 |
| Chazut Kasha by R. Yitzchak Natan Arama (1420-1494). |
INTRODUCTION:
Chazut Kasha or Grievous Vision is a short and most
unusual text, ‘small in quantity but large in quality’[1]
by Rabbi Yitzchak Natan ben Kanonymous of Arles[2]
(or Arama, 1420-1494). Arles is situated in Provence[3]
in Southern France.
Essentially, the text comprises thirteen short questions
about the Book of Job, but provides no answers!
In this article, we will present a brief biography of this
interesting rabbinical character, R. Yitzchak Arama, and also look at his unanswered questions. I have drawn extensively from the research of
Professor Ram Ben-Shalom[4]
who specializes in Jewish history, philosophy and Judaic studies.
A MOST UNUSUAL TEXT:
Professor Ben-Shalom sets the stage to this extraordinary
work by writing:
“There is no similar medieval
text, be it Jewish or Christian, which presents a set of theological problems
without offering any corresponding explanations.”
This style is so unusual[5]
that one could be tempted to think that perhaps the thirteen questions are only
part of a larger work which included answers to the questions. This would make
the extant copy a part of an unfinished work. However, R. Yitzchak Arama’s text
concludes with the expression ‘finished and complete’ indicating that
this is indeed a completed text. In fact, he always concluded his works with
that particular phrase.
To illustrate just how unusual this style of writing was, R.
Yosef Hayyun (1425-1497) of Lisbon writes about the importance of providing appropriate
answers:
“One should ask questions
about what one is studying, and raise doubts, in order to illuminate the
matter, for as a result of the questions, it will be fully clarified.
After asking the questions,
one should not leave them without an answer, but rather respond to them and set
them straight.”[6]
Ben-Shalom then goes on to explain that similar sentiments
were expressed in non-Jewish circles where, for example, the German theologian
Henry Hesse (1325‒1397) instructed Christian preachers not to expose their
communities to doubts but rather to respond with answers to each and every
uncertainty.
WHO WAS R. YITZCHAK ARAMA?
R. Yitzchak Arama was one of the wealthiest and most
prominent Jews of Arles.
According to Ben-Shalom:
“In the Arles land registry
for the year 1437, for example, he is ranked thirteenth among land-owners in
general – following ten members of the nobility and two bourgeois anoblis.”
He was a rabbi, trader, an accountant and a choker Eloki,
an inquisitive theologian.[7]
The Jews of Provence called him me’or galuteinu, or the light of our
exile. This was not an expression to be applied unless it was warranted.[8]
R. Yitzchak Arama was known to the Spanish rabbis as well
with R. Yitzchak Abravanel endorsing him by referring to him as “an advisor
of hidden wisdom who should be relied upon”.[9]
R. Yitzchak was known for his involvement in polemics,
religious debates with Christians, and particularly for his writing of the very
first Hebrew Concordance[10]
of the Torah, called Meir Nativ (Illuminating Path) which he
wrote over the course of ten years, from 1437 to1447. It appears that he wrote
his Concordance, to help with biblical references, as part of his ongoing polemics
with the Christian Church.
In his Concordance, R. Yitzchak Arama introduced the
Christian division of the chapters of the Bible which did not exist in Jewish
tradition until then. This division of the Torah into chapters was later
officially adopted as the Jewish standard when the first Mikraot Gedolot was printed
in 1524.
He authored many other works as well, including Akedat
Yitzchak.
Ben-Shalom writes:
“Judging from the Concordance’s
introductory essay, as well as some of Nathan’s personal correspondence, it
would appear that he was a temperate philosopher, identifying with the
Aristotelian tradition and well versed in Jewish ethics and philosophy.”
CHAZUT KASHA:
In his Chazut Kasha, R. Yitzchak Arama presents us
with thirteen penetrative questions concerning the Book of Job. These were
open-ended questions which he obviously grappled with personally and he made no
attempt whatsoever at providing any guidance as to their resolution.
The title Chazut Kasha is taken from Isaiah[11]:
“A harsh
prophecy [or, grievous
vision] has been announced to me: ‘The betrayer is betraying, the
ravager ravaging...”
R. Yitzchak Arama uses this expression in the sense of
interpretational difficulties as, for him, there was no simple resolution to
these deep issues.
In this sense, he broke with the common standard style of
biblical interpretation where difficulties are presented and simultaneously
expounded upon and clarified. In complex cases where it is difficult to arrive
at clarity by the usual interpretive methods, resolution is often found by
resorting to allegorical or even Kabbalistic interpretations. The biblical
student is usually left satisfied after such an encounter.
Not so with R.
Yitzchak Arama. The thirteen questions remain honestly but perplexingly
untreated and undeciphered for the reader.
Some examples follow (Translations by Professor Ben-Shalom):
“That [although]his [i.e.
Job’s]name [is mentioned][12] ... his father’s name nor his family name is ever mentioned.”[13]
Iyov or Job is referenced fifty-four times in The Book of
Job and twice more in Ezekiel[14]
- and not once is his father’s name, neither his family name nor his origins
mentioned.
“That it is never
mentioned if he is a Hebrew or of another nation.”
From a basic reading of Job, we have no indication of whether
he was a Jewish or not.
“That his religion
is never mentioned, and because his portrayal as an honest and god-fearing man
is true of those [men] who keep the law and are sure not to disobey it.”
In other words, the fact that Job kept the ‘law’ is no
indication as to what his religion was. That he was an upright man does
indicate which specific group he belonged to.
However, various rabbinical sources have Job living very
different eras, including from the time of Abraham, the time of the Egyptian enslavement,
the period of the Judges, the First Temple, the Babylonian exile, and the
Second Temple.[15]
“That it is not
clear why the sons of God presented themselves before God if they are always to
be found at his side.”
In Job 1:6 it is written that the children of God (i.e., the
angels) presented themselves before God. R. Yitzchak Arama was posing a
challenging question to the text because if the angels or host of heaven are
always in G-d’s presence - as indicated in other parts of the Torah - then what
does it mean that they now presented themselves before G-d?
“That God spoke
with Satan only.”
If all the other angels approached G-d, why does God speak
only with Satan?
“That God gave
Satan a free hand [even though] there was no previous sin.”
How fair is it that G-d allows Satan to mete out the
succession of punishments to Job if he did not sin?
11) “That even if it is indeed supposed that there was a
proceeding sin, why did his eldest children die, that being an irreversible
loss.”
Even if we assume that Job committed a previous sin, why
would his children have to pay with their lives for their father’s misdeeds?
Again in rabbinic literature, we find two distinct views. One view maintains
that Job’s children were themselves wicked, while another holds they were
innocent.[16]
“That God admitted
that he had been enticed by Satan and He was enticed to destroy him without
reason; and there is no greater reason than that to acquit Job and condemn God.”
This is perhaps the most powerful of his questions and shows
how he was able to speak his truth even to the ultimate power. A reading of the
Book of Job shows how Satan tempted G-d, as it were, to test Job for no reason.
And G-d admits that he had been so enticed.
According to Job 2:3:
“The Lord said to the Adversary [i.e., Satan], ‘Have you
noticed My servant Job? There is no one like him on earth, a blameless and
upright man who fears God and shuns evil. He still keeps his integrity; so you
have incited Me against him to destroy him for no good reason.”
On the nature of ‘Satan’ it should be pointed out that Rav
Sa’adya Gaon, considered Satan to be a human while the more rationalist rabbis
like Maimonides, Samuel ibn Tibbon and Gersonides saw the image of Satan as an allegory and did not believe such an entity actually existed.[17]
“That his friends
doubted his integrity and honesty and thought his soul to be guilty. They say:
You have given no water to the weary to drink [but] God testified that he was
innocent and honest and god-fearing and not guilty of any wrongdoing.”
Jobs friends eventually consider him to be guilty of past
misdeeds, such as in one case not feeding the poor. Yet, according to the Book
of Job, G-d himself exonerates Job as a good man who has done no evil.
CRITICAL THINKING DOES NOT MEAN CRITICISM:
Ben-Shalom points out that R. Yitzchak Arama’s questions
were neither cynical nor subversive:
“...Nathan had no interest in
destroying the foundations of Judaism by attacking the biblical infrastructure.
In fact, Nathan was one of his generation’s most important apologists,
defending Judaism against Christian theological critique and the aggressive
missionary efforts that had become so common in the aftermath of the Tortosa
disputation of 1412‒1414.”
To illustrate the difference between critical thinking and
criticism, one must look at the example of the 13th-century Spanish
philosopher, who resided in Rome, Zecharia ben Yitzchak ben Shaltiel Chen.
Based on similar questions that he had concerning the Book of Job, his response
was to conclude that the whole story was meant as allegory and that no such
person called Job ever existed.
R. Yitzchak Arama, however, chose to remain within what
Ben-Shalom calls the ‘literal paradigm of biblical interpretation’ and
does not conclude that the story is just an allegory – but, nevertheless, he
voices his questions and queries in an open and forthright manner.
HISTORICAL TRAIL OF CHAZUT KASHA:
R. Yitzchak Arama’s Chazut Kasha (and other writings)
remained in manuscript form and in the late 18th-century they found
their way to R. Yitzchak Shmuel Reggio (1784-1855). R. Reggio, seems to have
had an interest particularly in daring rabbinic thought and was drawn to the
writings of Yosef
ibn Caspi, Judah
Aryeh of Modena, and Yosef
Shlomo Delmedigo.
R. Reggio mentions that he was the only person in his
generation to be familiar with the writings of R. Yitzchak Arama as he had the
only copy of the manuscripts. The Reggio manuscript collection was later sold
to the Bodleian Library of Oxford University in 1853.
ANALYSIS:
My highly emotive, personal and subjective analysis follows:
I write this as I sit under strict lockdown due to the
Coronavirus. The Book of Iyov is an interesting book to read at this time when nothing seems to make sense or be fair. History will show just how many religious leaders have offered a multitude of ‘reasons’
for this pandemic with the common-denominator being how this event relates
directly to the imminent arrival of the Messiah etc. We have a large and
accepting audience who welcome such speculation because to them this is the only way it can ‘make sense’.
But at (all times and especially at) times like this answers
are the most dangerous things. When the mystics are confronted by G-d they wax
dangerously lyrical – when spiritual rationalists are confronted by G-d, they
remain silent in the pure wonderment of an Unknowable and Transcendent G-d.
The Kotzker Rebbe taught how to live with burning questions
of faith as the ultimate expression of belief. Questions help us grow. Answers are
dangerous and stunt our growth.
If we knew G-d we would be G-d.
If you want answers, see YouTube and for more
clarity see The Reason
for the Caronavirus (“If we learn the laws of Lashon Harah then Mashiach
will come and we will never experience any kind of plague.”)
Although obviously in a very different context, R. Yitzchak
of Arama chose - in principle - not to give answers but just leave us with
questions. In the realm of theology and the search for G-d, one is usually
closer to the truth by remaining with questions and staying away from answers.
And please, listen to the science, the data and the doctors
(as the Torah requires of us).
APPENDIX:
English translation by Professor Ram Ben-Shalom:
1) “That his [i.e. Job’s][18]
name nor his father’s name nor his family name is ever mentioned.”
2) “That it is never mentioned if he is a Hebrew or of
another nation.”
3) “That his religion is never mentioned, and because his
portrayal as an honest and god-fearing man is true of those [men] who keep the
law and are sure not to disobey it.”
4) “That there is no mention of when he lived, save for
Ezekiel saying that it was after Daniel.”
5) “That only his general location is described but not
the name of the city where he resides.” All we know is that he came from
the Land of Uz but there is no reference to any specific city of origin.
6) “That it seems he dwelled among the people of the
nation of Kedem, which is described as the greatest of all [the people]; and if
Uz is Constantinople then it is north of the Land of Israel and south of us.”
7) “That Sheba and Daden are very distant from him, he
being located between the Euphrates and the Land of Israel and Sheba is said to
be far from him.”
8) “That it is not clear why the sons of God presented
themselves before God if they are always to be found at his side.”
9) “That God spoke with Satan only.”
10) “That God gave Satan a free hand [even though] there
was no previous sin.”
11) “That even if it is indeed supposed that there was a
proceeding sin, why did his eldest children die, that being an irreversible
loss.”
12) “That God admitted that he had been enticed by Satan
and He was enticed to destroy him without reason; and there is no greater
reason than that to acquit Job and condemn God.”
13) “That his friends doubted his integrity and honesty
and thought his soul to be guilty. They say: You have given no water to the
weary to drink [but] God testified that he was innocent and honest and
god-fearing and not guilty of any wrongdoing.”
[1]
See the title page of Chazut Kasha.
[4]
Ram Ben-Shalom, Living with Unanswered Questions: The Meaning of the Queries
about the Book of Job in Isaac Nathan’s Hazut Qashah (“Grievous Vision”).
[5]
According to Mark Saperstein, however, this style of just presenting questions
without answers was quite common amongst the scholars exiled from Spain.
[6] A.
Gross, Rabbi Joseph ben Abraham Hayyun, p. 74.
(Translation by Saperstein).
[7]
See the title page of Chazut Kasha.
[8]
The other rabbi to be given a similar title was Rabbeinu Gershom Meor haGolah
(960-1040) from Mainz, Germany.
[9]
Abravanel, Yeshu’ut Meshicho 62b.
[10] A
Concordance is an alphabetical list of words in the Torah which show where they
are to be found within the text.
[11]
Isaiah 21:2.
[12]
Parenthesis mine.
[13]
All translations (in quotation marks) are by Professor Ram Ben-Shalom.
[14]
Ezekiel 14:14, 20.
[15]
H. Mack, Job and the Book of Job in Rabbinic Literature, p. 68‒85. (Hebrew) Ela
Mashal Haya.
[16]
Ibid. H. Mack, p. 62-67.
[17]
R. Eisen, The Book of Job in Medieval Jewish Philosophy, p. 212.
[18]
Parenthesis mine.
