THE PERSECUTION OF LEVI BEN AVRAHAM.
MAIMONIDEAN CONTROVERSIES – PART III:
INTRODUCTION:
Rabbi Levi ben Avraham ben Chaim (1245-1315) was a southern French
rationalist who followed the ways of Rambam (1135-1204) and like his exemplar,
he too was persecuted for his views.
He was the grandfather of R. Levi ben Gershon, also known as
Gersonides or Ralbag (1288-1344).
R. Levi ben Avraham’s[1]
mastery of Torah study should not be underestimated, as according to Yehudah
Mosconi in his supercommentary on Ibn Ezra, R. Levi was regarded as one of the
most prominent scholars of his time.
Besides being
a Torah scholar, he was particularly interested in science and astronomy, and
later championed a synthesis between Torah and secular study. Unfortunately for
him, this occurred during the height of the anti-Maimonidean controversies of
1304-1305, when Rashba (R. Shlomo ben Aderet) issued a ban against Rambam’s philosophical
writings.
The ban was
directed against:
“...any member of
the [Barcelona] community who, being under the age of 25 years, shall study the
works of the Greeks on natural science or metaphysics [a veiled reference to
Rambam’s philosophy][2],
whether in the original language or in translation.”[3]
The Rashba’s ban, originally intended only for Barcelona, also included a
prohibition against any allegorical interpretations of the Torah until
the age of 25.
Rashba tried to
get the rabbis of Southern France to officially enact the same ban as he had
instituted in Barcelona, because: “[t]he [Jewish] people are split in two [as
a result of the Maimonidean rationalists].”[4]
This ban, in the form of a letter, was dramatically read out by R. Abba
Mari on a Shabbat morning in a synagogue in Montpellier (Southern France) on
Erev Rosh haShana in 1304. And R. Levi ben Avraham was singled out as one of its
chief targets.
An objection was immediately raised by R. Yaakov Ibn Tibbon, and chaos and
confusion ensued in the synagogue and the community.
When the Jews of
Southern France refused to accept such a ban, Rashba himself imposed it directly
on them, going over the heads of their own rabbinic leadership.[5]
Within days of the issue of the ban, a group of enraged
southern French rabbis excommunicated Abba Mari (who also hailed from southern
France) for recruiting and inciting Rashba against them. In response, Abba Mari
excommunicated them.
In all this
chaos, R. Levi ben Avraham remained the centre of Rashba’s attention. Why was
he singled out for such persecution?
NORTH VERSUS SOUTH:
Geographically, much of the opposition to Rambam was based
in Northern France and Germany which was a stronghold for the (often mystical)
Baalei haTosafot. Supporters of Rambam, however, were generally based in
Provence located in Southern France. This unfortunately created a vicious north
and south divide.
[For more on the conflict, see Maimonidean
Controversies Part I and Part
II.]
THE EXCOMMUNICATION:
Before Rashba’s ban was issued, Levi ben Avraham had been
staying with the wealthy Shmuel haSulami[6]
in Narbonne in Southern France, but immediately after the ban became known, Shmuel
felt pressured to expel his guest from his home.
The Rashba, in a letter to Levi ben Avraham, gave him
the option either to solely occupy himself with Talmud and reject secular
studies - or face excommunication. R. Levi chose to continue his secular
studies and was soon excommunicated.
Being poverty struck, R. Levi then went to stay with his
father-in-law until the Rashba wrote to his new host who was forced to expel
him for the second time.
This despite the fact that R. Levi was: “very reserved
and was communicative only to those who shared his views.”[7]
WHY SINGLE OUT R. LEVI BEN AVRAHAM?
According to a communication between Don Crescas Vidal and
Rashba, Crescas was amazed that Rashba attacked R. Levi ben Avraham because:
“What novelty is now in their land [of southern France][8],
in the camp of the Hebrews, that has not long been, that they now bring their
case before [you, Rashba] the judge? What do those who slander this country say
such that [their countrymen] might be called the first to study philosophy and
non-Jewish works? From long ago until now they have grown up with a mixture of
[holy books and] the books of the Greeks.”
This appeal had
no effect on Rashba and continued relentlessly:
“Regarding the books
that any one of those among them wrote, we judge its owner a heretic and the
books as the books of the magicians. They and anyone who owns them stand in
excommunication until they burn them completely and no longer mention their
name [contents].”[9]
THE MATTER OF ALLEGORIZATION:
Rationalists lean
towards allegorization while mystics lean towards mysticization. It is not
clear if any mystics were ever condemned for over-mysticization[10] but R. Levi was certainly
hounded for his strong tendency to rationalize and to allegorize. He took his
cue from Rambam who believed that it was necessary, for example, to allegorize all
the scriptural references to G-d having a body.
It is interesting
to note that according to Rabbi Shmuel of Marseilles, most of the
rabbis of Northern France were of the belief that G-d comprised some type of
bodily form or corporeality.[11]
Rashba was
fanatically opposed to the allegorists or darshanim of his time,
writing that:
“Let the spirits of these people be snuffed out, and may a
fire that never dies consume them. May their forms flit about in Sheol [hell][12],
for the merit of the Patriarchs is insufficient to redeem them.”
Rashba wrote specifically
of Levi ben Avraham:
“A Mohammedan is far dearer to
me than this man...
[who] is not ashamed to say
openly that Abraham and the other patriarchs have ceased to exist as real
personages and that their places have been filled by philosophical concepts...
Levi and his adherents are
enemies not only of Judaism, but of every positive religion.” [13]
The attack got
even more graphic:
“The other nations would punish them as heretics,
For even just one of the things - the corrupt teaching - that they write in their books!
If any [Christian or Muslim] would say that Abraham and Sarah represent Form and Matter,
They would put him on the pyre and burn him to lime!”[14]
For even just one of the things - the corrupt teaching - that they write in their books!
If any [Christian or Muslim] would say that Abraham and Sarah represent Form and Matter,
They would put him on the pyre and burn him to lime!”[14]
This was
nothing new because a generation earlier, R. Yona Gerondi (the teacher of
Rashba) went to the Christians – first the Franciscans and then the Dominicans
- pleading:
“Look, most of our people are heretics and unbelievers, because they were
duped by R. Moses of Egypt [Maimonides] who wrote heretical books.
You exterminate heretics, exterminate ours too.”[15]
You exterminate heretics, exterminate ours too.”[15]
So too now, it
was hoped that by presenting red meat to the non-Jewish base, they would take
care of people like R. Levi ben Avraham in an appropriate manner.[16]
A.S. Halkin describes
R. Levi as follows:
“Undoubtedly Levi indulges extensively, - one might say: excessively
– in allegorization.”[17]
According to R. Levi ben Avraham, the entire biblical Flood
story, for example, was also about a flood or overpopulation of humans who
did not indulge in intellectual pursuits and the Ark and all its details were
woven into an intricate tapestry indicating how man can indeed rise above the
floodwaters of debased humanity.
(It should be noted that Mystical and Chassidic
interpretations of various biblical events and personalities also indulge in
extreme allegorization, albeit in a Kabbalistic or Sefirotic
sense. Thus Avraham, for example,
relates to the attribute of Chessed etc.)
According to Minchat
Kena’ot, some of the southern French rationalists were indeed quite
outspoken, and he refers to them as ‘youths’:
“[One of the darshanim] announced in a loud voice that anyone
who believes that the sun actually stood still in the time of Joshua is making
a mistake, a fool who believes in any impossible thing.”[18]
A MORE
MODERATE R. LEVI BEN AVRAHAM:
In fairness though, R. Levi, aware of perhaps a fundamental
and radical form of over-allegorization taking hold, often introduced his
allegorical interpretations with the statement:
“Although the literal meaning
is undoubtedly true, however, the words of Torah take on several meanings,
being like a sledge-hammer which splits a rock.”
Regarding the
Revelation at Sinai, R. Levi writes:
“Moses saw things clearly, without parable or riddle...Therefore
those who convert the miracles or the precepts and laws into symbols, and
discover illegitimate meanings in the Torah are heretics and Epicurians, and
alter the words of the living God.”[19]
RASHBA DID NOT HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF R. LEVI:
It should be pointed, however, out that Rashba
did not have firsthand knowledge of R. Levi’s writings, and acknowledged that
he based his impressions on hearsay.[20]
RASHBA, ABBA
MARI AND ROSH:
Nevertheless,
Rashba was joined by R. Abba Mari (who recorded 127 letters of correspondence
in his Minchat Kena’ot, or Offerings of Zeal.[21]) and Rosh who all declared R. Levi to be an
apostate.
R. Abba Mari was
also concerned that the allegorists had gone too far. Although he rarely
mentioned any of the allegorists by name, he wrote:
“They have nearly stripped all the literal meanings from the
Torah and displayed her naked.”
The Rosh wrote:
“It is known to Your Honor
that it was with unhappiness that I signed this document [of cherem]. How could
I sign that they not study it until the age of twenty-five, thus implying that
after twenty five I am permitting it, while in fact I believe it is prohibited
to study it at all in this generation. But, it is only not to discourage others
from signing that I signed.”[22]
THE OTHER
DARSHANIM (ALLEGORISTS) OF SOUTHERN FRANCE:
R. Levi ben Avraham
did not act or write in isolation but was part of a French group of followers
of Rambam which included R. Moshe ben Shmuel Ibn Tibon[23], R. Yaakov Antuli,
R. Yitzchak de Lattes, and of course his grandson, the Ralbag. He was also
praised by the Meiri and Yedaya Bedarshi.[24]
IMPLORING THE
RASHBA TO RESCIND THE BAN:
In Yedaya
Bedarshi’s letter to Rashba in defence of Levi ben Avraham, he says that he
investigated the matter and found that the accusation was based on a
misunderstanding of the role of a darshan (allegorist) and that even
when an allegorical interpretation is presented it does not exclude the literal
meaning. He goes on to quote a principle from Rambam[25] that where a
literal meaning is quite tenable, there is no need to seek out an allegorical
interpretation.
Rashba, however, wasn’t convinced. Instead, he furthermore
claimed that R. Levi did not believe in any miracles. When he was informed that
the only miracle he denied was the Talmudic[26]
claim that the letters in the Ten Commandments were suspended in air, Rashba responded
that this was sufficient to prove that he denied all the other miracles as well.[27]
R. Levi claimed that small supporting stone braces prevented the middle of the mem
and samech from falling out of the carved tablets of stone.
Yedaya Bedarshi implored the Rashba to withdraw his ban
against studying Rambam. He pleaded with him to understand that the only reason
the Christians and Moslems of his time respected the Jews, was because they
were intelligent in matters of science and philosophy which they had also learned
particularly from the Rambam’s influential Moreh Nevuchim.
Yedaya Bedarshi wrote:
“And despite their [the
non-Jewish][28]
hatred of us, they are not ashamed to admit the truth. And out of respect for
him [Rambam], they even show honor to those Jews who identify with his works.
How can we rise up and estrange ourselves from this honor and the source that
remains to us and our Torah as protection from disrespect amongst the nations
and our enemies who insult Israel and attribute to us ignorance of all
knowledge and of all truth?
How can G-d cause us to act
foolishly, to destroy from our midst, and to the benefit of our enemies, that
residue of truth and honor that has remained with us? There can be no greater
profanation of the Name than this.”[29]
THE REAL
REASON FOR THE BAN:
Asher Bentzion Buchman explains what he considers to be the
real reason for the ban, and it relates to the ongoing conflict between the
mystics and the rationalists:
“Rashba, a master of
kabbalah...therefore exhorts the scholars of Provence [who were followers of
Rambam’s rationalism][30]
who have immersed themselves in science and philosophy to turn instead to the
true wisdom of kabbalah to understand the secrets of the Torah.”
UNPUBLISHED LETTERS:
The fact is that it was the collator of Minchat Kena’ot,
Abba Mari himself, who pressured Rashba to issue his anti-Maimonidean ban. Rashba
is recorded in Minchat Kena’ot as saying that there were three rabbis in
Provence who were ‘endangering the survival of the Torah.’[31]
However, although R. Levi ben Avraham wrote a letter in
defence of himself to Rashba, his
letter was never published.
Only Rashba’s response was published!
Nor did R. Abba Mari publish the arguments against the ban
which were presented by the Meiri![32]
THE WRITINGS
OF THE FOLLOWERS OF RAMBAM VANISH FOR CENTURIES:
The mystics
wanted nothing to do with the rabbis of Southern France and according to Asher
Benzion Buchman:
“It seems that for centuries the works of the
followers of Rambam in Provence vanished from the public scene; only in this
century was the invaluable work of Meiri published for the first time. Was this
a result of the cherem of 1305?”[33]
A GRAVE INJUSTICE:
Halkin concludes his textual study of Levi ben Avraham’s
various writings with the following observation:
“[A] grave injustice has been
done to Levi ben Abraham...in branding him a heretic, a seducer and a
subverter. His love for his faith, coupled with his admiration for philosophy, impelled
him, as it did his fellow intellectuals, to strive zealously to demonstrate
that Judaism contains all wisdom, nay, that it is the mother of all the
learning which is now the proud possession of others.”
According to Dr Gregg Stern:
“There is nothing hateful or antinomian about the
interpretations of this Jewish community [of southern France][34];
they are quite Maimonidean. It is striking to see that – in the shadow of
Maimonides – Rashba mistook the philosophic interpretation of the Commandments
as antinomian.”
ANALYSIS:
This article dealt with the systematic elimination of
Maimonidean thought in Provence, Southern France, in the early 1300s.
However, within significant circles of religious Judaism
today, there still exists a strong opposition to reading secular literature and
even to studying Maimonides’ philosophical writings. [See Halachic
Attitudes Towards Secular Studies, and Secular
Education – A Great Divide.]
Asher Benzion Buchman writes that even today, there are:
“...rabbis who are idolized in certain circles [who] utter such phrases as
‘the Rambam could say it; we cannot.’
In other words what Rambam wrote 850
years ago is too religiously controversial for our sensitive modern minds
today.
Rambam’s philosophical teachings continue to be subverted
precisely at a time when this generation of searchers from without, and
especially from within the religious community, need them more than at any
other time in Jewish history.
Buchman pleads, as the history of suppression of Maimonidean
thought continues to repeat itself:
“Let us hope that [the silenced voice of][35]
Provence is poised to rise again.”
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
RESTORING A 'LOST WISDOM':
Rashba used a metaphor to describe how the rationalists of
France were behaving: “They have taken foreign women into their homes and
cast aside the daughter of Yehudah.” (Minchat Kena’ot. no. 20.)
Buchman comments:
“According to Rambam’s
approach, such a metaphor would be totally inappropriate...the other wisdoms
are the wisdoms that were once known by Torah scholars and are part of Maaseh
Merkavah and Maaseh Bereishis. All wisdom is part of the same whole...These
wisdoms are a part of Torah itself.”
It is interesting to see that even R. Abba Mari was not
comfortable with Rashba’s analogy of the ‘foreign woman’ being applied
to secular wisdom. He believed the ‘foreign women’ analogy should
only apply to absolute heresy - and he wrote to Rashba for clarification which
apparently never came.
R. Levi, basing himself on classical Maimonidean thought,
maintained that knowledge of science and philosophy was originally held by the
Jews but then became the province of the Gentiles. He writes that: “The sons
of Japhet adorned themselves with the learning they took from Shem and the
Hebrews.” And that this knowledge was then forgotten by its originators.
(See R. Levi’s Batte haNefesh ve’haLechashim.)
R. Levi and the followers of Rambam believed they
were restoring a component of Torah to its rightful owners.
[1]
He is also referred to sometimes as Levi ben Chaim.
[2]
Parenthesis mine.
[3]
Responsa
of Rashba 1, no. 416. See Avraham and Sarah in Provence, by Asher
Bentzion Buchman.
[4]
Minchat Kena’ot p. 730.
[5]
Minchat Kena’ot p. 734.
[6]
Also known as Samuel l’Escaleta. Meiri praised R. Shmuel as being one of great
Halachists of southern France.
[7]
Minchat Kena’ot, no. 121.
[8]
Parenthesis mine. Translation Dr Gregg Stern.
[9]
Minchat Kena’ot p. 737. Translation Dr Gregg Stern.
[10]
Besides the opponents to Hagshamah (the belief that G-d has a body), although not to the same vitriolic extent.
[11]“rov chachmei tzorfat
magshimim”
[12]
Parenthesis mine.
[13]
Minchat Kena’ot, no 14.
[14]
Minchat Kena’ot p. 412. Translation by Dr. Gregg Stern: Allegorizers of the
Torah and Story of their Persecution in Languedoc (1305).
[15]
Iggerot
Kena’ot III, 4c. (Leipzig 1859).
[16]
Minchat Kena’ot p. 383.
[17]
Why Was Levi ben Hayyim Hounded, by A.S. Halkin.
[18]
Minchat Kena’ot p. 408.
[19]
Translation by A.S. Henkin.
[20]
Rashba admits this in one of his letters which is published in Minchat Kena’ot
(Shut haRashba).
[21]
R. Abba Mari explains why he compiled his Minchat Kena’ot: “I became enraged with zeal for the Lord, God of
Israel when I saw a man of the Holy Seed defiling himself with ‘the food of the
gentiles,’ destroying the narrative of the Torah [with allegory], while she had
no one to inquire and save [her].” (MK p. 225.)
[22]
Ibid. Avraham and Sarah in Provence.
[23]
He was from the famous Ibn Tibbon family
who translated, amongst other writings, Rambam’s Arabic writings into Hebrew.
[24]
In the latter’s Iggeret
Hitnatzlut.
[25]
Moreh Nevuchim 2:25
[26]
Shabbat 104a.
[27]
Minchat Kena’ot , no. 42.
[28]
Parenthesis mine.
[29]
Yedaya Bedarshi’s letter to Rashba, translated by Asher Benzion Buchman.
[30]
Parenthesis mine.
[31]
Minchat Kena’ot, nos. 50, 94, 105.
[32]
R. Levi’s unpublished letter is lost but Meiri’s letter still survives.
[33]
Ibid. Avraham and Sarah in Provence.
[34]
Parenthesis mine.
[35]
Parenthesis mine.
