R. Saadia Gaon: A Leader of Generations 9798887192659

Citation preview

R. Saadia Gaon A Le a d e r of Generations

Emunot: Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah Series Editor: Dov Schwartz, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan Editorial Board: Ada Rapoport Albert, University College, London (d. 2020) Idit Dobbs-Weinstein, Vanderbilt University Gad Freudenthal, CNRS, Paris Gideon Freudenthal, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv Moshe Idel, Hebrew University, Jerusalem Raphael Jospe, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan Ephraim Kanarfogel, Yeshiva University, New York Menachem Kellner, Haifa University, Haifa Daniel Lasker, Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva

R. Saadia Gaon A Le a d e r of Generations

Eliezer Schlossberg

BOSTON 2023

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Schlossberg, Eliezer, author. Title: R. Saadia Gaon : a leader of generations / Eliezer Schlossberg. Description: Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2023. | Series: Emunot: Jewish philosophy and Kabbalah | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2023017755 (print) | LCCN 2023017756 (ebook) | ISBN 9798887192642 (hardback) | ISBN 9798887192659 (adobe pdf) | ISBN 9798887192666 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Saʻadia ben Joseph, 882-942. | Rabbis—Biography. Classification: LCC BM755.S2 S35 2023 (print) | LCC BM755.S2 (ebook) | DDC 296.092 [B]—dc23/eng/20230504 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023017755 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023017756

Copyright © Academic Studies Press, 2023 ISBN 9798887192642 (hardback) ISBN 9798887192659 (adobe pdf) ISBN 9798887192666 (epub)

Book design by Tatiana Vernikov Cover design by Ivan Grave On the cover: artwork by Mordechai-Menachem Schlossberg, 2023.

Published by Academic Studies Press 1577 Beacon Street Brookline, MA 02446, USA [email protected] www.academicstudiespress.com

Dedicated to my beloved wife, my lovely children, and my wonderful grandchildren

Contents Introduction 7 Chapter One: The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

14

Chapter Two: Polemic in the Writings of R. Saadia Gaon

52

Chapter Three: Education in the Writings of R. Saadia Gaon

80

Chapter Four: R. Saadia’s Translation of the Pentateuch

98

Chapter Five: Arabic, Islam, and Rhetoric in R. Saadia’s Work

117

Chapter Six: History, Consolation, and Messianic Future

140

Bibliography

183

Index of Names and Works

195

Index of Sources

199

Contents Introduction 7 Chapter One: The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

14

Chapter Two: Polemic in the Writings of R. Saadia Gaon

52

Chapter Three: Education in the Writings of R. Saadia Gaon

80

Chapter Four: R. Saadia’s Translation of the Pentateuch

98

Chapter Five: Arabic, Islam, and Rhetoric in R. Saadia’s Work

117

Chapter Six: History, Consolation, and Messianic Future

140

Bibliography

183

Index of Names and Works

195

Index of Sources

199

Introduction

One of my most important lecturers at Bar-Ilan University, the late Prof. Yehuda Ratzabi, used to say that if he had been asked to name the five most important and influential Jews of all generations, he would have included among them R. Saadia Gaon. Indeed, R. Saadia Gaon was unquestionably one of the most important if not the most important medieval Jewish thinker. He dealt with biblical exegesis, philosophy, grammar, poetry, prayer, and Halakha, and in many of these fields he is considered an innovator and a trailblazer, paving new paths for his followers. Proof of his status and centrality is not only the fact that many of the sages who lived after him cited from his writings—at times acknowledging these references and at times not—but also the fact that, even if they disagreed with him, they saw themselves compelled to relate to his views and grapple with them. Further evidence of this is the fact that he was called by the sages in later generations rosh ha-medabrim be-khol maqom [head speaker everywhere], a title that was originally given to Rabbi Yehuda, one of the greatest sages of the Mishnah. R. Saadia Gaon was born in 882 CE in the village of Dilāz, in the district of Fayyūm, Upper Egypt. For reasons unknown he left his birthplace and set out for Babylonia, the center of Jewish creativity at that time. Between 915 and 920, R. Saadia Gaon lived in Tiberias, where he studied Torah with Eli ben Yehuda ha-Nazir (or, by his Arabic name, Abū Kathīr Yiḥyā ben Zakariyyā), who was a grammarian, philosopher, and one of the first to translate the Scriptures into Arabic. In the Land of Israel R. Saadia dealt with Scripture, the Masoretic text, grammar, and piyyūt (religious poetry), acquiring a broad knowledge in these fields. In 921 R. Saadia Gaon lived briefly in Aleppo, Syria, and in 922 he arrived in Baghdād, where he was appointed rosh kallah, one of the heads of the Pumbaditha academy (yeshiva). R. Saadia Gaon’s education and areas of interest were extremely wide, and they played a crucial role in the writing of his commentaries on Scriptures and in the formulation of their character. Even though he had been born and brought up in Egypt, which was not at the center of the world of Jewish culture, his journey to Babylonia took him through all the Jewish and Arabic centers of Torah and learning of his day. Not having been educated in Babylonia, he was not a typical student of the Babylonian academy, which was somewhat cut off from

8

Introduction

the cultural and spiritual realities of the period. This in turn stunted growth and originality in rabbinical literature. R. Saadia Gaon’s talents and broad culture were expressed immediately upon his arrival in Babylonia. When he was an alūf at the academy of Pumbaditha, his main task was to teach Scriptures to the young students. It can be assumed that this was accompanied by related subjects, such as the masorah, the textual tradition, Hebrew grammar, and poetics. These studies had been neglected in Babylonia, and R. Saadia Gaon, who had studied them in Tiberias, was thus perfectly suited to teach them, and later also to author important works in these fields. In 928 the exilarch, David ben Zakkai, appointed him gaon, head of the Academy of Sūra. He gathered around himself students of the academy who had moved to the competing academy, Pumbaditha, and restored Sura’s previous standing. In 932, following a sharp dispute between him and the exilarch, R. Saadia Gaon was obliged to abandon his position as gaon and to find shelter for four years. In 937 the two were reconciled and R. Saadia Gaon returned to his post. His later years passed peacefully and without controversy until he died in 942. When R. Saadia achieved his goal, he could carry out his vision and lead the entire Jewish people in Babylonia, the Land of Israel, and the Diaspora. According to R. Saadia, the sages and righteous people bear responsibility for leading and guiding the people of Israel, but in each generation there is a single, unique sage who surpasses all others, and he is the genuine leader of the generation: “God will not withhold from his people a talmid—referring to a talmid ḥakham, a Torah scholar—in each generation who will teach and enlighten so that he may educate the people and they shall prosper at his hand.” In another source, he clarifies: The people will give thanks to their God for not withholding from them in each generation a person who has been enlightened by wisdom, as God promised to his people “As when juice is still found in a cluster of grapes and people say, ‘Don’t destroy it, there is still a blessing in it,’ so will I do on behalf of my servants; I will not destroy them all” (Isaiah 65:8).

R. Saadia formulated this approach gradually, over the course of the years he served as gaon of Sūra. However, in my opinion, this approach began to take shape in R. Saadia’s mind at an earlier stage, during the dispute with Aharon

Introduction

Ben Meir regarding the Hebrew calendar, or even beforehand, when he wrote his early works against the Karaites before departing from Egypt, his land of origin. The life of R. Saadia is a long journey aimed at serving as the gaon in Babylonia and leading the Jewish people. Furthermore, R. Saadia apparently saw himself as the nation’s supreme leader, the true leader of the generation whose role was more important than that of other sages. As I will try to prove in chapter one, he considered himself as that special wise talmid whose job it is to lead the people of Israel, to guide it, to align its beliefs and opinions. He dedicated all his works, interpretive, philosophical, polemical, liturgical, and even linguistic, to this purpose. In this book I will try to analyze R. Saadia’s path to fulfilling this vision. Each of the six chapters of the book deals with a different aspect of the Gaon’s literary and social activity, with the aim of showing how his entire enterprise is aimed at achieving one goal: leadership. Chapter one, “The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon,” will describe and analyze R. Saadia’s journey from Egypt, his birthplace, to Babylonia, the stations he passed through and how he prepared himself for the position for which he destined himself. Later in the chapter I will prove that he did indeed strive for leadership, overcoming obstacles along the way, and gained the coveted position, even though he was not a member of the pedigreed and wealthy families in Babylonia. The chapter will also prove, through quotes from the works of R. Saadia himself, that he considered himself this unique and special talmid who was supposed to lead the generation, and that his disciples also saw in him the leader worthy of it. In what follows, we will list the main goals of R. Saadia and describe and analyze the ways in which he tried to fulfill them. Chapter two, “Polemic in R. Saadia’s Work,” will discuss one of the main ways R. Saadia adopted in his writing. A careful study of his works shows that he was extensively involved in polemics with Jews—Karaites and other heretics— and Gentiles in a broad spectrum of fields and subjects. Most authors relate in one way or another to their predecessors and may frequently disagree with them but, in R. Saadia’s case, the inclination to polemic and controversy is particularly prominent. Often, the impression is that R. Saadia strived for disputes and that he exploited every opportunity to verbally confront opinions and beliefs he did not agree with.

9

10

Introduction

In this chapter we’ll review the polemics found in R. Saadia’s writings and point to their centrality in his work. We will also attempt to show that R. Saadia adopted this style of writing because he considered it helpful in the central task he had set himself: to protect his contemporaries from mistaken and pernicious ideas and to shield them from dangerous beliefs and opinions. In chapter three, “Education in the Writings of R. Saadia Gaon,” we shall discuss the status of education in R. Saadia’s works. The motives behind the works written by R. Saadia and the tendentious nature of his writings suggest that he used his literary enterprise as a means of achieving the main goals he had defined for his public endeavors, namely, eradicating ignorance and distorted ideas, and refuting the arguments of the heretics and the Karaite community, which he believed posed a threat to the very existence of the Jewish people and its faith in the teachings of the Torah. The central place in Jewish studies is of course occupied by the Bible. R. Saadia regarded the Bible as “a book of education for the human beings,” and therefore it contained all possible “methods of education.” In this his chapter we will discuss R. Saadia’s introduction to his Arabic translation of the Torah, in which he described the Torah as an “educational tome.” R. Saadia’s explanation of the educational methods used by the Torah incorporates an explanation for why the biblical stories are part of the Torah at all. His unique approach to biblical stories stands out in comparison to the different approach of other thinkers and philosophers, such as Maimonides. Chapter four, “R. Saadia’s Translation of the Pentateuch,” will be dedicated to his exegetical works. R. Saadia composed two kinds of commentaries on the Bible. The first, which is named “The Short Commentary,” Tafsīr, is a translation of the biblical verses into Arabic, in which the Gaon takes the liberty to change the syntactic structure, add words or omit them, and so on. The second is called “The Long Commentary,” Sharḥ, and in it R. Saadia discusses at length philological, philosophical, and Halakhic issues. It also contains polemics against Karaites and other Jewish heretics, and against Muslims and Christians. In the long biblical commentaries of R. Saadia we may distinguish two types of writing, one comprehensively “exegetical” and the other “monographic.” In the former type, exemplified by his commentary on the Pentateuch, R. Saadia comments on almost every verse and discusses the various areas of study for which the verses have served as scriptural support. In the “monographic” type,

Introduction

such as the commentaries on the Books of Job and Psalms, he only comments on selected verses while giving expression to ideas and concepts that he has developed in the introduction to that commentary. Despite the great importance of R. Saadia’s Tafsīr of the Torah and despite its enormous impact on the generations of commentators who lived and worked after him, we do not currently have a proper edition of the Tafsīr that would include the information about the differences between its existing versions, as is customary. The preparation of a new critical edition, which will be based on as many sources as possible and on reliable texts (to the extent that the world’s libraries permit), appears unavoidable. The author of this book has worked for many years to prepare a critical edition of R. Saadia’s translation of the Torah, which will be based on dozens of manuscripts and printed sources. During this chapter we will present the basic guidelines for the preparation of the critical edition, including the manuscript that will be used as the main text, the manuscripts that will be used to highlight the readings appearing in other versions, and the degree of reliance on Yemeni and non-Yemeni sources. As mentioned in chapter two, R. Saadia’s works often contain polemics with other religions, especially with Islam. Chapter five, “Arabic, Islam, and Rhetoric in R. Saadia’s Work,” will be devoted to an examination of his attitude towards Arabic language and the Muslim religion. There is no doubt that R. Saadia was indeed proficient in the literature of his time. It turns out that he was well versed in both practical Arabic grammar and theoretical linguistic thought, was well acquainted with Arabic poetry, and was also familiar with the interpretation of the Qur’an, or at least its fundamental principles. For this reason, there are many areas in which R. Saadia was influenced by Arabic language, literature, and culture. They encompass grammar and linguistics, interpretation and philosophy, prayer and custom, poetry and piyyut, and in fact all areas of R. Saadia’s work. In this chapter we will discuss R. Saadia’s use of Arabic contexts. The influence of Arabic literature on R. Saadia is evident not only in the content of his writings, but also in their external form. This is true, for example, of the introductions that precede his commentaries on the Bible and his Halakhic, philosophical, and liturgical writings. There is also no doubt that R. Saadia was influenced by adab literature, which was intended to expand the education and linguistic knowledge of the Muslim intellectuals, especially those who were part of the government service or held public positions.

11

12

Introduction

Many works of R. Saadia and other authors in the Middle Ages include sections of adab that were written under the direct, or indirect, influence of this Arab genre. In this chapter we will demonstrate the influence of adab literature on R. Saadia through his commentary on the verse ‫[ תפוחי זהב במשכיות כסף דבר דבור על אפניו‬A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in ornaments of silver] (Proverbs 25:11). In his long commentary on this verse, he makes ten observations on rhetoric and expression, which are an example of the influence of adab literature on him. A close comparison between these observations and some of the most important adab books leads to the conclusion that R. Saadia did not copy his observations from adab books but was influenced by them indirectly. As a leader, one of R. Saadia’s most important goals in his literary work was to encourage the people of Israel in its long exile, the end of which could not be seen, to strengthen its spirit and its faith in the future Messiah, who will redeem the people and return it to its land, as prophesied by the prophets of Israel. In addition to direct encouragement, R. Saadia mobilizes the history of the people of Israel, to draw from it lessons and encouragement regarding the future redemption. In this context, we shall prove in chapter six, “History, Consolation, and Messianic Future,” that R. Saadia regards the commandment to chant kriyat Shema` twice a day, morning and evening, as part of the divine desire to instill in the people of Israel the certainty that future redemption will come, that the prophecies of the prophets will be completely fulfilled, and even more. In addition, the commandment to remember the Exodus from Egypt at every opportunity, inscribed within many other Torah commandments, is an integral part of the desire to instill in the people of Israel the belief in future redemption and its necessity, to encourage the people in exile and comfort them. In this context one must probably understand the special effort made by R. Saadia to prove that Daniel was a prophet. In his commentary on the book of Daniel and in many other places in his writings, R. Saadia Gaon invested substantial effort in proving that Daniel was a prophet and that his visions and dreams were prophecies, even though the book does not explicitly use this term. Our hypothesis is that one of R. Saadia’s main goals in his writings was to raise the spirits of the people of Israel in exile and to boost its faith in its ultimate redemption. The emphasis made by R. Saadia on the prophetic aspects of the book of Daniel coincides with this goal, because it could have been more effectively achieved after proving that Daniel’s visions were prophecies voiced publicly.

Introduction

*** Over the years I have published many articles on R. Saadia, his works, leadership, and status among medieval sages and among sages in later generations, for example, among Yemeni commentators. Some of what is written in the six chapters of this book has previously been published in various journals, and some has never been published. Those parts that have already been published in the past have also been reedited and new sources have been added for their publication in this book. I hope this book will help to shed further light on the extraordinary personality and works of Rabbi Saadia, the man who strived for leadership to help his people face the difficulties of exile, ignorance, and wrong beliefs and opinions, while encouraging anticipation of the coming redemption.

*** I would like to warmly thank Academic Studies Press for their contribution to the publication of the book and, first and foremost, Professor Dov Schwartz, Series Editor of "Emunot: Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah." I am grateful to Alessandra Anzani, Editorial Director; Kate Yanduganova, copyeditor; Kira Nemirovsky, production editor; Marina Eskin, indexer; Tatiana Vernikov, book designer; Ivan Grave, cover designer; and my talented grandson, Mordechai Menachem Schlossberg, who drew the artwork for the cover. Without their dedicated work I would not have been able to make this book available to you, readers, researchers, and those who are just curious and interested.

13

Chapter One

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon There are many ways to attain positions of leadership and authority. Some achieve them by chance and by surprise, as Saul did when he set out in search of donkeys and found kingship;1 or Yehu ben Yehoshafat, who was anointed suddenly and without prior warning.2 Others inherit leadership and authority from their fathers, like many of the kings of Judah and Israel. Some leaders, King David for example, accept the role with humility and without objection,3 while some refuse the exalted role offered to them and attempt to reject it, such as Moses,4 and even go so far as to physically distance themselves from the responsibilities being imposed upon them, as was the case with the prophet Jonah ben Amitai.5 In some cases, defiant action was necessary to maintain the family dynasty and prevent the crown from being passed on to a different candidate, as in the case of King Solomon.6 There are examples of special or irregular circumstances that resulted in the unexpected appointment of a leader, such as Yiftach the Gileadite;7 and other examples of leaders who were the most natural choice, such as Aharon the Priest, who was beloved by the entire nation.8 Even in modern times, there is no lack of examples of people who attained positions of authority because of their important lineage. Some take control

1

1 Samuel 9:3 etc.

2

2 Kings 9:2–6.

3

1 Samuel 16:13.

4

Exodus 3:11 etc.

5

Jonah 1:3.

6

2 Kings 1:5–49.

7

Judges 11:1–11.

8

Numbers 20:29.

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

by force and military coup, such as Jamāl `Abd al-Nāṣir in Egypt, others are selected as a compromise, following internal power struggles, such as Muḥammad Anuwar al-Sādāt in the same country a few years later, and still others are considered born leaders who were destined for greatness even from a young age. Another type is those who persistently aspire for a position of public leadership throughout their lives, out of a profound sense of being the person God had destined to lead his people. R. Saadia Gaon is a prime example of the latter group. He was appointed gaon, dean of the Academy of Sūra9 in Babylonia, after aspiring for this role throughout his entire life. His personal history was rife with public service and attempts to achieve the highest possible position of leadership and authority, out of the conviction that this was the role God had destined for him during the unique times in which he lived. This chapter will describe the life journey taken by R. Saadia Gaon in his quest to become gaon and illustrate his undertakings and achievements once he realized his goal.10 R. Saadia ben Yosef is also known by his Arabic name, Sa`id ibn Yūsuf.11 He was born in the village of Dilāz, in the district of Fayyūm in the western part of Upper Egypt, which is why he was known as al-Fayyūmi.12 His opponents, the Karaites, claimed that his father was not a Torah scholar, but rather an idol worshiper who had been expelled from Egypt.13 However, Rav Shrīrā Gaon de-

9

The title gaon in Babylonia referred to the head of one of the two academies (yeshivot), Sura and Pumbaditha, and it is likely that it was an abbreviation of rosh yeshivat geon Yaakov [head of the academy, splendor of Jacob]. On the duties and role of the geonim, see, for example, S. Assaf, The Era of the Gaons and Its Literature (Jerusalem, 1977) [Heb]; Y. Brody, Readings in Geonic Literature (n.p., 1998); Z. Berger, “The Geonim,” in Leader and Leadership: Collection of Articles, ed. I. Malchi and Z. Tzachor (Jerusalem, 1992), 143–163 [Heb].

10 See also H. Ben-Shammai, “The Exegetical and Philosophical Writings of Saadia Gaon: A Leader’s Project,” Pe`amim 54 (1993): 63–81 [Heb]. 11 This is the name by which R. Saadia refers to himself in the acrostic in his Hebrew introduction to Ha-Egron (ed. N. Allony [Jerusalem, 1969], 156–160). Each letter in the acrostic appears twice at the beginning of the segments: ”‫“על‬/”‫;“עד‬ ַ ”‫ספר‬ ‫“דור‬/”‫דרכה‬,“ ”‫“יען‬/”‫ ;“ירעה‬and so on. 12 His adversaries muddled this name, which refers to Fayyūm, his district of origin, and called him Pithūmi, referring to the city of slaves called Pitom mentioned in Exodus 1:11, to emphasize his seemingly inferior origin. 13 S. Schechter, Saadyana—Geniza Fragments of Writings of R. Saadia Gaon and Others (Cambridge, 1902), 20, 1:8. Even when approaching this tendentious and biased information from a prominent polemic source with caution, it is true that Yūsuf,

15

16

Chapter One

scribed R. Saadia as “Rav Saadia son of Rav Yosef,”14 a wording usually reserved for Torah scholars, thus refuting the Karaite claim that was apparently made merely to provoke controversy. Few details are known of his childhood and young adulthood. However, we do know that he married, bore children, and taught students before departing from Egypt.15 In 902, at age twenty, he penned the first edition of his work, Egron,16 and apparently his first polemic work, Al-Radd `ala Anān [The Refutation of Anan] as well. At the time, he apparently corresponded with the wellknown Jewish philosopher and physician, R. Isaac Israeli ben Solomon of Cairo. The exact year of R. Saadia’s departure from Egypt is unknown; however, most scholars agree that by 915 he was no longer in Egypt. The reasons for his departure are unclear as well. Some claim he left because of difficulties imposed by the regime or by the local Jewish community. He may have left with his father, who also departed around the same time.17 In my opinion, R. Saadia left Egypt because he believed he was destined to take the leadership of the Jewish world, which was centered in Babylonia. R. Saadia’s destination was the Land of Israel, at the time a more important cultural center than Egypt, his own land of origin.18 According to renowned Muslim historian Abu al-Ḥasan `Alī al-Mas`ūdi, R. Saadia studied in Israel in 915–921 under Abū Kathīr Yiḥyā ben Zakariyyā, also known as Al-Kātib al-Tabbarāni [the Scribe19 of Tiberias], whom scholars associate with Eli ben

R. Saadia’s father, did not spend his entire life in Egypt, as it is known that he died in Jaffa. 14 Igeret Rav Shrīrā Gaon, ed. B. M. Levin (Haifa, 1921), 117, ll. 11–12 (the French rite). 15 Later, after being appointed gaon, R. Saadia maintained contact with these students, sent them letters, and implored upon them to tighten their ties with him and with the geonim in Babylon. 16 As he indicated himself in his introduction to the first edition of Ha-Egron (159) and to the second edition (153). 17 See various sources in A. Dotan, The Dawn of Hebrew Linguistics: The Book of Elegance of the Language of the Hebrews by Saadia Gaon (Jerusalem, 1997), vol. 1, 18 [Heb]. 18 H. Malter, Saadia Gaon: His Life and Works (Philadelphia, 1921), 43. 19 Note that the meaning of the title “scribe” in the Land of Israel at the time was reserved for those who dealt with Scripture and mesora. See Dotan, The Dawn of Hebrew Linguistics, 34.

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

Yehudah ha-Nazīr,20 a grammarian and philosopher. However, this association has not been unequivocally proven.21 Under this teacher and the other ba`alei masorah of Tiberias and liturgists of the Land of Israel, R. Saadia mastered the art of liturgy and linguistics. AlMas’ūdi listed Abu Kathīr as one of the Jews who translated the Scripture into Arabic,22 and therefore it is likely that R. Saadia learned the ancient exegesis traditions of the Land of Israel from him. As Dotan hypothesizes, it is possible Abu Kathīr inspired R. Saadia to translate the Bible.23 For reasons unknown, R. Saadia left Tiberias and settled in Babylonia. He might have been drawn to the Talmud and academies of Babylonia, or he might have been disillusioned by the sages of Israel.24 I believe that Tiberias was no more than one stage in his journey towards fulfilling his ultimate goal of leading the Jewish world. R. Saadia had originally left Egypt in order to reach the largest and most important center of Jewish culture and leadership, namely, the home of the geonim. His goal of becoming the leader of the Jewish nation could be realized only by attaining the position of gaon in Babylonia. In 921, R. Saadia stopped briefly in Aleppo, in northern Syria, en route to Babylonia. He reached Baghdad in the summer of 921 and was appointed rosh

20 This sage is mentioned, for example, by D. Qimchi [Radaq], Sefer Michlol (ed. I. Rittenberg [Jerusalem, 1866, repr. 1966], 72). 21 Dotan, The Dawn of Hebrew Linguistics, 19. According to Dotan, if we accept Malter’s hypothesis that Al-Mas`ūdi had met with R. Saadia in Tiberias in 926, and if we accept the hypothesis that R. Saadia did not counter Ben-Meir in the dispute about the calendar (see below) while he resided in the Land of Israel, we must assume that R. Saadia traveled from Egypt to Babylonia, then spent several years in the Land of Israel, and then returned to Babylonia in 926. See also S. W. Baron, “Saadia’s Communal Activities,” in Saadia Anniversary Volume, ed. B. Cohen (New York, 1943), 24–25, who says that R. Saadia first traveled to Babylonia before spending several years in Israel; however, in Baron’s opinion, he returned to Babylonia before 921. 22 Abu Al-Ḥasan `Ali Al-Mas’ūdi, Kitāb al-Tanbīh wal-`Ishrāf (Leiden, 1894, repr. 1967), 113. 23 Dotan, The Dawn of Hebrew Linguistics, 19. According to Dotan, while R. Saadia resided in Tiberias, the vibrant heart of the masorah scholars, he composed his comprehensive work on the rules of Hebrew grammar entitled the Book of Elegance of the Language of the Hebrews (ibid., 37–38). 24 Ibid., 19.

17

18

Chapter One

kallah (chief lecturer)25 at the academy of Pumbaditha, the larger and more prestigious of the two great Babylonian academies of those times.26 In Babylonia, R. Saadia sided with the local geonim in their dispute with R. Aharon ben Meir, leader of the academy in Jerusalem,27 who attempted to change the fixed calculations used to determine the dates of the holidays on the Jewish calendar. It appears that this controversy began no later than early 921, in the month of Cheshvan 4682, as it is unlikely that R. Saadia would have taken a stance against a gaon of the Land of Israel while he still lived there.28 The controversy was based on an argument regarding the months of Cheshvan and Kislev of the year 4682 (late 921), which should have had thirty days each according to the rulings of the sages of Babylonia. However, ben Meir argued that they should be short months, that is, twenty-nine days each.29 In fact, the roots of this controversy extended much deeper, and actually reflected a dispute over the authority to fix

25 For a more detailed description of this position and others in the great academies of Babylonia, see also R. Brody, The Geonim of Babylon and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture (New Haven, 1990), 54–66; and his Readings in Geonic Literature, 18–23. 26 Baron, “Saadia’s Communal Activities,” 45. However, according to Malter, R. Saadia was at the Sura Academy at the time. See Malter, Saadia Gaon, 90. 27 According to Moshe Gil, Meir, father of Aharon, was a gaon in the Land of Israel during the dispute, while his son, Aharon, was the leader of the party that opposed the sages of Babylonia. M. Gil, A History of Palestine (634–1099) (Tel Aviv, 1983), vol. 1, 462 [Heb]. 28 Dotan, The Dawn of Hebrew Linguistics, 18. Also see Schechter, Saadyana, 25, which indicates that R. Saadia apparently led the dispute while he was in Babylonia. 29 For a detailed account of this controversy, see H. Y. Bornstein, The Dispute of R. Saadia and Ben Meir (Warsaw, 1904) [Heb]; M. D. Cassuto. “About What did Rav Saadia Gaon and Ben Meir Argue?,” in Rav Saadia Gaon, ed. Y. L. Fishman (Maimon) (Jerusalem, 1943), 333–364 [Heb]; Y. Merzbach, “More about the Dispute between R. Saadia and Ben Meir,” Sinai 16 (1945): 236–241 [Heb]; A. Epstein, “The Dispute between Ben Meir and the Babylonian Academies,” in Antiquities of the Jews: Studies and Notes, ed. A. M. Haberman, vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1956), 420–441 [Heb]; A. A. Lasker and D. J. Lasker, “642 Parts—More concerning the Saadia-Ben Meir Controversy,” Tarbiz 60 (1991): 119–128 [Heb]; R. Sar-Shalom, “The Dispute of R. Saadia Gaon and Ben Meir: The Controversy between Babylonia and the Land of Israel,” Sinai 111 (1993): 98–124 [Heb]; A. A. Lasker and D. J. Lasker, “More concerning the 642 Parts,” Sinai 113 (1994): 90–93 [Heb]; R. Sar-Shalom, “More on the Dispute of R. Saadia Gaon and Ben Meir,” Sinai 114 (1994): 91–93 [Heb]; A. Stern, “R. Saadia’s Method for Sanctifying the New Month,” Tḥumim 23 (2003): 287–297 [Heb]; and Sacha Stern, The Jewish Calendar Controversy of 921/2 CE (Leiden, 2019).

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

a Jewish calendar that would bind the entire Jewish Diaspora. Ben Meir believed that this was the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land of Israel and its scholars, while the Jewish leadership of Babylonia, including R. Saadia, insisted on their right to express an opinion on this fundamental and crucial issue. When R. Saadia decided to stand by the sages of Babylonia, he turned the tide in their favor. The sages asked R. Saadia to put the story of the calendar controversy into writing, in a special essay called Sefer ha-Zikkaron, written in the form of a scroll and divided into verses with cantillation notes, to resemble the Scripture. The scroll was read publicly by the Jewish community that same year, during the month of Elul. Another essay by R. Saadia that described this debate was entitled Sefer ha-Mo`adim [Book of Holidays]. From this point on, R. Saadia became the greatest authority on the Jewish calendar, thus also reinforcing his status among the sages of Babylonia. During those years, he went on to write additional essays on Jewish law, as well as polemic works denouncing the Karaite community. The Academy of Sura was in a state of decline at the time, after the majority of its students had abandoned it for the academy of Pumbaditha. In an attempt to keep Sura open, David ben Zakkai, the exilarch at the time, sought a great scholar who could serve as a counterweight for Rav Kohen Tzedek, dean of the academy of Pumbaditha. Appointing R. Saadia as dean of Sura was daring and unexpected, as, despite his scholarly knowledge and public demeanor, he was not of Babylonian origin and lacked the social connections typically required of a person of such exalted status.30 His uncompromising personality was deemed problematic as well, as he was described later on as “a person who never feared another, and did not act graciously with others, because of the extent of his wisdom . . . and his fear of sin.”31 It can be assumed that his decision to side with the sages of Babylonia in the dispute over the calendar, his diverse literary achievements, his battle against the Karaites, heretics, and infidels, and his vast Torah knowledge were deciding factors in his appointment.32

30 See also Brody, Readings in Geonic Literature, 20–21, about the process of appointing geonim and the considerations for their appointment. 31 A. Neubauer, Medieval Jewish Chronicle, vol. 2 (Oxford, 1893), 80. R. Saadia’s uncompromising confrontation with the exilarch several years later further supports this description. 32 For a wide-ranging analysis of what conditioned the character and education of R. Saadia Gaon, and which prepared him for a central role in the development of

19

20

Chapter One

Upon his appointment as gaon in the spring of 928 [4687], R. Saadia began one of his greatest enterprises, namely, maintaining contact with the Jewish communities throughout the Diaspora. He sent letters to communities in Spain, including those in Cordova, Elvira, and Lucina, and requested their support for his academy. He also sent letters to Egypt, his land of origin, and called upon the Jewish community there to maintain contact with him, send him their questions, and support his academy. This correspondence was part of his attempt to achieve recognition as leader of the entire Jewish world. It seems that being appointed dean of the Academy of Sura was the realization of his lifelong goal, as many of the students who had left Sura now returned. However, the idyllic relations between R. Saadia and David ben Zakkai, the exilarch, were not long-lived. When R. Saadia refused to approve an inheritance that would have benefited the exilarch, though Rav Kohen Tzedek, dean of Pumbaditha, had already granted his approval, tension grew between them that ultimately severed their relations.33 With the consent of the dean of Pumbaditha, ben Zakkai ostracized R. Saadia, dismissed him from his office, and appointed a new dean in his place.34 R. Saadia, in turn, dismissed ben Zakkai from his office and appointed Yoshiyahu, David’s brother, as the new exilarch. R. Saadia prevailed until 932, when Al-Qāhir succeeded his predecessor as caliph (932–943), and R. Aharon Sarjado, R. Saadia’s chief opponent,35 used his rabbinical literature in the Middle Ages, as well as contacts between Jewish and Arabic literature, see R. Drory, The Beginning of the Contacts between Jewish and Arabic Literature in the Tenth Century (Tel Aviv, 1988), 158–160 [Heb]; her Models and Contacts—Arabic Literature and Its Impact on Medieval Jewish Culture (Leiden, 2000); R. Brody, R. Saadia Gaon (Jerusalem, 1967), 39–42 [Heb]. 33 Brody, Readings in Geonic Literature, 19, and note 24. He hypothesizes that R. Saadia’s attempts to intervene with the Muslim authorities via his affiliates, which was generally the responsibility of the exilarch, also contributed to the tension between R. Saadia and David ben Zakkai. 34 R. Shrira Gaon described R. Saadia’s successor as follows: “He was young and a minor scholar in comparison with R. Saadia.” About the story of the controversy between David ben Zakkai and R. Saadia, see also Igeret Rav Shrīrā Gaon, 117, ll. 11–118, l. 13. 35 R. Aharon Sarjado was ultimately appointed dean of the Pumbaditha Academy. His hostility towards R. Saadia might have been caused by his personal aspiration to be appointed gaon. R. Abraham ben David (Ravad, Cordova, 1110–Toledo, 1180) wrote of R. Sarjado and his wealth, without hiding his criticism: “The seventh generation [of the sages of Pumbaditha] was R. Aharon ha-Cohen ben Sarjado, after the passing of R. Hanina [father of R. Shrīrā Gaon, who died in 941, according to R. Abraham

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

vast wealth to influence the new caliph. R. Saadia was forced to relinquish his position and seek refuge for over four years. A reconciliation between R. Saadia and ben Zakkai finally took place in 937, and R. Saadia resumed the role of dean of Sura, although David ben Zakkai remained the exilarch and the dean who had replaced R. Saadia during his exile continued to receive a salary. Rabbi Abraham ben David (Ravad) summarized the events that led to the controversy and its disturbing repercussions as follows, while clearly taking a stance in support of R. Saadia. And then he [David ben Zakkai] sent out a message to the Land of Egypt and brought R. Saadia al-Fayyūmi from there and he became dean of the academy in Mata Meḥasya [Sura] for two years. After this time, a terrible dispute caused a clash between R. Saadia and David ben Zakkai the president, as exilarches were not people of integrity and would purchase their position from the kings like [dishonest] tax collectors. And David ben Zakkai sought a ruling, and the ruling was given unfairly and in his favor. He sent a message to R. Saadia asking him to carry out the ruling, and he [R. Saadia] refused. And he sent Zakkai, his son, a second time to convince R. Saadia and he said that if he does not respect the ruling, he [Zakkai, the son] would strike his head with a shoe. The students [of R. Saadia] were then infuriated and stood up as one to strike the son of the exilarch with their many shoes. He returned to his father, ashamed and humiliated. His father strengthened his position as king and gathered a large camp of people from the community, and R. Saadia formed a second camp from the community and appointed Yoshiyahu ben Zakkai as the new exilarch instead of David, his brother. Then David overpowered with the support of the regime and ousted his brother and sought to kill R. Saadia. R. Saadia hid for some seven years, and while in hiding authored all his works. R. Saadia was one of the influential people of Judea and a descendant of Shela, son of Judah, and of R. Hanina Ben Dosa. David ben Zakkai appointed R. Yoseph, son of R. Yaakov, son of R. Mordechai. Then David the exilarch and R. Saadia made peace. But nevertheless, R. Yoseph was not removed from his position and R. Saadia

ben David]. He was a great merchant and was promoted because of his wealth and not because he was worthy, and he died in 960.” Ravad, Sefer ha-Kabballah (ed. Gershon Cohen [Philadelphia, 1967], 43, ll. 117–119). R. Shrira Gaon described R. Sarjado as “very mighty and fearsome.” Igeret Rav Shrīrā Gaon, 120, l. 23–121, l. 1.

21

22

Chapter One

was not restored to his position as gaon. And R. Yoseph was the gaon for fourteen years. And then David ben Zakkai died.36

R. Saadia’s dedication and devotion to his literary enterprise, which was such an integral part of this leadership, became even more pronounced during the difficult years when he fled for his life from David ben Zakkai and wrote several of his most monumental works. One example is Sefer ha-Galūi, a work directed against the exilarch that addresses general matters as well, such as messianic calculations and prophecy. During this time, he also composed the Book of Beliefs and Opinions (Sefer Emūnoth ve-De`oth) and a commentary on the book of Daniel. As noted, towards the end of his life, R. Saadia reconciled with David ben Zakkai, and even appointed ben Zakkai’s son to succeed his father after his death in 940. R. Saadia spent his final years in relative peace and serenity and passed away in 942. Ravad described his final years as follows, and added his acclamation of R. Saadia’s lifetime achievements: R. Saadia passed away in the year 4702 at the age of fifty,37 of the mara sheḥora [melancholia] after composing several works and doing great things for the people of Israel. He responded to questions about the heretics and the infidels, one of whom had fabricated Torah as he saw fit and R. Saadia testified to have seen teachers teaching these falsehoods to other children in books and on boards, until R. Saadia stopped them. The other events of R. Saadia and the great things he did for the people of Israel have been written in the book Sefer ha-Galūi and in the letter he left for his son, R. Dosa, as written to R. Hasdai ben Yitzhak of blessed memory.38 And after the death of R. Saadia, the academy in Mata Mehasya [Sura] began to decline until R. Joseph fled to al-Baṣrah and died there.39

36 Ravad, Sefer ha-Kabballah. 37 As a matter of fact, R. Saadia passed away in the year 942, at the age of sixty. 38 Igeret R. Dosa. R. Dosa was the son of R. Saadia. In his letter he recounts the history of his father’s life and literary creativity. The Igeret itself was published in Jacob Mann, “A Fihrist of Sa`adya’s Works,” J.Q.R. (new series) 11 (1920–1921): 423–428. The absent segments from the beginning of the letter were completed by Alexander Scheiber. See A. Scheiber, Genizah Studies (Hildesheim, 1981), 69. 39 Ravad, Sefer ha-Kabballah, 41, l. 81–42, l. 109.

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

R. Saadia had two sons, who also climbed the ranks of the academic hierarchy in Babylonia. She’erit studied in the Academy of Sura while his father was its dean and was awarded the title aluf; and Dosa served as dean of Sura between the years 1013 and 1017, after the passing of R. Hophni Gaon. R. Saadia’s literary works, as well as his efforts to attain the role of gaon, prove his aspiration for public leadership. Researchers of R. Saadia’s works debate about the reason he composed a commentary on the Bible. The majority offer explanations that are based on the scope of his exegesis. Yehuda Ratzabi, for example, wrote that, since R. Saadia’s choice of essays was guided by his practical aspirations and by the needs of the community, he offered translations and commentaries only on the biblical books that the people of Israel often study for purposes of religion and custom, namely the Torah, Sifrei Emet (Job, Proverbs, and Psalms), and the five megillot [scrolls].40 Indeed, all the commentaries that were unquestionably composed by R. Saadia were written for books that are traditionally read publicly in many communities. Portions of the five books of the Torah, the Pentateuch, are studied and read by Jewish communities worldwide each Sabbath. According to Ratzabi, R. Saadia offered a translation and commentary on Isaiah, as many of its chapters are read each Sabbath as the haftarah portion after the traditional Torah reading, and because of the prophecies of consolation and encouragement it contains.41 His commentary on the book of Jeremiah42 can be explained the same way, as it too contains many haftarah portions. The many chapters read in the haftarah from the books of Ezekiel and the Twelve Minor Prophets might have inspired R. Saadia to compose a commentary on them as well; however,

40 Y. Ratzabi, “Segments of R. Saadia’s Commentary on Lamentations,” Bar Ilan University Annual 20–21 (2006): 350 [Heb]. 41 Ibid., note 9. 42 It is very likely that R. Saadia wrote a commentary on the book of Jeremiah because the Talmud writes that it is permissible to read it on 9 Av and other days of mourning, although Torah study is forbidden on these days. As R. Saadia wrote in his prayer book, “there are several additions [on 9 Av] to the Day of Atonement, namely, it is forbidden to read [the Scripture] and study Mishnah and Talmud, other than the devastating portions such as Jeremiah, Job, and Lamentations, and the story of the destruction in the Talmud in Tractate Nezikin [Damages] and ‘the three chapters.’” Saadia Gaon, Prayer Book, ed. Israel Davidson, Simcha Assaf, and Yissachar Yoel (Jerusalem, 1979), 318, ll. 10–14 [Heb]. The source of this ruling is Tractate Ta`anit 30a, and Tosfot Mo`ed Qatan 21a.

23

24

Chapter One

many of these prophecies are not traditionally read publicly. The book of Psalms, on which he wrote commentaries as well, is customarily read on many occasions. R. Saadia referred to it as the “book of remedy for God’s worshipers”43 and described it as “the complete book of ethics and the most exhaustive guidebook, that should be read at all places, at all times, by all people of every age.”44 According to Ratzabi, R. Saadia wrote a commentary on the book of Proverbs because of “its moral value for educating the youth and the masses.”45 Although there is no clear evidence of a practice of studying the book of Proverbs on specific dates during the time of R. Saadia, in later years it became customary to study this book during the weeks between the Passover and Shavu`ot holidays—on weekdays in Yemen,46 and on Saturday afternoons in Spain and in North Africa.47 The book of Job, like the book of Jeremiah, is one of the few books in the Bible that may be read on 9 Av, the day of mourning over the destruction of the Holy Temple, and in other times of mourning. There was also a custom of reading the book of Job between the holiday of Shavu`ot and 9 Av because of the admonishment it contains and the words of consolation at its end.48 The Five Scrolls are also traditionally read on the Jewish holidays: the Song of Songs is read on Passover,49 Ruth is read on Shavu`ot, Lamentations on 9 Av, Ecclesiastes on Sukkoth, and Esther on Purim.

43 The Book of Psalms with the Translation and the Commentary of R. Saadia Gaon, ed. Y. Qafiḥ (Jerusalem, 1966), 33 [Heb]. 44 Ibid., 27. 45 Ratzabi, “Segments of R. Saadia’s Commentary,” 350, note 9. 46 Y. Qāfīḥ, “Eleven laws from the teaching of R. Saadia Gaon,” Sinai 77 (1975): 1 [Heb]. 47 N. Fried, “Study of the Scroll of Antiochus,” Areshet 4 (1996): 173–174; T. Parschel, “The Custom of Reading the Books of Job and Daniel in the Summer,” Ha-Tzofeh (1982): 6. 48 Parschel, “Custom,” 6. 49 Saul Lieberman quotes a midrash that indicates that the Song of Songs is read on the Sukkot holiday. See his Midreshei Teiman (Jerusalem, 1940), 13 and note. However, common practice was to read it on Passover. See introduction by Amos Hacham to his commentary on Song of Songs, Da`at Miqra (Jerusalem, 1933), 14–15. In addition to the sources brought there, also note the opinion of R. Halafta that the Song of Songs should be read on the “nights of Passover” (M. Friedlander, “The Beginning of a Commentary on the Song of Songs,” The Jubilee Book to M. Steinschneider [Lipsia, 1896, repr. Jerusalem, 1970], Hebrew section, 53. As a matter of fact, this is the commentary of R. Zechariah ben Solomon ha-Rofe, author of Midrash ha-Ḥefeẓ, published in The Five Scrolls with Translation, ed. Y. Qafih [Jerusalem, 1962]) [Heb].

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

Ratzabi hypothesizes that the book of Daniel was translated into Arabic because, during the time of R. Saadia, the Arabic language was more familiar to the people than Aramaic.50 However, if this had been the only reason, R. Saadia would have most likely translated the Aramaic segments of the book of Ezra as well, though there is no clear evidence that he has done so. There are sources that indicate that, in the countries in the east, the book of Daniel was read before the afternoon prayers on the Sabbath afternoons between 9 Av and Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, or even through the Sukkoth holiday because of the words of comfort and consolation it contained.51 Ratzabi’s approach can be supported by the fact that R. Saadia translated not only the Scripture, but also the scrolls written by the Hasmonean family (in particular, the Scroll of Antiochus), which were typically read on Hanukah, as indicated by ancient Baladī rite prayer books used by the Yemenite community.52 Nevertheless, it is unlikely that the sole motivation for R. Saadia’s exegesis was to explain for the masses the Scripture read on fixed dates through the year, as findings from the Geniza collections show that medieval Jewish communities traditionally studied nearly all the Scripture and not only those books read publicly on Jewish holidays. Segments of all the books of the Neviim [Prophets] and the Ketuvim, except for the Books of Chronicles, were found in the Geniza in similar quantities as segments of the Torah. Psalms and the Five Scrolls were more prevalent than other books of the Bible, but only slightly so. Many segments of the books of the Early Prophets were found, as well as excerpts from the Later Prophets. It seems that older scholars in the Middle Ages attempted to cover all the Scripture in their studies, or at least a vast majority.53 A closer analysis of the introductions written by R. Saadia to his commentaries and of the methodological notes he incorporated in his explanations seems to indicate that his exegesis is intertwined with the social developments

50 Ratzabi, “Segments of R. Saadia’s Commentary,” 350, note 9. 51 See Parschel, “Custom.” 52 See R. Saadia Gaon’s translation of the Scroll of Antiochus, in his The Book of Daniel with a Translation and Commentary by R. Saadia (ed. Y. Qafih [Jerusalem, 1981], 219). On the anti-Karaite aspects of R. Saadia’s commentary on the Scroll of Antiochus, see also Malter, Saadia Gaon, 173. 53 S. D. Goitein, Educational Regimes in the Days of the Geonim and the House of Rambam (Jerusalem, 1962), 53 [Heb].

25

26

Chapter One

of his time, and with his perception of himself as a public leader whose mission it was to safeguard his people and preserve Torah learning. Salo Baron proved that R. Saadia’s greatest aspiration was to become a public leader, and that all his efforts and unprecedented literary enterprise during the time of the geonim were channeled towards attaining that goal.54 However, this argument is based primarily on works such as Al-Radd `alā `Anān [The Refutation of Anan] and Kitāb al-Radd `alā Ḥīwī al-Balkhī, in which he responded to Hiwi, a well-known Bible critic of his time from the city of Balkh,55 and not on works that are not decisively polemic, such as his biblical exegesis, as they were written in Arabic56 and were addressed to Muslim and Jewish audiences alike. In my opinion, the literary works of R. Saadia comprise a single unit, and it is impossible to differentiate between the reasons he wrote his commentaries and the reasons he composed his linguistic, liturgical, legal, and philosophical essays, even if all his motives are not evident in each and every one of his works. The main literary genre of the geonim era is the responsa literature, the rulings and answers given by the geonim in response to questions addressed to them. This genre is based on questions presented by another individual and not by the gaon, who presents his opinions and rulings only after being asked. Most of the questions in this genre are related to specific issues pertaining to Jewish law, in which the gaon is asked to rule on a specific issue, or to clarify a Talmudic verse that is the source for a given Halakha. However, in some of the queries received, the gaon was asked to provide commentary on biblical verses or topics not directly related to Jewish law. No responsa written by R. Saadia has been found that deviate from distinctly Halakhic or liturgical matters.57 However, R. Saadia does mention several

54 Baron, “Saadia’s Communal Activities,” 9. 55 Balkh is a town in the Balkh Province of Afghanistan and an ancient center of Zoroastrianism and Buddhism. 56 See R. Abraham ibn Ezra’s Short Commentary on Genesis, 2:11, which is the basis for this opinion. 57 Yet, a response was found, written by a different gaon, that addressed a question on the “Ten Songs” mentioned by R. Saadia in his commentary on the book of Exodus. See A. E. Harkavy, Memory of the Rishonim and Also of the Aḥaronim, vol. 4 (Berlin, 1987, repr. Jerusalem, 1966), section 66 [Heb]. See also H. Ben-Shammai on the commentary on the Ten Songs, “New Findings in a Forgotten Manuscript: Samuel ben Hofni’s Commentary on Ha`azinu and Saadia’s Commentary on the Ten Songs,” Qiryat Sefer 61 (1986–1987): 320–327 [Heb], in which he argues that the Gaon

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

times that he wrote his commentary on the Torah in response to requests he received, and not at his personal initiative. In his introduction to his translation of the Torah, he wrote the following: I authored this work only in response to a request from several people who asked me to write a special book for them in which I explain the simple meaning of the words of the Torah . . . and that I record only the matters pertaining to the Torah itself, and I found their request favorable.58

Although apologetics of this kind were common among Jewish and Muslim authors alike, I believe R. Saadia’s words are genuine, as they offer a plausible explanation for his long commentary and translation. Even the critique written by R. Mubashshir Halevī on the writings of R. Saadia indicates that many people implored upon R. Saadia to interpret verses or topics from the Scripture. In one of his observations, R. Halevī writes that In his work [of R. Saadia], may God have mercy on him, in the Torah portion of Aḥarei Mot, there is a statement that “it is suitable that I explain the matter of the lottery between the two goats and the matter of `Azazel, because I have been asked about it many times.”59

In one of his letters, R. Saadia encourages his readers to ask questions about the words of the Torah and not to hesitate to refer their questions to him. As he tells the people of Israel: If you must know the words of the Torah, do not hesitate to ask and perform the commandments without any doubt, as it will not be desirable to you. Instead, send us your questions and we will be with you and not withhold anything from you.60

appended this essay to his commentary on the book of Exodus, and its subject is a commentary on the ten songs found in the Bible. On R. Saadia as a halakhic authority, see R. Brody, “The Halakhic Enterprise of R. Saadia Gaon,” Pe`amim 54 (1993): 82–92 [Heb]. 58 Saadia Gaon, Arabic Translation of the Five Books of the Torah by R. Saadia Gaon, son of Joseph, of Fayyum, ed. N. Derenbourg (Paris, 1893), 4 [Ara]. 59 A Critique against the Writings of R. Saadya Gaon by R. Mubashshir Halevi, ed. M. Zucker (New York, 1955), 112. 60 D. Revel, “The Letter of R. Saadia Gaon,” Dvir 1 (1923): 187 [Heb].

27

28

Chapter One

However, it seems that only a small part of R. Saadia’s commentaries were written in response to a specific request. He generally penned his works at his own initiative and when inspired to do so, based on his perception of himself and the role he sought to hold in his generation and in his time. R. Saadia believed that the Sages were the successors of the Levites, who taught Torah to the people during the era before the destruction of the Temple. The verse “and they that understand among the people shall instruct many” in Daniel 11:33 was interpreted by R. Saadia as referring to the sages of blessed memory, who replace the Levites while the people of Israel are in exile, as the role of the Levites was to “teach your ordinances to Jacob, and your Torah to Israel” (Deuteronomy 33:10), which was responsibility of the rabbis61 of the earlier and later eras.62

In another source, R. Saadia compares the responsibilities of the righteous to those of the prophets: “As the prophets were leaders [of the people] at the time, so the righteous will be leaders of their generation.”63 However, the role of the sages was not limited to teaching Torah. Their main responsibility was to monitor the state of the nation and prevent the people from forsaking the path of the righteous. When explaining the verse “Pass through, pass through the gates! Prepare the way for the people. Build up, build up the highway! Remove the stones. Raise a banner for the nations” (Isaiah 62:10), R. Saadia understands that the prophet is instructing the righteous person as follows:

61 Note that R. Saadia uses the Arabic word ‫( אלרבוניין‬meaning the rabbis who do not belong to the Karaites). Consequently, his definition of “they that understand” did not include the intellectuals of the Karaite community. 62 Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 203. In a different source, R. Saadia defines those who “learn for themselves” as “they that understand,” and writes that those who “fit men to serve their Master and teach them what they must know in order to come night unto Him, will be classified among those ‘that turn the many to righteousness’” (Daniel 12:3). See Saadia Gaon, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, trans. Samuel Rosenblatt (New Haven, 1948), 356; Saadia Gaon, Kitāb al-Muchtār fī al-`Amānāt wal-`I`tiqādāt (Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth), ed. Y. Qafih (Jerusalem, 1970) [original Arabic version with annotated Hebrew translation], 286. 63 Saadia Gaon, “What Survived and What Escaped from Sefer ha-Galūi,” in A. E. Harkavy, Memory of the Rishonim and Also of the Aḥaronim, vol. 5 (Petersburg,1892 ), 158, ll. 12–13.

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

To warn the nation and awaken it . . . as it is written: “Pass through, pass through”—Go back and instruct your brethren; “Prepare the way for the people”—Order them to correct their ways; “Build up the highway”—Stop them with a warning; “Remove the stones”—Remove all that is evil from their hearts, so that it may not trip them up like a stone; “Raise a banner”—Voice all promises publicly and do not fear the nations.64

In yet another source, R. Saadia summarizes the responsibility of the sage as “to invoke the assistance of Providence in instructing [his] fellowmen and guiding them aright.”65 This coincides with his fervent appeal to the people of his generation to address requests for guidance to the wise people and follow their instructions, as it is written “Then you shall do according to what they declare to you” (Deuteronomy 17:10). He goes so far as to state that the simple people who cannot read the words of the Torah but seek the guidance of the wise people of their generation and from the great God-fearing people and follow their guidance—their religiosity is intact, as it says, “The lips of the righteous nourish many” (Proverbs 10:21). However, if they do not follow their guidance, their conduct cannot be pardoned, as it is written, “Mockers resent correction so they avoid the wise” (Proverbs 15:12).66

R. Saadia further reinforces the status of the sages by ruling that on a Shabbat on which a sage passes away, the portion beginning with “The glory has departed from Israel” (1 Samuel 4:21) is read in the synagogues.67

64 Saadia Gaon, Isaiah with Translation and Collections from the Commentary, ed. N. Derenbourg (Paris, 1896), 141; Rav Saadia’s Translation and Commentary on Isaiah, ed. Y. Ratzabi (Kiryat Ono, 1993), 352–353 [Ara and Heb]. 65 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 356; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 286. 66 Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 191. In his commentary on Proverbs, R. Saadia Gaon explains that the mocker rejects the words of the wise, whether spoken in private or in public. 67 Saadia Gaon, Prayer Book, 431, section 3; Saadia Gaon, Sefer ha-Yerushot and Other Halakhic Essays (ed. Yoel Miller [Paris, 1897], 155, section 5) [Heb]. To the best of our knowledge, his ruling was not publicly accepted, as on the Shabbat when R. Shrīra Gaon and the Shabbat when Maimonides passed away the haftarah portion

29

30

Chapter One

In his commentary on the book of Daniel, R. Saadia compares a Torah scholar to all the people of Israel. When discussing Daniel’s prayer for the people’s redemption, R. Saadia asks: How can one of the righteous people ask for mercy for a group or a nation and hope to be answered? If he is a cohen [priest], this would not come as a surprise, as God, may he be extolled and exalted, appointed him for this purpose, . . . but a person who is not one of the cohanim [priests], how can he hope for his prayer for the nation to be accepted?

R. Saadia answers his own question by saying that “there are deeds that are the responsibility of the entire nation, and anyone who is the first to take them upon himself will carry out that deed for the nation, as Pinchas did in Shitim (Numbers 25).68 The sages and righteous people bear responsibility for leading and guiding the people, but in each generation there is a single, unique sage who surpasses all others, and he is the genuine leader of the generation, as it is written that “God will not withhold from his people a student69 in each generation whom He will teach and enlighten so that he may educate the people and they shall prosper at his hand.”70 In another place, he clarifies: The people will give thanks to their God for not withholding from them in each generation a person who has been enlightened by wisdom, as God promised to his people: “As when juice is still found in a cluster of grapes and people say, ‘Don’t destroy it, there is still a blessing in it,’ so will I do on behalf of my servants; I will not destroy them all” (Isaiah 65:8).71

beginning with “The glory has departed” was not read, but rather other portions related to the incident were read (see The Complete Works of Abudraham [Jerusalem, 1963], 303 [Heb]). 68 Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 164–166. 69 This is referring to a talmid ḥakham, a Torah scholar. See also A. E. Harkavy, Memory of the Rishonim and Also of the Aḥaronim, vol. 5 (Petersburg,1892 ), 42, note 5. 70 Saadia Gaon, “Sefer ha-Galūi,” 154, ll. 2–4. 71 Ibid., 158, ll. 7–12. Another take on this idea, this time referring not to a Torah scholar, but rather to a leader who saves his people from disaster in every generation, can be found in his introduction to the translation of the Scroll of Antiochus (Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 221). This idea is also voiced by R. Yehuda Ibn Tibon, even

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

According to Salo Baron, R. Saadia formulated this approach gradually, over the course of the years he served as gaon of Sūra.72 This opinion is most likely based on the final and complete presentation of this perspective in Sefer haGalūi, which was written in 935–936 and was apparently R. Saadia’s final work.73 However, it is possible that this approach began to take shape in R. Saadia’s mind at an earlier stage, during the dispute with Aharon ben Meir regarding the Hebrew calendar, or even beforehand, when he penned his essays against the Karaites before departing Egypt, his land of origin. There are two sources that indicate that R. Saadia viewed himself as that prominent sage who had been chosen to safeguard his people and look after them. After presenting his perception of the sage appointed by God in each generation to teach Torah to the people and guide them along the path of the righteous, R. Saadia adds that “the reason for this is what I saw in my soul, as God has acted with benevolence towards myself and the [Jewish] people.”74 In other words, R. Saadia writes that God has been gracious by choosing him to lead the people and by giving the people a sage like himself in their generation.

though he writes that, in each generation, there is more than one Torah scholar: “our sins caused us to deviate from the ways of the Torah and wisdom, and the sheḥina has departed and there is no longer prophecy or a divine force among us, but God’s mercy on us has not ceased and he has left us with remnants, with two or three gleanings in his vineyard in each generation to enlighten those who have remained, so that they can bask in the light of wisdom, give strength to the fatigued, and power to the helpless” (Ibn Tibon’s introduction to his translation of Ḥovot ha-Levavot [Warsaw, 1878], 2a). A later expression of this idea is given by Hazon Ish: “God’s special supervision in each generation is on the individuals whom he has planted in each generation to teach his rulings and laws to the people of Israel, and when they delve into Jewish law, even in our times, the spirit of the heavens is upon them, and they rule on the major Halakhic questions of family relations and other major issues, and, at times, a strong spirit emerges from their mouths that penetrates the hearts of the people, and this is favorable to God (Igrot Ḥazon Ish, part 1 [Bnei Berak, 1955], igeret 33). 72 Baron, “Saadia’s Communal Activities,” 57. 73 Regarding the date on which the book was written, see Saadia Gaon, “Sefer ha-Galūi,” 147; and Malter, R. Saadia Gaon, 296. According to S. Poznanski, “Miscellen ueber Saadja, III: Die Berechnung des Erloesungsjahres bei Saadja,” MGWJ 44 (1900): 402, Sefer ha-Galūi was written before the commentary on the book of Daniel; however, according to H. Malter, “Saadia Gaon’s Messianic Computation,” Journal of Jewish Lore and Philosophy 1 (1919): 59, which is the opinion I prefer, it was written after this commentary. 74 Saadia Gaon, “Sefer ha-Galūi,” 154, ll. 4–6.

31

32

Chapter One

In his great philosophical work, Book of Beliefs and Opinions (Sefer Emūnoth ve-De`oth), R. Saadia described several of the flawed opinions he had encountered among his generation, and concluded by saying: But inasmuch as my Lord had grunted me some knowledge by which I might come to their assistance and had endowed me with some ability that I could put at their disposal for their benefit, I thought that it was my duty to help them therewith and my obligation to direct them to the truth. Something of this order was also expressed by the saint (ḥasīd): “The Lord God hath given me the tongue of them that are taught, that I should know how to sustain with words him that is weary. He wakeneth morning by morning, He wakeneth my ear to hear as they that are taught” (Isaiah 50:4).75

It appears that R. Saadia was not alone in perceiving himself as a great Torah scholar who bore the responsibility to lead and educate his generation. His students shared these sentiments as well. One of his students, who listed his illustrious teacher’s achievements in his battle against Hiwi al-Balkhi and other heretics, wrote the following: He was blessed by the entire nation, supporters and opponents alike, and they blessed the merciful God who had never abandoned his people, generation after generations, as He promised: “For the sake of his great name, God will not reject his people because God was pleased to make you his own” (1 Samuel 12:20).76

A comparison between the Arabic sources for what was written by R. Saadia and by his student show that they used precisely the same words. R. Saadia wrote: ‫ פי כל עצר‬. . . ‫אן אללה לא יכ’לי אמתה‬,77 and his student used similar words: ‫אלד’י לא יכ’לי אמתה פי כל עצר‬.78 It can be assumed that the teachings of R. Saadia penetrated the consciousness of the student and influenced him.

75 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 7–8; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 5–6. 76 M. Zucker, The Translation of the Torah by R. Saadia Gaon (New York, 1959), 21. 77 Saadia Gaon, “Sefer ha-Galūi,” 155, ll. 2–3. 78 Zucker, The Translation, 20.

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

Another student named R. Menachem described his teacher as worthy of what Hiram King of Tyre said about King Solomon: “Because God loves his people, he has made you their leader” (2 Chronicles 2:10).79 Though Hiram actually said that God “made you their king” (not “leader”), R. Menachem apparently changed the word intentionally to suit the spiritual leadership that was possible in exile, when the people of Israel could not appoint a king. A third student sings the praises of R. Saadia’s works, and compares them to the words of the prophets: I would swear upon it and it would be a truthful testimony, that each time I read the words of the dean of the academy, may God have mercy on him, and the answers he wrote to the questions presented, it comes to my mind that his words resemble those of the prophets and bring joy to the heart of their reader.80

This student seems to be referring to an opinion voiced by R. Saadia, as described above, that the sages and the righteous are the successors of the prophets, meaning that the writings and the responses of the dean, the leading Torah scholar of the generation, are in fact an extension of the words of the prophets. The opinions of R. Saadia’s students seem to fully reflect the self-perception of their teacher regarding his role and the responsibility he bore to lead the people. His perception of his role in his generation was expressed not only in the statements quoted above, but in his own writings as well. In the remnants of a manuscript attributed to R. Saadia in which he describes his journey from Egypt to Israel and to Babylonia, he writes the following: Because you have studied my heart and you know; you have searched and found . . . and therefore your [servan]t set out on a journey to the [La]nd of Canaan and the land of [Babylonia], . . . and now, you, my God, who has removed me from my city, shall lead me to my destination in peace . . . and return me to the home of my father.81

79 A. Harkavy, “Collections from R. Saadia Gaon,” Ha-Goren 1 (1898): 91 [Heb]. 80 Zucker, The Translation, 104. 81 Schechter, Saadyana, 133, l. 5–134, l. 1. The additions to the text were made based on B.-Z. Dinur, Israel in the Diaspora, vol 1, book 2 (Tel Aviv, 1961), 391, segment 5 [Heb].

33

34

Chapter One

From this fragmented text, Ben-Zion Dinur deduced that “with these words, R. Saadia highly emphasized his role as an emissary, which caused him to leave Egypt and travel eastward. God had ‘removed’ him from the city of his birth, after studying his heart and finding him worthy of this mission.”82 However, this conclusion is debatable, as R. Saadia may have written these words in the context of his polemic against the Karaites and in response to their claim that he had not left Egypt of his own free will, but rather had been expelled, along with his father who was “expulsed from the Land of Egypt and died in Jaffa.”83 In his work Essa Meshalī, R. Saadia calls upon the heretics to listen to the teachings of the sages. He warns them in his poetic words that they will not be able to claim they were not forewarned, as “the watchman has blown the shofar . . . and he who takes caution shall flee.”84 In this stanza, R. Saadia describes himself85 as the watchman who is responsible for warning the people of imminent danger, as it is written in the book of Ezekiel, “the people of the land choose one of their men and make him their watchman, and he sees the sword coming against the land and blows the trumpet to warn the people, then if anyone hears the trumpet but does not heed the warning and the sword comes and takes their life, their blood will be on their own head” (33:2–4). R. Saadia believed that should he fail this mission and not lead the people on the path of the righteous, the people

82 Dinur, Israel in the Diaspora, 459–460, note 15. A similar conclusion also emerges from ibid., 459, note 11: “the harshness of R. Saadia’s words was related to his understanding of his mission and destiny, which accompanied him in all his endeavors.” 83 Schechter, Saadyana, 20, l. 8. 84 S. Abrahamson, “A New Segment from the Essay Essa Meshalī by R. Saadia Gaon,” Sinai 84 (1979): 101, l. 7 [Heb]. In this paper, Abrahamson reads the last word in this stanza as molet [flees]; however, in a different paper entitled “New Readings and Additions to a Segment from Essa Meshalī,” Sinai 85 (1979): 93 [Heb], he retracts his previous reading and prefers yimmalet [lit. “shall flee”]. 85 According to Abrahamson, “A New Segment,” 98 and 101 (note 9), R. Saadia is referring to himself in this stanza. The writings of the Karaite Daniel al-Qumisi also refer to the leaders of the people as “watchmen”; however, in his opinion they had failed to warn the people as expected of them, as it is written “‘Hear this, you priests’ (Hosea 5:1), which refers to those who are called priests, though they are not actually priests. Instead, this refers to the exilarches from the descendants of David who should face judgment for being a ‘snare’ to the people at Mitzpah, as it was common practice to place watchmen at Mitzpah to warn the people of war and trouble, but you, the watchmen of Israel, stood at Mitzpah and did not tell the truth to the people.” Daniel al-Qumisi, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets [Pitron Shneim `Asar], ed. I. D. Markon (Jerusalem, 1958), 7 [Heb].

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

might reject the word of God and abandon their faith entirely, and therefore he asked God for assistance: Rise up, dear God . . . give me strength to teach your Torah, and the fortitude to judge your people, for should your merciful ways be silences, many will reject your teaching, as your patience is no match for their endurance.86

When the people sin, R. Saadia considers himself responsible for praying on their behalf and speaking favorably of them: “I came forward today to pray on their behalf, my Lord, answer my prayer with your great mercy.”87 R. Saadia’s acknowledgement of his status among the people and of his own responsibility are also evident in a letter he sent after being appointed gaon, in which he wrote “we must warn them, and you must safeguard yourselves and save your souls.”88 Elsewhere he wrote: Children of Israel, you must be knowledgeable of the words of the Torah. Do not hesitate to ask and uphold its words out of doubt, as this is not desirable of you. Instead, question and inquire with us, and we shall be with you and not withhold anything from you . . . people of Israel, all that we have spoken we shall write in scrolls and teach them to you so that you hold it close to your hearts, because this shall be your salvation.89

In a separate letter, R. Saadia emphasized the magnitude of the responsibility he bore, and his efforts to fulfill his obligations. He wrote: We command and write to you letters of warning and admonishment to awaken your hearts and stir your soul so that you keep the

86 From the Hebrew version of Sefer ha-Galūi (Schechter, Saadyana, 6). 87 Saadia Gaon, Prayer Book, 293, ll. 19–20. 88 Revel, “The Letter of R. Saadia Gaon,” 184. According to Revel, this letter was sent to the Jewish community in Spain (ibid., 182–193). However, according to J. N. Epstein, in “The First Letter by R. Saadia,” Dvir 1 (1923): 190, it was sent to Egypt. This is also the opinion of B. Levin in “Kittab Rosh ha-Yeshiva al-Fayyumi,” Ginzei Qedem 2 (1923): 33; and S. Abrahamson in Centers and Diaspora during the Geonim Era (Jerusalem, 1965), 34 [Heb]. 89 Revel, “The Letter of R. Saadia Gaon,” 187. Similar ideas were recorded in his second letter as well (Levin, “Kittab,” 33).

35

36

Chapter One

commandments of our God. We teach what should be done so that you shall live, and what should not be done so that you shall not die. This is our obligation, and we hope to uphold this great responsibility that we have been given.90

As R. Saadia was fully aware of the central role he had been assigned in the Jewish world, he wrote the majority of his works at his own initiative and out of a sense of obligation, and not in response to questions addressed to him by others. In the introductions to his works, he often emphasized the benefits the reader would reap from studying them, contrary to the authors of other important works from the time of the geonim, such as Halakhot Gedolot, Halakhot Pesukot, and Sheiltot, who refrained from doing so. In his introduction to Kitāb al-Shahādāt wal-Wathā`iq [Sefer ha-Eduyot veha-Shtarot], he wrote: This is a book of Jewish law (kitāb al-fiqh) that I will be writing for the Jewish people. I deemed it necessary to begin with this work as there is great need for these rulings in the nation, and I realize the many benefits it will have for the people.91

When explaining why he decided to pen Sefer ha-Galūi, R. Saadia wrote: I penned this book when I noticed [some] people who were lacking the understanding and ability to study in the Hebrew language and read the verses, punctuated and cantillated correctly, which would ease their reading and improve their ability to retain it [in memory]. This work was composed for ten reasons, each with clear value to our people. Seven of these reasons are related to individual benefit, and three benefit the entire nation.92

The immense benefit and need of R. Saadia’s work were presented as his reason for his commentary on the commandments and the future of the people in the fifth chapter of Sefer ha-Galūi: “I inserted them into this book, all together, so

90 Abrahamson, Centers and Diaspora, 39, ll. 8–13. 91 H. Hirschfeld, “The Arabic Portion of the Cairo Genizah at Cambridge—Saadyah Fragments,” J.Q.R. (old series) 16 (1904): 299; M. Ben Sasson and R. Brody, eds., The Book of Testimonies and Legal Documents by Saadia ben Joseph Gaon (Jerusalem, 2021), 57. 92 Saadia Gaon, “Sefer ha-Galūi,” 152, ll. 2–8.

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

that the reader would be aware of them. And the reason for doing so is that I saw the great need of the people for a work of this kind”.93 R. Saadia composed his unique prayer book for similar reasons. In their responsa, the geonim generally referred to customs incorporated into prayer rituals outside Babylonia only when specifically asked. Seder Rav Amram Gaon, the most important prayer book before the time of R. Saadia, was drafted in response to a question received about prayer rites.94 R. Saadia, on the other hand, indicated in his introduction to his prayer book that one of his primary goals was to criticize the various customs he had encountered during his travels. In other words, his prayer book was penned at his own initiative and not in response to a specific request. His awareness of his role and mission is also reflected in the explanations he provides for composing a piyyut entitled Et Hashem Elokekha Tira [lit. “You shall fear Hashem your God”]: We found that the people of our generation have grown accustomed to hearing, at the end of the mussaf prayer [of the Shavu`ot holiday], the main points of all God’s commandments to his people, in an essay beginning with the words ata hinchalta. I studied this text and found that it does not contain all the commandments and found many repetitions and long-windedness that are not worthy of mention in this volume. Therefore, I deemed it necessary to compose an alternative, not because this is so fundamental it cannot be escaped, but because the hearts of the people are drawn to it.95

The extensive, diverse works of R. Saadia, which he perceived as a major part of his mission and responsibility, have, in my opinion, four main objectives.

1. Preventing Controversy R. Saadia criticized his generation for its many expressions of destructive controversy, even though the very existence of debate and dissension between religious leaders was quite welcome to him: 93 Ibid., 154, l. 6–9. 94 R. Brody, “On the Question of the Composition of Rav Amram Gaon’s Prayer Book,” in Knesset Ezra: Literature and Life in the Synagogue, ed. Shulamit Elizur et al. (Jerusalem, 1994), 31, note 41 [Heb]. 95 Saadia Gaon, Prayer Book, 156, ll. 11–18.

37

38

Chapter One

When two wise people confront one another as part of their pure quest for knowledge, one sharpens the mind of the other to a significant extent and opens gates in his mind that did not exist beforehand, and he is inspired to respond to arguments that he had never encountered before. I emphasize “their pure quest” because many people in our time do not speak to learn from the other, but rather only for the sake of argument, which does not leave room for pure quests.96

Calling upon the people to cease their destructive, unholy controversy, R. Saadia referred to the second day of creation, when the waters below the heavens disputed with the waters above the heavens (Genesis 1:7) and God did not summarize his creation that day by saying that “it was good.” R. Saadia concludes from this that people must not divide themselves into groups and there should be no controversy among them.97 R. Saadia’s work went much further than this. In his Halakhic works and responses to questions raised by his followers, he ruled in cases of Halakhic debates. In works such as the Book of Beliefs and Opinions (Sefer Emūnoth veDe`oth) he attempted to resolve philosophical disputes. For example, R. Saadia set out to explore the essence of the soul and what comes after death: “I have, namely, found a bewildering variety of opinions to exist among men regarding its nature, differences that distract the mind.”98 He devoted the seventh chapter of the Book of Beliefs and Opinions to the resurrection of the dead, seeing that this was a controversial issue among the people: I have noted, moreover, that some few of the Jewish nation interpret every verse in which they find mention made of the resurrection of the dead at the time of the redemption as referring to the revival of a Jewish government and the restoration of the nation. Whatever, on the other hand, is not dated as taking place at the time of the

96 Proverbs with Translation and Commentary by R. Saadia, ed. Y. Qafih (Jerusalem, 1976), 223. 97 Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, ed. Moshe Zucker (New York, 1984), 31 [Ara and Heb]. The source of R. Saadia’s commentary is Bereishit Rabbah (4:6) and Yalkut Shim`oni (1:5), brought in the name of R. Hanina, as well as Ha-Midrash ha-Gadol (ed. Margaliot [Jerusalem, 1975], 28, l. 13), brought in the name of R. Meir. 98 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 235; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 193.

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

redemption is applied by them to the world to come. I have, therefore, dedicated the present treatise specifically to this subject.99

2. Eradicating Ignorance R. Saadia laments the lack of desire among the people of his generation to toil at Torah study, and their tendency to prefer ignorance and to use abbreviated versions, though many will not invest even in these: For the people of our generation, toil and effort are a burden and ignorance are the easier option in their eyes. If the knowledge they seek in Torah learning is not presented to them in a very accessible manner; if it is not presented in the most convenient way, like prepared food, baked bread, cooked meat, and poured wine [they will ignore it]. And I pray they will desire it [when presented in an accessible fashion], as the wisest of all men wrote, “Wisdom of women100 has built her house, she has set up its seven pillars” (Proverbs 9:1).101

In addition to this harsh description, R. Saadia presents various opinions that he attributes to the masses, such as interpreting the verse “Then the eyes of both of them were opened” (Genesis 3:7) to mean that Adam and Eve were blind before tasting from the Tree of Knowledge;102 or the belief that walking in front of a person who is praying will cause his prayer to be stopped,103 or that the masses of this country labor under the impression that whoever goes to India becomes rich. It has likewise been reported about certain uneducated people of our own nation that they labor under the illusion that something resembling a whale swallows the moon as 99 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 265; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 218–219. 100 This word is missing in the rite that is available to us. 101 Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 4–5, and the Hebrew translation, ibid., 167. In his commentary on Proverbs, R. Saadia directs this verse towards the Karaites and other types of heretics, and therefore Zucker concludes (ibid., 167, note 9) that R. Saadia’s commentary on Genesis also refers only to the heretics, and not to the entire nation. However, this hypothesis is disproven, in my opinion, by his use of the term “the people of our generation,” which is general and seems to include a larger population and not isolated individuals only. 102 Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 274. 103 Saadia Gaon, Prayer Book, 32, ll. 5–8.

39

40

Chapter One

a result of which it becomes eclipsed. [It is] also [related] about certain uneducated Arabs that they are under the impression that whoever does not have a she-camel slaughtered on his grave is brought to the last judgment on foot. And many other such ridiculous [stories are circulated].104

One of R. Saadia’s main battles against ignorance was waged in the field of linguistics. For example, he explained that he wrote his book Ha-Egron because of the people’s lack of knowledge of the Hebrew language and its idioms: I have seen that many of the people of Israel are unfamiliar with the basic principles of the language, to say nothing of the difficult words it contains. And when they speak, many of their words are incorrect. When they compose poetry, they recall very little of the ancient principles, and much has been neglected and abandoned. The same applies to rhymes, to the point that the Scripture itself is baffling and incomprehensible. Therefore, I had no choice but to compose a book in which I will aggregate most of the words.105

The same reason is given for writing a book listing seventy unique words that appear only once in the Scripture, following an anti-Karaite polemic: I have seen people who deny what has been relayed to them in the name of the prophets regarding the commandments and the legal rulings that are not written, and some of them deny what they have heard from the words of the nation that does not appear in the book [Scripture] . . . . I have found people who do not believe the word of the law to be true, and they are lost in these words and do not understand their true meaning. Therefore, I have undertaken to collect these words from the Scripture and interpret them; each and every word; and present evidence of my explanations from the language used in the Mishnah and from what is commonly used by people in contemporary language. I realize this has various benefits, one of which is

104 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 26; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 23. 105 Saadia Gaon, Ha-Egron, 150, l. 33–152, l. 40, where he summarizes the reasons for composing this book.

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

that the people will understand the meanings of these words and will no longer be perturbed by them.106

One reason for writing his prayer book was to combat the ignorance among the people that often caused inaccuracies in their prayers: In the countries in which I traveled107 I saw three things108 that inspired me and called upon me to eradicate them, as there are parts of the tradition of our people in the prayers and blessings that have been neglected and abandoned, and even completely forgotten and eliminated by all but the most outstanding of people. And certain parts have been added or erased, to the extent that they have changed so drastically that the reasons they were initially composed are no longer evident.109

The desire to overcome the effects of ignorance also inspired R. Saadia to write his famous piyuut, Ha-Bbaqqasha [Request]: As I saw that few understand [the noncompulsory prayers] and I feared that the individual who prayed in order to become closer to God would actually distance himself with his mistaken words, I composed this baqqasha in two versions.110

106 N. Allony, “R. Saadia’s Introduction to His Work on the Seventy Unique Words,” in Sefer Zaidel, ed. H. M. Y. Gevaryahu (Jerusalem, 1962), 244. The Arabic source of the book was published by Allony under the name Kitāb al-Sab`īn Lafrc, in Goldhizer Memorial Volume, ed. S. Loewinger and J. Somogyi (Jerusalem, 1958), 1–47. About R. Saadia’s reasons for writing this book, see also Nissan Netzer, The Language of the Sages in Medieval Hebrew Grammatical Works (PhD diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1983), 1–3 and 56–57 [Heb]. 107 In Arabic source the word is Al-Buqqā`, which is the region between Baalbek, Homs, and Damascus (Yāqūt al-Hamawi, Kitāb Mu`jam al-Buldān [Beirut, 1977], part 1, 470). R. Saadia passed through this area on his journey from Israel to Aleppo in the north. 108 The Gaon refers to neglecting portions of the prayer rite, as well as additions or omissions, which he discussed beforehand. 109 Saadia Gaon, Prayer Book, 10, l. 26–11, l. 6. About other reasons for composing his prayer book, see also Baron, “Saadia’s Communal Activities,” 11. 110 Saadia Gaon, Prayer Book, 45, l. 21–46, l. 1. To understand the importance of the two baqqashot [requests] mentioned, it will suffice to quote R. Abraham ibn Ezra’s words of acclaim for them. After harshly criticizing the liturgy of R. Elazar Ha-Qalir,

41

42

Chapter One

Ignorance is not only dangerous in itself. It can breed distortion, deviations, and even heresy, which R. Saadia battled relentlessly.

3. Eradicating Misguided Thinking R. Saadia’s unrelenting struggle against misguided and mistaken thinking comprises a substantial portion of his work. His horror upon encountering erroneous opinions is evident in his introduction to the Book of Beliefs and Opinions (Sefer Emūnoth ve-De`oth). He likened himself to a swimmer who must dive into the depths to assist the helpless people who are drowning in the sea of doubt and disinformation: When, now, I considered these fundamentals and the evil resulting therefrom, my heart was grieved for my species, the species of rational beings, and my soul was stirred on account of our people, the children of Israel. For I saw that in this age of mine many believers whose belief was not pure and whose convictions were not sound, whilst many of the deniers of the faith boasted of their corruption and looked down upon the devotees of the truth, although they were themselves in error. I saw, furthermore, men who were sunk, as it were, in seas of doubt and overwhelmed by waves of confusion and there was no diver to bring them up from the depth nor a swimmer who might take hold of their hands and carry them ashore. But inasmuch as my Lord had grunted me some knowledge by which I might come to their assistance and had endowed me with some ability that I could put at their disposal for their benefit, I thought that it was my duty to help them therewith and my obligation to direct them to the truth. Something of this order was also expressed by the saint (ḥasīd): “The Lord God hath given me the tongue of them that are taught, that I should know how to sustain with words

which he claims lacks four things (“most of his liturgy is puzzles and allegories . . . his poems incorporate Talmudic language . . . even the words from the holy language contain many mistakes . . . all his poems are based on midrash and agada”), Ibn Ezra goes on to write that “R. Saadia Gaon avoids these four shortcomings in his two requests, which are unlike any ever composed, in their use of biblical language and linguistic grammar, without puzzles or allegories, or derash” (see at length his commentary on Ecclesiastes 5:1).

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

him that is weary. He wakeneth morning by morning, He wakeneth my ear to hear as they that are taught” (Isaiah 50:4).111

R. Saadia describes why he thought it was worth addressing the matter of reward and punishment in this world and in the world to come: I have been compelled by necessity to make this explanation, for I have found that certain people, by the use of sophistry, assert that if it is within the competence of one act of unbelief to annul much belief, it cannot be within the power of one act of unbelief to cancel much belief. The consequence of this argument is that the believers are confused by it.112

Regarding the question why God placed the exalted soul into the impure body, he reported, I have encountered certain people who asked how it was compatible with the wisdom of the Creator, magnified and exalted be He, to place a being as noble as the soul, which exceeded in purity even the heavenly spheres, in something as turbid as the body. In fact, they began to think in their hearts that God had wronged the soul by so doing. I feel compelled, therefore, to pause at this point and explain it clearly.113

R. Saadia wrote a commentary on the book of Job as the people of his generation were unable to fully comprehend the perspectives presented by Job and his acquaintances, and wrote that he “therefore took upon himself to compose a commentary on this book.”114 He offered a commentary on a scroll of the Hasmonean family (known as the Scroll of Antiochus) because the majority of the

111 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 7–8; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 5–6. 112 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 213; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 176. 113 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 245; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 202. 114 Job with Translation and Commentary by R. Saadia, ed. Y. Qafih (Jerusalem, 1973), 19–20.

43

44

Chapter One

people were unable to understand it correctly “to the point where some deny its authenticity.”115

4. Confronting the Karaites and the Heretics R. Saadia’s primary objective in his entire literary enterprise was to wage war on heresy and the heretics. Many studies on the works of R. Saadia have emphasized his battle against the Karaite community, but little has been written of his polemic against other types of heretics, including those who denied fundamental principles of Jewish faith.116 The dangers posed by those who denied the existence of God, the concept of retribution, and resurrection of the dead were no less severe than those presented by the Karaites who denied “only” the teachings of the Oral Torah. The Karaite community may have had a greater impact on the public than other heretics,117 but those who studied under R. Saadia testified that their teacher prioritized combating deniers of fundamental Jewish values over his battle against those who denied the Oral Torah.118 R. Saadia uses extremely harsh words to describe the heresy in his generation: As they act towards their judges is the same way they act toward their God. Their faith in God is lacking. They believe that the world is chaotic and futile . . . and speak angrily about Him, the exalted and great one. They besmirch his commandments and prohibitions, his promise of reward, his warnings and punishments, and his

115 Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 221. 116 R. Saadia’s polemic was directed at both Islam and Christianity. See my papers: “R. Saadia Gaon’s Attitude towards Islam,” Da`at 25 (1990): 21–51; “The Binding of Isaac in R. Saadia Gaon’s Polemic against Islam,” in The Faith of Abraham in the Light of Interpretation throughout the Ages, ed. M. Hallamish, H. Kasher, and Y. Silman (Ramat Gan, 2002), 115–129 [Heb]; “The Polemic of R. Saadia Gaon against Christianity,” in Heritage and Innovation in Medieval Judeo-Arabic Culture, ed. Joshua Blau and David Doron (Ramat Gan, 2000), 243–262. 117 The exception to this is the book by Hiwi al-Balkhi, which according to R. Saadia “stood up in our nation sixty years ago” (Saadia Gaon, “Sefer ha-Galūi,” 176, ll. 13–14). Ibn Daud quotes R. Saadia who wrote that he saw teachers relaying the words of Hiwi to young children (Ravad, Sefer ha-Kabballah, 42, ll. 104–105). According to Harkavy, Ravad extracted this information from the fourth chapter of Sefer ha-Galūi, which did not survive (Saadia Gaon, “Sefer ha-Galūi,” 147, note 1). 118 Zucker, The Translation, 20.

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

recollections of what has occurred and what he has promised and threatened will occur. . . . This resembles the actions of Hiwi, who penned two hundred essays in which he defamed our faith.119 . . . These heretics deviate each and every day further away from the path of the just and strengthen their convictions.120

R. Saadia believed that the heretics had succeeded in spreading their erroneous convictions because no one had confronted them. Although he doesn’t say so explicitly, this is implied by his frequent mention of the precedence of his polemic against them. For example, when confronting the heretics’ argument that the snake that taught Adam and Eve to differentiate between good and bad had been unfairly punished, he added that “in all such arguments they are the enemies of God, who insolently cause others to sin. I am the first to explain this and expose it.”121 R. Saadia waged his battle against the Karaites and the heretics both verbally and in writing.122 His verbal arguments were relatively limited, and their con-

119 I. Davidson, Saadia’s Polemic against Hiwi Al-Balkhi: A Fragment Edited from a Genizah MS (New York, 1915); M. Gil, Hiwi al-Balkhi, the Heretic of Khorasan (Merchavia, 1965) [Heb]; J. Schirmann, New Hebrew Poems from the Genizah (Jerusalem, 1965), 31–41 [Heb]; E. Fleischer, “A Fragment from Hiwi al-Balkhi’s Criticism of the Bible,” Tarbiz 50 (1984): 49–57. 120 Y. Ratzabi, “New Chapters from R. Saadia Gaon’s Commentary on Isaiah,” Sinai 93 (1983): 7, section 7 [Heb]. This segment had been translated differently and published previously by Zucker, The Translation, 16, note 39. About the harassment of the “Rabbanites” by the Karaites, see M. Zucker, “Segment from Kitāb al-Radd `alā `Ibn Saqaweihi,” PAAJR 18 (1948–1949), Hebrew segment, 13. A similar description of the generation in which R. Saadia lived and acclaim for his work was offered by Maimonides as well: “The people of his generation had many corrupt beliefs and God’s Torah was nearly lost, had it not been for him [R. Saadia Gaon], of blessed memory, who revealed from the Torah what had been concealed, and strengthened what had been weakened, and expressed it with his words and wrote it with his pen” (Moses Maimonides, Epistle to Yemen, ed. A. S. Halkin [New York, 1952], 65 [Ara]; and the Hebrew translation by Nachum ha-Maaravi, in Iggrot ha-Rambam, ed. Y. Shilat [Jerusalem, 1987], 144–145 [Heb]). See also Y. Rosenthal, “On the History of Heresy in the Time of Saadia Gaon,” Ḥorev 9 (1950): 21–37 [Heb]. 121 Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 72, and the Hebrew translation, ibid., 288. 122 On this topic, see also my publications: E. Schlossberg, “The Centrality of Scriptures in Jewish Polemic in the Middle Ages—A Study of the Polemics in the Writing of R. Saadia Gaon,” Talelei Orot 5 (1994): 52–70 [Heb]; and my “Polemic in R. Saadia’s Work,” Sinai 126–127 (2000–2001): A Collection of Research and Articles on

45

46

Chapter One

tribution is unclear. Very little remains of these debates.123 Moreover, Sahl ben Mazliaḥ the Karaite accuses R. Saadia of failing to hold public debates with the Karaites, and even hiding from them, writing that Saadia of Fayyūm, dean of the academy, who argues frequently with the people of the Scripture, may God save them, and their wise people and scholars demanded that he come out towards them and sit with them to fight God’s battle and hold a hearing with them . . . but he refused and avoided coming out to them, and he would go into his room and hide, and would only allow those he found favorable to enter.124

But this biased testimony does not coincide with what we know about R. Saadia’s self-conviction in his relentless battle against the Karaites. However, many of his arguments were presented in writing, and can be divided into two types. The first group includes works written specifically as polemics to contend with heresy, such as Kitāb al-Radd `alā Anan,125 Kitāb al-Radd `alā Ibn Saqaweihi,126 and al-Radd `alā al-Mutaḥāmil.127 R. Saadia’s poetic compositions comprise a substantial part of his writings on this topic.128 Ezra Fleischer proved that the cultural and monolithic breakthrough in the medieval Jewish world, which later facilitated the emergence of secular poetry in Spain, began with R. Saadia’s poetic works. However, contrary to the secular style of the poetry Torah Study and Jewish Studies in Memory of R. Moshe Chaim Halevi Katzenelbogen, 305–324. 123 See also the argument with Ben Zita the Karaite regarding the law of “an eye for an eye,” as described in the long commentary by R. Abraham ibn Ezra on Exodus 21:24 (about the identity of Ben Zita, see N. Allony, “Ben Zuta is Ben Ata the Karaite,” Tarbiz 45 (1976): 76 [Heb]; and S. Abrahamson, “Ben Zuta the Karaite and Ben Ata the Rabbanite,” Sinai 89 (1981): 225–230 [Heb]; or the argument about the Written Torah in Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 164–165; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 137. 124 S. Pinsker, Liqute Qadmoniyot (Vienna, 1860), 620 and appendices, 37. 125 See Malter, R. Saadia Gaon, 263 and 380. 126 Ibid., 265 and 382. 127 Ibid., 266–267, 384, and 402. 128 On R. Saadia as a poet, see M. Zulay, The Liturgical Poetry of Saadia Gaon and His School (Jerusalem, 1964) [Heb]; Y. Tobi, The Liturgy of R. Saadia Gaon (PhD diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1982) [Heb]; Ezra Fleischer, “The Place of Rav Saadia Gaon in the History of Hebrew Poetry,” Pe`amim 54 (1993): 4–17 [Heb].

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

composed in Spain, R. Saadia prohibited Jewish writers from making any contribution to Jewish culture that did not correspond with the traditional aspects of Judaism, namely worshiping God and upholding his commandments.129 R. Saadia recruited his poetic compositions for this purpose as well. His responses to Hiwi al-Balkhi, the heretic from Khorasan, were devoted to redeeming the Scripture from his nihilistic criticism, and Essa Meshalī was a polemic against the Karaites.130 Many chapters of R. Saadia’s great philosophic work, Book of Beliefs and Opinions (Sefer Emūnoth ve-De`oth), are of polemic nature as well, as the Gaon wrote in his introduction: Know, then, and may God direct thee aright, Oh thou that studiest this book, that we inquire into and speculate about the matters of our religion with two objectives in mind. One of these is to have verified in fact what we have learned from the prophets of God theoretically. The second is to refute him who argues against us in regard to anything pertaining to our religion.131

He continues: In each treatise I shall begin with [an exposition of] what has been imparted to us by our Lord and of whatever corroboration is furnished by reason. This is to be followed by [a citation of] such diverging views as have been reported to me. In each instance there will be given a statement of the thesis as well as of the arguments against it.

129 E. Fleischer, “The Secular Hebrew Poetry of Spain,” Pe`amim 59 (1994): 5–13, particularly 7–8 [Heb]. 130 Ibid. 8, note 9. About Essa Meshalī see Essa Meshalī by R. Saadia Gaon—The First Book of War against the Karaites, ed. B. M. Levin (Jerusalem, 1943) [Heb]; I. Davidson, “Another Remnant of Essa Meshalī by R. Saadia Gaon,” in Studies in Memory of R. Amram Kohut, ed. Shalom Baron and Alexander Marx (New York, 1936), 9–24 [Heb]; S. Abrahamson, “A New Segment from the Essay Essa Meshalī by R. Saadia Gaon,” Tarbiz 32 (1963): 160–173 [Heb]; his “A New Segment”; and his “New Readings and Additions”; A. Scheiber, “A New Manuscript from the Early Days of Essa Meshalī by R. Saadia Gaon,” Tarbiz 51 (1980): 102–110 [Heb]; R. Brody, “New Seg�ment of Essa Meshalī,” Tarbiz 51 (1980): 138–139. 131 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 27–28; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar beEmūnoth ve-De`oth, 24.

47

48

Chapter One

I shall conclude with the proofs furnished by prophecy bearing on the subject of the treatise in question.132

The second group of R. Saadia’s polemic works comprises essays on specific topics that incorporate polemic, though this was not their main purpose. According to R. Saadia, his lengthy commentary on the Torah included literary topics and explanations for the more self-evident as well as the less rational commandments, in addition to arguments presented by the heretics and his refutes for those arguments. 133This indicates that his commentary was written as a polemic, even though its primary purpose was to expound on the meaning of the commandments. The polemic tendencies in the Gaon’s writings are particularly reflected in his discussions on matters on which he disagrees with most of the Torah scholars, or explicitly contradicts the prevalent ideas presented by the sages. For example, R. Saadia argued that the calculations used to declare a leap year were handed down to Moses at Mount Sinai, and new months are declared based on this information. In his opinion, the new month is sanctified based on the testimony of witnesses, as described in BT Rosh Hashanah, only to prove to the Sadducees that the existing calculations correspond with the observations reported by the witnesses.134 Although R. Saadia’s intention was to defend the traditional lunar calculations from those who doubted them,135 he was brutally

132 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 37; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 32. 133 Saadia Gaon, Arabic Translation of the Five Books of the Torah, 4. See also the chapters “Apostates’ Questions on R. Saadia’s Interpretation and Translation of the Torah” and “Dismissing the Apostates’ Claims through the Translation,” in Zucker, The Translation, 128–142. 134 Bornstein, Dispute, 146, note 1 there. 135 R. Abraham Bar Hiyyah quotes R. Saadia Gaon on the calculations of the calendar and adds in conclusion: “This is the essence of his [R. Saadia’s] words, when responding to the heretics and rejecting their teachings, his practice was to respond, and that a person may respond to them with any answer that they think can contradict their teachings. . . . His objective was to refute the words of this unrighteous person and did not expose his opinion, which is the secret of the calendar calculations.” Sefer ha-`Ibur (ed. Z. Philipowski [London, 1851], 94) [Heb].

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

criticized by rabbinical leaders such as Rav Hai Gaon136 and Maimonides,137 as well as by the Karaites.138 The relentless battle waged by R. Saadia against the Karaites is what caused him to date the beginning of the written version of the Mishnah to the time of the Men of the Great Assembly (anshei knesset ha-gedolah), “starting forty years after the construction of the Second Temple and ending 150 years after its destruction.”139 His goal was to reinforce the antiquity, and thus the reliability and validity, of the Mishnah, as well as to combat the Karaite opinion that the Mishnah was merely an invention of the sages and therefore should not be trusted or accepted. However, this notion was vehemently rejected by sages such as Rav Shrira Gaon140 and Maimonides.141 The tendentiousness demonstrated in his writings is evident in his biblical commentary as well. Abraham ibn Ezra, for example, who harshly rejected R. Saadia’s geographical identification of the four rivers of the Garden of Eden,142 advocates for him by saying that he did so “to honor God, as he translated the Torah into the language and writings of Ismael, so that none would say that there were unclear commandments in the Torah.”143

136 See also Responsa of the Geonim, ed. J. Mussafia (Lyck, 1864, repr. Jerusalem, 1967), section 1 [Heb]; and Bornstein, Dispute, 147–148. 137 Moses Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah, M Rosh Hashanah 2:7 [Heb]; and his Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sanctifying the New Month 5:1–5 [Heb]. See also Bornstein, Dispute, 151–153. 138 Pinsker, Liqute Qadmoniyot, appendices, 13–14. 139 The opinion of R. Saadia Gaon is mentioned in an ancient Karaite polemic essay, see Saadia Gaon, “Sefer ha-Galūi,” 194, sheet 2a, l. 13–sheet 2b, l. 2. 140 Igeret Rav Shrīrā Gaon, 5–7 and 10–14. 141 Moses Maimonides, introduction to Mishneh Torah. 142 “. . . there is no proof . . . but he translated to serve his needs, because he did not receive this from a predecessor, and he did the same for families, for countries, for animals, for birds, and for rocks, maybe he saw them in a dream, and some of them he has mistaken”. 143 See R. Abraham ibn Ezra’s Short Commentary on Genesis, 2:11. Scholars disagree regarding the intended audience for R. Saadia’s translation of the Torah. According to A. S. Yehuda, the translation was for the Muslims (“R. Saadia Gaon and the Arab Environment,” in his Hebrew and Arab [New York, 1946], 142, note 9 [Heb]). However, according to Zucker, the translation was for the Jews. Regarding R. Abraham ibn Ezra’s attack on R. Saadia concerning his identification of the rivers that flowed

49

50

Chapter One

To reinforce the connection between the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, R. Saadia attempted to provide a Talmudic-Halakhic basis for the biblical stories, even in the absence of such tradition in the writings of the sages. For example, the Gaon explained that Abraham distanced himself from the body of his wife before negotiating with the people of Heth and Ephron the Hittite (Genesis 23:3), because negotiations in the presence of a dead relative were not considered valid.144 However, there is no source for this ruling in the writings of the sages. What’s more, physically distancing oneself from a dead relative does not free a person from the Halakhic status of onen. According to Zucker, R. Saadia chose to link Halakhic rulings to the biblical stories that preceded the giving of the Torah to the Jewish nation for three reasons. The first reason was to refute the Karaites’ approach that separated the Written Torah from the Oral Torah. The second motive was to attribute legislative value to the biblical stories, and the third was to refute the Muslim argument that the words of Muhammad abrogated the words of Moshe, just as the words of Moshe replaced the words and teachings of the patriarchs.145 The tendentiousness of R. Saadia’s writing is reflected more in his commentaries on entire volumes than in the explanations he offers for isolated verses and specific topics. One representative example is his commentary on the book of Psalms, in which he ignores the tradition that David and ten other wise men composed this work,146 and claims that it is practically a second Torah that was given to David, and by no means a prayer book that a person should use to pray to God. This argument, which is very difficult to accept despite the vast efforts made by R. Saadia to establish it, was designed to combat the demand of the Karaites that the rabbinical prayer book be nullified and replaced by the book of Psalms, which they claimed had been the genuine prayer book used by the people of Israel throughout the generations.147

from the Garden of Eden, Zucker claimed that R. Saadia translated them this way based on a tradition he had on this matter (Zucker, The Translation, 284, note 3). 144 Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 404. 145 Ibid., 15–16. 146 Cf. BT Baba Batra 14b. 147 See further detail in U. Simon, Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms—From Saadiah Gaon to Abraham Ibn Ezra (Albany, NY, 1991).

The Leadership of R. Saadia Gaon

Summary R. Saadia Gaon aspired to attain the role of public leadership and to guide the people of Israel long before he became known to the world. He gradually prepared himself to take on the task that could only be achieved with the status of the gaon in Babylonia. He departed Egypt, his land of origin, en route to Babylonia, while studying the important issues that had not been adequately developed in Babylonia at the time, such as mesorah and linguistics. In Babylonia, R. Saadia climbed the ranks of the great academies until achieving the desired role of gaon—dean of the Sūra Academy. After achieving this ambitious goal, R. Saadia dedicated his vast literary works, written on a nearly unprecedented scale, to establishing his status as leader of the Jewish people, and to guiding the nation on the path of the righteous and just. The motives behind the works written by R. Saadia and the tendentious nature of his work suggest that he used his literary enterprise as a means of achieving the main goals he had defined for his public endeavors, namely, eradicating ignorance and distorted ideas, and refuting the arguments of the heretics and the Karaite community, which he believed posed a threat to the very existence of the Jewish people and its faith in the teachings of the Torah. Had we sought to describe in a few words the status and influence of R. Saadia on his generation and subsequent generations, it seems that the best description of this is the nickname given to him by a number of medieval sages, rosh ha-medabrim be-khol maqom [head speaker everywhere], a title that was was originally given to Rabbi Yehuda, one of the greatest sages of the Mishnah.148 This chapter of R. Saadia’s life and his literary enterprise is a clear reflection of his constant aspiration for public leadership and the nature and essence of his leadership once this goal was achieved.

148 See R. Abraham ibn Ezra, Moznei Lashon ha-Qodesh (Offenbach, 1791), 1b; and Maḥberet ha-Arukh by the Spanish-Italian grammarian R. Shlomo ibn Parchon, ed. Zalman ben Gottlieb ben Cochav Tov (Bratislava, 1844, repr. Jerusalem, 1970), in�troduction, 12, on the root ‫פר”ח‬. For the source of this term, see BT Berakhot 63b, BT Shabbat 33b, and BT Menaḥot 103b.

51

C h a p t e r Tw o

Polemic in the Writings of R. Saadia Gaon Our conclusion from chapter one is that R. Saadia was unquestionably one of the most important if not the most important medieval Jewish thinker. He dealt with biblical exegesis, philosophy, grammar, poetry, prayer, and Halakha, and in many of these fields he is considered an innovator and a trailblazer, paving new paths for his followers. Proof of his centrality is not only the fact that many of the sages who lived after him cited from his writings (at times acknowledging these references and at times not) but also the fact that, even if they disagreed with him, they saw themselves compelled to relate to his views and grapple with them. A careful study of his works shows that he was extensively involved in polemics with Jews and Gentiles in a broad spectrum of fields and subjects. Most authors relate in one way or another to their predecessors and may frequently disagree with them but, in R. Saadia’s case, the inclination to polemic and controversy is particularly prominent. Often, the impression is that R. Saadia strived for disputes and that he exploited every opportunity to confront (obviously, verbally) opinions and beliefs he did not agree with. In this chapter, we will review the polemics found in R. Saadia’s writings and point to the centrality of this impulse in his work. We will also attempt to show that polemic was a central element in fulfilling the task R. Saadia undertook: to protect his people and shield them from dangerous beliefs and opinions.1 Ostensibly, one could claim that it was R. Saadia’s assertiveness and inflexibility that led him to endorse unusual positions. As one of his contemporaries

1

For an attempt to deal briefly with this matter, see N. Glatser, “The Polemical Element in R. Saadia’s Method,” Ha-Doar 26 (1942): 443–445 [Heb]. His focus, however, is on the Book of Beliefs and Opinions and he hardly deals with R. Saadia’s other writings.

Polem ic i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

attested: “He fears no one in this world and favors no one in this world because of his great wisdom . . . and his fear of sin.”2 Moreover, it can be claimed that his polemical writing reflects his inclination to favor the Mutazilite Kalam, a philosophical movement that endorsed this style in their works.3 However, it seems that R. Saadia adopted this style of writing because he considered it helpful in the central task he had set himself: to protect his contemporaries from mistaken and pernicious ideas. Serving as the starting point of my discussion and as an illustration of his polemical course will be the longstanding dispute among rabbinic authorities, including geonim and rishonim, about the sanctification of the new moon or, specifically, about whether the Beth-Din sanctifies the new moon according to the testimony of witnesses who saw the moon’s crescent or according to calculations transmitted to them from previous generations.4 The Jewish calendar is lunar, meaning it depends on the moon’s course around the earth rather than on the earth’s course around the sun, as does the solar calendar. As can be seen in BT Rosh Hashanah and other rabbinic writings, the length of the Jewish month is determined by the renewal of the moon or, more precisely, by the testimony of valid and reliable witnesses that they have seen the moon’s crescent, for whose sake even the Sabbath is profaned: Because of two new moons may the Sabbath be profaned . . . And while the Temple still stood the Sabbath might also be profaned because of any of the new moons, to determine the time of the offerings

2

A. Neubauer, Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles and Chronological Notes, vol. 2 (Oxford, 1895), 80 [Heb].

3

On this style in the Kalam, see Josef van Ess, “The Logical Structure of Islamic Theology,” in Logic in Classical Islamic Culture, ed. G. E. von Grunebaum (Wiesbaden, 1970), 21–50. See also M. A. Cook, “The Origins of ‘Kalām,’” BSOAS 43 (1980): 32– 43. On the influence of Mutazilite Kalam on R. Saadia see, for example, S. Stroumsa, Saadiah Gaon—A Jewish Thinker in a Mediterranean Society (Tel Aviv, 2002).

4

This was not, as we know, the only—or even the first—dispute that R. Saadia engaged in regarding the calendar. For another dispute on this matter, see Bornstein, Dispute; Merzbach, “More about the Dispute”; Epstein, “The Dispute”; Gil, A History of Palestine, vol. 1, 461 ff. See also the following exchange: Lasker and Lasker, “642 Parts”; Sar-Shalom, “The Dispute”; Lasker and Lasker, “More concerning the 642 Parts”; Sar-Shalom, “More on the Dispute”; Stern, “R. Saadia’s Method for Sanctifying the New Month.” For the latest research on this subject see: Sacha Stern, The Jewish Calendar Controversy of 921/2 CE (Leiden, 2019).

53

54

C h a p t e r Tw o

correctly. Whether [the new moon] was manifestly visible or not, they may profane the Sabbath because of it. (M Rosh Hashanah 1:4–5)

And further on: If a man saw the new moon [on the Sabbath] but could not walk, he may be taken . . . If it was a far journey, they make take food in their hands, since for a journey enduring a night and a day they may profane the Sabbath and go forth to bear witness about the new moon. (M Rosh Hashanah 1:8)

M Rosh Hashanah 2:6 describes in detail how the witnesses were examined in order to ensure that they were not trying to mislead the judges and make holidays fall at the wrong time: The pair that comes first they examine first. They bring in the elder of the two and say to him, “Tell us how thou sawest the moon: facing the sun or turned away from it? To the north or to the south? How high was it? To which side was it leaning? And how broad was it?” If he has said, “Facing the sun,” he has said naught. Afterward, they bring in the second witness and examine him. If their words are found to agree, their evidence holds good.

The examination of the witnesses as to their sightings of the moon’s crescent is mentioned again in M Rosh Hashanah 2:8: “Rabban Gamaliel had pictures of the shapes of the moon on a tablet and on the wall of the upper chamber. These he used to show to the unskilled and say, ‘Didst thou see it on this wise or on that?’” These Mishnayot and other explicit Talmudic texts patently clarify that the sanctification of the moon was determined according to the testimony presented to the Beth-Din, which would officially proclaim the beginning of the new month.5 Contrary to all these descriptions, however, R. Saadia held that the sanctification of the moon did not depend at all on the sightings of witnesses. In his view, the appearance of the moon’s crescent had been determined by calculations that had been known to the sages of the Beth-Din and the sole purpose of 5

For a detailed description of the mode of sanctification of the moon and the intercalation of the year, see R. Sar-Shalom, “The Intercalation Then and Now,” Shema`atin 931 (2000): 55–56 [Heb].

Polem ic i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

the witnesses’ testimony that they had seen the crescent was to verify and corroborate this calculation.6 In a question addressed to R. Hai Gaon on the dispute in BT Beiẓah 4b regarding an egg laid on the first of the two festival days in the diaspora, the Gaon was asked to “dismiss all claims” regarding the method of R. Saadia, who stated: The Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Moses his servant, who told the people of Israel that in the Land they would celebrate one day and outside the Land two days, and so had it been forever, with the people of Israel calculating the intercalation without any doubts. The apostates then asked the sages to show that the sightings of the moon and the calculations were identical, and they would do all that Rabban Gamaliel used to do with the tablet and the emissaries and so forth. Later they returned to the essence, as the Holy One, blessed be He, had told Moses, that in the Land they were to celebrate one day and outside it two days.7

In other words, the yom tov sheni shel galuyot [the second festival day in the diaspora] had been a Mosaic tradition, Halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai, rather than the result of doubts due to lack of certainty regarding the date of the moon’s crescent. Only the absolute reliance on calculations rather than on sightings ensures that in the Land of Israel they are to celebrate the festival only one day and in the diaspora two. According to R. Saadia’s method, the examination of the witnesses who saw the moon’s crescent follows from the rabbis’ desire to prove to the growing numbers of apostates in their times that the rabbis’ calculations were credible, accurate, and compatible with the witnesses’ sightings, but in no way was the new moon ab initio determined by these witnesses’ testimony. A view like the one that R. Hai Gaon cites in R. Saadia’s name is also ascribed to him by the philosopher R. Yitzhak Israeli, who was an older contemporary of R. Saadia:

6

On the dispute about whether they began to sanctify the moon and intercalate years according to sightings or calculations, see ibid., 65, note 6.

7

Responsa of the Geonim, ed. J. Mussafia (Lyck, 1864, repr. Bnei Brak, 1985), §1. See also R. Abraham ibn Ezra quoting R. Saadia in his commentary on Leviticus 23:3: “And there is no mention anywhere in the Scripture of how the people of Israel used to determine the months and the festivals. And the Gaon said that they would rely on the calculation of intercalation,” and so forth.

55

56

C h a p t e r Tw o

Never, not even when the Temple stood and ever since it was destroyed, did the courts sanctify either the new moon or the festivals according to sightings of the crescent and they never relied on it at all in the past. At all times, since the giving of the Torah, during the First and Second Temples and in the diaspora, the new moon and the festivals were only determined by this calculation, delivered to us by our ancestors, of blessed memory.8

R. Saadia’s method of determining the new moon by calculation rather than by sightings was extremely controversial in the Middle Ages. Only a few adopted it, usually without mentioning R. Saadia’s name. Thus, for example, R. Bahya ben Asher writes in his commentary on the verse “This month shall be for you the beginning of months” (Exodus 12:2): The injunction is not meant to warn us to intercalate years and determine the months according to the sighting of the moon because, when determining the month, it is not a principle of the Torah to rush to see the moon. If it is seen, all the better, and if it is not seen on the determined day but before it or after it by a day or two, we do not fear because we were not commanded in the Torah to determine the months according to the sighting of the moon but rather according to calculations.9

Further on, R. Bahya copies a rather long passage from R. Hananel ben Hushiel’s commentary on the Torah, which shows that he had adopted R. Saadia’s method of relying on calculations rather than on sightings. R. Hananel also adds several proofs from writings and from logical deduction to bolster the claim that calculations had long ago been known to their ancestors, including David and Jonathan: And Rabbenu Hananel, of blessed memory, writes: The months are only determined by calculation, and not according to sightings of the moon. The proof is that, throughout the forty years the children of Israel spent in the desert, a pillar of cloud would cover them during

8

Yitzhak Israeli, Yesod Olam (Berlin, 1846), vol. 2, 9a [Heb].

9

For a discussion of this passage in the commentary of R. Bahya, see A. Lipshitz, Studies on R. Bahya ben Asher ibn Halawa’s Commentary on the Torah (Jerusalem, 2000), 109–112 [Heb].

Polem ic i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

the day and a pillar of fire at night and they never saw the sun in the day nor the moon at night, as is written, “Thou in thy great mercies didst not forsake them in the wilderness; the pillar of cloud, which led them in the way, did not depart from them by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, which lighted for them the way by which they should go” (Nehemiah 9:19). And how could they have determined the months by the sighting of the moon? Rather, the principle of the Scriptural commandment is by calculation. It is our longstanding tradition that, of the twelve months of the years, five months are thirty days each and five are twenty-nine days each, and two are at times both thirty days, at times each one is twenty-nine, and at times one of them is thirty days and the other is twenty-nine. These two months are Marḥeshvan and Kislev. And it is our tradition that the first day of Tishre is the first day of the year and that every month, according to Mosaic tradition, has twenty-nine and a half days and 793 parts. And you will find it explicitly written: “Of Issachar men who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do, two hundred chiefs, and all their kinsmen under their command” (1 Chronicles 12:33). No understanding and no wisdom are needed to determine times and festivals except for the calculation, which is the mystery of intercalation. But the sighting of the moon is a known matter because, when the moon is seen, all know it is the first of the month and Passover is on the fifteenth, and Rosh Hashanah on the first of Tishre, and Yom Kippur on the tenth of it and Sukkot on the fifteenth of it. The calculation, however, is only for the wise who work it out and announce it to Israel who follow it, as it is written, “to know what Israel ought to do, two hundred chiefs, and all their kinsmen under their command.” And so will you find that David said to Jonathan: “Behold, tomorrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit at table with the king” (1 Samuel 20:5). And how did David know that the next day would be the new moon were it not determined by calculation? Perhaps the moon will not be seen the next day and they will not determine the start of a new month? Moreover, this also proves that they would set two days to mark the beginning of the month, as it is said: “So David hid himself in the field; and when the new moon came, the king sat down to eat food . . . Yet Saul did not say anything that day; for he thought, ‘Something has befallen him. . .’” (1 Samuel 20:24–26). And it is impossible to say that this was the first day of another month and, therefore, they said “the second month,” as it is written, “And Saul said to Jonathan his son, ‘Why has not the son of Jesse come to the meal, either yesterday or today?’ (1 Samuel 20:27) . . . “And Jonathan rose from the table in fierce anger and ate no food the

57

58

C h a p t e r Tw o

second day of the month” (1 Samuel 20:34), thus proving that, on that month, there were two days marking the beginning of the month, as is our custom until now when the month ends.10 So did the whole of Israel determine months according to calculations for eleven hundred years, from the time of Moses and until Antigonus, the exilarch and head of the Sanhedrin, who had two disciples, Tsadok and Beitus. When he commented, “Do not be like slaves who serve the master in order to receive a reward” (M Avot 1:43), they began to doubt, thought there is no reward and punishment, and went astray. And they began by questioning the determinations of the moon and said that the gist of the commandment is not to determine the months according to calculation but rather by the sighting of the moon, and that is the just and proper act. And the sages had to deny their statements and show them incontrovertible proof so they, of blessed memory, said: “Rabban Gamaliel said to them: ‘Do not rush to see the moon, the essence is the calculation. I have this on the authority of the house of my father’s father, that the renewal of the moon takes place after no less than twenty-nine days and a half and six-hundred and seventy-three parts’” (according to BT Rosh Hashanah 25a). These statements prove that R. Gamaliel does not rely on the sight of the moon but on calculations. Another Mishnah states: “If the Beth-Din itself and all Israel had seen the new moon and the witnesses had been examined, yet light fell before they could proclaim ‘It is hallowed!,’ then it is an intercalated month” (M Rosh Hashanah 3:1). This is a significant proof that they did not consider the sighting of the moon essential since, had it been essential and had sanctification followed the sighting, how could they have intercalated the month after it? Even more so: “And two others came and said, ‘We saw it at its expected time, yet in the night of the added day it did not appear,’ and Rabban Gamaliel accepted their evidence” (M Rosh Hashanah 2:8). Had R. Gamaliel relied on the sighting of the moon rather than on calculation, they would surely have found that, since the moon had not been seen on the night of its intercalation, these witnesses had been false! Obviously, then, Rabban Gamaliel relied on calculation rather than on the witnesses’ testimony.

10 According to R. Hananel’s first proof, the Israelites had relied on calculations while still in the desert and prior to their entry to the land, and in the last two proofs he attempts to demonstrate that, at the time of King David, they continued to rely on calculation as instructed by the “of Issachar men who had understanding of the times.”

Polem ic i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

As for what you find, “Rabban Gamaliel had pictures of the shapes of the moon on a tablet and on the wall of the upper chamber. These he used to show to the unskilled” (M Rosh Hashanah 2:8). This means that Rabban Gamaliel drew these shapes to explain to the disciples of Tsadok and Beitus his knowledge about the moon’s course every month and its shape at its renewal in every month—whether long or short, how high on the sphere, and what side does it lean to. And every month he would explain to his students: on this month, the shape of the moon is so-and-so, and its inclination is to this-and-this-side, and on the same shapes he would show his disciples witnesses would testify every month. And since they saw this month after month, year after year, they came to understand that the only essence is calculation and dismissed whoever questioned this. And although the witnesses were received to preserve the memory, the Beth-Din sanctioned only the calculation. All agreed that the law of intercalation was a Mosaic tradition, and it is within the purview of the Great Beth-Din—when no other is greater than it in wisdom and devotion and when it is knowledgeable in the mysteries of the Torah and in the determination of the years—to intercalate as it sees fit based on the intercalation laws. This is the law that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Moses, “This month shall be for you.” So far [goes] the commentary of Rabbenu Hananel, of blessed memory.11

Most of the sages who lived after R. Saadia, however, rejected his method, though they usually defended him by claiming he had adopted it because of his polemic with the Karaites. Thus, for example, R. Hai Gaon wrote in the responsum mentioned above.12 In other words, they held that R. Saadia knew that his method was incompatible with the rabbis’ approach but nevertheless endorsed it to reject the Karaites’ view on the sanctification of the moon. R. Abraham Bar Hiyyah writes in similar terms after describing R. Saadia’s method:

11 Rabbenu Hananel: Commentary on the Torah, ed. Haim Shavel (Jerusalem, 1972), 22–25 [Heb]. He is also cited in the commentary of R. Isaac Abarbanel on Exodus 12:2. On the sanctification of the month, and particularly at the end, see Bornstein, Dispute, 147, n. 1. To the best of our knowledge, R. Hananel knew R. Saadia’s works and quoted them. 12 See Responsa of the Geonim (1985), §1. For a detailed analysis of R. Hai Gaon’s responsum, see Bornstein, Dispute, 147–148.

59

60

C h a p t e r Tw o

This is what he meant, and it accords with the apostates’ responsum, and it was to reject them that he acted as he did since one is allowed to respond to them in any way one considers will dismiss their claims . . . and what he wanted was to discard the words of this evil man without revealing to him his own view, which is the mystery of the intercalation (sod ha-`ibbur).13

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (M Rosh Hashanah 2:7), Maimonides strongly attacks R. Saadia’s method. After explaining how they used to examine the witnesses, Maimonides attacks those who claim that the sanctification of the moon relies solely on calculation. Although he does not explicitly mention R. Saadia, that is definitely his target: And I wonder about a man who denies and contests something that is clear and says that the law of the Jews is not built upon the sighting of the moon but solely on calculation and believes all these words. I do not think that whoever says this believes it. Rather, what he intended by it was to strike his adversary in any way possible, rightly, or not, because he found no relief from the pressure of the dispute.

In other words, genuine distress during a controversy with the Karaites over the authority of the sages to sanctify the moon is what drove R. Saadia to stake a claim that was indeed incompatible with the rabbinic view but could be helpful in his fight against those who attempted to harm the principles of faith and of religion. In Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sanctifying the New Month, Maimonides also rejects the possibility that the sanctification of the moon according to calculation was a practice at the time of the Second Temple. He does not write in controversial terms, nor does he mention conflicting approaches, but his resolute formulations suffice to preclude any alternatives, of which, as noted, Maimonides was obviously aware: It is thus a Mosaic tradition from Sinai that in times when there was a (Palestinian) Synedrium, declaration of New Moon Days was based on visual observation, while in times when no Synedrium existed, this

13 Sefer ha-`Ibbur, ed. Z. H. Philipovski (London, 1883), 94 [Heb]. See also ibid. the quotes from Yitzhak ben Baruch, a contemporary of R. Yitzhak Alfasi; and also R. Yitzhak Israeli, Yesod Olam.

Polem ic i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

declaration was based on calculations such as we are using today, and no attention was paid to observation of the new crescent. . . . Since when did all of Israel begin to employ these methods of calculation? Since the time of the last sages of the Gemara; that was the time when [the Jewish community of] Palestine was destroyed and no regularly established court was left. In the times of the sages of the Mishnah and of the Gemara, however, up to the days of Abbayyi and Raba [ca. AD 325] the people depended upon the Palestinian courts for the determination [of the calendar].14

Prima facie, R. Saadia’s method for sanctifying the new moon does appear incomprehensible and, therefore, its roots should be found in his controversy with the Karaites, as R. Hai Gaon, R. Abraham Bar Hiyyah, and Maimonides explain. The Karaites, as we know, challenged the determination of the festivals according to the rabbinic calculations and sought to return to the practice of sanctification based on sightings.15 Thus, for example, Yefet ben Eli, R. Saadia’s younger contemporary and the leading Karaite biblical exegete, includes the sages’ reliance on the calculation of the intercalation after the destruction of the Temple among the gravest offenses of the Rabbanites. In his commentary on the verse “Take with you words and return to the Lord” (Hoshea 14:3), he notes: You could say that in “Return, O Israel” (Hoshea 14:1), what he means is the relinquishment of the serious offenses that no one in the nation questions are despicable. When he says, “Return to the Lord,” he means, return from the bad ways that the people in exile invented and that have increased dispute and controversy among them such as, for example, that they allowed a candle on the Sabbath, lying with women, and the `eruv on the Sabbath, that they calculated the intercalation,16

14 Moses Maimonides, The Code of Maimonides, book 3, treatise 8, Sanctification of the New Moon, trans. Solomon Gandz (New Haven, CT, 1956), 5:2–3 and 22–23. On Maimonides’s method in the sanctification of the new moon, see also Bornstein, Dispute, 151–153. On the Karaites’ reactions to R. Saadia, see Pinsker, Liqute Qadmoniyot, appendices, 13–14. 15 In practice, reliance on sightings and witnesses led to harsh disputes among the Karaites on the determination of the festivals, to the point that the Karaites in Egypt and in the Land of Israel, for example, celebrated Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur on different days. See also Bornstein, Dispute, 145–146, and ibid., note 4. 16 In other words, the Rabbanites turned the calculation of the intercalation into the crucial and decisive element in all that concerns the sanctification of the moon.

61

62

C h a p t e r Tw o

changed the times of God’s festivals, allowed to consume carcasses, grasshoppers, the tail of a sheep [`alya], kidneys, the pituitary gland [yoteret ha-kaved], and bugs in fruit, and allowed impure witnesses saying that, from the day the Temple was destroyed, there is no longer purity and impurity. And many of them resort to witchcraft and to impure things and astrologers and go to graves to ask the dead to fulfill their requests. It is to these and similar matters that he hints when he says, “Return to the Lord.”17

Various geonim tried to refute the Karaite method and dismiss it but failed. R. Saadia’s method considered above is his contribution to this matter. To gain a better understanding of the background of R. Saadia’s method, which contradicts the rabbinic view, we must consider his polemic with Karaites, skeptics, and apostates, as well as with Gentile nations. This polemic is central in his work and conveys the role that he assumed for himself, as we showed in detail in the previous chapter.18 As far as we know, R. Saadia began his polemic with the Karaites while he was still in Egypt, the land of his birth, where he wrote Al-Radd `alā `Anān— a dispute with Anan ben David who was one of the early Karaite leaders. In 922, after arriving in Baghdad, R. Saadia supported the Babylonian geonim in their struggle against R. Aharon ben Meir, the gaon of the Jerusalem yeshiva who had attempted to change the accepted determination of the festivals and the yearly calendar, claiming that determining the calendar is the exclusive prerogative of the Land of Israel and its sages.19 R. Saadia’s standing in support of the Babylonian rabbis tilted the balance in their favor and against Aharon ben Meir. Following their request, R. Saadia detailed the chronicle of the dispute on the calendar in a book titled Sefer haZikkaron, which was written in the shape of a scroll, divided into verses, and bearing cantillation marks, as if it was a biblical treatise. R. Saadia devoted the 17 The Arabic Commentary of Yefet ben Ali the Karaite on the Book of Hosea, ed. Philip Birnbaum (Philadelphia, 1942), 215–216; M. Polliack and E. Schlossberg, Yefet ben Eli’s Commentary on Hosea—Annotated Edition with Hebrew Translation and Introduction (Ramat Gan, 2009), 246–247 [Ara], and the Hebrew translation, ibid., 487. Cf. also R. Isaac Abarbanel in his commentary on Exodus 12:2: “Karaite sages expanded here at length against the sages of Israel for sanctifying the months according to calculation and the mystery of intercalation.” 18 On this issue, see also Schlossberg, “Centrality of Scriptures,” 52–70. 19 On this dispute, see the sources mentioned in note 4 above.

Polem ic i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

Sefer ha-Mo`adim as well to a description of the dispute’s history. Henceforth, he was viewed as the chief authority on the determination of the calendar and thereby strengthened his standing among the Babylonian sages. R. Saadia did not refrain from confrontations in his personal life either. The exilarch, David ben Zakkai, appointed R. Saadia as the head of the yeshiva at Sura even though he was not of Babylonian extraction, did not belong to one of the distinguished local families, and lacked the appropriate social contacts. His support for the Babylonian sages in the struggle on the calendar, his varied literary activity, his struggle against Karaites, heretics, and apostates, and his expertise in all Torah subjects seemingly led to his election.20 R. Saadia’s appointment as head of the Sura yeshiva attained its aim when many students who had left it returned to it. The idyll between R. Saadia and the exilarch, however, was brief. A hostile tension seems to have prevailed between them due to a financial conflict, which led them to sever relations. With the consent of the heads of the Pumbaditha yeshiva, the exilarch banned R. Saadia and appointed someone else in his place. For his part, R. Saadia appointed Yoshiyahu, R. David ben Zakkai’s brother, as exilarch. R. Saadia and ben Zakkai reconciled in the year 937, and R. Saadia returned to his office as the gaon of Sura, even though ben Zakkai continued to be the exilarch and even though the head of the yeshiva who had been appointed to replace R. Saadia apparently continued to receive a salary from the yeshiva. It is evident from many places in R. Saadia’s writings that in his role as gaon (and even before that) he saw himself as a community leader whose role was to strengthen his contemporaries and help them to grapple with the challenges of the time.21 Thus, for instance, in his commentary on the verse “Go through, go through the gates, prepare the way for the people; build up, build up the highway, clear it of stones, lift up an ensign over the peoples” (Isaiah 62:10), R. Saadia notes that the role of the sage in the diaspora is not only to teach Torah but also, and mainly, to keep up to date with the people’s situation and prevent them from going astray:

20 For a summary of the sources dealing with R. Saadia’s life, see Dotan, The Dawn of Hebrew Linguistics, 17–20. 21 On this issue see, at length, Baron, “Saadia’s Communal Activities,” 9–74. See also Eliezer Schlossberg, “Social Trends in R. Saadia Gaon’s Works,” Assufot 6 (1992): 71–85 [Heb]; H. Ben Shammai, “The Exegetical and Philosophical Writings,” 63–81.

63

64

C h a p t e r Tw o

On what he said, “go through, go through the gates,” he is commanding the righteous, when in the diaspora, to warn and encourage the nation. And he said: after you understand this, devote yourself to matters through which you can reach this. On “go through, go through”— go and return and keep your eyes on your brethren; on the matter of “prepare the way for the people”—command them to straighten their course; and on “build up, build up the highway”—warn them to draw away from proscriptions; and on “clear it”—uproot all evil from their hearts, so that they will not stumble (as they do on a) stone, and on “lift up an ensign”—proclaim the promises openly to one another and do not fear other nations.22

At the end of chapter nine in the Book of Beliefs and Opinions, after R. Saadia emphasizes: “He, then, that will himself understand these matters will belong to the company of the wise” (according to Daniel 12:3), he sums up the role of the sage as follows: “This prospect should serve as an incentive to every man of learning to invoke the assistance of Providence in instructing [his] fellowmen and guiding them aright.”23 Following his appointment as the gaon of the Sura yeshiva, R. Saadia clearly asserted the obligation that this role imposed on him. After reviewing some of his contemporaries’ mistaken views in the introduction to Beliefs and Opinions and after lamenting the doubts that plague them, which no one can uproot, he writes: But since my Lord had granted me some knowledge by which I might come to their assistance and had endowed me with some ability that I could put at their disposal for their benefit, I thought it was my duty to help them therewith and my obligation to direct them to the truth. Something of this order was also expressed by the saint: “The Lord God hath given me the tongue of them that are taught, that I should know how to sustain with words him that is weary; He wakeneth morning by morning, He wakeneth my ear to hear as they are taught” (Isaiah 50:4).24

22 Rav Saadia’s Translation and Commentary on Isaiah, 237 (Arabic) and 352 (Hebrew, with slight changes). 23 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 356; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 285–286. 24 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 7–8; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 5–6.

Polem ic i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

In an epistle he sent to one of the communities after he was appointed as gaon, he clarifies how he views his role: “And we must remind you, and you must observe and do and preserve your souls”.25 Then, he writes: Children of Israel, should you require knowledge on a Torah matter, do not let laziness lead you to refrain from asking and to act out of doubt because that will not be acceptable. Instead, send it to us and ask us, and we will be with you and will not tire of speaking . . . Children of Israel, all the words we have spoken—formulate them in pages and learn them by heart and place them in your hearts because they will save you.26

Furthermore, R. Saadia apparently saw himself as the nation’s supreme leader, the true leader of the generation whose role was more important than that of other sages: “God will not deprive our nation of some disciple in every generation to instruct it and enlighten it, in order to teach (to it) so that, through him, it may succeed in its concerns.”27 Elsewhere, he writes: In every generation, the nation will add Torah to its master (to God) who did not abandon it empty-handed, [doing so] through a man who has the wisdom to enlighten it, as he had promised: “Thus says the Lord: ‘As the wine is found in the cluster, and they say, “Do not destroy it, for there is a blessing in it,” so I will do for my servants’ sake, and not destroy them all’” (Isaiah 65:8).28

In R. Saadia’s time, the danger of heresy had indeed intensified to the point of posing a real threat to the future of Rabbanite religious tradition. An incisive description of this generation is provided by Maimonides, who excelled at assessing R. Saadia’s activity from a two-hundred-year perspective: “For the Jews of his time were perplexed and misguided. The divine religion might have disappeared had he not encouraged the pusillanimous, and diffused, disseminated,

25 Revel, “The Letter of R. Saadia Gaon,” 184. 26 Ibid., 187. 27 Saadia Gaon, “Sefer ha-Galūi,” 154, ll. 2–4. 28 Ibid., 158, ll. 7–12. A similar idea, not referring to a Torah scholar, but rather to a leader who saves his people from disaster in every generation, can be found in his introduction to the translation of the Scroll of Antiochus (Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 221).

65

66

C h a p t e r Tw o

and propagated by word of mouth and the pen a knowledge of its underlying principles.”29 In his commentary on Isaiah, R. Saadia himself describes heresy in his time as follows: As they do with their judges, so do they do with their God. Their belief in his divinity is worthless, they hold the world is chaos and vanity . . . and they speak ill of God, may He be magnified and glorified, as we hear from them that they cast slurs on his commandments and proscriptions, on the promise of reward, on the warning and on the punishment, and on what He told us about what was, and on what he promised about what will be. . . . This resembles what Hiwi did when he composed two-hundred sayings where he cast slurs on our faith . . . these heretics increase and strengthen their error day by day.30

R. Saadia engaged in a passionate polemic with Hiwi al-Balkhi, the heretic from the city of Balkh in Khorasan.31 About the motives behind this intense controversy and about R. Saadia’s success, we hear from his disciple: He found that Hiwi had written a book with two hundred questions making claims against God and against his Torah. And these [questions] had existed for many years without anyone answering them, and many people lost their faith, until our master, in his zealotry for God and his Torah, wrote a book of answers to Hiwi. . . . And God strengthened him with proofs and validations, until he dispelled these clouds, removed these seas, destroyed these buildings, and reassured the troubled hearts until the worthless ones repented. And the entire nation blessed him, those who agree with us and those who do not,32 and they praised the merciful God who, generation after gen-

29 Moses Maimonides, “Epistle to Yemen,” trans. A. Halkin, in Crisis and Leadership: Epistles of Maimonides, ed. D. Hartman (Philadelphia, 1985), 116. Maimonides offers this description of R. Saadia’s generation to justify the latter’s puzzling involvement in messianic calculations, contrary to the rabbinic injunction. On heresy in R. Saadia’s time, see Rosenthal, “On the History of Heresy,” 27–31. 30 Rav Saadia’s Translation and Commentary on Isaiah, 235 (Arabic) and 350 (Hebrew). 31 R. Saadia himself identified Balkh as the biblical Gozan. See his translation of Isaiah 37:12. 32 According to Moshe Gil, the disciple meant the Karaites, “whose leaders also struggled against Hiwi’s apostasy” (Gil, Hiwi al-Balkhi, 35).

Polem ic i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

eration, had not abandoned His nation, supported it, and promised: “For the Lord will not cast away his people, for his great name’s sake, because it has pleased the Lord to make you a people for himself ” (1 Samuel 12:22).33

Hiwi’s original treatise, as noted, included two hundred questions, most of them focusing on the understanding of biblical verses and on the ideas reflected in them. In his treatise, Hiwi highlights two kinds of contradictions found in the Scripture: contradictions within the Bible and contradictions between biblical verses and reason, justice, morality, or historical reality. On these grounds, some view Hiwi al-Balkhi as the first Jew systematically engaging in biblical criticism.34 Some of Hiwi’s questions are preserved in quotes found in medieval works.35 Yet, many (about seventy) of them are preserved in R. Saadia’s treatise, who quoted them before answering. Thus, for example, Hiwi asked why, together with Adam and Eve, God had punished the earth and the beasts and the fowl that had not sinned (Genesis 3:17–18).36 Hiwi pointed out the contradiction between God’s promise to multiply the number of the children of Israel—“I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand, which is on the seashore” (Genesis 22:17)—and the evidence from the Scripture itself regarding their small numbers in the community of nations: 33 Zucker, The Translation, 20–21. From the nation’s response as it is described by this disciple, we may gather that R. Saadia’s view on the necessary existence of a “supersage” who leads the generation had percolated down and had been accepted by his disciples. Cf. a disciple’s view on R. Saadia’s success in his controversy with Hiwi with the testimony of R. Abraham ben David: “He [R. Saadia] answered the apostates and the heretics with the Torah, and one of them, Hiwi al-Kalbi [transposing the letters of ‘al-Balkhi’ to create the association with the Hebrew word kelev, ‘dog,’ as did R. Abraham ibn Ezra in his commentary on Exodus 14:27 and elsewhere—E. S.] invented a Torah. And R. Saadia attested that he had seen teachers teaching this Torah to children in books and writing boards, until R. Saadia came and defeated them” (Ravad, Sefer ha-Kabballah, 42, ll. 102–105). 34 Gil, Hiwi al-Balkhi, 38. 35 As, for example, in R. Abraham ibn Ezra’s commentary mentioned in note 33, or in R. Judah ben Barzilai of Barcelona, Commentary on Sefer Yeẓira (ed. S. H. Halberstam [Berlin, 1885, repr. Jerusalem, 1971], 21): “As Hiwi al-Kalbi said in his book, where he wrote two hundred claims: why the Holy One abandoned the pure angels and, instead of dwelling among them, chose to go and dwell among impure humans,” and so forth. 36 Davidson, Saadia’s Polemic, 53, §25.

67

68

C h a p t e r Tw o

“It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love upon you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples” (Deuteronomy 7:7).37 Hiwi also challenged the need for sacrifices that, ostensibly, attests to God’s need for nourishment: “He is the Creator, and how could He eat. He has no need for heaven and earth because he is omnipotent.”38 He also asked why, of all the sinful nations, only Sodom and Gomorra were punished,39 and why the righteous Jacob, who was innocent, was punished so heavily: “Thou hast asked, whyJacob was encompassed with troubles, with the death of Rachel and the loss of Joseph, and with much bitterness.’”40 R. Saadia’s answers to these and other objections rely on his interpretations of Scriptural verses, which differ from Hiwi’s, and on his “defense” of God and His conduct with His creatures. R. Saadia often engaged in disputes with members of other religions as well. Explaining R. Saadia’s identification of the four rivers flowing from Eden, R. Abraham ibn Ezra strongly rejects R. Saadia’s geographic identification of the four rivers: “. . . there is no proof . . . he only translated . . . as he needed, and he has no tradition on this. He did the same with the names of families and countries and animals and birds and minerals, perhaps he saw them in a dream, and he was wrong on some of them.” At the same time, Ibn Ezra defends R. Saadia by suggesting that he had translated as he did in order to prevent other nations from slandering the people of Israel: “Perhaps, when he translated the Torah into Arabic, he did so in God’s honor, so that they would not say there are Torah commandments that we did not know.”41 In other words, fearing that Gentiles would claim that Jews do not properly understand the Torah’s intentions and that they identify the nations, countries, animals, birds, and minerals mentioned in the Torah incorrectly, a claim potentially leading to an even stronger one stating that Jews do not understand the commandments of the Torah, R. Saadia was forced to find (and possibly even invent) such identifications, at times lacking an authoritative and accepted tradition.

37 Ibid., 63, §43. 38 Ibid., 71, §55. 39 Ibid., 71, §57. 40 Ibid., 79, §70. 41 R. Abraham ibn Ezra, Short Commentary on Genesis, 2:11. See the first chapter above, note 143.

Polem ic i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

R. Saadia was the first to engage in a systematic polemic against Islam and its claims.42 Although Muslim polemical texts against Jews were already available in his time, R. Saadia did not devote a special volume to the rejection of the Muslim claims43 in the model of his anti-Karaite writings. The polemic against Muslims (and Christians), therefore, is embedded in many of his writings and, particularly, in his philosophical work Beliefs and Opinions. Thus, for example, in Beliefs and Opinions and in his commentary on the book of Daniel, R. Saadia rejects the Muslim claim that the verse “The Lord came from Sinai, and dawned from Seir upon them; he shone forth from Mount Paran, he came from the ten thousands of holy ones” (Deuteronomy 33:2) hints to the appearance of Jesus (“Seir”) and of Muhammad (“Mount Paran”).44 A widespread Muslim claim was that Islam had abolished the Torah. Muslims sought support for this claim on contradictions, as it were, between various biblical verses, seeking to infer one from another: just as a later verse can contradict a previous one, so can a later religion contradict—and even abolish—its predecessor.

42 On R. Saadia’s polemic against Islam, see at length, Schlossberg, “R. Saadia Gaon’s Attitude towards Islam.” 43 For a summary of the Muslim claims against Judaism, see M. Schreiner, “Zur Geschichte der Polemik zwischen Juden und Muhammedanern,” ZDMG 42 (1888): 529; E. Strauss, “Islamic Models of Polemic,” in Sefer ha-Zikkaron le-Beit ha-Midrash le-Rabbanim be-Vina, ed. by students of Beit ha-Midrash le-Rabbanim be-Vina (Jerusalem, 1946), 182–197 [Heb]; M. Perlmann, “The Medieval Polemics between Islam and Judaism,” in Religion in a Religious Age, ed. S. D. Goitein (Cambridge, 1974), 103–138; idem, “The Medieval Polemics between Islam and Judaism,” in Muslim Authors on Jews and Judaism: The Jews among Their Muslim Neighbors, ed. Hava Lazarus-Yafeh (Jerusalem, 1996), 119–153 [Heb]; Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, Intertwined Worlds: Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism (Princeton, 1992), 19–49; Livnat Holzman and Eliezer Schlossberg, “Fundamentals of the Modern Muslim-Jewish Polemic,” Israel Affairs 12 (2006): Israel and the Islamic World, ed. Efraim Karsh and P. R. Kumaraswamy, 13–28. 44 On this claim see also Maimonides, Epistle to Yemen, 109; Strauss, “Islamic Models,” 192, §14. On the Christian polemic around this verse, see Sefer Niẓaḥon Yashan (Nizzahon Vetus): A Book of Jewish Christian Polemic, ed. Mordechai Breuer (Ramat Gan, 1978), 104, §135 [Heb]. For a summary of the polemic with Gentile nations on this verse, see Y. Rosenthal, Religious Tolerance in the Medieval Exegesis of Scripture: Studies and Sources (Jerusalem, 1967), 205–213 [Heb]. On R. Saadia’s response to this claim, see Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 165–166; and Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 139.

69

70

C h a p t e r Tw o

One of the favorite contradictions of Muslim polemicists was that between God’s various commands to Abraham regarding the sacrifice of Isaac. The command “offer him there as a burnt offering” (Genesis 22:2) contradicts the promise to Abraham, “for through Isaac shall your descendants be named” (Genesis 21:12), and the command to sacrifice Isaac by itself is contradicted later by the instruction, “Do not lay your hand on the lad or do anything to him” (Genesis 22:12).45 R. Saadia engaged in the polemic against the Muslim abolition claim in indirect ways as well. Thus, for example, he explains the stories of the patriarchs, which had preceded the giving of the Torah, according to the Oral Law and the accepted Halakha, to prove that the Torah of Moses had not abolished the Torah of the patriarchs. He thereby seeks to reject the Muslim claim that Islam annuls the Torah of Moses just as the latter had annulled the Torah of the patriarchs. For instance, R. Saadia commented on the story of Eliezer, Abraham’s servant who went to take a wife for his master’s son, according to the laws of betrothal, in this vein, offering several examples. Through the command “take a wife” (Genesis 24:4), Abraham appoints his servant as an emissary to betroth Rivka; Eliezer objects, “Perhaps the woman may not be willing to follow me” (Genesis 24:5), since the woman can stipulate a condition prior to the marriage, stating she will stay in her land rather than go to her husband’s; The text then attests about Rivka (Genesis 24:16) that “no man had known her,” even though it has already noted that “the maiden was . . . a virgin” to show that any sexual contact, even if the woman remains a virgin, affects her ketubah (marriage contract); Eliezer’s companions in his journey are meant to attest that Abraham had granted him power of attorney and serve as witnesses to the betrothal.46 Indeed, the purpose of this and other similar exegeses in line with the Rabbanite Halakha was mainly to contradict the Karaites who opposed the Oral Law and to ascribe Halakhic value to the narrative sections of the Torah as well. And yet, they could also have been meant to reject the Muslim claim stating that the Torah of the patriarchs was superseded by the Torah of Moses.47

45 On R. Saadia’s rejection of this claim, see Schlossberg, “Attitude towards Islam,” 445– 446; and also my “Studies in the Rhetoric of R. Saadia Gaon,” Hebrew Linguistics 40 (1996): 60–61 [Heb]. 46 Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 150–153 (Arabic) and 413–419 (Hebrew). 47 Ibid., introduction, 14–15.

Polem ic i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

R. Saadia also entered into a polemic with Christians.48 Christians deal extensively with the Bible because they view it as holy. Together with the books of the New Testament, the books of the Bible are the most hallowed Christian texts of prophecy and revelation. By contrast, Muslims view the Bible as the holy book of another religion and, although some of its stories were absorbed in the Qur’an, the Bible as such is not a holy text in Islam. Moreover, Muslims view the Bible as a book that was falsified during its delivery so that the dispute with them is mainly about the reliability of the biblical text rather than about its interpretation. In contrast to that, Christians regard the existing version of the Bible as a holy text and their dispute with Jews focuses solely on the interpretation of the verses: Christians seek to demonstrate that Jesus and his mission are intimated in the Bible whereas Jews try to reject their proofs and explain these verses differently.49 The two main axes of the polemic against Christianity in R. Saadia’s works were the belief in the trinity and the coming of the Messiah. A crucial verse in the controversy surrounding the trinity was: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). Relying on the plural “let us make” and on the possessives “in our image” and “after our likeness,” Christians tried to prove that the Creator is not one but three.50 Moreover, we are told about Abraham, “The Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men stood in front of him” (Genesis 18:1–2). In this account, Christians tried to find evidence of the trinity since it begins by saying “The Lord appeared to him” then adding, “and behold, three.” R. Saadia answered that a later verse, “So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham still stood

48 For a comprehensive review of this polemic and its contents, see Schlossberg, “The Polemic of R. Saadia Gaon against Christianity.” 49 On this matter, see Maimonides’ responsum to the question of whether teaching Torah to Gentiles is allowed (Moses Maimonides, Responsa, ed. Joshua Blau, vol. 1 [Jerusalem, 1958], §149, 284–285 [Heb]). 50 On the polemic surrounding this verse in rabbinic literature, see BT Megillah 9a; BT Sanhedrin 38b. See also E. E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem, 1975), 207–208 [Heb]. On R. Saadia’s response in this regard, see Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 50–51 (Arabic) and 252 (Hebrew). On the reception of R. Saadia’s exegesis of this verse among medieval exegetes, see E. Schlossberg, “R. Saadia’s Exegesis on ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ as Reflected in Medieval Interpretation,” Sinai 102 (1988): 1–7 [Heb].

71

72

C h a p t e r Tw o

before the Lord” (Genesis 18:22), clearly proved beyond any doubt that the men and God were separate entities. God’s revelation to Abraham at the beginning of the chapter was meant to point out that the people who would come to him were honorable figures, as evident in his addressing them as “my Lord” (Genesis 18:3), a title reserved for God’s angels and emissaries.51 Christians believe that the Messiah was revealed in the Second Temple period, but the children of Israel ignored him and denied him, and they sought proof for their stance in these topics in biblical verses. The most famous of the verses Christians used as evidence for the birth of their Messiah is Isaiah’s prophecy: “Behold, a maiden is with child and shall bear a son” (Isaiah 7:14), which they claimed referred to Jesus’s “virgin” mother, who was purportedly impregnated by the holy spirit. R. Saadia rejected this claim in his brief interpretation of the verse, which he translated as huwaḍā laka jāriyah ḥāmil [here is a pregnant maiden]. Jāriyah in Arabic is a maiden, a young woman, and not necessarily a virgin. The addition of the word laka was meant to show that the maiden in question was a contemporary of King Aḥaz and not the mother of Jesus, who was born centuries later. R. Saadia’s strongest polemic, however, was against the Karaites, a Jewish sect who observed the commandments of the Torah according to their own understanding of the Written Torah and disregarding the tradition that the rabbis viewed as derived from Sinai.52 The dispute between Karaites and Rabbanites hinged largely on textual interpretation as well, as the Karaites tended to explain the verses literally while the Rabbanites mostly preferred rabbinic exegeses. R. Saadia’s polemic against the Karaites was conducted on mainly three fronts.53 The first front included writings against Karaite individuals, such as

51 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 108. For a response resembling that of Hiwi al-Balkhi, see Davidson, Saadia’s Polemic, 71, §§55–56. 52 Note that the Karaites developed an entire set of commentaries on the Written Torah that was more complex and intricate than the Oral Torah of the Rabbanites. This was apparently the main reason, besides R. Saadia’s intensive polemic against them, for the failure of Karaism and for their inability to be a real alternative to Rabbanite Judaism. 53 From the letter of a Karaite leader, Sahl ben Mazliaḥ, we learn that R. Saadia conducted his polemic with the Karaites in writing, avoiding public disputes with them and even hiding from them: “Saadia al-Fayyumī, the head of the yeshiva, fights with the people of Scripture [Karaites], may God preserve them, engaging in a struggle with them. Their sages and disciples demanded that he come out to them, sit down

Polem ic i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

Kitāb al-Radd `alā `Anān and Kitāb al-Radd `alā Ibn Saqawayhi. The second front comprised writings on issues in dispute between the Rabbanites and the Karaites, such as Kitāb al-Tamyīiz [Book of Distinction], mainly addressing the controversy about the calendar. The third front was R. Saadia’s biblical commentaries as well as philosophical and linguistic works that also contained antiKaraite contents.54 A classic example of the latter category is R. Saadia’s polemic against the Karaites on the matter of one who injures a fellow and harms his eye. The punishment of one who injures another and causes him harm is “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” (Exodus 21:24), and the sages explained that the Torah meant monetary compensation and not a limb from the injurer’s body.55 In his short commentary (Tafsīr) on this verse, R. Saadia sought to refute the mistaken notion that the verse should be understood literally when he translated “an eye for an eye” as diyah `ayn badal `ayn [the monetary value of an eye for an eye].56 His long explanation of the verse is not available to us in the original but was preserved in R. Abraham ibn Ezra’s commentary ad locum. In that commentary, R. Saadia perpetuated an oral dispute he conducted with the Karaite Ben Zita.57

with them in the war of the Lord, and reach a judgment with them . . . and he refused, refrained from coming out to them, sought one room after another to hide, and would only bring out what he wished” (Pinsker, Liqute Qadmoniyot, appendices, 37). This testimony, which is unquestionably biased and incompatible with what we know about R. Saadia’s time and about his self-confidence in his struggle with the Karaites, should be approached cautiously. It is hard to believe that R. Saadia, who insisted on his principles and did not recoil from a confrontation with the exilarch David ben Zakkai that cost him his position as head of the Sura yeshiva, would recoil from a direct confrontation with the Karaites and their leaders. 54 On this matter, see, for example, the chapters “Apostates’ Questions on R. Saadia’s Interpretation and Translation of the Torah” and “Dismissing the Apostates’ Claims through the Translation,” in Zucker, The Translation, 128–142. 55 See BT Bava Kamma 83b–84a; Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, vol. 2, trans. Jacob Z. Lauterbach (Philadelphia, 2004), Mishpatim, section 8, 401 [Heb]; Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai, ed. Y. N. Epstein and E. Z. Melamed (Jerusalem, 1956), 176, l. 22–177, l. 25 [Heb], and more. 56 According to Saadia Gaon, Arabic Translation of the Five Books of the Torah. 57 Ben Zita, or in another version Ben Zuta, who was known as “Abu-l-Sirrī,” probably lived in Egypt, where his dispute with R. Saadia took place. For further details, see S. Poznanski, The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon (London, 1908), 4. According to Poznanski, R. Abraham ibn Ezra’s quote of R. Saadia is taken from the latter’s commentary on the Torah rather than from a special work against Ben Zita,

73

74

C h a p t e r Tw o

R. Saadia presented a long list of rational proofs showing why the punishment prescribed in the Torah—“an eye for an eye”—could not be performed literally, and why the Jews had to rely on the rabbinic tradition stating that the Torah compelled one who injured his fellow to pay compensation according to the gravity of the injury.58 Another famous example of R. Saadia’s polemic against the Karaites referred to the day of the week on which the Shavu`ot festival fell. The Torah calls for bringing the `omer “from the morrow after the Sabbath” (Leviticus 23:15), but the Rabbanites and the Karaites disagreed about the day this fell on. The Rabbanites, who relied on rabbinic tradition, held that “the morrow after the Sabbath” was the day after the first day of Passover regardless of the day of the week it fell on.59 By contrast, the Karaites held that “the morrow after the Sabbath” would invariably be the first day of the week since the Sabbath in this verse is “the Sabbath of Creation.” This “morrow after the Sabbath” did not fall on a set date in Nissan and could be at any time between the sixteenth and the twentyfirst of the month. Thus, for example, Daniel al-Qumisi, an early Karaite biblical exegete, wrote: You must know that “the morrow after the Sabbath” is not the day after the festival but whenever it falls, be it on the fifteenth, or perhaps such as those against Anan or Ibn Saqawayhi. On Ben Zita see also Allony, “Ben Zuta is Ben Ata”; and Abrahamson, “Ben Zuta the Karaite and Ben Ata the Rabbanite.” 58 The quote from R. Saadia cited above was hinted in the commentary R. Abraham, son of Maimonides, ad locum (Commentary of Rabbenu Abraham ben ha-Rambam on Genesis and Exodus, ed. Ephraim Weissenberg [London, 1958]): “And there is support for this tradition [that an eye for an eye refers to compensation] in the testimony of Scripture and in the rational analogy evidence. R. Saadia recorded some of them in his commentary.” R. Hananel ben Hushiel cites some of them without referring to R. Saadia (his words are cited in Rabbenu Bahya’s commentary on the Torah). For a discussion of the medieval commentary on this verse and on the social background of R. Saadia’s commentary, see E. Schlossberg, “‘An eye for an eye’: A Comparative Study of Medieval Interpretations,” Shema`atin 87 (1987): 8–12 [Heb]. 59 “‘On the morrow after the Sabbath,’ that is, on the morrow after the festival. But perhaps it is on the morrow after the Sabbath of Creation? R. Yose bar Yehudah says: Scripture says, ‘You shall number fifty days’ (Leviticus 23:16), that is, every time you count it shall be no more than fifty days. But should you say that the verse refers to the morrow after the Sabbath of Creation, then it could sometimes come to fifty-one and sometimes to fifty-two, fifty-three, fifty-four, fifty-five, fifty-six, and so forth” (BT Menaḥot 65b–66a).

Polem ic i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

the sixteenth, up to the twenty-first day. Hence, He did not stipulate on what date of the month is the sacrifice of the `omer or the festival of Shavu`ot because it will not be the same every year since we always [count] from the morrow of the Sabbath and the [festival of the] `omer and Shavu`ot are on the first day of the week.60

R. Saadia’s translation of the verse is meant to refute the Karaite view on this matter: min ğad al-`uṭlah [from the morrow of the day of not doing a craft], meaning from the morrow of the first day of Passover, ignoring the day of the week on which it falls, not from the morrow of the Sabbath of Creation. The long commentary of R. Saadia on this verse is no longer extant, but R. Abraham ibn Ezra’s commentary on Leviticus 23:11 preserved excerpts of R. Saadia’s controversy with the Karaites on this issue: “From the morrow of the Sabbath”—the rabbis said, from the morrow of the festival. The deniers said that it is so literally, while the believers cited proof from the sabbatical year, and from the jubilee, and from Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah . . . The Gaon further said: if it is literally the Sabbath, from what Sabbath do we begin to count? And Yeshuah61 answered that, besides the Sabbaths, there are eighteen days on which there are sacrifices and they are called mo`adim (festivals) and there is a sacrifice on the day of the wave offering as sign and testimony, because the wave is on one of the days of the spring festival. . . .62

60 Cited from the commentary on Leviticus ascribed to Daniel al-Qumisi, see Louis Ginzberg, Genizah Studies in Memory of Doctor Solomon Schechter, vol. 2, Geonic and Early Karaitic Halakhah (New York, 1929), 484, ll. 10–15 [Heb]. Cf. also the writings of the Karaite Yehudah Hadasi, Eshkol ha-Qofer (Gozelvo, 1836, repr. n.p., n.d.), §222–224 [Heb]. For a summary of Karaite views on this matter and for the additional halakhic implications of determining the festival “from the morrow after the Sabbath,” see Y. Erder, The Origins of Early Karaism and Outlines of its Development in the Light of the Controversies over the Time of the Passover Sacrifice (PhD diss., Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 1988), part 1, 79–82, 99–100, 149–150 [Heb]; and his Ways in the Ancient Karaite Halakha (Tel Aviv, 2003). 61 On the eleventh-century Karaite Yeshua ben Yehuda, see H. Ben-Shamai, “Yeshua ben-Yehuda: On an Eleventh-Century Karaite Sage in Jerusalem,” Pe`amim 32 (1987): 3–20 [Heb]. On his commentary on the Torah, see Meira Polliack, “Alternative Renderings and Additions in Yeshu`ah Ben-Yehuda’s Arabic Translation of the Pentateuch,” Jewish Quarterly Review 84 (1993–1994): 213–225. 62 In the formulations of R. Abraham ibn Ezra it is not always easy to separate his own comments from those of R. Saadia.

75

76

C h a p t e r Tw o

But the question remains: why did the Torah use vague and ambiguous language rather than write explicitly, “from the morrow of the festival”? R. Saadia discusses this question indirectly in his commentary on the book of Proverbs and in his responsum, pointing out that the vague formulation attests to the wisdom of the giver of the Torah. The impreciseness dispelled people’s fear of erring in their understanding of the commandments since they could see how they had been observed by Moses, who had learned them from God.63 We learn from here that a mistake in the understanding of the commandments is only possible among those who negate the Oral Torah that Moses delivered but not among those who accept it and interpret the Written Torah according to it. R. Saadia devoted to the polemic against the Karaites not only explanations of individual verses but also exegeses of entire books, all adopting a tendentious polemical approach. A prominent example is his commentary on the book of Psalms, where he resolutely rejects a view widespread in rabbinic literature and dominant in medieval commentaries claiming that the book of Psalms is the biblical prayer book. In his view, the psalmist form of the book’s chapters is merely an external rhetorical garb since the book of Psalms is merely the word of God to the prophet David—a kind of “second Torah” that is all prophecy and no prayers. To corroborate his claim and endow it with textual-hermeneutical validity, he offers an original explanation of the Psalms’ titles, the names of the people mentioned in them, and the various musical instruments found in them. Not only is this exegetical approach intrinsically difficult but it also contradicts, as noted, the rabbinic approach: “David wrote the book of Psalms, including in it the work of the elders.”64 This view of R. Saadia is apparently driven by his polemic against the Karaites. For the Karaites, who rejected the Oral Torah and rabbinic authority, the prayer book must include only the prayers found in the Scripture and, above all, the Psalms, not prayers formulated by the rabbis. To reject their view, R. Saadia tries to expropriate the liturgical element in the book of Psalms, a move whose practical implication is that what we should use is the prayer book compiled by the sages, which might include chapters taken from the book of Psalms.65

63 Proverbs with Translation and Commentary by R. Saadia, 200 [Heb]. 64 BT Bava Batra 14b. 65 For a detailed analysis of R. Saadia’s method, see Simon, Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms, chapter 1.

Polem ic i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

R. Saadia’s polemic against the Karaites drove him to introduce new Halakhot based on Torah verses that were not known from rabbinic sources. Thus, for example, when commenting on the verse “And Abraham rose up from before his dead, and said to the Hittites” (Genesis 23:3), R. Saadia explained that Abraham rose from before his dead before beginning a negotiation with the Hittites and with Ephron the Hittite because the bargaining of one whose dead is before him lacks all value.66 This law has no source in rabbinic literature. Furthermore, the act of physically rising from before the dead does not dismiss a person’s status as a mourner, so that Abraham’s rising had no connection whatsoever to this matter. Zucker suggests a feasible option for settling this quandary, whereby R. Saadia adopted an approach linking Halakha with the Torah stories that preceded the giving of the Torah to refute Karaite views separating the Written from the Oral Torah. Hence, aiming to tighten the connection between the Written and the Oral Torah, R. Saadia assumes a Halakhic-Talmudic basis for the Torah narratives even when it lacks any basis in rabbinic literature.67 Another famous example of a view that brought several eminent sages to oppose R. Saadia was his claim that the written recording of the Mishnah had already begun at the time of the Great Assembly (ha-knesset ha-gedolah). The following passage is from a manuscript by a Karaite author who was opposed to R. Saadia: And you should know that the head of the yeshiva said in his commentary on the book he wrote about what had happened in his time, which he titled Sefer ha-Galūi, that the ancestors began to write the Mishnah forty years after finishing the building of the Second Temple and up to one hundred and fifty years after its destruction—all in all, five hundred and ten years. And its writers lived over eleven generations . . . and his view is that the reason that forced them to write it is that, after prophecy ceased and they saw themselves dispersed, they feared the tradition would be forgotten and placed their trust in a written book. Therefore they collected all the views preserved in memory and wrote it and called it Mishnah.68

66 Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 404. 67 Ibid., 15–16. 68 Saadia Gaon, “Sefer ha-Galūi,” 194–195. On the “five hundred and ten years” see ibid., 195–196, note 6. For a slightly different version about the writing of the Mish-

77

78

C h a p t e r Tw o

R. Saadia’s view regarding the age of the Mishnah was meant to strengthen its credibility as an old written document rather than as Oral Law, whose delivery began relatively late and which, therefore, was more vulnerable to distortions and mistakes during its conveyance. R. Saadia’s method, however, was rejected by various sages. Thus, for example, R. Shrira Gaon was asked by the people of Qayrawān about the writing of the Mishnah: “How was the Mishnah written if the members of the Great Assembly began to write it and sages in every generation wrote some of it until Rabbi sealed it?”69 He determines: “We saw with our eyes that it was certainly that Rebbi [R. Yehudah ha-Nasī] was the one who wrote the six treatises of the Mishnah.”70 And so elsewhere: “None of the ancients wrote down anything until the days of our holy Rebbi.”71 This was also Maimonides’s opinion. After he enumerates in his book Mishneh Torah the sages who delivered the Oral Law from generation to generation, Maimonides writes: Our holy Rebbi compiled the Mishnah. From the time of Moses to that of our holy Rebbi, no work had been composed from which the Oral Law was publicly taught. But in each generation, the head of the then existing Beth-Din or the prophet of that time wrote down for his private use a memorandum of the traditions that he had heard from his teachers, and that he taught orally in public. . . . This was always the method till the time of our holy Rebbi. He gathered all the traditions of every portion of the Torah, which had either come down from Moses, our Master, or had been deduced by the Beth-Din in successive generations. All this material he redacted in the Mishnah and taught it to the sages in public.72

R. Saadia, then, engaged in many polemics with Karaites, heretics, apostates, and adherents of other religions, aiming to impart and clarify the truths of

nah that was cited in the commentary of the Karaite Yefet ben Eli, see Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 186–187, note 103. 69 Igeret Rav Shrīrā Gaon, 5, ll. 1–4 (Sephardi version). 70 Ibid., 7, ll. 1–2. 71 Ibid., 18, ll. 5–7. On the dispute between R. Saadia Gaon and R. Shrira Gaon, see the editor’s introduction (ibid., 3b–7b). 72 Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah: The Book of Knowledge, trans. Moses Hyamson (Jerusalem, 1962), 2b [Heb].

Polem ic i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

Rabbanite Judaism while rejecting and refuting mistaken and false views that could endanger the continuity of the Jewish people and the Torah. On these grounds, R. Saadia introduced explanations and methods that were not always compatible with the views and methods of his contemporaries and at times not even with those of the sages and were also strongly criticized in his times and in later ones. R. Saadia’s method for sanctifying the moon based on calculations rather than on eye sightings, which opened this discussion, should therefore be seen against the background of his polemic against the Karaites. At times, this controversy forced him to adopt unusual and unconventional notions, insofar as they could help him to reject his rivals’ claims and strengthen his own.

79

Chapter Three

Education in the Writings of R. Saadia Gaon In the first chapter we showed that the motives behind the works written by R. Saadia and the tendentious nature of his work suggest that he used his literary enterprise as a means of achieving the main goals he had defined for his public endeavors, namely, eradicating ignorance and distorted ideas and refuting the arguments of the heretics and the Karaite community, which he believed posed a threat to the very existence of the Jewish people and its faith in the teachings of the Torah.1 R. Saadia attributes the ignorance to lack of desire among the people of his generation to toil at Torah study, and to their tendency to prefer ignorance and abbreviated versions: For the people of our generation, toil and effort are a burden and ignorance are the easier option in their eyes. If the knowledge they seek in Torah learning is not presented to them is a very accessible manner; if it is not presented in the most convenient way, like prepared food, baked bread, cooked meat, and poured wine [they will ignore it]. And I pray they will desire it [when presented in an accessible fashion].2

We have also showed that R. Saadia dedicated chapters and even complete books to refute the arguments of the heretics and the Karaites3 and to encourage the people to study and expand their knowledge. The central place in Jewish studies is of course occupied by the Bible. R. Saadia regarded the Bible as “a book of education for the human beings,” and therefore claimed that it contained all possible “methods of education.”

1

See above, 39ff.

2

Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 4–5, and the Hebrew translation, ibid., 167.

3

See above, 44ff.

E duc at ion i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

In this chapter we will discuss R. Saadia’s introduction to his Arabic translation of the Torah, in which he described the Torah as an “educational tome.” He elaborated upon the three ways in which God attempts to educate his people and help them acquire wisdom and understanding: In this book [Scripture],4 the wise one [God] sought to teach humanity and guide them to become obedient of him. This education is achieved [using] three methods, [each] one stronger than the other. The first is the weakest, in which the teacher tells the student “do this and do not do that,” without explaining the outcomes of what he has been instructed to do and what he has been prohibited from doing, as he [the wise one] knows that he [the person] follows his commandments in this manner and distances himself from what is prohibited. The second is that the one receiving the commandment and the prohibitions will be told the consequences of what he chooses to do when given the commandment and the prohibition [the positive and the negative commandments], by saying “if you do one thing, you will be rewarded this way; if you do not do so, you will receive this penalty.” This [manner of education] is stronger than the first, as he [the person] imagines the joy he will experience or the suffering that will befall him due to the choices he makes. The third is that, in addition to telling the person being commanded or prohibited about the positive outcomes of following God’s commandments, he is told a [historical] story about people who received this commandment and [God] awarded them and they were joyous. When telling him about the harsh punishment he will suffer if he does not follow the commandments, he is also told a [historical] story about people who committed the transgression and were punished and suffered. This manner is stronger than the first two, because the experience penetrates the heart of the listener, and it will be as if he viewed it with his eyes. [Because of all the above] he [God, the wise one] decided to give this book, which was written to teach his servants, and includes these three methods, for it to be the essence of betterment and the essence of wisdom. Therefore, he instructed his students to act with integrity and forbid them from committing transgressions and promised them [the rewards] they would receive for doing good deeds and warned them against evil deeds and told them about people before them who did good and were successful, and about people who were corrupt

4

The words in brackets have been added for clarification.

81

82

Chapter Three

and perished. [And the wise one did so] to make sure that none [of the fundamental principles of education] had been omitted from his book.5

According to R. Saadia, there are three methods for educating the people, at varying degrees of effectiveness. The first involves only commandments and prohibitions: “Do this!” or “Do not do that!” The one issuing the commandments and prohibitions does not reveal to the person receiving them the goals and objectives of keeping the commandments or avoiding the prohibitions. The student is expected to blindly obey the teacher, without an actual understanding other than the basic realization that the teacher knows why certain things are required and others are forbidden. This method of education, which is less effective than others, is what we would consider more suitable for young children who must be taught the most basic of lessons so that they become ingrained within them and accepted without argument and without requiring long, detailed explanations that the child is incapable of comprehending. For example, a parent might instruct a young child to wash his or her hands when the child comes home, without lecturing the child on the concept of bacteria and the harm they can cause, or not to touch electric sockets without explaining the danger of electrocution. This type of education is also applicable for soldiers, as soldiers are expected to blindly and immediately obey their commanders’ orders, even if they do not make sense to them. When a commander orders his soldiers to charge or flank the enemy, he obviously is not expected to explain the reason and considerations behind his orders to each soldier, or the risks posed by taking a different course of action. From the religious perspective, the basis for this form of education is that the very fact that the Creator commanded his people to act in a certain way and avoid acting in other ways should suffice, even without understanding the precise consequences of these actions or the rewards

5

The introduction was originally written in Judeo-Arabic and was incorporated into the Arabic translation of the Pentateuch in the Derenbourg edition (Saadia Gaon, Arabic Translation of the Five Books of the Torah, 1–3). For other versions and further details, see H. Ben-Shammai, “Old and New: The Long Introduction and The Short Introduction to R. Saadia Gaon’s Translation of The Torah,” Tarbiz 69 (2000): 199–200 [Heb], repr. in his A Leader’s Project—Studies in the Philosophical Works of Saadia Gaon (Jerusalem, 2015), 276–288 [Heb].

E duc at ion i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

and punishments they entail. Thus, the people will learn to obey God’s commandments and avoid all his prohibitions. The second method is more effective than the first. In addition to mere commandments and prohibitions, it involves explanations of the rewards a person will receive for doing as instructed, and the penalty for failing to do so. Understanding the consequences of our actions motivates us to obey the commandments and gives us the strength to overcome the temptation to do what has been prohibited. Thus, the Torah’s intention in Deuteronomy 11:13–17 becomes clear: So, if you faithfully obey the commands, I am giving you today—to love the Lord your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul—then I will send rain on your land in its season, both autumn and spring rains, so that you may gather in your grain, new wine and olive oil. I will provide grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will eat and be satisfied. Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them. Then the Lord’s anger will burn against you, and he will shut up the heavens so that it will not rain, and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the good land the Lord is giving you.6

In these verses, God describes in detail the rewards awaiting the people of Israel if they obey him and observe his commandments. These include plenty of rain and crops for both humans and animals. However, if they do not obey him, they will suffer drought, hunger, devastation, and exile. When the nation is faced with the choice of whether to obey the commandments or commit a transgression, they will recall the enormous reward for the former, compared to the severe punishment they will suffer from choosing the latter, which will help them make the correct choice. The third method is more effective than the others and is based on the concept of a role model. In most cases, this refers to the teacher demonstrating to the students how the commandment is to be observed, thus increasing the chances of the students performing their duties accurately and correctly. For example, when a son sees how his father respects his own father (the child’s grandfather), he will more likely respect his own father in turn. However, if the 6 Deuteronomy 11:13–17 (modified), New International Version, Biblegateway, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+11%3A1317&version=NIV.

83

84

Chapter Three

father is rude and disrespectful to the grandfather, the son will be more likely to treat his father the same way. However, in this case, the concept of a “role model” is different because it refers to individuals or communities who obeyed God’s commandments and were rewarded, as compared to individuals or communities who sinned and suffered harsh punishments. Even if the students do not see these cases with their own eyes, the stories demonstrate the value of obeying God instead of defying him. This method of education is not based only on proclaiming a commandment, either positive or negative, or on explaining the concept of reward and punishment, but rather incorporates stories of actual people who observed the commandments and enjoyed good, happy lives, and of those who sinned and were punished. R. Saadia’s explanation of the third method of education, which is the most effective of them all, offers an adequate explanation for the incorporation of historical stories in the biblical text. The question of the place and value of these stories is a familiar one to all those who study the Torah. Rashi, for example, began his commentary on the book of Genesis (1:1) with the following question: Said Rabbi Isaac: It was not necessary to begin the Torah except from “This month is to you” (Exodus 12:2), which is the first commandment that the Israelites were commanded. Now for what reason did he commence with “In the beginning”?7

The starting point of Rabbi Isaac’s question is that, as the Torah was written to teach the law to the Jewish people, it should have begun with the first commandment given to the nation, and not with the story of the creation, which does not seem to coincide with the Torah’s main objective. From what we saw above, R. Saadia’s answer to this question might be that the Torah is more than a book of laws. Its goal is to educate the people,8 and the biblical stories are an integral

7

Genesis 1, The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary, https://www.chabad. org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8165/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-1.htm.

8

Compare R. Saadia’s words with those of Maimonides: “The general object of the Law is twofold: the well-being of the soul, and the well-being of the body. . . . The true Law, which as we said is one, and beside which there is no other Law, viz., the Law of our teacher Moses, has for its purpose to give us the twofold perfection. It aims first at the establishment of good mutual relations among men by removing injustice and creating the noblest feelings. In this way the people in every land are enabled to stay and continue in one condition, and everyone can acquire his first perfection. Secondly, it seeks to train us in faith, and to impart correct and true opinions

E duc at ion i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

part of the educational process. The stories play a crucial role in increasing the people’s motivation to obey God’s commandments so as to be rewarded as were Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the other righteous biblical figures, and to avoid punishment such as suffered by Noah’s generation during the Flood and by the generation of disunity—the builders of the Tower of Babel, who disobeyed the word of God. R. Saadia concluded his discussion on methods of education by saying that the Torah aims to educate, and as there are three forms of education, all three are reflected in the Scripture, “so that there are no fundamental principles of education that were not included in his book.” The Torah indeed contains explicit commandments and prohibitions, explanations of reward and punishment (as in the examples above), and stories of events from Jewish and global history that teach of rewards showered upon the righteous and punishments inflicted upon the wicked. R. Saadia later presented biblical verses giving examples of the three methods of education, and demonstrated how the Torah combines them all. One example from the Torah of these three methods is the words of the exalted God to Aaron [the high priest], when he tells him not to enter the holy place often using the words “he is not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place” (Leviticus 16:2). God then goes on to describe the punishment for disobeying these instructions: “or else he will die” (Leviticus 16:2) and reminds him what happened to his sons who did not adhere to God’s instructions by opening [the words of the prohibition] with the words “after the death of the two sons of Aaron” (Leviticus 16:2). This example refers to the opening verses of the Torah portion of Aḥarei Mot: The Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died when they approached the Lord. The Lord said to Moses: Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place behind the curtain in front of the atonement cover on the ark, or else he will die. For I will appear in the cloud over the atonement cover (Leviticus 16).

when the intellect is sufficiently developed. Scripture clearly mentions the twofold perfection.” Moses Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, 2 vols, ed. M. Schwartz (Tel Aviv, 2003), 3:27, 516–517 [Heb]; English translation: Moses Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, trans. M. Friedländer (London, 1904), 313, https://www.sacred-texts. com/jud/gfp/gfp163.htm.

85

86

Chapter Three

The Torah prohibits the High Priest from entering the most holy place in the Temple unless he is specifically instructed to do so, and therefore he instructs him “not to come whenever he chooses into the Most Holy Place.” This is the first method of education that does not include explanations of rewards or punishments. As this is insufficient, the Torah proceeds to the second form of education: “or else he will die”, to increase Aaron’s motivation to obey God’s instructions. However, God chose to use the third and most effective form of education as well and reminded Aaron of what had happened to his sons when they failed to behave as required in the Holy Temple and the Holy of Holies,9 by mentioning the fact that these instructions were given “after the death of the two sons of Aaron.” R. Saadia’s explanation is consistent with a midrash of the sages, who also agree that the mention of Nadav and Avihu before the prohibition given to Aaron was designed to enhance his motivation to adhere to this commandment: This is an allegory to a patient who visits the doctor. The doctor tells him not to drink cold beverages or sleep in a damp place. Another doctor tells the patient to avoid cold beverages and damp places so that he would not die, as someone else died, and this is more incentivizing than anything else. Therefore, it says “after the death of the two sons of Aaron . . . the Lord said to Moses.”10

Later, in the introduction to his Arabic translation of the Torah, R. Saadia offered another example, this time from the book of Proverbs, which demonstrates the three types of education used in the Scripture: Another example of this is what was said by [King] Solomon, when he prohibited lethargy in matters related to religion and this world and wrote “Do not love sleep” (Proverbs 20:13). He later explains that the result of this is loss of valuable things and writes “The craving of

9

Leviticus 10:1–2: “Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu took their censers, put fire in them and added incense; and they offered unauthorized fire before the Lord, contrary to his command. So, fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.”

10 Torat Kohanim, the portion of Aḥarei Mot, parshata 1, letter 3. Compare also Rashi`s commentary on the first verse.

E duc at ion i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

a sluggard will be the cause of his death” (Proverbs 21:25). . . .11 This is a story of one who was lazy and did not work in his field, to the point of the field being overgrown with thorns, and eventually its fence was destroyed as well, as it is written “I went past the field of a sluggard . . .” (Proverbs 24:30).

In this example, quoted from the book of Proverbs, which was composed by King Solomon, the wisest of all people, R. Saadia merges three chapters into a single unit: (a) “Do not love sleep or you will grow poor, stay awake and you will have food to spare”; (b) “The craving of a sluggard will be the death of him because his hands refuse to work”; and (c) “I went past the field of a sluggard, past the vineyard of someone who has no sense; thorns had come up everywhere, the ground was covered with weeds, and the stone wall was in ruins.” King Solomon uses this example to teach people to avoid being lazy. He does so explicitly, using the first form of education by saying “Do not love sleep.” He then goes on to describe the harm that can be caused when a person is a sluggard, as this “will be the death of him,” and concludes by giving an example to the destructive results of laziness by describing the field of an actual person who was lazy and neglected his field or vineyard, until it was overgrown with thorns, and even the stone wall around it that would have protected the field from thieves and pests, was in ruins: “I went past the field of a sluggard” etc.12 If we look at the structure of the entire Torah from the perspective of R. Saadia, we can conclude that the stories in the book of Genesis and the first half of the book of Exodus are setting an example, using the third method of education, as they present the stories of Noah, the patriarchs, and the people of Israel, who obeyed the word of God and as a result were saved from destruction. These stories are set in contrast to those of Adam and Eve who disobeyed God’s order and were expelled from paradise; of the wicked people who failed to obey God’s commandments and drowned in the Flood, of the people who were

11 Text missing in the original. 12 For another example of how the Torah uses these three forms of education, see also E. Schlossberg, “The Torah’s Method of Educating the People per R. Saadia Gaon, Discussion on Deuteronomy, chapter 4,” Shema`atin, 123, no. 4 (1995–1996): 38–42; E. Schlossberg, “The Methods of Education according to R. Saadia Gaon,” in Streams of Love (Yuvle Ahava)—In Loving Memory of Yuval Haiman, ed. Y. Y. Tobi, S. Glick, and R. Levin Melammed (Jerusalem, 2017), 55–68.

87

88

Chapter Three

spread across the world, or of the Egyptian soldiers who drowned in the Red Sea after chasing the people of Israel as they left Egypt. Commandments and prohibitions first appear in Exodus 12, including the positive and negative commandments alongside promises of reward13 or threats of severe punishment.14 By combining these three methods of education, the Torah guarantees that its educational goals will be met, and the student will achieve perfection. However, R. Saadia himself was aware of the difficulty posed by the order in which the three methods of education, with their varying degrees of effectiveness, are arranged in the Torah: Based on the proper order [and manner], it would have been more appropriate to begin with the commandments, followed by the punishment, and then tell the story as an example! However, the Torah was not given at the beginning of time [when the world was created], because logic required that it be given at a time when the people reached the “complete number,” and it was then that the Creator told them the stories of those who preceded them so that they could follow the actions of those who preceded them in praising God, and so that they would avoid the actions of those who preceded them and condemned God. And the Creator was obligated to put them in this order from the beginning of existence [creation] until the time the Torah was given, and then give the commandments and the prohibition, the promises, and the warnings, based on the knowledge that he was speaking with people of solid intelligence who were complete and without blemishes.15

13 Such as “Honor thy father and thy mother so that you may live a long life on the lands that God has given you” (Exodus 20:12); “You may take the young but be sure to set the mother free, so that it shall be good for you and you shall live a long life” (Deuteronomy 22:7). 14 For example: “Anyone who does such detestable things shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 18:29). Note that adjacent to this verse is an example of the third method of education, in which the punishments given to the ancient residents of the land are described: “These people sinned and were exiled. For all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you and the land was defiled, and if you defile the land it will vomit you out in your impurity as it vomited the people before you” (Leviticus 18:27–28). 15 Similar words were written by R. Saadia in his introduction to his long commentary on the book of Genesis (Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 171). Note that at certain opportunities in this commentary, R. Saadia explains at length the purpose of the biblical stories and the lessons to be learned from them. See, for example,

E duc at ion i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

As R. Saadia explains, the three methods of education are not equally effective. Commanding alone is the least effective method, while setting a personal example is the most effective. Therefore, it would seem more logical to present the methods of education in the following order: first, give the commandments, then describe the reward and penalty, and finally give the example of an individual or a community that has received the reward or punishment because of their deeds. But the Torah, which contains all three methods of education, does not choose this order. It first presents the stories (role models) in Genesis and the first half of Exodus. Only after that does it list the commandments and the subsequent rewards and punishments. Why does the Torah not follow the logical order? R. Saadia agrees that it would have made more sense to change the order and begin the Torah with the commandments and the punishments and leave the examples for the end. However, the Creator had other considerations that were not specifically related to education: “It was necessary for the Torah to be given at a time when the people reached the ‘complete number.’” In other words, the wisdom of the Creator required that the Torah be given to the people of Israel only when the size of the population would reach 600,000, a number that was not attained until the people stood at Mount Sinai. Therefore, the Torah began by recounting the history of the world from its creation, and the history of the Jewish people from the moment of its formation until it was redeemed from Egypt and up to the moment when it was received. Though this is part of the Torah’s educational endeavor, this order is not the natural one. This is R. Saadia’s indirect answer to another crucial question: Why wasn’t the Torah given to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or the Twelve Tribes? Why was it not given until the people of Israel were redeemed from Egypt? His answer is that during the time of the patriarchs the people of Israel had not reached the `appropriate number`, and therefore God did not want to give the Torah to them as a community but rather only as individuals.16 R. Saadia does not explain why Commentaries by R. Saadia Gaon on the Torah, ed. Y. Qafih (Jerusalem, 1984), 174– 175; Proverbs with Translation and Commentary by R. Saadia, 15. 16 See also BT Yoma 28b: “Rabha, and some say it was Rav Ashi, said: Abraham our forefather kept even the commandment of eruv tavshilin, as it is written “my instructions” (Genesis 26:5), to include the Written Torah and the Oral Torah,” and BT Kiddushin 82a: “We see that Abraham kept the entire Torah though it had not yet been given, as it says, ‘Because Abraham obeyed me, and did everything I required of him, keeping my commands, my decrees, and my instructions.’”

89

90

Chapter Three

the number 600,000 is the complete number that is necessary in order to receive the Torah. A possible explanation can be found in the writings of the Maharsha (R. Samuel Eliezer Halevi Edeles, 1555–1631), in his commentary on the saying of the sages: “He who sees a very large group of Jewish people says barukh ḥakham ha-razim [lit. ‘Blessed be he who holds the wisdom of the secrets’], as their minds differ from one another and their faces are different from one another.”17 Ḥakham ha-razim—Why is this blessing not said on a group of less than 600,000 people? It is because they have 600,000 different ideas, which are all the possible ideas in the world. Therefore, the Torah was given to 600,000 people in the desert so that the Torah would include every thought and every form of wisdom so that there would be nothing to add to it. As our sages said, any new concept that a wise man develops in his generation originates from Sinai, because this concept was already in the minds of one of those 600,000 people in Sinai, and there can be no other ideas beyond those 600,000. “And their faces are different”: Just as there are 600,000 different opinions, which is the internal form, so are their distinctions in the external form. Therefore, it is necessary to say a blessing when seeing so many faces that are so different from one another. When there are 600,000, all forms are represented and there are no others from here on.18

According to the Maharsha’s explanation, there are 600,000 different types of thoughts and ideas among the people of Israel, which encompass all the opinions and all the internal forms. For the Torah to be well suited to each individual among the people of Israel, and in order for it to encompass all forms of wisdom so that nothing can be added to it, it was given at the moment when all of the existing internal forms were gathered together. As noted, R. Saadia did not explain the significance of the “complete number” that enabled the Torah to be given to the people of Israel. However, this number was important enough for the Creator of the world to change the logical order of educational messages, and begin with the third method, setting a role

17 BT Berakhot 58a. 18 Maharsha, Ḥidushei Agadot, Berakhot 58a.

E duc at ion i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

model, before presenting the two other methods. This explains why the Torah begins with the history of the entire world and of the Jewish nation up until the moment they received the Torah. R. Saadia’s explanation of the educational methods used by the Torah incorporates an explanation for why the biblical stories are part of the Torah at all. His unique understanding of the biblical stories stands out in comparison to the different approach of other thinkers and philosophers, such as Maimonides. According to Maimonides, there is no doubt that the biblical stories are an important and integral part of the Torah and are no less significant than the commandments and the prohibitions. In his discussion on the thirteen principles of faith, Maimonides explicitly wrote the following: The eighth principle is that the Torah was given from the heaven. This means that we must believe that the entire Torah that we have in our hands today is the Torah that was given to Moses, and that it was all received from the word of God. And we say it was received by him from God using the word “received” in its colloquial meaning, and we cannot understand what “receiving” means in this context. This cannot be understood by anyone other than Moses, of blessed memory, who received it, and served as a scribe before whom the text is read and he writes it down in its entirety, including dates, stories, and commandments, and therefore he is called “he who inscribes.” There is no difference between “The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan” (Genesis 10:6), “and his wife’s name was Mehetabel daughter of Matred” (Genesis 36:39), and “I am the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2) or “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). These are all the words of God, it is all God’s complete, pure, holy, and true Torah. [The king] Menashe was no more of a heretic or infidel than any other heretic. Rather, he thought that the Torah has essence and chaff, and that the dates and the stories have no purpose and Moses added them at his own initiative,19 meaning that the Torah was not given from heaven. It is these who say that the entire Torah was given by God other than a single verse that was not said by God, but rather by Moses at his own initiative, as it is written “Because they have despised the Lord’s word” (Numbers 15:31). God will rise above what the infidels say, as every letter in the Torah contains wisdom and wonders for those who understand the word of God, and others will not

19 BT Sanhedrin 99b.

91

92

Chapter Three

achieve the essence of its wisdom “Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea” (Job 11:9). A person must pray as did David, the Messiah sent by the God of Jacob, “Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law” (Psalms 119:18).20

In the Guide for the Perplexed, his great philosophical work, Maimonides discusses the role of the biblical stories at length. His explanation for their significance alongside the positive and negative commandments is not quite like the explanation offered by R. Saadia, although they both agree that one of the Torah’s goals, is to educate and to instill proper and genuine ideas, or to correct the person’s deeds and conduct: There are matters that are hidden concepts of the Torah and many have failed in these areas, and therefore it is necessary to clarify them. This refers to the stories that are told in the Torah, that many think were given for no obvious reason. For example, when describing the generations following Noah, including their names and the places where they settled, or listing the sons of Seir the Horite and the names of the kings who ruled in the land of Edom, etc. . . . I will state the general rule, and then return to this matter in greater detail, just as I did when explaining the reasons for the commandments. Know that any story that appears in the Torah has necessary value for the Torah, either to confirm an idea that is one of the fundamental principles of the Torah, or to amend any specific deed; or to prevent instances of exploitation or mutual hostility between people, and I will explain this below. The principle of the Torah is that the world is new and then what was created initially is a single member of the human species, and that is Adam. The time that elapsed from the creation of Adam until the time of Moses was approximately 2500 years. However, if only that detail had been given to the people, they would have quickly begun to cast doubts, as the people were scattered throughout the world, divided into tribes, spoke different languages, and were far apart from one another. These doubts were resolved by the fact that all the generations of all the people are listed, and well-known people, this and that one, were listed, as well as how long they lived, where they lived, the reason they were spread throughout the world, and the reason

20 Moses Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah, ed. Y. Qafih (Jerusalem, 1965), M Nezikin, 214–215.

E duc at ion i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

they spoke different languages, despite the fact that they all originate from a single place and spoke a single language, as is necessitated by the fact that they all originate from a single person.21

According to Maimonides, the story of the creation and the details of the genealogy of the different nations were included to prevent the later generations from casting doubts on the authenticity of the information that was passed down from previous generations. Had the Torah made only a general statement saying that God had created the heavens and the earth and humanity, and 2500 years later he chose the sons of Jacob and gave them the Torah through Moses, people would have doubted the truth and authenticity of this statement. Our generation, living only some seventy years after the horrific Holocaust suffered by our nation, is horrified by attempts made to deny its existence and its terrible outcomes, at a time when people who experienced the Holocaust and its terrors are still living among us and can share their experiences with us. If this is the case only seventy years later, what might happen hundreds or thousands of years from now? Maimonides goes on to explain in detail the reasons for writing the stories of the Torah in the book of Genesis and the book of Exodus: The story of the flood and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah are further proof for the correct knowledge . . . as the story of the nine kings was told to teach us of the miracle, namely, Abraham’s victory with only a small number of people in his war against four great kings (Genesis 14:1–17). This story also indicates his zealousness for his relative because he held on to his faith and exposed himself to the risk of war to save his relative. And it also tells us of how Abraham sufficed with only little, and that he was satisfied and did not seek profit, demonstrating his nobility. . . . The story of Abraham’s war against Chedorlaomer and his allies was told to emphasize Abraham’s devotion to the members of his family as well as his other noble qualities, and of course, to inform all of the generations of the miracles that God performed for him. The list of the tribes of the sons of Seir and their genealogy are given because of a single commandment. God commanded that all the descendants of Amalek, specifically, be eradicated, and Amalek refers only to the son of Eliphaz born to Timna, who was the sister

21 Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed (2003), 3:50, 650–651.

93

94

Chapter Three

of Lot. He did not command that any of the other sons of Esau be killed. . . . Therefore, had this genealogy not been clarified in full detail, all the descendants of Esau might have been killed accidentally. The Bible clearly listed the tribes and said that those that you see now in Seir and in the Kingdom of Amalek are not necessarily the descendants of Amalek, rather, they are the sons of this person or the sons of that person and are not descended directly from Amalek, and only their mothers come from that genealogy. This was done so that God could guarantee justice, so that one tribe would not be killed because of another, as the decree applies specifically to the descendants of Amalek. . . . And the reason for listing the kings who ruled in Edom (Genesis 36:31) is that one of the commandments that we received was “Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite” (Deuteronomy 17:15), and the kings that are listed do not include one from the descendants of Edom. That is why the Torah lists their genealogy and associates them with their lands of origin, saying that this person is from this and that place, and that person is from another place. . . . The reason for the detailed genealogy of Edom and its descendants, and of the kings of Edom is that, even though it seems completely unnecessary and that it seems to contribute nothing to the purpose of the Torah and its commandments, it does, in fact, help keep the commandments. God commands us to eradicate all traces of one of the descendants of Seir, “You shall blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven” (Deuteronomy 25:19). If we do not know exactly who Amalek is, or the details of his ancestry, we will not be able to keep this commandment, or, in the worst case, other descendants of Seir might be killed accidently. The list of the kings who ruled in Edom was also provided to help prevent us from violating a negative commandment. God forbid us from appointing a king “who is not an Israelite.” However, the words of the Torah do not make it clear to which foreign nation it is referring, or whether it is permissible to appoint a king from among the people of Edom. The genealogy that appears in Genesis was incorporated for our benefit, to prevent us from violating God’s commandments.22

Maimonides continues to explain the reasons for biblical stories that seem entirely unrelated to Jewish law, including long, detailed descriptions of the travels of the Israelites through the desert:

22 Ibid., 651–652.

E duc at ion i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

We must understand: . . . when we consider these stories, we might think that these stories are unnecessarily long or repetitive. If there had been a witness to these events, that witness would realize that these descriptions are necessary. Therefore, when you read a story in the Torah that does not seem to have legislative value, you might think that it was unnecessary to even tell this story, or that it is excessively long or repetitive. The reason for this is that you did not see the details with your own eyes, which would have caused you to remember the events as they occurred. Some examples are the descriptions of the journeys [of the people of Israel in the desert]. It might seem that these stories have no value . . . , though there is a great need for them, because miracles are only clear to those who saw them themselves. However, in future generations they become stories that the listener might deny. . . . The fact that the people of Israel spent forty years in the desert, and the manna fell there every day . . . are very distant from all that is familiar, they are unnatural to the listener, as the desert is not a place of seeds, dates, vineyards, pomegranates [and there is no water there to drink] (Numbers 20:5). . . . And God knew that what would happen to these miracles in the future is what happens to stories, and the listener might think that the people of Israel resided in the prairie area near populated areas, where a person can reside, such as the areas where Arab tribes live today. They might think that these were places where they could plow fields, reap crops, or live off the vegetation that grew there. They might think that the manna naturally fell in these places on a regular basis, or that there were water wells in these places. Therefore, all these false imageries were rejected, and the story emphasized all these miracles by listing the different places where the people camped along the way, so that it could be seen by future generations who would realize the enormity of the miracle of human beings surviving in these places for forty years.23

According to Maimonides, the biblical stories have enormous educational value. They contribute to the ability of the Jewish people to keep the commandments and remind us of the great miracles that God performed for us throughout the generations. They instill faith and proper ideas in our hearts. It should be noted that this brief discussion does not attempt to fully address this issue and answer all the important and central questions, such as the

23 Ibid., 652–653.

95

96

Chapter Three

purpose of the story of the creation according to Maimonides. To fully comprehend the complexity of this topic, see, for example, Maimonides’s introduction to the Guide for the Perplexed: In our Halakhic essays . . . we have mentioned that the story of the creation describes the wisdom of nature and the ma`aseh merkava [metaphysics], which is the wisdom of God. . . . Understand that God wanted us to achieve a level of completion and correct the state of our society by giving us practical commandments. This is only possible after we have achieved belief in the cognitive faiths, and this begins by comprehending God to the best of our ability. This would not be possible without the wisdom of God. And this, the wisdom of God, cannot be achieved before the wisdom of nature has been attained. As the wisdom of nature borders on the wisdom of God and precedes it in the order of teaching, as is clear to the observer. Therefore, God chose to begin his holy book with the story of creation, which is the wisdom of nature, as we have explained.

The uniqueness of R. Saadia’s insistence on the educational value of biblical stories is even more pronounced considering Nachmanides’ approach to this matter. Nachmanides proceeds from the premise that these stories are based on the well-known principle of ma`aseh avot siman le-banim (the actions of the fathers are a sign for the sons). In other words, the events in the lives of our forefathers are recounted in the Bible because they are an indication for the people of Israel of what will occur in their lives in the future. For example, Nachmanides offers the following commentary on the verse “Abram traveled through the land as far as Shechem” (Genesis 12:6), which seems redundant and unnecessary: The general rule, which can be understood from all the subsequent events that occurred in the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is a fundamental principle that has been described in brief words by our sages who said that “everything that occurred to the forefathers is a sign for the sons.” Therefore, the verses contain lengthy descriptions of the stories of the journeys taken and the wells dug, and other events. The reader might think that this is unnecessary information that is without any value, but these stories all hint of future events, because anything that occurs to one of the prophets, to our three forefathers, should be seen as a hidden indication of what will happen to their descendants. . . . And therefore, God placed Abraham in the land of Israel, and gave him encounters that resemble incidents that will occur in the lives of his descendants.

E duc at ion i n t he Wr it i ngs of R . S a ad i a G aon

In his introduction to the book of Exodus, Nachmanides summarizes the book of Genesis and its stories with a similar message: He [the Lord] completed the book of Genesis, which is the story of the creation and the renewal of the world, and the creation of every living creature, and the lives of the patriarchs, as they are a form of creation for their descendants, as all the occurrences in their lives are illuminations that allude to and notify the people of what will occur to them in the future.

Let us summarize R. Saadia`s approach towards the educational role of the Scriptures. The Torah is a book of education. The ideal form of education can be achieved by combining three methods, which have varying degrees of effectiveness, and complement one another. The first method is imposing commandments and prohibitions without explanations or details of reward and punishment. The second one includes attaching explanations and details of the rewards and punishments for the commandments and prohibitions. The third method involves telling a story to set role models for proper and improper behavior, in addition to stating the commandment and the prohibition, and the reward and punishment. These three methods are all included in the Torah. There are negative and positive commandments, promises of reward to those who obey the positive commandments, threats of punishment for those who violate the negative commandments, and stories of individuals and communities who kept the commandments and received great reward, and of individuals and communities who violated the commandments and were severely punished. R. Saadia’s description of the method of presenting a role model as being the most effective of the three forms of education indirectly provides an explanation for the necessity and centrality of the biblical stories.

97

Chapter Four

R. Saadia’s Translation of the Pentateuch In the first chapters we have already seen that R. Saadia Gaon’s education and areas of interest were extremely wide, and his writings dealt with a vast range of subjects. Even though he had been born and brought up in Egypt, which was not at the center of the world of Jewish culture, his immigration to Babylonia took him through all the Jewish and Arabic centers of Torah and learning of his time. Not having been educated in Babylonia, he was not a typical student of the Babylonian academy, which was somewhat cut off from the cultural and spiritual realities of the period and stunted growth and originality in rabbinical literature.1 R. Saadia Gaon wrote numerous works in many fields: he composed a prayer book, piyyutim (liturgical songs), grammar books, polemical books and treatises, an important philosophical book, and Halakhic responsa. These books and treatises played a crucial role in establishing his status as one of the central figures in Babylonia and in the Jewish world in general. Yet, despite this respectable literary crop, there is no doubt that R. Saadia’s greatest literary enterprise was his Bible exegesis. His commentaries, which encompass almost the entire Scripture, are divided by their form and content into two types. The first type is a short commentary, known by its Arabic name Tafsīr, which is in fact a translation of the verses into Arabic. As a result, through adding or omitting words, the structure of the verses is changed. This translation has been widely studied in all the areas under Moslem influence, especially by Yemenite Jews, who studied R. Saadia’s Tafsīr since their first steps at childhood till old age.2 Many of the fragments discovered in the Cairo genizah in Ben Ezra 1

See also chapter 1, note 36.

2

On this matter see at length E. Schlossberg, “Between Old and New in Yemenite Midrashic Literature,” Review of Rabbinical Judaism 23 (2020): 74–87; E. Schlossberg, “The Commentary of Rav Sa`adia Gaon in the Late Yemenite Midrashim,” in

R . S a a d i a’s Tr a n s l a t i o n o f t h e Pe nt a t e u c h

Synagogue of al-Fustat (the oldest part of today’s Cairo), and more than 10,000 fragments in libraries around the world, contain R. Saadia Gaon’s translations of the Bible to Arabic. This huge number testifies to the enormous impact of this translation on the Jewish world. R. Saadia Gaon was not the first to translate the Bible into Arabic. Arabic Bible translations existed already in the eighth and the ninth centuries.3 We also have knowledge of translations carried out prior to R. Saadia’s time, and parts of them have even been published in recent years in various academic publications.4 These early translations appear to show the development of the oral tradition of commentary, with local variations, which later were absorbed into the Gaon’s commentaries, or were rejected in favor of his own translations and thus forgotten to history. They are characterized by being extremely verbose, using many alternative translations, and by the absence of clear-cut exegetical decisions.5 Most manuscripts of R. Saadia’s Arabic translation of the Bible are written in Judeo-Arabic in Hebrew characters, but there are also manuscripts written in Arabic script. Nevertheless, there is still a controversy over the script in which the Tafsīr was originally written. The main evidence for those who favor the possibility that the translation was written in Arabic letters is the citation of R. Abraham ibn Ezra in his commentary to Genesis 2:11: ‫בעבור שתרגם התורה בלשון‬ ‫[ ישמעאל ובכתיבתם‬because he (the Gaon) translated the Pentateuch in the language

Mas`at Aharon—Linguistic Studies Presented to Aron Dotan, ed. M. Bar-Asher and H. A. Cohen (Jerusalem, 2009), 498–521 [Heb]. 3

See, for example, G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur (Vatican City, 1944), 86–89; R. C. Steiner, A Biblical Translation in the Making: The Evolution and Impact of Saadia Gaon’s Tafsīr (Cambridge, MA, 2010), 52–54; S. H Griffith, The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the “People of the Book” in the Language of Islam (Princeton, 2013), 108–125.

4

For excerpts from the pre-Saadian translations that have so far been published, see Y. Tobi, “Another Popular Hebrew-Arabic Biblical Translation,” in Studies in Hebrew Language and Jewish Languages in Honor of Shelomo Morag, ed. Moshe Bar-Asher (Jerusalem, 1996), 481–501 [Heb]; idem, “Tafsīr Alfāẓ in Phonetical Writing to the Ḥumash of Exodus,” Bein `Ever le `Arav 1 (1995): 53–74 [Heb]; J. Blau, “On a Fragment of the Oldest Judaeo-Arabic Bible Translation Extant,” in Genizah Research after Ninety Years—The Case of Judaeo-Arabic, ed. J. Blau and Stefan C. Reif (Cambridge, 1992), 31–39.

5

About this subject see, at length, J. Blau and S. Hopkins, Early Judaeo-Arabic in Phonetic Spelling—Texts from the End of the First Millennium (Jerusalem, 2017) [Heb].

99

100

Chapter Four

of Ihsmael (Arabic) and in their writing]. Some scholars thought that this proves that the Tafsīr was written first in Arabic characters and later in Hebrew letters; Other tried to explain that R. Abraham ibn Ezra referred not to the Arabic script but to the Arabic style, and other raised the possibility that Ibn Ezra had indeed seen with his own eyes the Tafsīr in Arabic script, but it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the Tafsīr was first written in those letters.6 According to the manuscripts found so far, R. Saadia translated to Arabic the Pentateuch and the Books of Isaiah, Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, the five scrolls (Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther), Daniel, and perhaps also parts of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets. R. Saadia’s methods of translation changed the way the Bible was translated from then on. His Arabic translation established a new standard of translation and changed the Jewish world and its methods of studying the Pentateuch. As against the wordiness of previous translations, R. Saadia Gaon took a great deal of liberty with changing the structure of the Hebrew verses, adapting them to the rules of Arabic grammar and composition. Thus, for example, the Gaon changed short verses into a continuum on one subject, by adding connecting letters or words. When several identical nouns appear in the same verse, the Gaon converted them into personal or possessive pronouns, as in the following verse: And I have given the Levites they are given to Aaron and to his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the service of the children of Israel in the tent of meeting, and to make atonement for the children of Israel, that there be no plague among the children of Israel, through the children of Israel coming nigh unto the sanctuary. (Numbers 8:19)

The term “the children of Israel” is mentioned five times in the verse, whereas in R. Saadia Gaon’s translation its equivalent is mentioned only once, and in the other cases it is substituted by pronouns:

6

About this subject see, for example, Malter, Saadia Gaon, 142–143; Y. Tobi, The Poetry, the Judeo-Arabic Literature and the Genizah (Tel Aviv, 2009), 76 [Heb]; J. Blau, The Emergence and Linguistic Background of Judeo‑Arabic (Jerusalem, 1999), 39–41; Steiner, A Biblical Translation in the Making, 94–96; Griffith, The Bible in Arabic, 168–169; R. Vollandt, “Some Observations on Genizah Fragments of Saadiah’s Tafsīr in Arabic Letters,” Ginzei Qedem 5 (2009): *9–*44.

R . S a a d i a’s Tr a n s l a t i o n o f t h e Pe nt a t e u c h

‫וגיעלתהם להרון ולבניה מן בין בני אסראיל ליכ’דמו כ’דמתהם פי כ’בא אלמחצ’ר ויסתגפרו‬ .‫ענהם ולא יחל בהם ובא אד’א הם תקדמו אלי אלקדס‬ [And I gave them to Aaron and his sons from among the children of Israel to perform their work in the tent of meeting and to make atonement for them and that there be no plague among them through them coming nigh unto the sanctuary.]

In other cases, the Gaon adds words into his translation to clarify a verse. Thus, for example, he prefaces what Abraham says to Sarah, “And it will come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they will say: ‘This is his wife’; and they will kill me, but thee they will keep alive” (Genesis 12:12), with the Arabic words ‫אכאף אן ראוך‬, meaning, “I am afraid, [when the Egyptians] shall see thee . . .”, since in the final analysis Abraham was not killed, as he himself had determined with certainty. Another example concerns the verse Genesis 2:17, where God says to Adam, “in the day you eat from it you will die,” but in the end we all know that Adam and Eve did not die when they ate from the fruit of the tree! Therefore R. Saadia added in his Arabic translation the words ‫תסתחק אן‬ ‫[ תמות‬tastaḥiqq an tamūt, “you deserve to die”], thus preventing a contradiction between God’s words and what actually happened. Occasionally, he changes the order of words in a verse to avoid interpretative problems. For example, of the stones on the breastplate of the high priest in the temple it is written, “And the stones shall be according to the names of the children of Israel” (Exodus 28:21), something that was clearly impossible. R. Saadia Gaon changes the word order in his translation, ‫ותכן עלי אלחגארה אסמא‬ ‫בני אסראיל‬, meaning “The names of the children of Israel will be on the stones,” thereby resolving the difficulty. The second type of R. Saadia’s exegetical works is long comprehensive “interpretative” commentaries, known by their Arabic name Sharḥ. In these works, R. Saadia explains sets of verses according to a literary division that he invented, explains difficult words, discusses linguistic, Halakhic, philosophical, and theological issues that arise from the verses in question. He also argues at length with his opponents, Jews, and non-Jews alike. In the long biblical commentaries of R. Saadia we may distinguish two types, one comprehensively “exegetical” and the other “monographic.” In the former type, exemplified by his commentary on the Pentateuch, R. Saadia comments on almost every verse and discusses the various areas of study for which the verses have served as scriptural support. In the “monographic” type, such as the commentaries on the Books of Job and

101

102

Chapter Four

Psalms, he only comments on selected verses while giving expression to ideas and concepts that he has developed in the introduction to that commentary. These exegetical writings of R. Saadia Gaon, as well as his other works in language and philosophy, earned him from some scholars in the Middle Ages the title rosh ha-medabrim be-khol maqom [head speaker everywhere]. Literally it means “he who speaks first anywhere,” but its real meaning is “the highest authority anywhere.”7 This title was originally accorded the early rabbinic sage Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Ilai,8 and the fact that R. Saadia Gaon was given it too indicates his important status among medieval scholars and the respect in which they held him. R. Saadia Gaon’s translation of the Bible, which is the focus of this chapter, was the most important commentaries on the Bible in the Middle Ages and had a great deal of influence on biblical commentators who lived and worked after him. In recent years some researchers and rabbis published critical editions of the Arabic translation, together with alternate versions, a translation into Hebrew, and explanatory notes. Among the various works in this field, I will mention R. Amram Qorah’s commentary Neveh Shalom,9 the edition of R. Yosef Qafih,10 R. Yom-Tov Chaim ben Yaakov Daknish Hacohen’s publication of R. Saadia’s commentary on the Pentateuch in Arabic script,11 Tamar Zewi’s edition of the Samaritan version of the Tafsīr,12 and Joshua Blau’s important notes on the translation.13 In recent years I have also been working on

7

This title was given to R. Saadia Gaon by R. Abraham ibn Ezra in Moznei Lashon ha-Qodesh ([Offenbach, 1791], 1b) and by the Spanish-Italian grammarian R. Shlomo ibn Parchon (Maḥberet ha-Arukh, 12, s.v. ‫)פר״ח‬. Note that even Rashi, probably the most popular exegete, mentions R. Saadia’s name in his commentary on Exodus 24:12 and refers to him as “Rabbeinu [our Rabbi] Saadia.”

8

Compare BT Berakhot 63b; BT Shabbat 33b; BT Menaḥot 103b.

9

Amram Qorah, Neveh Shalom, in Tāj Gadol, ed. J. Chasid (Jerusalem, 1982); Neveh Shalom—A Commentary on Rav Sadia Gaon’s Tafsīr by Rabbi Amram Qoraḥ, ed Nahem Ilan (Jerusalem, 2022).

10 Commentaries by R. Saadia Gaon on the Torah. 11 Y.-T. Ch. Daknish Hacohen, Torah Original Commentary in Arabic by Rabbi Saadia Gaon (882–942) CE (Jerusalem, 2015). 12 T. Zewi, The Samaritan Version of Saadya Gaon’s Translation of the Pentateuch (Leiden, 2015). 13 J. Blau, Notes on R. Saadia Gaon’s Translation of the Torah, part 1: Genesis (Jerusalem, 2019) [Heb].

R . S a a d i a’s Tr a n s l a t i o n o f t h e Pe nt a t e u c h

a critical edition of the translation, together with alternate versions, a translation into Hebrew, and explanatory notes. In this chapter I would like to describe the task of editing, its scope, and the guidelines employed.14 R. Saadia Gaon’s translation was first published in the Polyglot Bible in Constantinople in 1546, based on manuscripts written in Hebrew characters.15 It was published a second time in the Paris Polyglot Bible in 1645 together with a translation into Latin, this time in Arabic characters. The third publication was in the London Polyglot Bible in 1657, also in Arabic characters. The conversion of Hebrew to Arabic characters led to many errors and a considerable number of corruptions of the text of the Tafsīr. From that date until the end of the nineteenth century, only individual passages of R. Saadia Gaon’s commentary on the Pentateuch were printed, mainly from the long commentary.16 The first Yemenite Tāj (literally “crown,” an edition combining the translation of R. Saadia Gaon with the original Hebrew verses and the Aramaic translation of Onkelos) was printed in Jerusalem between 1894 and 1899. In this tradition, the text of R. Saadia’s translation is based solely on Yemenite manuscripts. Since then, the translation of R. Saadia Gaon has been printed in the Yemenite Tāj books, usually together with other commentaries. The last Tāj known to me that includes R. Saadia Gaon’s translation was published a few years ago by the sons of Rabbi Shimon Saleh.17 This edition perpetuates even more than previous ones the connection between the Tafsīr of R. Saadia Gaon and his sources from the Yemenite tradition as handed down from generation to generation, since R. Saadia Gaon’s translation is vocalized using the Yemenite pronunciation. The most important development in connection with the Tafsīr of R. Saadia Gaon occurred apparently in 1893, when Naphtali (known as Joseph) Derenbourg published his edition of the Tafsīr with short explanatory notes, for the first time accompanied by the Gaon’s introduction to his translation, which was only to be found in very few manuscripts.18 In his introduction, Derenbourg 14 This large-scale research could not have been carried out without a generous grant I received from the National Sciences Foundation, for which I am extremely grateful. 15 Pentateuchus Hebraeo-Chaldaeo-Persico-Arabicus (Constantinople, 1546). 16 Malter, Saadia Gaon, 308–309. 17 Ha-Tāj ha-Shalem Ḥazon Shim`on, 5 vols (Bnei Brak, 1996–2002). 18 For emendations and notes to this edition, see Josef Mieses, “Textkritische Bemerkungen zu R. Saadya Gaons arabischer Pentateuchuebersetzung, ed. Derenbourg, Paris

103

104

Chapter Four

states that in preparing his edition he made use of three sources: the Constantinople edition of 1546, the London Polyglot of 1657, and a manuscript he describes as follows: “Very accurate, sent to me from Jerusalem. . . . This manuscript is from R. David Hacohen, who came from the Land of Yemen to Jerusalem, to live there.” Today, with the plethora of texts we have from non-Yemenite sources, and particularly because we understand that the Yemenite explanatory tradition was not the only one that preserved the previous text of the Tafsīr; we cannot consider the Derenbourg edition to be critical in the fullest sense of the term. It accordingly appears unavoidable to prepare a new, critical edition, which should be based on as many sources as possible and on reliable texts, to the extent that the world’s libraries permit. There are several reasons that explain why, up until today, we do not have a satisfactory edition of the Tafsīr, but here is not the place to dwell at length on the subject. One of the reasons is the enormous number of manuscripts to be found around the world in libraries as well as private collections. In the opinion of the late Yehudah Ratzabi, the number reaches over ten thousand. However, a study of these manuscripts shows that the overwhelming majority of them is from the seventeenth century onwards and almost all are Yemenite, which means that most of them illustrate just one aspect of the Tafsīr tradition. In other words, even if we ignore the technical difficulty in locating and checking all the manuscripts, there is in fact no need to do so, since most of these manuscripts contain almost nothing that would contribute to the study of versions of the translation. It is possible that some manuscripts might also preserve older, good versions; however, the sampling of the later Yemenite manuscripts shows that the differences between them and earlier manuscripts from Yemen lie mainly in minor issues of language and spelling, and they make no real contribution to the study of earlier texts. Accordingly, the first decision prior to the preparation of the new edition was to be made in respect of the sources that could and should be used to cover the many versions of the Tafsīr. My guiding principle was to choose a relatively limited number of manuscripts and printed editions, which I could handle efficiently and within a reasonable timeframe. It was important to choose manuscripts that represent multiple channels of tradition of the Tafsīr, and not

1893,” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 63 (1919): 269–290. On the Introduction, see also Ben-Shammai, “Old and New,” 199–210.

R . S a a d i a’s Tr a n s l a t i o n o f t h e Pe nt a t e u c h

concentrate on the Yemenite tradition only. One has to be aware that, even though the Jews of Yemen were almost the only ones to continue to pore over the Tafsīr of R. Saadia during the last few hundred years and in fact have been almost the only ones to do so until today, their texts are by no means free of corruptions and errors. What is more, the scribes in Yemen allowed themselves occasionally to change the text before them, to adapt it to the languages and expressions with which they were familiar, or because they wished to adjust the text of the translation they were working on and make it more similar to the biblical text. That, for example, is the situation with the verse “but there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground” (Genesis 2:6). There are two versions of R. Saadia’s translation for the first part of the verse. The first is ‫[ ואלבכאר כאן יצעד מנהא פיסקי גמיע וגההא‬and steam arose from it and watered all its waste]. This version is found in the earliest Yemenite Tāj, Manuscript OxfordBod. MS Opp. Add. Q4. 98 (nr. 16327), written in Sana in the fourteenth century; in the Lutzki manuscript, Jewish Theological Seminary 647 (nr. 23891), which was apparently written in Egypt in the fourteenth century; in a Yemenite manuscript written in Rada in 1697 (Cam. Add 1008 ii); in the Parasha-Tāj, a manuscript from 1812 (ed. Aharon Chasid [Jerusalem, 1971]) and in the Nadaf-Iraqi edition, printed in Jerusalem in 1894 (facsimile edition published in Jerusalem in 1968). The other version is ‫[ ולא בכאר כאן יצעד מנהא פיסקי גמיע וגההא‬and mist did not rise etc.]. This version is to be found, for example, in the oldest manuscript of R. Saadia’s translation of the Pentateuch, in the Russian National Library, St. Petersburg, II C. EBO (nr. 69089); manuscript Oxford-Bod. MS Poc. 395 (nr. 33041), written in the northern Syrian town of Hamat in 1449; in many of the extracts of the Tafsīr that survived in the Cairo genizah; and in R. Amram Qorah’s Neveh Shalom, a commentary on the translation of R. Saadia Gaon.19 From a study of medieval commentaries it emerges that their authors were only acquainted with the second version, where mist did not rise from the earth. For example, R. Abraham ibn Ezra writes in his commentary ad locum, “And the Gaon said that its explanation was that ‘mist did not rise from the ground.’” An explanation for this comment can be found, for example, in the words of R. David Kimchi (known as Radaq) in his commentary on the Pentateuch:

19 Neveh Shalom (2022), 226.

105

106

Chapter Four

And the Gaon R. Saadia explained, “and mist did not rise from the ground.” [The word] “not” that is mentioned previously20 or [the word] “no” are [used once] instead of twice. And thus, he explained, at the beginning of the world there was no man to sow and plant and there was no mist that rose up and watered. . . . And where it says, “and mist did not rise” after it had already said, “and it did not water,” he was certain of this: that “mist did not rise” is the explanation of “it did not water,” to let us know that God is the one who waters by way of the mist, since that is the start of the written story.21

In other words, the negative “no” (or “not”) that appears in verse 5 also serves the beginning of verse 6, and therefore it must be joined, according to R. Saadia, to the words “and the mist went up,” in that way voiding the possibility that mist rose from the earth and watered the ground. This approach, even though it is bolder and more daring, is the one that was chosen by R. Saadia Gaon, and therefore was known among the rabbis of the Middle Ages who used the Gaon’s commentary when they themselves came to explain Scripture. Later scribes did not appreciate R. Saadia Gaon’s “deviation” from the verse’s literal meaning [mist did not go up], so they changed what he wrote and adjusted his translation to correspond to the biblical text, according to their own mistaken understanding. In order not to be dependent on a single exegetical tradition, I decided to make use of alternative versions, choosing the earliest manuscripts possible, written in different places throughout the East. Therefore, in my list of manuscripts there can be found one written in Egypt in the fourteenth century, one apparently written in Spain in the thirteenth or the fourteenth century, and a manuscript from northern Syria from the fifteenth century, alongside a Yemenite one from the fourteenth century that is apparently one of the earliest—if not the earliest—Yemenite manuscripts of the Tafsīr that we have.

20 That is to say, the negative “no” is added to this verse from the previous verse. See also Qorah, Neveh Shalom; Commentaries by R. Saadia Gaon on the Torah; and Blau, Notes. 21 See The Commentaries of R. David Kimchi on the Torah, ed. Moshe Kamelhar (Jerusalem, 1970), and R. David Kimchi, Book of Roots. This explanation is quoted in various versions, including that of R. Abraham Maimonides; in the Yemenite Midrash ha-Ḥefeẓ, ed. Meir Havazelet, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1990–1992); in the commentary of R. Yitzhak Abarbanel, and in R. Shlomo ben Melech, Michlol Yofi. See also E. Schlossberg, “Michlol Yofi by R. Shlomo ben Melech: A Collector of Philological Medieval Exegesis on the Torah,” Megadim 5 (1988): 45–57.

R . S a a d i a’s Tr a n s l a t i o n o f t h e Pe nt a t e u c h

In addition to these manuscripts, most of them complete and covering the entire Torah, I have reviewed hundreds of fragments of the Gaon’s translation from the Cairo genizah, where the name of the writer and their date are unknown. Some of the fragments are extremely short and clipped, with translation of only a few verses, and some offer a translation of several chapters. These fragments, of which only a few have ever been studied, are one of the most important contributions of the new edition in the investigation of the text of the Tafsīr. The apparatus of alternative versions from printed sources will include the Constantinople Polyglot of 1546, which like every first edition enjoys the status of a manuscript, as well as Derenbourg’s well-known edition. It will also include the text of the Tāj that was printed in Jerusalem in 1894–1899, where unique and interesting readings can be found alongside embarrassing mistaken versions. This Tāj was printed in accordance with a relatively late Yemenite manuscript,22 and it therefore represents to a considerable degree the later texts of the Tafsīr in Yemen. Another consideration for including this source in the list of texts was that this Tāj is found in many homes, certainly among Yemenite scholars, and it is thus right to take it into account. The range of sources and where they were written creates a problem of transcription. A comparison of pre-Saadian commentaries published in recent years23 shows that it was R. Saadia Gaon who determined and largely formulated the method of transcription and writing in Judeo-Arabic that was current in the Middle Ages. In the sources available to us there are several transcription methods, which differ from each other by the rendering of the letters, of the shortened Arabic letter alif (as in the words `ilā, `alā) and even the letter alif in words such as kamā and lammā, not to mention the partial or complete removal of the diacritic points. In order not to impair the uniqueness of the various sources, and on the assumption that those interested in textual variants have a good knowledge of Arabic, both Jewish and non-Jewish, no attempt has been made to unify the various transcription techniques, and each of the sources will be brought as is.

22 On the frontispiece the editors write that the translation of R. Saadia Gaon “was transcribed from accurate, ancient books from Yemen that were several hundred years old,” but having checked the text and the language, I have doubts whether the manuscripts used by the editors are more than three hundred years old. 23 See above, note 4.

107

108

Chapter Four

It should be noted that there are several manuscripts, some from before the thirteenth century, written in Arabic script,24 whose value is questionable. However, Paul Kahle and his students argue that it is these manuscripts, written in Arabic script, that most faithfully reflect the original text of the Tafsīr. Nevertheless, today scholars agree that manuscripts in Hebrew script are the ones that have retained the ancient text.25 In order that the new edition accurately represents all the traditions, it will also include a comparison with the Florence manuscript, written in Arabic script in 1245, and thus considered one of the very earliest sources of the translation.26 The most important manuscript of all is naturally the one that will serve as the internal text, or, in other words, the manuscript on which the entire edition will be based, and against which the other sources will be compared. For this purpose, an eastern (non-Yemenite) manuscript has been selected, from the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg, reference number EBP II C (nr. 69089 and 69895 in the Institute of Hebrew Manuscript Photocopies in Jerusalem). This manuscript is especially important for two reasons: it is approximately dated as early as the beginning of the eleventh century (c. 1009/1010), and its Arabic language reveals features of a post-classical Arabic stage. A would-be editor of a manuscript has to face the familiar dilemma: whether to use the diplomatic editing approach, which means being based on a single confirmed source, namely one manuscript, and to make comparison with other sources; or to use the eclectic edition approach, which gathers separate sources and creates a new entity whose like will not be found among existing manuscripts, but which, in the editor’s opinion, ought to be closer to the original as penned by the author. In our case there was not much room for indecision. The quality of the St. Petersburg manuscript and its preference over all other manuscripts led to the obvious conclusion that it was the right one on which to base a future edition of the Tafsīr. However, the many missing parts in the manuscript require acknowledgement that the edition will also be eclectic, since the many missing passages must be filled in from at least one other manuscript.

24 See Malter, Saadia Gaon, 310–311. 25 Ibid., 111. 26 Cod. Palat. Orient. 112 (XXI) or Flor. Pal. Med. Or. 21. On the first page of this manuscript it is written in Arabic characters: ‫التوراة المقدسة محررة من نقل سعيد الفيومي من‬ ‫[ العبراني الى العربي‬The holy Torah written from the translation of Saadia al-Fayyūmī from Hebrew to Arabic]. For further details, see Malter, Saadia Gaon, 310.

R . S a a d i a’s Tr a n s l a t i o n o f t h e Pe nt a t e u c h

This important manuscript , which was first described by Joshua Blau,27 is an eastern manuscript from the beginning of the eleventh century, approximately only seventy years after the Gaon’s death. The verses are written in large characters, each verse followed by R. Saadia’s Arabic translation on separate lines and in smaller Hebrew letters. The manuscript underwent proofreading at some stage, and in the margin there are corrections, both to the Hebrew text of the verses and the text of the Tafsīr. Thus, we sometimes find in the margins or between the lines words that were erased in error, or even other verses of the Tafsīr. Sometimes it is difficult to know whether these additions were made by the copyist of the manuscript or at a later time. In the Arabic words of the Tafsīr there are extremely fragmentary diacritic markings, which are also not consistent. On several occasions the same word appears in a verse more than once, with different diacritic markings. Thus, for example, in the translation of Genesis 31:30, ‫ ואלאן מצית מצֹיא‬the letter ẓadi appears the first time without a diacritic point, while the second time it has one. There is a similar situation in the translation of Exodus 16:15, ֹ‫וקאל בעצהם לבעץ‬, where the first word of two similar ones is also missing the diacritic point, while the second one has it. The lack of consistency in this early manuscript can be seen not just in the diacritic markings but also in writing proper names, such as ‫יצחק‬/‫אסחק‬, or ‫סרי‬/ ‫שרי‬. In the next example, three types of writing can be discerned in the translation of the word ‫( הלוויים‬the Levites): ‫כד אלואניין בדל כל בכר מן בני אסראייל ובהאים‬ ‫( אללואניין בדל פיצירון לי אליואניון אנא אללה שרפתהם‬Numbers 3:45). Much less frequently, there are words in the text that have partial Arabic vocalization marks, apparently, to facilitate reading. Thus, for example, in the translation of Deuteronomy 6:15 it is written, ‫לאן אללה רבך טאיק מ עאקב פימא בינ־ כ ם‬ ‫לילא ישתד גצבה עליך וינפדך ען וגה אלארץ‬, where over the letter mem of the word ‫מעאקב‬ and over the letter kaf of the word ‫ בינכם‬is the Arabic vowel ḍammah, and above the letter yud in ‫ לילא‬is an Arabic hamzah; In the translation of Exodus 19:3 it states, ‫ומוסי צעד אלי אללה פנאדאה קאילא כדא קُל לאל יעקוב ואכבר לאל אסראייל‬, and over the letter quf in the word ‫ קל‬the ḍammah can be seen clearly. In the translation of

27 J. Blau, “Studies in an Eastern Manuscript from the Beginning of the Eleventh Century of the R. Saadia Gaon’s Translation of the Torah,” Leshonenu 61 (1998): 111–130 [Heb]. On issues of masorah in the MS, see Y. Ofer, “Masorah Remarks on Linguistic Issues in the Leningrad Ms. with the Translation of R. Saadia Gaon,” Meḥqarim baLashon 8 (2001): 49–75 [Heb].

109

110

Chapter Four

Deuteronomy 6:16, ‫ולא תגֹרבו אללה רَבّכם כמَא ֹגרّבתמוה פי דאת אלמחנה‬, there are clear fatha vowel marks and the Arabic stress mark shaddah. What is special about the St. Petersburg manuscript is, first and foremost, the fact that it is the oldest of all the manuscripts known to us. It was written in Egypt by the scribe Shmuel ben Yaakov. Based on the time that scribe was active, the date of this manuscript can be estimated at about 1010, which is only approximately seventy years after the death of the Gaon in 942. This early manuscript also differs from other ones we know in its style and its insistence on Arabic rules of grammar and composition. Blau has already pointed out the expertise of both R. Saadia Gaon and R. Shmuel ben Hofni in the finer points of Arabic style.28 However, according to him, there is a gap between this expertise and the level of the language employed for writing, which apparently indicates that they had intended to write in post-classical style, even if theoretically they had aimed for the truly classical language. This manuscript is superior both stylistically and linguistically to the other manuscripts. It is scrupulous about classical grammatical structure, for example, the consistent retention of nominal cases (such as distinguishing between ‫מצריון‬/‫ מצריין‬as compared to ‫ מצריין‬in almost all other manuscripts); the conjugation of verbs, for example, ‫ יעבדון‬as against ‫יעבדו‬, ‫ תאכֹֹדונה‬as compared to ‫ ;תאכדוה‬use of the dual form both in verbs (‫)יכונאן‬ and the objective pronoun (‫ ;)אעטיתהמא‬and agreement of connecting words with the antecedent nouns. Taking this into account, Blau proposes two routes for the process of editing. The first route is based on the assumption that the ancient manuscript reflects the original version of the translation, whereas other sources represent the changes introduced into the Tafsīr over time. The second route presupposes that the later sources represent the original text of the translation, and the copyist of the ancient manuscript established a new text, which imitates classic Arabic. Blau rejects this second possibility, since “it is quite clear that the transcribers of the Arabic texts have in general a tendency to be particular about their own language and do not let the popular speech creep into the text they are copying.” He therefore concludes, “We are obliged to come to the conclusion that the

28 J. Blau, “Studies in Analyzing the Arabic Style in the Writings of R. Saadia Gaon and R. Shmuel ben Hofni,” Pe`amim 23 (1985): 38–41.

R . S a a d i a’s Tr a n s l a t i o n o f t h e Pe nt a t e u c h

manuscripts generally (but by no means always) retained the earlier language of the translation.”29 Thus, the early manuscript of the Gaon’s translation, which reflects the original text from the author’s pen better than all other sources, was written in post-classical Arabic virtually without any morphological errors from classic Arabic. In the light of the reliability of its versions and the exactness of its fluent Arabic language, it is fitting to base on it the critical edition of the Gaon’s translation of the Torah. However, as has been stated above, large parts of it are missing. In fact, just two thirds of the translation of the Torah have survived in manuscript. Thus, for example, in Genesis the entire section Toledot (25:19–28:9) is missing; and Leviticus begins from the middle, from the section Aḥarei Mot (chapter 16). In the other parts too there are many gaps, in the form of missing words, verses, or even chapters. The second important question facing the editor is, therefore, how to complete the missing sections from the translation. Blau suggests completing the edition using the Constantinople printed version, whereas I recommend basing the edition on two texts, on the right-hand side the [St. Petersburg] manuscript as it has been retained, with all its lacunae, and on the left I recommend printing the Constantinople edition of 1546 in full, though of course without the vocalization marks. The two versions will complement each other and will provide the reader, without undue effort, with an authentic version of the translation.30 Since the exegetical tradition reflected by the early manuscripts does not fully match that of other versions, even those from Yemen, and since the reliability of the Constantinople edition still requires confirmation, I think that Blau`s proposal would prove insufficient. Only an edition that takes into consideration various separate traditions would ensure our ability to get as close as possible to a recreation of the original as penned by R. Saadia Gaon. Accordingly, the missing parts of the early manuscript will be completed from the manuscript closest to it in terms of both language and exegetical tradition it reflects. To this end we have selected Oxford-Bod. MS Poc. 395 (nr. 33041), written in the town of Hamat in northern Syria in 1449. The translation into Arabic of the few verses also missing in this source will be taken from another Oxford manuscript, MS Opp. Add. Q4. 98 (nr. 16237), which was written in Sana in the fourteenth century.

29 Blau, “Studies in an Eastern Manuscript,” 115. 30 Ibid., 130.

111

112

Chapter Four

However, to offer a comprehensive study of the sources of the Gaon’s translation of the Torah, we will need to check other sources in addition to those mentioned. An important source is those genizah texts in which the long commentary of R. Saadia, the Sharḥ, is found, and which also contain translations of biblical verses. The translation of verses in the long commentary is not necessarily identical with that found in the “short” version, the Tafsīr. For example, in his commentary on Genesis 3:22, R. Saadia translates the phrase ‫=] עץ החיים‬ tree of life] with the words ‫שגֹרה אלחיוה‬. This translation appears in every version of the Tafsīr that I have examined. Yet in the translation found in a fragment of the commentary from the genizah there is a different version, ‫שגֹרה אלעאפיה‬.31 In R. Saadia’s long commentary he dwells at length on why he chose to translate ‫ עץ החיים‬using the Arabic words ‫שגֹרה אלמעאפה‬.32 It should be noted that many anonymous fragments are still being found in the Cairo genizah, and we need to examine their relationship to R. Saadia. It cannot be excluded that some of them can indeed be attributed to the Gaon, and that some might even reveal versions previously unknown. Much importance is also attributed to Neveh Shalom, a commentary on the translation of R. Saadia Gaon written by R. Amram Qorah (d. 1952), the last chief rabbi of Yemen prior to the mass emigration of Yemenite Jews following the establishment of the State of Israel. This commentary is intended to explain difficult words in the translation and also to select the accurate versions,33 so it is possible that it contains versions not to be found in other sources. Thus, in all the sources I have examined, the most common translation of Abimelech’s question to G-d, “wilt Thou slay even a righteous nation?” (Genesis 20:4) is ‫אאנסאן‬ ‫צאלח תקתלה‬, whereas in Neveh Shalom the word ‫ אאנסאן‬is swapped for ‫ארגֹל‬. Another interesting source for the Gaon’s versions is the book Hasagot R. Mubashshir.34 R. Mubashshir, a contemporary of R. Saadia, wrote a book criticizing R. Saadia and his works, in which he attacked him and his explanations of biblical verses, as well as his religious zeal. R. Mubashshir begins each of his

31 Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 78. In another place there is even the version ‫שגֹר אלעאפיה‬. 32 Compare Blau, Notes on R. Saadia Gaon’s Translation of the Torah, 8. 33 For a description of this commentary and its features, see N. Ilan, “Neveh Shalom: The Commentary of R. Amram Qorah on R. Saadia Gaon’s Tafsīr on the Pentateuch,” Tema 8 (2004): 131–148 [Heb]; Neveh Shalom (2002). 34 Zucker, A Critique against the Writings of R. Saadya Gaon.

R . S a a d i a’s Tr a n s l a t i o n o f t h e Pe nt a t e u c h

comments by quoting the words of R. Saadia he wants to refute, thereby preserving for us the words of the Gaon as he knew them. Thus, for example, he quotes R. Saadia saying in his commentary to Exodus, “I have translated ‫( תפריעו‬Exodus 5:4) as ‫ תגדבאן‬etc.” The version brought by R. Mubashshir differs from other manuscripts, which have ‫תגדבון‬. In another comment R. Mubashshir writes, “Heaven forefends, but we find he [R. Saadia] writes in the portion Beshalaḥ, ‘I have translated ‫( עם זו קנית‬Exodus 15:16) ‫ אקתנית‬etc.”35 This version differs from the version in other manuscripts, which reads ‫אלשעב אלדי מלכתהם‬. One can find echoes of various versions of the R. Saadia Gaon’s translation among the commentators and grammarians of the Middle Ages, who were familiar with his translation and longer commentary. These scholars, such as the commentator R. Abraham ibn Ezra and the grammarian R. Jonah ibn Janah, were well acquainted with the Gaon’s commentaries. They adopted or debated the Gaon’s reading, and from their quotations one can sometimes reconstruct the versions that they had. In this context, it is interesting to look at God’s words to Abraham, ‫עתה ידעתי כי‬ ‫[ ירא אלהים אתה‬for now I know that thou art God-fearing] (Genesis 22:12)], which can be problematic because they might be read as stating that God was not immediately aware of Abraham’s qualities. Ibn Ezra explains that R. Saadia said that these words should be understood “like the meaning ‘I made people know.’”36 It is in line with R. Saadia’s translation, ‫“[ אלאן ערפת אלנאס‬now I have told men,” or: “I made men know”]. On Noah’s curse on his son, ‫[ ארור כנען‬Cursed be Canaan], Ibn Ezra writes, “The Gaon writes that the word ‘father of ’ is missing, and it should have said ‘Cursed is the father of Canaan.’” Indeed, in all versions of the Tafsīr I have seen the wording is ‫[ מלעון אבו כנען‬Cursed is the father of Canaan].37 R. Saadia Gaon’s influence on the exegesis in the Middle Ages was profound and wide-ranging. He had direct influence on the early medieval commentators, mainly those active between the tenth and the thirteenth centuries, and indirectly also on later commentators, who perhaps did not see the Gaon’s works with their own eyes but were aware of them through the writings of their predecessors. The scriptural commentaries of the Gaon spread throughout all the lands of the East, from Babylonia, where they were written, to the frontiers of

35 Ibid., 25. 36 See Ibn Ezra’s commentary on Genesis 22:1. 37 In other versions, ‫ אבו כנעאן‬or ‫אבא כנעאן‬.

113

114

Chapter Four

Spain. That is how they can occasionally be found by chance in surprising places. We will provide examples of this from two works, one from Yemen and the other from North Africa. As we have said above, the Jewish inhabitants of Yemen studied the translation of the Gaon more than any other Jewish community in the East. Many translations of R. Saadia Gaon have been preserved in Ḥemdat Yamīm, the commentary on the Torah written by R. Shalom ben Yosef Shabazi,38 who was born in 1619, studied Torah in Sana, moved to Shabaz and then to Taez, and died apparently in 1710. He is considered the greatest poet of the Jews of Yemen, and for many its greatest sage of all times.39 R. Shabazi’s authorship of Ḥemdat Yamīm is shrouded in scholarly and rabbinic controversy;40 however, I accept his authorship without reserve. His midrash, written in the middle of the seventeenth century41 in the town of Najd al-Walid, is a commentary on the Pentateuch in the style of PaRDeS, which stands for the four ways in which the Scripture can be interpreted: peshat, remez, derash, and sod (literal, anagogic, homiletic, and mystical), with the section on sod being particularly large. Ḥemdat Yamīm lists over forty explanations attributed to the Gaon. Five more are brought in R. Shabazi’s commentaries on the haftarot, the passages from the Prophets that accompany the weekly Torah reading. As is well known, R. Shabazi continued to work on his commentary, adding new interpretations from time to time, which he introduced with a mark ‫( ת״ט‬tosefet te`amim), meaning “additional interpretations.” It should be emphasized that the explanations of

38 Published for the first time in Jerusalem in 1883–1888, a second time in 1956, and a third time in 1977. 39 For a general review of his life and works, see the entry in M. Gavra, Encyclopedia of Yemenite Sages (Bnei Brak, 2001), vol. 1, 598–599 [Heb], and in the bibliography at the end of that entry. 40 For a summary of the dispute between the various scholars and rabbis as to the authorship of R. Shalom Shabazi’s work, see Y. Tobi, “Identifying the Author of the Midrash Ḥemdat Yamīm,” Tagim 3–4 (1972): 63–72 [Heb]; the response of Y. Ratzabi, Tagim 3–4 (1972): 73–74 [Heb]; and also Y. Tobi, “The Rabbinate Literature in Yemen from the First Half of the Eighteenth Century till Our Days,” Pe’amim 86–87 (2001): 53 [Heb]. Tobi views the authorship of R. Shalom Shabazi as given. See also A. Qafih, The Greatest Sages of Yemen (Jerusalem, 1988), 26–27 [Heb]. 41 This information is drawn from what R. Shalom Shabazi wrote in his commentary on the section Balaq: “Today we reached [the year] ‫ אתתקנ״ז‬to [the minyan of] Shtarot, the year being 5406 since the creation of the world, and we still await the Messiah” (ed. Y. Hasid [Jerusalem, 1956], 448). Year 5406 since the creation was 1646.

R . S a a d i a’s Tr a n s l a t i o n o f t h e Pe nt a t e u c h

the Gaon are quoted in both the original edition of the commentary and in the “additional interpretations.” Before bringing an explanation of R. Saadia Gaon, R. Shabazi provides the following descriptions and titles: “R. Saadia Gaon” (on pages 14 and 28), “R. Saadia Gaon of blessed memory” (10), “Rabbi S. G.” (31), “R. S. Gaon of blessed memory” (253). Frequently, the author adds to the honorific “R.” a form of “Rabbeinu [meaning ‘Our Rabbi’] Saadia Gaon of blessed memory” (186, 201, 202 ff.). On several occasions, the texts of R. Shalom Shabazi differ from those of R. Saadia’s translations we are already familiar with. However, they should be treated with considerable caution. Thus, for example, for the expression ‫במאה‬ ‫[ קשיטה‬a hundred pieces of money] (Genesis 33:19), R. Shalom Shabazi employs the Gaon’s translation, ‫[ במאה כשבה‬for a hundred sheep] (110), meaning that Jacob purchased the field from the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem, for one hundred sheep.42 In every manuscript and printed edition of the Tafsīr that I have examined, the text is ‫במאה נעגה‬, which means also “sheep.” What we have is a standard extrapolation between the version of R. Shalom Shabazi and the standard version, particularly since this has no impact on the understanding on the meaning of the word ‫קשיטה‬, since both ‫ נעגה‬and ‫ כסבה‬have identical meanings.43 Having said this, one cannot necessarily say that R. Shalom Shabazi had a different version, since he too might have had ‫נעגה‬, which he transmitted to his readers using the standard synonym from spoken Yemeni Arabic. In other words, when we examine the versions of R. Shalom Shabazi, we must be particularly careful, since it cannot be excluded that what we see is an adaptation of ancient texts to the everyday language spoken at a later period in Yemen, and not the original version that had not been retained in other sources. A much smaller number of R. Saadia Gaon’s translations were retained by R. Moshe ben Yom Tov Gabbai, author of `Eved Shelomo, a fourteenth-century supracommentary on Rashi’s commentary on the Torah. What is stated in Genesis 32:11, ‫[ מכל החסדים ומכל האמת‬all the mercies, and of all the truth], R.

42 Cf. Targum Onkelos’s version: ‫במאה חורפן‬. The assumption is that R. Shalom Shabazi uses an Arabic word and not a Hebrew one, since ‫כשבה‬, although it a Hebrew word (see Leviticus 5:6), is not common in the Hebrew language, where the form ‫ כבשה‬is used more often. 43 On ‫ כסכה‬in Yemeni dialect, see M. Piamenta, Dictionary of Post-Classical Yemeni Arabic (Leiden, 1990–1991), vol. 2, 430.

115

116

Chapter Four

Saadia Gaon translates, in the versions that I have examined, using the words ‫גמיע אלפצֹל ואלאחסאן‬. R. Moshe ben Shem-Tov Gabbai quotes R. Saadia’s translation in a version we do not have from other sources, “And Rabbi Saadia of blessed memory translated it: ‫ מן גמיע אלפצ’איל ואל חסאן‬.”44 The word ‫ פצ’איל‬is undoubtedly the result of a different version, while ‫ אל חסאן‬might be a result of a North African pronunciation. To sum up, the proposed edition of R. Saadia Gaon’s Tafsīr on the Torah will include an Arabic text in Hebrew characters, which will be based upon the very early St. Petersburg manuscript. The parts missing from the manuscript will be completed from another manuscript, whose text and language are as close as possible to the earlier version. The Arabic Tafsīr will be followed by a translation into Hebrew, for those readers not sufficiently fluent in Arabic. Below these two there will be an exposition of different versions, including some of the versions mentioned above. Thereafter will follow notes and comments on the various sources, such as medieval biblical commentaries and the critique of R. Mubashshir and others, which are important in reconstructing the original text of the Tafsīr.

44 `Eved Shelomo on Rashi’s commentary, ed. R. Moshe Philip (Petach Tiqva, 2005), 169.

Chapter Five

Arabic, Islam, and Rhetoric in R. Saadia’s Work There are many areas in which R. Saadia was influenced by the Arabic language and its literature. They encompass grammar and linguistics, interpretation and philosophy, prayer and custom, poetry and piyyut, and in fact all areas of the Gaon`s work. In this chapter we will discuss R. Saadia’s use of Arabic language, literature, and culture, but without discussing the influence of Muslim philosophy on his work, which is a topic worthy of detailed study.1 We do not have clear information about how well R. Saadia knew Arab literature and culture, and how much he had connections with contemporary Muslim sages. The famous Muslim bibliographer Muhammad ibn Nadim, who died approximately in the year 1000, writes about R. Saadia that “the most respected Jews and their sages who are proficient in the Hebrew language claim that they did not see anyone like him.” He also says that a group of the sages of his generation knew him.2 However, it is not possible to draw any conclusions from these words about the nature of the connections between those sages and the Gaon. The Muslim historian al-Mas`ūdi, who died in 956, that is, only fourteen years after R. Saadia, also testifies that he knew many Jewish sages, including R. Saadia, about whom he gives several bibliographic details.3 But there is no

1

This matter was discussed by many researchers. See, for example, Georges Vajda, “Une Source Arabe de Saadia—le Kitab al-Zahra d’Abou Bakr Ibn Dawoud,” REJ 92 (1932): 146–150; I. Husik, A History of Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy (New York, 1966), 23–47; A. Hyman, “Jewish Philosophy in the Islamic World,” in History of Islamic Philosophy, ed. S. H. Nasr and O. Leaman (London and New York, 1996), vol 1, 677–695; L. E. Goodman, “Maimonides’ Response to Sa`adya Gaon’s Theodicy and Their Islamic Background,” in Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions, ed. W. M. Brinner and S. D. Rick (Atlanta, 1989), vol 2, 3–33; Stroumsa, Saadiah Gaon—A Jewish Thinker.

2

Ibn al-Nadim, Kitāb al-Fihrist, ed. G. Fluegel (Halle, 1872), 23.

3 Al-Masudi, Kitāb al-`Ishrāf wal-Tanbīh (Beirut, 1965), 112–113 [Ara].

118

Chapter Five

evidence in his remarks that R. Saadia had personal ties with educated nonJews, as had other Jewish sages who lived in Islamic lands before or after him. It is also not known that R. Saadia received any traditions and knowledge directly from Muslims, as did other medieval Jewish sages. Maimonides, for comparison, during a discussion in his commentary on the Mishnah about ancient forms of idolatry, says that an expert in “the science of the stars” transmitted to him traditions he received from his teacher about the shape of the “dragon.”4 At the same time, however, it is clear that R. Saadia was indeed proficient in the literature of his time.5 This conclusion is based on many places in his works, but I will confine myself here to two examples from his interpretation of the book of Proverbs. In his commentary on Proverbs 25:11 (which will be discussed at length in the last part of this chapter) R. Saadia gives his readers ten advices on matters of oral and written expression and conducting debate. On the last four advices he writes ‫[ פהי ג’אילה פי כל כתב אלעלם‬they are found in all the books of wisdom], and presumably he knew them firsthand.6 This conclusion also emerges from his commentary on the verse ‫הכן בחוץ‬ ‫( מלאכתך ועתדה בשדה לך אחר ובנית ביתך‬Proverbs 24:27), which R. Saadia interprets in three different ways. In his third commentary he writes that, before one begins to learn the wisdoms one must learn their introductions, which are as a corridor to the house. He then adds: “The Greeks call the introduction to the wisdom of logic, astronomy, engineering, and medicine, Isagoge, that if he studies the book itself before its introduction, he will not understand it.” Since R. Saadia did not know Greek and could not read Greek books in their original language, he undoubtfully knew them, including their introductions, through their translations into Arabic.7 Although R. Saadia was not the first to translate or to interpret the Bible in Arabic,8 he was the first to compose systematic and detailed commentaries and

4 Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah, vol. 4, 351. See also The Guide for the Perplexed, 2:285, where Maimonides testifies that he learned with Ibn Aflah from Seville and with one of the disciples of the Muslim philosopher Ibn Baja. 5

See, for example, David M. Freidenreich, “The Use of Islamic Sources in Saadiah Gaon’s Tafsīr of The Torah,” J.Q.R. 93 (2003): 353–395.

6

Proverbs with Translation and Commentary by R. Saadia, 200.

7

Ibid., 191–192. I thank H. Ben-Shammai for drawing my attention to this source.

8

See above, 99–100.

A r a b i c , I s l a m , a n d R h e t o r i c i n R . S a a d i a’s Wo r k

translations on extensive sections of the Bible.9 In these interpretations he often uses morphological, syntactic, and lexical phenomena from Arabic, both the high and the spoken language. He also sometimes spices up his explanations with parables in Arabic. Many later sages, for example, R. Issachar ibn Susan, a sixteenth-century Torah commentator, described the Arabic language in which the Gaon’s biblical commentaries are written as “glorious languages.”10 In his introduction to his commentary R. Issachar explains that he came to the conclusion that it is necessary to compose a new commentary on the Torah because he saw that in his time many people, even sages and native Arabic speakers, found it difficult to understand the commentary of the Gaon, and he attributed this, among other things, to R. Saadia’s high language.11 He goes on to express open admiration for the proficiency of R. Saadia and other geonim in the Arabic language, saying of them that they “know it in depth and [also] the quality of its grammar correctly.”12 R. Saadia`s self-awareness of his proficiency in the Arabic language is evident from his demand that biblical translators adhere to the rules and grammar of the language into which they are translating, that is, Arabic, including the grammatical forms that are not often common in the language: The translation [of the commentary] from language to language must be intentional and straightforward in both languages together, and the grammatical phenomena should not deviate from the terminology of the people of both languages, both common and rare.13

Such a demand can be made only by those who recognize their ability to meet it themselves.

9

About this issue see at length chapter 4.

10 D. S. Sason, Ohel David (London, 1932), 63 [Heb]. About R. Issachar ibn Susan and his biblical commentary see D. Doron, “On the Arabic Translation of the Bible by R. Issachar ibn Susan ha-Maaravi,” Sfūnot (new series) 18 (1985): 279–298 [Heb]. About his attitude towards R. Saadia see ibid., 289–292. 11 Ohel David, 64. 12 Ibid., 65. 13 Rav Saadia’s Translation and Commentary on Isaiah, 155 (Arabic) and 249–250 (Hebrew).

119

120

Chapter Five

The evidence for R. Saadia’s great proficiency of in the classical Arabic style is numerous.14 In this limited framework, we will confine ourselves to only a few examples, as a little that indicates the multiple. For example, in his translation to the first verse in the book of (Isaiah 1:1), ‫בימי עזיהו יותם אחז יחזקיהו מלכי יהודה‬, R. Saadia connects the names of the kings with ‫וא”ו אלעטף‬, the letter waw of connection, although it does not appear in the biblical verse. In his long commentary he explains the reason for the addition, Because I found that the Hebrew speakers allow the usage without waw, as it is said, ‫( ראובן שמעון לוי ויהודה‬Exodus 1:2), and as they say, ‫אדם‬ ‫( שת אנוש קינן מהללאל ירד‬1 Chronicles 1:1–2) and the like. And I found that the Arabs are organizing their words only with a waw, that`s why I said, ‫עוזיהו ויותם ואחז וחזקיהו‬, although it is written without waw.15

Another evidence of the subtle distinction that R. Saadia made between the Hebrew style and the Arab style is his translation of Isaiah 19:1, ‫הנה ה’ רכב על עב קל‬, where he uses the phrase “entrust His command” instead of the literal translation of the verb, which would be “rides”: ‫[ הוד’א אללה מצ’מן אמרה סחאבא מסרעא‬Here God entrusts His command on a fast cloud].16 In his long commentary R. Saadia explains that he translated this way because “in the language to which we translate [Arabic] it is not appropriate to use the [word] ‘command’ with the [word] ‘ride.’”17 Another example of R. Saadia’s understanding of the stylistic uniqueness of the Arabic language in comparison with Hebrew as well as Aramaic is his translation of Daniel 7:1, ‫[ וחזוי ראשה על משכבה‬As his head see while he is on his bed]. In R. Saadia’s Arabic version, the text is ‫[ כמי תרא עינה והו פי מצ’ג’עה‬As his eyes see while he is on his bed]. In his long commentary he explains why he used the noun “eyes” instead of “head”:

14 See, for example, Blau, “Studies in Analyzing the Arabic Style,” 38–41 [Heb]. 15 Rav Saadia’s Translation and Commentary on Isaiah, 252. For additional examples see Y. Ratzabi, A Dictionary of Judeo-Arabic in R. Saadia’s Tafsir (Ramat Gan, 1985), 24–25 [Heb]. 16 See Blau, “Studies in Analyzing the Arabic Style,” 39. Ratzabi, on the other hand, translates “Here God entrusts His decrees in the hands of a fast cloud” (Rav Saadia’s Translation and Commentary on Isaiah, 275). 17 Rav Saadia’s Translation and Commentary on Isaiah, 174 (Arabic) and 275 (Hebrew).

A r a b i c , I s l a m , a n d R h e t o r i c i n R . S a a d i a’s Wo r k

. . . the Arabic language does not attribute the ability to see to the head as does the language of the Chaldeans, which attributes it to the eye only. This translation is like when we translate [the phrase] ‫ושמחת עולם‬ ‫[על ראשם‬And joy of the world upon their heads] (Isaiah 35:10; 51, 11) ‫[ ופרח אלדהר פי קלובהם‬And joy of the world in their hearts], because the Arabic language does not attribute joy to the head as the Hebrew language does.18

R. Saadia’s proficiency in Arabic grammar is especially evident in the use he makes, in his translations of the Bible, of unique syntactic structures, which belong to the higher linguistic layers of the language. An example of this is his use of the syntactic structure called jawāb al-`amr, that is, conditional clauses without a conditional particle.19 Thus, R. Saadia translates Exodus 18:19, ‫עתה‬, ‫ שמע בקלי איעצך‬as ‫[ אלאן אן קבלת מני אשרת עליך‬now if you listen to me I shall give you my advice].20 That is, in R. Saadia’s translation the abbreviated future form “‫ ”איעצך‬is an answer to the condition in the beginning of the verse, which is expressed through a commandment and without a conditional particle. Although R. Saadia does not explicitly say that this structure exists in the Arabic language and he does not imply that he drew it from Arabic grammar, such a connection is very clear. The jawāb al-`amr structure can be found also in R. Saadia’s translation of the verse ‫( שאל אביך ויגדך‬Deuteronomy 32:7), which he renders as ‫אסאל‬ ‫[ אביך יכ’ברך‬if you ask your father, he will tell you]. The conditional structure is 18 Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 121. The difference between the Hebrew style and the Arabic style is also the reason for R. Saadia’s translation of the words in Numbers 16:28, ‫[ לא מלבי‬not from my heart] as ‫[ ליס מן תלקא נפסי‬not from myself], where he changes the word “heart” to “oneself.” 19 W. Wright, A Grammar of the Arabic Language (Cambridge, 1977), 37–38; Y. Peled, “Conditional Sentences without a Conditional Particle in Classical Arabic Prose,” Zeitschrift fuer arabische Linguistik 16 (1987): 31–43. On conditional sentences in Hebrew see M. Z. Segal, “Constructing Conditional Sentences in Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew,” Leshonenu 4 (1932): 191–211 [Heb]; H. Rabin, Biblical Language Syntax (Jerusalem, 1979), 87 [Heb]. 20 This is the version of a few manuscripts of the Tafsīr. It is supported by R. Avraham son of Maimonides, who cites R. Saadia’s translation as he saw it: ‫וקאל ר’ סעדיה ז”ל‬ ‫[ אן אלמעני אן כנת תקבל מני פאני איעצך‬R. Saadia said the meaning is “if you listen to me I shall give you my advice”]. (The Commentary of R. Avraham son of Maimonides on Genesis and Exodus, ed. E. Wiezenberg [London, 1958]. This work includes only the original text in Arabic, while the Hebrew translation was published only later in Jerusalem in the year 1984). It should be noted that R. Avraham himself rejected R. Saadia’s translation, but his version of the text is, apparently, accurate.

121

122

Chapter Five

doubly striking because the Gaon omits in his translation the letter waw, which is present in the original Hebrew verb ”‫יכ’ברך”—”ויגדך‬,” even though there is no interpretive or linguistic need to do so.21 In his commentaries on the Bible, R. Saadia often translates biblical words according to etymologies based on the Arabic language. It should be noted that he is careful to translate Hebrew using Arabic words that sound similar to the original Hebrew ones. Thus he translates the Hebrew word ”‫( ”מרגמה‬Proverbs 26:8) with the Arabic word ”‫;”מרג’מה‬22 the phrase ”‫( ”מעט שנות מעט תנומות‬Proverbs 24:33) he translated as ”‫ ;“קליל מן אלסנאת ואלנומאת‬the words ”‫( ”ידין עמים‬Job 36:31) are translated ”‫ ;“ידין אלשעוב‬and ”‫( ”פליט ושריד‬Lamentations 2:22) are rendered as 23 ”‫ שריד‬. . . ‫פלית‬.“ In addition, R. Saadia often uses the colloquial Arabic language. Sometimes he explicitly informs his readers about this. For example, in his commentary on the verb ”‫( ”וארוה‬Psalms 80:13), which he translates ”‫[ ”יג’נוה‬they will pick it], he supports his choice by saying “as the Arabs say, ‘‫[ רטב יג’נו‬harvest the ripe dates].”24 In his commentary on Proverbs 26:8, he translates the word ”‫ ”כצרור‬as ”‫”כחג’ר‬ [like a stone], and he adds that a small stone is called in the dialect of ‫אלשאם‬ (Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon) ”‫[ “צראר‬gravel].25 An example of using the common spoken Arabic language for phonetic needs can be found in R. Saadia’s interpretation of Genesis, where he discusses the phonetic aspect of several letters. For example, he mentions that the Arabic

21 It is true that in the Derenbourg edition the version is ‫סל אבאך ויכ’ברך‬, with the letter waw, but in all the manuscripts I have seen it does not exist. For additional examples and discussion about this kind of conditional structure, see my article “The Influence of Arabic Language on R. Saadia Gaon’s Tafsīr on the Pentateuch in Translating Conditional Clauses without Conditional Words (Jawāb al-`Amr),” Beth Miqra 147 (1997): 332–343 [Heb]. 22 Ratzabi, A Dictionary of Judeo-Arabic in R. Saadia’s Tafsir, 70. 23 For a more comprehensive list of roots with a similar sound see ibid., 146–149. 24 The Book of Psalms with the Translation and the Commentary of R. Saadia Gaon, ed. Y. Qafih (Jerusalem, 1966), 192. 25 Ibid., 210–211. About R. Saadia’s translation of the word ”‫( ”ולשרקה‬Genesis 49:11) and its colloquial background, see The Book of Hebrew Roots by Abu `l-Walid Marwan ibn Janah (Rabbi Jonah), ed. A. Neubauer (Oxford, 1875, repr. Amsterdam, 1968), 751 [Eng and Ara]; and compare R. Judah ibn Bal`am’s Commentary on Isaiah, ed. Moshe Goshen-Gottstein (Ramat Gan, 1992), 43 [Heb]. About the Persian words in R. Saadia’s vocabulary see Ratzabi, A Dictionary of Judaeo-Arabic in R. Saadia’s Tafsir, 150–151.

A r a b i c , I s l a m , a n d R h e t o r i c i n R . S a a d i a’s Wo r k

letter jim produces a sound that is between the sounds of the Hebrew letters gimel and yod. He then adds, with an explicit indication of the fact, that the evidence he brings from Arabic comes from an Arabic grammar book: . . . some of the Arabs use it [the letter jim] instead of yod, as they say “we are the sons of ‘Alaj’” and they mean “the sons of ‘Alī’” . . . and it is found in one of the Arabic language books.26

According to some researchers, Iraqi dialectical elements have penetrated the language of R. Saadia’s writing. But locating these elements in R. Saadia’s language is particularly difficult, as he lived in three different regions in the Middle East and was influenced by three different dialects: the dialect of Egypt, where he was born and raised; the dialect of the Land of Israel, where he stayed for several years on his way to Babylonia; and the dialect of Iraq, where he composed most of his essays. It is not impossible that many of the rare and unusual words and forms in the language of R. Saadia, are based on the Iraqi dialect.27 In his commentary on Genesis 5, R. Saadia also discusses the phenomenon of shortening words by omitting consonants, such as “‫ ”צר‬instead of “‫יצר‬,” and brings evidence from the language of the Bible:”‫“נחנו נעבר חלוצים‬ (Numbers 32:32) as a short form of ”‫ ;“אנחנו‬from the language of the Mishnah: ”‫( “חב המזיק לשלם‬M Bava Kamma 1:1) as a short form of ”‫ ;“חייב‬and from the language of the piyyut: ”‫רש‬,“ ”‫עץ‬,“ ”‫ ”רד‬as short forms of ”‫ירש‬,“ ”‫יעץ‬,“ ”‫ירד‬.“ Then he also adds examples from the Arabic language, “in Arabic they say Yā ṣāḥ instead of Yā ṣāḥib, and in yak instead of in yakun.”28 R. Saadia’s tendency to add examples from the Arabic language was well known to medieval sages. R. Jonah ibn Janah, for example, writes, In every language, custom and usage it is possible that he will produce what is practiced in another language, and already this custom was practiced before the late rosh yeshiva the Pitomi [R. Saadia] in the

26 The Book of Creation with the Translation and Commentary of R. Saadia Gaon, ed. Y. Qafih (Jerusalem, 1972), 75. 27 On this see also Y. Avishur, “Elements from the Arab Discourse in Iraq in the Judeo-Arabic Language of R. Saadia Gaon,” in Hebrew and Arabic Studies in Honor of Joshua Blau (Jerusalem, 1993), 35–52 [Heb]. 28 The Book of Creation with the Translation and Commentary of R. Saadia Gaon, 132.

123

124

Chapter Five

book of Creation, I mean, that he brought evidence to his words from what the Arabs say.29

In his writings R. Saadia also cites popular saying and parables, which are used in Arabic. For example, when describing the running of the goat Daniel saw in his dream, ‫( ואין נוגע בארץ‬Daniel 8:5), he translates it with the words ‫וליס ימסהא מן‬ ‫[ שדת אלעדו‬it doesn’t touch it (the earth) due to the fast running], and he adds that in Arabic one says about quick-running camels that their steps are not noticeable because of their speed, and that they are so fast that they cover about 200 kilometers in one day.30 An example of the influence of colloquial Arabic in the field of syntax is the omission of the word “‫ ”אן‬preceding the manṣūb forms. In his commentary on the book of Proverbs R. Saadia writes ‫[ מן יריד יג’יב צאחבה‬he who wants to answer his friend],31 instead of ‫מן יריד אן יג’יב צאחבה‬. The omission of the particle “‫ ”אן‬is common in colloquial Arabic. This linguistic form is quite rare in R. Saadia’s writings and is found more frequently in works whose language is particularly vulgar and where the colloquial Arabic influence is very strong, such as the commentary attributed to R. David ha-Nagid on M Avot.32 An example from the latter commentary is the phrase ‫[ אראד אל חק ס”ו יעטי אל תורה לישראל‬the Lord may he be praised and exalted wanted to give the Torah to Israel].33 The influence of Arabic and Muslim culture is clearly reflected in R. Saadia’s extensive use in his writings of Muslim religious terms, such as ”‫[ “קראן‬Qur’an],34

29 Book of Hebrew Roots, 130. 30 Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 150. For other examples of citing popular Arabic sayings, see Proverbs with Translation and Commentary by R. Saadia, 49–50; Davidson, Saadia’s Polemic, 60, nr. 40, where he quotes (though in a distorted way) the famous Arabic parable: ‫[ מת’ל אלנעאמה לא טיר ולא ג’מל‬like the ostrich, not a bird and not a camel]. 31 Proverbs with Translation and Commentary by R. Saadia, 199. 32 On the language of this book see J. Blau, “On Two Works Written in Middle Arabic Literary Standards,” in Studies in Islamic History and Civilization in Honor of Professor David Ayalon (Jerusalem, 1986), 455–471 [Heb]. For other examples see idem, A Grammar of Medieval Judeo-Arabic (Jerusalem, 1980), 269, par. 433 [Heb]. 33 R. David ha-Nagid, The Book of Pirqei Avot with a Commentary in Arabic Language (Alexandria, 1901), 1 [Ara]. 34 See, for example, The Book of Psalms with the Translation and Commentary of R. Saadia Gaon, 192; D. E. Sklare, The Religious and Legal Thought of Samuel ben Hofni

A r a b i c , I s l a m , a n d R h e t o r i c i n R . S a a d i a’s Wo r k

”‫[ “רסול‬prophet],35 ”‫( ”אמאם‬both as a translation for cohen36 and for shliaḥ ẓibur, the person responsible for conducting the public prayer37), or ”‫[ “תנזיל‬revealing the Torah to Israel].38 It is also evident in the use of the words “‫[ ”כקולה‬as He says], “‫[ ”הד’א קולה‬this is His saying], “‫[ ”כמא קאל‬as He said], and the like, which precede a quote from the Bible, because in Arabic literature, unlike literature written in countries under Christian influence, the introductory word “as said” is often used instead of “as written.” The difference stems from the fact that, according to the Muslim faith, the Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad orally and its written canonical wording was crystallized many years after his death. Therefore, in the Muslim tradition, any quotation from the Qur’an is preceded by the words “‫[ ”כמא קאל‬as He said]. This writing model has been transferred to Jewish literature in Islamic countries, including its pinnacle, that is, R. Saadia’s works. R. Saadia also knew the interpretation of the Qur’an, or at least its fundamental principles. Thus, for example, he was familiar with the division of language into expressions that can be interpreted in only one way (‫ )מחכמאת‬and expressions that can be interpreted in several ways (‫)מתשאבהאת‬. This distinction, which is found in both R. Saadia and R. Shmuel ben Hofni Gaon’s writings, and which originates in the Qur’an, was used by commentators of the Bible and the Qur’an as a very effective means of explaining verses that seem contradictory, by comparing the ambiguous verse to a corresponding verse, which can be interpreted in only one way.39 The influence of the Muslim Qur’anic interpretation on R. Saadia is also evident in the rules he formulated for removing words from their common meaning (‫)תאויל‬, and for using interpretive techniques such as transferring a word from the general to the individual and from the individual to the general, or inventing a rare meaning of a common word and adding words to clarify difficult verses. These rules, whose early formulation is found in the

Gaon: Texts and Studies in Cultural History (PhD diss., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1992), 191, l. 19. 35 The Book of Psalms with the Translation and Commentary of R. Saadia Gaon, 42, l. 2; Sklare, Religious and Legal Thought, 191, l. 19. 36 See, for example, R. Saadia’s translation of Numbers 19:3, and in plural form,‫בנו הרון‬ ‫אלאימה‬, Leviticus 2:5. 37 I. Davidson, S. Assaf, I. Yoel (eds.), Siddur R. Saadja Gaon, Jerusalem 1978 Saadia Gaon, Prayer Book, p. 41, l. 7 ff. 38 Saadia Gaon, Arabic Translation of the Five Books of the Torah, 3, l. 7. 39 Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, introduction, 38–42.

125

126

Chapter Five

important commentaries on the Qur’an written by Muhammad al-Tabari (b. 923) and the Spanish Muslim philosopher Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hazm (b. 1063), whose works preserve ancient sources that have not survived elsewhere,40 R. Saadia clarified in his introduction to the translation of the Torah: If the simple meaning of the Scripture (peshat) contradicts what is intelligible with the help of human senses41 or mind,42 if it stands in contrast to another verse in the Bible43 or the teaching of the sages on the same verse44—in each of these cases the commentator must find a new interpretation that differs from the simple meaning.45 We also learn from the testimonies of some medieval sages about the use of the Qur’an and the Muslim Ḥadīth (teachings of the Muslim sages, which resemble the Oral Torah of the Jews) for the purpose of clarifying obscure verses and complicated philosophical matters. Thus, for example, Rabbi Moshe ibn Ezra writes, in mentioning the Qur’an, that “the chief practitioners of Halakha . . . Rabbi Saadia and R. Hai and others . . . used its help for revelation of obscure

40 Zucker, The Translation, 234–235. 41 For example, in his translation to Genesis 3:20, ‫ויקרא האדם שם אשתו חוה כי היא היתה אם‬ ‫ כל חי‬R. Saadia add in its end the word “‫[ ”נאטק‬speaking], to clarify that Eve was the mother of only the human species and not of all animals. 42 For example, R. Saadia translates the verse ‫( כי ה’ אלהיך אש אכלה הוא‬Deuteronomy 20:24) with the Arabic words ‫לאן עקאב אללה רבך נאר אכלה‬, adding the word “‫”עקאב‬ [punishment], to make clear that one cannot grasp the essence of God but only his actions in the world. 43 For example, the verse ‫( לא תנסו את ה’ אלהיכם‬Deuteronomy 6:16) contradicts the words of God to the prophet Malachi ‫הביאו את כל המעשר אל בית האוצר ויהי טרף בביתי ובחנוני גם‬ ‫( בזאת אמר ה’ צבאות‬3:10). To settle this contradiction, R. Saadia explains that the commandment “do not test your Lord” forbids testing whether God is able to do one thing or another but if a person wishes to examine his or her own value before God, that is, if this person deserves that God will give him or her a sign or do a miracle, such a test is not forbidden at all. 44 For example, the simple meaning of the verse ‫( לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו‬Exodus 23:19 ff.) is that one is not allowed to eat only a goat with the milk of its own mother, but the sages forbade eating all kinds of meat with all kinds of milk that is derived from animals. Therefore, R. Saadia translates this verse with the words ‫[ ולא תאכל לחמא בלבן‬do not eat meat with milk], so that it is consistent with the words of the sages. 45 See Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 191; Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 219–220; The Book of Job with The Translation and Commentary of R. Saadia Gaon, 20.

A r a b i c , I s l a m , a n d R h e t o r i c i n R . S a a d i a’s Wo r k

prophecies.46 R. Yosef ben Yehuda Ibn Aknin also writes in his commentary on the Song of Songs: And our late R. Hai Gaon, we find that in his book, which he called Al-Ḥawī [The Collector], he is aided by the words of the Arabs. . . . And he was also helped by a love song in [his explanation of] a saying of our late sages . . . and he was also helped by the Qur’an and the Ḥadīth, and so was before him the late R. Saadia in his commentaries in the Arabic language.47

The Arabic influence is also evident in R. Saadia’s linguistic works. It turns out that he was well versed in practical Arabic grammar as well as theoretical linguistic thought. For example, in composing his dictionary, Ha-Egron, R. Saadia was influenced by Abu al-Abbas Thalabi’s book, Qawā`id al-Shi’r [The Principles of Poetry] and by the dictionaries of Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad, Kitāb al-`Ayn, and of Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Durayd’s Kitāb al-Jamharah fi al-Lughah.48 Inspired by the Arab grammarians, R. Saadia tried to lay the foundations of Hebrew grammar. Thus, for example, he accepted the opinion of the sages of the School of Baṣrah, according to which the verbal noun should precede the forms of the verb. On this principle, he built his linguistic doctrine, which deals with the finite forms of the verb and the relations between them.49 The Arabic influence on R. Saadia’s writing is also evident in seemingly marginal details, such as the fact that in his poems and dictionary, Ha-Egron, R. Saadia often quotes from the language of sages, but in his grammar books he gives examples almost exclusively from the language of the Pentateuch. In this, he probably followd the Arab grammarians, who in their dictionaries cite the Ḥadīth language extensively, but in their grammar books quote almost only from the language of the Qur’an and the Bedouin language.50

46 Moshe ben Ya’akov ibn Ezra, Kitāb al-Muḥāḍara wal-Mudhākara (Poetica Hebraica), ed. A. S. Halkin (Jerusalem, 1975), 227, ll. 21–23. 47 Yosef ben Yehuda ben Yaakov Ibn Aknin, Divulgatio Mysteriorum Luminumque Apparentia—Commentarius in Canticum Canticorum, ed. A. S. Halkin (Jerusalem, 1964), 292–294 [Heb and Ara]. 48 For more details see Ha-Egron, 85–89. 49 E. Goldberg, “The First Hebrew Conjugation Table,” Leshonenu 43 (1979): 58 [Heb]. 50 Ibid., 86.

127

128

Chapter Five

In all this, however, R. Saadia not only followed in the footsteps of the Arab grammarians, but also sought to create unique and innovative philosophic and linguistic doctrines. Moreover, R. Saadia surpassed his Arab teachers by being able to present the Arabic grammar teachings as general linguistic teachings common to all the languages.51 An example of such an innovation is to be seen in the fact that R. Saadia composed a Hebrew verbal conjugation table of the verbs without having at hand an Arabic example where the notion of inflections was developed. Moreover, the grammar books he might have recognized adopted a method opposite to that of a conjugation table, because they recorded long lists of different verbs, and not different forms of one verb. Another innovation should also be seen in the fact that R. Saadia attached his table to the body of a textbook, as a summary of the chapter dealing with inflections in his work the Book of Elegance of the Language of the Hebrews.52 The situation is similar in the field of lexicography. While composing his dictionary, Ha-Egron, R. Saadia was influenced by the dictionaries of various Arab lexicographers, and in this field too he formulated his own unique way. Nehemya Allony’s conclusion in this field is very interesting: “R. Saadia entered the orchard of general education at his time and put in his tools only what he needed to establish the wisdom of Judaism and did not give in to it and did not enslave himself to it.”53 Another area in which the impact of Arab culture on R. Saadia’s work is evident is the domain of piyyut and poetry. In a comprehensive study of R. Saadia’s attitude to Arabic poetry, Yosef Tobi claimed that R. Saadia was the first to open the gates of Hebrew poetry to the surrounding cultures. R. Saadia was well acquainted with Arabic poetry. Although he opposed the writing of non-religious poetry and to some extent also the borrowing of poetic forms and meters from Arabic versification, this did not prevent him from infusing into his poetic work matters of thought originating in Arabic culture and

51 See, for example, A. Dotan, “Saadia Gaon—An Innovative Grammarian,” Pe`amim, 54 (1993): 49–62 [Heb]. For an extensive discussion of this topic and a summary of R. Saadia’s linguistic doctrine, see Dotan, The Dawn of Hebrew Linguistics. 52 Goldberg, “The First Hebrew Conjugation Table,” 83–85. 53 Ha-Egron, 85–89, and especially 98.

A r a b i c , I s l a m , a n d R h e t o r i c i n R . S a a d i a’s Wo r k

poetry.54 It is true that he was not influenced directly by contemporary or earlier Arab poetry, but he was exposed to Muslim literary theory.55 R. Saadia was one of the first Jewish poets to create new literary genres with a distinctly Arab influence. Thus, for example, his poetic polemical works against Hiwi al-Balkhi and against Karaite sages, which include unprecedented harsh expressions, should be seen as a reflection of the Arab hijā` and tanāquḍ poems. Even the origins of the educational poetry, which is not clearly lyrical poetry, including the “Piyyut on the Alphabet” attributed to R. Saadia,56 can also be traced to the Arabic al-ši`r al-ta`līmī.57 However, despite his proficiency, as described above, in Arabic and its literature, R. Saadia does not use “high” classical Arabic in his writings. Instead, he uses post-classical vocabulary and syntax. In light of these facts, Joshua Blau thinks that the gap between R. Saadia’s proficiency in the subtleties of the classical Arabic style and the level of Arabic in which he wrote implies, ostensibly, that he intended to write in post-classical language, even if theoretically he aspired to classical language.58 The influence of Arabic literature on R. Saadia is evident not only in the content of his writings, but also in their external form. This is true, for example, of the introductions that precede his commentaries on the Bible and his Halakhic, philosophical, and liturgical writings. One of the prevailing views is that the earliest book in which an introduction is found is Sefer Halakhot Gedolot. However, since this introduction does not seem to be related to the content of the book, and especially given the scholars’ controversy as to whether this introduction was written by the author of the book, it is doubtful whether it can be seen as an introduction in the ordinary sense today.59 Thus, R. Saadia must be considered the first to add introductions to his writings. The Arab influence in

54 Y. Tobi, “R. Saadia Gaon and Arabic Poetry,” Pe`amim 54 (1993): 18–19 [Heb]. 55 Ibid., 44–45. 56 See S. Stein, “Saadia’s Piyyut on the Alphabet,” in Saadia Studies, ed. E. I. J. Rosenthal (Manchester, 1943), 206–226. 57 Y. Toby, “Between Hebrew Poetry and Arabic Poetry in the East in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries,” Pe`amim 62 (1995): 12–15 [Heb]. 58 Blau, “Studies in Analyzing the Arabic Style,” 38–41. 59 See in detail Y. S. Spiegel, “The Influence of Arab Writers on the Hebrew Book,” in Maḥanaim—A Quarterly for Studies in Jewish Thought and Culture 1 (1991): 132– 143 [Heb].

129

130

Chapter Five

this context is evident, for example, in his introduction to the book Ha-Egron, in which he justifies the writing of this dictionary using the same words as Arab grammarians and commentators did, that is, he mentions the great need of his contemporaries have for such a book: And as the Ishmaelites say, one of their nobles saw people who did not speak the Arabic language with purity and regretted it and wrote for them a short article in a book, from which they will bring evidence to speak in a pure manner. Thus I have seen that many of the children of Israel are not knowledgeable of the purity of our simple language and some of its difficult words. When one speaks, many words are erroneous, and when one composes songs, the part from the foundations of the ancients is only a little, while the part that is neglected is large. And so, it is in rhymes, so much so that the Bible itself is to them as an obscure book and as a missing composition. Therefore, I had to compile a book in which I would include most of the words.60

The Muslim influence in the introductions is also evident in the mentioning of the name of the Lord on the first pages of R. Saadia’s works such as the Book of Inheritances, the Book of Beliefs and Opinions, his prayer book, and some of his commentaries on the Bible. However, while R. Saadia imitated the Muslim authors and mentioned the name of the Lord in the openings of his books, he did not adopt the phrase basmalah, which is usally found in the openings of Muslim writings.61 The usual wording in the first pages of R. Saadia’s writings is ‫[ ברוך ה’ אלהי ישראל‬Blessed is the Lord God of Israel] (Book of Beliefs and Opinions), or ‫[ יתברך אלהים אלהי ישראל‬Blessed be the God God of Israel] (Book of Inheritances), and not the traditional Muslim introduction, ‫[ בשם אללה הרחמן והרחום‬In the name of Allah the merciful and the compassionate], which also lists the divine qualities. The version closest to the Muslim one is at the top of R. Saadia’s commentary on the book of Isaiah, ‫[ בשם ה’ אלהי ישראל‬In the name of the Lord, the God of Israel], but it is also not the same as the Arabic basmalah. The influence of Arabic culture on R. Saadia is also seen—albeit indirectly— in the writing patterns he adopted. A fine example of this is his commentary on the book of Proverbs. This commentary naturally includes discussions on matters of morals and ethics, condemnation of drunkenness, prostitution, and

60 Ha-Egron, the Arabic introduction, 151, l. 29–153, l. 40. 61 Spiegel, “The Influence of Arab Writers,” 137–143.

A r a b i c , I s l a m , a n d R h e t o r i c i n R . S a a d i a’s Wo r k

adultery, as well as observations on matters of wisdom and morality, Hebrew style, rhetoric, oral and written expression. There is no doubt that the last issue was influenced by adab literature, which was intended to further the education and linguistic knowledge of the Muslim intellectuals, especially those who were part of the government service or held public positions.62 The adab literature influenced medieval Jewish scholars who lived in areas where the Arabic language was mainly used. There are no adab books written in Judeo-Arabic that are dedicated to matters of rhetoric and expression, except for Moshe ibn Ezra’s book Kitāb al-Muḥāḍarah wal-Mudhākarah (Poetica Hebraica),63 in which the author calls on Hebrew poets to use Arab sources in their work and himself quotes poems by various Arab poets. The variety of topics with which Ibn Ezra deals within this book, which is ostensibly dedicated to Hebrew poetics, also indicates that it was written in the format of adab books.64 And yet, many works of R. Saadia and other medieval authors include sections written under the direct, or indirect, influence of the adab genre. The long commentary of R. Saadia on Proverbs 25:11, ‫תפוחי זהב במשכיות כסף‬ ‫[ דבר דבור על אפניו‬A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in ornaments of silver], in which he makes ten observations on rhetoric and expression, is an example of the influence of adab literature on the Gaon. A close comparison between the observations provided below and some of the most important adab books leads to the conclusion that R. Saadia did not copy his observations from adab books but was influenced by them indirectly.65 In his short commentary, R. Saadia translates the verse cited above as follows: Ka-tafāfīḥ min dhabab fī muzakhrafāt min fiḍḍah al-kalām al-maqūl `alā

62 On adab literature and its development see A. Bonebakker, “Adab and the Concept of Belles Lettres,” in `Abbasid Belles‑Lettres, ed. J. Ashtiany, T. M. Johnstone, J. D. Latham, and R. B. Serjeant (Cambridge, 1990), 16–30. 63 See Moshe ben Ya’akov ibn Ezra, Kitāb al-Muḥāḍara wal-Mudhākara. This book differs from other contemporary works written in Judeo-Arabic not only in its contents, but also in its language and style. See J. Blau, “On General and Specific Features in Judeo-Arabic,” Te`uda 1 (1980): 185–186 [Heb]. 64 See Y. Dana, “Presence of Arabic Culture in Judeo-Arabic Culture in the Middle Ages as Reflected in Kitāb al-Muḥāḍarah wal-Mudhākarah by Moshe ibn Ezra,” Sefunot 20 (1991): 21–35 [Heb]. 65 On this comparison see E. Schlossberg, “The Influence of the ‘Adab’ Literature on Rabbi Saadia Gaon: A Study of his Commentary on the Book of Proverbs,” Biqqoret u-Farshanut 33 (1998): 33–48 [Heb].

131

132

Chapter Five

jihātayhi (!) [Like apples (made) of gold in ornaments (made) of silver, (so) are the words spoken in proper order].66 In this way he explains the syntactic connection between the two parts of the verse. After translating the verse, R. Saadia adds that, to put words “in proper order,” one should follow ten conditions: three on written expression (fīl kitāb); three on oral expression (fīl qawl); and three on “discrimination” (fī tamyīz), that is, the way of organizing ideas and expressing them logically. The last condition relates, in R. Saadia’s words, to “the existence of things” (fī wujūd al`ashyā`), and differs from the other nine in the fact that “it cannot be praised or condemned, because praise and condemnation can be applied only to things that are done out of free choice, while this last condition is not a matter of free choice.”67

The Three Observations on Written Expression (fīl kitāb) In these three observations R. Saadia is concerned with the formal aspect of the written words, either with single characters or with words and paragraphs. 1. “You should write each character as it has to be written and not connect characters whose natural form is not to be connected. The Hebrews68 are distinguished for this because none of their characters are connected at all.”69 2. “You should separate one word from another by a space larger than the space between the characters themselves; the Hebrews are distinguished for this too.”

66 Proverbs with Translation and Commentary by R. Saadia, 198–202. The ten observations discussed below are also to be found in there. For a similar translation of the verse with minor changes, see Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 4 and 166. 67 See Proverbs with Translation and Commentary by R. Saadia, 199, note 22, where the editor, Yosef Qafih, justifiably remarks that he does not understand the final part of R. Saadia’s words, because amongst the last four observations there is not one that can be distinguished for its dealing with “the existence of things.” 68 In Arabic, al-`Ibrāniyyīn, meaning the natural speakers and users of the language. 69 In his last words R. Saadia responds to the fact that in Arabic all the characters can he joined either on both sides or on one side, while in Hebrew no characters may be connected.

A r a b i c , I s l a m , a n d R h e t o r i c i n R . S a a d i a’s Wo r k

3. “You should mark the beginnings of ideas to separate paragraphs, so that the reader will be able to distinguish the beginnings of ideas as he distinguishes the beginnings of words and the beginnings of the characters.”70

To make sure that the importance of these three observations is fully understood, the Gaon emphasizes again that, if paragraphs or words are not separated properly from one another, or if the characters are connected, it is not considered “proper writing.”

The Three Observations on Oral Expression (fīl qawl) 4. “You should pause between words that, if joined, distort the meaning. For example, if someone wants to answer his friend with a negative answer and tells him [in Hebrew]: Lo yegaddelcha ha-Shem [God will not raise you up], then he distorts the meaning.”

In other words, if the speaker wants to tell his or her friend lo [no], and at the same time to give the friend a blessing: yegaddelcha ha-Shem, meaning, “may God raise you up,” but articulates the three words together without pausing between the negative word and the blessing, the result is that instead of blessing the friend, the speaker utters a curse. 5. “You should join each group of words according to the meaning because, if they are joined contrary to this, the meaning will be distorted.”

To clarify this observation, R. Saadia cites two examples. The first is the verse ’‫( מי תכן את רוח ה‬Mi tikken et ruaḥ ha-Shem, Isaiah 40:13). “If the speaker joins the first four words together and the fifth remains by itself, then mi tikken et ruaḥ is a question, and its answer is ha-Shem, and this is correct. But if he joins the first two words together and the last three together, then the question is: Mi tikken et ruaḥ ha-Shem?, meaning: ‘who created the spirit of God?,’ and this is heresy.”71

70 Zucker tries to demonstrate that each of these three observations has roots in the Halakhot of writing scrolls, tefillin, and mezuzah (Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 166, note 4). But it should be emphasized that R. Saadia is applying his remarks to daily writing, and not only to writing for religious purposes. 71 R. Saadia’s long commentary on this verse did not survive, but his translation of the verse falls in line with the interpretation given above: Wa-man hayya’a al-rīḥ

133

134

Chapter Five

It should be emphasized that, contrary to R. Saadia’s claim that interpreting the whole verse as a question is heresy, two hundred years later, Maimonides explained that this is the only true meaning of the verse. However, he understood the verb tikken differently. In the first part of The Guide for the Perplexed he discusses equivocal (ambiguous) terms, one of which is the term ruaḥ, and says: “Air (ruaḥ) is an equivocal term. . . . It is also a term denoting purpose and will. . . . Similarly, also in the verse Who hath comprehended the air of the Lord. . . . Scripture says that he who knows the ordering of His will or apprehends His governance of that which exists as it really is should teach us about it.”72 R. Saadia’s second example is the verse ‫שרפים עֹמדים ממעל לו‬, Serafim `omdim mi-ma`al lo (Isaiah 6:2). “If the first three words are joined together and the fourth is left by itself, then the meaning is that God has angels in heaven. But if one joins the first two words together and then the other two together and says: serafim `omdim, and afterwards: mi-ma`al lo, then it is heresy, because one is placing the Seraphim above their Creator.”73 According to this explanation, the Hebrew word lo in this verse should be translated not as “him” but as “his,” and the whole verse should be understood in the following way: “Seraphim [that] stand above [are] his.” To emphasize the importance of this rule of oral expression, R. Saadia adds that there are many examples, in the Bible as well as in daily speech. But he does not cite them because he does not want to extend his discussion more than necessary.74 6. “You should take care in speaking as much as possible, in a way that will remove from the speaker any doubt.”

In other words, one must use only unequivocal phrases, which leave the listener in no doubt as to the meaning of the speaker. By way of illustration, R. Saadia huwa Allah [And he who made the air ready is God]. Oeuvres completes de R. Saadia, ed. N. Derenbourg, vol. 3 (Paris, 1896); Rav Saadia’s Translation and Commentary on Isaiah, 85. 72 Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. Shlomo Pines, vol. 1 (Chicago, 1965), 90. 73 In his short commentary R. Saadia translated the phrase above in the same way, Walahu malā’ikah wuqūf fi al-`uluwwi [And He has angels standing in the height]; also compare Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 193. 74 For two more examples see Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 193–194. On the same matter compare also Maimonides, Epistle to Yemen, 47–49.

A r a b i c , I s l a m , a n d R h e t o r i c i n R . S a a d i a’s Wo r k

forbids the use of sentences such as: Li-floni haytah `ayin tovah [A certain man had a good eye], because the Hebrew word `ayin might be interpreted by the listener as the name of the organ of sight or as “a spring of water.”75 On the other hand, the idiom `ayin tovah in Hebrew also has the meaning of generosity.76 Hence, because this sentence is ambiguous, it must not be used in speaking. R. Saadia knows very well that, in spite of the logical demand to use only unequivocal phrases, some of the commandments in the Bible seem to appear in an ambiguous way, such as ve-natnu bene Aharon ha-kohanim esh `al hamizbeaḥ (Leviticus 1:7) [And the sons of Aharon, the priests, shall put fire upon the altar], in which the verb ve-natnu really means “to kindle [fire]” and not just “to give”;77 or the commandment: U-sfartem lachem mi-moḥorat ha-shabbat (Leviticus 23:15) [And you shall count for yourselves from the morrow after the Sabbath], in which the phrase mi-moḥorat ha-shabbat means “from the morrow of the holiday” and not “from the day after Sabbath.”78 However, R. Saadia explains that these and other examples not only conform to his demand to use unequivocal phrases, but also show evidence, in his opinion, of the wisdom of God who gave the Torah to Moses, who would not misinterpret the words and the commandments after having spent forty days with God and having learned the correct interpretations from Him.

The Four Observations on Organizing Ideas (fī al-tamyīz) R. Saadia names the four observations that deal with organizing ideas and rejecting them as follows: “the condensed,” “the expanded,” “the ascending,” and “the descending.” The first two observations are concerned with the techniques for describing and organizing things:

75 See, for example, Genesis 24:13 and 30; and compare Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, 1:44. 76 See, for example, Proverbs 22:9. 77 In his commentary on the Bible R. Saadia translates in the same way: Wa-yush`ilu [and they (the sons of Aharon) will kindle fire]. See also R. Saadia’s commentary cited by R. Bahya ben Yosef in his commentary on the Pentateuch (ed. H. D. Shevel [Jerusalem, 1967], vol. 2, 197–198). 78 In his tafsīr R. Saadia translates min ghad al-`utlah [from the morrow of the holiday]. About this subject see at length above, 74ff.

135

136

Chapter Five

7. “The condensed” (al-mukhtaṣarah)—“[This technique] is that which is condensed to one essential matter. [The technique] describes everything about [this essential matter], although [all] its parts differ. For example, in religious matters, someone who is concerned with the Halakhot of Passover [may] in this connection describe the Passover sacrifice, the removal of leaven (biur ḥameẓ), the eating of maẓah and bitter herbs (maror), the festival of the `omer and everything associated with these times. Or another example, not from religious matters: [imagine] someone who wants to depict the anatomy of the eye, and describes optic nerves, veins, membranes, secretions, eyelids, and so on. Although externally they all differ from one another, the common factor that unifies them is condensed to the description of the eye. For this reason, I named this technique the “condensed.”

In other words, this technique helps to present a single essential matter by describing different details connected with it, even though these details have nothing in common with one another. The description of the Passover festival will, therefore, include many other matters connected to the holiday; a successful account of the eye can be achieved by describing its organs, which differ from one another in their anatomical and physiological structure, but together produce the sense of sight in humans and animals. 8. “The expanded” (al-muntashirah)—“This is [a technique] that extends over many elements in order to bring together from each element [certain] factors that resemble one another. In matters of religion, for example, one who wants to enumerate the thirty-six kinds of kritot79 assembles them from [the laws of] qodashim [sacrifices in the Temple], from [the laws of] `arayot [incest] and from [the laws of] tumot [defilements]. Although their elements differ from each other, the factor [lit. “branch”], which he wants to be similar, the karet, runs through all of them. In non-religious matters, for instance, someone who wants to enumerate the six motion, groups them together [as follows]: two of substance—generation and destruction; two of quantity—increase and decrease; and two of quality—motion and rest. He does not pay attention to the fact that the elements are different because he finds [the idea of] movement common to all of them. For that reason, I named it [this technique] “the expanded,” or “the common.”

79 There are various definitions of karet. For our discussion it is sufficient to say that it is the divine punishment of premature death at the age of fifty.

A r a b i c , I s l a m , a n d R h e t o r i c i n R . S a a d i a’s Wo r k

This technique for organizing ideas is opposite to the previous one. While the seventh technique is concerned with the different details all pertaining to one element, the eighth is concerned with the common details of different elements. In other words, the seventh technique describes the different details arising from one element, while the eighth describes the existence of common details in different elements. The last two observations, which, according to R. Saadia, are opposite to one another, are methodical guidance about how to organize arguments in an oral or written debate and how to refute the opponent’s claims: 9. “The ascending” (al-ṣā`idah)—“You should begin with the parts, if they exist, from the weakest until you ascend to the strongest.80 An example of ‘the ascending’ [technique] in matters of medicine is someone who begins describing a treatment by using the weakest medicine. If it helps, then the illness disappears, but if it does not, he will use a stronger medicine, until he reaches [lit. “ascends to”] the strongest treatment. An example of ‘the ascending’ in a debate: when someone begins citing arguments, he [first] cites his weakest argument after ascertaining its accuracy. After making sure of its necessity, he will make a stronger argument, and after this another one, stronger than the previous two, until he reaches his strongest assertion. He must not bring a weak argument after a strong one, because in this case it will look weak, but he should raise the strength of his assertions.” 10. “The descending” (al-hābiṭah)—“You should begin with the parts, from the highest of all, until you end with the lowest one. For example, someone who begins to enumerate illnesses [begins] with the most serious one, then [proceeds to] the one less severe, until he ends with the last part of the book of medicine, with the most minor medical manifestation of that illness81. ‘The descending’ in a debate: when someone begins to refute the arguments of his opponent by eliminating his strongest argument, he then takes the second strongest argument and refutes it, and afterwards the one that is weaker than both of them and refutes this too, until he reaches his opponent’s weakest argument. [This is]

80 R. Saadia enumerates the last two techniques consecutively and discusses them intermittently. To make his observations clearer to the reader, I have chosen to present his discussion of each technique as a separate section. 81 Similarly, every modern-day doctor knows that when a patient comes with a complaint, the doctor’s first duty is to rule out the possibility of life-threatening diseases, and only then to check the possibilities of milder and less dangerous illnesses.

137

138

Chapter Five

because, the weaker his opponent’s assertion, the stronger his own argument and his refutation. He must not begin with the [opponent’s] weakest argument and refute it with his strongest assertion, and then begin refuting the strong argument with a weaker assertion, because in this way the speech will become unsound.”

R. Saadia continues: “All religious polemics are held in this way. When you want to cite arguments, you should begin with the weakest argument, then say: ‘all the more so.’ And when you want to refute, you should begin with the strongest assertion and then add: ‘needless to say.’” R. Saadia concludes his discussion by saying that if one masters these ten ways of expression, then one’s words are entitled to be considered as “words spoken in proper order.”82 In his discussion, R. Saadia remarks that the last four observations are found in the books of “Arab wisdom,” but there is no evidence that he drew them directly from Arabic works. However, as have already mentioned above, there is no doubt that his very preoccupation with these issues, and the great importance he attaches to the ways of expression, originate from Arab influence. R. Saadia’s interpretive and linguistic works, written in Arabic and based, among other things, on the close connection between Hebrew and Arabic languages, laid the foundation for the widespread use of Arabic in biblical exegesis and medieval biblical dictionaries. From looking at the Arabic culture of his time, R. Saadia came to sad conclusions about the state of Jewish culture in his days and, based on the Arabic model, he sought to correct and strengthen the Jewish spiritual work and diversify its cultural activities. Thus, he forged new fields of creative activity: he translated the Bible into Arabic and interpreted it in that language, wrote books on linguistics and lexicography, poetic theory, philosophy, and history. Indeed, R. Saadia’s enormous literary enterprise in the Arabic language, with its direct and indirect inspiration from Arabic culture, opened a lot of opportunities for the medieval sages of subsequent generations, who used his creations as a foundation for their own work. This is evident from the testimonies of many of the commentators and grammarians who turned to R. Saadia in order to justify their use of Arabic in their commentaries and dictionaries.

82 R. Saadia himself wrote his works in accordance with the rules of rhetoric he formulated. See, for example, Schlossberg, “Studies in the Rhetoric of R. Saadia Gaon,” 61–66.

A r a b i c , I s l a m , a n d R h e t o r i c i n R . S a a d i a’s Wo r k

Thus, for example, R. Jonah ibn Janah writes in the introduction to his book Kitāb al-Luma` that he will try to clarify biblical words using the linguistic evidence from the Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, and the Aramaic language, “because all this is one of the customs of the Hebrews to walk on the path of the late head of the yeshiva ]= R. Saadia].” Then he adds: If I will not find the evidence in the sources I mentioned [the Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, and the Aramaic language] but I will find evidence from the Arabic language, I will not refrain from bringing the evidence from what is visible in it. . . . And I have already seen the rosh yeshiva, our late R. Saadia, practice this custom in most of his commentaries, I mean that he translates the foreign word with what is like it in the Arabic language.83

R. Yehuda ibn Balam (second half of the eleventh century) also defends himself in a similar way, apologizing for using Arabic in his commentaries on the Scriptures. In his commentary on Isaiah 59:13 he writes: It is possible that whoever reads this thing and so on in bringing testimony from the words of the Arabs, and their uses of what comes in the Bible, will condemn me, but he should know that in this matter the esteemed masters such as R. Saadia Gaon and our late R. Hai Gaon did it before us.84

To summarize, we can say that R. Saadia integrated the Arabic language and Islamic culture in all the aspects of his creativity. The influence of the literature of his environment on his works is expressed not only on the etymological, linguistic, and lexical levels, but also in the adoption of writing patterns, interpretive and linguistic principles, and even ideas and contents. However, R. Saadia created for himself new genres and strategies of interpretation that would suit the Hebrew language and the sacred literature with which he dealt.

83 Sefer ha-Riqmah (Kitāb al-Luma`), ed. M. Wilenski (Jerusalem, 1964), 16–18. See also Book of Hebrew Roots, 89, the root ‫גו”ש‬. 84 R. Judah ibn Bal`am’s Commentary on Isaiah,231 .

139

Chapter Six

History, Consolation, and Messianic Future As a leader, one of R. Saadia’s most important goals in his literary work was to encourage the people of Israel in their long exile, the end of which could not be seen, to strengthen their spirit and their faith in the future Messiah, who will redeem them and return them to their land, as prophesied by the prophets of Israel. In addition to direct encouragement, R. Saadia mobilized alongside him the history of the people of Israel, in order to draw lessons and encouragement from it regarding the future redemption. In this context, he also discussed the commandment to chant qriyat Shema` twice a day, in the morning and in the evening, as part of the divine desire to instill in the people of Israel the certainty that future redemption will come, that the prophecies of the prophets will be completely fulfilled, and even more. Even the commandment to remember the Exodus from Egypt at every opportunity, which is included in many Torah commandments, is for R. Saadia an integral part of the divine desire to instill in the people of Israel the belief in future redemption and its necessity, to encourage the people in exile and comfort them. The centrality of redemption in the teachings of R. Saadia can be learned from the fact that he devoted to it a chapter out of the ten chapters of the Book of Beliefs and Opinions. The eighth chapter of the Book of Beliefs and Opinions, titled ‫[ פי אלפרקאן‬Concerning the Redemption], is meant to prove and substantiate the belief “that He would deliver us from our present state and gather our scattered fragments from the east and the west of the earth and bring us to His holy place and cause us to dwell therein, so that we might be His choice and peculiar possession.”1

1

Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 290; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 237.

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

R. Saadia notes with admiration that, despite the difficult and long exile, the spirit of the people has not been broken. They continue to believe patiently in the revelation of the Messiah and the future redemption. Therefore, also, dost thou find us patiently awaiting what God has promised us, not entertaining any doubts concerning it, nor worrying or despairing. On the contrary, our courage and tenacity increase constantly, as expressed in Scripture: Be strong, and let your heart take courage, all ye that wait for the Lord (Psalms 31:25).2

Later in the chapter R. Saadia describes in detail the events that will take place during the time of salvation, the wars against Gog and Magog and against the evil Armilus. He also speculates that the resurrection of the dead, which he discussed extensively in the previous chapter, will take place at the time of redemption. A significant portion of the chapter is devoted to rejecting the Christian claim that the Messiah was already revealed in the days of the Second Temple and that no further redemption would take place in the future: I shall next discuss the report that has reached me that certain people, who call themselves Jews, maintain that the aforementioned promises and consolations applied, all of them, to the time of the Second Temple, and that they were fully realized then so that there was nothing further left to be fulfilled.3

R. Saadia rejects these claims very firmly. The main argument on which those people “who call themselves Jews” base their claim is that the promises of the prophets regarding the future redemption are conditional on the behavior of the people of Israel. R. Saadia proves based on biblical verses that future prophecies and promises are not conditioned at all and that they will be fulfilled in any case. Then he concludes, “By means of this explanation, then, all the confused and false notions entertained by them on the subject of underlying stipulations or

2

Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 292; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 239.

3

Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 312; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 252–253.

141

142

Chapter Six

provisos are refuted.”4 Despite this, R. Saadia is not satisfied with his principled answer and continues to reject the claim “that the messages of comfort on the part of the prophets referred to the period of the Second Temple,” and that the Messiah was already revealed in the days of the Second Temple and therefore there will be no further redemption in the future: And now that I have removed the foundation upon which they built their edifice, let me present, in addition, the following fifteen refutations of their view. Five of these consist of arguments from the text of the Sacred Writ. Five others are proofs derived from history. Five more, again, are arguments that can be grasped by personal observations.5

As we have mentioned above, R. Saadia also mobilizes the history of the people of Israel in order to draw lessons and encouragement from it regarding the future redemption. In this context he discusses the reasons why the Lord warned the people of Israel in advance of the troubles and disasters that would befall them.6 In several of R. Saadia’s writings, he comments that God warned the nation of the pending calamities as an act of kindness, to enable the people to prepare themselves emotionally and prevent them from becoming disheartened when struck by catastrophe. This concept began to develop in the Book of Beliefs and Opinions, in which R Saadia described the calamities that would befall the people of Israel before the arrival of Elijah the Prophet and added, “Praised be He who in His graciousness gave unto us advance notice of these misfortunes, lest they come upon us suddenly and cause us despair.”7 In his commentary on the book of Isaiah, R. Saadia alluded to the idea that various events in the history of the Jewish people are symbolic indicators of the future redemption. In his commentary on Isaiah 51:3, “God shall comfort Zion,” 4

Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 314; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 254

5

For the detailed arguments that reject the claim of these people “who call themselves Jews,” and that in the opinion of R. Saadia are also correct regarding the similar Christian claim, see Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 315–319; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 254–257.

6

See also D. Schwartz and E. Schlossberg, “Studies on Saadia,” Kiryat Sefer 68 (1998): 180–185 [Heb].

7

Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 304; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 247.

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

he wrote that in the previous verse Isaiah had reminded the people of Abraham and Sara: “Look to Abraham your father, and to Sarah, who gave you birth” to inspire the people to learn from the events of the lives of their forefathers: Abraham and Sara were likened to a “rock” and a “quarry” (Isaiah 51:1) because neither bear fruit, similarly to Abraham and Sarah who were elderly and could no longer bear children. . . . However, God blessed them with Isaac. . . . Isaiah then says to the people—the same is true for Zion. After it has suffered and been destroyed, God will restore and rebuild it, as he writes “God shall comfort Zion and will look with compassion on all her ruins.”8

According to R. Saadia, the beginning of Isaiah 33 refers to the fall of Sennacherib, King of Assyria. However, before he explains the verses in this prophecy, he offers an introduction to his commentary that transforms distant history into a symbol of what the future will hold: “He then described the destruction that befell Sennacherib as a lesson for all the enemies of the people and its adversaries.” In his commentary on verse 10 of this chapter, he very clearly added that “after he offered all these descriptions . . . [he began] to call out to all the nations: Indeed, as I did to those, I will do to you as well.”9 R. Saadia’s commentary on the verse “Israel will be saved by the Lord with an everlasting salvation” (Isaiah 45:17) reiterates this idea. “Like your salvation from Sennacherib and those who imprisoned the Jews, so God will redeem you from exile. Believe in this and let it be an omen for you.”10 This concept is presented even more forcefully in a later source: 8

Rav Saadia’s Translation and Commentary on Isaiah, 219. Later in the commentary, R. Saadia also compared the verse in Isaiah 51:3, “Joy and gladness will be found in her, thanksgiving and the sound of singing,” with Sarah’s words in Genesis 21:6, “God has brought me laughter.” A similar explanation was offered by R. David Kimchi, who quoted his father Yosef (see his commentary on Isaiah 51:2). The source of the commentaries by both R. Saadia and R. Yosef Kimchi is Tanḥuma, Vayera, letter 16, where it is written “‘look at Abraham your father and Sarah your mother’—as I did for Abraham and Sarah, so I will do for Jerusalem.” However, the midrash associates the story of Abraham and Sarah with the verses in Psalms and other books, not with Isaiah 51:2–3, as R. Saadia and R. Yosef Kimchi did.

9

Rav Saadia’s Translation and Commentary on Isaiah, 191–192.

10 Ibid., 215. In a later commentary R. Saadia distinguished between the salvation from Sennacherib and the salvation of the future, as the first was only temporary and was followed by enslavement, but the final redemption will be everlasting.

143

144

Chapter Six

We have already discussed that the matter of Egypt and Saba and Cush, was used by God as proof of the matter of Cyrus [that would happen] shortly and of the matter of the Messiah [that would occur] in the distant future. And since the prophecy of Isaiah on the reign of Cyrus the Great came to pass, his reign and the story of Sennacherib became two omens of the coming of Messiah in the future.

This idea was raised for a third time in R. Saadia’s commentary on the beginning of Isaiah 46. There, he writes: The promises of redemption made by Isaiah have already been confirmed by the stories of Babylonia and Persia told by Hanania, Mishael, and Azariah, and by Mordechai and Esther, and by Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, and by Ezra son of Seraiah, and the redemption from Greece has been validated by Mattathias ben Johanan.11

Furthermore, R. Saadia claimed that the events of the redemption were proof of the retribution awaiting the Jewish people in the final and most important stage of all, namely, in the world to come. In his commentary on the verse “When you see this, your heart will rejoice” (Isaiah 66:17), R. Saadia wrote: He used the kindness they would receive during the time of redemption as proof of the good rewards of the world to come, and all that is written about the suffering of a different nation is proof of the calamities God would bring upon them. The words of comfort that would materialize at a later time are also symbolic of the world to come, and God said that when you see this, you will know without doubt what I will do for you in the future.12

In the Book of Beliefs and Opinions, this notion is presented as proof of the future redemption. At the beginning of the eighth chapter, in his discussion about the inevitability of salvation, R. Saadia made an association between the redemption from Egypt, in which only two promises were made: “I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great

11 Ibid., 216–217. 12 Ibid., 241. Also compare with Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 284; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 233.

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

possessions” (Genesis 15:14), and the final redemption, for which greater and more exalted promises were made. R. Saadia’s conclusion was that if, then, what has happened to us in the past can be used as a proof and an example, God will assuredly do for us in the future doubly double above what He has promised us, so that we will be unable quickly and entirely to compute it, as Scripture says: “And He will do thee good, and multiply thee above the fathers” (Deuteronomy 30:5).13

The notion that events from the distant past could serve as proof and testimony of a future redemption was fully formulated in R. Saadia’s commentary on the book of Daniel, his final exegetical work.14 There are several places in this commentary in which R. Saadia explains that the warnings given to the people of Israel about the tragedies that would befall them were not merely to prevent them from despairing, but rather to encourage and to strengthen them. He describes the calamities suffered by the sages during the Edomite reign (R. Akiva was stabbed with a sword and R. Judah ben Bava by javelins, R. Hanina ben Teradion was burned at the stake, and R. Meir was taken prisoner as a child) and associates them with the verse in Daniel, “Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered” (11:33). He adds that “[The angel] Gabriel informed Daniel of these events before they occurred, so that, when they did transpire, our spirits would not fall, and we would not despair of redemption.” Although R. Saadia was referring to tragic events that occurred before his time, it seems that he was also referring to the prophecies revealed to Daniel. God had informed Daniel of what would happen in the future, at the end of days, so that the people would not despair of redemption.15 This is another ex-

13 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 292; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 238–239. According to R. Saadia, this analogy is the reason why the redemption from Egypt is mentioned in the Torah so many times, “to remind us of what we have seen”. See also D. Schwartz, Messianism in Medieval Jewish Thought (Ramat Gan, 1997), 34 [Heb]. 14 In his commentary on Daniel, the Gaon cites his commentary on Isaiah. See Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 176, l. 2. On the order in which R. Saadia wrote his biblical commentaries, see Rav Saadia’s Translation and Commentary on Isaiah, 8, note 3. 15 Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 203–204. In his commentary on Psalms 89, which R. Saadia believed was a warning to the people of the future destruction of the Holy Temple and the exile, he presented the basic question of whether it is possible that

145

146

Chapter Six

ample of R. Saadia’s vast efforts to use the history of the Jewish people to prove that God had never abandoned them before, nor would he abandon them in the future. R. Saadia emphasizes that the special support for the Jewish people is an inseparable part of how God sustains his world and cites many verses that describe the wars that God has fought for his nation, from the times of Joshua until the days of Nechemia. He claims that this means that God will ensure that the angel that protects Israel will overpower the angel that protects another nation: “that would be its end, and its regime would be revoked.”16 The fact that the angel Michael, who has fought against the angel of Persia and the angel of Greece, is referred to as “one of the chief princes” (Daniel 10:13) proves, in R. Saadia’s opinion, that he is one of the princes of Israel, similar to the angels who appeared to Jacob, Moses, Joshua, and other prophets who brought about victories over their enemies.17 In R. Saadia’s descriptions of these wars and the ultimate victories, God and his angels, who have accompanied the people of Israel throughout history and helped them win their wars against their enemies, will help them in the future as well. In his introduction to the book of Daniel, R. Saadia establishes two principles. The first principle is that there is knowledge that is hidden from human eyes and only God knows it. This is the knowledge of what is going to happen before it happens. The second principle is that God may reveal some of this information to his prophets, if it can provide any benefit or correction for them.18 R. Saadia’s introduction to his commentary on Daniel also emphasizes that the realization of the prophecies and of the promises the prophets made could encourage the people and even strengthen their faith in the inevitability of redemption, just as the events that will occur at the time of the redemption would be proof of what will happen in the world to come:

these tragedies would not occur, although God had forewarned his people of them through his prophets. His answer was “[God] knows what will be before it occurs. Had something occurred that differed from what had been said, the knowledge would have been given accordingly” (The Book of Psalms with the Translation and Commentary of R. Saadia Gaon, 189–190). 16 Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 187. 17 Ibid., 187–188. 18 H. Ben-Shammai, “R. Sa`adya’s Introduction to Daniel: An Essay on the Calculation of the End of Days according to Prophecy against the Speculations of Astrologers and Magicians,” Sefunot 23 (2003): 17.

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

When Cyrus the Great took the throne and ordered that the Temple be built, [Israel] was obligated to believe in all manners of redemption, such as the messages regarding the king of the North and the king of the Negev, and all the other omens that had been added about the salvation in general and all its details. When the first incident occurred as the angel had said, all the events and the salvation were validated. When the second incident occurred as well, we had two proofs of the remaining incidents and salvation. When the third incident occurred, three proofs of the remaining incidents and salvation were validated. And as the time passed, there would be more and more proofs of the ultimate salvation, until it would finally arrive. At that time, all that happened beforehand, and the salvation, would become proof of what would happen in the world to come, along with the evidence of what would happen during the redemption, as it says, “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come” (Joel 3:4).19

In his introduction, R. Saadia mentions other sources in which God informed his prophets of various chapters in the history of the Jewish people. Abraham knew that the People of Israel would be strangers and slaves in Egypt for 400 years; Moses knew that the nation would remain in the Land of Israel for 850 years before being exiled; Jerimiah prophesied that the Babylonian exile would be 70 years long; and Moses was told that the Second Temple would stand for 420 years. In the continuation of the introduction R. Saadia explains that Moses has revealed to us what will happen after the destruction of the Second Temple and even set a timetable for these events,20 and therefore we can assume that Moses’s goal was to encourage and strengthen the people. Presenting the exile as part of God’s comprehensive plan can be encouraging, as in previous eras in Jewish history when forewarning was given, and even more reassuring is that God set a time limit for these tragedies.21 However, R. Saadia emphasizes that the book of Daniel does not include all the future events, but only the most important ones:

19 From a segment of the introduction to the commentary on the book of Daniel in the manuscript. See Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 174, note 44. 20 Ben-Shammai, “R. Sa`adia Gaon’s Introduction to Daniel,” 54ff. 21 Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 13–15. A possible basis for R. Saadia’s approach, which links the realization of later promises with the realization of previous ones, can be found in BT Makot 24b.

147

148

Chapter Six

So that we would have omens for what we had been apprised, just as the matter of Cyrus was an omen of salvation, the story of “his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven” (Daniel 11:4); “Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab, and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand” (Daniel 11:41); and “with the Libyans and Cushites in submission” (Daniel 11:43). These and others . . . will be omens for the people of Israel of the truth of the salvation and validation of the words of comfort when they see them transpire.22

In a fragment of R. Saadia’s commentary on Daniel 11:15, after describing the events related to the kings and regimes mentioned in the chapter, he added: These [events] should be omens of the redemption. Each one that is confirmed should cause our hearts to rejoice and the salvation shall come to pass. There is no doubt that the events involving the Greeks happened to our forefathers who lived during that time, but most people did not know about them because of their distance [in time]. But the events of Edom are clearer to us because they are closer, and the events of its partner [= Ishmael, meaning the Muslims] are even clearer because they are even closer than the former.23

Based on the above, R. Saadia warns that the informative parts of Daniel about the kings of the world should not be considered unnecessary and insignificant, because they are all omens for the people of Israel “so that when they are seen by the people of every generation, they will be obligated to believe in the matter of salvation.”24 R. Saadia also lists other events that he describes as omens of the future salvation: Israel’s victory over Greece; the Roman victory in the Land of Israel; the Romans’ decrees against the people of Israel; the improved conditions of the Jewish people during the time of R. Yehudah ha-Nasi; the rise of Islam; the fact that Edom and Moab were saved from being conquered by the Islamic regime;

22 Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 191; and see also ibid., 204. 23 Y. Ratzaby, “From the Commentaries of R. Saadia on Scripture (Ten New Segments),” Sinai 109 (1992): 211. “Edom’s partner,” which is mentioned in this fragment, is the Islamic religion. For more information about this term and the reasons it is used, see Schlossberg, “Attitude towards Islam,” 22–25. 24 Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 199.

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

and their connection to some of the people of Habbash. R. Saadia believes that all these events are alluded to in the book of Daniel, and the only prophecy that has not yet been fulfilled is the one that implied in the words “he will pitch his royal tents” (Daniel 11:45). R. Saadia concludes that, when all these omens were confirmed for us . . . they added strength [sureness] to our hearts that the salvation would occur without any doubt . . . and as [God] told Habakkuk about the king of Babylonia, “For the revelation awaits an appointed time it speaks of the end and will not prove false. Though it might linger, wait for it, it will certainly come and will not delay” (Habakkuk 2:3).25

When comparing the commentary on Daniel with the words of the Gaon in his commentary on Isaiah, it is evident that the notion that the events in the history of the Jewish people prove that they will ultimately be redeemed began to develop in the commentary on Isaiah and was fully reflected in the commentary on Daniel. For example, the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles could be encouraging for those who awaited and anticipated the redemption because, if those prophecies were proven true, clearly the prophecies about the future redemption would come to be realized as well. In this context one must probably understand the special effort made by R. Saadia to prove that Daniel was a prophet. In his commentary on the book of Daniel and in many other places in his writings, R. Saadia Gaon invested substantial effort in proving that Daniel was a prophet and that his visions and dreams were prophesies, even though the biblical book does not use this specific term. Our hypothesis is that one of R. Saadia’s main goals in his writings was to raise the spirits of the people of Israel in exile and to boost their faith in their ultimate redemption. The emphasis made by R. Saadia on the prophetic aspects of the book of Daniel coincides with this goal, because it would have been more affectively achieved after proving that Daniel’s visions were prophecies voiced publicly. The question whether Daniel was a prophet was debated before R. Saadia’s time as well. The first to address this matter was Ben Sira, who did not include Daniel in the chapter of his book in which he praised the founding fathers and sages of the Jewish nation. He listed Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve

25 Ibid., 209.

149

150

Chapter Six

Minor Prophets (without mentioning their names), followed by Zerubbabel, Joshua’s son Yehozadak, Nehemiah, and others, but not Daniel.26 According to the Talmudic sages, there were no prophets since the beginning of the Persian Empire, and the last prophets were Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. “From the time when Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi died the Divine Spirit departed from the Jewish people . . . but they would nevertheless still make use of the Divine Voice” (BT Sotah 48b).27 According to another source, “Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were the last of the prophets.”28 The Talmudic consensus is that Daniel was not a prophet.29 On the other hand, Midrash Tanḥuma says that Daniel prophesies, at least when interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s first dream. When the sages of Babylonia defend themselves by telling the king that no one in the world can interpret his dream, they add that “What the king asks is too difficult. No one can reveal it to the king except the gods, and they do not live among humans” (Daniel 2:11). The midrash explains that interpreting this dream requires the gift of prophecy. Thus, Daniel’s success indicates that, at least at that moment, he received a prophecy.30 The book Seder `Olam, attributed to R. Yose ben Halafta, a student of R. Akiva, also describes Daniel as a prophet and lists him among the forty-eight prophets that served Israel, whose prophecies were documented because of their value for future generations.31 The Qumranites referred to Daniel as a prophet as well, as indicated in one of the remnants of their writings, which states: “as it is explained in the book of 26 The Complete Works of Ben Sira, ed. M. Z. Segal (Jerusalem, 1959), chapter 8, sections 44–49. R. Saadia was familiar with the work of Ben Sira, see Saadia Gaon, “Sefer ha-Galūi,” 151, ll. 11–13. See also M. Z. Segal, “Rabbi Saadia Gaon and Ben Sira,” in Rav Saadia Gaon, ed. Y. L. Fishman (Maimon) (Jerusalem, 1943), 98–118 [Heb]. 27 BT Baba Batra 14b. See also E. E. Urbach, “When did Prophecy Cease?,” Tarbiz 17 (1946): 2–3 and 6–7 [Heb]; C. M. I. Gevaryahu, “The End of Prophecy—A Historical, Religious, and Literary Problem,” in The Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, part 1: The Biblical Era (Jerusalem, 1986), 87–92 [Heb]. 28 BT Megillah 3a and BT Sanhedrin 93b–94a. 29 BT Sanhedrin 11a, BT Yoma 9b, BT Sotah 48b, T Sotah 13 (ed. Zuckermandel [Jerusalem, 1975], 318, ll. 19–23. S. Lieberman, Tosefta ke-Pshuta [New York, 1973], 736, ll. 44–45, completely rejects the version that refers to the “first prophets”); YT Sotah 9:13; Shir ha-Shirim Rabba 8:11, and more. 30 Tanḥuma, Mikeẓ, end of section 2 and end of section 4, 192. 31 Seder `Olam, ed. Ch. Milikovski (Jerusalem, 2013), end of chapter 20, 284–285; and compare also Rashi’s commentary on BT Megillah 14a.

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

Daniel the Prophet.”32 However, this piece of evidence is of only minimal value as the Essenes (and other sects from that time) claimed that prophecy continued during the time of the Second Temple and therefore they called many individuals prophets. In fact, nearly all the members of the Essene sect mentioned by name in the writings of Josephus Flavius were referred to as “prophets.”33 Josephus Flavius also referred to Daniel as a prophet. When describing the success of Daniel and his kinsmen in their studies after refusing the meals offered by the king, Josephus made special note of Daniel “who, being already sufficiently skillful in wisdom, was very busy about the interpretation of dreams. And God manifested himself to him.”34 Later, Josephus specifically referred to Daniel as a prophet and wrote that when Darius conquered Babylonia, “he took Daniel the Prophet, and carried him with him into Media . . . and kept him with him.”35 Many of the geonim tended to agree that Daniel was a prophet just like any other. In Halakhot Gedolot by R. Simon Kayyara (apparently composed in the late ninth century), the list of prophets was copied from Seder `Olam, and included Daniel’s name, without expressing any reservations about whether he was a prophet.36 The list in Halakhot Gedolot was quoted by Rashi in his commentary on BT Megillah (14a), and by R. Nissim ben Jacob of Qairawān37. R. Saadia Gaon’s young contemporary, R. Mubashshir Halevi, also agreed that Daniel was a prophet. In his discussion on the prohibition issued by R. Saadia against accepting gifts from non-Jews, he talked about Elisha38 and Daniel’s39 refusal to accept such gifts and specifically referred to Daniel as a prophet: “Daniel, of blessed memory, may have avoided accepting gifts only because he wanted

32 A. Mertens, Das Buch Daniel im Licht der Texte vom Toten Meer (Stuttgart, 1971), 29; and K. Koch, “Is Daniel also among the Prophets?,” Interpretation 34 (1985): 122, note 20. 33 Urbach, “When Did Prophecy Cease?,” 2–5. 34 Josephus Flavius, Antiquities of the Jews, 10:194, 361. 35 Ibid., 10:248–249, 367. R. Saadia was apparently not familiar with the work of Josephus. 36 R. Simon Kayyara, Halakhot Gedolot, ed. A. Hildesheimer (Berlin, 1888–1892), 632 [Heb]. 37 Y. Qafih, “Pearl Gallows,” Talpiyyot 8 (1961): 138–139 [Heb]. 38 See 2 Kings 5:16. 39 See Daniel 5:17.

151

152

Chapter Six

to admonish Belshazzar, and he feared that, by accepting the gifts, he would feel ashamed and unable to admonish him as was necessary. Or, he may not have wanted it to seem that he was accepting wages for his prophecy.”40 The responsa by R. Hai Gaon (d. 1038) also included Daniel in the list of prophets. In his response to a question asked about the verse “Rabba would regularly fast on Yom Kippur for two days” (BT Rosh Hashanah 21a), he wrote: “Who can cancel the ruling of the Beth-Din that included prophets such as Ezekiel ben Buzi and Daniel the esteemed, who issued the practice of observing holidays for two days in the Diaspora, and who is their equal in wisdom and in numbers?”41 The question of whether Daniel was a prophet was debated by the medieval sages as well. R. Hananel ben Hushiel copied the list of prophets from Seder `Olam Rabba, without expressing any reservations regarding the inclusion of Daniel in this list.42 R. Abraham ibn Ezra also stated that “there was no one as wise in his [Daniel’s] generation, and he was also a prophet.”43 Daniel’s prophecy was debated within the Maimonides family. According to R. Maimon, father of Maimonides, Daniel was the last of the prophets.44 However, Maimonides himself, claimed that Daniel’s dreams were not complete prophecies, although an angel spoke to him in those dreams. According to Maimonides, there are eleven levels of prophecy, not including the prophecy of Moses, which is a different level entirely, and he placed Daniel on the second level. This level is called ruaḥ ha-qqodesh ]lit. “holy spirit”[ as opposed to genuine prophecy, which explains why the book of Daniel appears in the Bible among the Writings and not among the Prophets.45 On the other hand, R. Abraham, son of

40 Zucker, A Critique against the Writings of R. Saadya Gaon, 96. 41 Oẓar ha-Geonim, Rosh Hashanah, end of section 47, 40, and 42; ibid., Yom Tov, 9; B. M. Lewin, “The Responsa of the Late R. Hai Gaon concerning the Two Days of the Holidays in the Diaspora,” Ginzei Qedem 4 (1930): 34. See also BT Avodah Zarah 36a; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of the Rebels 2:2. 42 See his commentary on BT Megillah 14b. 43 Aharon Mondschein, Short Commentary by R. Abraham ben Ezra on the Book of Daniel (MA thesis, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 1977), 35, l. 4. See also ibid., 135, note 3. 44 Letter of Comfort by R. Maimon ha-Dayyan, ed. Y. L. Fishman (Maimon) (Jerusalem, 1945), 12 [Heb]. 45 Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed (2003), 2:45, 411–413. However, in Mishneh Torah, Laws of the Foundations of the Torah 2:9, Maimonides indirectly

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

Maimonides, agreed with his grandfather and described Daniel as a prophet. In the final chapter of his work on obligations regarding prayer, he wrote: “During times of prayer and lamentations, the prophets, as described regarding Solomon and Daniel, would be seated on their knees.”46 The medieval Kimchi family was also divided on this question. According to R. Moshe Kimchi, Daniel was a prophet,47 but his brother, R. David Kimchi, wrote that “although Daniel saw visions while he was awake, he did not attain the same strength and knowledge in these visions as Isaiah and Ezekiel and the other prophets.”48 Nachmanides shared this opinion, stating that “one who sees an angel or hears one is not a prophet,”49 while R. Isaac Abarbanel considered Daniel’s prophetic level to be “of the highest level of prophecy” equal to that of Isaiah and Ezekiel.50 The Karaite sages also described Daniel as a prophet. Daniel al-Qūmisī, a ninth-century biblical commentator, listed Daniel as one of the forty-eight prophets that spoke to the Jewish nation.51 Salmon ben Yeroḥam, a tenthcentury commentator, mentioned in his commentary on the book of Psalms “the book of Daniel the Prophet”52 and the “prophecy of Daniel.” However, in al-Qūmisī commentary on the book of Zechariah, he referred to Daniel as a ḥasīd

refers to Daniel as a prophet. “One prophet said he saw God in a ‘garment white as snow’” (Daniel 7:9). Apparently, Maimonides seems to assume that the reader can distinguish between the different levels of prophecy mentioned above. 46 Abraham Maimonides, A Comprehensive Guide for the Servants of God, ed. N. Dana (Ramat Gan, 1989), 99–100 (end of sheet 20b and beginning of sheet 21a) and compare ibid., 95 (end of sheet 18b) [Heb]. 47 “Commentary by R. Moshe Kimhi on the Book of Job,” in I. Schwartz, Tikvat Enosh (Berlin, 1862, repr. Jerusalem, 1969), 126 [Heb]. 48 Complete Commentary by Radaq on the Book of Psalms, ed. A. Darom (Jerusalem, 1979), 7 [Heb]. 49 In his commentary on Genesis 18:1 (ed. H. D. Shavel [Jerusalem, 1959], 104). 50 Ma`ayanei ha-Yeshu`a, ma`ayan 3, tamar 1–3. 51 A. Marmerstein, “Remnants from the Commentaries of the Karaite Daniel al-Qumisi,” Ha-Tzofeh 8 (1924): 325, note 40. See also J. Mann, Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature, vol. 2 (Philadelphia, 1935), 17, note 32. 52 S. Poznanski, “Aus Salmon b. Yeruham’s Commentary zu Ps. 102, 14,” MGWJ 44 (1900): 520, l. 8.

153

154

Chapter Six

[pious one] and not as a prophet.53 However, it should be noted that the free interchange of the terms “prophet” and ḥasīd is common in medieval literature.54 Yefet ben Eli, who lived during the second half of the tenth century and is believed by many to have been the greatest Karaite biblical commentator of medieval times, took a more restrained approach regarding the level of Daniel’s prophecy, although he did not rule it out entirely. According to Yefet, Daniel was a prophet, though at the lowest level of prophecy in which the individual sees an angel while awake or in a dream, and hears the angel speaking to him directly.55 However, Yefet emphasized that Daniel heard prophecies about the future that were heard by no one other than him, which indicates the high level of his prophecy. Thus, R. Saadia was not the first, and certainly not the only, sage to refer to Daniel as a prophet. In his work Sefer ha-Galūi he argued with those who claimed that the books of the Bible are unique only because they are divided into verses and incorporate cantillation notes. He listed three criteria that differentiate the prophetic books from the external ones, such as the book of Ben Sira and the book of the Hasmoneans, and argues that the book of Daniel meets all three criteria and therefore is a prophetic book that is no different from the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. These three criteria are the following. First, the book must contain the phrases indicating the act of prophecy, such as “and God spoke to” or “and God

53 “‘The oppressed of the flock who were watching me’ (Zechariah 11:11): This refers to those who keep the commandments, the ḥasīdīm, such as Daniel” (Daniel alQūmisī, Commentary on the Twelve Minor Prophets, ed. Yitzhak Dov Markon [Jerusalem, 1958], 73 [Heb]). 54 On this interchange in the writings of Rabbi Saadia, see Ben-Shammai, “R. Sa`adia Gaon’s Introduction to Daniel,” 17. 55 A Commentary on the Book of Daniel by Yefet ibn Ali the Karaite, ed. D. S. Margoliouth (Oxford, 1889), 112, ll. 19–13 [Eng and Ara]. About the six levels of prophecy that Yefet lists, see H. Ben-Shammai, The Doctrines of Religious Thought of Abu Yūsuf Ya`qub Al Qirqisani and Yefet ben Eli (PhD diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1978), part 1, 268, sections 5–6 (see also a slightly different division, ibid., 277) [Heb]. About the level of a prophecy in a dream, see ibid., 274 ff. About the differences between the approach presented by Yefet and that presented by Qirqisani regarding the levels of prophecy, see ibid., 275 ff. See also U. Simon, Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms—from R. Saadia Gaon to R. Avraham ibn Ezra (Ramat Gan, 1982), 78–81 [Heb].

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

said as follows,” as in all the holy books; or knowledge of what is hidden (`ilm al-ghaib), such as in Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the book of Esther.56 The term “knowledge of the hidden” is also used in R. Saadia’s introduction to the book of Daniel, “and since we have already explained these forms, we should explain as well the term ‘knowledge of what is hidden’ (`ilm al-ghaib), which we have encountered from the beginning of this matter until its end.”57 According to R. Saadia, the contents of the book of Daniel meet the criterion of “knowledge of what is hidden.” In the commentary itself, R. Saadia noted that he had already addressed this matter in his introduction. Also, in his commentary on Daniel 4:7, R. Saadia wondered why Daniel’s vision included events that had happened in the past, such as the incident with Nebuchadnezzar that occurred before the time of the vision. His response is that “as the goal was to reveal to Daniel all the reigns in their order, [the angel] began with the kings of the past, to present the kings of the future in proper sequence.”58  The second criterion is that the individual who is the subject of the book (ṣāḥib dhālika al-kitāb) learns that he is a prophet, either through a miracle or from another prophet.59 R. Saadia Gaon’s commentary on Daniel shows that there is no doubt that Daniel was aware that he was a prophet and that everything he saw and heard were prophecies. According to R. Saadia, the “Ancient of Days” who appeared to him in his dreams was the fire of the divine spirit, which was created to prove to Daniel that the visions he was seeing were sent by God

56 Saadia Gaon, “Sefer ha-Galūi,” 162, ll. 9–12. 57 Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 13, ll. 6–8. In his notes on Sefer ha-Galūi (Saadia Gaon, “Sefer ha-Galūi,” 163, note 8), Harkavy explained that “knowing what is hidden” is “deep words of wisdom that a person cannot obtain alone without prophecy.” However, this definition applies only to the three books that R. Saadia uses to prove his argument, namely Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther (see also Y. Ratzaby, “The Commentary by R. Saadia on the Book of Esther,” in Jubilee Volume in Memory of R. Soloveitchik, ed. N. Lamm and Y. Raphaei [Jerusalem, 1984], vol 2, p. 1560, l. 1). However, in the book of Daniel, the meaning of “knowledge of what is hidden” is to obtain hidden knowledge of the past and the future. 58 Ibid., 126. 59 Saadia Gaon, “Sefer ha-Galūi,” 162, ll. 12–13. Harkavy translates the Arabic term ṣāḥib dhālika al-kitāb (ibid., 163, l. 12) as “the author of this book,” although it can also be understood as “the owner of that book,” which refers to the prophet who made the prophecies described in that book, which the prophet himself may not have written. Many of the books of the Bible were not written by the prophets who actually made the prophecies they contain (BT Bava Batra 14a).

155

156

Chapter Six

and not figments of his imagination.60 In R. Saadia’s commentary on the words “he wrote the dreams” (Daniel 7:1), he explains that Daniel put his dreams into writing, although he did not consider them prophecies “until while he was awake, he saw the man who had interpreted them while he had been asleep.”61 Third, it is important that “the nation includes the book in the holy Scripture so that it will be passed down to the next generations.”62 According to R. Saadia, the book of Daniel meets this requirement as well. In his commentary on the end of chapter 2, he emphasized that the sages had chosen to include Daniel’s prophecies among the twenty-four books of the Bible, despite their inability to determine the fulfillment of these prophecies, which referred to events that would occur in the distant future.63 In addition, in his commentary on the beginning of chapter 4,64 R. Saadia wrote that these are the words of the letter written by Nebuchadnezzar that was sent to all corners of the world about what had transpired, and the dedicated forefathers included it in the book of Daniel in the Bible because they knew that everything that had been written was indeed correct.65

After listing these three criteria, R. Saadia concluded by saying that “if these three [criteria] do not exist together, but only one of them exists, the book is not prophetic, and this is especially true if none of these criteria are found.”66 As

60 Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 134–135. Compare also Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 151; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 127. 61 Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 121. See also ibid., 139 where R. Saadia explains how the man explained this to Daniel in his sleep, and ibid., 160. 62 Saadia Gaon, “Sefer ha-Galūi,” 162, ll. 14–15. 63 Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 56–57. 64 In the contemporary version of the book of Daniel, these are verses 31–33 in chapter 3. However, according to R. Saadia, they belong to the conceptual unit found in the beginning of chapter 4, as the expanded version of chapter 4 contains the letter that Nebuchadnezzar sent out to all parts of his kingdom. According to Qafih (Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 73, before note 1) the version suggested by R. Saadia matches with all the ancient manuscripts of the book of Daniel that have been found. It should be noted that the Christian translation of the Bible into Arabic also placed the last three verses of chapter 3 (in our standard versions) in chapter 4. 65 Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 73. 66 Saadia Gaon, “Sefer ha-Galūi,” 162, ll. 15–17.

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

we have shown, all three criteria are met in the case of the book of Daniel and, therefore, R. Saadia had no doubt that this book is one of prophecy. In his long commentary on Genesis, R. Saadia explains that the words “a thick and dreadful darkness came over him” (Genesis 15:12) indicate that Abraham was experiencing a prophetic vision (mar`eh) or a “deep sleep” (tardemah), which is a state in which the prophet feels that he is inside a separate, hidden circle, with no knowledge about the state of other people outside that circle, just as they are unaware that he is in a state of prophecy. R. Saadia goes on to explain that the meaning of this verse is that people near Abraham did not see what he was seeing in his prophetic vision, just as Daniel said, “and I alone saw the vision” (Daniel 10:7).67 In a different part of the commentary, where R. Saadia discussed the manners in which God reveals himself to his prophets, he mentioned similarities between Daniel and Ezekiel. Both of them were prophets, and both saw a prophetic vision near a river.68 In the second chapter of the Book of Beliefs and Opinions, R. Saadia explained that the image of a man that some prophets saw seated on a throne carried by angels was merely an image made of light that was created by God so that the prophet would have no doubt that his vision was received from God. He added that “this figure is more exalted than the angels and is called ‘God’s honor,’”69 and “One of the prophets described [this] as follows ‘I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit’ (Daniel 7:9).”70 When discussing the “end of time,” R. Saadia also referred to Daniel as a prophet like any other: “Our Lord, magnified and exalted be He, revealed to His prophet Daniel three angels.”71

67 Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 115, and the Hebrew translation, ibid., 359–360. In contemporary editions, the verse is “and I Daniel alone saw the vision.” 68 Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis, 122, and the Hebrew translation, ibid., 371–372. 69 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 120–121; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar beEmūnoth ve-De`oth, 103. 70 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 121; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 103. 71 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 295–296; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar beEmūnoth ve-De`oth, 241. See also Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 258, ll. 1–2, and 264, l. 16. Although on page 6, line 8, R. Saadia cites a verse from the book of Daniel (2:30) and referred to him as a ḥasīd and not as a prophet; however, R. Saadia uses the same term to describe Isaiah and David, who are prophets

157

158

Chapter Six

R. Saadia referred to Daniel as a prophet in his commentary on the Scroll of Antiochus as well. He explained that Moses’s words to the tribe of Levi before his death, “Strike down those who rise against him” (Deuteronomy 33:11), referred to the victory of the Hasmonean family over the Greeks, and described the vision seen by Nebuchadnezzar. He wrote that “Nebuchadnezzar saw the four empires in the form of a single body. The head, made of pure gold, represented the Babylonian empire, as the prophet said ‘The head of the statue was made of pure gold’ (Daniel 2:32).” Later, the prophet said “You are that head of gold” (Daniel 2:32).72 In his commentary on the first verse of chapter 10, “In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, a revelation was given to Daniel who was called Belteshazzar. Its message was true, and it concerned a great army. The understanding of the message came to him in a vision.” R. Saadia wondered why the verse emphasized that ‘its message was true.’ Would anyone think to doubt that? He answered that these words indicate that there are no conditions or exceptions in the case of Daniel’s prophecies. Many prophecies do not explicitly state that there may be exceptions; however, logically, or based on what is decreed, they do have one or more conditions. For example, see the verse “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown” (Jonah 3:4). In other words, although Jonah’s prophecy may have sounded like a final decree and a prophetic notice of future events, as if nothing could have prevented the destruction of Nineveh, ultimately, the events depended on the behavior of the people of Nineveh, who had the ability to prevent the destruction by repenting. In the case of Daniel, his prophecy was final and free of any term or condition. Later, R. Saadia explained that the “army” in the verse mentioned above was described as “great” for the following reason: “because it included all the statuses of the four empires, the end of time, the purpose of the redemption, the resurrection, and the reward in the world to come. This is the greatness of his prophecy, which encompasses all these great matters.”73

without any doubt. Furthermore, in the first edition of the Book of Beliefs and Opinions (Constantinople, 1562, repr. Jerusalem, 1972), 5, Daniel and Isaiah were both called prophets and only David was called ḥasīd, as in many other places in R. Saadia’s writings. 72 Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 222. 73 Ibid., 180. The word “prophecy” (nubuwwah) can also be found in R. Saadia’s translation of Daniel 10:14, “for the vision concerns a time yet to come,” which he

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

Why did R. Saadia Gaon go to such lengths to prove that Daniel was indeed a prophet? This question cannot be answered just by saying that, for some unknown reason, R. Saadia preferred the tradition of Seder `Olam Rabba over that of the Talmud, as it seems that R. Saadia was not familiar with Seder `Olam at all.74 On one hand, this question seems almost redundant. According to R. Saadia Gaon, all twenty-four books of the Bible are prophetic and were composed by prophets. He did not share the consensus among the sages, many of the rishonim, and the Karaites, who differentiate between books written as prophecies and books written in the “divine spirit.” The only distinction he made was between verbal and visual prophecies,75 though he did not rank one above the other. In another part of R. Saadia’s commentary on Daniel, he alluded to the possibility of defining different levels of prophecy, but intentionally avoided doing so. In his commentary on the verse “Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever” (Daniel 12:3), he explained that both types of people described in this verse are defined by the intensity of the light they produce. He added that “there are several examples among the prophets, though fear of heaven76 prevents us from listing their levels, and there is no benefit in doing so.”77 R. Saadia’s decision to avoid ranking different levels of prophecy, though acknowledging their existence, coincides with his approach that all the books in the Bible, without exception, are prophetic.

translated as “prophecies still remain.” Although the three manuscripts of R. Saadia’s Arabic translation (Tafsīr) (see S. A. Klein, Rav Saadia Gaon’s Tafsir on the Aramaic Portion of Daniel [New York, 1977], 16–18, nr. 1, 3, and 5) use the word “revelation” (waḥy) instead of “prophecies” (nubuwwāt), this is in fact a term used by R. Saadia to describe one of the levels of prophecy (see H. Ben-Shammai’s review of Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms: From Saadiah Gaon to Abraham ibn Ezra by U. Simon, Kiryat Sefer 58 [1983]: 402–403). 74 See Midrash Seder `Olam, ed. Dov Ber Ratner (New York, 1953), introduction, 68–69. 75 A similar distinction is made by Qirqisani and Yefet the Karaites. See Ben-Shammai, The Doctrines of Religious Thought, part 1, 267. 76 In the original text R. Saadia uses the Arabic word al-wara`, which means “fear of God,” “piety.” This term was initially used in reference to one who avoids sinning. However, its meaning evolved over time and was used to refer to avoidance even of things that are not prohibited. See its definition in the Lisān al-`Arab dictionary. 77 Saadia Gaon, Book of Daniel, 214.

159

160

Chapter Six

R. Saadia attributed little value to divine inspiration and considered it only the slightest form of prophecy. Although its source is the glory of God (“the whole earth is full of his glory,” Isaiah 6:3), which is also the source of the prophecies and signs given to all the prophets, it is not unique to prophets, but instead is a gift granted to the wise. “Once there was no longer prophecy, they were shown a light that seemed to be reflected from a mirror. A sound was heard that space, or the desert, reflected, which is what is known as the bat kol [divine voice, lit. “daughter of voice”], that is, what is born of the sound.”78 According to R. Saadia, the difference between prophecy and divine inspiration is so great that the visions seen by Daniel cannot possibly be merely divine inspiration. However, why did R. Saadia reiterate this point repeatedly, and especially in his commentary on the book of Daniel? To understand why R. Saadia found it necessary to emphasize the prophetic aspect of Daniel’s visions, we must understand the goals of his commentary on this book. After the nearly complete introduction by R. Saadia to the book of Daniel was discovered,79 Haggai Ben-Shammai proved that R. Saadia had dedicated his commentary to refuting astrology and other forms of fortune-telling that is not prophetic. Ben-Shammai claimed that R. Saadia’s introduction attempted to prove the absence of value and truth in practices of this kind. He also wanted to emphasize, to the educated Jews who were familiar with Arab culture and to the scholars of his time, that refuting astrology did not only coincide with Jewish faith but was also more scientific. According to Ben-Shammai, R. Saadia’s goal was to dissociate Daniel the prophet from all astrological beliefs associated with his name and his prophecies. R. Saadia noted that Daniel’s descriptions of the end of time should be

78 R. Saadia, Sefer Yeẓira [Kitāb al-Mabādi`], ed. Y. Qafih (Jerusalem, 1972), 106–109. For an explanation of R. Saadia`s goals when writing Sefer Yeẓira, see H. Ben-Shammai, “Saadya’s Goal in his Commentary on Sefer Yetzira,” in A Straight Path—Studies in Medieval Philosophy and Culture: Essays in Honor of Arthur Hyman, ed. Ruth Link Salinger, R. James Long, Charles Manekin, Jeremiah Hackett, and Michael S. Hyman (Washington, 1988), 1–9. 79 H. Ben-Shammai, “Saadia’s Introduction to Daniel: Prophetic Calculation of the End of Days vs. Astrological and Magical Speculation,” Aleph 4 (2004): 11–87. For a Hebrew version see Ben-Shammai, “R. Sa`adia Gaon’s Introduction to Daniel.” For an extended and revised version see Ben-Shammai, A Leader’s Project, 202–249. The references below are from this version.

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

attributed only to the prophecies he received from God to share with the people, and not to practices related to witchcraft that were common in other nations.80 On the other hand, R. Saadia’s commentary was also clearly written to strengthen the Jewish nation and encourage the people during their exile.81 He was aware that the long exile with no end to be seen could easily cause a sense of desperation and hopelessness, and that certain circles were attempting to make mystical calculations of when their exile would finally end. R. Saadia attempted to explain Daniel’s visions and dreams in a way that would serve his goal. His interpretation of entire verses and chapters that reflected the exile in which he lived, and the future redemption, and he derived insights from the verses to raise the people’s spirits and strengthen their faith in their ultimate redemption and salvation. Visions such as these, seen by a prophet who was just as great as Isaiah and Jeremiah, would be much more effective and influential than the words of a person who was “merely” inspired by the divine spirit. Our hypothesis is that R. Saadia’s goal was to encourage and strengthen the people, and therefore he made every effort to prove that Daniel’s visions were prophecies voiced publicly to the people after it was made clear to Daniel himself that they were spoken by God and were not his own thoughts. It is further supported by the commentary of Yefet ben Eli, the Karaite scholar, on the book of Hosea. Yefet begins his commentary by listing eight reasons for sending prophets to the people of Israel. The two final ones are, first, to comfort the people in exile who are suffering from the difficulties it causes, and second, that the Jewish people will persist in their religion even in exile, when there are no prophets amongst them, by reading the words of the prophets and learning the events of their lives.82 In other words, the functions of the prophet include comforting the people who suffer in the exile, and strengthening their religious faith. Daniel the prophet was very dedicated to this cause.

80 Ben-Shammai, A Leader’s Project, 202–222, and particularly 220. 81 See E. Schlossberg, “Concepts and Methods in the Commentary of R. Saadia Gaon on the Book of Daniel,” Revue des Études Juives 150, nos. 3–4 (1991): 509–512. 82 M. Polliack and E. Schlossberg, Yefet ben Eli’s Commentary on Hosea—Annotated Edition with Hebrew Translation and Introduction (Ramat Gan, 2009), 142, and the Hebrew translation, ibid., 260 [Ara and Heb]. See also Ben-Shammai, The Doctrines of Religious Thought, part 1, 261.

161

162

Chapter Six

This hypothesis is further reinforced by the response offered by Maimonides to the criticism brought against R. Saadia for calculating the end of days, in complete disregard of the sages’ harsh warnings: Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: May those who calculate the end of days be cursed, as they would say once the end of days that they calculated arrived and the Messiah did not come, that he will no longer come at all. Rather, the proper behavior is to continue to wait for his coming, as it is stated: “Though it tarry, wait for it.”83

Maimonides, who explored R. Saadia’s work from a 200-year perspective, attempted to defend R. Saadia by explaining that he had calculated the end of days in order to strengthen the people and raise their spirits as the exile went on and on: We can judge R. Saadia Gaon of blessed memory favorably and say that what caused him [to calculate the end of days], despite the Torah’s warning against doing so, was that the people of his generation encountered many beliefs and disturbances and may have lost their faith in God, had R. Saadia not revealed what had disappeared and strengthened what had been weakened. Therefore, his words, precisely as they were written, should be distributed, published, and rewritten, and seen as an attempt to unite the masses by calculating the end of days and giving them genuine hope. And R. Saadia, of blessed memory, did everything only to sanctify the name of God and should not be criticized for calculating the end of days for the reasons written here.84

In other words, the fact that R. Saadia calculated the end of days85 and that his calculations were not ultimately proven true did not change Maimonides’s at-

83 BT Sanhedrin 97b. 84 Moses Maimonides, Iggrot ha-Rambam, ed. Y. Qafih (Jerusalem, 1972), 41–42. For different versions of the words of Maimonides, see also Maimonides, Epistle to Yemen, 65, and the Hebrew translation in Iggrot ha-Rambam (1987), 144–145. About heresy in the time of R. Saadia, see also Rosenthal, “On the History of Heresy,” 21–37. 85 R. Saadia primarily addressed this issue in his philosophic work Book of Beliefs and Opinions and in his commentary on the book of Daniel.

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

titude towards R. Saadia or make him value R. Saadia any less. Although R. Saadia was fully aware of the prohibitions against calculating the end of days, he did so nonetheless, in order to maintain the people’s hope and belief in their future redemption, and to prevent them from despairing and losing faith. The emphasis made by R. Saadia Gaon on the prophetic aspects of the book of Daniel coincides with the general goal of his commentary on this book, namely to raise the spirits of the people in exile and to boost its faith in its ultimate redemption. The obligation to remember and mention the Exodus from Egypt at all times must also be understood in the same way. Indeed, R. Saadia often dealt with the Exodus and mentioned it in various contexts. He presents a unique position on this obligation, different from that of other important medieval thinkers. The Exodus from Egypt is mentioned many times in the Pentateuch. The connection between obeying God’s commandments and preserving the memory of the Exodus is first made when God gives Moses the laws of the “Passover of Egypt,” before the Children of Israel even left Egypt: “And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt; therefore, shall ye observe this day throughout your generations by an ordinance forever” (Exodus 12:17). Subsequently God declares the night of the fifteenth of Nissan a ‫[ ליל שימורים‬night of watching], because it is the night in which He takes the children of Israel out of Egypt: “It was a night of watching unto God for bringing them out from the land of Egypt; this same night is a night of watching unto God for all the children of Israel throughout their generations” (Exodus 12:42). In the later pronouncement ordaining the “Passover of generations,” the prohibition on eating leavened bread and the command to eat unleavened bread are also associated with the Exodus from Egypt: Observe the month of Abib and keep the Passover unto God thy Lord; for in the month of Abib God thy Lord brought thee forth out of Egypt by night. And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering unto God thy Lord, of the flock and the herd, in the place which God shall choose to cause His name to dwell there. Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction; for in haste didst thou come forth out of the land of Egypt; that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life. (Deuteronomy 16:1–3)

163

164

Chapter Six

The Exodus has a natural connection to the commandment to future generations to keep the `omer, which represents the “angel’s food” (Psalms 78:25) or manna that the children of Israel ate in the desert: “And Moses said: ‘This is the thing that God hath commanded: Let an `omerful of it be kept throughout your generations; that they may see the bread wherewith I fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you forth from the land of Egypt’” (Exodus 16:32). The same is true of other commandments as well. When God commands to remember the prohibition on slander, He says: “Remember what God thy Lord did unto Miriam, by the way as ye came forth out of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 24:9); when Jews are required to remember what Amalek did to them and to blot out his remembrance: “Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way as ye came forth out of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 25:17); and in association with the commandment to sanctify the first-born among men and animals: Sanctify unto Me all the first-born, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast, it is Mine. And Moses said unto the people: Remember this day, in which you came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage; for by strength of hand God brought you out from this place; there shall be no leavened bread eaten. (Exodus 13:2–3)

The Exodus from Egypt is mentioned in numerous other passages in the Pentateuch, including in contexts where it is supposedly not necessary. Thus, for example, when God commands the Children of Israel to build Him a sanctuary: And I will sanctify the tent of meeting, and the altar; Aaron also and his sons will I sanctify, to minister to Me in the priest’s office. And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God. And they shall know that I am God thy Lord, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them. I am God their Lord. (Exodus 29:44–46).

Similarly, in the “Admonition”: And I will set My tabernacle among you, and My soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be My people. I am God thy Lord, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, that ye should not be their bondmen; and I have broken the bars of your yoke, and made you go upright (Leviticus 26:11–13).

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

A mention of the Exodus also appears in the context of the prohibition to eat vermin, a theme that would seem to be far removed from the story of the Exodus: Ye shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarmeth, neither shall ye make yourselves unclean with them, that ye should be defiled thereby. For I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. For I am the Lord that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy. (Leviticus 11:43–45)

Or in the commandment to use honest weights and measures: Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am God thy Lord, who brought you out of the land of Egypt. (Leviticus 19:35–36)

Again, when God commands the Children of Israel to help their brethren who have fallen onto hard times: And if thy brother be waxen poor, and his means fail with thee; then thou shalt uphold him: as a stranger and a settler shall he live with thee. Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest, nor give him thy victuals for increase. I am God thy Lord, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your God. And if thy brother be waxen poor with thee, and sell himself unto thee, thou shalt not make him to serve as a bondservant. As a hired servant, and as a settler, he shall be with thee; he shall serve with thee unto the year of jubilee. Then shall he go out from thee, he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. For they are My servants, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as bondmen. (Leviticus 25:35–42) . . . And if he be not redeemed by any of these means, then he shall go out in the year of jubilee, he, and his children with him. For unto Me the children of Israel are servants; they are My servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: I am God thy Lord. (Leviticus 25:44–54)

165

166

Chapter Six

And once more, as part of the commandment regulating the animals that may be sacrificed, and the prohibition on sacrificing an animal and its offspring on the same day: When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam; but from the eighth day and thenceforth it may be accepted for an offering made by fire unto God. And whether it be cow or ewe, ye shall not kill it and its young both in one day. And when ye sacrifice a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto God, ye shall sacrifice it that ye may be accepted. On the same day it shall be eaten; ye shall leave none of it until the morning: I am God. And ye shall keep My commandments and do them: I am God. And ye shall not profane My holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am God who hallows you, that brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am God. (Leviticus 22:27–33)

Furthermore, when God “presents” himself to the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai, he does not describe Himself as the Creator of heaven and earth, as the master and provider of the world, but as He who took them out from Egypt: “I am God thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exodus 20:2; Deuteronomy 5:6). The Exodus is frequently mentioned in the Jewish prayer book and in blessing formulas. Thus, for example, Maimonides writes as follows concerning the qiddush text on the Sabbath: This is the text of the qiddush, sanctifying the day: Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with His commandments and has desired us. He has given us the holy Sabbath with love and with favor as an inheritance and a commemoration of the work of creation. It is the first of the convocations of holiness, a commemoration of the Exodus from Egypt.86

The same is true, of course, also for the blessings in the middle of the amidah prayer on holidays: The intermediate blessing recited on Passover during the evening, morning, and afternoon service: “You have chosen us of all nations . . . and give us, God our God . . . with love a commemoration of the exodus

86 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of the Sabbath 29:2.

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

from Egypt.” One follows this order when praying on the holidays of Shavuos and Sukkos without subtracting or adding anything.87

Or in the musaf prayer of Rosh Hashanah: The first of the three intermediate blessings recited in musaf on Rosh Hashanah: “You have chosen us from all nations . . . in remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt,” and of Yom Kippur: The intermediate blessing of musaf: “You have chosen us from all nations . . . in remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt.”88

But the duty to remember exists not only with regard to Sabbath and the holy days. Observant Jews mention the Exodus from Egypt twice a day, in the reading of the Shema` during their morning and the evening prayers: And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of God, and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray. that ye may remember and do all My commandments, and be holy unto your God. I am God thy Lord, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am God thy Lord. (Numbers 15:39–41).

Maimonides stresses the importance of mentioning the Exodus during the evening prayer, even though this mention appears at the end of the commandment to wear fringes (tzitzit), which does not apply at night: Although the commandment of the fringes does not apply at night, one reads [the corresponding passage] at night, because it contains a mention of the Exodus from Egypt; it is one’s duty to mention the Exodus at night and during the day, as it says: “that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life” (Deuteronomy 16:3). And reciting these three passages in this order is what is called “Reading the Shema`.”89

87 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Order of the Prayers for the Whole Year, The Middle Blessings. 88 Ibid. 89 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Reading the Shema′ 1:3.

167

168

Chapter Six

The reason why we read the passage about the fringes at night is thus its ending, according to Maimonides. It is read because we are commanded to mention the Exodus from Egypt at night. The question thus arises: Why is it so important to mention the Exodus from Egypt during the day and at night, on the Sabbath and on holidays, in prayers and blessings, as part of the ransoming ceremony for the firstborn, and the obligation to use honest weights and measures? It goes without saying, of course, that each such occurrence of a mention of the Exodus has been explained on its own merits. As an example, let us consider R. Yehuda Halevi’s explanation in his book The Kuzari for the fact that God “introduces” Himself at Mount Sinai as “I am God thy Lord, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exodus 20:2; Deuteronomy 5:6), rather than as the creator and master of the world. In response to the Khazar King’s question about the Rabbi’s faith, the latter says: I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, who led the children of Israel out of Egypt with signs and miracles, who fed them in the desert and gave them the land.90

The Khazar King expresses his surprise that the Rabbi chooses to believe in Him who took the children of Israel out of Egypt rather than in “the Creator of the world, its Governor and Guide.”91 The Rabbi answers that his reply to the Khazar King was the same as the way in which Moses introduced himself to Pharaoh: “The God of the Hebrews sent me to thee” (Exodus 7:16), and that it also reflected the way the Creator introduced Himself to the Children of Israel: “‘I am God whom you worship, who has led you out of the land of Egypt’, and did not say ‘I am the Creator of the world and your Creator.’” He goes on to explain:

90 Judah [Yehuda] Halevi, Kitab al-Khazari, §11, trans. Hartwig Hirschfeld (1905), https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitab_al_Khazari, accessed September 18, 2021. 91 Ibid., §12. R. Avraham ibn Ezra mentions this question in the name of R. Yehuda Halevi in the beginning of his commentary on the Ten Commandments. On the relations between R. Avraham ibn Ezra and R. Yehuda Halevi see also N. Ben Menachem, “R. Yehuda Halevi and R. Avraham ibn Ezra,” in Studies on R. Avraham ibn Ezra, ed. N. Ben Menachem (Jerusalem, 1978), 224–240 [Heb]. By the way, I will mention that R. Yehuda Halevi also believed that Daniel was a prophet, as he specifically said to R. Avraham ibn Ezra during their meeting (ibid., 231).

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

I answered thee as was fitting and is fitting for the whole of Israel who knew these things, first from personal experience and afterwards through uninterrupted tradition, which is equal to the former.92

In other words, God addressed the children of Israel in the way they knew Him, to wit, as He who took them out of Egypt, rather than presenting Himself as the abstract and remote creator of the world. The children of Israel are represented as having seen God directly and independently, and transmitted this faithfully to their descendants, who treat this tradition as equivalent to eyewitness evidence.93 The Torah itself, however, also provides a possible explanation for the frequent mentions of the Exodus: It is a memory that can give a sense of security in troubled times: If thou shalt say in thy heart: “These nations are more than I; how can I dispossess them?” thou shalt not be afraid of them; thou shalt well remember what God thy God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt: the great trials that thine eyes saw, and the signs, and the wonders, and the mighty hand, and the outstretched arm, whereby God thy God brought thee out; so shall God thy God do unto all the peoples of whom thou art afraid. Moreover, God thy Lord will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and they that hide themselves, perish from before thee. Thou shalt not be affrighted at them; for God thy Lord is in the midst of thee, a God great and awful. (Deuteronomy 7:17–21)

In times of challenges, difficulties, and obstacles, such as those that the children of Israel faced in the days before they entered the Land of Israel and occupied it, the memory of the Exodus gave a sense of security to the nation and alleviated their fear of the superior forces they faced. After all, the Pharaoh and the Egyptians were the same, and yet God with His signs and miracles, with an outstretched arm, took the people of Israel from Egypt, led them in the desert, and brought them to the threshold of the Promised Land. This explanation has been, of course, valid throughout Jewish history. Whenever Jews faced difficult times, persecution, and other troubles, the

92 Halevi, Kitab al-Khazari, §28. 93 Apparently, R. Yehuda Halevi and R. Avraham ibn Ezra express in this matter an Andalusian tradition that has already drawn from R. Saadia.

169

170

Chapter Six

knowledge that in Egypt they had faced a similar situation and God took them out of the house of bondage has given them solace and the strength to overcome the travails of the present and hope for a better future. Maimonides in his Sefer ha-Miẓvot [Book of Commandments] does not mention a commandment to “remember the Exodus from Egypt.” But he does mention such an obligation as part of the laws of the reading of Shema`: We are commanded to mention the Exodus both during the day and at night as [Deuteronomy 16:3] states: “In order that you shall remember the day of your leaving the land of Egypt all the days of your life.” Reading these three sections in this order constitutes the recitation of the Shema`.94

However, the last sentence in the passage quoted above, “Reading these three sections in this order constitutes the recitation of the Shema`,” has led Maimonides’s commentators, including R. Yosef Qafih, to conclude that “mentioning the Exodus is not a specific commandment of its own, but one that is part of the recitation of Shema`.”95 In other words, the duty to recite the three biblical passages that constitute the Shema` reading, performed twice a day, includes a mention of the Exodus as well, but not as an independent commandment, rather as part of another one. In Sefer ha-Miẓvot, Maimonides mentions the duty to tell the story of the Exodus in relation to the first night of Passover: Positive commandment 157: To relate the narrative of the Exodus on the first night of Passover The commandment we were given to tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan, at the beginning of the night, as fluently as the narrator can. All who add orally to the text and expand on the description of the wrongs done to us by the Egyptians, how God punished them, and thanks for all the good He did

94 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Reading the Shema′ 1:3. 95 Moses Maimonides, The Book of Commandments, ed. Y. Qafih (Jerusalem, 1994), 139, note 79 [Ara and Heb].

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

us, are praiseworthy, as they said: “and everyone who discusses the Exodus from Egypt at length is praiseworthy.”96 The text giving us this commandment is His command: “And thou shalt tell thy son” (Exodus 13:8). This is explained [in the Passover Haggadah] as follows: “One may think that [the discussion of the Exodus] must be from the first of the month. The Torah therefore says, ‘On that day.’ ‘On that day,’ however, could mean while it is yet daytime; the Torah therefore says, ‘It is because of this.’ The expression ‘because of this’ can only be said when maẓah and maror are placed before you.”97 As the Mekhilta says: Since [the Torah] says: “And it shall be when thy son asketh thee” (Exodus 13:14), perhaps if he asks you, you will tell him, and if he does not, you will not tell him? That is why it says: “And thou shalt tell thy son,” even if he does not ask. But this is only if one has a son. How do I know [that there is a duty to tell the story of the Exodus] to oneself and to others? That is why it says: “And Moses said unto the people: ‘Remember this day’” (Exodus 13:4), in other words, He commanded it to be remembered, as He said: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8). And you already know what they said [in the Haggadah]: “Even if all of us were wise, all of us understanding, all of us knowing the Torah, we would still be obligated to discuss the exodus from Egypt.”98 The laws of this commandment are explained at the end of [BT] Pesaḥim.99

Maimonides repeats the details of this commandment when he explains the laws of ḥameẓ and maẓah: It is a positive commandment of the Torah to relate the miracles and wonders wrought for our ancestors in Egypt on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan, as Exodus 13:3] states: “Remember this day,

96 See “English Haggadah Text with Instructional Guide,” https://www.chabad. org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/661624/jewish/English-Haggadah-Text. htm#Maggid, accessed September 20, 2021. 97 Ibid. 98 Ibid. 99 Based on Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Book of Times, Ḥameẓ and Maẓah 7:1–2, trans. E. Touger, https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/937306/ jewish/Chametz-UMatzah-Chapter-Seven.htm (accessed September 20, 2021).

171

172

Chapter Six

on which you left Egypt,” just as [Exodus 20:8] states: “Remember the Sabbath day.” From where [is it derived that this mitzvah is to be fulfilled on] the night of the fifteenth? The Torah teaches [Exodus 13:8]: “And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: ‘It is because of this . . .’ [implying that the mitzvah is to be fulfilled] when maẓah and maror are placed before you.” [The mitzvah applies] even though one does not have a son. Even great Sages are obligated to tell about the Exodus from Egypt. Whoever elaborates concerning the events that occurred and took place is worthy of praise.100

But it is in his major philosophical work, The Guide for the Perplexed, that Maimonides explains in greatest detail why we are commanded to remember the Exodus from Egypt. During his discussion of the reasons for the commandments he explains the reason for reading a passage of the Torah when a farmer brings the first fruits to the temple,101 carrying them in a basked on his shoulder.102 Maimonides writes: The reciting of a certain portion of the Law when the first fruits are brought to the temple, tends also to create humility. For he who brings the first fruits takes the basket upon his shoulders and proclaims the kindness and goodness of God. This ceremony teaches man that it is essential in the service of God to remember the times of trouble and the history of past distress, in days of comfort. The Law lays stress on this duty in several places; comp. “And thou shalt remember that thou hast been a slave,” etc. (Deuteronomy 5:15). For it is to be feared that those who become great in riches and comfort might, as is generally the case, fall into the vices of insolence and haughtiness, and abandon

100 Based on ibid. 101 “And it shall be, when thou art come in unto the land that God thy Lord giveth thee for an inheritance, and dost possess it, and dwell therein. And thou shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days, and say unto him… ‘A wandering Aramean was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there, few in number; and he became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous’” (Deuteronomy 26:1–10 with omissions). 102 “When they reached the Temple Mount, even King Agripas would take his basket and place it on his shoulder and would enter until he reached the Courtyard” (M Biqurim 3:4, https://emishnah.com/PDFs/Bikkurim3.pdf, accessed September 20, 2021).

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

all good principles. Comp. “Lest thou eat and be full, etc., and thine heart be lifted up and thou forget the Lord” (Deuteronomy 8:12–14); “And Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked” (Deuteronomy 30:15). On account of this fear the Law commanded us to read each year a certain portion before the Lord and His glory, when we offer the first fruit. You know how much the Law insists that we shall always remember the plagues that have befallen the Egyptians, comp. “That thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life” (Deuteronomy 16:3); “That thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son what things I have wrought in Egypt” (Exodus 10:2). Such a law was necessary in order to perpetuate the memory of the departure from Egypt; because such events verify prophecy and the doctrine of reward and punishment. The benefit of every commandment that serves to keep certain miracles in remembrance, or to perpetuate true faith, is therefore obvious. In reference to the law concerning the first-born of man and cattle it is distinctly said, “And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the Lord slew all the first-born in the land of Egypt, etc., therefore I sacrifice to the Lord,” etc. (Exodus 13:15).103

According to Maimonides, the purpose of the commandment of remembering the Exodus from Egypt is to remind us of the past, from which we are to learn about the present. Maimonides sees before his eyes the joyful farmer, proud of his handiwork and his harvest, and worries lest this would lead him to excessive pride and to conclude that “My power and the might of my hand hath gotten me this wealth” (Deuteronomy 8:17). Remembering the bondage and helplessness in Egypt makes one pleased with one’s present lot and aware that it was not one’s own effort and industry that have produced the harvest one carries on one’s shoulder, but that it was God in His grace who gave it all, and therefore one must not let one’s pride lead one to rebel against God.104 One more time Maimonides mentions the need to remember the bondage and privation in days of plenty when discussing the reasons for the holidays of Passover and Sukkoth:

103 Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed (1904), 3:39, 339, https://www.sacredtexts.com/jud/gfp/gfp175.htm#page_339. 104 For more on Maimonides’s views on learning from history, see Y. Ben-Sasson, “Maimonides’s Historical Doctrine,” in Society and History, ed. Yechezkel Cohen (Jerusalem, 1980), 543–643 [Heb].

173

174

Chapter Six

The two festivals, Passover, and the Feast of Sukkoth, imply also the teaching of certain truths and certain moral lessons. Passover teaches us to remember the miracles that God wrought in Egypt, and to perpetuate their memory; the Feast of Sukkoth reminds us of the miracles wrought in the wilderness. The moral lessons derived from these feasts is this: man ought to remember his evil days in his days of prosperity. He will thereby be induced to thank God repeatedly, to lead a modest and humble life. We eat, therefore, unleavened bread and bitter herbs on Passover105 in memory of what has happened unto us, and leave [on Succoth] our houses in order to dwell in tabernacles, as inhabitants of deserts do that are in want of comfort. We shall thereby remember that this has once been our condition; [comp.] “I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths” (Leviticus 23:43); although we dwell now in elegant houses, in the best and most fertile land, by the kindness of God, and because of His promises to our forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were perfect in their opinions and in their conduct. This idea is likewise an important element in our religion; that whatever good we have received and ever will receive of God, is owing to the merits of the Patriarchs, who “kept the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment” (Genesis 18:19).106 

The reason for remembering the Exodus is thus “because such events verify prophecy and the doctrine of reward and punishment.”107 Remembering the Exodus helps convince one of the truths of prophecy and its attendant elements of free will, reward and punishment. Thus, for example, the redemption of the first-born of man and the sacrifice of a first-born animal108 remind one of Pharaoh’s mistaken decision not to listen to God’s command to let the Children of Israel leave his land, as well as the heavy divine punishments that ensued.

105 “In the second month on the fourteenth day at dusk they shall keep it; they shall eat is with unleavened bread and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11). 106 Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, 3:43. 107 Ibid., 3:39. 108 Cf. the rabbinic sages saying: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Have I forgotten the ram offerings and firstborn animals that you offered before Me in the desert?” (BT Berakhot 32b, https://www.sefaria.org.il/Berakhot, accessed September 21, 2021).

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

Maimonides uses the same argument again to explain the punishment of death at God’s hand for eating leaven on Passover109 and for not fasting on the Day of Atonement:110 The eating of leavened bread on Passover (Exodus 12:15) and breaking the fast on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 13:29), are likewise punished with excision: [first] on account of the great discomfort, which the obedience to the law causes in these cases; [secondly] on account of the principles of faith, which the laws of Passover and of the Day of Atonement inculcate: they confirm fundamental principles of the Law, viz., the belief in the wonderful departure [of Israel] from Egypt, and in the effect of repentance, according to the words, “For on this day will he forgive you” (Leviticus 16:31).111

In Maimonides’s wake, the unknown author of Sefer ha-Ḥinukh, too, does not include the duty to remember the Exodus from Egypt among the commandments, only the duty “to relate the story of the Exodus from Egypt on the night of Passover”: To tell the story of the Exodus from Egypt on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan, each according to his rhetorical ability, and to praise God, may He be blessed, for all the miracles that He performed for us there. As it says: “And you shall tell your son” (Exodus 13:8). The sages (Mekhilta on Exodus 13:8) explained that the commandment of this telling is on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan, when eating unleavened bread. And although the verse says, “your son,” in fact “it does not have to be his son” (BT Pesaḥim 116a) but can be anyone. The purpose of the commandment is for one to remember the miracles and what happened to our forefathers when they left Egypt, and how God took vengeance on them for us. Even if one is alone and

109 “Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; howbeit the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses; for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel” (Exodus 12:15). 110 “For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 23:29). 111 Maimonides, The Guide for the Perplexed, 3:41.

175

176

Chapter Six

there is no one else there, one must pronounce these things so that his heart will be awakened, for the heart awakens from speech.112

However, in contrast to Maimonides, who explained the duty to remember the Exodus as a means for refuting the mistaken idea of “my power and the might of my hand,” and for confirming prophecy and the principle of reward and punishment, the author of Sefer ha-Ḥinukh argues that the duty to remember the Exodus helps remind us of God’s ability to operate in the world and to change reality and nature, and of course God’s supervision over every single one of His creatures: One of the foundations of this commandment is what is written concerning the sacrifice of Passover. It is not to be wondered that many commandments have come from this, positive and negative commandments, because this is a great foundation and a strong pillar of our Torah and our faith. Therefore we always say in our blessings and our prayers “in memory of the Exodus from Egypt,” for this is for us a sure sign of innovation in the world, because there is a powerful and capable eternal God, who made all that there is, and who can change it whenever He wants, as he did in Egypt, where he changed the nature course of events in the world for us and gave us great new signs. This will silence any unbeliever in [God’s ability] to innovate in the world and confirms the faith in the knowledge of God, blessed be He, and that His supervision and ability are operate in all general and specific thing.113

In Egypt God showed us that He supervises His people and His world. He also demonstrated to all that He operates in nature and changes it as He desires, “as he did in Egypt, where he changed the nature course of events in the world for us and gave us great new signs.” Remembering this fact constitutes an incontrovertible answer to those who would deny God’s ability to intervene in the world and in His supervision over the world. A very different view is expressed by R. Saadia Gaon, who devoted the eighth chapter of the Book of Beliefs and Opinions to the redemption at the End of Days, whose inevitability he demonstrates with numerous proofs.

112 Sefer ha-Ḥinukh, commandment 21. 113 Ibid.

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

However, already in the seventh chapter, in which he proves that the resurrection will take place at the time of the redemption in this world, R. Saadia discusses among other things questions such as: “Will these individuals who are destined to be resurrected in this world eat and drink and marry, or will they not do any of these things?,”114 or “In the case in which those to be resurrected were married while they were alive in this world, will each man’s wife return to him because of the fact that she had formerly lived with him, or does death dissolve all marital ties?”115 In his answer, R. Saadia excuses himself that he cannot rule on this matter, with the statement that the sages already discussed a similar question and that they, too, did not provide an answer, and explained that Moses, prophets, and sages of all times will all be resurrected when the time comes, and they will be able to provide a solution: Our reply thereto is that it was similarly asked by one of the scholars of the Talmud as to whether or not those will be resurrected will have to have water of purification sprinkled on them, and the answer given to him was that, inasmuch as our teacher Moses will be with them, it is not necessary for us to rack our brains about the matter.116 Likewise, apropos of the subject of marriage, I will say that our minds are capable only of grasping our present state. As for what is forbidden or permitted in a situation that has no parallel at all in our earthy existence . . . we need not concern ourselves therewith, since there will be available in the beyond prophets and prophetic inspiration and divine guidance.117

114 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 281; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 229. 115 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 282; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 231. About the use of questions in the philosophical discussion as part of the Mutazilite influence on R. Saadia see, for example, Stroumsa, Saadiah Gaon— A Jewish Thinker, 12 ff. 116 Cf.: “With regard to the dead who will be resurrected in the future, will they require sprinkling [with ashes of the red heifer] on the third or seventh day, or will they not require that sprinkling? He said to them: When they come to life, we will clarify the law. There are those who say: When Moses our teacher comes with them, he will tell us the correct law” (BT Niddah 70b, modified from https://www.sefaria.org.il/ Berakhot, accessed September 21, 2021). 117 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 282; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 231.

177

178

Chapter Six

R. Saadia then goes on to pose a more substantive question: “The observation might also be made that, in connection with the first redemption—I mean the redemption from Egypt—we do not find that anyone who was dead was to come to life again!”118 This question is based on the observation that a similarity exists between the Exodus from Egypt and the future redemption, in accordance with the words of the prophet, “According to the days of thy coming out of the land of Egypt will I shew unto him marvellous things” (Micah 7:15). In other words, if in the redemption from the land of Egypt not a single dead person was resurrected, how do we know that in the future redemption the dead of Israel will be resurrected? R. Saadia’s answer is as follows: Our reply thereto is that that was due to the fact that the Creator had not included with the promise of redemption that of resurrection, for if He had made such a promise to them, He would have carried it out. . . . In connection with the final redemption, however, the promise of resurrection has been made by Him. There is, therefore, no doubt that it will be fulfilled.119

R. Saadia agrees with the questioner that in the Exodus from Egypt no one was resurrected but explains that God did not promise to our father Abraham at the ‫[ ברית בין הבתרים‬Covenant of the Parts] or the Jews in Egypt to resurrect anyone. But He did promise a resurrection of the dead in the future redemption120; and just as He kept all his promises in the Exodus, so will He keep them at the End of Days. R. Saadia then further highlights this difference between the redemption in Egypt and that of the future, and explains why God did not promise to our father Abraham at the Covenant of the Parts that He would resurrect the dead: At this point I declare that the reason that prompted [divine] Wisdom, to the extent to which our intellect is able to fathom it, not to include the promise of resurrection in the first redemption while it

118 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 282; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 231. 119 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 282; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 232. 120 For R. Saadia’s proofs, see the beginning of chapter 7 of Book of Beliefs and Opinions.

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

did include in the last, was that the first enslavement of Israel was lighter than that to which it is subjected at present.121 Also its duration was briefer, nor were the masses of Israel dispersed in the manner in which they are now scattered. They were, rather, all of them in one place. Hence even if they were promised but little, they were satisfied and looked forward to it. So far as our present enslavement is concerned, however, our Master, exalted and magnified be He, knew that on account of its arduousness and the length of its duration we would not be able to bear up under it without great promises and many good tidings. That is why He rendered the second redemption superior to the first in several respects, one of them being this one—I mean the resurrection of the dead.122

To sum this, point up, God had no need to make many promises before the redemption from Egypt, because the bondage there was relatively mild and short, when compared to the present. The nation’s sufferings were also less severe because all of Israel lived in one place, rather than being dispersed throughout the world. The two promises given to our father Abraham during the “Covenant of the Parts concerning the redemption from Egypt thus sufficed: “and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge; and afterward shall they come out with great substance” (Genesis 15:14). But the present harsh and long-lasting bondage, of a dispersed nation that has survived with difficulty, required that God make more and greater promises, including that of the resurrection, since “He knew that on account of its arduousness and the length of its duration we would not be able to bear up under it without great promises and many good tidings.” In other words, despite the similarities between the two redemptions, and despite the divine promise that the final redemption will be modeled on the first (“According to the days of thy coming out of the land of Egypt will I shew

121 In other words, the first bondage, in Egypt, was less onerous and, as stated further on, also shorter than the last bondage, in which we are now. 122 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 282–283; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar beEmūnoth ve-De`oth, 232. R. Saadia goes on to note some more differences between the two redemptions: the first redemption was in a hurry, while the final will not be likewise (see Isiah 52:12); in the first redemption the words of God came to us through the prophets, but in the final redemption each and every one of the people of Israel will be a prophet (cf. Jeremiah 31:33); after the first redemption there was another bondage, while the soon to come redemption will be the last one and after it there will be no further enslavement (Joel 4:17).

179

180

Chapter Six

unto him marvellous things”), the fact that the redemption from Egypt did not involve the resurrection of the dead does not invalidate God’s promise of resurrection in the End of Days.123 R. Saadia returns to this issue, including to the repeated association of the Exodus from Egypt with various commandments and prayers, in the eighth chapter of the Book of Beliefs and Opinions, which deals with the inevitability of redemption. As usual, R. Saadia does not rely only on explicit biblical verses to prove that the redemption is certain to come but tries to demonstrate it also with the help of rabbinic traditions and logical arguments. The analogy between the Exodus from Egypt and the redemption at the end of days is one of the latter: As for the principle of the redemption itself, that is something that must be accepted for several reasons. . . . A [forth] reason [for believing in our people`s final redemption] is the parallel we can make between the promises concerning it and God’s first promise, the one He had made to us at the time when we were in Egypt. He had then promised us only two things; namely that He would execute judgment upon our oppressors and that He would give us great wealth. . . . Yet our eyes have seen what He has done for us besides that; namely, the cleaving of the sea, and the manna and the quail, and the assembly at Mount Sinai, and the arresting of the sun and other such things. All the more certain, therefore, [must the ultimate redemption be]. For God has made us great and liberal promises of the well-being and bliss and greatness and might and glory that He will grant us twofold [in return] for the humiliation and the misery that have been our lot. . . . If, then, what has happened to us in the past can be used as a proof and an example, God will assuredly do for in the future doubly double above what He has promised us, so that we will be unable quickly and entirely to compute it.124

Here R. Saadia expands on the argument from analogy he used in the previous chapter. During the Covenant of the Parts God promised Abraham two things only with respect to the Exodus from Egypt: “and also that nation, whom they

123 See also E. Schlossberg and D. Schwartz, “From Periphery to Center: Early Discussion of Resurrection in Medieval Jewish Thought,” Hebrew Union College Annual 89 (2019): 177–196. 124 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 290–292; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar beEmūnoth ve-De`oth, 238–239.

H i s t or y, C on s ol at ion , a nd Me s s i a n ic Fut u re

shall serve, will I judge; and afterward shall they come out with great substance”; however, in fact He also parted the sea for the Children of Israel, brought down manna from heaven, brought down quails, gave the Torah, made the sun stand still in the days of Joshua, and performed a number of other great miracles as well. R. Saadia concludes from this, that God will indeed fulfill the promises for the future redemption that He made, including raising the nation’s prestige, eternal bliss, and so on. Subsequently, R. Saadia also discusses the reason why the Exodus from Egypt is mentioned in association with so many commandments in the Torah as well as in prayers and blessings: This is also the reason why the mention of the Exodus from Egypt is repeated for us by God in many places in the Torah, where we are reminded by Him of what we have seen. If, again, anything that was wrought by Him for us in connection with the redemption from Egypt has been left unexpressed in regard to this [last] redemption, it is implied in God’s statement: As in the days of thy coming forth out of the Land of Egypt will I show unto him marvellous things.125

The importance of remembering and mentioning the Exodus from Egypt thus lies in the fact that it constitutes proof and confirmation of the redemption to come. Right before the Exodus from Egypt God promised His people only two things, “and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge; and afterward shall they come out with great substance,” but in fact He performed a lot of miracles during the Exodus and during the forty years in which the children of Israel wandered in the desert. As to the future redemption, God has made many promises concerning it, and since He fulfilled all His promises regarding the Exodus, and much more, we may be assured that He will fulfill all His promises for the future redemption. The knowledge that God will undoubtedly fulfill his promises affects the conduct of the people of Israel even in their difficult exile. It is expressed in the absence of doubts and despair: Therefore, also, dost thou find us patiently awaiting what God has promised us, not entertaining any doubts concerning it, nor worry-

125 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 231; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 239.

181

182

Chapter Six

ing or despairing. On the contrary, our courage and tenacity increase constantly, as expressed in Scripture: “Be strong, and let your heart take courage, all ye that wait for the Lord” (Psalms 31:25).126

The difference between Maimonides’s and R. Saadia’s approaches is very clear. Maimonides focuses on the Jews who live happily in their land and are blessed with a good harvest, who may fall into the error of thinking that “my power and the might of my hand hath gotten me this wealth.” That is why it is important that they remind themselves of their past as slaves in Egypt, and that they were redeemed only by God’s grace. R. Saadia, on the other hand, has in mind the suffering Jew, who has been living in exile for millennia, and has despaired of the prophets’ promises of salvation, of the possibility of returning to the Land of Israel, of the reestablishment of the House of David and the renewal of worship in the Temple. It is for this reason that Jews must always keep the example of the Exodus from Egypt and its attendant miracles in mind and remain confident that they would be redeemed in the future: “Our courage and tenacity increase constantly.” Remembering the Exodus from Egypt on every possible occasion, in blessings, in prayers, and in the performance of various commandments, thus accords with R. Saadia’s view that those past events in Jewish history constitute proof that there will be redemption in the future. And since God’s relatively modest promise to Abraham to deliver his descendants from Egypt was fulfilled completely, and accompanied by many other miracles and signs, we believe that the future redemption, in which explicit miracles have been promised, will be fulfilled in its entirety. We may therefore conclude that the obligation to remember the Exodus from Egypt aims at reinforcing the belief that the future redemption will indeed take place, just as the promise of deliverance from Egypt was completely fulfilled. R. Saadia’s explanation for the obligation to remember the Exodus from Egypt is consistent with his approach, described at the beginning of this chapter, that various events in the Jewish people’s history are to be interpreted as signs of and evidence for the redemption at the End of Days.

126 Saadia Gaon, Book of Beliefs and Opinions, 231; Saadia Gaon, Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth ve-De`oth, 239.

Bibliography `Eved Shelomo on Rashi’s Commentary [Heb]. Edited by R. Moshe Philip. Petach Tiqva, 2005. A Critique against the Writings of R. Saadya Gaon by R. Mubashshir Halevi [Heb]. Edited by M. Zucker. New York, 1955. Abraham Bar Hiyyah. Sefer ha-`Ibur. Edited by Z. Philipowski. London, 1851. Abraham ibn Ezra. Moznei Lashon ha-Qodesh. Offenbach, 1791. Abraham Maimonides. Kitāb Kifāyah al-`Ābidīn—A Comprehensive Guide for the Servants of God [Ara and Heb]. Edited by N. Dana. Ramat Gan, 1989. ———. The Commentary of R. Avraham son of Maimonides on Genesis and Exodus [Ara]. Edited by E. Weissenberg. London, 1958. Abrahamson, S. “A New Segment from the Essay Essa Meshalī by R. Saadia Gaon” [Heb]. Tarbiz 32 (1963): 160–173. ———. “A New Segment from the Essay Essa Meshalī by R. Saadia Gaon” [Heb]. Sinai 84 (1979): 97–104. ———. “Ben Zuta the Karaite and Ben Ata the Rabbanite” [Heb]. Sinai 89 (1981): 225– 230. ———. “New Readings and Additions to a Segment from Essa Meshalī” [Heb]. Sinai 85 (1979): 92–94. ———. Centers and Diaspora during the Geonim Era [Heb]. Jerusalem, 1965. Abu Al-Ḥasan `Ali Al-Mas’ūdi. Kitāb al-Tanbīh wal-`Ishrāf. Leiden, 1894, repr. 1967. Abudraham. The Complete Works of Abudraham [Heb]. Jerusalem, 1963. Allony, N. “Ben Zuta is Ben Ata the Karaite” [Heb]. Tarbiz 45 (1976): 76. ———. “R. Saadia’s Introduction to His Work on the Seventy Unique Words” [Heb]. In Sefer Zaidel, edited by H. M. Y. Gevaryahu, 233–252. Jerusalem, 1962. ———. Kitāb al-Sab`īn Lafṭa. In Goldhizer Memorial Volume, edited by S. Loewinger and J. Somogyi, 1–47. Jerusalem, 1958. Al-Masudi. Kitāb al-`Ishrāf wal-Tanbīh. Beirut, 1965. Amram Qorah. Neveh Shalom. In Tāj Gadol, edited by J. Chasid. Jerusalem, 1982. ———. Neveh Shalom—A Commentary on Rav Sadia Gaon’s Tafsīr by Rabbi Amram Qoraḥ [Heb]. Edited by Nahem Ilan. Jerusalem, 2022. Assaf, S. The Era of the Gaons and Its Literature [Heb]. Jerusalem, 1977. Avishur, Y. “Elements from the Arab Discourse in Iraq in the Judeo-Arabic Language of R. Saadia Gaon” [Heb]. In Hebrew and Arabic Studies in Honor of Joshua Blau, 35–52. Jerusalem, 1993. Bahya ben Yosef. Commentary on the Pentateuch [Heb]. Edited by H. D. Shevel. Jerusalem, 1967.

184

Bibliography

Baron, S. W. “Saadia’s Communal Activities.” In Saadia Anniversary Volume, edited by B. Cohen, 9–74. New York, 1943. Ben Menachem, N. “R. Yehuda Halevi and R. Avraham ibn Ezra” [Heb]. In Studies on R. Avraham ibn Ezra, edited by N. Ben Menachem, 224–240. Jerusalem, 1978. Ben Sasson, M., and R. Brody, eds. The Book of Testimonies and Legal Documents by Saadia ben Joseph Gaon [Heb]. Jerusalem, 2021. Ben Sira. The Complete Works of Ben Sira [Heb]. Edited by M. Z. Segal. Jerusalem, 1959. Ben-Sasson, Y. “Maimonides’s Historical Doctrine” [Heb]. In Society and History, edited by Yechezkel Cohen, 543–643. Jerusalem, 1980. Ben-Shammai, H. “Yeshua ben-Yehuda: On an Eleventh-Century Karaite Sage in Jerusalem” [Heb]. Pe`amim 32 (1987): 3–20. ———. “New Findings in a Forgotten Manuscript: Samuel ben Hofni’s Commentary on Ha`azinu and Saadia’s Commentary on the Ten Songs” [Heb]. Qiryat Sefer 61 (1986–1987): 313–332. ———. “Old and New: The Long Introduction and The Short Introduction to R. Saadia Gaon’s Translation of the Torah” [Heb]. Tarbiz 69 (2000): 199–200. Repr. in his A Leader’s Project—Studies in the Philosophical Works of Saadia Gaon, 276–288. Jerusalem, 2015. ———. “R. Sa`adya’s Introduction to Daniel: An Essay on the Calculation of the End of Days according to Prophecy against the Speculations of Astrologers and Magicians” [Heb]. Sefunot 23 (2003): 13–59. ———. “Saadia’s Introduction to Daniel: Prophetic Calculation of the End of Days vs. Astrological and Magical Speculation.” Aleph 4 (2004): 11–87. ———. “Saadya’s Goal in his Commentary on Sefer Yetzira.” In A Straight Path—Studies in Medieval Philosophy and Culture: Essays in Honor of Arthur Hyman, edited by Ruth Link Salinger, R. James Long, Charles Manekin, Jeremiah Hackett, and Michael S. Hyman, 1–9. Washington, 1988. ———. “The Exegetical and Philosophical Writings of Saadia Gaon: A Leader’s Project” [Heb]. Pe`amim 54 (1993): 63–81. ———. Review of Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms: From Saadiah Gaon to Abraham ibn Ezra, by U. Simon [Heb]. Qiryat Sefer 58 (1983): 402–403. ———. The Doctrines of Religious Thought of Abu Yūsuf Ya`qub Al Qirqisani and Yefet ben Eli [Heb]. PhD diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1978. Berger, Z. “The Geonim” [Heb]. In Leader and Leadership: Collection of Articles, edited by I. Malchi and Z. Tzachor, 143–163. Jerusalem, 1992. Blau, J. “On a Fragment of the Oldest Judaeo-Arabic Bible Translation Extant.” In Genizah Research after Ninety Years—The Case of Judaeo-Arabic, edited by J. Blau and Stefan C. Reif, 31–39. Cambridge, 1992. ———. “On General and Specific Features in Judeo-Arabic” [Heb]. Te`uda 1 (1980): 185–186. ———. “On Two Works Written in Middle Arabic Literary Standards” [Heb]. In Studies in Islamic History and Civilization in Honor of Professor David Ayalon, 455–471. Jerusalem, 1986.

Bibliography

———. “Studies in an Eastern Manuscript from the Beginning of the Eleventh Century of the R. Saadia Gaon’s Translation of the Torah” [Heb]. Leshonenu 61 (1998): 111–130. ———. “Studies in Analyzing the Arabic Style in the Writings of R. Saadia Gaon and R. Shmuel ben Hofni” [Heb]. Pe`amim 23 (1985): 38–41. ———. A Grammar of Medieval Judeo-Arabic [Heb]. Jerusalem, 1980. ———. Notes on R. Saadia Gaon’s Translation of the Torah [Heb]. Part 1: Genesis. Jerusalem, 2019. ———. The Emergence and Linguistic Background of Judeo‑Arabic. Jerusalem, 1999. Blau, J., and S. Hopkins. Early Judaeo-Arabic in Phonetic Spelling - Texts from the End of the First Millennium [Heb]. Jerusalem, 2017. Bonebakker, A. “Adab and the Concept of Belles Lettres.” In `Abbasid Belles‑Lettres, edited by J. Ashtiany, T. M. Johnstone, J. D. Latham, and R. B. Serjeant, 16–30. Cambridge, 1990. Bornstein, H. Y. The Dispute of R. Saadia and Ben Meir [Heb]. Warsaw, 1904 Brody, R. “New Segment of Essa Meshalī” [Heb]. Tarbiz 51 (1980): 138–139. ———. “On the Question of the Composition of Rav Amram Gaon’s Prayer Book” [Heb]. In Knesset Ezra: Literature and Life in the Synagogue, edited by Shulamit Elizur et al., 21–34. Jerusalem, 1994. ———. “The Halakhic Enterprise of R. Saadia Gaon” [Heb]. Pe`amim 54 (1993): 82–92. ———. R. Saadia Gaon [Heb]. Jerusalem, 1967. ———. The Geonim of Babylon and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture. New Haven, 1990. ———. Readings in Geonic Literature [Heb]. n.p., 1998. Cassuto, M. D. “About What did Rav Saadia Gaon and Ben Meir Argue?” [Heb]. In Rav Saadia Gaon, edited by Y. L. Fishman (Maimon), 333–364. Jerusalem, 1943. Cook, M. A. “The Origins of ‘Kalām.’” BSOAS 43 (1980): 32–43. Daknish Hacohen, Y.-T. Ch. Torah Original Commentary in Arabic by Rabbi Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE) [Heb]. Jerusalem, 2015. Dana, Y. “Presence of Arabic Culture in Judeo-Arabic Culture in the Middle Ages as Reflected in Kitāb al-Muḥāḍarah wal-Mudhākarah by Moshe ibn Ezra” [Heb]. Sefunot 20 (1991): 21–35. Daniel al-Qumisi. Commentary on the Twelve Prophets [Heb]. Edited by I. D. Markon. Jerusalem, 1958. David ha-Nagid. The Book of Pirqei Avot with a Commentary in Arabic Language [Ara]. Alexandria, 1901. Davidson, I. “Another Remnant of Essa Meshalī by R. Saadia Gaon” [Heb]. In Studies in Memory of R. Amram Kohut, edited by Shalom Baron and Alexander Marx, 9–24. New York, 1936. ———. Saadia’s Polemic against Hiwi Al-Balkhi: A Fragment Edited from a Genizah MS [Heb]. New York, 1915. Davidson, I., S. Assaf, I. Yoel, eds. Siddur R. Saadja Gaon. Jerusalem, 1978. Dinur, B.-Z. Israel in the Diaspora [Heb]. Tel Aviv, 1961.

185

186

Bibliography

Doron, D. “On the Arabic Translation of the Bible by R. Issachar ibn Susan ha-Maaravi” [Heb]. Sfūnot (new series) 18 (1985): 279–298. Dotan, A. “Saadia Gaon—An Innovative Grammarian” [Heb]. Pe`amim, 54 (1993): 49–62. ———. The Dawn of Hebrew Linguistics: The Book of Elegance of the Language of the Hebrews by Saadia Gaon [Heb]. Jerusalem, 1997. Drory, R. Models and Contacts—Arabic Literature and Its Impact on Medieval Jewish Culture Leiden, 2000. ———. The Beginning of the Contacts between Jewish and Arabic Literature in the Tenth Century [Heb]. Tel Aviv, 1988. “English Haggadah Text with Instructional Guide.” https://www.chabad.org/holidays/ passover/pesach_cdo/aid/661624/jewish/English-Haggadah-Text.htm#Maggid. Epstein, A. “The Dispute between Ben Meir and the Babylonian Academies” [Heb]. In Antiquities of the Jews: Studies and Notes, edited by A. M. Haberman, vol. 2, 420–441. Jerusalem, 1956. Epstein, J. N. “The First Letter by R. Saadia” [Heb]. Dvir 1 (1923): 184. Erder, Y. The Origins of Early Karaism and Outlines of its Development in the Light of the Controversies over the Time of the Passover Sacrifice [Heb]. PhD diss., Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 1988. ———. Ways in the Ancient Karaite Halakha [Heb]. Tel Aviv, 2003. Fleischer, E. “A Fragment from Hiwi al-Balkhi’s Criticism of the Bible” [Ara and Heb]. Tarbiz 50 (1984): 49–57. ———. “The Secular Hebrew Poetry of Spain” [Heb]. Pe`amim 59 (1994): 5–13. ———. “The Place of Rav Saadia Gaon in the History of Hebrew Poetry” [Heb]. Pe`amim 54 (1993): 4–17. Freidenreich, D. M. “The Use of Islamic Sources in Saadiah Gaon’s Tafsīr of the Torah.” J.Q.R. 93 (2003): 353–395. Fried, N. “Study of the Scroll of Antiochus.” Areshet 4 (1996): 173–174. Friedlander, M. “The Beginning of a Commentary on the Song of Songs” [Heb]. In The Jubilee Book to M. Steinschneider. Lipsia, 1896, repr. Jerusalem, 1970. Gavra, M. Encyclopedia of Yemenite Sages [Heb]. Bnei Brak, 2001. Gevaryahu, C. M. I. “The End of Prophecy—A Historical, Religious, and Literary Problem” [Heb]. In The Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies, part 1: The Biblical Era, 87–92. Jerusalem, 1986. Gil, M. A History of Palestine (634–1099) [Heb]. Tel Aviv, 1983. ———. Hiwi al-Balkhi, the Heretic of Khorasan [Heb]. Merchavia, 1965. Ginzberg, Louis. Genizah Studies in Memory of Doctor Solomon Schechter. Vol. 2: Geonic and Early Karaitic Halakhah [Heb]. New York, 1929. Glatser, N. “The Polemical Element in R. Saadia’s Method” [Heb]. Ha-Doar 26 (1942): 443–445. Goitein, S. D. Educational Regimes in the Days of the Geonim and the House of Rambam [Heb]. Jerusalem, 1962. Goldberg, E. “The First Hebrew Conjugation Table” [Heb]. Leshonenu 43 (1979): 83–99.

Bibliography

Goodman, L. E. “Maimonides’ Response to Sa`adya Gaon’s Theodicy and Their Islamic Background.” In Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions, edited by W. M. Brinner and S. D. Rick, vol 2, 3–33. Atlanta, 1989. Graf, G. Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur. Vatican City, 1944. Griffith, S. H. The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the “People of the Book” in the Language of Islam. Princeton, 2013. Hadasi, Yehudah. Eshkol ha-Qofer. Gozelvo, 1836, repr. n.p., n.d. Ha-Midrash ha-Gadol. Edited by R. Margaliot. Jerusalem, 1975. Harkavy, A. “Collections from R. Saadia Gaon” [Heb]. Ha-Goren 1 (1898): 89–91. ———. Memory of the Rishonim and Also of the Aḥaronim [Heb]. Vol. 4. Berlin, 1987, repr. Jerusalem, 1966. ———. Memory of the Rishonim and Also of the Aḥaronim [Heb]. Vol. 5. Petersburg, 1892. Ha-Tāj ha-Shalem Ḥazon Shim`on. Bnei Brak, 1996–2002. Hirschfeld, H. “The Arabic Portion of the Cairo Genizah at Cambridge—Saadyah Fragments.” J.Q.R. (old series) 16 (1904): 98–112. Holzman, L., and E. Schlossberg. “Fundamentals of the Modern Muslim-Jewish Polemic.” Israel Affairs 12 (2006): Israel and the Islamic World, edited by Efraim Karsh and P. R. Kumaraswamy, 13–28. Husik, I. A History of Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy. New York, 1966. Hyman, A. “Jewish Philosophy in the Islamic World.” In History of Islamic Philosophy, edited by S. H. Nasr and O. Leaman, vol 1, 677–695. London and New York, 1996. Ibn al-Nadim. Kitāb al-Fihrist. Edited by G. Fluegel. Halle, 1872. Igeret Rav Shrīrā Gaon. Edited by B. M. Levin. Haifa, 1921. Igrot Ḥazon Ish. Bnei Berak, 1955. Ilan, N. “Neveh Shalom: The Commentary of R. Amram Qorah on R. Saadia Gaon’s Tafsīr on the Pentateuch” [Heb]. Tema 8 (2004): 131–148. Israeli, Y. Yesod Olam [Heb]. Berlin, 1846. Jonah. The Book of Hebrew Roots by Abu `l-Walid Marwan ibn Janah (Rabbi Jonah) [Eng and Ara]. Edited by A. Neubauer. Oxford, 1875, repr. Amsterdam, 1968. Judah [Yehuda] Halevi. Kitab al-Khazari [Eng]. Translated by Hartwig Hirschfeld. 1905. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitab_al_Khazari. Judah ben Barzilai of Barcelona. Commentary on Sefer Yeẓira [Heb]. Edited by S. H. Halberstam. Berlin, 1885, repr. Jerusalem, 1971. Judah ibn Bal`am. R. Judah ibn Bal`am’s Commentary on Isaiah [Heb]. Edited by Moshe Goshen-Gottstein. Ramat Gan, 1992. Kayyara, Simon. Halakhot Gedolot. Edited by A. Hildesheimer. Berlin, 1888–1892. Kimchi, David. The Commentaries of R. David Kimchi on the Torah [Heb]. Edited by Moshe Kamelhar. Jerusalem, 1970. Kimhi, Moshe. “Commentary by R. Moshe Kimhi on the Book of Job” [Heb]. In I. Schwartz, Tikvat Enosh, 69–126. Berlin, 1862, repr. Jerusalem, 1969. Klein, S. A. Rav Saadia Gaon’s Tafsir on the Aramaic Portion of Daniel. New York, 1977. Koch, K. “Is Daniel Also among the Prophets?” Interpretation 39 (1985): 117–130.

187

188

Bibliography

Lasker, A. A., and D. J. Lasker. “642 Parts—More concerning the Saadia-Ben Meir Controversy” [Heb]. Tarbiz 60 (1991): 119–128. ———. “More concerning the 642 Parts” [Heb]. Sinai 113 (1994): 90–93. Lazarus-Yafeh, H. Intertwined Worlds: Medieval Islam and Bible Criticism. Princeton, 1992. Levin, B. “Kittab Rosh ha-Yeshiva al-Fayyumi” [Ara and Heb]. Ginzei Qedem 2 (1923): 33–35. ———. “The Responsa of the Late R. Hai Gaon concerning the Two Days of the Holidays in the Diaspora” [Heb]. Ginzei Qedem 4 (1930): 1–5. Lieberman, S. Tosefta ke-Pshuta. New York, 1973. Lipshitz, A. Studies on R. Bahya ben Asher ibn Halawa’s Commentary on the Torah [Heb]. Jerusalem, 2000. Maimon ha-Dayyan. Letter of Comfort by R. Maimon ha-Dayyan [Heb]. Edited by Y. L. Fishman (Maimon). Jerusalem, 1945. Malter, H. “Saadia Gaon’s Messianic Computation.” Journal of Jewish Lore and Philosophy 1 (1919): 45–59. ———. Saadia Gaon: His Life and Works. Philadelphia, 1921. Mann, J. Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature. Philadelphia, 1935. ———. “A Fihrist of Sa`adya’s Works.” J.Q.R. (new series) 11 (1920–1921): 423–428. Marmerstein, A. “Remnants from the Commentaries of the Karaite Daniel al-Qumisi” [Heb]. Ha-Tzofeh 8 (1924): 44–60, 321–337; 9 (1925): 129–145. Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael [Heb]. Translated by Jacob Z. Lauterbach. Philadelphia, 2004. Mekhilta de-Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai [Heb]. Edited by Y. N. Epstein and E. Z. Melamed. Jerusalem, 1956. Mertens, A. Das Buch Daniel im Licht der Texte vom Toten Meer. Stuttgart, 1971. Merzbach, Y. “More about the Dispute between R. Saadia and Ben Meir” [Heb]. Sinai 16 (1945): 236–241. Midrash ha-Ḥefeẓ. Edited by Meir Havazelet. Jerusalem, 1990–1992. Midrash Seder `Olam. Edited by Dov Ber Ratner. New York, 1953. Mieses, Josef. “Textkritische Bemerkungen zu R. Saadya Gaons arabischer Pentateuchuebersetzung, ed. Derenbourg, Paris 1893.” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 63 (1919): 269–290. Mishnah. Edited by M. Zuckermandel. Jerusalem, 1975. Mishnah. https://emishnah.com/PDFs/Bikkurim3.pdf. Mondschein, Aharon. Short Commentary by R. Abraham ben Ezra on the Book of Daniel. MA thesis, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 1977. Moses Maimonides. Mishneh Torah, Book of Times, Ḥameẓ and Maẓah 7:1–2. Translated by E. Touger. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/937306/jewish/ Chametz-UMatzah-Chapter-Seven.htm. ———. “Epistle to Yemen.” Translated by A. Halkin. In Crisis and Leadership: Epistles of Maimonides, edited by D. Hartman, 91–207. Philadelphia, 1985. ———. Commentary on the Mishnah [Heb]. Edited by Y. Qafih. Jerusalem, 1965. ———. Epistle to Yemen [Ara]. Edited by A. S. Halkin. New York, 1952.

Bibliography

———. Epistle to Yemen [Heb]. Translated by Nachum ha-Maaravi. In Iggrot ha-Rambam, edited by Y. Shilat, 144–145. Jerusalem, 1987 ———. Guide for the Perplexed [Heb]. Edited by M. Schwartz. Tel Aviv, 2003. ———. Guide for the Perplexed. Translated by M. Friedländer. London, 1904. https:// www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp163.htm. ———. Iggrot ha-Rambam. Edited by Y. Qafih. Jerusalem, 1972. ———. Mishneh Torah: The Book of Knowledge [Heb]. Translated by Moses Hyamson. Jerusalem, 1962. ———. Responsa [Heb]. Edited by Joshua Blau. Jerusalem, 1958. ———. The Book of Commandments [Ara and Heb]. Edited by Y. Qafih. Jerusalem, 1994. ———. The Code of Maimonides. Translated by Solomon Gandz. New Haven, CT, 1956. ———. The Guide of the Perplexed. Translated by Shlomo Pines. Chicago, 1965. Moshe ben Ya’akov ibn Ezra. Kitāb al-Muḥāḍara wal-Mudhākara (Poetica Hebraica) [Ara and Heb]. Edited by A. S. Halkin. Jerusalem, 1975. Nachmanides. Commentary on Genesis [Heb]. Edited by H. D. Shavel. Jerusalem, 1959. Netzer, N. The Language of the Sages in Medieval Hebrew Grammatical Works [Heb]. PhD diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1983. Neubauer, A. Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles and Chronological Notes [Heb]. Oxford, 1895. ———. Medieval Jewish Chronicle, vol. 2 [Heb]. Oxford, 1893. Ofer, Y. “Masorah Remarks on Linguistic Issues in the Leningrad Ms. with the Translation of R. Saadia Gaon” [Heb]. Meḥqarim ba-Lashon 8 (2001): 49–75. Preschel, T. “The Custom of Reading the Books of Job and Daniel in the Summer” [Heb]. Ha-Tzofeh (1982): 6. Peled, Y. “Conditional Sentences without a Conditional Particle in Classical Arabic Prose.” Zeitschrift fuer arabische Linguistik 16 (1987): 31–43. Pentateuchus Hebraeo-Chaldaeo-Persico-Arabicus. Constantinople, 1546. Perlmann, M. “The Medieval Polemics between Islam and Judaism.” In Religion in a Religious Age, edited by S. D. Goitein, 103–138. Cambridge, 1974. ———. “The Medieval Polemics between Islam and Judaism” [Heb]. In Muslim Authors on Jews and Judaism: The Jews among Their Muslim Neighbors, edited by Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, 119–153. Jerusalem, 1996. Piamenta, M. Dictionary of Post-Classical Yemeni Arabic. Leiden, 1990–1991. Pinsker, S. Liqute Qadmoniyot. Vienna, 1860. Polliack, M. “Alternative Renderings and Additions in Yeshu`ah Ben-Yehuda’s Arabic Translation of the Pentateuch.” Jewish Quarterly Review 84 (1993–1994): 213–225. Polliack, M., and E. Schlossberg. Yefet ben Eli’s Commentary on Hosea—Annotated Edition with Hebrew Translation and Introduction [Ara and Heb]. Ramat Gan, 2009. Poznanski, S. “Aus Salmon b. Yeruham’s Commentary zu Ps. 102, 14.” MGWJ 44 (1900): 519–529. ———. “Miscellen ueber Saadja, III: Die Berechnung des Erloesungsjahres bei Saadja.” MGWJ 44 (1900): 400–416, 509–529. ———. The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon. London, 1908. Qafih, A. The Greatest Sages of Yemen [Heb]. Jerusalem, 1988.

189

190

Bibliography

Qafīh, Y. “Eleven Laws from the Teaching of R. Saadia Gaon” [Heb]. Sinai 77 (1975): 1–7. ———. “Pearl Gallows From A Yemenite Manuscript” [Heb and Ara]. Talpiyyot 8 (1961): 125–140. Qimchi, D. [Radaq]. Sefer Michlol. Edited by I. Rittenberg. Jerusalem, 1866, repr. 1966. ———. Commentary by Radaq on the Book of Psalms [Heb]. Edited by A. Darom. Jerusalem, 1979. Rabbenu Hananel: Commentary on the Torah [Heb]. Edited by Haim Shavel. Jerusalem, 1972. Rabin, H. Biblical Language Syntax [Heb]. Jerusalem, 1979. Ratzabi, Y. Response to Y. Tobi, “Identifying the Author of the Midrash Ḥemdat Yamīm” [Heb]. Tagim 3–4 (1972): 73–74. ———. “From the Commentaries of R. Saadia on Scripture (Ten New Segments)” [Heb]. Sinai 109 (1992): 211. ———. “New Chapters from R. Saadia Gaon’s Commentary on Isaiah” [Heb]. Sinai 93 (1983): 1–16. ———. “Segments of R. Saadia’s Commentary on Lamentations” [Heb]. Bar Ilan University Annual 20–21 (2004): 349–381. ———. “The Commentary by R. Saadia on the Book of Esther” [Heb]. In Jubilee Volume in Memory of R. Soloveitchik, ed. N. Lamm and Y. Raphaei, vol 2, 953–978. Jerusalem, 1984. ———. A Dictionary of Judeo-Arabic in R. Saadia’s Tafsir [Heb]. Ramat Gan, 1985. Responsa of the Geonim [Heb]. Edited by J. Mussafia. Lyck, 1864, repr. Jerusalem, 1967. Revel, D. “The Letter of R. Saadia Gaon” [Heb]. Dvir 1 (1923): 185. Rosenthal, Y. “On the History of Heresy in the Time of Saadia Gaon” [Heb]. Ḥorev 9 (1950): 21–37 ———. Religious Tolerance in the Medieval Exegesis of Scripture: Studies and Sources [Heb]. Jerusalem, 1967. Saadia Gaon. “What Survived and What Escaped from Sefer ha-Galūi” [Heb]. In A. E. Harkavy, Memory of the Rishonim and Also of the Aḥaronim, vol. 5, 133–199. Petersburg,1892 . ———. Arabic Translation of the Five Books of the Torah by R. Saadia Gaon, Son of Joseph, of Fayyum [Ara]. Edited by N. Derenbourg. Paris, 1893. ———. Book of Beliefs and Opinions [Ara and Heb]. Constantinople, 1562, repr. Jerusalem, 1972. ———. Commentaries by R. Saadia Gaon on the Torah [Heb]. Edited by Y. Qafih. Jerusalem, 1984. ———. Essa Meshalī by R. Saadia Gaon—The First Book of War against the Karaites [Heb]. Edited by B. M. Levin. Jerusalem, 1943. ———. Ha-Egron [Heb]. Edited by N. Allony. Jerusalem, 1969. ———. Isaiah with Translation and Collections from the Commentary [Ara and Heb]. Edited by N. Derenbourg. Paris, 1896. ———. Job with Translation and Commentary by R. Saadia [Heb]. Edited by Y. Qafih. Jerusalem, 1973.

Bibliography

———. Kitāb al-Muchtār fī al-`Amānāt wal-`I`tiqādāt (Ha-Nivḥar be-Emūnoth veDe`oth) [original Arabic version with annotated Hebrew translation]. Edited by Y. Qafih. Jerusalem, 1970. ———. Oeuvres completes de R. Saadia [Ara and Heb]. Edited by N. Derenbourg. Paris, 1896. ———. Proverbs with Translation and Commentary by R. Saadia [Ara and Heb]. Edited by Y. Qafih. Jerusalem, 1976. ———. Rav Saadia’s Translation and Commentary on Isaiah [Ara and Heb]. Edited by Y. Ratzabi. Kiryat Ono, 1993. ———. Saadia’s Commentary on Genesis [Ara and Heb]. Edited by M. Zucker. New York, 1984. ———. Sefer ha-Yerushot and Other Halakhic Essays [Heb]. Edited by Y. Miller. Paris, 1897. ———. The Book of Beliefs and Opinions. Translated by Samuel Rosenblatt. New Haven, 1948. ———. Sefer Yeẓira [Kitāb al-Mabādi`]—The Book of Creation with the Translation and Commentary of R. Saadia Gaon [Ara and Heb]. Edited by Y. Qafih. Jerusalem, 1972. ———. The Book of Daniel with a Translation and Commentary by R. Saadia [Ara and Heb]. Edited by Y. Qafih. Jerusalem, 1981. ———. The Book of Psalms with the Translation and the Commentary of R. Saadia Gaon [Ara and Heb]. Edited by Y. Qafih. Jerusalem, 1966. Sar-Shalom, R. “More on the Dispute of R. Saadia Gaon and Ben Meir” [Heb]. Sinai 114 (1994): 91–93. ———. “The Dispute of R. Saadia Gaon and Ben Meir: The Controversy between Babylonia and the Land of Israel” [Heb]. Sinai 111 (1993): 98–124. ———. “The Intercalation Then and Now” [Heb]. Shema`atin 931 (2000): 55–56. Sason, D. S. Ohel David. London, 1932. Schechter, S. Saadyana—Geniza Fragments of Writings of R. Saadia Gaon and Others. Cambridge, 1902. Scheiber, A. “A New Manuscript from the Early Days of Essa Meshalī by R. Saadia Gaon” [Heb]. Tarbiz 51 (1980): 102–110. ———. Genizah Studies. Hildesheim, 1981. Schirmann, J. New Hebrew Poems from the Genizah [Heb]. Jerusalem, 1965. Schlossberg, E. “‘An eye for an eye’: A Comparative Study of Medieval Interpretations” [Heb]. Shema`atin 87 (1987): 8–12. ———. “Between Old and New in Yemenite Midrashic Literature.” Review of Rabbinical Judaism 23 (2020): 74–87. ———. “Concepts and Methods in the Commentary of R. Saadia Gaon on the Book of Daniel.” Revue des Études Juives 150, nos. 3–4 (1991): 509–512. ———. “Michlol Yofi by R. Shlomo ben Melech: A Collector of Philological Medieval Exegesis on the Torah” [Heb]. Megadim 5 (1988): 45–57. ———. “Polemic in R. Saadia’s Work” [Heb]. Sinai 126–127 (2000–2001): A Collection of Research and Articles on Torah Study and Jewish Studies in Memory of R. Moshe Chaim Halevi Katzenelbogen, 305–324.

191

192

Bibliography

———. “R. Saadia Gaon’s Attitude towards Islam” [Heb]. Da`at 25 (1990): 21–51. ———. “R. Saadia’s Exegesis on ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ as Reflected in Medieval Interpretation” [Heb]. Sinai 102 (1988): 1–7. ———. “Social Trends in R. Saadia Gaon’s Works” [Heb]. Assufot 6 (1992): 71–85. ———. “Studies in the Rhetoric of R. Saadia Gaon” [Heb]. Hebrew Linguistics 40 (1996): 60–66. ———. “The Binding of Isaac in R. Saadia Gaon’s Polemic against Islam” [Heb]. In The Faith of Abraham in the Light of Interpretation throughout the Ages, edited by M. Hallamish, H. Kasher, and Y. Silman, 115–129. Ramat Gan, 2002. ———. “The Centrality of Scriptures in Jewish Polemic in the Middle Ages—A Study of the Polemics in the Writing of R. Saadia Gaon” [Heb]. Talelei Orot 5 (1994): 52–70. ———. “The Commentary of Rav Sa`adia Gaon in the Late Yemenite Midrashim” [Heb]. In Mas`at Aharon—Linguistic Studies Presented to Aron Dotan, edited by M. BarAsher and H. A. Cohen, 498–521. Jerusalem, 2009. ———. “The Influence of Arabic Language on R. Saadia Gaon’s Tafsīr on the Pentateuch in Translating Conditional Clauses without Conditional Words (Jawāb al-`Amr)” [Heb]. Beth Miqra 147 (1997): 332–343. ———. “The Influence of the ‘Adab’ Literature on Rabbi Saadia Gaon: A Study of His Commentary on the Book of Proverbs” [Heb]. Biqqoret u-Farshanut 33 (1998): 33–48. ———. “The Methods of Education according to R. Saadia Gaon” [Heb]. In Streams of Love (Yuvle Ahava)—In Loving Memory of Yuval Haiman, edited by Y. Y. Tobi, S. Glick, and R. Levin Melammed, 55–68. Jerusalem, 2017. ———. “The Polemic of R. Saadia Gaon against Christianity” [Heb]. In Heritage and Innovation in Medieval Judeo-Arabic Culture, edited by Joshua Blau and David Doron, 243–262. Ramat Gan, 2000. ———. “The Torah’s Method of Educating the People per R. Saadia Gaon, Discussion on Deuteronomy, chapter 4” [Heb]. Shema`atin, 123 (1995–1996): 38–42. Schlossberg, E., and D. Schwartz. “From Periphery to Center: Early Discussion of Resurrection in Medieval Jewish Thought.” Hebrew Union College Annual 89 (2019): 177–196. Schreiner, M. “Zur Geschichte der Polemik zwischen Juden und Muhammedanern.” ZDMG 42 (1888): 591–675. Schwartz, D. Messianism in Medieval Jewish Thought [Heb]. Ramat Gan, 1997. Schwartz, D., and E. Schlossberg. “Studies on Saadia” [Heb]. Qiryat Sefer 68 (1998): 175–189. Seder `Olam. Edited by Ch. Milikovski. Jerusalem, 2013. Sefer ha-`Ibbur. Edited by Z. H. Philipovski. London, 1883. Sefer ha-Riqmah (Kitāb al-Luma`). Edited by M. Wilenski. Jerusalem, 1964. Sefer Niẓaḥon Yashan (Nizzahon Vetus): A Book of Jewish Christian Polemic [Heb]. Edited by Mordechai Breuer. Ramat Gan, 1978. Segal, M. Z. “Constructing Conditional Sentences in Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew” [Heb]. Leshonenu 4 (1932): 191–211.

Bibliography

———. “Rabbi Saadia Gaon and Ben Sira” [Heb]. In Rav Saadia Gaon, edited by Y. L. Fishman (Maimon), 98–118. Jerusalem, 1943. Shalom Shabazi. Commentary on the Pentateuch [Heb]. Edited by Y. Hasid. Jerusalem, 1956. Shlomo ibn Parchon. Maḥberet ha-Arukh. Edited by Zalman ben Gottlieb ben Cochav Tov. Bratislava, 1844, repr. Jerusalem, 1970, 2nd ed. Bnei Brak, 1985. Simon, U. Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms—from R. Saadia Gaon to R. Avraham ibn Ezra [Heb]. Ramat Gan, 1982. ———. Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms—From Saadiah Gaon to Abraham Ibn Ezra. Albany, NY, 1991. Sklare, D. E. The Religious and Legal Thought of Samuel ben Hofni Gaon: Texts and Studies in Cultural History. PhD diss., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1992. Spiegel, Y. S. “The Influence of Arab Writers on the Hebrew Book” [Heb]. In Maḥanaim A Quarterly for Studies in Jewish Thought and Culture 1 (1991): 132–143. Stein, S. “Saadia’s Piyyut on the Alphabet.” In Saadia Studies, edited by E. I. J. Rosenthal, 206–226. Manchester, 1943. Steiner, R. C. A Biblical Translation in the Making: The Evolution and Impact of Saadia Gaon’s Tafsīr. Cambridge, MA, 2010. Stern, A. “R. Saadia’s Method for Sanctifying the New Month” [Heb]. Tḥumim 23 (2003): 287–297. Stern, S. The Jewish Calendar Controversy of 921/2 CE. Leiden, 2019. Strauss, E. “Islamic Models of Polemic” [Heb]. In Sefer ha-Zikkaron le-Beit ha-Midrash le-Rabbanim be-Vina, edited by students of Beit ha-Midrash le-Rabbanim be-Vina, 182–197. Jerusalem, 1946. Stroumsa, S. Saadiah Gaon—A Jewish Thinker in a Mediterranean Society [Heb]. Tel Aviv, 2002. The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary. https://www.chabad.org/library/ bible_cdo/aid/8165/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-1.htm. Tobi, Y. “Another Popular Hebrew-Arabic Biblical Translation” [Heb]. In Studies in Hebrew Language and Jewish Languages in Honor of Shelomo Morag, edited by Moshe Bar-Asher, 481–501. Jerusalem, 1996. ———. “Identifying the Author of the Midrash Ḥemdat Yamīm” [Heb]. Tagim 3–4 (1972): 63–72. ———. “R. Saadia Gaon and Arabic Poetry” [Heb]. Pe`amim 54 (1993): 18–48. ———. “Tafsīr Alfāẓ in Phonetical Writing to the Ḥumash of Exodus” [Heb]. Bein `Ever le `Arav 1 (1995): 53–74. ———. “The Rabbinate Literature in Yemen from the First Half of the Eighteenth Century till Our Days” [Heb]. Pe'amim 86–87 (2001): 51–66. ———. The Liturgy of R. Saadia Gaon [Heb]. PhD diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1982. ———. The Poetry, the Judeo-Arabic Literature and the Genizah [Heb]. Tel Aviv, 2009. ———. “Between Hebrew Poetry and Arabic Poetry in the East in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries” [Heb]. Pe`amim 62 (1995): 6–41.

193

194

Bibliography

Urbach, E. E. “When did Prophecy Cease?” [Heb]. Tarbiz 17 (1946): 2–7. ———. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs [Heb]. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem, 1975. Vajda, Georges. “Une Source Arabe de Saadia—le Kitab al-Zahra d’Abou Bakr Ibn Dawoud.” REJ 92 (1932): 146–150. van Ess, Josef. “The Logical Structure of Islamic Theology.” In Logic in Classical Islamic Culture, edited by G. E. von Grunebaum, 21–50. Wiesbaden, 1970. Vollandt, R. “Some Observations on Genizah Fragments of Saadiah’s Tafsīr in Arabic Letters.” Ginzei Qedem 5 (2009): *9–*44. Wright, W. A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Cambridge, 1977. Yāqūt al-Hamawi. Kitāb Mu`jam al-Buldān. Beirut, 1977. Yefet ben Eli. The Arabic Commentary of Yefet ben Ali the Karaite on the Book of Hosea [Ara]. Edited by Philip Birnbaum. Philadelphia, 1942. ———. Yefet ben Eli’s Commentary on Hosea—Annotated Edition with Hebrew Translation and Introduction [Heb and Ara]. Edited by M. Polliack and E. Schlossberg. Ramat Gan, 2009. Yefet ibn Ali. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel by Yefet ibn Ali the Karaite [Eng and Ara]. Edited by D. S. Margoliouth. Oxford, 1889. Yehuda Ibn Tibon, trans. and intro. Ḥovot ha-Levavot. Warsaw, 1878. Yehuda, A. S. “R. Saadia Gaon and the Arab Environment” [Heb]. In his Hebrew and Arab, 135–149. New York, 1946. Yosef ben Yehuda ben Yaakov Ibn Aknin. Divulgatio Mysteriorum Luminumque Apparentia—Commentarius in Canticum Canticorum [Heb and Ara]. Edited by A. S. Halkin. Jerusalem, 1964. Zechariah ben Solomon ha-Rofe. Midrash ha-Ḥefeẓ. In The Five Scrolls with Translation, edited by Y. Qafih, passim. Jerusalem, 1962. Zewi, T. The Samaritan Version of Saadya Gaon’s Translation of the Pentateuch. Leiden, 2015. Zucker, M. “Segment from Kitāb al-Radd `alā `Ibn Saqaweihi” [Eng and Ara]. PAAJR 18 (1948–1949): 1–4. ———. The Translation of the Torah by R. Saadia Gaon [Heb]. New York, 1959. Zulay, M. The Liturgical Poetry of Saadia Gaon and His School [Heb]. Jerusalem, 1964.

Index of Names and Works

Abarbanel, Isaac, 59n11, 62n17, 106n21, 153 Abraham Bar Hiyyah, 48n135, 59-61 Abraham Ben David, 20n35, 21, 67, see also Ravad, see also Ibn Daud Abraham/Avraham ibn Ezra, 26n56, 4142n110, 46n123, 49, 55n7, 67n3335, 68, 73, 75, 99-100, 102n7, 105, 113, 168n91 Short Commentary on Genesis, 2:11, 26n56, 49, 68, 99 Abū al-Abbās Thaʽlabi, 127 Qawā`id al-Shi’r [The Principles of Poetry], 127 Abu al-Ḥasan `Alī al-Mas`ūdi, 16-17, 117 Abū Kathīr Yiḥyā ben Zakariyyā, 7, 1617, see also Eli ben Judah Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Durayd, 127 Kitāb al-Jamharah fi al-Lughah, 127 Academy of Sūra, 8, 15, 19-20, 23 Aharon ben Meir, 9, 17n21, 18-19, 31, 62 Aharon Sarjado, 20-21 Akiva, Rabbi, 145, 150 Al-Khalil ibn Ahmad, 127 Kitāb al-`Ayn,127 Al-Kātib al-Tabbarāni (the Scribe19 of Tiberias), 16, see also Abū Kathīr Yiḥyā ben Zakariyyā, see also Eli ben Judah Al-Mas’ūdi, see also Abu al-Ḥasan `Alī al-Mas`ūdi Al-Qūmisī, Daniel, 153, 154n53 Ali ibn Ahmad ibn Hazm, 126 Allony, Nehemya, 41n106, 128 Aleppo, 7, 17, 41n107 Amram Qorah, 102, 105, 112 Neveh Shalom, 102, 105,112 Anan ben David, 62 Babylonia, 7-9, 15-19, 23, 33, 37, 51, 6263, 98, 113, 123, 144, 149-51, 158 Baghdad, 7, 17, 62

Bahya ben Asher, 56 Bahya ben Yosef, 135n77 Baron, S. W., 17n21, 26, 31, 41n109, 63n21 Ben Ezra Synagogue of al-Fustat (Cairo), 98-99 Ben-Shammai, Haggai, 118n7, 154n54, 159n73, 160-61 Ben Sira, 149-50, 154 Ben Zakkai, David, 8, 19-22, 63, 73n53 Ben Zakkai, Yoshiyahu, 21, 63 Ben Zita, the Karaite, 46n123, 73-74 Blau, Joshua, 99n5, 102, 109-111, 112n32, 120n14, 124n32, 129, 131n63, Cordova, 20, 20n35 Daknish Hacohen, Y.-T. Ch., 102 Daniel al-Qumisi, 34n85, 74-75, 153-54 David ha-Nagid, 124 Derenbourg, Naphtali (Joseph), 103-104, 107, 122n21 Dilāz, 7, 15 Dinur, Ben-Zion, 33n81, 34 Dosa (R.Dosa son of Saadia), 22-23 Igeret R. Dosa, 22n38 Dotan, Aron, 17, 63n20, 128n51 Elazar Ha-Qalir, 41n110 Eli ben Yehudah ha-Nazir, 7, 16-17, see also Abū Kathīr Yiḥyā ben Zakariyyā Elvira, 20 Fayyūm, 7,15, 46 Gil, Moshe, 18n27 Hacham, Amos, 24n49 Ḥadīth, 126-127 Hai Gaon, 49, 55, 59, 61, 127, 139, 152

196

I n d e x o f N a m e s a n d Wo r k s

Hananel ben Hushiel, 56, 58-59, 74n58, 152 Hamat (Syria), 105, 111 Hanina Ben Dosa, 21 Hanina ben Teradion, 145 Harkavy, A., 26n57, 44n117, 155n57,59 Hasmonean family, 25, 43, 158 Scroll of Antiochus, 25, 30n71, 43, 65n28, 158 Hazon Ish, 31n71 Igrot Ḥazon Ish, 31n71 Hiwi al-Balkhi (of Balkh), 26, 32, 44n117, 45, 47, 66-68, 72n51, 129 Hophni Gaon, 23, see also Shmuel ben Hofni Ibn Daud, Abraham, 44n117, see also Abraham ben David, and Ravad Iraq, 123 Isaac Israel ben Solomon of Cairo, 16 Issachar ibn Susan, 119 Jaffa, 16n13, 34 Jamāl `Abd al-Nāṣir, 15 Jonah ibn Janah, 113, 123, 139 Kitāb al-Luma`, 139 Josephus Flavius, 151 Judah ben Bava, 145 Khorasan, 47, 66 Kimchi, David, 17n20, 105-106, 143n8,153 Kimchi, Moshe, 153 Kimchi, Yosef, 143n8 Kohen Tzedek, 19-20 Lieberman, Saul, 24 London Polyglot Bible, 103-104 Lucina, 20 Maharsha (Samuel Eliezer Halevi Edeles), 90 Ḥidushei Agadot, 90n18 Maimon ha-Dayyan, 152 Maimonides, 10, 29n67, 45n120, 49, 60-61, 65-66, 69n44, 71n49, 78, 84-85n8, 91-96, 118, 134, 152-53, 162, 166-68, 170-76, 182 Commentary on the Mishnah, 60, 91-92, 118

Epistle to Yemen, 45n120, 65-66, 69n44, 134n74, 162n84 Guide for the Perplexed, 85n8, 92-96, 118n4, 134, 152n45, 172-75 Iggrot ha-Rambam, 45n120, 162 Mishneh Torah, 60, 78, 152n41, 152153n45, 166n86, 167, 170-71 Sanctification of the New Moon, 61 Sefer ha-Mizvot [Book of Commandments], 170 Maimonides, Abraham (Avraham son of Maimonides), 74n58, 106n21, 121n20, 152, 153n46 Commentary of R. Avraham son of Maimonides on Genesis and Exodus, 121n20 Moshe ben Yom Tov Gabbai, 115-116 `Eved Shelomo, 115-116 Moshe ibn Ezra, 126, 131 Kitāb al-Muḥāḍarah walMudhākarah (Poetica Hebraica), 131 Mubashshir Halevi, 27, 112-113, 116, 151 Hasagot R. Mubashshir, 112-113 Muhammad al-Tabari, 126 Muhammad ibn Nadim, 117 Nachmanides, 96-97, 153 Nachum ha-Maaravi, 45n120 Najd al-Walid, 114 Nissim ben Jacob of Qairawān, 151 North Africa, 24, 114, 116 Paris Polyglot Bible (1645), 103 Polyglot Bible (1546), 103, 107 Pumbaditha, 7-8 Pumbaditha academy (yeshiva), 7-8, 15n9, 18-20, 63 Qafih, Yosef, 102, 132n67, 151n37, 156n64, 170 Qirqisani, the Karait 154n55, 159n75 Radaq, 105, see also Kimchi, David, Rashi, 84, 86n10, 102n7, 115, 150n31, 151 Ratzabi, Yehuda, 7, 23-25, 45n120, 104, 114n40, 120n15-16, 122n22, 25, 148n23, 155n57

I n d e x o f N a m e s a n d Wo r k s

Ravad, 44n117, 67n33, see also Abraham Ben David Sefer ha-Kabballah, 21n35, 22, 44n117, 67n33 Saadia Gaon Al-Radd `alā al-Mutaḥāmil, 46 Arabic Translation of the Five Books of the Torah by R. Saadia Gaon, son of Joseph, of Fayyum, 27, 48, 73n56, 81-82, 125n38 Book of Beliefs and Opinions (Kitāb al-Muchtār fī al-`Amānāt wal-`I`tiqādāt) (Sefer Emūnoth ve-De`oth), 22, 28-29, 32, 38-40, 42-43, 46n123, 47-48, 52n1, 64, 69n44, 72n51, 126, 130, 140-45, 156n60, 157-58, 162n85, 176-82 Book of Creation with the Translation and Commentary of R. Saadia Gaon, 123 Book of Daniel with a Translation and Commentary by R. Saadia, 12, 22, 25, 28, 30, 44, 65n28, 69. 120121, 124, 145-49, 155-63 Book of Elegance of the Language of the Hebrews, 17n23, 128 Book of Inheritances, 130 Book of Job with The Translation and Commentary of R. Saadia, 43, 126n45 The Book of Psalms with the Translation and the Commentary of R. Saadia Gaon, 24, 122, 124125, 146 Book of Testimonies and Legal Documents (Kitāb al-Shahādāt wal-Wathā`iq [Sefer ha-Eduyot veha-Shtarot]), 36 Ha-Egron, 15n11, 16n16, 40, 127-28, 130 Essa Meshalī, 34, 47 Isaiah with Translation and Collections from the Commentary (Rav Saadia’s Translation and Commentary on Isaiah, Translation and Commentary on Isaiah), 23, 29n64, 64n22, 66, 119-120, 130, 134n71, 139, 14245, 149 Kitāb al-Radd `alā Ḥīwī al-Balkhī, 26

Kitāb al-Radd `alā Ibn Saqawayhi, 45n120, 46, 73 Kitāb al-Tamyīiz [Book of Distinction],73 (Kitāb) Al-Radd `ala Anān [The Refutation of Anan], 16, 46, 62, 73 Kitāb al-Radd `alā Ibn Saqaweihi, 46 Kitāb al-Sab`īn Lafrc (Work on the Seventy Unique Words), 41 “Piyyut on the Alphabet,” 129 Prayer Book, 23n42, 29n67, 35, 37, 39, 41, 98, 125n37, 130, Et Hashem Elokekha Tira (You shall fear Hashem your God), 37 Proverbs with Translation and Commentary by R. Saadia, 38, 76, 89n15, 118, 124n30, 131-32 Sefer ha-Galūi, 22, 28n63, 30-32, 35-36, 44n117, 49n139, 65, 77, 150n26, 154-56 Sefer ha-Mo`adim [Book of Holidays], 19, 63 Sefer ha-Zikkaron, 19, 62 Sharḥ (Long Commentary), 10, 101, 112 Tafsīr (Short Commentary), 10-11, 73, 98-116, 118n5, 120n15, 12122, 135n78, 159n73, Taj (Yemenite), 103, 105, 107 Sādāt al, Muḥammad Anuwar, 15 Sahl ben Mazliah, the Karaite, 46, 72n53 Saleh, Shimon, 103 Salmon ben Yeroḥam, 153 Seder `Olam Rabba, 152, 159 Seder Rav Amram Gaon, 37 Sefer ha-Ḥinukh, 175-76 Sefer Halakhot Gedolot, 129 Shalom Shabazi, 114-15 Ḥemdat Yamīm (Commentary on the Pentateuch),114 Shlomo ben Melech, 106n21 Shlomo ibn Parchon, 51n148, 102n7 Shmuel ben Hofni, 110, 125, see also Hophni Gaon Shmuel ben Yaakov (scribe), 110 Shrīrā Gaon, 15-16, 20n34-35, 21n35, 29n67, 49, 78 Igeret Rav Shrīrā Gaon, 16n14, 20n34, 21n35, 49n140, 78n69

197

198

I n d e x o f N a m e s a n d Wo r k s

Simon Kayyara, 151 Halakhot Gedolot, 151 Spain, 20, 24, 35n88, 46-47, 106, 114 Syria, 7, 17, 105-106, 111, 122 Upper Egypt, 7, 15 Yefet ben Eli, 61, 78n68, 154, 159n75, 161 Arabic Commentary of Yefet ben Ali the Karaite on the Book of Hosea, 61-62, 161 Yehuda, A. S., 49n143 Yehuda ben Rabbi Ilai, 102 Yehuda Halevi, 168-169 Kuzari, 168 Yehuda ha-Nasi (Rebbi), 78, 148 Yehuda ibn Balam, 139 Yehuda ibn Tibon, 30-31n71,

Yehuda, Rabbi, 7, 51 Yehudah Hadasi, 75n60 Yemen, 11, 13, 24-25, 98, 103-107, 11112, 114-15 Yeshua ben Yehuda, Karaite, 75n61 Yitzhak Alfasi, 60n13 Yitzhak ben Baruch, 60n13 Yitzhak Israeli, 55-56, 60 Yose bar Yehudah, 74n59 Yose ben Halafta, 24n49, 150 Seder `Olam, 150 Yosef ibn Aknin, 127 Yosef Qafih, 102, 132n67, 170 Zecharia ben Solomon ha-Rofe, 24n49 Zewi, Tamar, 102 Zucker, 39n101, 45n120, 48n133, 49n143, 50, 77, 133n70

Index of Sources

Bible Genesis 1:1, 84 1:7, 38 1:26, 71 2:6, 105 2:17, 101 3:7, 39 3:17-18, 67 3:20, 126n41 3:22, 112 5, 123 10:6, 91 12:6, 96 12:12, 101 14:1-17, 93 15:12, 157 15:14, 145, 179 18:1-2, 71, 153n49 18:3, 72 18:19, 174 18:22, 72 20:4, 112 21:6, 143n8 21:12, 70 22:2, 70 22:12, 70, 113 22:17, 67 23:3, 50, 77 24:4, 70 24:5, 70 24:13, 135n75 24:16, 70 24:30, 135n75 25:19-28:9, 111 26:5, 89n16 31:30, 109 32:11, 115 33:19, 115 36:31, 94 36:39, 91 49:11, 122n25

Exodus 1:2, 120 1:11, 15n12 3:11, 14n4 5:4, 113 7:16, 168 10:2, 173 12, 88 12:2, 56, 59n11, 62n17, 84 12:15, 175 12:17, 163 12:42, 163 13:2-3, 164 13:3-4, 171 13:8, 171-72, 175 13:14, 171 13:15, 173 14:27, 67n33 15:16, 113 16:15, 109 16:32, 164 18:19, 121, 174 19:3, 109 20:2, 91, 166, 168 20:8; 171-72 20:12, 88n13 21:24, 73 23:19, 126n44 24:12, 102n7 25:19-28:9, 111 28:21, 101 29:44-46, 164 Leviticus 1:7, 135 2:5, 125n36 5:6, 115n42 10:1-2, 86n9 11:43-45, 165 13:29, 175 16, 85, 111 16:2, 85 16:31, 175

200

Index of Sources

18:27-28, 88n14 18:29, 88n14 19:35-36, 165 22:27-33, 166 23:3, 55n7 23:11, 75 23:15, 74, 135 23:16, 74n59 23:29, 175n110 23:43, 174 25:35-42, 165 25:44-54, 165 26:11-13, 164 Numbers 3:45, 109 8:19, 100 9:11, 174n105 15:31, 91 15:39-41, 167 16:28, 121n18 19:3, 125n36 20:5, 95 20:29, 14n8 25, 30 32:32, 123 Deuteronomy 4, 87n12, 5:6, 166, 168 5:15, 172 6:4, 91 6:15, 109 6:16, 110, 126n43 7:7, 68 7:17-21, 169 8:12-14, 173 8:17, 173 11:13-17, 83 16:1-3, 163 16:3, 167, 170, 173 17:10, 29 17:15, 94 20:24, 126n42 22:7, 88n13 24:9, 164 25:17, 164 25:19, 94 26:1-10, 172n101 30:5, 145 30:15, 173

32:7, 121 33:2, 69 33:10, 28 33:11, 158 Judges 11:1-11, 14n7 1 Samuel 4:21, 29 9:3, 14n1 12:20, 32 12:22, 67 16:13, 14n3 20:5, 57 20:24-26, 57 20:27, 57 20:34, 58 2 Kings 1:5-49, 14n6 5:16, 151n38 9:2-6, 14n2 Isaiah 1:1, 120 6:2, 134 6:3, 160 7:14, 72 19:1, 120 33, 143 35:10-11, 121 35:51, 121 37:12, 66n31 40:13, 133 45:17, 143 46, 144 50:4, 32, 43, 64 51:1, 143 51:2, 143n8 51:3, 142, 143n8 52:12, 179n122 59:13, 139 62:10, 28, 63 65:8, 8, 30, 65 66:17, 144 Jeremiah 31:33, 179n122

Index of Sources

Ezekiel 33:2-4, 34

Ecclesiastes 5:1, 42n110

Hoshea 14:1, 61 14:3, 61

Daniel 2, 156 2:11, 150 2:30, 157n71 2:32, 158 3:31-33, 156n64 4, 156 4:7, 155 5:17, 151n39 7:1, 120, 156 7:9, 153n45, 157 8:5, 124 10:7, 157 10:13, 146 10:14, 158n73 11:4, 148 11:15, 148 11:33, 145 11:41, 148 11:43, 148 11:45, 149 12:3, 28n62, 64, 159

Joel

3:4, 147 4:17, 179n122

Jonah 1:3, 14n5 3:4, 158 Micah 7:15, 178 Habakkuk 2:3, 149 Zechariah 11:11, 154n53 Psalms 31:25, 141, 182 78:25, 164 80:13, 122 89, 145n15 119:18, 92 Proverbs 9:1, 39 10:21, 29 15:12, 29 20:13, 86 21:25, 87 22:9, 135n76 24:27, 118 24:30, 87 24:33, 122 25:11, 12, 118, 131 26:8, 122 Job

11:9, 92 36:31, 122

Lamentations 2:22, 122

Nehemiah 9:19, 57 1 Chronicles 1:1-2, 120 12:33, 57 2 Chronicles 2:10, 33 Malachi 3:10, 126n43

Mishnah Bikkurim 172n102 Rosh Hashanah 1:4-5, 54 1:8, 54 2:6, 54 2:7, 49n137, 60

201

202

Index of Sources

2:8, 54, 58-59 3:1, 58 Bava Kamma 1:1, 123

Kiddushin 82a, 89n16 Bava Kamma 83b-84a, 73n55

Avot 1:43, 58

Bava Batra 14a, 155n59 14b, 50n146, 76n64, 150n27

Talmud

Sanhedrin 11a, 150n29 93b-94a, 150n28 97b, 162n83 99b, 91n19

Jerusalem Sotah 9:13, 150n29 Babylonian Berakhot 32b, 174n108 58a, 90n17-18 63b, 51n148, 102n8 Shabbat 33b, 51n148, 102n8 Pesahim, 171 116a, 175 Rosh Hashanah, 48, 53 21a, 152 25a, 58 Yoma 9b, 150n29 28b, 89n16 Ta’anit 30a, 23n42 Megillah 3a, 150n28 9a, 71n50 14a, 150n31,151 14b, 152n42 Sotah 48b, 150 13, 150n29

Makkot 24b, 147n21 Avodah Zarah 36a, 152n41 Menahot 103b, 51n148, 102n8 Niddah 70b, 177n116

Aggadic Midrash Genesis (Bereishit) Rabbah 4:6, 38n97 Tanhuma, 150 Vayera 16, 143n8 Mikez 2-4, 150n30 Shir ha-Shirim Rabba, 8:11, 150n29 Yalkut Shimoni 1:5, 38n97 Midrash-ha-Gadol, 38n97

Index of Sources

Commentaries on the Bible Abraham Ibn Ezra Genesis 2:11, 26n56, 68n41, 99, 113n36 Ecclesiastes 5:1, 42n110 Exodus 14:27, 67n33 21:24, 46n123 Leviticus 23:3, 55n7 Daniel, 152n43 Isaac Abarbanel Exodus 12:2, 59n11, 61n17 Abraham Maimonides Psalms 84, 251 Nahmanides Genesis 18:1, 153

Rashi Genesis 1:1, 84 Leviticus, 86n10 Exodus 24:12, 102n7 Rabbenu Hananel, 59, 74 R. Bahya ben Yosef, 135n77 R. Bahya ben Asher, 74n58, Exodus 12:2, 56

Commentaries on the Talmud Maimonides M Rosh Hashanah 2:7, 60 Rashi BT Megillah, 14a, 150n31, 151 Tosafot Moed Katan (Qatan) 21a, 23n42

203

About the Author Professor Eliezer Schlossberg is a senior faculty member in the Department of Arabic at Bar Ilan University, Israel. His main field of research is the Biblical exegesis in JudaeoArabic language in the Middle Ages. To date, he has published three books and more than 160 articles in this field. He served as the head of the Department of Arabic for ten years and six years as the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities.