Ibn Gabirol and Judah ha-Levi’s Usage of Dialogue: The Role of the Disciple in Fons Vitae and that of the King in Kitāb al-Khazarī

Aviram Ravitsky

doi:10.3390/rel10100549

Abstract

The literary framework of Solomon Ibn Gabirol’s Fons Vitae is a conversation between a master and a disciple. In this article, the nature of the disciple’s questions will be analyzed in order to explain the advantages of the dialogical process in Ibn Gabirol’s thought. The literary framework of Judah ha-Levi’s Kitāb al-Khazarī is similar to that of Fons Vitae. Ha-Levi’s composition is built as a conversation that allegedly took place between the king of the Khazars and a Jewish scholar (ḥaver). Analysis of the king’s responses to the ḥaver shows that the king did not fully understand the ḥaver’s lessons, in which the deep meaning of Judaism is taught. In this article, the king’s responses will be analyzed and, likewise, the question of Judah ha-Levi’s intention in using this literary sophistication. As is shown in this article both famous Andalusian poets and thinkers, R. Judah ha-Levi and R. Solomon Ibn Gabirol, masters of linguistic phrasing and style, used the dialogical form not only as an opportunity to present their world views, but also as a method by which to critique their own philosophies.

Highlights

Rabbi Solomon ITbon tGhaisb1qi.ruIonel’stsrtoiFodonnu,sctthVioeitname aasntderRreapbbliiesJu: d‘Tahhehrae-sLpeovni’sseKtoitātbhiasl-wKhilalzcaormī beoltahtebrelwonhgen we investigate to the classics of tJheeweisxhisttehnecoeloogfyeRaleanmbdbeipnShtoaillloo(sm=ospoinhmyIpbilne)tGshuaebbMisrtoiadln’dscleFesoAn(ssgueVbssi.ttaaAenltatihnaorduumRgahsbitmbhiepJiluricdiinuafmhlu)h’ea(nI-cIL,ee1av2ni;’dsJaKcoitbāb1a9l8-K7,hpaz. a4r7ī)b. oth belong appreciation in tThehemdeidsciiepvlaetloaJgetawhienischrlaatissrsaeisdcistthioiosfnqJewuweesirsteihodntihfafeteortlheonegtye,nradengodafrptdhhienilgosestcohopenhidryopiwnarntthohefisMFtooinrdsicdValelitcaAoegninetesox.rtAd, eltrhtooupgrhepthareeirthinefluence and both of them rewpraeysefonrt tthheeadpispicnrunescasiciaoltenioionnf ittnhhetehtheJeirmwdeipsdhairetlv,itawelrhJaeitcwuhrieisshdotferdaAdicniatditoeandlutwsoieatrheiantdsitfuhfberjee1cn1tt:,h‘rtheagenaadrffid1ir2nmtghatthioeniroofwelnemhiesntotarlical context, centuries
Religions 2019, 10, x; dmaopio: rsFitOneRcxiPapElltEeeRdoRfsEuuVibnnIsfEilttWuyaenincnceetsdh. eAJewcwcoiosrrhlddtih.niIgntkteoenrIsabblnilkeGesIatbhbnierGo‘wla,bi‘limrl’oatltoatenpwrdr’wohsdwuau-s.mLtcaedeivpneiis.x(ccoeifsmv.teeH/jrnouyucgtrehnh—aienls/mrge2l0aeig0ntia8odp,npcshapyn.s1ibc–ea1l6c)oa.snInswiddeeelelrdeadssome Hebrew physical—frRoemligioGnos 2d0,1b9,y10it,sx;cdaopi:aFcOitRyPtEoEbReRuEVnIiEteWd with ‘form’.7 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions In Fons Vitae V, 10 the disciple is intrigued by the notion of the existence of ‘simple matter’
Judah ha-Levi’s Kitab al-Khazarı has been studied and interpreted by commentators and researchers for centuries, but little attention was given to the comparison between the literary genre of ha-Levi’s philosophical composition and that of Ibn Gabirol

Summary

Introduction

Rabbi Solomon ITbon tGhaisb1qi.ruIonel’stsrtoiFodonnu,sctthVioeitname aasntderRreapbbliiesJu: d‘Tahhehrae-sLpeovni’sseKtoitātbhiasl-wKhilalzcaormī beoltahtebrelwonhgen we investigate to the classics of tJheeweisxhisttehnecoeloogfyeRaleanmbdbeipnShtoaillloo(sm=ospoinhmyIpbilne)tGshuaebbMisrtoiadln’dscleFesoAn(ssgueVbssi.ttaaAenltatihnaorduumRgahsbitmbhiepJiluricdiinuafmhlu)h’ea(nI-cIL,ee1av2ni;’dsJaKcoitbāb1a9l8-K7,hpaz. a4r7ī)b. oth belong appreciation in tThehemdeidsciiepvlaetloaJgetawhienischrlaatissrsaeisdcistthioiosfnqJewuweesirsteihodntihfafeteortlheonegtye,nradengodafrptdhhienilgosestcohopenhidryopiwnarntthohefisMFtooinrdsicdValelitcaAoegninetesox.rtAd, eltrhtooupgrhepthareeirthinefluence and both of them rewpraeysefonrt tthheeadpispicnrunescasiciaoltenioionnf ittnhhetehtheJeirmwdeipsdhairetlv,itawelrhJaeitcwuhrieisshdotferdaAdicniatditoeandlutwsoieatrheiantdsitfuhfberjee1cn1tt:,h‘rtheagenaadrffid1ir2nmtghatthioeniroofwelnemhiesntotarlical context, centuries. In Fons Vitae V, 10 the disciple is intrigued by the notion of the existence of ‘simple matter’ He interrogates the master: From what you say I conclude that material is nonbeing (=matter is privation; materia est priuatio), for since the existence of anything depends on structure (=form; formam) [ . The disciple’s question stems from the master’s metaphysics: in a section that preceded the disciple’s words (in V, 8), the master taught what seems to be an Aristotelian approach towards the relationships of matter and form He says: ‘You must realize that it is impossible for material (=matter; materia) to have existence (esse) apart from structure (=form; forma) because it exists only insofar as it is clothed in structure (=form; uestitur forma)” The dialogue enables the reader to prepare him- (or her-) self for receiving the divine emanation—the wisdom of the master.[12]

The Dialogue in Judah ha-Levi’s Kitab al-Khazarı—Analysis and Discussion

10 Søren Kierkegaard distinguished between two types of dialogue