JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

his voice against his own countrymen who criticized the doctrines
of terefah and were lax in the observance of some commandments.
As judge, Simeon was regarded as an undisputed
authority, and interesting facts have become known of his legal
proceedings. From various communities, questions were
sent to him about religious and legal matters. He had to deal
with the problem of the Marranos from the religious and legal
points of view. Of his pupils only Abraham ha-Kohen Sholal
is known by name, but he may have been his pupil when he
was still in Majorca.
Simeon was against adopting stringent practices (ḥumrot)
which had no foundation in the Talmud; he said that one
should be stringent with oneself, but lenient with others. There
were some contradictions in him, however, which can also
be found among other Spanish scholars. On the one hand he
was meek, but on the other he praised himself for his wisdom.
Although he greatly admired Maimonides and followed his
philosophical views, he believed in astrology which Maimonides
so strongly opposed, and he quoted Abraham *Ibn Ezra
in connection with astrology, calling him “he-Ḥasid.”
A characteristic feature of the method employed in his
decisions as posek is given by Simeon himself: “In reaching my
decisions I do not grope like the blind grope along the wall,
for I give a decision only after studying the case carefully. I
have never given a decision which I later retracted” (Tashbeẓ,
pt. 3, no. 189). His decisions were indeed always correct; they
exhausted all existing sources and discussed all opinions,
leaving no possibility of controverting them. His decisions
became authoritative in North Africa (see introduction to
Tashbeẓ). The takkanot he drafted were in vogue among the
Jews in North Africa for centuries, and his responsa were a
guide to later posekim who frequently quote them (e.g., Joseph
*Caro, Beit Yosef EH 119, 122, 126, 130, 134, 140, 141, 143;
they became known to Caro through Jacob *Berab; see introduction
to Tashbeẓ). Ḥayyim *Benveniste established the
principle that in cases in which Simeon’s decisions contradict
those of Solomon b. Abraham *Adret, the decision is according
to the former (Keneset ha-Gedolah, ḥM 386). Preference
should also be given to Simeon when he is contradicted by
Israel *Isserlein.
Philosophy
As in his halakhic decisions, Simeon also respected the opinions
of Maimonides in the area of philosophy, but often differed
with him, even on important issues. He accepted Maimonides’
naturalistic views on prophecy but with added
emphasis on the role of divine grace. Like Ḥasdai *Crescas,
he disagrees with Maimonides’ theory that eternal bliss depends
on how much knowledge one has acquired. He accepts
the Aristotelian conception of the soul, but adds to it another,
immaterial part of man, his neshamah, which is derived from
God and bears the intellective faculty, and which is eternal.
Thus eternal bliss is not proportioned only according to one’s
acquired intellect, as Maimonides claimed, but human felicity,
both in this world and the next, depends on one’s observance
duran, simeon ben ẒemaḤ
of the mitzvot, as Naḥmanides had shown. Further, Simeon
disagrees with Maimonides’ theory that superior intellect
determines the amount of divine providence to which one is
subject. According to Simeon, divine providence is contingent
upon one’s performance of God’s commandments. Simeon’s
most important contribution (later repeated by Joseph *Albo)
was his fixing the boundaries of philosophical speculation in
order to safeguard the principles of traditional Judaism. Thus
he reduced the fundamental dogmas of Judaism to three,
which, according to him, must be accepted by everyone: the
existence of God, revelation, and divine retribution. In doing
so, he was not disagreeing with Maimonides but only commenting
on Maimonides’ system of 13 principles of faith. He
insisted that “Every Jew must believe that the Holy Scriptures,
and in particular the Torah, come from God and he must accept
their contents as the absolute truth” (Ohev Mishpat, Introd.).
Although, as has been mentioned, Simeon believed in
astrology (Magen Avot, 4:21), he defined himself primarily as
a disciple of the “masters of the truth,” the kabbalists (Ohev
Mishpat, Introd. to ch. 19), whose doctrines he often quoted
in his works.
Among Simeon’s writings as an exegete were a commentary
on Job and glosses on Levi b. Gershom’s commentary
on the Bible (see list of his works). Only the former has been
preserved, and shows that he was an adherent of the peshat
(“simple meaning”) and strongly opposed allegories such as
those developed in the school of southern France in the 13th
century. He often quoted Targum, *Saadiah Gaon, Abraham
Ibn Ezra, Rashi, Naḥmanides, and Levi b. Gershom. When citing
the Zohar he generally added “by R. *Simeon b. Yoḥai.” He
adopted some doctrines from the Kabbalah (e.g., transmigration
of the soul, Magen Avot, 88a). In his responsa he quotes
and uses gematriot, notarica (see *Notarikon), and letter mysticism.
Sometimes he says (Tashbeẓ, 3 no. 54): “I can only explain
what I have been permitted” and warns “You should give
only a plain interpretation and consider what is permitted.”
Simeon’s philosophy is included mainly in his Magen
Avot. However, his commentary on Job also contains several of
his philosophic teachings. In it he refers to many philosophic
sources, constructs his exposition lucidly, and takes a clear
position on the philosophical problems which he treats. His
philosophical ideas and writings did not have much influence
on subsequent generations, except for Joseph *Albo, who in
turn did make a significant impact on later philosophers.
As an apologist, Simeon deals with the *Karaites when
seeking to prove the divine origin of the *Oral Law. He shows
how important the Oral Law is for understanding Torah and
fulfilling the commandments and states that many actions of
Jewish leaders and institutions can only be explained as being
based on oral tradition. He then attacks the doctrines of
the Karaites (e.g., their explanation of Ex. 16:29 which contradicts
Isa. 66:23). Simeon was very well acquainted with Christian
literature (it has to be studied, he says, in order to be refuted).
He had a dispute with a Christian theologian (Keshet
u-Magen, 14a) who had to admit that Simeon was right. He
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6 59