JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

inner meanings should be allowed to coexist, like body and
soul (Commentary on the Torah, introd., method no. 3).
The issue of the merits or demerits of allegorism became
pronounced at the close of the 13th century and was keenly
contested in the polemical literature of the second *Maimonidean
controversy. While Maimonides declared as allegorical
all biblical passages (1) announcing a change in the laws of
nature (in the messianic age), (2) dealing with the resurrection
of the dead, and (3) foretelling the ultimate destruction
of the world, he warned (as reported by Joseph ibn *Aknin)
against allegorizing biblical laws.
Maimonides interprets Ezekiel’s vision of the Chariot as
an allegory of metaphysical doctrines conforming to his neoplatonic
brand of Aristotelianism, but he saw no compelling
reason to allegorize the biblical account of the createdness of
the world, maintaining that Aristotle’s view of the eternity of
the world had not been demonstrated. Other instances of allegorism
in Maimonides are that the ladder in Jacob’s dream
means the ascent of prophetic knowledge; the adulterous wife
in Proverbs 7 is an allegory of matter; the Song of Songs is an
allegory of man’s love for God. Some of Maimonides’ successors
went beyond the limitations he had imposed upon himself.
Following the more radical allegorism of *Averroes, Isaac
*Albalag interpreted the biblical account of the creation in the
sense of eternal creation. *Levi b. Gershom, taking his cue
from Maimonides’ cryptic remarks in the Guide 2:30, saw in
the story of Paradise an allegory of the human soul, its faculties
and its rise to felicity. Jacob *Anatoli and *Levi b. Abraham
of Villefranche (author of Livyat Ḥen) were frequently
denounced as radical allegorists. There is, however, little evidence
in their works to justify this accusation. The animosity
toward allegorism shown by the traditionalists (e.g., Solomon
b. Abraham *Adret) stemmed chiefly from their observation
that the philosophical interpretation of Scripture tended to
weaken practical religious observance. Jacob b. *Reuben, author
of Milḥamot ha-Shem (12th century), had already polemicized
against those who “twist the verses of Scripture by the
allegorical method” (be-derekh dimyon u-mashal) and thereby
“bring themselves into disrepute” (le-mashal ve-li-sheninah;
ed. J. Rosenthal (1963), 37). The more orthodox type of Jewish
philosophy, aroused by the dangers of Averroism, on the
one hand, and the rising power of Kabbalah, on the other,
did not discard allegorical interpretation but made it subservient
to dogmatic beliefs, strongly emphasizing the validity
of the literal meaning side by side with the allegorical. Joseph
*Albo (Sefer ha-Ikkarim, 3:21) pointed out that the Torah was
called “testimony” (edut) and as such should be taken as literally
as would be a witness in court. Hence, its narratives and
laws must not be negated through allegorism, notwithstanding
the right to see in them symbols of something higher and
more precious than the literal sense. Philosophizing preachers
like Joshua *Ibn Shuʿayb, Joseph b. Shem Tov *Ibn Shem
Tov and his son Shem Tov, Isaac *Arama and others were eager
to plumb the deeper meaning of Scripture and rabbinic
aggadah, laying particular stress on the themes of creation and
bible
providence. Their sermons are an interesting blend of homiletics
(derash) and allegory (mashal; sod). Some of them exhibit
strong traces of Kabbalistic influence. *Baḥya b. Asher’s
commentary on the Torah exemplifies the trend to make use
of philosophic and kabbalistic interpretations alike. It offers
interpretations: (1) by the literal method; (2) by the homiletical
method; (3) by the method of reason (sekhel), i.e., the
philosophical method; and (4) by the method of Kabbalah.
Allegorism, then, in its strict sense is here two-faced, rational
and mystical.
Bibliography: W. Bacher, Die Bibelexegese der juedischen
Religionsphilosophen des Mittelalters vor Maimuni (1892), 8–14; idem,
Die Bibelexege Moses Maimunis (1897), 8–22; I. Goldziher, Die Richtungen
der islamischen Koranauslegung (1920); J. Guttmann, in: MGWJ,
80 (1936), 180–4; I. Heinemann, in: Bericht des juedisch-theologischen
Seminars, Breslau (1935); idem, in: Mnemosyne, 5 (1952), 130–8; idem,
in: HUCA, 23 pt. 1 (1950–51), 611–43; W. Jaeger, Early Christianity and
Greek Paideia (1961), 46–68, 127–36; D. Kaufmann, in: Jahresbericht
der Landes-Rabbinerschule in Budapest (1899), 63–79; H. Lewy (ed.),
Philosophical Writings of Philo (1946), 12–16; A. Schmiedl, Studien
ueber juedische, insonders juedisch-arabische Religionsphilosophie
(1869), 215–36; L. Strauss, Philosophie und Gesetz (1935), 68–86; G.
Vajda, L’amour de Dieu dans la théologie juive du moyen âge (1957),
index, S.V. Cantique des Cantiques, and review by A. Altmann in: KS,
34 (1958/59), 53–54; idem, in: Sefarad, 10 (1950), 25–71; H.A. Wolfson,
Philo, 1 (1947), 115–38; A.S. Halkin, in: PAAJR, 34 (1966), 65–76; idem,
in: A. Altmann (ed.), Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies (1967),
165–84; I. Husik, in: JAOS, 1 (1935), Supplement, 22–40; L. Ginzburg,
On Jewish Law and Lore (1955), 127–50; B. Smalley, The Study of the
Bible in the Middle Ages (1952). Add. Bibliography: W.Z. Harvey,
in: Interpretation and Allegory; Antiquity to the Modern Period
(2000), 181–88
[Alexander Altmann]
exegesis among jews in the modern period
Jewish biblical exegesis in the period of the Enlightenment
must be understood mainly against the background of the
period itself. The main concern of the Enlightenment among
Western European Jewry was the enlightenment and education
of the Jews – and the Bible served as a means for achieving
this goal. Moses *Mendelssohn, the “father of the Enlightenment”
among the Jews and its earliest spokesman, was also the
father and founder of the biblical exegesis of the time, through
his bilingual project, the German translation of the Bible and
its Hebrew Biur (Be’ur; “commentary”; see above: Translations,
German). Mendelssohn’s purpose in undertaking this project
was twofold. On the one hand, he wished to open to the Jews
a gateway to general culture, since he believed that the Bible
could serve as a cultural bridge between European Jews and
non-Jews. On the other hand, Mendelssohn wanted to educate
the Jews toward good taste and to help them develop an
aesthetic outlook, especially toward the Bible.
Mendelssohn’s German translation of the Bible introduced
nothing new in terms of content, but was novel in
terms of form. It is written in a literary, ornate German which
is aimed at removing the Jews from Yiddish and at bringing
them closer to the Enlightenment through knowledge of the
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 645