AJS Review (The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies), Vol 18, No. 2 1993

Front Matter Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 244-264 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486569 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:15 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

AJS VOL.

XVIII,

NO.

2

1993

TheJournalof theAssociation forJewishStudies

REVIE

Volume XVIII, Number 2,

1993

ASSOCIATION FOR JEWISH STUDIES CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

AJS Review EDITOR:

Norman A. Stillman, State University of New York at Binghamton ASSOCIATE EDITORS:

Nehama Aschkenasy, University of Connecticut, Stamford Robert Goldenberg, State University of New York at stony Brook Paula E. Hyman, Yale University Alfred L. Ivry, New York University Benjamin C. I. Ravid, Brandeis University CORRESPONDING EDITOR:

Lloyd P. Gartner, Tel-Aviv University BOOK REVIEW EDITOR:

Gary A. Rendsburg, Cornell University EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Susan O. Savitch The AJS Review (ISSN 0364-0094) is published twice annually by the Association for Jewish Studies. Manuscripts for consideration should be sent to Prof. Norman A. Stillman, Judaic Studies Department, State University of New York at Binghamton, Binghamton, N.Y. 13901. Books for review should be sent to Prof. Gary A. Rendsburg, Dept. of Near Eastern Studies, 360 Rockefeller Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853-2502. ? 1993 by the Association for Jewish Studies

MANUFACTURED

IN THE UNITED

STATES

OF AMERICA

AJS REVIEW THEJOURNALOF THE ASSOCIATION FORJEWISHSTUDIES VOLUMEXVIII,NUMBER2, 1993 Articles 169

KELLNER MENACHEM Maimonides on the Science of the Mishneh Torah: Provisional or Permanent?

195

JOSEPH M. DAVIS Philosophy, Dogma, and Exegesis in Medieval Ashkenazic Judaism: The Evidence of Sefer Hadrat Qodesh

223

ALLANARKUSH Voltaire on Judaism and Christianity

245

MARCB. SHAPIRO Suicide and the World-to-Come Review Essay

265

SAMUEL MORELL The Religious Dimension of Jewish Civil Law

273

TOVAROSEN Andalusian Types of Ambiguity

Book Reviews 279

JoshuaJ. Schwartz.Lod (Lydda),Israel: From its OriginsThrough the ByzantinePeriod, 5600 B.C.E.-640C.E. DAVIDGOODBLATT

281

Devora Steinmetz.FromFatherto Son: Kinship,Conflictand Continuityin Genesis DANAM. PIKE

283

Jack M. Sasson. Jonah: A New Translation with Introduction, Commentary, and Interpretations. DAVIDMARCUS

285

Yair Zakovitch. Ruth: Introduction and Commentary. YEHOSHUA GITAY

288

Julia M. O'Brien. Priest and Levite in Malachi. BARUCHJ. SCHWARTZ

291

Christopher J. H. Wright. God's People in God's Land: Family, and Property in the Old Testament. RAYMONDWESTBROOK

293

Bruce Zuckerman. Job the Silent: A Study in Historical Counterpoint. JOELS. KAMINSKY

296

Michael Goulder. The Prayers of David (Psalms 51-72): Studies in the Psalter II. DANIELGROSSBERG

298

Ze'ev W. Falk. Religious Law and Ethics: Studies in Biblical and Rabbinical Theonomy. RICHARDA. FREUND

300

Scot McKnight. A Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second TemplePeriod. JOSEPHSIEVERS

303

Menachem Kellner. Maimonides on Human Perfection and Maimonides on Judaism and the Jewish People TAMARM. RUDAVSKY

306

Oliver Leaman. Moses Maimonides. ALFRED L. IVRY

308

Ephraim Kanarfogel. Jewish Education and Society in the High Middle Ages. MARC SAPERSTEIN

311

Shlomo Simonsohn. The Apostolic See and the Jews: History. and The

ApostolicSee and the Jews: Addenda,Corrigenda,Bibliographyand Indexes WILLIAMCHESTERJORDAN

313

Alex Weingrod.TheSaint of Beersheba YEDIDAK. STILLMAN

316

David Shaary. "Plain Zionism"to "GeneralZionism":Unity and Split in the EarlyHistoryof "GeneralZionism,"1929-1939. DONNA ROBINSONDIVINE

318

Susanne Klingenstein.Jews in the AmericanAcademy,1900-1940: TheDynamicsof IntellectualAssimilation MILTON R. KONVITZ

320

MauriceFriedman.Encounteron theNarrowRidge:TheLifeofMartin Buber S. DANIELBRESLAUER

323

Eugene B. Borowitz. Renewingthe Covenant:A Theologyfor the PostmodernJew S. DANIELBRESLAUER

326

Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi.Freud'sMoses: JudaismTerminableand Interminable ROBERTS. WISTRICH

329

Anita Norich. The Homeless Imaginationin the Fiction of Israel Joshua Singer MICHAEL TAUB

333

Collected Studies

345

Books Received

Publication of this volume of the AJS Review has been made possible by a grant from the Lucius N. Littauer Foundation. The Association is grateful for this support and encouragement.

andeditedbyTeresaSwiebocka Compiled by English editionprepared

. ''These

P

-

tousfrom another world. Inasense, speak what wasadying wish ofmany theygrant ofthemore thanamillion people murdered inAuschwitz: torelay tothe ?.. theunique horror of outside, somehow, thatplace....Assembled andintroduced withscrupulous care forhistorical

.. R• ...

..

andthe History, Memory, ofthe Extermination naLe JewsofSaul Europe Friedlander

Jonathan Webber andConnie Wilsack eerie photographs anddrawings

accuracy, make they thisoneofthemost memorable onthe oftheNazi volumes history

Holocaust." R.Marrus --Michael More than300photographs the archives of from theAuschwitz State Museum show thehistory of new isasingularly book andwhat itlooks liketoday, aswellasa important Auschwit: "[Saul Friedlander's] toourunderstanding oftheevolving selection ofartistic works contribution by depicting Auschwitz oftheNa:ipernl..."--lvin H.Rosenfeld former Detailed andthoughtful memory prisoners. captions 160pages, cloth$24.95 oftheformer essays giveacomposite picture Nai

Relections of Nazism i Nmurder

AnEssav onKitsch andDeath * Translated Weyr SaulFriedlander byThomas ... muchneeded thoughtprovoking thesis. - New York Times inpaperbek. Now 144pages, $8.95cloth$20.00 paper

Rabbis andLawyers

and asensitive view ofits camp

contemporary significance.

Published with the inassociation Auschw•itz-Birkenau Poland Museum, State O(s4cim, 292pages, 20colorphotos, 290b&wphotos cloth$59.95

ToMendtheWorld

Foundations Jewish ofPost-Holocaust Thought TheJourney frsmTorah toConstit~uon Auerbach Emil L Fackenheim S. Jerold 'This subtle and nuanced ... Sure arewarding, tobe Fackenheim study isclearly study challenging most important ... -Publishers ot."-PaulMendes-Flohr debated Weekly X inpperback. Now Now ..%hotly inpoperback. cloth$39.95 $17.50 384pages, paper $17.95cloth$29.95 paper pages, S272

Atbookstores orfrom g

S..

l\ ............ Bloonungrin 4/4 , Blmingt -

sB.-.. "Jewish

IN'4744740 O(dlrs: I-IX-842-6796

Theodor Herd

From Assimilation toZionism Jacques Kornberg Anovel and of provocative explanation ofZionism asaway of founding Thecdor Herl's over hispersonal his Iresolving crisis Jewish Leraure and e identi• CUlnh cloth$24.95 272pages,

piw

w&

CarnalIsrael ReadingSexin Talmudic Culture BOYARIN By DANIEL "Anaudaciousandfascinating effortto presentconceptson sex and body in talmudicliteraturein the light of numerousnovelreadingsof Rabbinic -Moshe Idel, texts." authorof Golem A Centennial Book, TheNewHistoricism, $35.00cloth

ElusiveProphet

AhadHa'amand the of Zionism Origins

J. ZIPPERSTEIN By STEVEN "I am verygratefulfor Steven book." Zipperstein's -Irving Howe,authorof Worldof OurFathers "A brillianttreatmentof the majorintellectualleaderof Zionism."-AmoldBand,UCLA illustrated $35.00cloth,

LanguageinTime of Revolution HARSHAV By BENJAMIN "A heady intellectualexperience.... Harshavwriteswith greatauthorityand verve." -Alan Mintz, BrandeisUniversity $25.00cloth

Saving Remnants FeelingJewishinAmerica

and By SARABERSHTEL ALLEN GRAUBARD RemNew in paper--"Saving butit nantsis aboutJewishness, is alsoaboutall of us,searching for 'identity'on a menu that includesNew Age epiphanies and alongwithold-timereligions instant'traditions."' -BarbaraEhrenreich, authorof FearofFalling $14.00paper

A Mediterranean Society TheJewishCommunities of the ArabWorldas Portrayedinthe Documentsof the Cairo Geniza Vol, VI:Cumulative Indices

and By S. D. GOITEIN PAULASANDERS Goitein's masterpiece,long hailedasa monumentalwork of scholarship,now yields a final volume. $45.00cloth

At bookstoresor order

1-800-822-6657 1

1

9 93

8933

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

PRESS

Maimonides on the Science of the "Mishneh Torah": Provisional or Permanent? Author(s): Menachem Kellner Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 169-194 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486570 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:15 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

MAIMONIDESON THE SCIENCE OF THE MISHNEH TORAH:

PROVISIONALOR PERMANENT? by MENACHEMKELLNER I

Whatwas Maimonides'attitudetowardthe typicallymedievaldescription of the universepresentedat the beginningof his greatlaw code, the Mishneh Torah?Was thataccountof the physicaluniversemeantonly as a statement of the best descriptionof natureavailableat the time (and thus radically distinct from the halakhicmatterswhich make up the bulk of the Mishneh Torah),or was it meantto be a descriptionof the truenatureof the universe as it really is, not subjectto revision in the light of new paradigmsor new models (andthus essentiallysimilarto the halakhicmattersin the text)?' The MemorialFoundationfor JewishCulturesupportedtheresearchon whichthis studyis based;I am pleasedhere to thankthe Foundationfor its support.Fortheirintellectualsupport, I am indebtedto GadFreudenthal,BernardR. Goldstein,andGioraHon. 1. It is difficult to write on this subjectwithout falling into anachronisticusages. The closest medieval terms for what we mean by the modem expression"science"in the broad sense seem to be hokhmah("wisdom")or 'iyyun("lookinginto,""speculation"), bothof which can be translatedback into modem English more easily as "philosophy"thanas "science." Hokhmah,however,can also mean a specific discipline,and as such is adequatelycaptured by the modernterm "science"when it refersto a specific scientificdiscipline.But here, too, the overlapin meaningis hardlyisomorphic.The main problemis thatbetweenthe time of Maimonidesand his contemporariesand our own day, the great scientificrevolutionof the sixteenthand seventeenthcenturiestook place and the term "science"began carryingwith it a whole new range of sociological and epistemologicalmeanings;furthermore,the term "scientist"was coined,a usage whichhas no place in discussionsof medievalthought.Another

AJS Review 18/2 (1993): 169-194

169

170

KELLNER MENACHEM

In this paperI makethe followingargument:Maimonides,as a manof his time, had manyreasonsto hold thatthe physicshe presentedin the Mishneh Torahwas complete and perfected,sharingthe epistemologicalstatus of the halakhotcodified in that text. I will show that Maimonidesdid not in fact adoptthis view. In so doing light will be shed on Maimonides'views of rabbinicand scientific authority.2In two relatedstudies,comparingthe astronomyof the MishnehTorahwith thatof the Guideof the Perplexed,I provethatMaimonidesrejectsthe idea thatastronomyand metaphysicscan reachperfection,3and suggest that this rejectionis based upon theological considerationscrucialto Maimonides.4The conclusionsof those studieswill be relied upon at certainpoints in this discussion,and whereappropriateI will summarizetheirresults. Maimonidesopens the MishnehTorahas follows: "Thefoundationof all foundations,and the pillarof all sciences, is to know thatthereexists a FirstExistent."5Maimonidescontinues,telling us thatthe Torahpositively

notoriouslyproblematictermis "progress,"and whereI am forcedto use it I hope thatI can avoid invokingwholly inappropriate connotations.It is hardto avoidusingthe term,however, since Maimonidesand some of his contemporaries held a "whiggish"view of the historyof naturalsciences, accordingto which they had indeedprogressedbeyondthe accomplishments of historygenerally,see HerbertButterfield, of their predecessors.On whig interpretations The WhigInterpretationof History(London:G. Bell & Sons, 1963);on whig interpretations of the history of science, see, for example,StephenJay Gould, Time'sArrow,Time'sCycle (Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress, 1987),pp. 4-5. 2. I discussMaimonides'conceptionof intellectualauthoritygenerallyin "ReadingRambam:Approachesto the Interpretation of Maimonides,"JewishHistory5 (1991):73-93. 3. "Onthe Statusof the AstronomyandPhysicsin Maimonides'MishnehTorahandGuide of the Perplexed:A Chapterin the Historyof Science,"BritishJournalfor the Historyof Science24 (1991): 453-463. 4. "Maimonidesand Gersonideson Astronomyand Metaphysics,"in S. Kottekand F. RosnerMaimonideson Medicine,Science and Philosophy,ed. S Kottekand F. Rosner(New York:JasonAronson,1991/1993). 5. Laws of the Foundationof the Torah 1.1. This translationis my own. Subsequent translationsfrom Laws of the Foundationsof the Torahwill be from Moses Hyamson,ed. andtrans.,Maimonides,TheBookof Knowledge(Jerusalem: Feldheim,1974).IsaacAbravanel suggestedthatMaimonidesmeantto say herethatthebasicdogmaof religiousbeliefis thebasic axiomof all the sciences;i.e., thatreligiousbelief andsciencesharethe samestartingpointand hence must arriveat the same conclusions.Abravanelmakesthis claim in his RoshAmanah, chap. 5. In my translation,Principlesof Faith (East Brunswick,N.J.: AssociatedUniversity Pressesfor the LittmanLibraryof Jewish Civilization,1982), p. 76. For an argumentto the

ON THESCIENCEOFTHEMISHNEH TORAH MAIMONIDES

171

commandsthat we know that God exists.6The rest of the chapteris given over to a discussionof God's unity andincorporeality. Maimonidesopens the second chapterby telling us thatJews are commandedto love and fear God. "Whatis the way," Maimonidesthen asks in 2.2, "thatwill lead to the love of Him and fear of Him?"The answer, Maimonidessays, is the examinationof God's work of creation:"Whena personcontemplatesHis greatand wondrousworksand creaturesand from them obtainsa glimpse of His wisdom which is incomparableand infinite, he will straightawaylove Him, glorify Him, and long with an exceeding By way of helpinghis readerto fulfill longing to know his great name."'7 the commandmentto love and fear God, Maimonidesexplains"somelarge, generalaspectsof the worksof the Sovereignof the Universe." Maimonidescontinuesthe secondchapterof Laws of the Foundationsof the Torahwith a cursoryaccountof the SeparateIntellects,or angels.sThese two chapters,we are told indirectly,deal with metaphysics.'The thirdand

effect thatAbravanelwas correctin his assessmentof Maimonideshere, see my Maimonides on Judaismand the JewishPeople (Albany:SUNY Press, 1991). 6. Foundations1.6. In his book enumeratingthe commandments, Seferha-Mizvot,this is positivecommandmentno. 1. 7. The obligationto studyGod'sworksin orderto know Godto some extentis one of the recurringmotifs of medievalJewishphilosophicalthought.See, for example,StevenHarvey, Falaquera's"Epistleof the Debate" (Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress, 1987),p. 88. 8. For the identificationof SeparateIntellects,with angels, see Maimonides'Guide of the Perplexed,pt. 2, chap. 6. In the translationof Shlomo Pines (Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress, 1963),p. 262. Subsequentcitationsfromthe Guidewill be fromthistranslation. The question of the relationshipbetween the views Maimonidesexpressesin the Mishneh Torahand those which he expresses in the Guide of the Perplexed(and the exact nature of the views which he espouses in the Guide) is one of the most hotly debatedissues in currentMaimonideanscholarship.Recentstudieswhich focus on this issue includeOliver Maimonides Leaman,MosesMaimonides(London:Routledge,1989);MarvinFox,Interpreting (Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress,1990);andMenachemKellner,Maimonideson Judaism and the Jewish People (Albany:SUNY Press, 1991). The natureof science is not an issue which Maimonidesaddresseddirectly(exotericallyor esoterically)and is not a questionon whichhe can reasonablybe thoughtto have hadan esotericteaching. 9. MaimonidessaysthatthesechaptersdealwithMa'asehMerkavah("Accountof [Ezekiel's vision of] the Chariot")in Foundations2.11. For the claim that Ma'asehMerkavahmeans metaphysics,see Maimonides'commentaryon MishnahHagigah 2.1, Guide 1, Introduction (p. 6), andmy detaileddiscussionin Maimonideson Judaismand the JewishPeople, chap.8.

KELLNER MENACHEM

172

fourthchapterspresent a brief summaryof physical science:10the thirdis given over largelyto superlunarmatters,the fourthto sublunaraffairs. Chapters3 and 4, then, presentan accountof the physicaluniverseas Maimonidessaw it. It is a finite universe, composed of nine concentric spheres,with the earthin the center.The ninthand largestsphere"includes and encircles all things." Each of the eight internalspheres is divided into subspheres,"like the several layers of onions."These subspheresare contiguous,with no empty space between them at all. In additionto the concentricsphereswhichencompassthe earth,therearesmallerspheresfixed in the largerspheres.In a statementwhich will be importantfor us below, Maimonidessummarizesthe situation: Thenumberof all the spheresthatrevolvearoundtheworldis eighteen.The numberof smallspheresthatdo notso revolveis eight.Andfromthecourses fromtheir of the stars,fromtheirknowndailyandhourlyrateof movement, declination fromthe southtowardsthenorthandfromthenorthtowardsthe toit,thenumber south,fromtheirheightabouttheearthandtheirapproximation and of thesespherescanbe ascertained, as wellas thelinesof theirmovement the coursestheytraverse.Thisformsthescienceof mathematical astronomy, on whichtheGreeksagescomposedmanytreatises. (3.5) Maimonidescontinueshis descriptionof the superlunarrealm,makingcommentsaboutthe size of some of the planets,andtheirdistancefromthe earth. The spheresand stars,we are told, are living beings,possessedof souls and endowedwith intelligence. Laws of the Foundationsof the Torah3 closes with a transitionto the sublunarrealm; the readeris told of the four elements of Greekphysics: world, earth,water,air,and fire.These bodies, unlikethose of the superlunar arelifeless, withoutsouls or intelligence. The sublunarrealmis then describedin the fourthchapter:it is the world of the four elementsand of bodies composedof them.It is a worldin which things strive always to returnto theirnaturalplace. It is a worldof constant generationand corruption,a worldthe most fundamentalprinciplesof which are form and matter. 10. MaimonidessaysthatthesechaptersdealwithMa'asehBereshit("Accountof Creation") in Foundations4.10. For the claim that MacasehBereshitmeansphysics, see Maimonides' (p. 6), andmy detaileddiscussion commentaryon MishnahHagigah2.1, Guide1, Introduction in Maimnonideson Judaism and the Jewish People, chap. 8.

TORAH MAIMONIDES ON THESCIENCEOFTHEMISHNEH

173

Maimonides'descriptionof the universeis dramaticallydifferentfrom the world in which we live, work, and play: ours is an infiniteuniverse,in which materialbodies exist in a vacuum;in our solarsystem,the sun stands at the center,the deadplanetsrevolvingaroundit. Gravityreplacesthe notion of "naturalplace,"and atomicphysicsthe fourelements. Maimonides'descriptionwouldpresentno problemdid it not appearin a law code, the MishnehTorah,in a sectioncalledLawsof the Foundationsof the Torah.Maimonidescomposedhis code in an apodicticfashionbecause he expectedit to be exactly that:a code.1 Furthermore, it was a workmeant to translatethe immutableTorahof God into a useful, manageablebody of specific prescriptions.It was Maimonides'hope thatthe MishnehTorah wouldbe adoptedas thebindingcode of Jewishlaw.I2DidMaimonidesexpect his vision of the physicaluniverseto be as immutableas his codificationof the laws, say, of theft?In otherwords, does the descriptionof the universe presentedin Foundationsof the Torahhave the same bindingstatusas the commandmentscodifiedthereandin otherpartsof the MishnehTorah? Some interpretersof Maimonidesthink so. I recentlyhearda lectureby a prominentphysicist and HabadHasid who arguedthat since Maimonides wrote his Mishneh Torahwith divine assistance,we had to interpretour view of the universe to match his; we are not permittedto dismiss his understandingof the superlunarand sublunarworldsas expressionsof now outmodedtheories." Maimonideshimself may have had a more modest 11. For a detailedand nuanceddiscussionof Maimonides'statementson this matter,see IsadoreTwersky,Introductionto the Codeof Maimonides(MishnehTorah)(New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1980), pp. 97-187. 12. As Maimonidesstates:"Onthese groundsI, Moses, the son of Maimon,the Sefardi, bestirredmyself, and, relying on the help of God, Blessed be He, intentlystudiedall these works,with the view of puttingtogetherthe resultsobtainedfrom themin regardto what is forbiddenor permitted,clean or unclean,andthe otherrulesof theTorah-all in plainlanguage and terse style, so that thus the entire Oral Law might become systematicallyknownto all ... [andso] thatall the rules shall be acessibleto young and old ... so thatno otherwork shouldbe neededfor ascertainingany of the laws of Israel,but thatthis workmightserve as a compendiumof the entireOralLaw .... Hence, I have entitledthis workMishnehTorah (Repetitionof the Law), for the reasonthata personwho firstreadsthe WrittenLaw andthen this compilation,will know from it the whole of the OralLaw, withouthaving occasion to consult any otherbook between them"(MishnehTorah,Introduction,Hyamson,p. 4b). See furtherHannahKasher,"TheStudyof Torahas a Meansof Apprehending Godin Maimonides' Thought,"JerusalemStudiesin Jewish Thought5 (1986):71-81 (Hebrew). 13. Not every traditionalistinterpreterof Maimonidestakes this view. R. Meir Leibush authorof a popularand highly traditionalist Malbim,the nineteenth-century commentaryon

174

KELLNER MENACHEM

assessmentof his own work,'4but the questionremainsvalidandof interest: Was this Maimonides'own view? Did he, that is, considerthe description of the physicaluniversepresentedin the MishnehTorahas representingthe final word on the subject, or was he preparedto entertainthe possiblity that our understandingof the universemight develop beyond the stage it had reachedin his day? An analysis of this issue will help us furtherto understandMaimonides'conceptionof philosophyand its relationshipto halakhah,his views concerningwhatwe would todaycall progress,his own as a studentof physicsandmetaphysics,andthe vastgulf self-understanding which separatesthe worldof Maimonidesfromourown." At this point anotherissue raises its head, one which cannotbe wholly ignored.16Maimonides'philosophyis based in very large measureon his physics and metaphysics.I will demonstratebelow thatMaimonidesrelated to thedescriptionof theuniversepresentedin theMishnehTorahasprovisional in the sense thatit couldbe supersededby futuredevelopments.If the physics of the Mishneh Torah (both terrestrialand celestial) is mutable,can the metaphysicsof the Mishneh Torahand of the Guide of the Perplexedbe the Bible, in his Commentaryto Ezekiel(Vilna,1911),p. 3a, rejectsMaimonides'explanation of Ezekiel's Vision of the Chariot(Ma'asehMerkavah)on the explicit groundsthat "the foundationson whichhe builtit havebeenrefuted.The astronomy,naturalscience,andancient havebeencompletely philosophywhichwerethe foundationsandsupportsof his interpretation undermined anddestroyedby thescientificresearchwhichhasdevelopedin recentgenerations." I cite this passageas it is broughtby MarvinFox, Interpreting Maimonides,pp. 23-24. 14. But not necessarily;see AbrahamJoshuaHeschel,"DidMaimonidesBelieve ThatHe HadAttainedProphecy?"Louis GinzbergJubileeVolume(New York:AmericanAcademyfor JewishResearch,1946), pp. 159-188. 15. The issue gains furtherimportancein the light of a commentby IsadoreTwersky to the effect that for Maimonides,"knowledgeof the physicalsciences is necessaryfor a correctunderstanding of halakhah."See Twersky,"Halakhah andScience:Perspectiveson the Epistemologyof Maimonides,"HebrewLawAnnual14-15 (1988-89): 121-151 (Hebrew),p. 132. I am not competentto go into the questionof the statusof specifichalakhicdecisions(if any) in the MishnehTorahwhich dependuponnow rejectedtheoriesconcerningthe natureof the physicalworld.But if Twerskyis correctin his assessment(andthe evidencehe adduces is most convincing),then the questionof Maimonides'own understanding of the statusof the physics and biology he presentsin the MishnehTorahshouldbe of crucialinterestand importanceto historiansof halakhah.Furtheron the issue of halakhahand science, see the remarksof ShalomRosenberg,Torahu-Madda'bi-Hagutha-Yehudit ha-Hadashah(Jerusalem: Ministryof EducationandCulture,1988), pp. 58-62. 16. AlthoughI did my best to ignoreit in an earlierdraftof this essay;my thanksto Gad for not allowingme to get awaywith it. Freudenthal

MAIMONIDES ONTHESCIENCEOFTHEMISHNEH TORAH

175

immutable?Since Maimonidesarguesthat correctreligiousbelief depends upon correctphilosophicalbelief,17our questionhere becomes, how can a mutableaccountof the universeserve as the basis for religion?In part,the answerto this questiondependsuponthe fact thatMaimonidesdramatically distinguishesthe descriptionof the cosmos in the MishnehTorah,which is conventionaland addressedto the rankand file of the Jewishpeople, from that of the Guide of the Perpelexed,which is far more sophisticatedand servesas a stablebasis for the philosophicalandreligiousedificeconstructed upon it."8But what of the "wisdom" (physics and metaphysics) of the Guide:

can it change too? I think that Maimonideswould have been surprisedif sublunarphysics changed,but not be undulyupset,since thatphysics is not crucial to his theology. And since he held that celestial physics, which is crucialto his theology,is basicallybeyondour knowing,he could, I think, 17. On this, see my Dogmain MedievalJewishThought(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 1986),chap. 1. 18. See my "Astronomyand Physics in Maimonides'MishnehTorahand Guide of the Perplexed."I therearguethateven thoughMaimonidesclearlyheldwhatwouldtodaybe called a "whiggish"view of scientificprogress,andalso held thatthe sciencescouldreachperfection or completion,he still maintainedthatthe science in the MishnehTorahwas simplythe most up-to-datescientificinformationavailableto him,notthemostperfectaccountof sciencewhich couldever be reached.In provingthisI notedthatMaimonidesdistinguishedradicallybetween sublunarand superlunarscience: the formercould reach completion,and in fact had been broughtto completion;the latterwas incompleteandwouldforeverremainso. It mustremain incompleteand unperfectedbecausethe heavensare the heavensof the Lordand will always remainbeyondourken, bothin termsof the actualmotionsof theheavenlybodiesandin terms of what we can know aboutthe incorporealintellectsassociatedwith those bodies. In other words,the actualtruthconcerningcelestialphysicsandconcerningmetaphysicslies beyondthe limits of humanknowledge.This position(whichaids him in the solutionof manytheological view of astronomy,accordingto problems)forces Maimonidesto adopt an instrumentalist whichit is the goal of the astronomerto providea mathematical modelof theobservedmotions of the heavenly bodies (to "save the phenomena"),not to describethem as they actually are. Maimonides'instrumentalism,then, is a handmaidenof his theology.Admittingthat metaphysicsandcelestialphysicswill neverbe broughtto completion,perhapsin Maimonides' day they hadreachedthe highestlevel they ever wouldreach?Werethatthe case, thenperhaps the account of naturalmattersgiven in the MishnehTorahreally does representthe most completepossiblepictureandnot simplythe mostup-to-datepictureavailableto Maimonides. Tworeasonswere adducedfor rejectingthis hypothesis:first,Maimonideshimselfforesawthe of superlunarphenomena;second;the accountof possibilityof progressin the understanding astronomicalmatterspresentedin the MishnehTorahis simplyincorrecton Maimonides'own termsas expressedin the Guideof the Perplexedandthuscould not representhis view of the most perfectpossible view of superlunarscience.

176

KELLNER MENACHEM

envisionbasic changesin it withrelativeequanimity.In effect,the limitations Maimonidesimposes upon the scope and contentof metaphysicsrenderhis theologyrelativelyindependentof change,development,even revolutionin the sciences.

There are good reasons to suppose that Maimonideswould urge us to relateto his accountof the universein the MishnehTorahas being nothing more than a statementof the best physics availablein his day, not as an incontrovertibleaccountof the world as it actuallyis, was, and always will be. The strongestreason for understandingMaimonidesin this fashion is his account of how we are to relate to the scientific pronouncementsof the rabbinic sages. He sharplydistinguishestheir role as transmittersof the Sinaiticrevelationfrom theirrole as individualsreportingon theirown ideas and interpretations or on the best physicalscience of theirday. Thus, in connectionwith questionsconcerningthe messianicadvent,Maimonides writes: Someof ourSagessay thatthe comingof Elijahwill precedetheadventof theMessiah.Butno oneis in a positionto knowthedetailsof thisandsimilar thingsuntilthey have come to pass.Theyare not explicitlystatedby the NorhavetheRabbisanytradition withregardto thesematters. Prophets. They areguidedsolelyby whatthescriptural textsseemto imply.Hencethereis a of opinionuponthesubject.19 divergence The talmudicsages, when describingthe messianicworld,werenot transmitting "Torahfrom Sinai."They were, rather,reportingon whattoday would be called "educatedguesses." 19. Laws of Kings andTheirWars12.2. I cite the translationof A. M. Hershman,Bookof Judges(New Haven:YaleUniversityPress,1949).ForMaimonides'attitudetowardmidrashin general,see the introductionto his commentaryon MishnahSanhedrin,PerekHelek.The text is availablein Englishin I. Twersky,ed., A MaimonidesReader(New York:BehrmanHouse, 1972), pp. 401-423. ComparefurtherMarvinFox, "Nahmanideson the Statusof Aggadot: Perspectiveson the Disputationat Barcelona,1263,"Journalof Jewish Studies40 (1989): 95-109.

MAIMONIDES ON THESCIENCEOFTHEMISHNEH TORAH

177

of eschatologicalverses,the opinions If, with respectto the interpretation of the sages are not obligatoryfor us, how muchmoreso shouldwe expect this to be the case with respectto their reportsof physics, astronomy,and biology!20In two passagesin the Guideof thePerplexedMaimonidesinforms his readersthatthe sages indeederredon such matters. One of the ancientopinionsthatare widespreadamongthe philosophersand the generalrun of people consists in the belief thatthe motionof the spheres producesvery fearfuland mighty sounds .... This opinionalso is generally known in our religouscommunity.Do you not see thatthe sages describethe mightof the soundproducedby the sun whenit everyday proceedson its way in the sphere?21... Aristotle, however, does not accept this22and makes it clear that the heavenly bodies produce no sound. You should not find it blameworthy that the opinion of Aristotle disagrees with that of the sages. .... [The sages themselves] in these astronomical matters preferredthe opinion of the sages of

the nationsof the world to their own. For they explicitlysay, "Thesages of the world have vanquished."23 And this is correct.For everyonewho argues 20. It mightbe objectedto theargumentbeingdevelopedherethatshowingthatMaimonides held that some of the sages could and did err provesnothingabouthis understanding of the epistemologicalstatusof his own science, since he may have held himselfto be superior(in havingreacheda higherdegreeof intellectualperfection)to all or mostof thesages.Thisis not theplaceto go intoa detailedrefutationof thishypothesis.Hereit shouldsufficeto notethatthis objectionrests upon the claim thatMaimonidespresentedas whatPinescalled "a convenient fiction"his argumentthatthe prophetsandsages hadaccess to a philosophictraditionsome of the elementsof whichhe had succeededin teasingout of the sourceswithenormousdifficulty. This objectionfurtherrests on a readingof Maimonideswhichrendersabsurdhis attemptsto understandrabbinicallegoriesphilosophically:if he held himself to be a betterphilosopher thanall or most of the sages, why botherreconstructing the philosophicmeaningundertheir allegories?I rejectthis approachto readingMaimonides.Thisrejectionfindsdetailedexpression in two recentbooksof mine,Maimonideson HumanPerfection(Atlanta:ScholarsPress,1990) and Maimonideson Judaism and the Jewish People (Albany:SUNY Press, 1991). In the latter,for example,I show that Maimonidesadoptedunusualpositionson religiousmatters (providence,prophecy,immortality,messianism,the natureof the Jewishpeople, the nature of the Torah,and others)because of his antecedentadoptionof an Aristotelianpsychology. Werehis philosophicandreligiousconcernsas radicallydivorcedas Pinesmaintains,he could have savedhimselffrommuchaggravationandcalumnyby simplyadoptingunexceptionable, standardpositionson thesereligiousmatters,even thoughsuchpositionscontradicted his "truly held"philosophicalbeliefs.Forotherrecentstudiescriticalof the Pinesapproach,see thebooks by LeamanandFox, cited in n. 8 above. 21. Pines cites Pesahim94b. 22. Pines cites On the Heavensii.9.290b.12 ff. 23. Pines cites Pesahim94b.

178

KELLNER MENACHEM

in speculativemattersdoes this accordingto the conclusionsto whichhe was led by his speculation.Hencethe conclusionwhosedemonstration is correctis believed. (2.8, p. 267) Truth is truth;24 what is proved, is proved. No matter who says the opposite, their view is not to be accepted. Maimonides often gives expression to this attitude. It is my intentionin this chapterto drawyourattentionto the ways of research and belief. If anybodytells you in orderto supporthis opinionthathe is in possessionof proofand evidenceandthathe saw the thingwithhis own eyes, you have to doubthim, even if he is an authorityacceptedby greatmen,even if he is himselfhonestandvirtuous.Inquirewell intowhathe wantsto proveto you. Do not allow your senses to be confusedby his researchandinnovations [stories]. Think well, search, examine, and try to understand[the ways of nature]which he claims to know. Do not allow yourselfto be influencedby the sayings that somethingis obvious, whethera single man is saying so or whetherit is a commonopinion,for the desireof powerleadsmento shameful things,particularlyin the case of dividedopinions.... I adviseyou to examine criticallythe opinionseven of suchan authorityandprominentsage as Galen.25 One of the reasons that people are led astray by arguments to authority is because of their excessive veneration of the written word, especially when found in ancient works: "The great sickness and the grievous evil (Eccl. 5:12) consists in this: that all the things that man finds written in books, he presumes to think of as true-and all the more so if the books are old."26 24. And, as Maimonidessays, "Foronly truthpleasesHim, may He be exalted,and only thatwhichis false angersHim"(2.48, p. 409). of GeorgeSartonin "Maimonides: 25. PirkeiMosheh,chap.25. I quotefromthetranslation PhilosopherandPhysician,"Bulletinof the ClevelandMedicalLibrary2 (1955):3-22; reprinted Mass.:Harvard in Sartonon theHistoryofScience,ed. DorothyStimson(Cambridge, University Press,1962),pp. 78-101. The passagequotedappearson p. 89 of thereprint.In FredRosner's translation(The Medical Aphorismsof Maimonides,vol. 2, trans.and ed. Fred Rosnerand SuessmanMuntner[New York:YeshivaUniversityPress, 1971]),the passageappearson pp. 218-219. The Arabicoriginalof Maimonides'MedicalAphorisms,knownin Hebrewas Pirkei Mosheh,has neverbeen publishedin its entirety.Portionsof the Arabictextof the twenty-fifth chapter,withmodernHebrewtranslation,appearin Y.Kafih,ed. andtrans.,Iggerotha-Rambam were Mossadha-RavKook, 1972),pp. 148-167. TwomedievalHebrewtranslations (Jerusalem: editedby SuessmannMuntnerin Moshe ben Maimon(Maimonides)MedicalWorks,vol. 2: MedicalAphorismsof Moses (Jerusalem:Mossadha-RavKook, 1959). 26. Letteron Astrology,translatedby RalphLernerin MedievalPoliticalPhilosophy,ed.

ON THESCIENCEOFTHEMISHNEH TORAH MAIMONIDES

179

Maimonides rejects the approach; one must follow the argument where it leads, even if that means that one imputes error to one of the sages of the Talmud. I know that you may searchand find sayingsof some individualsages in the Talmudand Midrashothwhose words appearto maintainthatat the moment of a man'sbirth,the starswill cause such and such a thingto happento him. Do not regardthis as a difficulty,for it is not fittingfor a man to abandon the prevailinglaw and raiseonce againthe counterarguments andreplies[that mattersof its is not to abandon it proper preceded enactment].27 Similarly, reason that have alreadybeen verifiedby proofs, shake loose of them, and depend on the words of a single one of the sages from whom possibly the matterwas hidden.Or theremay be an allusionin those words;or they may have been said with a view to the times and businessbeforehim. ... A man should never cast his reasonbehindhim, for the eyes are set in front,not in back.28 The second passage from the Guide in which Maimonides informs his readers that the sages erred on what we today call scientific matters explicitly distinguishes the authority of the sages as transmittersof Torah from their authorities as astronomers. Do not ask me to show thateverythingthey [the sages] have said concerning astronomicalmattersconformsto the way things really are. For at thattime mathematicswere imperfect.They did not speakaboutthis as transmitters of the dictaof the prophets,29 but ratherbecausein those timesthey were men of knowledgein those fields or becausethey hadheardthesedictafromthe men of knowledgewho lived in thosetimes. (3.15, p. 459) If Maimonides thought that the sages could err when they relied on the best account of the universe with which they were familiar, would he not feel

RalphLernerandMuhsinMahdi(Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,1972),p. 229. On this text, see JacobI. Dienstag,"Maimonides'Letteron Astrologyto the Rabbisof SouthernFrance," Kiryat Sefer 61 (1987): 147-158 (Hebrew).

27. I.e., Maimonideshadjust proventhatthe rejectionof astrologyis "oneof the rootsof the religionof Moses ourMaster"(p. 234). 28. Letteron Astrology,p. 235. 29. Comparethe passagecited abovein n. 19 fromLawsof Kings 12.2.

180

MENACHEM KELLNER

the same abouthis own relianceon the prevalentaccountsof the universein his day?30

But not only could the sages errin such matters,so, Maimonidesapparently held, could individuals who reached a low level of prophecy. Exodus 24

begins as follows: "AnduntoMoses He said: 'Comeup untothe Lord,thou, and Aaron,Nadab,Abihu, and seventy of the eldersof Israel;and worship ye afaroff.'" After sundryevents,the passagecontinues(vv. 9-11): Thenwent up Moses, andAaron,Nadab,andAbihu,andseventyof the elders of Israel;and they saw the God of Israel;and there was underHis feet the like of a paved work of sapphirestone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness.And uponthe noblesof the childrenof IsraelHe laid not His hand; and they beheldGod, anddid eat anddrink.

Let us focus hereon These verses obviouslyraiseall sortsof questions.31 one that troubled Maimonides: what does the reference to God's "feet" mean

in this context?Just "seeing"God can be understoodin purelyintellectual 30. This attitudeof Maimonides'towardthe sages finds indirectexpressionin another source.In Guide2.9 (p. 268) Maimonidesrecordsthe claim thatthereare nine spheres.But spherescan be counted in differentways (compareLaws of the Foundationsof the Torah 3.2), and what one personcounts as nine, anothercould countdifferently."Forthis reason," Maimonidessays, "you should not regardas blameworthy"a rabbinicdictumwhich seems to indicatethat there are only two spheres.Relevantto our themehere is the unarticulated suppositionthatin astronomicalmattersrabbinicdictahaveto be broughtintoline withthoseof not theotherway around.It was therabbinicdictumwhichmightbe thoughtto the astronomers, Anotherindirectexpressionof Maimonides'idea not thatof theastronomers. be "blameworthy," thatthe sages could erron mattersof physicsandmetaphysicsmay be foundin his use of the expression"BenZomais still outside"in Guide3.51 (p. 619). As MarcSapersteinhas shownin a remarkablysensitivereadingof this passagein the Guide(DecodingtheRabbis[Cambridge, Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress, 1980],p. 18), Maimonidesuses this text (fromHagigah15a) to indicatethatBen Zoma,a mishnaicsage, failedto attainmasteryoverthe physicalsciences and thus failed to attaineven a rudimentary knowledgeof God. Maimonidesclearlyfelt that he himself was, and the studentto whom he addressedthe Guidecould be, superiorto Ben Zomain scientific(andhencereligious)attainments.Ben Zoma,it shouldbe recalled,was one with R. Akiba(Hagigah14b). Ben of the threecompanionswho soughtto enter"Paradise" Zomaapparentlylost his mind as a resultof this experience,addingto the impressionthathe wouldnothavebeenconsideredby Maimonidesto be one of theleadingsages.OntheHagigah text, see the discussionin GershomScholem,Jewish Gnosticism,MerkabahMysticism,and TalmudicTradition(New York:JewishTheologicalSeminary,1965),pp. 14-19. 31. See ShaulRegev, "TheVision of the Nobles of Israelin the JewishPhilosophyof the MiddleAges,"JerusalemStudiesin JewishThought4 (1984/85):281-302 (Hebrew).

ON THESCIENCEOFTHEMISHNEH MAIMONIDES TORAH

181

but what could the referenceto thatwhich was underGod's "feet" terms;32 mean?Maimonidesexplainsthatit was "thenoblesof the childrenof Israel," not Moses, who saw this (1.5, p. 30). Their apprehensionof God was imperfectbecause they were "overhasty[and]strainedtheirthoughts,"and enteredinto"theirapprehension of Godto someextent.Put thus"corporeality in their to made a mistake the scienceof metaphysics. simply,they approach "nobles of who were the children of Fromthe biblical the Israel"? Now, text it appearsthat they are the "eldersof Israel"spoken of earlierin the of the standardJewish commentatorson passage. This is the interpretation the Bible, and,moreimportant,it is clearlythe interpretation of Maimonides, as his discussionin 1.5 makesclear.Who, then, are the eldersof Israel?As it turnsout, they are individualswho, at least fromtime to time, reacha low level of prophecy.In Guide 2.45 Maimonidesdistinguisheseleven degrees of prophecy.The second degree is composedof those "who speakthrough the Holy Spirit."The authorsof Psalms, Proverbs,Ecclesiastes,Song of Songs, Daniel, Job, in short, of all of the Hagiographa,wrote their works havingachievedthis degreeof propheticinspiration."Itwas to this group," Maimonidessays, "thatthe 'seventy elders' belonged"(with referenceto Numbers 11:25), as did Eldad and Medad,and as did all the high priests when they receivedoracularinformationthroughthe UrimandTummim. Returningto our issue, we see thatMaimonidesimputedscientificerror, not only to the rabbinicsages, but even to individualswho were capableof How much more so, it is achieving a low level of propheticinspiration.33 safe to assume,would he be willing to imputethe possibilityof such errorto himself! Furthersupportfor this positionis foundin Maimonides'attitudetoward Aristotle.In a well-knownletterto Samuelibn Tibbon,Maimonidesobserves that thereis no need for Samuelto study the writingsof philosopherswho precededAristotle,becausethe worksof the latter 32. The point of Maimonides'discussionin Guide1.4-5. 33. Two points should be noted here. First, this means that the "noblesof the children of Israel"were superiorin their intellectualattainmentsto Aristotle,who, as we shall see below, never achievedeven the lowest level of propheticinspiration;despitethis they erred on an importantmetaphysical(andthus scientific)matter.Second,if IsaacAbravanel,Shalom Rosenberg,and W. Z. Harveyare all correct,then Maimonideseven imputedscientificerror to Ezekiel, who achieved the fifth degree of prophecy.For details,see WarrenZev Harvey, "Howto Begin to Study The Guideof the PerplexedI, 1,"Da'at 21 (1988): 5-23, pp. 21-23 (Hebrew).

182

MENACHEM KELLNER

to allthatwerewritten beforethem. aresufficient and[superior] bythemselves His intellect,34 is theextremelimitof humanintellect,apartfrom Aristotle's, thoseuponwhomthedivineemanation hasflowedforthto suchanextentthat 35therebeingno levelhigher.36 theyreachthelevelof prophecy, Wemustfurthernotethatin Guide1.5 (p. 28) MaimonidescallsAristotle,"the Who were the philosophersof whom Aristotle chief of the philosophers."37 is the chief? In his "Letteron Astrology"to the sages of Montpellier, Maimonideswrites that the hakhamim,or wise men, of Greece,who were never dealt with astrology. philosophersand "who are genuinely wise,"'38 In his commentaryto MishnahAvodahZarah4.7, Maimonidesexplainsat lengththatthe philosophersneverdealtwith astrology,which,as he explains both there and in Laws of Idolatry1.1, is the cause and root of idolatry. Aristotle,then, in his own right nearly reachedthe level of prophecy;he of the is "chief' of the philosopherswho attainedto such an understanding universeon their own steamthatthey rejectedastrologybecauseit leads to idolatry.Put simply,Maimonidesthoughtvery highlyof Aristotle. But not so highly thathe thoughtthat Aristotlecould not err on matters of physics and metaphysics:it is well known that Maimonidesat least claimed to reject Aristotle's assertionthat the universe was uncreated.It 34. Hebrew(the Arabicoriginalof the letteris lost): da'ato. Anotherpossibletranslation is "his knowledge."On Maimonides'use of this term, see David Baneth,"Maimonides' PhilosophicalTerminology,"Tarbiz6 (1935): 258-284 (Hebrew),p. 260, and David R. Blumenthal,"Maimonideson Mindand MetaphoricLanguage,"in Approachesto Judaismin MedievalTimes,ed. D. R. Blumenthal,vol. 2 (Chico:ScholarsPress,1985),pp. 123-132. 35. CompareGuideof the Perplexed2.32-48. 36. I quotefromIggerotha-Rambam,ed. andtrans.Ya'akovShilat(Jerusalem: Ma'aliyot, 1988), vol. 2, p. 553. On this lettersee AlexanderMarx,"TextsBy andAboutMaimonides," JewishQuarterlyReview25 (1934-35): 374-381; AlfredIvry,"IslamicandGreekInfluenceson Maimonides'Philosophy,"in MaimonidesandPhilosophy,ed. S. PinesandY.Yovel(Dordrecht: MartinusNijhoff, 1986),pp. 139-156; andShlomoPines,"Translator's Introduction," p. lix, in Pines'stranslationof the Guide. 37. See also 2.23 (p. 332). Jos6 Faurplays down the significanceof these passages, interpretingthem so as to diminishMaimonides'admirationfor Aristotle.See his 'lyyunim ba-MishnehTorah li-ha-Rambam,p. 7. I find Faur's interpretation forced, an estimation reinforcedby the fact that Shem Tov ibn Falaquera,Maimonides'great thirteenth-century admirer,criticizedthe Masterfor his excessive admirationof Aristotle.See HenryMalter, "ShemTob ben JospehPalqueraII: His 'Treatiseof the Dream',"JewishQuarterlyReview1 (1910-11): 451-501, p. 492. 38. P. 230; I have slightlyemendedthe translation.

TORAH ON THESCIENCEOFTHEMISHNEH MAIMONIDES

183

was Maimonides' argument that Aristotle was wrong on his own terms: in thinking that he could prove the eternity of the universe, Aristotle was simply doing Aristotelian philosophy poorly.39 But Aristotle could err in other areas as well. EverythingthatAristotlehas said aboutall thatexists frombeneaththe sphere of the moon to the centerof the earthis indubitablycorrect,and no one will deviatefromit unless he does not understandit or unlesshe has preconceived opinionsthathe wishes to defendor thatleadhim to a denialof a thingthatis manifest.On the otherhand,everythingthatAristotleexpoundswith regardto the sphereof the moon andthatwhich is aboveit is, exceptfor certainthings, somethinganalagousto guessingandconjecturing.All the moredoes thisapply to what he says aboutthe orderof the intellectsand to some of the opinions regardingthe divine thathe believes;for the lattercontaingraveincongruities and perversitiesthat manifestlyand clearlyappearas such to all the nations, thatpropagateevil, and thathe cannotdemonstrate. (2.22, pp. 319-320) Maimonides emphasizes this point by repeating it. I shallrepeatherewhatI have saidbefore[2.22].All thatAristotlestatesabout that which is beneaththe sphereof the moonis in accordancewith reasoning; these are things thathave a knowncause,thatfollow one uponthe other,and concerningwhich it is clear and manifestat whatpointswisdom and natural providenceare effective. However,regardingall that is in the heavens,man grasps nothingbut a small measureof what is mathematical;and you know what is in it. (2.24, p. 326) Why was Aristotle mistaken in this fashion? Maimonides explains: "However, as I have let you know, the science of astronomy was not in his [Aristotle's] time what it is today" (2.19, p. 308).40 Once again, if Aristotle can be mistaken about astronomical matters, would not Maimonides admit that he himself could be mistaken?41There is yet a further reason for thinking so and for thinking that Maimonides was of Maimonides' 39. Thisis theburden refutation of Aristotle's thesisconcerning theeternity of theworldin Guide2.13-31;see especiallychap.17. 40. Compare also2.3,p. 254.Herewehaveanexample of Maimonides' whiginterpretation of thehistoryof science. 41. Theargument hererestsuponthe assumption thatMaimonides sawhimselfas part of an ongoingprocessof investigation intophysicsandmetaphysics; if he thoughtthathis ownwork(orgeneration) marked thecapstoneof allpossiblescientific thenmy development,

184

KELLNER MENACHEM

not irretrievablyweddedto the detailsof the accountof the structureof the universepresentedin the MishnehTorah.42Maimonides,it turnsout, for all his interestin presentingthe MishnehTorahin apodicticterms,was not even weddedirretrievablyto the detailsof his accountof halakhahpresentedthere. He recognizedthathe could err,correctedmistakeswhichhe caughthimself, and admittedthe fact when others found mistakesin the work.43It seems fairlyclear thatif Maimonideswas willing to admitthatin halakhicmatters the MishnehTorahwas not necessarilythe last word,he wouldeven morebe willing to admitthat such was the case with his descriptionof the physical universe. There are furtherreasons for thinkingthat Maimonidespresentedhis accountof naturein the MishnehTorahprovisionally,as a statementof the best science availableto him, and not as the final, absoluteaccountof the universeas it trulyis, was, and alwayswill be. Maimonidesheld thathuman history was largely markedby a developmentaway from falsehood and towardtruth,in mattersbothphilosophicalandreligious.Maywe not assume thathe held thatthis would continueafterhis day as well? With respect to the ever greaterapproximationof truthin the various spheresof philosophy(whatwe wouldtodaycall "science"),we just saw that Maimonidesheld thatthe mathematicalscienceswereincorrectlyunderstood in Aristotle'sday; in his own day they had reacheda muchhigherlevel of perfection.This is true not only of the mathematicalsciences, but also of anatomy:"[Galen]attainedenormoussuccessin anatomy,andthingsbecame clearto him in his time thatwerenot apparentto anyoneelse. In addition,the activitiesand functionsof organs,andtheirphysiology,as well as conditions of the pulse which were not clear at the time of Aristotle[wereunderstood

argumentclearly fails. That he did not so thinkis shownby the text I will cite immediately below from2.24 (p. 327). 42. I say "detailsof the account"becauseit is safe to say thatMaimonideswouldbe very surprisedby Copernicus,Newton, and Einstein.Acceptanceof some notionof development in the understandingof the universein the MiddleAges cannotbe equatedwith our modern expectationthatjust as the Newtonianuniversewas replacedby theEinsteinian,theEinsteinian universemay very well be replacedby anothervision of the structureof the cosmos. 43. For details,see AlexanderMarx,"Maimonidesandthe Scholarsof SouthernFrance," HebrewUnionCollegeAnnual3 (1926):325-335; reprintedin Marx,Studiesin JewishHistory and Booklore(New York:Jewish TheologicalSeminary,1944), pp. 48-62. The passage in questionis foundon p. 52 of the reprint.

MAIMONIDES ON THESCIENCEOFTHEMISHNEH TORAH

185

and explained by Galen."44Finally, with respect to astronomical matters Maimonides thought that his own knowledge might be superseded: "It is possible that someone else will find a demonstration by means of which the true reality of what is obscure for me will become clear to him" (Guide 2.24, p. 327). Without getting into the vexed question of when the idea of progress entered Western culture, we can see here that Maimonides admitted the fact of scientific development and even anticipated that science would develop beyond what he himself, or, more accurately, his generation, had been able to accomplish in it.45 In terms of what we can call "spiritualprogress," Maimonides indicates that human beings grow and develop from generation to generation, both as individuals and as a race. As individuals, Maimonides maintained in one of the most notorious passages in the Guide, the generation of the Exodus were unable to worship God in a truly mature fashion and needed a sacrificial cult. For a sudden transitionfrom one opposite to anotheris impossible.And thereforeman, accordingto his nature,is not capableof abandoningsuddenly all to whichhe was accustomed.... andas at thattimethe way of life generally accepted and customaryin the whole world and the universalservice upon whichwe werebroughtup consistedin offeringvariousspeciesof livingbeings in the temples ... His wisdom, may He be exalted,and His graciousruse, which is manifestin regardto all His creaturesdid not requirethatHe give us a Law prescribingthe rejection,abandonment, andabolitionof all thesekinds of worship.. . . At that time this would have been similarto the appearance of a prophetin these times who, calling upon the people to worshipGod, would say: "Godhas given you a Law forbiddingyou to prayto Him,to fast, to call upon Him for help in misfortune.Yourworshipshouldconsist solely in meditationwithout any works at all." ThereforeHe, may He be exalted, sufferedthe above-mentionedkindsof worshipto remain.46 (3.32, p. 526) 44. TheMedicalAphorismsof Maimonides,vol. 2, translatedand editedby FredRosner and SuessmanMuntner(New York:YeshivaUniversity,1971),p. 205. 45. Furtheron thispoint,see the discussionin my "Astronomy andPhysicsin Maimonides' MishnehTorahand Guideof the Perplexed,"the conclusionsof whichare summarizedabove in n. 18. 46. On worship in Maimonidesas philosophicalmeditation,see Guide 3.51; M. Fox, Hemshekhvi-Hiddush,ed. "Prayerin the Thoughtof Maimonides,"in Ha-Tefilahha-Yehudit: G. Cohen (RamatGan: Bar Ilan UniversityPress, 1978), pp. 142-167 (Hebrew);and my Maimonideson HumanPerfection,pp. 31-33. Fox's articleis now availablein Englishin his InterpretingMaimonides,pp. 297-321.

186

MENACHEM KELLNER

Our forefathersmay have been religious primitives;spiritualdevelopment had takenplace since the days of the Exodus,however,and some Jews in Maimonides'day were readyto be told how to worshipGod truly.In 3.51 Maimonidesexplains that in order to achieve true worshipwe must first strengthenthe bond of intellectbetweenourselvesandGod.Havingattained that apprehension,we can then truly love God ("love is proportionateto "Afterlove of God,comes trueworship:it consistsin setting apprehension"). work to on the firstintelligibleand to devotingoneself exclusively thought this as far as this is withinone's capacity"(p. 621). to Individualhumanbeings have developedspirituallyto the point where they can trulyworshipGod throughintellectualmeditation.47 Eventually,all humanbeings will reachthe pointwherethey abandonidolatryandembrace Judaicmonotheism:the Messiah"will preparethe whole worldto serve the Lordwith one accord,as it is written,For thenwill I turnto thepeoples a pure language,thattheymayall call uponthe nameof theLordto serveHim withone consent(Zephaniah3:9)."48Maimonidesexplainshow this is going to come aboutin a remarkabletext censoredfromthe printededitionsof the MishnehTorah. Butif he does notmeetwithfull success,or is slain,it is obviousthathe is in theTorah.He is to be regarded likeall theother nottheMessiahpromised andworthykingsof the Houseof Davidwhodiedandwhom wholehearted as it is written the HolyOne,blessedbe He, raisedup to testthe multitude, And some of themthat are wise shall stumble,to refineamongthem,and to purify,and to makewhite,even to the timeof the end;for it is yetfor the time

whoimagined thathewas (Daniel11:35).Evenof Jesusof Nazareth, appointed as it is theMessiah,andwasputto deathby thecourt,Danielhadprophesied, writtenAndthechildrenof theviolentamongthypeopleshallliftthemselves up to establishthe vision:but theyshall stumble(Daniel 11:14).Forhas there

thatthe ever beena greaterstumblingthanthis?All the prophetsaffirmed andconfirm MessiahwouldredeemIsrael,savethem,gathertheirdispersed, 47. This last point was suggested to me by J. J. Ross. See "Maimonidesand Progress-Maimonides' Concept of History,"in Hevrah vi-Historiah,ed. YehezkelCohen (Jerusalem:Ministryof EducationandCulture,1980),pp. 529-542 (Hebrew). 48. Lawsof Kings 11.4.The texthereis not withoutits problems,noneof which,however, impinge upon our discussion. See Ya'akovBlidstein, "On UniversalRule in Maimonides' (Alon Shevut:YeshivatHar bi-Mivhanha-Milhamnah EschatologicalVision," in 'Arakhinm Ezion, n.d.), pp. 155-172, n. 54 (Hebrew).I cite the translationof A. M. Hershman,Bookof Judges,p. 240.

TORAH MAIMONIDES ON THESCIENCEOFTHEMISHNEH

187

the commandments.But he [Jesus]causedIsraelto be destroyedby the sword, in changing theirremnantto be dispersedandhumiliated.He was instrumental the Torahand causingthe worldto errandserve anotherbesideGod. But it is beyondthe humanmindto fathomthe designsof the Creator;for ourways are not His ways, neitherare our thoughtsHis thoughts.All thesemattersrelating to Jesus of Nazarethand the Ishmaelite[Mohammed]who came after him, only servedto clear the way for King Messiah,to preparethe whole worldto worshipGod withone accord,as it is writtenFor thenwillI turnto thepeoples a pure language, that they all call upon the name of the Lordto serve Him with one consent(Zephaniah3:9). Thusthe messianichope,theTorah,andthe commandmentshave become familiartopics-topics of conversation(among the inhabitants)of the far isles and manypeople, uncircumcisedof heartand of the Torah. flesh. They are discussingthese mattersand the commandments weretrue,buthavelost theirvalidityandare Some say, "Thosecommandments no longerbinding";othersdeclarethatthey hadan esotericmeaningandwere not to be takenliterally;thatthe Messiahhas alreadycome andrevealedtheir occult significance.But when the trueKingMessiahwill appearand succeed, be exaltedand lifted up, they will forthwithrecantandrealizethatthey have inheritednothingbut lies from their fathers,that theirprophetsand forbears led themastray.49 Thanks to the intervention of Christianity and Islam, then, the world is being slowly monotheized, thus making possible the eventual advent of the Messiah. With such human development possible, is it credible that Maimonides would have thought that the description of the universe presented in his Mishneh Torah would never become outdated?5" It will be useful to summarize the materials adduced to this point. Did Maimonides think that the picture of the universe presented in the Mishneh Torahwas like the traditionalhalakhahcodified in that text: a body of precepts 49. 11.4; presentedby Hershmanon pp. xxiii-xxiv. See Hershman'scommentsthereand LeahNaomi Goldfeld,"Lawsof Kings, TheirWars,andthe King Messiah,"Sinai 91 (1983): 67-79 (Hebrew). 50. Lest it be objectedthatthereis no necessaryconnectionbetweenspiritualandscientific improvement,let the followingbe noted:(a) truemonotheism,for Maimonides,dependsupon thecorrectintellectualapprehensionof God;Maimonides'messianism,therefore,is basedupon the assumptionof universalintellectual(i.e., scientific)progress;(b) in general,andthis is only to restatethepreviouspointin broaderterms,Maimonidesdid notview perfectionas something which was radicallydivisible:trueperfectionin one areanecessarilywent handin handwith trueperfectionin otherareas;radicalspiritualprogresscould not be absolutelydivorcedfrom radicalintellectual(i.e., scientific)progress.

188

MENACHEM KELLNER

thatwould standfor all time? Or did he presentthese mattersin the text as simply the most up-to-dateaccountof the cosmos availableto him, subject to change,development,refinement,or even totalrejection?In supportof the latterhypothesisI have adducedtexts showingthatMaimonidesheld thatthe rabbinicsages could err when led astrayby the sciences of theirday, that individualscapableof achievinga level of prophecycouldmakemistakesin fields such as physics, astronomy,and metaphysics,that Aristotlecould so err,thathe (Maimonides)himself could and did errin mattersof halakhah, andthatMaimonidesrecognizedthe fact of progressin scientificandspiritual spheres. III Thequestion,however,is farfrombeingas straightforward as I havemade it appearto this point. In orderfully to understandMaimonides'positionon these matters,we will have to raisequestionsconcerningthe perfectibilityof science and the role of astronomy. The discussionto this pointwould strikea contemporary scientistas odd. Few workingscientiststoday would claim thatthey could ever (practically, if not necessarilytheoretically)"achievea completeandonce-for-allaccount of some aspect of science.52 The reason for this has to do with modern conceptionsof science as process(Forschung),not product(Wissenschaft),53 and, overall, with the questionof the perfectibilityof science. These issues will be takenup in whatfollows. 51. On this subject,see NicholasRescher,TheLimitsof Science(Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1984). 52. In modernphilosophyof science this view has been particularlyemphasizedby Karl R. Popper,who called his autobiography, UnendedQuest(LaSalle,Ill.: OpenCourt,1976) (a of KarlPopper,"in Paul ArthurSchilpp,ThePhilosophyof Karl reprintof "Autobiography Popper[LaSalle,Ill.: OpenCourt,1974]).See, for example,p. 131:"Thisis why the evolution And even of physics is likely to be an endlessprocessof correctionandbetterapproximation. if one day we shouldreacha stage whereourtheorieswereno longeropento correction,since they were simplytrue,they would still not be complete-and we wouldknowit. ForGoedel's famousincompletenesstheoremwouldcome intoplay:in view of themathematical background of physics,at best an infinitesequenceof suchtruetheorieswouldbe neededin orderto answer theproblemswhichin any given (formalized)theorywouldbe undecidable." StephenHawking is notoriousfor holding the opposed view that we will soon achieve knowledgeof all the fundamentalequationsof reality. 53. On this distinctionwith respect to the differencesbetween medieval and modern JewishPhilosophyPossible?-No," in Studiesin Jewish philosophy,see my "IsContemporary

ONTHESCIENCEOFTHEMISHNEH TORAH MAIMONIDES

189

Did Maimonidesthinkthatwe could reachperfectionin or closureof the sciences? In other words, did he think that we could reach a stage at which all that could be known in some particularscience or other would be known? It seems that the answer to this question is both yes and no. Before explaining the answer, it may be useful to elaborate on the question. Citing a text by Gersonides (1288-1344) will be helpful in this connection. Having proved philosophically to his own satisfaction that the world was created, Gersonides adds the following consideration: Thatwhich addspublicityandperfectionto whathasbeenmadeclearconcerning the creationof the worldis thatwe findthatall thathas beenwrittenin the sciences54is new and recent.We find thatthe early [savants]said something abouteach science; afterwardseach was perfectedduringthe courseof time. We find sciences which did not reachtheirperfectiontill Aristotleand others which did not reachtheirperfectiontill Galen.Thereis anothersciencewhich we do not find perfectlyin the workof any of the ancients;this is the science of astronomy.[All this shows that]a sciencewhichdemandsmoretime for its perfectionbecauseof what you mustdetermineconcerningit fromthe senses reachesits perfectionlater.Thus,the mathematical sciences,suchas geometry and arithmetic,are found earlierthanothersciences. Aristotle'spredecessors alreadyexpressedthemperfectly,accordingto whatis toldaboutthem.Physical science, on the otherhand,becauseof its greaterneedof the senses,reachedits perfectionlater.Thus the art of medicine,which is moredependentuponthe senses, especiallywith respectto whatis learnedin it fromthe sensesandfrom dissection,reachedperfectionstill later.But astronomy,which dependsupon the senses in such a fashionthat its perfectionthroughthem can come about only after a stupendouslylong time, reachesits perfectioneven later.Since thesesciencesbringa manalongtherouteto perfection,andhe naturallydesires them,it cannot[therefore]be said [both]thatthe humanraceis uncreatedand that these sciences were discoveredby them recently,for were the matterso we would be faced with a possibilitywhich only becameactualizedafterthe passage of an infinite period of time, despite the existenceof many natural implementsfor bringingit into actuality,andof humankind's extremelystrong naturaldesireto actualizeit. This is clearlyabsurd.55 Philosophy: Collected Essays of the Academy for Jewish Philosophy, 1980-1985, ed. Norbert M. Samuelson (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1987), pp. 17-28. 54. Hokhniot; plural of hokhmnah. 55. Gersonides, Wars of the Lord 6.i.15. In the Leipzig, 1866 edition of the Wars (reprint: Berlin, 1923), the passage appears on p. 356.

190

KELLNER MENACHEM

In this text we find an idea of scientific progressclearly expressed. Gersonidesplaces a greatdeal of emphasison the cooperativenatureof the scientificenterprise:studentsof naturelabor,generationaftergeneration,to addto ourknowledge.56 Alongsidethis view of scientificprogresswe see the view that scientificprogressis not an open-endedaffair:the clearlyexpressed scienceswere varioussciencesreachperfectionor closure.The mathematical Aristotle Aristotle's himself, predecessors(contraMaimonides); perfectedby it seems,broughtphysicsto perfection;Galenbroughtmedicineto perfection; astronomy,which dependsupona huge numberof difficultobservations,had not yet, by Gersonides'day,been broughtto perfection." This, then, is the notion of the perfectibilityof science which I have in mind.The idea that sciences can be broughtto closureor perfectionin this mannerdependsupon a conceptionof science as being primarilya matterof the amassingof knowledge(Wissenschaft)as opposedto a matterof ongoing research(Forschung);on a conceptionof science,thatis, as productandnot process.On this view scientificprogressis possible,but it is a closed-ended affair:given enough time, every science will be broughtto perfectionand closure.'"Once thathappens,the role of the studentof natureis to preserve 56. The idea is repeatedfrequentlyin Gersonides'commentaryon Songof Songs.See, for example,the following commenton 1:2: "Thethirdimpediment--ourignoranceof the way thatleadsto perfection-will also be overcomein this fashion.Thisis so becausewhileeachof those who endeavorto achievethis apprehensionby themselveswill eitherapprehendnothing is gatheredtogether,a worthyamount or very little, when what all of themhave apprehended will have been gathered.Eitherby virtueof himselfor by virtueof his directingthosewho see theirwordstowardsthe achievementof the truthin this. Therefore,one mustalwaysbe aided in one's researchby the wordsof those who precededhim, especiallywhen the truthin them has been revealedto those who precededhim, as was the case duringthe time of this sage, for the scienceswere then greatly[perfected]in ournation.The matterbeing so, ourperfected predecessorsguideus in speculationin a way whichbringsus to perfection,eitherthroughtheir speech or writing,by virtueof the naturaldesirethey have for profferingthis influence,and will makeknown to us concerningeach thingthe way in which it shouldbe researched,and what they have understoodconcerningit, togetherwith the assistance[concerningit] which they have derivedfromtheirpredecessors." of scientificprogressis unfashionable 57. This understanding today,andderidedas "whiggish"by manystudentsof the historyof sciencecircles.By imputingthis view to Gersonides (and,as shallbe seen, Maimonides)I do not meanto expresseitherapprovalor disapprovalof it. See furtherabove,note 1. 58. The reason for this, I think, is that pre-Baconianscience was largelydeductive,not inductive.Startingout froma limitednumberof axioms,the numberof usefulandinteresting theoremswhich can be deducedmust be finite. Gersonidesgives plentyof evidencethathe

TORAH ON THESCIENCEOFTHEMISHNEH MAIMONIDES

191

andteachwhathas been discovered;no longerdoes he or she investigateand conductindependentresearch.59 What is Maimonides' position on this question?On the basis of the texts alreadyquoted,we can see clearlythatMaimonideslargelyacceptsthe state of affairsdescribedin the passagequotedfromGersonidesabove.The mathematicalsciences,while not perfectedin Aristotle'stime,hadultimately reachedor at leastcome close to perfection;Aristotlehadbroughtthephysics of the sublunarworldto perfectionandclosure;6Galenhadbroughtanatomy to a stateof greatperfection.61 But if this is thecase, thenperhapsmy conclusionabove,thatMaimonides would admitthat the descriptionof the universehe presentsin Laws of the Foundationsof the Torahis provisionalin the sense thatit representsonly the best and most up-to-dateaccountof the sciences availableto him, was too hasty.If the variousbranchesof wisdom had reachedperfection,then what Maimonideswas presentingin the MishnehTorahwas not simply a report on the currentstatusof our understandingof the universe,but the absolute conductedresearchinto astronomyand even biology inductively,but his overallintellectual frameworkwas deductive. 59. This is, as I understandit, the stereotypeof pre-Galileanmedievalscience;howclosely, if at all, that stereotypefits the facts I cannot say. This is also the view of science held by the ancien regime in Isaac Asimov's Foundation.For a discussionof the extent to which this stereotypematchedreality,see Reuven S. Avi-Yonah,"Ptolemyvs. Al-Bitruji:A Study of Scientific-Decision Making in the Middle Ages,"Archives Internationales d'Histoire des Sciences 35 (1985): 124-47.

60. See the texts cited above fromGuide2.22 and24 (in the text betweennn. 39 and40). 61. Progressin the sciences(in the Gersonideansenseof thetermas we areusingit here),it shouldbe noted,was not alwaysassumedby medievalthinkers.Maimonides'fellow Cordovan Averroesthoughtthathumanityhadregressedin astronomyfromthetimeof Aristotle.See Joel L. Kraemer,"Maimonideson AristotleandScientificMethod,"in MosesMaimonidesand His CatholicUniversityof AmericaPress,1989),pp. 53-88 Time,ed. EricL. Ormsby(Washington: (p. 81) (=Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy 19). For Averroes' Aristotelianism

in astronomy,see CharlesGenequand,Ibn Rushd'sMetaphysics(Leiden:Brill, 1984),p. 178. Furtheron this subject,see the sourcescitedby ReuvenS. Avi-Yonah,"Ptolemyvs. Al-Bitruji: A Study of Scientific-DecisionMakingin the Middle Ages" (previousnote), p. 125 (n. 3); see also BernardR. Goldstein,"Towardsa Philosophyof PtolemaicPlanetaryAstronomy," AncientPhilosophy5 (1985):293-303 (p. 301). Foran importantdiscussionof theexactnature of Averroes'position,see A. I. Sabra,"TheAndalusianRevoltAgainstPtolemaicAstronomy: Averroes and al-Bitruji," in Transformation and Tradition in the Sciences: Essays in Honor of

I. BernardCohen,ed. EverettMendelsohn(Cambridge,Mass.:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1984),pp. 133-153.

192

MENACHEM KELLNER

codificationof physicalandmetaphysicaltruth,once for all, just as the laws in the MishnehTorahare the absolutecodificationof the commandments of Judaism(minorerrorsaside), once and for all time. On this basis we could construeMaimonidesas sayingthatthe sages andAristotleerredin scientific matterssimply because they lived in times before the varioussciences had reachedtheirperfection;the fact thattheyerred,therefore,does notmeanthat he musterr.Since progressunderstoodin thisfashionis notopen-ended,there is no problemwith assertingboth thathumanbeings progressscientifically andspiritually,andthatthe acme of this progresshas beenreached,or nearly reached.62 It turns out, however, that this is not Maimonides'position. I have demonstratedelsewherethat Maimonidesdistinguishesbetweenthe astronomy presented in the Mishneh Torah and in the Guide.63Maimonides' and conventionally astronomyin the Mishneh Torahis straightforwardly Ptolemaic.Maimonidesis there interestedin presentinga nonproblematic accountof the heavens in orderto impressupon his readersthe magnitude of God's wisdom. In the Guideof the Perplexed,on the otherhand,he was interestedin presentingthe truth.The truthpresentedthereis thatastronomy Whetherthis truthwas and metaphysicsare intrinsicallyuncompletable.64 known to him when he wrote the Mishneh Torah,and hidden from his 62. Maimonidesassertsthathe is living on theeve of the messianiceraandmayeven have meantit. For details,see my "A SuggestionConcerningMaimonides'ThirteenPrinciplesand the Statusof Non-Jewsin the MessianicEra,"in Tura-OranimStudiesin Jewish Thought: SimonGreenbergJubilee Volume,ed. Meir Ayali (Tel Aviv: Ha-Kibbutzha-Meuhad,1986), pp. 249-260, n. 35 (Hebrew). 63. In"AstronomyandPhysicsin Maimonides'MishnehTorahandGuideofthePerplexed." 64. A "complete"science would be one which could be presentedin the mannerlaid down by Aristotlein the PosteriorAnalytics:a finitenumberof axiomsfromwhich all true knowledgetaughtby thatsciencecouldbe derived.Fortheimpactof thispositionon medieval Jewishphilosophy,see, for example,JosephAlbo, Seferha-Ikkarim1.17 andIsaacAbravanel, Rosh Amanah,chap. 23 (in my translation[above,n. 5] p. 194); see furthermy discussion in "The Conceptionof Torahas a DeductiveScience in MedievalJewishThought,"Revue des 6tudesjuives 146 (1987): 265-279. For Maimonides'reasonsfor reachingthe conclusion thatastronomyand metaphysicsare uncompletable,see my "Maimonidesand Gersonideson AstronomyandMetaphysics."InthatarticleI showthatin orderto makehis synthesisof religion and philosophypossible, Maimonideswas forcedto claim thatthe science of astronomycan neverbe broughtto perfectionor closure.Whathumanscan knowof astronomical phenomena does not accord with the true (unknowable)facts; rather,astronomicalknowledgeis only a model which allows us to make predictions,while telling us nothingaboutthe true state of the heavens. This instrumentaliststance in science, I furtherargue,is a consequenceof Maimonides'theoryof divine attributes, just as Gersonides'realismin scienceis connectedto

ONTHESCIENCEOFTHEMISHNEH MAIMONIDES TORAH

193

not to confuse them, or whetherhe hit upon it aftercompletingthe Mishneh Torahand before writingthe Guide,is irrelevant;eitherway, the astronomy he presentsin the MishnehTorahdoes not representthe mostperfectpossible expositionof thatscience availableto him andmostcertainly,therefore,does not representthe highest stage thatastronomycan reach.

IV I have arguedherethatMaimonidespresentedthe scientificmattersin the MishnehTorahas simplythemostup-to-dateaccountof theuniverseavailable to him, subjectto change, development,and refinement.In supportof this claim I adducedmaterialsshowing that Maimonidesheld thatthe rabbinic sages could err when presentingevidence based on the sciences of their day, that individualsperfectedenough to achieve some level of prophetic inspirationcould err, that Aristotle could err in scientificmatters,that he (Maimonides)could anddid err in mattersof halakhah,andthathe expected thereto be furtherprogressin scientificand spiritualmatters.All this being the case, I arguedthatMaimonidescould not havebeen weddedirretrievably to his accountof naturalmattersas foundin Laws of the Foundationsof the Torahat the beginningof the MishnehTorah. But, takingaway with the left handwhatI hadjust given with the right, I then pointed out that the issue was not so simple and straightforward. Maimonides, in his medieval fashion, accepted the fact that closure or perfection of the sciences was inevitable. Furthermore,he held that the physical (sublunar)matters discussed in the Mishneh Torahrepresented physicalscience in its perfected,completedform. But if this is the case, then perhapsit is incorrectto conclude that Maimonideswould admit that the descriptionof the universehe presents in Laws of the Foundationsof the Torahis provisionalin the sense that it representsonly the best andmost up-to-dateaccountof the sciencesavailable to him. If the variousbranchesof wisdomhadreachedperfection,thenwhat Maimonideswas presentingin the MishnehTorahwas not simply a report on the currentstatusof our understandingof the universe,but a permanent his theoryof divine attributes.If astronomy,the scienceof the motionsof the heavenlybodies, is uncompletable,then metaphysics,the science which, interalia, deals with the incorporeal moversof the heavenlybodies,is a fortiori incompletable.

MENACHEM KELLNER

194

descriptionof physical and metaphysicaltruthparallelto the laws in the MishnehTorah;the latterarethe absolutecodificationof the commandments of Judaism once and for all time; the former representsan unalterable descriptionof physicalreality.On this basis Maimonidescouldbe construed as sayingthatthe sages andAristotleerredin theirdescriptionsof the natural world simply because they lived in times before the varioussciences had reachedtheir perfection;that they erred,therefore,does not mean that he must err.This approachallows us a whig approachto progress,one which does not understandsuch progressas open-ended;thus Maimonidescould assertthat humanbeings progressscientificallyand spiritually,and thatthe acme of this progresshas been reached,or nearlyreached. But this in fact is not Maimonides'position.Astronomyandmetaphysics had not reachedperfectionin his day, nor will they ever. The conclusion reachedabove stands:the astronomicalscience of the MishnehTorahis not andcannotbe the final,immutablestatementof physicalrealityas it actually is.

of Haifa University Haifa,Israel

Philosophy, Dogma, and Exegesis in Medieval Ashkenazic Judaism: The Evidence of "Sefer Hadrat Qodesh" Author(s): Joseph M. Davis Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 195-222 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486571 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:15 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

PHILOSOPHY,DOGMA,AND EXEGESIS IN MEDIEVALASHKENAZICJUDAISM: THE EVIDENCEOF SEFER HADRATQODESH by JOSEPHM. DAVIS I

land,fromone end of the Duringthe Middle Ages, each Mediterranean sea to the other,had its Jewishphilosophers.Therewas one regionandone Jewish culture,however,that made no contributionat all to the writingof medieval Jewish philosophy.That was Ashkenazicor NorthernEuropean Judaism,the cultureof the Jews of England,NorthernFrance,Germany,and EasternEuropenorthof the Balkans.' The culture of medieval Sefardic or MediterraneanJews and that of medievalAshkenazicJews differedin manythings:in theirmodesof literary expression and in their customs, in mattersas large as attitudestoward Christianityand messianism, and as small as styles of handwriting.One particularlyfar-reachingdifferencewas the commandingpositionof Jewish This article is a condensationof the first chapterof my Ph.D. dissertation,"R. Yom Tov LipmanHeller,Josephb. Isaac ha-Levi,and Rationalismin AshkenazicJewishCulture, 1550-1650" (HarvardUniversity,1990). An earlierversionwas given as a talk at the AJS AnnualConferencein Boston, 1990.I mustthanktheMemorialFoundationforJewishCulture, whichgenerouslysupportedmy researchin 1987-1989. 1. After 1550,therewas a certainamountof philosophicalwritingamongAshkenazicJews; see Davis, "R. Yom Tov LipmanHeller,"pp. 121-127. Beforethattherewas none at all; but cf. n. 12 below.

AJSReview18/2(1993):195-222

195

196

JOSEPHM. DAVIS

Jewish cultureand its philosophyin medieval Spanishand Mediterranean near-totalabsencefrommedievalAshkenazicculture. And yet these two cultures,these two subculturesof medievalJudaism, were not far apartgeographically.It is not so far, as the crow flies, from Narbonneto Troyes,or fromVeronato Regensburg.Throughoutthe Middle Ages, there was ongoing contact between French and GermanJews and Spanishand ItalianJews, a long historyof mutualculturalinfluencesand culturalborrowing.The historyof this interrelationship has yet to be written, but some chaptersare well known:for example,the influenceof the Spanish Jewishgrammarianson Rashiandhis programof Bible exegesis.2 An aspectof this culturalinterrelationship thatis at once less knownand more controversialis the influence (or lack of influence)of the medieval Jewish rationalismof Mediterraneanlands on AshkenazicJudaismin the late Middle Ages, particularlyduringthe late fourteenthand early fifteenth centuries.This has been the subjectof two majorstudies,whichhave come, however,to opposedconclusions. In 1972,EphraimKupfer,in an articlecalled"Li-Demutah ha-tarbutit shel YahadutAshkenazve-hakhamehaba-me'ahha-14-15" ("Towarda Cultural Portraitof AshkenazicJewry and Its Sages in the Fourteenthand Fifteenth argued,againstthecurrentof previousscholarlyopinion,thatthe Centuries"),3 influenceof medievalJewishrationalismon latemedievalAshkenazicculture was deep,pervasive,andhistoricallyimportant.However,veryrecently,Israel J. Yuval,in his study of the Germanrabbinatebetween 1350 and 1500, has arguedto the contrarythat the influenceof philosophyin this period was peripheraland superficial.4 The matterhas not been settled,nor do I intendto settle it here. A final weighingwould requirea full surveyof the survivingprintedandespecially manuscriptdocumentsof the period;this I have not done. 2. Cf. AvrahamGrossman,"Bein Sefaradle-Sarfat-ha-Qesharimbein qehilot Yisra'el shebi-Sefaradha-Muslamitu-vein qehilot Sarfat,"in Galuta~hargolah: melqarimbe-toldot 'am Yisra'elmugashimle-Prof Beinart,ed. AaronMirskiet al. (Jerusalem,1988), I.ayyitn pp. 73-101; JacobElbaum,"Qishreitarbutbein YehudeiPolin ve-Ashkenazle-vein Yehudei Italyahba-me'ahha-16,"Gal-Ed7-8 (1985): 11-40; IsmarSchorsch,"TheMythof Sephardic Leo BaeckInstituteYearbook34 (1989):47-66. Supremacy," 3. Tarbiz42 (1972): 113-147. Cf. E. Kupferand BedfichMark,"DerRenesansin Italya un in Poyln un zayn virkungoyf di Yidn,"Bleterfar geshikhte6, no. 4 (1953):4-99. be-doram:ha-manhigutha-ruhanitshel YehudeiGermanyah 4. IsraelJ. Yuval,HIakhamim be-shilheiYemeiha-Beinayim(Jerusalem,1989),pp. 286-311.

PHILOSOPHY,DOGMA, AND EXEGESISIN MEDIEVALASHKENAZICJUDAISM

197

I wish to argue,however,thatthe influenceof philosophyon Ashkenazic Judaismin the late Middle Ages was decisive in at least two areas: in dogmaandin principlesof biblicalandaggadicexegesis.Whenthehistoryof Ashkenazictheologycomes to be written,thelateMiddleAges, thefourteenth and fifteenthcenturies,will be significantas the periodin whichthe guiding hermeneuticof Ashkenazictheology ceased to be the principleof loyaltyto the literalsense, thepeshat, of talmudicaggadah,anddogmassuchas divine incorporealityand ex nihilo creationcame to the fore. This perspectiveon the questionwill be supportedby a close readingof a workwrittenby an AshkenazicJew of the period,SeferHadratQodesh,by Simeonben Samuel.5

The nineteenth-centuryportraitof AshkenazicJewry after the Black Death and the massacresof 1349, the portraitdrawnby HeinrichGraetzand others, depicts deep culturaldecline and ignorance.Graetzstates sharply: "Theinsignificanceof even the most respectedof the Germanrabbisof this periodis apparentfrom the fact thatnot one of themhas left any important Talmudicalwork;that,on the contrary,they all pursueda courseproductive of mentalstagnation."6 GermanJews, Graetzclaims,felt a "fanaticalhatred againstprofaneknowledge."7Graetzadmitsonly a singlemedievalexception, R. YomTov LipmanMuelhausen(fl. 1400), a rabbiin Pragueandauthorof SeferNisahon,a workof anti-Christian polemic,whomhe calls "theforemost and perhapsthe only reallylearnedGermanJew of the MiddleAges."8 In his history of rabbinic literature,Dor dor ve-dorshav(writtenin 1891), Isaac HirschWeiss is almostas causticas Graetz.Althoughhe does not dismiss so radicallyall of the intellectualattainmentsof late medieval 5. The work was published in Freiburg in 1560, again in Lublin in 1599, and a number of times since then. I have looked at MS. Oxford-Bodleian 1589/5 as well as the fifteenth-century manuscript, JTS MS. microf. no. 2351. There are other manuscripts as well that I have not seen, such as Moscow-Guenzberg 482/2. The manuscript versions include a passage at the end not in the printed text. My references are to the Bartfeld (Hungary) 1911 edition. 6. Heinrich Graetz, History, of the Jews (reprint ed., Philadelphia, 1967), 4:134. 7. See ibid., p. 34 on R. Asher b. Yehiel. Cf. pp. 293-295 on R. Judah Minz and R. Joseph Kolon. 8. Ibid., p. 178.

198

JOSEPHM. DAVIS

GermanJewry,he adds mordantlythatits achievementswere limitedto the realm of law and custom, not theology and certainlynot philosophy.He writesconcerningR. JacobMoellin(d. 1427),calledMaharil: In all the writingsthatcarryhis name,thereis notthe slightestevidenceof of philosophy; andin his anyconcernfortheology;nordidhe knowanything discussions shortandlongof everycustom,howevertrivial,he didnotfindthe of ourreligionorthebasicprinciples slightestroomto writeon theprinciples of morality.Therecan be no doubtthatsincethe daysof the strugglesof the zealotsagainstthe philosophers Controversies of [i.e., theMaimonidean 1232and1306],Ashkenazic Jewshadtreatedallof philosophic thoughtas an uncleanthing.9

Once again, Muelhausen,who did study philosophy,is takento be the solitaryexception. "He was like the rose amongthe thorns.For amongthe sages of Ashkenaz,who in thatgenerationknew anythingof these matters? Who of all of them soughtto learnany subjectapartfromthe Torah?"'• It was these widely acceptedgeneralizationsthatKupferdisputedin his 1972 article.Citing a body of new evidencefromunpublishedmanuscripts, KupferarguedthatMuelhausenwas farfromtheonly Ashkenazicrabbiof his day who studiedworksof medievalJewishphilosophy.Bothof Muelhausen's colleagueson the Praguerabbiniccourt,R. AvigdorKaraand R. Menahem Shalem, Kupfer showed, were also studentsof philosophy.Shalem wrote on philosophicaltopics and was familiarwith the writingsof al-Ghazzali, Narboni, and Gersonides, among others. Kupfer also publishedthe text of a correspondenceon theological-philosophical topics betweenMenahem Shalemand R. AbrahamKlausner,the rabbiof Vienna." Furthermore, Kupfershowedthata Jewishphilosopher,Solomonb. Judah had lived in Pragueabout1360-1370.12Solomonb. Judahgave of Provence, 9. Dor dor ve-dorshav(Berlin, 1924), 5:247-248. GraetzandWeiss, it shouldbe noted, did not invent this view. In 1559, R. Joseph Ashkenaziclaimed that the fourteenth-and fifteenth-century"Hasidimof Austria"used to deface and burnbooks of philosophy.See Monatsschrift fAr Geschichteund Wissenschaftdes Judentunts47 (1903): 346. It is not clear whetherthis traditionis reliable.Cf. n. 55 below. 10. Dor dor ve-dorshav,5:270. 11. Kupfer,"Li-Demutah," pp. 114-116, 134-147. 12. Ibid., p. 117. On Solomonb. Judah,see MichaelNehorai,"R. Shelomohb. R. Yuda ha-Nasiu-feirushole-Morehha-Nevukhim"(Ph.D.diss., HebrewUniversity,1976).

IN MEDIEVAL ASHKENAZIC JUDAISM PHILOSOPHY, DOGMA,AND EXEGESIS

199

lectures in Prague on Maimonides'Guide of the Perplexed,and wrote a commentaryon the Guidewhich was laterstudiedby Muelhausen. Also, two generationsafter Muelhausenand Shalem,in 1468, R. Juda Obornik,a studentof R. Israel Isserlein(d. 1460), held a high regardfor the philosophers,as he wrote in a letterthatyear.Obornikwas familiarwith some of MenahemShalem'steachings,and conducteda correspondenceon theological-philosophicaltopics with a certainR. Isaac, who had also read some writingsof Shalem's.13 And finally,between 1465 and 1490, variousphilosophicalworks,both Jewishand Islamic, and includingworksby Shalemhimself,were copiedin variouscities in Polandby the scribeYeruhamFishelb. Solomon.14 On the basis of these and a couple of othersmall pieces of evidence," Kupfermadeessentiallythreeclaims.The firstis thattherewas a continuous late medievalAshkenazictraditionof the studyof Jewishphilosophy,from Solomon b. Judah in 1360 and throughR. Moses Isserles, about 1550.16 Kupfer's second claim is that the study of philosophyhad a significant impacton the views of these rabbis.He arguesparticularlythat they were awareof themselvesas "rationalists," ba'alei sekhel.Kupferemphasizesthe oppositionof ShalemandObornikto kabbalah,andtakesthis as evidenceof a rationalisticself-awareness.And finallyKupferclaimsthatphilosophywas studiedby a "considerablegroup"of Ashkenazicrabbisin this period.The chancesurvivalof the materialthathe cites shouldbe taken,he claims,as an indicationof much widerstudyof philosophywhichleft no writtenrecord.17 Kupfer stopped short of claiming that Muelhausenand Juda Obornik were typical of the Ashkenazicrabbinateof theirday. Not so Haim Hillel 13. Kupfer,"Li-Demutah," pp. 125-134. 14. Ibid.,pp. 130-131. 15. Kupferbrieflymentionstwo otherpieces of evidencein "Li-Demutah," andone more in a laterarticle.In "Li-Demutah," he mentionstwo manuscripts: one of the Guide,copiedin Praguein 1396, andone of the philosophictextbookRuahhen,withnotesby R. SeligmanBing (fl. 1450). In a laterarticle("Hasagotminhakhamehad'al divreihe-hakhamR. Yosefha-Lo'azi she-katavve-qarabe-qol gadol neged ha-Rambam,"Qovescal yad 21 [1985]: 221-222), he publishedan oath takenin 1467 by R. Moses Zartof Lichtenfels,in whichR. Moses stateshis acceptanceof all the doctrinestaughtin the Guide,with certainexceptions.Cf. n. 87 below. 16. See Kupfer,"Li-Demutah," p. 131. This conclusionwas endorsedby LawrenceKaplan in "RationalismandRabbinicCulturein SixteenthCenturyEasternEurope:R. MordecaiJaffe's LevushPinat Yikrat"(Ph.D. diss., HarvardUniversity,1975). The evidence for the period 1470-1530 is extremelyweak, however. 17. See Kupfer,"Li-Demutah," p. 132.

200

M. DAVIS JOSEPH

Ben-Sasson.Inhis magisterialessay on medievalJewishhistoryin theHistory of the Jewish People, which he edited,Ben-SassontakesMuelhausenas the typicalexampleof a late medievalAshkenazicscholar.Ben-Sassoncites two passages, both from Sefer Nisahon, that demandthe study of science and philosophy.He writes: [viz.,theviewof GraetzandWeiss], Despitethegeneralviewto thecontrary of Ashkenazic thescholarsandleadingpersonalities Jewryin [thelateMiddle with secular works and were well regardedwith favor Ages] acquainted elementsof cultureandattitudesthatareusuallythoughtto be characteristic onlyof SpanishJewry.'8 Although neither Kupfer'sarticle nor Ben-Sasson'sdiscussionbudged the popularstereotypeof the medievalAshkenazicrabbi,they were given a very cordial reception:by scholars.Indeed,Kupfer'sarticlebecame the foundationupon which a numberof laterstudieshave built."9 Veryrecently,however,IsraelJ. Yuvalhas arguedin detailthatthe claims madeby Kupferand Ben-Sassonare very muchoverstated.20 Muelhausenand the other philosophicallyinclinedrabbisdiscussedby Kupfer,Yuvalargues,were anythingbut typicalof the Ashkenazicrabbinate of theirday. To the contrary,they were a very small,ratherdistinctcircle of men, mostly in the communityof Prague.All of them,Yuvalwrites,lived on the peripheryof AshkenazicJewishculture."FromGermanyin the fifteenth 18. History of the Jewish People (Cambridge,Mass., 1976), p. 624. Cf. David Tamar's remark:"Itis a mistaketo supposethatthe scholarsof [Isserlein's]generationandthe one that precededit were limitedto the 'fourcubitsof the law"';andTamargives a list of twelverabbis whom he believes to have not been so limited.See Sinai 32 (1952): 175. The list is basedon JudahKaufman,R. YomTovLipmanMuelhausen(New York,1927),pp. 2-12. 19. See e.g. (in additionto Kaplan'sdissertation[above,n. 17]):IsraelTa-Shema,"Heikhan NithaberSefer'AlilotDevarim?"'Aleisefer3 (1976):44-53; FrankTalmage,"Vikuahanti-Nosri be-MizrahEiropabe-signonha-pulmusbi-Sefarad-ketav-yadyahid,"KiryatSefer56 (1981): 369-372, and cf. p. 750; MichaelH. Shank,Unless YouBelieve, YouShall Not Understand: Logic, University,and Societyin LateMedievalVienna(Princeton,1988);Y. Zvi Langerman, "HibburAshkenazibilti noda'be-mada'eiha-teva',"KiryatSefer62 (1989):448-449. 20. Hakhamimbe-doram(Jerusalem,1989), pp. 286-311. Cf. HaymSoloveitchik'scomment in "ReligiousLaw and Change:The MedievalAshkenazicExample,"AJS Review 12 (1987): 213 n. 12.

IN MEDIEVAL ASHKENAZIC JUDAISM PHILOSOPHY, DOGMA,AND EXEGESIS

201

century(includingAustria),"Yuvalwrites,"Kupferfindsonly the letterof R. AbrahamKlausner."21 Although there is some overstatementhere, the point is well taken.22 Kupfercites six independentdocumentsand manuscripts,and yet they all point towarda single school. Perhapsthat school, thatsmall circle, was the only one of its kind. Both Solomonb. Judahand R. MenahemShalemwere Jewish philosopherswho had immigratedto Prague from Mediterranean lands.23It may well be that their like was found nowhere else among AshkenazicJewry. Yuval then turnsto the questionof the degreeof interestin philosophy that is attestedby the documentsKupfercites. Yuvalfocuses on Klausner, the only Germanrabbiin the group,as we have said.Klausnerhimself,Yuval points out, states in his letter to Shalemthathe would like to be instructed "concerningthe principleof the unityof God,.... for it is verydifficultfor me to ... studyand read those books [i.e., booksof philosophy]."The emphasis is Yuval's. Klausner,Yuval writes, "was a simple man of halakhah[ish of philosophy."He concludes: halakhahmuvhaq],who hadno understanding Evidencesuchasthisdoesnotpointto interestinphilosophy butto itsabsence. hadalmost ... WemustconcludethatPraguewasexceptional....Philosophy neitherin termsof its weightwithinthe intellectual no impactin Germany, norin termsof thenumbers worldof theAshkenazic of thosewho rabbinate, studied it.24

A few pages furtheron, Yuvalseems to relenta bit. R. MenahemZioni(d. ca. 1410), the authorof a kabbalisticTorahcommentarycalled SeferZioni, 21. Yuval,Hakhamimbe-doranm, p. 301. 22. YuvalignoresR. SeligmanBing here;he will come backto himlateron, in connection with his grandfather, R. MenahemZioni. More significantly,he ignoresR. JudaObornik,who was a rabbi in Muensterin Westphalia.See Kupfer,"Li-Demutah," p. 127 n. 84: see the responsaof R. Moses Minz, nos. 97 and 100. 23. Kupferinclined to the view that Shalemwas an AshkenazicJew by birthand early education.He explainsthenamethatShalemis sometimesgiven,"Menahem Aglar,"as deriving fromthe Italiancity of Aquileia,but suggests(p. 124) thatShalemcameto this city during"his wanderings"from Ashkenaziclands. ReubenBonfil ("Sefer'Alilot Devarim:pereqbe-toldot he-hagutha-Yehuditba-me'ahha-arba''esreh,"EshelBe'erSheva'2 [1980]:237 n. 38) suggests thatAglarderivesfromAguilardi Campoin Spain.MosheIdel, in conversation,has said that he has strongevidence thatShalemcame fromJerusalem(the name"Shalem"mightindicate this).Evidenceof an Ashkenazicbackgroundseems weak. 24. Yuval,Hakhanmimn p. 301. be-doramn,

JOSEPH M. DAVIS

202

who lived in the city of Cologne in the Rhineland,had a "limitedinterest in philosophy,"Yuvalwrites. (Zioni is not mentionedby Kupfer.)It is true that Zioni's sympathiesare more with Nahmanidesthanwith Maimonides, but he does quote from Maimonides'Guide, as Yuvalnotices, not always Yuvaleven admitsmorebroadlythe existenceof "a group disapprovingly."2 of scholars in the Rhine valley [in the fifteenthcentury]who involved themselveswith kabbalah,magic, and, to a lesser extent,philosophy."26 But as Yuvalpointsout, this grouptoo (whichincludedZioni,Zioni'sgrandsonR. SeligmanBing, andothers)was geographicallyandnumericallylimited,and he statesonce more:"Thecenterof culturethatarosein Prague... is theonly one in which the intensivestudyof philosophyor kabbalahcan be detected. No generalizationshouldbe madefrom [Prague]to GermanJewry."27

III In January1400, King RichardII of Englanddied in his cousin Henry's dungeon,perhapsof starvation.In August,the Germanemperor,Wenceslas IV,was deposed.It was a badyearfor kings.PopeBenedictXIII,abandoned by his cardinals,was besiegedin his fortressin Avignon(ironically,1400was a "jubileeyear"of the church).The churchwas dividedby schism;Bohemia would shortlybe shakenby the Hussiteheresies. SeferHadratQodeshwas writtenin the midstof these ominousevents.28 theworkwas completed Accordingto the colophonof one of the manuscripts, 25. See ibid., pp. 287-290. Cf. the discussionof Zioni in Davis, "R. Yom Tov Lipman Heller,"pp. 90-95. 26. Yuval,Hakhamimn be-dorant,p. 305. 27. Ibid.,p. 308. 28. The miraculousevents of the year 1400 are describedin Sefer HadratQodesh(pp. 43b-44b): "Thisyear ... four miracleswere done to us. For it was writtenaccordingto the laws of the Christiansthat the Jews were to be killed every fifty years. .... And thousands came andplacedthe sign of the cross on whitegarments,andformeda host,andwishedto kill the Jews, and bandsof Penitentsformeda host, andthey too thoughtto kill the Jews;and [so did] the reviledking [Wenceslas?]who had threatenedus for manyyears.But the Lordsaved us fromthem."On the events of the periodand theirimpacton the Jews, see recentlyIsrael Yuval,"Yehudim,Husitim,ve-Germanim'al pi ha-keroniqah'GilgulBenei Hushim,"Zion54 (1989): 275-320; Zevi Baras,"'Al BehalatYehudeiAshkenazbi-yemeimasa'ha-selavneged ha-Husitim(1421),"Zion 55 (1990):246-248.

IN MEDIEVAL ASHKENAZIC JUDAISM DOGMA,ANDEXEGESIS PHILOSOPHY,

203

on the new moon of Nisan (Friday,March26) in the year 1400 in the city of Regensburgin southernGermany.29 He discussesthe author's Yuvaldiscusses SeferHadratQodeshbriefly.30 apocalypticmessianism, and his elitism; he notices the author'sleaning towardkabbalahand the teachingsof the HasideiAshkenaz.31 A second readingof Sefer HadratQodesh,however,will show thatthe authorwas influencednot only by kabbalah,but by Jewishphilosophy,and particularlyby Maimonides'Guideof the Perplexed.We will see thatthese rationalistinfluenceswere neithermarginalnor superficial,but substantive and far-reaching.Our reading of Sefer Hadrat Qodesh, furthermore,will offer importantsignposts to the historicalimpactof Jewish philosophyon late medievalAshkenazicculture. Sefer Hadrat Qodesh has three parts. The first part is a restatement of Maimonides'ThirteenPrinciplesof Faith. The second part is a prayer or meditation,writtenin rhymedprose. (The prayercovers some standard medievalthemes:the contrastof God's greatnessand man'sinsignificance; the depiction of death and the rottingcorpse;resurrection,expressionsof penitence,andmessianichopes.)The thirdpartof the book is a commentary to parts 1 and 2; thatis, a commentaryto the ThirteenPrinciplesand to the All threepartswerewrittenby the sameauthor,Simeonben Samuel. prayer.32 Nothingis known abouthim apartfromhis authorshipof this work. 29. See MS. Oxford-Bodleian1589/5.The colophonreads:"Completedin Regensburgon the new moon of Nisan, 160 [=1400], andpartof the commentarywas completedtwenty-six years afterwards."The date 1400 is also given in the text, on p. 44a of the printededition. The work is quotedin the mid-fifteenthcenturyby R. SeligmanBing; see Yuval,Hakhanmini p. 296. In my thesis, I suggestedthatHadratQodeshwas writtenin the year 1349. be-doranm, This was an error. 30. Yuval,Hakhanzinz be-dorant,pp. 295-300. I have foundno othersecondaryliterature on the work. 31. If Gerson Cohen is correct in his characterization of messianic attitudesamong medieval AshkenazicJews ("MessianicPosturesof Ashkenazimand Sefardim,"Studiesof the Leo Baeck Institute[New York, 1967]), then the imminentmessianismof Simeon ben Samuel,MenahemZioni, and the othersnotedby Yuval be-doranz,pp. 291-300) (Hakhanmim is (another)indicationof the influenceof SpanishJewish culture.Note also the predictionof the scribe Isaac of Nuremberg,quotedby JudahKaufmanin Muelhausen,p. 180. Cf. Ruth Gladstein,"EschatologicalTrendsin BohemianJewryduringthe HussitePeriod,"in Prophecy andMillenarianisnz: Essays in Honourof MarjorieReeves,ed. AnnWilliams(London,1980), pp. 239-256. 32. The use of the formsof rhymedprose and self-commentingtext may also be seen as instancesof the influenceof Mediterranean culture.Otherexamplesof self-commentingtexts

204

JOSEPHM. DAVIS

The restatementof the ThirteenPrinciplesin SeferHadratQodeshmakes certainadditionsto the Maimonideantext. For example,the authoridentifies each of the ThirteenPrincipleswith one of the ThirteenAttributesof Divine Mercy,and certainof the principleswith certainof the TenCommandments; he ends each principlewith a rhymed-prosecouplet.33 The principlesin SeferHadratQodesh,furthermore, tendto be theologiin more The than those Maimonides' text.34 principleof divine cally precise providence,for example, which is expressedin the Maimonideantext in quite generalterms,is statedrathernarrowlyin SeferHadratQodesh;there it is the belief that God exercises providenceover individualpersons,while over animal and inanimatelife He exerts only generalprovidence"forthe preservationof the species.""35 A second exampleof the greaterprecisionof the dogmasof SeferHadrat Qodesh is the doctrineof creation.Maimonidesrefrainsfrom mentioning creation(hidush)as one of the principles.The fourthMaimonideanprinciple is thatGod is qadmonbe-hehlet("absolutelyfirst"),butcreationper se is not mentioned.36 Not so in SeferHadratQodesh.Therethe authorstatesas partof the fourthprinciplethat"Godcreatedthe worldyesh me-ayin[ex nihilo]."37 In the commentary,Simeon b. Samuelelaborateson the principles,and of manyof them.For example, suggestsa more sophisticatedunderstanding he explainshow the principleof divine unity(the secondprinciple)does not rule out divine attributesof action. He quotes Maimonides'parablefor the

from the same period are the anonymousSefer 'AlilotDevarimand VidalBenveniste'sSefer Eferve-Dinah. 33. N.B. also his gematriyoton the numberthirteen:pp. 33b, 34a. 34. Cf. Muelhausen'sdogmas,whicharealso theologicallymoreprecisethanMaimonides'. See FrankTalmage,"Mavo,"in his editionof Muelhausen'sSeferNisahon(Jerusalem,1984),pp. 21-22, whereTalmagediscussesthe variousmanuscriptandprintedversionsof Muelhausen's dogmas,andesp. p. 22 n. 80, wherehe comparesMaimonides'text to Muelhausen's. 35. HadratQodesh,p. 34a. See Guide3.17. 36. See the discussion in MenahemMarc Kellner,Dogma in MedievalJewish Thought (Oxford,1986), pp. 53-55. Maimonidesrevisedthe text of the ThirteenPrincipleslaterin life, but the text of SeferHadratQodeshis basedon the unrevisedlist of dogmas. Kellner incidentallyclaims (p. 196) that Yom Tov LipmanMuelhausen"was the only AshkenazicJew knownto have commentedon the principlesof Judaism."Clearly,this is not correct. 37. HadratQodesh,p. 30b.

IN MEDIEVAL JUDAISM ASHKENAZIC PHILOSOPHY, DOGMA,ANDEXEGESIS

205

divine attributes,the parableof the sun, andhe addstwo additionalparables not fromMaimonides. And a parablefor it is thatthe heatof the sunbleachesanddarkens,melts it bleachesgarments, thelaunderer; it meltswax,but andhardens: butdarkens of hardensclay.Howmuchmoreso, howverymuchmoreso, cantheCreator the sunbe in truthonethingandits reverse.Injustthesameway,youmight someone,butenrichestheheirof his saythata manwhodiesmayimpoverish in and the same matter thereis theblowandtheremedy. one Behold, property. butignitesthewood Andso doesthewindputouta woodfirethatis burning, fireorthetorchthatis notlit.38 What has the authorof Sefer Hadrat Qodeshread?Besides the Bible, Talmud,andmidrash,he has reada numberof kabbalisticworks,as manyas eight or nine. (We will come backto the questionof his use of kabbalah.)He has also readMaimonides'commentaryto PereqHeleq, wherethe Thirteen Principlesarelisted.39Moreover,he quotespieces of philosophicalallegorical from a workwhose authorhe calls only "thegreatsage"(and interpretations whom I have not been able to identify).40And he has readthe Guideof the Perplexed.41 Simeon b. Samuelhas not merelyassimilatedthe trappingsof medieval rationalism,simple notions such as the four elements,the five senses, and the seven gradationsof life.42These, we might suppose,were the common propertyof medievalmen,even GermanJews,at leastby thefifteenthcentury. But Simeon has also assimilatedcertaincrucialMaimonideandoctrines;for example, the equation of the angels with the SeparateIntellects,and of the "dead"with the ignorantand the "living"with the wise.43Simeon's philosophicalreadingswere not as extensive as his readingsof kabbalistic texts, but they were surely intensive. Intensestudy was not a monopolyof scholarsin Prague. 38. Ibid.,p. 38a. Cf. p. 29b. See Guide 1.53. 39. See ibid., pp. 29b, 35b. Cf. pp. 33a, 39b. 40. Ibid.,pp. 31a, 31b, 35a, 40a. 41. See ibid., p. 29a, fromGuide 1.53;p. 30b, fromGuide1.3;p. 35b, fromGuide2.29; p. 38b, fromGuide3.54. 42. HadratQodesh,pp. 29b, 30a, 30b. The seven gradationsare:inanimate,plant,animal, man, elements,spheres,and Intellects.Cf. the parallelpassageon the seven gradationsfrom Muelhausenquotedin Kaufman,Muelhausen,p. 186. 43. See HadratQodesh,p. 29a (cf. Guide2.6); p. 28b (cf. Guide1.42).

206

JOSEPH M. DAVIS

Sefer Hadrat Qodesh gives a pictureof the world, a cosmology,thatis drawnfrommanysources,includingkabbalah,the Talmud,andthe traditions of the Hasidei Ashkenaz.(The authormakesreference,for example,to the processof creationof a golem.)44But overall,the cosmologyof SeferHadrat Qodeshdrawsfromno sourcemorethanfrommedievalphilosophy. In the realm of astronomy,for example,Sefer HadratQodeshdoes not rely on the talmudicdescriptionof the "sevenheavens."Rather,the author's astronomyis PtolemaicandAristotelian.Theworld,Simeonb. Samuelwrites, is threefold.It comprisesthis lowest world of transientearthlybodies, the world of the spheres,and the world of the Intellects.45The earthis in the centerof ten concentricspheres;the spheresare moved by theirrespective SeparateIntellects.46Simeon b. Samuel knows also that "the astronomers have proven"thatthe sphereof the fixed starsrevolvesin a cycle of 36,000 years. He argues that since "God does nothingin vain," the existence of this greatcycle supportsMaimonides'belief thatthe Messianicage will be extremelylong, and will last manythousandsof years.47 He believes as well in a Neoplatonicsystemof connectionsof the three cosmic realmsto the threeor fourdifferentpartsof humannatureHe writes: Youknowthatmanhasa vegetativesoul,ananimalsoul,a rational soul,and a divineintellect.Thevegetativesoulreceivestheinfluenceof the starsthat of thesoulof ruleovertheplants.... Theanimalsoulreceivestheinfluence the spheres.Therationalsoulandthe DivineIntellectareinfluenced by the Intellects.48 Separate Along with Ptolemaic cosmology and a Neoplatonicview of human nature,Simeon ben Samuel has also imbibedthe philosophers'axiology, their system of values. In one place, he copies Maimonides'discussionof the four perfectionsof man. In anotherpassage,he writesin a Neoplatonic 44. Ibid.,p. 28b. 45. Ibid.,p. 37b; cf. Guide2.11. 46. Ibid.,p. 37a. 47. Ibid., p. 35b. Simeon b. Samueldiscountsthe aggadah(b. Sanh.97a) thatthe world will exist for six thousandyears("ithas a secretmeaning,"he writes)andquotesfromGuide 2.29. 48. HadratQodesh,pp. 39b-40a. The passageis basedon Guide2.10; the authormoves Maimonides'Neoplatonismin a kabbalisticdirection.Cf. the similarpassagein Muelhausen's Kavvanatha-Tefilahin Kaufman,Muelhausen,p. 189.

IN MEDIEVAL ASHKENAZIC JUDAISM DOGMA,ANDEXEGESIS PHILOSOPHY,

207

vein, "Thesoul of the righteousis takenfromthe SupernalIntellect,and in its life it desires the place of its origin."49A person,he writes elsewhere, "mayresemblethe angels in threethings:in uprightposture,in speakingthe holy Hebrewtongue, and in the knowledgeof God."The "divineimage"of man is "thesoul ... which is readyand destinedto studydivine matters."50 Intentionallyor not, he moves the Aristotelianscale of valuesin the direction of asceticismand kabbalah,but the distanceof his views andhis aspirations froma narrowlytalmudicor pietisticaxiologyis clear. The authorof SeferHadratQodeshhas absorbedphilosophicaldoctrines morethanphilosophicalmethodology.He does notrehearseanyphilosophical proofs in the work itself. (He does once refer hurriedlyto Maimonides' argumentfor creation.)"5 But in one place, Simeon ben Samueloffers a proof of his own, on the question of whetherthe body feels pain after death. It is not a deductive proof, and it argues,against the view of the scientists,for the view thatthe deadbody does feel pain.Both the contentandthe formof theproofshowthe distanceof the authorfrom the mainstreamof JewishAristotelianthought. But the very attemptto offer a scientific groundingto religious belief is significant. He first brings a scripturalproof-text:a verse in Job (as interpretedby Rashi, among others) suggests that the body does indeedfeel pain. But the scripturalproofdoes not decidethe question."Therearesomeof the scientists who are astonishedthat [this verse] can be correctaccordingto the realities of nature.But we will answerthem with four correctproofs.""5 The "four correctproofs"are these:thattwo twins "of purenature"will both feel pain wheneitherof themis hurt;thatan apparentlystillbornchildwill growwarm andcome alive if the afterbirthis throwninto boilingwater,"if he is lively"; thatthereis a certainvineyardwherethe wine thatwas pressedthe previous year will fermentand become turbidat the same time thatthe workersare digging and pulling up the weeds among the vines; and that if a glowing coal is put to humanexcrement"asit is still warmas it leaves the body,"the 49. HadratQodesh,p. 40b. 50. Ibid.,pp. 39a-b. 51. Ibid.,p. 32a. See Guide2.19. 52. Ibid., p. 39a. Cf. Tosafot on Nidah 17a; JoshuaTrachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition,paperbacked. (New York,1987), p. 128. Comparealso SeferZioni(Lvov, 1882; reprinted., Jerusalem,1964), pp. 51-52, on Lev. 18:21 on the same topic, on which Zioni opposes"theGreeks."

208

JOSEPH M. DAVIS

personfrom whose body it comes will himselffeel the pain.The excrement is separatedfrom the body, the wine from the vineyard,the afterbirthfrom the child,andthe twinsfromeachother,butthereis a connectionof sensation that continuesto join them; so the humansoul, Simeon b. Samuelargues, remainsjoined to the body for some time afterdeathand may experience sensationandpain. Notice the formof the argument.The scripturalproof-textis supportedby a "trueproof,"a scientific,albeitnaive, argumentfromempiricalevidence.53 The authorof SeferHadratQodeshwas not well trainedas a philosopheror a scientist;he may have been an autodidact.But he was not a "simpleman of halakhah."

IV Let us returnto the generalquestionof Kupfer'sclaimsandthe character of late medievalAshkenazicculture. First,on the typicalityof studyof philosophy.The questionof typicality is largelya questionof numbers,andlike Kupferandlike Yuval,I amnot in a positionto answerit. Justas Muelhausenandthe othersdiscussedby Kupfer may not be typical, or Zioni and the Rhinelandgroupset out by Yuval,so also the authorof Sefer Hadrat Qodeshmay not have been a typicalrabbi. Indeed,he may not have been a rabbiat all, as thattitlewas understoodin the fifteenthcentury,andhe is far fromregardinghimselfas typical;he believes thathe belongs to a small intellectualelite.54 But it is clear that the Ashkenazicstudy of Jewishphilosophywas not strictlylimited to the figureslisted by Kupferand Yuval."For example,an 53. CompareZioni's commenton Gen. 1:2 (SeferZioni,p. 5c: "thereis no part... of the above ... andtheproofof this is earthand no place which does not have its correspondence thatone who drawsa pictureof a thief on a wall . .. andhits it ... will causethe thief to feel ask how the dead can pain."Cf. also p. 55a on Lev. 20:6: "Someof the wise [ha-niaskilinz] speak... but this mysterywas confirmed[immetoto] by the masterof secrets[i.e., R. Eleazar of Worms]fromthe storyof two witches."(Andhe tells the storyat length.) 54. See the referencesto the "smallremnant"(yehidimha-seridinm), pp. 33b, 34a, 41a, and elsewhere.Yuvaldiscussesthe author'sratherextremeelitism,pp. 298-299. 55. Cf. the studies listed above in n. 20. In my dissertation,pp. 76-110, I discusseda numberof texts, some discussedalso by Yuvaland some not, which show some contactwith philosophy. Note particularlyShalom b. Isaac of Neustadt,Halakhotu-minhageiRabeinuShalom

IN MEDIEVAL ASHKENAZIC JUDAISM DOGMA,AND EXEGESIS PHILOSOPHY,

209

Oxford manuscriptof one of Averroes'works (!) was copied in 1473 by Jacobb. Samsonof Horva;thatis, Horbam Neckarin Wtirttemberg.56 We should recognize that even during the thirteenthand fourteenth centuries,AshkenazicJews were not entirelyinnocentof philosophy.Copies of the Hebrew paraphrase of Saadiah's Emunot ve-Decot circulated, and it

was readand quoted.57

mi-Neustadt,ed. ShelomohShpizer(Jerusalem,1977), p. 115, no. 330. R. Shalomdiscusses "Aristotle'sview of miracles,"which he explainsas Maimonides'view of eternallydestined theoryof miracles," exceptionalevents;he distinguishesthis view from the "anthropological whichhe seems to endorse. no. 73. See alsoH. H. Ben-Sasson,"Mishnato Cf. also Israelof Brunn,She'elotu-Teshuvot, ha-Hevratitshel R. YohananLuria,"Zion 27 (1962): 166-198, and his "JewishChristian Disputationin the Setting of Humanismand Reformationin the GermanEmpire,"Harvard TheologicalReview59 (1966): 369-390. Additionalexamplesalso exist of the studyof kabbalah:for instance,R. SolomonKolonin Alsace. Judaismin NorthernFrancein the fourteenthcenturymayhavebeen differentfromthatin Germany,but note also that in a responsum(publishedby J. GoldblumfromMS. Paris676, fols. 47-48, in Beit va'adla-hakhamim 7 [Leeds,1903]:39-45), R. Matityahb. JosephTreves, while admittingthathe himselfhad no knowledgeof philosophy,didpraise his respondentas havingstudiedAristotleandAbu-Hamidal-Ghazzali.Cf. RogerKohn,Les Juifsde la France du Norddans la secondmoitiedu XIVesidcle(Paris,1988),pp. 185-189, 219, 233, on Jewish doctors. 56. MS. Oxford-Bodleian1368/1. See Neubauer'scatalogueof the Oxfordmanuscripts. I have been unable to look at the manuscript.N.B. also MS. Parishebr.934/1: a work by Averroeswith Yiddishmarginalcomments,copiedin 1466. 57. One of Saadiah'sproofsis quotedby R. Mosesof Coucytowardthebeginningof Sefer Misvot Gadol. Saadiahis also quotedin works of the HasideiAshkenaz:e.g., the worksof R. Eleazarb. Judahof Wormsand R. Elhananb. Yaqarof London.On the former,see Haym Soloveitchik,"Topicsin theHokhmathha-Nefesh,"Journalof JewishStudies18 (1967):65-78, and JosephDan, Toratha-sod shel HasidutAshkenaz(Jerusalem,1968), pp. 22-24, 28-32, and 51-52; on the latter,G. Vajda,"PeirushR. Elhananb. Yaqarle-Sefer Yesirah,"Qoves 'al yad 16 (1966): 149. Saadiah'sEmunotve-De'ot is quotedin the mid-thirteenth-century anti-Christian polemic, Sefer Yosefha-Meqaneby Josephb. NathanOfficial(ed. J. Rosenthal [Jerusalem,1970]),pp. 31, 34, 39). At the end of the century,Saadiahis quotedon the question of resurrectionin the name of R. Meir of Rothenburgin Sefer Tashbes,par.444. A work writtenin fourteenth-century Franceby a certainJoseph,discussedby G. Vajdain "Untrait6de moraled'originejud6o-frangaise," Revuedes dtudesjuives 125 (1966):267-285, quotesfrom, amongotherworks, the Hebrewparaphraseof Emunotve-De'ot,as well as MivharPeninim. Muelhausen(MS. Camb.243 [Add. 393], fol. 160a)refersto Saadiahon the questionof the natureof the soul.

210

JOSEPH M. DAVIS

But I have found no evidence thatMaimonides'Guidewas readby any AshkenazicJew for morethana centuryafterthe banon the Guideduringthe firstMaimonideanControversyin 1232.58If, then,the Guidewas beingread at all by GermanAshkenazicJews at the turnof the fifteenthcentury,thatin itself marksa considerablechange.59 If copies, manuscripts, of the Guideand of other works of Jewish philosophywere circulatingin Germany,beyond Prague,and if it was consideredpermissibleto readand quote from them, then we can hardlysay, as Weiss does, thatin the fifteenthcentury,subjects such as science andphilosophywere "consideredan uncleanthing." The rise of philosophicstudyamongAshkenazicJews, it is to be noted, occurredat the same time as the rise of universitiesin Germanand Eastern Europe.The two may be related.6The leadingpositionof the Universityof Praguein the religious life of Bohemia duringthis periodis well known; mightit not havehelpedto bringaboutthe studyof philosophyamongPrague Jews as well?61Regensburgdid not have a universityin the MiddleAges, but in the latterpartof the fourteenthcentury,its monasteryof St. Emmeramwas home to Conradof Megenburg,a scientistandphilosopher,andauthorof the first scientific works in the Germanlanguage,the Buch der Naturand the 58. AlthoughI have searchedas carefullyas possible,it is of coursepossiblethatthereare referencesto the Guide thatescapedmy attention.Cf. IsraelJacobDienstag,"Yahasamshel Seferha-yovelli-khvodShmu'elQalnianMirski(New York, Ba'aleiha-Tosafotleha-Rambam," 1958), pp. 350-379. Samuelb. AbrahamSaporta'sresponseto the Frenchrabbisdoes quote objectionsto passages from the Guide. Cecil Roth claims that David of Oxford"probably" owned a copy of the Guide in the late thirteenthcentury:Roth, "R. Elijah of London," Transactionsof the JewishHistoricalSocietyof England15 (1946):56. However,I do not find in SeferMoshav Roth'sproposedidentificationveryconvincing.Thereferencesto the "Moreh" collectionof commentson theTorah(ed.SolomonDavidSasoon Zeqenim,a fourteenth-century [London,1959], pp. 24, 29, 492), areto Rashiratherthanto Maimonides'Guide,althoughthe MishnehTorahis quoted(p. 516), as well as Nahmanides. 59. Was Simeon b. Samuelidenticalto the "Simeon"for whom the Guidewas copied in 1396 by R. Isaacb. Josephof Warsaw,a scribein Prague?See Kupfer,"Li-Demutah," p. 147. 60. Ta-Shemanotices the synchronicityin "Yedi'othadashotcal Tosafot Gornishvelands(much 'inyano,"'Alei sefer 2 (1976): 89. On the rise of universitiesin German-speaking laterthanin France,England,or Italy),see JamesOverfield,Humanismand Scholasticismin LateMedievalGermany(Princeton,1984), pp. 3-6; Shank,UnlessYouBelieve,YouShallNot Understand,pp. 3-25. 61. The Universityof Praguewas the firstuniversityin the GermanEmpire(notcounting the imperialpartsof Italy);it was foundedin 1348.See ReginaldRobertBetts,"TheUniversity of Prague:1348"and"TheInfluenceof RealistPhilosophyon JanHus andHis Predecessorsin Bohemia,"in his Essays in CzechHistory(London,1969),pp. 1-12, 42-62.

IN MEDIEVAL ASHKENAZIC JUDAISM PHILOSOPHY, DOGMA,ANDEXEGESIS

211

DeutschenSphaera.The cathedralin Regensburgis hardly1,000 feet from the Jewish quarter.Can we not imaginethata manlike Simeonben Samuel was awareof the existenceof scientificandphilosophicallearningamongthe Christianclergy?We may well supposethat,if notout of admirationthenout of competition,this awarenessinspiredhim in his own studyof the Guide.62 In the end, both Graetz and Ben-Sasson and to a regrettabledegree both Kupferand Yuval are victims of the same simple fallacy.That is the belief that there was a single "typical"sort of Ashkenazicrabbiin the late Middle Ages. Each historiantries to delineatea single normativerangeof intellectualpursuits.But perhapsthere was no such single type or range. There may have been, to the contrary,a varietyof possible interestsand types. One field of study-the one thatcapturedthe interestof Simeonben the linkedpairof Jewish Samuelin Regensburg-was philosophy-kabbalah, of doctrines and esoteric interpretations Scripture. metaphysical If we search for typicality,we are forced to make ever more subtle exclusionaryargumentsto explain why men such as Muelhausen,Zioni, Jacob b. Samson of Horva, and Simeon ben Samuel were not "typical." Muelhausenwas not typical,it may be said,becausehe was in Prague;Zioni becausehe was a doctor,or becausehe studiedin the land of Israel;Jacob b. Samsonand Simeon ben Samuelfor some otherreasons.Such arguments may be inventedad infinitum.But if we let go of the searchfor typicality, and searchinsteadfor variety,we will findit. V We come now, finally,to the questionof the culturalsignificanceof the study of Jewish philosophyamongAshkenazicJews. It is on this question thatSeferHadratQodeshhas the most to teachus, andI thinkthatthis is in 62. See Guido Hable, GeschichteRegensburgs:eine Ubersichtnach Sachgebieten(Regensburg,1970), p. 136, on intellectuallife in medievalRegensburg.Severalof the ranking clerics of the periodhad universitytraining,and St. Emmeramhad one of the majorlibraries of the Middle Ages. Christian-Jewish polemics as a contextfor the study of philosophyis discussedby Shankand Talmage(see above, n. 19). Interestingly,at the end of the author's additionto Sefer Hadrat Qodesh in MS. Oxford-Bodleian1589/5, he remarksagain on his goal of esotericism,and then quotes(fromthe Gospels)the "sayingof the sages of the rebels [morin], 'do not throwpearlsbeforeswine."'

212

M.DAVIS JOSEPH

fact the crucialquestion:not so muchthe issue of exactlyhow manypersons read exactly how many books, but what these books meantto themif they did read them.63Here is an AshkenazicJew in the year 1400, readingthe Guideof the Perplexed. How did it influencehim?Whatdid he thinkhe had in frontof him? I would like first to go back to the thirteenthcenturyand look at an earlierchapterin the interactionof Ashkenazicand Sefardiccultures:the participationof Ashkenazic rabbis in the MaimonideanControversiesof 1216-1232. In the variousAshkenazicattackson philosophyfrom thatperiod,there is one quite consistentline of opposition:the principleof literalinterpretaof talmudicaggadah.64 tion, and especially the literalinterpretation Aggadic literalismwas the bedrockon which thirteenth-century Ashkenazicrabbis built theiroppositionto philosophy.Or,if you prefer,it was the touchstone by which they testedphilosophyandfoundit to be unacceptable.Philosophy was identifiedby them, sometimesexplicitly,with allegoricalinterpretation, andallegoryin turnwas associatedwith Christianity.65 63. But see Yuval'sexcellentdiscussionof book-lists,Hakhanmim pp. 303-307. be-doranm, 64. Cf. generallyE. E. Urbach,"Helqamshel HakhmeiAshkenazve-Sarfatbe-fulmusCal ha-Rambamu-sefarav,"Zion 12 (1947): 149-159, and the correctionsin JosephShatzmiller, "Li-Temunatha-mahloqetha-rishonahCalkitvei ha-Rambam," Zion 34 (1969): 126-144; J. le-zekherZvi Shatzmiller,"Igartoshel R. Asherb. Gershomle-RabaneiSarfat,"in Mehqarimn Avineri(Tel Aviv, 1970), pp. 129-140; A. Shohet,"Beirurimbe-farashatha-pulmusha-rishon 'al sifrei ha-Rambam,"Zion 36 (1971): 27-60; and esp. BernardSeptimus,Hispano-Jewish Societyin Transition:The Careerand Controversiesof R. MeirAbulafia(Cambridge,Mass., 1980), pp. 49-51, 57-59, 76-79, 82. Forthe primaryliterature,see (1) the letterof R. Samsonof Sens in R. MeirAbulafia,Kitab al-Rasa'il(Paris,1871;reprinted., Jerusalem,1967),pp. 136-137;(2) theletterof twoNorthern Frenchrabbis,R. Samuelb. Solomonof Falaiseandhis brotherIsaacb. Solomon,publishedby Shatzmillerin "Li-Temunat p. 139;(3) the letterof Samuelb. AbrahamSaporta ha-mahloqet," to theNorthernFrenchrabbis,printedin S. J. Halberstam, "Milhemetha-dat:qevusatmikhtavim be-'inyeneiha-mahloqet'al Sefer ha-Morehveha-Mada',"Yeshurun8 (1875): 125-155; and (4) the letterof Asherb. Gershom,preservedin MS. Cambridge507/1 but neverpublishedin full, discussedin J. Shatzmiller,"Igartoshel R. Asherb. Gershom"(see abovein thisnote);(5) ed. R. Kirchheim,Osarnehmnad Moses b. HasdaiTaku,KetavTanmim, 3 (1860):58-99. 65. See KetavTamim,p. 64; cf. SarahKamin,"Ha-Pulmus negedha-aligoryahbi-devarav shel R. Yosef BekhorShor,"JerusalemStudiesin JewishThought[= MehqereiYerushalayim be-mahshevetYisra'el]3 (1983): 367-392. of aggadah,DecodingtheRabbis: MarcSaperstein,in his studyof allegoricalinterpretation A ThirteenthCenturyCommentary on theAggadah(Cambridge, Mass.,1980),p. 7, claimsthat ... and isolated"in his literaliststance.I thinkthatthis is only true Takuwas "anachronistic

IN MEDIEVAL ASHKENAZIC JUDAISM DOGMA,AND EXEGESIS PHILOSOPHY,

213

AshkenazicJewry in the thirteenthcenturyknew nothingof dogma or dogmaticprinciples.Take as an example Maimonides'thirdprinciple,the contentiousquestion of God's incorporeality,the belief that God is not a body of any type. To suppose that the Ashkenazicrabbis,even R. Moses Taku,the authorof KetavTamimandthe mostvocal opponentof philosophy, held a corporealistview of God's natureis to credithim and them with a doctrinalor dogmatic approachto theology that they did not in fact take. Takuholds fast to the talmudicaggadotunderstoodliterally:both those that suggestdivine corporeality,andtherearemany,andthosethatsuggestdivine incorporealityor absolutetranscendence,andtherearesome of theseas well. Good Tosafistthathe was, he triesto reconcilethe conflictingtexts.66Buthis problem,I repeat,was not so much a dogmaticone as a hermeneuticalone: how to understandapparentlycontradictory passagestogether,withoutdoing violence to theirliteralsense, theirpeshat.67 As againstthis, for the authorof SeferHadratQodesh,divineincorporeality is a firmdogma.He acceptsthe Jewishphilosophers'equationof divine

froma Spanishor Mediterranean to his perspective.JosephDan,by contrast,in theintroduction editionof KetavTamim(Jerusalem,1984),p. 9, calls Taku"unexceptional"-i.e.,unexceptional withinAshkenazicculture,in which oppositionto allegoryran strongthroughoutthe twelfth andthirteenthcenturies. 66. Takumusterstextualsupportfor divinecorporealityin KetavTamimon pp. 59-62. On On p. 61, pp. 69-70, he quotes texts that supportthe belief in absolutedivine transcendence. he offers a compromise:a parableof the magician,who can changehis format will. 67. Note Taku'sdefense of talmudiccosmology:KetavTamim,pp. 68, 75, 84. Note also his insistenceon the realityof the Divine "Throne": p. 85. Althoughcertainof Taku'spositions are clearlynot basedonly on textualgrounds-e.g., his objection(p. 69) to the belief thatGod is presenteven in filth, or his rejection(p. 63) of belief in a semi-divineintermediary-the of the Bible, the preponderanceof his views are groundedsimply in a literalunderstanding Talmud,and the prayers.My discussionhere agrees with the thrustof BernardSeptimus's argumentin Hispano-JewishSociety in Transitionon the differencebetween Spanishand NorthernFrenchoppositionto the Guide. Taku'spositionmay be a developmentof Rashbam'sradicalinsistenceon biblicalpeshat and rejectionof metaphysicsand esotericdoctrines,"theprofoundand superiorwisdom,"as Rashbamcalls it, that is not "necessaryfor the world."(See his Peirush'al Qohelet,ed. and trans.by SarahJaphetandRobertB. Salters[Jerusalem,1985],on Eccles.2:3.) "Donotwonder thatthe creationof angelsis not recorded[in the Torah],"he writesin Genesis,"becauseMoses did not writehere of angels or Hell or ma'asehmerkavah,butof thingswe see in the world" (Rashbamon Genesis 1:27).Cf. SarahKamin,"Rashbam's Conceptionof theCreationin Light of the IntellectualCurrentsof His Time,"ScriptaHierosolymitana 31 (1986):91-132.

214

JOSEPH M. DAVIS

incorporealitywith divine unity.68Forhim, as for the Jewishphilosophers,to assertdivine corporealityis to deny divineunity;thatis, it is a heresy.69 On the other hand, Simeon ben Samuel is perfectlywilling to accept philosophicalallegory.We mentionedabove thathe quotesallegoricalinterpretationsfrom a certain"greatsage";he also createsthemhimself. For example,at the end of the Book of Joel (4:18), thereis a messianic vision:"afountainshallgo outfromthehouseof theLord,andit will flowinto theriverof Shittim."As againstRashi,who interpretsthisverseke-mishma'o, thatis, as speakingof a literalbody of water,SeferHadratQodeshexplains the verse allegorically."Fountain"(ma'ayan)means "rationalspeculation" ('iyunsikhli).Whatis "theriverof Shittim"?The authoranswers:"Shittim"is relatedetymologicallyto sotah, the "unfaithfulwife";the "riverof Shittim" is the "sea of lust."And so he concludes:the verse meansthatIntellectwill purifyelementalmatter.7" He states generally, "It is sufficientfor the one who understandsto understandthat God, may He be blessed, hid withinthe letters,the stories, and the parables of the Torah the mysteries of wondrousand awesome wisdom."71 Dogma is in; literalismis out. In the MaimonideanControversiesof the thirteenthcentury,the Ashkenazicrabbisdefinedthemin,the kofer,theapiqoros-the heretic-as one who denies the Talmudas understoodliterally,ki-feshuto.Here in Sefer Hadrat Qodesh,the authorquotes Maimonides'definition:the apiqoros,the kofer, the min,is someonewho deniesone of the thirteenfundamental principlesof To put it differently:the limitsof allowableor orthodoxbelief are Judaism.72 no longerdefinedby strictbelief in the Talmud,butby belief in Maimonides' principles,includingnotablythe principleof divineincorporeality. 68. HadratQodesh,pp. 30a, 39a. 69. As Joseph Dan suggests in "HIibbur yihud Ashkenazimin ha-me'ahha-14," Tarbiz 44 (1975): 203-206, this positionmay be seen as a continuationor perhapsa revivalof the positionof the HasideiAshkenaz,who also acceptedthe equationof unityandincorpereality. (Dan refersthereto Shalem'sresponseto Klausner,but the same may be said of Simeonben Samuel.Cf. Dan, "Sifrutha-Yihudshel HasideiAshkenaz,"KiryatSefer41 [1966]:533-544.) It is not a simple continuation,however.The HasideiAshkenazhad no notionof dogmaand did not accusetheiropponentsof heresy.Simeonben Samueldoes. 70. HadratQodesh,p. 29b. Cf. p. 44a. 71. Ibid.,p. 33a. He repeatsthe principleon p. 38a andelsewhere. 72. Ibid.,p. 29b. Cf. p. 31b.

IN MEDIEVAL ASHKENAZIC JUDAISM PHILOSOPHY, DOGMA,ANDEXEGESIS

215

The belief in dogmas of JudaismenteredAshkenazicculturein the late Middle Ages. It is not coincidence that the final section of Muelhausen's Sefer Nisahon is also a statementof dogma, also based on Maimonides' or thatR. AvigdorKarawrotea bilingual(HebrewandYiddish) principles,73 It is not coincidencethatsometimein the fifteenthcentury, "credo."74 poetic entered the Yigdal daily Ashkenazicliturgy. All of these developmentsmark a new conceptionof dogma and of theology,a conceptioninfluencedby SpanishJewishcultureand by Jewish philosophy. Belief in dogma, furthermore,promotedthe study of philosophy as a necessary instrumentfor understandingreligiously mandatorybeliefs. Klausner'sletter to Shalem was inspiredby concern over the dogma of divine unity. Considerfinallythe following commentby Maharil: Therhymesandpoemsthatpeoplewritein Yiddishon theunityof Godand the ThirteenPrinciples-wouldthattheywerenot written!Formostof the

ignorantbelieve thatall of the commandments dependon this, andthey despair of variouspositive and negativecommandments,such as sisit and tefilinand the studyof Torah.And they believe thatthey fulfilltheirobligationby saying those rhymeswith kavvanah.And those rhymesdo not mentiona single one of the 613 commandmentsthatJews are commanded---only the fundamentals of Jewishbelief.75

Maharilmakes no objectionto the contentsof the ThirteenPrinciples,and nowhere suggests that they are not the principlesof Judaism.He worries aboutthe weakeningof Judaismthatthe new emphasison dogmamay bring about;he worriesabout the effect on the ignorantof the emphasison faith 73. See Talmage,"Mavo,"pp. 21-22. 74. See Talmage,"Mi-KitveiR. Avigdorve-R. MenahemShalem,"in Hagut u-ma'aseh: sefer zikkaronle-Shim'onRawidowicz,ed. A. A. GreenbaumandAlfredIvry(Haifa,1983),pp. 43-52. Cf. Muelhausen'spoem in Kaufman,Muelhausen,p. 79. 75. The commentis in the "liqutimn" at the end of Sefer Maharil;it is quotedby Yuval, Hakhamimbe-doram,p. 317. Cf. Khone Shmeruk,Sifrut Yidish:peraqimn le-toldoteha(Tel Aviv, 1988),pp. 43-47, on bothMaharilandAvigdorKara.Forthesamecomplaint,directedby R. SolomonLuriaspecificallyat the sayingof Yigdal,in themiddleof the sixteenthcentury,see ed. IsaacRaphael,in Seferyovel li-khvodha-R.... Shim'onFederbush, Maharshal," "Hanhagat ed. J. L. Fishman-Maimon (Jerusalem,1961), p. 326, no. 42.

M. DAVIS JOSEPH

216

ratherthanacts;but he too testifiesto the widespreadchangein attitudesthat was occurringin his generation. VI The changein exegeticalattitudeswas neitheras sharpnor as suddenas that in attitudestowarddogma, but it too was of considerableculturaland religiousimportance. Thereseems to havebeenconfusion,even at thetimeof theMaimonidean Controversies,as to what preciseexegeticalprinciplesthe AshkenazicantiAs R. Maimonistsdemanded.Several texts demandpeshat interpretation. Samuelb. Solomon of Falaise and his brotherIsaacb. Solomonannounce, "[Onemustnot] questionthe rewardsof GancEden... andthe otheraggadot ... which our rabbishave interpretedliterally [ki-feshutan]."76But other texts actually speak of a demandthat Talmud-and perhapsScriptureas well-must be interpretedonly in accordancewith Rashi'scommentary!7 Clearlythe anti-Maimonistswere climbingout on an exegeticallimb, so to speak.Why shouldRashibe allowedan authorityon questionsof aggadah thathis Tosafistsuccessorsnevercameclose to givinghimon questionseither The demandfor literalismis itself of halakhahor of scripturalinterpretation? is an stance extreme. Such anythingbuttypical,afterall, of fairly exegetical or of the Talmud the Midrash.17 itself, In demanding aggadic literalism, furthermore,the Ashkenazic antiMaimonistswere conductinga polemic not only against philosophy,but also, withinAshkenazicculture,againstthe HasideiAshkenaz.Thatpolemic is explicit in Ketav Tamim,and it may be implicit in the views of the otherrabbisas well. The HasideiAshkenazwerecommittedto the nonliteral interpretationof Scriptureand aggadah.Although their own systems of mystical exegesis were based far more on modes such as gematriyaand notariqonthanon allegoryitself, they werenot opposedto allegory.79 76. See Shatzmiller,"Le-Temunat p. 139. ha-mahloqet," 77. See (1) the letterof Samuelb. AbrahamSaporta,p. 152, (2) J. Shatzmiller,"Igartoshel R. Asherb. Gershom,"p. 139 78. On the generalproblem,see very recentlyDavid Weiss-Halivni,Peshatand Derash: Plain andAppliedMeaningin RabbinicExegesis(Oxford,1991),pp. 23-28, 52-78. 79. See e.g. R. Eleazarof Worms,Sefer Hokhmatha-Nefesh(Jerusalem,1968), p. 30c: "Some writtenthings should be interpretedin an intelligentway [derekhshiqul ha-da'at],

IN MEDIEVAL ASHKENAZIC JUDAISM PHILOSOPHY, DOGMA,ANDEXEGESIS

217

In truth,the victoryof the anti-Maimonists withinAshkenaziccultureon the issue of exegetical normswas incomplete.In the exegeticalpracticeof the following century,we find a varietyof stances,coming out of a variety of Ashkenazictraditions. R. Meir ha-Kohen, for example (fl. 1300; a student of R. Meir of Rothenburg),takes a position of aggadicliteralismagainstMaimonideson the questionof the realityof Hell.80Anotherstudentof R. Meir's,on the other hand,R. Solomon Simhahof Troyes,in his Sefer ha-Maskil,writtenabout 1298, rejects the literal sense of certainaggadot.But he rejectsphilosophy as well on the ground of its use of allegory,and he suggests a norm of At aboutthe sameperiod,Samsonof Joigny,authorof scripturalliteralism.81 such as Exod. 19:4 'I have carriedyou on eagle's wings,' ... And there are things that may be understoodas allegories,in the matterof the Gardenof EdenandGehinnomandthe Worldof Judgmentand the Worldof Mercy,althoughthey are [also] literallytrue."On the exegeticalmethodsof R. Eleazarof WormsandR. Judahhe-Hasid,see IvanMarcus,"Exegesis for the Few and for the Many:Judahhe-Hasid'sBiblicalCommentaries," JerusalemStudies in Jewish Thought8 (1989): 1-24 (Eng. sec.). Cf. Joseph Dan, "Seferha-Hokhmahle-R. El'azarmi-Wormsu-mashma'utole-toldottoratahve-sifrutahshel HasidutAshkenaz,"Zion27 (1964): 168-181. As Marcusmentions,medievalAshkenazicexegesisafterthe twelfthcentury, includingthe exegesis of the HasideiAshkenaz,has not beenproperlystudied. 80. See HagahotMaymoniyot(a commentaryon theMishnehTorah,printedin the standard rabbiniceditions)on HilkhotTeshuvah8:1. See also his commenton Teshuvah3:7, wherehe rejectsMaimonides'definitionof heresyandsuggestsRashi's:"Theheretics[minim]arethose who overturnthe wordsof the living God." A passage from the thirteenth-century polemicalwork, VikuahR. Yehi'elmi-Paris,also seems to take a stanceof aggadicliteralism."In[theaggadot]thereare matterstoo wondrous for thekoferandthe apiqorosandtheminto believe.... If you wish,believethem;if youdo not wish, do not believe them.Forno law dependson them.However,I knowthatthe sagesof the Talmudwroteonly thatwhichis trueandcorrect.Andif [theaggadot]arestrangeto thosewho hearthem, are therenot very many like this in the Bible as well?"(ed. R. Margaliyot[Lvov, n.d],p. 13). The authorof the polemicrejectsscripturalliteralism,butherehe suggestsstrongly thatone who does not believe in the aggadotis a kofer an apiqoros,anda min.Thispassageis often interpretedas a statementof the absenceof authorityin aggadicinterpretation. It is not that. Cf. Muelhausen'sSefer Nisahon (repr.with introductionby FrankTalmage[Jerusalem, 1984]) par. 112, a passagebased on this one thatgoes muchfarther,however,in allowingthat aggadotmay not be literallytrue. 81. I have not been able to look at the manuscriptof this work,whichis in the Guenzberg Collectionin Moscow (MS. no. 508; thereis also a microfilmin theMakhonle-TaslumeiKitvei Yadin Jerusalem).I rely entirelyon the descriptionanddiscussionby IsraelTa-Shema,"Sefer ha-Maskil:hibburYehudi-Sarfatibilti yadu'ami-sof ha-me'ahha-13,"JerusalemStudiesin JewishThought2 (1982):416-438. See esp. pp. 419-422. It maybe significantthatR. Asherb.

218

M. DAVIS JOSEPH

a commentaryto Solomonibn Gabirol'sMivharPeninim,repeatsSaadiah's argumentagainst the literal interpretationof divine attributes,adding a while in England,Jacobb. quotationfrom Maimonides'MishnehTorah;82 JudahHazan,whose 'Es HIayyimis modeledon the MishnehTorah,quotes Maimonides'statementof the principleof divineincorporeality.83 Furthermore,sodot, esoteric interpretationsof Bible verses-mainly gematriyot--continueto be quoted, some in the name of R. JudahHasid or R. EleazarRokeahof Worms,in the exegeticalanthologiestypicalof the period, such as Pa'neah Raza by R. Isaacb. Judah.(It is significantin this respectthat traditionsof the HasideiAshkenazare quotedin Sefer Hadrat Qodeshas well; Simeonben Samuelspeaksof "myteachers,the Hasidim.")84 In sum:thereseems to have been uncertaintyandconflictamongAshkenazic Jews over the questionof aggadicliteralismthroughoutthe thirteenth and fourteenthcenturies.Were the Hasidei Ashkenazcorrect,Ashkenazic of Jews wondered,in following SaadiahGaon's nonliteralinterpretations certain sections of the Torah and the aggadah?Or was Taku correct in denouncingall nonliteralism,even thatof the HasideiAshkenaz,as heresy? This is precisely the questionthatKlausnerasks Shalem.Klausnerrefersto Saadiahon the one handand to KetevTamimon the other,andasks Shalem, innocentlyas it were, which of themis correct.85 Theenthusiasmfor allegoryevincedby theauthorof SeferHadratQodesh was extraordinary withinAshkenazicJudaism,bothin his own day andlater. A restrainedscripturalliteralismremainedcustomaryamong Ashkenazic thinkers.Muelhausen,for example, does not interpretall aggadotliterally. He writesin one place, "Manymidrashimwere saidas allegoriesandriddles, But in anotherplacehe writes, for greatsecretsarecontainedwithinthem."86

does not mentionliteralismin his letters Yehiel(yet anotherstudentof R. Meirof Rothenburg) duringthe 1306 MaimonideanControversy,neitherin his letterspublishedin MinhatQena'ot norin his 1321 statementagainstphilosophyin his responsa(55:9). 82. The commentarywas publishedin the Soncino,1484 editionof MivharPeninim.The commentis in chapter2, Shar'arha-Yihud. 83. 'Es Hayyim,ed. IsraelBrodie(Jerusalem,1962),vol. 1, pp. 5-6. The list of attributes is from Yesodeiha-Torah1:11. 84. HadratQodesh,p. 33a. Cf. pp. 29a, 38b. 85. Kupfer,"Li-Demutah," p. 135. 86. FromKavvanatha-Tefilahin Kaufman,Muelhausen,p. 182.

IN MEDIEVAL JUDAISM ASHKENAZIC DOGMA,ANDEXEGESIS PHILOSOPHY,

219

"Thosewho follow aftereitherphilosophyor kabbalahandsay thatthe Torah only means one of themand not thepesha.t.. have strayedinto heresy.""7 In a document of 1467, to take anotherexample, a certain German rabbi (one of Yuval's Rhenishcircle), while announcinghis acceptanceof Maimonides'views in general, also affirmsthe historicityof such biblical events as the miracle of Balaam'sass, and rejectsMaimonides'doubtson this question.88 Aggadic literalism,however,was not commonamongAshkenazicJews after the fourteenthcentury,nor was active oppositionto allegory.89For example,R. IsraelIsserlein,the majorAshkenazicBible commentatorof the fifteenthcentury,althoughinterestedmostlyin thepeshatof Scripturein general andin Rashi'scommentaryin particular,insistsalso on the acceptability of multipleinterpretations of the text.90He does not believe thatmysticalor esoteric interpretationsof Scripturemust be rejected(he was a studentof kabbalah),nor that all scripturalterms-including, notably,descriptionsof God-are to be understoodliterally."9 In the survivingfragmentsof Isserlein's he makes sermons,moreover, frequentuse of allegoricalinterpretation.92 In 1559, a controversyover the study of philosophytook place in the communityof Posen, and literalismwas again one of the centralissues. 87. FromSeferha-Eshkol,printedin Kaufman,Muelhausen,p. 143. 88. See n. 16 above. The documentis discussedby Yuval, Hakhanmimn be-doram,pp. 308-310. I interpretit differentlyfromYuvalin my thesis,pp. 105-108. 89. Notice also Zioni's statement,which rejects allegorizationof aggadah,but seems to identifypeshat with kabbalisticinterpretation(!). "Everyintelligentperson [maskil]will understandthat there are many things in the words of the sages of blessed memory,in the aggadot,that sound to fools like riddlesand parables.But to the kabbaliststhey are simple brightas the noondaysun"(SeferZioni,p. 27b, on Exod. 12:9).Zioni'sexampleof [peshutinm], a difficultaggadahis the statement(b. Ber.6a) thatGod wearstefilin. 90. See Isserlein,Bei'ur'al PeirushRashi(Rivodi Trento,1562;reprinted., New York[?], cf. p. 10b on miracles,andpp. 4b-5a on whetherthe 1987), p. 20a, on multipleinterpretations; patriarchsobservedthe commandments. 91. See ibid., p. 13b,a kabbalisticinterpretation of theTabernacle; p. 8b, his referenceto a kabbalisticunderstanding of theaggadah(b. Ta'anit5b) thatJacobdidnotdie;andesp.p. 19bon God's knowledge.IsserleinquotesMishnehTorah,Yesodeiha-Torah2:10, whereMaimonides distinguishesdivine knowledgefrom humanknowledge,to explainwhy the Targumdoes not translatethe phrase"God ... knew"(Deut. 2:7) "accordingto its peshat."Cf. LeqetYosher, vol. 1, p. 119. On Isserlein'sknowledgeof kabbalah,see David Tamar,"Demutoha-ruhanit shel R. Yisra'elIsserlein,"Sinai 32 (1952): 177, andYuval,Hakhanmim p. 308. be-doranm, 92. See in Leqet Yosher,ed. Jacob Freimann(Berlin, 1903), vol. 1, p. 71 (leaven = evil inclination);p. 98 (fourcamps= fourholidays);pp. 120-121 (sevenfruits);p. 122 (threegates).

220

M. DAVIS JOSEPH

But times had changed since the thirteenthcentury,when the Ashkenazic rabbinatehaddecisivelyrejectedphilosophy.In 1559,R. AbrahamHorowitz, who argued the case for philosophy and against literalism,won a clear victory over his opponent,R. JosephAshkenazi.93 Philosophycontinuedto haveopponentsin the Ashkenazicrabbinate,buttheyweremainlykabbalistic opponents.Aggadic literalismwas no longerthe test of orthodoxy. VII Wemustconsider,finally,the questionof kabbalah.SeferHadratQodesh, we said, quotes frequentlyfrom works of Spanishkabbalah,such as the Zohar,ShacareiOrah, Recanati,and others.94Indeed, as we have said, it quotesmorekabbalisticworksthanphilosophicalones. The history of the relation of kabbalahand philosophy is a tangled one. Withoutenteringinto its many turns,I would suggestthatamonglate medievalAshkenazicJews, the studyof philosophyandthe studyof kabbalah were likely to go hand in hand. (This continuedto be truein the sixteenth century.)9Muelhausen,Zioni, and Simeonben Samuelare all examplesof this pattern.For AshkenazicJewryin the late MiddleAges, SpanishJewish philosophyandSpanishkabbalahpointedin the samedirection,namely,away fromliteralism,and towardesotericism,allegory,anddogma. For the authorof Sefer Hadrat Qodesh, both Jewish philosophyand kabbalahwere legitimaterealmsof esotericmetaphysicaldoctrine;bothwere of Scripture.In fact, we also legitimatebodies of nonliteralinterpretation can put it more strongly.The author does not appear to distinguishat all 93. On the Posen controversy,see esp. Philip Bloch, "Der Streit um den Moreh des 47 Maimonidesin Posen," Monatsschriftflir Geschichteund Wissenschaftdes Judentunms (1903): 153-169, 263-279, 346-347; S. P. Rabinowitz,'Iqvotshel hofesh de'ot ba-rabanut shel Polin (Jerusalem,1959); GershomScholem, "Yedi'othadashot'al R. Yosef Ashkenazi ha-tanami-Sefat,"Tarbiz28 (1958): 59-89 and 201-235. See Scholem,"Yedi'ot,"p. 201, for Ashkenazi'sadmissionof defeat. 94. The authorrefersto the Zohar(HadratQodesh,p. 34b, 40a), ShacareiOrah(p. 29a, 30b), Recanati(p. 41a), Sefer Yesirah(p. 31a), Seferha-Bahir(p. 33a, 33b), R. Ezra(p. 41a), Nahmanides(p. 35a), SeferMalki'el(p. 39a), Ma'arekhetEloqut(p. 29a, 37b), and"therecent kabbalists"(p. 39b). He uses Spanishkabbalisticphraseswithoutreferences(e.g.,pp. 31a, 37b). He also quotesR. JudahHasid:pp. 30b, 38b. 95. See, e.g., Davis, "R. YomTov LipmanHeller,"pp. 155-180.

ASHKENAZIC JUDAISM PHILOSOPHY, DOGMA,ANDEXEGESISIN MEDIEVAL

221

betweenphilosophy and kabbalah.96 Much of the vocabularythat he uses, such as "sages"and "mysteries,"appliesequallyto kabbalisticwritingsand to philosophical-allegoricalwritings such as the Guide. In the teachings presented in Sefer Hadrat Qodesh, as we have seen, philosophicaland kabbalisticdoctrinesare mixed, combined,identified,andeven confused. There are certain ironies here, ironies of culturalmisunderstanding. WithinSpanishJewish culture,kabbalahand philosophywere polaropposites--opposites with a middle ground,perhaps,but oppositesnonetheless. Viewed, however,from the perspectiveof Ashkenazicculture,they were so close as to be almostindistinguishable. It is ironicas well thatthe influenceof the medievalJewishphilosophers, so many of whom had doubts aboutex nihilo creationand aboutparticular providence,should have been to make these beliefs into dogmas, to shut off doubts on these issues among AshkenazicJews." Yet dogma,we must recognize,was not only one of the concernsof medievalJewishphilosophy; it was also one of its creations. Literal interpretation,the hermeneuticalfocus on peshuto shel Miqra, was firstput forwardin the tenthand eleventhcenturiesby SpanishJewish thinkersandexegetes.98Its entryinto Ashkenazicbiblicalexegesis in Rashi's day, in the eleventh centuryand on into the twelfth,is an exampleof the influenceof Spanish Jewish culture,as we have said. However,that very principle,the principleof peshat, was used in the thirteenthcenturyas an instrumentof oppositionto SpanishJewishinfluencesin the shapeof Jewish philosophy.Andwhen the influenceof SpanishJewishculture,includingboth Jewish philosophyand kabbalah,came to be felt by AshkenazicJews again in the late MiddleAges, in SeferHadratQodeshandelsewhere,it consisted largelyof a rejectionof the earlierhermeneuticalgoal, and a new emphasis on the philosophicaland kabbalisticmeaningsof Scripture. 96. Muelhausendid distinguishthe two. On Muelhausen'skabbalisticviews, cf. "Derashat Toratha-ShemTemimahle-R. Yom Tov LipmanMuelhausen,"ed. IsraelWeinstock,in Sinai 84 (1979): 126-132; "PeirushSefer Yesirahle-R. YomTov LipmanMuelhausen,"ed. Israel Weinstock,in Tenzirin2 (1981): 93-122. 97. Occasionally,Simeonben Samueluses his commentaryto undercutorlimittheThirteen Principles.For example,the ninthprinciple,thatthe divine law is unchanging,he comments, does not really rule out changes by the "sages of the passinggenerations,. . . accordingto the time and place, for the needs of the hour"(p. 34a). Also, his commentaryon the fourth principleseems to identifyex nihilo creationwith the emanationof the sefirot(p. 31a). 98. See Weiss-Halivni,Peshat and Derash (aboven.78) pp. 79-82.

222

JOSEPHM. DAVIS

We mustthereforerecognizethe rangeof religiousidealsandthe various types of spiritual leadershipthat existed in AshkenazicJudaismin the fifteenthcentury.We must see the slow but sure sea-changebroughtabout by the gradualacceptanceof the Maimonideandogmas,the acceptanceof the very notionof dogma,the reluctantbutgradualacceptanceof allegorical and in generalthe influenceof philosophicaland kabbalistic interpretation, ideas and values. The late Middle Ages saw a complex dialoguebetween and AshkenazicJudaism.Sefer HadratQodeshis testimony Mediterranean to one partof thatdialogue. in St.Louis University Washington St. Louis,Mo.

Voltaire on Judaism and Christianity Author(s): Allan Arkush Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 223-243 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486572 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:15 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

VOLTAIREON JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY by ALLANARKUSH Voltaire'svoluminouswritingson religioncontain,as is well known,a large numberof attackson the Jewish people and Judaism.Historianshave offered a variety of explanationsfor this sustainedanimosityon the part of a great rationalistand proponentof religioustolerationtowarda people and a religion which continued,in his own day, to be victimizedby unjust persecution.While much remainsin dispute,theredoes seem to be general agreementthat VoltaireattackedJudaismat least in part because its most the religionhe wished sacredtexts constitutedthe foundationof Christianity, to destroy. Accordingto HannaEmmrich,the authorof theonly book-lengthstudyof his attitudeto the Jews and theirreligion,VoltaireassailedJudaismbecause it was "the basis of Christianity,and whoeverattacksone must also attack the other."'Peter Gay, too, believes that Voltaire"struckat the Jews to strikeat the Christians."His "anti-Jewishremarksare,"he writes,"a partly statements."2 These unconscious,partlyconsciouscloakfor his anti-Christian scholarshave concluded,with good reason,that Voltairewas following in deists who employeda similar the footsteps of various eighteenth-century strategyin theirstruggleagainstChristianity. ArthurHertzberg,in his importantand influentialwork, The French Enlightenmentand the Jews, takes issue with those who have sought to I would like to thankthe LyndeandHarryBradleyFoundationfor the researchfellowship thathelped supportthe writingof this essay. I am very gratefulto Joel Leemanand Frances Malino,who were most generouswith theircriticismof earlierdraftsof this essay. 1. HannaEmmrich,Des Judentumn bei Voltaire(Berlin,1930),p. 256. 2. PeterGay, Voltaire'sPolitics (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1959),p. 353.

AJSReview18/2(1993):223-243

223

224

ALLANARKUSH

explain Voltaire's anti-Jewish writings as constituting but a "part of his life-long battle with Christianity and the Bible."3 He, too, acknowledges that Voltaire "did, indeed, attack the Bible to get at Christianity,"but he does not see this as the key to an understanding of his antisemitism.4 According to Hertzberg, Voltaire opposed the Jews primarily because he considered them to be an utterly alien people, one which had for a very long time exercised a harmful influence on the course of European civilization and continued to constitute a menace to it. Nevertheless, even Hertzberg emphasizes that the misdeed for which Voltaire places the greatest blame on the Jews is the propagation of the Christian religion. He elaborates on this theme in a passage from which it would be best to quote at length. The nucleus of Voltaire'sview of the Jews, however,amountsto this: there is a cultural,philosophical,and ethnic traditionof Europewhich descended, throughthe humanstock of that continent,from the intellectualvalues that were taughtby the Greeks.Those were in turncarriedto all the reachesof the Europeanworld by the Romans.This is the normativecultureof which Voltaireapproved.The Jews are a differentfamily,andtheirreligionis rooted in their character.Christianityis the Jewishreligionsuperimposedon people of a differentworld,both ethnicallyand culturally.It is somewhatbetterthan Judaismbecauseit has been affectedby the natureof thosewho have adopted it andby theirearlier,healthiertradition. After reviewing Voltaire's diagnosis of the situation, Hertzbergdescribes the therapy which he supposedly recommended for Christians, if not for Jews. It is possibleto redeemEuropeby revivingits attachment to its ownfundamental natureand tradition.Europeanmen can be freed effectivelyof Christianity because Christianityis here a long-standinginfection;it is not one of the foundationsof the Europeanspirit, derivingfrom its character.The case of the Jews is radicallydifferent.Being borna Jew andthe obnoxiousnessof the Jewishoutlookareindissoluble;it is mostunlikelythat"enlightened" Jewscan their The of innate character. Jews are subversive the escape Europeantradition by their very presence,for they are the radicallyother,the hopelesslyalien. Curethem of theirreligionandtheirinborncharacterremains.' 3. ArthurHertzberg,The French Enlightenmentand the Jews (New York:Columbia UniversityPress, 1968), p. 283. 4. Ibid.,p. 285. 5. Ibid.,p. 307.

VOLTAIRE ON JUDAISMANDCHRISTIANITY

225

Accordingto Hertzberg,VoltairebelievedthattheJewsremainedthesame innatelycorruptpeople they had alwaysbeen andthatthey were still capable of doing additionalharm,in the future,to the Europeansamongwhom they lived. But the chief manifestationof their perniciouscharacterwas, in his eyes, the "infection"which they had long ago transmittedto Europe,i.e., Christianity.In Hertzberg'sopinion,then, Voltairesingledout the Jews not simplyin orderto pursuean indirector veiled attackon the Christianreligion but, in largepart,becausehe consideredthemto be responsiblefor the very existenceof thatreligion. Voltaire,Hertzbergsays, regardedhimself as a kind of Ciceroredivivus, a man whose task it was to recreatethe "truephilosophyandculture"of the Greco-Romanworldwhich had been "ruinedby the adventof Christianity."6 Just as Cicero and other ancient writershad denouncedboth Judaismand Christianityas barbaroussuperstitionsthreateningthe integrityof classical culture, Voltaire,employing their arguments,assailed the Jews and their religion on accountof the partthey had playedandcontinuedto play in the subversionof Westernculture.He therebybecamethe "majorlink in Western intellectualhistory between the anti-Semitismof classic paganismand the modernage."7 Hertzbergmay very well be correctin attributingto Voltairea pivotal role in the historyof antisemitism.He may also be correctin believingthat Voltaireregardedthe Jews of his own day as a people capableof continuing to subvertEuropeanculture.8He is wrong, however,to claim that he held them responsiblefor the scourge of Christianity.While Voltairecertainly identifiedJudaismas a parentof Christianity,he by no meanssaw the two as constitutingessentiallythe samereligion.Christianitydifferedfundamentally fromJudaism,in his opinion,andwas in some crucialrespectsnot betterbut worse thanit. Whatrenderedit inferiorto Judaismstemmedin partfromits ex-Jewishoriginatorsbutin muchlargerpartfromthe classicalculturalambit 6. Ibid.,p. 299. 7. Ibid.,p. 10. 8. It mustbe said,however,thathe providesverylittleevidenceof this.He does notethatin his Lettresde Memmiusa' Cicdron(1771) Voltairehas Memmiusdescribethe Jews as follows: "Theyare, all of them,bornwith ragingfanaticismin theirhearts,just as the Bretonsandthe Germansarebornwithblondhair.I wouldnotbe in the leastbit surprisedif thesepeoplewould not some day become deadly to the humanrace"(p. 300). But this solitarystatement,placed in the mouthof an ancientRoman,hardlyconstitutesproofthatVoltairehimselfbelievedthat Jews posed an ongoingthreatto Europeancivilization. contemporary

226

ALLANARKUSH

in which the new religion moved duringthe firstcenturiesof its existence. HowevermuchVoltairemay have fearedthe Jewishthreatin his own day,he did not, therefore,regardChristianityas a Jewish infectionto which other, healthierpeoples had somehow fallen victim. To the extent that Hertzberg departsfrom Emmrich'sand Gay's assessmentof the relationshipbetween Voltaire'sattackson the Jews and Judaismand his hostilityto Christianity, he does so, one mustconclude,in the wrongdirection. In orderto substantiatethese assertionsit will be necessaryto weigh the evidenceHertzbergadducesto supporthis position.Afterdoing so, we will broadenour perspectiveand examine the most importantcriteriaby which Voltaireevaluatedthe virtuesandvices of differentreligions.Withthebenefit of this survey we will be able to considerhis assessmentof Judaismand Christianityand the relationshipbetweenthem,the relativemeritsof the two religions,and the factorsresponsiblefor Christianity'sultimateconquestof the Greco-Romanworld. We will then seek to explaincertainof Voltaire's statementsthatmay appearto conflictwith some aspectsof this assessment. Hertzbergamplydocumentshis contentionthatVoltaireregardedtheJews as an innatelyinferiorpeople. He cites, however,only a singlepassagefrom the Essai sur les moeurs in supportof his argumentthat Voltaireregarded Christianityas being tantamountto "the Jewish religion superimposedon people of a differentworld."HereVoltaireapprovinglyquotesMaimonides' idea that the Jews were the progenitorsof Christianityand calls them "our fathers."He says explicitly that the Jewish "peopleought to interestus, becausewe ourselvesare basicallyonly uncircumcisedJews."' This passagedoes seem unequivocallyto supportHertzberg'sargument. But can it reallybearall of the weighthe placeson it? It comes, as Hertzberg himself notes, from a work which Voltairewrote relativelyearly in his career.In his later writings dealing much more extensively with Judaism and Christianity,Voltairetakes a ratherdifferenttack. He repeatedlynotes the Jewish parentageof the latterreligion,but he does not again say, to the best of my knowledge,thatthe Christians"arebasicallyonly uncircumcised Jews,"or anythingto that effect. Voltairedoes, admittedly,make a number of other statements,not cited by Hertzberg,thatmight seem to supporthis We will examinesome of theseremarkstowardthe conclusion interpretation. of this paper,when we will be in a position to evaluatethem within the 9. Hertzberg, French Enlightenment and the Jews, p. 302.

VOLTAIREON JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

227

broadercontext of Voltaire'sentire conceptionof the relationshipbetween JudaismandChristianity. In support of his contention that VoltaireregardedChristianityas a somewhatbetterform of Judaism,Hertzbergbringsno evidencewhatsoever. It is possible that he is resting his case here on those passages in which Voltairedisparagesthe Jews for their failure to accept certain Christian dogmas. If so, he is makinga mistake,for, as PeterGay has observed,on such occasions Voltaire"was of course pretendingto censureattitudeshe sharedwith enthusiasm."'•It is, on the otherhand,possible thatHertzberg has simply deduced Voltaire'spreferencefor Christianityfrom what he understandsto be his ethnic hierarchy.He may have assumedthatsince he rankedthe Europeanshigher than the Jews, he must also have considered theirversionof Judaismto be superiorto theoriginal.In actuality,his position was, as will be demonstratedbelow, quitedifferent. We must turnnow to a considerationof Voltaire'sbasic religiousviews. The firstthing we shouldnote is thatwe aredealingwith a manwho was by no meansan enemy of religionper se. Voltaireoften proclaimedhis faithin God andindicatedthe simple,broadoutlinesof the kindof religionwhichhe consideredto be of benefitto mankind.Sucha religionaffirmed,in brief,that "thereis a God, and men mustbe just.""It consistedentirelyof the worship of God and the practiceof justice, tolerance,andhumanity.12 of God, accordingto Voltaire,was uniqueand eternal,the remunerator virtue and the punisherof crime.'"In orderto inculcatethis last principle effectively,he believed, a religionmustincludea belief in the immortalityof the soul. He himself apparentlyhadhis doubtsabouthumanimmortality,but he defendedit nonetheless,since he believedthatonly this "terribledogma" has the powerto "curbsecretcrime."14 True worship of God consists, Voltairestates, of moralactions,not of 10. Peter Gay, The Party of Humanity (New York, 1964), p. 107. 11. Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, trans. Peter Gay (New York 1962), s.v. "Sect," p. 465. 12. Ibid., s.v. "Religion," p. 445. 13. Profession de Foi des Theistes, in Ouevres Completes de Voltaire, ed. Louis Moland (Paris, 1885), vol. 27, p. 56. 14. Lettres de Memmius, ibid., vol. 28, p. 459; La Bible enfin Expliquie, ibid., vol. 30, p. 94, n. 1.

ALLANARKUSH

228

participationin superstitiousrites."5In general,a good religion gives men much instructionin moralityand very little in dogmas,renderingthemjust withoutrenderingthemabsurd.It does not orderthemto believe impossible, contradictorythings, injuriousto the Deity and perniciousin theireffect on the humanrace. It does not employ executionersto upholdits beliefs, nor does it inundatethe globe withbloodfor the sakeof unintelligiblesophisms."6 It neverattemptsto force anyoneto believe anything."Accordingto the true religion, finally, all men are equal in the eyes of their creator,"andit is thereforeabsurdand impious to say that the commonfatherchose a small numberof his childrento exterminatethe othersin his name."18 All religions,exceptthe one taughtandpracticedby the scatteredminority of true theists, have fallen short,in the course of history,of this universal, naturalreligion. Indeed, Voltaire'svery definitionof this religion amply reflects,in its negativeemphases,his strongdisapprovalof existingreligions. But all religions are not, in his eyes, equallybad, nor are all aspectsof bad religionsequallypernicious. In the entryentitled"Religion"in his PhilosophicalDictionary,Voltaire draws a distinctionbetween state religion and theologicalreligion. State religionis concernedwithexternalthings,suchas themaintenanceof temples, days consecratedto worship and rest, rites establishedby law, registersof circumcisionor baptism,and public teachingof morality."A state religion can nevercause any turmoil."Statereligionmaycontain,it seems,all sortsof superstitions,butit is at least capableof supportingcivil orderandmayprove to be tolerantof otherreligions.Theologicalreligion,unlikestatereligion,is concernedwith the propagationof religiousdogmas.It is "thesourceof all the follies and turmoilsimaginable;it is the motherof fanaticismand civil discord;it is the enemy of mankind.""9 If theologicalreligion underall circumstancesbreedsfanaticism,it is at of religiousdogmasand its worst when it resultsin differinginterpretations the consequentformationof sects withina single religiouscommunity.The leadersof such sects have a vested interestin perpetuatingtheirfollowers' separateidentity-the ultimatesourceof theirown power and wealth.The 15. Honmdlies prononcdesa Londresen 1765, ibid., vol. 26, p. 335. 16. "Religion," p. 445.

17. Professionde Foi des Thdistes,p. 67. 18. Ibid., p. 56. 19. "Religion," pp. 447-448.

VOLTAIREON JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

229

multiplicationof sects leads to horriblediscord among them, to mutual persecution,and to endless death and destruction.20Abhorrenceof the consequencesof such sectarianstrugglesis, above all, whatinspiredVoltaireto issue his famousbattlecry: 6crasezl'infame("crushthe infamy"). Having surveyedsome of the centralaspectsof Voltaire'sgeneralunderstandingof the natureof religionand its social role, we arenow preparedto considerhis discussion of the two religionsof concernto us here, Judaism and Christianity.We will begin with a review of some of the mainpoints of of biblical his unremittingly-but not unqualifiedly-hostilecharacterization andpostbiblicalJudaism.We will thenturnto an examinationof his changing evaluationof the place of Jesus and the sect he foundedwithinthe Jewish world.After that,we will considerhis accountof how this sect evolved into an entirelynew religion,Christianity.Finally,we will outlinethe mainpoints of his utterlyantagonisticevaluationof the Christianreligion. It will not be necessary,for our purposes,to review in detailall aspects of what GeorgeEliot once called Voltaire's"fulminations" againstthe Jews. Whatwe will have to examineis the most importantways in whichJudaism fails, in his opinion, to measureup to the standardsof "universal,natural religion."Judaism,accordingto Voltaire,(1) propoundsa false conceptionof God, (2) containsdeeply flawedmoralteachings,and(3) manifestsa spiritof fanaticismandintolerance.But it also has somevirtues,whichpartlymitigate some of its faults. The Judaismof the Old Testament,accordingto Voltaire,fails the very first test of a true religion: it is not monotheistic.He repeatedlyadduces biblical passages in which Jews make referenceto non-Jewishgods in a mannerthatreflectsbelief in theiractualexistence,suchas Joshua24:15 ff.21 On thebasis of suchpassageshe concludesthattheJewsevidentlybelievedin the realityof otherpeoples' gods andheld "thateachlittlepeoplehadits own particulargod."22Voltaire'semphasison this point was no doubtintended primarilyto deprivethe Jews of any creditfor originatingtruemonotheism andto underlinethe primitivenessof theirreligiousunderstanding. The Old Testament,Voltairestresseson a numberof occasions,is utterly devoid of any referenceto the immortalityof the soul. It speaksof a God 20. PhilosophicalDictionary,s.v. "Toleration," p. 487. 21. Cf. Emmrich,Das Judentumbei Voltaire,pp. 147 ff., for a hostof additionalexamples. 22. Dieu et les Hommes,OeuvresComplktes,vol. 28, p. 162.

230

ALLANARKUSH

who proffersnothing but earthlyrewardsand punishmentsfor obeying or disobeyinghis law.23Accordingto Voltaire,as we observedearlier,a religion must include a belief in immortality,which is the only effective curb on secretcrime.Despite his doubtsconcerningthe truthof this dogma,he was convinced that it was a necessarycomponentof popularreligion, and he faultedancientJudaismfor lackingit.24 The practiceof religion, accordingto Voltaire,should not include the performanceof irrationaland superstitiousrituals.Judaism,he contends, aboundswith them. "Withregardto theirceremonies,"he writes,"is there anythingmoredisgusting,morerevolting,andat thesametimemorepuerile?" Tojustify his indignationhe refers,amongotherexamples,to the description in Leviticusof the sin-offeringto be presentedby the high priest."Isit really agreeableto the Being of all Beings to burnon a stonethe intestinesandthe stench?"25 feet of animals?Whatcould resultfrom this but an insupportable It is not necessaryfor our presentpurposesto cite additionalexamplesof Voltaire'smocking descriptionof Jewish rites, from circumcisionto the celebrationof Passover.26 The chief problemwith ancientJudaismwas not, in the end,the impurity or of its monotheism,the incompletenessof its depictionof divineretribution, and it offered for of but the theabsurdity its ritualpractices, immorality support intolerance.Voltaire,as we know,combedthe OldTestamentfor illustrations of the way in whichits God commandedwhathe regardedas immoralactions and the mannerin which the Jews performedthem. Again, our purposes do not requireus to survey the whole range of such immoralpractices, We need only note thataccordingto as Emmrichhas done so thoroughly.27 Voltairethe Book of Leviticus(27:29)stoopsso low as expresslyto command the sacrificeof humanbeingsto God.It was in obedienceto thissupposedlaw thatJephthahsacrificedhis daughterand Samuel,at a laterdate,slaughtered Agag, the Amalekiteking, afterSaul hadpardonedhim.28 In the name of the same God who commandedhumansacrifices,the 23. Philosophical Dictionary, s.v. "Hell," p. 248; Traitdsur Toldrance,Oeuvres Completes, vol. 25, p. 79; Dieu et les Hommes, ibid., vol. 28, p. 169. Cf. Emmrich, Das Judentumnbei Voltaire, p. 162. 24. La Bible enfin Expliqude, p. 94, n. 1. 25. Profession de Foi des Thdistes, p. 59. 26. Cf. Emmrich, Das Judentum bei Voltaire, pp. 176-187, for more examples.

27. Cf. especiallypp. 127-146. 28. Philosophical Dictionary s.v. "Jepthah,"p. 325.

VOLTAIREON JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

231

Pentateuchpropounds"veryseverelaws concerningthe cult, andeven more One of Voltaire'sexamplesof such laws is the death severepunishments.""'29 (as describedin Numbers penaltymetedoutto an anonymousSabbath-breaker 15:32-36). "If it be permittedto judge the laws of the Lordin the lightof the laws of our civilized peoples,"he says, in causticcommentary,"one would perhapsfind it a trifleharshto makea manperishfor havinggathereda little wood which he probablyneededin orderto boil milk for his children,or in orderto preparehis family's dinner.""3 Voltairelikewisecriticizesthe severe punishmentof those guilty of worshipingother gods. The priestsof Baal, for instance,who competedwith Elijahon MountCarmel,were everybit as devotedto theirgod as Elijahwas to his. Punishingthemwith deathwas, in Voltaire'seyes, "a terribleinjustice."3' When Voltaireexcoriatedthose who say thatmankind'scommonfather "chosea smallnumberof his childrento exterminatethe othersin his name," it is clear enough whom he had in mind. He frequentlycharacterizesthe Jews as a people who consideredthemselvesto have been speciallyselected by God and who treatedall other peoples cruelly.The crime with which he most frequentlychargesthem is theirexpropriationof Canaanand their ruthlessexterminationof its previousinhabitants."TheJewish people was a prettybarbarouspeople. It butcheredwithoutpity all the inhabitantsof an unfortunatelittle countryto which it had no more right than it did to Parisor London."32 As Emmrichhas observed,the extermination of the prior inhabitantsof Canaanis somethingwhichVoltaireregardsas beingin essence a formof humansacrificemandatedby the JewishGod.33 BiblicalJudaismwas, for Voltaire,rootedin ignorance,unjust,oppressive, and harshin its attitudeto non-Jews.For all of its faults,however,it did at least have two "negativevirtues."It was not, to begin with, a theological religion. Judaismdid not really have any dogmasbut consistedentirelyof prescribedpractices.34"It has been demonstrated,"he writes, "as well as anythingcan be demonstratedin history,thatthe religionof the Jews was, duringtheirperiodof wanderingandduringthe periodof theirkings,nothing 29. Trait"sur Tolerance, p. 67. 30. La Bible enfin Expliquge, p. 101, n. 1.

31. Ibid.,p. 220, n. 1. 32. "Toleration," p. 483. 33. Emmrich, Das Judentunt bei Voltaire, pp. 178-179. 34. Dieu et les Honznzes,p. 225.

ALLANARKUSH

232

but a confusedand contradictorycollectionof the ritesof theirneighbors."35 This indeed has a derogatoryring to it, but we must rememberthat for Voltairesuch rites, however unoriginalor foolish, were much less harmful than theologicaldogmas. When he cites previousscholarswho maintained thatthe Jews did not reallyhave a well-establishedtheologyuntilaftertheir returnfrom the Babylonianexile, he is in fact basicallymakinga point in early Judaism'sfavor (notwithstandingthat he regardedthe absence of a doctrineof immortalityas a drawback).36 Voltaire'sother reason for findingsome favor in Judaismis, somewhat surprisingly,the degree to which it was compatiblein certainrespectswith a spiritof toleration.Althoughhe emphasizesthe Jews' deplorablyhateful attitudetowardothernations,he also pointsout that,to theircredit,they at leastdid not believe thatthey hadthe dutyor the rightto imposetheirreligion on all of them. The Old Testamentsuppliesa numberof examplesof their "leniency"towardothers.There is the exampleof Elisha the prophet,who grantspermissionto Naamanthe Aramean,whomhe has curedof leprosy,to "worshipthe God of the Jews out of gratitude"and"toworshiptheGodof his kingat the sametime."TheJews "thoughtit rightthatChemoshgave a certain districtto the Moabites,providedtheirGod gave themone too. Jacobdidn't hesitateto marrythe daughterof an idolator.Labanhadhis God as Jacobhad his." It may not have been to the Jews' credit,intellectuallyspeaking,but it apparentlywas to theirmoralcreditthatwhile they "worshippedtheirGod, they were never astonishedthateach nationshouldhave its own."37 Voltairenever explainswhen, if ever, Judaismreachedthe level of true monotheism.He does, however,note thatin the postbiblicalperiodit finally acquireda doctrineof immortality.Onone occasionhe attributesthisdoctrinal Elsewhere changeto the influenceof the Zoroastrianreligionon Judaism.38 he argues,in a much more detailedfashion, that it occurredas a resultof the first, and less fateful, of two historicalencountersbetween groups of PalestinianJews and Platonicphilosophy. In chapter 3 of his Histoire de l'Etablissement du Christianisme, in the

midstof his discussionof Christianity'sJewishbackground,Voltaireoutlines the system developedby Plato in severalof his works.He describesbriefly 35. 36. 37. 38.

Ibid.,p. 166. Ibid.,p. 167. "Toleration," pp. 483-484. DictionnairePhilosophique,OeuvresCompletes,vol. 18, p. 160.

VOLTAIREON JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

233

the Phaedon's doctrineof immortality,the Republic'sdoctrineof the other world, and the doctrineof the logos presentedin the Timaeus.This Platonic philosophyconstitutes,from Voltaire'spointof view, anythingbut a healthy tradition.He refersto it here as an "absurdgibberish"thatseducedGreece.39 On anotheroccasion, he spoke of Plato as an obscure,scarcelyintelligible thinkerwhose reputationamongRomans,Asians,andAfricanswas due only to his dazzling sophisms.40 He describes him, in short, with the kind of disdainanddisrespectthatthephilosophesoftenexhibitedtowardpremodern metaphysicians. Under the influence of their Greek neighbors,Voltairerelates, many EgyptianJews in Alexandriaavidly took up the philosophyof Plato. They in turntransmittedit to Palestine.Therethe sect of the Pharisees"embraced all the dogmas of Plato: the soul, a delicate figureenclosedin a body; the immortalsoul, having its good and its bad demon;the soul punishedin hell, or rewardedin a kind of Elysium;the transmigrating soul, the resuscitated soul."41Here Voltairerefers to the Phariseesas complete Platonists,even thoughhe does not say anythingabouttheir having adopted,in particular, the teachingof the TimaeusregardingGod's logos, his intermediaryin the processof creation.We will see the significanceof this omissionin the next section,when we examineVoltaire'saccountof the second,moremomentous encounterbetweenPalestinianJews andPlatonism. While the Phariseesbecame Platonists,other Jews, who continuedto adhereto the older form of Judaism,establishedthe sect of the Sadducees. Stillothersfoundednew sectsof theirown, suchas theEssenes,thedisciplesof Johnthe Baptist,the Herodians,etc. For Voltaire,who regardedsectarianism as a very greatdanger,this representedan unfortunatedevelopment.In some of his writings he describes the way in which the division of the Jewish world into factions stirredconsiderablediscord.At one point he notes how people "gavethemselvesover to theologicaldisputes."The Phariseesandthe Sadducees"troubledthe stateas muchas they could."42 Elsewhere,however, he emphasizesother aspects of these sects' interrelationships. On a number of occasions he virtuallymarvelsat theircapacityto live togetherin peace. He states,for instance,that,despitethe fact thattheydifferedessentiallyfrom 39. 40. 41. 42.

Histoire de l'Etablissement du Christianisme, ibid., vol. 31, p. 50. Dieu et les Hommes, p. 221. Histoire de 1l'Etablissementdu Christianisme, p. 54. Dieu et les Hommes, p. 193.

234

ALLANARKUSH

one another,they "neverhadthe slightestquarrel.Thesetwo rivalsects lived togetherin peace, and took equalpartin the honorsof the synagogue."43 Voltaireis similarlyimpressedby anotherexampleof mutualforbearance within the Jewish world. During the period when the Jewish people was divided,as he puts it, into the mutuallyhostilegroupsof "HebrewJews"and "Samaritan Jews,"therewereneveranywarsof religionbetweenthem."The HebrewJews never said to the Samaritans:Come sacrificeon MountMoriah or I will kill you; the SamaritanJews neversaid:Come sacrificeon Gerizim or I will exterminateyou."In spite of the atrocioushatewhichthe residents of Jerusalemhad for the Samaritans,none of themever wished"toconstrain a citizen of Samariato changehis sect."44 Jesushimself, Voltaireobserves,was initiallyonly the founderof a new Jewish sect. His descriptionof the momentousdevelopmentof this sect underwentconsiderablemodificationover the years. Initiallydisposed to ridiculeJesus,he generallytended,in his laterreligiouswritings,to celebrate himas a greatteacherof theuniversalandnaturalreligion.Thelatterapproach seems to reflect a change in his polemicalstrategyratherthanany genuine of the historicalJesus. alterationin his understanding In his earlieras well as his laterwritingsdealingwith the life of Jesus, Voltaireconsistentlyplaced heavy emphasison his Jewishorigins.Voltaire, of course,did not see this as any kindof advantage.In his ExamenImportant de MilordBolingbroke,publishedin 1766, he relateshow Jesus was born into a Jewish world where fanaticismwas still a dominantforce, even if it had been somewhatdiminishedas a resultof the Jews' increasingcontacts with the Greeks and the Romans.45For details concerningJesus' early life he relied on the "SepherToldos Jeschut"(Sefer ToldotYeshu),a medieval Jewish anti-Christianscreed,which he consideredto be flawedbut, on the whole, morereliablethanthe gospels.46 After recountingJesus' disgracefulorigins, in the ExamenImportant, Voltaireproceededto portrayhim,quitederisively,as a crudeJudeanpeasant, 43. Ibid., p. 52. Cf. also Traitdsur Toldrance,p. 83. PeterGay has stressedthis point (Partyof Humanity,p. 107). He quotesan entryin his notebookswhereVoltairedescribesthe treatmentaccordedto the Sadduceesas "a beautifulexampleof tolerance."He also identifes statementsin his correspondencewhichindicatethat"thisis his trueopinion." 44. De la Paix Perpdtuelle, Ouevres Compl&tes,vol. 28, p. 106. 45. Examen Important de Milord Bolingbroke, ibid., vol. 26, p. 220.

46. Ibid.,p. 222.

VOLTAIRE ON JUDAISMANDCHRISTIANITY

235

a man who aspiredto form a new religioussect to oppose those alreadyin existence, "everythinghaving become sect among the unhappyJews since their establishmentin Alexandria."Like George Fox, the founderof the Quakers,"he was an ignorantman from the dregsof the people, sometimes preaching,as he did, a propermorality,and preachingabove all equality, whichvery muchflatteredthe rabble."47 He succeededin foundinga sect, but not in escapingthe wrathof his priestlyopponents,who hadhim putto death. A more admiringdescriptionof Jesus appearsin a work publishedin 1768, the Professionde Foi des Theistes.ThereVoltairespeaksof him as a mandistinguished"byhis zeal, his virtue,andhis love of fraternalequality," a man who is to be lamentedas a reformer"whowas the victim of fanatic persecutors."He deserves to be honoredas a great moral teacher,as "an Israelitetheist."48This new respect for Jesus, it seems most reasonableto conclude,reflects,as Ren6Pomeauhas contended,not a truechangeof heart but Voltaire'sprudentialdecision (around1767) to moderatehis position somewhatand to describehim moresympathetically.49 Whetheror not Pomeauis correctis not of anygreatimportance,however, for our purposes. WhateverVoltairereally thought of Jesus, he always portrayedhim as a man who remaineda loyal, observantJew throughout his life, a man who never had the slightest intentionof breakingaway from Judaismand startinga new religion but sought only to establish a new sect within the Jewish world.50Only very graduallydid the sect he founded give birth to a new religion, one which clearly represented,in Voltaire'seyes, somethingessentiallydifferentfrom Judaism.It will, again, not be necessaryfor us to follow closely Voltaire'snumerousand somewhat inconsistentaccountsof all of the steps which led fromsectarianJudaismto full-blownChristianity.Of crucialsignificance,however,is the factorwhich he repeatedlyidentifiesas the most decisive in effectingthis transformation: Platonicphilosophy. Like Jesus himself duringhis lifetime, Voltairetells us, his followers, after his death, initially showed no trace of any interestin establishinga new religion.They confinedthemselvesto sayingto theirfellow Jews:"You 47. Ibid.,p. 227. 48. Professionde Foi des Thfistes,p. 69. 49. Ren6Pomeau,La Religionde Voltaire(Paris,1956),pp. 372-374. 50. "Toleration," Homme,OeuvresCompldtes,vol. 24, p. p. 489; Catechismede l'Honn&te 534; Dieu et les Hommes,pp. 197 ff.; Histoirede l'Etablissement du Christianisme, pp. 66-68.

236

ALLANARKUSH

crucifiedourmaster,who was a manof goodness.Godresuscitatedhim;seek pardonfrom God. We are Jews like you, circumcisedlike you, faithfullike you to the Mosaic law ... but we will hold you in horroruntil you confess thatJesus is worthierthanyou, anduntilyou will live with us as brothers."51 Had the membersof Jesus' sect continuedto adhereto their original Those of beliefs, they "neverwould have attractedanyoneto theirparty."52 themwho made theirway to Alexandriawere destined,however,to proceed in a differentdirection.Theirencounterin thatcity withJewsof a platonizing bent, the second of the meetingsdescribedby VoltairebetweenPalestinian Jews and Platonists,is an event of the utmostsignificance.It represents"the the "realbeginning" greatnexus and the firstdevelopmentof Christianity," of the religion.53 WhatJesus' followersdiscoveredin Alexandriawas a worldin whichthe philosophers,includingJews like Philo,propoundedthe doctrinepresentedin Plato's Timaeus.They spoke incessantlyof the logos, the demiurgethrough which God had createdthe universe.Underthe influenceof thesePlatonists, the early Christianselevated Jesus to a new, supramundanestatus;they startedcalling him the "word."54 Forthem,Jesusceasedto be merelya man, and "little by little became a God engenderedcenturiesearlierby another God, and incarnatedat the prescribedtime." It is thus apparentthat "it This new religionmay was the philosophyof Plato thatmadeChristianity." have preservedthe books of Judaismand some of its trappings,but it was It developeddogmas neverthelesssomething "totallydifferentin spirit.""55 different from those of Jesus" himself.56 "absolutely Voltairehas a greatdeal to say aboutthe distinctivedoctrinesdeveloped by Christiantheologians over the ensuing centuries.Again and again he revertsto the doctrinesof original sin, the divinity and incarnationof the etc. In all of his discussionshe repeatedlystresses messiah,transubstantiation, two things: (1) the absenceof any Old Testamentsourcefor these dogmas, and (2) theircompleteirrationality.57 51. Dieu et les Hommnes,pp. 209-210. 52. Ibid., p. 221; cf. also Philosophical Dictionanr p. 486.

53. Ibid.,p. 223.

54. 55. 56. 57.

Ibid. Histoire de 1'itablissentent du Christianisnie, p. 72. Dieu et les Honmntes,p. 225. Cf., for example, Philosophical Dictionar3 s.v. "Arius" (pp. 93-94), "Creed" (pp.

218 ff.), "Divinityof Jesus" (p. 240), "Hell"(pp. 248-249), "Originalsin" (pp. 415-417),

ONJUDAISMANDCHRISTIANITY VOLTAIRE

237

Christianityis in essence, accordingto Voltaire,a tissueof absurdities,a nonsensical,dogmaticreligionbornof the unionof Jewishsectarianismand Platonicphilosophy,but far moreindebted,for its distinctivecharacteristics, to the latter.The absurdityof Christianity'sdoctrinesis matched,in his eyes, by the immoralityof its clerics and its practitioners,a subjectto which he frequentlyrecurs.He plainly relishes detailingthe scandalousmisdeedsof popes, monks, and priests."5He likewise scoffs at Christianrituals,such as the mass, in which a priest or a monk who may have just left "the arms of a prostitute"changes a "morselof breadinto God by means of a few Latinwords."59 But neitherChristianity'sdeplorablylow standardof morality nor its superstitiousrites are the real object of Voltaire'sire. What most profoundlyoutrageshim is its intolerantspirit,its promotionthroughoutits historyof the persecutionof infidelsas well as heretics. In his varioushistoriesof the rise of Christianity, Voltairealwaysstresses the fact that the religion was, from its earliestdays, fragmentedinto sects of the Christiandogmas.Even before propoundingdisparateinterpretations the became official Christianity religion of the RomanEmpire,these sects fell underthe leadershipof contentious,power-hungrymen. Accordingto Voltaire,theirambitions,and not theirsincerelyheld beliefs, impelledthese Christianleaders to seek to eliminate the existing pagan religions and to promote their own versions of the Christianreligion over those of their competitors.60"Was there ever a single Pope," Voltaireasks, by way of underscoringthe perceived hypocrisy of all Christianleaders,who really "believedin the incarnationof God, the death of God, the resurrectionof God, the Trinityof God,"etc.? He answershis own question:All of them "certainlybelieved nothing;and becausethey sensed the horribleabsurdity of Christianitythey imaginedthat there was no God at all."61 This covert

"Transsubstantiation" (p. 493). Cf. also Dieu et les Hommes,pp. 225-229, and Histoire de l'Etablissementdu Christianisme,pp. 70-72. See WilliamH. Trapnell,Christand His "Associates"in VoltairianPolemic:An Assaulton the Trinityand the TwoNatures(Saratoga, Calif., 1982), for an exhaustivetreatmentof Voltaire'sassaulton manyof thesedogmas. 58. Cf., for example,ExamenImportantde MilordBolingbroke,pp.296 ff., andCatechisme de l'Honn&te Homme,pp. 535 ff. 59. Le Diner du Comtede Boulanvilliers,OeuvresConmpltes,vol. 26, p. 541. 60. Ibid.,pp. 276-293. 61. Ibid.,p. 298.

238

ALLANARKUSH

atheismdid not preventthem,however,fromassailingtheirtheologicalrivals with greatvigor. The ambitionsof the Christiansectariansknew no bounds.It was their view "thatthe whole world shouldbe Christian.They were thereforenecesWe will not sarilythe enemies of the whole world,untilit was converted."62 reviewVoltaire'streatmentof the way in whichthey ultimatelysucceededin convertingtheEuropeanworldto Christianityorhis extensiveaccountof their incessanttheologicalstruggleswitheachother.Weshouldnote,however,that it is these intra-Christian conflicts that Voltairerepeatedlyidentifiesas the worst of Christianity'seffects. "Since Constantine,"he observes,therehas been a "continualwar amongthe Christians,sometimeslimitedto sophisms, to deceit,to cabals,andto hatred,andsometimesmarkedby carnage."63It is, of course, the carnagethat most disturbshim. He lamentsit ceaselessly.In chapter42 of Dieu et les Hommeshe attemptsto quantifyit. His conclusion: from the time of Constantineto the present,Christianshave cut the throats of, or drowned,or burned,or brokenuponthe wheel, or hangedfor the love of God 9,468,800 innocentpeople.64 From our discussion thus far it is clear that VoltaireregardedJudaism and Christianityas two relatedbut entirelydistinctreligions.It is equally plain thathe held a very low opinionof each of them.Judaism,in his eyes, was a false religion,rootedin ignorant,misguidedconceptsof the Deity and repletewith immoralpractices.It fostereda largemeasureof intoleranceand inhumanity.As we have just seen, he also said all of the same thingswith regardto Christianity.Still, he did not believe that the two religionswere completelyequivalentto each other.Contraryto whatArthurHertzberghas argued,he apparentlyconsideredJudaismto be the "lesserevil." On the purelytheologicallevel, Judaismis markedby its primitiveness, whichis surelynot a merit.Comparedto Christianity, however,it is relatively unencumberedwith nonsensicaldoctrines.Althoughhe neverput the matter in preciselytheseterms,VoltaireapparentlyregardedJudaismas constituting, in essence if not in all respects,the lesser evil of a state religion,whereas he clearlysaw Christianityas the theologicalreligionparexcellence.Not on accountof its Jewishheritage,butas a resultof itsdeparturefromthatheritage, 62. "Toleration," pp. 482-483. 63. Profession de Foi des Thdistes, p. 70. 64. Ibid., pp. 231 ff.

VOLTAIRE ON JUDAISMANDCHRISTIANITY

239

its absorptionof Western,i.e., Platonicphilosophy,Christianityaboundswith absurddoctrines,which renderit more unreasonablethan Judaism,which was itself the victim of a much less noxiousdose of Platonism.It would,of course,have been ratherawkwardfor Voltaireto makesuch an assessment explicitly,but everythinghe says pointsto a conclusionof this kind.65 Theology per se was not, as we have seen, Voltaire'sgreatestconcern. What he cared about most deeply was the impact of a given religion on human society. Judging from this point of view, he found both Judaism and Christianityunsatisfactory.Both foster immorality,intolerance,and inhumanity.From what Voltairehas written, it is difficult to say which of the two religions was, in his opinion, the more immoral,but it is clear enoughwhich of themhe consideredto be the moreintolerantandinhumane: Christianity.66 It is, in fact, its preoccupationwith theology that accounts,as far as Voltaireis concerned,for Christianity'sgreaterperniciousnesson the level of humanrelations.As a relativelynontheologicalreligion,ill-disposedtoward the bulk of mankind,Judaism,he believes, is capableof doing only limited harm.Christianity,on the other hand,with its elaboratedogmatictheology and its universalisticpretensions,has inevitablyinspiredits clericalleaders to stirup the worstkinds of trouble. As we have seen, Voltairefrequentlyobserves that the ancient Jews displayedtolerationof others,andjust as frequentlynotesthatthe Christians have never showed anything of the kind. He does not, in fact, hesitate to emphasize the contrast. As an illustrationof the differencebetween Jewish intoleranceand Christianintolerance,he notes in the Philosophical Dictionarythat the Jews in the RomanEmpire"didn'tcross land and sea to make proselytes, but thoughtonly of makingmoney. It is undeniable, however, that the Christianswantedtheir religionto be the dominantone. The Jews didn't want the statueof Jupiterin Jerusalem;but the Christians didn'twantit in the Capitol." Even whenrivenby sectarianism,the Jewishworldfor somereasonnever descendedto the depthsof internecinetheologicalwarfare.Christendom,on 65. Gay(PartyofHumanity,p. 107)makesa somewhatsimilarargument: "Voltaire showed with grimhumorthatthe Jews of antiquity,superstitiousandbarbarousas he paintsthem,were less superstitiousandbarbarousthanthe Christians." 66. Gay(ibid.)notesthistoo. It is, furthermore, notonlytheJewswhosurpasstheChristians in this respect,but the Moslemsandthe pagansas well. Cf. HomenliesPrononceesa Londresen 1765, pp. 336, 353.

240

ALLANARKUSH

the otherhand,has been rackedby such conflictsthroughoutits history.The Jews were admittedly"themost intolerantandcruelpeopleof all antiquity." But it is the Christians,Voltairesays, who have proved to be "the most intolerantof all men." Unfortunately,they have imitatedthe Jews in their of "leniency."''67 "irrationalfrenzies,"but not in demonstrations According to Hertzberg,as we noted at the outset, Voltairebelieved that when the Europeanpeoples convertedto Christianitythey adoptedan essentiallyJewish religion,one foreignto theirown traditionand spirit.As we have now seen, Voltaireactuallybelieved thatChristianitywas, despite its Jewish roots, the heir to an earlierEuropeantradition,one which decisively shapedits own distinctivespirit.Europe'sconversionto Christianity essentiallyrepresented,in Voltaire'seyes, its adoptionof a formof Platonism markedby a certainJewish coloration.Still, if he in fact thoughtthat its associationwith Judaismaccountedto some extent for its success, if he regardedthis aspectof the new religionas somehowhavingplayeda key role in seducingtheEuropeanpeoplesawayfromthehealthierstrandsof theirown cultureand leadingthemdown the perniciousrouteof Platonism,thenthere might be some supportfor Hertzberg'sargumentafterall. An examination of Voltaire'sexplanationfor Christianity'sconquestof the RomanEmpire shows, however,thatthis is not the case. Voltairedoes not, like Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,devote much attentionto this epoch-makingdevelopment.His most comprehensivetreatmentof it, whichconsistsof one smallchapter,appearsin his Histoirede l'Etablissementdu Christianisme.Therehe lists five reasons for the "progress"of Christianity.Two of them are connectedto its Jewish origins.Like the Jews fromwhose midstthey emerged,the earlyChristians, Voltairenotes, believed themselves to be "the elect of God," and were In addition,havinghad their fortifiedby a sense of theirown superiority.68 like too the "commerce,brokerage, them, originsamong Jews, they practiced, These factors,accordingto and usury,"and consequentlybecamewealthy.69 Voltaire,helped to solidify the organizationof the early Christians.Their success in spreadingthe content of their message was due, however,not to any Jewish dimensionit may have possessedbut mainlyto the fact that 67. "Toleration," pp. 482-483. 68. Histoire de I'Etablissemnentdu Christianisme, pp. 80-81.

69. Ibid.,p. 81.

VOLTAIREON JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

241

"theyhaddogmasanda coherentsystem,howeverabsurd,andthe othercults did not."TheirPlatonicmetaphysics,togetherwith the Christianmysteries, formedan incomprehensiblebody of doctrinewith which they seducedand frightenedweak spirits.70Here,too, we findthatthe evidencedoes notbolster Hertzberg'sinterpretation. There are, as we noted at the beginning of this essay, a numberof passages in Voltaire's writings which stress the kinship or resemblance between Judaismand Christianityand may thereforeseem to lend support to Hertzberg'sposition. There is, for instance, a passage from Le Diner du Comtede Boulanvilliersin which one of the participantsin a fictional dialogue,a certainMr.Freret,tauntsa Catholicpriestwiththe argumentthat the membersof his churchare nothingbut Jews and idolators.The priestis appalled.Fr6retrespondsto his objectionsby asking: as a Jew?Didn'the Wasn'tyourGod borna Jew?Wasn'the circumcised ... Don'tyoustilluse a Jewishword, performall of theJewishceremonies? for holiday?Haven'tyoubeenchanting Pdques,as thenameof yourprincipal hundred to a seventeen diabolical music Jewish which attribute songs years you to a Jewishkinglet,an adulterous brigandanda homicide,a manafterGod's heart?7' In anothersuch passage, in the Profession de Foi des Thdistes,Voltaire reviews yet again the odious mannerin which the Jews conqueredCanaan and purgedit of its previousinhabitants.He then comparestheirbehavior with thatof medievalandlaterChristians:"OurChristians,one mustconfess, have imitatedonly too much"this kind of barbarism.It is this fanaticism, he writes, that inspires"the Crusadeswhich depopulateEuropein orderto immolateArabs and Turksin Syria for the sake of Jesus Christ."And it is this kind of fanaticism,he says, that is responsiblefor crusadesagainstour innocentbrothers,who are called heretics,as well as for the infernalday of SaintBartholomew.72 Passages of this kind, we must note, do not simply equateJudaismand Christianity.The firstpassagedoes not actuallysuggestthatthe fundamental teachingsof the two religionsarethe same,but only thatthey arerelatedand sharesome rituals.The seconddoes not state,in a way thatwouldcontradict 70. Ibid.,p. 83. 71. Ibid., Le Diner du Comte de Boulanvilliers, pp. 539-540. 72. Profession de Foi des Thdistes, p. 64.

242

ALLANARKUSH

what Voltairewrote elsewhere,that the Christiansinheritedtheirparticular brandof fanaticismfromthe Jews butonly thatthey imitatedwhatthey read in the Old Testament.Still, these andotherremarksarenoticeablyat variance withwhatwe have seen to be Voltaire'smoresystematicandnuancedaccount of the relationshipbetween Judaismand Christianity.How are they to be explained? Ouranalysisof Voltaire'swritingshas shownthat,at bottom,he regarded Christianityas a religion essentially distinct from and, in certaincrucial respects, inferior to Judaism.This is not, however, somethinghe strove at every opportunityto explain to his readingpublic. He had no interest, for the most part, in casting Judaismin a more favorable--oreven a less unfavorable-light.He hada stronginterest,on theotherhand,in undermining it, in part because he saw it as being essentiallya bad thing in itself but mostlybecauseit servedas the foundationof Christianity. Even if it was, in the final analysis,betterthan its offspring,Judaism was a parentreligionof which Christianswere not and shouldnot be proud, Voltaireevidentlyfelt, andhe devotedgreateffortsto exposingwhathe saw as its shamefulaspects to the public. It did sometimessuit his purposesto underlineways in which the parentwas superiorto the child. But he was just as willing to turn his Christianreadersagainsttheir own religion by identifying,and even exaggerating,ways in which it resembledthe Judaism forwhichtheythemselveshadnothingbutdisdain(andwhichhe was teaching themto despisefor new reasons).In the light of everthingelse Voltairewrote this, it seems to me, is the bestway to pertainingto JudaismandChristianity, accountfor passageslike the onesjust quoted. Thereis no reasonto call into questionthe generalscholarlyconsensus thatVoltaire,like othereighteenth-century deists, attackedJudaismin order to weakenthe foundationon whichChristianityrests.Whatmustbe rejected, however, is ArthurHertzberg'sunderstandingof the sense in which this is true. Accordingto Hertzberg,Voltairebelieved that Christianitywas in essence a Jewish concoction, somewhatbetterthanJudaismitself but still utterly inappropriateto the Europeanpeoples who had abandoned"their earlier,healthiertradition"in its favor.Voltairesupposedlyblamedthe Jews for corruptingthese peoples and assailedthemin orderto contributeto the revival of the spirit of the nobler,Greco-Romanworld they had helped to ruin.

VOLTAIREON JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

243

Our examinationof Voltaire'swritingshas shown, on the contrary,that he distinguishedsharplybetweenJudaismand Christianity. Christianitywas he well on the Old Testament and continued hallowit along to knew, based, with certain other trappingsof Judaism,but he believed it to be, in its essential spirit, somethingnew and differentfrom its parentreligion.This new spirit was due, above all, to Jesus' followers' early exposureto the influenceof Platonicphilosophy,whichtransformed theirrelativelyharmless Jewish sect into a noxious, theologicalreligion capableof conqueringthe Greco-Romanworld. Voltairemust consequentlyhave viewed his quest to destroy this religion less as a battle to liberatethe West from alien and inferiorinfluencesstemmingfromthe Eastthanas a struggleagainsta baleful influenceemanatingfromthe Westitself, to wit, the residueof ancientGreek metaphysics.Those occasionalpassagesin his workwhich are somewhatat variancewith the rest of his treatmentof this subjectand seem to stressthe centralimportanceof the kinshipbetweenJudaismand Christianitycan be best understoodas polemicalexaggerations. StateUniversity of NewYorkatBinghamton Binghamton, N.Y.

Suicide and the World-to-Come Author(s): Marc B. Shapiro Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 245-263 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486573 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:16 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

SUICIDEAND THE WORLD-TO-COME by MARCB. SHAPIRO In 1880 the Jewish communityof Iraq was forced to confronta sharp increase in antisemitic persecution.Not all of the country'sJews were preparedfor this new phenomenonand the resultwas a numberof suicides. The Iraqirabbinate,bothshockedanddeterminedto putanendto theneedless takingof life, declaredfromall the synagoguepulpitsthatthose who commit suicide have no share in the world-to-come.'This idea was certainlynot unknownto either the masses or the rabbis, who probablybelieved it to be found somewherein talmudicliterature.2 However,althoughit does not -) is appearthere, the rabbinicmaxim l; niyS pn *15 nT'ut iun• TnwrN known. well Since this notion has a in rabbinic central role very played many discussionsaboutthe statusof suicides,it is worthwhileto traceits origin.3 The idea is strangefor a few reasons.To begin with, thereare very few sins regardingwhich thereis generalacceptancethatthe perpetrator loses his portionin Paradise.There appearsto be no reasonwhy suicide shouldbe includedin this list, especiallyas thereis no explicitbiblicalverseforbidding the practice.4Second, an examinationof the Bible, Talmud,and Midrash shows that suicide is not always viewed as such a heinous sin. Third,and 1. AvrahambenYa'akov,YehudeiBavelmi-SofTequfatha-Ge'onitnad Yameinu (Jerusalem, 1965),p. 143. 2. It shouldbe noted,however,thatthe famedR. JosephHayyimof Baghdad,RavPe'alirn (Jerusalem,1905), vol. 3, YorehDe'ah, no. 30, was awarethatthe idea hadno source. 3. It is surprisingthatSidney Goldstein,in his recentbook Suicidein RabbinicLiterature (Hoboken,1989), makesno mentionof this notion. 4. See also Avotde-RabbiNathan,chap.36, whichdiscussesthose who lose theirportion in the world-to-come.Thereis no mentionhereof suicide.

AJS Review 18/2 (1993): 245-263

245

246

MARCB. SHAPIRO

perhaps most important, there are a few rabbinic texts which teach that those who commit suicide do have a portion in the world-to-come. To give perhaps the most explicit example, the Talmud in Ketubot 103b states: On the day that Rabbi died a heavenly voice went forth and announced, "Whosoeverwas presentat the deathof Rabbiis destinedto enjoy the life of the world-to-come."A certainlaundererwho used to come to him every day had failed to call on thatday; as soon as he heardthis he went on a roof, fell to the ground,and died. A heavenlyvoice came forthand announced:"That laundereralso is destinedto enjoy the life of the world-to-come." As is obvious from this passage, one who commits suicide, even for no purpose whatsoever, does not necessarily lose his portion in the world-to-come.5 Another example, this time from the Midrash, concerns the torture that Zedekiah was put through (2 Kings 25:7). The Midrashasks: "Wasit possible that Zedekiah should see others piercing his eyes without having the sense to dash his head against the wall until he expired?"6Reflecting the popular belief, Rabbi Wolf Einhorn writes: "It is amazing that the rabbis would permit someone to commit suicide in order to avoid pain . .. for one who commits suicide has no share in the world-to-come."7 Another proof against the notion that one who commits suicide has no share in the world-to-come is pointed out by Rabbi Eleazar Landau.8 Sanhedrin 10:2 reads: "Three kings and four commoners have no portion in the world-to-come. ... The four commoners are Balaam, Doeg, Ahithophel, and Gehazi." The Talmud explains why the other three lost their heavenly portions, but does not do so for Ahithophel. If it is true that a suicide has no portion in the world-to-come, asks Landau, why did the Talmud not give this as the reason why he was excluded, for as is well known, he committed suicide (2 Sam. 17:23)? It is also important to note that the Talmud records another opinion according to which Ahithophel does have a share in the 5. See R. JacobEmden'sglosses on this text. Emdenacceptsthe idea thatsuicideshave no portionin the world-to-comeandthereforestruggles,unsuccessfullyin his own opinion,to explainthis passage.See also R. EzekielSirkin,BinyanYehezqel(Warsaw,1861),ad loc. 6. Eikhah Rabbah 1:51.

7. Commentary, ad loc. (foundin the Vilnaeditionof MidrashRabbah). 8. Yadha-Melekh(Lemberg,1826),last page of appendix.WiththiscommentLandauwas correctingthe contraryview expressedin his note to HilkhotAvel 1:11.

SUICIDE AND THE WORLD-TO-COME

247

thereappearto be no rishonimwho claim that world-to-come.9Furthermore, his lost heavenlyportionbecauseof his suicide. Ahithophel That one who commits suicide is to be punishedin Hell is a given in rabbinicsourcesand is also mentionedby Josephus.However,this does not makesuicidedifferentfromanyothersin. All sins arepunishedby a periodof sufferingin Hell,butit is understoodthatwhenthisatonementis completedthe Midrash sinnermay enter Heaven.Even a statementin the twelfth-century Sekhel Tov that suicides are doomed to Hell does not mean that they are destinedto remaintherefor eternity.'0 The earliestexplicitreferencein Jewishsourcesto the notionthatsuicides YemeniteRabbi haveno heavenlyportionappearsto be the fourteenth-century Netanel ben Isaiah,who mentionsthis in his Bible commentary."He does not attributethis view to the rabbisbut states it as a well-knownfact. It is possible that he saw this statementin some midrashwhich no longer survivesor thatit was an oral tradition.Still, it cannotbe ruledout thatthe idea, which appearedauthenticallyJewishto Netanel,actuallyhad its origin in Islam. This is not a far-fetchedassumptionwhen one considersall the influenceIslam had on Judaismduringthis period.'2In addition,Netanel's and also has a Bible commentaryappearsto show some Islamicinfluence"3 numberof anti-Islamicpassages,thus showingthatIslamicideas were well knownto him. everrefers Althoughthereis some disputeregardingwhetherMuhammad the of there to is a good deal of discussionof it in the prohibition suicide, laterhadithliterature.A well-knownninth-century hadithreads: 9. See Sanhedrin104b-105a. 10. S. Buber,ed., MidrashSekhelTov(TelAviv,n.d.),vol. 1, p. 283. 11. R. Joseph Kafah,ed., Ma'or ha-Afelah(Jerusalem,1957), p. 68. See also R. Joel's twelfth-centuryHebrewtranslationof Kalila wa Dimna,ed. JosephDerenbourg(Paris,1881), pp. 12 and 176, where the idea also appears.Since this is merelya translation,it obviously does not reflectJewishteaching.However,it does show thateven at this earlydateJews were awareof the notion we are considering.(Incidentally,as far backas R. Hai GaonJews were acquainted with Kalila wa Dimna; see A. Harkavy, ed., Teshuvot ha-Geonim [Berlin, 1887],

no. 362, andHarkavy'snote on p. 371.) 12. This influencewas not merelyin therealmof ideas;see NaphtaliWieder,Hashpa'otIslamnyyotcal ha-Pulhan ha-Yehudi (Oxford, 1947); Boaz Cohen, Quntres ha-Teshuvot(Budapest,

1930), p. 15, n. 1. 13. See M. Havatzeletin Sinai 108 (1991): 189, n. 10, who points to Arabic-Islamic mythology.Cf. also Ma'orha-Afelah,p. 91, n. 2.

248

MARCB. SHAPIRO

NarratedThabitbin Ad-Dahhak:The Prophetsaid, ". .. Whoevercommits suicide with [a] piece of iron will be punishedwith the same piece of iron in the Hell Fire."NarratedJundab:The Prophetsaid, "A man was afflicted with wounds and he committedsuicide, and so Allah said: 'My slave has causeddeathon himselfhurriedly,so I forbidParadisefor him."NarratedAbu Huraira:The Prophetsaid, "He who commitssuicideby throttlingshall keep on throttlinghimselfin the Hell Fire[forever],andhe who commitssuicideby stabbinghimself shall keep on stabbinghimselfin the Hell Fire."'4 In another ninth-century hadith it is stated that suicide is the "gravest sin" and that one who commits it is doomed to remain in Hell forever.'5 This hadith also condemns to Hell one who is severely injured and commits suicide, even if he had displayed great valor in fighting for Islam.'6There are many more sayings in the hadith literatureto the effect that one who commits suicide loses Paradise, and a number of hadiths also record that Muhammad refused to say prayers over the body of a suicide." Whether Netanel derived the idea from these sources one can only speculate; however, it is fairly clear that his view did not have any influence on subsequent Jewish teaching. Two centuries later, in what appears to be the next written occurrence of the idea we are looking at, R. Shneur b. Judah Falkon asserted that according to the talmudic sages a suicide has no portion in Heaven."8He does not quote a talmudic statement in this regard but reasons that since the sages say that one must not treat suicides the same as other dead persons, it must mean that they viewed suicides as having no heavenly portion. This latter point will be seen to be of great importance. Also importantis the fact that Falkon contrasts the "talmudic" attitude to that of the Zohar, which, according to him, does not accept this view. The idea we are discussing next appears in Midrash Talpiyyot,authored 14. MuhammadMuhsin Khan, The Translationof the Meaningsof Sahih Al-Bukhari (Ankara,1981), pp. 251-252. 15. Muslimibn al Hajjajal-Qushayri,as-Sahih(Bulaq,1873),Kitabal-Intan,no. 199. 16. Ibid.,no. 206. Tradition 17. See the sourceslisted in A. J. Wensinck,A Handbookof EarlyMuhammadan (Leiden, 1971), p. 222. See also Franz Rosenthal,"On Suicide in Islam,"Journal of the AmericanOrientalSociety 65 (1945): 239-259. Rosenthalpoints out that certainorthodox Muslims, who denied the possibilityof eternalpunishment,regardedsuch utterancesin the hadithliteratureas Mutazilitefalsifications. 18. Pesah le-Hashem(Constantinople,1560),introduction. Regardingthis booksee Abrais reprinted. ham Yaariin QiryatSefer9 (1932): 388-393, wherethe introduction

SUICIDEANDTHEWORLD-TO-COME

249

by R. Elijahben Solomon Abrahamha-Kohen(ca. 1650-1729), whereit is attributedto the talmudicsages.19However,in thisworkit is also statedthata suicideloses his own individualportionin Paradisebut is still grantedsome share of the world-to-comewhich he shares with other sinnerswho have also lost their heavenly portions.20Contemporarywith R. Elijah,R. Jacob Culi (1689-1732), in his Me'amLo'ez to Genesis 9:5, also recordsthat a suicideloses his heavenlyportion,but this timethe statementis unequivocal; a suicide has absolutelyno portionin the world-to-come.Soon afterward, whenthis notionnext appears,this time in RabbiJacobJoshuaFalk'sTalmud commentary,Culi's view is reaffirmed.21 Falk makes his commentupon the following talmudicpassage:"Better hada manthrowhimselfinto a fieryfurnacethanpubliclyputhis neighborto shame"(BavaMetzi'a59a). Since thosewho commitsuicidehaveno portion in the world-to-come,andthe restrictionagainstsuicideis suspendedto avoid shamingsomeone, it must follow thatthe latteroffense is even moresevere thancommittingsuicide. This in turnprovesthat one who publiclyshames his neighboralso loses his portionin the world-to-come.22 The notionwe areexaminingwas likewiseknownin the Sephardicworld, as is apparentfrom the strongattemptsby the Salonikansage RabbiRaphael JacobManasseh(1762-1832) to deny its validity.23 Indeed,it appearsthatby 19. (Izmir,1736), s.v. heleq le-colanm ha-ba.See also his ShevetMussar(Jerusalem,1989), p. 295, wherethis idea also appearsandis attributedto theAzharotha-Qodesh(whichI have not been able to trackdown).Both R. SamuelJaffeAshkenazi(16thcent.),YefeTo'ar(Venice, 1597), to Bereshit Rabbah65:22, and R. Jacob Reischer(ca. 1670-1733), ShevutYa'akov (Lemberg,1861), vol. 2, no. 111, could be read as implyingthata suicidehas no heavenly portion,but this is not altogethercertain. 20. This view, which in fact denies eternalpunishmentfor any sinners,includingthose describedin theMishnahas havinglosttheirportionin theworld-to-come, is basedon kabbalistic sources.See the discussionin AlexanderAltmann,"Eternalityof Punishment:A Theological Controversywithin the AmsterdamRabbinatein the Thirtiesof the SeventeenthCentury," Proceedingsof the AmericanAcademyfor Jewish Research40 (1972): 1-88. (Incidentally, Altmannwas unawarethatsome of the texts he publishedhad earlierappearedin Ha-Ma'or [Tishrei-Kislev5696]: 9-18.) 21. Penei Yehoshu'a(Jerusalem,1970), to BavaMetzi'a59a. 22. See also R. Solomon Kluger,Ha-'ElefLekhaShlonto(Bilgoray,1931), YorehDecah, no. 321. 23. Be'er ha-Mayimn (Salonika,1836), YorehDecah,no. 54, p. 33a: "Andthatwhich they said, that we do not performany funeralrites or mournfor him, this is not becausehe has removedhimselffromtheJewishpeople,andnotbecausehe hasno sharein theworld-to-come, etc., Godforbidto say this,forhe is partof theJewishpeople,as theMishnahexplicitlyteaches,

250

MARCB. SHAPIRO

the endof the eighteenthcenturythe maxim"onewho commitssuicidehasno portionin the world-to-come"had becomewidespread.Thereare numerous responsafrombeforethis time whichdiscussthe statusof suicides,andas far as I can tell, none of themmentionsthe notionthatsuicideshave no portion in the world-to-come.Indeed,in theseresponsait is oftenassumed,andeven statedexplicitly,thatsuicidesmay receive a portionin the next world.Still, literaturearenot althoughreferencesto this notionin pre-eighteenth-century was This is the only way is that it far from unknown. it obvious widespread, to explainhow suchlearnedfiguresas FalkandEmdencouldunquestioningly acceptits validity. Interestingly,a numberof rabbis mistakenlyclaim to have seen the maxim in earliersources. Emden quotes the saying and says it appearsin RabbiJosephSaul Nathansoncites tractateSemahot,yet this is incorrect.24 of RabbiBezalelAshkenazi ourmaximas appearingin theShitahMekubetzet Rabbi (1520-ca. 1591),25 yet this too is incorrect.RabbiEleazarLandau.26 and RabbiAbrahamRosen28claimto have seen the maxim IsraelLifschitz,27 in the commentaryof Rabbi Joseph Trani(1568-1639) to Ketubot103b. However,unless they had a differentversion of his commentarythey are all in error,as Tranisays nothingof the kind in the passagethey referto.29

'All Israelhave a sharein the world-to-come."'RegardingManasseh,an outstandingrabbinic figurewhoselife andworkremainvirtuallyunknown,see SolomonRosanes,QorotHa-Yehudim (Jerusalem,1945), pp. 87-91. See also R. IsraelMoses u-ve-Artzotha-Qedemn be-Turqiyyah Hazzan,Kerakhshel Romni (Livorno,1876),no. 14, who presentsa veryliberalview of suicide treatmentof andits halakhicconsequences.His responsumis actuallythe mostcomprehensive the subjectin the entireresponsaliterature,but is not mentionedin Goldstein'sbook. 24. LehemShamayinz(n.p., n.d.), vol. 2, p. 38a. Perhapsone cannottotallydismiss the with this passage;I say this becauseit is possibilitythatEmdensaw a manuscriptof Senmahot knownthatourtextof Semahotis verydifferent,andprobablyeven smaller,thanthetextwhich was knownto medievalauthorities.See, e.g., HIiddushei Hagahotin the standardeditionsof the Tur,YorehDe'ah 335, n. 2, who pointsout thatmanyof the passagesfromSemahotcited in referencesby early authoritiesdo not appearin our texts. Still, since no one else mentions havingseen oursayingin Semahot,it seemsextremelydoubtfulthatsucha versioneverexisted. 25. DivreiSha'ul:Hiddushei'Aggadot (Lemberg,1877),to Ketubot103b. 26. Yadha-Melekh,Hilkhot'Avel1:11. 27. Tiferet Yisra'elto Sanhedrin10:2. 28. 'EtanAryeh(Jerusalem,1976), no. 20. 29. Thereis no printingof Trani'snovellaethatcontainsthepassagein question.

SUICIDEANDTHEWORLD-TO-COME

251

mistakenlyquotesthe sayingas Finally,R. SimhaBunimof Przysucha30 Tanna in de-Vei appearing "Eliyahu.31 Sincetheendof theeighteenth maximthat"asuicide centurytherabbinic hascometo be knownto all rabbinic hasno portionin the world-to-come" decisors.Mostof themrecognizethatit has no rabbinicsource,andthree havedeveloped:(1) sometotallyrejectits validity;(2) somefeel approaches it is implicitin certainrabbinicpassages;(3) somebelievethateventhough it is not foundin rabbinicliterature,simplelogic dictatesthata suicide has no portionin the world-to-come.32 No patternscan be detectedin the variousrabbinicviews, andbecausethe discussionsare virtuallyall of a theoretical nature,it is impossibleto explainthroughanysortof historical contextualization is adoptedoveranother. Still,it appears whyoneapproach clearthatthedecisorsin thelattertwocategories haveas a leadingmotivation thedesireto showthatwhathasbecomea well-accepted beliefis, in actuality, basedon soundJewishteaching.Withoutadoptingthisviewtheywouldbe forcedto a mostunpleasant learnedrabbis conclusion, namely,thatnumerous wereflatlymistakenin theirconception of thefateof suicides. RabbiEliezerFleckeles,althoughrecognizing thatourquotation hasno froma passagein Gittin57b: explicitsource,believesit to be apparent Ononeoccasionfourhundred off forimmoral boysandgirlswerecarried divined what forandaskedthemselves. "If purposes. They theywerewanted we drownin thesea,shallwe attain thelifeof thefuture world?" Theeldest amongthemexpoundedthe verse"TheLordsaid,I will bringagainfrom Bashan,I willbringagainfromthedepthsof thesea"(Ps.68:23)."Iwillbring

between thelion'steeth."Iwillbringagainfrom againfromBashan"-from thedepths of thesea"-thosewhodrown inthesea.Whenthegirlsheard this, theyall leapedintothesea.Theboysthendrewthemoralforthemselves, 30. See Ramnatayim Tzofimto Tannade-Vei'Eliyahu(Warsaw,1881), pp. 163-164. The title page says thatthis book was writtenby R. Samuelof Sieniawa.However,in Ha-Peles3 (1903): 47, R. JosephLevensteinadmitsthathe wrotethe book but due to a "hiddenreason" did not publicizehis authorship.I thankR. ShmuelAshkenazifor callingthis to my attention. 31. R. SimhaBunim's"passage"is basedon Tannade-Vei'Eliyahu,chap. 14, whichreads: "Whoeverspurnsthe good life in the world,it is a badomenfor him." 32. It should also be noted that some rabbiswho do not quote the maximhave clearly been influencedby the idea it expresses.An exampleis R. JudahMecklenburg, who writesthat one who commitssuicide suffersa punishmentworsethankaretin thathis soul is completely destroyedfor eternity;see his Ha-Qetavve-ha-Qabbalah(Jerusalem,1969), to Genesis 9:5. Needless to say, thereis no supportfor this view in classicalrabbinicsources.

252

MARCB. SHAPIRO

actso, shallnotwe, forwhomit is saying,"Iftheseforwhomthisis natural unnatural?" also into the sea. Of themthetextsays,"Yea,forthy They leaped sakewe arekilledall thedaylong;we arecountedas sheepfortheslaughter" (Ps. 44:23).33

Accordingto Fleckeles, the fact thatthe childrenwere concernedabout whetherthey would go to Heaven shows that normallythose who commit suicidedo lose theirheavenlyportion.Although,as we havenoted,Fleckeles does not believe this to be an explicit sourcefor ourquotation,34 otherrabbis were not so hesitantand pointedto the storyin Gittinas clearlyestablishing thatsuicideshave no sharein the world-to-come.35 Fleckeles goes on to state that even if thereis trulyno rabbinicsource for the maxim,it still is soundJewishteaching.This is so becausea man is able to repentbefore deathfor any sin he has committed,except,obviously, in the case of suicide.36Still, with this answerFleckelesis only beggingthe question,namely,how does one know thatif a suicidedies withoutrepenting he loses his heavenlyportion?This is surelynot the case withregardto other sins. Also, Fleckeles' point abouta suicidenot being able to repentassumes immediatedeath.Thereare,however,a numberof discussionsin theresponsa literatureaboutpeople who committedsuicidebut managedto repentbefore actuallydying.37 33. Teshuvahnme-'Ahavah (Prague,1820), vol. 3, no. 409. See also Yadha-Melekh,Hilkhot 'Avel 1:11, which also sees this passage as a "hint"that one who commitssuicide loses his sharein the world-to-come. V -I! rnw 34. Cf. also R. OvadiaYosef, Yabi'a"'Oner(Jerusalem, "'S• "~rT •,'I i• •wl. 1986), vol. 6, p. 261. 35. See e.g. Sirkin, loc. cit.; R. Yehiel Michal Epstein,'Arukhha-Shulhan(New York, 1961), YorehDe'ah 116:1 and 345:1; R. BarukhEpstein,TosefetBerakhah(Pinsk, 1937) to Genesis9:5; R. Hillel Posek,Hillel Omner (TelAviv, 1956), YorehDe'ah, no. 210; R. Jekuthiel JudahGreenwald,Kol Bo 'al 'Avelut(New York, 1956), p. 318; R. JudahLeib Graubart, (Jerusalem,1975), vol. 3, no. 108;R. MosheBlau,MishnatMoshe(Bnei Havalinm ba-Ne'iminm Brak,1989),p. 240; David Tamarin Areshet6 (1981):258-259. See, however,the rejectionof this view by Manasseh,Be'er ha-Mayinm, p. 33a. 36. See also Tiferet Yisraelto Sanhedrin10:2. Moshe 37. See e.g. Hazzan,Kerakhshel Romi, pp. 52b ff.; R. Moses Klein, Va-Yakhel (Grosswardein,1934), p. 32, n. 1; R. Ishmaelha-Kohen,Zera 'Emnet (Reggio, [1815]), vol. 3, no. 157; R. RaphaelAsher Covo, Sha'ar'Asher(Salonika,1877), YorehDe'ah, no. 16; R. Hiyya Pontremoli,Tzapihitbi-Devash(Salonika,1848), no. 67; R. HayyimPalache,Hayyinz be-Yad(Izmir,1873), no. 110; R. HayyimHezekiahMedini,SedeiHemned (New York,1962), vol. 4, mna'arekhet 'avelut,no. 118.(Manymoresourcescouldeasilybe addedto thislist.)As R.

SUICIDEANDTHEWORLD-TO-COME

253

When the renownedRabbi Joseph Saul Nathansonsaw the previously mentionedcommentsof Falk,who impliedthatourquotationwas of talmudic RabbiBenjamin origin,he respondedunequivocallythatthis was incorrect.38 in wrote to Nathanson to Falk's Weiss turn Although Aryeh uphold opinion.39 he could not point to a talmudicsource,he called attentionto Maimonides' commentin Hilkhot Teshuvah3:6, "And the following are they that have no share in the world-to-come. . . sheddersof blood."Weiss assertsthat Maimonides'comment is difficultto explain for there is no source which statesthat murdererslose their sharein the world-to-come.Indeed,he calls attentionto a talmudictext we havealreadyseenwhichimpliesthatmurderers do have a share. The Mishnahstates:"Threekings and four commonershave no portion in the world-to-come.The threekings areJerobam,Ahab,andManasseh."40 Commentingupon this passagethe Talmudasks:"Howdo we know thathe The Talmudthenderivesthis [Manasseh]will not enterthe futureworld?"41 from a verse in which Manassehis comparedto Ahab,who the Talmudhad alreadyestablishedhas no heavenlyportion.If murderershave no portionin the world-to-come,Weiss says, therewould be no reasonfor the Talmudto ask how it is knownthatManassehlost his portion.The Bible is explicitthat Manassehwas a murderer:"Moreover,Manassehshed innocentblood very much,till he had filled Jerusalemfromone end to another"(2 Kings21:16). Obviouslythe Talmuddid not feel thatthis sheddingof innocentblood was enoughto automaticallydeny him his portionin the world-to-come. Therefore,Weiss concludes, Maimonidesmust be referringto suicide when he writes "sheddersof blood"in this passage.Recognizingthatthis is extremelyunlikely,Weiss suggeststhatthereis a printer'serrorin ourtext of RahamimJosephFrancopointsout, Sha'areiRahamim(Jerusalem,1902),vol. 2, YorehDe'ah, no. 32, one shouldassumethateven those authoritieswho arestrictandrefuseto allow normal mourningand funeralrites in this case, neverthelessagreethatas far as God is concernedthe repentanceis valid(this is actuallystatedexplicitlyby Pontremoli,Tzapihitbi-Devash,p. 167b, one of those who does rule fairly stringently).R. Moses Rivkin,TiferetTziyyon(New York, 1975), p. 262, overlooksall of this whenhe declaresthata suicide'srepentanceis of no value in securinghim a sharein the world-to-come. 38. Divrei Sha'ul (Jerusalem, 1973) to YorehDe'ah, p. 269. 39. Even Yeqarah (Lemberg, 1894), vol. 1, Yoreh De'ah, no. 56. See also Posek, Hillel Omer, loc. cit. 40. Sanhedrin 10:2.

41. Ibid., 102b.

254

MARCB. SHAPIRO

the MishnehTorahand "sheddersof blood"(a'?mr'xDv) shouldactuallybe in otherwords,"suicides."Weiss "sheddersof theirown blood"(Dr br); '~ seems to overlook the fact that in HilkotDe'ot 7:3, Maimonidesalso says thatmurderershave no sharein the world-to-come. MuchmoreingeniousthanWeissis thesimilarexplanationof RabbiYehiel Michl Leiter,who also calls attentionto Maimonides,HilkhotTeshuvah3:6, in orderto supporthis position.42As we noted,in this passageMaimonides says thatmurderershave no portionin the world-to-come.Leiteralso points to HilkhotRotzeah2:2, wheresuicideappearsto be put in the samecategory as bloodshed,43 thusestablishing,to his satisfaction,thatjust as a murderer has no portionin the world-to-come,so too one who commitssuicide.44 However, Manassehdoes not supportthis hairsplitting.Accordingto the latter,since Maimonidesdoes not explicitly mention suicide as one of the crimes for which one loses his heavenly portion,one must concludethat suicides do have a sharein the world-to-come.45 42. DarkeiShalom(Vienna,1932), vol. 1, no. 41. See also R. MosheYonahZweig, 'Ohel Moshe (Jerusalem,1949), sectionHar' Evel, p. 17; and R. EliezerWaldenberg,TzitzEliezer (Jerusalem,1985), vol. 5, section'Even Ya'aqov,p. 2. 44. Others simply assert, without pointing to any particulartext, that suicide is the equivalentof murder.This in turnleadsto extremelynegativejudgments.See, e.g., R. Abraham Adam (Jerusalem,1966), 156:1; R. Solomon Ganzfried,KitzurShulhan Danzig, H.-okhmat Arukh(Jerusalem, Moshe,p. 32a. All these writersagree 1972), 101:1;and Klein, Va-Yakhel of suicide that"thereis no greatersinnerthanone who commitssuicide."The characterization as murderis actuallyquite early,and is found in PesiktaRabbati,ed. M. Friedman(Vienna, 1860), chap. 24, as well as Kirkisani.See Leon Nemoy, "A TenthCenturyDisquisitionon SuicideAccordingto Old TestamentLaw,"Journalof BiblicalLiterature57 (1938):411-420. See also Solomon ben AbrahamParhon,Mahberetha-Arukh(Pressburg,1844), s.v. haser; SaulLieberman,Hilkhotha-Yerushalmi (New York,1948),p. 21, noten; R. MenahemKasher, TorahShelemah(New York,1955), vol. 16, p. 101, n. 330. 45. Be'er ha-Mayim,p. 33a. It wouldrequireanotherarticleto discussthe manyingenious answersoffered in the attemptto find a source for Maimonides'claim that murderershave no sharein the world-to-come.Sufficeit to say, however,thatthis is not a difficultproblem. 3:5statesthathe doesnotknowwhereMaimonides AlthoughKesefMishnahto HilkhotTeshuvah derivedthis notion,he overlookedthe fact thatMaimonideshimselfprovidesthe source.In his Commentaryto Avot 1:16, Maimonidesquotesthe Toseftaas saying:"Forthreethingsmanis Oneof the threethingslistedis punishedin this worldandhas no sharein the world-to-come." murder.Manycommentatorshave pointedout thatthereis no such Tosefta,althoughTosefta Pe'ah 1:2 is very similar.In fact, thereis no doubtthatMaimonideswas referringto Pe'ah 1:2, and his versionis actuallyrecordedin a few differentmedievalsources;see Saul Lieberman, ToseftaKifshutah(New York, 1955), vol. 1, p. 126. Still, one must questionLieberman's

SUICIDE AND THE WORLD-TO-COME

255

Nevertheless, Rabbi Meir Dan Plotzki argues that Maimonides does, in fact, assert that suicides have no portion in the world-to-come. He points to the same passage as Leiter, Hilkhot Rotzeah 2:2, which reads as follows: If, however,one hires an assassinto kill another,or sends his slaves to kill him, or ties anotherup and leaves him in frontof a lion or anotheranimaland the animalkills him, and,similarly,if one commitssuicide,the rulein each of these cases is thathe is a shedderof blood,has committedthe crimeof murder, andis liable for deathat the handof Heaven;butthereis no capitalpunishment at the handsof the court. Plotzki asks the obvious question, namely, how can a suicide be liable for death at the hands of Heaven? Maimonides must be referring to a spiritual death which will be suffered by the suicide. In other words, the suicide will lose his share in the world-to-come. According to Plotski, this passage of Maimonides is the ultimate source for our maxim.46 There is another passage in "AvodahZarah 18a which is relevant. Ourrabbistaught:WhenR. Jose b. Kismawas ill, R. Haninab. Teradionwent to visit him.He saidto him:"BrotherHanina,knowestthounotthatit is Heaven thathas ordainedthis [Roman]nationto reign?Forthoughshe laid wasteHis House, burntHis Temple,slew His pious ones, and causedHis best ones to perish, still is she firmly established!Yet I have heardaboutthee that thou sittest and occupiestthyself with the Torah,dost publiclygatherassemblies, and keepest a scroll [of the law] in thy bosom [contraryto Romandecree]!" He replied,"Heavenwill show mercy.""I,"he remonstrated, "amtellingthee plain facts, and thou sayest, 'Heavenwill show mercy!'It will surpriseme if they do not burnboth thee and the scroll of the law with fire.""Rabbi,"said the other,"Howdo I standwith regardto the world-to-come?" thatthesesourcessimplycopiedtheToseftaas it appeared in Maimonides without suggestion necessarilyhaving such a readingin their own Toseftatexts. I say this since Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, negativecommandmentno. 9, quotesthe variantToseftareadingas also appearingin the JerusalemTalmud;a point which is not notedby Maimonides.(It is worthnotingthatR. JonahGerondi,Sha'areiTeshuvah[Jerusalem,1967] 3:141, is explicitthatmurderers do have a sharein the world-to-come.) 46. Qeli Hemndah (Piotrkow,1927), vol. 1, p. 8b. Maimonides'closing wordspresenta for how couldthereeverbe capitalpunishmentat the difficultyaccordingto this interpretation, handsof the courtin the case of a suicide?Plotzkiis cognizantof this problemand cleverly attemptsto solve it.

256

MARCB. SHAPIRO

A numberof rabbisask the purposeof R. Jose b. Kisma'squestion"How do I standwith regardto the world-to-come?"It mustbe, they answer,that he was concernedwith the following: If he persistedin teachingTorah,an activityhe could have refrainedfrom,andas a resultthe Romanskilledhim, this mightbe consideredsuicide,in whichcase he wouldnot have a sharein the world-to-come.Among the illustriousrabbiswho pointto this sourceare andJudahAszod.48 SolomonKluger47 Klugeralso advancesanothersourcewhich,accordingto him, showsthat a suicidehas no portionin Paradise.The Talmudstatesthat"whoevercrosses a riverbehinda womanwill have no portionin the world-to-come."49 Kluger asks what is so terribleaboutthis thatit would cause one to lose his share in the world-to-come.Indeed,even actualintercoursewith a marriedwoman does not have this punishment.He answersas follows: One who crosses a riverknows thathe is puttinghimself in dangerbut truststhat,if necessary, God will performa miracleand protecthim. If, however,a manis walking aftera womanand his thoughtsare on sin, God will no longerperformthis miracle. Therefore,if someone walks in a dangerousplace and does not protecthimself,it is as if he is committingsuicide,andthe Talmudstatesthat a manin this situationhas no portionin the world-to-come.50 That thereare numerousdifficultieswith this view is obvious.To begin with, according to Kluger there is no element of a sexual crime in the one who only talmudicpassage. Also, accordingto Kluger'sunderstanding, in in river without himself a a such as dangeroussituation, walking puts in the if he is never about loses his share even world-to-come God, thinking actuallykilled. This means thateveryonewho simplyattemptssuicideloses his portion;surelya radicalpresumption. EarlierI mentionedLandau'sview thatthe Talmuddid not give a reason for Ahithophel'sexclusion from Paradisebecauseit did not acceptthe idea thatone who commitssuicidehas no portionin the world-to-come.However, 47. AvodatAvodah(Brooklyn,1962),p. 38a, andHa-'ElefLekhaShlomo,loc. cit. 48. YehudahYa'aleh(Lemberg,1873), YorehDe'ah, no. 355. In this responsumAszod assertsthatthereis no sourcefor our maxim.However,in a note appendedto the responsum, Aszod's son claims thatwhen questioned,his fatherpointedto the text in AvodahZarah.Cf. R. Isaac Herzog,Pesaqimn (Jerusalem,1990), vol. 5, no. 120, who also pointsto u-Khetavimn AvodahZarah18a but for a differentreason. 49. Berakhot61a. Rashi explainsthat the Talmudis dealingwith a marriedwomanwho will lift up her dressin orderto cross the river. 50. Ha-'ElefLekhaShlonzo,loc. cit.

SUICIDEAND THEWORLD-TO-COME

257

there are rabbiswho take exception to Landau'sreasoning.They point out that Ahithophelhas no portion in the world-to-comebecause he rebelled againstDavid, but had he not done so, the Talmudsurelywouldhave listed suicide as the reasonfor his being denieda heavenlyportion.1The problem with this explanationis thatthe TalmudnowherestatesthatAhithophelwas denieda portionin the world-to-comebecauseof his rebellion.In addition,as RabbiRahamimJosephFrancopointsout, thereis no reasonto assumethat Ahithophelmust suffer such a harshpenaltyfor his rebellion,and therefore his punishmentmust be explainedas due to his suicide,despitethe fact that the Talmuddoes not mentionthis.52 Klugeralso opposesLandau'sreasonbutfromanotherangle.53According to him, the Talmuddoes not explainwhy Ahithophelwas denieda portionin the next world simplybecausetherewas no reasonto statethe obvious!54 He also pointsto the harshwordsof Josephusregardingsuicideas proofthatone 51. Kluger,TuvTa'amn ve-Da'at(New York,n.d.),ThirdSeries,vol. 2, no. 202; R. Shalom MordekhaiSchwadron,She'elotu-TeshuvotMaharshani(Jerusalem,1974),vol. 6, no. 123;R. JudahGrunfeld,Qol Yehudah(Jerusalem,1984), p. 36; R. GershonStern,Yalkutha-Gershuni (Brooklyn,1972), QuntresAharon,p. 2b; andYosef,Yabi'a'Omerp. 262. See also R. Abraham Rosen,'Etan"Aryeh,no. 20, who goes so faras to denythatAhithophelevencommittedsuicide! Becausethe halakhicrestrictionsregardingsuicideonly applyto those of soundmind,R. Zvi HirschChajeswas able to arguethat a suicide'shaving no sharein the world-to-comeonly appliesto one whose suicide is an act of rebellionagainstGod. However,one who is carried away by the whim of a momentis not condemnedto eternalperdition.It is this distinction whichenablesChajesto explainwhy Ahithophel'ssuicidedid not causethe loss of his portion in the world-to-come.See Kol KitveiMaharatzChajes(Jerusalem,1958),vol. 2, pp. 505-506. 52. Franco,Sha'areiRahamim,loc. cit. Nevertheless,at the end of his responsumFranco expressessome doubtas to whethera sucide is, in fact, eternallyexcludedfromHeaven.Cf. also R. AbrahamMeir Israel,Yalqutha-Me'iri(Brooklyn,1981),to Sanhedrin90a. 53. TuvTa'amve-Da'at(New York,n.d.),FirstSeries,no. 282. 54. Incidentally,it is with regardto Ahithophelandhis punishmentthatone can perhaps show that BesamimRosh (Berlin, 1793), no. 345, is a late forgery.(This responsumwas excised whenBesaminzRoshwas printedfor the secondtime in Cracowin 1881. It is said that the Hasidic leaderR. Ezekiel Halberstammwas responsiblefor this; see Z. Y. Abramowitz, Roshbe-Aspaqlaryah Hasidit,"Tagim3-4 [Elul,5732]:58.) The authenticityof this "Besantmimnt responsumhas long been regardedas questionable;however,the reasonfor this has to do with its radicalconclusionsratherthaninternalevidence.It is withregardto thelatterthatI detectthe forgery,for in this responsum"R.Asher"feels constrainedto stressthatAhithophelwas denied Paradise,not becausehe committedsuicide,butbecausehe rebelledagainstDavid.Now when it is rememberedthat none of the rishonimn mentionanythingaboutAhithophelbeing denied his portionin the world-to-comebecauseof his committingsuicide,it is certainlypossiblethat Rosh is respondingto eighteenth-century conceptionsof the fate of the suicide.The Besamnim reasonnone of the rishonintconnectAhithophel'spunishmentwith his suicideis simplythat

258

MARCB. SHAPIRO

who takes his own life has no sharein the next world.55However,whereas Josephusdoes speak very negativelyabout suicide, he does not explicitly statethata suicideneverreceivesa portionin Paradise.(Of course,even if he had said so, this need not meanthathis view was basedon Jewishsources.) RabbiBarukhEpsteinwas surprisedthatso manyrabbishad to struggle to find sources for the notion we are considering.The Talmudderives the prohibitionagainst suicide from the first partof Genesis 9:5, which reads as follows: "And surely your blood of your lives will I require."Upon this passage R. Eliezer remarks,"It means I will requireyour blood if shed by the hands of yourselves."56 Accordingto Epstein,it is obvious thatjust as one who kills is in turnkilled (Gen. 9:6), so too one who commitssuicide will be punished.The meaningof 9:5 ("Iwill requireyourblood")is thathe will be punishedin the next worldthroughthe loss of his heavenlyportion.57 However,RabbiEliezer Waldenbergrightlyquestionsthis logic, since there

they wereunawareof the notionwe havebeen considering;a notionwhichBesaminzRoshwas clearlyawareof. 55. Jewish War111:8.Even amongthe most traditionalrabbisJosephus(or moreprecisely Yossipon)has often been acceptedas a reliablesourceof Jewishhistoryand belief when he David (Warsaw,1859), p. 18a, does not contradictthe Talmud;see R. David Gans, Tzenmah and R. Jehiel Heilprin,Seder ha-Dorot(Warsaw,1878), p. 79a. JekuthielJudahGreenwald, Toledotha-Kohanimha-Gedolimn (New York, 1933), p. 5 (see also Kol Bo 'al 'Avelut,loc. cit.), has a passagewhich is totallyinexplicable.He claimsthatJosephusexplicitlystatesthat suicidesare denied a portionin the world-to-come.In supportof this he quotesthe passage in Josephuswe have referredto, copyingfromKalmanSchulman'sHebrewtranslation,Sefer Milhamotha-Yehudim ha-Roma'im(Vilna,1863),vol. 2, pp.6-7. However,in thisquotation imn he adds the following sentence, which appears to be his own creation: nT myVn Kt9nT' KNtn l'~1

1T1nrl i n f mi 1 I*. Yosippon,chap. 71, . 'ly'• *Di rn rnr0 n nD'Ml niD7i ,'ni ' n does say that a suicide has no portionin the world-to-come,but as YitzhakBaerhas already Plato, shown,Yossipon'sviews regardingsuicidearebasedon non-Jewishsources,in particular Cicero,and Macrobius;see his "SeferYosipponha-Ivri,"in Baeret al., eds., SeferDinaburg (Jerusalem,1949), pp. 195-197. (However,Baerwas unawareof FranzCumont'sconvincing proofs thatMacrobiusneveractuallysaw Plato'sPhaedo;see his "CommentPlotind6tourna Porphyredu suicide,"Revuedes 6tudesgrecques32 [1919]: 113-120.) 56. Bava Qamma91b. 57. TorahTemimah(New York,1928), to Genesis9:5; idem, TosefetBerakhahto Genesis 9:5. See also the similarexplanationsof R. SolomonZvi Schick, TorahShelenmah (Satmar, 1909), vol. 1, pp. 144a-144b, and R. Meir Murtziano,Beit Me'ir (Jerusalem,1988), pp. 65-66. Cf. A. Perls, "Der Selbstmordnach der Halacha,"Monatsschrift fAr Geschichteund des Judentums55 (1911):289. Wissenschaft

SUICIDEAND THEWORLD-TO-COME

259

is a great differencebetween saying that someone will be punishedin the next worldand saying thathe completelyloses his heavenlyportion.5" RabbiEliezer Hayyim Deutsch,while not pointingto a specific source, claims that the popularview of the suicide's fate appearsin a numberof He also gives whathe considersto be a logical places,includingmidrashim.59 rationalefor the harsh punishmentsuffered.The Mishnahstates: "Better one hour of spiritualbliss in the world-to-comethan the entirelife of this world."60 Therefore,it is very possiblethatpeoplewho arehavingdifficulties will regardsuicide as a meansof leavingthis worldfor a betterone. In order to preventsuch thinking,suicide is punishedwith an absolutedenialof any sharein the next world;this removesthe reasonfor takingone's own life.61 Rabbi Hillel Posek has a similar approach.He points to a passage in Sa'adiahGaon's"Emunotve-Decotwhichreadsas follows: The righteousservantof God,therefore, lovesthe life of this worldmerely becauseit servesas a stepladder by meansof whichhe reachesandascendsto thenextworld,notforits ownsake.Itslovehasbeenimplanted in mansolely in orderthathe not kill himselfwhentroublebefallshim,as Scripture says, "Andsurelyyourbloodof yourliveswillI require; atthehandof everybeast will I requireit."62

YetPosek is not very convincingwhenhe assertsthatthispassageshowsthat Sa'adiahbelived thata suicidehas no portionin the world-to-come.63 In fact, the passagesays nothingof the kind, RabbiYehielMichalTukatzinskyalso arguesfrom logic in favor of the maxim,which he realizesis not found in rabbinicliterature.He claims thatsince one who commitssuicideshows that he deniesboth God andthe world-to-come,it is obviousthathe has no share 58. Waldenberg,TzitzEliezer,loc. cit. 59. Lieberman,Hilkhot ha-Yerushalnmi, p. 21 n. 23, also says that the notion we are consideringis reflectedin variousmidrashim.He does not specifywhichones he has in mind, andnone of the numerousrabbinictexts whichdiscussourproblempointto a specificmidrash as a source. 60. Avot4:17. 61. Duda'eiha-Sadeh(Seini, 1929), no. 39. 62. TheBookof Beliefsand Opinions,translatedby SamuelRosenblatt(NewHaven,1948), p. 387. See also the passagefromBahyaIbnPaqudacitedby Nathanson,DivreiSha'ulto Yoreh De'ah, p. 269. 63. Hillel Onier loc. cit.

260

MARCB. SHAPIRO

in the next world.64A similarargumentwas actuallyadvancedyears earlier by Nathanson,who, as we have seen, was laterto contradictit and express skepticismas to the authenticityof our maximandthe idea it expresses.65 EarlierI quotedthe story in Ketubotof the man who jumpedoff a roof and a heavenly voice declaredthat he was granteda portionin the next world. I claimed that this was a talmudictext which did not recognizethe notion that one who commits suicide has no portionin the world-to-come. However,this position is not unanimous,and RabbisZvi HirschChajes66 believe that the story in Ketubotactually and JekuthielJudahGreenwald67 shows the opposite,namely,thatsuicideshave no portionin the next world. Accordingto them, the purposeof the heavenlyvoice which declaredthis man worthyof his portionin the world-to-comewas preciselyto show that he was differentthanthe normalsuicide. RabbiReuvenMargaliotcalls attentionto a passagein the Zoharwhich readsas follows: "It is held by some thathe [Samson]will have no portion in the world-to-come,for the reason that he said: 'Let me die with the Philistines'(Judg. 16:30), and thus placed his portionamong those of the However,this sourcedoes not statethatit was his suicideperse Philistines."68 whichwas responsiblefor his punishmentbutratherhis aligninghimselfwith the Philistines.69 Margaliotcites anothersourcewhichis also not conclusive. MidrashTehillim(ed. Buber)120:4readsas follows: The evil tongue is called "triple-slaying."Why? Because it slays three: the one

whoownsit, theonewholistensto it, andtheoneof whomit speaks.Andso 64. Gesher (Jerusalem,1960), vol. 1, p. 270. See also Rosen,'Etan'Aryeh,no. ha-H.ayyimn 113. 65. DivreiSha'ul:HiddusheiAggadot,loc. cit. 66. Kol KitveiMaharatzChajes,p. 942. 67. Kol Bo cal 'Avelut,loc. cit. See also Yadha-Melekh,HilkhotAvel 1:11;R. Ephraim ZalmanMargulies,Beit 'Efraint(Warsaw,1883), YorehDe'ah, no. 76; and Herzog,Pesaqimn loc. cit. u-Khetavim, 68. NitzutzeiZoharin ReuvenMargaliot,ed., Zohar(Jerusalem,1964), vol. 3, p. 127a,n. 9; idem, Margaliyotha-Yamn (Jerusalem,1977) to Sanhedrin90a, n. 21. See also R. Abraham (Jerusalem,1957), pp. 464-465; Epstein,TosefetBerakhahto Sperling,Ta'ameiha-Minhagimn Genesis9:5. 69. See R. MosesCordovero'scommentson thispassagein his Or Yaqar(Jerusalem,1985), vol. 13, p. 252. He statesexplicitlythatSamson'spunishmentwas not due to his committing suicide.

SUICIDEANDTHEWORLD-TO-COME

261

you find in the story of Doeg that it slew three. It slew Doeg himself, for he

hasno portionin theworld-to-come ...

Yet a clearreadingof this text shows thatit nowherestatesthatDoeg lost his portionin the world-to-comebecausehe committedsuicide.In fact suicide is nowherementionedhere (admittedlythe Hebrewis slightlyambiguous).70 The passagesimply statesthatbecauseof lashonhara Doeg lost his portion in Paradise.71 Althoughmost of the discussionof our maximin the rabbinicliterature is of an aggadic nature,there are certain exceptions.Thus, for example, RabbiIsraelRappaportwas askedto rule in a case wherea Sabbathviolator had been buried in the section of the cemeteryreservedfor suicides, but the family demandedthat he be moved. Rappoportdecidedin favor of the family, basing his decision on the "fact"that suicides, having no portion in the world-to-come,are much worse off than Sabbathviolators.It was thereforemost improperto burya Sabbathviolator,who does have a portion in Paradise,togetherwith suicides.72 Afterhaving seen the numeroussourcesthatspeakof suicideshavingno sharein the world-to-come,we can now betterunderstandtwo responsaof RabbiMoses Sofer.73In these responsaSofer recordswhathe refersto as a common belief (which may also have been a commonpractice),74 namely, thatone does not say Qaddishfor a suicide.He findsthisbelief very strange, says he knowsno good reasonfor it, andstatesexplicitlythatthereis nothing wrongwith saying Qaddish.Indeed,Soferpointsout thatsayingQaddishfor a suicidewill help achieverepentancefor him.ThisshowsthatSoferbelieves that suicides do have a portionin the world-to-come."7 He suggeststhatthe

71. See Arakhin15b, YerushalmiPe'ah 1:1, andToseftaPe'ah 1:2, wherelashonhara is regardedas the equivalentof idolatry,murder,andadultery. 72. She'elotu-Teshuvot Mahariha-Cohen(Lemberg,1875), YorehDe'ah,no. 47. Thisview is rejectedby R. JeremiahMenahemCohen, Ve-Herimha-Kohen(Jerusalem,1981), no. 63, who arguesthata brazenSabbathviolatoris, in fact, worse thana suicide.For otherhalakhic decisionswhich use our maxim, see R. EliezerDeutsch,Peri ha-Sadeh(Paks, 1913), vol. 3, no. 52, andR. AaronLewin,Avnei (Munich,1948), no. 38. 73. HataniSofer (Jerusalem,1970), H.efetz YorehDe'ah, no 326;'Evenha-'Ezer,vol. 1, no. 69. 74. See R. AaronAzriel, Kapei'Aharon(Jerusalem,1886),vol. 2, Hilkhot'Avelut,no. 16, who defendsthe practiceof not saying Qaddishfor a suicide. 75. Interestingly,Soferregardssuicideas beingtheequivalentof murder,thusshowingthat

262

MARCB. SHAPIRO

notionthat Qaddishis not recitedfor suicidesis probablybasedon the fact thatthose saying Qaddishfor someonewho had died a naturaldeathwould object to giving up their Qaddishin favor of those mourningfor someone who diedbeforehis propertime. (He is referringto thepracticewherebyonly one mournersays Qaddishat a time.)76 However,there is a much more logical explanationfor the widespread idea that one does not say Qaddishfor a suicide;one that is based upon the belief thata suicide has no portionin the world-to-come.The mourner's Qaddishwas popularlyunderstoodas being a meansof bringingrepentance to a dead man's soul.77 If the belief that a suicide has no portionin the world-to-comeis accepted,it is quite obvious that there is no longer any reasonto say Qaddishfor him.78 As to the sourcefor the notionthat"onewho commitssuicidehasno share in the world-to-come,"we have not been able to find an explicit talmudic teachingto this effect. Indeed,it is not even possible to pinpointwhen this he does not acceptMaimonides'judgmentaboutthe fate of the murderer. In fact he is explicit thata murdererachievesrepentancethroughhis death.However,as he pointsout, suicideis somewhatdifferent,for it is the crimeitself whichbringsdeath.See also his commentsin Torat Moshe(Brooklyn,1958), vol. 1, pp. 19b-20a, and the responsumof his grandson,R. Simhah BunimSofer,ShevetSofer(Jerusalem,1974), YorehDe'ah,no. 105. 76. Sofer appearsto be the firstto referto the notionof not sayingQaddishfor a suicide. The assertionof Azriel, Kapei 'Aharon,vol. 2, p. 66a, and Hazzan,Kerakhshel Romni, p. 52b, that this practiceis alreadyattestedto by R. JacobCastro(1528-1610), ErekhLehem 1718), YorehDe'ah 345, is mistaken,as Castrois only referringto the Qaddish (Constantinople, whichis said afterthe burial.Regardingthis latterpointsee Covo,Sha'arAsher,loc. cit (at the end of the responsum). 77. See Zvi Karl,Ha-Qaddish(Lvov, 1935), pp. 80 ff.; Davidde Sola Pool, TheKaddish (New York, 1964), pp. 101-106; Solomon B. Freehof,"CeremonialCreativityAmong the Ashkenazim,"in JosephGutmann,ed., Beautyin Holiness (New York,1970), p. 489. Joseph Gutmannclaims thatthis notionhas a Christianorigin.As he puts it, the mourner'sQaddish "has its roots in the RequiemMass or Mass for the dead celebratedin the Churchso that andhelpthemattaineternal throughprayerandsacrificethelivingcanaidthesoulsin purgatory glory."See his "ChristianInfluenceson JewishCustoms,"in Leon Klenickiand GabeHuck, eds., Spiritualityand Prayer:Jewishand ChristianUnderstandings (New York,1983),p. 134. I quote this only for its interestingtheory.In truth,however,Gutmann'sview is completely unfounded. 78. Azriel, loc. cit., explains the mattersimply: since we do not mournfor a suicide, Qaddish,whichis partof the mourningprocess,is omitted.Thisreasonis also verylogicaland of the notionthatone does not say Qaddishfor a may have playeda partin the popularization suicide.

SUICIDE AND THE WORLD-TO-COME

263

view became a part of the Jewish tradition,and it does not appearto be a medievalnotion.While Netanelben Isaiahis an exception,his view may be derivedfromIslamicsourcesand,as indicated,it hadno effecton subsequent Jewishteaching. Some mightventurethe suggestionthatthe ideawe havebeenconsidering is actuallythe result of Christianinfluence,for as is well known,according to orthodoxChristianteachingsuicideis a mortalsin. However,thereseems to be no evidence pointing in this direction,and it would appearto this of the various writerthatourquotationactuallyaroseout of an interpretation halakhotconnected with suicide. According to the law as formulatedin Semahot2:1, no mourningrites are to be followed after a suicide;that is, there is no shivcah,qericah,or eulogy. These restrictionsare recordedby andthe ShulhanArukh.80 It is not the standardcodes, such as Maimonides79 difficultto see how the masses, upon seeing these restrictionsboth in print and in practice, could have come to the conclusionthat suicides have no portionin the world-to-come.Indeed,not merelythe masses,for R. Shneur Falkonwas able to write: "Accordingto the sages of the Talmud,a suicide loses two worlds [i.e., this world and the next], as is explicit from their saying that we do not have any funeralrites for one who commitssuicide" (emphasisadded)."8Althoughthe explicitnessof this teachingis obviously debatable,Falkon'spoint is well takenand indicatesthe profoundinfluence of the punitive laws directedagainst the suicide. Perhapsthis influenceis even profoundenoughto be at the root of ourfamousmaxim. Harvard University Mass. Cambridge,

79. Hilkhot'Avel 1:11. 80. YorehDe'ah 345:1. 81. See also R. AbrahamZvi Klein,Be'erot'Avraham(Tyrnau,1928),no. 42: "AndI said that it is permissibleto bury him in the cemeteryand give him full funeralrites, for he is not considereda suicide, since the laws which appear in the ShulhanArukhwere only said with regardto one who died immediately,in whichcase he has no sharein the world-to-come becausehe died with his sin uponhim anddid not repent"(emphasisadded).Thereis a slight differencein emphasis between Falkon and Klein. Accordingto Falkon,the laws directed againstthe suicide are the proof that the rabbisregardedhim as losing his sharein Paradise. Accordingto Klein, the fact thata suicidehas no portionin the world-to-comeis actuallywhat causedthe rabbisto legislatepunitivemeasuresagainstthosewho killedthemselves.

Review: The Religious Dimension of Jewish Civil Law Author(s): Samuel Morell Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 265-271 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486574 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:16 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

REVIEWESSAY THE RELIGIOUSDIMENSIONOF JEWISHCIVILLAW by SAMUELMORELL AaronKirschenbaum.Equityin JewishLaw:HalakhicPerspectivesin Law. Vol. 1: Formalismand Flexibilityin JewishCivilLaw.Vol.2: BeyondEquity: HalakhicAspirationismin Jewish Civil Law. Libraryof Jewish Law and Ethics, vols. 15 and 18. Hoboken:Ktav PublishingHouse, 1991. xxx, 324 pp.; lxiii, 238 pp. The rise of Jewish nationalism,alongsidethe majorculturalaccomplishmentof the rebirthof vernacularHebrew,has spawnedan interestin certain circlesin the revivalof Jewishlaw withthe aimof incorporating it intoIsraeli in Jewish as understood this is not with identical law, context, legal practice. halakhah.Firstof all, it excludes those vast areasof the halakhahwhich are strictlyreligious in natureand have no partin a modernlegal system, such as mattersof ritualandreligiousobservance.Second,it does not assumethat halakhahcanbe used in its traditionalformin a modemlegal setting.It would have to be redefinedand reorganizedunderrubricscommonto otherlegal systems and familiarand accessible to today'sjurists.Third,the authority behindthe law would not be the Torahand its divinelawgiver,but the state. It is not the rabbiswho would define the practicalimplicationsof the law, andtheirrulesfor doing so wouldnot necessarilyapply.The entirehistoryof Jewishlaw would be relevantin adaptingit to, andincorporating its insights into, modem usage. Thus, thereis a strongcomparativeand historicalbent to the studyof Jewishlaw as a modemdiscipline.To accommodatethis new concepta new termhas been coined in Hebrew,mishpat ivri. The two volumesunderreview,presentedas companionvolumesbearing the commonprimarytitle Equityin JewishLaw,arean exampleof a studyin 265

266

SAMUELMORELL

mishpatcivri.So the authortells us explicitly,consciouslydistinguishingit fromhalakhah(vol. 1, p. xxii). But equity,the subjectof the study,deriving, as we shall see, from a source of moralitybeyond the law itself, borders precisely on those aspects of Judaismwhich are more strictlyreligiousin nature.The authorhas recoursetimeandagainto areasof thehalakhahwhich are generallyexcludedfrom the parametersof ivri. It is the nature mishpa.t of the materialwhich continuouslybringsus back to the religiousroots of Jewishlaw. Equityrefers to thatpartof the legal system which strivesto bring the applicationof the received law into consonancewith the requirementsof justice. Althoughthe authortells us thatthe term"equity"has no equivalent in RabbinicHebrew,he is quickto pointout thatthe conceptcertainlyexists. It is his purposeto explicatethe meansby whichit functionsandto traceits scope within the halakhicsystem:"Weundertakean examinationof Jewish law in orderto find thereinanaloguesto equitableactivityas foundin other legal systems"(vol. 1, p. xxix). In the firstchapterof volume 1, the author providesan introductionto the concept of equity in which he exploresthe reasonsfor the gap betweenlaw andjustice. Aristotle,he tells us, explained that a law is a general statement,whereasjustice must take cognizanceof the individualcase. Kirschenbaumbroadensthe source of the problemby pointingout that"thelaw maylead to hardship,injusticeor absurditybecause of its inordinateobsession with externalforms, because of its excessive emphasisuponrigorouslogic, or becauseof its totaldisregardof the results of its fulfillment"(p. 17). The programmaticstatementcited above derives from volume 1, and indeedthe title Formalismand Flexibilityis an apt descriptionfor whatthe authorpresentsin thatvolume.Onesectionof his analysisdealswithtalmudic examplesin whichjudicial discretionis countenanced.Amongthese are the case in which the acceptedrules of procedurewere changedby the judge ad hoc on the basis of his suspicionthat the normalrules would result in intimidation(e.g., the case of MaribarIsaq);the rightof thejudge to refuse to rule if he personallyfelt thatan injusticewas being perpetratedwith the the exploitationof technicalitiesand appearanceof legality (dinmerummeh); to constructions frustrate legal improperbut technicallylegal behavior(e.g., hafqa'atqiddushin);the incorporationof compromisewithinthe parameters of the law itself. Anothersection deals with the use of legislationto bring the law into line with the requirementsof equity.Thereare two foci here:

THE RELIGIOUSDIMENSION OF JEWISHCIVIL LAW

267

(a) legislation supportingthe notion that one should not insist on one's formalrights when the result is of no consequenceto oneself but of great consequenceto another(kofinCalmiddatsedom and zeh nehenehve-zehlo" haser); (b) legislation,putativelybased on the verse "Do what is rightand good in the sight of the Lord"(Deut. 6:18), which infringeson one's legal rightto dispose of personalpropertyas one wishes. A thirdsection (second in the orderpresented)examines the influenceof equity as a principleof specificallythe conceptthatthe ways of the Torahare "ways interpretation, of pleasantness'(cf. Prov. 3:17) as a principlein interpretingbiblical and rabbinicenactments.Herethe flexibilityis manifestin the optionof deciding a decisioninfluencedby considerationsof amongconflictinginterpretations, equity. As indicated by the title of the volume, Kirschenbaumis primarily interestedin stressing the areas of flexibility within the halakhicsystem. His treatmentof each subjectis thorough,beginningwith an analysisof the talmudicpositionregardingit and following its post-talmudicdevelopment. Sometimes,however,the authoris distractedby the maze of detail,as if his mainpurposewerean analysisof the subtletiesof the talmudicdiscussionand the resultantlaw per se. He thus allows the reader'sattentionto driftaway fromthe focus on equityandjudicialflexibility.Chapter5, "TheKofinRule andthe ZehNehenehPrinciple,"is particularlyproneto this tendency.Some chaptershave summaries,which are very usefulfor refocusingthe readeron the centralthesis, and the book would have profitedif that techniquehad been employedconsistently. More important,however, sometimes the authorhimself seems to be distractedfrom his overall purpose.Thus, perhapsbecauseof his preoccunever formulates pation with successive issues individually,Kirschenbaum a generalitywhich the attentivereaderwill himself realize, that in almost all of the majorcategoriesof equity discussedin volume 1, post-talmudic developmentscurtailedthe flexibilitywhich he has so painstakinglydocumented.Thus for din merummeh("Post-talmudic rabbinicalcourtsrefrained fromwielding this power and hesitatedto deviatefromthe formalrules"[p. 81]); for annulmentof betrothal("Insum, then,nullificationas a methodof coping with illegal or improperacts . . . is relativelyunusual"[p. 102]);for mipneidarkheishalomandmishum'eivah,whichhaveno independent power as halakhicconsiderationsbeyond the examples in the Talmuditself (pp. 153-158); for kofinCalmiddatsedom and zeh nehenehve-zehlo' haser ("In

268

SAMUELMORELL

effect, [the interpretationsof RabbenuTam and Maharamof Rothenburg] resultedin a severe curtailmentof the KofinandZeh nehenehrulesandtheir impact upon everyday Jewish life in the Middle Ages" [p. 211]); for the two talmudicrules based on "Do what is right and good in the sight of the authoritiesalso limitedthe Lord,"i.e., shumahadra le'olam ("Post-talmudic on the judgmentdebt" [p. of the collected debtor's property returnability 258]), and dina de-var mezra ("Additional restrictions ...

are to be found

throughoutthe post-talmudicliterature"[p. 265]). Equity,mediatingas it does betweenlaw andjustice,relieson a notionof justice which is independentof the law, and in light of which the law itself is to be appraised.Kirschenbaumdiscusses the conceptof "naturallaw" as a basis for equity in other legal systems. It is one of the centraltheses of these two volumes that in Jewish law the basis for equityderivesfrom the very natureof halakhahas religiousin nature,the law of a religionshapedby the prophetas well as the lawgiver,and ultimatelyholdingman personally responsiblefor his actionsbefore God. Thus,the directive"Do whatis right and good in the sight of the Lord"is partand parcelof the halakhicsystem itself, and not a standardimposed upon it from the outside.But, whereas equityis groundedin a sense of justice and fairnessin humanrelations,the notion of accountabilityto God carrieswith it a differentkind of standard, one which is defined by personal obligation without regardto mutuality and fairness.Kirschenbaumdescribesthe legal systemwhich expressesthis as opposed,say, to Anglo-Americanlaw, which stanceas "duties-oriented," is orientedtowardrights and remedies.Halakhah,with one eye constantly on the God looking over one's shoulder,calls for cedingto othersmorethan what equity would require.That is the subjectof the secondvolume in the set, appropriatelybearingBeyond Equityas the main part of its title. The refersto the religiouslymotivated neologismin the subtitle,"aspirationism," driveto aspireto standardshigherthanthose requiredby the law.' The organizingprincipleof BeyondEquityis thenotionthatcommendable actsbeyondthe requirementsof the formallaw aredistributedin a rangewith regardto theirenforceability.At one end of the spectrumareacts of unusual piety which are not expected of ordinarypeople;at the otherend are those which began as supererogatoryacts but evolved into normativeand fully enforceablelaw. The core of the volumeis dividedintothreechapters(chaps. coinedby Lon L. 1. The termis apparentlybased on the phrase"moralityof aspiration," Fuller,TheMoralityof Law (New Haven:YaleUniversityPress,1964),chap. 1.

THE RELIGIOUSDIMENSION OF JEWISHCIVIL LAW

269

2, 3, and 4) dealing respectively with saintly behavior(middathasidut), behavior"withinthe line of the law" (lifnimmi-shuratha-din),and acts for whichone is culpableonly "inthe laws of Heaven."Kirschenbaum examines each of these categories,paying close attentionto their specific definitions and subcategories,theirhistoricaldevelopment,and especiallythe extentof their implicationsfor enforceablelaw. Even withoutregardto the overall subjectof equity,each of these chapterscan standon its own as a detailed andenlighteningstudyof a very importantfeatureof the halakhicsystem. Kirschenbaum'sstudyis a significantcontributionto the growingfield of ivri. Its strengthlies firstof all in the identificationandgatheringof mishpa.t the disparatematerialsrelevantto the subjectof equity and supererogatory behavior.This in itself serves to debunkwidely held misconceptionsof the halakhahas beingrigidandlegalistic.Theworkis comparativein orientation, indicativeof the author'ssolid competencein otherlegal systemsandin legal theory."Jewishlaw" for the authoris chronologicallyinclusive,not ending with the Talmudor the rishonim,but includingeven contemporary decisions of the rabbiniccourtsin Israel.Certainchapters,as notedabove,areimportant analyses of specific issues in Jewish law in their own right. For all these reasonsthe work is highly recommended.Thereare, however,a numberof pointswhich deservecomment. The first point is more a matterof form than of substance.We have before us two volumes describedas "companionvolumes,"and they share a common primarytitle: Equity in Jewish Law. But thereis evidence that in theirgenesis these two volumes were totallyindependent;thatvolume I was writtenwell before volume 2, in fact not later than 1977; and that at the time volume 2 was composed, the simultaneousor earlierpublication of volume 1 was not anticipated.This is evident, for instance,from the generallack of referencefrom one volume to the other,and from the free andunacknowledgedborrowingof extendedpassages,sometimeswithminor modifications,from the earliervolumeto the later.The phenomenonis most glaringin the discussionof the conceptof lifnimmi-shuratha-din,literally, "withinthe line of the law,"the termwhichrefersto supererogatory behavior. The phraseis discussedfirstin volume 1, wherethe authorprovidesa rather interestingand originalinsightinto the conceptionimpliedby thatidiom (p. 38). However, no referenceto this insight is made in volume 2, where an entirechapteris dedicatedto the subject.The discussionthereis influenced by an interpretation suggestedby SaulBermanin an articlewhichappearedin

270

SAMUEL MORELL

two partsin 1975 and 1977,andwhichapparentlysupplantedKirschenbaum's own interpretation.No referenceto Bermanappearsin the text of volume 1, which means that it was not updated.(For a similarphenomenon,see the referenceto the 1982-83 articleby B. Lifshitzcited in vol. 2, p. xli, n. 69, which is missing in vol. 1.) Thereare attemptsto join the two volumes together,but they are superficialonly. The introductionto volume 2 is a synopsis of volume 1; the two specific referencesin volume2 to volume 1 are in the notes of the concludingchapter.This historyof compositioncan also explain the cumbersometitles of the volumes.The overalltitle, Equity in JewishLaw, seems to have been addedto whatwere alreadyindependent titles and subtitles. Also more of form thanof substanceare mattersof transliteration, bibliand is the least Transliteration indexing. significant, ographicalreferencing, but it needbe pointedout thatit is idiosyncratic(e.g., tar'omette).Oftenthere is an unjustifieddoubles (e.g., kessef hassadim,assita, lo hasser [=haser]). One finds in the same sentencehiddurand meguneh(vol. 2, p. 12); in the same paragraphReuven and Reuben(vol. 1, p. 228). Thereis a very useful bibliographyat the beginningof each volume (the same one), entitled,"A Bibliographyof Studies Relatedto Equityin Jewish Law,"but thereis no listing of works cited. This makes it difficultfor the uninitiatedto identify abbreviatedreferenceswhich occurin the notes afterthe firstcitation,or an unexplainedacronym(vol. 1, p. 139, n. 345), or an omittedreference(vol. 2, p. 49, re: Hohlfeld).The situationmakesit all the moreimportantfor the index to be complete. There are a numberof indices, but at least the one entitled"Persons"is far from complete.Thereis, for instance,no reference to Boaz Cohen,who is referredto on a numberof occasions,andwho was an importantinfluenceon the author.Perhapsthe noteswerenot indexed,butin light of the lack of a bibliographyof workscited, they shouldhavebeen. It is a difficulttask to reducetalmudicdiscussionsto theiressentialcore does an andpresentthemin translationto the uninitiated,andKirschenbaum admirable,indeedenviable,job of that.But the processof simplificationcan sometimeslead to questionableformulations.For instance,hesed is defined broadlyas encompassingall sortsof dutiesbeyondthe law in its strictsense; a "duty... of piety and saintliness"(vol. 2, p. 8). In his discussionof the prohibitionof interest,he shows that from the point of view of the rabbis, in contrastto that of the church,the takingof interestwas not a violation of justice (zedek), since it came within the parametersof the freedomof

OFJEWISHCIVILLAW DIMENSION THERELIGIOUS

271

contract.Instead, he argues, it falls within the parametersof hesed. But hesed is generally understoodas relatingto interpersonalmatters,not to duties towardGod, and the prohibitionof interest,as Kirschenbaum himself states, "is conceived as religious,"and in fact is includedamongthe ritual Turimcode (vol. 2, p. 38). Thus,Kirschenbaum's prohibitionsin the "Arbacah of the definition of hesed is not helpful.A similarbroadening broadening of a definitionby way of simplificationcan be seen in his use of the term divrei soferimto include the totalityof rabbinicactivity,excludingonly the plain sense of Scripture(vol. 1, p. 12). This is broaderthanthe alreadybroad Maimonideandefinitionof the term(contravol. 1, p. 26, whichimpliesthat the two definitionsareequal).Thoughthebroadersensemaybe usefulforhim as a labelfor whathe wishes to describe,it distortsthe subsequentdiscussion, which cites referencesto divrei soferimunderstoodin a more conventional way (cf. p. 14, on the relative merits of divrei soferimand divrei torah). Occasionallythe author'sdesire to make a point pushes him too far. For instance,I would disagreewith the applicabilityof the two-male-witnesses rule to some of the exampleshe bringson pp. 78-81 as exceptions.Rava's wife was not functioningin the capacityof a formalwitness;the bitterwaters and the case of the cagunahare specialinstances,andcannotbe generalized to othersituations;the one who is to be believedaboutthe new moon is not the witness to the sightingof the moon, but the messengersent by the court to informoutlyingcommunities. However,all these pointsareof minorsignificance.Seen as a whole,both volumes are a valuableand indispensablecontributionto the understanding of Jewish law and, beyond that,to the appreciationof the natureof Jewish religion. StateUniversityof New Yorkat Binghamton Binghamton, N.Y.

Review: Andalusian Types of Ambiguity Author(s): Tova Rosen Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 273-277 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486575 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:16 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

REVIEWESSAY ANDALUSIAN TYPES OF AMBIGUITY by TOVAROSEN Ross Brann.TheCompunctious Poet: CulturalAmbiguityandHebrewPoetry in MuslimSpain.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress, 1991.xiii, 228 pp. When dealing with AndalusianHebrewpoetryin the GoldenAge, the issue of the culturalidentity of the poets and their milieu is crucial and unavoidable.How did the poets themselvesapproachthe questionof their identity? What was their attitude toward their art? How did they view themselvesvis-h-vis the dominantArabicculture?How did they manageto maintaintheirJudaismandHebraismalongside(or despite?)theirarabicized social mannersand literarymannerisms?Is it possible to reconcile their orthodox(and at times even extremelymysticaland ascetic) attitudeswith theirhedonisticand affectionateattachmentto worldlyvanities?How deep were their religious convictions?Or else, how authenticwere theirsecular expressions?How are we to understandtheir sincere spiritualmessage in the face of theirpreoccupationwith aestheticismand superficialformalism? Answersto theseandto similarquestionsarevitalin theattemptto reconstruct the mentalityof the SpanishHebrewpoet. As Ross Brannmaintainsin the firstchapterof his new book,"apologetic andideologicaltendencieshave ... cloudedresearchintoAndalusianHebrew poetry ever since it achieved a place of honorin the 'civilized' canon of Jewish scholarship"(p. 16). The multifacetedportraitof nineteenth-century the SpanishHebrewpoet was indeedanachronistically exploitedby modem criticsandscholarsto illustrateissues inherentto modem,oftenextraliterary, polemics. The medieval poet was often seen as a prototypeof the ideal modem Jew. For some he served as an early exampleof the new secular Jew, concernedwith aesthetics,nature,love, and existentialquestions.For 273

274

TOVAROSEN

others he representeda well-balancedsynthesisbetweennational-religious Jewish preoccupationsand universalhumanconcerns.For assimilationists, the Golden Age served as a historicalprecedentfor the possibility of a full-fledgedJewish life in diaspora,while for Zionists the decline of the Golden Age testified to the instabilityand insecurityof Jewish life and culture in exile. Individualfigures were selectively chosen as precursors of modem phenomena(e.g., Shmuel ha-Nagid was depicted as the first Jewishsoldierin postbiblicaltimes,Judahha-Levi,the firstZionist,etc.). For Hebraists,the revival of Hebrewas a literarylanguagein Spain servedas an encouragingexample for the renaissanceof Hebrewliterature.Even the likelihoodof coexistencebetweenJewsandArabsin the MiddleEasttodayis oftensupported,in currentpoliticalcontroversies,by theidealizedAndalusian orientationswas, example.The reactionto thesehighlyideologically-charged in the last decades, the cultivationof purely literary(textual,aesthetical, structural,comparative,etc.) approachesto the medievalHebrewpoetry. Brann'slaudableenterprisecombinesaninsightfulliterarydiscussionwith wider culturaland intellectualoutlooks.Free from any externalideological commitments,he offers a fresh and originalangle to the understandingof the unique conciousnessand sensitivitiesof the AndalusianHebrewpoets. In Brann'sdiscussion,the idealized,harmoniousportraitof the Andalusian andconvictionsabidetogether poet in whomall variedinterests,attachments, in full and happy unison, is replacedby a more intricateand conflictual model. In his analyses of theirpoetry,poetics, ars poetica,and speculative writings,Branndirectlypoints to the disarrayingdilemmas,discrepancies, and contradictionsthese poets had to live with. Ratherthantryingto bridge mentalgaps,or "plastercracks,"he turnsthepointsof conflictintoconvenient accesses throughwhich he penetratesthe problemof culturalambiguity. Insightfullyhe chooses the currentmedievaltopos of the "compunctious poet"-"the poet who exults whenyoung,repentswhenold, butneverceases to compose"(p. 20)-as bothan emblemof anda clue to contemporary poetic problematics.After proving (in chapter1) that this topos had been deeply ingrainedin all medievalcultures,he goes on to establishits specificrelevance to the endeavorof the HebrewAndalusianpoets. Brannis interested,using his own words,in the uniquely Jewish significance of the misgivings Hebrew poets express about their verse .... Poetry was, on the one hand, accorded immense prestige, but its legitimacy was also challenged by [society] ... and in the case of Hebrew,

ANDALUSIAN TYPES OF AMBIGUITY

275

As a typology,then,thecompunctious by cultural"nationalists." poetcanbe understood asbothanexpression of society'sambivalent attitude towardpoetry and,for poetswho ascribeto thevaluesignifiedby thetypologybutdo not social, actuallyliveit, as a signof theirownconflictwithcontradictory literary, andreligiouscommitments. ... Inotherwords,thetypology... is ... evidence of thecultural confronted to overcome ambiguity bythepoetsastheystruggled theguiltit engendered. (p. 22) In the four chaptersthat follow, Brannvigorouslyapplieshis thesis to the works, poetic as well as speculative,of the majorAndalusianpoets. In chapter2 he surveys the first generationsof the Hebrewpoetic school, of foreignArabicprosodyand puttinga specialemphasison the incorporation thematicsinto the nativeHebrewbiblicallanguage.The opponentsof Arabic metersdiscreditedtheiruse in the nameof nationalisticarguments-however, theyexpressedtheirobjectionsin poemswrittenin theseverymeters.(Andso didJudahha-Levi,two centurieslater,in a prosodicalguidebookhe composed; while teachingthe use of metersvia his own poetic illustrations,he added denouncingremarksagainstthe corruptionof Hebrewby foreignmeters(pp. 101-106.) These practicesshouldbe seen, accordingto Brann,as "literary discoursedesignedto mediateculturalambiguity"(p. 24). "Asa consequence of suchmisgivings,poetsdevisedcreativestrategiesforportrayingthemselves as a 'conservativevanguard,'heirsto the literarytraditionsof biblicalIsrael" (p. 37). Poets whose surnamehappenedto be ha-Levi(Samuelha-Leviibn Nagrella,Judahha-Levi,Todrosha-LeviAbulafia)presentedthemselvesas followersof the musicalpracticeof the Levites.In Ha-Kuzari,Judahha-Levi even suggested that the chants of the Levites should serve as an ultimate model for Hebrewpoetry. In his war poems, where he extensivelyadoptedArabicviewpointsand thematics,ha-Nagid (ibn Nagrella)constantlyused biblical "typologiesof historicalrecurrence"(pp.47-54), wherebyhe identifiedhimselfwithancient Hebrewwarriors,in hope for God's salvation.Contrariwise,in his wine and love poems ha-Nagid"secularizes"biblicalallusionsfor the sake of wit and humor(pp. 41-46). A centralcase in Brann'sdiscussion is Moses ibn Ezra, the only poet to compose a detailedpoetics of Hebrewpoetry(written,of course,in the Arabiclanguage).His is an apologeticpoetics,tryingto provethatthepoetic, figurative,and rhetoricaltenets of Arabic are not foreign to Hebrew,and are, in fact, rooted in biblical poetry. "[He] had taken upon himself the

276

TOVAROSEN

dauntingburdenof servingtwo opposingauthoritative literarytraditionsand cultures-Arabic poetryandsecularcultureon the one hand,andthe Hebrew Bible andJewish traditionon the other"(p. 83). Unlike ibn Ezra, "his most illustriousprotege,Judahha-Levi... found himself at cross-purposeswith his art"(ibid.), questioningthe learning,the manners,and the poetryof his countryand society.Ha-Leviis said to have gone throughan all-encompassingmystical"conversion"-overtlyexpressed in his Ha-Kuzarias well as in his poetry;and personallyexecutedin his penitent pilgrimage to the PromisedLand. He is, for Brann, the actual embodimentof the compunctiouspoet. Yet,despitehis view thatHebrewis a divine,ontologicallysuperior,metalanguage,whichshouldnot be defiledby acculturatedforeign habits,and despitehis directattackson the arabization of Hebrewpoetry,ha-Levineverceasedto employArabicprosodyandstyle, in his secular,as well as in his religiousverse (chap.4). This typologyof culturalambiguitycontinuesin ChristianSpainfromthe thirteenthcenturyonwards(chap.5). Renewedattackson the legitimacyof poetryby the new pietisticJewishcircles demandednew poeticaldefensive tactics-and a fresh treatmentof the old typology. This is illustratedin work of Shem-Tovibn Falaqeraandin poets like the didactic-philosophical Meshulamda-PierraandTodrosAbulafia.In the two latterwriters,the topos andturnsinto of the 'compunctiouspoet' undergoesan ironictransformation the 'deceivingpoet'. Admittingtheirfault,the poets paradoxically(as in the famous "paradoxof the liar")defendedthe right of art to be fictionaland yet no less legitimate.In a postscript,Brannshows how this typologywas handedover to HebrewItalianRenaissanceandBaroquepoets. Whileconsistentlytracinghis scarletthread-the themeof culturalambiguity-through the ages, Brannalso succeeds,withgreattalentanderudition, in unfolding a wide historicalperspectiveof the Andalusianschool. This includesextensive informationaboutSpanishJewry,the lives of the poets, and generalremarkson theirrespectiveworks,themes,and styles. Brann's book is a scholarly work par excellence, well documentedwith a host of accompanyingnotes, covering a huge corpusof bibliography.However,I cannot refrainfrom noting the lack of a bibliographyand indices. This is quitelamentablein a scholarlyworkof this excellentorder.Brann'soriginal constitutean important insights,togetherwith his meticulousargumentation, contributionto the field.Moreover,themodelsuggestedhereforthetreatment of culturalambiguityin Hebrewliteraturecan lend itself to the treatmentof

ANDALUSIAN TYPES OF AMBIGUITY

277

other ambivalentor ambiguouscultures.Since it managesto combinethe specific with the general,in a style which is both eloquentand fluent,it is a bookwhichcan be easily followed andheartilyenjoyedby the generalreader as well as by the professional. TelAvivUniversity TelAviv,Israel

Review: [untitled] Author(s): David Goodblatt Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 279-281 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486576 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:16 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOKREVIEWS Joshua J. Schwartz. Lod (Lydda), Israel: From its Origins Through the Byzantine Period, 5600 B.C.E.-640 C.E. British Archaeological Reports,

InternationalSeries 571. Oxford:TempusReparatum,1991. 212 pp. JoshuaJ. Schwartz'sstudyof Lod is a welcome additionto the literature on the historicalgeographyof ancientIsrael.The book is dividedinto three parts.The first (pp. 15-36) containsthree chaptersdealingwith "sources, geographyand boundaries."The second part (pp. 39-135) containsseven chapterstracingthe historyof the city in chronologicalsequence.The third andfinalpart(pp. 139-185) containsa chapteron the morphologyof ancient Lod and one on the economy of the city and its hinterland.This shifting betweena topicalanda chronologicalorganizationresultsin somerepetition, buton balancethe use of bothapproachesis beneficial.Fifteenmaps,sixteen photographs,a bibliography,and an index completethe book. Clearlythe heartof the study is the historicalsurvey.And while attentionis given to the entire span of Lod's existence, beginningin the mid-sixthmillennium B.C.E.,90 percent of the survey is devoted to the period 332 B.C.E.-640C.E.In

otherwords,Schwartzconcentrateson the periodwhenIsraelwas partof the Greco-Romanworld. The choice of Lod as a subjectmay at firstseem surprising.It was not as largeor as importantas Sepphorisor Tiberias,neitherof whichhas received detailed monographicstudy. Nor has it yielded a body of archaeological evidencecomparableto whathas been uncoveredat the lattersites. However, in the context of Jewish history,a case can be made thatLod was a major town. In fact, one of Schwartz'simportantsuggestionsis that Lod, rather thanYavneh,was the centerof Jewish life in post-70 Iudaea(see chap. 8). Conversely,one suspectsthatthe relativeabundanceof rabbinicsourceson Lod contributedto the decision to write about this city. The fact that the longestof the historicalchapters(chap.8) is on the shortestperiod(65 years) is best explainedby the availabilityof so muchrelevantrabbinicmaterial. Schwartzdoes an excellentjob of assemblingall theavailablearchaeological and epigraphicevidence-from nineteenth-century publications,reports buriedin the archivesof Israel'sAntiquitiesAuthority,andrecentdiscoveries 279

280

BOOKREVIEWS

not yet published.A good example is the special appendixon the site of Modiin and the Hasmoneantombs (pp. 61-65). His use of the literary sources is based on sound methodologicalprinciples.He is careful to distinguishbetween sources actually from a period and sources about a periodbut themselveslater (e.g., p. 49). He is awarethatlatersourcesmay be anachronisticor inaccuratewith respect to an earlierperiod (e.g., pp. 39, 73, 96). Similarly,he illustrateshow fluid text traditionson toponyms, compoundedby disagreementover the identificationof the latter,limit or even negatethe usefulnessof manyliterarysources(e.g., p. 91, n. 11). Unfortunately,Schwartzis not always consistentin his criticalcaution. He correctly observes that it is "unlikelythat a late Byzantinemidrash shouldrelateto the tannaiticperiod"(p. 97, n. 96). Yet in the same chapter he cites Byzantinemidrashimas evidence for preciselythatperiod(see p. 95, n. 61, and p. 96, n. 82). Similarly,Schwartzexpressessurprisethat a "richSyrianmatron"displayedinterestin and knowledgeof the Bible in a conversationwith the tannaiticmasterEliezerson of Hyrcanus,as recorded in the PalestinianTalmud(p. 87). In view of the stock narrativetheme in rabbinicliteraturewhich has pagans such as Alexanderthe Great,Roman emperors,and Roman matronsevince similarinterestand knowledge,the surpriseis thata sourcelike this is consideredevidencefor the life of Eliezer. In fact, thereis a tendencyin the book to treatthe anecdotesin the rabbinic sources as historical.Not everyonewho works with these materialsagrees with this approach. Othercriticismsare of secondaryimportance.For example,why begin the Roman period in 37 B.C.E.ratherthan in the more commonlyused 63 And what would Romanistsmakeof Schwartz'sunequalsubdivision B.C.E.? of this era, especiallyhis calling 70-135 "themiddleRomanperiod"?Why not admitthatthe chronologyreflectsJewishhistoriography anduse thefairly common"periodbetweenthe revolts"?Moremapswouldhavebeenhelpful, especiallya moredetailedtopographical mapandones showingthesuggested boundariesof the toparchyof Lod. Also a desideratumis moreconsistency in the formsof place namesbetweentext andmap,andamongmaps,though most readerswill probablyfigureout the identityof KefarKesemand Kafr Kasm,or of Jimzu,Gimzo, and Gamzo. Even if one disagreesover the interpretation of the rabbinicmaterials, Schwartz'sworkilluminatesmanyissuesin thehistoricalgeographyof ancient Israel,ancienturbanism,andJewishhistory.Amonghis originalconclusions, the followingareof note. SchwartzarguesthatLod was partof the territories

BOOKREVIEWS

281

given to the king of Sidon by the Persiansaccordingto the Eshmunazzar inscription.Consequently,it was not partof any Persianprovince,neither Samaria,Yehud,nor Ashdod(see pp. 44-45). He suggeststhatthe rabbinic traditionson Ben Stada/Staraare polemicalaccountsreflectingthe activities of Peter in Lod (pp. 67-71). And he suggests that the Romancolonia of Diospolis was establishednorthof the "old city" of Lod. In partbecause of this location the new foundationnever really developedinto an urban center(pp. 142-144). In sum, Schwartzis to be congratulated on his valuable contributionto Landof Israelscholarship. DavidGoodblatt of California atSanDiego University LaJolla,Calif. Devora Steinmetz.From Father to Son: Kinship,Conflict,and Continuity in Genesis.LiteraryCurrentsin BiblicalInterpretation. Louisville:Westminster/JohnKnox Press, 1991. 214 pp. Devora Steinmetz'sinsightfulmonograph,From Father to Son, is one of the early releases in a new series entitledLiteraryCurrentsin Biblical Whileone is thusimmediatelyconsciousof Steinmetz'sgeneral Interpretation. twist approachto her material,she includesa psychological/anthropological thatmakesfor interestingreading. According to Steinmetz,"the [patriarchal]family is threatenedby the twin dangersof conflict between membersand loss of identity:either the familymembersremaintogetherandthreatento destroyone another,or they separateand are in dangerof being lost to the family'sspecialmission"(p. 11). The mutualpromiseand threatinherentin the father-sonrelationshipis at the core of this conflictfor which resolutionmustsomehowbe achieved. The text, comprisingabout 140 pages (thereare about50 pages of end notes), is dividedinto five chapters.In chapter1, Steinmetzreviewsvarious psychological and anthropologicalapproachesto the father-sonconflict, discussesher own approachto thisproblem,andnicelyoutlineshow she will treatthe biblicalmaterialin the next fourchapters.In chapter2 she analyzes "crucialstories of transferfrom fatherto son" in the patriarchalaccounts, while in chapter3 she analyzes word patternsemployedin relatingthese kinshipconflictsand begins to examinespecificepisodesandpatternsin the largernarrativecontextof Genesis 12-50. This broaderview is continuedin

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Dana M. Pike Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 281-283 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486577 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:16 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOKREVIEWS

281

given to the king of Sidon by the Persiansaccordingto the Eshmunazzar inscription.Consequently,it was not partof any Persianprovince,neither Samaria,Yehud,nor Ashdod(see pp. 44-45). He suggeststhatthe rabbinic traditionson Ben Stada/Staraare polemicalaccountsreflectingthe activities of Peter in Lod (pp. 67-71). And he suggests that the Romancolonia of Diospolis was establishednorthof the "old city" of Lod. In partbecause of this location the new foundationnever really developedinto an urban center(pp. 142-144). In sum, Schwartzis to be congratulated on his valuable contributionto Landof Israelscholarship. DavidGoodblatt of California atSanDiego University LaJolla,Calif. Devora Steinmetz.From Father to Son: Kinship,Conflict,and Continuity in Genesis.LiteraryCurrentsin BiblicalInterpretation. Louisville:Westminster/JohnKnox Press, 1991. 214 pp. Devora Steinmetz'sinsightfulmonograph,From Father to Son, is one of the early releases in a new series entitledLiteraryCurrentsin Biblical Whileone is thusimmediatelyconsciousof Steinmetz'sgeneral Interpretation. twist approachto her material,she includesa psychological/anthropological thatmakesfor interestingreading. According to Steinmetz,"the [patriarchal]family is threatenedby the twin dangersof conflict between membersand loss of identity:either the familymembersremaintogetherandthreatento destroyone another,or they separateand are in dangerof being lost to the family'sspecialmission"(p. 11). The mutualpromiseand threatinherentin the father-sonrelationshipis at the core of this conflictfor which resolutionmustsomehowbe achieved. The text, comprisingabout 140 pages (thereare about50 pages of end notes), is dividedinto five chapters.In chapter1, Steinmetzreviewsvarious psychological and anthropologicalapproachesto the father-sonconflict, discussesher own approachto thisproblem,andnicelyoutlineshow she will treatthe biblicalmaterialin the next fourchapters.In chapter2 she analyzes "crucialstories of transferfrom fatherto son" in the patriarchalaccounts, while in chapter3 she analyzes word patternsemployedin relatingthese kinshipconflictsand begins to examinespecificepisodesandpatternsin the largernarrativecontextof Genesis 12-50. This broaderview is continuedin

282

BOOKREVIEWS

chapter4, entitled"Mothers,BrothersandtheLand."It is onlyin chapter5 that Steinmetzgoes beyondthe materialin Genesis12-50 as shecontextualizesthe patriarchalaccounts,explainingthem as typologically"fulfillingthe earlier design of creation"and as "prefiguringthe laterexperiencesof the nation" (p. 134). Steinmetz notes in her preface that "this book is the culminationof nine years of writing and reflection"(p. 9). The numberand variety of her observationsserve to continuallyremind the readerof the author's experiencewith, notjust exposureto, the text of Genesis.She communicates her views in a very readablestyle and clearlyfulfillsher goal of explicating the force of kinship in Genesis 12-50. I gained many insights into the literaryvalues of these texts. The authorregularlyprovidestransliterations andtranslationsof importantHebrewwordsandphrases,so whilefamiliarity with Hebrewenhancesone's appreciationof the discussion,it is notessential for comprehension.It is of interestand value thatSteinmetzdrawson early in additionto modernviews of various and medievalJewish interpretations passages. By way of minor complaints,I did not like the style of transliteration adoptedin thiswork.In additionto thelackof diacriticalmarks(distinguishing h fromh, or t from .t,for example),renderinglettersas they arepronounced is less thandesirable.The word/phrasevayignov,for example(p. 182, n. 48), does not begin andend with the sameHebrewletter!(Whileit maybe argued thatreaderswho know Hebrewwill be ableto accuratelydiscernthe word[s] in question,I do not carefor this format.) Also, Steinmetzoccasionallyattemptsto extracttoo much from a text, creating observationsfrom interpretations.For example, she states that "Abrahamgoes to a foreign land suddenlyand withoutmotivation(Gen. 20:1)"(p. 66), but the text merelynotes thathe went, not when,how, or for what reason(s)or lack thereof.Her observationexhibitsa hyperdependence on the receivedtext of the Bible (since no motivesare ascribedto him at this point,Abrahammusthave hadnone).Mustwe assumethateveryphrasewas consciouslyconstructedand is pregnantwith discerniblemeaning? My greatestreservationabout the book regardssomethingthat is not expressed.It is the opinionof Steinmetz(andothers)that"ancientliterature is ... a social construct,... an artifactleft by a society strugglingto define itself," and that it "reflectsthe society's perceptionof its very nature"(p. to observethat 30). Havingsaid this, it seems methodologicallyappropriate Genesis 12-50 is all thatexists fromancientIsraelconcerningthe patriarchs.

BOOK REVIEWS

283

Given that, I would appreciateat least a brief explorationof the author's thinkingon questionssuch as: how representativean "artifact"of Israelite account?whatif we hadmore society'sperceptionsof itself is the patriarchal and/ordifferenttextualtraditions(theymay well haveexisted)?did all levels of Israelitesociety at all times perceivethis "artifact"the same way? in this regard,does it matterhow, when, or by whom the text reachedits finalform (see her brief commentthat"thehistoryof the text ... is not importantfor this study"[p. 33])? is it importantor necessaryto even raisesuchquestions? The book wouldbenefitfromsome generalmethodologicalstatementsin this vein. While not everyonewill agreewithherapproachor all of herconclusions did (I not), any readerwho takesit on its own termswill be rewardedfor time with Steinmetz'sbook. For someonelookingfor a freshand engaging spent approachto the patriarchalnarratives,this book has muchto offer. DanaM. Pike BrighamYoungUniversity Provo,Utah

JackM. Sasson. Jonah:A New TranslationwithIntroduction,Commentary, and Interpretations.Anchor Bible 24B. New York:Doubleday,1990. xvi, 368 pp. In additionto representingthe mostup-to-dateandcomprehensivereview of Jonah scholarship,Jack Sasson's new commentaryprovidesa detailed of therhetorical philologicalanalysisof thebooktogetherwithanappreciation devices embodiedin the text. There are introductoryessays on topics such as "Stormsin Ancient Lore," "Lot Casting,""Use of Animalsin Biblical Narratives,""HebrewPoetry,"and "DivineClemency."A furtherfeatureis that Sasson introduceseach verse of Jonah'spsalmwith helpfulillustrative passages indicatinghow close Jonah'slanguageis to that of otherbiblical poetry. In his commentary,Sasson painstakinglytakes the readerthrougha discussionof almost every Hebrewword and phrasebefore arrivingat the renderingthatis incorporatedin his translation.Along the way, he compares and contrasts the Masoretic text with the standardversions, as well as reviewing previous efforts by other commentators.Especially worthy of

Review: [untitled] Author(s): David Marcus Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 283-285 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486578 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:16 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOK REVIEWS

283

Given that, I would appreciateat least a brief explorationof the author's thinkingon questionssuch as: how representativean "artifact"of Israelite account?whatif we hadmore society'sperceptionsof itself is the patriarchal and/ordifferenttextualtraditions(theymay well haveexisted)?did all levels of Israelitesociety at all times perceivethis "artifact"the same way? in this regard,does it matterhow, when, or by whom the text reachedits finalform (see her brief commentthat"thehistoryof the text ... is not importantfor this study"[p. 33])? is it importantor necessaryto even raisesuchquestions? The book wouldbenefitfromsome generalmethodologicalstatementsin this vein. While not everyonewill agreewithherapproachor all of herconclusions did (I not), any readerwho takesit on its own termswill be rewardedfor time with Steinmetz'sbook. For someonelookingfor a freshand engaging spent approachto the patriarchalnarratives,this book has muchto offer. DanaM. Pike BrighamYoungUniversity Provo,Utah

JackM. Sasson. Jonah:A New TranslationwithIntroduction,Commentary, and Interpretations.Anchor Bible 24B. New York:Doubleday,1990. xvi, 368 pp. In additionto representingthe mostup-to-dateandcomprehensivereview of Jonah scholarship,Jack Sasson's new commentaryprovidesa detailed of therhetorical philologicalanalysisof thebooktogetherwithanappreciation devices embodiedin the text. There are introductoryessays on topics such as "Stormsin Ancient Lore," "Lot Casting,""Use of Animalsin Biblical Narratives,""HebrewPoetry,"and "DivineClemency."A furtherfeatureis that Sasson introduceseach verse of Jonah'spsalmwith helpfulillustrative passages indicatinghow close Jonah'slanguageis to that of otherbiblical poetry. In his commentary,Sasson painstakinglytakes the readerthrougha discussionof almost every Hebrewword and phrasebefore arrivingat the renderingthatis incorporatedin his translation.Along the way, he compares and contrasts the Masoretic text with the standardversions, as well as reviewing previous efforts by other commentators.Especially worthy of

284

BOOKREVIEWS

note is Sasson's careful considerationof the Masoreticaccents as a basis for exegesis (see, in particular,his remarksat 3:9). In tandemwith this detailed textual analysis, Sasson pays particularattentionto the literary nicetiesof the text. Thus, the readeris informedthroughoutthe commentary of various characteristicsof Hebrew narrativestyle, such as repetition, devices, literarypatterns,symmetry,chiasticstructures, attention-gathering key words,paranomasia,hendiadys,onomatopoeia,etc. Sasson is to be commended for his efforts in offering some novel of a relativelyshortbook which,over the years,has been the interpretations of considerable subject investigation(Sassonlists 32 pages of bibliography). suffice here. At the very end of the book, thereoccursin One examplemust God's parableto Jonahan enigmaticdescriptivephraseaboutthe Ninevites, 'dsver l0' yAda'b n ylmtno limO'16"whocannotdiscernbetweentheirright and left hands."Disagreeingwith most other commentators,who contend that the phraseis aboutchildrenor the mentallydeficient,Sasson suggests that it may refer to the fact that Nineveh was so large in size, so teeming with life, that the inhabitantsliterallydid not know who was living on the right and left of them, that is, they did not know who theirneighborswere (p. 315). As far as the wider area of the book's genre is concerned,Sasson is properlycautiousand reserved.He arguesthatthereis no one rightreading or interpretation of the book.Jonahcannotbe forcedintoone singlegenre,be it myth,fable, folktale,allegory,midrash,legend,parable,satire,or parody; of thebookas a whole. therearemanyreasonablereadingsandinterpretations Sasson acknowledgesthat sections of the book can lend themselvesto an allegoric interpretation.He himself suggests two: the episode on the ship, representingan allegoryof the "Shipof State,"whichwouldbe equatedwith Israel;andthatof the qfqdy6nplant,standingas a metaphorapplicableto the fate of humanbeings, and illustratingthe fragilityof humanexistence. But, of all the possible literaryinterpretations,Sasson favors that of seeing Jonah as a "comic dupe,"a characterdrawnfrom Middle Eastern folklorewho serves as a tool by which the narratorcan imparthis message. The centerpieceof Sasson's argumentevolves aroundthe chain of events following Jonah'sfamous five-wordoracle in Nineveh (3:4), embeddedin which is the crucialwordnehpaket.The wordnehpaket'to be overthrown'is "deliberatelyambiguous"(p. 234) andcan be takento meaneitherNineveh's physicalor spiritualoverthrow.Jonahregardsthe phraseas predictingdoom only,andwhentheNinevitesdo repent,he is upsetbecause(unlikeIsaiahwith

BOOKREVIEWS

285

Hezekiahin 2 Kings 20:1-6) he was not given the opportunityto announce salvationto them.Jonah'scomplaintwith God, then,is not aboutthe saving of Nineveh, nor aboutGod's mercy,but abouthis treatmentas a prophet. Because he never graspsthe double-edgedmeaningbehindthe message he communicates,JonahperceivesGod's changeof mindas a breachof the properetiquetteobtainingbetweenGod andprophet,so he feels misused(p. 346). However,when the qtqay6nplantappears,Jonahregardsthis as a sign from God; God does indeed care for him, thereforehe becomes"absolutely delighted over the qt^qjyonplant"(p. 316). When God takes away the qi qdyOnplant,Jonah'smood is reversed,andhe is dejectedonce again. Sasson's interpretationof these events is, however,not entirelysatisfactory.While it is true that the cause of Jonah'sunhappinessis not explicitly stated, there is no good reason not to believe that it was because of the salvationof Nineveh.Jonah'sstatementin 4:2 regardingGod'smercywould have little relevancefor one complainingof his treatmentas a prophet,but contextuallyhas muchrelevanceto the reprieveof Nineveh.Secondly,it can only be a hypothesisthat the qfqiy6rnfunctionsas the meansof an alleged reconciliationbetweenGod andJonah.Thereis no hintof such a suggestion when the qtqjy6n first appears,nor is there such a hint in God's lesson to Jonah,wherethe qtfqdynis used,rather,to illustrateGod'smercyto Nineveh. Despitethese reservationsto Sasson'sshowcaseargument,his suggestion about seeing Jonah in the role of a "comic dupe"does merit seriousconsideration,particularlybecausethe same role can be identifiedfor two other propheticfiguresin the Bible:the unnamed"manof God"in 1 Kings 13, and Balaamin Numbers22-24. In fact, the reviewerhimself intendsto take up this questionat lengthin a futurework. In conclusion,Sasson is to be congratulatedfor yet anotherstimulating contributionto biblical scholarship.This is a commentaryfrom which both layman and specialist can profit,and it is a very welcome additionto the AnchorBible series. DavidMarcus JewishTheological Seminary NewYork,N.Y. Yair Zakovitch. Ruth: Introductionand Commentary.Miqra' le-Yisra'el. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem:Am Oved and Magnes Press, 1990. viii, 124 pp. (Hebrew).

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Yehoshua Gitay Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 285-288 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486579 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOKREVIEWS

285

Hezekiahin 2 Kings 20:1-6) he was not given the opportunityto announce salvationto them.Jonah'scomplaintwith God, then,is not aboutthe saving of Nineveh, nor aboutGod's mercy,but abouthis treatmentas a prophet. Because he never graspsthe double-edgedmeaningbehindthe message he communicates,JonahperceivesGod's changeof mindas a breachof the properetiquetteobtainingbetweenGod andprophet,so he feels misused(p. 346). However,when the qtqay6nplantappears,Jonahregardsthis as a sign from God; God does indeed care for him, thereforehe becomes"absolutely delighted over the qt^qjyonplant"(p. 316). When God takes away the qi qdyOnplant,Jonah'smood is reversed,andhe is dejectedonce again. Sasson's interpretationof these events is, however,not entirelysatisfactory.While it is true that the cause of Jonah'sunhappinessis not explicitly stated, there is no good reason not to believe that it was because of the salvationof Nineveh.Jonah'sstatementin 4:2 regardingGod'smercywould have little relevancefor one complainingof his treatmentas a prophet,but contextuallyhas muchrelevanceto the reprieveof Nineveh.Secondly,it can only be a hypothesisthat the qfqiy6rnfunctionsas the meansof an alleged reconciliationbetweenGod andJonah.Thereis no hintof such a suggestion when the qtqjy6n first appears,nor is there such a hint in God's lesson to Jonah,wherethe qtfqdynis used,rather,to illustrateGod'smercyto Nineveh. Despitethese reservationsto Sasson'sshowcaseargument,his suggestion about seeing Jonah in the role of a "comic dupe"does merit seriousconsideration,particularlybecausethe same role can be identifiedfor two other propheticfiguresin the Bible:the unnamed"manof God"in 1 Kings 13, and Balaamin Numbers22-24. In fact, the reviewerhimself intendsto take up this questionat lengthin a futurework. In conclusion,Sasson is to be congratulatedfor yet anotherstimulating contributionto biblical scholarship.This is a commentaryfrom which both layman and specialist can profit,and it is a very welcome additionto the AnchorBible series. DavidMarcus JewishTheological Seminary NewYork,N.Y. Yair Zakovitch. Ruth: Introductionand Commentary.Miqra' le-Yisra'el. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem:Am Oved and Magnes Press, 1990. viii, 124 pp. (Hebrew).

286

BOOKREVIEWS

The shortnovella of Ruthis a specialbook. The scroll containsexplicit referencesto manyotherbiblicalepisodes,such as the storyof Tamar(Gen. 38) and the famine in Abraham'sday thatcausedhis migrationto a foreign land (Gen. 12:10) (on this issue see furtherbelow), as well as allusions to the "capablewife" of Proverbs(31:10-31). How should we read these references:do they convey a specific message, or are they employedfor decoration,submittingan archaicflavor?Then the form of the composition raises questionsregardingits literarygenre:is it a historicalnovella, or is it a folkloristictale similar to the prosaicframeworkof the Book of Job? Naturally,readersare concernedwith the functionof the scroll;how should we interpretthe place and role of the Davidic genealogyat the conclusion? The focus on Ruth, the daughterof the hatedMoabites,who becomes the of David himself, is not unproblematic.How shouldwe great-grandmother accept David's disturbingorigin, consideringthe Deuteronomiclaw which prohibitsmarryingMoabites(Deut.23:7-8) andEzra'sdemandto abominate them (Ezra 9:1, Neh. 13:1)? Furthermore,the scroll is occupied with the complex laws of redemptionand levirate marriage,providinga striking opportunityfor researchersto study the practiceof the law againstits legal formulation(Deut. 25:5-10). Then critics argueabout the functionof the Davidic genealogy at the conclusion of the scroll. This issue dependson the dating of Ruth. Does a postexilic date reflecta polemic againstEzra's insistenceon divorcingthe foreign women, claimingits absurdityvis-a-vis Ruthandhergreat-grandson David?However,a preexilicdatemightpointto an effortto clear David's name againstcertainrumorsregardinghis foreign origin. In brief, the short story of Ruthinvites many criticalconsiderations regardingits problematicissues. A new commentaryon Ruth is thus a rejoiceful scholarlyevent that might throwfresh light on the old problems.The book underreview opens with a long introduction-almost one-thirdof the volume-intending, we may expect, to respondto the variouscriticalissues of the scroll. Indeed, the authordiscusses specifictopics, startingwith the literarycharacterof the scroll.He submitsto the traditionalview regardingit as a romanticidyll. The charactersare idyllic, wonderfulpeople who wantto fulfill the law, not only literally,but as a way of life. Nevertheless,perhapsdue to the restrictions of space, Zakovitchdoes not discuss the complex attitudeof the people of At the end, the redeemer BethlehemtowardNaomi andher daughter-in-law. is forcedto takethe legal act thatpavedthe roadfor the marriageof Boaz and Ruth.Naomi'stwo relatives,Boaz and"Mr.so andso,"let theold womanand

REVIEWS BOOK

287

her daughter-in-lawreacha level of hunger,untilthey arepushedby Ruth's desperatedeed to pursue the appropriatelegal action, thus relieving both women of their agony. There is a tense dramabehindthe scenes, covered, however,by the pleasantdialogue. Zakovitch'sdiscussionregardingthe charactersis informative.He sheds light on Naomi'scentralrole. He pointsout the scroll'semphasison Naomi's new status:"a son is bornto Naomi"(4:17). This is a crucialissue regarding the meaningof the scrollandthe Judeanwoman'splaceversusthe Moabite's. Naomiis the mother?An unusualreference,indeed.Zakovitchcalls attention to the exceptionalsituation,stressingthatthe son's birthis not connectedto the father,as is usually the case, but oddly enoughto the mother-in-law(p. 115).How shouldwe readthis?Couldit be, one asks,a hintthatattheend the Moabitenaturalmotheris replacedafterfulfillingherdutyto give a son and a name to the old, now childless,Judeanwidow?Then,may the suspicious readerreachthe conclusionthatDavid, the king of Israel,was raisedby the JudeanNaomi andnot by a Moabite?However,Zakovitchdoes not elaborate on the meaningof Naomi's unusualrole. Zakovitchdevotes a significantchapterto the placeof the femalecharactersin the scroll. He shedslight on theirextraordinary power(pp. 8-9). Why are the women of the scroll so dominant?Is therevalidityin S. Sandmel's speculation(The Enjoymentof Scripture[New York, 1972], p. 25) that the unknownauthorof the scroll was a woman?Zakovitchprefersto presentthe facts withoutexposition. The discussion regardingthe poetic flavorof the scroll is illuminating (pp. 10-11). Zakovitchstressesthe rhetoricalfunctionof poeticalversessuch as 1:13, 1:20-21, 2:19, etc., rejectingthe thesisof an earlierpoeticversionof the scroll.Eachpoetic verse, claimsZakovitch,mustbe studiedin its literary context,with the goal of elucidatingits specificrhetoricalfunction. Zakovitchadoptsthe positionof a postexilicdate for the Book of Ruth. He then argues his case regardingthe functionof the scroll (pp. 18-20). He points to a numberof passages in the Book of Ruththathint at David (pp. 32-33), and he acceptsthe view thatthe novellarepresentsa polemical argumentagainst Ezra's determinationthat the foreign wives be divorced. Ruth,however,providesan outstandingexamplethatpossessesuniquemoral andnational-religious features.Thedetermination of thequalityof theforeign womendependsnot on theirethnicbackground,buton theirdeeds. Zakovitchincludes a useful discussionon the relationshipbetweenthe scrollandotherbiblicalscenes (pp.24-33). The comparisonwithGen. 12:10

288

BOOKREVIEWS

has a specific implicationregardingthe thematicdevelopmentof the scroll. Zakovitchcalls attentionto the similaritybetweenRuth 1:1 and the Genesis parallel,though he does not elaborateon this comparison.But there is a significantdifference between the wording in Genesis and that of Ruth. The Genesis passageemphasizesthatthe famine"wassevere,"an exclusive elaborationthatmayjustify Abraham'smigrationto a foreignland.Thatis to say, Elimelechof Bethlehemdid not have such an excuse to leave his land. Therefore,the tragedywas unavoidable. In conclusion,this freshvolumeis a fineadditionto the studyof the scroll of Ruth.Zakovitchdefinesthe scrollas an idyllic story,andbothhis remarks and his exegesis are presentedin coherent,pleasant,and smoothlanguage. This volume is part of a new Hebrew series, which aims to integratethe Jewish scholarly traditionwith currentcritical research.Zakovitchblends these two streamsin a fine manner,though his relianceon the traditional Jewishexegeticalmaterialis moresporadicthansystematic.As I havehinted above, in certainways Zakovitchoffers only a preliminarystudy of Ruth. My hope is thathe will returnto this subjectwith furtherelaborationon the thematicand structuralcomplexitiesof Ruth'sremarkablestory. Yehoshua Gitay RhodesCollege Tenn. Memphis,

JuliaM. O'Brien.Priest and Levitein Malachi.Societyof BiblicalLiterature DissertationSeries 121. Atlanta:ScholarsPress, 1990.xiv, 164 pp. This dissertation,writtenunderEricMeyersat DukeUniversityandcompletedin 1988, does not, despiteits title, aim at elucidatingthe background, meaning,theologicaluniqueness,andrhetoricalartistryof the scathingattacks againstthe Israelitepriesthoodfound in the propheciesof Malachi.Rather, it addressesa strictlyhistorical-criticalquestion:wheredoes Malachifit in to the historyof the priesthood?O'Brienarguesat lengththatno conclusive answercan be given. As her startingpoint O'Brienacceptsthe axiom,acknowledgedsince the rise of Pentateuchalcriticism, that the Deuteronomicand Priestlysources advocate two opposing doctrineson the questionof who may serve as a priest:D seeks to enfranchisethe entiretribeof Levi moreor less equally,

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Baruch J. Schwartz Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 288-291 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486580 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

288

BOOKREVIEWS

has a specific implicationregardingthe thematicdevelopmentof the scroll. Zakovitchcalls attentionto the similaritybetweenRuth 1:1 and the Genesis parallel,though he does not elaborateon this comparison.But there is a significantdifference between the wording in Genesis and that of Ruth. The Genesis passageemphasizesthatthe famine"wassevere,"an exclusive elaborationthatmayjustify Abraham'smigrationto a foreignland.Thatis to say, Elimelechof Bethlehemdid not have such an excuse to leave his land. Therefore,the tragedywas unavoidable. In conclusion,this freshvolumeis a fineadditionto the studyof the scroll of Ruth.Zakovitchdefinesthe scrollas an idyllic story,andbothhis remarks and his exegesis are presentedin coherent,pleasant,and smoothlanguage. This volume is part of a new Hebrew series, which aims to integratethe Jewish scholarly traditionwith currentcritical research.Zakovitchblends these two streamsin a fine manner,though his relianceon the traditional Jewishexegeticalmaterialis moresporadicthansystematic.As I havehinted above, in certainways Zakovitchoffers only a preliminarystudy of Ruth. My hope is thathe will returnto this subjectwith furtherelaborationon the thematicand structuralcomplexitiesof Ruth'sremarkablestory. Yehoshua Gitay RhodesCollege Tenn. Memphis,

JuliaM. O'Brien.Priest and Levitein Malachi.Societyof BiblicalLiterature DissertationSeries 121. Atlanta:ScholarsPress, 1990.xiv, 164 pp. This dissertation,writtenunderEricMeyersat DukeUniversityandcompletedin 1988, does not, despiteits title, aim at elucidatingthe background, meaning,theologicaluniqueness,andrhetoricalartistryof the scathingattacks againstthe Israelitepriesthoodfound in the propheciesof Malachi.Rather, it addressesa strictlyhistorical-criticalquestion:wheredoes Malachifit in to the historyof the priesthood?O'Brienarguesat lengththatno conclusive answercan be given. As her startingpoint O'Brienacceptsthe axiom,acknowledgedsince the rise of Pentateuchalcriticism, that the Deuteronomicand Priestlysources advocate two opposing doctrineson the questionof who may serve as a priest:D seeks to enfranchisethe entiretribeof Levi moreor less equally,

BOOK REVIEWS

289

while P prohibitsall but the direct descendantsof Aaron from serving as priests,relegatingthe rest of the levitical tribe to the rankof second-class clerics.She assumesfurther,as do mostscholars,thatthesetwo irreconcilable positionsrepresentstages in the developmentof the clergy.She also accepts the classical scholarly method: the attemptto arrangethe two positions sequentially(generallyfavoringthe priorityof D) andto suggesta historical explanationfor the change in the compositionof the priesthood.For this purpose,all referencesto the priesthood-includingthosein Malachi-must be accountedfor, andeach mustbe given its place in the evolutionalscheme. We would do well to considerall this morecritically.For while P andD do referdifferentlyto the structureof the priesthood,neitherof themplaces thisitem on its polemicalor legislativeagenda.P simplyassumesa two-tiered structureanddescribesthe functionsof eachcaste;D simplydoes not.Neither advocates,and neitherarguesagainstthe opposingview. We may speakof D and P as having differentassumptions,differentemphases,and different degreesof interest-perhaps even of accuracy--concerningthe composition of the priesthood,but thereis no a priori reasonfor assigningthema linear relationship.Hereas elsewhere,thetwo sourcesrepresenttwodistinct,moreor less contemporary, schools of thoughtandliterarycreativity,andthereis little justification-other than slavish adherenceto Wellhauseniandoctrine-for seeing one as a reaction to the other. Any historicalreconstructionmust take into accountthatin manycases the differencesbetweenthe sourcesare evidence not of developmentbut of diversity.Only when there is literary evidence of a relationshipcan the two be used for positing evolutionary stages. Following a surveyof scholarlyopinionon the historyof the priesthood (chap. 1), four separatelines of inquiryare taken up. Chapter2 considers the exegetical question of whether Malachi'sreferencesto "the priests," "Levi,""the sons of Levi," and "theLevite"presumethe essentialidentity of all of these or not. O'Brien concludesthat Malachishows no evidence of any distinction,either in pedigree,privilege,or function.In chapter3, a form-criticalanalysisof Malachiis conducted,in orderto determinewhether the book is a structuralunity.O'Brienanswersin the affirmative.Chapter4 seeks to determineMalachi'srelationshipto the Pentateuchalsources.The book's familiaritywith D is conceded,and, somewhatless readily,O'Brien admitsthatMalachiindicatesknowledgeof P as well. Almostall of chapter 5 is a survey of opinion concerning the date of Malachi, in which the sixth-centurydatingis upheld.All these conclusions,I believe, are correct.

290

BOOKREVIEWS

However, O'Brien arrives at them in a mannerwhich is often labored, occasionallyperplexing,and too frequentlyimprecise. Muchof chapter2, forinstance,is gratuitous.A readerwhocanappreciate the crucialimportanceof the fact that Malachispeaksof both Levites and priestsas performingaltarfunctionsdoes not need muchmore.O'Brienhas gone too much further,and in so doing embracesdubiousinterpretations, such as her readingof wn6?i'tm panim batt6rdh(2:9) as "havenot shown favorwith torah"andof lihy6tberift 'et l1wt(2:4) as "thatmy covenantwith Levi might (continueto) be." The form-criticalanalysisin chapter3 is especiallyproblematic.Because scholars never seem to tire of searchingfor the Gattungand its Sitz im Leben, they are frustratedwhen this results in a realizationsuch as that arrivedat by Malachi scholarshipto date: that the prophet'sstyle is one of "disputation,"and that this style originatesin "everydayspeech."This disappointmentshould lead the scholarto reexaminethe method.Instead, O'Brien simply suggests anotherGattung:the rib-pattern.But if a series of accusationsand threatsmake a rfb, then every prophecyof rebukeis a rfb and form-criticaldistinctionsare meaningless.The fact thatsome of the prophet'saccusationsare directedagainstcommandsfoundin the Book of the Covenanthardlymakes the book a "covenantlawsuit."O'Brienherself admitsthatthe identifyingfeaturesof the propheticlawsuit-the invocation of immortalwitnesses, the courtroomsituation-are absent.Further,I am not entirelycertainthatthis chapterhas any directrelevanceto the themeof the book; O'Brien simply may have felt thatno studyof a biblicalbook is completewithouta form-criticaldiscussion. Chapter4 considersthe biblicalsourcesemployedby Malachi.Here,too, often faulty.Most the overallconclusionis persuasivebut the argumentation of the book's numerousaffinitieswith D are ruled out as not exclusively whatis decisiveis thecluster Deuteronomicphraseology.This is unfortunate: of Deuteronomicideas and phrasesand the similarityof usage and context. The one item retainedis the least valid: Malachi'suse of Sillah(insteadof gjrjsD for "divorce."This termis not peculiarlyDeuteronomic,it is simply nonpriestly;it serves only to distinguishD and P from each other.For her proof, therefore,O'Brienis forcedto rely on the supposedaffinitieswith D foundin the book's concludingverses-which most scholarsconsiderto be redactional.Similarlywith P: thoughO'BrienaffirmsMalachi'srelianceon P, she contestsmost of the moreobviousconnections. The readerwill find very completesurveysof opinionon every issue, in

BOOK REVIEWS

291

which the most recent studies,even those unpublished,are given attention. And yet, often it seems thatO'Brienattachesequalweightto every opinion, takingseriousnote of suggestionswhichcanreadilybe dismissedandarguing in favor of the obvious, and that she is reluctantto state almost anything on her own authority,preferringto poll the critics and side eitherwith the majorityor the most recentview. As an exampleof the latter,in discussing Malachi'sdate (chap. 5), she comes close to acceptinga recentsuggestion that the book may be exilic or even pre-exilic.This requiresa denial of the book's similarityto other post-exilicliterature.But post-exilicconcerns and conditionsare so apparentin the prophet'smessagethatthey cannotbe arguedaway. O'BrienconcludesthatMalachicreateda uniqueliteraryconcept,a divine "covenantwith Levi" modeledafterearlier,patriarchaland royal,covenant themes, and used it for a unique purpose-to lambastthe contemporary priesthood'sneglect of propersacrifice.I could not agreemore. Moreover, this literaryconstructexplainswhy he calls the priests"Levites"and "sons of Levi"-not itself an illegitimateterm,since Jeremiah,Ezekiel,andTritoIsaiahcall them this as well, and since, afterall, they are. O'Brien is right that Malachiis not interestedin the questionof who may be a priest, and cannotbe placed in a developmentalschemevis-t-vis the Pentateuchalsourceswhichhe clearlyemploys.A preferableformulation might be that Malachi accepts D's idea of who a priestis, and P's idea of whata priestis. BaruchJ. Schwartz TelAvivUniversity RamatAviv,Israel

ChristopherJ. H. Wright.God's People in God'sLand:Family,Land,and Propertyin the Old Testament.GrandRapids,Mich.:W. B. Eerdmans,1990. xx, 284 pp. "The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangersand sojournerswith me." The sweeping pronouncementof Leviticus25:23 and the peculiarrules of landtenurethatsurroundit are the startingpoint for this study,a revised versionof the author's1977 doctoral dissertation.Its purposeis to show how the socioeconomiccircumstancesof

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Raymond Westbrook Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 291-293 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486581 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOK REVIEWS

291

which the most recent studies,even those unpublished,are given attention. And yet, often it seems thatO'Brienattachesequalweightto every opinion, takingseriousnote of suggestionswhichcanreadilybe dismissedandarguing in favor of the obvious, and that she is reluctantto state almost anything on her own authority,preferringto poll the critics and side eitherwith the majorityor the most recentview. As an exampleof the latter,in discussing Malachi'sdate (chap. 5), she comes close to acceptinga recentsuggestion that the book may be exilic or even pre-exilic.This requiresa denial of the book's similarityto other post-exilicliterature.But post-exilicconcerns and conditionsare so apparentin the prophet'smessagethatthey cannotbe arguedaway. O'BrienconcludesthatMalachicreateda uniqueliteraryconcept,a divine "covenantwith Levi" modeledafterearlier,patriarchaland royal,covenant themes, and used it for a unique purpose-to lambastthe contemporary priesthood'sneglect of propersacrifice.I could not agreemore. Moreover, this literaryconstructexplainswhy he calls the priests"Levites"and "sons of Levi"-not itself an illegitimateterm,since Jeremiah,Ezekiel,andTritoIsaiahcall them this as well, and since, afterall, they are. O'Brien is right that Malachiis not interestedin the questionof who may be a priest, and cannotbe placed in a developmentalschemevis-t-vis the Pentateuchalsourceswhichhe clearlyemploys.A preferableformulation might be that Malachi accepts D's idea of who a priestis, and P's idea of whata priestis. BaruchJ. Schwartz TelAvivUniversity RamatAviv,Israel

ChristopherJ. H. Wright.God's People in God'sLand:Family,Land,and Propertyin the Old Testament.GrandRapids,Mich.:W. B. Eerdmans,1990. xx, 284 pp. "The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine; for ye are strangersand sojournerswith me." The sweeping pronouncementof Leviticus25:23 and the peculiarrules of landtenurethatsurroundit are the startingpoint for this study,a revised versionof the author's1977 doctoral dissertation.Its purposeis to show how the socioeconomiccircumstancesof

292

BOOKREVIEWS

ancientIsrael were used to formulatethe ideology of the relationshipwith God thatis recordedin the HebrewBible. Thatideology saw as its ideal the family with modest landholdings,and in consequenceformulatedits laws and institutionsto protectthatunit, while at the same time imposingethical normsuponits members. Thebookis in threeparts.Thefirstpartexaminesthenatureof landholding and of the Israelitefamily.The landowninghouseholdwas of centralimportancein Israel'srelationshipwith God, in the military,judicial,andreligious spheres.Membershipof such a household,whetheras familymember,slave, or associatedalien, was necessaryto enjoythe protectionof thatrelationship, which could be lost eitherthroughmisconductby the individual,such as a rebelliousson, or througheconomicadversityleadingto loss of the family's land andthe scatteringof its members. The second partdetails the ethics thatapply to landand otherproperty. These consist of rules to protect the owner's rights, such as redemption, Jubilee,and the prohibitionson the removalof landmarks,and on theft and coveting;and of responsibilitiesimposeduponpropertyowners,such as the fallow year and release, which are owed directlyto God, preservingone's landholdingand honoringone's parents,which are owed to the family,and miscellaneousrules for the benefitof thirdparties,such as workerson the land, visitors,and neighbors. The thirdpart looks inside the family at relationshipsbetweenthe head of householdand dependentmembers.It considersto whatextentwives and childrenwere regardedas the former'sproperty,and the rules applicableto slaves. The conclusion discusses how the propertyethics of the HebrewBible can be employedas partof Christianethicsin modernconditions. The book's argumentis clearly presented,if somewhatmarkedby a reductionisttendency.A single ancientideology is presumed,withoutdifferentiationbetween schools of thought, such as the Deuteronomisticor the Priestly.At times, enthusiasmto include texts underthe rubricof land ownershipleads to some distortionof their scope, as where the goring-ox law is said to be for the protectionof otherswhile on one's land,a condition nowheresuggestedin the text; or whereemphasisis given to the prohibition on covetingbeing designedto nip in the bud the accumulationof latifundia, whereas agriculturalland is conspicuousfor its absence from the list of propertycovetedin the Exodusversionof the Decalogue. Because its analysisof biblicalideology is basedon a particularview of

293

BOOK REVIEWS

Israel'ssocioeconomicreality,thebulkof thebookis givenoverto discussion of issues of social and legal history,throughexegesis of the relevanttexts. The authorreviews the pertinentbiblical scholarshipuntil the mid-1980s and expresses his preferencefor particulartheories,or occasionallygives his own interpretation, but adducesno new evidenceor originaltheory,the reasonbeing that neitherthe methodologyof any of the social sciences nor materialfrom the ancientNear East is utilized.The resultin the firstcase is that confused or inaccurateuse is made of conceptsfrom these disciplines. Thus the author insists that Israelite land was inalienable,claiming that therewas no legal methodof acquiringland otherthaninheritanceand no properway to dispose of it except by apportioningit to one's heirs.Attested transfers,however,such as in Neh. 5:3, areexcludedon the groundsthatthey were involuntary(pp. 55-57). But the voluntaryor involuntarynatureof the transferis totally irrelevantto the conceptof inalienability. In the second case, the result is unrealisticspeculation.The author eschews all but occasionalmentionof ancientNearEasternmaterial,on the groundthathis is not a comparativestudy.But the informationthatthe Bible andcanonly be properly provideson socialrealityis obscureandfragmentary, understoodin the context of the mass of data now availablefrom ancient Israel'sneighbors.It is no longerpossible simplyto continuein the manner of previousgenerationsof scholarsto whom these datawere not available, as if in a vacuum.Wherethe authordoes referto such material,relianceon tertiarysources-reports by otherbiblicalscholars-leads to misinformation andfalse analogy. Its subtitle notwithstanding,then, the book is essentiallya theological study.It is not recommendedfor studentsof ancientIsrael'ssocial, legal, or economicinstitutions. Westbrook Raymond JohnsHopkinsUniversity Md. Baltimore,

BruceZuckerman.Job the Silent:A Studyin HistoricalCounterpoint. New York:OxfordUniversityPress, 1991. viii, 294 pp. Bruce Zuckerman'snew book is both a highly unusualand a very engaging study of one of the most enigmatic documentsin the Hebrew

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Joel S. Kaminsky Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 293-296 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486582 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

293

BOOK REVIEWS

Israel'ssocioeconomicreality,thebulkof thebookis givenoverto discussion of issues of social and legal history,throughexegesis of the relevanttexts. The authorreviews the pertinentbiblical scholarshipuntil the mid-1980s and expresses his preferencefor particulartheories,or occasionallygives his own interpretation, but adducesno new evidenceor originaltheory,the reasonbeing that neitherthe methodologyof any of the social sciences nor materialfrom the ancientNear East is utilized.The resultin the firstcase is that confused or inaccurateuse is made of conceptsfrom these disciplines. Thus the author insists that Israelite land was inalienable,claiming that therewas no legal methodof acquiringland otherthaninheritanceand no properway to dispose of it except by apportioningit to one's heirs.Attested transfers,however,such as in Neh. 5:3, areexcludedon the groundsthatthey were involuntary(pp. 55-57). But the voluntaryor involuntarynatureof the transferis totally irrelevantto the conceptof inalienability. In the second case, the result is unrealisticspeculation.The author eschews all but occasionalmentionof ancientNearEasternmaterial,on the groundthathis is not a comparativestudy.But the informationthatthe Bible andcanonly be properly provideson socialrealityis obscureandfragmentary, understoodin the context of the mass of data now availablefrom ancient Israel'sneighbors.It is no longerpossible simplyto continuein the manner of previousgenerationsof scholarsto whom these datawere not available, as if in a vacuum.Wherethe authordoes referto such material,relianceon tertiarysources-reports by otherbiblicalscholars-leads to misinformation andfalse analogy. Its subtitle notwithstanding,then, the book is essentiallya theological study.It is not recommendedfor studentsof ancientIsrael'ssocial, legal, or economicinstitutions. Westbrook Raymond JohnsHopkinsUniversity Md. Baltimore,

BruceZuckerman.Job the Silent:A Studyin HistoricalCounterpoint. New York:OxfordUniversityPress, 1991. viii, 294 pp. Bruce Zuckerman'snew book is both a highly unusualand a very engaging study of one of the most enigmatic documentsin the Hebrew

294

BOOKREVIEWS

Bible. The book is unusualin thatZuckermananalyzesJob and its literary growth by comparing it to a famous Yiddish folktale called "Bontsye Shvayg,"or "Bontsyethe Silent,"writtenin the late nineteenthcenturyby Y. L. Perets. Zuckermanbegins his study by noting that it is ratherstrangethatJob is rememberedby traditionas the pious patientbelievereven thoughalmost the entire book reveals a Job who is anythingbut patient. In order to betterunderstandhow the traditionalreadingcame to overshadowthe more obvious but less pious reading,Zuckermanfinds a modernexampleof the same phenomenon.He demonstrates,ratherconvincingly,thatPerets'sstory is actuallyan indictmentof the traditionalview thatone mustremainsilent in the face of suffering.The specific motivationbehindthis storywas "the palpableanti-semitismof Perets' time and the violent pogromsthat were its clearestmanifestation"(p. 45). Peretswas criticizingthose traditionalists who maintainedthat one must silently acceptdisasteras God's will. Yet, the vast majorityof later translatorsand interpretersof the story miss the parody and read it as a simple reaffirmationof traditionalpiety. Zuckermanargues that this process of misinterpretation is due primarily to the fact that the experience of the Holocausthas changed the figure of Bontsye from a figure who was a parodyof piety into "whathe must become in a post-Holocaustworld:no longerthe ultimatefool, the ultimate schlemiel,but, rather,the ultimatevictim"(p. 68). Zuckermanmakesthe hermeneuticalwagerthatsimilarhistoricalfactors may be at workin the way thatthe Book of Jobreachedits currentcanonical shape. In a subtle and articulatemanner,Zuckermanspeculatesthat the largest body of materialin the Book of Job, includingmost of the poetic material found in chapters 3-31, was a scorching parody of an earlier, more traditionalfolktale about a pious man named Job who suffered in silence and was rewardedin the end. Zuckermanprovidesstrongsupport for his readingof this materialas a parodyby adducinga small arsenalof traditionalmotifs that are turnedupside down and inside out. Next Zuckermanturnshis criticaleye to the questionof how the story of Job was transformedinto the text that we find in the Bible today.His answeris that the traditionreally could not affordto ignoreor discardthe poetic materialbecause it would have remaineda greaterthreatoutside of the traditionthanwithin the tradition.To neutralizethis threat,the tradition absorbedthe materialand, furthermore,began to temperthe critiqueby appendingmaterialsuch as the Hymnto Wisdomin chapter28. Zuckerman

BOOK REVIEWS

295

speculatesthatjust as the Holocausttransformedthe characterof Bontsye, so too the author of the Hymn to Wisdom may have "felt, as he stood in the shadow of the tragediesof his time, that the 'joke' of the Joban parody wasn't funny anymore-that the time for satire had passed" (p. 145). Zuckermanalso analyzesthe motivationsbehindotheradditionsto the book, such as the Elihu speeches,and the proseframeworkat the beginning and end of the book, in an attemptto demonstratethat differentredactors read the text in differentways. In turn,each redactorrespondedby making additionsto the text in orderto bringit into line with his specifictheological hermeneutic. Zuckerman'sbrilliantanalysishas its weak links as well. He posits that the poetic section of Job is earlier than the prose framework,which he stance of the argues was created in order to bring the anti-traditionalist with into line the more traditional earlier poetic chapters viewpoint held by the later redactors.But in order for this hypothesis to be true, one must assume the following dubious facts: (1) the existence of an earlier and widely known traditionof Job the patientthatthe authorof the poetic section was reacting against; and (2) that the poetic materialoriginally stood by itself without a narrativeframework,or alternatively,that it had a differentframeworkthat is now lost. While Zuckerman'sideas cannot be completely refuted,it seems more naturaland more plausibleto argue that the authorof the poetic materialsbroke open the earlier story now found in the prose frameworkand in certainother sections of the poetic material (e.g., chaps. 27-28), and insertedhis poetic dialogues into this earlierstory,thus changingthe originalstoryof Job the patientinto the more ambiguousstory we find in our Bible today.This is to say, in agreement with Zuckerman,thatthe effect of the combinationis one thatindeedmutes the message of the poetic section, but in disagreementwith him, that this effect may have been createdby the authorof the poetic sectionratherthan by a later,more traditional,redactor.The authorof the poetic sectioncould have intentionallyedited his scathingcritiqueof piety into the traditional story of Job both to heighten the sense of parody and to make it more palatableto the general reading audience, who could accept the critique more easily because it was cloaked in the earliertraditionout of which it had grown. To Zuckerman'scredithe fully acknowledgesthat his reconstructionof the canonicalgrowthof the Book of Job, like any other,is very speculative. Whatmakes Zuckerman'sbook so compellingis thateven if one disagrees

296

BOOKREVIEWS

with aspectsof his highly conjecturalthesis,he unfoldshis carefullycrafted argumentwith such finesse that he managescontinuallyto bring new and interestinginsights into focus. JoelS. Kaminsky LoyolaUniversity Chicago,Ill.

Michael Goulder. The Prayers of David (Psalms 51-72): Studies in the PsalterII. Journalfor the Studyof the OldTestamentSupplementSeries 102. Sheffield:JSOTPress, 1990. 266 pp. The book under review is the second in Michael Goulder'sprojected three-volumeStudies in the Psalter Goulder considersthe collection in which the psalms are gatheredand the orderin which they stand as the keys to theirinterpretation.In ThePsalms of the Sons of Korah(Sheffield, 1982) he studied the collection of psalms carryingin their superscription the designationlibne qorah(Pss. 42-49, 84-85, 87-88). The presentvolume examinesthe collection, "ThePrayersof David"(Pss. 51-72), and the final volume will address"ThePsalmsof Asaph"(Pss. 50, 73-83). In chapter 1, Goulder clearly announceshis hypotheses(pp. 24-25): (1) "The Prayers"were written"for David"by a courtpoet, a priest,and close attendantduringDavid's lifetime;and(2) the prayersarea responseto the events in the final years of the king's life arrangedchronologicallyand sequentiallyfrom the deathof Uriah(Ps. 51) to the successionof Solomon (Ps. 72). In the same chapter,Goulderalso definesand delimitshis studyof "The Prayersof David." The postscriptat Psalm 72:20 reads, "The Prayersof David, son of Jesse, are ended."Where,however,do they begin, and what characterizesthe grouping?,asks Goulder.Is it merely the appearanceof "David"in the superscriptionto severalpsalms thatmarksthe prayers?All but fourof the psalmsin Book I of the Psalter(Pss. 1-41) also carryDavid's name.Are all the psalmsin Book I andII, therefore,"ThePrayersof David"? Goulderidentifies"ThePrayers"as a distinctcollectionbeginningwithPsalm 51 andgoing throughto Psalm72. The overwhelmingpreferencefor YHWH over Elohimin Book I andthe reversein Book II sharplydistinguishthe two books, as does the statementof divisionof the books afterPsalm41. These

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Daniel Grossberg Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 296-298 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486583 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

296

BOOKREVIEWS

with aspectsof his highly conjecturalthesis,he unfoldshis carefullycrafted argumentwith such finesse that he managescontinuallyto bring new and interestinginsights into focus. JoelS. Kaminsky LoyolaUniversity Chicago,Ill.

Michael Goulder. The Prayers of David (Psalms 51-72): Studies in the PsalterII. Journalfor the Studyof the OldTestamentSupplementSeries 102. Sheffield:JSOTPress, 1990. 266 pp. The book under review is the second in Michael Goulder'sprojected three-volumeStudies in the Psalter Goulder considersthe collection in which the psalms are gatheredand the orderin which they stand as the keys to theirinterpretation.In ThePsalms of the Sons of Korah(Sheffield, 1982) he studied the collection of psalms carryingin their superscription the designationlibne qorah(Pss. 42-49, 84-85, 87-88). The presentvolume examinesthe collection, "ThePrayersof David"(Pss. 51-72), and the final volume will address"ThePsalmsof Asaph"(Pss. 50, 73-83). In chapter 1, Goulder clearly announceshis hypotheses(pp. 24-25): (1) "The Prayers"were written"for David"by a courtpoet, a priest,and close attendantduringDavid's lifetime;and(2) the prayersarea responseto the events in the final years of the king's life arrangedchronologicallyand sequentiallyfrom the deathof Uriah(Ps. 51) to the successionof Solomon (Ps. 72). In the same chapter,Goulderalso definesand delimitshis studyof "The Prayersof David." The postscriptat Psalm 72:20 reads, "The Prayersof David, son of Jesse, are ended."Where,however,do they begin, and what characterizesthe grouping?,asks Goulder.Is it merely the appearanceof "David"in the superscriptionto severalpsalms thatmarksthe prayers?All but fourof the psalmsin Book I of the Psalter(Pss. 1-41) also carryDavid's name.Are all the psalmsin Book I andII, therefore,"ThePrayersof David"? Goulderidentifies"ThePrayers"as a distinctcollectionbeginningwithPsalm 51 andgoing throughto Psalm72. The overwhelmingpreferencefor YHWH over Elohimin Book I andthe reversein Book II sharplydistinguishthe two books, as does the statementof divisionof the books afterPsalm41. These

BOOKREVIEWS

297

distinctionspermitGoulderto separatethe psalms of Book I from those of Book II. Book II opens with a series of psalms"of the Sons of Korah"(42, 44-49) and a "psalmof Asaph"(50). Goulderrejectstakingthe collectionof "ThePrayersof David" as beginningwith the firstpsalm of Book II (42), since this would involve an insertionof Korahand Asaphpsalmsinto "The Prayersof David."Beginningwith Psalm51, however,andcontinuingto the end of Book II, which is identicalwith the end of "ThePrayersof David," we have a groupingconsistingmainlyof Davidpsalms.OnlyPsalms66, 67, Goulder,nevertheless, 71, and 72 do not carryl&dawtdin the superscription. takes these also as belonging in the collection from the beginning.On the thatPsalms basis of his lexical andthematictreatment,Goulderdemonstrates 66, 67, and 71 exhibit a content and tone consistentwith their immediate context.He furthermorepoints to Greekevidencefor a Davidsuperscription to Psalms 67 and 71. Moreover,he argues,consistentwith many Hebrew manuscripts,that Psalm 71 is a continuationof Psalm 70. As to the final and not dawtd, psalm of the collection (72), which bearsthe names'ell6mdh Goulderunderstandsthis prayeras havingbeen composedfor the accession of Solomon to the throne,an event that took place duringDavid'slifetime, close to David's death. In chapter2, Goulderreviewsthe 2 Samuel-i KingsSuccessionNarrative, suggestingthat only in the light of such a narrativecan "ThePrayers"be understood.Penitenceand atonementfor the sins of the precedingyear was an importanttheme in the Israeliteautumnfestival. The story of David's troublessuppliesthe myth to accompanythe people'sliturgy.The ceremony, posits Goulder,recapitulatedthe sufferingsof David,whomGodchose to be the founderof a perpetualdynasty."Davidsinned,and in his trialsatoned for his sin, and so broughtin an age of peace andprosperity:we re-enacthis trials,in hope to atone for our sins andto bringin a happiertime,"suggests Goulder(p. 48). The remainderof the book is given to a close exposition of Psalms 51-72. In his exegesis, Goulder insightfullyand convincinglyargueshis case. Goulderregardsthe technicaltermsin Psalms,topographicalnotes and musical notes, and the sequence of the prayersas supportingthe thematic evidencethat"ourpsalmistputintoDavid'smouthsuitablewordsof penitence for his ill deeds [in the deathof Uriah]in 51; he expressedthe king'sanguish throughthe harddays of the retreatandhis triumphafterbattlein 52-68; he wrotetwo long lamentsfor the revoltsof Sheba(69) and Adonijah(70-71); and here [72] is his psalmof hope for the young Solomon"(p. 246).

298

BOOKREVIEWS

Gouldertreatsother commentariesin an able and evenhandedmanner. Even those workswhich do not supporthis thesisarecitedfairlyandrefuted effectively. Anyone interestedin the psalms, their provenance,and their applicationwould do well to studythis work. DanielGrossberg StateUniversity of NewYorkatAlbany Albany,N.Y. Ze'ev W. Falk.ReligiousLawand Ethics:Studiesin BiblicalandRabbinical Theonomy.Jerusalem:MesharimPublishers,1991. 221 pp. It is difficultto describeZe'ev Falk'sReligiousLawand Ethicsas being a work of Jewish philosophy,Jewish law and ethics, MishpatIvri, or even a sociological study of the developmentof halakhah,becauseit is all these things and much more. The volume is a unique work, about which the authorstates:"I triedto discuss Jewishlegal sourcesfromthe pointof view of modem jurisprudenceand legal theory,then added aspects of political science and sociology, as well as a comparisonwith otherreligiouslaws. Time and again I wrestledwith the problemof conflictbetweenJewishlaw andethics, so thatI finallyfelt compelledto writethe presentbook"(p. 217). The basic question of the book is whether there is a Jewish ethics independentof halakhahandwhy.Falk'sargumentsaregenerallycompelling andinsightfulbut also selective.Examplesof his insightsinclude: 1. The use of the term"theonomy"to describethe biblicaland rabbinic legal andethicalsystemsis an importantdistinction,althoughthedistinctions betweenthe two theonomiesare nevertotallydeveloped. 2. Arguments(with proof-textsand citations)which demonstratehow Jewishsourcesarebothteleologicalanddeontologicalin nature,butprimarily the latter(pp. 41-45 [biblical]andpp. 136-140 [rabbinic]).Thesearguments presenta muchfullerpictureof Jewishsourcesthanin manyotherstudies. 3. The majorquestionof whetherJewishethics can fulfill the minimum philosophicalstandardof beinguniversalin scope is answeredin the affirmative by this book. Falk's study of the questiongoes furtherthanmost other studiesin the field in analyzingthe sociologicalinfluenceswhich affect the of Jewishethics (pp.47-54, 142-147). "universality" also demonstratesthat it is possible to isolate the ethical The author 4, principlesof JudaismfromJudaism'ssources,whichis of criticalimportance

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Richard A. Freund Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 298-300 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486584 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

298

BOOKREVIEWS

Gouldertreatsother commentariesin an able and evenhandedmanner. Even those workswhich do not supporthis thesisarecitedfairlyandrefuted effectively. Anyone interestedin the psalms, their provenance,and their applicationwould do well to studythis work. DanielGrossberg StateUniversity of NewYorkatAlbany Albany,N.Y. Ze'ev W. Falk.ReligiousLawand Ethics:Studiesin BiblicalandRabbinical Theonomy.Jerusalem:MesharimPublishers,1991. 221 pp. It is difficultto describeZe'ev Falk'sReligiousLawand Ethicsas being a work of Jewish philosophy,Jewish law and ethics, MishpatIvri, or even a sociological study of the developmentof halakhah,becauseit is all these things and much more. The volume is a unique work, about which the authorstates:"I triedto discuss Jewishlegal sourcesfromthe pointof view of modem jurisprudenceand legal theory,then added aspects of political science and sociology, as well as a comparisonwith otherreligiouslaws. Time and again I wrestledwith the problemof conflictbetweenJewishlaw andethics, so thatI finallyfelt compelledto writethe presentbook"(p. 217). The basic question of the book is whether there is a Jewish ethics independentof halakhahandwhy.Falk'sargumentsaregenerallycompelling andinsightfulbut also selective.Examplesof his insightsinclude: 1. The use of the term"theonomy"to describethe biblicaland rabbinic legal andethicalsystemsis an importantdistinction,althoughthedistinctions betweenthe two theonomiesare nevertotallydeveloped. 2. Arguments(with proof-textsand citations)which demonstratehow Jewishsourcesarebothteleologicalanddeontologicalin nature,butprimarily the latter(pp. 41-45 [biblical]andpp. 136-140 [rabbinic]).Thesearguments presenta muchfullerpictureof Jewishsourcesthanin manyotherstudies. 3. The majorquestionof whetherJewishethics can fulfill the minimum philosophicalstandardof beinguniversalin scope is answeredin the affirmative by this book. Falk's study of the questiongoes furtherthanmost other studiesin the field in analyzingthe sociologicalinfluenceswhich affect the of Jewishethics (pp.47-54, 142-147). "universality" also demonstratesthat it is possible to isolate the ethical The author 4, principlesof JudaismfromJudaism'ssources,whichis of criticalimportance

BOOK REVIEWS

299

to the developmentof MishpatIvri in Israelas Israelisstruggleto createa systemof modem law which simultaneouslyis rootedin Jewishtraditionbut is not directlyrelatedto exact halakhicdecisions and decisors.The author presents,in good philosophicalfashion,manyof the modemopinionson the question,but early on establisheshis view thatJewishethics can and must be independentof halakhah.He states:"Onemusthavean ethicalknowledge independentlyof the religiousauthority,even of God himself' (p. 1). To its credit, the book presentsthe widest possible varietyof thinkers on this question,includingsuch variedmodem writersas E. Berkovits,D. Bleich, M. Fox, D. Weiss-Halivni,A. Lichtenstein,D. Novak, S. Siegel, A. J. Heschel,J. B. Solveitchik,andmanyothers. The book is writtenas a seriesof short(usually1- to 3-page)vignettes(or chapters)on most of the majormeta-questionsof Jewishethicsandlaw, and does not flow neatlyfromchapterto chapter.It appearsthattheliterarymodel Falkhadin mindwas a crossbetweenanencyclopediaarticle,a philosophical tome, and a law code, and in each chapterthereare selectedcitationsfrom biblical and rabbinicalworks to supporthis arguments.The formatand the scope of the book are, therefore,both problematicand useful. Some of the problemsinvolve: 1. Overa thirdof the book is devotedto an investigationof biblicalethics (84 pages), anotherthirdto (classical) rabbinicalethics (81 pages), with a small sampling of Hellenistic literature(4 pages) and medievalideas (16 pages)as well as selectedmodernsources(16 pages)relatingto thequestions raised in the first two-thirdsof the book. Unfortunately,the encyclopedic rangeof issues and formatof the book leave the readeralwayswaitingfor a muchlongeranalysisof the issues raisedin each section. 2. Althoughthe authoremploys many modem philosophicalarguments and methodologiesto analyzebiblical and rabbinictexts, he did not generally employ any of the results of modem text-criticalstudies of the Bible and rabbinicliterature,which would have given the work anotherlevel of discourse. 3. Also, the attemptto be totally encyclopedicin the ancient period leads to the difficulty of presentingonly four pages on some 500 years of Jewish source materialsin the chapterson postbiblicalethics (Second and only selections which supporthis Temple/Hellenistic/Greco-Roman), basic thesis for the over 1,000 years from the close of the Talmudto the eighteenthcentury. Overall,however,this formatdoes performthe usefulserviceof giving a

300

BOOKREVIEWS

historyof Jewishethics accordingto the idea of an independentethicaltraditionwhichis supportedby othermodemstudiesof religiousandphilosophical ethics from differentreligious and academicperspectives.The formatalso invitesfurtherreading,andan extensivebibliographyandcitationsystemare includedin the book.While this may notbe the definitivebookon thesubject of the systematicanalysisof the meta-issuesof Jewishlaw and ethics, it is an innovativeandinformativeworkwhichsuggeststhatothersshouldfollow Falk'slead in this area. A. Freund Richard of Nebraska atOmaha University Omaha,Nebr.

Scot McKnight.A LightAmongthe Gentiles:JewishMissionaryActivityin the Second TemplePeriod. Minneapolis:FortressPress, 1991. x, 205 pp. In this small monograph,Scot McKnightarguesthatJudaismduringthe SecondTempleperiod(andlater)was not a "missionaryreligion."Pageafter page he drives home the message that what has been used as evidence for missionaryactivityis not usable,not reliable,or of no generalsignificance. He proceedsmethodicallyby seekinganswersto a set of questionsfrom the availableevidence (Apocryphaand Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, rabbinictexts, plus inscriptions,Greco-Romanliterature, and finally the New Testament):What can we discern from the sources regardingJewish attitudesto Gentiles(chap. 1)? Whatattitudesdid the Jews have regardingproselytesand proselytism(chap.2)? How did Jews convert Gentiles(chap.3)? Whatwere the requirements expectedof a convert(chap. 4)? Whatare the variouslevels of adherenceto Judaism(chap.5)? The New Testamentevidence is discussedseparately,in a sixth andfinalchapter. The volume concludes with copious notes (pp. 123-159), full indices, and a large bibliography(pp. 160-184), to which one might add the following titles: U. Rappaport,Jewish ReligiousPropagandaand Proselytism in the Period of the Second Commonwealth(Jerusalem,1965); C. Bussmann, Themender paulinischenMissionspredigtauf dem Hintergrundder Missionsliteratur (Bern,1971);andDavidNovak, spiatjiidisch-hellenistischen TheImageof the Non-Jewin Judaism:An Historicaland ConstructiveStudy of the NoahideLaws (Toronto,1983).

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Joseph Sievers Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 300-303 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486585 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

300

BOOKREVIEWS

historyof Jewishethics accordingto the idea of an independentethicaltraditionwhichis supportedby othermodemstudiesof religiousandphilosophical ethics from differentreligious and academicperspectives.The formatalso invitesfurtherreading,andan extensivebibliographyandcitationsystemare includedin the book.While this may notbe the definitivebookon thesubject of the systematicanalysisof the meta-issuesof Jewishlaw and ethics, it is an innovativeandinformativeworkwhichsuggeststhatothersshouldfollow Falk'slead in this area. A. Freund Richard of Nebraska atOmaha University Omaha,Nebr.

Scot McKnight.A LightAmongthe Gentiles:JewishMissionaryActivityin the Second TemplePeriod. Minneapolis:FortressPress, 1991. x, 205 pp. In this small monograph,Scot McKnightarguesthatJudaismduringthe SecondTempleperiod(andlater)was not a "missionaryreligion."Pageafter page he drives home the message that what has been used as evidence for missionaryactivityis not usable,not reliable,or of no generalsignificance. He proceedsmethodicallyby seekinganswersto a set of questionsfrom the availableevidence (Apocryphaand Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Philo, Josephus, rabbinictexts, plus inscriptions,Greco-Romanliterature, and finally the New Testament):What can we discern from the sources regardingJewish attitudesto Gentiles(chap. 1)? Whatattitudesdid the Jews have regardingproselytesand proselytism(chap.2)? How did Jews convert Gentiles(chap.3)? Whatwere the requirements expectedof a convert(chap. 4)? Whatare the variouslevels of adherenceto Judaism(chap.5)? The New Testamentevidence is discussedseparately,in a sixth andfinalchapter. The volume concludes with copious notes (pp. 123-159), full indices, and a large bibliography(pp. 160-184), to which one might add the following titles: U. Rappaport,Jewish ReligiousPropagandaand Proselytism in the Period of the Second Commonwealth(Jerusalem,1965); C. Bussmann, Themender paulinischenMissionspredigtauf dem Hintergrundder Missionsliteratur (Bern,1971);andDavidNovak, spiatjiidisch-hellenistischen TheImageof the Non-Jewin Judaism:An Historicaland ConstructiveStudy of the NoahideLaws (Toronto,1983).

BOOK REVIEWS

301

The main thesis of this work, that there is not as much evidence for active proselytizingby Jews duringthe Second Templeperiodas has been supposed,is forcefully argued.There are, however,quite a few difficulties with importantdetails. McKnightpresentsthe readerwith an enormousamountof well-indexed sourcematerial.Even for thatalone,he woulddeservethe reader'sgratitude. Most of the referencesI checked are accurate(but on p. 13, lines 25-27, Ag. Ap. should be replacedby Ant. threetimes). However,even thoughthe sourcesmay touch on the questionsaddressedby McKnight,they frequently do not fully supporthis statements.Forexample,he statesthat"animportant element of Jewish views of proselytizationis that therewill be a massive conversionof Gentiles at the Last Day" (p. 47). He supportsthis by over a dozenreferencesto Apocrypha,Pseudepigrapha, andTalmud.Whileall these texts involve Gentiles in a positive relationshipto the God of Israelin an eschatologicalframework,few referto conversion. In the discussion of relations between Jews and Gentiles, McKnight lists eight aspects of an "integratingtendency"(p. 12). One of these is "friendliness."After a few referencesto Philo, McKnightconcentrateson the evidence relating to Sardis. First he cites three documentscontained in Josephus' Antiquities.All of them deal not with friendlinessbut with the legal status and internalautonomyof the Jewish communityof Sardis, safeguardedthroughRoman guarantees(againsta less than friendlylocal administration?).The remainingevidence pertainsto later centuries,but aside from the chronologicalquestion,I am not sure how much probative value the remainsof the greatsynagoguehave for "friendliness." Other more pertinent evidence could have been cited for-and against-friendly relationsbetweenJews and Gentiles,in Palestineas well as in the diaspora.But sweepingstatementssuchas "theJews weregenerally friendlywiththeirneighbors"(p. 14;cf. pp.26, 116)arenothelpful,especially afterthe correctstatementthat"it is no longeraccurate-nor ever was it-to whereas speakof 'the JewishattitudetowardGentiles'" (p. 11).Furthermore, McKnight speaks, somewhat oddly, of plural "missionaryreligions"and implicitlyof nonmissionaryreligionswithinChristianity(p. 5), he seems to try to establishone identicalpatternof opennesswithoutmissionaryefforts for Judaism,in Jerusalem,Galilee, Alexandria,Sardis,Antioch, and most everywhereelse, from the late Second Templeperiod till Constantine.He then is able to dismiss the ratherstrongevidencefor conversionaryactivity in Rome and the isolationismof Qumranas mereexceptionsto the rule.

302

BOOKREVIEWS

Generalizationsare sometimesnecessary,but McKnightis often rather quick in harmonizingdisparatedata or leaving out evidence contraryto his thesis. For example, he cites Ben Sira 13:15 and 18:13, in each case withoutthe verses immediatelyfollowing, therebyattributinga one-sidedly universalisticoutlookto Ben Sira. Josephusis one of McKnight'smainsourcesthroughoutandis discussed in some detail (pp. 70-73, 96-97). It surprises,however,thathe can state: "The consensus today is that Josephusis essentiallyreliablebut with not uncommonembellishments"(p. 143,n. 99). Nowheredoes McKnightaddress the differencesbetween Josephus' several works, and often the biases of Josephusand of his sourcesseem to be forgotten. McKnighttries to use rabbinicevidencefor the periodunderdiscussion with due caution. Some minor mistakesare noticeable,like his quotinga fourth-centurytanna, dating Abot de R. Natan later than the Babylonian Talmud,and citing it in an unconventionalway (p. 42). More serious is the use of one of the minor noncanonicaltractatesas evidence for an idea to be found in "the rabbis"(p. 50). Instead,one mighthave expected discussion of various passages in the Mishnah,Tosefta, and Yerushalmi of Avodah Zarah, and perhapsa passing referenceto the extracanonical tractateGerim. Each book ought to be judged by what it includes,and not by what is excluded.But it strikesthis readeras peculiarthatamongthe variousmeans of gainingproselytesmarriagereceives only half a sentenceof attention(p. 68). This is laterexplainedby the assertionthatmarriage(andothermethods, such as economic advantageand force) "arenot worthyof considerationin a studyon missionaryactivity"(p. 77). It seems thatjust as McKnightpays attentionto JosephandAsenath,so marriageas a factorleadingto proselytism would need to be addressed. McKnightinsteadcomes to the conclusionthat"itis likely thatthe most effective and probablyunconsciousmethodJews 'used' to attractGentiles was the compellingforce of a good life" (p. 67). He cites severallegendary or sententioustexts in support,but his argumentrests primarilyon modern analogies.McKnightseems to overlookthefactthatthewitnessof a religion's membersis a necessaryprerequisitefor renderinga religionattractive,butis not by itself sufficientfor explainingthe religion'sspread. McKnight has effectively challenged the idea of widespreadJewish missionary activity. But the question remains:If there was little or no "missionary" activity(theburdenof proofnow restson whoeverassertsthere

BOOKREVIEWS

303

was), why and how did Judaismspreadas widely as it did in the Roman world? JosephSievers Pontifical BiblicalInstitute Rome, Italy

MenachemKellner.Maimonideson HumanPerfection.BrownJudaicStudies 202. Atlanta:ScholarsPress, 1990, xiv, 100 pp. MenachemKellner.Maimonideson Judaismand theJewishPeople.Albany: StateUniversityof New YorkPress, 1991. xii, 168 pp. In recentyearsMaimonidesscholarshiphas beeninfusedwithan influxof criticalworksdevotedto examiningMaimonides'coherenceas a philosopher. worksboth fall into this camp MenachemKellner'stwo monograph-length in that each work addressesa key concern in Maimonides'philosophical theology: the first monographis a study of Maimonides'natureof human perfection,while the second focuses upon the perfectionsinherentin the Jewishpeople. InMaimonideson HumanPerfection,Kellner'spositionis clearlystatedat the outset:that"Maimonidesheld thatGod, for His own inscrutablereasons, really and truly commandedthe mitzvothfor all Jews, both the perfected among them and the unperfected"(p. xiii); and further,that Maimonides' claims at the end of the Guide for the Perplexed are clarifiedby this position. In orderto supportthis contention,Kellnerfirstdistinguishestwo interpretativeschools: one which emphasizesthe importanceof practical or moralperfectionin orderto achieve knowledgeof God, and one which emphasizes intellectual perfection. According to the intellectualreading, Maimonides'esotericposition,as intimatedin the Guide,is thatthe "highest perfectionto which humanscan aspireis definedin termsof the intellect"(p. 3). Clearly,sucha readinggoes againstthe grainof classicalrabbinicJudaism in upholdingintellectualperfectionover and above ritualisticobservance. In contradistinction,the practical reading of the Guide underscoresthe importanceof 3.54, wherein Maimonidesintimatesthat humanperfection ultimatelyresidesin the active formof imitatiodei. But what actionsor statesof the Deity are we to imitate?Overthe years three schools of thoughthave developed:those such as H. Cohen and S.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Tamar M. Rudavsky Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 303-306 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486586 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:18 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOKREVIEWS

303

was), why and how did Judaismspreadas widely as it did in the Roman world? JosephSievers Pontifical BiblicalInstitute Rome, Italy

MenachemKellner.Maimonideson HumanPerfection.BrownJudaicStudies 202. Atlanta:ScholarsPress, 1990, xiv, 100 pp. MenachemKellner.Maimonideson Judaismand theJewishPeople.Albany: StateUniversityof New YorkPress, 1991. xii, 168 pp. In recentyearsMaimonidesscholarshiphas beeninfusedwithan influxof criticalworksdevotedto examiningMaimonides'coherenceas a philosopher. worksboth fall into this camp MenachemKellner'stwo monograph-length in that each work addressesa key concern in Maimonides'philosophical theology: the first monographis a study of Maimonides'natureof human perfection,while the second focuses upon the perfectionsinherentin the Jewishpeople. InMaimonideson HumanPerfection,Kellner'spositionis clearlystatedat the outset:that"Maimonidesheld thatGod, for His own inscrutablereasons, really and truly commandedthe mitzvothfor all Jews, both the perfected among them and the unperfected"(p. xiii); and further,that Maimonides' claims at the end of the Guide for the Perplexed are clarifiedby this position. In orderto supportthis contention,Kellnerfirstdistinguishestwo interpretativeschools: one which emphasizesthe importanceof practical or moralperfectionin orderto achieve knowledgeof God, and one which emphasizes intellectual perfection. According to the intellectualreading, Maimonides'esotericposition,as intimatedin the Guide,is thatthe "highest perfectionto which humanscan aspireis definedin termsof the intellect"(p. 3). Clearly,sucha readinggoes againstthe grainof classicalrabbinicJudaism in upholdingintellectualperfectionover and above ritualisticobservance. In contradistinction,the practical reading of the Guide underscoresthe importanceof 3.54, wherein Maimonidesintimatesthat humanperfection ultimatelyresidesin the active formof imitatiodei. But what actionsor statesof the Deity are we to imitate?Overthe years three schools of thoughthave developed:those such as H. Cohen and S.

304

BOOKREVIEWS

Schwartzschild,who have emphasizedemulationof God's moralqualities; those, following L. Straussand S. Pines, who have maintainedthathuman perfectionresults from emulatingGod's governancethroughcreatingjust states;and most recentlya view popularizedby I. TwerskyandD. Hartman, thatintellectualperfection"is not in itself the finalend of humanexistence but itself serves as a way of deepening,enriching,andelevatingobservance of the mitzvoth"(p. 11). Kellner'saim is to defendthis latterreadingof the Guide.Wisely, Kellnerdoes not attempta wholesalerejectionof alternative readings;aptlynotingthatMaimonides"didtoo good a job of hidinghis true views" (p. 11), Kellnerconceiveshis taskas findingthatinterpretation which "doesas little violence as possible to the texts he left us andis as consistent as possible with everythingwe know of the man"(p. 11). The key to Kellner'sreadingresidesin his interpretation of Maimonides' extendedparablefoundin Guide3:51-54. Accordingto Kellner,the purpose of these chaptersis primarilyreligious, namely to move humanbeings to worship God in appropriateways. The question which has perplexed critics for centuriesis how Maimonidesenvisions this worship:is it to be achievedhalakhically,or can the truephilosophertranscendthe stricturesof halakhah?Rejecting"secularist"or "naturalist" readingsof the Guidewhich Maimonides as suggesting (albeit esoterically)that philosophers interpret can ultimatelyattain a greaterlevel of perfectionthan halakhists,Kellner proffersa "new interpretationof the parable"which downplaysnot only the role of naturalscience but that of simple moral perfectionas well. Kellner argues that the parable pertains to Jews alone: nowhere does Maimonides allow for imitatio dei on the part of non-Jews. Although moral perfection,which is a necessarybut not sufficientprerequisitefor intellectualperfection,is open to non-Jews,KellnerclaimsthatMaimonides "was extremely dubious about the possibilityof a non-Jewachievingthe sort of moral perfectionnecessary for intellectualperfection"(p. 28). So too is prophecylimited de facto to Jews. Kellner does assent that his reading,which echoes that of Twersky, of Maimonides' dependsuponan elusive andhighlyenigmaticinterpretation theoriesof creationand providence.For if, as many scholarshave argued in recent years, it is claimed that Maimonidesuphelda naturalistictheory of both creationof the universeand divine providence,then Maimonides' statementspertainingto humanperfectionwill just as readilylendthemselves to a naturalistic,even political interpretation.While not offering a fully developed critique of this latter position, Kellner hints at why he finds

BOOK REVIEWS

305

the politicizedreadingsof L. Bermanand Pines unfaithfulto Maimonides' adherenceto halakhicperfection. In light of this issue, Kellner turns in Maimonideson Judaismand the Jewish People to a relatedquestion,namely the extent to which Jews are ontologicallydistinctfrom Gentiles.This questionhas had far-reaching implicationsnot only in the contextof medievaltheoriesof election,prophecy, and immortality;the ramificationsof this issue are felt to this very day in modem debates over "who is a Jew."Kellnerrightlyplaces this religious issue squarelywithin the contextof philosophicalpsychology.Summarizing the differencesbetween the Platonicand Aristoteliantheoriesof the origin and structureof the humansoul, he claims that "if the Aristotelianposition commitsone to a measureof universalism,then [Platonism]commitsone to a measureof particularism" whichemphasizesessential (p. 5). Particularism, and differences between Jew carrieswith it adverse Gentile, metaphysical if to for are Jews distinct metaphysically consequencespertaining conversion; from Gentiles, then clearly conversionto Judaismis not possible,eitherat presentor in the Messianicperiod. Kellner'sthesis is thatMaimonidesis an Aristotelianon this issue, and that in contradistinctionto Halevi, Maimonidesdownplaysmetaphysical differencesbetween Jew and Gentile in favor of a universalistattitude.In supportof this thesis Kellnerarguesthatprophecyandprovidence,according to Maimonides,arenot limitedto Jews (p. 26); thatimmortalityis dependent upon intellectualperfection,and not simply upon being a Jew (p. 30); that differencesbetweenJew and Gentilewill disappearby the Messianicage (p. 35); that knowing God is the "peakand pinnacleof metaphysics... also the purposeand goal of human[not Jewish]life" (p. 37); thatbeing a Jew is definedby one's theologicalbeliefs and not by biology (p. 63); and that inasmuchas descentfromAbrahamis a religiousandnot a biologicalmatter, conversionis thereforemetaphysicallypossible (p. 50). As Kellnerso aptly putsit, whatdistinguishesJews fromGentiles,accordingto Maimonides,lies in their software:"in termsof their 'hardware'all humanbeings are alike" (p. 57). In short,whetherone is a Jew is defined"bythe doctrineshe or she holds"(p. 65). Whatdoctrinesare these?In chapter8, Kellnersuggeststhat they comprisethose clustersof beliefs presupposedby ma'asehbereshitand ma'asehmerkavah,physics and metaphysics. In this second work Kellner has characterizeda tantalizingpictureof Maimonides as a champion of liberal universalism,accordingto whom differencesbetween Jew and Gentile will ultimatelybe erased. And yet

306

REVIEWS BOOK

a nagging question remains:if Kellner's interpretationis followed, then why, accordingto Maimonides,are Gentiles so far removedfrom human perfectionin this life? Why can't the non-Jewachieve the sort of ultimate perfectiondescribedin Kellner'sfirstmonograph,especiallyif s/he has been inculcatedwith properbeliefs concerningmetaphysicsand naturalscience? Havewe yet anothercontradictionin Maimonides'writings?Orhavewe here a contradictionin Kellner'sreading?Whilenot answeringthesequeriesfully, Kellner'sworks serve as a handsomereminderthatMaimonidesonce again has providedus with timelydiscussionsof perennialphilosophicalquestions. TamarM.Rudavsky OhioStateUniversity Ohio Columbus, OliverLeaman.MosesMaimonides.ArabicThoughtandCulture.New York: Routledge,Chapman& Hull, 1990. xii, 190 pp. As befits the series in which this book appears,OliverLeamanbelieves "itis misleadingto thinkof Maimonidesas a specificallyJewishphilosopher" (p. ix). That view is the second of the principalreasonswhy he maintains the firstbeing the thatMaimonides'philosophyneeds to be "re-examined," popularbutmisguidedsearchfor esotericteachingsin theGuide.InLeaman's opinion, this is part of an "orientalistmode of analysis"which rejectsthe philosophicalsignificanceof Arabictexts.Maimonides,whomLeamanplaces exclusively within the orbit of Islamicphilosophy,is thus portrayedas the victimof "theorientalistobsessionwith refusingto acknowledgethatpeople in the Islamicworld actuallysay whatthey meanwhen they talkandwrite" (p. 4). remarks Thereaderwho is notimmediatelydeterredby theseembarrassing from continuingwith the book will be amusedby the author'ssubsequent discomfortin discussingthe Guidealongpurelyphilosophicallines. Leaman repeatedly(and repetitiously)modifies Maimonides'argumentto accommodate traditionalreligious views. Usually these are not given as Jewish views, but of course they are specifically,if not exclusively,Jewish. And then there are the particularlyJewish elementsof Maimonides'philosophy which Leamanhimself is obliged to mention,such as the argumentsfor the uniquenessof Moses' prophecy(p. 59) andthe superiorityof Mosaiclaw (p. 131).

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Alfred L. Ivry Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 306-308 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486587 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:18 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

306

REVIEWS BOOK

a nagging question remains:if Kellner's interpretationis followed, then why, accordingto Maimonides,are Gentiles so far removedfrom human perfectionin this life? Why can't the non-Jewachieve the sort of ultimate perfectiondescribedin Kellner'sfirstmonograph,especiallyif s/he has been inculcatedwith properbeliefs concerningmetaphysicsand naturalscience? Havewe yet anothercontradictionin Maimonides'writings?Orhavewe here a contradictionin Kellner'sreading?Whilenot answeringthesequeriesfully, Kellner'sworks serve as a handsomereminderthatMaimonidesonce again has providedus with timelydiscussionsof perennialphilosophicalquestions. TamarM.Rudavsky OhioStateUniversity Ohio Columbus, OliverLeaman.MosesMaimonides.ArabicThoughtandCulture.New York: Routledge,Chapman& Hull, 1990. xii, 190 pp. As befits the series in which this book appears,OliverLeamanbelieves "itis misleadingto thinkof Maimonidesas a specificallyJewishphilosopher" (p. ix). That view is the second of the principalreasonswhy he maintains the firstbeing the thatMaimonides'philosophyneeds to be "re-examined," popularbutmisguidedsearchfor esotericteachingsin theGuide.InLeaman's opinion, this is part of an "orientalistmode of analysis"which rejectsthe philosophicalsignificanceof Arabictexts.Maimonides,whomLeamanplaces exclusively within the orbit of Islamicphilosophy,is thus portrayedas the victimof "theorientalistobsessionwith refusingto acknowledgethatpeople in the Islamicworld actuallysay whatthey meanwhen they talkandwrite" (p. 4). remarks Thereaderwho is notimmediatelydeterredby theseembarrassing from continuingwith the book will be amusedby the author'ssubsequent discomfortin discussingthe Guidealongpurelyphilosophicallines. Leaman repeatedly(and repetitiously)modifies Maimonides'argumentto accommodate traditionalreligious views. Usually these are not given as Jewish views, but of course they are specifically,if not exclusively,Jewish. And then there are the particularlyJewish elementsof Maimonides'philosophy which Leamanhimself is obliged to mention,such as the argumentsfor the uniquenessof Moses' prophecy(p. 59) andthe superiorityof Mosaiclaw (p. 131).

BOOK REVIEWS

307

The style of this book is popularand ratherunscholarly,with little specificcitationof the secondaryliteraturewith whichLeamanquarrels,and much reliance on translationsby others of the primaryliterature.Leaman mostly refers to his own publications,which include a study of Averroes' philosophy,andbuildson this in comparingandcontrastingMaimonideswith both al-GhazaliandAverroes. In so employing Averroes,Leamanfollows a commonif anachronistic medievaltradition,one which helpedestablishthe Aristoteliancredentialsof Maimonides.Leamanconcurswith this interpretation, albeitwith significant Maimonides' at face assertions value, he believes qualifications.Taking that Maimonidestruly accepts the possibilityof creationfrom nothingand the validity of traditionalbeliefs in divine omniscience,providence,and resurrection. Leaman'satempts to reconcile these views with a philosophicallyrespectableAristotelianismare largely unsuccessful,and, to his credit,he is fully awareof his difficulties.Nevertheless,he steadfastlyrefusesto consider Maimonidesas one who may have held nontraditional and non-Aristotelian of The and best perspectives religion philosophy. thing he can say about Maimonidesas a philosopheris thathis approachgroundsreligiousbelief in rationalargument,which argumentcan do no harmto the faithful,even if wrongin its specific assertions(p. 179). The topics Leaman addresses in this book are indeed central to Maimonides' stature as a philosopher,and are mostly epistemological in content. The applicabilityof normallanguageto assertionsconcerning God is thoroughlydiscussed, LeamancontrastingAverroes'positive view of equivocation with Maimonides' supposedly negative attitudetoward it, rejecting any common meanings to terms applied to God and to His creatures(p. 23). Leamanis forced by the text of the Guideto modify this contrastalmost immediately,but he persists in returningto it throughout the book. Accepting Maimonides'affirmationsat face value as he does, Leaman'sattemptsat philosophicalargumenthereand elsewherefrequently beg the questionat issue (see pp. 37, 56, 62, 100, 119, 138, 148, 157, 164, 169). In discussing prophecy,Leamanrealizes that Maimonidesbelieves that propheticvisions are not meantto be takenliterally(p. 51), yet he persists in puzzlingover their"objective"validity,ignoringthe significanceallegory heldfor Maimonides.Leamanis apparentlyunawareas well of thecircularity involved in his explanationof Mosaic prophecy(p. 62), which he believes

BOOKREVIEWS

308

did not need to use Moses' imaginativefaculty,since the eventsat Sinaiwere supposedlyof an empiricalandrationalsort,thoughdivinelyorganized. Leamanoffersan interestinganalysisof the quarrelMaimonideshadwith the mutakallimun,thoughhe is less awarethanMaimonideshimself of the futility of the argument,since both deny the other'spremises.Leamanmay also take Maimonides'view of resurrectiontoo seriouslyphilosophically, since aftercreationitself Maimonideseffectivelyeliminatesthe possibilityof such a radicallyunnaturalevent ever occurring. Interestingly,Leamandoes not blink at Maimonides'intellectuallybiased and elitist view of divine providence,thoughhe argueswell for the position-not as uncommonas he may think-that ideal humanperfection entails both ethical/socialinvolvementand intellectualcontemplation.He does not full appreciate,however,thatMaimonides'personalpreferenceis for the ascetic life, rooted no doubt both in personalinclinationsand a non-Aristotelianperspectiveon life. AlfredL. Ivry NewYorkUniversity NewYork,N.Y.

EphraimKanarfogel.JewishEducationand Societyin theHighMiddleAges. Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress, 1992. 213 pp. In the environmentthat producedRashi and the tosafists, enormous intellectualenergy was focused on the most challengingtexts in the Jewish tradition.These scholars changed forever our understandingof what the Talmudis, the techniqueof talmudicstudy,even the very conceptionof talmudtorah.Considerableattentionhas been devotedto the attitudesof the tosafists towardthe social, economic, and spiritualproblemsof their age. Less has been given to the educationalinstitutionsandvaluesthatprevailed amongthe Jewishcommunitiesin whichthe tosafistsrose to preeminence. It seems reasonableto assumethatthe tosafistscouldhavebeenproduced schools, much as major only from a broad base of community-sponsored the structure of little league, baseball rise players through pyramidal league that and teams. the schoolsestabminorleague Further, high school, college, lished and fundedby the medievalJewishcommunityprovided"universal" primaryeducation(at least for males) and highereducationfor those with

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Marc Saperstein Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 308-311 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486588 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:18 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOKREVIEWS

308

did not need to use Moses' imaginativefaculty,since the eventsat Sinaiwere supposedlyof an empiricalandrationalsort,thoughdivinelyorganized. Leamanoffersan interestinganalysisof the quarrelMaimonideshadwith the mutakallimun,thoughhe is less awarethanMaimonideshimself of the futility of the argument,since both deny the other'spremises.Leamanmay also take Maimonides'view of resurrectiontoo seriouslyphilosophically, since aftercreationitself Maimonideseffectivelyeliminatesthe possibilityof such a radicallyunnaturalevent ever occurring. Interestingly,Leamandoes not blink at Maimonides'intellectuallybiased and elitist view of divine providence,thoughhe argueswell for the position-not as uncommonas he may think-that ideal humanperfection entails both ethical/socialinvolvementand intellectualcontemplation.He does not full appreciate,however,thatMaimonides'personalpreferenceis for the ascetic life, rooted no doubt both in personalinclinationsand a non-Aristotelianperspectiveon life. AlfredL. Ivry NewYorkUniversity NewYork,N.Y.

EphraimKanarfogel.JewishEducationand Societyin theHighMiddleAges. Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress, 1992. 213 pp. In the environmentthat producedRashi and the tosafists, enormous intellectualenergy was focused on the most challengingtexts in the Jewish tradition.These scholars changed forever our understandingof what the Talmudis, the techniqueof talmudicstudy,even the very conceptionof talmudtorah.Considerableattentionhas been devotedto the attitudesof the tosafists towardthe social, economic, and spiritualproblemsof their age. Less has been given to the educationalinstitutionsandvaluesthatprevailed amongthe Jewishcommunitiesin whichthe tosafistsrose to preeminence. It seems reasonableto assumethatthe tosafistscouldhavebeenproduced schools, much as major only from a broad base of community-sponsored the structure of little league, baseball rise players through pyramidal league that and teams. the schoolsestabminorleague Further, high school, college, lished and fundedby the medievalJewishcommunityprovided"universal" primaryeducation(at least for males) and highereducationfor those with

BOOKREVIEWS

309

talents.And finally,thattheeducationalcommitmentsof medieval appropriate Jews were considerablybroaderthanthose of theirChristianneighbors,who saw no need for literacyoutsidethe church.This lastpointis buttressedwith an often-citedpassage by a disciple of Abelardwho criticizesthe lack of commitmentto educationamonghis Christiancontemporaries by contrasting themwith the Jews, who educateall theirsons no matterhow poorthey are, of God's law, "notfor gain, as the Christiansdo, but for the understanding and not only [their]sons, but [their]daughters." Such assumptionsare vigorously challengedby EphraimKanarfogel's research,which forces us to reevaluateand revise muchof whatwe thought we knew. He concludesthatunlikethe communitiesof talmudicBabylonia, Islamiclands,andSpain,the smallcommunitiesof Ashkenazdid not sponsor an organizedelementaryschool system.The teachers,hiredand maintained by individualparentsfor theirown children,hadlow social esteemandlittle security.In a certainrespectJews lagged behindtheirChristianneighbors, for the ThirdLateranCouncilof 1179decreedthatall cathedralchurcheshad to providea teacherwho would teachpoorchildrenat no cost. At the level of highereducation,the academiesof sophisticatedtalmudic study were not systematicallysupportedby the communitiesin which they werelocated.Studentswentto studywith a particularscholar,notto an established institution.Duringthe periodof the tosafists,therewas no communal mechanismto ensureaideven for indigentstudents,whoseabilityto studywas limitedby the money at theirdisposal.Nor did the communitygrantsupport to the scholarsthemselves,noteven in the formof the talmudicallysanctioned tax exemption.Unlikein Spain,wheretheprofessionalization of the scholarly class proceededapace despite Maimonides'strictures,Ashkenazicscholars supportedthemselvesfromoutsideworkandcouldaffordto devotefull time to studyand teachingonly if they were independentlywealthy. Following this provocativeand originaltreatmentof the economic and social foundationsof medieval AshkenazicJewish education,Kanarfogel turnsto more traditionalintellectualhistory,discussingthe developmentof tosafistdialectic,the role of biblicalstudiesin the Ashkenaziccurriculum,and the educationaltheoryand practiceof the GermanPietists.He suggeststhat the shiftfrompre-tosafiststudyto tosafistdialecticmayparallelthe shiftfrom monasticlearningto the urbancathedralschools thatoccurredin Christian Europeperhapsa generationearlier.In the final chapter,he carriesfurther the work of Haym Soloveitchikand IsraelTa-Shmaon the GermanPietists' critiqueof the tosafistpaideia, arguingthat the Pietists, with a less elitist

310

BOOK REVIEWS

view than thatof the society as a whole, attemptedto fosteran educational programfor Jews otherthanthe most brillianttalmudicscholars. Kanarfogeldrawson thefull rangeof sourcesproducedin northernFrance andGermany,with importantcomparativedimensionsprovidedby materials from Jewish communitiesof southernFranceand Spainand fromChristian sources. The annotationis meticulousand extensive, reviewing issues of debatein the scholarlyliteratureandraisingsignificantsubsidiarypoints. The argumentbecomes somewhatless convincingwhen it reachesfor broad explanations.Kanarfogelasserts that the "educationallevel of both laymen and upper-level students in Spain was generally lower than in Ashkenaz"(p. 64), andthatthis explainswhy SpanishJewsneededto assume communalresponsibilityfor education,while AshkenazicJews could leave it to the individual.But the sourcescited speakof the low level of talmudic learningin SephardicJewishsociety,not the high level amongordinaryJews in Ashkenaz.And even if it could be demonstratedthatthe averageJew in northernFranceknew more Talmudthan his contemporaryin Castile, we would still need to explainhow AshkenazicJews achievedsuch a level with a systemin which talentedchildrenfrompoorfamilieswere oftenexcluded. The assertionthat"Spanishsociety was not as conduciveto achievinga high degreeof educationalsuccess"(p. 64) as was Ashkenazicsocietysimplybegs the question. A similarproblemarisesin the treatmentof the Pietistcritique.It remains debatablehow representativeor idiosyncraticthe Pietist programwas in GermanJewish society. But even if we view the early-thirteenth-century Pietists as a small sect that never became a true movement,it surelydoes not follow thatevery view in SeferHasidimshouldbe considereda minority "Ashkenazicsociety position.Kanarfogelpresentsthetosafistsas representing at large,"opposedby the Pietists'radicalcritique.Butit maynotbe justifiable to generalizethat"Ashkenazicsocietyvaluedthe scholaraboveall others"(p. 90), orto assumethatmostAshkenazicJewsdisagreedwiththePietistposition on the importanceof an educationalcurriculumintendedfor thosewho would never become tosafists.How fully the tosafistsrepresentedthe values and aspirationsof the ordinaryAshkenazicJew remainsto be demonstrated. Thereare two appendices.The firstis devotedto SeferHuqqeiha-Torah. educational As thistextmandatesa full institutionalstructurefora multi-tiered system, it is crucialfor Kanarfogel'sthesis that it cannotreflectthe reality of AshkenazicJewryin the High MiddleAges. If it is Ashkenazicin origin, andnot Provengalas some have argued,thenit mustbe merelya "theoretical

BOOK REVIEWS

311

blueprint,"telling us nothingaboutthe institutionalrealitiesof Ashkenazic Jewishlife. Kanarfogelnotes severalpossiblepointsof contactbetweenthis text and Sefer Hasidim. It is not clear to me, however,why he chose to republishthe Hebrewtext, whichis accessiblein severalearlierpublications. Surely it would have been more useful to have publishedan annotated translationof this fascinatingyet elusive work. The secondappendixis a briefdiscussionof the "AshkenazicEducational InitiationCeremony"for childrenbeginningtheirJewishstudy,concluding that many aspects of this familiarceremony"requirefurtherinvestigation." This might have been more effectively integratedinto the second chapter, in which Kanarfogelbrings variouskinds of materialdocumenting(contra the Aries thesis aboutmedievalchildhood)a genuineemotionalattachment to small children. In this chapter,the focus on educationis temporarily abandoned.It would have been helpful to hear more about pedagogical techniques,includingattitudestowardcorporalpunishmentof children. Despitethese minorreservations,Kanarfogel'sbookis challenging,stimof the ulating,and suggestive. It does more thandeepenour understanding historyof medievalJewishsocietyandculture.Theissuesit raisesbeardirectly on contemporary educationaldebates:the advantagesof privateversuspublic elitist and universalisticphilosophies,specializedversus balanced funding, curricula,communalresponsibilityand the role of individualinitiative,the prioritiesof generatingsources of supportfor disadvantagedstudentsand for scholarsdevotedto pureresearch.We live with the implicationsof these issues every day. MarcSaperstein Washington University

St. Louis,Mo.

Shlomo Simonsohn.The Apostolic See and the Jews: History.Studiesand Texts 109. Toronto:PontificalInstituteof MediaevalStudies, 1991. x, 469 PP. Shlomo Simonsohn.TheApostolicSee and the Jews: Addenda,Corrigenda, Bibliographyand Indexes.StudiesandTexts 110.Toronto:PontificalInstitute of MediavealStudies, 1991. 176 pp. At long last S. Simonsohn'sstudyof the relationsof the apostolicsee and the Jews in the Middle Ages and the Renaissancehas appeared.Based on

Review: [untitled] Author(s): William Chester Jordan Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 311-313 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486589 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:18 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOK REVIEWS

311

blueprint,"telling us nothingaboutthe institutionalrealitiesof Ashkenazic Jewishlife. Kanarfogelnotes severalpossiblepointsof contactbetweenthis text and Sefer Hasidim. It is not clear to me, however,why he chose to republishthe Hebrewtext, whichis accessiblein severalearlierpublications. Surely it would have been more useful to have publishedan annotated translationof this fascinatingyet elusive work. The secondappendixis a briefdiscussionof the "AshkenazicEducational InitiationCeremony"for childrenbeginningtheirJewishstudy,concluding that many aspects of this familiarceremony"requirefurtherinvestigation." This might have been more effectively integratedinto the second chapter, in which Kanarfogelbrings variouskinds of materialdocumenting(contra the Aries thesis aboutmedievalchildhood)a genuineemotionalattachment to small children. In this chapter,the focus on educationis temporarily abandoned.It would have been helpful to hear more about pedagogical techniques,includingattitudestowardcorporalpunishmentof children. Despitethese minorreservations,Kanarfogel'sbookis challenging,stimof the ulating,and suggestive. It does more thandeepenour understanding historyof medievalJewishsocietyandculture.Theissuesit raisesbeardirectly on contemporary educationaldebates:the advantagesof privateversuspublic elitist and universalisticphilosophies,specializedversus balanced funding, curricula,communalresponsibilityand the role of individualinitiative,the prioritiesof generatingsources of supportfor disadvantagedstudentsand for scholarsdevotedto pureresearch.We live with the implicationsof these issues every day. MarcSaperstein Washington University

St. Louis,Mo.

Shlomo Simonsohn.The Apostolic See and the Jews: History.Studiesand Texts 109. Toronto:PontificalInstituteof MediaevalStudies, 1991. x, 469 PP. Shlomo Simonsohn.TheApostolicSee and the Jews: Addenda,Corrigenda, Bibliographyand Indexes.StudiesandTexts 110.Toronto:PontificalInstitute of MediavealStudies, 1991. 176 pp. At long last S. Simonsohn'sstudyof the relationsof the apostolicsee and the Jews in the Middle Ages and the Renaissancehas appeared.Based on

312

BOOKREVIEWS

the meticulouseditingof 3,250 papalbulls andletterspublishedin six earlier volumes,the studyhas the advantageof restingon a very firmdocumentary foundation. For readerswho are familiarwith the documentaryrecord,thereis very little new here. What Simonsohnattempts-successfully to my mind-is the reorganizationof the mass of materialinto analyticalcategories.After a long chronologicalessay in chapters1 and 2 summarizingpapal-Jewish relations,anddetailing,amongothermatters,therhythmof theissuanceof the papalbull of protection,Sicutjudeis, andits variants,he treatsjurisdictional issues (chap. 3), moneylending(chap.4), missionand conversion(chap.5), polemics and disputations(chap.6), the Inquisition(chap.7), and the Jews in papallands (chap.8). A very briefconclusionfollows. The index-a vital tool, since so many topics appearmore thanonce in the varioussectionsof the study-is publishedseparatelyas the PontificalInstitute'sStudiesand Texts 110.The index volumehas been supplementedwithvaluableadditions andcorrectionsandan indispensablebibliography(indispensablebecausethe mode of citationin the full studyis very abbreviated). Whatcan be said aboutsuch a massiveendeavor?Simonsohnis sensitive to the fact thatthe very impressivenessof the accomplishment mightlead to some misperceptions.Despite everythinghe has discoveredin the archives, his massive volumes of documentsrepresenta very tiny proportionof all the documentsissued by the popes (perhapsless thanone percentof papal recordsor at least of materialin the VaticanArchives;p. x). If quantity matters,thenthe statusandtreatmentof Jews was not a highpriorityin papal concerns.The popes had (or thoughtthatthey had)a worldto run:Jewswere a very small partof thatworld.Therewere thornyproblemsbecauseof the relationshipof Judaismto Christianity,but by and large the popes had to concentrateon othermatters.The mereexistenceof six volumesof surviving documentsand a long analyticessay should not misleadmedievalistsand earlymoderniststo thinkotherwise. A second caution: Simonsohnis insistent that the history of Jews in CatholicEuropeis not solely the historyof theirrelationshipwith the head of the CatholicChurch.Yet, therecertainlywill be a tendency,becauseof the now easy availabilityof these records,for some scholarsto write as if this were the case. He waxes hot on the dangersof such an approach.In his own words,"Littledocumentationremainsto show whateffect, if any,papal andinstructionsactuallyhad"(p. 462). Afterdetailingsome pronouncements of the problemsof determiningwhat really was going on while pope after

BOOKREVIEWS

313

pope spoke, Simonsohncontinues:"a largemeasureof reservationis called for in regardto the informationpresentedin the precedingchapters[of the study]and the conclusionsdrawnfromit" (ibid.). The judiciousnessof the quoted statementsis indicativeof the sobermindedjudiciousnessthatpervadesthe text as a whole. This study,like the documentson which it is based,is a gold mine of material.The authoris to be commended. WilliamChesterJordan Princeton University N.J. Princeton,

Alex Weingrod.The Saint of Beersheba.SUNY Series in Israeli Studies. Albany:StateUniversityof New YorkPress, 1990.viii, 147 pp. One of the most strikingfeaturesof NorthAfricanJewish and Muslim popularreligiosityis hagiolatry,or thevenerationof holymen.Muchhasbeen writtenon Muslimsaintcults, andthereis a growingliteratureon the Jewish phenomenonin English,French,andHebrew.Alex Weingrod'snew book is an importantadditionto this literature.The book deals with the veneration of a Jewish saint (zaddiq)practicedby NorthAfricanJews in Israel.This is not a transplantedcult, such as those organizedfor holy men buriedin NorthAfrica (e.g., David ou Moshe, who has severalshrinesin Israel),but ratherone thatdevelopedin the new countryaroundthe tombof a local saint, RabbiChaimChouri(Hayyim Khtri), who has come to be known as "the Saintof Beersheba."Weingrod,an anthropologist, basedhis book uponfield observationsover several years at the annualpilgrimageheld at the hillula (lit., "weddingcelebration,"but in NorthAfricanusagethe saint'sdeathday, i.e., the day he becomesweddedto the Divine). Chapter1, "Zaddik"(pp. 1-22), relateshow this man from the island of Jerbaoff the coast of southernTunisiacame to be regardedas a saint.A well-knownreligious scholarin Tunisia,RabbiChouriemigratedto Israel in 1955 and died there two years later at the age of seventy-two.It was only after his death that tales of his miraclesbegan to be told, and there the manandhis life. Weingrod developedan entirehagiographysurrounding recountshow Rabbi Chouri'sson and son-in-lawplannedhis hillula as a family observance, and how very quickly it grew spontaneouslyout of

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Yedida K. Stillman Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 313-315 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486590 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:19 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOKREVIEWS

313

pope spoke, Simonsohncontinues:"a largemeasureof reservationis called for in regardto the informationpresentedin the precedingchapters[of the study]and the conclusionsdrawnfromit" (ibid.). The judiciousnessof the quoted statementsis indicativeof the sobermindedjudiciousnessthatpervadesthe text as a whole. This study,like the documentson which it is based,is a gold mine of material.The authoris to be commended. WilliamChesterJordan Princeton University N.J. Princeton,

Alex Weingrod.The Saint of Beersheba.SUNY Series in Israeli Studies. Albany:StateUniversityof New YorkPress, 1990.viii, 147 pp. One of the most strikingfeaturesof NorthAfricanJewish and Muslim popularreligiosityis hagiolatry,or thevenerationof holymen.Muchhasbeen writtenon Muslimsaintcults, andthereis a growingliteratureon the Jewish phenomenonin English,French,andHebrew.Alex Weingrod'snew book is an importantadditionto this literature.The book deals with the veneration of a Jewish saint (zaddiq)practicedby NorthAfricanJews in Israel.This is not a transplantedcult, such as those organizedfor holy men buriedin NorthAfrica (e.g., David ou Moshe, who has severalshrinesin Israel),but ratherone thatdevelopedin the new countryaroundthe tombof a local saint, RabbiChaimChouri(Hayyim Khtri), who has come to be known as "the Saintof Beersheba."Weingrod,an anthropologist, basedhis book uponfield observationsover several years at the annualpilgrimageheld at the hillula (lit., "weddingcelebration,"but in NorthAfricanusagethe saint'sdeathday, i.e., the day he becomesweddedto the Divine). Chapter1, "Zaddik"(pp. 1-22), relateshow this man from the island of Jerbaoff the coast of southernTunisiacame to be regardedas a saint.A well-knownreligious scholarin Tunisia,RabbiChouriemigratedto Israel in 1955 and died there two years later at the age of seventy-two.It was only after his death that tales of his miraclesbegan to be told, and there the manandhis life. Weingrod developedan entirehagiographysurrounding recountshow Rabbi Chouri'sson and son-in-lawplannedhis hillula as a family observance, and how very quickly it grew spontaneouslyout of

314

BOOKREVIEWS

the family circle into a full-blownpilgrimageattracting20,000 to 25,000 participantseach spring. Chapter2, "Text"(pp. 23-46), documentsandinterpretsRabbiChouri's hillula as cultural text. Weingrodattemptsto answer such questionsas: Whatactivitiesand behaviorstake place duringthis pilgrimage?Who takes partin the festivities?Why do the celebrantscome, and what bringsthem to the cemetery? Nearly all who come to the cemeteryare eitherTunisianor Moroccan. The discussionregardingthe ratioof femaleandmale,ages, andoccupations is particularlyinteresting.Clearly the celebrantsbelong to the lower and lower-middleranges of Israeli society. Weingrodalso explainsthe reasons for this popularoutpouringto pray for the rabbi'sguidance,intervention, andhealingpower,and to obtainblessingsfromthe rabbi'ssons, who claim no charismaticpowers themselves (althoughthe passing of such powers from father to son is well attestedin this tradition,as, for example, in the case of Baba Sale and Baba Barukh),but merely recite blessings in the sacredpresence of their father'sgrave. Weingrodrightlyobservesthat pilgrimscome not only for healingand to enhancetheirmoraland spiritual qualities.They come for powerfulsocial reasonsas well. A hillula,afterall, is a joyful celebrationand a place where the celebrantscan fully express themselvesin a MaghrebiJewish culturalcontext. Havingdealtwith the hillulaof RabbiChaimChourias "Text,"Weingrod The performance then turnsto it in chapter3 (pp. 47-68) as "Performance." unfoldsin threeacts thatflow one into the other.The firstact comprisesthe celebrationat the ChouriSynagogueon the Sabbathprecedingthe hillula. The second act takes place on the day of the pilgrimageat the cemetery. The final act is the secuda,or communalmeal. There is a discussion of the spontaneousactivities: "prayer,visits, picnics, ululating,gossiping, singing,lightingcandles,sharingfood, andfor a few, dancing"(p. 55). The "centerstage"is the mainsacredspace, where at first glance the action appearschaotic, as the separationbetween the sexes breaksdown almost entirely.Men and women, who are supposedto standon oppositesides, all clusteraroundthe rabbi'sgrave;thoughthe men try to control the women's actions, the lattersimply ignore them. This is a happyoccasion for some, reachingto a pitch of ecstasy,while it records many momentsof liminalityand accord. Severalprocessesandtwo themesareofferedin chapter4, "Process"(pp. 69-91), centeringaroundthe historical,textual,and contextual.The author

BOOK REVIEWS

315

demonstrateshow the pilgrimageis closely connectedwithculturalprocesses takingplace within contemporaryIsraelisociety, which has adoptedethnic pluralismin place of the earliermizzuggaluyyot,or melting-potpolicy. The resurgenceof hillulot and otherpublic ritualsspecific to particular OrientalJewishcommunitiesthathave settledin Israel,suchas the Mimouna of the North Africans and the Sahraniof the Kurds,is a statementof the newfound ethnic power and pride of these communitiesand ultimatelya rejectionof the institutionalAshkenazismof Israeli society. The pilgrims at the hillula affirm and rekindle their ethnic identity not only through their participation,but by the wearingof ethnic dress for such ritualsand celebrations. The comparisonsbetween Israeland otherculturesin chapter5, "Comparison"(pp. 93-111), are valuableto generalanthropologistsand students of religion,althoughfor North Africanistsa comparisonto nativeTunisian or Moroccansaints and culture,which are more closely relatedthanthose of West Indians in London, would have been welcome. Weingroddoes discuss the Near EasternMuslimwdlf and MaghrebiMuslimmarabout(pp. 13-14), but only very briefly. The book is beautifullyenhancedby twenty-onephotographsdepicting variousscenes at the pilgrimage.The astuteobserverwill notice a wealthof fascinatingdetails that graphicallyillustrateand in some cases supplement the text (e.g., women wearing pants and middle-agedwomen without headcoverings). The study amply answersthe questionsit raised.It also pursuescertain themes consistently,such as the process by which a new saint and shrine literally have been created, after which the author conceptualizesand interpretsthis set of events withinthe social, cultural,andpoliticalcontexts of contemporaryIsraelisociety (see p. 2). Weingrod succeeds in demonstratinghow the hillulot have a tight religious and symbolic structure.His researchis a significantadditionto the generalanthropologicalliteratureon pilgrimageand ritualpioneeredby VictorW. Turnerand others.It is also an importantadditionto the growing body of literaturedealing specificallywith NorthAfricanJewishhagiolatry and with culturalexpressionswithin Israel. YedidaK. Stillman StateUniversityof NewYorkat Binghamton N.Y. Binghamton,

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Donna Robinson Divine Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 316-318 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486591 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:19 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

316

BOOKREVIEWS

David Shaary. "Plain Zionism" to "GeneralZionism": Unity and Split in the Early History of "GeneralZionism,"1929-1939. Jerusalem:Rubin Mass, 1990. ix, 294 pp. (Hebrew). Of all Zionistpoliticalmovements,GeneralZionismis the least studied and the least understood.David Shaary'sbook, From "PlainZionism"to "GeneralZionism", a detailed analysis of the institutionsand principles unitingand dividingGeneralZionistsbetweenthe two worldwars,will set a new standardfor scholarshipon the subject.No longercan the explanation thatthe GeneralZionists organizedonly to distinguishthemselvesfrom the socialists on the left and the revisionistson the right be supported.That this politicalmovementhas only recentlybegunto drawscholarlyattention is understandable.Some of the movement's leaders-Chaim Weizmann, Nachum Sokolow, Menahem Ussishkin-had a strong presence in the World Zionist Organizationand contributedto its earliest achievements. Quite naturally,historianshave had some difficultiesin coming to terms with such venerableleadersas politicalactors. Shaary has conducted his research into the history of this political movementwith admirablerigor.By looking closely at the activitiesof the variousgroupsandindividualsinitiallydubbingthemselves"plainZionists," Shaaryhas transformedourconceptionof GeneralZionism.GeneralZionists did not fail to organize;they establishedmany grass-rootsmovementsand institutionsin Jewish communitiesacross Westernand EasternEuropeand in Palestine. There were organizationsof youth, groups centeredaround periodicals,and numerousassociationspressingfor economicand political reform. But all of these groups were initially reluctantto coalesce as a political faction and campaignfor the enactmentof policies they favored on partisangrounds.Theirwell-knownpoliticalfiguresclaimedto be above partisanpolitics. They called themselves unhyphenatedZionists, averring allegiance to no other defining principle. No other political goal was allowed to stand in the way of their nationalism.Nothing would weaken their commitment to the interests of the nation. Refusing to represent a specific social class or a particularset of economic interests,General Zionists sought to resolve conflicts in the light of collective needs, trying to protectthe total arrayof fledglingenterprisesin Palestine. Shaaryidentifies a cluster of issues of extremeimportanceto General Zionists and to the formationof their political stance, among them, how to organize the Jewish economy, the system of education,and how to

BOOK REVIEWS

317

determinethe properallocationof resourcesbetweencity and countryside. What the protractedstruggle over particularissues did was to create a succession of occasions on which adversariescould take one anotherto task on questions consideredfundamentalto the survivalof Zionism and to realizing its goals. According to Shaary,the sequence of encounters produceda commonpolitical agendaaroundwhich variousGeneralZionist groupscould at times even unite. In an era when politicalpassionscustomarilyfoundoutletsin ideological debate,GeneralZionistsengagedissues on pragmaticgrounds.Manyof them spent some of their best energies not on buildingtheir own organizations but ratheron supportinginstitutionsalreadyestablishedby LaborZionists, which in such a superchargedcontext gave Labor Zionists the tactical advantage.Those who failed to build a political apparatuscould not hope to prevailover those who did. And withoutsupportfroma particularsocial base, leaderscould not even become entrenchedinterests. Shaary's account of the emergence of GeneralZionism offers much of value to the serious student of Zionist history. The establishmentof the British Mandate eroded the consensus forged by Zionists at their first congress in 1897 in Basel. There was little questionbut that British rule provided the opportunityto build a Jewish state. Yet, how to do so was unclear. For Zionists, World War I producednot one but many different formative experiences. In the aftermathof the war, Zionists faced dauntingpolitical and economic tasks, and theirwartimeexperiences warrantedno single strategy.Weizmann'sproposalsto includenon-Zionists in an expandedJewish Agency createdsubstantialcontroversy.Weizmann's access to British policy makers, which led to the Balfour Declaration, a momentous breakthroughduring the war, seemed problematicin the circumstancesof peace. How to rationalizepolicy disputeswithoutcalling for Weizmann'sresignationhad a profoundlyunsettlingeffect for his closest associates,among them many GeneralZionists. TraditionalZionist political thinkinghad proceededwith extremecaution on the subject of the ultimate goal of founding a Jewish state. A new internationalorder could not forge the political ties to sustain the old consensus or easily induce a new one. The new EasternEuropean geographyunlinked many importantJewish communities.Not only were political systems transformed,the culturalmilieu in which Zionistpolitical engagementstook place was significantlyaltered. Building upon an impressive body of historical scholarship,Shaary

318

BOOKREVIEWS

drawson archivalmaterialnot only to deepenour knowledgeof Zionism's political center, but also to demonstratehow heterogeneousa political conglomerateit was and how necessarilydiverseits impulses. DonnaRobinsonDivine SmithCollege Mass. Northampton,

Susanne Klingenstein.Jews in the AmericanAcademy,1900-1940: The Dynamicsof IntellectualAssimilation.New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1991. xxii, 248 pp. Susanne Klingenstein,lecturerin English and Americanliteratureat Harvard,states at the outset that this book "is about the integrationof Jews into the Americanacademy.More specifically,it is aboutthe gradual acceptanceof Jews as professorsof English and Americanliterature"(p. xi). The book, she says, traces the process of admissionof Jews born around1880 into the academy.It follows, she writes, "theirslow progress via professorshipsin philology and philosophyto appointmentsin English literature"(p. xi), and ends with a discussionof Lionel Trilling,who was born in 1905. The author promises a sequel that will examine the full integrationof Jews into English departmentsand the "gradualrediscovery of Jewish intellectuality"by professorsbornbetween 1924 and 1940. Jews in the AmericanAcademyis a book of sound scholarship,and is writtenwith an easy hand, in a style that is mellow and flowing. Although some of the ground covered by the book already has become familiar throughthe work of AlexanderBloom, StephenSteinberg,Lewis S. Feuer, SidneyHook, Alan M. Wald,andothers,it still conveysa sense of freshness and stimulatesa lively interestin the subject. The work, however, is not withoutflaws. If the book was intendedto trace the appointmentof Jewish scholars in departmentsof English and Americanliterature,it is odd that the first eighty-twopages (more than a third of the book) should be devoted to Leo Wiener,HarryA. Wolfson, HoraceM. Kallen,and MorrisRaphaelCohen,whose fieldsof interestwere far removedfromEnglishor Americanliterature.If the purposewas to show that Jewish scholarsbroke into the academyyears before departmentsof Englishopened theirdoors, then the authorcould, in a single chapter,have

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Milton R. Konvitz Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 318-320 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486592 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:19 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

318

BOOKREVIEWS

drawson archivalmaterialnot only to deepenour knowledgeof Zionism's political center, but also to demonstratehow heterogeneousa political conglomerateit was and how necessarilydiverseits impulses. DonnaRobinsonDivine SmithCollege Mass. Northampton,

Susanne Klingenstein.Jews in the AmericanAcademy,1900-1940: The Dynamicsof IntellectualAssimilation.New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1991. xxii, 248 pp. Susanne Klingenstein,lecturerin English and Americanliteratureat Harvard,states at the outset that this book "is about the integrationof Jews into the Americanacademy.More specifically,it is aboutthe gradual acceptanceof Jews as professorsof English and Americanliterature"(p. xi). The book, she says, traces the process of admissionof Jews born around1880 into the academy.It follows, she writes, "theirslow progress via professorshipsin philology and philosophyto appointmentsin English literature"(p. xi), and ends with a discussionof Lionel Trilling,who was born in 1905. The author promises a sequel that will examine the full integrationof Jews into English departmentsand the "gradualrediscovery of Jewish intellectuality"by professorsbornbetween 1924 and 1940. Jews in the AmericanAcademyis a book of sound scholarship,and is writtenwith an easy hand, in a style that is mellow and flowing. Although some of the ground covered by the book already has become familiar throughthe work of AlexanderBloom, StephenSteinberg,Lewis S. Feuer, SidneyHook, Alan M. Wald,andothers,it still conveysa sense of freshness and stimulatesa lively interestin the subject. The work, however, is not withoutflaws. If the book was intendedto trace the appointmentof Jewish scholars in departmentsof English and Americanliterature,it is odd that the first eighty-twopages (more than a third of the book) should be devoted to Leo Wiener,HarryA. Wolfson, HoraceM. Kallen,and MorrisRaphaelCohen,whose fieldsof interestwere far removedfromEnglishor Americanliterature.If the purposewas to show that Jewish scholarsbroke into the academyyears before departmentsof Englishopened theirdoors, then the authorcould, in a single chapter,have

BOOKREVIEWS

319

discussed the academic careers of, e.g., Felix Frankfurter, Selig Perlman, FranzBoas, Meyer Schapiro,and EdwardSapir,as well as those of Wiener, Wolfson,Kallen,and Cohen. Englishdepartmentswere probablythe last to welcome Jewish scholars. I think that the claim may be made that undue of English, emphasisis given to the breakdownof exclusionby departments with little regard for what happenedin departmentsof history,political science, sociology, anthropology,psychology,economics,the physical and biological sciences, law, medicine, engineering, mathematics,etc. The attractionof English literaturemay perhapsbe due to the story of what happenedto Trilling at Columbia,where the president,Nicholas Murray Butler,became personallyinterestedin him as the authorof a notablebook on Matthew Arnold. Trilling, of course, deserves attention,but it hardly can be reasonablyasserted that he played the role of a model for other Jewish scholars who qualifiedfor academicpositions, any more than did or Boas, or HarryLevin, or otherswhom one could mention. Frankfurter, was more Trilling prominentthansome, butnot morethanKallenor Cohen. The authordisclaims any purposeto "Judaize"Lionel Trilling.She is aware of the fact that in 1944 he wrote: "I do not think of myself as a 'Jewishwriter.'I do not have it in mind to serve by my writingany Jewish purpose.I shouldresentit if a criticof my workwere to discoverin it faults or virtueswhich he called Jewish"(quotedon p. 232, n. 11). She nonetheless does try to attributeto Trillinga "Jewish"mind and "Jewish"orientation. Seeing him "as a descendantof Europe'srationalistJewish culture,"she says, "helps to explain some of his odd preferences:his limited interest in poetry, his refusal 'to define authenticmoral experience in terms of a transcendentreligious perspective,' his refusal 'to explore deeply the demonic side of the psyche,' his championshipof WilliamDean Howells and George Orwell against the intellectualfashion of the day. These and other positions are hardlysurprisingin a man of mitnagdicsensibility"(p. 140). Trilling,she says, "introducedthe viewpointof the Jewish rationalist into Americanliterarycriticism.Thus he managedto remaina Jew and to become one of the most celebratedfiguresin the Americanacademyin his day" (p. 141). Moving from the "this-worldliness"characterof Judaism,the author finds that "to be Jewish, then, is to be observant:to be conscious at any moment of the world of phenomenaand to respondto it with moral imagination"(p. 157). How, she asks, can the novel be identifiedwith Judaism?"A mitnagdicmind [i.e., the mind of Trilling]can come up with

320

BOOKREVIEWS

a stunninglysimple answer:the novel and Judaismare not only similarbut identicalin theirobservanceof the ordinary"(p. 156). This, I submit,is to psychologizewith a vengeance.Trillingwouldhave, I believe, every right to resentthe attributionof his intellectualqualitiesto his "Jewishness,"to his being a mitnagid.Does the interestof, say, Charles Dickens or AnthonyTrollopein the "ordinary"make them Jewish or their minds mitnagdic?Did theirlimitedinterestin poetrymake themJewish or theirminds mitnagdic? Trilling'soutstandingqualitiesas a creativewriterand literarycritic do not gain any extrameritsby attributingthem to the fact thathe was a Jew; and the definitionof Judaismor Jewish culturedoes not gain enhancement by attributingto it qualities discoveredin an analysis of the writingsof Lionel Trilling. Having said this, I hastento add thatJews in the AmericanAcademyis, despite its flaws, eminentlyworthreading.The chapterson Kallen,Cohen, Ludwig Lewisohn, Wolfson, and Trilling are especially informativeand well written.The authorhas obviouslymasteredthe sourcesandhas written a scholarlyand readablebook that can safely be recommendedto both the scholarand the generalreader. MiltonR. Konvitz CornellUniversity Ithaca,N.Y.

Maurice Friedman. Encounter on the Narrow Ridge: The Life of Martin

Buber New York:ParagonHouse, 1991. 496 pp. MauriceFriedmanoffers more thana condensationof his three-volume MartinBuber'sLifeand Workin this evocationof MartinBuber'spersonality and thinking. In one of the additionsto that early work, Friedmancites Naemah Beer-Hoffman'srecollectionthat Buber told her, "Youwill hear again that one should venerateme. No, one must love me" (p. 449). This work succeeds in arousingsuch love. Scholarswill certainlystill turn to MartinBuber'sLife and Work,with its copiousnotes, technicaldiscussions, and dialogical format. Some readerswill, naturally,lament that many of the directcitationsin the earlierbook have necessarilybecomethird-person descriptionsin this book, but severalvirtuesrecommendthis laterversion.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): S. Daniel Breslauer Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 320-323 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486593 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:19 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

320

BOOKREVIEWS

a stunninglysimple answer:the novel and Judaismare not only similarbut identicalin theirobservanceof the ordinary"(p. 156). This, I submit,is to psychologizewith a vengeance.Trillingwouldhave, I believe, every right to resentthe attributionof his intellectualqualitiesto his "Jewishness,"to his being a mitnagid.Does the interestof, say, Charles Dickens or AnthonyTrollopein the "ordinary"make them Jewish or their minds mitnagdic?Did theirlimitedinterestin poetrymake themJewish or theirminds mitnagdic? Trilling'soutstandingqualitiesas a creativewriterand literarycritic do not gain any extrameritsby attributingthem to the fact thathe was a Jew; and the definitionof Judaismor Jewish culturedoes not gain enhancement by attributingto it qualities discoveredin an analysis of the writingsof Lionel Trilling. Having said this, I hastento add thatJews in the AmericanAcademyis, despite its flaws, eminentlyworthreading.The chapterson Kallen,Cohen, Ludwig Lewisohn, Wolfson, and Trilling are especially informativeand well written.The authorhas obviouslymasteredthe sourcesandhas written a scholarlyand readablebook that can safely be recommendedto both the scholarand the generalreader. MiltonR. Konvitz CornellUniversity Ithaca,N.Y.

Maurice Friedman. Encounter on the Narrow Ridge: The Life of Martin

Buber New York:ParagonHouse, 1991. 496 pp. MauriceFriedmanoffers more thana condensationof his three-volume MartinBuber'sLifeand Workin this evocationof MartinBuber'spersonality and thinking. In one of the additionsto that early work, Friedmancites Naemah Beer-Hoffman'srecollectionthat Buber told her, "Youwill hear again that one should venerateme. No, one must love me" (p. 449). This work succeeds in arousingsuch love. Scholarswill certainlystill turn to MartinBuber'sLife and Work,with its copiousnotes, technicaldiscussions, and dialogical format. Some readerswill, naturally,lament that many of the directcitationsin the earlierbook have necessarilybecomethird-person descriptionsin this book, but severalvirtuesrecommendthis laterversion.

BOOK REVIEWS

321

Not only does Friedmanaugmenthis originalmaterial,but he does so judiciously. Where the earlierbook has a brief note on an eye operation thatkept Buberfrom going abroadin 1964, this volumeprecedesit with an anecdoteof how Ruth Warshawread Buber'sI and Thoualoudto a totally blind woman and found that "readingBuberin this way revealsthe deeper layers."This juxtapositionof story and biographyenrichesthe readerby its symbolicassociationof images (see pp. 444-445 andLife and Work3:402). Perhaps, as an academic, I have always sympathizedwith Buber's response to hearing that HermannCohen presenteda somewhat tragic picture:"Whatdo you expect? The man was for forty years a professor!" In the present volume, Friedmandeepens the pathos by including the memoriesof several of Buber's younger students.The paradoxof Buber, whose personaland teachingstyle often left studentsboredor hurtbut who also could draw them to him by a charismaof character,emerges from the statementsFriedmanbringsfrom BenjaminUffenheimer,Aliza Ziv Or, YoninaTalmon,and Joseph Ben Dov. The latter'sdescriptionof Buberas but also "a Polish nobleman"illuminatesnot only Buber'sself-presentation the mentalityof the Israeli studentswhom he taught(pp. 249-250; cf. Life and Work2:286).

Sometimes the new materialhumanizesa descriptionin a remarkable way. In the second volume of Life and Work(pp. 50-51), Friedman discusses Hugo Bergmann'sphilosophicaldialogue with Buber to link a sectiondevotedto Jewish-Christian dialoguewithone devotedto philosophy andpsychology.In the presentvolumetwo vignetteson Buber'srelationship to the Land of Israel serve the same purposeand make Buberthe person even more accessible (pp. 293-294). A shortnotice on Buber'swillingness to abide by the halakhic standardsof his hosts, the Jewish Theological Seminary(p. 340; Life and Work3:148), is expandedto include Michael Wyschogrod'sdescriptionof the event and his conclusionthat Buberas a person "was often greaterthan his books" (pp. 333-334). Buber's trip to America impressed upon him "the paradoxicalunity of what are usually consideredirreconcilableopposites."This is discussed in Life and Work (3:158) in philosophical detail with referenceto Nicholas of Cusa. The same idea is conveyed more directly and personallyhere in a letter to HermannHess: "I have learnedto know the humanin a new way--in its contradictorynature"(p. 343). Sometimes Friedmancreates a new impressionby using his original materialin a surprisingway. In Life and Work(3:336) he notes, during

322

BOOK REVIEWS

a chapterfocused on Buber's conflict with David Ben-Gurion,how Buber comfortedhis daughterEva on the death of her husband.Here the same selectionis used effectively as the conclusionto chapter15, the finalchapter in partIII (p. 303). The chapterdevotedto the Ben-Gurionconflict,chapter 21, shows the same carefulaugmentationas earlierchapters.Friedmannotes the assessmentof Michael Kerenthat the Israelipoliticalmessianismthat flourishedin the 1950s drewon the "depthandmeaningBuber'sphilosophy gave to messianic thinking." He then appends an anecdote describing how Buber arguedagainst legislation for expropriationof Arab land (pp. 421-422). The contrastbeween the effect of Buber's philosophyand his politicalconcernsleads well into a descriptionof Buber'sself-understanding of his position in Israel (p. 422; Life and Work3:337). Friedmantells how RaphaelRosenzweig,when still a youngchild, acted as the first audiencefor the translationof the HebrewBible on which his fatherand Bubercollaborated.Buberonce notedthatHansKohn,who was writinghis biography,had unearthedmaterialabouthim of which even he hadbeen unaware.He rejoiced,however,thatmuchstill remainedunknown. When FranzRosenzweigrepliedby exclaiming,"Rumpelstiltskin!" Raphael chanted, "Ah, how good that no one knows . . . that I have translated the Bible." When informedthat everyonedid knowjust thatfact, Raphael amendedhis statementto "thatI have made so many beautifulthings"(p. 168; Life and Work2:58). Despite the overwhelminginformationand deeply stirringwriting in Friedman'sthree-volumecorpus, Buber could still rejoice that so many of his beautiful things remainedunknown.Rereadingsome of the same materialin the differentformatof the new work,bringsout the beautyoften missed in the necessarily fragmentedreadingof the larger-scaleversion. AnecdotesaboutBuber'sapproachto halakhahcome togetherhere to form a meaningfulwhole. When read from cover to cover, a more possible task than with the three-volumeset, Buber'slove for and responsivenessto the halakhah,despite his personaland individualisticexpressionof it, comes throughclearly. Ernst Simon tells how Buber refused to wear a skullcap when eating with RabbiNehemiahNobel because"I will not grabhold of the small end of the Halachotin this way"(p. 162;Lifeand Work2:40-41). Friedmanrecordshow Buberconfessed that "therehave been days when I felt myself compelledto enterinto the prayerof a community,and so I did it" (p. 348; Life and Work3:191). These two storiescomplementeach other and focus attentionon the authenticitythatBuberstressed,not on "religious

BOOKREVIEWS

323

anarchy."In Friedman'soriginal work they are not only in two different volumesbut separatedby over 500 pages. The presentworkenablesa better grasp of Buber's personalityby making an associationof the two stories more feasible. The book, however, does not reveal all. Its combinationof new and old materialconceals while it reveals. Buber need not fear that he has been strippednaked.An anecdotein the earlierwork(3:407) describeshow a nun ministeringto Buber was shocked at his fear of death. The new book augmentsthis by suggestingthat the fear was physiologicaland not psychological,and thatBuber'sbedtimeprayer(echoingthatof the liturgy) "Into your hand I commit my spirit"suggests his continuingtrust. The ambivalenceof Buber's fear of dying combinedwith his evident reliance on the divine raises questions. Readers cannot help but finish the book knowing that they have much more to learn and that Buber has more to teach them. This extraordinaryvolume functionswell as an introductionto the complexitiesof Buberthe personand the ideas he exemplified. S. DanielBreslauer Universityof Kansas Lawrence,Kans.

EugeneB. Borowitz.Renewingthe Covenant:A Theologyfor the Postmodern Jew. Philadelphia:Jewish PublicationSociety, 1991. 319 pp. The fact that honesty and modesty persuadeEugene B. Borowitz to providea lengthy bibliographicalnote for "readersinterestedin seeing the continuity and change in my ideas over these decades"(p. 307) should not mislead the unwaryinto thinkingof this book as an assortmentof old material.While many passages strikea familiarchordto those who know Borowitz'searlierwork,this new book has a coherence,comprehensiveness, and insight that make it the classic expressionof his thought. This preeminencederivesfromtwo majordifferencesbetweenthis book andpreviousones like A New Jewish Theologyin the Making(1968) or The Mask Jews Wear(2nd ed., 1980). The first lies in its comprehensiveness. The book does not focus on only a few selected modernJewish thinkers (bothFranzRosenzweigand AhadHa-am,for example,receivemuchfuller treatmenthere than in any of Borowitz's previous work) and expands to

Review: [untitled] Author(s): S. Daniel Breslauer Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 323-325 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486594 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:19 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOKREVIEWS

323

anarchy."In Friedman'soriginal work they are not only in two different volumesbut separatedby over 500 pages. The presentworkenablesa better grasp of Buber's personalityby making an associationof the two stories more feasible. The book, however, does not reveal all. Its combinationof new and old materialconceals while it reveals. Buber need not fear that he has been strippednaked.An anecdotein the earlierwork(3:407) describeshow a nun ministeringto Buber was shocked at his fear of death. The new book augmentsthis by suggestingthat the fear was physiologicaland not psychological,and thatBuber'sbedtimeprayer(echoingthatof the liturgy) "Into your hand I commit my spirit"suggests his continuingtrust. The ambivalenceof Buber's fear of dying combinedwith his evident reliance on the divine raises questions. Readers cannot help but finish the book knowing that they have much more to learn and that Buber has more to teach them. This extraordinaryvolume functionswell as an introductionto the complexitiesof Buberthe personand the ideas he exemplified. S. DanielBreslauer Universityof Kansas Lawrence,Kans.

EugeneB. Borowitz.Renewingthe Covenant:A Theologyfor the Postmodern Jew. Philadelphia:Jewish PublicationSociety, 1991. 319 pp. The fact that honesty and modesty persuadeEugene B. Borowitz to providea lengthy bibliographicalnote for "readersinterestedin seeing the continuity and change in my ideas over these decades"(p. 307) should not mislead the unwaryinto thinkingof this book as an assortmentof old material.While many passages strikea familiarchordto those who know Borowitz'searlierwork,this new book has a coherence,comprehensiveness, and insight that make it the classic expressionof his thought. This preeminencederivesfromtwo majordifferencesbetweenthis book andpreviousones like A New Jewish Theologyin the Making(1968) or The Mask Jews Wear(2nd ed., 1980). The first lies in its comprehensiveness. The book does not focus on only a few selected modernJewish thinkers (bothFranzRosenzweigand AhadHa-am,for example,receivemuchfuller treatmenthere than in any of Borowitz's previous work) and expands to

324

BOOKREVIEWS

considersome of the most importantnew voices in Jewishthought,such as David Hartman,Michael Wyschogrod,and David Novak. Secondly,while earlierworks use a chronologicalstructure(from early post-Enlightenment thinkersthroughBorowitz'scovenanttheology)or an episodicone (moving of AmericanJews to another),this book from one false self-understanding begins with an importantmethodologicalsection,raisesimportantquestions aboutthe natureof the deity in whomJews believe, moves to a definitionof that "Israel"which is Jewish identity,and concludeswith an investigation of Torahas the revealedcontentof Jewishbelief. While summarizingthis argumentloses the richness of Borowitz's nuancedmeetingswith both Jewish thinkersand the modemJewishreality, it shows the seriousness with which Borowitz plays what he calls a "languagegame" that has "a certainlimited usefulness"and which gives him "personalpleasure"but which he refuses to allow to structurehis life (p. 272). At the heartof his argumentis the convictionthatthe evolutionof modem Jewish life creates an opportunityfor a liberalfaith thatbalances autonomywith a serious commitmentto God's covenantaldemands.The first section of the book traces that evolution from the first heady days of the Enlightenmentthrougha confrontationwith the Holocaust,the June 1967 Arab-Israeliwar,and the postmodernintellectualismwhich,he thinks, has made his thoughtno longer only of interestto "thatsmall minorityof Jews interestedin thinkingabout their religion"but to "the more general experienceof less abstractlyinclinedJews"(p. 52). Withthe rationalefor this appealto a broaderspectrumof Jewishreaders in place, Borowitzproceedsto analyzethe most perplexingquestionsabout the divinity: what can be meant by speaking of an Absolute, of the Transcendent,of the Ineffable?What makes a conceptionof God Jewish? To what can the idea of God refer? How can such a deity intervene in history? His procedureis often enlightening:his five paradigmsfor structuringJewish belief (pp. 62-71) help clarify modem Jewish options. His decisions, following on his foundationalanalysis of the condition of Jewish belief, reflect his judgmenton what a postmodernliberal can believe. Thus he must rejectAbrahamJoshuaHeschel'sparadigmbasedon the absolute power of revelation,since those who affirmtheir autonomy "will find Heschel's God overbearing"(p. 132). Finally, his efforts to breakthe silence aboutGod end when he finds "my mind and imagination inadequateto saying the more thatmy hearttells me is true"(p. 150). Borowitz turns from God not directly to Torahbut to the Jewish self

BOOKREVIEWS

325

with whom God interacts. Here he shows clearly the double nature of that self-both an autonomousindividual and a self intrinsicallyunited with the corporatebeing of Israel.Once again he shows importantinsights into earlier thinkers.He realizes, correctly,that whateverMartinBuber's personal life may have been, his thought can well supporta traditional Jewish existence. Thereforehe critiquesBuber"notbecauseI do not think the relatingGod incapableof authorizinga rich life of Torah"(p. 131), but because he "remaineda faithfulchild of the Enlightenmentin demanding that the self exercise final authority"(p. 214). Borowitz sees Israel today as composed of individualswho limit their autonomythroughaccepting the guidanceof tradition.He explores the implicationsof this stance in a valuablestudy of how, from this perspective,God can be both omnipresent and in a specific place (pp. 218-219). The final section of the book focuses on those actionswhich constitute Jewishduty,the contentof Torah.All readerswill benefitfromthe discussion of the DocumentaryHypothesis,which he calls an "academicshambles," but which still questionsthe literalismof manyOrthodoxies(pp. 237-238). He remarksprovocativelythat liberal religion would not have come into being had Orthodoxiesnot used their power badly (p. 240). He clearly knows the issues that one must addressand does not avoid even the most problematic,such as feminism,clashes with Israelipolicy,and social ethics. He recognizesthe need to identifythe sourcesby whicha Jew can recognize God's revelation. While Borowitz addressesthose who can see themselvesin his experience, many who study this book will not shareeitherhis pointof departure or his existential commitments.These readersmay prefer to start with universalreason,with the authorityof revelation,or with the psychologyof the independentself. Borowitzhas provideda book thatillustrateshis own covenanttheology in a compellingway; he does not, nor does he intendto, solve every reader'squestionsaboutthe meaningof God, Jewishselfhood, or the Torah.Nevertheless,the book providesan objectlesson on the hard questionsthat must be raised, the comprehensivescholarshiprequired,and the personal investment inevitably given when seeking to answer these questions. S. DanielBreslauer Universityof Kansas Lawrence,Kans.

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Robert S. Wistrich Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 326-329 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486595 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:19 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

326

BOOKREVIEWS

Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi. Freud's Moses: Judaism Terminable and Inter-

minable.New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1991. xix, 159 pp. This is a stimulatingstudyof Freud'scontroversialMoses and Monotheism, offeringa numberof new perspectiveson Judaism,religionin general, Freud'sproblematicJewish identity,and the psychoanalyticmovement.Its origins in a series of public lecturesgive it a certainfreshnessof tone (the originalformathas been preserved,with appropriatefootnotesadded),and the many layers in Freud's preoccupationwith the Moses figure and its implicationsfor Judaismand Jewishnessare excavatedwith a deftnessand skill thatdeserveadmiration.The "godlessJew"who createdpsychoanalysis emerges as far more committedto the embattledfate of his people than in the ethnic minimalistapproachfavoredby culturalhistorianslike Peter Gay. While this is not in itself new, the scholarshipwhich is broughtto bear does touch hitherto-unexplored areas,and Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi's "monologuewith Freud,"conductedin the first person,cleverly succeeds in recoveringfragmentsof a Jewish identitywhich the masteronly hinted at. The tantalizingconclusion seems to be that in some peculiarsense not fully accessible to our understanding,psychoanalysiswas perhaps(afterall thathas been said for and against)a "Jewish"science. While agreeing with many of the points Yerushalmimakes, it nevertheless seems to me that his work is in importantrespects flawed in its presentationof the context in which Freud'sJewish identityneeds to be seen. In the first instance, there is little discussionor insight into the Viennese and Central EuropeanJewish backgroundout of which Freud came, and which in my opinion largely conditionedhis responses and attitudesto "Jewish"questions. Certainly,we are given a glimpse of the threatening,tragic atmosphereof the 1930s, of the collapse of democracy, the rise of Hitler in Germany,the rampantantisemitism,and the disaster which engulfed the psychoanalyticmovement,but even this is sketched in ratherfragmentaryfashion. The fact, however,that Freud'swhole life, career,and scientificpreoccupationshad been influencedby the hostilityof his Austrianenvironmentsince the early 1880s is not sufficientlybrought out. Can we really isolate a text like Moses and Monotheismfrom this long period of gestation(lasting nearlyhalf a century)in which Freudhad to work out complicated strategiesof adaptation,survival, and defiance towardthose who were fundamentallyantagonisticto his whole demarche? Can the historianaffordto discuss Freudindependentlyof the positionof

BOOK REVIEWS

327

other psychoanalystswho confrontedtheirJewishness(Rank,Reich, Reik, etc.), of Jewish intellectualsand artistslike Schnitzler,Zweig, Schoenberg, Horkheimer,Benjamin,or Kafka, to name only a few obvious examples? of Freud,no less Schoenberg,in particular,a fellow-Viennesecontemporary a obsessed with Moses, would have provided much-neededcomparative dimension to illustrate the problem of the secular Jewish intellectualin twentieth-centuryCentral Europe, one that might have added much to Yerushalmi'saccount.Moreover,if we confineourselvesto Freudalone, it is difficult to understandwhy there is no discussionof a work like Jokes and TheirRelation to the Unconscious,which was publishedin 1905 and shows Freud'sfamiliaritywith and fondessfor GalicianJewishhumor.This providesa counterpointto the moreobsessivequalityof Freud'sinvolvement with Moses and at the same time an illustrationof the spontaneousside of Freud'sacknowledgmentof the East EuropeanJewishnesshe inherited from his family roots. One of the more ingenious aspects of Yerushalmi'saccount is his decodingof the meaningof the famous inscriptionin Hebrewwhich Jacob Freuddedicatedto his ambitiousson on his thirty-fifthbirthday.He argues thatMoses and Monotheismcan be seen as a belatedresponseby Freudto his to father'smandatenot to neglect the sourcesof wisdomandunderstanding be foundin the "bookof books,"while not abandoninghis own independent secularstandpoint.This is an originalidea but somewhatspeculative,since we have no evidence that Freud really understoodthe inscriptionor had any profoundinterestin what it implied. Indeed, several of the examples Yerushalmibrings to demonstrateFreud's knowledge of Hebrew and/or Yiddishseem similarlystrained(e.g., thathe namedhis dog Jofie, meaning "beauty"in Hebrew), and other instances which might have made the same point more effectively are overlooked. While agreeing very much with Yerushalmiabout the importanceof Freud'sJewish consciousness, it appearsat times as if he has gone too far the other way in rejecting the "atheist"antipathyin Freud to any parochial,religious-basedsense of Jewish identity. Yerushalmi'sdiscussionof Freud'ssentimentsaboutJewishnationalism also strikesme as incomplete.The evidencehereis admittedlycontradictory, with Freud expressing a qualifiedapprovalof Zionism as an assertionof Jewish dignity and honor on some occasions but also disbelievingin the possibility of a Jewish state and reprovingany manifestationof Jewish chauvinism.But here context is all-important,and by the time he wrote

328

BOOK REVIEWS

Moses and Monotheism,it is surely a little astonishingthat Freud had not warmedmore enthusiasticallyto the centralityof Palestineas a refuge for Central European Jews. More attention might have been paid to this absence and indeed to the psychological block that Freud had in dealing psychoanalyticallywith the phenomenonof antisemitism.Moses and Monotheismadmittedlyprovidesthe beginningsof a possibleapproach to the subject,but again it would seem in retrospecta woefully inadequate response to such a burningissue on the eve of the Second WorldWar. One wonderswhy Yerushalmidid not take this subjectfurtherand consider the inhibitionsthat it suggests in Freud'sentire approachto the "Jewish question." Yerushalmimakes some telling points about the gulf between Freud's public posture on Jewish issues (cautious, objective, restrained)and the warmerfeelings he displayedin private-which also frequentlybetrayedhis own resentmentat the Gentile world. Here, too, the dichotomymight have been expandedto point to the kind of duality and ambivalenceexhibited by so many CentralEuropeanJewish intellectuals.Curiously,the strongest statementby Freud of what he owed to his Jewish heritage-namely, his freedom from dogma and prejudice,and the ability to stand alone in opposition to conventional wisdoms-is barely mentioned.Similarly neglected are the assimilationistpressuresand complicatedrelationshipof Freudto Germanand Austrianculture(not to mentionsociety and politics) which runright throughhis life and work. On the other hand, Yerushalmiis much more convincingin discussing the relationbetweenJudaismand Christianityas refractedin Freud'sMoses, suggesting that "fratricide"needs to be seen as an additionalexplanation for Christianhostility over the centuriestowardthe Jews. The theological struggle over the birthrightof Israel and the deep, underlyinginsecurity of Christiansseeking to usurp the "chosenness"of the Jewish people are indeed importantadjunctsto any Freudianexplanationbased on a conflict between "father"and "son"religions. SigmundFreud,of course,did not returnto the religionof his ancestors, and denied not only that Moses was a Jew, but also the centralpositionin historythatthe Jews have claimedas the "chosen"people.Thatwas partof his iconoclasm and tenaciouspsychoanalyticinsistenceon abandoningall narcissisticillusions and false consolations.But Yerushalmidoes succeedin powerof origins,of tradition showing that he recognizedthe extraordinary and inheritedmyths over our consciousness,and identifiedwith the victory

REVIEWS BOOK

329

of "spirituality"entailed in the original Mosaic project. In a curious roundaboutway, the Jewish God of abstraction-formless, austere, and sternlymoral-returns in Freud'slast workas a vindicationof Geistlichkeit. As the Nazis plunged Europeinto the ultimateabyss of barbarism,Freud, in his own torturedstrugglefor clarity,bravelytriedto reaffirmthe claims of reasonover the darkside of the humanpsyche. RobertS. Wistrich HebrewUniversity Israel Jerusalem,

Anita Norich. The Homeless Imaginationin the Fiction of Israel Joshua Singer Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress, 1991. xi, 142 pp. The appearanceof this study is indeed cause for celebration,since so little is known aboutI. J. Singer,the olderbrotherof IsaacBashevisSinger, the famous 1979 Nobel Prizewinnerfor literature.AnitaNorich'sbook also could create interestin the life and writingsof EstherKreitman,a Singer sister,whose workonly recentlyhas been translatedby BarbaraHarshav. But the value of The Homeless Imaginationlies not merely in what it might do for the authors in question, but in what it is, namely, a sophisticatedpiece of critical scholarship,a sorely needed examinationof one of modem Yiddishliterature'sgreatest,whose main misfortunewas to be overshadowedby an immensely popular,though, in my opinion, less talented,brother.I. J. Singer's life began in 1893 near Lublin,but soon after,the family moved to a small town outsideWarsaw,eventuallyending up in the capitalproper.His earlieststoriesappearedin 1918, duringwhich time he pursueda paralleland successful careeras a journalistin various partsof Polandand Russia. Abe Cahan,the highly influentialeditorof New York'sForverts,"discovered"Singer and offeredhim a job as reporteron Jewish life and culture in EasternEurope.Indeed, in Norich's extensive bibliographywe find a list of hundredsof articleson every possiblesubject, from economics to avantgardeart. WhileSingerwrotenumerousessaysandshortstories,he is bestknownin translationfor his novels YosheKalb(1932), TheBrothersAshkenazi(1936), andTheFamilyCarnovsky(1943). He cameto New Yorkat leasttwice in his capacityas journalist,but also as the celebratedauthorof the firsttwo novels,

Review: [untitled] Author(s): Michael Taub Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 329-332 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486596 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:19 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

REVIEWS BOOK

329

of "spirituality"entailed in the original Mosaic project. In a curious roundaboutway, the Jewish God of abstraction-formless, austere, and sternlymoral-returns in Freud'slast workas a vindicationof Geistlichkeit. As the Nazis plunged Europeinto the ultimateabyss of barbarism,Freud, in his own torturedstrugglefor clarity,bravelytriedto reaffirmthe claims of reasonover the darkside of the humanpsyche. RobertS. Wistrich HebrewUniversity Israel Jerusalem,

Anita Norich. The Homeless Imaginationin the Fiction of Israel Joshua Singer Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress, 1991. xi, 142 pp. The appearanceof this study is indeed cause for celebration,since so little is known aboutI. J. Singer,the olderbrotherof IsaacBashevisSinger, the famous 1979 Nobel Prizewinnerfor literature.AnitaNorich'sbook also could create interestin the life and writingsof EstherKreitman,a Singer sister,whose workonly recentlyhas been translatedby BarbaraHarshav. But the value of The Homeless Imaginationlies not merely in what it might do for the authors in question, but in what it is, namely, a sophisticatedpiece of critical scholarship,a sorely needed examinationof one of modem Yiddishliterature'sgreatest,whose main misfortunewas to be overshadowedby an immensely popular,though, in my opinion, less talented,brother.I. J. Singer's life began in 1893 near Lublin,but soon after,the family moved to a small town outsideWarsaw,eventuallyending up in the capitalproper.His earlieststoriesappearedin 1918, duringwhich time he pursueda paralleland successful careeras a journalistin various partsof Polandand Russia. Abe Cahan,the highly influentialeditorof New York'sForverts,"discovered"Singer and offeredhim a job as reporteron Jewish life and culture in EasternEurope.Indeed, in Norich's extensive bibliographywe find a list of hundredsof articleson every possiblesubject, from economics to avantgardeart. WhileSingerwrotenumerousessaysandshortstories,he is bestknownin translationfor his novels YosheKalb(1932), TheBrothersAshkenazi(1936), andTheFamilyCarnovsky(1943). He cameto New Yorkat leasttwice in his capacityas journalist,but also as the celebratedauthorof the firsttwo novels,

330

BOOKREVIEWS

whichMauriceSchwartz,the JosephPappof AmericanYiddishtheaterin the 1930s, translatedto the stage. Eventsin Europeforcedhim to stay in New York.On February10, 1944, he died thereof a suddenheartattackat the age of fifty-one. In treating Singer's work, Anita Norich first "considersthe varying contexts within which Singer wrote, the culturalhistoryto which his texts refer" (p. x). In chapter 2 she examines "the function of place in his fiction.Singersees no possible geographicalor psychiclocus for the Jewish imagination,and his charactersremainuprootedin all of the locationsthey inhabit.... wanderingand dislocationemergeas centralthemesin Singer's writing"(ibid.). TheBrothersAshkenaziand TheFamilyCarnovskyaredealt with in chapter3; Norich shows here how these novels reveal"thedifferent dynamicsof Jewishhistory... independentof the linearaxis alongwhichthe rest of Europeseems to progress"(ibid.). Chapter4 looks at Singer'sview of the individualand the self throughan analysisof a lesser-knownwork, ComradeNakhmen.The relationshipbetween artisticcreativityand social realityis the focus of Norich'snext section.In the last partof the book she examines Singer's moving memoir,Of a WorldThatIs No More, and the writingsof EstherKreitman. autobiographical In developingherthematicanalysis,the authorrefersto narrativetheoretiin general cians-Lukacs, Mendilow,and Girard;scholarsof autobiography in particular-Eakin,Fleishman,andOlney;and andwomen'sautobiography critics of Yiddishliterature-Trunk,Zeitlin, Niger, and Miron.While their variousapproachesare used to supporta certainpoint or criticalposition, Norich managesto avoid overburdeningher narrativewith excessive, and often disruptive,theoreticaldiscussion.A typicalchapteropens with a brief introductionto the themes underconsideration,follows with a concise and lucid theoreticalstatement,andends with a textualanalysis. Thus,in the sectiondevotedto Carnovsky,she firstplacesthe workwithin the genreor contextof family saga,a la Zola,Dickens,Flaubert,andTolstoy, while emphasizingthe uniqueproblemsfacingJewishwriterswrestlingwith the idea of history,continuity,andfamily.Mendilow'sseminalworkon time in fictionalnarrativeis used to explainthe differencebetweenchronological and fictional time, crucial concepts in understandingthis particularnovel. Regardingthe firstissue, Norichpointsto the varioustensions,disjunctions, and rupturesin the personalJewish family chronicleas it evolves within the larger Europeanmovement of time, culminatingwith the Holocaust. Expandingon the latter is importantbecause the events described-three

BOOK REVIEWS

331

generationsof Carnovskys,focusing mainlyon the firstfourdecadesof this century-are contemporaneouswith Singer'slife. The Carnovskysaga originateswith David Carnovsky,who leaves his native Poland for Berlin because he wants to live in Mendelssohn'sgreat city, amongenlightenedpeople, free of religiousfanaticismandconstraints. Thoughsomehowhe managesto be "aJew at homeanda manin the street," his son Georg is repeatedlyremindedof who he is despitebeing a doctor, an officerin the Germanarmy,and the husbandof a Germangentilefroma highlyrespectedfamily.Georg'sson Jegoris mostwaywardlyin denyinghis heritage,for, while both David and Jegorpursueratherconventionalroutes to integrateinto society, Jegor resortsto the extrememeasureof actually joining the enemy,a Nazi youthgroupin New York,wherethe family seeks refugefromBerlin's"enlightened"Germans.As Norichcorrectlypointsout, the Carnovskytragedylies in each generation's"surpassing its predecessorin to life the of the and thus world, trying accept larger [finding]the inevitable returnto Jewish fate increasinglydifficult"(p. 52). Norich shows how languageand sexualityexpressthe tensionsfelt by these charactersas they desperatelyattemptto entera non-Jewishworldthat keeps rejectingthem.This is a complex matter,andthe authorconvincingly arguesher position. I wonder,though,how much of this needs to be read as irony, mixed in with a great deal of the grotesque,a stylistic feature skillfullyemployedin YosheKalbas well. Thesetwo elementsdominatedthe worksof many CentralEuropeanJewishwritersat the time (mostlywriting in German),and it would be interestingto know whetherthis is a case of literaryinfluenceor simply a culturaltraitcommonto artistsfromthatpart of Europe.I am referring,of course, to FranzWerfel,StefanZweig, Josef Roth, and FranzKafka.Perhapsin a futurestudy the relationshipbetween SingerandEuropeanauthors,bothJewishandgentile,will be fully explored; I sense a strong kinship here, strongereven than thatbetween Singer and otherYiddishwriters. Naturally,if we view Singer as an essentiallyCentralEuropeanauthor writingin Yiddish,this could discourageus fromstudyinghimin the context of Sholem Aleichem, Mendele, and Peretz-his great Yiddishprecursors. Perhapswe could say thatin the selectionof themes,characters,andevents, he is bound by Jewish history and a Yiddish literaryheritage,but in his style, tone, and narrativestrategy,he is basicallyEuropean.Thus,alienation, homelessness,tensionbetweenthe Jewishworldandthe surrounding gentile world, disjointednessbetween Jewish history and general history,are all

332

BOOK REVIEWS

typically Jewish themes, invariablytreatedby Jewish authorsthroughthe ages (with the possible exception of the Golden Age of Hebrewpoetryin Spain). Clearly,a writeras complex as I. J. Singercannotbe dealt with in one book; Norich sets out to explore severalmajorthemesin his work, and she does so exceptionallywell. Morein-depthanalysisof his fiction,withspecial attentionto the surroundingEuopeanliteratures,is certainlya desideratum. Anyone studyingSinger will certainlyfind a surprisingamountof treasure; Norich'spioneeringworkprovidessomeessentialguidelinesto understanding his oeuvre, his world, and his majorconflicts.Who knows, with time we mightremember"theotherSinger"(meaningI. B.) as theNobelPrizewinner, andthis one (meaningI. J.) as the authorof greatshortstoriesandnovels. MichaelTaub StateUniversity of NewYorkatBinghamton N.Y. Binghamton,

Collected Studies Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 333-343 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486597 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:19 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

COLLECTEDSTUDIES JamesH. Charlesworth,ed. Jesus' Jewishness:Exploringthe Place of Jesus in Early Judaism.SharedGroundAmong Jews and Christians:A Series of Explorations,vol. 2. New York:Crossroad,1991. 288 pp. CONTENTS: HarveyCox, "RabbiYeshuaBen Yoseph:Reflectionson Jesus' "TheForeJewishnessand the InterfaithDialogue."JamesH. Charlesworth, of JesusResearch."John groundof ChristianOriginsandthe Commencement P. Meier, "Reflectionson Jesus-of-HistoryResearchToday."Geza Vermes, "Jesusthe Jew." Daniel J. Harrington,"The Jewishnessof Jesus: Facing Some Problems."David Flusser,"Jesus,His Ancestry,and the Commandment of Love."JamesH. Charlesworth,"Jesus,EarlyJewishLiterature,and Ellis Rivkin,"What Archaeology."AlanF. Segal, "Jesus,the Revolutionary." CrucifiedJesus?"Hans Kiing,"Christianity andJudaism." G. JanColijnandMarciaS. Littell,eds. TheNetherlandsandNazi Genocide: Papers of the 21st AnnualScholars'Conference.SymposiumSeries,vol. 32. Lewiston,N.Y.:EdwinMellen Press, 1992. vi, 544 pp. Nanda van der Zee, "The RecurrentMyth of 'DutchHeroism' CONTENTS: in the Second WorldWar and Anne Frankas a Symbol."Ger van Roon, "TheNetherlandsProtestantChurchesand the Holocaust."Pieterde Jong, "Miskotte'sTimely Perspectiveof the Religious Dimensionof the NaziIdeology."Robert W. Ross, "WhatIs Missing? The Netherlandsand the AmericanProtestantReligious Press."Steven Hess, "Disproportionate Destruction:The Annihilationof the Jews in the Netherlands:1940-1945."Jack Polak,"A Responseto Miller'sOne,By One,By One."HenryR. Huttenbach, "Hollandand the Holocaust:A Retrospection."AndreStein, "Forthe Love of Life-Making Sense of FrisianRescuersof Jews."JaneVogelFischman, "TheNetherlandsin Holocaustand Holocaust-Related Literature:A Critical SurveyforTeachersandStudents."JudithE. Doneson,"FeminineStereotypes of Jews in HolocaustFilms: Focus on The Diary of Anne Frank."Bernard Weinstein,"EttyHillesum'sAn InterruptedLife: Searchingfor the Human." SamuelAbrahamsen,"TheResponseof the NorwegianLutheranChurchto 333

334

COLLECTEDSTUDIES

the Holocaust."MichaelPhayer,"GermanCatholicBishops,the Vaticanand the Holocaustin the PostwarEra."GottfriedH. Wagner,"Wagneras I See Him."Dan Laor,"Did Agnon Writeaboutthe Holocaust?"HerbertHirsch, "Survivingand the Survivor:A Reconsiderationof the Bettelheim-DesPres RachelFeldhayBrenner,"SimoneWeil:Philosopher,Socialist Controversy." andChristianMystic-A Jew anda WomanDespiteHerself."AlanMilchman and Alan Rosenberg,"The Holocaustas Portent:HannahArendtand the Roosevelt,and Etiology of the Desk Killer."KarenL. Riley, "Kristallnacht, AmericanJewry:An Analysisof SelectedWhiteHouseDocumentsFollowing the 9 NovemberPogrom."RobertE. Willis, "WhatAre ChristiansSayingto Jews? An Analysis of Some RecentStatementsfromChurchBodies."P. S. di Virgilio,"Seeds Sown and Their BitterHarvest-The Church'sStruggle with Toleranceat the Turnof the Centuryas a HolocaustPrecursor:Jean Anti-Jewish Piaget'sRecherche."NathanielSamuelMurrell,"First-Century Zev Garber,"Deconstructing Polemics: A New Understanding." Theodicy and Amalekut:A Personal Apologia."James F. Moore, "Resurrectionas Rescue:ChristianTheologicalInterpretation of ScriptureAfter the Shoah." AbrahamJ. Peck, "DisplacedPersons:An Introduction." IrvingHeymont, "The U.S. Army and the Jewish DPs-A PersonalRecollection."Haim Genizi, "TheAdvisoron JewishAffairsto the AmericanArmyandthe DPs, 1945-1949." Toby Blum-Dobkin,"Ritualsof Transition:An Ethnographic Approachto Life in a DisplacedPersonsCamp."Sylvia Meyers,"Personal Reflectionson the DisplacedPersons'CampExperience."StevenL. Jacobs, "LettersfromZerbst."PeterHayes,"A HistorianConfrontsDenial."Franklin H. Littell,"Normalizingthe Holocaust." J. A. Emerton,ed. CongressVolume:Leuven,1989. Supplementsto Vetus Testamentum,vol. 43. Leiden:E. J. Brill, 1991. vi, 398 pp. C. Brekelmans,"JoshuaXXIV: Its Place and Function."E. W. CONTENTS: Nicholson, "The Pentateuchin Recent Research:A Time for Caution."W. H. Schmidt,"ElementareErwigungenzurQuellenscheidung im Pentateuch." E. Blum, "Gibt es die Endgestaltdes Pentateuch?"J. Van Seeters, "The So-called DeuteronomisticRedactionof the Pentateuch."A. de Pury,"Le N. P.Lemche, cycle de Jacobcomme16gendeautonomedes originesd'Isradl." "TheDevelopmentof the IsraeliteReligionin the Lightof RecentStudieson the EarlyHistoryof Israel."Helga Weippert,"Geschichtenund Geschichte: R. D. Geschichtswerk." Verheissungund Erftillungim deuteronomistichen

COLLECTEDSTUDIES

335

Nelson, "The Role of the Priesthoodin the DeuteronomisticHistory."W. C. Theil, "DeuteronomisticheRedaktionsarbeitin den Elia-Erziihlungen." Hardmeier,"Die ProphetenMicha und Jesajaim Speigel von Jeremiaxxvi und2 Regumxviii-xx. ZurProphettie-Rezeption in dernach-joschijanischen Zeit."D. L. Petersen,"IsraeliteProphecy:ChangeversusContinuity." W. A. M. Beuken, "IsaiahChapterslxv-lxvi: Trito-Isaiahand the Closureof the Book of Isaiah."R. P. Carroll,"ArguingAbout Jeremiah:Recent Studies and the Natureof the PropheticBook." P.-M.Bogaert,"Urtext,texte court et relecture:J6r6mie xxxiii 14-26 TM et ses preparations."J. Trublet, "Le corpussapientielet le Psautier:approacheinformatiquedu lexique."N. SaraJaphet,"TheRelationship Fiiglister,"Psalmlxxxviii:derRaitselLoisung?" Between Chroniclesand Ezra-Nehemiah." K.-F.Pohlmann,"ZurFragevon und Divergenzenzwischenden Chronikbtichern und dem Korrespondenzen Esra/Nehemia-Buch." K. VanDerToorn,"TheBabylonianNew YearFestival: New Insightsfromthe CuneiformTextsandTheirBearingon Old Testament Study."E. Tov, "TheOriginalShape of the BiblicalText."L. Diez Merino, "Fidelityand EditorialWorkin the ComplutensianTargumTradition."A. Pietersma,"TheApocryphonof JamesandJambres." David E. Fishman,ed. Yivo New Series, vol. 1. New York:Yivo Bleter. Institutefor Jewish Research,1991. 299 pp. (Yiddish). CONTENTS: Uriel Weinreich,"Outlineof a DescriptiveYiddishDialectology." David E. Fishman,"ConcerningPrayerin Yiddish:MethodologicalComments and New Sources."MatityahuMintz, "Zionistsand LaborZionistsat the CzernowitzConferencefor the YiddishLanguage."JoshuaA. Fishman, "NathanBirnbaum's'The Taskof East EuropeanJewry'."AvrahamNowerShevaZucker, sztern,"AnaMargolin-Materialson HerPoeticPersonality." "AnaMargolinand the Poetryof the TornSelf."AvrahamNowersztern,"In the Contradictionsof YiddishModernism:MetapoeticPoems of the Young Glatshteyn."Chanah Kliger, "Between Two Worlds:Landsmanshaftnin Post-WarAmerica."MiriamShmulevitch-Hoffman, "MemorialandMemory: A Studyof the Compositionof the ZvolinYizker-bukh." JonathanFrankel,ed. Jews and Messianismin the ModernEra: Metaphor and Meaning. Studies in ContemporaryJewry,vol. 7. New York:Oxford UniversityPress, 1991. xv, 439 pp.

336

COLLECTEDSTUDIES

CONTENTS: Jody Elizabeth Myers, "The Messianic Idea and Zionist IdeEli MessianicRhetoricin the Russian ologies." Lederhendler,"Interpreting HaskalahandEarlyZionism."AviezerRavitzky,"'ForcingtheEnd':Zionism and the State of Israel as AntimessianicUndertakings." YaakovAriel, "A NeglectedChapterin the Historyof ChristianZionismin America:William E. Blackstoneand the Petitionof 1916."GershonC. Bacon,"BirthPangsof the Messiah:The Reflectionsof Two Polish Rabbison TheirEra."Yaacov Shavit,"RealismandMessianismin ZionismandtheYishuv."HannanHever, "Poetryand Messianismin PalestineBetween the Two WorldWars."Paul Mendes-Flohr,"'The Strongerand the Better Jews': Jewish Theological Responsesto PoliticalMessianismin the WeimarRepublic."RichardWolin, "Reflectionsof Jewish SecularMessianism."JanetAviad,"TheMessianism of GushEmunim."Additionalessays, reviewessays, andbook reviews. William Frankel,ed. Survey of Jewish Affairs, 1991. Oxford:Blackwell, 1991. xi, 294 pp. AsherArian,"Israel'sPoliticsin 1990:GreatExpectations, CONTENTS: Greater Frustrations." Yosef Goell, "TheAbsorptionof Soviet JewishImmigration." Dore Gold, "Israeland the Gulf Crisis."GlendaAbramson,"TheIntifadain IsraeliLiterature." AmatziaBaram,"TheIraqiInvasionof Kuwait:Causesand Misperceptions."Zeev Eytan,"Militaryand StrategicTrendsin the Middle East in the 1990s."Nissim Rejwan,"TheArabWorld:FastFadingGlimmers of Democracy."EarlRaab,"Interracial ConflictandAmericanJews."Stephen S. Rosenfeld, "The Bush Administration'sMiddle East Policy."James E. Theodore Young,"HolocaustMemorialsin America:ThePoliticsof Identity." H. Friedgut,"Jews in the Soviet Union: Jewish Life and Culture."Lukasz Hirszowicz and HowardSpier, "Jews in the Soviet Union: Antisemitism: In Searchof a Scapegoat."JamesG. Shields, "Antisemitismin France:the Spectreof Vichy."IgnacioKlich,"Challengesto JewishLifein LatinAmerica: Argentina."Jeff H. Lesser, "Challengesto Jewish Life in Latin America: Brazil."MiltonShainandSally Frankental,"SouthAfricanJewry,Apartheid andPoliticalChange."AlanMontague,"Chronology andNecrology."Cynthia Shiloh andPatriciaSchotten,"A SelectedandClassifiedBibliography." MartinHengel and Ulrich Heckel, eds. Paulus und das antikeJudentum. WissenschaftlicheUntersuchungenzum Neuen Testament,58. Ttibingen:J. C. B. Mohr(PaulSiebeck), 1991. xiii, 475 pp.

STUDIES COLLECTED

337

CharlesKingsley Barrett,"Paulusals Missionarund Theologe." CONTENTS: Andrew Chester,"JewishMessianic Expectationsand MediatorialFigures and Pauline Christology."David E. Aune, "Romansas a Logos Protreptikos in the Context of Ancient Religious and PhilosophicalPropaganda." Peter Schdifer,"Der vorrabbinischePharisiismus."Martin Hengel, "Der vorchristlichePaulus." James D. G. Dunn, "What Was the Issue Between Paul and 'Those of the Circumcision'?"John McHugh,"Galatians bei 2:11-14: Was PeterRight?"GerdTheissen,"Judentum undChristentum Paulus.SozialgeschichtlicheUberlegungenzu einembeginnendenSchisma." HermannLichtenberger,"Paulusund das Gesezt." OtfriedHofius, "Wort Gottes und Glaube bei Paulus."Peter Stuhlmacher,"Adolf Schlatterals Paulusausleger-ein Versuch." BernardS. Jackson,ed. Jewish Law Annual,vol. 10. Chur:HarwoodAcademic Publishers,1992. 302 pp. CONTENTS: Joseph Fleishman, "Offences Against ParentsPunishableby Death: Towards a Socio-Legal Interpretationof Ex. 21:15,17." Alfredo MordechaiRabello,"Herod'sDomesticCourt?The Judgementof Deathfor Herod'sSons." Shlomo Nahmias,"TheLaw and the RelationshipBetween Parentsand Children."MordechaiFrishtik,"PhysicalViolence by Parents AgainstTheir Childrenin Jewish Historyand JewishLaw."Moshe Zemer, "PurifyingMamzerim."Eliav Shochetman,"On the Natureof the Rules GoverningCustody of Childrenin Jewish Law." Pinhas Shifman, "The Welfareof the Child and Religious Considerations." ElimelechWestreich, "A Father'sObligationto MaintainHis Childrenin TalmudicLaw."Ya'akov Meron,"ParentsandChildrenunderMoslemLaw."AntoineGarapon,"From a Debateon FamilyLaw to a Debateon Children'sRights." Steven T. Katz, ed. Frontiersof Jewish Thought.Washington,D.C.: B'nai B'rithBooks, 1992. xiv, 346 pp. EmilL. Fackenheim,"ThePeopleIsrael."MichaelRosenak,"The CONTENTS: Landof Israel:Its ContemporaryMeaning."ShlomoAvineri,"TheStateof Israel."NorbertM. Samuelson,"God:The PresentStatus of the Discussion."SusannahHeschel, "Feminism."Blu Greenberg,"WomenToday-An OrthodoxView."Rela Geffen Monson, "WomenToday-A Non-Orthodox View."David M. Feldman,"AbortionandBirthControl:The Contemporary

338

COLLECTEDSTUDIES

Debate." David Novak, "AIDS: The ContemporaryJewish Perspective." Sidney Goldstein, "ContemporaryJewish Demography."U. O. Schmelz, "DemographyWorldwide."DeborahE. Lipstadt,"Assimilation."Elliot N. Dorff, "Pluralism."Michael Dobkowski, "Anti-SemitismToday: Present RealitiesandProspects."Saul P. Wachs,"JewishEducation."DanielLandes, "TheThreatof NuclearDestruction."ReuvenKimelman,"War." YeshayahuLeibowitz.Judaism,HumanValues,and the JewishState.Edited by Eliezer Goldman.Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversityPress, 1992. xxxiv, 291 pp. "Introduction"(by Eliezer Goldman)."ReligiousPraxis: The CONTENTS: of Meaning Halakhah"(1953). "OfPrayer"(1960). "TheReadingof Shema" (1981). "Fearof God in the Book of Job" (1974). "Divine Governance: A MaimonideanView" (1972). "Lishmahand Not-Lishmah"(1977). "The Uniquenessof the Jewish People"(1975). "TheIndividualand Society in Judaism"(1967). "AhistoricalThinkersin Judaism"(1980). "TheReligious and Moral Significanceof the Redemptionof Israel"(1977). "Redemption and the Dawn of Redemption"(1971). "The Statusof Women:Halakhah and Meta-Halakhah" (1980). "Religionand Science in the MiddleAges and in the Modem Era" (1976). "The Social Orderas a Religious Problem" (1947). "The Crisis of Religion in the State of Israel"(1952). "A Call for the Separationof Religion and State"(1959). "AfterKibiyeh"(1953-54). "JewishIdentityandIsraeliSilence"(1966). "TheJew in His Community,on His Land,andin the World"(1968). "TheReligiousSignificanceof the State of Israel"(1975). "TheTerritories" (1968). "Right,Law,andReality"(1976). "A Jewish State or an UnpartitionedEretz-Israel"(1968-70). "Occupation and Terror"(1976). "FortyYearsAfter"(1988). "Hochhut'sError"(1964). "'The CommonJudeo-Christian Heritage'" (1968). Amnon Ben-Tor,ed. The Archeologyof AncientIsrael. Translatedby R. Greenberg.New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1992.xxi, 398 pp. OferBar-Yosef,"TheNeolithic CONTENTS: AmnonBen-Tor,"Introduction." Period."Rivka Gonen, "The ChalcolithicPeriod."Amnon Ben-Tor,"The EarlyBronzeAge." Ram Gophna,"TheIntermediateBronzeAge." Aharon Kempinski,"The Middle Bronze Age." Rivka Gonen, "The Late Bronze

COLLECTEDSTUDIES

339

Age." Amihai Mazar, "The Iron Age I." GabrielBarkay,"The Iron Age II-III." LennE. Goodman,ed. NeoplatonismandJewishThought.Studiesin Neoplatonism:Ancientand Modern,vol. 7. Albany:StateUniversityof New York Press, 1992. xiii, 454 pp. L. E. Goodman,"Editor'sIntroduction: CONTENTS: Thematizinga Tradition." David Winston, "Philo's Concept of the Divine Nature."John M. Dillon, "Solomon Ibn Gabirol's Doctrine of Intelligible Matter."C. K. Mathis, "ParallelStructuresin the Metaphysicsof lamblichusand Ibn Gabirol." BernardMcGinn,"IbnGabirol:The Sage Among the Schoolmen."Arthur Hyman,"FromWhatIs One and SimpleOnly WhatIs One andSimpleCan Cometo Be." AlfredL. Ivry,"MaimonidesandNeoplatonism:Challengeand Naturalism." MenachemKellner, Response."L. E. Goodman,"Maimonidean "The Virtueof Faith."David B. Burrell,"Why Not Pursuethe Metaphor of Artisanand View God's Knowledgeas Practical?"Idit Dobbs-Weinstein, "Matteras Creatureand Matteras the Source of Evil: Maimonidesand Aquinas."J. David Bleich, "DivineUnity in Maimonides,the Tosafistsand Me'iri." SeymourFeldman,"PlatonicThemes in Gersonides'Doctrineof the Active Intellect."Steven T. Katz, "Utteranceand Ineffabilityin Jewish of the Godheadin KabbalNeoplatonism."David Novak, "Self-Contraction istic Theology."Moshe Idel, "JewishKabbalahandPlatonismin the Middle Ages andRenaissance."HubertDuthier,"LoveandIntellectin LeoneEbreo: The Joys and Pains of HumanPassion."RichardPopkin,"Spinoza,Neoplatonic Kabbalist?"RobertB. McLaren,"ThePsychodynamicsof Neoplatonic Ontology." Alan S. Kaye, ed. SemiticStudiesin Honorof WolfLeslau,On the Occasion of His Eighty-fifthBirthday,November14th, 1991. 2 vols. Wiesbaden:Otto Harrassowitz,1991. lxviii, 889 pp.;xv, 830 pp. Moshe Bar-Asher,"HebrewElementsin North AfricanJudeoArabic:Alternationsin Meaningand Form."James Barr,"Is qen "nest"a Metaphor?"JoshuaBlau, "On Some Misspelt,Misunderstoodand Wrongly TransmittedVocables in Medieval Judeo-Arabic."Ariel A. Bloch, "QuestioningGod's Omnipotencein the Bible: A LinguisticCase Study."Shmuel Bolozky, "Casualand Formal Vowel Deletion in Modem Hebrew."Alan CONTENTS:

340

COLLECTEDSTUDIES

Corr6,"Hebrew:Some Modest Proposals."JoshuaA. Fishman,"TheHebraistResponse to the TsernovitsConference."GiovanniGarbini,"On the "The Wordseren."MosheGotten-Gottstein, Originof the Hebrew-Philistine Present State of ComparativeSemitic Linguistics."Jonas C. Greenfield, "The Verb for Washing in Aramaic."BenjaminHary, "On the Use of 'ila and li in Judeo-ArabicTexts."J. Hoftijzer,"A PreliminaryRemark on the Study of the VerbalSystem in Classical Hebrew."M. Z. Kadari, "AnOverlookedSourceof ModemHebrew."GeoffreyKhan,"TheSyllabic Natureof TiberianHebrewVocalization."AntonioLoprieno,"Observations on the TraditionalPronunciationof Hebrewamong ItalianJews." Rudolf in SamaritanHebrewandAramaic."S. Morag, Macuch,"Pseudo-Ethiopisms "ZurTheorieder "GradedIsoglosses in East Aramaic."Hans-PeterMUiller, historischvergleichendenGrammatikdargestelltam sprachgeschichtlichen M. O'Connor,"Cardinal-Direction Termsin Kontextdes Althebriiischen." Biblical Hebrew."Uzzi Ornan,"TheoreticalGeminationin IsraeliHebrew." GaryA. Rendsburg,"ParallelDevelopmentsin MishnaicHebrew,Colloquial Arabic,and OtherVarietiesof SpokenSemitic."E. J. Revell, "Conditional Sentences in Biblical Hebrew Prose."JudithRosenhouse,"Two Unstable Phonemesin IsraeliHebrewandColloquialArabic:'Alephand 'Ayin."Yona Sabar, "The Hebrew Bible Vocabularyas ReflectedThroughTraditional Oral Neo-AramaicTranslations."Ora (Rodrigue)Schwarzwald,"Lexical Weightin HebrewInflectionalFeminineFormation."StanislavSegert,"Use K. G. Tsereteli, of ComparativeSemitic Materialin HebrewLexicography." in "Aboutthe States of Nouns Aramaic."KyojiTsujita,"TheRetrospective Pronounas Direct Objectin RelativeSentencesin BiblicalHebrew."Yigal Yannai,"SpellingVariantsin DictionaryEntriesand the Case of Hebrew's SemiticScript."Ninety-nineadditionalarticleson otherSemiticlanguages. F GarciaMartinez.Qumranand Apocalyptic:Studieson the AramaicTexts from Qumran.Studieson the Textsof the Desertof Judah,vol. 9. Leiden:E. J. Brill, 1992. xvi, 233 pp. CONTENTS: "4QMess Ar and the Book of Noah" (1982). "Contribution of the AramaicEnoch Fragmentsto Our Understandingof the Books of Enoch"(1987). "TheBook of Giants"(1987). "ThePrayerof Nabonidus:A New Synthesis"(1980). "4QPseudoDanielAramaicandthePseudo-Danielic Literature" (1983). "TheEschatologicalFigureof 4Q246"(1983)."The'New Jerusalem'andthe FutureTempleof the ManuscriptsfromQumran"(1986).

COLLECTEDSTUDIES

341

WernerE. Mosse. Second Chance:TwoCenturiesof German-speaking Jews in the UnitedKingdom.Schriftenreihewissenschaftlicher des Abdhandlungen Leo Baeck Instituts,48. Ttibingen:J. C. B. Mohr(PaulSiebeck), 1991. xii, 654 pp. Peter Pulzer, "Foreigners:The Immigrantin Britain."Colin CONTENTS: Holmes, "Immigrantsand Refugeesin Britain."AubreyNewman,"German SettleJews in Britain:A Prologue."ToddM. Endelman,"German-Jewish ments in VictorianEngland."Doron Niederland,"Areasof Departurefrom Bob Moore,"Areas Nazi Germanyandthe Social Structureof theEmigrants." of Receptionin theUnitedKingdom,1933-1945."HerbertA. Strauss,"Jewish Mitchell Emigrationin the Nazi Period:Some Aspects of Acculturation." G. Ash, "CentralEuropeanEmigr6 Psychologistsand Psychoanalystsin the United Kingdom."Alfons S6llner, "In Transitto America-Political Scientistsfrom Germanyin GreatBritainafter 1933."RodneyLivingstone, "TheContributionof German-speaking JewishRefugeesto GermanStudies in Britain."ChristhardHoffmann,"The Contributionof German-speaking Jewish Immigrantsto BritishHistoriography." RudolfMuhs,"Jewsof German Backgroundin British Politics."Uwe Westphal,"German,Czech and AustrianJews in EnglishPublishing."PeterAlter"German-speaking Jews as Patronof the Arts and Sciences in EdwardianEngland."KurtLipstein,"The Contributionto Law by German-JewishRefugeesin the UnitedKingdom." Paul K. Hock, "Some Contributionsto Physics by German-Jewish Emigr6s in Britain and Elsewhere."Paul Weindling,"The Contributionof Central EuropeanJews to Medical Science and Practicein Britain,the 1930s to 1950s."PeterLasko, "TheImpactof German-speaking Refugeesin Britain on the Fine Arts."Erik Levi, "TheGerman-Jewish Contributionto Musical Life in Britain."GiinterBerghaus,"TheEmigresfrom Nazi Germanyand Their Contributionto the BritishTheatricalScene."PaulinePaucker,"The Image of the GermanJew in EnglishFiction."StanleyD. Chapman,"Merchantsand Bankersfrom Germanyin Britain."WolfgangMock, "Engineers from Germanyin Exile in Britain, 1933-1945." HaroldPollins, "German Jews in British Industry."HerbertLoebl, "Refugeesfrom the ThirdReich and Industryin the Depressed Areas of Britain."Julius Carlebach,"The 1850-1950." Albert Impact of GermanJews on Anglo-Jewry-Orthodoxy, H. Friedlander,"The GermanInfluenceon ProgressiveJudaismin Great Britain."RaphaelLoewe, "TheContributionof German-Jewish Scholarsto Jewish Studies in the United Kingdom."John P. Fox, "BritishAttitudes

342

COLLECTEDSTUDIES

to Jewish Refugees from Centraland EasternEurope in the Nineteenth and TwentiethCenturies."Louise London, "BritishImmigrationControl Proceduresand Jewish Refugees, 1933-1939." Vivian P. Lipman,"AngloJewish Attitudesto the Refugees from CentralEurope,1922-1939."Jillian Womenin England."TonyKuschner,"AnAlien Davidson,"German-Jewish Occupation-Jewish RefugeesandDomesticServicein Britain,1933-1948." GerhardHirschfeld,"'A High RonaldStent,"JewishRefugeeOrganisations." Traditionof Eagerness. . .'-British Non-JewishOrganisationsin Support of Refugees."WernerE. Mosse, "ToGive andto Take:A BalanceSheet." TheSephardicJourney,1492-1992. New York:YeshivaUniversityMuseum, 1992. 420 pp. MarcD. Angel, "Aspectsof the SephardicSpirit."HaimBeinhart, CONTENTS: "The Jews in Spain: From Their Origins to Their Expulsion in 1492." HahamSolomon Gaon, "The Majestyof Minhag:The Sanctityof Custom in Spanish and PortugueseSynagogues."Shalom Sabar,"Manuscriptand Book IllustrationAmong the SephardimBefore and After the Expulsion." ChayaBenjamin,"TheSephardicJourney-500 Yearsof JewishCeremonial Objects."Yosef Kaplan,"TheFormationof the WesternSephardicDiaspora." MatildaCohen Sarano,"JewishThemesandThoughtsin the Judeo-Spanish Refrdn." Daniel R. Schwartz.Studiesin the JewishBackgroundof Christianity.Wiszum NeuenTestament,60. Ttibingen:J. C. B. senschaftlicheUntersuchungen Mohr(PaulSiebeck), 1992. xii, 304 pp. "TemOn the JewishBackgroundof Christianity." "Introduction: CONTENTS: ple and Desert: On Religion and State in Second TemplePeriodJudaea" (1987). "On PharisaicOppositionto the HasmoneanMonarchy"(1983). "'Kingdomof Priests'-A PharisaicSlogan?"(1979-80). "'TheContemners of JudgesandMen' (11QTemple64:12)"(1982-83). "'ScribesandPharisees, (1984-85). "On Hypocrites':Who Are the 'Scribes'in the New Testament?" Sacrificeby Gentiles in the Temple of Jerusalem"(1992) "Residentsand Exiles,JerusalemitesandJudaeans(Acts 7:4, 2:5, 14):On Stephen,Pentecost andthe Structureof Acts"(1992) "OnChristianStudyof the Zealots"(1992) On BarnabusandBarKokhba"(1980-81). "Josephben Illemandthe Dateof Herod'sDeath.""'Caesarea'andits 'Isactium':Epigraphy,Numismaticsand

COLLECTEDSTUDIES

343

HerodianChronology"(1989). "PontiusPilate'sAppointmentto Office and the Chronologyof Josephus'Antiquities,Books 18-20" (1982-83). "Pontius Pilate'sSuspensionfrom Office:Chronologyand Sources"(1981-82). "Ishmaelben Phiabiandthe Chronologyof ProvinciaJudaea"(1982-83). "Texts, Coins, Fashionsand Dates:Josephus'VitaandAgrippaII's Death."

Books Received Source: AJS Review, Vol. 18, No. 2 (1993), pp. 345-350 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Association for Jewish Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1486598 . Accessed: 07/07/2011 19:20 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and Association for Jewish Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to AJS Review.

http://www.jstor.org

BOOKS RECEIVED Barnai,Jacob. The Jews in Palestine in the EighteenthCentury.Translated by Naomi Goldblum.JudaicStudies Series. Tuscaloosa:Universityof AlabamaPress, 1992. x, 305 pp. Ben-Tor,Amnon, ed. The Archeologyof AncientIsrael. Translatedby R. Greenberg.New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1992. xxi, 398 pp. Birnbaum,Pierre.Anti-Semitismin France: A Political Historyfrom Lion Blum to the Present. Translatedby MiriamKochan.Studiesin Social Discontinuity.Oxford:Blackwell, 1992. xi, 317 pp. Brenner,Joseph Chaim. Out of the Depths. Translatedby David Patterson. Modem HebrewClassics.Boulder,Colo.: WestviewPress, 1992. x, 101 PP. Bogen, Hyman. The LuckiestOrphans:A Historyof the HebrewOrphan Asylumof New York.Urbana:Universityof IllinoisPress,1992.viii, 283 pp. Buloff, Joseph. From the Old Marketplace.Paperbacked. Translatedby Joseph Singer.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress, 1991. 335 PP. Charlesworth,JamesH., ed. Jesus' Jewishness:Exploringthe Place of Jesus within Early Judaism.SharedGroundAmong Jews and Christians:A Series of Explorations,vol. 2. New York:Crossroad,1991. 288 pp. Cohen,Israel. Vilna.Facsimileed. Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety, 1992. xli, 531 pp. Cohen, Sarah,ed. Plea Rolls of the Exchequerof the Jews Preservedin the Public Records Office. Vol. 5: EdwardI, 1277-1279. London:Jewish HistoricalSociety of England,1992. 247 pp. Colijn,G. Jan,andMarciaS. Littell,eds. TheNetherlandsandNaziGenocide: Papersof the 21st AnnualScholars'Conference.SymposiumSeries,vol. 32. Lewiston,N.Y.:EdwinMellen Press, 1992. vi, 544 pp. Davies, G. I. AncientHebrewInscriptions:Corpusand Concordance.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1991. xxxiv, 535 pp. Eckstein,Jerome.MetaphysicalDrift: Love and Judaism.RevisioningPhilosophy,vol. 10. New York:PeterLang, 1991. xx, 239 pp. Emerton,J. A., ed. CongressVolume:Leuven,1989. Supplementsto Vetus Testamentum,vol. 43. Leiden:E. J. Brill, 1991. vi, 398 pp. 345

346

BOOKSRECEIVED

Epstein, LawrenceJ. The Theoryand Practice of WelcomingConvertsto Judaism:Jewish Universalism.Jewish Studies,vol. 3. Lewiston,N.Y.: EdwinMellen Press, 1992. xii, 154 pp. Fernea,ElizabethWarnock,and Mary Evelyn Hocking. The Strugglefor Peace: Israelis and Palestinians. Austin: Universityof Texas Press, 1992. 341 pp. Fishman,Sylvia Barack.Follow My Footprints:ChangingImagesof Women in AmericanJewish Fiction. Hanover,N.H.: BrandeisUniversityPress, 1992. xv, 506 pp. Frankel,Jonathan,ed. Jews and Messianismin the ModernEra: Metaphor and Meaning. Studies in ContemporaryJudaism,vol. 7. New York: OxfordUniversityPress, 1991. xv, 439 pp. Frankel,William, ed. Surveyof Jewish Affairs, 1991. Oxford:Blackwell, 1991. xi, 294 pp. Gal, Allon. David Ben-Gurionand the AmericanAlignmentfor a Jewish State.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress, 1991. 280 pp. GarciaMartinez,F. Qumranand Apocalyptic:Studieson theAramaicTexts from Qumran.Studieson the Textsof the Desertof Judah,vol. 9. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992. xvi, 233 pp. Gay, Ruth. The Jews of Germany:A HistoricalPortrait.New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1992. xiii, 297 pp. Gitay,Yehoshua.Isaiah and His Audience:The Structureand Meaningof Isaiah 1-12. Assen: VanGorcum,1991. ix, 283 pp. Golden,Peter.QuietDiplomat:A Biographyof MaxFisher New York:Herzl Press, 1992. xx, 564 pp. Goodman,Lenn E., ed. Neoplatonismand Jewish Thought.Studiesin Neoplatonism:AncientandModem,vol. 7. Albany:StateUniversityof New YorkPress, 1992. xiii, 454 pp. Grabbe,LesterL. Judaismfrom Cyrusto Hadrian.Vol. 1: ThePersianand GreekPeriods. Vol. 2: TheRomanPeriod.Minneapolis:FortressPress, 1992. Ix, 311 pp; xx, 411 pp. Graml,Hermann.Antisemitismin the ThirdReich.Translatedby Tim Kirk. Oxford:Blackwell, 1992. 256 pp. Halbertal,Moshe, and Avishai Margalit.Idolatry.Translatedby Naomi Goldblum.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1992. 299 pp. Halio,JayI. PhilipRothRevisited.New York:TwaynePublishers,1992.xvii, 231 pp.

BOOKS RECEIVED

347

Hallo, William W. The Book of the People. Brown Judaic Studies 225. Atlanta:ScholarsPress, 1991. x, 220 pp. Hengel, Martin,and Ulrich Heckel, eds. Paulus und das antikeJudentum. WissenschaftlicheUntersuchungen zum NeuenTestament58. Ttibingen: J. C. B. Mohr(Paul Siebeck), 1991. xiii, 475 pp. Hirshman,Marc. Mikra and Midrash:A Comparisonof Rabbinicsand Patristics.Tel Aviv: HakibbutzHameuchad,1992. 128 pp. (Hebrew). Hurowitz,Victor (Avigdor).I Have Built Youan ExaltedHouse: Temple Buildingin theBible in theLightofMesopotamianandNorthwestSemitic Writings.Journalfor the Studyof the Old Testament,SupplementSeries 115. Sheffield:JSOTPress, 1992. 398 pp. Jackson,BernardS., ed. Jewish Law AnnualVol. 10. Chur:HarwoodAcademic Publishers,1992. 302 pp. Jick,Leon A. TheAmericanizationof the Synagogue,1820-1870. Paperback ed. Hanover,N.H.: BrandeisUniversityPress, 1992. viii, 247 pp. Kahalani,Avigdor. The Heights of Courage:A TankLeader'sWaron the Golan.New York:Praeger,1992. xxiii, 198 pp. Katz, Jacob. Traditionand Crisis: Jewish Societyat the End of the Middle Ages. Translatedby BernardDov Cooperman.New York:New York UniversityPress, 1993. 420 pp. Katz, Steven T., ed. Frontiersof Jewish Thought.Washington,D.C.: B'nai B'rithBooks, 1992. xiv, 346 pp. Kaye, Alan S., ed. SemiticStudiesin Honorof WolfLeslau,on the Occasion of His Eighty-fifthBirthday,November14th, 1991. 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,1991. lxviii, 889 pp.;xv, 830 pp. Kirschner,Robert.Baraitade-Melekhetha-Mishkan:A CriticalEditionwith Introductionand Translation.Monographsof theHebrewUnionCollege, no. 15. Cincinnati:HebrewUnion College Press, 1992. xi, 318 pp. von Klemperer,Klemens.GermanResistanceAgainstHitler:TheSearchfor Allies Abroad.Oxford:ClarendonPress, 1992. xvi, 487 pp. Kliger, Hannah,ed. Jewish HometownAssociationsand Family Circles in New York.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress, 1992. x, 164 pp. Lasker, Daniel J. The Refutationof the ChristianPrinciples by Hasdai Crescas. Translatedwith an Introductionand Notes. SUNY Series in Jewish Philosophy.Albany:State Universityof New YorkPress, 1992. x, 156 pp. Laskier,Michael M. The Jews of the Maghribin the Shadowof Vichyand

348

BOOKSRECEIVED

the Swastika.Tel Aviv: DiasporaResearchInstitute,1992. vii, 372 pp. (Hebrew). Leibowitz,Yeshayahu.Judaism,HumanValues,and theJewishState.Edited by EliezerGoldman.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1992. xxxiv, 291 pp. Levi, Jonathan.A Guidefor the Perplexed.New York:TurtleBay Books, 1992. viii, 342 pp. Lucas,FranzD., and Heike Frank.MichaelSachs:Der konservativeMittelweg: Lebenund Werkdes BerlinerRabbinerszurZeitder Emanzipation. Tiibingen:J. C. B. Mohr(PaulSiebeck), 1992. iv, 161 pp. McNamara,Martin.TargumNeofiti 1: Genesis.Translated,with Apparatus and Notes. The AramaicBible, vol. lA. Collegeville,Minn.:Liturgical Press, 1992. xiv, 271 pp. Maher,Michael. TargumPseudo-Jonathan:Genesis.Translated,with Introduction and Notes. The AramaicBible, vol. lB. Collegeville, Minn.: LiturgicalPress, 1992. xiv, 208 pp. Manuel,FrankE. TheBrokenStaff:JudaismThroughChristianEyes. Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress, 1992. ix, 363 pp. Moran,WilliamL. TheAmarnaLetters.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press, 1992. xlvii, 393 pp. Moses, Stephane.Systemand Revelation:The Philosophyof FranzRosenzweig. Translatedby CatherineTihanyi.Detroit:WayneStateUniversity Press, 1992. 318 pp. Mosse, WernerE., ed. Second Chance:TwoCenturiesof German-speaking Jews in the UnitedKingdom.Schriftenreihewissenschaftlicher Abhanddes Leo Baeck Instituts 48. C. B. Mohr J. (Paul lungen Ttibingen: Siebeck), 1991. xii, 654 pp. Neusner, Jacob. An Introductionto Judaism: A Textbookand Reader. Louisville:Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991. xvi, 476 pp. Talmudic Thinking:Language,Logic,Law.Columbia:Universityof -~. SouthCarolinaPress, 1992. xvi, 193 pp. The Transformationof Judaism: From Philosophy to Religion. -~. Urbana:Universityof IllinoisPress, 1992. xvi, 345 pp. BibleCommentary. Newson,CarolA., andSharonH. Ringe,eds. TheWomen's Knox Louisville:Westminster/John Press, 1992. xix, 396 pp. Nini, Yehuda.TheJews of the Yemen,1800-1914. Paris:HarwoodAcademic Publishers,1991. xii, 256 pp.

BOOKSRECEIVED

349

Pardes,Ilana. Countertraditionsin the Bible: A FeministApproach.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress, 1992.viii, 194 pp. Patai, Raphael. Between Budapest and Jerusalem: The Patai Letters, 1933-1938. Salt LakeCity:Universityof UtahPress, 1992.xiii, 333 pp. . Journeymanin Jerusalem:Memoriesand Letters,1933-1947. Salt LakeCity: Universityof UtahPress, 1992. xiii, 478 pp. Petersen,David L., and Kent HaroldRichards.InterpretingHebrewPoetry. Minneapolis:FortressPress, 1992. x, 117 pp. Polin: A Journalof Polish-JewishStudies.Vol. 6. Oxford:Blackwell,1991. viii, 341 pp. Price,JonathanJ. JerusalemUnderSiege: TheCollapseof the JewishState, 66-70 c.E..Leiden:E. J. Brill, 1992. xiv, 361 pp. Pulzer,Paul.Jews and the GermanState:ThePoliticalHistoryof a Minority, 1848-1933. Jewish Society and Culture.Oxford:Blackwell, 1992. xiii, 370 pp. La RassegnaMensilede Israel. Vol. 56, nos. 1-2 (August1990);Vol. 56, no. 3 (December1990).Rome:UnionedelleCommunitaIsraeliticheItaliane, 1991. 296 pp.; 275 pp. Rotenstreich,Nathan.Immediacyand Its Limits:A Studyin MartinBuber's Thought.Chur:HarwoodAcademicPublishers,1991. 118pp. Roth, Cecil. Dofia Gracia of the House of Nasi: A Jewish Renaissance Woman.JPS Classic Reissue. Philadelphia:Jewish PublicationSociety, 1992. xv, 208 pp. 1.The Duke of Naxos of the House of Nasi: TheEffectof a Hero on His Age. JPS Classic Reissue. Philadelphia:JewishPublicationSociety, 1992. xii, 250 pp. Rozen, Minna. Jewish Identity and Society in the SeventeenthCentury: Reflectionson the Life and Workof RafaelMordechaiMalki.Textsand Studies in Medieval and Early ModernJudaism6. Ttibingen:J. C. B. Mohr(PaulSiebeck), 1992. x, 199 pp. Rubenstein,RichardL. AfterAuschwitz:History,Theology,and ContemporaryJudaism.2nd ed. Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress, 1992. xxii, 358 pp. Scha-fer, Peter,andHans-Jtirgen Becker,eds. SynopsezumTalmudYerushalmi. Vol.1/1-2. OrdnungZera'im:BerakhotundPe'a. TUibingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1991. xvii, 401 pp. Shapiro,HenryD., and JonathanD. Sarna,eds. EthnicDiversityand Civic

350

BOOKSRECEIVED

Identity:Patterns of Conflictand Cohesionin CincinnatiSince 1820. Urbana:Universityof Illinois Press, 1992. xviii, 269 pp. Scholem,Gershom,ed. TheCorrespondence of WalterBenjaminandGershom Scholem, 1932-1940. Translatedby Gary Smith and Andre Lefevre. Introduction by AnsonRabinbach.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversity Press, 1992. xxxviii, 276 pp. Schwartz,Daniel R. Studiesin the JewishBackgroundof Christianity.WissenschaftlicheUntersuchungenzum Neuen Testament60. Ttibingen:J. C. B. Mohr(PaulSiebeck), 1992. xii, 304 pp. TheSephardicJourney,1492-1992. New York:YeshivaUniversityMuseum, 1992. 420 pp. Shapira,Anita. Land and Power: The ZionistResortto Force, 1881-1948. New York:OxfordUniversityPress, 1992. x, 446 pp. Smelik, Klaas A. D. Convertingthe Past: Studiesin AncientIsraeliteand Studien28. Leiden:E. J. Moabite Historiography.Oudtestamentische Brill, 1992. viii, 209 pp. Smith, Huston. The World'sReligions. San Francisco:Harpers,1991. xvi, 399 pp. Sokoloff,NaomiB. Imaginingthe Childin ModernJewishFiction.Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress, 1992. xiv, 234 pp. Sperling,S. David. Studentsof the Covenant:A Historyof JewishBiblical Scholarshipin NorthAmerica.Atlanta:ScholarsPress,1992.xii, 216 pp. Stein, JoshuaB. Our Great Solicitor:Josiah C. Wedgwoodand the Jews. Selinsgrove,Pa.: SusquehannaUniversityPress, 1992. 170 pp. Swartz, Michael D. Mystical Prayer in AncientJudaism:An Analysis of Ma'aseh Merkavah.Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum28. Ttibingen:J. C. B. Mohr(PaulSiebeck), 1992. x, 268 pp. Thiering,Barbara.Jesus and the Riddleof the Dead Sea Scrolls: Unlocking the Secretsof His LifeStory.SanFrancisco:HarperSanFrancisco,1992. xi, 451 pp. Williams,David S. StylometricAuthorshipStudiesin FlaviusJosephusand RelatedLiterature.JewishStudies,vol. 12.Lewiston,N.Y.:EdwinMellen Press, 1992. xxiv, 215 pp. Wistrich,RobertS. Antisemitism:TheLongestHatred.New York:Pantheon Books, 1991. xxvi, 341 pp. Yivo Bleter. New Series, vol. 1. New York: YIVO Institutefor Jewish Research,1991. 299 pp. (Yiddish).