163)RABBI YEHUDAH MOSCATO - AN ITALIAN KABBALIST WHO REFUSED TO FALL UNDER THE SPELL OF POPULAR MYSTICISM:

Rabbi Yehudah Moscato's Kol Yehudah commentary on the Kuzari.

INTRODUCTION:

Rabbi Yehudah Moscato (1530-1593) was an Italian chief rabbi, poet, philosopher, musician, 

professional speaker - and most notably,  a Kabbalist who followed a unique and unusual form of 

mysticism.

Kuzari with Rabbi Yehudah Moscato's Kol Yehudah commentary.

He is best known as the author of one of the first commentaries on the Kuzari (by R. Yehudah haLevi,  1075-1141), entitled Kol Yehudah, which has since then, always been printed in publications of the Kuzari together with the main text.[1]

RECLAIMING ART AND SCIENCE AS PART OF JUDAISM:

R. Yehudah Moscato tried to synthesise the ethos of the Renaissance with that of Judaism because he believed that all knowledge had originally come from Torah. It was just that the other nations had been granted custodianship of the arts and sciences and that it was now time for Judaism to embrace and reclaim them.

He wrote: “Let it not vex you because I draw on extraneous sources. For to me, these foreign streams flow from our own Jewish wells. The nations of the earth derived their wisdom from the sages. If I often make use of information gathered from secular books, it is only because I know the true origin of that information.”

HEBREW AS ‘LINGUA ADAMICA’:

Like many of the Italian Renaissance rabbis of his era, R. Yehudah Moscato was extremely well educated both religiously and secularly.  He studied many languages and disciplines yet firmly believed that all ‘primary’ languages had their source in Hebrew just as all science and knowledge had their origins in Torah.

In Kol Yehudah, R. Moscato wrote that speech is the unique characteristic of the human being, as it is not found among the animals (although they do communicate with each other). Because of this gift of speech, humankind had to use it elegantly and accurately. Speech could lend the individual great dignity and reverence.[2]

He believed that Hebrew, the language of the first man, Adam, was not a human invention but a gift from G-d.[3] Therefore, elements of the original language, Hebrew or lingua Adamica, were to be found in all other languages as well.

       R. YEHUDAH MOSCATO GIVES ‘FORM’ A PLACE NEXT TO ‘SUBSTANCE’:

R. Yehudah Moscato must have been one of the first rabbis to emphasise the role of ‘form’ as a worthy expression of Torah Judaism. While most of the other rabbis were interested in ‘function’ or ‘substance’  – in laws and Halachik discourse - R. Moscato showed that presentation, delivery and finesse were of equal importance.

Rabbi Yehudah Moscato's Nefutzot Yehudah containing his sermons.

For example, while delivering his famous sermons[4], he wanted to transfix the congregation to his message in a beautiful and almost artistic manner. For him, the delivery of the message was as important as the content. The finesse of Judaism was not to be overshadowed by the functionality of its dogma.

His sermons were so well constructed and delivered that he even attracted quite a large audience of non-Jews who were eager to lend him their ear.[5]

GRAPPLING WITH NON-HALACHIC TALMUDIC LITERATURE:

 R. Yehudah Moscato studied under R. Azarai dei Rossi  (author of Meor Einayim) and became the Chief Rabbi of Mantua in 1587

However, unlike his controversial teacher who sought to discredit the historicity of much of the non-legal, or Aggadic writings of the Talmud, and who questioned the accuracy of the (then over one thousand-year-old) Aggadic medical and scientific knowledge – R. Moscato took a different approach: 

Although he too was challenged to the same extent as his teacher, by rabbinic Aggadah and their understanding of science and history: - instead of denying the intrinsic worth of Aggadah, he interpreted the non-legal literature philosophically and tried to create a moral imperative to enhance its validity.

[It must be pointed out that, clearly, at no stage did either the teacher or his student question the Halachik veracity of Talmudic literature. This is obvious, as both were respected rabbinic leaders - but it must nevertheless be reiterated so that there can be no misunderstanding.]

ITALIAN KABBALAH  WITHOUT THE ‘MAGIC’[6]:

One of the reasons why R. Moscato was drawn to the Kuzari of R. Yehudah haLevi, was because it was well rooted in older forms of Kabbalah as it drew from Sefer Yetzirah and the Heichalot[7] literature.

And just like R. Moscato had given a philosophical slant to Talmudic Aggadah - which allowed him not to have to take it literally - he similarly took the ‘magic’ or ‘mechanics’ out of Kabbalah and dealt with it on an interpretive and philosophical level.

                                                                                                         

Although R. Moscato references Sefer Yetzirah, he says: “Do not think that those issues will be interpreted according to the way of Kabbalah...we shall not enjoy their interpretation as dealing with that wonderous wisdom, even as much as a small finger...”[8]

In other words, he was prepared to quote from the early mystical literature but often ignored its intended theosophical (mystically based) interpretations, and instead substituted his own non-mystical, philosophical, moral and ethical explanations.

It is interesting to note that the more recent Zohar (as opposed to the more ancient Heichalot literature) was already well known in Italy at that time, as editions of the Zohar were printed in Mantua during the early 1500’s - yet R. Moscato (although he did also quote, sparingly, from the Zohar[9]) was more drawn to the earlier Kabbalah.[10]

According to Moshe Idel[11], another example of R. Moscato ignoring the overtly mystical aspects of Kabbalah,

can be seen by his selected and sparse quoting of the Safed Kabbalists[12], where, once again, he appears to disregard their theosophy (explicit mysticism), and instead focuses on philosophy.

Most importantly, however, is the blatant and conspicuous absence of any mention of the Ari Zal (R. Yitzchak Luria 1534-1572) who was the most well known of all Safed Kabbalists, yet is not quoted by R. Moscato. This omission could not have been by mistake.

There can be only one explanation for this omission: The Ari Zal expounded a unique and particular brand of Kabbalah, known as Lurianic Kabbalah, which was boldly and unashamedly anti-philosophical and overtly theurgical (supernaturally based).[13]

Lurianic Kabbalah “used a plethora of anthropomorphic (ascribing human attributes to G-d) terminology, sexual imagery, and a theurgical (emphasis on the supernatural component of humanity and the universe, in its) understanding of the commandments.” [14]

In other words, R. Moscato did not want to quote the Lurianic system of Kabbalah because of its intense mysticism. Apparently, it was nigh impossible for R. Moscato to soften that particular system of mysticism by creating a philosophical alternative as he was able to do with some of the other forms of mysticism.

This was not an approach unique to R. Moscato, but one which typified many of the Italian ‘Kabbalists’ of that time. Perhaps this Italian approach could be referred to as a ‘mild and non-pervasive’  school of mysticism.

Because of this unique and ‘softer’ approach to Kabbalah, according to Idel “none of those born in Italy would qualify as an ‘authentic’  Kabbalist.”

In general, the Safed Kabbalists were largely ignored by the Italians because they insisted on “following the gist of the Zoharic literature, anchored both in theosophy (mystically based material) and theurgy (supernaturally based material[15]).”

Furthermore, no Italian Kabbalist wrote a commentary on the Zohar during the 1500’s. This in contrast to numerous commentaries written in Safed during that same time period.[16]

Rabbi Yehuda Moscato's Nefutzut Yehudah.

ANALYSIS:

Rabbi Yehuda Moscato and his colleagues did something that was, most likely, never done before in Jewish history. Prior to him, there had always been two very distinct and theologically opposing schools of thought; the School of Rationalism (Rambam) and the School of Mysticism (Ramban)These schools were quite separate from each other and produced extreme hard-liners on both sides. Rationalists, for example, had difficulties with the way the common people perceived the notion of angels (see KOTZK BLOG 110) while mystics were having daily angelic visitations (see KOTZK BLOG 153).

R. Moscato’s unique contribution to Judaism may have been the fact that he found some common 
ground between the two schools. So much so that its very hard to define him as either a rationalist or a mystic, although he clearly had elements of both.

Some may perceive this ‘crossover’ to be a weakness.

Others, who grapple with the pull from both worlds, may find the Italian approach an interesting alternative to ponder.

.................................................................................

NOTES FOR FURTHER STUDY:

THE ANTI-PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACH:

An example of the anti-philosophical position taken by the Zohar can be seen through the lens of R. Nachman of Breslov (1772-1810) who frequently drew from the Zohar and the teachings of the Ari Zal:

“The Rebbe (R. Nachman) emphatically denounced all books dealing with philosophy(including Rambam’s Guide for the perplexed)[17]...But wisdom such as that of the Torah is not found there at all. The Rebbe said that one who knows nothing of such books, but walks a simple path and fears HaShem’s punishment, is fortunate[18]. The only way to begin to serve HaShem is through fear of retribution...When a person becomes involved in philosophy, his mind becomes filled with doubts and questions...This is why we never find a person who has become upstanding and G-d-fearing through the study of philosophy...The severe prohibition against studying such works has been noted elsewhere.”[19]

Commenting on this R. Z.A. Rosenfeld writes:

“Rabbeinu zal (R. Nachman) speaks very strongly against the books written by philosophers – those who delve deeply into questions about faith, those who write about this with seeming authority while actually it is the most sacrilegious thing to do. More than writing about it, Rabbeinu zal says that it is forbidden for a person to read this, because this is not the way of a Jew...even if these books are written by Jewish philosophers, or even bt the great philosophers of the past.

The Zohar haKadosh, too condemns them[20]...Therefore Rabbeinu zal says, ‘Ashrei’ - fortunate and blessed is that person who has never looked into those books, who has never attended a lesson dealing with philosophy. Fortunate is the person who has never contaminated his mind, fortunate [21]"the person who never got that germ in his brain that can actually destroy a person’s soul.

 

---

[1] The Kol Yehudah was R. Moscato’s most precious work. He worked on it till he died and his children published it after his death. The task was rather technical for R. Moscato as he used various versions of Ibn Tabbon’s translations from the original Arabic, as well as the lesser-known translation of Yehudah ben Yitzchak Kardinal.

See A History of Jewish Literature: Italian Jewry in the Renaissance era, by Israel Zinberg, p. 106.

[2] See Kol Yehudah II, 68.

[3] See Essential Papers on Jewish Culture in Renaissance and Baroque Italy, edited by David Ruderman, p. 80. See also Kol Yehudah II,72.

[4] These sermons were later printed in a book called Nefutzot Yehudah. There is much debate over the issue of which language these sermons were delivered in. According to Robert Bonfil, they were delivered in Italian, while according to Joseph Dan, they were delivered in Hebrew.

[5] See: A History of Judaism: From Its Origins to the Present, by Martin Goodman, p. 368.

[6] The term ‘magic’ is used here very loosely and not in its usual sense - nor in the sense that it would be used as relating to Practical Kabbalah - but simply in the sense of attempting to ‘mechanically’ influence the Divine Being by affecting certain appropriate activities here on earth at appropriate times. An example would be the Kabbalistic practice of not reciting Psalms after nightfall so as not to draw down the dominant negative ‘night energies’.

[7] Also known as the Merkava and Heichalot literature which date back to Biblical and early rabbinic times (predating the Zohar).

[8] Kol Yehudah IV, 83-84. (Translation by Moshe Idel.)

[9] Idel, however, is quick to point out that, to the best of his knowledge, this was not in a theosophical manner. Also, R. Moscato never quoted from the later Tikkunei Zohar (printed in 1560) which was ‘densely theosophical’.

[10] Indecently, apropos the debate over when the Zohar was actually written, R. Moscato did believe it was earlier than the 1200’s as he refers to the writer(s) as ‘chachameinu zichronam livracha’, our Sages of blessed memory. See KOTZK BLOG 87, for Mysteries B

ehind the Origins of the Zohar..

[11] See: On Kabbalah in R. Judah Moscato’s Qol Yehudah, by Moshe Idel.

[12] He knew of and mentioned three contemporary Safed Kabbalists: R. Yosef Karo (1488-1575), R. Shlomo haLevi Alkabetz (1500-1576), and R. Moshe Cordovero (1522-1570).

[13] See note 6.

[14] Moshe Idel ibid. Parenthesis mine.

  [15] Theurgy is also defined as ‘a system of white magic’. This is a definition of the English term ‘theurgy’. For an understanding of its usage in this context, see note 6.

[16] See: Preachers of the Italian Ghetto, edited by David B. Ruderman, p. 56.

[17] Parenthesis mine, but Rambam’s work is specifically referenced in other writings of R. Nachman.

[18] It should be pointed out that regarding this emphasis on punishment, R. Nachman acknowledges that in this regard, he differs from the Ari Zal, who ‘belittles the mere fear of punishment’ (ibid.)

[19] Sichot haRan #5.

[20] See Zohar Ki Tissa 188 a-b.

[21] See Rebbe Nachman’s Soul, compiled and edited by Rabbis Shlomo Katz, p. 59-66.

108) (UNLIKELY) ORIGINS OF JEWISH PHILOSOPHY:

Torah with Arabic translation, by Rav Saadia Gaon, in Hebrew alphabet (Judeo-Arabic). 

INTRODUCTION:

In this essay we are going to look at the origins of Jewish philosophy and attempt to determine when in Jewish history, did the notion of formalized philosophy and theology enter the arena.

ORIGINS OF JEWISH PHILOSOPHY:

Generally speaking – other than the nuances between the various Biblical characters, and even the later sages of the Talmud, each with their particular schools and approaches - it appears as though philosophy was never a central issue to early Judaism.

During Talmudic times the primary focus was formulating a legal and ethical code. Very little importance was placed on philosophical principles as it was largely regarded a non-Jewish discipline and enterprise.

Hyam Maccoby, in his book entitled The Philosophy of the Talmud, writes:

“The Talmud is not a work of formal philosophy, but much of what it says is relevant to philosophical enquiry... the Talmud has original ideas about...ethics... This leads into a discussion on the relation between morality and ritual, and...the role of tradition.”[1] 

But there is still no formal philosophy in the technical sense of the word.

Even Philo the Philosopher of Alexandria (25 BCE-50 CE) was unable to get any real intellectual purchase amongst the rabbis. This was not only because he attempted to bridge sophisticated Greek philosophy with Judaism - which set off alarm bells amongst the rabbis for fear of Hellenization - but simply because the sages felt that the legal and ethical Talmudic texts were sufficient, and that philosophy was extraneous to Judaism.

Menachem Kellner writes of the prevalent attitude at that time; 

“Loyalty to G-d, Torah, and Israel, therefore is the hallmark of the Jew: loyal [halachik or ritualistic] behaviour, not systematic theology, is what is expected and demanded [particularly during Talmudic times].”[2]

Philonis Iudei - Philo of Alexandria

Philo, whose Hebrew name was Yedidya haKohen, wrote about forty books. These still exist today only because they were preserved, not by Jews, but by the early church. Ironically it was the church which felt a need for his some of Philo’s mystical teachings which he borrowed from Plato.[3]

For almost one thousand five hundred years it was only the church that studied Philo’s works.[4] This was until R. Azariah de Rossi also known as the Meor Enayim (1513-1578) began to quote extensively from Philo. It was at that late stage that Philo actually began to make a somewhat meaningful impression on the rabbinic world.[5] 

THE KALAM:

Meanwhile, from around 700 CE, the traditional disinterest that Judaism had previously displayed toward philosophy suddenly began to change as a result of Islamic influences.

“...Jews who came under Muslim rule in the seventh century had no philosophic works corresponding to the philosophic writings of the Church...[and Islam]”[6]

After the founding of Islam in the 600’s, Baghdad soon became a centre of Islamic scholarship. Greek books on mathematics, science and philosophy were translated into Arabic. There arose a need to study falsafa or philosophy so that Muslims could debate with both Christians and Jews.

Based on their newly acquired knowledge of Greek philosophy, some Islamic scholars known as the Mutazila, composed specialized writings called Kalam or speech[7], to serve this very purpose. These writings were scripturally based but included rationalist views as well, and were therefore very appealing to thinking religious people. The Kalam allowed one to be both a religious scholar and a (‘modern’) rationalist at the same time.

THE KARAITES:

As a result of the popularity of the Islamic Kalam, the then very large and influential Jewish sect of Karaites (which was founded in the 700’s; and which rejected rabbinical Judaism and adhered only to the literal text of the Torah) were the first group to begin introducing philosophy to the Jewish world along the lines of Kalamic thought. 

They were so successful that, “...it is sometimes impossible to tell from the contents of a Karaite Mutazilite work whether it was written by a Jew or a Mohammedan.”[8] See KOTZK BLOG 53.

R. SAADIA GAON (882-942) - ‘THE FATHER OF JEWISH PHILOSOPHY’:

There were now Islamic and Karaite religious rationalists who embraced philosophy in order to enhance their beliefs - but there was nothing yet from within the Rabbinite community.

Menachem Kellner writes: 

“With the rise of Islam from without and of Karaism from within, [rabbinic] Judaism was confronted by challengers that it could not ignore. Islam was an aggressively proselytizing religion, and Karaism denied the Jewish legitimacy of Rabbanite Judaism.”[9]

Now, mainstream rabbinic Judaism had serious challenges which it needed to respond if it didn’t want to be sidelined.

This challenge was met with very satisfactorily by R. Saadia Gaon in the late 800’s.

If Philo was the obscure great-grandfather of Jewish philosophy, and the Karaites the collective grandfather of the albeit non-rabbinic movement to introduce philosophy to Jews - R. Saadia Gaon was certainly the father of rabbinical Jewish philosophy. 

As a consequence of his incorporation of philosophy into Judaism, it developed into a major mainstream component which later actually defined all future movements within the rabbinic world. He was the first rabbi to systematically introduce and endorse the concept of a philosophical system running side by side with traditional rabbinic thought. 

He is also said to be the father of the Jewish Kalam, a movement which Rambam was later to refer to as the Mutakallimun. (A term perhaps comprising Mutazila and Kalaam?)

It must be pointed out, however, that R. Saadia Gaon did not totally embrace all of the Islamic Kalam. He omitted certain aspects which he felt were incompatible with Jewish thinking.[10]

In fairness, according to some, it is not clear as to whether one can define R. Saadia Gaon as exclusively being a rationalist. He may have simultaneously had mystical leanings. This appears to be evidenced by the very different styles of his two main theological works, haEmunot ve’haDeot (i.e. his ‘rational’ thinking) and his Arabic translation of and commentary on Sefer Yetzirah (i.e. his ‘mystical’ teachings).[11]

Perhaps because of his rational views, R. Saadia Gaon experienced a substantial amount of opposition. Some went so far as to question his Jewish credentials. They attacked the fact that ‘Saadia’ is not a Jewish or Hebrew name. Historically he does appear to be the first Jew to go by the name ‘Saadia‘, which some of his opponents assumed was a corruption of the Arabic name Sa’id. Taking his innovative adoption of Kalamic philosophy into consideration, one can understand the innuendo.[12]

Yet despite the opposition, the Kalamic ideas were generally fresh and exciting to many within the religious world who felt weighed down by the intricacies of ritual and were looking for meaning. This is why the Kalam had so much appeal among Jewish theological thinkers at the time (whom, besides R. Saadia Gaon, included other leaders like R. Hai Gaon[13] and his father-in-law R. Shmuel ben Hofni who was the last Gaon of Sura).

RAMBAM (1204-1135):

Rambam gives a rather comprehensive description of this period of history when he recorded how philosophy entered Judaism as a result of Islamic influences.

Rambam wrote: 

“Regarding that measly bit of argument (of kalamic thought)...which you will find in the writings of some Gaonim and Karaites, which they adopted from the Mutakallimun of Islam, this is no where even as profound as the original, when compared to what Islam has compiled on the subject.

Furthermore, Islam was the first to walk this path, owing to a certain sect, the Mutazila, from whom our co-religionists took over their ideas...when they walked upon the road the Mutazila had taken.”[14]

Thus Rambam is clearly not very complimentary of R. Saadia (nor of the other Gaonim) who introduced the Kalam to Judaism in the first instance. Nor is he happy about the ‘unsophisticated’ manner in which the Gaonim allowed the Islamic sect of Mutazila to have such influence over Judaism.

Kalamic philosophy posits that creation of the universe by G-d is ‘logical’ and ‘obvious’. This was ‘unsophisticated’ thinking, according to Rambam, who as a rationalist par excellence insisted that creation was ‘far from obvious’ and probably not ever susceptible to proof in a scientific sense.

Rambam goes on to present the 12 basic principles of the Kalam. Some of these may be of interest to a modern reader:

“The world is composed of small particles which are not divisible...

There exist certain spaces which are devoid of all substance and material (a vacuum)...

Time is made up of fundamental instants which are not divisible...

Every entity is (and even atoms are) subject to accidents...

Any state of affairs which can be imagined, is admissible in intellectual argument...”[15]

Surprisingly, but possibly because of its mystical connotations, the concept of the soul is glaringly absent from much of kalamic thought.

Rambam then makes a fascinating observation:

“After a certain time another sect arose in Islam, namely the Ashariyya, who espoused other opinions. You will not find any of these latter opinions among our co-religionists. This was not because they preferred the first opinions (of the Mutazila) over the others (the Ashariyya), but simply because the views of the former had already become entrenched (within Judaism).”[16]

Here Rambam clearly bemoans the fact that so much of Jewish thought was predisposed by the Mutazila to the extent that its teachings had become entrenched and its influence irreversible.

[As an aside, this distinction of Islamic sects has led some to suggest that had Islam followed the more rational path of Mutazila instead of the more mystical approach of Ashariyya, it may have evolved along an entirely different path to the one it finds itself on today.[17] Some even suggest that Mutazila was the ‘wasted opportunity of Islam’ and that had the rational approach become the dominant theology, the Muslim world may have led the industrial revolution instead of Europe. 

Reason and free will were central to Mutazila thought, whereas Ashariyya adopted a more mystical and fatalistic approach, claiming that everything came from G-d and leaving little place for human innovation. Historically the Ashariyya sect survived the test of history, because it is said that the Abbasid Caliphate would rather have had obedient and conforming citizens, instead of rationalists who would be more prone to questioning their thinking and authority.[18]]

From the Jewish perspective, the influence of Kalamic thought also waned. This was partly due to the fact that most of its writings were in Arabic and did not get translated into Hebrew. With the passage of time it was the mystical approach that similarly proved to resonate more with the masses. By then the general concept of Jewish philosophy was most likely already firmly implanted within the psyche of the Jewish people and it blended naturally with Kabbalistic philosophy.[19]

RECENT DISCOVERIES SUPPORT RAMBAM’S THEORY ON ORIGINS OF JEWISH PHILOSOPHY:

Besides our source in Rambam, perhaps much of what we have discussed might have gone by undetected. We may have been led to believe that Jewish Philosophy ‘always existed’ - had it not been for some recent discoveries.

With access to various libraries of the former Soviet Union, we are now able to study old manuscripts which were hitherto inaccessible. One such collection of manuscripts is known as the Firkovich collection. It contains many hundreds of Mutazilite manuscripts, written in Arabic with Hebrew characters (Judeo-Arabic) which Jews had copied and obviously studied. This supports the thesis of Rambam, that Islamic rationalists exerted widespread influence upon the Jews at that time.

Another source of this information, previously unknown to Ashkenazi scholars, was found in old Yemenite manuscripts which were only discovered in Yemen the 1950’s. These also attest to the strong influence of Mutazila thought informing early Jewish philosophy. See KOTZK BLOG 91.

ANALYSIS:

Today, most committed Jews are clearly defined by their philosophical approach, or hashkafa, to Torah. It is not uncommon to believe that one’s particular hashkafa is superior to the hashkafa of another. Sometimes we even maintain that the other’s hashkafa is theologically ‘incorrect’.

While the impact, influence and dominating importance of hashkafa is indisputable in today’s Torah world, the question begs:

From a purely historical and academic perspective (in other words I’m not suggesting we abandon Chassidus and Mussar etc.) - how essentially and authentically critical is Jewish philosophy to fundamental Judaism - considering that we managed without it through the entire Biblical, Talmudic and Savoraic periods – and furthermore, considering its non-Jewish origins?

Should not the obvious need for hashkafa be to augment Judaism rather than define its very essence?

Or, lest one argue that today hashkafa is such an integral part of our mesorah and tradition, these words of Rav Kook may better resonate:

 “The halacha (legal aspects of Judaism) and the aggadah (non-legal or theological aspects) must be united....The fact that one who concerns himself with halacha feels he has entered a different world when he enters the realm of aggadah and vice versa, destroys much of the spiritual stimulation that is inspired by the peace of mind that comes from (their) inner unity.”[20]

  

REFERENCES:

The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy, by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Learman.

The Jewish Kalam, by Harry A. Wolfson.

A History of Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy, by Isaac Husik (1916).

Guide for the Perplexed, Rambam.

Saadia Gaon: The Double Path of the Mystic and the Rationalist, by Gyongyi (Ginger) Hegedus.

Saadya and the Jewish Kalam, by Sarah Stroumsa.

---

[1] From a brief on: The Philosophy of the Talmud, by Hyam Maccoby

[2] See Must a Jew Believe Anything, Menachen Kellner, p. 18. [Parenthesis mine.]

[3] See Philo as a Biblical Commentator, by R. Michael Leo Samuel.

[4] Some Jewish scholars questioned whether or not Philo even knew Hebrew as he based his work on the Greek translation of the Torah (which occurred in 250 BCE). He also did not quote from Ezekiel, Daniel, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes or Ester, which raises the question as to how much of the biblical canon was available (to him?) at that time. Yet he did believe that everything in the Torah has a divine origin including the letters and accents. He also taught that the literal meaning of the Torah is generally accurate (although he had questions about the creation story), but that there also was an additional and deeper allegorical meaning attached to the literal text as well. Based on the biblical verse ‘male and female He created them’, Philo proposed that both women and men should be afforded equal rights.

[5] According to psychologist Kevin Furman: “Perhaps the Jewish idea is not to avoid philosophy per se but to avoid a systematic construct which is thereby no longer fluid, dynamic and mindful of the infinite.”

[6] The Jewish Kalam, by Harry A. Wolfson, The Jewish Quarterly Review Vol. 57, pp. 544-573 [Parenthesis mine.]

[7] Ibn Ezra refers to R. Saadia Gaon as the ‘first and foremost among speakers (medaberim) everywhere’

[8] See A History of Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy, by  Isaac Husik 1916, p. 25

[9] See Menachem Kellner ibid. p. 49 [Parenthesis mine.]

[10] He omitted ideas like emanationism and atomism, see Saadia Gaon: The Double Path of the Mystic and the Rationalist, by Gyongyi (Ginger) Hegedus.

[11] “According to Saadya the human mind has the inherent potential to ‘see’ reality in more than one way: by perception, or by imagination and revelation.” See ibid. p. 228. R. Saadia Gaon was also the first to translate the Torah into Arabic, with commentary, and interestingly it remains the authoritative Arabic Bible to this day.

[12] This type of rhetoric was perpetuated by his antagonist R. Aaron ben Meir, also a Gaon, with whom he disputed about the calculation of the new moon. Had Ben Meir got his way the Jews in Israel and Babylonia would have experienced a two day difference in their dates for the Passover holiday.  See Sefer haMoadim by R. Saadia in which he refutes Ben Meir. This ‘victory’ over Ben Meir got him to be the first outsider to be appointed as Gaon, as prior to this event, the Gaonim were all chosen from 5 or 6 noble families who claimed to have descended from David.

[13] Rav Hai Gaon received numerous questions on the validity of influence by Matazilite teachings on Jewish thinking. His ‘endorsement’ of aspects of the Jewish Kalam is evident in his responsa literature.

[14] Rambam, Guide to the Perplexed, Book 1, ch. 73-76.

[15] Guide for the Perplexed, Book 1 ch. 73

[16] Ibid.

[17] “It (Ashariyya) had its origin in the reaction against the excessive rationalism of the Mu'tazila. Its members insisted that reason must be subordinate to revelation. The Mu'tazila - literally 'those who withdraw themselves' - movement was founded... in the...eighth century. Its members were united in their conviction that it was necessary to give a rationally coherent account of Islamic beliefs... they generally held to five theological principles, of which the two most important were the unity of God and divine justice...(They) deny that the...Qur'an was eternal..(and)...assert the existence of free will. After the demise of the Mu’tazila as a distinct movement, Mu’tazilite doctrine – by now regarded as heretical by Sunnis – continued to be influential amongst Shi’ites in Persai and the Zaydis in the Yemen.” (Paraphrase from Muslimphilosophy.co.)

[18] However, see Ignaz Goldziher for a different perspective: “During the reign of three Abbasid caliphs, when the Mutazilites were fortunate enough to have their doctrines recognized as state dogma, those doctrines were urged by means of inquisition, imprisonment, and terror...” This view shatters the notion of the Mutazilites being ‘liberal and rational free thinkers’.

[19] This last point is my own and I have no reference to substantiate it.

[20] Orot, vol. 1, p. 25

........................................................

NOTES FOR FURTHER STUDY:

DEFINITIONS OF RATIONALISM AS IT RELATES TO JUDAISM:

Is there space for rationalism within Judaism - when as a spiritual quest it should be more concerned with revelation instead?

“Common to all kalam schools is the formulation of a system based on the dual basis of rationality and Scripture, and the assumption that the two complement, rather than contradict, each other.”

-Saadya and the Jewish Kalam, by Sarah Stroumsa, p. 71

 “According to a romantically orthodox position, Judaism is an extra-rational religion, because our sages deliver a divine message whose authority and meaning cannot be gainsaid by any recognizable standard of rationality. According to a sceptically postmodern position, Judaism is sub-rational, because it is constituted by political, economic, and psycho-social phenomena that cannot be reduced to ant set of rational principles.”

- The Philosophy of the Talmud, by Hyam Maccoby, p. 240 

RAV KOOK ON OTHER RELIGIONS:

Rav Kook took great umbrage to those who disparaged other religions. All religions, in his view, contained an authentic “seeking after G-d and his ways in the world.” 

He wrote: 

“At a time such as this, we must clarify the common elements of all religion...and not be afraid of the customary disdain and deep hostility that lurks in the soul against everything alien”[1]

 Regarding the animosity often demonstrated between Jews, Christians and Moslems, Rav Kook wrote: 

“The brotherly love of Esau (Christian) and Jacob (Jew), and of Isaac and Ishmael (Moslem), will rise up above the confusions fostered by the evil emanating from our creaturely character...and turn them to light...”[2]

He said: ‘There is a holiness that builds and a holiness that destroys...One whose spirit cannot reach out to wide horizons...finds shelter in naturally formed structures, like rabbits who find shelter in the rocks.”[3]

---

[1] Igrot Haraya, vol. 1, Letter 194

[2] Igrot, vol. 1, Letter 112

[3] Orot, vol. 2, p. 224