391) Does morality come from religion or does religion adopt morality?

 

This is the position taken by advocates of the Strong Dependence Theory. This article argues that Judaism adopts the Weak Dependence Theory.

Introduction

This article, drawn extensively on the research by Professors Avi Sagi and Daniel Statman,^[1]  explores the nature and provenance of Jewish morality and ethics. I found this particularly interesting because, like most rabbis, I had always thought (and taught) that morality springs from G-d. This seemed obvious. However, Sagi and Statman show that foundational rabbinic sources point to an autonomous and independent existence of morality very much defined by humans, which is then adopted by G-d as the model for Judaism.

355) R. Moshe Ibn Gigatila: The Psalms are just prayers

Introduction

 

In the previous post, The Psalms are not prayers, we saw how Rav Saadia Gaon held the unusual view that psalms may not be used as prayers and that, like the Torah itself they are meant only to be studied but not prayed. Psalms are not liturgy. According to Rav Saadia, the psalms were used as a strictly controlled and regulated ritual during Temple times, but never as liturgy (supplications or prayers). On this view, the psalms were never an ‘early prayer book’ as was claimed by the Karaite Jews. It is believed that Rav Saadia formulated his unusual and limited view on the function of the psalms, in reaction to the Karaites, who had rejected the Rabbanite siddur and used the psalms as their prayer book instead.

In this article, however, based extensively on the work by Professor Uriel Simon[1], we explore another unusual view of the psalms. This is the view held by R. Moshe Ibn Gigatila, who believed that that the psalms are indeed prayers - but nothing more than prayers. And because they are just prayers, they are not profoundly holy nor do they carry any prophetic or spiritually subliminal innuendo.

352) The Parshan, Darshan … and Sadran?

Muslim Spain at around the eleventh century 

Introduction

 

Parshan and Darshan are terms which usually describe a Torah commentator or exegete, but who is the Sadran? The term Sadran means compiler or editor.  This is not an expression one would expect to find in the context of the Torah. This article, based extensively on the work by Professor Richard Steiner[1] from Yeshiva University explores instances where our classical texts make reference to a Sadran. Interestingly, this is one of the most peer-reviewed papers I have come upon in a long time.

Some of the texts originated in Byzantium (Constantinople) and were discovered in the Cairo Geniza and published by Nicholas de Lange. One is a midrashic commentary on Bereishit and Shemot[2], another is a peshat commentary by R. Reuel of Byzantium, on Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets. Both texts are probably from the tenth or early eleventh century and therefore pre-date Rashi (1040-1105). These different commentaries have one thing in common, they both reference an elusive Sadran or biblical ‘editor’.

202) RAV SAADIA GAON AND HIS 'ROAD TO MECCA':

Tafsir Rasag - Arabic Translation (in Hebrew script) of the Torah by Rav Saadia Gaon.

INTRODUCTION:

In this article we are going to look at the fascinating, if not surprising, notion of Rav Saadia Gaon (882[1]-942) using some Islamic sources for his translation of the Torah into Arabic. Sometimes he changes the meaning of the text to conform to his own personal opinions and other times even to certain Islamic principles!

I have drawn primarily from Professor David M. Freidenreich’s scholarly work in this field, and this article is largely based on one of his research papers.[2]

We will examine just “why on several occasions the gaon [i.e Rav Saadia Gaon[3]] prefers Islamic interpretations over the existing rabbinic and biblical alternatives.”

BACKGROUND TO RAV SAADIA GAON:

Rav Saadia ben Yosef al-Fayumi[4] lived during the Abbasid Caliphate[5] and was one of the first rabbis to write in Arabic (not to be confused with Aramaic). He was an outspoken opponent of Karaite Judaism and hence a firm supporter of Rabbinical Judaism. His major work, Emunot veDeot was an early attempt to synchronize belief in Divine Revelation (emunot) with rational observation (deot).

He was appointed Gaon over Sura which was very unusual as that city only elected its own natives as its leaders.[6] In those times, each major centre was controlled by a Gaon and a Reish Galuta (or Exilarch). The Gaon was theoretically in charge of religious affairs while the Reish Galuta controlled the politics and administration. Unfortunately, his appointment to head the Sura Academy in 928 - by David ben Zakkai, the Reish Galuta himself - did not end well. This was because Rav Saadia refused to sign the ruling of the Reish Galutu regarding a certain inheritance case, despite the fact that it was signed in the rival city of Pumpedita.

The Reish Galuta’s son then threatened Rav Saadia, and Rav Saadia’s assistant retaliated. Soon the Gaon and Reish Galuta simultaneously excommunicated each other – and each appointed another candidate in place of the other.

TARGUM RASAG:

R. Saadia’s translation of the Torah into Arabic is known as the Tafsir, which means ‘interpretation’ (or more accurately ‘interpretation; usually of the Qur’an’).

His Tafsir is not the first Arabic translation of the Torah but was the most authoritative. It was largely accepted and endorsed by rabbinic Judaism, is still considered, to this day, as the official Arabic translation of the Torah.

ELIMINATION OF ANTHROPOMORPHIC REFERENCES:

An interesting detail about Rav Saadia’s translation is that he completely eliminates anthropomorphic references to G-d. So, for example, during the creation narrative, he doesn’t use the expression “And G-d said” – instead he translates it as “And G-d willed”.

Also, the expression “And G-d descended” (upon Mt Sinai) is rendered as “And G-d revealed Himself”.

“AND IT WAS MORNING AND EVENING, DAY ONE”:         

In the Hebrew text of the Torah, each day of creation has a concluding sentence, such as: “And it was morning and it was evening, Day One.” In R. Saadia's Tafsir, the order is switched to accommodate a more literary style with that sentence serving rather as an introduction to the next day. The paragraph is redesigned to start: “After the evening and morning of the first day...” and continues with a narrative of Day Two, and so on.

“DO NOT COOK A KID IN ITS MOTHER’S MILK”:        

R. Saadia employed great latitude in his translations and often brought the text more in line with Halachic and rabbinic thinking. Thus, instead of “Do not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” becomes a far simpler: “Do not eat milk and meat together”.

FREEDOM OF THE TEXT:

R. Saadia Gaon frequently, and apparently glibly, gave Arabic names for places and animals. This prompted R. Avraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1167), who was a severe critic of R. Saadia Gaon’s Arabic translation, to openly challenge him quite scathingly:

Freidenreich translates Ibn Ezra as follows:

 “[Saadia gave Arabic names][7] to families, cities, animals, birds, and rocks. Maybe he saw this in a dream. And he certainly erred in some cases...

Because he translated the Torah in the language of Ishmael [i.e. Arabic] and in their script, [he translated unknown Hebrew words] so that they will not say that the Torah contains words[8] which [the Jews] do not understand.”

[As an aside, see: Ibn Ezra Quotes Karaite Sources Several Hundred Times. - Did Rav Saadia’s known opposition to Karaites have anything to do with Ibn Ezra’s attack on him?]

R. Saadia Gaon openly acknowledges his taking of textual liberties from time to time.

However, he stresses that the purpose of his Tafsir is “solely a translation of the plain text of the Torah...And if it is possible for me to insert a certain word or letter through which the meaning and intention will be revealed to one for whom an allusion is more satisfactory than a statement, I have done this.”[9]

WAS THE ARABIC TAFSIR WRITTEN IN HEBREW OR ARABIC SCRIPT?

Freidenreich explains that some scholars believe that “Saadiah, breaking with the universal Rabbinite practice of using Hebrew characters, wrote the Tafsir in Arabic script for an Islamic audience.”

By ‘script’ we are referring only to the script and not to the language, which all agree was in Arabic.

However, others (including Freidenreich himself) argue that he wrote his Arabic translation in Hebrew script for a Jewish audience. This view is corroborated by the fact that to date, no Arabic script texts have been found in any of the Genizahs. In fact, an 11^th century Tafsir in Hebrew script has been discovered which strongly supports the latter view.

Freidenreich writes: “As Muslims at that time could not read Hebrew or Hebrew characters, this clearly indicates that Saadiah wrote his translation of the Torah with a Jewish audience in mind...”

ISLAMIC SOURCES:

Freidenreich then drops an ideological bombshell:

“It is my contention that Saadiah deliberately and selectively relied on Islamic sources...Saadiah’s Tafsir shows evidence of conscious attention by the author to the stylistic expectations of his assimilated audience and of his use of specifically Islamic terms, traditions, and sources to provide more detailed or more rationally acceptable interpretations of certain biblical passages.”

Then he adds in a footnote:

“Saadiah is the first rabbinic commentator to base his biblical interpretation on philological [the study of texts][10] and rational principles, as was standard in qur’anic interpretation of his day.”

‘NUR ALLAH’:        

Rav Saadia Gaon was not reluctant to use the term Allah for G-d.

When referring to G-d‘s presence he uses the expression ‘nur Allah’ or Light of G-d.

 ‘KOHEN’ BECOMES ‘IMAM’:

When R. Saadia comes to the word Kohen, he translates it as ‘Imam’.

Amazingly, Aharon haCohen become Aharan the Imam – this despite the fact that R. Saadia could have used another Arabic word Kahin for Cohen!

The reason could be that Kahin has astrological connotations. Either way, we still see R. Saadia’s open usage of highly nuanced terms from the dominant religion of his day.

‘RASUL ALLAH’:

R. Saadia Gaon also had no qualms about using the expression ‘rassul Allah’, or messenger of G-d, to refer to Moshe Rabbenu.

Other medieval rabbis also used that same expression to refer to Moshe, possibly to emphasize that Moshe was no “less worthy of divine revelation than Muhammad.” This would have been quite an assertive expression to use at that time especially under Moslem domination, although the Qur’an itself uses that same turn of phrase ‘rassul Allah’ to refer to Moshe as well.[11]

AN OCCASIONAL ANTI-ISLAMIC POLEMIC?

Lest one think that R. Saadia Gaon was an apologist or an assimilationist, Freidenreich quotes Eliezer Schlossberg who argues that in some of R. Saadia’s commentary, he in fact attacks Islam because the poor manner in which they treated the Jews.

However, Freidenreich argues that that would apply more to R. Saadia’s other writings, but not specifically to the Arabic translation of Torah known as the Tafsir.

INTERPRETATIONS THAT GO AGAINST THE RABBINIC GRAIN:

Freidenreich cites Moshe Zucker who calculated that there are 350 instances where R. Saadia makes the text conform to rabbinic law, such as in the abovementioned case of ‘do not eat milk and meat together’.

By the same token, he also found forty-five instances where R. Saadia appears to offer translations that run counter to the rabbinic grain:

TEMPORARY MARRIAGES:      

In the following example, R. Saadia contradicts a Babylonian Talmudic practice of ‘temporary marriages’. (Incidentally, this practice was rejected by the Talmud Yerushalmi.):

 The notion of a ‘temporary marriage’ was quite common amongst Babylonian rabbis (see here).

We find[12] that when Rav went to Darshish and when R. Nachman went to Shechantsiv, they asked; “Who will be my [wife] for a day?” This was also a common practice amongst the Persian societies where the Babylonian Talmud was incubated.

Although the Babylonian Talmud generally discouraged taking different wives in different places for fear that children born of these unions may unwittingly one day marry each other – exceptions were made for the great sages, who because of their importance, would rely on the likelihood of the mothers telling their children who their fathers were.

Interestingly, the practice of ‘temporary marriages’ was also debated in Islamic law: The Qur’an may have permitted ‘temporary marriages’, and Shi’is still practice it although it is outlawed by Sunnis.

R. Saadia Gaon was strongly opposed to such practices.

Thus we find that when the Torah warned; ‘There shall not be a promiscuous woman among the daughters of Israel’[13] – he changed the meaning entirely by substituting ‘one who enters a temporary marriage’ (mumta’a) for ‘promiscuous woman’ (kedeisha). 

He similarly translates the word ‘zonah’ (prostitute) in the Yehudah and Tamar story, as mumta’a (temporary marriage).[14]

Thus R. Saadia “effectively creates an unprecedented biblical prohibition against temporary marriage...”  This, he may have done do discourage Jews from following the then common cultural practice of ‘temporary marriage’ as a legalized form of prostitution. Remember, R. Saadia lived “in an environment dominated by Sunni norms and therefore internalized the strong Sunni condemnation of the practice of temporary marriage.”

MORE DIRECT ISLAMIC INFLUENCES:     

REFERENCE TO MECCA:

 In Parashat Lech Lecha[15], the Torah describes how the angel of G-d meets Hagar after Sarah sent her away, and announces the imminent birth of Yishmael who was to have many descendants.

This event takes place ‘on the road to Shur’.

According to the Torah itself (Shemot 15:22), Shur is to the west of the Sea of Reeds, which places it on the Sinai Peninsula which is close to Egypt.

However, R. Saadia translates Shur (in the Hagar and Yishmael story) as hajr al-hijaz or the Rock of the Hijaz, which refers to the Black Rock of the Kaaba in Mecca!

Here we have an instance where R. Saadia Gaon intentionally ignores the biblical description of Shur as being in the Sinai. Instead, he changes it to refer to Mecca – which is where, as it happens according to Islamic tradition, Abraham took Ishmael and Hagar after they were expelled by Sarah and where Abraham built the Kaaba!

This is clearly an Islamic influence as no other Jewish tradition refers to the Hijaz region of Arabia as a place of historical or spiritual significance.

Although in this instance there are textual variants based on different manuscripts, R. Saadia again refers to Mecca in his translation of another verse[16] where Meisha and Sefara become Mecca and Medina respectively:

Interestingly, another Torah commentator, R. Avraham Ibn Ezra also refers to an Islamic reference regarding the spring where the angel meets Hagar, which is “associated with the Islamic pilgrimage.”

JOSEPH’S GARMENT:

Another example of possible Islamic influence on the Tafsir of Rav Saadia Gaon, can be seen in how he translates Joseph’s ‘begged’ or garment which Potiphar’s wife ‘caught hold of him by’.[17]

Throughout the rest of the Tafsir, R. Saadia translates the Hebrew word ‘begged’ as ‘thawb’ in Arabic. However, in the story of Joseph, he suddenly translates that ‘begged’ as ‘qamis’ which specifically means ‘shirt’, and not just a garment.

This may parallel the version of the story of Joseph as recorded in the Qur’an[18] where ‘qamis’ is used to describe the ‘shirt’ (or coat) which Joseph wore. No Jewish sources specify that it was a shirt, only that it was a garment.

THE ‘YELLOW’ HEIFER:

Another example of possible Islamic influence on the Tafsir, can be found in the story of the Parah Adumah or Red Heifer, whose ashes the Torah says has are to be used to purify those who have become impure from contact with the dead.

The Talmud (Shekalim4:2) specifies that the cow must be completely red, it must be older than three years, it must be unblemished, it must never have worked and it must be purchased with Temple funds set aside specifically for its purpose.

In the Qur’an, a parallel to the ‘Red Heifer’ is described[19]: The Children of Israel ask Moses to clarify details of the cow to be sacrificed. Moses responds that it should be middle-aged, unblemished, never used for work and the pleasing colour of 'tsafra', yellow (not red).

Freidenreich writes:

“There is, however, one significant departure from the [Hebrew[20]] biblical text: according to every manuscript and edition of the Tafsir which I have been able to examine, the color of the cow is safra [yellow[21]], the qur’anic word used to describe the cow’s color. It appears that Saadiah considers the red heifer to be yellow.”

Bamidbar 19

CONCLUSION:

Freidenreich concludes that:

“Saadiah certainly was not trying to syncretize Judaism with Islam or write an Islamicized translation of the Torah for the benefit of Muslims; had he so desired, he could easily have incorporated many more references to the Qur’an into his Tafsir.

The gaon was, however, willing to take from Islam those terms, traditions, and insights which he found to be valuable for his own purposes, and he was able to integrate them successfully into a work that remains quintessentially Jewish, so much so that his Tafsir came to be accepted as the authoritative rabbinic translation of the Torah into Arabic.”

ANALYSIS:

Bringing all the above into some form of modern context:

It may be of value to relate R. Saadia’s Tafsir, to R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch’s German translation and commentary to the Torah. This also created a stir amongst the more traditionally conservative Jews of his era. Yet, when one understands the milieu, background and environment in which he wrote - his works take on very different, if not crucial, meaning.

The same may be said for ‘The Pentateuch and Haftorahs’ of Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom Dr J.H. Hertz, which many too, have criticised for its more than occasional reference to non-Jewish commentators.

This is what Solomon Schechter wrote of Hertz in 1901:

 “[T]he new century does not open under very favourable auspices for Judaism…[O]ur Scriptures are the constant object of attack, our history is questioned, and its morality is declared to be an inferior sort…[T]he younger generation…if not directly hostile, are by dint of mere ignorance sadly indifferent to everything Jewish, and incapable of taking the place of their parents in the Synagogue…”

Schechter argued that an English commentary on the Five Books (and the rest of the Bible as well), written under Jewish auspices, was needed to respond to these challenges.[22]

Perhaps one must view the Tafsir of Rav Saadia Gaon in a similar manner.

---

[1] Some say 892.

[2] The Use of Islamic Sources in Saadiah Gaon’s Tafsir of the Torah, by David M. Freidenreich. (Columbia University).

[3] Parenthesis mine.

[4] Fayum was in Upper Egypt.

[5] The Abbasid Caliphate was the third Caliphate after Muhammad. The name comes from Muhammad’s uncle Abbas ibn Abdul-Muttalib (566-653CE). It was centred in Baghdad (established in 762) and succeeded the Umayyad Caliphate in the Abbasid Revolution in 750. ‘Persianate customs’ were adopted, and science, scholarship and art were encouraged in what was to become the Golden Age of Islam.

[6] Another ‘foreigner’ was Yehudai Gaon, about a century earlier, during the mid-700s, see here.

[7] Parenthesis mine.                          

[8] In some manuscripts ‘commandments’ (mitzvoth instead of milot).

[9] Translation by Freidenreich.

[10]Parenthesis mine.

[11] Qur’an 61:5.

[12] Yoma 18b, and Yevamot 37b.

[13] Devarim 23:18. “Lo tiheyeh kedeisha mi’bnot Yisrael”

[14] Bereishit 38:15.

[15] Bereishit 16:7.

[16] Bereishit  10:30.

[17] Bereishit 39:12.

[18] Qur’an 12.

[19] Qur’an 2: 64-71.

[20] Parenthesis mine.         

[21] Parenthesis mine.

[22] The Story of the Hertz Chumash.

175) RABBEINU NISSIM OF MARSEILLES – ONE OF THE MOST RADICAL OF ALL THE COMMENTATORS:

THE EXTREME THEOLOGY OF THE MEDIEVAL[1] RATIONALISTS:

Ma'aseh Nissim Torah Commentary by Rabbeinu Nissim of Marseilles (1304).

NOTE: To be absolutely clear, the purpose of this article is to neither endorse nor criticise R. Nissim of Marseilles’ approach to Torah commentary but simply to share some of his interesting views.

I have drawn extensively from the academic writings of Professor Howard (Chaim) Kreisel[2] who has researched this commentator extensively. 

Readers who are theologically conservative and sensitive would be advised - even by Rabbeinu Nissim himself - not to read the views of Rabbeinu Nissim of Marseilles.

INTRODUCTION:

Rabbeinu Nissim ben Moshe of Marseilles lived sometime around the 1300’s. This places him historically about one hundred years after Rambam. The exact dates of his birth and passing, however, are unknown.

He has remained rather obscure over the years, either by accident or by design, and only merited a small entry in Encyclopaedia Judaica in the 1960’s. About seven manuscripts of his Torah commentary are known to exist in various libraries. Another manuscript was in a private collection, dated 1304, but has somehow vanished.

He is best known for his Torah commentary, Ma’aseh Nissim[3] which departs significantly from many of the other traditional commentaries in that it steers absolutely clear of miraculous and supernatural interpretations.

What is fascinating about R. Nissim of Marseilles is just how far he was able to push the envelope of Torah commentary yet still remain within the parameters of rabbinic Judaism.

'INTELLECTUAL ELITISM’:

In keeping with the views of Ibn Kaspi, Rambam and others, R. Nissim similarly believed that the Torah was written for two streams of readers: the Simple (or as Rambam often calls them, ‘Ignorant’) Masses (Hamon Am), and the Intellectually Elite (Yechidei Segulah).

And like these other rationalists, R. Nissim also suggests that many of the accounts recorded in the Torah were directed toward the simple category of readers - as a kind of dispensation if you like - but that the real intent was on a far higher level only to be perceived by the intellectually elite. In this sense, the original Torah was ‘playing to its base’ which demanded of it certain practices at that time as that was the only way the popular masses could perceive of religion and ritual. See Outspoken Rabbinical Views Claiming That The Torah Recorded Superstitions Of Its Day.

According to Professor Kreisel; “The Torah, in his (R. Nissim’s)[4] view, speaks differently to each class of reader; only upon the elite does it shine its deeper truths...The accounts it presents are not all literally true but nevertheless necessary in order to be effective in impressing upon the average reader the most basic truths.”

And as much as R. Nissim of Marseilles believed that the masses were within their rights to interpret the Torah literally in all its expressions – so too were the elite equally within their rights to apply their minds to deeper interpretations.

R. Nissim was thus well schooled in Rambam’s approach to Torah interpretation but, as we shall see he went much further than Rambam was ever prepared to go.

G-D’S INCORPOREALITY:

While it may appear surprising to many, our rabbis have not always believed that G-d is incorporeal (i.e. that G-d has no bodily form). Many of our early Sages believed that G-d did have some form of ‘bodily form’ or corporeality. See The Notion That G-d Has A ‘Body’.

Starting with Rav Saadiah Gaon (882-942), many rabbis began to speak out against the notion that G-d had a ‘body’, even though the Torah, taken literally, refers to G-d’s ‘hand’ and ‘anger’ etc. which had often been taken on face value till then.

Ravad’s comment on Rambam makes it clear that it was not just the ignorant masses who believed in G-d’s corporeality, but even the Sages clung to such a belief. Rabbi  Avraham ben David, or Raavad, was a famous Talmudic commentator and father of Kabbalah who frequently argued with Rambam. 

He disagreed with Rambam’s position that believing in a form of corporeality was against the Torah, because ‘many people even greater and better than Rambam’ did espouse of some form of corporeality.[5]

As is well known, Rambam (1135-1204) advocated vociferously against believing in any form of corporeality relating to G-d - yet he makes the point that we do not consider the earlier Sages who held those beliefs to be heretics. In the same way, Rambam continues, we should not have to hold on to the literal interpretation that, for example, the world was created in just six days - and we too should not be considered to be heretical if we believe the time frame was far wider.

Rambam writes: “Nor are the gates of figurative interpretation shut in our faces or impossible of access to us regarding the subject of the creation of the world in time (i.e. more than six literal days)[6]. For we could interpret them as figurative, as we have done while denying His corporeality.[7]

For more on Rambam's views on figurative interpretation see KOTZK BLOG 146.

SOME OF R. NISSIM OF MARSEILLES’ VIEWS ON POPULAR TORAH CONCEPTS:

CREATION:

R. Nissim, in keeping with many other Sages, certainly does not believe in the literal interpretation of the universe being created in 144 hours.

ADAM AND EVE:

He believes that the story of Adam and Eve and that of Cain and Abel are also not to be taken literally but are instead ‘philosophic parables’.

LIVES EXTENDING TO HUNDREDS OF YEARS:

He interprets the long lives of many of the Torah personalities as being correct in terms of time spans – not for the individual himself, but rather for his descendants who are called after their particular forbearers.

PATRIARCHS:

He accepts the historicity of the Patriarchs but interprets the miraculous aspects of their lives figuratively.

SODOM AND GEMORRA:

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorra was the result of an earthquake.

PLAGUES:

The plagues of Egypt and the parting of the sea were natural events, foreseen or brought about by Moshe and Aharon, due to their knowledge of the natural order, for their strategic purposes.

BURNING BUSH:

Some of the other miracles, such as the talking donkey and the burning bush, according to R. Nissim, never occurred in reality but were prophetic visions or dreams. As Professor Kreisel puts it: “What is crucial in both cases is the content of the revelation, not whether the events described actually happened outside of the prophet’s soul.”

BINDING OF ISAAC:

The binding of Isaac was also not taken literally by R. Nissim but rather as occurring in a prophetic vision.

REWARD AND PUNISHMENT:

Reward and punishment are not miraculously visited upon us but instead the result of a harmony in the social order when a kind deed is done - and the opposite occurs when a moral act does not take place. In this sense, a society reaps what its constituents sow.

According to Professor Alan Verskin, R. Nissim of Marseilles acknowledges that belief in an angry G-d of vengeance would be beneficial to keeping the followers within the straight and narrow, however;

“...a person who is taught to behave ethically because of the natural consequences of his actions will have a more consistent and dependable source of motivation. A person who believes in naturalistic reward and punishment, he (R. Nissim)[8] concludes, will be better able to maintain his faith in the face of the vicissitudes of fortune. He will not be led to deny the laws of right and wrong because of a feeling that G-d neglects their enforcement. Lest his view seem impious...citing a passage from the Talmud...he...argues:

‘[The Sages] of blessed memory indicated that nature’s activity is not suspended or changed for the sinner, for they said: ‘Suppose a person stole a measure of wheat and sowed it in the ground; it is right that it should not grow, but the world pursues its natural course.’”[9]

R. Nissim knew that this view of natural consequential reality would not be acceptable by the masses and “...in view of the circumstances prevailing at any particular time and place, it is better for the multitude to understand reward and punishment according to the literal meaning of scripture...The teacher...must be very sensitive to the needs of his audience so as not to harm them and his society.” [10]

R. Nissim writes; “Because religion is given to all – sage, fool children and women – it is necessary that it speak with each person in a way which is appropriate and useful to him.”[11]

KASHRUT:

Many will find R. Nissim’s interpretation of the laws of Kashrut as unacceptable as he maintains that they were instituted for health reasons!

THE WIDOW AND ORPHAN:

Here is an example of a commentary from Ma’aseh Nissim, as translated by Professor Kreisel (based on ms. Paris 720, folio 81r):

“ 'You shall not ill-treat any widow or orphan’[12]

If they do not practice judgement in the land, but the mighty exploit the powerless and devour them with greedy mouths, and the strong rob the hapless weak, continuously afflicting them, then the political community will be destroyed.

There will exist no agreement among them, only incessant quarrel, strife and contention. It will be easy for enemies to defeat them... Conceivably, this is also said because the robbed and oppressed may rise up against the oppressor, ambush and kill him.

There is an allusion to this – i.e., that the punishment will be meted out by the oppressed who can no longer bear the burden of affliction – in what is said. ‘I will heed their outcry as soon as they cry out to me’[13].

If [the oppressed one] does not cry out and does not feel affected, [the oppressor] will not be punished.”

This is a fascinating and unusual commentary as it offers transactional, social and political reasons for not taking advantage of the widow and orphan. It reads like something written in the 1960’s or a part of some socialist manifesto.

R. NISSIM’S JUSTIFICATION:

R. Nissim writes, unapologetically, about those who always just follow the literal and miraculous meaning of the Torah without any understanding:

“They are like a burden-carrying mule that knows nothing of the purpose of its labours and the utility of its activity. The rationalists observe the commandments with the requisite scrupulousness because of their purpose and utility. They observe the commandments with their limbs, and even more with their thought and heart, for every practical commandment comes either in order to teach a correct opinion or to reject a false opinion; to help a person to acquire a noble quality or distance the person from an opprobrious one.

Just as it happens that the masses, due to their fear, do not sin and are scrupulous in their observance since they do not know anything, it happens at times that they perform the less significant commandments, abandon the more precious ones and are lenient in their observance the weighty ones because of their limited discernment...

In reference to the masses they say that they are the ones committed to the practical commandments and they are the pious ones (hasidim). How mistaken are those who say this. For our sages have already maintained: “The ignorant one is not pious (hassid)”[14]

THE LIMITATION:

R. Nissim of Marseilles’ very strong views come time and again with a warning that these views are not to be shared too openly as they would undermine the spiritual comfort zone of the masses.

THE ‘CODED’ MIDRASHIC SUPPORT:

R. Nissim of Marseilles adopted a similar understanding of Midrashic literature as did Rambam. He too believed that the Midrash was often a coded message to the intellectually elite yet so cleverly disguised that the masses could still interpret it on a more literal level.

Here is an example of this ‘Midrashic code’:

[ז] מה כת' למעלה מן העיניין, בפרשת משכן, כאשר צוה י"י את משה למה הדבר דומה, למלך שהיה מצוה את עבדו ואמר לו בנה לי פלטין. על כל דבר ודבר שהיה בונה היה כותב עליו שמו שלמלך. היה בונה בכתלים והיה כותב עליהם שמו שלמלך. היה מעמיד בעמודים והיה כותב עליהם שמו שלמלך, היה מקרה בקורות וכותב עליהן שמו שלמלך. לימים נכנס המלך לתוך פלטין, על כל דבר ודבר שהיה מביט היה מוצא את שמו כתוב עליו. אמר כל הכבוד הזה עשה לי עבדי ואני מבפנים והוא מבחוץ, קראו לו שיכנס לפנים. כך בשעה שאמר לו הקב"ה למשה עשה לי משכן על דבר ודבר שהיה עושה היה כותב עליו כאשר צוה י"י את משה. אמ' הקב"ה כל הכבוד הזה עשה לי משה ואני מבפנים והוא מבחוץ, קראו לו שיכנס לפנים. לכך נאמר ויקרא אל משה.

The Midrash[15] records that G-d commanded Moshe in principle to build a Tabernacle. Moshe did indeed build such a Tabernacle and the Torah commends Moshe by saying that he did: “As G-d had commanded Moshe.”

The Midrash continues by creating an analogy between Moshe and a servant whom the king commanded, in principle, to build a palace - but without specifying the details of the construction.

The servant was so eager to fulfil the desire of the king that he wrote the king’s name on each brick and item of the palace. The king, of course, was very pleased with his servant and when the palace was completed he called his servant to come inside the palace. Similarly, G-d was pleased with Moshe, who also wrote, ‘As G-d had commanded Moshe’ on every item of the Tabernacle - and when it was completed He called Moshe inside.

On the surface this seems to be a typical and rather innocuous Midrash. However, R. Nissim of Marseilles interprets this Midrash as follows:

העירו בזה ז”ל לסוד גדול נמשך למה שרמזנו אליו בזה הפרק. וזה כי הצואה בכלל היתה מהשם יתברך לשכל משה. והשמיע לו הדברים דרך כלל – לכל מוסרי התורה וצוויה ואזהרותיה  לחלק השכלי, ליסד החלק הגופני ולהנהיגו, ושיכוון אל הנאות והמועיל תמיד, וירחיק המזיק לגוף ולנפש. ומשה היה כותב על כל פרט ופרט: “כאשר צוה יי את משה” לכבוד השם, ולהגדיל הדברים בעיני ישראל, למען תהיה יראת השם על פניהם לבלתי יחטאו.

“The sages alluded to a great secret (in this Midrash)[16]...namely – that the command in general was to the intellect of Moses. G-d communicated the matters in general – namely, all the commands of the Torah to the rational faculty (of Moses)[17] in order to govern the corporeal side, directing it always to the salutary, and to abolish what is harmful to the body and the soul. And Moses would write by each detail: ‘As the L-rd commanded Moses’, in order to honor G-d and to increase the significance of these matters in the eyes of the Israelites in order that they fear G-d and refrain from sin.”[18]

Thus in effect, we have what appears to be quite a subversive Midrash in sheep’s clothing: 

The Torah clearly states that Moshe built every item according to G-d’s specific command – yet the Midrash says that only the general command was given by G-d, but that Moshe independently ascribed every detail to G-d!

Professor Kriesel writes:

“R. Nissim maintains that the Talmudic Sages, the keepers of the Oral Law, secretly shared this approach and communicated it by means of midrashim. He saw himself as part of a historical chain of possessors of truth beginning with Abraham and including the prophets and Sages, but interrupted in the Middle Ages and only re-established by Maimonides...”

Thus neither the Midrash nor R. Nissim’s interpretation is really subversive at all, as he continues:

“For him (R. Nissim)[19] this does not detract one iota from the truth of Judaism, from the Torah being the Word of G-d, and from the binding nature of all of its commandments...

R. Nissim serves as an example of how far the group of radical rationalists to which he belonged were prepared to go in their reinterpretation[20] of the Torah, while still considering themselves to be loyal rabbinic Jews...

The Torah in all its details is perfect and ‘Divine,’ in R. Nissim’s view, though he does not view G-d as personally and directly communicating every word.”

R. SHMUEL IBN TABBON:

As mentioned, R. Nissim was deeply influenced by the rationalism of Rambam. But he was also influenced by the translator of Rambam’s writings from Arabic to Hebrew, namely, Shmuel Ibn Tabbon (1160-1232) who wasn’t afraid to publicise his own views on this issue:

“It is a time to act for the L-rd.[21] 

– I see that the truths that have been hidden from the time of our Prophets and the Sages of the Torah are now all well known to the nations of the world. In most places, they interpret the esoteric doctrines found in the Torah, the words of the Prophets and those who speak with the Holy Spirit, in accordance with these truths.

Our nation is so completely ignorant of them to the point that we have become subject to their scorn as a result of our ignorance.

They shame us by saying that we possess only the shells of the Prophets’ words.”[22]

R. Shmuel Ibn Tabbon was quite militant in issuing his rally cry for the rationalists to unite and speak out before they lose the theological battle to the non-rationalists, and the direction of future Judaism tends more towards the emphasis on the mystical experience.

ANALYSIS:

It is interesting to note that Rabbeinu Nissim of Marseilles was probably more radical in his aversion to the supernatural than Rambam and Ibn Tabbon, yet (unlike the others) he went out of his way on many occasions to have his views downplayed so as not to offend the mainstream. 

He practised a live and let live approach to theology and realized that what he was saying was not for everybody.

Of the two most intelligent people I know, one is a rationalist with a healthy dose of scepticism, and the other is a  scholarly mystic - yet ironically their reaction to this article was not what I expected: The rationalist felt that Rabbeinu Nissim was too clinical because: 'there is a point when even the ultra-rationalist has to concede that it is irrational to explain everything in purely rational terms.' 

And the mystic confessed that ultra-non-rationalist writers were able to get away with some of their more extreme views with unfair impunity: 'Whereas paperbacks which popularise mystical ideas which saw their progenitors excommunicated and made to leave town, are freely available in orthodox Jewish bookshops - works by serious orthodox writers representing orthodox rationalism cannot be bought under the counter. The strand of Jewish orthodox rationalism - with a demonstrated history of Torah giants behind it - is thus denied.'


For many, Rabbeinu Nissim's views will be offensive at best - for others they may be meaningful and provide a lifeline to a Torah they would otherwise completely reject.

Either way, the classical tensions between the mystics and the rationalists really tested the outward parameters of Jewish theology in all its directions and broadened the playing fields of authentic Judaism. At the end of the day 'radical theological differences could be accepted as long as a Halachic commonality could be found.'

Perhaps all this is just a way of preparing the groundwork for a future era when no Jew will be left behind.

---

[1] The Medieval Period is also known as the Middle Ages, encompassing the period from the 5^th century to the 15^th century. We refer here particularly to the period of the Rishonim which spanned 1038-1500.

[2] The Torah Commentary of R. Nissim ben Mosheh of Marseilles: On a Medieval Approach to Torah u-Madda, published in the Torah u-Madda Journal of Yeshiva University10/2001. See also: Some Observations on Ma’aseh Nissim by Howard Kreisel.

[3] Edited by H. Kreisel, Mekeitze Nirdamim, Jerusalem 2000. The work is also sometimes called Sefer  haNissim and Ikkarei haDat.

[4] Parenthesis mine.

[5] Hilchot Teshuva 3:7

[6] Parenthesis mine.

[7] Guide of the Perplexed, 2:25 (Pines translation).

[8] Parenthesis mine

[9] Avodah Zarah 54b.

[10] Teaching Philosophy to the Multitude: An Introduction to the Educational Philosophy of Nissim ben Moshe of Marseilles, by Alan Verskin.

[11] Ma’aseh Nissin Ch 9. 112.

[12] Shemot 22:21

[13] Shemot 22:22

[14] Ma’ase Nissim 116.

[15] Vayikra Rabbah 1:7.

[16] Parenthesis mine.

[17] Parenthesis mine.

[18] Ma’aseh Nissin 178.

[19] Parenthesis mine.

[20] As will become apparent in the next few sentences, rabbis like Shmuel Ibn Tabbon would take issue with the use of the word ‘reinterpretation’ – and would be happier with ‘interpretation’ as they believed this was, in fact, the way the Torah was originally to be understood. It was the ‘traditionalists’ who, in their view, were the ‘re-interpreters’.

[21] Psalms 119:126. This verse was always used whenever the Sages felt compelled to come up with an innovation they believed was urgent for the future continuation of Judaism.

[22] Maamar Yikavu haMayim 173.