Abraham ben David Abraham ben £liezer
Tin-: .lEWISII
liTtunl (U'vclopinont in n poiisidcrablc portion of the This (Uiatrer was uot so imminent i)eople for those .lews wlio lived in lands where Arabian eulture ruleil; for there the study of the Hebrew language "ihI poetry, and especially of the srienees
Jewish
and philosophy, would always have aliorded a wide tii'Ul for inlellcetual (hvelopuient. It was, therefore, siitheient that the U'adiuij; Jewish ralibis domiciled in .Moorish countries should devote much attention to furiiishinu; a clew to the labyrinth of the Talmud, intricate and peri)le.iii,!r as the latter had become by the addition of the copious postTalmudic literature of law and custom. Some .sort of jruide had become imperatively necessary for the practical application of this voluminnus and intri cati' nuileiial. l!ul in Christ ian countries like Fnincc and Germany, where the lari,'csl comnunitiesof Jews existed, tlirouirhout the Mi<l(llc Ages there was no such outlet for Jewish intellectuality as the culture of literature or of the sciences which e.xisteil in Moorish Spain, Their own reli,a;ioiis law was the only Jield open to the intellects of the Jews of Germany and norlh<-rn France, Tliat the Jewish mind remained fresh and produc live, in spile of the festrietioiis that hampered the IH-ople durin.i; the Middle Ages, is due Rashi and niaiidy to the elforts of such men as
BABaD.
Hashi and
Abraham ben David, who
the Talmud as an arena in whii-h they could exercise their intellect. In liis Contmentary, Hashi furnished a smooth and wellpaved road to the Talinuil while KABal), by his acute criticism, jiointcd out the way intelligently and with discrimination. This critical tendency is characteristic of all the writings of HAIiaD. Thus, utilized
commentary upon Torat Kolianim (])p. 41((, compare also Ilarkavy's " Respon.sen der Geonim "Studien nnd Mittheilnngen," iv. 164), wc in his 71/;;
" in
find the caustic observation that many obscure passages in rabbinical literature owe their obscurity to the fact that occasional explanatory or niar.irinal notes not tending toelucidate the text have been in-
The real strength of RAUaD is shown by his criticisms of the works of vaAttitude as rious autliors. The tone which he employs is also cliaraeteristic of his a Critic, corporated.
attitude toward the pei^ons under critAlfasi with the utmost respect, almost with humility, and refers to him as "the sun by whose brilliant rays our eyes are daz/.led " ("Temim De'im," p. 2i(i). His lan.guage toward ZeThough raliiah ha-Levi is harsh, almost hostile, only eighteen .years old, this scholar jiossessed the courage and the ability to write a sharp criticism upon Alfasi, and RABaD refers to him as an immature youth who has the audacity to criticize liis teacher. However, in fairness it must be stated that Zerahiah had himself provoked this treatment by icism,
lie treats
RABaD, and by incorporating own work some of liAI5aD's interpretations
sharply criticizing into his
without acknowledgment to the author (compare Gross, I.e.. .'54."), and I<eifmann, "Toledot," p .54),
Abraham's criticism of the " Yad ha-Hazakah " of Maimonides is also ver_v har.sh This, however, was not due to personal feeling but to
Maimon-
radical differences of view in matters of faith between the two greatest Tal BABaD. mudists of the twelfth century, IMai monides' aim was to bring order into the vast labyrinth of the Halakah by presenting final results in a detiidte, systematic, and methodical man liut in the opinion of RAHaD this very aim ner was the principal defect of the work. A legal code which di<l uot state the sources and authorities from
ides
and
ENCYCLOPEDIA
104
which its decisions were deriveil, and offered no jiroofs of the correctness of its statements, was. in
Abraham l)en David, entirely unreeven in the practical religious lif<', for which purpose -Maimonides designe<l it. Such a code, he considered, could bi' justilied only if written by a man claimiii.!: in fallibility by one who could demand that his as.sertioiis be aecepteil without (|uestion If it had been the intention of Maimonides to stem the further development of the study fif the Talmud by reducing it to the form of a code, RAUal) felt it Ids duty to oppose such an attemi>t. as contrary to the free spirit of r.ibbinical Judaism, which refuses to the opinion of liable,
—
surrender blindly to authority. R.Vlial) was thus an ojiponent to the codification of the Halakah but hi> was even more strongly opjjosed to the construction of a system of dogmas in Judaism, particuhirly according to the method followed by Jlaimonides, who often .set up the concepts of the Aristotelian idiilosophy as Jewish theology. Jlaimonides, for instance, in atvordance with his i)hilo.so|)hical conviction and in the true s]iirit of Juiiaism, declares the incorporealily of God to be a dogma of Judaism, or, as he formulates it, " whosoever conceiv<'S God to be a corporeal being is an apostate " (" Va<l ha Hazakah. Teshid)ah," iii, 7). In the circles with which RABaD was connected, a certain mystical anthropomorphistic conception of the Deity was usual and therefore it was but natural that a statement which practically declared his best friends apostates should arouse his resentment. He,' therefore, appenih'd to Maimonides' formida this brief but em|>liatic criticism- "Why docs he call such jiersons ajioslates'^ Men belter and worthier than he have held this view, for which they believe they have fotind authority in the Scriptures and in a confusing view of the Ilaggadah " The phrase concerning the Ha.srgadali shows that I{.VI5aD is himself far from advocating the anthropomorphistic vii'W. His opposition to Maimoiudes' statement of the ilocliine of the incorporeality of God is oidy directed against its being raised into Jud.dsin is to Abraham Ijcn David a rea dogma ligion of deed, and not one of dogmas. His attitude toward the teachings of Maimonides Judaism a in regard to the future life and the Religion of eleriuty of the world is in harmony Deed, not with this jioint of view According to
Dogma, him
the opiin'on of Maimonides on this was as distinctly ln'relical as the corporeality of God from the standpoint of Maimonides; yet lie has no word of vituperation for its author, but merely contents himself with recordin,g his difference of opinion (/ r. viii. 2, 8). Thus, the idtra-eonservative Talmudist was broaderminded and more tolerant than tlut greatest of the medieval Jewish philosophers (compare Smolensky, "'.m 'Ulain," chap, 13), Abraham ben David is jiarticularly severe on the attem]its of Maimonides to smu.irgle in his philosophic views under cover of Talmudic passages. To cite one example Sorcery, according to both Biblical and rabbinical law, is, imder certain conditions, an offense punishable with death The opinions in the Talmud on the various acts coming under the category of sorcery differ widely, owing, no doubt, to the fact that it was not practicable to look upon every superstitious practise, from which Talmudic Judaism itself was not entirely free, as a heinous offense JIaimonides, who from the pf)int of view of ills philo.sophy, looks upon sorcery, as trology, augury, tind the like as pure absurdities, decides that even the innocent actions which Scrip ture narrates of Eliezer (Gen, xxiv 14). and of
of
(|Uestion
