The Place of Ethics in Medieval Jewish Philosophy—The Case of Saadia Gaon

Medieval Jewish philosophy is in large measure an interpretation in philosophical terms of beliefs, concepts, and texts bequeathed to medieval Jews by the Bible and by rabbinic literature. Thus, much of the agenda of medieval Jewish philosophy is set by ideas featured in the Bible, Talmud, and midrash: God, creation, prophecy, providence, miracles, commandments, and more. For this reason, although there is a need here to present the biblical and rabbinic background to medieval Jewish philosophy, the discussion will largely be an exposition of one aspect of medieval Jewish philosophy itself: namely, its ambition to provide an exegesis of biblical and rabbinic texts, along with explications of their concepts, that would demonstrate the value of philosophy in earlier Judaism and would unearth rigorous philosophical propositions contained in the ancient works. Examples abound. Saadya Gaon (882–942), head of the academy in Babylonia and the father of medieval Jewish philosophy, and Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides) (1288–1344), an eminent philosopher, logician, and scientist, authored biblical commentaries – Gersonides’ cover a very substantial part of the Bible – that are controlled by a view of the book as shot through with philosophical truth and as standing in agreement with the conclusions of human reason. While the less illustrious rationalist Joseph ibn Kaspi (1279–1340) authored a commentary on the Bible that is controlled not by the assumption of an underlying philosophical truth, but instead by a historicist view, he is an exception among medieval rationalists.

INTRODUCTION The question whether God exists and what his attributes are is not a philosophical concern in either the Hebrew Bible or in the classical rabbinic texts from the Mishnah to the Talmud. To be sure, the Bible includes texts bearing witness to a deep crisis of the conception of a providential God interacting with human beings, most importantly the books of Job and Ecclesiastes. It even reports that “the fool says in his heart: ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1). Whereas the Athenian in Plato’s Laws responds to such a denial with the first extant proof for the existence of the Divine, no such attempt is recorded in the Bible however. Passages abound, moreover, which taken literally contradict crucial features of the conception of God held by medieval Jewish philosophers – God’s incorporeality, for example, or God’s internal unity. Jewish philosophical discussions of God usually arise at those intellectual intersections where natural theology – starting with the speculations of the pre-Socratics about the archē of nature – encounters the representations of God contained in the Jewish sources. It is important to stress that this encounter would be decidedly misconstrued as an encounter between the God of philosophy and the God of religion. Aristotle, for example, takes both the worship and the contemplation of God to be the highest human good. Conversely, for Jewish philosophers like Philo of Alexandria in late antiquity, Maimonides in the Middle Ages, and Spinoza in the early-modern period, the ideal of philosophy and the ideal of religion coincide in the intellectual love of God, much of which consists in reflecting on the issues discussed in the present chapter.

This chapter describes the extensive work of medieval Jewish philosophy. It survives in fragmentary form in a single manuscript. The chapter focuses exclusively upon distinct colorings, which set this work apart from any other writing of the medieval period that the author has seen. It deals with two issues that combine to define the authors theological orientation: panentheism and a polemic against dualism. The chapter dwells longest on the second of these, mainly because it offers the most promising leads for locating treatise in historical context. The author's discussion of astronomical matters, much like his treatment of the one as well as other issues that must be left out of the chapter, is reminiscent of Levi ben Gersom. His long discourse on the notion of unity, and his quest to uphold the one, transcendent, creator God, leads him to investigate the subject of motion. Keywords: anti-dualistic polemic; astronomy; medieval jewish philosophy; panentheism

The Jewish Quarterly Review, XCII, Nos. 3-4 (January-April, 2002) 598-601 Sylvie Anne Goldberg. La Clepsydre: Essai sur la pluralité des temps dans le judaïsme. Paris: Albin Michel, 2000. Pp. 398. Tamar M. Rudavsky. Time Matters: Time, Creation, and Cosmology in Medieval Jewish Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000. Pp. xviii + 287. Ironically, the year 2000 of the Christian Era began with two important books by Jewish scholars on the concept of time among Jews. One book is La Clepsydre by Sylvie Anne Goldberg of the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris; the other is Time Matters by Tamar M. Rudavsky of Ohio State University. Both books have clocks on the cover: La Clepsydre catches our eye with a 19th century synagogue clock from Pisek, Bohemia ; Time Matters features the sundial atop the old Immigrant Shelter building in Jerusalem. Both books are concerned with the relationship between our subjective consciousness of time and our objective clocks. Both also raise the question of whether there is a particularly Jewish consciousness of time. However, the two books are very different in their scope and their approaches . La Clepsydre is subtitled "an essay on the plurality of times in Judaism," and seeks to understand the different sorts of consciousness of time found in Judaism. To this end, it consults biblical and rabbinic sources, and refers to medieval and modern texts only to the extent that they clarify or elaborate on those sources. Its approach is that of cultural history, or what is called in France anthropologie historique. Time matters is subtitled "time, creation, and cosmology in medieval Jewish philosophy," and seeks to explicate the main statements of medieval Jewish philosophers on these abstruse physical and metaphysical topics. Its approach is that of the history of philosophy. Goldberg's book explores the mentalité of the Jewish masses; Rudavsky's explores the minds of the Jewish philosophic elite. La Clepsydre is divided in two parts: Part I discusses Ie temps conté (pp. 37-152) and Part II discusses Ie temps décompté (pp. 153-330). The suggestive distinction between these two kinds of time is that between narrated time and measured time, recounted time and counted time, or time told and time tolled. The distinction is roughly similar to the Aristotelian one between continuous and discrete time (cf. pp. 93-97), except that Ie temps conté is not conceived of as an empty or pure duration, but as a human story. Part I asks, "What is Jewish time?" or "What is the story that constitutes time for the Jews?" Part II discusses temporal, eschatological, historiographical, and mathematical scansions of time. Just as a poem may be scanned, that is, divided into feet, accented and unaccented syllables, TWO BOOKS ON TIME—HARVEY599 caesurae, etc., so Ie temps conté can be scanned, that is, divided into eras, years, months, days, holy days, etc. If Ie temps conté is a poem, Ie temps décompté is its meter. The poem is about human beings and God, creation and redemption, enslavement and liberation, expulsion and return, rejoicing and suffering, love and awe. The meter is both lunar and solar; it is marked not only by days, months, and years, but also by portions of the Torah , Hanukkah candles, the offering of the first sheaf of the barley harvest, and so forth. Many of its accented syllables have to do with the exodus from Egypt, the revelation at Mount Sinai, or the destruction of the Temples in Jerusalem first by the Babylonians and then the Romans. In Jewish time, Goldberg argues, past, present, and future are intertwined, and comprise one perpetual narrative, much as the stanzas of a great poem are intertextually bound together, and cannot be understood apart from one another. Goldberg is a perceptive and eloquent observer of Jewish lore and customs, and La Clepsydre is a fascinating essay. Time Matters is divided into six chapters: "Time and Cosmology in Athens and Jerusalem" (pp. 1-21); "Time, Creation, and Cosmology" (pp. 2357 ); "Time, Motion, and the Instant: Jewish Philosophers Confront Zeno" (pp. 59-94); "Temporality, Human Freedom, and Divine Omniscience" (pp. 95-148); "Prelude to Modernity" (pp. 149-173); and...

Simply in quantitative terms, scholarship in medieval Jewish philosophy runs a distant third to its counterparts in Christian and Islamic philosophy. Nevertheless, work over the past ten years shows that the scope of medieval Jewish philosophy is expanding with respect to the study of authors as well as issues.

Efros' "Studies in Medieval Jewish Philosophy"

This article explores the significance of Judah Halevis Kuzari – the classic work of particularism and ethnocentrism in medieval Jewish philosophy – for the German-Jewish philosopher Franz Rosenzweig. Specifically, it argues that Rosenzweigs conception of the corresponding messianic tasks of Judaism and Christianity in the final section of The Star of Redemption was based on an idiosyncratic interpretation of Halevis parable of the seed (Kuzari 4.23). By interpreting Rosenzweigs writings against the backdrop of his affinity for the Kuzari, this study clarifies some of the most vexing and contested elements of Rosenzweigs philosophy of Judaism. In particular, it provides a new interpretation of his provocative and much-discussed characterization of the Jewish people as a »blood-community« and argues that The Star, far from affirming the truth and equal standing of Christianity alongside Judaism, offers a radical vision of Judaisms superiority over it.

The Midrash ha-hokhmah ('The exposition of science') is a thirteenth-century Hebrew encyclopedic text that aims to divu lge contemporary science and philosophy among Jews. Its author is the rather unknown Judah ben Solomon ha-Kohen of Toledo. Originally drafted in Arabic in Toledo, the Hebrew version of the compllmlon, produced In Italy, dates from c. 1247. It comprises a survey of (i) Aristotelian philosophy based on Averroes' Middle Commentaries and Epitomes: (ii) Euclid's geometry: (iii) astronomy based on Ptolemy and a-Bitrudji: (iv) Ptolemy's astrology, as well as some treatises on Jewish religious subjects. Only a few portions of the text have been edited so far. In the last quarter of the past century the composition started to attract serious scholarly attention. The article is concerned with the section on Aristotle's natural philosophy. It aims to outline the importance of this text for the study of the reception of Aristotle in medieval Jewish philosophy by looking into the motivation underlying the Midrash ha-Hokhmah; its background; its manner of compilation and the attitude displayed by the author vis-a-vis Aristotle's philosophy.

This introductory chapter begins with a discussion of the fascination with the Book of Job as evidenced by the diverse body of interpretations throughout the ages from religious thinkers in Judaism and Christianity from late antiquity to modern academic scholars. It presents a background of medieval Jewish philosophy, and then reviews the major challenges that interpreters of Job have faced throughout the ages. The present study aims to go beyond providing a description of how medieval Jewish philosophers read the Book of Job by drawing much-needed attention to the exegetical literature in medieval Jewish philosophy in general. By analyzing how medieval Jewish philosophers interpreted the Book of Job, the exegesis of these thinkers is brought to light as an exciting chapter in the history of Jewish thought, which neither scholars of medieval Jewish philosophy nor scholars of medieval Jewish exegesis can afford to ignore. A proper examination of the commentaries chosen and an assessment of their significance both as philosophical and exegetical works require that these be discussed on a number of levels. For each commentary, the discussion will focus on three interfaces: between the commentaries and their antecedent sources, between the commentaries and the biblical text, and between the commentaries and the systematic thought of the medieval Jewish philosophers.

Moses Maimonides' contribution to the biopsychosocial approach in clinical medicine

It is a view commonly held that within the Jewish rationalist tradition epitomized by Baruch Spinoza the snares of erotic love are something that a rational person would actively seek to avoid. But is love a thing for fools? Is this truly the view of Spinoza and the rationalist tradition in medieval Jewish philosophy that he inherited, or can we find a way to conceive of erotic love that accords with the life of reason? In this article I will attempt to answer these questions within the context of an analysis of Isaac Bashevis Singer's “The Spinoza of Market Street” and by considering the erotic perfectionist ethic as it is expressed primarily in Saadia Gaon's Book of Beliefs and Opinions and Spinoza's Ethics. I will show that the significant points of convergence and divergence between these two thinkers serve to illuminate our thinking about erotic perfectionism. Both Saadia and Spinoza are careful, systematic Jewish thinkers developing ethical theories in which reason plays a pronounced role in cultivating a virtuous life. Consequently, like other ethicists for whom the virtues are key, both Saadia and Spinoza are intent on expressing the ideal human conduct of the moral exemplar. In just what way does erotic love fit into the ideal human life?

In a classic paper, Leon Roth asked »Is there a Jewish Philosophy?« to which he replied No. In this paper, focusing on the case of Medieval Jewish Philosophy, I argue, first, that we cannot characterize Jewish philosophy in terms of the identity, religious or secular, of its philosophers, in terms of a language in which it was written or conducted, in terms of a particular style or school, or in terms of content: as philosophy specifically of Judaism the religion. I then go on to argue that all the medieval Jewish philosophers were doing was Philosophy, although I sketch two different conceptions of what a philosophical interpretation of Judaism and the Jews might be: a Saadyanic model and Maimonides’. However, even though there is no kind of philosophy called »Jewish philosophy« as opposed to simply »Philosophy,« I argue that we can identify (medieval) Jewish philosophy as a philosophical »tradition,« a causally related sequence of philosophers who influence and are influenced by each other and who engage in a distinguishable dialogue or conversation among themselves. In the last part of the paper, I critically discuss various recent arguments that purport to show that there is something paradoxical, self-contradictory, and philosophically illegitimate about the very idea of a Jewish philosophy.

This chapter discusses the ethical views of medieval Jewish philosophers, showing that the varieties of Jewish philosophy in the medieval period defy easy categorization, let alone condensation into a single notion of Jewish ethics. Scholars surveyed include Saadia Gaon, Solomon ibn Gabirol, Bahya ibn Paquda, Judah Halevi, Abraham ibn Ezra, Abraham ibn Daud, Moses Maimonides, Levi Gersonides, Jedaiah Bedersi, Hesdai Crescas, Joseph Albo, and Joseph ibn Shemtob.

Jonathan Jacobs’s new book makes as good a case as I can imagine that contemporary moral theorists interested in moral epistemology and psychology and meta-ethics should take a serious look at what these medieval thinkers have to offer. I know of no other book that brings the tools of contemporary analytic philosophy to bear on medieval Jewish thought with such sensitivity and insight. He does not speak down to these thinkers; he takes them on their own terms. Furthermore, he shows that others who have tried to appropriate the thought of these thinkers have sometimes done so while importing baggage from modern thinkers such as Kant in ways that might appeal to us today, but which obscure what these thinkers themselves thought. Jacobs begins with a brief introduction offering a preliminary justification for the study of these medieval authors. He singles out Saadia, Bahya, and Maimonides because Saadia frames the debate for much of medieval Jewish thought, Bahya offers ‘a textured, subtle, moral psychology’ (p. 3), and Maimonides is the more or less uncontested center of medieval Jewish thought in general and on morals in particular. According to Jacobs, these authors are well worth studying because their understanding of the justification and motivations of morality are significantly different from the options advanced today. Above all, he gets us to begin to think about whether the search for the rational grounds of morality is misplaced. Perhaps ‘tradition’, or some traditions, are a more useful basis for getting going in justifying a morality that can be properly described as rational.

Saadia Gaon points out the grandeur of Moses' miracles and their great duration as confirming the truth of his mission. Judah Halevi follows Saadia's lead in positing the notion of the Created Glory in order to explain the revelation to Moses in which he beheld God's back but not His face. Maimonides hints that Moses' prophecy too began in a naturalistic manner, the vision of the burning bush being a product of Moses' imagination. Spinoza's view of Mosaic prophecy emerges from his Theological-Political Treatise (1670). The discussions of the prophecy of Moses in the Middle Ages are very much connected to the belief in divine revelation and in the divine authority of the Bible, particularly the Pentateuch. It is the belief in Mosaic Law as the product of divine revelation that the medieval Jewish philosophical exegete shared with his prospective audience. Keywords: Judah Halevi; medieval Jewish philosophical exegete; Moses Maimonides; Pentateuch; prophecy of Moses; Saadia Gaon; Spinoza