JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

BAḤYA (Pseudo), name given to the author of the Neoplatonic
work Kitāb Maʿānī al-Nafs (“On the Essence of the
Soul,” Ar. version ed. by I. Goldziher, 1902; translated into
Heb. by I.D. Broydé, 1896), at one time attributed to *Baḥya
ibn Paquda. Nothing is known of the author. It appears that
Pseudo-Baḥya wrote this work sometime between the middle
of the 11th and the middle of the 12th centuries, since he cites
*Avicenna and *Nissim ben Jacob who lived in the first half
of the 11th century, but gives no indication that he was influenced
by the late 12th-century developments in Islamic and
Jewish philosophy.
On the Essence of the Soul presents the structure of the
universe as a hierarchy of ten emanations created by God.
These emanations are the active intellect, soul of the universe,
nature, matter, bodies of the spheres, stars, fire, air, water, and
earth. Each emanation is dependent on its predecessor for the
divine power necessary to activate it. From the ten emanations
are formed the composite substances of the sensual world to
which the soul must descend. Criticizing the naturalist position
that the soul is an accident of the body, the author maintains
that the rational soul is spiritual, a product of the soul
of the universe. While passing through each emanation in its
descent, the soul acquires “outer garments” of impurities until
it finally reaches earth and is embodied in man. Different
degrees of impurity depending on the length of the soul’s stay
in each of the emanations through which it descends provide
the differences between souls, which, however, are all similar
in essence. Once it inheres in a body, the rational soul unites
with the lower vegetative and animal souls, and it loses its
original suprasensual knowledge. In order to reverse this process
and ascend to the spiritual source from which it derived,
the rational soul must purify itself by cultivating virtue and
by governing the lower souls.
The author bases the immortality of the soul after death
on the fact that all things composed of elements return back
to their elements. Hence the soul returns to its origin, which is
the spiritual soul of the universe, by means of an ascent which
the soul can make once it has attained moral and intellectual
perfection. Souls possessing only moral perfection can rise
to an earthly paradise where they can acquire the knowledge
necessary for their ascent to the suprasensual world. Souls
possessing only intellectual perfection or no perfection at all
are doomed to their earthly surroundings. As a part of their
punishment these souls strive unsuccessfully to ascend to the
suprasensual world. There is no direct evidence of the work
having had any influence in medieval Jewish philosophy and
it is not cited by other critics.
Bibliography: A. Borrisov, in: Bulletin of the Academy of
Sciences of USSr, Class of Humanities (Rus., 1929), 785–99; 41 (1897),
241–56; Husik, Philosophy, 106–13; Guttmann, Philosophies, 124–7.
[David Geffen]
BAḤYA BEN ASHER BEN ḤLAVA (13th century), exegete,
preacher, and kabbalist. His great commentary on the Pen-
BAḥYA ben asher ben ḥlava
tateuch (Naples, 1492) was written in 1291. According to tradition,
he lived in Saragossa and served there as dayyan and
preacher. He was a disciple of Solomon b. Abraham Adret,
whom he called “my master,” whenever he quoted from his
commentaries. Curiously enough, Baḥya mentions neither
his teacher’s kabbalistic sayings nor his commentaries on the
mystical teachings of Naḥmanides as did Solomon b. Adret’s
other disciples. There are also kabbalistic matters quoted
anonymously by Baḥya which are attributed to Solomon b.
Adret by other authors. This might confirm the assumption of
J. Reifmann (Alummah, 1 (1936), 82) that Baḥya was not Solomon
b. Adret’s disciple in Kabbalah. It is also possible that he
did not have his teacher’s permission to quote him in kabbalistic
matters. Isaac b. Todros of Barcelona, the commentator
on Naḥmanides’ esoteric teachings, is quoted by Baḥya only
once, without the attribute “my teacher.”
His Writings
Following *Botarel and for various reasons, spurious works
(as well as writings whose authors are unknown) have been attributed
to Baḥya. J. Reifmann’s assumption that Baḥya wrote
Ha-Emunah ve-ha-Bittaḥon (Korets, 1785), Ma’arekhet ha-Elohut
(Mantua, 1558), and Ma’amar ha-Sekhel (Cremona, 1557),
does not stand up to critical examination. Béla Bernstein has
pointed out that a commentary on Job published in Baḥya’s
name was really a compilation made from two of his books:
Kad ha-Kemaḥ (Constantinople, 1515) and Shulḥan shel Arba
(Mantua, 1514). There was also the opinion that Baḥya’s mention
of Ḥoshen Mishpat was simply a printing error.
The clarity of Baḥya’s style and his easy exposition have
made his books (which draw their material from a variety of
sources) popular with the public, particularly his commentary
on the Pentateuch which has been published frequently from
1492 (with explanations and references, 2 vols., 1966–67). Additional
testimony to its popularity are the numerous quotations
from it in the book *Ẓe’enah u-Re’enah. In his work Baḥya
interprets the Pentateuch in four ways: literal, homiletical, rational,
and according to the Kabbalah. He uses many different
sources, beginning with talmudic and midrashic literature, exegetic
and philosophic literature, and ending with kabbalistic
literature. The way of sekhel (“reason”) does not always mean
philosophic-rationalistic interpretation. According to Baḥya,
all that is outside the divine world, including demonological
matters, belongs to “the way of reason,” insofar as it is necessary
to explain the verses or the mitzvot according to the subject.
Baḥya is considered of great importance in Kabbalah and
is one of the main sources through which the kabbalistic sayings
of Naḥmanides’ contemporaries have been preserved. As
a rule, Baḥya does not divulge his kabbalistic sources. With
the exception of the Sefer ha-*Bahir, which he considers an
authentic Midrash, and Naḥmanides, who is his guide in Kabbalah,
he rarely mentions other kabbalists, although he uses
extensively the writings of Jacob b. Sheshet *Gerondi, *Asher
b. David, Joseph *Gikatilla, and others. He treats the Zohar in
a similar manner. Parts of the Zohar were known to him, and
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 65