JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

eral Christians of the period understood the epistle as a panegyric
of Christianity and it was cited by Christian authors,
who referred to it as “Alteca Boteca” a distortion of the opening
words of the letter. When its real intention was recognized,
the epistle was condemned to public burning.
Kelimat ha-Goyim, an attack on the tenets of Christianity
by historico-critical method, was written by Duran at the
initiative of Ḥasdai Crescas. Duran reviewed the writings of
the Church Fathers and clarified inaccuracies and fabrications
in the translations of Jewish writings by those who attacked
Judaism. Kelimat ha-Goyim served as a source for subsequent
Jewish apologetic literature.
Duran’s grammatical work, Ma’aseh Efod (Vienna, 1865),
shows his extensive knowledge of Semitic and Romance languages
and Greek. More than a methodical presentation of
grammatical rules in the conventional manner, the work is
outstanding in its original approach to grammatical problems
and its incisive logical analysis of a number of principles in
the same field through an impartial critique of his predecessors.
Duran arrived at a new evaluation of the conjugations
of the verb by a system resembling that of modern Semitic
linguistics. His discussion of the theory of pronunciation
reveals exact observation of the functions of the organs of
speech and describes in passing the accepted pronunciation
of the Hebrew of his time in Spain. He emphasizes the social
function of language and stresses that writing is a matter of
convention. Unique to Ma’aseh Efod is the discussion of the
essence of Jewish music, to which Duran attributes two basic
styles: chant, such as the cantillation for the reading of the
Bible, which is addressed to the mind and understanding,
and free melody which arouses the feelings, such as used by
supplicants in prayer and by righteous men. Duran regards
Jewish melody as having a spiritual object and thus different
from the music of other nations, which aspires to aestheticism
for its own sake.
Important historical details and an outline of his philosophical
ideas are found in a letter of condolence which Duran
wrote in 1393 to his friend Joseph b. Abraham on the death of
his father, R. Abraham b. Isaac ha-Levi of Gerona, a leader of
Catalonian Jewry. In the letter, Duran describes the desperate
plight of the Jews in his day whose sufferings had increased to
such an extent that the loss of their leaders and scholars was
not even felt. He blames the people for not observing the mitzvot
with proper care and for being concerned only for personal
benefit. On the other hand he comforts Jews who had been
converted under duress and encourages them to repent.
The other works by Duran include replies on philosophical
subjects; elucidation of various parts of the commentary
on the Pentateuch by Abraham *Ibn Ezra and of some of his
poems; works on astronomy including Ḥeshev ha-Efod on the
Hebrew calendar (1395); explanations to the commentary of
*Averroes on the Almagest; a criticism of the Or Olam of Joseph
ibn *Nahmias; Ma’amar Zikhron ha-Shemadot, a history
of the persecutions and expulsions from the destruction of
the Second Temple until his own times (mentioned by Isaac
duran, profiat
*Abrabanel but now lost). The work was used by Jewish historians
of the 16th century such as Solomon *Ibn Verga, *Joseph
*ha-Kohen, and Solomon *Usque. Many of his writings
remain in manuscript; some were published as supplements to
Ma’aseh Efod. New editions of Al Tehi ka-Avotekha were published
by A. Geiger in Koveẓ Vikkuḥim (Breslau, 1844) and in
some copies of Melo Chofnaim (Berlin, 1840); by P.M. Heilperin
in Even Boḥen (Frankfort, 1846); and J.D. Eisenstein in
Oẓar Vikkuḥim (1928), which also includes Kelimat ha-Goyim.
His commentary on the Guide of Maimonides appeared after
1500 together with other commentaries.
[Jacob S. Levinger / Irene Garbell]
Philosophy
The introduction to Ma’aseh Efod contains Duran’s philosophical
views. The Torah, he writes, is perfect, and its study is the
only means of attaining eternal, supreme felicity as well as happiness
on earth. There are those who maintain that only the
observance of mitzvot can lead to eternal life. However, while
Duran does agree that the observance of the mitzvot is very
beneficial, he maintains that only knowledge can lead to eternal
felicity. He criticizes the talmudists, who reject the study
of anything other than the Talmud, refusing even to study the
Bible. The philosophers, on the other hand, are also misled.
In attempting to reconcile two contraries – Aristotelian philosophy
and the Bible – they attribute only a moral function
to the Torah. In reality, Duran states, philosophy too is consonant
with Jewish teachings, since gentile philosophers borrowed
extensively from Jewish sources. However, when Maimonides
places the philosopher closest to the throne of God,
he is speaking of philosophy in the sense of true knowledge,
which is the privileged property of Israel alone. The kabbalists,
whose aim is to achieve communion with God, also realize
that the worship of God can reach perfection only in the
Land of Israel, since the commandments are in harmony with
the stars which guide the destiny of that land. Thus the Kabbalah,
too, conforms to the Torah and the prophetic books.
Nonetheless, since the principles of the Kabbalah are not easily
demonstrable and the dissensions among its adherents clearly
indicate its dangers, Duran concludes that the surest course
is the study of the Torah. The Bible, like the Temple of Jerusalem,
has virtues which preserve Israel’s physical existence;
for example, the Jews of Aragon were saved from persecution
as a reward for having recited the Psalms continually. In addition,
the Torah has intellectual virtues: it is only the Torah
which contains both moral precepts and all of true philosophy.
The sine qua non of Jewish survival and of eternal life is
to preserve the Torah, its text, and its grammar. Thus, for Duran,
the real doctrine of Judaism, which he ardently defended,
encompasses both philosophy and the whole range of the human
sciences, without being limited as are the latter. His commentary
on Maimonides’ Guide (first published 1553) is quite
literal. He rejects any interpretations of Maimonides which
would portray the latter as a philosopher who holds the Torah
in contempt. Nevertheless, he also emphasizes the dangers in-
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6 57