from the<br />
Gerona circle); copied by Îayyim ben Samuel Gatigno <strong>in</strong> Borgo Valsugan, near Trento<br />
(Northern Italy), completed on Sunday, 13 Nisan, 5334 (= 1574)<br />
Provenance: Presented as a gift to R. Zevi Hirsch Lev<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> London by Judah Loeb ben<br />
Ze}ev Wolf Praeger (fol. [1]r)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 72, p. 25; IMHM F 4742<br />
55. Jacob ben Asher (1270–1340). [Arba¨ah †urim]. ur OraÌ Ìayyim [<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>, 15th<br />
century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 18, p. 7; IMHM F 4687<br />
62. Levi ben Gershom (the ‘Ralbag’; Provence, 1288–1344). Commentaries on Averroes<br />
[Spa<strong>in</strong>, 15th century]<br />
Provenance: Moses ben MenaÌem [Mendelssohn] of Dessau presented the manuscript<br />
to Rabbi Zevi Hirsch Lev<strong>in</strong>, chief rabbi of Berl<strong>in</strong>, on Purim 5533 (= 1773)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 43, pp. 18–19; IMHM F 4712<br />
64. Lev<strong>in</strong>, Zevi Hirsch ben Aryeh Loeb (1721–1800). Novellae (Ìiddushim) <strong>and</strong> homilies<br />
on the weekly Torah portions [Germany, eighteenth century]<br />
Autograph?<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 25, p. 9; IMHM F 4694<br />
65. Lev<strong>in</strong>, Zevi Hirsch ben Aryeh Loeb (1721–1800). Novellae (Ìiddushim; miscellaneous<br />
halakhic texts on the Mishnah, Arba¨ah †urim ShulÌan ¨arukh <strong>and</strong> other books, copied<br />
from the marg<strong>in</strong>s of Zevi Hirsch Lev<strong>in</strong>’s books) [Germany <strong>and</strong>/or London, eighteenth<br />
century]<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 22, p. 8; IMHM F 4690<br />
67. Lonzano, MenaÌem ben Judah (1550–c. 1624). ¨Omer man (commentary on the Idraˆ<br />
zu†aˆ <strong>and</strong> Sifraˆ de-Òeni¨utaˆ from the Zohar) [Central or Eastern Europe, 17th–18th century]<br />
256 The Maskilic Appreciation of <strong>Medieval</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong>
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 113, p. 33; IMHM F 4779<br />
68. Lonzano, MenaÌem ben Judah (1550–c. 1624). ¨Omer man (commentary on the Idraˆ<br />
zu†aˆ <strong>and</strong> Sifraˆ de-Òeni¨utaˆ from the Zohar) [Central or Eastern Europe, 17th–18th century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 116, p. 33; IMHM F 4781<br />
70. Lonzano, MenaÌem ben Judah (1550–c. 1624). ¨Omer man (commentary on the Idraˆ<br />
zu†aˆ <strong>and</strong> Sifraˆ de-Òeni¨utaˆ from the Zohar) [Central or Eastern Europe, 17th–18th century]<br />
Provenance: R. Aryeh Loeb [Lowenstamm] of Amsterdam, who gave the manuscript as<br />
a present to his son Zevi Hirsch [Lev<strong>in</strong>]<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 115, p. 33; IMHM F 4780<br />
71. Luria, Isaac (1534–1572). Commentary on Sifraˆ de-Òeni¨utaˆ from the Zohar (with the<br />
Pirqaˆ tanyana) [Central or Eastern Europe, 17th–18th century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 89, p. 28; IMHM F 4756<br />
73. Luria, Isaac (1534–1572). Mevoˆ she¨arim (<strong>and</strong> two other treatises of Lurianic Kabbalah)<br />
[Eastern Europe, 17th–18th century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped); also signed ‘Daniel Berl<strong>in</strong>’ on fol. 10r<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 88, p. 28; IMHM F 4755<br />
75. Luzzatto, Moses Îayyim (the ‘RaMÎaL’; kabbalist <strong>and</strong> poet, Italy, 1707–1746). Commentary<br />
on the Idraˆ rabbaˆ [Central or Eastern Europe, 18th century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 63, p. 23; IMHM F 4729<br />
77. Margolioth, Jacob (end of 15th century). Sefer Margaliyot or Seder Gi††<strong>in</strong> ve-ÌaliÒah<br />
(an abridgement of the author’s Yam shel Shelomoh) [Central or Eastern Europe, second<br />
half 17th century]<br />
Provenance: Judah Loeb Levi sent the manuscript to Daniel Itzig of Berl<strong>in</strong>, as <strong>in</strong>dicated<br />
on the title-page <strong>in</strong> a later cursive <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i h<strong>and</strong>; Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 29, p. 12; IMHM F 4693<br />
82. MenaÌem Azariah of Fano (Italian rabbi <strong>and</strong> kabbalist; 1548–1620). Kanfei yonah<br />
(five parts); copied by Îiyya Cohen de Lara of Marrakech for Naphtali <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i, Amsterdam,<br />
1728<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 117, p. 34; IMHM F 4782<br />
83. MenaÌem Azariah of Fano (Italian rabbi <strong>and</strong> kabbalist; 1548–1620). Kanfei yonah<br />
(<strong>and</strong> four other texts); copied by Abraham ben Judah Levi of P<strong>in</strong>czow, L<strong>and</strong>sberg, completed<br />
on Sunday, 12 Adar 5492 (= 1732)<br />
Provenance: Zevi [Hirsch Lev<strong>in</strong>] of Berl<strong>in</strong> (fol. 1r)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 118, p. 34; IMHM F 4783<br />
92. Sefer ha-Peliˆah (pseudepigraphic kabbalistic work on the biblical account of Creation)<br />
[Central or Eastern Europe], completed on 1 Adar 5409 (= 1649)<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 67, p. 24; IMHM F 4734<br />
Emile G.L. Schrijver<br />
257
98. Samson ben ∑adoq (pupil of Meir of Rothenburg, 13th century). Sefer TashbeÒ<br />
(responsa) [<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>, 15th century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 27, p. 9; IMHM F 4696<br />
103. Shem ov, Joseph ibn (Spa<strong>in</strong>, c. 1400–c. 1460). Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean<br />
Ethics; copied by Shalom ben Isaac of Mezhirech [Eastern Europe], 1780<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 47, p. 19; IMHM F 4715<br />
110. Siddur ha-Ari (with Kavvanot, or mystical <strong>in</strong>tentions, by R. Isaac Luria (1534–1572),<br />
edited by Îayyim ben Abraham Kohen of Aleppo [c. 1585–1655]), [Eastern Europe,<br />
17th–18th century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 100, p. 30; IMHM F 4765<br />
111. Siddur ha-Ari (<strong>and</strong> other treatises of Lurianic Kabbalah) [probably Western Europe,<br />
18th century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 96, 97, pp. 29–30; IMHM F 4761, 4762<br />
113. Solomon ben Isaac (Rashi; 1040–1105). Anonymous super-commentary on Rashi’s<br />
commentary on the Torah (from Va-yeÒeˆ to Îuqqat) [probably Provence, 15th century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 2, p. 1; IMHM F 4671<br />
115. Talmud Bavli. Masekhet ¨Eruv<strong>in</strong> ke-fi asher nidpas be-Ams†erdam [Cleves (Germany)];<br />
copied by Mordecai ben Samson Altschuler [of Cologne], begun on 16 Shevat<br />
5479 (1719)<br />
Provenance: Zevi Hirsch ben Aryeh Loeb Lev<strong>in</strong> of Berl<strong>in</strong>, as <strong>in</strong>dicated <strong>in</strong> various <strong>in</strong>scriptions<br />
<strong>in</strong> Hebrew <strong>and</strong> Lat<strong>in</strong>, on two blank pages preced<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> the one blank page<br />
follow<strong>in</strong>g the text<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 8, p. 3; IMHM F 4677<br />
121. Sefer ha-Temunah (pseudepigraphic kabbalistic work, attributed to Rabbi Ishmael,<br />
preceded by Sod shem ha-meyuÌad); copied by Abraham Abush of Lubl<strong>in</strong> [Swarzedz<br />
(near Posen)], early 18th century<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 69, p. 24; IMHM F 4736<br />
125. Vital, Îayyim (Safed; 1542–1620). Sefer Adam yashar. Amsterdam, [18th century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 93, p. 29; IMHM F 4759<br />
126. Vital, Îayyim (Safed; 1542–1620). ¨EÒ Ìayyim (with some additions) [Central or Eastern<br />
Europe, 17th–18th century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 84, p. 27; IMHM F 4789<br />
128. Vital, Îayyim (Safed; 1542–1620). ¨EÒ Ìayyim (with the prefaces by Îayyim Vital <strong>and</strong><br />
Meir Poppers, Sha¨ar ha-kelalim, <strong>and</strong> the glosses by Meir Poppers <strong>and</strong> Jacob ∑emaÌ);<br />
[copied by Jacob ben Judah Leib Shamash, Hamburg], 5494 (= 1734)<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 86, p. 28; IMHM F 4752<br />
258 The Maskilic Appreciation of <strong>Medieval</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong>
130. Vital, Îayyim (Safed; 1542–1620). [Liqqu†im] (abridgements <strong>and</strong> extracts from his <strong>and</strong><br />
other writ<strong>in</strong>gs); copied by Jehiel Michel ben Samson Eisenstadt <strong>and</strong> his brother<br />
Mordecai, Hamburg, 1721–1724<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 106, p. 31; IMHM F 4772<br />
131. Vital, Îayyim (Safed; 1542–1620). OÒerot Ìayyim; copied by Îiyya Cohen de Lara,<br />
Amsterdam, 1726<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 79, p. 26–27; IMHM F 4746<br />
134. Vital, Îayyim (Safed; 1542–1620). Peri ¨eÒ Ìayyim (<strong>and</strong> four other treatises of<br />
Lurianic Kabbalah) [Eastern Europe, 17th–18th century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 75, p. 26; IMHM F 4740<br />
136. Vital, Îayyim (Safed; 1542–1620). Peri ¨eÒ Ìayyim (with 10 other treatises of Lurianic<br />
Kabbalah) [Eastern Europe, 17th–18th century]<br />
Provenance: Various other loose sheets were found <strong>in</strong> the manuscript, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
start of a letter sent from Amsterdam <strong>in</strong> 5523 (= 1762/3) to ‘Zevi Hirsch’, the writer’s<br />
brother. It was probably sent by Saul Lev<strong>in</strong> to his brother R. Zevi Hirsch Lev<strong>in</strong><br />
References: Neubauer, No. 76, p. 26; IMHM F 4743<br />
137. Vital, Îayyim (Safed; 1542–1620). Peri ¨eÒ Ìayyim (Branch 1, Sha¨ar ha-kavvanot,<br />
only the parts on Sabbath <strong>and</strong> festivals, followed by two other works of Lurianic<br />
Kabbalah) [Central or Eastern Europe, 17th–18th century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 77, p. 26; IMHM F 4744<br />
140. Vital, Îayyim (Safed; 1542–1620). Peri ¨eÒ Ìayyim (Branch 1, Sha¨ar ha-kavvanot,<br />
with the glosses by Jacob ∑emaÌ <strong>and</strong> Isaac [ben Abraham of Posen]) [Eastern Europe,<br />
17th–18th century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 103, p. 31; IMHM F 4769<br />
141. Vital, Îayyim (Safed; 1542–1620). Zohar ha-raqia¨ (based on his commentary on the<br />
Zohar, <strong>in</strong> the redaction of Jacob ∑emaÌ, <strong>and</strong> two other texts) [Eastern Europe, 17th–18th<br />
century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 58, p. 22; IMHM F 4732<br />
146. ∑emaÌ, Jacob ben Îayyim (d. after 1655). Qol be-ramah (commentary on the Idraˆ<br />
rabbaˆ), followed by eight other treatises of Lurianic Kabbalah [Eastern Europe, 17th–<br />
18th century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 65, p. 24; IMHM F 4731<br />
147. ∑emaÌ, Jacob ben Îayyim (d. after 1655). Qol be-ramah (commentary on the Idraˆ<br />
rabbaˆ), followed by Gedaliah Halevi’s Derushei ha-melakhim she-metu (on transmigration<br />
of souls) [Central or Eastern Europe, 18th century]<br />
Provenance: Daniel Itzig (stamped)<br />
References: Neubauer, No. 64, p. 24; IMHM F 4730<br />
Emile G.L. Schrijver<br />
259
260 The Maskilic Appreciation of <strong>Medieval</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong>
Andrea Schatz<br />
Return<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>Sepharad</strong>:<br />
Maskilic Reflections on Hebrew <strong>in</strong> the Diaspora<br />
Among the most ambitious <strong>and</strong> most consequential projects undertaken by the early<br />
maskilim was their attempt to renew <strong>and</strong> cultivate Hebrew as the language of the<br />
Jewish nation <strong>in</strong> the diaspora. Their activities as advocates, writers, <strong>and</strong> teachers of<br />
Hebrew were not merely <strong>in</strong>dividual expressions of a sentimental attachment to the<br />
language of ancient political <strong>and</strong> cultural autonomy. Rather, they had mean<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong><br />
the context of a comprehensive program for the transformation of Jewish bil<strong>in</strong>gualism:<br />
rabb<strong>in</strong>ic loshn qoydesh, consist<strong>in</strong>g of Hebrew <strong>and</strong> Aramaic, was to be replaced<br />
by ‘classical’ Hebrew, based ma<strong>in</strong>ly on the Bible <strong>and</strong> the Mishnah; Yiddish would<br />
be replaced by German. 1 The maskilim aimed to establish Hebrew as the l<strong>in</strong>gua<br />
franca of a Jewish public sphere that would extend beyond the traditional sites of<br />
Jewish debate – the synagogue, the yeshiva, the rabb<strong>in</strong>ical court – <strong>and</strong> would not be<br />
conf<strong>in</strong>ed by the territorial <strong>and</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistic boundaries of the non-Jewish nations. At the<br />
same time, the maskilim did not hesitate to advocate the use of German <strong>in</strong> everyday<br />
life for secular as well as religious matters. Thus they decided to translate the books<br />
of the Hebrew Bible <strong>in</strong>to German, but they also added extensive Hebrew commentaries<br />
to these translations <strong>and</strong> published – <strong>in</strong> the year of the completion of<br />
Mendelssohn’s edition of the Pentateuch – the first issues of the Hebrew periodical<br />
Ha-Meˆassef. In the eyes of the maskilim, the Hebrew language rema<strong>in</strong>ed crucial for<br />
the possibility of Jewish self-assertion. It was conceived as the medium of a critical<br />
re-exam<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>and</strong> re-appropriation of the Jewish tradition <strong>and</strong> as the basis of a new<br />
cultural memory that would allow the Jews to def<strong>in</strong>e themselves as an enlightened<br />
nation with noble roots <strong>and</strong> a promis<strong>in</strong>g future – or, <strong>in</strong> the words of the political<br />
agenda that was <strong>in</strong>terwoven with their cultural activities, as a nation on its way to<br />
emancipation <strong>and</strong> reform. Thus Hebrew was the language <strong>in</strong> which the mean<strong>in</strong>gs of<br />
tradition could be negotiated, but it was also designed to become the language of a<br />
Jewish public that wished to def<strong>in</strong>e its perspectives on contemporary political <strong>and</strong><br />
cultural issues <strong>in</strong> its own terms. 2 It seems obvious that the idea of reconfigur<strong>in</strong>g Jewish<br />
bil<strong>in</strong>gualism so that it could rema<strong>in</strong> the l<strong>in</strong>guistic basis of a diasporic nation – an<br />
1 Israel Bartal, ‘Mi-du-leshoniyyut mesoratit le-Ìad-leshoniyyut leˆummit’, Shevut 15 (1992): 183–93.<br />
2 On the chang<strong>in</strong>g mean<strong>in</strong>gs of Hebrew <strong>in</strong> the Jewish Enlightenment of the eighteenth century, see<br />
Andrea Schatz, Sprache <strong>in</strong> der Zerstreuung: Zur Säkularisierung des Hebräischen im 18. Jahrhundert<br />
(Gött<strong>in</strong>gen, 2007).<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
Andrea Royal Netherl<strong>and</strong>s Schatz Academy of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences, 2007<br />
263
idea utterly alien to the emerg<strong>in</strong>g nation-states, with their emphasis on territory <strong>and</strong><br />
l<strong>in</strong>guistic homogeneity – was <strong>in</strong>spired <strong>and</strong> supported by <strong>Sepharad</strong>.<br />
This assertion, however, raises a number of questions. Which aspects or manifestations<br />
of <strong>Sepharad</strong> did the maskilim have <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d when they <strong>in</strong>voked it as a reference<br />
for their cultural aspirations? Where did they locate ‘<strong>Sepharad</strong>’, historically <strong>and</strong><br />
geographically? Did they look to medieval Spa<strong>in</strong> or rather to the contemporary<br />
Sephardi communities of Amsterdam or Saloniki? Did they have <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d a society<br />
assert<strong>in</strong>g itself <strong>in</strong> Islamic or <strong>in</strong> Christian contexts? Were they look<strong>in</strong>g to a culture<br />
evolv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Hebrew <strong>and</strong> Arabic or <strong>in</strong> Hebrew <strong>and</strong> the Iberian languages, Portuguese<br />
<strong>and</strong> Spanish? Did they refer to the distant past or to the immediate surround<strong>in</strong>gs of a<br />
diasporic present? How did they relate to the history of persecution, expulsion, <strong>and</strong><br />
conversion that brought Maimonides to Fustat, Abravanel to Venice, <strong>and</strong> Manasseh<br />
ben Israel to Amsterdam? And if they found <strong>in</strong>spiration <strong>in</strong> both medieval <strong>and</strong> contemporary<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong>, how were these two aspects of their <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the Sephardi<br />
world tied to each other? Although these questions deserve answers based on a broad<br />
range of maskilic activities, it seems important to mention them here <strong>in</strong> order to po<strong>in</strong>t<br />
to the context to which an analysis of ‘<strong>Sepharad</strong>’ <strong>in</strong> maskilic writ<strong>in</strong>gs on language <strong>in</strong><br />
the diaspora might contribute.<br />
In what follows I will argue that the maskilim explored the Sephardi world <strong>in</strong> ways<br />
that differed significantly from its evocations <strong>in</strong> both the late seventeenth <strong>and</strong> the<br />
early n<strong>in</strong>eteenth centuries. 3 While the proponents of Sephardi knowledge <strong>and</strong> education<br />
<strong>in</strong> the seventeenth century found ‘<strong>Sepharad</strong>’ <strong>in</strong> the contemporary West, primarily<br />
<strong>in</strong> Amsterdam, <strong>and</strong> the proponents of the Wissenschaft des Judentums found it <strong>in</strong><br />
the medieval ‘Orient’, <strong>in</strong> the world of al-Andalus, the maskilim developed approaches<br />
to ‘<strong>Sepharad</strong>’ that were more nuanced <strong>and</strong> complex than those of the seventeenth<br />
century <strong>and</strong> less <strong>in</strong>formed by ideological <strong>and</strong> apologetic concerns than those<br />
of the n<strong>in</strong>eteenth century. The maskilim were <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> more than an alternative<br />
model of learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> someth<strong>in</strong>g different than a historical icon. It was not imitation<br />
they had <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d. They <strong>in</strong>sisted on processes of mediation, on critical <strong>in</strong>vestigation<br />
<strong>and</strong> adaptation. Thus they hoped to recapture both a textual tradition <strong>and</strong> a contemporary<br />
practice that would form part of the multiple cultural layers on the basis of<br />
which they would develop, amidst the struggles of the Emancipation period, their<br />
own version of a modern Jewish culture.<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Zimmels’ classic study <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im <strong>and</strong> Sephardim, it was around the<br />
middle of the eighteenth century that ‘the <strong>in</strong>fluence of the old Sephardic school began<br />
to assert itself aga<strong>in</strong> among the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im <strong>in</strong> Germany, pav<strong>in</strong>g the way for a<br />
new epoch <strong>in</strong> Jewish literature <strong>and</strong> culture, viz. the age of Enlightenment’. 4 On the<br />
3 For a summary of the conventional view that does not differentiate between earlier <strong>and</strong> later evocations<br />
of <strong>Sepharad</strong>, see the description of the German-Jewish ‘romance with the Sephardim’ <strong>in</strong> Lois C.<br />
Dub<strong>in</strong>, ‘The Rise <strong>and</strong> Fall of the Italian Jewish Model <strong>in</strong> Germany: From Haskalah to Reform, 1780–<br />
1820’, <strong>in</strong> Jewish History <strong>and</strong> Memory: Essays <strong>in</strong> Honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, ed. Elisheva<br />
Carlebach, John M. Efron, <strong>and</strong> David N. Myers (Hanover <strong>and</strong> London, 1998), pp. 271–95, on p. 271.<br />
4 H. J. Zimmels, <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im <strong>and</strong> Sephardim: Their Relations, Differences, <strong>and</strong> Problems as Reflected<br />
<strong>in</strong> the Rabb<strong>in</strong>ical Responsa (Hoboken, 1976), p. 67.<br />
264 Return<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>Sepharad</strong>: Maskilic Reflections on Hebrew <strong>in</strong> the Diaspora
more specific issue of languages, Zimmels quotes Leopold Löw: ‘Has not the study<br />
of the Hebrew language … s<strong>in</strong>ce Mendelssohn’s time mostly followed the pattern of<br />
the Sephardim?’ To support this suggestion Zimmels mentions Isaac Satanow, Israel<br />
Zamosc, Solomon Dubno, <strong>and</strong> Wolf Heidenheim as scholars ‘who either wrote commentaries<br />
on the Moreh Nebuchim <strong>and</strong> Kuzari, or made researches <strong>in</strong> Hebrew language<br />
<strong>and</strong> grammar <strong>and</strong> poetry’. He does not hesitate to compare the significance of<br />
their <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> <strong>Sepharad</strong> with the adoption of the ShulÌan ¨arukh <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i<br />
world two centuries earlier: ‘It was then for the second time <strong>in</strong> history that the<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im became the disciples of the great masters of Spanish Jewry’. 5<br />
Zimmels’ outl<strong>in</strong>e of the enlightened encounter between <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Sepharad</strong> is<br />
particularly suggestive, given the specific background aga<strong>in</strong>st which it is set forth:<br />
the rather strict division between <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im <strong>and</strong> Sephardim that was only rarely<br />
bridged <strong>and</strong> that manifested itself not merely <strong>in</strong> halakhic, liturgical, l<strong>in</strong>guistic, <strong>and</strong><br />
educational differences, but also <strong>in</strong> separate spheres of social life, <strong>in</strong> the fact that <strong>in</strong>termarriage<br />
was not encouraged, <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> a certa<strong>in</strong> amount of arrogance on both sides. 6<br />
Despite the general tendency to <strong>in</strong>sist on separate social <strong>and</strong> cultural spheres, however,<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> had assumed considerable significance with<strong>in</strong> the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i world<br />
already some time before Zamosc <strong>and</strong> Satanow published their works. Exegetical <strong>and</strong><br />
philosophical works from medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong> that were pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> Italy <strong>in</strong> the sixteenth<br />
century provoked vehement opposition <strong>and</strong> rema<strong>in</strong>ed a contested source of<br />
knowledge <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>. 7 Even more controversial was the adoption of the ShulÌan<br />
¨arukh <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i world of the sixteenth century. This step, facilitated <strong>and</strong> mediated<br />
by Moses Isserles’ Mappah, is described by Zimmels as a unique moment of<br />
rapprochement that, paradoxically, resulted <strong>in</strong> a permanent division between the<br />
halakhic systems of Sephardim <strong>and</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im, because Isserles’ glosses on Caro’s<br />
code became authoritative only <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>. 8 The <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g prom<strong>in</strong>ence of the<br />
study of the ShulÌan ¨arukh <strong>in</strong> Polish yeshivot provoked sharp criticism, which was<br />
eventually directed aga<strong>in</strong>st the effects of these new developments on <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i society<br />
<strong>and</strong> its <strong>in</strong>stitutions of learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> general. 9 It was <strong>in</strong> the polemical struggle aga<strong>in</strong>st<br />
the impact of the ShulÌan ¨arukh <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> particular aga<strong>in</strong>st the method of the new<br />
form of pilpul, the pilpul ha-Ìilluqim, that another aspect of the Sephardi tradition<br />
was <strong>in</strong>voked as an attractive counter-model: the methodical <strong>and</strong> differentiated system<br />
of <strong>in</strong>struction that could be found <strong>in</strong> contemporary Sephardi communities, with its<br />
emphasis on the Hebrew Bible, on Hebrew grammar, <strong>and</strong> on vernacular explanations<br />
of the biblical text.<br />
5 Ibid., pp. 67–8.<br />
6 Ibid., pp. 59–63.<br />
7 Elchanan Re<strong>in</strong>er, ‘The Attitude of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Society to the New Science <strong>in</strong> the Sixteenth Century’,<br />
Science <strong>in</strong> Context 10 (1997): 589–603. Jacob Elbaum mentions the controversies sparked by the dissem<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
of Sephardi works <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> as evidence not aga<strong>in</strong>st, but <strong>in</strong> favour of the view that the<br />
late sixteenth century was a time of contact <strong>and</strong> exchange: ‘Hashpa¨at tarbut yehudei Sefarad ¨al<br />
yehudei <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> u-Fol<strong>in</strong> bi-meˆot ha-15–16’, <strong>in</strong> Tarbut ve-his†orya: Le-zikhro shel Prof. Ino Sciaky,<br />
ed. Joseph Dan (Jerusalem, 1987), pp. 95–120.<br />
8 Zimmels, <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im <strong>and</strong> Sephardim, pp. 52–8.<br />
9 Elchanan Re<strong>in</strong>er, ‘The <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Élite at the Beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of the Modern Era: Manuscript versus<br />
Pr<strong>in</strong>ted Book’, <strong>in</strong> Jews <strong>in</strong> Early Modern Pol<strong>and</strong>, ed. Gershon D. Hundert, (London, 1997) (= Pol<strong>in</strong> 10),<br />
pp. 85–98.<br />
Andrea Schatz<br />
265
The <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i scholars who have become famous for their admiration of Sephardi<br />
models of education <strong>in</strong>clude Îayyim ben BeÒalel, Shabbetai Sheftel Horowitz, <strong>and</strong><br />
Shabbetai Bass. 10 Îayyim ben BeÒalel praises his Sephardi teacher who <strong>in</strong>troduced<br />
him to the study of the Bible with Rashi <strong>and</strong> emphasizes – <strong>in</strong> his <strong>in</strong>troduction to his<br />
unpublished grammar ¨EÒ Ìayyim – that it is above all <strong>in</strong> the l<strong>and</strong>s of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> that<br />
grammatical studies have been severely neglected. 11 Horowitz depicts the excellent<br />
method of <strong>in</strong>struction <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam but refra<strong>in</strong>s from referr<strong>in</strong>g explicitly to its<br />
Sephardi context. This allows him to recommend the adoption of a seem<strong>in</strong>gly neutral<br />
model of education as a means to promote talmud torah <strong>in</strong> the entire diaspora <strong>and</strong> to<br />
br<strong>in</strong>g the end of the exile nearer. 12 Bass cites Horowitz <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>troduction to his bibliography<br />
Siftei yeshenim, supplements the Sephardi context, <strong>and</strong> provides numerous<br />
details about the school of the Sephardi community, its six separate rooms for different<br />
levels of <strong>in</strong>struction, its library, <strong>and</strong> its teachers, who were appo<strong>in</strong>ted by the community<br />
<strong>and</strong> received a regular salary. 13<br />
Another work, published <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam around the same time as Siftei yeshenim<br />
was even more eloquent <strong>in</strong> its praise of the Sephardim – Blitz of Witmund’s <strong>in</strong>troduction<br />
to his Yiddish translation of the Hebrew Bible. 14 Blitz mentions the achievements<br />
of Italian Jewry <strong>in</strong> biblical <strong>and</strong> grammatical knowledge <strong>and</strong> then turns to the<br />
Sephardim:<br />
None on earth can be compared to them when it comes to the nature of the Holy Tongue;<br />
it can clearly be demonstrated that they write their books <strong>in</strong> a lucid <strong>and</strong> pure language,<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to the rules of grammar, because first they study the literal sense [of the Scriptures]<br />
<strong>and</strong> because the majority of the Sephardim, sons of our people, have the 24 books<br />
of the Holy Scriptures [translated] accord<strong>in</strong>g to the nature of the Spanish language. 15<br />
Blitz deplores the lack of biblical <strong>and</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistic knowledge among the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im<br />
<strong>and</strong> expla<strong>in</strong>s that <strong>in</strong> a number of difficult cases he consulted the Ìakham of the<br />
Sephardi community, Moses Raphael d’Aguilar, a man whose advice was sought,<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to Blitz, not only by <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im but also by ‘the Christian rashei yeshivot,<br />
called professors’. 16 Just as Bass acknowledges that his bibliography owes much<br />
to the library of the Sephardi bet midrash, Blitz asserts that his translation is <strong>in</strong>debted<br />
10 Cf. Jacob Elbaum, PetiÌut ve-histagrut: Ha-yeÒirah ha-ruÌanit-ha-sifrutit be-Fol<strong>in</strong> u-ve-arÒot <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
be-shilhei ha-meˆah ha-shesh-¨esreh (Jerusalem, 1990), pp. 56–8; David Sork<strong>in</strong>, The Berl<strong>in</strong> Haskalah<br />
<strong>and</strong> German Religious Thought: Orphans of <strong>Knowledge</strong> (London <strong>and</strong> Portl<strong>and</strong>, 2000),<br />
pp. 40–1; Morris M. Faierste<strong>in</strong>, The Libes Briv of Isaac Wetzlar (Atlanta, 1996), p. 38.<br />
11 Îayyim ben BeÒalel, Iggeret ha-†iyyul (repr. Jerusalem, 1956/7), ‘Introduction’, p. 13; idem, ‘EÒ<br />
Ìayyim, ‘Introduction', <strong>in</strong> A. Neubauer, ‘Devarim ‘attiqim me-Oqsford', Ha-Maggid 13 (1869): 293.<br />
12 Shabbetai Sheftel Horowitz, Vavei ha-¨ammudim, ¨Ammud ha-torah, ch. 5, fol. 9b, <strong>in</strong> Simcha Assaf,<br />
Meqorot le-toledot ha-Ì<strong>in</strong>nukh be-Yisraˆel, ed. Shmuel Glick, vol. 1 (New York <strong>and</strong> Jerusalem, 2002),<br />
p. 119.<br />
13 Shabbetai Bass, Siftei yeshenim (Amsterdam, 1680), fol. 8a–b.<br />
14 On the <strong>in</strong>tricate history of the emergence of two Yiddish Bible translations <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam, see Erika<br />
Timm, ‘Blitz und Witzenhausen’, <strong>in</strong> Ke-m<strong>in</strong>hag <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> u-Fol<strong>in</strong>. Sefer yovel le-Chone Shmeruk, ed.<br />
Israel Bartal, Chava Turniansky <strong>and</strong> Ezra Mendelsohn (Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 39–66.<br />
15 Torah neviˆim u-khtuvim, trans. Jekutiel Blitz mi-Witmund, Amsterdam [1676–]1678, ‘Translator's<br />
<strong>in</strong>troduction', fol. 3a.<br />
16 Ibid.<br />
266 Return<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>Sepharad</strong>: Maskilic Reflections on Hebrew <strong>in</strong> the Diaspora
to the superior knowledge of the community’s Ìakham. Thus both authors refer to<br />
their own works <strong>in</strong> order to illustrate their claim that progress <strong>in</strong> the study of the Bible<br />
<strong>and</strong> the Hebrew language depends on the will<strong>in</strong>gness of the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im to learn<br />
from the Sephardim.<br />
Blitz, however, adds yet another aspect to this discussion. He vividly describes<br />
how the structured course of study that can be found <strong>in</strong> the Sephardi community will<br />
allow the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im to acquire the knowledge they need <strong>in</strong> order to respond adequately<br />
to their Christian neighbours’ challeng<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>quiries about the correct <strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />
of biblical verses. 17 The adoption of Sephardi models of learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> Jewish<br />
self-assertion vis-à-vis the Christian world seem to be <strong>in</strong>timately l<strong>in</strong>ked to each<br />
other. This description of Sephardi learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> its significance for Jewish self-representation<br />
<strong>in</strong> a Christian environment was not without a paradoxical note. The emphasis<br />
on the study of Scripture <strong>and</strong> the Hebrew language <strong>in</strong> the Sephardi community of<br />
Amsterdam was the result of its specific history, a history of expulsion, conversion,<br />
<strong>and</strong> migration that had distanced many Sephardi families from Jewish learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong><br />
religious practice. The great <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the Bible <strong>and</strong> its orig<strong>in</strong>al language was a way<br />
to rega<strong>in</strong> a lost religious tradition, 18 but it was also consistent with a cultural ideal<br />
that was deeply rooted <strong>in</strong> the Christian surround<strong>in</strong>gs of the Portuguese community of<br />
Amsterdam: the Bible was held <strong>in</strong> great esteem by both Calv<strong>in</strong>ists <strong>and</strong> Sephardim.<br />
Indeed, biblical knowledge constituted common ground that could be turned <strong>in</strong>to an<br />
arena of <strong>in</strong>terpretative contest. 19 The dialectical traits of a model that relied on <strong>in</strong>tersect<strong>in</strong>g<br />
religious <strong>and</strong> cultural trends certa<strong>in</strong>ly contributed <strong>in</strong> no small measure to the<br />
attractiveness of Sephardi biblical <strong>and</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistic studies for the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i world. It<br />
facilitated the articulation of difference while provid<strong>in</strong>g a language of self-assertion<br />
that implied the acknowledgement of shared concepts <strong>and</strong> values.<br />
The writ<strong>in</strong>gs of Sheftel Horowitz, Bass, <strong>and</strong> Blitz clearly suggest that it was contemporary<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> rather than medieval Spa<strong>in</strong> that fasc<strong>in</strong>ated early modern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i<br />
scholars. All the more strik<strong>in</strong>g is the contrast between their remarks <strong>and</strong> the evocations<br />
of <strong>Sepharad</strong> that we f<strong>in</strong>d a century later among the scholars of the early<br />
Wissenschaft des Judentums. Here, it is medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong> that <strong>in</strong>spires admiration,<br />
awakens scholarly curiosity, <strong>and</strong> stimulates the literary imag<strong>in</strong>ation. The Islamic<br />
world of al-Andalus is praised as a ‘friendly oasis’ where Jews cultivated Hebrew as<br />
a liv<strong>in</strong>g language, wrote poetry, pursued the sciences, <strong>and</strong> were actively <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong><br />
the general history of their times. 20 Obviously, the mean<strong>in</strong>gs of ‘<strong>Sepharad</strong>’ had<br />
17 Ibid., fol. 3b.<br />
18 See Miriam Bodian, Hebrews of the Portuguese Nation: Conversos <strong>and</strong> Community <strong>in</strong> Early Modern<br />
Amsterdam (Bloom<strong>in</strong>gton, 1997), pp. 103–10.<br />
19 Blitz’s description of d’Aguilar’s communication with the professors of Leiden po<strong>in</strong>ts to the first aspect,<br />
while the second aspect is emphasized by Bodian, Hebrews of the Portuguese Nation, p. 105. See<br />
also Yosef Kaplan, ‘Bom Judesmo: The Western Sephardic Diaspora’, <strong>in</strong> Cultures of the Jews: A New<br />
History, ed. David Biale (New York, 2002), pp. 639–69 (esp. pp. 656–63).<br />
20 Leopold Zunz, ‘Über die <strong>in</strong> den hebräisch-jüdischen Schriften vorkommenden hispanischen Ortnamen’,<br />
Zeitschrift für die Wissenschaft des Judentums 1 (1822/1823): 127–8. Zunz’s words seem to<br />
encapsulate the attitude towards al-Andalus that was characteristic for most of the n<strong>in</strong>eteenth century,<br />
although he himself tried to balance the admiration for medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong> with attentiveness to the<br />
achievements of medieval <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>. See also: Salmon Maimon's Lebensgeschichte, vol. 2 (Berl<strong>in</strong>,<br />
1793), pp. 308–9.<br />
Andrea Schatz<br />
267
shifted. Bass <strong>and</strong> Blitz may have recognized some of the features that figured prom<strong>in</strong>ently<br />
<strong>in</strong> these new depictions of ‘<strong>Sepharad</strong>’ – the cultivation of the Hebrew language<br />
<strong>and</strong> the love of poetry; but they would hardly have approved of the entirely<br />
secular context <strong>in</strong> which they now ga<strong>in</strong>ed relevance. What had happened to ‘<strong>Sepharad</strong>’<br />
between 1700 <strong>and</strong> 1800?<br />
Shortly after the publication of Zimmels’ <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im <strong>and</strong> Sephardim, Ismar Schorsch<br />
turned to the ‘pro-Spanish bias’ of the early Wissenschaft des Judentums. He proposed<br />
dat<strong>in</strong>g the emergence of a new <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong> to the Berl<strong>in</strong><br />
Haskalah <strong>and</strong> to the contemporary debates on ‘civic improvement’. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
Schorsch, the differences between <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i <strong>and</strong> Sephardi communities played an<br />
important role <strong>in</strong> the attempt to promote cultural reform <strong>and</strong> to demonstrate the capacity<br />
for self-improvement vis-à-vis both <strong>in</strong>ternal <strong>and</strong> external opposition: ‘To<br />
project this contemporary disparity back <strong>in</strong>to the past provided <strong>in</strong>feriority-ridden<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>ic <strong>in</strong>tellectuals with an effective critique of their own tradition <strong>and</strong> a respectable<br />
cultural claim for political equality’. 21 Schorsch takes up this argument <strong>in</strong><br />
his sem<strong>in</strong>al article on ‘The Myth of Sephardic Supremacy’, summon<strong>in</strong>g Moses<br />
Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Aaron Wolfsohn-Halle as witnesses for the positive connotations<br />
attributed to <strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> maskilic discourse:<br />
[T]he full-blown cultural critique of the Haskalah … drew much of its validation, if not<br />
<strong>in</strong>spiration, directly from Spa<strong>in</strong>. The advocacy of secular education, the curb<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
talmudic exclusivity <strong>and</strong> the resumption of studies <strong>in</strong> Hebrew grammar, biblical exegesis,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Jewish philosophy, <strong>and</strong> the search for historical exemplars led to a quick rediscovery<br />
of Spanish models <strong>and</strong> achievements. 22<br />
Schorsch draws together various cultural trends <strong>in</strong> order to suggest that the<br />
maskilim created a dist<strong>in</strong>ctive <strong>and</strong> homogeneous image of ‘<strong>Sepharad</strong>’ that would<br />
serve their apologetic purposes <strong>and</strong> form the basis for the emergence of the<br />
‘Sephardic Mystique’ 23 <strong>in</strong> the n<strong>in</strong>eteenth century. However, a closer <strong>in</strong>spection of a<br />
variety of sources reveals a more complex <strong>and</strong> heterogeneous picture; <strong>Sepharad</strong> did<br />
not give itself easily to the maskilic efforts to create a usable past.<br />
As we have seen, as early as the seventeenth century <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i scholars advocated<br />
‘the curb<strong>in</strong>g of talmudic exclusivity <strong>and</strong> the resumption of studies <strong>in</strong> Hebrew<br />
grammar’, rely<strong>in</strong>g on contemporary post-Spanish rather than medieval Spanish models.<br />
At the same time, the writ<strong>in</strong>gs of the maskilim obviously <strong>in</strong>dicate a new trend, an<br />
21 Ismar Schorsch, ‘From Wolfenbüttel to Wissenschaft: The Divergent Paths of Isaak Markus Jost <strong>and</strong><br />
Leopold Zunz’, LBIY 22 (1977): 109–28, on p. 119. Several years later, Schorsch returned to the ‘Spanish<br />
bias’ <strong>and</strong> aga<strong>in</strong> – this time rather cursorily – associated it with the Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> a remark about<br />
Samuel David Luzzatto, who ‘was far less enamoured of Sephardic superiority than most of his enlightened<br />
contemporaries’; idem, ‘The Emergence of Historical Consciousness <strong>in</strong> Modern Judaism’, LBIY<br />
28 (1983): 413–37, on p. 426.<br />
22 Ismar Schorsch, ‘The Myth of Sephardic Supremacy’, LBIY 34 (1989): 49–66, on pp. 49–50.<br />
23 Ivan G. Marcus co<strong>in</strong>ed the term ‘Sephardic Mystique’ <strong>in</strong> his critique of the historiographical narratives<br />
of Gershom Scholem <strong>and</strong> Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi: ‘Beyond The Sephardic Mystique’, Orim 1<br />
(1985): 35–53.<br />
268 Return<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>Sepharad</strong>: Maskilic Reflections on Hebrew <strong>in</strong> the Diaspora
unprecedented <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> biblical exegesis <strong>and</strong> philosophy that was closely l<strong>in</strong>ked to<br />
the rediscovery of the authors of medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong>. But – as demonstrated <strong>in</strong> several<br />
contributions to this volume – the maskilim read their sources with critical attention.<br />
They admired their Sephardi teachers but did not tend to idealize them. Moreover,<br />
it may be asked to what extent maskilic read<strong>in</strong>gs of authors like Judah Halevi,<br />
Maimonides, <strong>and</strong> Abraham Ibn Ezra reflect an <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the particular social <strong>and</strong><br />
cultural circumstances <strong>in</strong> which these authors flourished. Did the maskilim contextualize<br />
the philosophical <strong>and</strong> exegetical achievements of their Sephardi teachers? Did<br />
they really draw the attention of their Jewish <strong>and</strong> Christian audiences to the Middle<br />
Ages <strong>and</strong> to al-Andalus <strong>in</strong> order to establish a historical model that would be useful<br />
<strong>in</strong> the struggle for emancipation? Or did they <strong>in</strong> fact tend to dissociate the texts of<br />
these authors from their specific historical contexts? 24<br />
Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er raised additional questions <strong>in</strong> his ‘Sefarad dans les représentations<br />
historiques de la Haskala’. He <strong>in</strong>terprets the writ<strong>in</strong>gs of the German maskilim<br />
as part of the larger history of the Haskalah movement, thus relat<strong>in</strong>g them<br />
not to developments with<strong>in</strong> German-Jewish history, as Schorsch did, but to trends<br />
that eventually found their full expression <strong>in</strong> Eastern Europe. As a result of this<br />
shift of perspective, he identifies a strong tendency among the maskilim to draw a<br />
rather negative picture of <strong>Sepharad</strong>. It is the history of the Jews <strong>in</strong> Christian Spa<strong>in</strong><br />
that appears to dom<strong>in</strong>ate their reflections on the mean<strong>in</strong>gs of medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong>. In<br />
many places they highlight the <strong>in</strong>tolerance <strong>and</strong> atrocities of the Inquisition, thus<br />
turn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong>to a synonym for the ‘dark ages’ that they hoped were yield<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to an age of tolerance. 25<br />
To be sure, the maskilim created a famous pantheon of Sephardi heroes. 26 But this<br />
did not prevent them from s<strong>in</strong>gl<strong>in</strong>g out certa<strong>in</strong> aspects of Jewish society <strong>in</strong> Christian<br />
Spa<strong>in</strong> that they perceived as problematic. Thus they sharply criticized what they saw<br />
as the cultural arrogance of the Jews <strong>in</strong> Christian Spa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> times of peace <strong>and</strong> affluence<br />
<strong>and</strong> adduced the situation of the conversos to cast light on the problems of reli-<br />
24 Schorsch refers to the debate on the English Jew Bill of 1753 <strong>and</strong> to Isaac de P<strong>in</strong>to’s refutation of<br />
Voltaire as early examples of the role of <strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> maskilic political discourse <strong>and</strong> vaguely suggests a<br />
l<strong>in</strong>k between these events <strong>and</strong> Eduard Gans’ 1820 petition to the Prussian Government (Schorsch, ‘From<br />
Wolfenbüttel to Wissenschaft’, p. 119; idem, ‘The Myth of Sephardic Supremacy’, pp. 51–2). But<br />
Gans, a Hegelian <strong>and</strong> prom<strong>in</strong>ent member of the Vere<strong>in</strong> für die Wissenschaft des Judentums, can hardly<br />
be considered a maskil. Indeed, <strong>Sepharad</strong> is quite absent from the political writ<strong>in</strong>gs of Mendelssohn or<br />
Dohm. It figures, however, prom<strong>in</strong>ently <strong>in</strong> the anonymous treatise on the emancipation of the Jews that<br />
was <strong>in</strong>spired by the English debates <strong>and</strong> published <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> as early as 1753. This <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g though<br />
little-known text was edited by Jacob Toury <strong>and</strong> has been discussed recently by Gad Freudenthal, who<br />
suggests that its author was Aron Gumpertz (Jacob Toury, ‘E<strong>in</strong>e vergessene Frühschrift zur Emanzipation<br />
der Juden <strong>in</strong> Deutschl<strong>and</strong>’, Bullet<strong>in</strong> des Leo Baeck Instituts 12 [1969]: 253–81; Gad Freudenthal,<br />
‘Aaron Salomon Gumpertz, Gotthold Ephraim Less<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> the First Call for an Improvement of<br />
the Civil Rights of Jews <strong>in</strong> Germany [1753]’, AJS Review 29 [2005]: 299–353).<br />
25 Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er, ‘Sefarad dans les représentations historiques de la Haskala – entre modernisme et<br />
conservatisme’, <strong>in</strong> Mémoires juives d’Espagne et du Portugal, ed. Esther Benbassa (Paris, 1996), pp.<br />
239–51.<br />
26 See above all the brief biographical sketches dedicated to medieval as well as early modern Sephardi<br />
scholars <strong>in</strong> the volumes of the Meˆassef: Maimonides, Manasseh ben Israel, Orobio de Castro, <strong>and</strong><br />
others. See also J. H. Lehmann, ‘Maimonides, Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> the Me’assefim: Philosophy <strong>and</strong> the<br />
Biographical Imag<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>in</strong> the Early Haskalah’, LBIY 20 (1975): 87–108.<br />
Andrea Schatz<br />
269
gious assimilation. 27 Obviously, <strong>Sepharad</strong> had turned <strong>in</strong>to a highly complex signifier:<br />
an <strong>in</strong>spiration <strong>and</strong> a provocation, a promise <strong>and</strong> a warn<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
I would now like to take a closer look at maskilic writ<strong>in</strong>gs on the Hebrew language,<br />
<strong>in</strong> the light of the different aspects of ‘<strong>Sepharad</strong>’ <strong>in</strong> maskilic discourse, <strong>and</strong><br />
exam<strong>in</strong>e how the maskilim <strong>in</strong>tegrated Sephardi traditions <strong>in</strong>to their reflections on<br />
contemporary issues.<br />
In 1792, <strong>in</strong> Frankfurt am Ma<strong>in</strong>, Judah Leib ben David Neumark published the first<br />
new Hebrew grammar <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i world <strong>in</strong> almost sixty years, Shoresh<br />
Yehudah. 28 His <strong>in</strong>troduction comb<strong>in</strong>es the two types of narrative that shaped the discussions<br />
of the history of Hebrew <strong>in</strong> exile among the early maskilim. 29<br />
The first type drew on Maimonides’ description, <strong>in</strong> Hilkhot tefillah, of what had<br />
happened to the Hebrew language dur<strong>in</strong>g the Babylonian exile. Maimonides took his<br />
cue from Nehemiah 13:23–24, which reports that the Jews had married foreign<br />
women whose sons adopted the foreign idiom of their surround<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> forgot the<br />
language of the Jews: u-vneihem ÌaÒi medabber ashdodit ve-enam makkirim le-dabber<br />
yehudit ve-khilshon ¨am va-¨am. Maimonides draws on this brief anecdote to describe<br />
the political, cultural <strong>and</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistic crisis the Jews experienced after the Babylonian<br />
exile. They lost their ability to def<strong>in</strong>e themselves accord<strong>in</strong>g to their own<br />
political, religious, <strong>and</strong> moral laws; the most visible sign of this was the loss of their<br />
mastery of the Hebrew language. Maimonides conceived of multil<strong>in</strong>gualism not as a<br />
valuable <strong>in</strong>crease of l<strong>in</strong>guistic possibilities but as a limitation <strong>and</strong> deprivation, <strong>in</strong>deed<br />
as a k<strong>in</strong>d of speechlessness. The situation changed aga<strong>in</strong>, accord<strong>in</strong>g to Maimonides,<br />
with Ezra’s prayer reform. Because the Jews were no longer fluent <strong>in</strong> Hebrew, Ezra<br />
<strong>in</strong>stituted a fixed word<strong>in</strong>g for the Shemoneh ¨esreh. 30 As a result of Ezra’s achievements<br />
Hebrew was saved from oblivion, but its character had changed irreversibly.<br />
Hebrew was no longer a mother tongue, a spoken language <strong>and</strong> a language for everyday<br />
life. It turned <strong>in</strong>to a written language <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>to the language of religious life.<br />
When the maskilim wanted to describe <strong>and</strong> expla<strong>in</strong> the poor state of Hebrew <strong>in</strong><br />
exile they often turned to Maimonides. They had to confront the problem, however,<br />
that his narrative hardly offered support to the idea of renew<strong>in</strong>g the Hebrew language<br />
while still liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> exile. Apart from the fact that it did not provide a positive image<br />
of multil<strong>in</strong>gualism <strong>and</strong> cultural contact, it also left the maskilim with a language<br />
that would rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>complete, a mere fragment of a language, as long as exile prevailed.<br />
It does not come as a surprise, therefore, that the maskilim tried to supplement<br />
Maimonides with other material. An important source of <strong>in</strong>spiration for the second<br />
type of narrative they developed was Judah Halevi’s Kuzari. The famous description<br />
of the div<strong>in</strong>e orig<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> the unique qualities of Hebrew, <strong>in</strong> the fourth part of his book,<br />
27 See Isaac Euchel’s account of the history of the Jews <strong>in</strong> Spa<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> his ‘Iggerot Meshullam ben Uria ha-<br />
Eshtemo¨i’, Ha-Meˆassef 6 (1789/90): 38–50, 80–5, 171–6, 244–9.<br />
28 Isaac ben Samuel ha-Levi of Posen’s SiaÌ YiÒÌaq had been published <strong>in</strong> Prague, 1628.<br />
29 For a further discussion of these two narratives, see Schatz, Sprache <strong>in</strong> der Zerstreuung, ch. 1.<br />
30 Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah (Warsaw, 1881; repr. Jerusalem, 1974), Hilkhot tefillah 1:4.<br />
270 Return<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>Sepharad</strong>: Maskilic Reflections on Hebrew <strong>in</strong> the Diaspora
served as an excellent justification for a renewed cultivation of the language. 31 The<br />
language of Adam <strong>and</strong> of ¨Ever could fall <strong>in</strong>to oblivion, but it could not lose its <strong>in</strong>herent<br />
characteristics that marked it as the perfect language of mank<strong>in</strong>d, s<strong>in</strong>ce those did<br />
not depend on human l<strong>in</strong>guistic practice. Hence it could be assumed that the <strong>in</strong>tegrity<br />
<strong>and</strong> superior qualities of Hebrew could be rediscovered <strong>and</strong> recaptured <strong>in</strong> the present.<br />
On the one h<strong>and</strong>, the metahistorical character of Hebrew saved it, accord<strong>in</strong>g to this<br />
second type of narrative, from the vicissitudes of Jewish life <strong>in</strong> exile. On the other<br />
h<strong>and</strong>, it was precisely the impossibility of conferr<strong>in</strong>g a history on the language of orig<strong>in</strong><br />
that made it extremely difficult for the maskilim to expla<strong>in</strong> why it might be legitimate<br />
<strong>and</strong> how it might become possible to modify <strong>and</strong> exp<strong>and</strong> the Hebrew language<br />
to suit their current needs <strong>and</strong> purposes, as this would mean expos<strong>in</strong>g Hebrew to historical<br />
change. Aga<strong>in</strong> the maskilim encountered severe difficulties when try<strong>in</strong>g to use<br />
medieval Sephardi sources <strong>in</strong> order to legitimize their l<strong>in</strong>guistic project.<br />
Judah Neumark’s <strong>in</strong>troduction to his grammar offers a good illustration of their<br />
predicament. Neumark starts with extensive quotations from kabbalistic sources,<br />
among them Joseph Gikatilla’s G<strong>in</strong>nat egoz <strong>and</strong> Abraham Azulai’s Îesed le-<br />
Avraham, 32 which <strong>in</strong> turn quotes the Kuzari – all of them full of praise for the unique<br />
metaphysical qualities of the Hebrew language as the language of div<strong>in</strong>e orig<strong>in</strong>. 33<br />
Neumark then turns to the realm of history, describ<strong>in</strong>g the dignity of the language as<br />
the language of ‘the holy Jewish nation’ (ha-ummah ha-qedoshah) before exile. He<br />
then turns to Babylonia, quotes Nehemiah 13, mentions Ezra’s reform, <strong>and</strong> laments<br />
the decl<strong>in</strong>e of Hebrew ever s<strong>in</strong>ce. In his own days, he states, Hebrew appears to be<br />
better known to Christians than to Jews. It has become the victim of an act of cultural<br />
usurpation – a symbol of the Jews’ estrangement from their own tradition <strong>and</strong> of the<br />
highly problematic relationship between Christians <strong>and</strong> Jews <strong>in</strong> the diaspora. At this<br />
po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> Neumark’s history of decl<strong>in</strong>e it has become virtually impossible to f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong> it<br />
any encouragement for l<strong>in</strong>guistic renewal.<br />
Consequently Neumark has to start a new chapter. In fact, he beg<strong>in</strong>s a new paragraph<br />
<strong>and</strong> turns back to a stage previously omitted from his narrative: medieval<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong>. Here he f<strong>in</strong>ds the foundations for what the grammarians of his own days<br />
are about to undertake, a second effort to overcome the l<strong>in</strong>guistic crisis of exile, comparable<br />
to the first one made by Ezra. ¨Asu ma¨aseh ¨Ezra, Neumark writes, they did<br />
what Ezra had done, <strong>and</strong> they were able to do so by review<strong>in</strong>g the grammatical tradition<br />
of <strong>Sepharad</strong>. Thus the renewal of Hebrew grammatical studies among <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i<br />
Jews is not an imitation of their (Hebraist) Christian surround<strong>in</strong>gs but a reiteration of<br />
an act of Jewish self-assertion. Neumark gives an account of those Sephardi grammatical<br />
works he knew of, beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g with Judah Îayyuj, Jonah Ibn JanaÌ, <strong>and</strong><br />
Abraham Ibn Ezra, assert<strong>in</strong>g that he has not seen any of these grammatical studies<br />
except for Ibn Ezra’s exegetical writ<strong>in</strong>gs. Only when Neumark arrives at the works<br />
of Moses <strong>and</strong> David KimÌi can he describe them briefly. He criticizes Moses KimÌi<br />
for be<strong>in</strong>g too concise <strong>and</strong> David KimÌi for be<strong>in</strong>g too verbose <strong>and</strong> for neglect<strong>in</strong>g sys-<br />
31 Judah Halevi, Sefer ha-Kuzari – Das Buch Kusari […] nach dem hebräischen Texte des Jehuda Ibn-<br />
Tibbon, ed. <strong>and</strong> trans. David Cassel, 5th ed. (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1922), IV:25, p. 342.<br />
32 Azulai’s work had recently become available <strong>in</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>t: it was published <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam <strong>in</strong> 1685.<br />
33 Judah Leib ben David Neumark, Shoresh Yehudah, Frankfurt 1692, ‘Author’s preface’ (unpag<strong>in</strong>ated).<br />
Andrea Schatz<br />
271
tematic order. Thus he declares that his own <strong>in</strong>tention is neither to question nor to<br />
change the grammatical tradition, but merely to offer some improvements with regard<br />
to style, logical arrangement, <strong>and</strong> didactic order. He then turns to the works of<br />
David Ibn YaÌya <strong>and</strong> Abraham de Balmes, emphasiz<strong>in</strong>g that it is impossible for<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im to comprehend their explanations, because they are not used to their term<strong>in</strong>ology.<br />
He also mentions Elijah Levita, the great <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i scholar <strong>and</strong> writer<br />
who was active ma<strong>in</strong>ly <strong>in</strong> Italy, <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g that grammatical knowledge was not conf<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
to the Sephardi world.<br />
Neumark gives his readers to underst<strong>and</strong> that the tradition of Sephardi grammatical<br />
study is to be respected: there is no need for alterations or additions. At the same<br />
time, however, he emphasizes the great distance between the Sephardi past <strong>and</strong> the<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i present: the Sephardi tradition is either <strong>in</strong>accessible, because copies of its<br />
works can hardly be obta<strong>in</strong>ed, or has become extremely difficult to read <strong>and</strong> decipher<br />
because of its peculiar style or lack of systematic order. Ezra’s work can be resumed,<br />
because the Sephardi tradition <strong>in</strong>dicates the viability of such a project – that is, of<br />
disrupt<strong>in</strong>g an exilic history of decl<strong>in</strong>e under the conditions of exile. Yet <strong>in</strong> order to<br />
unfold its potential, the Sephardi recension of grammatical knowledge needs to be<br />
reformulated <strong>and</strong> transformed <strong>in</strong>to an <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i recension of grammatical expertise.<br />
The maskilim admired Solomon Zalman Hanau as the greatest Jewish grammarian of<br />
the eighteenth century. Hanau published his first work B<strong>in</strong>yan Shelomoh, a grammatical<br />
commentary on the prayer book, <strong>in</strong> 1708. In its pages he sharply criticized<br />
the grammatical decisions of Azriel <strong>and</strong> Elijah Vilna, who had published a widely<br />
acclaimed prayer book five years earlier. Not only did Hanau attack his contemporaries<br />
with elegance <strong>and</strong> vigour; he did not spare his great predecessors, the grammarians<br />
of <strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>and</strong> Italy, either. For example, he po<strong>in</strong>ted to an error <strong>in</strong> Azriel <strong>and</strong><br />
Elijah’s vocalization of the word galuyyot <strong>in</strong> the Amidah <strong>and</strong> states that he had wondered<br />
how both father <strong>and</strong> son fell <strong>in</strong>to the same trap. He expla<strong>in</strong>s that as ‘his eyes<br />
fell on his ox’ he perceived ‘a bridle <strong>in</strong> their jaws, caus<strong>in</strong>g them to err’ (Isa. 30:28) –<br />
they had been misled by <strong>in</strong>accuracies <strong>in</strong> David KimÌi’s grammatical work the<br />
Mikhlol. 34 Given his sharp <strong>and</strong> witty criticisms it is hardly surpris<strong>in</strong>g that Hanau, who<br />
was 20 years old when he published B<strong>in</strong>yan Shelomoh, provoked harsh reactions. In<br />
a supplement to B<strong>in</strong>yan Shelomoh he had to apologize for his misdeeds – but not<br />
even his meÌilah, his statement of contrition, found favour with his opponents. 35 In<br />
their response, the Vilnas correctly observed that Hanau’s meÌilah was no less bold<br />
than the book itself. 36 His deferential remarks about the great Sephardi <strong>and</strong> Italian authorities<br />
he had the courage to correct clearly imply that he is conv<strong>in</strong>ced they cannot<br />
really be offended, because they – unlike the lesser authorities of his own age – had a<br />
broad m<strong>in</strong>d <strong>and</strong> would have tolerated some critical remarks.<br />
34 Solomon Zalman Hanau, B<strong>in</strong>yan Shelomoh (Frankfurt a.M., 1708), fol. 61b–62a.<br />
35 The Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana owns one of the rare copies of B<strong>in</strong>yan Shelomoh with the attached<br />
meÌilah (Ros. 1879 D 36). The text was published by Aron Freimann, ‘Salomo Hanau’s Widerruf’,<br />
Zeitschrift für Hebräische Bibliographie 8 (1904): 93–4.<br />
36 Azriel <strong>and</strong> Elijah Wilna, Derekh siaÌ ha-sadeh (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1713), ‘Preface', fol. 11a [should be 12a].<br />
272 Return<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>Sepharad</strong>: Maskilic Reflections on Hebrew <strong>in</strong> the Diaspora
Hanau <strong>in</strong>sisted on an analysis of Hebrew grammar accord<strong>in</strong>g to the pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of<br />
reason <strong>and</strong> on a critical exam<strong>in</strong>ation of the claims of tradition, based only on rational<br />
judgement <strong>and</strong> the revealed text of the Torah. But obviously he was not satisfied with<br />
strategies of critique that <strong>in</strong>cluded bold attacks on the tradition as well as sly retreats.<br />
In his later works, above all <strong>in</strong> ∑ohar ha-tevah <strong>and</strong> Qun†res qure ¨akavish, he chose a<br />
different approach to the tradition of grammatical study. In fact, he adopted a strategy<br />
that we have already encountered <strong>in</strong> Neumark’s work: he gave an account of the tradition<br />
that allowed him to place himself with<strong>in</strong> its sphere.<br />
In his detailed narrative he divides the history of Hebrew grammar <strong>in</strong>to three periods.<br />
37 The grammar of the Hebrew language was first h<strong>and</strong>ed down to Moses at S<strong>in</strong>ai;<br />
like the Oral Torah it was not transmitted <strong>in</strong> written form. Dur<strong>in</strong>g the second<br />
period, the period of the rishonim, which <strong>in</strong>cludes the tannaˆim <strong>and</strong> amoraˆim, Saadia<br />
Gaon <strong>and</strong> the grammarians of <strong>Sepharad</strong>, only the most important grammatical rules<br />
were recorded. S<strong>in</strong>ce they had full <strong>and</strong> clear knowledge of the rules of grammar,<br />
these masters of the Hebrew language decided not to expla<strong>in</strong> them extensively <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />
detail. Hanau aga<strong>in</strong> compares Hebrew grammatical knowledge with the Oral Law:<br />
the rishonim provided a k<strong>in</strong>d of Mishnah, a Mishnah, however, that never was followed<br />
by a Gemara. Only David KimÌi, the last of the rishonim <strong>and</strong> the first of the<br />
aÌaronim, recorded the knowledge that had been h<strong>and</strong>ed down to him <strong>in</strong> a comprehensive<br />
way – not without some additions, however, <strong>and</strong> not without some errors.<br />
Hanau is full of praise for the Mikhlol, but does not hesitate to declare that <strong>in</strong> some<br />
places KimÌi did not identify the reason for a certa<strong>in</strong> rule or the correct vocalization<br />
of a word. Hanau is rather brief about the third period, the period of the aÌaronim,<br />
cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g through the grammarians of his own day: they merely repeat what they<br />
learned from the earlier generations. The <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i grammarian def<strong>in</strong>es his own<br />
work as the first attempt s<strong>in</strong>ce the Mikhlol to record, expla<strong>in</strong>, <strong>and</strong> arrange the tradition<br />
of grammatical knowledge systematically. Like Neumark he claims not to question<br />
the tradition but to fulfil it. Unlike Neumark, however, he comes to the conclusion<br />
that the Sephardi legacy represents grammatical tradition <strong>in</strong> an <strong>in</strong>complete <strong>and</strong><br />
imperfect way. Sephardi grammatical knowledge has been affected by the conditions<br />
of exile, by cultural loss, <strong>and</strong> oblivion, <strong>and</strong> the tradition has become uncerta<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>accurate.<br />
Both Neumark <strong>and</strong> Hanau acknowledge that medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong> produced the<br />
grammatical works on which contemporary scholars can ground their efforts to revitalize<br />
the study of the Hebrew language. At the same time, neither of them shows a<br />
tendency to evoke <strong>Sepharad</strong> as a model to be emulated. In the writ<strong>in</strong>gs of the early<br />
maskilim <strong>Sepharad</strong> rema<strong>in</strong>s a very real place with<strong>in</strong> cultural memory: a world of authors<br />
<strong>and</strong> texts that is not completely accessible, that exists at a considerable historical<br />
distance, that assumes mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> relation to other formative moments of tradition<br />
– from Ezra to the tannaˆim, amoraˆim, <strong>and</strong> geˆonim, <strong>and</strong> that, while provid<strong>in</strong>g<br />
valuable knowledge, must be saved from its own imperfections. The Sephardi legacy<br />
supports the l<strong>in</strong>guistic project of the present, but also depends on it for its comple-<br />
37 Solomon Zalman Hanau, ∑ohar ha-tevah (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1733), fol. 2a–b; idem, Qun†res qure ¨akavish<br />
(Fürth, 1744), fol. 2a–b.<br />
Andrea Schatz<br />
273
tion. It is not evoked as an isolated vision, as a perfect historical model, but rather as<br />
part of an edifice on which work must be resumed.<br />
A cheerful evocation of <strong>Sepharad</strong> with<strong>in</strong> a complex set of traditions, aimed at prov<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the possibility of l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>and</strong> cultural regeneration <strong>in</strong> the diaspora <strong>and</strong> at legitimiz<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the appropriation of non-Jewish knowledge (while hold<strong>in</strong>g on to Jewish<br />
knowledge) can be found <strong>in</strong> Naphtali Herz Wessely’s Divrei shalom ve-emet (1782–<br />
1785). Wessely, four years older than Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> a key figure of the Hebrew<br />
Haskalah, had spent several years <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam <strong>and</strong> Hamburg before mov<strong>in</strong>g to Berl<strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong> 1774. His contacts with the Sephardi community <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam <strong>and</strong> his acqua<strong>in</strong>tance<br />
with David Franco-Mendes <strong>and</strong> his circle had considerable impact on his<br />
writ<strong>in</strong>gs. In Rav †uv, the second of his letters on educational reform that were published<br />
under the collective title derived from the first letter, Divrei shalom ve-emet,<br />
Wessely expla<strong>in</strong>s that exile does not necessarily entail l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>and</strong> cultural decl<strong>in</strong>e.<br />
He does so by contrast<strong>in</strong>g ‘<strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> Pol<strong>in</strong>’ with medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>and</strong> early<br />
modern Italy. Most of all, though, he is <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> the prosperous Jewish communities<br />
<strong>in</strong> the l<strong>and</strong>s of the ‘Ishmaelites’. 38<br />
Wessely emphasizes that the miserable state of Jewish culture <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong><br />
Pol<strong>in</strong>, which he addresses <strong>in</strong> his series of letters, is the result of the political <strong>and</strong> social<br />
conditions under which the Jewish communities are forced to live. He po<strong>in</strong>ts out<br />
that the Jews migrated to <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> while it was still <strong>in</strong>habited by barbarians <strong>and</strong><br />
that the rise of Christianity – far from alleviat<strong>in</strong>g their situation – brought with it<br />
<strong>in</strong>tolerance, repression, <strong>and</strong> persecution. By contrast, the ‘Ishmaelites’ adopted a liberal<br />
rule. In their l<strong>and</strong>s the Jews live among various other religious groups <strong>and</strong>, like<br />
them, are permitted to practice their religion without h<strong>in</strong>drance, to pursue their chosen<br />
professions, <strong>and</strong> to engage <strong>in</strong> trade with the entire Mediterranean world. With a<br />
nod to the popular notion of doux commerce, Wessely po<strong>in</strong>ts out that maritime trade<br />
br<strong>in</strong>gs with it cultural exchange, knowledge of languages, <strong>and</strong> the ref<strong>in</strong>ement of<br />
morals <strong>and</strong> manners. 39 He dwells at length on the image of a flourish<strong>in</strong>g diasporic<br />
culture, an image he derives not from the contemporary West but from what he<br />
terms ha-mizraÌ ve-ha-ma¨arav – apparently a translation of the Arabic al-mashriq<br />
wa-al-maghrib. Wessely draws his readers’ attention to a region on the map of<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> that so far had largely gone unnoticed: he f<strong>in</strong>ds it <strong>in</strong> the East – <strong>in</strong> Saloniki<br />
<strong>and</strong> Constant<strong>in</strong>ople.<br />
Only after reflect<strong>in</strong>g at length on the vibrant Jewish culture of the East does<br />
Wessely turn back to its historical antecedents <strong>in</strong> Italy <strong>and</strong> Spa<strong>in</strong>. He touches briefly<br />
on the expulsion of 1492 <strong>and</strong> then focuses on a description of the peace <strong>and</strong> dignity,<br />
high positions, <strong>and</strong> considerable wealth the Jews enjoyed <strong>in</strong> medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong>. He<br />
concludes with a summary of their literary legacy <strong>in</strong> ethics <strong>and</strong> the sciences:<br />
38 Naphtali Herz Wessely, Divrei shalom ve-emet, part 2: Rav †uv (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1782), fol. 28a.<br />
39 Ibid., fol. 28a–b. On the concept of doux commerce see, for example, Denis Diderot, Political Writ<strong>in</strong>gs,<br />
trans. <strong>and</strong> ed. John H. Mason <strong>and</strong> R. Wokler (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 169–70 (‘Extracts from the<br />
Histoire des Deux Indes’).<br />
274 Return<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>Sepharad</strong>: Maskilic Reflections on Hebrew <strong>in</strong> the Diaspora
From their time date the only books that have been written <strong>in</strong> exile on ethics <strong>and</strong> sciences,<br />
like the book of the pr<strong>in</strong>ce R. Abraham [bar Îiyya], Îovot ha-levavot by Rabbenu<br />
BaÌya the elder of Spa<strong>in</strong>, Maimonides’ Guide, the commentaries on the Torah by<br />
NaÌmanides <strong>and</strong> Gersonides, the book MilÌamot ha-shem, the book ∑urat ha-areÒ by R.<br />
Abraham the pr<strong>in</strong>ce, the book Yesod ¨olam by R. Isaac Israeli, the book Yemot ¨olam by<br />
Abraham ben Daud, Sefer ha-Nefesh by R. Solomon Ibn Gabirol, <strong>and</strong> the books of R.<br />
Isaac Abravanel, all written <strong>in</strong> a pure language, ‘they spoke of excellent th<strong>in</strong>gs’ (Prov.<br />
8:6). 40<br />
Wessely’s assemblage of Hebrew works <strong>and</strong> of Arabic works translated <strong>in</strong>to Hebrew<br />
illustrates the easy transition from one l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>and</strong> cultural sphere to the other,<br />
which he so fervently wished to become part of everyday life <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> Pol<strong>in</strong><br />
as well. Here – as <strong>in</strong> Neumark’s writ<strong>in</strong>gs – medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong> is evoked to demonstrate<br />
that cultural regeneration <strong>in</strong> the diaspora is possible. Equally important, however,<br />
is the decision to present medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong> not as an isolated <strong>and</strong> exceptional<br />
episode <strong>in</strong> Jewish history. The medieval Sephardi tradition of l<strong>in</strong>guistic, philosophical,<br />
<strong>and</strong> scientific knowledge can be evoked as an example that encourages <strong>and</strong> supports<br />
cultural transformation <strong>in</strong> contemporary <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> only because the Jewish<br />
communities of Italy <strong>and</strong> the Ottoman Empire prove that it was not a unique phenomenon.<br />
While <strong>in</strong> Neumark’s narrative it was medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong> that demonstrated the<br />
possibility of resum<strong>in</strong>g ‘the work of Ezra’, for Wessely it is contemporary <strong>Sepharad</strong><br />
that demonstrates the possibility of resum<strong>in</strong>g the medievals’ enterprise. <strong>Sepharad</strong><br />
emerges as a historical <strong>and</strong> cultural legacy that will become accessible today only if<br />
the conditions that were responsible for its formation are restored: liberal government,<br />
free commerce, <strong>and</strong> cultural contact <strong>and</strong> exchange. Therefore, the early modern <strong>and</strong><br />
contemporary examples that show the possibility of emulat<strong>in</strong>g the medieval model<br />
tend to become more important than medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong> itself.<br />
With regard to the texts, to a written legacy, medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong> rema<strong>in</strong>ed a unique<br />
source of <strong>in</strong>spiration. With regard to l<strong>in</strong>guistic, cultural, <strong>and</strong> religious practice, however,<br />
the contemporary world of the Jewish communities <strong>in</strong> the l<strong>and</strong>s of the<br />
‘Ishmaelites’ attracted more attention <strong>and</strong> ga<strong>in</strong>ed greater importance. This f<strong>in</strong>ds strik<strong>in</strong>g<br />
expression <strong>in</strong> ReÌovot, the fourth treatise of Divrei shalom ve-emet, <strong>in</strong> which<br />
Wessely expla<strong>in</strong>s the superiority of the Sephardi pronunciation of Hebrew <strong>and</strong> recommends<br />
its future implementation <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> Pol<strong>in</strong> as well. He refers exclusively<br />
to the present, aga<strong>in</strong> first of all to the Jews of the Ottoman empire, then to the<br />
Jews of Italy <strong>and</strong> of the Sephardi communities <strong>in</strong> the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> Engl<strong>and</strong>.<br />
His argument does not rest on a l<strong>in</strong>guistic tradition <strong>and</strong> an idealized image of the past<br />
but on the logical consistency <strong>and</strong> aesthetic superiority of a pronunciation that can be<br />
heard <strong>in</strong> the present. 41<br />
I would like to conclude with one of the most brilliant images of <strong>Sepharad</strong> to be<br />
found <strong>in</strong> maskilic literature. In 1807, Judah Leib ben Ze’ev published his Hebrew-<br />
40 Wessely, Rav †uv, fol. 28b–29a.<br />
41 Idem, Divrei shalom ve-emet, part 4: ReÌovot (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1785), fol. 59b–60a.<br />
Andrea Schatz<br />
275
German/German-Hebrew dictionary OÒar ha-shorashim. In his <strong>in</strong>troduction he presents<br />
an outl<strong>in</strong>e of the history of Hebrew which <strong>in</strong> many respects echoes Neumark’s<br />
<strong>and</strong> Hanau’s <strong>in</strong>troductions.<br />
Ben Ze’ev describes the Sephardi grammarians as part of the great epoch that had<br />
begun with the Masoretes of Tiberias <strong>and</strong> Babylon. He repeats Hanau’s observation<br />
that these ancient teachers did not write books <strong>in</strong> which they h<strong>and</strong>ed down their<br />
knowledge of Hebrew systematically <strong>and</strong> comprehensively. Thus the Sephardi tradition<br />
marks a second departure with<strong>in</strong> the great epoch of l<strong>in</strong>guistic studies <strong>in</strong> exile.<br />
The beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of Sephardi grammatical studies is described as a moment of cultural<br />
exchange: the Jews learned about the science of grammar from the Arabs. 42 The <strong>in</strong>troduction<br />
of grammatical studies as an Arabic science, as a form of knowledge that<br />
is not an <strong>in</strong>herent part of the Jewish tradition, <strong>in</strong>dicates that Ben Ze’ev, unlike Hanau,<br />
does not <strong>in</strong>tend to rely on narrative strategies that stress the place of grammar with<strong>in</strong><br />
the Jewish tradition. Instead he appears to be more <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> a history of cultural<br />
contact <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> grammatical studies as an <strong>in</strong>stance of fruitful cultural <strong>in</strong>teraction. Accord<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to Ben Ze’ev’s narrative, although the diaspora brought about a decl<strong>in</strong>e of<br />
l<strong>in</strong>guistic knowledge, it also provided the means for its recovery.<br />
Like Neumark <strong>in</strong> his Shoresh Yehudah, Ben Ze’ev presents a short bibliography of<br />
Sephardi grammatical works, to which he adds the names of Dunash ben Labrat <strong>and</strong><br />
MenaÌem ben Saruq. Yet although Ben Ze’ev wrote more than a century after<br />
Neumark, he, too, had to admit that he had not seen most of the Sephardi works he<br />
mentions. He is slightly more specific than Neumark was about the reasons for this,<br />
expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g that their works have not been transmitted <strong>and</strong> are not available to him<br />
<strong>and</strong> his contemporaries because they were written <strong>in</strong> Arabic. The authors he names as<br />
authorities on whom he relied are the same as those <strong>in</strong> Neumark’s <strong>in</strong>troduction:<br />
Abraham Ibn Ezra, Moses <strong>and</strong> David KimÌi. Neumark <strong>and</strong> Hanau had already <strong>in</strong>sisted<br />
on a critical read<strong>in</strong>g of these authors, but had stressed that they could add to<br />
these earlier works only because their authors did not always represent the Hebrew<br />
grammatical tradition accurately. Ben Ze’ev sums up his sympathetic but critical attitude<br />
towards the Sephardi tradition of l<strong>in</strong>guistic knowledge with less circumspection<br />
– <strong>in</strong> fact he is rather brief: ¨alehem yesh le-hosif aval en ligroa¨ (‘we may add to<br />
them, but noth<strong>in</strong>g is to be taken away’).<br />
Toward the end of his outl<strong>in</strong>e of the Sephardi l<strong>in</strong>guistic tradition, Ben Ze’ev also<br />
mentions its poetic heritage. He names Judah Halevi, al-Îarizi, Ibn Gabirol, Ibn<br />
Ezra, <strong>and</strong> Maimonides, assert<strong>in</strong>g that these poets, together with the grammarians, not<br />
only saved the Hebrew language from oblivion, but also brought about a ‘rebirth’ of<br />
the Hebrew language: hayah [sic!] ledah sheniyyah la-lashon. 43<br />
This brilliant image of the Sephardi world contrasts sharply with the gloomy picture<br />
Ben Ze’ev draws of the centuries after the expulsion from Spa<strong>in</strong>. He criticizes<br />
the rise of the method of pilpul <strong>and</strong> its effect on the study of the Torah, the Hebrew<br />
language, <strong>and</strong> the sciences. He explicitly speaks of the ‘three dark centuries’ <strong>and</strong><br />
when he eventually mentions a number of grammarians who contributed nonetheless<br />
42 Judah Leib ben Ze’ev, OÒar ha-shorashim (Vienna, 1807), ‘Proposal’ (unpag<strong>in</strong>ated).<br />
43 Ibid.<br />
276 Return<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>Sepharad</strong>: Maskilic Reflections on Hebrew <strong>in</strong> the Diaspora
to the knowledge of Hebrew there are only two Jewish authors among them – Elijah<br />
Levita <strong>and</strong> Solomon Zalman Hanau. The others are the Christian Hebraists, Orientalists,<br />
<strong>and</strong> theologians Johann Buxtorf (the elder), Michaelis, Hetzel, Herder, <strong>and</strong><br />
Eichhorn.<br />
Ben Ze’ev does not praise medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong> as part of a series of reiterations or<br />
as a model for emulation. <strong>Sepharad</strong> does not appear as an example of a historical<br />
constellation that may return <strong>and</strong> give rise to a flourish<strong>in</strong>g culture <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> as<br />
well. Instead, he strongly emphasizes the uniqueness of <strong>Sepharad</strong>. His description of<br />
the Sephardi tradition seems to express not optimism, but a new k<strong>in</strong>d of pessimism.<br />
As to the reasons, an explanation is soon suggested by Ben Ze’ev himself. In the<br />
paragraphs that he dedicates to his own times, he praises Mendelssohn, Wessely, <strong>and</strong><br />
the authors of the Meˆassef for their attempts to renew the Hebrew language, but<br />
stresses that their efforts have been <strong>in</strong> va<strong>in</strong>. The very conditions that Wessely described<br />
as favour<strong>in</strong>g l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>and</strong> cultural regeneration had the effect of prevent<strong>in</strong>g<br />
it. Tolerance, commerce, affluence, <strong>and</strong> open-m<strong>in</strong>dedness did not lead to cultural <strong>in</strong>teraction<br />
<strong>and</strong> self-assertion but to acculturation <strong>and</strong> secularization. Jewish culture <strong>and</strong><br />
the Hebrew language are be<strong>in</strong>g rejected <strong>and</strong> relegated to the religious or the ‘rabb<strong>in</strong>ical’<br />
sphere. 44 As the focus of hopes <strong>and</strong> expectations that did not materialize, as a<br />
place of promise to which one cannot return, <strong>Sepharad</strong> becomes part of a distant past<br />
<strong>and</strong> assumes the brilliant traits of an object that is irretrievably lost.<br />
The textual material from medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong>, the example of contemporary<br />
Sephardi communities <strong>in</strong> the West <strong>and</strong> the East, <strong>and</strong> the cultural transformations <strong>in</strong><br />
western <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>in</strong> the late eighteenth <strong>and</strong> early n<strong>in</strong>eteenth centuries left their<br />
traces on the various ways <strong>in</strong> which the maskilim depicted <strong>Sepharad</strong> when deal<strong>in</strong>g<br />
with questions of language. Texts <strong>and</strong> travels, a diasporic traffic of rumours <strong>and</strong> reports,<br />
<strong>and</strong> critical reflections on both past <strong>and</strong> present led to the <strong>in</strong>clusion of numerous<br />
concrete details <strong>in</strong> their evocations of <strong>Sepharad</strong>. With regard to questions of language,<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> hardly ever appeared as an isolated <strong>and</strong> idealized historical <strong>in</strong>stance.<br />
In most cases it was evoked as part of a configuration of traditions that reflected, restructured,<br />
<strong>and</strong> re-affirmed one another. Ultimately, medieval <strong>Sepharad</strong> was cited as<br />
part of a series of recurrences or reiterations with<strong>in</strong> history that expla<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>and</strong> re-enforced<br />
its significance for the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i world of the eighteenth century.<br />
Ben Ze’ev shared the concern for historical detail, dist<strong>in</strong>ctive traditions <strong>and</strong> specific<br />
situations that we found <strong>in</strong> the writ<strong>in</strong>gs of the earlier maskilim, but it led him to<br />
perceive the limits of their approach. He was acutely aware of the radical transformations<br />
<strong>and</strong> disjunctures that characterized his own times. History could no longer be<br />
read as a text, as a flexible structure of layered <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>terwoven traditions, <strong>in</strong>deed as a<br />
form of commentary. Ben Ze’ev <strong>in</strong>sisted on the difference between medieval<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>and</strong> contemporary <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> po<strong>in</strong>ted to the dis<strong>in</strong>tegration of the series<br />
of historical recurrences that had provided ‘<strong>Sepharad</strong>’ with its various <strong>and</strong> complex<br />
mean<strong>in</strong>gs. The world of <strong>Sepharad</strong> receded <strong>in</strong>to the distant past—a precondition for<br />
the emergence of both historical analysis <strong>and</strong> the imag<strong>in</strong>ative ‘Sephardi Mystique'.<br />
44 Ibid.<br />
Andrea Schatz<br />
277
278 Return<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>Sepharad</strong>: Maskilic Reflections on Hebrew <strong>in</strong> the Diaspora
Irene Zwiep<br />
Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered:<br />
The Dutch Eighteenth Century<br />
Introduction<br />
In modern historiography, the study of the Jewish Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s<br />
takes up a s<strong>in</strong>gular, if somewhat marg<strong>in</strong>al, position. There is of course Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, the<br />
Dutch Jewish th<strong>in</strong>ker who transcended ‘national’ (Dutch <strong>and</strong> Jewish) boundaries by<br />
develop<strong>in</strong>g a universal philosophy of ‘European proportions’ 1 <strong>and</strong> accord<strong>in</strong>gly received<br />
due scholarly attention. By contrast, when it came to explor<strong>in</strong>g the Jewish<br />
Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> its more narrow, particular, def<strong>in</strong>ition, <strong>in</strong>ternational scholarship<br />
usually disregarded the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>in</strong> favour of other, more promis<strong>in</strong>g, areas on the<br />
European map. Dutch Jewish historians, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, devoted much effort to<br />
reconstruct<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpret<strong>in</strong>g the ‘Dutch-Jewish Enlightenment’, which they – often<br />
tacitly – identified with the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>gs of Jewish modernity <strong>in</strong> the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s. 2<br />
Without exception they described this enlightened modernity first <strong>and</strong> for all <strong>in</strong><br />
socio-political terms. 3 As their po<strong>in</strong>t of departure they chose the Emancipation Decree<br />
of 1796, which had granted equal rights <strong>and</strong> citizenship to the Jews of what was<br />
then the Batavian Republic. Virtually all research focussed upon the decades that followed<br />
this watershed <strong>and</strong> concentrated upon describ<strong>in</strong>g the various ways <strong>in</strong> which<br />
the ‘Dutch Israelites’ had responded to this fundamental challenge. The successes<br />
<strong>and</strong> failures of this response were measured, aga<strong>in</strong>, <strong>in</strong> socio-political terms, with<br />
much emphasis on processes of emancipation <strong>and</strong> acceptation, <strong>in</strong>tegration <strong>and</strong> exclusion,<br />
<strong>and</strong> on the dilemmas of acculturation <strong>and</strong> assimilation.<br />
1 Cf. Jonathan Israel, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy <strong>and</strong> the Mak<strong>in</strong>g of Modernity 1650-1750<br />
(Oxford, 2001), where Sp<strong>in</strong>oza <strong>and</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>ozism are systematically identified as the ‘<strong>in</strong>tellectual backbone<br />
of European radical Enlightenment everywhere’ (p. 2).<br />
2 An explicit example is Jaap Meijer’s doctoral thesis Isaac da Costa’s weg naar het Christendom:<br />
Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der joodsche problematiek <strong>in</strong> Nederl<strong>and</strong> (Amsterdam, 1941), who began<br />
his survey at the po<strong>in</strong>t ‘[w]hen <strong>in</strong> Europe the Enlightenment ga<strong>in</strong>ed way <strong>and</strong> affected medieval Jewry at<br />
its core…’ (‘Toen <strong>in</strong> Europa de Verlicht<strong>in</strong>g baanbrak en het Middeleeuwsche Jodendom <strong>in</strong> de kern<br />
aantastte…’ (p. 12).<br />
3 Cf. the extensive bibliography appended to the chapter ‘Enlightenment <strong>and</strong> Emancipation, from<br />
c. 1750 to 1814’ by Rena Fuks-Mansfeld, <strong>in</strong> The History of the Jews <strong>in</strong> the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s, ed. Hans Blom<br />
et al. (Oxford <strong>and</strong> Portl<strong>and</strong>, 2002), pp. 164-91. By us<strong>in</strong>g the terms ‘Enlightenment’ <strong>and</strong> ‘emancipation’<br />
as virtual equivalents, twentieth-century historiography obviously cont<strong>in</strong>ued a trend that had been set <strong>in</strong><br />
the early days of Dutch Wissenschaft des Judentums, witness the previous comprehensive bibliography<br />
compiled by Jacob da Silva Rosa, Bibliographie der Literatur über die Emanzipation der Juden <strong>in</strong><br />
Holl<strong>and</strong> (Frankfurt a.M., 1912).<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
Irene Royal Zwiep Netherl<strong>and</strong>s Academy of Arts <strong>and</strong> Sciences, 2007<br />
279
This approach, <strong>in</strong> which Enlightenment <strong>and</strong> emancipation became virtually synonymous,<br />
had at least three far-reach<strong>in</strong>g consequences for our conception of Jewish<br />
Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s. First of all, <strong>in</strong> perpetuat<strong>in</strong>g the topical model of a<br />
Jewish m<strong>in</strong>ority respond<strong>in</strong>g to external (political) stimuli, 4 these studies did not so<br />
much draw the contours of a Dutch Jewish Enlightenment proper, as sketch the impact<br />
of more general (late) Enlightenment trends <strong>and</strong> policies upon the Dutch Jewish<br />
communities. Pre-war scholars tended to portray this <strong>in</strong>teraction <strong>in</strong> unreservedly<br />
positive terms, blend<strong>in</strong>g legendary Dutch tolerance <strong>and</strong> exemplary Jewish <strong>in</strong>tegration<br />
<strong>in</strong>to one unique historical condition. In order to stress the unicity of this condition,<br />
they had denied all ‘Mendelssohnian <strong>in</strong>fluence’, as they epitomized the German-Jewish<br />
Enlightenment. 5 Echoes from French classicist culture, <strong>in</strong>deed a prom<strong>in</strong>ent factor<br />
<strong>in</strong> eighteenth-century Dutch culture, was all they wished to detect, the position of the<br />
Jews <strong>in</strong> the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s hav<strong>in</strong>g been so secure that there had been no need for the<br />
‘extreme’ ideas of the Berl<strong>in</strong> Haskalah. Post-war scholars, while to some extent rel<strong>in</strong>quish<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the idea of the unicity of the species holl<strong>and</strong>ica judaica, 6 nevertheless cont<strong>in</strong>ued<br />
to base their studies on the traditional action-reaction model; grappl<strong>in</strong>g with<br />
the trauma’s of recent history, some now chose to highlight its negative potential. 7 It<br />
may be clear that, whether by stress<strong>in</strong>g the uniquely Dutch quality of this enlightened<br />
emancipation or by cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g to presuppose its essentially reactive nature, modern<br />
scholarship failed to grasp its creative Jewish content.<br />
Secondly we f<strong>in</strong>d that, for all the prom<strong>in</strong>ence given to emancipation <strong>and</strong> its social<br />
consequences, scholars devoted comparatively little attention to the <strong>in</strong>tellectual <strong>and</strong><br />
literary dimensions of Jewish Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s. This literary dimension<br />
– all too easily labelled the ‘Dutch Haskalah’ – was generally presented as a<br />
vehicle for, or a cultural afterthought to political activism. 8 When discuss<strong>in</strong>g this<br />
branch of Haskalah, scholars would ma<strong>in</strong>ly po<strong>in</strong>t at its political agenda, or at obvious<br />
parallels with its Berl<strong>in</strong> counterpart, which was now identified as its <strong>in</strong>tellectual<br />
4 For the n<strong>in</strong>eteenth-century, Hegelian, roots of this model, cf. Robert Bonfil, ‘The Historian’s Perception<br />
of the Jews <strong>in</strong> the Italian Renaissance. Towards a Reappraisal’, Revue des études juives 143 (1984):<br />
59-82.<br />
5 Sigmund Seeligmann, ‘Moses Mendelssohns <strong>in</strong>vloed op de Nederl<strong>and</strong>se Joden’, Bijdragen en<br />
mededel<strong>in</strong>gen van het genootschap voor Joodsche wetenschap <strong>in</strong> Nederl<strong>and</strong> 2 (1925): 70-2; Jacob da<br />
Silva Rosa, ‘Heeft Moses Mendelssohn <strong>in</strong>vloed gehad op de Nederl<strong>and</strong>se Joden?’, De Vrijdagavond 6<br />
(1930): 346-7.<br />
6 Cf. Jozeph Michman, ‘Hashpa¨at yahadut Germanyah ¨al yahadut Holl<strong>and</strong> ba-meˆah ha-tesha¨ ¨esreh’,<br />
<strong>in</strong> idem, ed., Studies on the History of Dutch Jewry 4 (Jersualem, 1984): 27-43. NB: the by now legendary<br />
label species holl<strong>and</strong>ica judaica was co<strong>in</strong>ed by Sigmund Seeligmann <strong>in</strong> his ‘Die Juden <strong>in</strong> Holl<strong>and</strong>.<br />
E<strong>in</strong>e Charakteristik’, <strong>in</strong> Festskript i Anledn<strong>in</strong>g af Professor David Simonsens 70-aarige Fødselsdag<br />
(Copenhagen, 1923), pp. 253-7.<br />
7 This pessimism governs the oeuvre of Jaap Meijer <strong>and</strong>, to a lesser extent, of Jozeph Michmann, cf.<br />
e.g. his ‘Gothische Torens op een Cor<strong>in</strong>thisch Gebouw. De doorvoer<strong>in</strong>g der emancipatie der Joden <strong>in</strong><br />
Nederl<strong>and</strong>’, Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis 89 (1976): 493-516, <strong>and</strong> the ensu<strong>in</strong>g debate with Anton<br />
Huussen jr. <strong>in</strong> Bijdragen en mededel<strong>in</strong>gen betreffende de geschiedenis der Nederl<strong>and</strong>en 94 (1979): 75-<br />
83, 96 (1981): 74-82.<br />
8 See, e.g., the <strong>in</strong>ventory of literary <strong>and</strong> educational activities <strong>in</strong> the chapter ‘Haskalah – but Orthodox’,<br />
<strong>in</strong> Jozeph Michman, The History of Dutch Jewry Dur<strong>in</strong>g the Emancipation Period 1787-1815. Gothic<br />
Turrets on a Cor<strong>in</strong>thian Build<strong>in</strong>g (Amsterdam, 1995) pp. 158-83, <strong>and</strong> the essay ‘Hebrew <strong>and</strong> the Emancipation<br />
of Dutch Jewry’, Studia Rosenthaliana 30 (1996): 88-98, by Michman’s student Patricia<br />
Tu<strong>in</strong>hout-Keun<strong>in</strong>g (on the Amsterdam literary society Tongeleth).<br />
280 Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered: The Dutch Eighteenth Century
source of <strong>in</strong>spiration. 9 No attempts were made at def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the movement’s particular<br />
Dutch essence, an omission which certa<strong>in</strong>ly contributed to its unfavourable reception<br />
among modern scholars. Salo Baron, for example, was quick to dismiss the Dutch<br />
maskilim as petty middle-class amateurs, ‘men of mediocre talent (…) [whose] superior<br />
contemporaries either cont<strong>in</strong>ued to adhere to old-time orthodoxy, or else found<br />
their way <strong>in</strong>to the camp of extreme assimilationism’. 10 Haskalah as an <strong>in</strong>tellectual<br />
middle of the road option – even if Baron’s verdict is a fairly adequate recapitulation<br />
of the overall quality of Dutch maskilic activity, it certa<strong>in</strong>ly adds little to our underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
of the quiddity of Jewish Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s.<br />
Thirdly, what with the emphasis on Enlightenment as emancipation, comb<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
with the grow<strong>in</strong>g tendency to view the Dutch Haskalah as both a mirror <strong>and</strong> a consequence<br />
of its Berl<strong>in</strong> counterpart, the search for the immediate local antecedents of the<br />
‘Dutch Haskalah’ was never undertaken. While enlightened emancipation of course<br />
could only be studied from 1796 onwards, the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>gs of the literary Haskalah<br />
were located either with Naphtali Hirsch Wessely’s (1725-1805) sojourn <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam<br />
<strong>in</strong> the 1760s 11 or with the publication of the Dutch translation of his Divrei shalom<br />
we-emet (1782), which was somewhat rashly identified as a Jewish <strong>in</strong>itiative. 12<br />
The presence of Wessely <strong>and</strong> his work, however, were exam<strong>in</strong>ed with<strong>in</strong> a total historical<br />
vacuum, i.e., without any reference to contemporary Dutch-Jewish <strong>in</strong>tellectual<br />
life, neither <strong>in</strong> terms of impact nor of reciprocity. With Haskalah thus be<strong>in</strong>g viewed<br />
as a German import product, there seemed no need to scrut<strong>in</strong>ize eighteenth-century<br />
Dutch-Jewish culture for any changes <strong>in</strong> mentality that might have heralded the com<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of this enlightened movement.<br />
This third observation br<strong>in</strong>gs us to a f<strong>in</strong>al, more circumstantial, consideration. In<br />
the past decades <strong>in</strong>ternational scholarship has made great progress <strong>in</strong> sketch<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
outl<strong>in</strong>es of the Jewish Enlightenment (or rather, of its various manifestations) <strong>in</strong> Europe,<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g its place among other ‘national’ varieties. By explicitly recogniz<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Enlightenment as only one option <strong>in</strong> a whole range of modernization strategies,<br />
it has challenged the simple equation of Enlightenment <strong>and</strong> modernity, <strong>and</strong> of<br />
Enlightenment <strong>and</strong> emancipation. Furthermore, by draw<strong>in</strong>g subtle dist<strong>in</strong>ctions between<br />
Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> general <strong>and</strong> Haskalah <strong>in</strong> particular, it has sharpened our<br />
awareness of regional differences. And by <strong>in</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g a series of new concepts <strong>and</strong><br />
typologies, it has successfully called <strong>in</strong>to question The Enlightenment’s organized<br />
<strong>and</strong> ideological character. Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er, for example, co<strong>in</strong>ed the term ‘early Haskalah’<br />
for the sake of br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g together a number of scattered <strong>in</strong>dividuals who, as early<br />
as the mid-eighteenth century, attempted to transform the traditional <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i cur-<br />
9 E.g. <strong>in</strong> Frederique Hiegentlich’s ‘Reflections on the Relationship between the Dutch Haskalah <strong>and</strong> the<br />
German Haskalah’, <strong>in</strong> Jozeph Michman <strong>and</strong> Tirtza Levie, eds., Dutch Jewish History I (Jerusalem,<br />
1984): 207-18; cf. also Patricia Tu<strong>in</strong>hout-Keun<strong>in</strong>g, ‘Kitvei ha- Ìevrah ha-Amsterdamit “Tongeleth” veha-haskalah<br />
be-Germanyah’, Studies on the History of Dutch Jewry 5 (1988): 217-71.<br />
10 Salo Baron, ‘Moses Cohen Bel<strong>in</strong>fante: a Leader of Dutch-Jewish Enlightenment’, Historia Judaica 5<br />
(1943): 1-22, esp. p. 1.<br />
11 Cf. Michman’s The History of Dutch Jewry, pp. 162-7 (a section significantly labelled ‘The Reception<br />
of the Haskalah – the Initial Period’ [emphasis m<strong>in</strong>e]).<br />
12 Thus Hiegentlich, who attributes the translation to ‘[Moses Cohen] Bel<strong>in</strong>fante cum suis’ (‘Reflections’,<br />
p. 210) <strong>and</strong> lists it as ‘an early sample of Dutch haskalah’ (ibid., p. 208).<br />
Irene Zwiep<br />
281
iculum without ever becom<strong>in</strong>g a programmatic movement. 13 Lois Dub<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>troduced<br />
the notion of ‘port-Jew culture’ <strong>in</strong> order to capture the cultural climate of the<br />
Sephardim <strong>in</strong> Trieste, who pursued secular studies without articulat<strong>in</strong>g a maskilic<br />
agenda. 14 And Shulamit Volkov added further nuance by po<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g at the possibility of<br />
conscious as well as unconscious processes of change on the road towards modernity.<br />
15<br />
While <strong>in</strong>ternational scholarship was thus engaged <strong>in</strong> ref<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g our underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of<br />
the European Jewish Enlightenment, research <strong>in</strong>to its Dutch branch came to a st<strong>and</strong>still.<br />
16 And so it happened that Dutch-Jewish historiography, which tended to be <strong>in</strong>troverted<br />
anyway, failed to implement the results of this jo<strong>in</strong>t effort. It is the aim of<br />
the present article to do just that, i.e., to resume the topic after this past decade of<br />
silence <strong>and</strong> reconsider its ma<strong>in</strong> parameters <strong>in</strong> the light of the new state of research.<br />
Consequently, throughout this revision, centre stage will be given to the decades preced<strong>in</strong>g<br />
1796, to <strong>in</strong>tellectual rather than political processes, <strong>and</strong> to Dutch Jewry’s own<br />
‘potential for Enlightenment’ rather than to its ability to respond to foreign <strong>in</strong>centives.<br />
By thus recover<strong>in</strong>g an <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sically Dutch tradition of eighteenth-century Jewish<br />
literacy <strong>and</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g, I hope not only to modify the traditional conception of what<br />
has previously been labelled ‘the Dutch Haskalah’, but also to supplement our overall<br />
evaluation of Jewish Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> Europe, <strong>and</strong> thus offer food for further reflection<br />
<strong>and</strong> ref<strong>in</strong>ement. For if ‘<strong>in</strong> the f<strong>in</strong>al analysis, Enlightenment as such was all about<br />
ideas’, 17 the present exploration is all about practices; practices that do not so much<br />
betray radical changes <strong>in</strong> concepts <strong>and</strong> beliefs, but rather reflect – often m<strong>in</strong>ute –<br />
stirr<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> shifts <strong>in</strong> mentality. In our f<strong>in</strong>al analysis, therefore, the term ‘Enlightenment’<br />
may eventually prove well out of place.<br />
The eighteenth-century Dutch-Jewish Republic of Letters – <strong>Sepharad</strong> meets<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong><br />
In the follow<strong>in</strong>g I shall discuss a number of trends which suggest that an elementary<br />
form of Dutch-Jewish ‘enlightened discourse’ did emerge <strong>in</strong> the course of the eighteenth<br />
century. If we wish to summarize its overall orientation, we could say that at its<br />
13 Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er, ‘Ha-haskalah ha-muqdemet be-yahadut ha-meˆah ha-shemoneh ¨esreh’, Tarbiz 62<br />
(1998): 189-240; idem, The Jewish Enlightenment (Philadelphia, 2004), pp. 21-84.<br />
14 Lois Dub<strong>in</strong>, The Port Jews of Habsburg Trieste: Absolutist Politics <strong>and</strong> Enlightenment Culture<br />
(Stanford, 1999), elaborated upon by David Sork<strong>in</strong>, ‘The Port Jew: Notes Toward a Social Type’, Journal<br />
of Jewish Studies 50.1 (1999): 87-97. In numerous publications, Yosef Kaplan has analyzed the<br />
complex ‘modern’ identity of the ‘port Jews’ of Amsterdam; cf., e.g., his methodological considerations<br />
<strong>in</strong> idem, An Alternative Path to Modernity: The Sephardi Diaspora <strong>in</strong> Western Europe (Leiden etc.,<br />
2000), pp. 1-28.<br />
15 Shulamit Volkov, ‘The Jewish Project of Modernity, Diverse <strong>and</strong> Unitary’, <strong>in</strong> Zionism <strong>and</strong> the Return<br />
to History: A Reappraisal (Hebrew), ed. Samuel Eisenstadt <strong>and</strong> Moshe Lissak (Jerusalem, 1999),<br />
pp. 239-305.<br />
16 The most recent monograph, Michman’s The History of Dutch Jewry of 1995, is essentially a recapitulation<br />
of research that dates back to the 1970s <strong>and</strong> 80s.<br />
17 Thus Wiep van Bunge, ‘Introduction. The Early Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> the Dutch Republic, 1650-1750’,<br />
<strong>in</strong> The Early Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> the Dutch Republic 1650-1750, ed. Wiep van Bunge (Leiden <strong>and</strong> Boston,<br />
2003), p. 6, summariz<strong>in</strong>g the approach of <strong>in</strong>fluential Enlightenment scholars such as Pococke, Porter<br />
<strong>and</strong> Israel (emphasis m<strong>in</strong>e).<br />
282 Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered: The Dutch Eighteenth Century
very heart lay the wish to exp<strong>and</strong> the Jewish library, without – it must be stressed here<br />
– ever jeopardiz<strong>in</strong>g the traditional canon. The fact that <strong>in</strong> the Dutch-Jewish Republic<br />
of Letters this expansion was achieved so harmoniously, seems to contrast rather<br />
sharply with the ‘rebellious’ nature of the eighteenth-century haskalah muqdemet as<br />
observed <strong>and</strong> def<strong>in</strong>ed by Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er. In his reconstruction of the early maskilim’s<br />
(re)discovery <strong>and</strong> subsequent ‘redemption’ of the sciences <strong>and</strong> philosophy, Fe<strong>in</strong>er has<br />
often emphasized the revolutionary <strong>and</strong> subversive nature of this <strong>in</strong>tellectual leap forward.<br />
18 Cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g the polemical ‘rhetoric of reason’ of the mid-eighteenth-century<br />
maskilim, he characterized the outcome of their redemptive efforts as an ‘alternative<br />
library’ which, besides transform<strong>in</strong>g Jewish scholarship, also amounted to a cultural<br />
critique (Fe<strong>in</strong>er repeatedly uses the term Kulturkampf) of traditional <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i learn<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
By contrast, we shall see that the Dutch-Jewish canon that emerged <strong>in</strong> the course<br />
of the eighteenth century was by no means <strong>in</strong>tended to serve as a subversive counterlibrary.<br />
If anyth<strong>in</strong>g, it was meant to complement the traditional heritage.<br />
An exemplary case <strong>in</strong> po<strong>in</strong>t was the formation of a new Hebrew canon <strong>and</strong>, with<br />
it, of a new national l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>and</strong> literary identity, by a small circle of Amsterdam<br />
Sephardi men of letters over the last decades of the eighteenth century. A large part<br />
of this contribution will be devoted to describ<strong>in</strong>g that major project, which encompassed<br />
virtually all elements I consider characteristic for the m<strong>in</strong>or ‘stirr<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong><br />
shifts <strong>in</strong> mentality’ mentioned above. In the follow<strong>in</strong>g I shall present the ma<strong>in</strong><br />
sources, analyze their pr<strong>in</strong>cipal strategies, <strong>and</strong> spell out some of their implications for<br />
our perception of (late) eighteenth-century Jewish cultural identity <strong>in</strong> the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s.<br />
By way of conclusion, I shall try <strong>and</strong> trace those strategies <strong>in</strong> a few other<br />
eighteenth-century corpora, thus add<strong>in</strong>g a little substance to my first, prelim<strong>in</strong>ary<br />
conclusions.<br />
Yet before we embark upon this exploration, I wish to highlight, aforeh<strong>and</strong>, one of<br />
these characteristics. In virtually all previous studies on the history of Dutch Jewry,<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> appear as two separate entities <strong>and</strong> as two <strong>in</strong>compatible cultural<br />
spheres. 19 Of course this first of all reflects an actual historical reality: from the<br />
start, the members of the Portuguese Naçao showed a persistent ‘tendency to selfsegregation<br />
<strong>and</strong> separation from the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Jews liv<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> their midst’. 20 The respective<br />
cultures thus appeared to have evolved quite <strong>in</strong>dependently. Unfortunately,<br />
cultural historians tended to cont<strong>in</strong>ue this separatist attitude on a methodological<br />
level. Giv<strong>in</strong>g priority to the Dutch Sephardi past, especially to the seventeenth-century<br />
‘Golden Age’, they altogether dismissed the contemporary Dutch-<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i<br />
18 Fe<strong>in</strong>er, ‘Ha-Haskalah ha-muqdemet’; idem, ‘Toward a Historical Def<strong>in</strong>ition of the Haskalah’, <strong>in</strong> New<br />
Perspectives on the Haskalah, ed. Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er <strong>and</strong> David Sork<strong>in</strong> (London etc., 2001), esp. pp. 184-7;<br />
idem, The Jewish Enlightenment, esp. p. 67; comp. also Fe<strong>in</strong>er’s contribution to the present volume.<br />
19 As an exception I should mention Shlomo Berger’s contribution to the present volume, <strong>and</strong> his previous<br />
‘<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im Read Sephardim <strong>in</strong> Seventeenth- <strong>and</strong> Eighteenth-Century Amsterdam’, <strong>in</strong> Irene E.<br />
Zwiep, et al., eds., Uprooted Roots: Amsterdam <strong>and</strong> the Early Sephardic Diaspora. Studia Rosenthaliana<br />
35.2 (2001): 253-65.<br />
20 Yosef Kaplan, ‘The Self-Def<strong>in</strong>ition of the Sephardi Jews of Western Europe <strong>and</strong> Their Relation to<br />
the Alien <strong>and</strong> the Stranger’, <strong>in</strong> Crisis <strong>and</strong> Creativity <strong>in</strong> the Sephardi World, 1391-1648, ed. Benjam<strong>in</strong><br />
Gampel (New York <strong>and</strong> Chichester, 1997), p. 130, <strong>and</strong> the previous articles by the same author mentioned<br />
ibid., n. 2, 28, 48, 49.<br />
Irene Zwiep<br />
283
culture as <strong>in</strong>troverted <strong>and</strong> marg<strong>in</strong>al. 21 By contrast, the follow<strong>in</strong>g survey will draw attention<br />
to a few (modest) parallels between Sephardi <strong>and</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i <strong>in</strong>tellectual life<br />
<strong>in</strong> the later decades of the eighteenth century, <strong>and</strong> highlight the – aga<strong>in</strong> modest, yet<br />
productive – dynamic that would occasionally develop between the two cultural<br />
spaces.<br />
The new Hebrew canon of the Amsterdam Sephardim<br />
If language can be considered an important key to underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g culture, then multil<strong>in</strong>gualism<br />
must be a central key to underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g Jewish culture, which has always<br />
been marked by an <strong>in</strong>tense (daily as well as literary) polyglossia. The follow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
analysis of the Hebrew literary canon that was forged, with<strong>in</strong> a few decades, by the<br />
Portuguese Jews of late-eighteenth-century Amsterdam, to a large extent relies on<br />
this presupposition. In the course of the century, the l<strong>in</strong>guistic l<strong>and</strong>scape of the Amsterdam<br />
Sephardim had undergone <strong>in</strong>cisive changes. Whereas the orig<strong>in</strong>al Portuguese<br />
was ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed as the community’s official language, Spanish had lost its prime position<br />
as a literary language. And while <strong>in</strong> elitist circles French became <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly<br />
important, 22 the semi-elite of smaller merchants <strong>and</strong> professionals came to prefer<br />
Hebrew as their pr<strong>in</strong>cipal Kultursprache.<br />
It was this choice that caused a significant change <strong>in</strong> the language’s status <strong>and</strong> role<br />
<strong>and</strong>, eventually, <strong>in</strong> Jewish literary identity as such. In seventeenth-century Amsterdam,<br />
dur<strong>in</strong>g the earliest decades of the community’s existence, writ<strong>in</strong>g the ‘holy<br />
tongue’ had been the prov<strong>in</strong>ce of rabbis <strong>and</strong> communal leaders, who had created a<br />
modest corpus of Hebrew poetry alongside a much more rich <strong>and</strong> varied literature <strong>in</strong><br />
Spanish. 23 This new poetic corpus, a characteristic mix of genres <strong>and</strong> traditions, adequately<br />
mirrored the new Jews’ chequered background. Simultaneously <strong>in</strong>debted to<br />
(Christian) Iberian poetics, to the Hebrew poetry of Seicento Italy, <strong>and</strong> to the persistent<br />
prosody of medieval al-Andalus, its seemed to reflect both their ancient history<br />
<strong>and</strong> their recent w<strong>and</strong>er<strong>in</strong>gs. With their return to Judaism <strong>in</strong> the seventeenth century,<br />
the choice of Hebrew as a poetic medium seemed obvious: the complex, religious as<br />
well as secular, <strong>in</strong>tertextuality <strong>in</strong>herent <strong>in</strong> this archetypically Jewish language could<br />
21 Aga<strong>in</strong> the most explicit summary of this conviction was voiced by Meijer, Isaac da Costa’s weg naar<br />
het Christendom, p. 13: ‘Bij de Asjkenaziem kan men tot 1795 moeilijk spreken van een scheppende<br />
historie’ (‘As for the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im, before 1795 one cannot speak of a creative history’).<br />
22 An early example is ms. EH 48 A 19 <strong>in</strong> the Ets Haim/Livraria Montez<strong>in</strong>os (written cq collected by<br />
Isaac de P<strong>in</strong>to), which conta<strong>in</strong>s, among other items, various compositions <strong>in</strong> French. The two philosophical<br />
discourses <strong>in</strong> the volume (dat<strong>in</strong>g from 1742 <strong>and</strong> c. 1750) reflect the <strong>in</strong>terests of the general<br />
Dutch Enlightenment (Newtonianism, physico-theology, an overall moral dimension), but have little aff<strong>in</strong>ity<br />
with the contemporary Dutch-Sephardi thought <strong>and</strong> literature that will be discussed here. The<br />
manuscript is described <strong>in</strong> Leo Fuks <strong>and</strong> Rena Fuks-Mansfeld, Hebrew <strong>and</strong> Judaic manuscripts <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam<br />
public collections II (Leiden, 1975), pp. 247-8, <strong>and</strong> briefly discussed <strong>in</strong> Ida Nijenhuis, Een<br />
joodse philosophe: Isaac de P<strong>in</strong>to (1717-1782) (Amsterdam, 1992), pp. 8-11. Nijenhuis’s summary is<br />
elaborated upon by Adam Sutcliffe, ‘Can a Jew be a Philosophe? Isaac de P<strong>in</strong>to, Voltaire, <strong>and</strong> Jewish<br />
Participation <strong>in</strong> the European Enlightenement’, Jewish Social Studies n.s. 6.3 (2000): 31-51.<br />
23 For the Spanish literature of the Amsterdam Sephardim, cf. Harm den Boer, La literatura sephardí de<br />
Amsterdam (Alcalá de Hennares, 1995).<br />
284 Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered: The Dutch Eighteenth Century
e trusted to strengthen the former conversos’ new identity. 24 By contrast, eighteenth-century<br />
Sephardi identity no longer required this l<strong>in</strong>guistic confirmation. Why<br />
then did the new generation of poets, no longer religious foremen but now belong<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to a well-to-do, secular, elite, turn to Hebrew?<br />
Literary attitude<br />
In order to expla<strong>in</strong> this shift <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistic priority, various explanations have been<br />
proposed, rang<strong>in</strong>g from the decrease, already <strong>in</strong> the early eighteenth century, of<br />
Spanish literacy (a decrease that seemed <strong>in</strong>tensified by the excellent Hebrew tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong> the Sephardi schools) 25 to the belief that Hebrew acted as an ‘orthodox’ or nostalgic<br />
counter-balance aga<strong>in</strong>st advanc<strong>in</strong>g modernity. 26 One easily discerns, however,<br />
that <strong>in</strong> present<strong>in</strong>g the choice of Hebrew as a negative one, such explanations ignore<br />
the complex constitutive role the language was to play <strong>in</strong> the eighteenth century. For<br />
while on the one h<strong>and</strong> Hebrew came to serve as a cohesive force with<strong>in</strong> Portuguese-<br />
Jewish communal life, it simultaneously enabled the members of that community to<br />
venture beyond its boundaries <strong>and</strong> participate <strong>in</strong> a culture that extended way beyond<br />
their local network. In the follow<strong>in</strong>g paragraphs I shall try <strong>and</strong> substantiate this impression<br />
by briefly discuss<strong>in</strong>g the contents, techniques, <strong>and</strong> aspirations of one – hitherto<br />
largely neglected – corpus: the Hebrew anthologies that were compiled by the<br />
Amsterdam Sephardim dur<strong>in</strong>g the second half of the eighteenth century, <strong>and</strong> are now<br />
kept <strong>in</strong> the Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana <strong>and</strong> the Ets Haim/Livraria Montez<strong>in</strong>os. 27 To<br />
the literary critic, these anthologies represent an <strong>in</strong>exhaustible source of second-rate,<br />
imitative, baroque texts; for the cultural historian, they are key witnesses to a cultural<br />
identity that was undergo<strong>in</strong>g gradual changes towards modernity.<br />
It takes but a brief glance to see that the Amsterdam Hebrew anthologies abound<br />
<strong>in</strong> two genres <strong>in</strong> particular. First of all they conta<strong>in</strong> an amaz<strong>in</strong>g bulk of occasional<br />
poetry (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g riddles, song texts, <strong>and</strong> libretti), 28 written to enliven <strong>and</strong> com-<br />
24 Albert van der Heide, ‘Dutch Hebrew Poetry of the Seventeenth Century’, Dutch Jewish History 2<br />
(Jerusalem, 1989): 137-52, esp. pp. 140-1; cf. also Yosef Kaplan, ‘The Jews <strong>in</strong> the Republic Until<br />
About 1750: Religious, Cultural, <strong>and</strong> Social Life’, <strong>in</strong> Blom, et al., The History of the Jews, p. 150, who<br />
assumed that seventeenth-century Hebrew poetrty ‘was <strong>in</strong>tended to strengthen centripetal cultural<br />
trends, as opposed to the non-Jewish culture <strong>in</strong>fluences expressed <strong>in</strong> secular poetry written <strong>in</strong> the Iberian<br />
languages’.<br />
25 Rena Fuks-Mansfeld, De Sefardim <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam tot 1795: Aspecten van een Joodse m<strong>in</strong>derheid <strong>in</strong><br />
een Holl<strong>and</strong>se stad (Hilversum, 1989), pp. 139, 143.<br />
26 Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Fuks-Mansfeld (ibid.) ‘[zij] richtten hun literaire activiteiten op het Hebreeuws, dat zij<br />
<strong>in</strong> hun schooltijd zo goed geleerd hadden. Zij konden zich <strong>in</strong> deze Hebreeuwse rederijkerij afzetten<br />
tegen allerlei nieuwe strom<strong>in</strong>gen die hen dreigden te overspoelen…’ (emphasis m<strong>in</strong>e). This evaluation<br />
obviously cont<strong>in</strong>ues the work<strong>in</strong>g hypothesis of Jozeph Melkman, David Franco Mendes: A Hebrew<br />
Poet (Amsterdam <strong>and</strong> Jerusalem, 1951), who presented the eighteenth-century ‘orthodox’ poets as the<br />
last of the pre-moderns.<br />
27 Elementary bibliographic descriptions of these anthologies can be found <strong>in</strong> Leo Fuks <strong>and</strong> Rena Fuks-<br />
Mansfeld, Hebrew <strong>and</strong> Judaic Manuscripts <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam Public Collections I (Leiden, 1973) <strong>and</strong> esp.<br />
II (Leiden, 1975).<br />
28 For the musical dimension of this corpus, which I will not take <strong>in</strong>to consideration here but which<br />
constitutes yet another l<strong>in</strong>k between the corpus <strong>and</strong> general culture, cf. Israel Adler, Musical Life <strong>and</strong><br />
Traditions of the Portuguese-Jewish Community of Amsterdam <strong>in</strong> the Eighteenth Century (Jerusalem,<br />
1974).<br />
Irene Zwiep<br />
285
memorate community events like engagements <strong>and</strong> wedd<strong>in</strong>gs, house-warm<strong>in</strong>g parties,<br />
the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of the liturgical year, or the occasional royal visit to the cherished<br />
Esnoga synagogue. It is <strong>in</strong> these conventional baroque trifles that the cohesive communal<br />
role of Hebrew appears most strongly. Secondly, we f<strong>in</strong>d echoes from European<br />
literature, <strong>in</strong> the form of Hebrew imitations of Spanish, Portuguese, French,<br />
Lat<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> even Dutch texts, <strong>and</strong> of translations of the ‘great European authors’, from<br />
Cicero <strong>and</strong> Horace, via Camoes, to ‘the French poet Voltaire’ (‘ha-meshorer ha-<br />
Òarfati Voltaire’). 29 In these compositions, which show Hebrew’s other, more ‘outgo<strong>in</strong>g’,<br />
potential, form <strong>and</strong> language <strong>in</strong>variably had priority over content <strong>and</strong> message –<br />
witness, for example, the designation of Voltaire as a meshorer rather than a<br />
philosophe. We may therefore conclude that the Amsterdam Sephardim’s Hebrew<br />
foray <strong>in</strong>to European literature was more about l<strong>in</strong>guistic-literary experiment than<br />
about appropriat<strong>in</strong>g (enlightened) ideas.<br />
Yet however formal the experiment, it nevertheless exposed the Sephardi poets to<br />
the foreign content of European culture. However, if they ever experienced any confrontation,<br />
they never articulated it. Instead, they relied on Hebrew’s <strong>in</strong>herent capacity<br />
to neutralize that foreign content <strong>and</strong> tacitly reconcile it with Jewish tastes <strong>and</strong><br />
mores. This reliance on what one might call Hebrew’s ‘judaïz<strong>in</strong>g capacity’ <strong>in</strong>evitably<br />
br<strong>in</strong>gs to m<strong>in</strong>d the work of the seventeenth-century rabb<strong>in</strong>ic poets mentioned above,<br />
who had used Hebrew as a traditional counterweight aga<strong>in</strong>st the secular European<br />
culture with which the New Jews had always been so familiar. There is, however,<br />
one conspicuous difference: where the rabbis had chosen Hebrew <strong>in</strong> order to restore<br />
a particular, religious, balance, their eighteenth-century successors now exploited its<br />
universal, literary, potential. Wholly revers<strong>in</strong>g Hebrew’s traditional role, they now<br />
used the language to go out <strong>and</strong> participate <strong>in</strong> European literary culture as Jews, <strong>and</strong><br />
to add a Jewish branch to its stem.<br />
While the idea of Hebrew as a national literary language was <strong>in</strong> itself noth<strong>in</strong>g new<br />
(it went back to medieval Andalusian poetic discourse), the attitude with which the<br />
Sephardi authors now employed that national language was revolutionary. Summariz<strong>in</strong>g<br />
somewhat abruptly one might say that, from early medieval times until the<br />
eighteenth century, Jewish authors had displayed an uncomfortable ambivalence towards<br />
adopt<strong>in</strong>g non-Jewish poetics. On the one h<strong>and</strong> they acknowledged that the borrow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of foreign elements had always been of vital importance to the development<br />
of Jewish literature; on the other, they rejected the notion of cultural <strong>in</strong>feriority that<br />
lay implied <strong>in</strong> this cont<strong>in</strong>ual act of borrow<strong>in</strong>g. As a consequence, the <strong>in</strong>troduction of<br />
themes <strong>and</strong> genres orig<strong>in</strong>ally belong<strong>in</strong>g to other literary traditions often went supported<br />
by chauv<strong>in</strong>istic argumentation (e.g. when the Jewish use of universal features<br />
was portrayed as a ‘repossession of stolen goods’), or by explicit apology (e.g. when<br />
authors commented on the mixed feel<strong>in</strong>gs they experienced upon see<strong>in</strong>g ‘their rose<br />
planted <strong>in</strong> our garden’). 30 By contrast, the eighteenth-century anthologies suggest an<br />
29 Thus David Franco Mendes <strong>in</strong> Sukkat David, ms. EH 47 A 26, fol. 11r.<br />
30 Cf. Devorah Bregman, ‘Their Rose <strong>in</strong> Our Garden. Romance Elements <strong>in</strong> Hebrew Italian Poetry’, <strong>in</strong><br />
Renew<strong>in</strong>g the Past, Reconfigur<strong>in</strong>g Jewish Culture: From al-Andalus to the Haskalah, ed. Ross Brann<br />
<strong>and</strong> Adam Sutcliffe (Philadelphia, 2004), pp. 50-8, esp. p. 55.<br />
286 Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered: The Dutch Eighteenth Century
unprecedented ease with foreign material. Instead of ambivalence <strong>and</strong> apology, we<br />
even f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong>dulgence <strong>in</strong> the very act of reception <strong>and</strong> appropriation: orig<strong>in</strong>al compositions<br />
are presented together with their Hebrew translations, <strong>and</strong> on a few occasions<br />
alternative versions of one poem are copied side by side for the sake of comparison.<br />
From a literary-aesthetic perspective, the result was of course purely epigonic, but<br />
the effort itself implied a new, confident, conception of Jewish creativity. Rather than<br />
feel<strong>in</strong>g they were admitt<strong>in</strong>g ‘foreign flowers’ <strong>in</strong>to their garden, the Amsterdam<br />
Sephardi literati now ‘went out <strong>in</strong>to their neighbours’ garden’ <strong>in</strong> order to plant ‘a<br />
Hebrew rose’ <strong>in</strong> its midst.<br />
Imitat<strong>in</strong>g classical Hebrew<br />
A second <strong>in</strong>novative feature of the corpus, one that strongly depended upon the<br />
prom<strong>in</strong>ence given to imitation as a creative strategy, concerns not its attitude but its<br />
language. Aga<strong>in</strong> this is best expla<strong>in</strong>ed by compar<strong>in</strong>g the attitude towards Hebrew as<br />
reflected <strong>in</strong> the anthologies with the attitude displayed by previous poets. For this we<br />
have to go back as far as early tenth-century Abbasid Iraq, where Saadia Gaon (882-<br />
942) had written the first grammatical reconstruction of Hebrew ever. 31 What is important<br />
for us here, is the choice of Hebrew upon which Saadia’s morphology was<br />
based. In theory, he could have chosen one out of three varieties, known <strong>in</strong> current<br />
scholarly discourse as ‘biblical’, ‘rabb<strong>in</strong>ic’ <strong>and</strong> ‘paytanic’ Hebrew respectively.<br />
However, rather than limit<strong>in</strong>g himself to a s<strong>in</strong>gle phase or corpus, Saadia chose to<br />
cover the totality of biblical, rabb<strong>in</strong>ic <strong>and</strong> paytanic usage. The result<strong>in</strong>g reconstruction<br />
was a k<strong>in</strong>d of universal ‘deep structure’ of Hebrew, a theoretical construct rather<br />
than an actual language, which Saadia labelled ÒaÌot (‘pure speech’, an obvious<br />
equivalent to the Arabic technical term fisâÌa). 32 Instead of offer<strong>in</strong>g a static, normative,<br />
recapitulation of the language of ‘superior’, Hebrew auctores, Saadia had formulated<br />
a set of general rules <strong>and</strong> pr<strong>in</strong>ciples, which could be elaborated upon with<br />
the help of analogy. It may be clear that this choice, which did not tie the authors to<br />
one limited, canonical, corpus, was essential for the cont<strong>in</strong>uation of Hebrew as a literary<br />
language.<br />
A few decades later, the Jewish grammarians belong<strong>in</strong>g to the <strong>in</strong>tellectual entourage<br />
of the Umayyad court at Cordoba adopted Saadia’s conception of Hebrew as an<br />
abstract matrix, albeit with certa<strong>in</strong> modifications. On the one h<strong>and</strong> they cont<strong>in</strong>ued the<br />
conviction that correct Hebrew should not imitate the language of texts but abide by<br />
grammatical rules; they did not, however, believe that these rules should reflect the<br />
totality of Hebrew m<strong>in</strong>hag or usage. Instead they focussed upon a s<strong>in</strong>gle, historical,<br />
manifestation of the language: that of the Hebrew Bible, which they believed was the<br />
31 The ‘Book on the Purity of the Language of the Hebrews’, edited by Aharon Dothan as The Dawn of<br />
Hebrew L<strong>in</strong>guistics (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1997). See also Geoffrey Khan, ‘The Early Eastern Traditions<br />
of Hebrew Grammar’, <strong>in</strong> Hebrew Scholarship <strong>and</strong> the <strong>Medieval</strong> World, ed. Nicholas de Lange (Cambridge,<br />
2001), pp. 88-90.<br />
32 This expression first appeared <strong>in</strong> the Hebrew preface, completed 902, to the Egron, ed. Nehemya<br />
Allony (Jerusalem, 1969) p. 157 l<strong>in</strong>e 21. It was derived from Is. 32:4: ‘…<strong>and</strong> the tongue of stammerers<br />
will hasten to speak clearly (temaher le-dabber ÒaÌot).’<br />
Irene Zwiep<br />
287
only variety able to compete with ‘classical’ Quranic Arabic. In their op<strong>in</strong>ion literary<br />
Hebrew should imitate biblical Hebrew, or rather, should strive to adhere to the medieval<br />
reconstruction of that historical language. Indeed we f<strong>in</strong>d that the Andalusian<br />
poets never aspired to write ‘real’ biblical Hebrew. While they faithfully stuck to its<br />
morphological reconstruction by the grammarians, they never imitated its verbal syntax,<br />
nor did they ever apply its archaic prosody. To employ authentic Hebrew, they<br />
believed, had been the prerogative of the only native speakers the language had ever<br />
known: the ancient Hebrews who had populated the holy l<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> biblical times. Be<strong>in</strong>g<br />
thus exempted from writ<strong>in</strong>g authentic Hebrew, medieval Jewish authors were<br />
free to transform the language <strong>in</strong>to a contemporary literary medium. 33<br />
On the whole, the Hebrew compositions assembled <strong>in</strong> the eighteenth-century anthologies<br />
cont<strong>in</strong>ue this l<strong>in</strong>guistic pr<strong>in</strong>ciple. However, we do f<strong>in</strong>d a few significant<br />
exceptions. One is the report, <strong>in</strong> the Sukkat David-anthology by David Franco Mendes<br />
(1713-1792), on a leisure trip, through the picturesque l<strong>and</strong>scape of ha-oll<strong>and</strong>a ha-<br />
Òefonit, from the capital Amsterdam to the city of Alkmaar <strong>and</strong> back. 34 Written <strong>in</strong><br />
purest biblical Hebrew (copied <strong>in</strong> square script, <strong>and</strong> adorned with vowel signs <strong>and</strong><br />
masoretic accents), <strong>and</strong> list<strong>in</strong>g little more than tea <strong>and</strong> coffee breaks, the short prose<br />
text is not so much a m<strong>in</strong>i-travelogue as a parody on Numbers 33, where the encampments<br />
of the Israelites <strong>in</strong> the desert are summarized. A further example is the exposé<br />
on ‘the illustrious play [called] schake (chess)’, written <strong>in</strong> the year mesaÌeq ani<br />
(5509, i.e., 1748/9) <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>corporated <strong>in</strong> the same anthology. 35 The text offers an <strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />
of the rules of chess as models of proper conduct <strong>in</strong> life, an approach<br />
obviously <strong>in</strong>spired by the medieval Christian <strong>and</strong> later humanist traditions of allegorical-moralistic<br />
writ<strong>in</strong>gs on the game. 36 The technical term<strong>in</strong>ology (featur<strong>in</strong>g, for<br />
example, the word ‘schaak’ for ‘check mate’) suggests a Dutch source; the language<br />
<strong>and</strong> structure of the text, on the other h<strong>and</strong>, closely imitate the aphoristic mishnayyot<br />
of Pirqe avot, the earliest rabb<strong>in</strong>ic ethical treatise. A third, more traditional, 37 example<br />
is the Purim-haggadah (1797), of unknown authorship, that has been preserved<br />
33 For a more elaborate discussion, see my article ‘Hebrew or the Holy Tongue? Imitation <strong>and</strong> Authenticity<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>Medieval</strong> Hebrew Writ<strong>in</strong>g’, <strong>in</strong> Language <strong>and</strong> Cultural Change: Aspects of the Study <strong>and</strong> Use of<br />
Language <strong>in</strong> the Later Middle Ages <strong>and</strong> the Renaissance, ed. Lodi Nauta (Louva<strong>in</strong>, 2006), pp. 77-90,<br />
<strong>and</strong> ‘What’s <strong>in</strong> a Name: Conceptions of Hebrew as Reflected by the Titles of Hebrew Grammars’,<br />
Zutot: Perspectives on Jewish Culture 2004 (2006): 117-24.<br />
34 Ms. EH 47 A 26, fol. 13a. Sukkat David is a ‘personal’ anthology (see also below), conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a<br />
broad range of short texts by Franco Mendes, written <strong>and</strong> copied over the period 1748/49-1789.<br />
35 Ibid., fol. 16b-17b.<br />
36 For this tradition, cf. the volume edited by Antonius van der L<strong>in</strong>de, Geschichte und Literatur des<br />
Schachspiels (Zürich, 1981), which <strong>in</strong>cludes Moritz Ste<strong>in</strong>schneider’s Schach bei den Juden (pp. 155-<br />
202). For a slightly more elaborate discussion of Franco Mendes’s version, cf. my ‘An Echo of Lofty<br />
Mounta<strong>in</strong>s: David Franco Mendes, a European Jewish <strong>in</strong>tellectual’, <strong>in</strong> Zwiep et al., eds., Uprooted<br />
Roots, pp. 290-1.<br />
37 For other Purim parodies cf. Israel Davidson, Parody <strong>in</strong> Jewish Literature (New York, 1907), passim.<br />
From Davidson’s survey it appears that Purim parody <strong>in</strong> the form of the Haggadah was a uniquely<br />
Dutch genre; cf. p. 51 n. 42, where he mentions an Orden de la Agada que se pende dezir en la noche<br />
de Purim (c. 1750) by the Curacao rabbi Samuel Mendes de Solla, <strong>and</strong> pp. 110-111 <strong>and</strong> 247-249, where<br />
he discusses Hirsch Sommerhausen’s much later Haggadah for the Night of the Drunkards (Brussels,<br />
1842). NB: From Davidson’s survey it also becomes clear that around the middle of the eighteenth century<br />
young Italian-Jewish authors (who were eagerly read by the Amsterdam Sephardim, see below,<br />
p. 290) rediscovered parody as a satirical genre.<br />
288 Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered: The Dutch Eighteenth Century
as ms EH 47 E 39. Ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g both the basic <strong>in</strong>gredients <strong>and</strong> the st<strong>and</strong>ard typography<br />
of the Passover Haggadah, the texts gives a pious recapitulation of the ‘secular’<br />
Esther-narrative as found <strong>in</strong> the Bible.<br />
Three themes (one trivial, one Christian, one taken from the Jewish canon) <strong>and</strong><br />
one strategy: their Hebrew re<strong>in</strong>terpretation <strong>in</strong> terms of the forms <strong>and</strong> languages of<br />
Jewish religious classics. With imitation thus culm<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> parody, striv<strong>in</strong>g for authenticity<br />
became an essential part of the creative effort. For his work to be successful,<br />
the parodist should carefully model his text as well as his language after that of<br />
his Vorlage. Inevitably, this would affect his conception of the orig<strong>in</strong>al text <strong>and</strong> its<br />
language. Once aga<strong>in</strong>, a brief comparison may help to elucidate. In the (post-antique)<br />
Jewish poetic tradition, the Hebrew Bible had always been a normative source of<br />
creative – but always secondary, sometimes even uncomfortable – <strong>in</strong>spiration; for<br />
Franco Mendes cum suis, the wider Jewish religious canon constituted, on top of its<br />
liturgical role, a source of classical texts, written <strong>in</strong> various k<strong>in</strong>ds of ‘classical’ Hebrew,<br />
that were worthy of imitation <strong>and</strong> emulation, just like the European classics. 38<br />
It would of course be rather a big leap to suggest a direct l<strong>in</strong>e from this implicit l<strong>in</strong>guistic<br />
philosophy to the Berl<strong>in</strong> maskilim’s widely shared emphasis on writ<strong>in</strong>g authentic<br />
(biblical) Hebrew. Nevertheless, contacts existed between the two spheres<br />
that suggest at least some measure of <strong>in</strong>spiration. In the 1760s Naphtali Hirsch<br />
Wessely had sojourned <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam, where he had visited Sephardi literary circles;<br />
some twenty years later, <strong>in</strong> the 1780s, Franco Mendes submitted his historical biographies<br />
of ‘great Sephardim’ (as well as other, aborted, projects) to the editors of ha-<br />
Meˆassef. A letter (dated Iyyar 1789) to Joel Bril, Daniel Itzig <strong>and</strong> Isaac Euchel, <strong>in</strong><br />
which he accepted the membership of the Hebrew Lesegesellschaft Îevrat dorshei<br />
¨ever, confirms the aged Franco Mendes’s aff<strong>in</strong>ity with their goals, as well as his last<strong>in</strong>g<br />
admiration for his one-time friend Wessely, who had been ‘like a brother to<br />
[him]’. 39<br />
Dynamic canon<br />
Thus far we have seen that epigonic techniques could very well result <strong>in</strong> literary <strong>and</strong><br />
l<strong>in</strong>guistic <strong>in</strong>novation. The same goes for the third <strong>and</strong> f<strong>in</strong>al aspect of the corpus that I<br />
wish to highlight here. For although anthologies as such represent, once aga<strong>in</strong>, a<br />
mere ‘receptive’ <strong>and</strong> documentary genre, they too have <strong>in</strong>novative implications: by<br />
conserv<strong>in</strong>g a set of carefully selected texts, they play an important role <strong>in</strong> the formation<br />
of the literary canon. 40 The Hebrew anthologies of the eighteenth-century Am-<br />
38 In my op<strong>in</strong>ion, it is this aspect of the Amsterdam Sephardi parodies (i.e., the fact that they imitated<br />
the Jewish religious canon as part of the universal canon) that dist<strong>in</strong>guishes them from previous parody<br />
literature.<br />
39 The letter has been preserved <strong>in</strong> Sukkat David, fol. 15.<br />
40 Comp. the helpful comparison of the modern miscellany (which serves ‘taste, novelty <strong>and</strong> contemporaneity<br />
<strong>in</strong> assembl<strong>in</strong>g a synchronous body of material’) with the anthology, which honours ‘the value of<br />
historicity <strong>and</strong> the perdurance of established canons of artistic discrim<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>in</strong> gather<strong>in</strong>g texts recognized<br />
for their aesthetic legitimacy’, <strong>in</strong> Michael Suarez SJ, ‘The Production <strong>and</strong> Consumption of the<br />
Eighteenth-Century Poetic Miscellany’, <strong>in</strong> Books <strong>and</strong> Their Readers <strong>in</strong> Eighteenth-Century Engl<strong>and</strong>.<br />
New Essays, ed. Isabel Rivers (London <strong>and</strong> New York, 2001), p. 218. As David Stern noted, its role as<br />
a medium of canonization has been ‘[s]urely the most (<strong>and</strong> often the only) discussed aspect of the an-<br />
Irene Zwiep<br />
289
sterdam Sephardim, even though they rema<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> manuscript, 41 are no exception. By<br />
collect<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> compil<strong>in</strong>g a wide range of texts by an equally wide range of authors,<br />
they were <strong>in</strong>strumental <strong>in</strong> the forg<strong>in</strong>g of a new, much more rich <strong>and</strong> varied, Jewish<br />
literary canon. As I have <strong>in</strong>dicated above, the result was not so much an alternative<br />
as a complementary, slightly reshuffled, library, where the historical <strong>and</strong> the contemporary,<br />
the religious <strong>and</strong> the secular featured side by side <strong>in</strong> programmatic harmony.<br />
The earliest specimens, copied by the young Franco Mendes from 1731 onwards,<br />
aimed at retriev<strong>in</strong>g literary gems from traditional sources <strong>and</strong> at preserv<strong>in</strong>g the work<br />
of the found<strong>in</strong>g fathers of Amsterdam Hebrew poetry. 42 Later volumes reveal a<br />
broader <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> Hebrew literature. A prom<strong>in</strong>ent place appears reserved for compositions<br />
by contemporary ‘Italian colleagues’, most em<strong>in</strong>ently kabbalist <strong>and</strong> belletrist<br />
Moses Îayyim Luzzatto (1708-1746), whose stay <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam <strong>in</strong> the years follow<strong>in</strong>g<br />
1735 had given an important impulse to local Hebrew literature. In 1790, Franco<br />
Mendes copied a collection of Hebrew poetry by the London-based physician<br />
Ephraim Luzzatto (1729-1792), dedicat<strong>in</strong>g the volume to his long-time acqua<strong>in</strong>tance,<br />
the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i merchant <strong>and</strong> maecenas Benjam<strong>in</strong> Cohen (1726-1800). 43 M<strong>in</strong>or Italian<br />
poets were likewise deemed worth preserv<strong>in</strong>g, as appears from ms EH 47 C 3, where<br />
poems by SimÌa Calimani (1699-1784) <strong>and</strong> the young Samuel Romanelli (1757-<br />
1817) appear alongside poetry by Abudiente as well as more traditional treatises.<br />
While some manuscripts were devoted to a particular genre (ottavas, occasional poetry,<br />
riddles, homilies, or epitaphs), <strong>in</strong> this <strong>and</strong> many other, genre obviously was not<br />
the organiz<strong>in</strong>g pr<strong>in</strong>ciple. Such anthologies aimed at preserv<strong>in</strong>g Hebrew texts of literary<br />
quality <strong>and</strong> value, regardless of their orig<strong>in</strong>al doma<strong>in</strong>. In these collections, the<br />
timeless tradition came conspicuously close to be<strong>in</strong>g identified with ‘classical literature’.<br />
The work of Amsterdam authors too, was saved for posterity, especially by the<br />
<strong>in</strong>dustrious Franco Mendes <strong>and</strong> his younger contemporary Isaac Cohen Bel<strong>in</strong>fante<br />
(c. 1720-1780). As I mentioned earlier, these local anthologies conta<strong>in</strong> highly conventional<br />
occasional poetry <strong>and</strong> Hebrew adaptations of European classics from various<br />
periods. While the former genre illustrates the <strong>in</strong>tense degree to which poetry<br />
was adduced <strong>in</strong> order to spice up community events, the latter reflects the cultural<br />
atmosphere <strong>in</strong> the – much more limited <strong>and</strong> elitist – literary societies which, cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the seventeenth-century academias, became the Jewish answer to the Christian<br />
‘genootschappen’ that governed the Dutch <strong>in</strong>tellectual climate dur<strong>in</strong>g the eighteenth<br />
<strong>and</strong> n<strong>in</strong>eteenth centuries. 44 In an atmosphere of mild competition <strong>and</strong> shared literary<br />
thology’; cf. his ‘An Introduction’, <strong>in</strong> The Anthology <strong>in</strong> Jewish Literature, ed. David Stern (Oxford,<br />
2004), p. 6.<br />
41 On the public dimension of the anthologies, see below, p. 29i.<br />
42 C. 100 ottavas by Moses Gideon Abudiente (c. 1610-1688) were collected <strong>in</strong> Avnei Shoham (ms.<br />
Ros. 566), with editorial remarks, e.g. on variant read<strong>in</strong>gs found <strong>in</strong> other manuscripts. Ottavas by Solomon<br />
de Oliveyra (1658-1708) <strong>and</strong> Samuel de Casseres were preserved <strong>in</strong> ms. EH 47 E 2, entitled 28<br />
shem<strong>in</strong>iyyot al pizmon yigdal elohim hay. For a first exploration of the corpus, cf. Albert van der Heide,<br />
‘Dutch Hebrew Poetry’.<br />
43 For Cohen’s f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g various ‘enlightened’ publications, see below, pp. 297-9.<br />
44 For the role of the Dutch literary societies, cf. Marleen de Vries, Beschaven! Letterkundige<br />
genootschappen <strong>in</strong> Nederl<strong>and</strong> 1750-1800 (Nijmegen, 2001). For contemporary Jewish confraternities <strong>in</strong><br />
the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s, see Peter Buijs, ‘Tot nut en eer van ’t jodendom. Joodse genootschappen <strong>in</strong> Nederl<strong>and</strong><br />
290 Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered: The Dutch Eighteenth Century
taste, the members of confraternities such as Miqra Qodesh, Shomrim la-Boqer, <strong>and</strong><br />
Amadores das Musas 45 would convene <strong>in</strong> order to compare the merits of their Hebrew<br />
compositions. Every once <strong>in</strong> a while these compositions would be collected,<br />
copied, <strong>and</strong> bound <strong>in</strong>to a volume by one of the members. 46 As the execution of these<br />
volumes shows, this procedure implied much more than the mere add<strong>in</strong>g of a cover<br />
to a stack of <strong>in</strong>ternal m<strong>in</strong>utes. The artful comb<strong>in</strong>ation of calligraphic details, ornamental<br />
title pages <strong>and</strong> luxury b<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs was to rem<strong>in</strong>d the reader of pr<strong>in</strong>ted books, a<br />
creative solution at a time when the f<strong>in</strong>ancial situation of most members prohibited<br />
the plaisir de se voir imprimé. Thus equipped to enter the public doma<strong>in</strong> as proper<br />
literary products, the copies could then be deposited <strong>in</strong> the library. All <strong>in</strong> all we may<br />
speak of an elementary publish<strong>in</strong>g act: although the procedure did not <strong>in</strong>volve actual<br />
multiplication, the anthologies helped transfer the texts from the relatively private atmosphere<br />
of the literary atelier to the public sphere of the library, where they became<br />
a constitutive part of the Jewish canon. A canon, <strong>in</strong> which the authors-editors themselves<br />
emphatically claimed a position.<br />
The convergence of pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> scribal traditions likewise characterizes a further,<br />
less public, category: that of the literary diaries that were compiled by, especially,<br />
David Franco Mendes. In the K<strong>in</strong>nor David <strong>and</strong> Sukkat David anthologies, which<br />
conta<strong>in</strong> texts written over the years 1732-1789, we now encounter Franco Mendes<br />
not merely as a selfless copyist-cum-editor but, first <strong>and</strong> for all, as a passionate<br />
reader <strong>and</strong> author. Together the two collections conta<strong>in</strong> copies <strong>and</strong> adaptations of virtually<br />
every text that ever l<strong>and</strong>ed on Franco Mendes’s desk, from marriage odes, via<br />
Voltaire’s epic Henriade <strong>and</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ic responsa, to private letters <strong>and</strong> even the odd<br />
<strong>in</strong>surance-policy. Inevitably, the external appearance of these personal diaries is far<br />
from sophisticated; still, the ornamental cover <strong>and</strong> ‘full-colour’ title page that hold<br />
together the disparate sheets once aga<strong>in</strong> evoke the sensation of a pr<strong>in</strong>ted book. A<br />
book where, <strong>in</strong> a manner unprecedented <strong>in</strong> Jewish literature, we witness ‘the reader at<br />
work’, 47 turn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to (Hebrew) literature every event <strong>and</strong> every shred of text that ever<br />
crossed his path.<br />
As we have seen, eighteenth-century Amsterdam Sephardi Hebrew literacy,<br />
though heavily dependent on imitative techniques, was <strong>in</strong>novative <strong>in</strong> no less than<br />
three respects: (1) its outgo<strong>in</strong>g, ‘universalist’, literary attitude; (2) its modest awareness<br />
of Hebrew authenticity, <strong>and</strong> (3) its formation of a new library of historical <strong>and</strong><br />
contemporary, traditional <strong>and</strong> secular, Hebrew literature. To this new library one<br />
further section was added, which could be said to fall, if we follow the editors’<br />
1738-1846’, <strong>in</strong> De gelykstaat der joden: Inbruger<strong>in</strong>g van een m<strong>in</strong>derheid, ed. Hetty Berg (Zwolle,<br />
1996), pp. 15-24; for the participation of Jews <strong>in</strong> Dutch non-Jewish societies, cf. Andreas Hanou,<br />
‘Joden en Nederl<strong>and</strong>se genootschappen, 1750-1850’, ibid., pp. 25-34.<br />
45 On the latter, see Shlomo Berger, ‘Amadores das Musas’, Scripta Classica Israelica 15 (1996): 274-<br />
88.<br />
46 Ms. EH 47 A 12, by Joseph Suasso de Lima, conta<strong>in</strong>s poems written by the members of Miqra<br />
Qodesh over the years 1747-1766. In 1770/71, Isaac Cohen Bel<strong>in</strong>fante ‘published’ the writ<strong>in</strong>gs of the<br />
Shomrim la-Boqer society <strong>in</strong> Sefer ¨Olat shabbat (ms. EH 47 D 2b). In 1774, Franco Mendes ‘edited’ the<br />
notebooks (QeÒat maÌberot) of his fellow-Amadores member Jacob Israel Îai (Vita) (ms. EH 47 C 8).<br />
47 Comp. Robert Darnton’s comments on the ‘theory of reader response’ <strong>in</strong> his ‘History of Read<strong>in</strong>g’, <strong>in</strong><br />
Peter Burke, New Perspectives on Historical Writ<strong>in</strong>g (Cambridge <strong>and</strong> Oxford, 2001 2 ), p. 159.<br />
Irene Zwiep<br />
291
own rhetoric, under the category of ‘literary archaeology’: manuscripts of medieval<br />
Sephardi classics, which until then had been hidden <strong>in</strong> private collections, were now<br />
brought to the pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g press <strong>in</strong> order to be saved from oblivion. The first, <strong>and</strong> most<br />
prestigious, of these projects concerned the publication of a collection of Arabic<br />
responsa by Maimonides <strong>in</strong> Hebrew translation, proudly entitled Peˆer ha-dor<br />
(‘Glory of the Generation’, Amsterdam 1765) <strong>in</strong> a double allusion to the stature of<br />
both the Rambam <strong>and</strong> this new literary <strong>in</strong>itiative.<br />
The Arabic manuscript that formed the basis of the publication had belonged to<br />
the estate of the late Îakham Jacob Sasportas (Oran 1610-Amsterdam 1698). In the<br />
<strong>in</strong>troduction to the 1765 edition, his gr<strong>and</strong>son states that he had always cherished the<br />
wish to see this obra tan sublimada translated <strong>in</strong>to Hebrew, but that he had not seen<br />
this wish fulfilled until Mordecai Tamah, a scion of a rabb<strong>in</strong>ic family <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem,<br />
had come to Amsterdam (where he stayed with Îakham Solomon Shalem) <strong>and</strong> offered<br />
to translate the Arabic correspondence en el Ydioma sagrado. 48 The verbose<br />
Spanish <strong>in</strong>troductions <strong>and</strong> the plethora of Hebrew haskamot, both rabb<strong>in</strong>ic <strong>and</strong> poetic,<br />
49 are an <strong>in</strong>dication of the pride taken by the <strong>in</strong>itiators as well as by contemporary<br />
literati <strong>in</strong> this ‘national antiquarian’ enterprise. It is worth not<strong>in</strong>g, by the way, that<br />
among the traditional approbations from Amsterdam, The Hague, Constant<strong>in</strong>ople,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Safed, we come across an ‘early enlightened’ exposé by rabbi Zeevi Hirsch of<br />
Halberstadt. 50 While his colleagues still expressed a more general admiration, prais<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Maimonides for be<strong>in</strong>g a gran jurista (p. vii) <strong>and</strong> a Luz de la Razon (p. iv),<br />
Halberstadt went at great length to extol Rambam’s scientific accomplishments, extend<strong>in</strong>g<br />
his laudatio to the newly rediscovered Guide 51 <strong>and</strong>, especially, to the master’s<br />
teach<strong>in</strong>gs on the sanctification of the New Moon, which had recently been<br />
brought to the attention of the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i readership by Raphael Levi of Hanover<br />
(1685-1779). 52 Of course Halberstadt’s early-maskilic panegyric of the ‘logical, natural,<br />
<strong>and</strong> mathematical sciences’ (fol. 12a) had little direct rapport with the traditional<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellectual milieu of the Amsterdam Sephardim. Still, the <strong>in</strong>clusion of his text <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Peˆer ha-dor collection shows us that those Amsterdam Sephardim were quite ready,<br />
perhaps even eager, 53 to welcome this particular k<strong>in</strong>d of scholarly praise <strong>in</strong>to their literary<br />
tribute to their revered Doctor Rabenu Mosseh.<br />
It was also Halberstadt who had <strong>in</strong>itiated the aforementioned ‘rhetoric of archaeology’,<br />
by explicitly po<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g at the fact that the orig<strong>in</strong>al manuscript had been ‘found <strong>in</strong><br />
the bet g<strong>in</strong>zav shel Ìakham eÌad be-Amsterdam’, i.e. <strong>in</strong> the ‘treasure house (or archive)<br />
of an Amsterdam scholar’. In the edition of Solomon ben Meshullam da<br />
Piera’s (c. 1342-c. 1418) dictionary of synonyms Maskyot kesef, 54 issued by Tamah<br />
48 Peˆer ha-dor, p. iii.<br />
49 Fols. 9a-12a conta<strong>in</strong> the approbations of the lahaqat ha-meshorerim, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Franco Mendes <strong>and</strong><br />
Isaac Cohen Bel<strong>in</strong>fante.<br />
50 Ibid., fols. 12a-b.<br />
51 Through the 1742 Jessnitz edition, the Guide had become available to the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i audience.<br />
52 On Hanover’s astronomical publications, issued by pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g presses <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam <strong>and</strong> Leiden <strong>in</strong><br />
1755, cf. Fe<strong>in</strong>er, ‘ha-Haskalah ha-muqdemet’, pp. 210-1, <strong>and</strong> idem, The Jewish Enlightenment, p. 41-2.<br />
53 Halberstadt’s text takes up fols. 12a-b, i.e. follow<strong>in</strong>g the rabb<strong>in</strong>ic <strong>and</strong> poetic haskamot, thus<br />
consitut<strong>in</strong>g the f<strong>in</strong>al <strong>in</strong>troduction to Maimonides’ actual text.<br />
54 Unaware of Da Piera’s authorship, Tamah presented the book as the work of an unknown author.<br />
292 Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered: The Dutch Eighteenth Century
that same year, this imagery was cont<strong>in</strong>ued <strong>and</strong> elaborated upon. The title page<br />
proudly announces that the book <strong>in</strong> question had been hidden be-amtaÌta de-bei rav,<br />
<strong>in</strong> the ‘pouch of the rabbi’s house’, a picture that is confirmed by the subsequent poetic<br />
haskamah by Abraham Bashan, which describes how they had ‘retrieved the underground<br />
treasure, digg<strong>in</strong>g it up from its solid belly’, for present-day poets to use<br />
<strong>and</strong> enjoy. 55 Similar emphasis on the orig<strong>in</strong>al text’s antiquity <strong>and</strong> on the merit of preserv<strong>in</strong>g<br />
this ancient source for posterity (but without reference to its actual ‘excavation’)<br />
is found <strong>in</strong> the rabb<strong>in</strong>ic approbations to Tamah’s edition of Shem ov Ibn<br />
Falaquera’s Sefer ha-Mevaqqesh (1261/3). 56<br />
It is <strong>in</strong> these latter approbations that we encounter yet another strik<strong>in</strong>g characteristic<br />
of late eighteenth-century Dutch-Jewish <strong>in</strong>tellectual strategy: the – surpris<strong>in</strong>gly<br />
smooth – re-<strong>in</strong>terpretation of scientific or ‘enlightened’ content <strong>in</strong> Jewish traditional<br />
terms, with special emphasis on ethical implications. 57 In the haskamot to Sefer ha-<br />
Mevaqqesh, written by the usual trio consist<strong>in</strong>g of Saul ha-Levi of The Hague, Saul<br />
Loewenstamm of Amsterdam <strong>and</strong> Solomon Shalem of the Amsterdam Portuguese-<br />
Jewish community, <strong>and</strong> supplemented by a brief testimony by R. Abraham of Rotterdam,<br />
Ibn Falaquera’s critical exploration of the sciences was swiftly reduced to a<br />
musar-classic. Follow<strong>in</strong>g up on Tamah’s contention, as voiced <strong>in</strong> the French <strong>in</strong>troduction,<br />
that the follow<strong>in</strong>g pages conta<strong>in</strong>ed noth<strong>in</strong>g but la bonne morale, the book<br />
was read <strong>and</strong> summarized as a sefer mevaqqesh ha-Shem, a book written for the Jew<br />
who wished to learn more about God, not about philosophy. Its thirteenth-century<br />
author was unanimously referred to as a god-fear<strong>in</strong>g Torah-scholar (Ìakham gadol<br />
ba-torah u-va-yirˆah) rather than an early champion of scientific scrut<strong>in</strong>y. Of all three<br />
projects, this was of course the most extreme example of how the traditional library<br />
could be exp<strong>and</strong>ed with the help of a potentially offensive Jewish classic, without so<br />
much as a h<strong>in</strong>t of cultural conflict or critique. On the contrary, the new acquisitions,<br />
whether they dealt with halakhah, meliÒah or science-musar, were <strong>in</strong>variably felt to<br />
confirm <strong>and</strong> strengthen the traditional heritage. On top of that, their ancient orig<strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> rarity were explicitly recognized as part of their cultural value <strong>and</strong> national importance.<br />
If we wish to take the library image just one f<strong>in</strong>al step further, we could say that<br />
this new collection of traditional, contemporary <strong>and</strong> antiquarian works was backed<br />
up <strong>and</strong> confirmed by an elementary critical apparatus, consist<strong>in</strong>g of texts which, consciously<br />
or unconsciously, supplied the newly develop<strong>in</strong>g canon with a clear historical<br />
<strong>and</strong> bibliographical context. The historical context was furnished, once aga<strong>in</strong>, by<br />
the <strong>in</strong>exhaustible Franco Mendes, who not only reconstructed the socio-political history<br />
of his qehillah <strong>in</strong> the Memorias of 1769-1772 58 but also devoted a separate work<br />
55 Maskyot kesef, fol. 2a.<br />
56 Sefer ha-Mevaqqesh, The Hague: J.H. Munnikhuizen <strong>and</strong> L. Soesmans, 1779. The manuscript had<br />
been <strong>in</strong> Tamah’s possession (cf. Moritz Ste<strong>in</strong>schneider, Catalogus Librorum Hebraeorum <strong>in</strong> Bibliotheca<br />
Bodleiana (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1852-1860), nr. 7124.3) <strong>and</strong> was pr<strong>in</strong>ted with the f<strong>in</strong>ancial support of Tamah’s fellow-Jerusalemite<br />
Benjam<strong>in</strong> Me¨eli ha-Kohen <strong>and</strong> of Abraham <strong>and</strong> Simeon Boas of The Hague.<br />
57 See also below, p. 301 f., on David Wagenaar’s ‘traditional’ Hebrew translation of Mendelssohn’s<br />
Phädon.<br />
58 Memorias do estabelecimento e progresso dos Judeos Portuguezes e Espanhoes nesta famosa cidade<br />
de Amsterdam, ed. by Leo Fuks <strong>and</strong> Rena Fuks-Mansfeld <strong>in</strong> Studia Rosenthaliana 9 (1975).<br />
Irene Zwiep<br />
293
(Qol tefillah ve-qol zimrah) 59 to a complementary survey of the community’s liturgical-cultural<br />
life from its beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>gs until 1782. An additional bibliographical tool<br />
was provided by Isaac Cohen Bel<strong>in</strong>fante’s SiaÌ YiÒÌaq of 1777. 60 As the title shows<br />
(SiaÌ be<strong>in</strong>g an acronym for Siftei yeshenim Ìadash), Bel<strong>in</strong>fante’s alphabetical list of<br />
books that had been published over the last century obviously cont<strong>in</strong>ued the Siftei<br />
yeshenim-bibliography compiled by the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i scholar Shabbetay ben Joseph<br />
Bass (1641-1718), pr<strong>in</strong>ted Amsterdam 1680. Bel<strong>in</strong>fante’s <strong>in</strong>troductory notes on the<br />
title page, however, reveal that his supplementary <strong>in</strong>ventory aimed to serve both a<br />
documentary <strong>and</strong> a practical purpose. By <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g a list of (Portuguese) sermons,<br />
theological <strong>and</strong> polemical treatises, Bel<strong>in</strong>fante hoped his SiaÌ YiÒÌaq would also be<br />
used as a commonplace book, a topical encyclopaedia for poets <strong>and</strong>, especially,<br />
darshanim to consult while writ<strong>in</strong>g their (Hebrew) compositions. And thus we f<strong>in</strong>d<br />
that Bel<strong>in</strong>fante’s bibliography, while offer<strong>in</strong>g an explicit follow-up on a century-old<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i <strong>in</strong>itiative, simultaneously constituted a valuable addition to the recent<br />
Sephardi library. Be<strong>in</strong>g a catalogue as well as a commonplace book, it aimed at consolidat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
as well as stimulat<strong>in</strong>g contemporary literary activity, thus form<strong>in</strong>g a vital<br />
l<strong>in</strong>k <strong>in</strong> the development of the new, dynamic, canon.<br />
Old meets new <strong>in</strong> eighteenth-century Dutch-Jewish <strong>in</strong>tellectual life<br />
It is time to formulate a prelim<strong>in</strong>ary summary of the above f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> considerations.<br />
As I have <strong>in</strong>dicated earlier, <strong>in</strong> previous historiography authors like Cohen<br />
Bel<strong>in</strong>fante, Franco Mendes <strong>and</strong> their literary associates have been portrayed as orthodox<br />
nostalgics <strong>and</strong> as the ‘last of the Amsterdam pre-moderns’. A brief analysis of<br />
their compositions, however, reveals that they were <strong>in</strong> fact deeply engaged <strong>in</strong> build<strong>in</strong>g<br />
for themselves a modern, ‘European’ cultural identity, which expressed itself <strong>in</strong> a<br />
new, highly varied, library. It was a project at once <strong>in</strong>novative <strong>and</strong> conservative: the<br />
new identity, though dist<strong>in</strong>ctly universalistic, simultaneously rema<strong>in</strong>ed fully compatible<br />
with Judaism. It was developed strictly with<strong>in</strong> the boundaries of the community,<br />
<strong>and</strong> never called <strong>in</strong>to question the ancient dictates of religion <strong>and</strong> tradition. Thus we<br />
should not be tempted to <strong>in</strong>terpret the Sephardim’s found<strong>in</strong>g of a new Hebrew canon<br />
as an example of modern secularization. Instead, it should be understood as a (successful)<br />
attempt at explor<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> exploit<strong>in</strong>g tradition’s potential for cultural change.<br />
When compared with other, contemporary Dutch-Jewish <strong>in</strong>tellectual endeavours,<br />
the creation of this ‘old-new’ library by the Amsterdam Sephardim was a major,<br />
more or less coherent, project. In the execution of the project we could dist<strong>in</strong>guish<br />
various strategies <strong>and</strong> attitudes, which not only characterize late eighteenth-century<br />
59 Cf. Adler, Musical Life, passim. A facsimile edition was provided (Jerusalem, 1973), by Yosef<br />
Kaplan.<br />
60 Ms. EH 47 D 40. In the Spr<strong>in</strong>g of 1778, the famous shaliaÌ Îayyim David Azulay (1724-1806) had<br />
attended an Amsterdam soirée where Cohen Bel<strong>in</strong>fante had boasted of the book; cf. Azulay’s Sefer<br />
Ma¨agal ha-†ov, ed. Abraham Freimann (Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>and</strong> Jerusalem, 1921-34), p. 145. NB: As librarian<br />
Abraham Rosenberg po<strong>in</strong>ted out to me, ms. EH 47 D 43, fols. 24b-28b (a reshimah of works used by<br />
Menasseh ben Israel) may very well belong to this work. The Dutch maskilic scholar Gabriël Polak published<br />
the text <strong>in</strong> Ha-Maggid 10-11 (1869).<br />
294 Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered: The Dutch Eighteenth Century
Sephardi <strong>in</strong>tellectual mentality but are also encountered <strong>in</strong> other, perhaps less ‘systematic’,<br />
<strong>in</strong>itiatives of the period. In the rema<strong>in</strong>der of this article, I shall recapitulate<br />
four of these features <strong>and</strong> then po<strong>in</strong>t at a number of parallels beyond the conf<strong>in</strong>es of<br />
the Amsterdam Portuguese-Jewish literary milieu. As we shall see, these parallels <strong>in</strong>clude<br />
a significant series of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i examples.<br />
First of all, we should stress once aga<strong>in</strong> that exp<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g the canon with the help of<br />
<strong>in</strong>novative publications was not the work of s<strong>in</strong>gle scholars, but <strong>in</strong>volved a collective<br />
effort. It was achieved by vary<strong>in</strong>g constellations of <strong>in</strong>tellectuals, consist<strong>in</strong>g of authors,<br />
ateliers, copyists, translators, ‘editors’, pr<strong>in</strong>ters, patrons <strong>and</strong>, last but not least,<br />
rabbis, who had to give their imprimatur. Far from be<strong>in</strong>g a formal network, let alone<br />
a dist<strong>in</strong>ct <strong>and</strong> formalised Republic of Letters, these constellations nevertheless were<br />
quite effective <strong>in</strong> creat<strong>in</strong>g new modes of discourse.<br />
Secondly, as I have <strong>in</strong>dicated above, if any tension was ever felt to exist between<br />
tradition <strong>and</strong> these new modes of discourse, this tension was never articulated. Occasionally,<br />
the publications themselves grant us an <strong>in</strong>sight <strong>in</strong>to the attitude beh<strong>in</strong>d this<br />
relative tolerance. The haskamot that were prefaced to the editions, for example, can<br />
be said to reflect a k<strong>in</strong>d of ‘reader response’, <strong>in</strong> that they show us how the rabbis <strong>in</strong><br />
Amsterdam <strong>and</strong> The Hague, representatives of tradition par excellence, responded to<br />
the new discourse. Even if we can safely assume that most rabbis did not always read<br />
the books from cover to cover, we do f<strong>in</strong>d that their rhetoric was mildly affected by<br />
their contents. The fact that <strong>in</strong> their haskamot they began to experiment with form<br />
<strong>and</strong> style, <strong>in</strong>cidentally even adopt<strong>in</strong>g enlightened topoi, suggests that, on the one<br />
h<strong>and</strong>, they did not rema<strong>in</strong> entirely untouched by the books they authorized. Simultaneously,<br />
however, by consistently stress<strong>in</strong>g the traditional content of the books under<br />
scrut<strong>in</strong>y, the same haskamot also reveal a substantial measure of accommodation.<br />
With<strong>in</strong> this process of exp<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g the library while accommodat<strong>in</strong>g it with tradition,<br />
a key-role was reserved for language. As we have seen, the qu<strong>in</strong>tessentially<br />
Jewish Hebrew not only helped to ‘judaïze’ foreign or <strong>in</strong>novative <strong>in</strong>sights but also<br />
facilitated the foray <strong>in</strong>to European culture. Recent scholarship suggests that Yiddish,<br />
too, participated <strong>in</strong> these processes of cultural translation; be<strong>in</strong>g a relatively ‘new<br />
player’ <strong>in</strong> various literary fields, this language sometimes generated surpris<strong>in</strong>gly new<br />
approaches to well-established genres <strong>and</strong> discipl<strong>in</strong>es. All <strong>in</strong> all we can say that the<br />
eighteenth-century Dutch-Jewish <strong>in</strong>tellectual climate, among the Portuguese as well<br />
as the High-German Jews, was characterized by a grow<strong>in</strong>g sensitivity to language<br />
<strong>and</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistics. This new <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the formal <strong>and</strong> theoretical aspects of language,<br />
both as a literary medium <strong>and</strong> as the language of tradition <strong>and</strong> revelation, had several<br />
far-reach<strong>in</strong>g implications. We have seen its consequences for the Amsterdam Sephardi<br />
library; among the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im it soon transformed the traditional approach of biblical<br />
studies <strong>and</strong> with it, eventually, the entire curriculum.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, we f<strong>in</strong>d that the new library brought with it a new library awareness, a<br />
novel underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> significance of the library as a reservoir of<br />
books that parallels a certa<strong>in</strong> reservoir of knowledge. 61 We have seen how Isaac<br />
61 The term <strong>and</strong> its def<strong>in</strong>ition are derived from Avriel Bar-Levav’s forthcom<strong>in</strong>g article ‘Ben toda¨at hasifriyyah<br />
la-republiqah ha-sifrutit ha-yehudit’, to appear <strong>in</strong> Sifriyyot ve-osfei sefarim, ed. Yosef Kaplan<br />
et al. (Jerusalem, 2006).<br />
Irene Zwiep<br />
295
Cohen Bel<strong>in</strong>fante attempted to systematize <strong>and</strong> mobilize the abstract library that encompassed<br />
<strong>and</strong> nurtured the work of his Amsterdam fellow-poets. Others documented<br />
their own concrete library; the catalogues that resulted from these efforts first<br />
of all provide us with solid data on the number of enlightened versus traditional<br />
books <strong>in</strong> their possession. Their overall structure further reflects the owner’s <strong>in</strong>tellectual<br />
l<strong>and</strong>scape. And as a special bonus, we occasionally come across para-textual<br />
material that offers us a glimpse of the collector’s self-conception as an ‘enlightened<br />
reader’.<br />
In the follow<strong>in</strong>g paragraphs, I will briefly illustrate each of these features with the<br />
help of additional (bibliographical) material.<br />
Constellations of ‘early maskilim’<br />
In The Jewish Enlightenment, Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er directs our attention to the fact that<br />
‘real circles of maskilim <strong>and</strong> meet<strong>in</strong>g places, although <strong>in</strong>formal, were active <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam<br />
(Franco Mendes, Wagnaar [sic; iez], Hurwitz, Shlomo Dubno <strong>in</strong> the<br />
1760s)’. 62 To this observation two short comments should be added. First of all, we<br />
must keep <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d that the Amsterdam <strong>in</strong>tellectuals referred to here, though perhaps<br />
shar<strong>in</strong>g an overall attitude that might be identified as ‘early maskilic’, came from<br />
very different cultural backgrounds <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong> their work show radically different cultural<br />
priorities. The ‘real circles’ identified by Fe<strong>in</strong>er therefore are, first <strong>and</strong> foremost,<br />
a reconstruction of a shared mentality; to a much lesser extent do they reflect<br />
actual, historical, encounter <strong>and</strong> exchange. Secondly, a closer look at these circles<br />
reveals that, far from be<strong>in</strong>g conf<strong>in</strong>ed to the Amsterdam municipality, they <strong>in</strong>cluded<br />
participants from abroad <strong>and</strong>, significantly, from the – often more progressive – prov<strong>in</strong>cial<br />
towns, especially The Hague. Indeed the Amsterdam <strong>in</strong>tellectual climate, both<br />
Jewish <strong>and</strong> non-Jewish, has always been known to be relatively conservative. When<br />
compared to their equivalents <strong>in</strong> Leiden, Haarlem <strong>and</strong> Utrecht, the mid-eighteenthcentury<br />
(Christian) libraries <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam still abounded <strong>in</strong> classics <strong>and</strong> theology<br />
rather than philosophy, thus betray<strong>in</strong>g a remarkably antique taste on the part of their<br />
owners. 63<br />
A brief bibliographical survey of the Hebrew publications that appeared <strong>in</strong> Dutch<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g houses dur<strong>in</strong>g the second half of the eighteenth century suggests that we can<br />
characterize the key figures <strong>in</strong> these virtual maskilic circles as follows. On the one<br />
h<strong>and</strong> we come across ambitious Jewish scholars, often travell<strong>in</strong>g from abroad <strong>and</strong><br />
carry<strong>in</strong>g with them manuscripts they hoped to publish. On the other, we f<strong>in</strong>d local –<br />
also non-Jewish – pr<strong>in</strong>ters, eager to jo<strong>in</strong> the enterprise. In various cases, wealthy<br />
Dutch-Jewish patrons were found will<strong>in</strong>g to cover the costs. Sephardi poets, notably<br />
Franco Mendes <strong>and</strong> Cohen Bel<strong>in</strong>fante, occasionally appear on the fr<strong>in</strong>ges of these<br />
pragmatic, ma<strong>in</strong>ly <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i, constellations.<br />
An elementary reconstruction of this <strong>in</strong>tricate set of contacts will have to suffice<br />
here. In 1766, the Vilna-born physician Judah ben Mordecai ha-Levi Hurwitz (1734-<br />
62 Fe<strong>in</strong>er, The Jewish Enlightenment, p. 78.<br />
63 Peter Buijnsters, ‘J.J. Björnstahl’s bezoek aan Nederl<strong>and</strong>se boekverzamelaars 1774/75’, <strong>in</strong> idem,<br />
Nederl<strong>and</strong>se literatuur van de achttiende eeuw: Veertien verkenn<strong>in</strong>gen (Utrecht, 1984), p. 143.<br />
296 Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered: The Dutch Eighteenth Century
1797) had his mildly rationalistic ¨Ammudei bet Yehudah 64 published <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam<br />
by Loeb ben Moses Soesmans. The edition <strong>in</strong>cluded two – unfortunately rather general<br />
– poetic tributes by Cohen Bel<strong>in</strong>fante <strong>and</strong> Wessely (Imrei shefer). In 1775<br />
Soesmans, who had meanwhile been active <strong>in</strong> Leiden (1771-72), 65 moved to The<br />
Hague, where he set up a new pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g house <strong>and</strong>, together with his partner J.H.<br />
Munnikhuizen, published a series of liturgical texts, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Solomon Hanau’s<br />
(1687-1746) grammatical Bet tefillah <strong>and</strong> Sha¨arei tefillah (1777, first edition<br />
Jessnitz 1730). Besides such l<strong>in</strong>guistic publications, Soesmans <strong>and</strong> Munnikhuizen<br />
also took care of the publication of Baruch Schick of Shklow’s (1744-1808) Hebrew-<br />
Lat<strong>in</strong> glossary on hygiene Derekh yesharah (1779) <strong>and</strong> of his Hebrew translation of<br />
Euclid’s Elements (<strong>in</strong> 1780). The costs of the latter publication, it is worth notic<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
were paid by the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i tobacco merchant <strong>and</strong> parnas Benjam<strong>in</strong> Cohen of<br />
Amersfoort, who has been mentioned earlier <strong>in</strong> relation to David Franco Mendes. 66<br />
Around that time Soesmans <strong>and</strong> Munnikhuizen, aga<strong>in</strong> with the f<strong>in</strong>ancial aid of the<br />
(now anonymous) Cohen, also took it upon them to publish the controversial<br />
Îokhmat ha-shorashim (the only work by the German-Jewish immigrant <strong>and</strong> disciple<br />
of Wolf <strong>and</strong> Leibniz, Naphtali Hertz Ulmann [c. 1731-1787] that was ever published,<br />
<strong>in</strong> 1781) 67 <strong>and</strong> of Mordecai Tamah’s edition of Sefer ha-Mevaqqesh, also<br />
mentioned above. The latter publication was f<strong>in</strong>anced by a team of Sephardi <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i patrons, notably by Tamah’s fellow-Jerusalemite Benjam<strong>in</strong> Me¨eli ha-<br />
Kohen <strong>and</strong> by Abraham <strong>and</strong> Simeon Boas, the sons of Tobias Boas (1696-1782), the<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>cipal f<strong>in</strong>ancer of the Republic <strong>and</strong> the House of Orange. 68 Proudly referred to <strong>in</strong><br />
later publications as ‘Casanova’s rebbe’ 69 <strong>and</strong> the ‘Dutch Rothschild’, 70 Boas père<br />
was The Republic’s closest equivalent to a court Jew. Also culturally active, he had<br />
sponsored the publication (<strong>in</strong> 1757 <strong>and</strong> 1769 2 ) of liturgical manuscripts from Coch<strong>in</strong><br />
(where he had important commercial contacts), <strong>and</strong> of two l<strong>in</strong>guistic works: Joseph<br />
ben David Heilbronn’s masoretic Mev<strong>in</strong> Ìidot (1765/66) 71 <strong>and</strong> Abraham ben Model<br />
64 Cf. Fe<strong>in</strong>er, The Jewish Enlightenment, p. 26.<br />
65 The first, most fundamental, recapitulation of this prolific pr<strong>in</strong>ter’s career can be found <strong>in</strong> Sigmund<br />
Seeligmann, Het geestelijk leven <strong>in</strong> de Hoogduitsche Joodsche gemeente te ’s Gravenhage (The Hague,<br />
1914; repr<strong>in</strong>t from Desiré van Zuiden, Geschiedenis der Hoogduitsche Joden <strong>in</strong> ’s Gravenhage [The<br />
Hague, 1913]), pp. 52-7; cf. also Louis Hirschel, ‘Cultuur en volksleven’, <strong>in</strong> Hendrik Brugmans <strong>and</strong><br />
Abraham Frank, Geschiedenis van de Joden <strong>in</strong> Nederl<strong>and</strong> (Amsterdam, 1940), pp. 474-5.<br />
66 See above, p. 290. For Cohen, cf. Jacques Zwarts, Het verblijf van Pr<strong>in</strong>s Willem V <strong>in</strong> Amersfoort ten<br />
huize van den joodschen tabaksplanter Benjam<strong>in</strong> Cohen (Amsterdam, 1921), Jaap Meijer, Zij lieten hun<br />
sporen achter. Joodse bijdragen tot de Nederl<strong>and</strong>se beschav<strong>in</strong>g (Utrecht, 1964), pp. 99-103 <strong>and</strong> Mozes<br />
Gans, Memorboek: Platenatlas van het leven der joden van de middeleeuwen tot 1940 (Baarn, 1971),<br />
pp. 254-8.<br />
67 Seeligmann, Geestelijk leven, pp. 58-62; for Ulmann, cf. further Zvi Malakhi, ‘N.H. Ulman, Maskil<br />
<strong>and</strong> Philosopher’, Studies on the History of Dutch Jewry 2: 77-88 (Hebrew) <strong>and</strong>, more recently, Fred<br />
van Lieburg, ‘On Naphtali Herz Ulman’s Biography <strong>and</strong> the Reception of his Works <strong>in</strong> The Netherl<strong>and</strong>s’,<br />
Zutot: Perspectives on Jewish Culture 2003 (2004): 58-65, <strong>and</strong> Re<strong>in</strong>ier Munk, Naftali Herz<br />
Ulman, een vroege maskil’ (<strong>in</strong>augural speech, Leiden, 2003).<br />
68 On Boas, cf. Seeligmann, Geestelijk leven, p. 56, Meijer, Sporen, pp. 95-8, Gans, Memorboek, pp.<br />
179, 205, 243, 258, <strong>and</strong> Is. van Crefeld, Misjpoge 10 (1997): 49-66.<br />
69 Meijer, Sporen, p. 95, <strong>in</strong> reference to Casanova’s Mémoires, which recount how <strong>in</strong> 1759 Casanova<br />
had celebrated Ìanukkah at the house ‘of the Jew Boas’ <strong>in</strong> The Hague.<br />
70 Gans, Memorboek, p. 243.<br />
71 See also below, p. 305.<br />
Irene Zwiep<br />
297
Oett<strong>in</strong>ger’s Yiddish textbook Ma¨arekhet Avraham (Fürth 1769). 72 As representatives<br />
of the Dutch-Jewish cultural bourgeoisie, men like Tobias Boas <strong>and</strong> Benjam<strong>in</strong> Cohen<br />
<strong>in</strong>deed epitomize one of the four categories identified by Fe<strong>in</strong>er <strong>in</strong> his typology of<br />
early maskilim. 73 Aga<strong>in</strong> it should be noted, however, that this bourgeoisie manifested<br />
itself first <strong>and</strong> for all <strong>in</strong> the prov<strong>in</strong>cial towns outside Amsterdam; when it came to<br />
fund<strong>in</strong>g novel scholarly <strong>and</strong> literary projects, the Amsterdam R<strong>in</strong>tel family, to name<br />
but one example, rema<strong>in</strong>ed conspicuously silent.<br />
Other constellations, too, can be identified, which <strong>in</strong>volve roughly the same protagonists.<br />
In the 1750s, before mov<strong>in</strong>g to Leiden <strong>and</strong> The Hague, Loeb Soesmans had<br />
worked as a type-setter <strong>and</strong> later as an associate <strong>in</strong> the Amsterdam offic<strong>in</strong>a of Israel<br />
Mondovi, together with Jan Jansson, the Christian pr<strong>in</strong>ter who had issued Rafael Levi<br />
Segal Hanover’s Sefer Tekhunat ha-shamayim (1755). One decade later, Jansson’s<br />
son <strong>and</strong> successor Gerard pr<strong>in</strong>ted two editions <strong>in</strong>stigated by Mordecai Tamah<br />
(Maskyot kesef <strong>and</strong> Peˆer ha-dor, both <strong>in</strong> 1765), as well as Franco Mendes’s Hebrew<br />
Rac<strong>in</strong>e-adaptation Gemul ¨Atalyah (1770). F<strong>in</strong>ally, we can also discover ties that l<strong>in</strong>k<br />
Franco Mendes to Benjam<strong>in</strong> Cohen, who had supported the publications of Schick<br />
<strong>and</strong> Ulmann. In 1789, on the occasion of the wedd<strong>in</strong>g of Cohen’s daughter Rebecca,<br />
Franco Mendes composed Ahavat ¨olam (‘Love Eternal’), a partly musical play that<br />
was f<strong>in</strong>ally pr<strong>in</strong>ted <strong>in</strong> Germany (<strong>in</strong> 1804).<br />
If we now wish to sum up the results of this bibliographical reconstruction, we<br />
must mention the Jansson-family, pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the house of Israel Mondovi, <strong>and</strong> Loeb<br />
ben Moses Soesmans, first work<strong>in</strong>g with Jansson <strong>and</strong> then with J.H. Munnikhuizen<br />
<strong>in</strong> The Hague; the orig<strong>in</strong>ally foreign scholars Tamah, Hurwitz, Ulmann <strong>and</strong> Schick;<br />
the patrons of the arts Benjam<strong>in</strong> Cohen of Amersfoort <strong>and</strong> the <strong>in</strong>fluential Boas family;<br />
<strong>and</strong> f<strong>in</strong>ally David Franco Mendes, Isaac Cohen Bel<strong>in</strong>fante <strong>and</strong> the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i<br />
visit<strong>in</strong>g scholar Wessely, tak<strong>in</strong>g up a position <strong>in</strong> the literary marg<strong>in</strong>s. Thus a rudimentary<br />
network emerges, through which a h<strong>and</strong>ful of Dutch-Jewish <strong>in</strong>tellectuals,<br />
with the help of Christian pr<strong>in</strong>ters <strong>and</strong> Jewish scholars from abroad, could participate,<br />
on various levels, <strong>in</strong> what we might call a modest early maskilic culture. Judg<strong>in</strong>g<br />
by the publications, this ‘network’ existed, <strong>in</strong> various constellations, for the better<br />
part of the second half of the eighteenth century. For its scholarly content it seems to<br />
have depended to a large extent on the <strong>in</strong>itiatives of immigrant scholars, which were<br />
embraced <strong>and</strong> supported by members of the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i cultural bourgeoisie. The <strong>in</strong>terests<br />
of the Amsterdam Sephardi poets rema<strong>in</strong>ed limited to the fr<strong>in</strong>ges of this new<br />
culture. While their participation betrays a certa<strong>in</strong> awareness of the sciences, they<br />
never took an active part <strong>in</strong> their development <strong>and</strong> dissem<strong>in</strong>ation. 74<br />
72 Cf. also Seeligmann, Geestelijk leven, p. 46.<br />
73 Fe<strong>in</strong>er, The Jewish Enlightenment, p. 27.<br />
74 A significant text <strong>in</strong> this respect is Telunot benei adam (‘Mank<strong>in</strong>d’s compla<strong>in</strong>ts’), written by one of<br />
the members of the Amadores das Musas confraternity, Jacob Israel Îai Vita (recently an edition, based<br />
on ms. EH 47 D 36 [dat<strong>in</strong>g from 1772 or 1780], has been supplied by Sab<strong>in</strong>e Arndt, E<strong>in</strong> hebräisches<br />
Gedicht aus Amsterdam. Jacob Vita Israel: Telunot Bene Adam, unpublished MA-thesis, Universiteit<br />
van Amsterdam, 2005). In this lengthy philosophical poem it is stated (<strong>in</strong> ‘the k<strong>in</strong>g’s compla<strong>in</strong>t’) that<br />
man should learn Torah <strong>and</strong> masoret, geometry <strong>and</strong> arithmetic, logic, natural sciences <strong>and</strong> metaphysics<br />
(l<strong>in</strong>es 271-4). However, this scholarly positivism is sceptically commented upon by ‘the Ìakham’, who<br />
denies the possibility of ever atta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g true knowledge through the sciences (esp. l<strong>in</strong>es 337-420).<br />
298 Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered: The Dutch Eighteenth Century
While it is one th<strong>in</strong>g to identify the authors, pr<strong>in</strong>ters <strong>and</strong> sponsors beh<strong>in</strong>d these<br />
publications, it is another to locate their audience. Indeed we should ask ourselves<br />
whether Dutch-Jewish readers took any notice at all of these jo<strong>in</strong>t efforts at broaden<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the <strong>in</strong>tellectual arena. Fortunately, a few contemporary catalogues have survived,<br />
commercial as well as private, which suggest that there was a market for <strong>in</strong>novative<br />
books <strong>in</strong> The Netherl<strong>and</strong>s. We should, however, bear <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d that the number of<br />
catalogues dat<strong>in</strong>g from the period is too small to be conclusive <strong>and</strong>, more fundamentally,<br />
that catalogues may conta<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation on the commercial fate of the books<br />
they enumerate, but tell us very little on their actual <strong>in</strong>tellectual impact. Still, the relevant<br />
catalogues now <strong>in</strong> the Rosenthaliana <strong>and</strong> Ets Haim libraries confirm that new<br />
genres <strong>and</strong> discipl<strong>in</strong>es were represented <strong>in</strong> the private libraries owned by Dutch Jews<br />
<strong>in</strong> the late eighteenth century.<br />
Thus the <strong>in</strong>dex written by Moses Teixeira de Mattos <strong>in</strong> 1768 reveals that Teixeira<br />
not only owned a substantial set of traditional books, with an emphasis on Sephardi<br />
liturgy, but <strong>in</strong> recent years had also made several more adventurous purchases from<br />
the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i bookshelf; besides Gans’s ∑emaÌ David <strong>and</strong> Bass’s Siftei yeshenim,<br />
his catalogue mentions a – still somewhat isolated – copy of Hurwitz’s ¨Ammudei bet<br />
Yehudah, which had been issued <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam only two years before. 75 The catalogue<br />
drawn up for the auction of the library of Solomon Cohen Samuelsz (Rotterdam<br />
31 July 1786) 76 conjures up a similar, though much more rich <strong>and</strong> varied, picture.<br />
Besides a wealth of traditional, liturgical <strong>and</strong> halakhic, material, Samuelsz<br />
seems to have amassed an impressive number of books on history (from de’ Rossi,<br />
via Gans, to Amel<strong>and</strong>er’s omnipresent Sheˆerit Yisroˆel) <strong>and</strong> grammar, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
near-exhaustive range of early-modern <strong>and</strong> contemporary <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i manuals. 77 This<br />
state of the art collection was complemented by a typical selection of early maskilic<br />
publications: next to the 1744 RuaÌ Ìen-edition by Israel Zamosc (1700-1772) <strong>and</strong><br />
Mendelssohn’s commentary on Millot ha-higgayon (1761), Samuelsz’s collection <strong>in</strong>cluded<br />
such ‘local’ classics as Hurwitz’s ¨Ammude bet Yehudah, Schick’s Euclid <strong>and</strong><br />
Tamah’s Mevaqqesh. Yet a third example shows us that the times <strong>and</strong>, with it, the<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellectual tastes of the Dutch-Jewish readership, were chang<strong>in</strong>g. Less than ten years<br />
after the Samuelsz auction, we can witness the – always somewhat tentative <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>cidental<br />
– haskalah muqdemet make way for the much more organized <strong>and</strong> massive<br />
German-Jewish Enlightenment. In an <strong>in</strong>ventory of the books owned by Abraham<br />
Keizer (drawn up Amsterdam 1795), 78 it is Wessely’s Divrei shalom ve-emet <strong>and</strong><br />
Mikhtav sheni, Isaac Satanow’s Sefer ha-Middot (1790), Euchel’s 1791 Moreh-edition<br />
<strong>and</strong> Joel Bril’s Hebrew-German translations, which take up centre stage. Their<br />
appetite hav<strong>in</strong>g been wetted by the pioneer<strong>in</strong>g editions of Schick <strong>and</strong> Tamah, late<br />
eighteenth-century collectors like Keizer apparently were ready to embrace the ‘def<strong>in</strong>itive’<br />
maskilic programme that was now be<strong>in</strong>g issued from Berl<strong>in</strong>.<br />
75 Ms. EH 47 A 8; for the para-textual material <strong>in</strong> Teixeira’s catalogue, see below, p. 307 f.<br />
76 Ros. Veil. 70.<br />
77 See also below, p. 304 f.<br />
78 Ros. Veil. 74 <strong>and</strong> Ms. Ros. 26.<br />
Irene Zwiep<br />
299
Intellectual eclecticism<br />
In one of the previous paragraphs I have sketched, with the help of a close read<strong>in</strong>g of<br />
relevant haskamot, how the rabbis of Amsterdam, The Hague <strong>and</strong> Rotterdam responded<br />
to the publication of Shem ov ibn Falaquera’s Sefer ha-Mevaqqesh<br />
(1779). 79 We have seen how on the one h<strong>and</strong> they applauded the fact that, after five<br />
hundred years of neglect, this prestigious source was saved from oblivion, while on<br />
the other they unanimously chose to misrepresent the book as a traditional ethical<br />
treatise. As I have <strong>in</strong>dicated above, this tacit reduction of Sefer ha-Mevaqqesh to a<br />
musar classic was a particularly crude example of reconcil<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>novation <strong>and</strong> tradition.<br />
In other <strong>in</strong>stances we f<strong>in</strong>d that the rabbis did adorn their approbations with enlightened<br />
motifs, even if these motifs were often subord<strong>in</strong>ated to an essentially traditional<br />
agenda. As an illustration of this eclectic ‘enlightenment by proxy’, I shall<br />
briefly analyze the haskamot to the Hebrew translation of Euclid’s Elements by<br />
dayyan Baruch Schick, which had been issued by the Soesmans pr<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g office <strong>in</strong><br />
1780. 80<br />
In the <strong>in</strong>troductory pages of this Sefer Euqlides, the usual threesome Saul ha-Levi,<br />
Saul Loewenstamm <strong>and</strong> Solomon Shalem once aga<strong>in</strong> make their appearance, this<br />
time supplemented by a dist<strong>in</strong>guished guest from abroad: Shimshon ben Mordecai<br />
Kalish of Slonim, a scholar as knowledgeable <strong>in</strong> the sciences as he was <strong>in</strong> Torah <strong>and</strong><br />
Kabbalah, <strong>and</strong> the owner of a magnificent library that was to be destroyed by fire <strong>in</strong><br />
the 1780s. 81 In 1778 Schick, on his way from Vilna (where he had studied with R.<br />
Elijah Gaon) to the West, had visited this Rabbi Shimshon, who had written an eloquent<br />
recommendation on behalf of the dayyan’s Hebrew geometry project. In this<br />
approbation, Kalish first of all set out to determ<strong>in</strong>e Euclid’s proper place <strong>in</strong> history,<br />
which he assumed should be located <strong>in</strong> Greece around the time when Mordecai <strong>and</strong><br />
Esther had been active <strong>in</strong> Shushan, Persia. Thereupon he gave a lengthy exposé on<br />
the book’s contents, which betrays a remarkable comm<strong>and</strong> of mathematical formulae<br />
<strong>and</strong> term<strong>in</strong>ology. Kalish concluded his essay by subscrib<strong>in</strong>g to Schick’s wish to restore,<br />
with the help of this Hebrew translation, Israel’s reputation as an ¨am Ìakham<br />
ve-navon, a wise people well-versed <strong>in</strong> the sciences. This reference to Deuteronomy<br />
4:6 was a widespread early-maskilic topos (with dist<strong>in</strong>ct medieval roots) that def<strong>in</strong>ed<br />
Israel’s <strong>in</strong>tellectual redemption, <strong>in</strong> a characteristically proto-nationalist manner, <strong>in</strong><br />
purely l<strong>in</strong>guistic terms – compare Kalish’s rhetorical question ‘should we study [a<br />
work] <strong>in</strong> gentile tongues because our language lacks the term<strong>in</strong>ology?’ at the end of<br />
his learned approbation.<br />
This f<strong>in</strong>al motif – the v<strong>in</strong>dication of Israel’s <strong>in</strong>tellectual autonomy – was picked up<br />
by Kalish’s Dutch colleagues. Saul ha-Levi, always the first <strong>and</strong> most impressionable<br />
of the three, expressed the hope that Schick’s book would ‘prove wrong the arrogant<br />
gentiles who claim that Hebrew cannot serve as a language of science’, while Saul<br />
Loewenstamm was confident that the book would ‘show the nations <strong>and</strong> their rulers<br />
that we [Jews] also have famous scholars <strong>and</strong> scientists <strong>in</strong> our midst’. Yet besides<br />
79 See above, p. 293.<br />
80 On Schick, cf. esp. David Fishman, ‘A Polish Rabbi Meets the Berl<strong>in</strong> Haskalah’, AJS-Review 12.1<br />
(1987): 114-9.<br />
300 Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered: The Dutch Eighteenth Century
elaborat<strong>in</strong>g upon themes already broached by Kalish, the Dutch rabbis also borrowed<br />
topics from Schick’s own <strong>in</strong>troduction. Saul ha-Levi, for example, repeated Schick’s<br />
chauv<strong>in</strong>ist claim that translat<strong>in</strong>g Euclid <strong>in</strong>to Hebrew <strong>in</strong> fact amounted to br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g<br />
back the mathematical sciences to their orig<strong>in</strong>s. 82 But the most significant example of<br />
all was the Amsterdam rabbis’ jo<strong>in</strong>t emphasis on the importance of mathematics for a<br />
thorough underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of Torah. Cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g the conviction, first formulated by the<br />
Vilna Gaon <strong>and</strong> subsequently quoted by Schick, that ‘Torah <strong>and</strong> Ìokhmah are yoked<br />
together’ <strong>and</strong> that ‘what a man lacks <strong>in</strong> scientific knowledge will escape him a hundred-fold<br />
<strong>in</strong> Torah’, 83 Rabbi Saul found himself referr<strong>in</strong>g to ‘the mathematical sciences,<br />
on which the guf ha-torah rests’. And add<strong>in</strong>g yet another pun to the muchquoted<br />
clause <strong>in</strong> Nehemiah 8:8, his Sephardi colleague Solomon Shalem expressed<br />
the wish that Euclid’s orig<strong>in</strong>ally Lat<strong>in</strong> (sic) manual would help his fellow-Jews underst<strong>and</strong><br />
their Bible meforash ve-som sekhel, <strong>in</strong> a clear, <strong>in</strong>telligent fashion.<br />
Thus we witness the rabb<strong>in</strong>ic elite of Amsterdam <strong>and</strong> The Hague subscrib<strong>in</strong>g, on<br />
paper at least, to such ‘modern’ axiomata as the <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sically Jewish potential for the<br />
natural sciences <strong>and</strong> the need for a rational, science-based study of Torah. While distill<strong>in</strong>g<br />
these enlightened motifs from Schick’s <strong>in</strong>troduction, the rabbis apparently decided<br />
to overlook the dayyan’s ruthless critique of the rabb<strong>in</strong>ic class, which was systematically<br />
portrayed as the adversary par excellence of the Jewish enlightened<br />
cause. In thus ignor<strong>in</strong>g the extreme polemics that lay implied <strong>in</strong> Schick’s words, the<br />
representatives of Dutch-Jewish tradition once more st<strong>and</strong> revealed as champions of<br />
<strong>in</strong>tellectual eclecticism. While occasionally allow<strong>in</strong>g enlightened modes of th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to enter their discourse, they nevertheless avoided all confrontation with the ultimate<br />
consequences of these new ideas. In all likelihood it was a confrontation that was<br />
easily avoided precisely because the impact of this ‘enlightenment by proxy’ was, at<br />
best, superficial. It may have impressed the Dutch rabbis, but it did not <strong>in</strong>spire them<br />
to fundamentally alter their approach of Torah <strong>and</strong> tradition.<br />
The l<strong>in</strong>guistic dimension<br />
Dur<strong>in</strong>g the early 1770s David ben Phoebus Wagenaar of Amsterdam had been work<strong>in</strong>g<br />
on a Hebrew translation of Mendelssohn’s Phädon, first published <strong>in</strong> German <strong>in</strong><br />
1767. 84 Around 1775 he ventured to send a letter to the revered master <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong>, ask<strong>in</strong>g<br />
him to check part of the translation <strong>and</strong> to authorize a Hebrew edition, which so<br />
many anshei madda¨ ha-toraniyyim ha-amitiyyim <strong>in</strong> his vic<strong>in</strong>ity were <strong>in</strong>sist<strong>in</strong>g upon<br />
(as a precedent for this request Wagenaar referred to the historic example of Samuel<br />
Ibn Tibbon, who had once implored Maimonides’ help <strong>in</strong> perfect<strong>in</strong>g his Hebrew<br />
translation of the Guide for the Perplexed). For reasons unknown the <strong>in</strong>tended<br />
81 Cf. Fe<strong>in</strong>er, The Jewish Enlightenment, p. 24-5.<br />
82 Cf. Schick’s contention (haqdamah, fol. [1b]) that the mathematical sciences had been <strong>in</strong>vented <strong>in</strong><br />
the times of Joshua, dur<strong>in</strong>g the Ìilluq ha-araÒot.<br />
83 Ibid.<br />
84 References to Wagenaar’s project can be found <strong>in</strong> Alex<strong>and</strong>er Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn: A Biographical<br />
Study (University of Alabama, 1973), pp. 192-3, 790, <strong>and</strong> Fe<strong>in</strong>er, The Jewish Enlightenment,<br />
p. 26.<br />
Irene Zwiep<br />
301
Hebrew edition never materialized; today Wagenaar’s autograph rests <strong>in</strong> the Bibliotheca<br />
Rosenthaliana. 85 The letter, however, has been preserved, giv<strong>in</strong>g us an <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g<br />
<strong>in</strong>sight <strong>in</strong>to Wagenaar’s appreciation of the orig<strong>in</strong>al, <strong>and</strong> reveal<strong>in</strong>g his ultimate<br />
motivation for translat<strong>in</strong>g it <strong>in</strong>to leshon filosofyah Òah ve-naqel, i.e. pure <strong>and</strong> simple<br />
philosophical Hebrew. 86<br />
Wagenaar’s evaluation of the Phädon as expressed <strong>in</strong> the letter betrays a dist<strong>in</strong>ctly<br />
Dutch-Jewish attitude, which is characterized first <strong>and</strong> for all by an eclectic, traditional<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpretation of Mendelssohn’s text. In Wagenaar’s perception, Mendelssohn’s<br />
treatise on immortality conta<strong>in</strong>ed the basis of ‘all the pr<strong>in</strong>ciples of our faith<br />
<strong>and</strong> the essences of our holy Torah’ <strong>and</strong> thus constituted a worthy addition to the traditional<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i canon. He further mentions how this conviction had prompted<br />
him to write a Hebrew <strong>in</strong>troduction as well as a list of references to the ‘holy Scriptures,<br />
rabb<strong>in</strong>ic teach<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>and</strong> Sefer ha-Zohar’, that would illustrate this fundamental<br />
congruence between Mendelssohn’s exposé <strong>and</strong> traditional literature. Unfortunately<br />
neither the <strong>in</strong>troduction nor the <strong>in</strong>dex of traditional parallels appears to have been <strong>in</strong>cluded<br />
<strong>in</strong> the present manuscript. Still, the very <strong>in</strong>tention to add both <strong>in</strong> order to serve<br />
as a k<strong>in</strong>d of <strong>in</strong>tellectual prism, testifies to the – by now familiar – Dutch-Jewish <strong>in</strong>cl<strong>in</strong>ation<br />
not to reject <strong>in</strong>novation, but rather ‘domesticate’ by <strong>in</strong>corporat<strong>in</strong>g it <strong>in</strong>to traditional<br />
modes of th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
It soon appears, however, that Wagenaar’s primary motive had not been the wish<br />
to add a new branch the traditional (religious) canon, but the ‘desire to study the<br />
work by translat<strong>in</strong>g it… <strong>in</strong> order to try my h<strong>and</strong> at the melekhet ha-ha¨ataqah <strong>and</strong><br />
practise it’. He acknowledged that a translator’s task was a lonely <strong>and</strong> ungrateful one,<br />
that the chance of distort<strong>in</strong>g the kavvanat ha-meÌabber, the orig<strong>in</strong>al author’s <strong>in</strong>tention,<br />
was immanent, <strong>and</strong> that <strong>in</strong> this particular case his lack of German knowledge<br />
was bound to play him false. Apparently he had tried to circumvent the latter problem<br />
by consult<strong>in</strong>g the Dutch Phädon-translation, which had appeared a few years<br />
earlier (The Hague: Van Cleeff, 1769). In Wagenaar’s version we f<strong>in</strong>d the same explanatory<br />
additions <strong>and</strong> footnotes; contrary to the Dutch translation, however, his<br />
Hebrew text omitted all references to the esoteric details of classical Greek culture.<br />
On the whole we may conclude that Wagenaar’s Hebrew translation of Mendelssohn’s<br />
Phädon had less to do with a new <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> philosophy than with the – typically<br />
Dutch-Jewish – preoccupation with Hebrew literacy <strong>and</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistic exercise. In<br />
this exercise, the philosopher Mendelssohn played the role of catalyst only – an emblematic<br />
role, which he would cont<strong>in</strong>ue to play until well <strong>in</strong>to the n<strong>in</strong>eteenth century.<br />
A further example of the prom<strong>in</strong>ence given by young <strong>in</strong>tellectuals to strengthen<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Hebrew’s scholarly potential, is Yekel Weil’s (1776-1856) booklet on zoology, presumably<br />
written sometime dur<strong>in</strong>g the 1790s. 87 In my op<strong>in</strong>ion Jozeph Michman, <strong>in</strong> his<br />
characterization of the ‘Dutch orthodox Haskalah’, rashly overestimated the work as<br />
a sign of a new, enlightened <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the sciences. 88 Upon closer <strong>in</strong>spection, Weil’s<br />
85 Ms. Ros. 263.<br />
86 Published <strong>in</strong> Mendelssohn’s Gesammelte Schriften: Jubiläumsausgabe 19, ed. Haim Borodiansky<br />
(Stuttgart-Bad Cannstadt, 1974), pp. 206-7. NB: the year 1775 is uncerta<strong>in</strong>.<br />
87 Ms. Ros. 168.<br />
88 Michman, The History of Dutch Jewry, p. 165.<br />
302 Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered: The Dutch Eighteenth Century
composition lacks all categorization <strong>and</strong> classification that might place it <strong>in</strong> one category<br />
with such classics of the Hebrew Volksaufklärung as Baruch L<strong>in</strong>dau’s Reshit<br />
limmudim (Berl<strong>in</strong>, 1788) or even P<strong>in</strong>chas Hurwitz’s Sefer ha-Berit (1797). 89 Instead,<br />
it turns out to be a mere list of current animal names <strong>and</strong> their biblical equivalents.<br />
Thus Weil’s ‘zoology’ appears to be little more than an elementary attempt at creat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
a scientific Hebrew based on the (authentic) language of the Bible.<br />
As a third example of the centrality of language <strong>in</strong> Dutch-Jewish enlightened discourse,<br />
we should mention the fact that one of the most consequential controversies<br />
of the early n<strong>in</strong>eteenth century, which <strong>in</strong>volved both Mendelssohn’s disciple David<br />
Friedrichsfeld (c. 1755-1810) <strong>and</strong> the young Amsterdam maskil Moses Lemans<br />
(1785-1832), centred upon language. In a series of pamphlets directed aga<strong>in</strong>st anonymous<br />
opponents, both authors argued for the superiority of the Sephardi pronunciation<br />
of Hebrew over the High-German nusaÌ. 90 It is important to notice that for the<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im Friedrichsfeld <strong>and</strong> Lemans ‘<strong>Sepharad</strong>’ constituted an obvious model of<br />
superior quality, but that, as an <strong>in</strong>dependent voice, it was entirely absent from the<br />
debate. By 1810, ‘<strong>Sepharad</strong>’ apparently was well on its way to become an iconic<br />
motif <strong>in</strong> Dutch <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g on progress <strong>and</strong> emancipation.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, the Dutch-Jewish <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> language is also reflected by the wealth of<br />
Hebrew manuals that were written <strong>and</strong>/or published <strong>in</strong> The Republic between 1700<br />
<strong>and</strong> 1800. Whereas <strong>in</strong>dividual items occasionally feature <strong>in</strong> modern scholarly discourse,<br />
the corpus as such is virtually unknown. For us to ga<strong>in</strong> a better <strong>in</strong>sight <strong>in</strong>to its<br />
scope, methods <strong>and</strong> languages, I here present a rudimentary bibliographie raisonnée<br />
of its ma<strong>in</strong> constituents, arranged <strong>in</strong> chronological order. While read<strong>in</strong>g the survey, it<br />
is vital to remember that the ‘Dutch corpus’ did not emerge with<strong>in</strong> a methodological<br />
vacuum, but reflects a new sensitivity towards language <strong>and</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistics that had begun<br />
to manifest itself, both <strong>in</strong> the Sephardi <strong>and</strong> the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i world, already <strong>in</strong> the<br />
seventeenth century. 91<br />
1. Judah Leon ‘Templo’, Reshit Ìokhmah, Amsterdam 1702/03: the last <strong>in</strong> a series<br />
of Hebrew grammars written by Amsterdam Sephardim, which had started <strong>in</strong><br />
1641 with Menasseh ben Israel’s Safah berurah. Though ma<strong>in</strong>ly organized like<br />
grammars of Lat<strong>in</strong>, these manuals also bear traces of the medieval Judeo-Arabic<br />
tradition. Written for the classroom, they supported the rhetorical education of<br />
students at the local schools. 92<br />
89 For Hurwitz’s scientific classifications, cf. esp. Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e’s article <strong>in</strong> the present volume.<br />
90 The controversy is briefly recapitulated <strong>in</strong> Dan Michman, ‘David Friedrichsfeld – maskil ve-loÌem<br />
emanÒipaÒyah’, Studies on the History of Dutch Jewry 2: 159-60.<br />
91 For its seventeenth-century roots, cf. Isidore Fishman, The History of Jewish Education <strong>in</strong> Central<br />
Europe: From the End of the Sixteenth to the End of the Eighteenth Century (London, 1944), pp. 50-1,<br />
<strong>and</strong> Chava Turniansky, ‘¨Al sifrut didaq†it be-yiddish be-Amsterdam (1699-1749)’, Studies <strong>in</strong> the History<br />
of Dutch Jewry 4 (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 163-77. For its eighteenth-century developments, cf. Irene<br />
E. Zwiep, ‘Imag<strong>in</strong>ed Speech Communities. Western <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Multil<strong>in</strong>gualism as Reflected <strong>in</strong> Eighteenth-Century<br />
Grammars of Hebrew’, <strong>in</strong> Shlomo Berger, et al., eds., Speak<strong>in</strong>g Jewish – Jewish Speak.<br />
Multil<strong>in</strong>gualism <strong>in</strong> Western <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>ic Culture (= Studia Rosenthaliana 36 [2003]): 71-111.<br />
92 Anthony Klijnsmit, ‘Amsterdam Sephardim <strong>and</strong> Hebrew Grammar <strong>in</strong> the Seventeenth Century’,<br />
Studia Rosenthaliana 22 (1988): 144-64.<br />
Irene Zwiep<br />
303
2. Feivel (Phoebus) of Metz, Masakh ha-petaÌ, Amsterdam 1710: a brief Yiddish<br />
<strong>in</strong>troduction (12 fols) on how to learn a language with the help of grammar, so<br />
that ‘ord<strong>in</strong>ary men <strong>and</strong> women (…) henceforth could pray with an accurate underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g<br />
of the words’. The booklet resembles a pamphlet rather than a<br />
grammar; for grammatical content the author referred to the Hebrew textbooks<br />
by Elijah Levita (d. 1549). In its l<strong>in</strong>guistic classifications, Masakh ha-petaÌ relied<br />
on both the Hebrew <strong>and</strong> the Lat<strong>in</strong> school traditions. Significantly, <strong>in</strong> the<br />
open<strong>in</strong>g chapter the Sephardim are adduced as masters of language <strong>and</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistics.<br />
93<br />
3. Israel ben Abraham Av<strong>in</strong>u, MafteaÌ leshon ha-qodesh, Amsterdam 1713: perhaps<br />
<strong>in</strong> order to make up for a lacuna noticed by Feivel of Metz (who <strong>in</strong> Masakh<br />
ha-petaÌ had remarked upon the absence of grammars <strong>in</strong> Yiddish), the proselyte<br />
Israel ben Abraham composed this concise Yiddish grammar of Hebrew (32<br />
fols). Written for children, the MafteaÌ fits <strong>in</strong>to the (modest) <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i school<br />
tradition with its compact descriptions, use of mnemonics <strong>and</strong> rudimentary paradigms.<br />
In true <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i fashion, the †e¨amim are treated at the end of the<br />
book. 94<br />
4. Joseph ben Jacob Maarssen, ABC-boek, The Hague 1728: offer<strong>in</strong>g Dutch translations<br />
of selected core texts from Jewish religious life (such as the Ten Comm<strong>and</strong>ments,<br />
the Shema¨, <strong>and</strong> various berakhot), the book aimed to familiarize the<br />
Jews <strong>in</strong> The Republic with the Dutch language. It belonged to a small corpus of<br />
early eighteenth-century didactic manuals, usually written <strong>in</strong> Yiddish, that were<br />
designed to acqua<strong>in</strong>t Jewish professionals with the skills required <strong>in</strong> modern social<br />
<strong>and</strong> commercial practice. 95<br />
5. Solomon Hanau, Yesod ha-niqqud, Amsterdam 1730: a Hebrew treatise on vocalization<br />
by the controversial <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i grammarian Hanau (1687-1746),<br />
whose polemical debut B<strong>in</strong>yan Shelomoh had elicited fiercely polemical responses<br />
from colleagues <strong>and</strong> rabbis alike. 96<br />
6. Eleazar Soesman, Mohar Yisra}el, De Bruidschat Israels, of Onderwijs der<br />
Hebreeuwsche Spraak-kunst, Amsterdam 1741: while earn<strong>in</strong>g his liv<strong>in</strong>g as a<br />
teacher of Hebrew <strong>and</strong> rabb<strong>in</strong>ics to the wealthy non-Jewish elite of Amsterdam,<br />
Soesman had composed the Mohar with the assistance of various Christian relations,<br />
who had helped him prepare the manuscript, organize the material <strong>and</strong> perfect<br />
its language. A Yiddish version, written for private use, appears to have<br />
been arranged accord<strong>in</strong>g to different pr<strong>in</strong>ciples. 97<br />
93 Cf. Shlomo Berger, ‘Yiddish ve-ha-modernizaÒyah ha-yehudit ba-meˆah ha-shemoneh ¨esreh’, Braun<br />
Lectures <strong>in</strong> the History of the Jews <strong>in</strong> Prussia 12 (Ramat Gan, 2005).<br />
94 See Turniansky, ‘Al sifrut didaq†it’, pp. 166-7.<br />
95 Ibid., p. 164.<br />
96 On Hanau, cf. Andrea Schatz, ‘Vorgeschrieben und umgeschrieben. Die ‘neue heilige Sprache’ der<br />
jüdischen Aufklärer’, <strong>in</strong> Jüdische Sprachen <strong>in</strong> Deutscher Umwelt: Hebräisch und Jiddisch von der<br />
Aufklärung bis <strong>in</strong>s 20. Jahrhundert, ed. Michael Brenner (Gött<strong>in</strong>gen, 2002), pp. 19-27; eadem, Sprache<br />
<strong>in</strong> der Zerstreuung: Zur Säkularisierung des Hebräischen im 18. Jahrhundert, (Gött<strong>in</strong>gen, 2006),<br />
ch. II.2, forthcom<strong>in</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> Zwiep, ‘Imag<strong>in</strong>ed Speech Communities’, pp. 84-90.<br />
97 On Soesman <strong>and</strong> his co-operation with Christian scholars, cf. Jan-Wim Wesselius, ‘Eleazar Soesman<br />
en de Amsterdamse polemieken van 1712’, Studia Rosenthaliana 27 (1993): 13-35, esp. p. 17.<br />
304 Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered: The Dutch Eighteenth Century
7. Naphtali Herz Wessely, Gan na¨ul, Amsterdam 1755/56 (Hebrew): named after<br />
Song of Songs 4:12, this lexicon of Hebrew synonyms aimed to reveal the <strong>in</strong>nate<br />
genius of the Hebrew language by def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the unique mean<strong>in</strong>g of each Hebrew<br />
root. Simultaneously, however, it can be read as a covert attempt to rehabilitate<br />
traditional rabb<strong>in</strong>ic exegesis. 98<br />
8. Gedaliah ben MenaÌem Taikes, Îen ha-lashon, Amsterdam 1765: a booklet, accord<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to the author, ‘as it did not exist before, conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the<br />
grammar of Hebrew <strong>in</strong> the simple <strong>and</strong> orderly language which a teacher should<br />
speak to his pupil’. In this Yiddish digest of Hanau’s descriptive model, Taikes<br />
<strong>in</strong>troduced his young audience to the basic rules of l<strong>in</strong>guistic th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g, an exercise<br />
<strong>in</strong> which their mameloshn played a crucial role. His ultimate concern, however,<br />
was to teach them to mobilize their knowledge of grammar when translat<strong>in</strong>g Ìummash<br />
<strong>in</strong>to Taytsh. For Taikes, Bible <strong>and</strong> grammar constituted the obvious start<strong>in</strong>g<br />
po<strong>in</strong>t of a Jewish child’s education, a ‘modern’ choice that deliberately ignored the<br />
priority traditionally given to gemara <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i school-system. 99<br />
9. Joseph ben David Heilbronn, Mev<strong>in</strong> Ìidot, Amsterdam 1765/66: a pirated version,<br />
published with the f<strong>in</strong>ancial support of Tobias Boas, 100 of the masoretic<br />
treatise Seyyag le-torah (Frankfurt a.M. 1765/66) by Asher Anshel Worms<br />
(1695-1769). Worms’s book had been part of an encyclopaedic project that <strong>in</strong>cluded<br />
works on grammar, logic, physics, metaphysics, ethics, <strong>and</strong> various sciences.<br />
Characteristically, for the Dutch market only the exegetical volume was<br />
s<strong>in</strong>gled out for publication. 101<br />
10. Mordecai Tamah, ed., Maskyot kesef, Amsterdam 1765: the ‘antiquarian’ re-edition<br />
of Solomon ben Meshullam da Piera’s (early fifteenth-century?) dictionary<br />
of synonyms, also discussed above. 102<br />
11. Abraham ben MenaÌem Schwab, Divrei yosher, Amsterdam 1767: Hebrew epistolary.<br />
12. Solomon Hanau, Bet tefillah <strong>and</strong> Sha¨arei tefillah, The Hague 1777: repr<strong>in</strong>t, by<br />
Loeb Soesmans, of the Hebrew prayerbook-cum-grammar published by Hanau<br />
<strong>in</strong> Jessnitz, 1725.<br />
13. David Wagenaar, (a) QibbuÒ millim (before 1793, <strong>in</strong> manuscript, 965 fols), a bipartite<br />
Hebrew dictionary of the Bible, Talmud Bavli <strong>and</strong> midrashim, <strong>and</strong> (b)<br />
Horaˆot shorshei leshon ha-qodesh (also <strong>in</strong> manuscript), a Hebrew-Dutch/Dutch-<br />
Hebrew lexicon, aga<strong>in</strong> completed, <strong>in</strong> two volumes, before 1793. Contrary to the<br />
Hebrew Phädon, Wagenaar’s l<strong>in</strong>guistic manuscripts are not <strong>in</strong> the Bibliotheca<br />
Rosenthaliana. It is not unlikely, however, that <strong>in</strong> the early n<strong>in</strong>eteenth century<br />
they became part of the Tongelet archive, which is presently <strong>in</strong>accessible. 103<br />
98 Thus Edward Breuer, The Limits of Enlightenment. Jews, Germans, <strong>and</strong> the Eighteenth-Century<br />
Study of Scripture (Cambridge MA <strong>and</strong> London, 1996), pp. 136-9.<br />
99 Cf. Zwiep, ‘Imag<strong>in</strong>ed Speech Communities’, pp. 94-8.<br />
100 Seeligmann, Geestelijk leven, p. 46.<br />
101 On Asher Anshel Worms, see Breuer, The Limits of Enlightenment, pp. 112-5, <strong>and</strong> Fe<strong>in</strong>er, The Jewish<br />
Enlightenment, pp. 49-50.<br />
102 Cf. p. 292.<br />
103 Information on the two manuscripts is found <strong>in</strong> Gabriël Polak, Bat qol gallim (Amsterdam, 1867),<br />
where Polak added a bio-bibliographic footnote to his description of Wagenaar’s tombstone at Muider-<br />
Irene Zwiep<br />
305
When brows<strong>in</strong>g through the list, one is struck by the variety of grammatical approaches,<br />
especially when compared with the relatively static <strong>and</strong> uniform medieval<br />
tradition. While that previous tradition was written first <strong>and</strong> for all by literate men for<br />
literate men, its eighteenth-century offshoot explicitly addressed various audiences,<br />
from poets <strong>and</strong> professionals to young pupils <strong>and</strong> even gemayne laytn, ord<strong>in</strong>ary men<br />
<strong>and</strong> women who aspired for a deeper underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of the holy tongue. Also, while<br />
the medieval medaqdeqim had limited themselves to giv<strong>in</strong>g morphological-semantic<br />
descriptions of Hebrew, which would serve as the ultimate touchstone of poetry <strong>and</strong><br />
exegesis, the (early-)modern grammarians generally pursued more varied <strong>and</strong> practical<br />
goals. Some grammars were <strong>in</strong>tended to help the average Jew say his prayers<br />
with a kavvanah that was based on underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g rather than rout<strong>in</strong>e. Others enabled<br />
pupils to translate their Ìummash without mistakes, or guided professionals <strong>in</strong> writ<strong>in</strong>g<br />
letters accord<strong>in</strong>g to the proper epistolary conventions. This variety of goals <strong>and</strong><br />
audiences had important methodological <strong>and</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistic consequences. While the medieval<br />
tradition had been essentially monol<strong>in</strong>gual (the vast majority of grammars <strong>and</strong><br />
dictionaries had been written <strong>in</strong> Hebrew), the new corpus relied on a plethora of languages<br />
(Hebrew, Portuguese, Yiddish, <strong>and</strong> Dutch) <strong>in</strong> order to reach its respective audiences.<br />
Each language brought with it its own model of classification <strong>and</strong> description:<br />
most manuals can be seen to depart, to one extent or the other, from the<br />
<strong>in</strong>digenous Hebrew model. 104<br />
This unprecedentedly versatile approach of grammar met with a responsive Dutch-<br />
Jewish audience. The eighteenth-century catalogues mentioned above <strong>in</strong> relation to<br />
‘early-maskilic’ publications 105 also abound <strong>in</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistic studies, rang<strong>in</strong>g from latemedieval<br />
<strong>and</strong> Renaissance classics, via the earliest <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i manuals, to the latest –<br />
aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i – textbooks <strong>and</strong> dictionaries. When consider<strong>in</strong>g the high share of<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i grammars <strong>in</strong> these catalogues, we cannot help but conclude that, from the<br />
earliest decades of the eighteenth century onwards, the <strong>in</strong>tellectual <strong>in</strong>itiative had been<br />
not with the Sephardim, but with their <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i brethren. In an almost ritual acknowledgement<br />
of their traditional ‘backwardness’, <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i grammarians cont<strong>in</strong>ued<br />
to po<strong>in</strong>t at ‘the Sephardim’ as the ultimate experts at biblical <strong>and</strong> l<strong>in</strong>guistic studies.<br />
It is clear, however, that this alleged superiority was becom<strong>in</strong>g a st<strong>and</strong>ard topos<br />
<strong>and</strong> that the Sephardi masters were turn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to iconic examples rather than immediate<br />
sources. Where Sephardi l<strong>in</strong>guistic creativity had stopped with Judah Leon’s<br />
Reshit Ìokhmah of 1702/03, the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>im began to develop their own, surpris<strong>in</strong>gly<br />
rich <strong>and</strong> manifold, tradition of grammar, <strong>in</strong> Yiddish (until 1765) as well as <strong>in</strong><br />
Hebrew.<br />
In the f<strong>in</strong>al decades of the century, when <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i l<strong>in</strong>guistics reached a new climax,<br />
the Sephardi <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> Hebrew literacy came to an end. The professional semielite<br />
which previously had cultivated the art of writ<strong>in</strong>g Hebrew now turned towards<br />
Dutch, a clear <strong>in</strong>dication of their rapid assimilation to the surround<strong>in</strong>g society <strong>and</strong><br />
berg cemetery. Aga<strong>in</strong> it is not unlikely that Polak acquired this <strong>in</strong>formation through the Tongeleth<br />
archive.<br />
104 A more elaborate analysis of the material will appear <strong>in</strong> a forthcom<strong>in</strong>g issue of Science <strong>in</strong> Context<br />
(2006).<br />
105 See above, p. 299.<br />
306 Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered: The Dutch Eighteenth Century
culture. The Sephardi confraternities that were established <strong>in</strong> the 1790s all betray a<br />
dist<strong>in</strong>ctly Dutch orientation: the Talmidei Òedeq society, part Lesegesellschaft, part<br />
literary atelier, specialized <strong>in</strong> Hebrew-Dutch translations, 106 while their ‘enlightened’<br />
colleagues at Concordia Crescimus, <strong>in</strong> an ambitious series of weekly compositions,<br />
commented on current issues <strong>in</strong> history, ethics <strong>and</strong> the arts <strong>in</strong> the Dutch ‘mother<br />
tongue’. 107 Given this relatively sudden, wide-spread prom<strong>in</strong>ence of Dutch, we ought<br />
not to be surprised that, <strong>in</strong> the 1780s, the age<strong>in</strong>g David Franco Mendes turned towards<br />
the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Îevrat dorshei ¨ever <strong>and</strong> their periodical ha-Meˆassef <strong>in</strong> search<br />
of a Hebrew literary platform. 108<br />
Libraries <strong>and</strong> readers<br />
F<strong>in</strong>ally, a few words should be said about how Dutch-Jewish readers <strong>and</strong> collectors<br />
perceived of ‘the library’, both as an actual space where books could be stored <strong>and</strong> as<br />
a more abstract reservoir of knowledge <strong>and</strong> scholarship. In order to catch a glimpse<br />
of this late eighteenth-century library awareness, we must turn to the few private<br />
catalogues that have come down to us, each of which conta<strong>in</strong>s at least some paratextual<br />
material that may help our reconstruction.<br />
First of all it is important to notice that, though the work rema<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> manuscript,<br />
even Isaac Cohen Bel<strong>in</strong>fante’s Siftei yeshenim Ìadash (1777) proudly sported an engrav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of a library, pasted opposite the title page. The <strong>in</strong>clusion of this picture had<br />
one important effect: its presence seemed to turn Bel<strong>in</strong>fante’s <strong>in</strong>animate list of<br />
pr<strong>in</strong>ted works <strong>and</strong> manuscripts <strong>in</strong>to an almost physical locus of books <strong>and</strong> booklore.<br />
Only a few years before, the maskil Solomon Dubno (1738-1813) had embellished<br />
his – likewise h<strong>and</strong>written – catalogue with his own engraved likeness. 109 Underneath<br />
the portrait were references to Mendelssohn’s Beˆur (on which Dubno had collaborated),<br />
to Tiqqun soferim (Dubno’s text-critical supplement to the Beˆur) <strong>and</strong> to<br />
diqduq neg<strong>in</strong>ot shirim, i.e., to his overall expertise <strong>in</strong> the arts of grammar <strong>and</strong> poetry.<br />
Through the <strong>in</strong>clusion of his portrait <strong>and</strong> the references to his oeuvre, Dubno was forever<br />
present <strong>in</strong> his library, both as the books’ owner <strong>and</strong> as a scholar putt<strong>in</strong>g his library<br />
to the use of his many talents.<br />
The most strik<strong>in</strong>g celebration of the library’s pivotal importance to scholarship can<br />
be found <strong>in</strong> the catalogue of books owned by Moses Teixeira de Mattos, which was<br />
compiled by Teixeira himself <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam 1768. 110 Teixeira’s catalogue had a Hebrew<br />
as well as a Dutch title page, both show<strong>in</strong>g an illustration (by A. Santcroos) of<br />
106 In the early 1790s, the society published Gebeeden der Portugeesche Joden (The Hague, 1791-93),<br />
a Dutch translation of the Portuguese-Jewish liturgy; cf. Peter Buys, ‘Tot nut en eer van ’t jodendom’,<br />
p. 19, <strong>and</strong> earlier Baron, ‘Moses Cohen Bel<strong>in</strong>fante’, pp. 4-5.<br />
107 Cf. Meijer, Isaac da Costa’s weg naar het Christendom, pp. 37-8, <strong>and</strong> De Vries, Beschaven!, p. 163.<br />
108 See also above, p. 289.<br />
109 Ms. Ros. 469. The catalogue was completed Elul 1771, dur<strong>in</strong>g Dubno’s stay <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam. For this<br />
period <strong>in</strong> the scholar’s life, cf. <strong>in</strong>ter alia Michman, The History of Dutch Jewry, pp. 162-3, <strong>and</strong> Fe<strong>in</strong>er,<br />
The Jewish Enlightenment, p. 43.<br />
110 Ms. EH 47 A 8; for a description of the manuscript, cf. Fuks <strong>and</strong> Fuks-Mansfeld, Hebrew <strong>and</strong><br />
Judaic Manuscripts II, p. 207. no. 396. NB: The catalogue was designed to list both the Hebrew <strong>and</strong> the<br />
‘Nederduitsche, Fransche, Spaansche en Italiaansche Boecken en Manuscripten’ owned by Teixeira de<br />
Mattos, but the non-Hebrew part of the catalogue was never executed (only the head<strong>in</strong>g rema<strong>in</strong>s).<br />
Irene Zwiep<br />
307
the scholar <strong>in</strong> his study. The illustration shows an elderly gentleman (age presumably<br />
suggest<strong>in</strong>g erudition), wear<strong>in</strong>g a house coat (imply<strong>in</strong>g even<strong>in</strong>g time <strong>and</strong> leisure) <strong>and</strong><br />
glasses, at work <strong>in</strong> his library. The hour glass <strong>and</strong> c<strong>and</strong>le belong to the traditional<br />
memento mori imagery <strong>and</strong> were no doubt <strong>in</strong>cluded to <strong>in</strong>spire piety. When lett<strong>in</strong>g our<br />
eyes roam through the library, however, we come across a series of <strong>in</strong>struments – a<br />
telescope, measur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>struments, globes – that unequivocally belong to the realm of<br />
science. The books on the floor confirm our impression: this is a scholar’s library,<br />
<strong>and</strong> it is be<strong>in</strong>g used <strong>in</strong>tensively. Contrary to the scientific dynamic implied <strong>in</strong> the picture,<br />
however, Teixeira’s actual library appears to have been quite traditional: with<br />
the exception of Hurwitz’s recent ¨Ammudei bet Yehudah (Amsterdam 1766), the<br />
catalogue mentions only religious Hebrew classics. Also, the catalogue was arranged<br />
alphabetically accord<strong>in</strong>g to size, thus reveal<strong>in</strong>g precious little of Teixeira’s ideas on<br />
how Jewish scholarship should be approached <strong>and</strong> pursued. In this respect Dubno’s<br />
<strong>in</strong>ventory, which listed the books accord<strong>in</strong>g to genre <strong>and</strong> discipl<strong>in</strong>e, is more helpful.<br />
From the Bible plus commentaries <strong>and</strong> midrashim, via mishnayyot <strong>and</strong> Talmud, to<br />
mysticism <strong>and</strong> historiography <strong>and</strong> the auxiliary subjects l<strong>in</strong>guistics, halakhah<br />
(codices) <strong>and</strong> the sciences, <strong>and</strong> with belles lettres, musar <strong>and</strong> liturgy complet<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
list, Dubno’s reshimah clearly reflects an early maskilic conception of what a Jewish<br />
curriculum should look like.<br />
Epilogue<br />
Throughout this reconstruction I have been reluctant to use the term ‘Enlightenment’<br />
when try<strong>in</strong>g to def<strong>in</strong>e the <strong>in</strong>tellectual state of the Jews <strong>in</strong> the Republic between,<br />
roughly, 1750 <strong>and</strong> 1800. In order to preclude unnecessary debate, I decided to adhere<br />
to the purist conception (advocated, among others, by Van Bunge) 111 of Enlightenment<br />
as a term referr<strong>in</strong>g to the contents of enlightened discourse, not to the mentalities<br />
that provoked <strong>and</strong> nourished it. In our exploration of traces of modernity among<br />
eighteenth-century Dutch Jewry, this relative purism proved a fortuitous choice. As<br />
we have seen, that budd<strong>in</strong>g modernity did not express itself <strong>in</strong> novel concepts <strong>and</strong><br />
beliefs but <strong>in</strong> new cultural practices <strong>and</strong> strategies, each betray<strong>in</strong>g new attitudes <strong>and</strong><br />
often <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g unprecedented sets of players <strong>and</strong> audiences.<br />
Contemplat<strong>in</strong>g the totality of practices <strong>and</strong> strategies, we must conclude that their<br />
differentia specifica, their decisive characteristic, was the collective tendency to gently<br />
accommodate the old <strong>and</strong> the new. 112 By articulat<strong>in</strong>g cont<strong>in</strong>uity rather than<br />
change, the Dutch-Jewish <strong>in</strong>tellectuals seem to have gradually drifted <strong>in</strong>to a modernity<br />
that was never felt to be ‘acutely modern’. This may have allowed for smooth<br />
transitions <strong>and</strong> a m<strong>in</strong>imum of rupture, but it did make them a poor object of scholarly<br />
111 See above, p. 282.<br />
112 The one strik<strong>in</strong>g exception to this general ‘tolerance’ was the reception of the works of Naphtali<br />
Hertz Ulmann. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Ulmann’s own biographical notes he was under <strong>in</strong>cessant attack from his<br />
co-religionists, who persecuted him for underm<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the basic tenet’s of the Jewish faith. The only tangible<br />
proof of this unfavourable reaction was Bekhi Naharot (1784) by Simon Coppenhagen, who rebuked<br />
Ulmann for deny<strong>in</strong>g the oral law <strong>and</strong> dismiss<strong>in</strong>g div<strong>in</strong>e Providence’; cf. Seeligmann, Geestelijk<br />
leven, p. 61, <strong>and</strong> Munk, ‘Naphtali Herz Ulman’, p. 11.<br />
308 Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered: The Dutch Eighteenth Century
esearch: with harmony prevail<strong>in</strong>g over crisis, it was unlikely they should ever feature<br />
on the forefront of cultural change. ‘Haskalah, but orthodox’ – Jozeph Michman’s<br />
appraisal of ‘the Dutch-Jewish Enlightenment’ as formulated <strong>in</strong> his 1995 History<br />
of Dutch Jewry 113 may not have been entirely accurate, yet it does seem to<br />
acknowledge the conservative dynamic with which the Jews <strong>in</strong> the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s embraced<br />
modernity <strong>and</strong> its consequences. By welcom<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>novation, yet consistently<br />
<strong>in</strong>terpret<strong>in</strong>g it <strong>in</strong> terms of tradition, they succeeded <strong>in</strong> forg<strong>in</strong>g an ‘enlightened discourse’<br />
<strong>in</strong> which new vistas, however novel or foreign, could always be counted<br />
upon to confirm the Jewish heritage.<br />
113 Michman, History of Dutch Jewry, p. 158.<br />
Irene Zwiep<br />
309
310 Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered: The Dutch Eighteenth Century
Summaries<br />
Wout van Bekkum, Some Thoughts on the ‘Secularization’ of Hebrew Liturgical<br />
Poetry <strong>in</strong> Pre-Modern <strong>and</strong> Modern Times<br />
In this article a few thoughts are shared on the historical range of attitudes towards Hebrew<br />
liturgical poetry or piyyu†, from the highly religious po<strong>in</strong>t of view to the more historical<br />
<strong>and</strong> scientific approach <strong>in</strong> pre-Wissenschaft <strong>and</strong> Wissenschaft times. Substantial<br />
contributions to a new underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of piyyu† were made by Wolf Heidenheim <strong>and</strong><br />
Leopold Zunz, each with<strong>in</strong> their own framework of time <strong>and</strong> historical circumstances.<br />
These <strong>and</strong> other Jewish <strong>in</strong>tellectuals reflect <strong>in</strong> their exploration <strong>and</strong> judgment of piyyu†<br />
the contemporary underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g of Judaism. As be<strong>in</strong>g a modern Jew seemed to require<br />
adapt<strong>in</strong>g to the culture of the environment without actually assimilat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to it, what of<br />
Jewish worship should be adapted to new st<strong>and</strong>ards? On this issue <strong>in</strong> particular German<br />
Jews came to disagree among themselves when it came to the evaluation of piyyu† accord<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to the norms of Spanish-Hebrew religious <strong>and</strong> secular poetry. The historical<br />
discussion of piyyu† as a dynamic literary phenomenon with<strong>in</strong> Judaism is part of an<br />
amplification process of Jewish self-awareness <strong>in</strong> the modern world.<br />
Shlomo Berger, From Philosophy to Popular Ethics: Two Seventeenth-Century<br />
Translations of Ibn Gabirol’s Keter malkhut<br />
Dur<strong>in</strong>g the seventeenth century two Yiddish translations of Solomon ibn Gabirol’s<br />
Keter malkhut were published: one (<strong>in</strong> verse) was published <strong>in</strong> 1600 <strong>in</strong> Venice, the<br />
second (<strong>in</strong> prose) <strong>in</strong> 1673 <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam. The text that served as the basis of both Yiddish<br />
versions was the one found <strong>in</strong> the prayer book for the Day of Atonement accord<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to the Sephardi rite. Although a masterpiece of Hebrew medieval poetry, both<br />
translations were conceived as a liturgical text <strong>in</strong>tended for women <strong>and</strong> simple men.<br />
Thus, <strong>in</strong>stead of rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g a poetical exercise of philosophical-theological ideas, the<br />
Yiddish versions turned the Hebrew poem <strong>in</strong>to a sort of a prayer, a supplication, or an<br />
ethical treatise whose aim was to assist the Jews <strong>in</strong> conduct<strong>in</strong>g a pious life. The difficulties<br />
<strong>in</strong> f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g Yiddish equivalents for various philosophical <strong>and</strong> other terms highlight<br />
the process of transferr<strong>in</strong>g the Hebrew poem <strong>in</strong>to the <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i world of ideas.<br />
Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er, From Renaissance to Revolution: The Eighteenth Century <strong>in</strong> Jewish<br />
History<br />
In this contribution I argue that quite a few of the conundrums of the Jews’ tremendously<br />
significant transition from the old world to the modern world can be under-<br />
Summaries<br />
311
stood <strong>in</strong> a new way if the scholar takes <strong>in</strong> a broad, synchronic <strong>and</strong> multi-voiced view<br />
of the entire eighteenth century. The historian who listens to the various voices of the<br />
eighteenth century, who reads the texts <strong>and</strong> attempts to dist<strong>in</strong>guish between processes<br />
of renewal on the one h<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> desperate attempts to hold on to the old world on the<br />
other, can no longer be completely satisfied with the concepts that are offered by<br />
Jacob Katz’ model of modernization. In lieu of Katz’ ‘Tradition <strong>and</strong> Crisis’ model, it<br />
would be best to <strong>in</strong>terpret the Jewish eighteenth century through the <strong>in</strong>sight of complex<br />
<strong>and</strong> multifaceted Jewish modernization. In this century elements of the old <strong>and</strong><br />
the new worlds were <strong>in</strong>termixed <strong>and</strong> sometimes engaged <strong>in</strong> a struggle. It was an unstable<br />
century, which perhaps may be called a ‘melt<strong>in</strong>g pot’ of the modern Jewish<br />
world. Everyth<strong>in</strong>g began <strong>in</strong> it, <strong>and</strong> noth<strong>in</strong>g actually ended <strong>in</strong> it, a fasc<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g century<br />
of many <strong>in</strong>novations, contradictions, disputes, uncerta<strong>in</strong>ties <strong>and</strong> hesitations. When we<br />
focus the historian’s spotlight on the <strong>in</strong>tellectual elite, we may discern, amidst the<br />
complex events affect<strong>in</strong>g European Jewry <strong>in</strong> this century, a renaissance manifested<br />
by the early Haskalah <strong>and</strong> a revolution wrought by the maskilim <strong>in</strong> the last two decades.<br />
Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e, Natural Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit: P<strong>in</strong>chas Hurwitz on Animals<br />
<strong>and</strong> Meteorological Phenomena<br />
This contribution studies the relation of two sections of P<strong>in</strong>chas Hurwitz’s encyclopedia<br />
Sefer ha-Berit (1797) to thirteenth century Hebrew encyclopedias of science<br />
<strong>and</strong> philosophy by exam<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g Hurwitz’s use <strong>and</strong> evaluation of (i) medieval views;<br />
(ii) modern scientific theories, <strong>and</strong> (iii) traditional Jewish <strong>and</strong> kabbalistic sources.<br />
Although Hurwitz considers medieval views to have been superseded by modern scientific<br />
discoveries <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>ventions – which he describes <strong>in</strong> great detail – <strong>and</strong> despite<br />
his general preference for traditional <strong>and</strong> kabbalistic teach<strong>in</strong>gs, medieval views <strong>and</strong><br />
sources appear to play a role <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit. Moreover, Hurwitz’s ambivalent attitude<br />
towards modern science <strong>and</strong> philosophy (medieval <strong>and</strong> modern) can be seen as a<br />
cont<strong>in</strong>uation of similar tendencies displayed by certa<strong>in</strong> medieval <strong>and</strong> early-modern<br />
authors who, while conv<strong>in</strong>ced of the need to dissem<strong>in</strong>ate secular learn<strong>in</strong>g, were at the<br />
same time sceptical about the validity of rational knowledge.<br />
Carlos Fraenkel, Maimonides, Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, Solomon Maimon, <strong>and</strong> the Completion of<br />
the Copernican Revolution <strong>in</strong> Philosophy<br />
Maimon once described the philosophical project underly<strong>in</strong>g his Essay on Transcendental<br />
Philosophy as an attempt ‘to unify Kantian philosophy with Sp<strong>in</strong>ozism’. However,<br />
<strong>in</strong> the only reference to Sp<strong>in</strong>oza <strong>in</strong> the Essay, he stresses that Sp<strong>in</strong>oza was not<br />
the source of his argumentation. The thesis for which I will argue <strong>in</strong> this paper is that,<br />
notwithst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>g the disclaimer, Maimon’s solution for the problems that <strong>in</strong> his view<br />
haunted Kant’s theory of knowledge was <strong>in</strong>deed significantly <strong>in</strong>fluenced by Sp<strong>in</strong>oza,<br />
as well as by the medieval Jewish Aristotelian Maimonides. S<strong>in</strong>ce the key concept <strong>in</strong><br />
this solution is the metaphysical doctr<strong>in</strong>e of the ‘<strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect’, my focus will be<br />
on clarify<strong>in</strong>g how this doctr<strong>in</strong>e is related to Maimonides’ doctr<strong>in</strong>e of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect,<br />
<strong>and</strong> to Sp<strong>in</strong>oza’s doctr<strong>in</strong>e of Deus sive Natura. My ma<strong>in</strong> contention is that<br />
312 Summaries
Maimon’s doctr<strong>in</strong>e of the ‘<strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ite <strong>in</strong>tellect’ may be described as a Sp<strong>in</strong>ozistic <strong>in</strong>terpretation<br />
of Maimonides’ doctr<strong>in</strong>e of the div<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>tellect.<br />
Gad Freudenthal, Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamosc, ca. 1730: The Early Years<br />
of Rabbi Israel ben Moses Halevi of Zamosc<br />
This paper studies the life <strong>and</strong> work of Israel b. Moses Halevi of Zamosc up to the<br />
publication of NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel <strong>in</strong> 1741. It is shown that Israel was a self-made early<br />
maskil, whose non-conformist positions derive from the supreme authority he ascribed<br />
to science, itself due to his commitment to the philosophy of Moses<br />
Maimonides. Nearly all of Israel’s scientific <strong>in</strong>formation derived from medieval Hebrew<br />
sources. The formation of Israel’s frame of m<strong>in</strong>d is set <strong>in</strong> the local context of<br />
the town of Zamosc, where Israel had important ‘allies’ who are here identified. It is<br />
suggested that a Sephardi tradition of science study may have survived <strong>in</strong> the town.<br />
Ground<strong>in</strong>g some of his Talmud <strong>in</strong>terpretation <strong>in</strong> mathematical science, Israel felt entitled<br />
to criticize venerated Talmudic scholars, mak<strong>in</strong>g NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel <strong>in</strong>to a text subversive<br />
of entrenched authority. Paradoxically, Israel’s outdated medieval Hebrew<br />
science was an <strong>in</strong>strument for promot<strong>in</strong>g progress. This study shows that the tradition<br />
of Polish scholars of Halakhah with mild sympathies to Maimonides’ philosophy<br />
contributed to the autonomous emergence of early Haskalah <strong>in</strong> Pol<strong>and</strong>.<br />
Steven Harvey, The Introductions of Early Enlightenment Th<strong>in</strong>kers as Harb<strong>in</strong>gers<br />
of the Renewed Interest <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Medieval</strong> Jewish Philosophers<br />
This paper concerns itself with certa<strong>in</strong> underly<strong>in</strong>g themes of the present volume: to<br />
what extent were the authors of the early Jewish Enlightenment familiar with the<br />
medieval Jewish philosophers? To what extent did they cite them? How did they<br />
underst<strong>and</strong> them? I address these questions with regard to several th<strong>in</strong>kers, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g<br />
Israel Zamosc, Naphtali Hirsch Goslar, Judah Loeb Margolioth, <strong>and</strong> P<strong>in</strong>chas Elias<br />
Hurwitz, on the basis of their <strong>in</strong>troductions to their own works The paper is <strong>in</strong>tended<br />
to suggest that their <strong>in</strong>troductions may be viewed as heralds of a renewed <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong><br />
the medieval Jewish philosophers. It beg<strong>in</strong>s by provid<strong>in</strong>g evidence for the view that<br />
there was relatively little <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the classic works of medieval Jewish philosophy<br />
from roughly the mid-seventeenth century to the mid-eighteenth century. It then illustrates<br />
various ways <strong>in</strong> which the <strong>in</strong>troductions of the early maskilim signal a renewed<br />
<strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the medieval Jewish philosophers.<br />
Warren Zev Harvey, Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Maimon on the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong><br />
Regard<strong>in</strong>g the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong>, Moses Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Solomon Maimon were<br />
both <strong>in</strong>fluenced by Maimonides, but rejected his view that moral rules are merely<br />
‘generally accepted op<strong>in</strong>ions’ <strong>and</strong> argued that they are known by reason. Develop<strong>in</strong>g<br />
ideas of Judah Halevi <strong>and</strong> Nahmanides, Mendelssohn held that eat<strong>in</strong>g from the Tree<br />
of <strong>Knowledge</strong> <strong>in</strong>creased the faculty of desire, <strong>and</strong> thus broke the prior equilibrium<br />
between reason <strong>and</strong> desire. S<strong>in</strong> is born when desire overpowers reason. Develop<strong>in</strong>g a<br />
Kantian idea, Maimon held that eat<strong>in</strong>g from the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong> represents the<br />
preoccupation with relative good <strong>and</strong> evil (i.e., th<strong>in</strong>gs that are not good or evil <strong>in</strong><br />
Summaries<br />
313
themselves) <strong>in</strong>stead of natural good <strong>and</strong> evil (i.e., th<strong>in</strong>gs that are good or evil <strong>in</strong><br />
themselves). S<strong>in</strong> is born when means are confused with ends.<br />
Albert van der Heide, The Beˆur <strong>in</strong> Progress: Salt <strong>and</strong> Spices at a <strong>Medieval</strong> Banquet<br />
The decisive role of Moses Mendelssohn’s Beˆur project <strong>in</strong> the history of the<br />
Haskalah is universally known <strong>and</strong> widely acclaimed. Yet the first th<strong>in</strong>g that strikes<br />
the competent reader of the Beˆur proper, i.e., the commentary accompany<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
German translation of the biblical text written by several collaborators <strong>and</strong> supervised<br />
by Mendelssohn, is its traditional, ‘medieval’ character <strong>and</strong> content. Although<br />
it can be shown that Mendelssohn was fully cognizant of contemporary biblical<br />
scholarship, the commentary is almost exclusively based on the views of rabb<strong>in</strong>ical<br />
<strong>and</strong> medieval Jewish authorities. A detailed <strong>in</strong>ventory of the exegetical strategies<br />
employed <strong>in</strong> the commentary on the chapters Genesis 22 <strong>and</strong> Exodus 19 <strong>and</strong> 20<br />
shows the extent to which the Beˆur would rely on traditional sources. Occasionally,<br />
however, these familiar dishes had to be ‘salted <strong>and</strong> spiced’ with Mendelssohn’s own<br />
views.<br />
Raphael Jospe, Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist<br />
Mendelssohn’s religious thought is traditional, reflect<strong>in</strong>g Saadia Gaon, Abraham ibn<br />
Ezra <strong>and</strong> Judah Halevi on issues such as Jewish particularity, historical truth, revelation,<br />
the superiority of the Hebrew language, biblical poetry <strong>and</strong> oral communication.<br />
His <strong>in</strong>troduction <strong>and</strong> commentary to the Torah reflect medieval exegesis; his silence<br />
on critical questions (<strong>in</strong> Ibn Ezra) is deafen<strong>in</strong>g. By contrast, Mendelssohn’s political<br />
philosophy <strong>in</strong> Jerusalem is radically modern. Instead of the medieval notion of the<br />
state as embody<strong>in</strong>g absolute religious truth <strong>and</strong> foster<strong>in</strong>g spiritual salvation, Mendelssohn<br />
affirms a modern <strong>in</strong>strumental view of the state as concerned with practical,<br />
temporal matters, tolerat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> encourag<strong>in</strong>g religious diversity. Judaism is the positive<br />
religion closest to natural religion. Judaism’s rationality <strong>and</strong> pluralistic <strong>in</strong>clusivism<br />
(‘the righteous of all nations have a portion <strong>in</strong> the world to come’) go beyond<br />
Locke’s <strong>and</strong> Less<strong>in</strong>g’s toleration <strong>and</strong> foster genu<strong>in</strong>e pluralism. Judaism is thus not<br />
merely compatible with modernity; it is ultimately the most modern religion.<br />
Thomas Kollatz, Under the Cover of Tradition: Old <strong>and</strong> New Science <strong>in</strong> the Works<br />
of Aron Salomon Gumpertz<br />
Aron Salomon Gumpertz (1723-1769) was one of the few Jews who participated <strong>in</strong><br />
the eighteenth-century scholarly world <strong>and</strong> its exchange of ideas. Gumpertz published<br />
three works which prove his <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> the contemporary scientific discourse:<br />
a (Lat<strong>in</strong>) doctoral thesis on the ancient doctr<strong>in</strong>e of the four humours, a (German) revision<br />
of Loeseke’s best-sell<strong>in</strong>g compendium on pharmaceutics, <strong>and</strong> a (Hebrew)<br />
supercommentary on a medieval bible commentary. In his best-known work, Megalleh<br />
sod, a supercommentary on Abraham Ibn Ezra’s commentary on the five megillot,<br />
Gumpertz took Ibn Ezra’s medieval knowledge as a start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t for <strong>in</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g<br />
eighteenth-century scientific discoveries <strong>in</strong>to Jewish discourse. In a similar way he<br />
tended, <strong>in</strong> his other works, to supplement, augment <strong>and</strong> occasionally even modify tra-<br />
314 Summaries
ditional concepts. Thus <strong>in</strong>sights of contemporary scientific research spread among<br />
Jews (through the supercommentary) <strong>and</strong> non-Jews (through his thesis <strong>and</strong> the<br />
Loeseke revision) through Gumpertz’ mediation.<br />
David B. Ruderman, The Impact of Early Modern Jewish Thought on the Eighteenth<br />
Century: A Challenge to the Notion of the Sephardi Mystique<br />
This paper raises certa<strong>in</strong> questions about the conference’s basic assumption of the<br />
critical impact of medieval Jewish thought on eighteenth-century Jewish th<strong>in</strong>kers.<br />
While the eighteenth century paid homage to Jewish medieval th<strong>in</strong>kers like<br />
Maimonides <strong>and</strong> Ibn Ezra, <strong>in</strong> many respects they were prov<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>adequate as sources<br />
of knowledge <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>sight. In the area of natural philosophy they were obsolete. In<br />
search of a traditional pedigree for their strong scientific proclivities, eighteenth-century<br />
writers on nature rather turned to the early modern writers whose physics had<br />
already been divorced from an outdated <strong>and</strong> repudiated Aristotelian metaphysics.<br />
Similarly, <strong>in</strong> the areas of history <strong>and</strong> apologetics, eighteenth- <strong>and</strong> n<strong>in</strong>eteenth-century<br />
Jewish th<strong>in</strong>kers read with great <strong>in</strong>terest the literary creations of their early modern<br />
ancestors. As <strong>in</strong> the case of science, their own <strong>in</strong>terests co<strong>in</strong>cided more directly with<br />
the latter, whose social <strong>and</strong> cultural concerns were <strong>in</strong>deed closer. For some, medieval<br />
<strong>and</strong> early modern kabbalistic th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g was even compatible with modernity, certa<strong>in</strong>ly<br />
more so than medieval philosophy. Although anchored <strong>in</strong> a remote past, its epistemological<br />
pliability <strong>and</strong> its correlations with other philosophies, ancient <strong>and</strong> modern, allowed<br />
for a creative dialogue between the Jewish tradition <strong>and</strong> modernist th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
<strong>Medieval</strong> Sephardi th<strong>in</strong>kers become more important as cultural icons for their modern<br />
Jewish counterparts than as actual sources of knowledge <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>sight. At least<br />
with respect to science, history, apologetics, <strong>and</strong> Kabbalah, early modern Jewish<br />
thought, especially <strong>in</strong> Italy, left a more significant mark on their th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g. If I am<br />
correct <strong>in</strong> call<strong>in</strong>g for a reevaluation of the impact of early-modern Jewish thought on<br />
the eighteenth century <strong>and</strong> beyond, perhaps such a reevaluation also calls <strong>in</strong>to question<br />
the orig<strong>in</strong>ality <strong>and</strong> the overall <strong>in</strong>tellectual creativity usually associated with the<br />
Haskalah <strong>in</strong> Jewish historiography. Here I am ask<strong>in</strong>g: Why is the ideational world of<br />
the Haskalah traditionally perceived as a radical break from the past, iconoclastically<br />
shap<strong>in</strong>g a new secular consciousness, a new <strong>in</strong>tellectual elite, <strong>and</strong> a new construction<br />
of Jewish identity? How novel, how revolutionary <strong>in</strong>deed was its <strong>in</strong>tellectual production?<br />
From the perspective of the dynamic <strong>in</strong>tellectual universe of the sixteenth <strong>and</strong><br />
seventeenth centuries, the eighteenth century <strong>in</strong> Jewish thought seems less spectacular<br />
<strong>in</strong> the novelty of its formulations than previously assumed.<br />
Andrea Schatz, Return<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>Sepharad</strong>: Maskilic Reflections on Hebrew <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Diaspora<br />
This essay asks how the evocations <strong>and</strong> explorations of <strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> maskilic writ<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
on the Hebrew language differ from the seventeenth-century <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> contemporary<br />
Sephardi communities <strong>and</strong> from the n<strong>in</strong>eteenth-century fasc<strong>in</strong>ation with medieval<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong>. The maskilim referred to medieval texts as well as to contemporary practices,<br />
exam<strong>in</strong>ed them critically <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>tegrated them <strong>in</strong>to a complex set of traditions<br />
Summaries<br />
315
that would allow them to create their own version of a modern Jewish culture. It was<br />
not imitation they had <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d, but transformation <strong>and</strong> adaptation. For this reason,<br />
later moments <strong>in</strong> history, which could be <strong>in</strong>terpreted as successful renewals of<br />
Sephardi political <strong>and</strong> cultural traditions – notably the examples of Italy, Amsterdam,<br />
<strong>and</strong> the Ottoman Empire – sometimes seemed to be more important than medieval<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> itself. At the end of the eighteenth century, however, it became questionable<br />
whether it was feasible to return to <strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong> order to make it part of the genealogy<br />
of Jewish modernity. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Judah Leib Ben Ze’ev, the very conditions<br />
that seemed to <strong>in</strong>dicate that <strong>Sepharad</strong> might rema<strong>in</strong> relevant – tolerance, commerce,<br />
open-m<strong>in</strong>dedness – created a radical historical discont<strong>in</strong>uity. Thus, the world of<br />
<strong>Sepharad</strong> receded <strong>in</strong>to the distant past – a precondition for the emergence of both historical<br />
analysis <strong>and</strong> the imag<strong>in</strong>ative ‘Sephardi Mystique’.<br />
Emile G.L. Schrijver. Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong>’s Besamim rosh: The Maskilic Appreciation of<br />
<strong>Medieval</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong><br />
Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong>’s Besamim rosh, published <strong>in</strong> Berl<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> 1793 at the press of the<br />
Jüdische Freyschule, is a cause célèbre <strong>in</strong> the history of Haskalah literature <strong>and</strong> has<br />
been dealt with quite extensively <strong>in</strong> the recent literature. It conta<strong>in</strong>s 392 responsa,<br />
ascribed to Asher ben YeÌiel <strong>and</strong> other sages <strong>and</strong>, accord<strong>in</strong>g to the title-page, collected<br />
by Isaac de Mol<strong>in</strong>a. Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong> only claimed to have prepared them for the<br />
press <strong>and</strong> to have added a commentary. The article exam<strong>in</strong>es the historical background<br />
of the publication <strong>and</strong> its discussion <strong>in</strong> the relevant scholarly literature. It<br />
confirms that Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong> was, as is generally believed on the basis of their controversial<br />
content, the actual author of the responsa, <strong>and</strong> comments some common conceptions<br />
of its background. Saul’s choice for Isaac de Mol<strong>in</strong>a as the assumed author<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicates his peculiar character, s<strong>in</strong>ce Isaac is not only fairly unknown, but also had a<br />
rather negative reputation. Saul’s claim that he published the responsa from a manuscript<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicates his <strong>and</strong> his contemporaries’ appreciation of manuscript sources,<br />
whereas his choice for Asher ben YeÌiel, a scholar of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i descent, who was<br />
active <strong>in</strong> <strong>Sepharad</strong>, represents a true case of ‘<strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Sepharad</strong>’. The article is<br />
followed by an appendix list<strong>in</strong>g manuscripts relevant to the topic ‘<strong>Sepharad</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>’ that once belonged to famous Haskalah libraries <strong>and</strong> were auctioned <strong>in</strong><br />
Christie’s <strong>in</strong> New York on 23 June 1999.<br />
Adam Shear, Judah Halevi’s Sefer ha-Kuzari <strong>in</strong> Early Modern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Early Haskalah: A Case Study <strong>in</strong> the Transmission of Cultural <strong>Knowledge</strong><br />
In the eighteenth century, Judah Halevi’s twelfth-century Sefer ha-Kuzari attracted<br />
the <strong>in</strong>terest of crucial figures of the Berl<strong>in</strong> Haskalah. Later, their underst<strong>and</strong><strong>in</strong>gs of<br />
the work were dissem<strong>in</strong>ated to a wider audience <strong>in</strong> Central <strong>and</strong> Eastern Europe. This<br />
‘maskilic Kuzari’ was a vehicle for education <strong>and</strong> a text cited to justify philosophical<br />
study, while assert<strong>in</strong>g the superiority of Judaism. However, the maskilic <strong>in</strong>terest did<br />
not emerge ex nihilo. Before the middle of the eighteenth century, some <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i<br />
Jews read <strong>and</strong> cited the Kuzari. In the sixteenth <strong>and</strong> early seventeenth centuries the<br />
work was primarily a source of <strong>in</strong>formation. By the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of the eighteenth cen-<br />
316 Summaries
tury, we detect a shift toward a more programmatic approach <strong>in</strong> which the work was<br />
cited as an example of worthwhile literature <strong>in</strong> arguments for educational reform.<br />
This set the stage for the mobilization of the work <strong>in</strong> support of the Haskalah’s cultural<br />
agenda.<br />
Irene E. Zwiep, Jewish Enlightenment reconsidered: the Dutch eighteenth century<br />
In modern historiography, Jewish Enlightenment <strong>in</strong> the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s generally has<br />
been equated with Jewish political <strong>and</strong> social emancipation on the one h<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> with<br />
epigonic, Haskalah-<strong>in</strong>spired literary culture on the other. In my contribution I wish to<br />
question these simple equations, by explor<strong>in</strong>g the eighteenth-century, local, antecedents<br />
of these – essentially n<strong>in</strong>eteenth-century – phenomena. Dur<strong>in</strong>g the second half of<br />
the eighteenth century, a set of new cultural practices <strong>and</strong> strategies (rather than concepts<br />
<strong>and</strong> beliefs) arose among the Jews <strong>in</strong> the Republic, which together betray a<br />
budd<strong>in</strong>g, if always cautiously voiced, modernity on their part. This ‘modernity clad<br />
<strong>in</strong> tradition’ expressed itself <strong>in</strong>: (i) the new Hebrew, part religious, part secular,<br />
canon that was nurtured by the Sephardi semi-elite <strong>in</strong> Amsterdam; (ii) various <strong>in</strong>novative<br />
publications fostered by vary<strong>in</strong>g constellations of Dutch <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternational,<br />
<strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i as well as Sephardi, ‘early maskilim’; (iii) the <strong>in</strong>tellectual eclecticism of<br />
the local rabbis, who seem to have experienced a moderate ‘enlightenment by<br />
proxy’; (iv) the strik<strong>in</strong>gly ‘l<strong>in</strong>guistic’ dimension of many Dutch-Jewish enlightened<br />
enterprises; (v) a new ‘library awareness’ that can be witnessed among scholars <strong>and</strong><br />
collectors alike. Whenever possible, the survey draws attention to the parallels between<br />
eighteenth-century Sephardi <strong>and</strong> <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i <strong>in</strong>tellectual life, highlight<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
modest yet productive dynamic that would occasionally develop between the two<br />
cultural spheres.<br />
Summaries<br />
317
318 Summaries
List of Contributors<br />
Wout J. van Bekkum is Professor of Semitic Languages <strong>and</strong> Culture at the University<br />
of Gron<strong>in</strong>gen.<br />
Some Thoughts on the ‘Secularization’ of Hebrew Liturgical Poetry <strong>in</strong> Pre-Modern<br />
<strong>and</strong> Modern Times<br />
e-mail: w.j.van.bekkum@let.rug.nl<br />
Shlomo Berger is Professor of Hebrew at the Universiteit van Amsterdam <strong>and</strong> a<br />
member of the academic committee of the research project “Yiddish <strong>in</strong> the Netherl<strong>and</strong>s:<br />
An Expression of <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i Culture”.<br />
From Philosophy to Popular Ethics: Two Seventeenth-Century Translations of Ibn<br />
Gabirol’s Keter Malkhut<br />
e-mail: S.Z.berger@uva.nl<br />
Shmuel Fe<strong>in</strong>er is Professor of Jewish History at Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan,<br />
where he serves as Chairman of the Jewish History Department <strong>and</strong> Vice Chairman<br />
of the Israeli Historical Society.<br />
From Renaissance to Revolution: The Eighteenth Century <strong>in</strong> Jewish History<br />
e-mail: fe<strong>in</strong>es@mail.biu.ac.il<br />
Resianne Fonta<strong>in</strong>e is Associate Professor of Hebrew at the Universiteit van Amsterdam.<br />
Natural Science <strong>in</strong> Sefer ha-Berit: P<strong>in</strong>chas Hurwitz on Animals <strong>and</strong> Meteorological<br />
Phenomena<br />
e-mail: T.A.M.SmidtvanGelder-Fonta<strong>in</strong>e@uva.nl<br />
Carlos Fraenkel is Assistant Professor with a jo<strong>in</strong>t appo<strong>in</strong>tment at the Department of<br />
Philosophy <strong>and</strong> the Department of Jewish Studies at McGill University, Montreal.<br />
Maimonides, Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, Solomon Maimon, <strong>and</strong> the Completion of the Copernican<br />
Revolution <strong>in</strong> Philosophy<br />
e-mail: Carlos.Fraenkel@mcgill.ca<br />
Gad Freudenthal is Permanent Senior Research Fellow at the Centre national de la<br />
recherche scientifique (CNRS) <strong>in</strong> Paris.<br />
Hebrew <strong>Medieval</strong> Science <strong>in</strong> Zamosc, ca. 1730: The Early Years of Rabbi Israel ben<br />
Moses Halevi of Zamosc<br />
e-mail: freudent@msh-paris.fr<br />
List of Contributors<br />
319
Steven Harvey is Professor of Jewish Philosophy at Bar-Ilan University, Ramat<br />
Gan.<br />
The Introductions of Early Enlightenment Th<strong>in</strong>kers as Harb<strong>in</strong>gers of the Renewed<br />
Interest <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Medieval</strong> Jewish Philosophers<br />
e-mail: harvey@mail.biu.ac.il<br />
Warren Zev Harvey is Professor at the Institute of Jewish Studies of the Hebrew<br />
University of Jerusalem.<br />
Mendelssohn <strong>and</strong> Maimon on the Tree of <strong>Knowledge</strong><br />
e-mail: harvey@mscc.huji.ac.il<br />
Albert van der Heide is Professor of Judaic Studies at Leiden University <strong>and</strong> the<br />
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.<br />
The Be’ur <strong>in</strong> Progress: Salt <strong>and</strong> Spices at a <strong>Medieval</strong> Banquet<br />
e-mail: a.van.der.heide@let.leidenuniv.nl<br />
Raphael Jospe is Professor of Jewish Philosophy at the Bar-Ilan University, Ramat<br />
Gan.<br />
Moses Mendelssohn: A <strong>Medieval</strong> Modernist<br />
e-mail: rjospe@012net.il<br />
Adam Shear is Assistant Professor <strong>and</strong> Director of Undergraduate Studies <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Department of Religious Studies at the University of Pittsburgh.<br />
Judah Halevi’s Sefer ha-Kuzari <strong>in</strong> Early Modern <strong>Ashkenaz</strong> <strong>and</strong> the Early Haskalah:<br />
A Case Study <strong>in</strong> the Transmission of Cultural <strong>Knowledge</strong><br />
e-mail: ashear@pitt.edu<br />
Thomas Kollatz is a scientific staff member at the Salomon Ludwig Ste<strong>in</strong>heim-<br />
Institut, Universität Duisburg-Essen.<br />
Under the Cover of Tradition: Old <strong>and</strong> New Science <strong>in</strong> the Works of Aron Salomon<br />
Gumpertz<br />
e-mail: kol@ste<strong>in</strong>heim-<strong>in</strong>stitut.de<br />
David B. Ruderman is Joseph Meyerhoff Professor of Modern Jewish History at<br />
the University of Pennsylvania <strong>and</strong> Director of its Center for Advanced Judaic<br />
Studies.<br />
The Impact of Early Modern Jewish Thought on the Eighteenth Century: A Challenge<br />
to the Notion of the Sephardi Mystique<br />
e-mail: ruderman@sas.upenn.edu<br />
Andrea Schatz is Post-doctoral Fellow <strong>in</strong> the Society of Fellows <strong>and</strong> Lecturer <strong>in</strong> the<br />
Department of Religion at Pr<strong>in</strong>ceton University.<br />
Return<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>Sepharad</strong>: Maskilic Reflections on Hebrew <strong>in</strong> the Diaspora<br />
e-mail: aschatz@pr<strong>in</strong>ceton.edu<br />
320 List of Contributors
Emile G.L. Schrijver is curator of the Bibliotheca Rosenthaliana, Amsterdam University<br />
Library, Special Collections<br />
Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong>’s Besamim Rosh: The Maskilic Appreciation of <strong>Medieval</strong> <strong>Knowledge</strong><br />
e-mail: e.g.l.schrijver@uva.nl<br />
Irene E. Zwiep is Professor of Hebrew at the Universiteit van Amsterdam.<br />
Jewish Enlightenment Reconsidered: The Dutch Eighteenth Century<br />
e-mail: I.E.Zwiep@uva.nl<br />
List of Contributors<br />
321
322 List of Contributors
Index of Authors<br />
Aaron Halevi of Barcelona 251<br />
Aboab, Isaac 223<br />
Abraham Azulai 271<br />
Abraham bar Îiyya 38, 62, 172<br />
Abraham ben Isaac 37<br />
Abraham Bibago 14, 15, 97, 98<br />
Abraham de Balmes 272<br />
Abraham ha-Kohen 43n, 45<br />
Abraham Ibn Ezra XIV, XVII, 12,<br />
38, 39, 63, 64, 66, 75, 76, 79, 95, 97,<br />
98, 107, 108, 142, 144, 145, 151-<br />
156, 162, 172, 174, 185, 241n, 243,<br />
269-273, 276<br />
Abudiente, Moses Gideon 290<br />
Aguilar, Moses Raphael d’ 266, 267n<br />
Alemanno, YoÌanan 16, 20<br />
Alembert, Jean Baptiste le Rond d’<br />
161n, 168<br />
Alex<strong>and</strong>er [of Aprhodisias] 200<br />
Altmann, Alex<strong>and</strong>er 55, 87, 93, 112n,<br />
114n, 115n, 118, 122, 123n, 126,<br />
129n, 131, 132n, 134n, 137n, 138n<br />
Amel<strong>and</strong>er, MenaÌem Mann 299<br />
Aqu<strong>in</strong>as, Thomas 187, 191<br />
Arama, Isaac 76, 88, 95, 97<br />
Aristotle 12, 15, 54, 59, 60n, 74, 93,<br />
94, 99, 101, 102, 135, 163, 166, 170,<br />
179, 180, 188, 205, 207, 210, 218,<br />
240, 255, 258<br />
Aryeh Judah Leib ben YeÌiˆel 41,<br />
42n, 44, 52n<br />
Asher ben YeÌiel XVI, 28n, 251, 254<br />
Athias, Joseph 228<br />
August<strong>in</strong>e 187, 189<br />
Averroes 38, 66, 100, 180<br />
Index of Authors<br />
Avicebron 210<br />
Azariah deˆ Rossi XVII, 13, 15, 16,<br />
18, 19, 22, 67, 299<br />
Azriel Vilna 272<br />
Azulay, Îayyim David 294n<br />
Ba¨al Shem†ov 4<br />
Baer, YeruÌam 55n<br />
BaÌya Ibn Paquda XVII, 2, 14, 76,<br />
77, 89, 95, 101, 102, 179<br />
Baron, Salo W. 281, 307n<br />
Baruch Shick of Shklov 21, 28n, 53n,<br />
98n, 103n, 297-301<br />
Baruch, Jacob 16, 17<br />
Bashan, Abraham 293<br />
Basilea, Solomon Aviad Sar-Shalom<br />
11, 12, 15, 16, 20<br />
Bass, Shabbetai ben Joseph 266-269,<br />
294, 299<br />
Bassani, Isaiah 18<br />
Bear, Simeon Akiva 79<br />
Beausobre, Louis Isaac de 147<br />
Behr, Issachar Falkensohn 46n, 81<br />
Bekkum, Wout van XVI<br />
Ben Zeˆev, Judah Leib 245, 275-277<br />
Benjam<strong>in</strong> Me¨eli ha-Kohen 293n, 297<br />
Ben-Sasson, H.H. 72<br />
Benvenishti, Emanuel 228<br />
Berger, Shlomo XV, 283n, 291n<br />
Berl<strong>in</strong>, Isaiah XI, 9<br />
Blitz of Witmund 266-268<br />
Bloch, Marcus 16<br />
Boas, Abraham 293n, 297<br />
Boas, Simeon 293n, 297<br />
Boas, Tobias 297, 298, 305<br />
323
Boyer (Marquis d’Argens), Jean-<br />
Baptiste de 55, 147, 148n<br />
Boyle, Robert 15, 168<br />
Brahe, Tycho 67<br />
Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel (Pr<strong>in</strong>ce),<br />
Karl-Wilhelm of 137<br />
Bril, Joel 289, 299<br />
Bruno, Giordano 198, 210-212, 214,<br />
216<br />
Buchner, Zeev Wolf XVI, 233<br />
Buffon, George Louis Leclerc Comtes<br />
de 16, 161, 172<br />
Bunge, Wiep van 282n, 308<br />
Bünger, Andreas 16<br />
Buxtorf (the younger), Johannes 55n,<br />
79, 80, 87<br />
Calas, Jean 10<br />
Calimani, SimÌa 290<br />
Camoes, Luís de 288<br />
Caro, Joseph 265<br />
Cartheuser, Johann Friedrich 150<br />
Casanova, Giovanni Girolamo 297<br />
Casseres, Samuel de 290n<br />
Castro, Jacob de 150, 151<br />
Chevalier de La Barre 10<br />
Cicero 187, 191, 286<br />
Clement VIII 46<br />
Cohen Bel<strong>in</strong>fante, Isaac 290, 291n,<br />
292n, 294, 296-298, 307<br />
Cohen Herrera, Abraham 16, 20, 174<br />
Cohen, Benjam<strong>in</strong> 290, 297, 298<br />
Cohen, Tobias 13, 15, 16, 18, 67<br />
Copernicus, Nicolaus 64, 67, 195, 196<br />
Coppenhagen, Simon 308n<br />
Cordovero, Moses 16, 20<br />
Creizenach, Michael 241, 242n<br />
David ben Samuel Halevi (Segal) 65<br />
David Ibn YaÌya 272<br />
David KimÌi 142, 145, 162, 165, 172,<br />
174, 271-273, 276<br />
Davis, Joseph 72, 75<br />
Delacrut, Mattathias 14, 15n, 40n<br />
Delmedigo, Joseph Solomon 13-18,<br />
20, 22, 28, 29, 38, 39, 42, 54, 59, 61,<br />
62, 64, 66, 86, 95, 97, 98<br />
Descartes, René 15<br />
Diderot, Denis 157, 168<br />
Dollond, John 55<br />
Dov Baer 41<br />
Dub<strong>in</strong>, Lois 282<br />
Dubno, Solomon XIV, 118, 141-146,<br />
265, 296, 307, 308<br />
Dukes, Leopold 242<br />
Dunash ben Labra† 276<br />
Dusnus, Baruch Bendit 237<br />
Edels, Samuel Eliezer ben Judah Halevi<br />
(Maharsha) 59, 65<br />
Elbaum, Jacob 73<br />
Eleazar ha-Qalir (see Qilir, Eleazar)<br />
Eliezer <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i 14, 15n, 16, 174<br />
Elijah ha-Kohen of Izmir 7<br />
Elijah Levita XVII, 142, 229, 272,<br />
277, 304<br />
Elijah of Vilna (Vilna Gaon) 19, 272,<br />
300, 301<br />
Emden, Jacob 1, 7, 14, 15n, 16, 20,<br />
237<br />
Endelman, Todd 4<br />
Ephraim of Luntschitz 75, 76<br />
Ergas, Joseph 16<br />
Erxleben, Joh. Christian Polykarp 168-<br />
170<br />
Euchel, Isaac 8, 270n, 289, 299<br />
Euclid 38, 39, 58, 60-62, 66, 297,<br />
299-301<br />
Euler, Leonhard 55, 147, 148n<br />
Even-Zohar, Ittamar 232n<br />
Eybeschuetz, Jonathan 1<br />
Fe<strong>in</strong>er, Shmuel XI, XII, XV, 13, 18,<br />
69, 70n, 71, 96, 100n, 103n, 104n,<br />
136n, 269, 281, 283, 296, 298<br />
Feivel (Phoebus) of Metz 304<br />
Fishman, Talya 253, 254<br />
Fleckeles, Eliezer 18<br />
Fonta<strong>in</strong>e, Resianne XIV<br />
Fraenkel Carlos XV<br />
324 Index of Authors
Fraenkel, David X, 42, 43, 57n, 58<br />
Fraenkel-Teomim, Isaac Meir 58<br />
Franco Mendes, David XVII, 274,<br />
286n, 288, 289-291, 292n, 293, 294,<br />
296-298, 307<br />
Frank, Jacob 6<br />
Frankfort, Moses 223<br />
Frankl<strong>in</strong>, Benjam<strong>in</strong> 170, 171<br />
Franzos, Karl Emil 25, 48n<br />
Freudenthal, Gad XIII, 80, 190, 191n<br />
Freudenthal, Max 58<br />
Friedländer, David 8<br />
Friedrichsfeld, David 303<br />
Fuks-Mansfeld, Rena 223<br />
Funkenste<strong>in</strong>, Amos 54n, 103<br />
Galen XIV, 79, 150, 156<br />
Gans, David 13, 16, 18, 19, 30n, 39,<br />
52n, 57, 74, 79, 299<br />
Gara, Juan Di 224<br />
Gassendi, Pierre 15<br />
Gedaliah Ibn YaÌya 18, 79<br />
Geiger, Abraham 242, 247<br />
Gentili, Moses Îefetz 16<br />
Gershom bar Solomon 163<br />
Gersonides 14, 38, 39, 66, 90, 95,<br />
172<br />
Glueckel of Hameln 6<br />
Goslar, Naphtali Hirsch XIII, XVII,<br />
85, 93-96<br />
Gottsched, Johann Christoph 147, 148<br />
Govr<strong>in</strong>, Nurith 27n<br />
Gries, Zeev 178, 223<br />
Guericke, Otto von 168<br />
Gumpertz, Aron Salomon XIV, XVI,<br />
XVII, 14, 17, 55, 57n, 70, 95, 96,<br />
147-156, 269n<br />
Günzburg, Aryeh Leib 249<br />
Guttmann, Julius 111, 122, 123n<br />
Hackett Fischer, David 82<br />
Halberstadt, Zevi Hirsch of 292<br />
Halevi, Joseph 75<br />
Halperon, Jacob 224, 225, 227, 229-<br />
231<br />
Index of Authors<br />
Hanau, Solomon Zalman 18, 272,<br />
273n, 277, 297, 304, 305<br />
Hanover, Rafael Levi Segal 292, 298<br />
Harris, Monford 157n, 178<br />
Hart, Eliakim ben Abraham 16, 17<br />
Harvey, Steven XIII, 80<br />
Harvey, Warren Zev XV, 80<br />
Îayyim ben BeÒalel 266<br />
Heide, Albert van der XIV<br />
Heidenheim, Wolf Benjam<strong>in</strong> 238,<br />
239, 241, 242, 244, 245, 265<br />
Heilbronn, Joseph ben David 297,<br />
305<br />
Heilpr<strong>in</strong>, YeÌiel 18<br />
He<strong>in</strong>ius, Johann Philip 147<br />
Heller, Yom ov Lipmann 39n, 63n,<br />
75<br />
Henriquez de Castro Sarmento, Jacob<br />
XVI, 150<br />
Herz, Elkan 138<br />
Herz, Marcus 16, 212<br />
Hobbes, Thomas 126, 129, 131n<br />
Hollender, Elisabeth 237<br />
Homberg, Naphtali Herz 118, 141<br />
Horace 286<br />
Horowitz, Isaiah 14<br />
Horowitz, Shabbetai Sheftel 266, 267<br />
Horowitz, Zevi Halevi 42n, 43, 45,<br />
46n, 47n, 48n<br />
Horwitz, Rivka 15n, 20<br />
Hurwitz, Judah ben Mordecai ha-<br />
Levi 296, 298, 299, 308<br />
Hurwitz, P<strong>in</strong>chas Elias XII-XV, 16-<br />
18, 20, 21, 51n, 85, 90, 91, 101, 102,<br />
157-181, 303<br />
Husik, Isaac 86<br />
Idel, Moshe 20<br />
Isaac Abravanel 14, 15, 64, 142, 145<br />
Isaac Akrish 79<br />
Isaac Arama 14, 15n, 76, 98<br />
Isaac ben Moses of Vienna 249<br />
Isaac Israeli XVII, 28, 39, 63, 66, 172<br />
Israel ben Abraham Av<strong>in</strong>u 304<br />
Israel of Zamosc XIII, XVII, 14-16,<br />
325
70-72, 78-80, 82, 85, 87, 89-93, 95,<br />
101, 103n, 166, 167, 188, 265, 299<br />
Israel, Jonathan 5, 279n<br />
Isserles, Moses 14, 15n, 16, 32, 40n,<br />
55, 56, 58, 65, 74-76, 95, 265<br />
Itzig, Daniel 70, 80-82, 289<br />
Jacob ben Joseph Reischer 65<br />
Jacob Isaac Îarif (Hochgelernter) 27n,<br />
41, 42n, 44, 45<br />
Jacobi, Friedrich He<strong>in</strong>rich 214<br />
Jaffe <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i, Samuel 51, 54, 59, 65<br />
Jaffe, Daniel (see Itzig, Daniel)<br />
Jaffe, Mordecai ben Abraham 14, 32,<br />
37n, 40, 55, 61, 65, 95<br />
Jagel, Abraham 20<br />
Jansson, Gerard 298<br />
Jansson, Jan 298<br />
Jaroslav, Aaron 118, 141<br />
Jefferson, Thomas 132n, 136n<br />
Jequtiel Lazi ben NaÌum <strong>Ashkenaz</strong>i<br />
151<br />
Joel Ba¨al Shem 27, 28, 29n, 42-44,<br />
49, 63n<br />
Jonah Ibn JanaÌ 271<br />
Jonathan ben Joseph of Ruzhany 57,<br />
61-65<br />
Joseph Albo 14, 55, 76, 87, 88, 95,<br />
97, 98<br />
Joseph ben Avigdor 44n<br />
Joseph ben Eliezer 152<br />
Joseph Gikatilla 14, 17, 271<br />
Joseph Ibn Shem ov 100<br />
Joseph II 6<br />
Joseph KimÌi 145<br />
Jospe, Raphael XIII<br />
Jost, Isaac Marcus 243<br />
Judah Al-Îarizi 276<br />
Judah ben Solomon 162, 180<br />
Judah Halevi XI, XIII, XV, XVII, 3,<br />
14, 15, 69-71, 74-79, 83, 87, 88, 97,<br />
98, 108-110, 112-117, 124, 125,<br />
135, 187-189, 191, 240n, 243, 269,<br />
270, 271n, 276<br />
Judah Îayyuj 271<br />
Judah Ibn Tibbon XVII, 12, 14, 99<br />
Judah Leon (Templo) 303, 306<br />
Judah Loew ben BeÒalel (Maharal) 56,<br />
58, 65<br />
Kalmanns, Mordecai ben Meir 31n,<br />
42<br />
Kant, Immanuel XI, XV, 10, 187,<br />
191, 193, 195-198, 201, 202, 204,<br />
209, 212, 217, 219<br />
Kaplan, Lawrence 72<br />
Kaplan, Yosef 4<br />
Katz, Eleazar 41, 44<br />
Katz, Jacob 4, 5<br />
Katzenellenbogen, P<strong>in</strong>Ìas 39<br />
Keizer, Abraham 299<br />
Kellner, Menachem 108<br />
Keyle 224, 225<br />
Kiebman, Esther 6<br />
Knorr von Rosenroth, Christian 20<br />
Koidonover, Hirsch 7<br />
Kollatz, Thomas XIV<br />
Koppelman, Jacob ben Samuel 57,<br />
61, 65<br />
Krochmal, NaÌman 20, 28n<br />
Krüger, Johann Gottlob 168, 171<br />
Kuhn, Thomas S. 56<br />
Kupfer, Ephraim 72<br />
Lafa†nir of Brody, P<strong>in</strong>Ìas 27n, 52<br />
Lampronti, Isaac 18<br />
L<strong>and</strong>au, Ezekiel 19<br />
L<strong>and</strong>shuth, Eliezer (Leser) 245<br />
L<strong>and</strong>sofer, Jonah 58<br />
Lavater, Johann Caspar 123, 124<br />
Lehren, Akiba 249<br />
Lehren, Hirschel 249<br />
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm 2, 20,<br />
111, 194n, 197n, 198, 201-204, 206,<br />
212-214, 297<br />
Lemans, Moses 303<br />
Less<strong>in</strong>g, Gotthold Ephraim 123, 126,<br />
133, 134, 137n<br />
Levi ben Îabib 63, 95<br />
Lev<strong>in</strong>, Zevi Hirsch 250, 251, 253-255<br />
326 Index of Authors
Lev<strong>in</strong>sohn, Isaac Baer 27-28n, 37n<br />
Levisohn, Mordecai Schnaber 14, 16,<br />
17, 20, 164n, 168<br />
L<strong>in</strong>dau, Baruch ben Judah Loeb 16,<br />
17, 161, 162, 164-166, 167n, 303<br />
L<strong>in</strong>naeus, Carolus 14, 160, 163, 164n<br />
Lippman, Eliezer 42n<br />
Locke, John 14, 123, 126-133, 135<br />
Loeseke, Johann Ludwig Leberecht<br />
XIV, 148n, 150, 151, 155n, 156<br />
Loewenstamm, Saul 293, 300<br />
Löw, Leopold 265<br />
Luria, Isaac 36, 37, 93, 173, 177<br />
Luria, Solomon 74<br />
Luzzatto, Ephraim 290<br />
Luzzatto, Moses Îayyim XVII, 16,<br />
20, 290<br />
Luzzatto, Samuel David 119, 120,<br />
242n, 243, 244n, 245<br />
Maarssen, Joseph ben Jacob 304<br />
Maimon, Salomon XV, 6, 16, 20-22,<br />
39, 48n, 49n, 54, 185, 186n, 189-<br />
194, 195n, 196-220<br />
Maimonides X, XI, XV, XVII, 2,<br />
3, 7, 8, 11-16, 20, 25, 32, 33, 36-<br />
38, 40, 42, 44, 50, 51, 54-56, 59-64,<br />
66, 71, 73, 75-77, 80, 81, 87, 90-<br />
102, 107, 108, 112, 113, 124, 125,<br />
135, 142, 143, 144n, 158, 164, 165,<br />
179, 180, 185-194, 195n, 198-209,<br />
211, 212, 214, 216, 218, 219, 220n,<br />
235, 264, 269, 270, 275, 276, 292,<br />
301<br />
Malachi ha-Kohen 18<br />
Margolioth, Judah Loeb XIII, 11, 12,<br />
15-18, 85, 89, 90, 96-101<br />
Maurolico, Francesco 67<br />
Meir Aldabi 38, 63, 172<br />
Meir Alguadez XVII<br />
Melamed, Yitzhak 210, 214<br />
MenaÌem ben Isaac Îayut 39n<br />
MenaÌem ben Saruq 276<br />
Menasseh ben Israel 13, 15, 16, 18-<br />
20, 127, 264, 269n, 294n, 303<br />
Index of Authors<br />
Mendelssohn, Moses X, XI, XIII-XV,<br />
2-5, 8, 10, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 26,<br />
31n, 43, 46, 5456, 58n, 70-72, 79,<br />
80, 82, 93, 95, 96n, 107-120, 122-<br />
139, 147, 148n, 149, 151n, 185-<br />
192, 198, 213, 263, 265, 268, 269n,<br />
274, 277, 280n, 293n, 299, 301-303,<br />
307<br />
Mendez de Costa, Emmanuel XVI,<br />
148n, 150<br />
Michman, Jozeph 280n, 281n, 282n,<br />
302, 307n, 309<br />
Modena, Leone 19<br />
Mol<strong>in</strong>a, Isaac ben Solomon di 251,<br />
254<br />
Mondovi, Israel 298<br />
Mor<strong>and</strong>o, Bernardo 46<br />
Moreau de Maupertuis, Pierre Louis<br />
55, 147, 155<br />
Moscato, Judah 74, 75, 80, 240n, 241<br />
Moses ben Aaron of Lvov 28n, 44n<br />
Moses ben Îabib 240<br />
Moses ben Maimon (see Maimonides)<br />
Moses ben NaÌman (see NaÌmanides)<br />
Moses KimÌi 271, 276<br />
Munk, Solomon 51n<br />
Munnikhuizen, J.H. 293n, 297, 298<br />
Mussaphia, Benjam<strong>in</strong> XVII<br />
Musschenbroek, Petrus van 168-170<br />
NaÌman of Bratzlav 6<br />
NaÌmanides XV, 64, 76, 139, 142,<br />
143, 144n, 145, 172, 185-189<br />
Na¨im Barukh ben SimÌah ha-Levi<br />
225<br />
Netter, Solomon Zalman 119<br />
Neumark, Judah Leib ben David 270-<br />
273, 275, 276<br />
Neumark, Meir 57n<br />
Newton, Isaac 15, 16, 54, 56n, 155<br />
Nicolai, Friedrich 40<br />
Nieto, David 15, 34n, 67<br />
Nissim Gerondi 76<br />
Novara, Menachem 18<br />
Nuñes, Pedro 67<br />
327
Obadiah ben Barukh of Pol<strong>and</strong> 250<br />
Obadiah Sforno 142, 145<br />
Obadiah the Commentator 63<br />
Obereit, Jacob Hermann 137, 138n,<br />
193, 212<br />
Oett<strong>in</strong>ger, Abraham ben Model 298<br />
Offenberg, Adri K. 87<br />
Oliveyra, Solomon de 290n<br />
Otel<strong>in</strong>g (= Ottolenghi), Mendele 224<br />
Paracelsus 150<br />
Peretz, Isaac Leib 31, 41, 43, 47, 48<br />
Petuchowski, Jakob 235, 236<br />
Picart, Bernard 19<br />
Pico della Mir<strong>and</strong>ola, Giovanni 16,<br />
20<br />
P<strong>in</strong>es, Shlomo 110n, 187, 190n<br />
P<strong>in</strong>to, Isaac de 284n<br />
Plato 36, 188<br />
Polak, Gabriël 294n, 305n, 306n<br />
Profiat Duran 208<br />
Pseudo-Empedocles 210<br />
Pseudo-NaÌmanides 188, 189<br />
Pseudo-Saadia Gaon 64<br />
Ptolemy 25, 38, 39, 66<br />
Qilir, Eleazar (ha-Qalir) 237, 238,<br />
241n, 242<br />
Rabbenu Nissim 36, 62<br />
Rabbenu Tam 93<br />
Raff, Georg Christian 161, 162, 164<br />
Rahel Lev<strong>in</strong> Varnhagen 6<br />
Raphael Kohen of Hamburg 8, 250,<br />
251<br />
Rapoport, Solomon Judah Leib 243<br />
Rapoport-Albert, Ada 6<br />
Rashbam 121, 142-145, 185<br />
Rashi 33, 51, 54, 59, 120, 121, 142,<br />
143, 145, 162, 185<br />
Reif, Stefan 243<br />
Reuchl<strong>in</strong>, Johannes 20<br />
Ricchi, Immanuel Îai 14, 15n<br />
Rob<strong>in</strong>son, Ira 157n, 178<br />
Romanelli, Samuel 290<br />
Rosenblum, Noah 160n, 161, 178<br />
Ruderman, David XI, 6, 73, 157n,<br />
179<br />
Saadia Gaon XVII, 2, 12, 14, 15, 36,<br />
39n, 55, 62, 64n, 71n, 76, 95, 97-99,<br />
102, 107, 108, 110, 122, 142, 143,<br />
187, 191, 238, 239, 241, 273, 287<br />
Sachs, Joel ben Jequtiel 57<br />
Sachs, Michael 242<br />
Sacrobosco, John 63<br />
Samet, Moshe 252, 253<br />
Samson ben Isaac of Ch<strong>in</strong>on 30<br />
Samuel Archivolti 240<br />
Samuel ben Îofni Gaon 36, 62<br />
Samuel ben Meir (see Rashbam)<br />
Samuel ben Saadiah Ibn Motot 134n,<br />
152<br />
Samuel Ibn Seneh ∑arÒa 134n, 152<br />
Samuel Ibn Tibbon 12, 90, 92n, 98,<br />
240, 241, 301<br />
Samuelsz, Solomon Cohen 299<br />
Santcroos, A. 307<br />
Sasportas, Jacob 292<br />
Satanow, Isaac ben Moses ha-Levi<br />
XIII, 8, 16, 20, 54, 70-72, 78-82,<br />
87, 239, 253, 265, 299<br />
Saul ha-Levi 293, 300, 301<br />
Saul of Berl<strong>in</strong> XVI, 18, 249-255<br />
Schatz, Andrea XVI, 80<br />
Schiff, Wolff Baer 43n<br />
Schlanger, Jacob 226<br />
Schnaber, Gumpel (see Levisohn,<br />
Mordecai Schnaber)<br />
Scholem, Gershom 247<br />
Schorsch, Ismar 243, 268, 269<br />
Schrijver, Emile XVI<br />
Schwab, Abraham ben Menahem 305<br />
Schwartz, Yosef 198, 199<br />
Shalem, Solomon 292, 293, 300, 301<br />
Shatzky, Jacob 42n, 53<br />
Shear, Adam XIII<br />
Shem ov ben Joseph 35n<br />
Shem ov Ibn Falaquera 99n, 162,<br />
293, 300<br />
328 Index of Authors
Shemarya ben ManoaÌ Hendel 39n<br />
Shiffman, David 45<br />
Shimshon ben Mordecai Kalish 300,<br />
301<br />
Sirat, Colette 86<br />
Sirkes, Joel 88<br />
Smeaton, John 174<br />
Socrates 163<br />
Soesman, Eleazar 304<br />
Soesmans, Loeb ben Moses 293n,<br />
297, 298, 300, 305<br />
Solomon ben Meshullam da Piera 292,<br />
305<br />
Solomon ben Moses of Chelm 27n,<br />
38, 43n, 44, 45, 46n, 47, 48, 50, 52,<br />
53n, 57n<br />
Solomon Ephraim ben Aaron of<br />
Luntshits 30, 65<br />
Solomon Ibn Adret 74<br />
Solomon Ibn Gabirol XV, 172, 210,<br />
223, 225-227, 229-233, 243, 275,<br />
276<br />
Solomon Ibn Verga 13, 15, 18, 19<br />
Sork<strong>in</strong>, David 3, 4, 5n, 69, 70n, 71,<br />
78n, 82n, 83n, 95n, 103<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, Baruch XIII, XV, 86, 107,<br />
111, 112, 118-120, 122, 126, 131n,<br />
134n, 193, 194, 204, 206, 212-220,<br />
279<br />
Spira, Nathan 16<br />
Strauss, Leo 119<br />
Stuyvesant, Peter 127n<br />
Sussk<strong>in</strong>d, Naphtali Herz 152<br />
Taikes, Gedaliah ben MenaÌem 305<br />
Tamah, Mordecai 292, 293, 297-299,<br />
305<br />
Teixeira de Mattos, Moses 299, 307,<br />
308<br />
Teomim, Joseph 81, 82<br />
Thoreau, Henry David 131n<br />
Tirosh-Rothschild, Îava 86, 87<br />
Trani, Joseph ben Moses 65<br />
Twersky, Isadore 77, 88<br />
Index of Authors<br />
Ulmann, Naphtali Hertz 297, 298, 308n<br />
Vajda, Georges 86n<br />
Vilna Gaon (see Elijah of Vilna)<br />
Vita, Jacob Israel Îai 291n, 298n<br />
Vital, Îayyim 91, 102, 163n, 173,<br />
177, 178n<br />
Volkov, Shulamit 282<br />
Voltaire 10, 286, 291<br />
Wagenaar, David ben Phoebus 293n,<br />
301, 302, 305<br />
Wash<strong>in</strong>gton, George 132n<br />
Weil, Yekel 302, 303<br />
Wessely, Naphtali Hirsch (Hartwig,<br />
Herz) XVI, 1, 2n, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10,<br />
16n, 18, 28n, 40n, 118, 141, 250,<br />
274-277, 281, 289, 297-299, 305<br />
Wetzlar, Isaac XIII, XVI, 1-3, 78, 82,<br />
88n<br />
Wolf, Georg Christian XI, 212, 213,<br />
297<br />
Wolff, Alex<strong>and</strong>er 237<br />
Wolfsohn-Halle, Aaron 8, 268<br />
Wolfson, Harry Austryn 85, 86<br />
Worms, Asher Anschel 18, 44n, 57n,<br />
305<br />
Yair Îayyim Bacharach 16, 65, 76-<br />
78, 82, 87, 88<br />
Yannai 238<br />
Yashar mi-C<strong>and</strong>ia (see Delmedigo,<br />
Joseph Solomon)<br />
Yossi ben Yossi 238<br />
Zahalon, Jacob 13<br />
Zamoyski, Jan 46, 48<br />
Zedler, Johann He<strong>in</strong>rich 161n, 168,<br />
170n, 171<br />
ZeraÌ ben Nathan of Troki 39<br />
Zimmels, H.J. 264, 265, 268<br />
Zohar, Naomi 233<br />
Zunz, Leopold 28n, 239, 243-247,<br />
251, 252n, 267n, 268n<br />
Zwiep, Irene XVI<br />
329
330 Index of Authors
Index of Book Titles<br />
ABC-boek 304<br />
Abh<strong>and</strong>lung der auserlesensten Arzeney-<br />
Mittel 148n, 149n, 150n, 151, 155n,<br />
156<br />
Ahavat ¨olam 298<br />
Almagest 39, 66<br />
¨Ammudei bet Yehudah 297, 299, 308<br />
¨Ammudei shesh 30<br />
Anfangsgründe der Naturlehre 168,<br />
169, 170n<br />
¨Aqedat YiÒÌaq 76, 78, 88<br />
Arubbot ha-shamayim 25n, 27-29, 31n,<br />
36n, 37n, 52n, 60n, 61, 62, 66, 67, 89<br />
Autobiography (see Lebensgeschichte)<br />
Avnei shoham 290n<br />
Beˆer ha-golah 65<br />
Bekhi naharot 308n<br />
Ben ha-melekh ve-ha-nazir 65<br />
Besamim rosh XVI, 249-254<br />
Bet Avraham 45<br />
Bet middot 96-99, 100n, 101n<br />
Bet tefillah 297, 305<br />
Beˆur XIV, 115, 116, 118, 120-122,<br />
128n, 136n, 141, 142, 144, 145, 185,<br />
186n, 189n, 307<br />
B<strong>in</strong>yan Shelomoh 272, 304<br />
Book of Beliefs <strong>and</strong> Op<strong>in</strong>ions (see<br />
Sefer Emunot ve-De¨ot)<br />
Book of the Comm<strong>and</strong>ments 92<br />
Book of the Five Substances 210<br />
Bove mayse 229<br />
Cérémonies et coutumes religieuses 19<br />
Commentary on Avot 92, 99n<br />
Index of Book Titles<br />
Commentary on Daniel 64<br />
Commentary on Genesis 64, 185<br />
Commentary on the Mishnah 64, 91-<br />
93<br />
Critique of Pure Reason 195, 197<br />
De la causa, pr<strong>in</strong>cipio et uno 210, 214<br />
De temperamentis 149n, 150, 155n<br />
De¨ot ha-filosofim 162<br />
Derekh siaÌ ha-sadeh 272n<br />
Derekh yesharah 297<br />
D<strong>in</strong>im ve-seder 227<br />
Divrei shalom ve-emet 6n, 10, 250,<br />
274, 275, 281, 299, 305<br />
Divrei yosher 305<br />
Duties of the Heart (see Îovot halevavot)<br />
¨EÒ Ìayyim 266<br />
Ecclesiastes zu†a 99<br />
¨Eder ha-yaqar 40, 61, 63<br />
Eight Chapters 92<br />
Elements 39, 58, 62, 66, 297, 300<br />
Emunat Ìakhamim 11, 12n<br />
Encyclopédie 157, 168<br />
Epitome of the Almagest 66<br />
Ersten Gründe der Naturlehre, Die<br />
168, 170n<br />
Essay on Transcendental Philosophy<br />
193, 197-199, 209, 212, 219<br />
Ethics 217-219<br />
European Jewry <strong>in</strong> the Age of Mercantilism<br />
5<br />
Fons Vitae 210<br />
331
Gan na¨ul 305<br />
Gemul ¨Atalyah 298<br />
G<strong>in</strong>nat egoz 271<br />
Giv¨at ha-moreh 75, 190n, 191n, 200-<br />
204, 208, 212, 214, 219<br />
Grundlehren der Naturwissenschaft<br />
168, 169<br />
Guide of the Perplexed (see Moreh<br />
nevukhim)<br />
ha-Meˆassef 8, 177, 289, 307<br />
Havanat ha-miqraˆ 239<br />
Îavvot Yaˆir 65, 76n, 77n, 78, 88n<br />
Îen ha-lashon 305<br />
Henriade 291<br />
Îesed le-Avraham 271<br />
Îesheq Shelomoh 200, 208, 213n,<br />
214, 216<br />
Îiddushei halakhot 65<br />
Hilkhot melakhim 44<br />
Hilkhot qiddush ha-Ìodesh 40, 61, 63,<br />
64<br />
Hilkhot Talmud Torah 99<br />
Histoire naturelle 160n, 162<br />
Historia dei riti ebraici 19<br />
Îokhmat ha-shorashim 297<br />
Îoq le-Ya¨aqov 65<br />
Horaˆot shorshei leshon ha-qodesh 305<br />
Îovot ha-levavot XVII, 2, 3, 26n,<br />
52n, 77, 78, 89, 101, 102<br />
Iggeret ha-meliÒah u-mishpa† 89<br />
Iggeret ha-qodesh 188, 189<br />
Imrei shefer 297<br />
Introduction to Pereq Ìeleq 63<br />
Jerusalem XIV, 111-113, 115, 116,<br />
126, 127, 129, 131n, 132n, 133, 135,<br />
136n, 137n<br />
Keli ha-neÌoshet 39, 66<br />
Keli yaqar 30, 65<br />
Ketav yosher 250<br />
Keter malkhut XV, 223-230, 232, 233<br />
Kevod Elohim 100<br />
K<strong>in</strong>nor David 291<br />
Kuzari XIII, XVII, 3, 15n, 26n, 52n,<br />
55, 64n, 69-75, 77-83, 87-89, 97,<br />
108n, 109n, 110n, 112n, 114-117,<br />
124, 180n, 187, 188, 239n, 240, 265,<br />
270, 271<br />
Kuzari sheni 15, 34n, 67<br />
La-yesharim tehillah XVII<br />
Lebensgeschichte 197, 201, 205, 212,<br />
213, 215-217<br />
Letter Concern<strong>in</strong>g Toleration, A 126,<br />
127, 128n, 131n, 135n<br />
Levush tekhelet 61, 63, 65<br />
Libes briv 1, 2n, 78<br />
Maˆamar efsharit ha-†iv¨it 93, 94n<br />
Maˆamar ha-madda¨ 95, 96n, 151,<br />
155n, 156<br />
Maˆamar ha-Torah ve-ha-Ìokhmah<br />
168<br />
Ma¨arekhet Avraham 298<br />
Ma¨aseh ha-Shem 79<br />
Ma¨aseh uviah 18, 67<br />
MafteaÌ leshon ha-qodesh 304<br />
Mappah 265<br />
Marˆeh ha-ofanim 63<br />
Margaliyyot †ovah 151, 152<br />
Masakh ha-petaÌ 304<br />
Maskyot kesef 292, 293n, 298, 305<br />
Megalleh sod 14, 149, 150n, 151,<br />
155, 156<br />
Mekhilta 145<br />
Memorias 293<br />
Menorat ha-maˆor 223<br />
Meˆor ¨e<strong>in</strong>ayim XVII, 18, 67, 74<br />
Meqor Ìayyim 226<br />
Metaphysics 205, 207, 210, 218<br />
Mev<strong>in</strong> Ìidot 297, 305<br />
Mevoˆ ha-lashon 239<br />
Midrash ha-Ìokhmah 162, 180<br />
Midrash Shmuel 239<br />
Mikhlol 272, 273<br />
Mikhtav sheni 299<br />
MilÌamot ha-Shem 39, 66<br />
332 Index of Book Titles
Millot ha-higgayon XVII, 3, 54-56,<br />
96, 299<br />
MiÒpeh Yoqteˆel 250, 252<br />
Mirkevet ha-mishneh 27n, 38, 43, 44,<br />
47, 53n<br />
Mishlei Asaf 253<br />
Mishneh Torah X, XI, 44, 59, 61, 64,<br />
73, 91-93, 99, 270n<br />
Mishpe†ei ha-†e¨amim 239<br />
MitpaÌat sefarim 7<br />
Mohar Yisra’el 304<br />
Moreh nevukhim X, XI, XV, XVII,<br />
3, 7, 29, 42, 43, 51, 54, 56, 58, 60,<br />
63, 78, 81, 87, 92-95, 97-102, 158,<br />
185, 185, 189, 190, 191, 198, 199,<br />
200, 201, 203-210, 212, 214-216,<br />
219, 220, 275, 292, 299, 301<br />
NaÌalat Ya¨aqov 224<br />
Naturgeschichte für K<strong>in</strong>der 161, 162,<br />
164<br />
NeÒaÌ Yisraˆel 26, 32, 59, 62, 89, 91,<br />
93, 101<br />
Netivot ha-shalom 115<br />
Nezed ha-dema¨ 53, 89<br />
Nicomachean Ethics 54<br />
Nishmat Ìayyim 20<br />
OÒar neÌmad 70<br />
¨Omeq halakhah 57, 61, 65<br />
On the Teach<strong>in</strong>g of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, <strong>in</strong> Letters<br />
to Mr. Moses Mendelssohn 214<br />
Or li-netivah 115, 116, 118, 120, 139,<br />
141<br />
Or ¨olam ¨al Ìokhmat ha-teva¨ 11, 96<br />
Or zarua¨ 249, 254<br />
OÒar ha-shorashim 276<br />
Peˆer ha-dor 292, 298<br />
Peri megadim 81<br />
Phädon 301, 302, 305<br />
Philosophiae naturalis pr<strong>in</strong>cipia mathematica<br />
54<br />
Philosophical Dictionary 217<br />
Philosophy of Sp<strong>in</strong>oza, The 86<br />
Index of Book Titles<br />
Pirqei avot 129, 133, 134n, 239<br />
Poetics 240<br />
Qav ha-yashar 7<br />
QibbuÒ millim 305<br />
Qohelet musar 2, 3, 7<br />
Qol mevasser 79n<br />
Qol tefillah ve-qol zimrah 294<br />
Qol Yehudah 240<br />
Qun†res berekhot be-Ìeshbon 44<br />
Qun†res qure ¨akavish 273<br />
Republic 188<br />
Reshit Ìokhmah 173<br />
Reshit Ìokhmah (Templo) 303, 306<br />
Reshit limmudim 16, 161, 162, 164,<br />
165-168, 170, 303<br />
Ritus des synagogalen Gottesdienstes,<br />
Der 244, 251<br />
RuaÌ Ìen 14, 15, 26, 52n, 54, 56,<br />
58n, 74, 87, 89, 93, 102, 166-168,<br />
299<br />
Safah berurah 239, 303<br />
Second Kuzari (see Kuzari sheni)<br />
Seder Eliyahu Rabbah 239<br />
Seder ha-dorot 18<br />
Sefat emet 239<br />
Sefer ∑aÌot XVII<br />
Sefer Asfera ha-gadol 63<br />
Sefer Elim 17, 28, 29n, 39, 42, 54,<br />
59, 60-62, 64, 66, 67<br />
Sefer Emunot ve-De¨ot XVII, 99, 102,<br />
110<br />
Sefer ha-BaÌur XVII<br />
Sefer ha-Berit XIV, XV, 16, 85, 90,<br />
91, 101, 102, 157-181, 303<br />
Sefer ha-¨Iqqarim 76-78, 87, 88<br />
Sefer ha-Mevaqqesh 293, 277, 299,<br />
300<br />
Sefer ha-Middot XVII, 299<br />
Sefer Îasidim 240<br />
Sefer Îayyim 65<br />
Sefer Mishpe†ei ha-kokhavim 63<br />
Sefer Orekh yomim 224n, 227<br />
333
Sefer ∑urat ha-areÒ 62, 63<br />
Sefer Tekhunat ha-shamayim 298<br />
Sefer Toledot adam 42<br />
Sefer Yosippon 18, 59, 65<br />
Sefer YuÌas<strong>in</strong> 65,74<br />
∑emaÌ David 18, 65, 79, 299<br />
Seyyag le-torah 305<br />
Shaˆagat aryeh 249<br />
Sha¨ar ha-Ìesheq 16<br />
Sha¨ar ha-shamayim 163, 174<br />
Sha¨arei qedushah 91, 102, 177<br />
Sha¨arei tefillah 297, 305<br />
Shalshelet ha-qabbalah 18, 65, 74, 79<br />
Sheˆerit Yisroˆel 299<br />
Shevet musar 7<br />
Shevet Yehudah 18<br />
Shevilei emunah 63<br />
Shoresh Yehudah 270, 276<br />
ShulÌan ¨arukh IX, 61, 65, 77, 81,<br />
241, 265<br />
SiaÌ YiÒÌaq 294, 307<br />
Siddur li-Bnei Yisrael 241<br />
Siftei yeshenim 26, 294, 299<br />
Siftei yeshenim Ìadash (see SiaÌ<br />
YiÒÌaq)<br />
∑ofenat pa¨neaÌ 65<br />
∑ohar ha-tevah 273<br />
∑uf novelot 17<br />
Sukkat David 288, 291<br />
Systema Naturae 160n, 164<br />
al orot 96, 97, 98n, 99, 100<br />
Tavnit ha-bayit 31n, 42<br />
Telunot benei adam 298n<br />
Tiqqun soferim 141, 144n, 307<br />
Torat ha-¨olah 65<br />
Torat Yequtiˆel 250<br />
Tradition <strong>and</strong> Crisis 4<br />
Treatise on Logic (see Millot ha-higgayon)<br />
urei even 249<br />
urei zahav 65<br />
Twelve Homilies on Song of Songs 98<br />
Universal-Lexicon 168, 170n, 171<br />
V<strong>in</strong>diciae Judaeorum 16, 127, 131n,<br />
136n<br />
Yalqu† Shim¨oni 99<br />
Yefeh marˆeh 51, 59, 65<br />
Yefeh toˆar 51, 59, 65<br />
Yeshu¨ah be-Yisraˆel 57, 61, 63, 64<br />
Yesod ha-niqqud 304<br />
Yesod ¨olam XVII, 28, 36n, 39, 40n,<br />
63, 66<br />
Yosaf<strong>in</strong> (see Sefer Yosippon)<br />
Zekher rav XVII<br />
Zohar 79, 302<br />
334 Index of Book Titles